logo Ming the Mechanic - Category: Politics
An old rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open, free and exciting is waking up.


Saturday, November 1, 2003day link 

 Israel and US biggest threats
There's apparently some controversy around a large EU poll which was asking in part what country people considered to be the biggest threat to world peace. The answer was Israel. And what country contributes the most to world instability, to which the answer was the United States. The controversy wasn't about the precision of the poll, but about the fact that less explosive parts of it were published first. Anyway, I'd tend to agree with the results, and I would probably have given the same answers. Weapons of mass destruction and distraction in the hands of well-funded fanatics is a dangerous thing. And reports like this makes me a bit nervous.
"American-made Harpoon missiles, armed with nuclear warheads, are now aimed by Israel’s fleet of Dolphin-class submarines against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Following September’s exclusive report in American Free Press about Israel’s submarine nuclear attack capability, over 100 Harpoon cruise missiles have been secretly airlifted to the remote island of Diego Garcia, a joint UK-U.S. base in the Indian Ocean.

The three Israeli submarines that arrived at the base early this month were each loaded with 24 Harpoon missiles.

They then set sail for the Gulf of Oman—bringing Iran’s nuclear facilities all within range of the submarines’ payloads.

The decision to launch them is entirely in the hands of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Just as Sharon gave Washington only a short warning before he gave the order to attack an alleged terrorist camp deep inside Syria, he has made it clear to Washington that the same rule of engagement will apply if it comes to launching the Harpoons."

Not that I know if it is correct, but it wouldn't be particularly surprising.

(Addition, November 6th: As it turns out, there are plenty other validations of the same news item, including public acknowledgements. See, for example the Guardian)
[ | 2003-11-01 18:11 | 34 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Friday, October 31, 2003day link 

 The Office of Special Plans
A key source of the information the U.S. administration based the decision to invade Iraq on seems to have been a secret office in Washington, D.C. It has the curious name "Office of Special Plans" and had a direct line feeding intelligence and conclusions to George W and his friends. The problem was that it wasn't really intelligence they were feeding him, even though it was presented as such. The office was staffed by ideologue neo-conservatives who specialized in putting together exactly the story and the information and reasons that the administration would like to hear. They didn't consult with traditional intelligence professionals like the CIA, and their information and conclusions weren't reviewed or cross-checked by anybody but themselves. They sub-contracted some of the work to various groups who had similar neo-conservative views, such as an Israeli group that manufactured suitable intelligence separately from Mossad.

You can read about it for example here, or a detailed analysis here.

Some of this has come to light from a whistleblower, Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who worked in the office of Under Secretary of Defence until her retirement in April.
"What I saw was aberrant, pervasive and contrary to good order and discipline", Kwiatkowski wrote. "If one is seeking the answers to why peculiar bits of 'intelligence' found sanctity in a presidential speech, or why the post-Saddam (Hussein) occupation (in Iraq) has been distinguished by confusion and false steps, one need look no further than the process inside the Office of the Secretary of Defence" (OSD)...
and she mentions here one of the prevailing themes she noticed in operation in the Office of Special Plans:
"Groupthink. Defined as 'reasoning or decision-making by a group, often characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view', groupthink was, and probably remains, the predominant characteristic of Pentagon Middle East policy development. The result of groupthink is the elevation of opinion into a kind of accepted 'fact', and uncritical acceptance of extremely narrow and isolated points of view.

The result of groupthink has been extensively studied in the history of American foreign policy, and it will have a prominent role when the history of the Bush administration is written. Groupthink, in this most recent case leading to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, will be found, I believe, to have caused a subversion of constitutional limits on executive power and a co-optation through deceit of a large segment of the Congress."
A cult of fanatics duping the United States congress with manufactured and incorrect information into going to war. I don't see why this shouldn't be as big as Watergate.
[ | 2003-10-31 17:30 | 11 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Monday, October 20, 2003day link 

 Corporate liability terminator
picture It rather bores me to talk about the politics of a state I don't even live in any more, but certain things just need to be kept in the light. Like, I'm sure most of the California voters didn't know about Arnold Schwarzenegger's relation to Enron. Specifically the meeting he had with the former Enron top brass in 2001, and the stack of internal Enron memos outlining the plan to get him elected as governor in California so that he could make sure the energy companies wouldn't have to be held responsible for any of the billions they ripped the taxpayers off of. So Arnold would be the man who would cancel the lawsuits that would otherwise ask for $9 billions of profits to be paid back. And, well until now that was just another conspiracy story. But that happened to be one of the very first things he's now done as governor, asking for those lawsuits to be settled out of court. And that puts it in an entirely different light. And he's now working on removing the law that even made those suits possible in the first place. Read more for example here. Well, if it was just a matter of an actor being elected to political office, and he was just going to use good common sense, I'd say go for it. He seems like a nice enough guy, and his Austrian terminator accent and colorful past would be a source of many good laughs. But this seems unfortunately more like just another corrupt politician, bought off in advance by criminal corporate interests.
[ | 2003-10-20 10:02 | 19 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Monday, October 6, 2003day link 

 Dude, where's my country
picture Ha, I just love Michael Moore saying it as it is. Guardian UK via zendancer. Read the whole thing. Some good questions to George W. Bush, which he ought to answer. Excerpts from Moore's new book, "Dude, where's my country". Good stuff like:
4. Why did you allow a private Saudi jet to fly around the US in the days after September 11 and pick up members of the Bin Laden family and fly them out of the country without a proper investigation by the FBI?

Private jets, under the supervision of the Saudi government - and with your approval - were allowed to fly around the skies of America, when travelling by air was forbidden, and pick up 24 members of the Bin Laden family and take them first to a "secret assembly point in Texas". They then flew to Washington DC, and then on to Boston. Finally, on September 18, they were all flown to Paris, out of the reach of any US officials. They never went through any serious interrogation. This is mind-boggling. Might it have been possible that at least one of the 24 Bin Ladens would have possibly known something?

While thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in US history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!

Why, Mr Bush, was this allowed to happen?
Yes, why indeed?
[ | 2003-10-06 16:45 | 10 comments | PermaLink ]  More >

 Successful propaganda
According to this press release a series of polls carried out between January and September in the U.S. shows the correspondence between the prevalence of certain key misunderstandings about the Iraq war and the news source people primarily used. People were asked if they believed that evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda has been found, whether weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and whether world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. The correct answer to all three is NO. But here's the result of the polls:
One or more misconceptions:
FOX – 80%
CBS - 71%
ABC - 61%
NBC - 55%
CNN – 55%
Print Sources – 47%
NPR/PBS – 23%

None of the three misconceptions:
NPR/PBS – 77%
Print Sources – 53%
CNN – 45%
NBC – 45%
ABC – 39%
CBS – 30%
FOX – 20%
It shouldn't be any great news to thinking people who've watched Fox News that they're leading the pack in mis-information. But it is great to have it measured. And it paints a rather dismal picture. Government propaganda is 80% effective in the leading network. I'd bet that's much better percentages than any communist or fascist country has ever achieved.
[ | 2003-10-06 15:06 | 18 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Wednesday, August 13, 2003day link 

 Re-Blogging
picture
I seem to again have enough free attention units in my mind that I can blog on other things than my immediate situation, mention news items, and forward satirical pictures, like this one here of the alleged leader of the free world. I don't know if I have more or less right to throw rotten eggs at George Bush, now that I'm not living in his country any more, but I guess I don't care.
[ | 2003-08-13 06:30 | 15 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Wednesday, June 25, 2003day link 

 Views of the self
jewel mentions an article from The Guardian, which talks in part about the differences in world views between U.S. warlords and the people who live in a place like Iraq.
"Whatever its immediate apparent outcome, the war on Iraq represents a catastrophic breakdown of the British and American imagination. Weve utterly failed to comprehend the character of the people whose lands we have invaded, and for that were likely to find ourselves paying a price beside which the body-count on both sides in the Iraqi conflict will seem trifling. Passionate ideologues are incurious by nature and have no time for obstructive details. Its impossible to think of Paul Wolfowitz curling up for the evening with Edward Saids Orientalism, or the novels of Naguib Mahfouz, or Seven Pillars of Wisdom, or the letters of Gertrude Bell, or the recently published, knotty, often opaque, but useful book by Lawrence Rosen, The Culture of Islam, based on Rosens anthropological fieldwork in Morocco, or Sayyid Qutbs Milestones. Yet these, and a dozen other titles, should have been required reading for anyone setting out on such an ambitious liberal-imperial project to inflict freedom and democracy by force on the Arab world. The single most important thing that Wolfowitz might have learned is that in Arabia, words like "self", "community,""brotherhood" and "nation" do not mean what he believes them to mean. When the deputy secretary of defence thinks of his own self, he - like me, and, probably, like you - envisages an interiorised, secret entity whose true workings are hidden from public view. Masks, roles, personae (like being deputy secretary for defence) mediate between this inner self and the other people with whom it comes into contact. The post-Enlightenment, post-Romantic self, with its autonomous subjective world, is a western construct, and quite different from the self as it is conceived in Islam. Muslims put an overwhelming stress on the idea of the individual as a social being. The self exists as the sum of its interactions with others. Rosen puts it like this: "The configuration of ones bonds of obligation define who a person is . . . the self is not an artefact of interior construction but an unavoidably public act...."
Now, that is interesting. A totally different perception of what the self is. Not only are we talking different circumstances, different history, different culture, but there's a different definition of what the self is, what society is, what the world is. And, yes, people making big foreign policy decisions, and considering changing the course of other countries, should be absolute experts in all of that.
[ | 2003-06-25 16:00 | 15 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Monday, June 16, 2003day link 

 FCC hands U.S. media to media giants
In case anybody missed it, on June 2nd the FCC approved a measure that practically wipes out the traditional concentration protections that existed in the U.S. in terms of media. I.e. there were rules in place to avoid that any one company could own a significant portion of the media outlets, locally or nationally. Seems like it is curtains for that. The changes include:
- National concentration: A national television network may now acquire dozens of local broadcaster stations and control up to 90 percent of the national television market;

- Local concentration: A single corporation may now acquire, in one city, up to three television stations, eight radio stations, the cable TV system, numerous cable TV stations, and the only daily newspaper.
Read about it from close to the source, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, one of the two dissenting votes. Apparently 750,000 people wrote in about it, 99% against it, and most of Congress weren't for it either. So, eh, why did they make such a decision? It's called corruption. More here.
[ | 2003-06-16 22:21 | 14 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Wednesday, June 11, 2003day link 

 Candidates
I'm not much into mainstream politics, but there are actually a couple of decent candidates for the next U.S. presidential election. The one I know the most about is Dennis Kucinich. I've mentioned him before (here, here and here) and heard him speak a couple of times. That included talking about peace and about spirituality in ways that I very much resonate with, but which made me absolutely amazed that he actually is a U.S. Congressman. So I'm even more impressed that he's now in the running for being the Democratic presidential candidate. He might be too good to actually really have a chance, but I certainly hope not.

The other one is Howard Dean. I hadn't actually heard about him before a couple of weeks ago, but a bunch of my techie weblog friends (like Britt and Mitch) seem to think he's the guy. And he certainly seems to be saying the right things, and has some guts to stand up against the powers that be. And maybe he's mainstream enough to have a better chance, I'm not sure.
[ | 2003-06-11 23:59 | 15 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Tuesday, May 27, 2003day link 

 Bilderbergers
picture Below is an article about the yearly Bilderberg meeting, held May 15th through 18th near Paris. You know, the Bilderbergers are en elite insider group that meets "secretly" every year to plot how they're gonna govern all of us, and further secure their own interests.
"American imperial adventures are usually rehearsed at Bilderberg meetings. Europe's elite were opposed to an American invasion of Iraq since the 2002 Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, Virginia. Rumsfeld himself had promised them it wouldn't happen. Last week, everybody struck back at Rumsfeld, asking about the infamous "weapons of mass destruction". Most of Europe's elite do not believe American promises that Iraq's oil will "benefit the Iraqi people". They know that revenues from Iraqi oil will be used to rebuild what America has bombed. And the debate is still raging on what kind of contracts which rewarded Bechtel and Halliburton will "benefit" Western Europe.

Europe's elite, according to those close to Bilderberg, are suspicious that the US does not need or even want a stable, legitimate central government in Iraq. When that happens, there will be no reason for the US to remain in the country. Europe's elite see the US establishing "facts on the ground": establishing a long-term military presence and getting the oil flowing again under American control. This could go on for years, as long as the Americans can guarantee enough essential services to prevent the Iraqi people from engaging in a war of national liberation."
The most comprehensive site about the Bilderbergers is this one, "The High Priests of Globalization".
[ | 2003-05-27 14:28 | 15 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Wednesday, April 30, 2003day link 

 Patriot Raid
Chilling account of the U.S. police state in action. Some folks who made the mistake of having dinner at an Indian restaurant in New York City.
"You have no right to hold us," Asher insisted.

"Yes, we have every right," responded one of the agents. "You are being held under the Patriot Act following suspicion under an internal Homeland Security investigation."

[...]As I continued to press for legal counsel, a female officer who had been busy typing on her laptop in the front of the restaurant, walked over and put her finger in my face. "We are at war, we are at war and this is for your safety," she exclaimed. As she walked away from the table, she continued to repeat it to herself? "We are at war, we are at war. How can they not understand this."
Yes, we don't quite understand. In this case, the person who's telling the story got an apology eventually. Because he's a white middle class American. The rough treatment was meant for the Asian and Hispanic immigrants who worked there.
[ | 2003-04-30 22:09 | 22 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Saturday, April 26, 2003day link 

 The View from Wonderland
From article on Online Journal by Ernest Partridge:
"Are the people who are caught up in a mass delusion ever aware that they are living in a malignant fantasyland? Did the puritans of the Salem colony suspect that they were not hanging real "witches," but instead were collectively engaged in a monstrous injustice? Did the "good Germans" in the 1930s ever doubt that Adolf Hitler was anything less than what the captive press said he was: the "savior of the nation and the protector of the Aryan race?" Did the "good patriots" of the 1950s ever ask for proof that Senator Joe McCarthy really had a list in his hand of "known communists in the State Department?" (The number changed with each speech). How long did we persist in believing the telegenic generals' reassurances that "we've turned the corner in Viet Nam," and that "there was a light at the end of the tunnel?"

How many Americans today are aware, or if aware, care, that the Bush regime's justifications for the Iraq war were based upon lies, forgeries, and plagiarisms, and that the images of the "coalition's" "triumphs" (e.g., the toppling of the Saddam statue and the "rescue" of Private Lynch) were staged.

When society has gone mad, does the "conventional belief" somehow "feel different" to those within the society? The question virtually answers itself and history confirms that when reason departs and collective insanity takes over, it all seems "perfectly sensible" from the inside. True, in all such cases, a few discerning individuals stand apart, like the child who saw no clothes on the Emperor. But such individuals are quickly marginalized as they are denounced as "traitors," shouted into silence, exiled if they are lucky, and liquidated if they are not. After the madness has passed, statues are cast and monuments built in their name—names familiar to us all: Dietrich Bonheoffer, Klaus von Stauffenberg, Hans and Sophie Scholl ("The White Rose"), Andrei Sakharov, Joseph Welch, Edward R. Murrow, George Ball, Daniel Ellsberg, John Dean.

These heroes see what almost anyone might see—anyone who prizes his and her liberty and independence, whose wits are operational, and whose moral principles are intact. Add to this, the courage to speak out against the madness and to defend the betrayed moral principles, whatever the cost, and you have a hero."
I believe most people in the world are pretty much trying to do the best they can, within the reality they think they exist in. And where things go wrong is exactly where your beliefs get so distorted that you end up doing the opposite of what you would do if you were better informed.
[ | 2003-04-26 23:47 | 11 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Thursday, April 24, 2003day link 

 Playing Dixie
picture The Dixie Chicks apologized for being disrepectful to George Bush by saying that they were ashamed of being from Texas at a recent European concert. They shouldn't have apologized. I'm ashamed of even living in a country that will tolerate such a wacko as its president. Shame is certainly the right word. And I'm not even an American. And all the right-wing redneck stormtroopers responded by burning their albums, banning their music on southern radio stations, and coming up with a long list of slurs about them. Well, at least they can maintain their stance against war and for peace. And make a bit light of the whole thing, as in this nude magazine cover.
[ | 2003-04-24 23:03 | 7 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Wednesday, April 23, 2003day link 

 If a tree falls in the forest, and noone's there ...
picture BlogBaby has a nice overview of the Bush administrations war against public forests in the U.S. Such as the article that this is from:
Washington- Environmental activists and community groups from more than twenty cities around the nation held demonstrations, marches, sit-ins and rallies to protest the Bush administration's attempts to weaken environmental laws protecting public land, including endangered forests. These Earth Day protests come just one week before the U.S. House will consider legislation containing parts of President Bush's controversial, "Healthy Forest Initiative." The cities included Atlanta, New York, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C.

"The Bush administration assumes Americans are too distracted by global politics to care about our national forests here at home," said Andrew George, Campaign Coordinator for the National Forest Protection Alliance, a coalition of 130 forest protection groups, including Greenpeace. "This national day of protest serves to demonstrate how much the public cares about national forests and signals the beginning of an escalating campaign to expose, confront and prevent attempts to undermine our environmental laws and the forests those laws safeguard."

In 2001, the Bush administration handpicked former logging lobbyist Mark Rey to serve as the Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment, and oversee the management of 192 million acres of national forest lands. A industry lobbyist for 18 years, Rey has since initiated a series of unprecedented rollbacks to the nation's environmental laws that protect clean water and wildlife habitat and guarantee public oversight and participation.
That's a great idea. Put a professional logging lobbyist in charge of the environment, and give all the forests to the logging industry. Keeps the wheels churning. Who needs forests anyway.
[ | 2003-04-23 23:23 | 16 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Tuesday, April 22, 2003day link 

 Where's the new regime?
picture Financial Times via Synergetic Earth News about the confusion over who controls Iraq's oil ministry.
The director general said he was confused by the lack of any formal notices, and had a only a vague idea of the committee, backed by the Iraqi National Congress, the formerly exiled opposition group. "I don't honestly know who they are, who chose them, how they are being motivated. I know I am in contact with no one and no one is in contact with me." However, he lamented the whole US approach to dealing with post-war Iraq. "We have a lot of experience with coups d'etat and this one is the worst," he said. "Any colonel in the Iraqi army will tell you that when he does a coup he goes to the broadcasting station with five announcements. "The first one is long live this, down with that. The second one is your new government is this and that. The third is the list of the people to go on retirement. The fourth one, every other official is to report back to work tomorrow morning. The fifth is the curfew." This is usually done within one hour, he added. "Now we are waiting more than a week and still we hear nothing from them."
Yeah, it is a bit of problem when you engineer a coup in another country, but you're trying to pretend that you didn't. Or maybe rather that you brought down the government in that country, and you destroyed its infrastructure, and now you're bringing in a few expats who you think you can groom to run the country instead, but you're still trying to pretend you're not the new government.
[ | 2003-04-22 21:41 | 3 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Sunday, April 20, 2003day link 

 Empires of Debt
picture Excellent article from New York Times, The True Cost of Hegemony: Huge Debt. (Registration required).

It examines the strange picture of how the apparent U.S. power is paid for from borrowed funds. And a lot of the money comes from overseas. The U.S. government is now occupying Iraq, but optimistically has set aside hardly any money for reconstructing the country.
Can the United States provide the necessary cash, even in the form of private-sector money? The answer is yes — so long as foreign countries are willing to lend it to the United States. For the fact is that America is not only the world's biggest economy. It is also the world's biggest borrower. Its muscular military power is underwritten by foreign capital.

This is an unusual circumstance. In the prime of the European empires, when the British ran much of the Middle East, the dominant power was supposed to be a creditor, not a debtor, investing large chunks of its own savings in the economic development of its colonies. Hegemony also meant hegemoney. Britain, the world's banker before 1914, never had to worry about a run on the pound during its imperial heyday.

But today, as America overthrows "rogue regimes," first in Afghanistan and now in Iraq, it is the world's biggest debtor. This could make for a fragile Pax Americana if foreign investors decide to reduce their stakes in the American economy, possibly trading their dollars for the increasingly vigorous euro.
It is an unusual situation. When Britain was playing empire, it was able to do so because it also acted as a bank for the world, and it would invest a big chunk of its capital on overseas infrastructure. When the U.S. took part in the two world wars, and built up Europe with the Marshall Plan, it was all from a position of financial strength, where the U.S. actually had a surplus to take from. But now, since the time of Ronald Reagan, the United States economy is run to a large extent like that of a third world developing country, depending on foreign willingness to invest heavily into it, despite questionable returns.

The only example from the past of a great empire relying on foreign loads is Czarist Russia under Nicholas II. Looked good for while, but eventually it collapsed, from the costs of war, and it collapsed politically and turned into a communist country.
[ | 2003-04-20 12:55 | 2 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Friday, April 18, 2003day link 

 When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
Article by Thom Hartman at Common Dreams. Mentioned at Blog Baby. Last three paragraphs here:
"Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours."

[ | 2003-04-18 22:36 | 13 comments | PermaLink ]  More >

 Big government
picture
Raymond Powers shows this graph of the budget deficit under different U.S. presidents. It always strikes me as weird that those guys tend to do close to the opposite of what is the stated program of their parties. Republican presidents grow big government like there's no tomorrow, borrowing ridiculous amounts of money, and raised taxes through the root to pay for it. And it is a democrat that actually balances the budget. And hardly anybody notices. People still tend to believe that Republicans stand for smaller government, even though it is as blatantly a lie as it can get.
[ | 2003-04-18 22:28 | 10 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Sunday, April 13, 2003day link 

 The Art of Lying in Politics
picture From Abstract Dynamics William Blaze writes:
"The Bush Administration's media manipulation skills never ceases to amaze me. As the war in Iraq skewers away from the chickenhawks dream plans its starting to become clearer just how the Karl Rove media technique works. Its all pretty simple really, it can be broken down into 3 steps:

1. Keep the message simple
2. Keep the details secret
3. Never admit you are wrong

Follow those steps and you look like you are doing a good job in the mass media. Up close or under close scrutiny all the lying and bullshitting the administration engages in is pretty evident. But when broadcast over mass media it looks like the administration is right on track.

Never admitting you are wrong is the most important step. Once you admit you are wrong your words become circumspect when broadcast. Bush always maintains that things are going well, and because he never entertains the possibility of being wrong, he projects and image of being right and believable. Not everyone buys it off course, but in the mass media and winner takes all democracy all you need is a healthy percentage of the population to buy it.

Clinton used this technique as well, but not quite as deftly as Bush. Clinton's problem was the details, he was too willing to dig into them. Once the details are out its harder to maintain the image of always being right. And Clinton missed the secrecy as well, Bush keeps as much info secret as possible so there are less details to complicate the projection of being right.

Perhaps the greatest tactical failing of the Bush administration is the way they've let the success of these media techniques infect their attempts at diplomacy. These techniques work when broadcast in the media, as I said before they fail completely when used up close and in person. They just don't work in diplomacy, hence the outrageous failings of the Bush administration in the UN, Turkey and elsewhere."
He's right. Works like a charm in broadcast media, when speaking to large numbers of people who are only going to pay attention for a few minutes anyway. Works much less well on the net, where people can amplify the discrepancies. But it works horribly when dealing with other governments that most all have the intelligence resources to be able to add up the facts on their own.
[ | 2003-04-13 21:26 | 3 comments | PermaLink ]  More >


Sunday, April 6, 2003day link 

 Thin Ice
This one is very funny. A piece of humor that catches the gist of the pro-war mood really well. It is all about an old woman out there on the ice, and a Winnebago full of boy scouts, and a protester who just can't seem to understand what is the MORAL way to go.
[ | 2003-04-06 23:17 | 19 comments | PermaLink ]  More >



<< Newer stories  Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Older stories >>