Well, the Clintons won Pennsylvania by nearly ten points, so I guess all that slamming, sliming, and race-baiting 
was well worth it. Or sort of, anyway… since it’s still hard to see how Hillary can walk away with this nomination short of spontaneous combustion on Obama’s part. No matter – the race continues. In a year when a Democrat should certainly walk to victory in November, the party is inventing a way to lose against a pretty lame candidate on the G.O.P. side. Start with two parts ambition – the kind the Clintons pursue at the cost of all they claim to believe in. Certainly, I’ve never been a fan of theirs, but I would dislike them a whole lot less if they simply stuck to articulating their positions, outlining policy differences with their opponent in a civil fashion, and refrain from all the exaggerated accusations about sixties radicals, anti-American (Marine veteran) preachers, and out of context remarks worthy of Sean Hannity or Matt Drudge.
Are the Clintons crypto-Republicans? I’ve always suspected so, but it hardly matters. They’re just serving their own interests and those of the corporations they represent. The same may be said, to varying degrees, of the other two major candidates. All this hot air about elitism, Bill Ayers, flag pins, and Black Liberation Theology is just the usual business. It happens every national election cycle – the divide and conquer strategy kicks into high gear. As long as the elites in the political class and corporate America (and they are all true elites in the economic sense) can manage to separate us into fractional and mutually antagonistic groups, the power wielded by the wealthy in this country will never be diminished. Working class people – and by this term I mean office workers, truck drivers, field hands, the unemployed, retired folks… everybody who’s not rich – are the supermajority in the United States. That’s why the business of elections is to distract and divide us.
This is a principle as old as organized society. The beast must be kept in its cage. That is why the political culture minimizes or excoriates the mass movements of the 1960s and ’70s – because people were participating in our democracy and involving themselves in policy matters to a degree elites found distressing, prompting them to fret over a growing “crisis of democracy” – the crisis being that the “d” word had any meaning to it at all. It’s the reason why anytime pop culture looks at the civil rights movement, for instance, they focus on Martin King and his “I have a dream” speech, not the thousands and thousands of people who risked their lives alongside him to bring about change. No, the wealthy have no desire to see a return to that level of participatory democracy. Perhaps they understand better than we do how much they rely upon a supine working class to create value in the businesses they own, to purchase the products and services they profit from, to serve their needs in every imaginable way, and so on.
Without workers, riches have no meaning. Think of that next time Charlie Gibson talks about flag pins.
luv u,
jp
at least a cursory hearing, you will have been severely disappointed. This is turning out to be the first 100% issue-free election season, stuffed with infantile claims, charges, and counter-charges that would shame an elementary school contest. An astounding 45 minutes was spent at the outset on 3 points of earth-shattering concern to every American:
These events should be hosted by some neutral institution, with questions that reflect people’s actual concerns, not the demands of the 24-hour news cycle. Instead, we have Gibson and Snuffleupagus acting as the arbiters of political virtue and personal propriety, asking Obama at one point if he feels that Reverend Wright is “as patriotic” as Obama is; declaring the flag pin “controversy” as somehow relevant because it is “all over the Internet,” and so on. I don’t know quite what the standard should be for determining debate questions, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t include suggestions from the like of Sean Hannity, who can’t even be bothered to look into the William Ayers comments before opening his festering yap (i.e., Hannity excoriated Ayers for making comments about Weather Underground bombings on 9/11 “of all days”, when it hardly takes a genius to work out that his comments were printed in the New York Times on 9/11/2001 and made a long time before that date). That’s ABC’s research department: FoxNews.
Cheney, or anyone important, so not to worry. I had to turn my local newspaper upside-down and shake it to find any mention of the deaths – they were buried (with full military honors) in the text of an article about some other grisly aspect of the Iraq enterprise, which itself appeared on the back page of the paper’s main section. (It’s kind of a general news section… though not really. These local papers are all about local news now, with a smattering of national and international stories dropped into the cracks, plus Krauthammer’s column and other useless bilge… then there’s the “local” section.) The 17 dead don’t fit the narrative, so they must not be emphasized… or perhaps even reported, as in the case of the Winter Soldier testimonies, which never found their way into my local paper. No, this week was handed over to general Petraeus and ambassador Crocker, who offered their blandly abstruse portrait of what’s happening with Operation Iraqi Fiefdom. It’s a kind of pointillist portrait, as Seurat-like mosaic of microscopic “metrics” worked into expansive-sounding abstractions like “battlefield geometry” and strategic frameworks. Step back a few paces and you can see uncle Reagan’s smiling visage in the dots… or a death’s head, depending on the angle. 
to come. The conclusion that we have, through our actions, destroyed that country and brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of its citizens cannot be obscured by technocratic happy talk. To say that matters have improved in recent months is like saying that murder and ethnic cleansing brings peace. The peace of the grave, perhaps… but nothing we should claim as a success. In any case, Petraeus and Crocker can only speak to how well the enterprise is going, not whether the enterprise is something we should be engaged in at all. Their charts, graphs, and statistics help to feed the general misimpression that the administration wants us all to focus on – that we are staying in Iraq so we can help ordinary Iraqis. The truth is quite the opposite… we affect to care about ordinary Iraqis so that we can stay in Iraq. By what the general and the ambassador say, there is apparently no circumstance (things going badly, things going well) that would allow us to leave – so it’s reasonable to conclude that the point of the whole business is to stay… and stay permanently.
sotto voce definition of that term on NPR, I’m going to toss my fucking radio right out the window. Enough! I know what they are, already. Enough with the profiles and interviews of superdelegates that invariably devolve into questions about whom they secretly support and whether or not they will change their minds. Knock it off, for chrissake, and report on something that’s actually happening in the world. Not so long ago, primary seasons routinely ran into the early summer months, but this year’s heavily front-loaded process put the news media into an early feeding frenzy. Now, with an insufferable three whole weeks left before the next primary, they’re behaving like a five-year-old in the back seat on a cross-country trip… or heroin addicts groping for a fix. Let’s face it, friends – you’re not going to call this one ahead of time. You’ll just have to wait for people to vote… like the rest of us. (And if I have to come back there again….!)
Clinton’s asinine 3:00a.m. phone call commercial – that tries to position McCain as someone who will save our economy through free-market principles… like the ones we’ve been pursuing lo these past 20 years or more. This from a man who admits to knowing little about economic matters (objectively verifiable). Here’s a little free advice, admiral: if you’re going to hit them with something, don’t reach for “more of the same”, because that may not do the trick. Your good friend Dubya has very seriously bungled the economy (as he has every other aspect of his constitutional responsibility), so you might want to make sure that manly embrace is an exceedingly brisk one. Of course, the admiral is free to troll these waters undisturbed, because the press is really only interested in his biographical bus tour. Let’s hear his life story, one more time…. from the beginning. Jesus – they are just fundamentally incapable of focusing on the hard questions. It’s like PBS Frontline’s recent review of the Iraq war, talking about how Cheney was ordering shoot-downs on 9/11. Do you have to be Jim Ridgeway to ask why Cheney was giving orders in the first place when he had no constitutional authority to do so? 
difficult this week for the administration, pro-war congresspeople, and the corporate media to act as though things are going swimmingly over there and that “life is returning to normal for ordinary Iraqis,” as John McCain suggested during his surprise (is there any other kind for prominent Americans?) visit. The escalation in violence was pretty strongly telegraphed by all the rhetoric about Iranian interference in the shape of arms and support for extremists (or “Al Qaeda”, as McCain bizarrely claimed on more than one occasion recently – you know you’re in trouble when Joe Lieberman has to step in to correct your reactionary fulminations). No doubt our trusty veep was giving Baghdad’s leaders a pep talk before they commenced their attack on what is likely the largest organized indigenous political force in the country – Al Sadr’s Mahdi Army, which had only just recently renewed its unilateral cease-fire.
The al-Maliki government has issued ultimatums for surrender which has thus far been ignored, and as of this writing, the militias appear to control twice as much of Basra as do the government troops – this is probably based on U.S. military data, so it may be actually kind of rosy. Al-Maliki’s latest deadline for the Mahdi Army to disarm coincides with the day that General Petraeus and Ryan Crocker are slated to give their progress report to Congress. (Amazing coincidence.) Our military is muttering to the press that they are not heavily involved in this fight, but that they will not allow the Iraqi army to lose. There is no question that they are involved, to the extent that helicopter gunships and F-18s are bombing the living hell out of some of Baghdad’s and Basra’s most miserable slums. This is, frankly, an American fight, and no one should expect Iraqis to fight it for us. We have been antagonizing Al-Sadr since Bremer’s time, because he cannot be controlled. In this respect, we have been on the same page as Saddam – not surprising, since we appear to want what he wanted… a quiescent Iraq that we can happily pump oil out of.
incredible part is this: something like two-thirds of the American people want us out of Iraq, as do a large majority of the Iraqi people (not that anyone cares what they think – shut up and be grateful, damned foreigners!). And yet we’re obviously not bringing the troops home – quite the opposite. Congress is lukewarm on the idea of a change in policy, and the administration is just plain smug about their refusal to bring this disaster to a close. Confronted with the polling data, Cheney just smirked and said that it didn’t matter. We’ve even seen Bush going around opining that there’s something romantic about being dispatched to the Afghan frontier, and that he wish he were younger so he could do it himself (my ass!). Why aren’t these people run out of town on a rail? Why is it “politically risky” to advocate a timeline for withdrawal when it’s favored by 60% of the American public?
That is what makes the 
flabbergasting, I must admit. With the coincidence of daylight savings time starting last Sunday, I kept wondering all week if I were merely sleepwalking and that things would be less bizarre when I finally came to, but no… this was the week that was. You’ve heard way too much about the Spitzer thing, I’m sure, and I will not add any weight to that burden other than to briefly visit one event that took place last weekend. It was the annual Gridiron dinner, a “press yucks it up with the President” type of affair. Bush was there, singing a clumsily satirical version of “The Green, Green Grass of Home” (penned by someone on the public payroll, no doubt) in which he made light of some of his administration’s most monumental failings, from the circumstances surrounding the deliberate distortion of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq war, to Hurricane Katrina. Spitzer was in the room, by that time well aware that his political goose was cooked, and I can only wonder what ran through his head as he listened to mister 15 percent yodeling his way to the end of a disastrous presidency, not a care in the world.
What a media spectacle this year is turning out to be. As the final fragments of plaster fall from the edifice that is imperial America, Bush is seen gleefully tap-dancing, breaking into song, and waxing poetic on the “romance” of combat in Afghanistan. And what of the man – the anointed successor – who will inherit Bush’s wars, his recession, his crumbling federal infrastructure? Well, McCain represents nothing so much as a third Bush term, one that will carry the expanded powers of the executive to a new and dangerous magnitude of “unitary” authority. The only difference may be that, whereas Bush is as unfeeling as a hollow tin soldier, McCain passionately believes in the necessity and efficacy of war. And if he and his advisors may be taken at their word, a McCain administration will mean more foreign interventions, more military action, and more international brinkmanship with respect to countries that can actually fight back, like Russia and China.
substantial number of children), and – predictably – Palestinian militants have struck back, shooting up a seminary in Jerusalem, killing 8. Is anyone surprised by this? Olmert’s policy of “isolating Hamas” (i.e. strangling Gaza to death) has elicited the kind of violent response that Israeli politicians pray for – the kind they can use to justify the very policy that provoked the response in the first place. And as the situation goes septic, what is more appropriate than having Condi Rice stroll through the wreckage of yet another Bush policy? As in the case of the Lebanon war two years ago, this consummate diplomat has refrained from calling for a ceasefire, uttering the usual platitudes about Israel’s right to self-defense and the importance of sparing civilian lives, when possible. Yes, we’ve been here before, and we’ve yet to see a military attack that the Bush administration wouldn’t at least tacitly endorse.
I’ve covered this ground before, I know, but I think it’s worth saying again. Amongst any people denied nationhood, denied basic freedoms, denied livelihood and frequently even life itself by a hostile occupying power, there will always be individuals and groups who will resort to heinous acts such as took place at that Jerusalem seminary. The more pressure is put on that oppressed population, the more a sense of hopelessness is engendered in them, the more likely it is that those incidents will take place. Consider the Israeli government’s consistent line on this. There have been no similar attacks within Israel in what, four years? Olmert and company mostly attribute this to their loathsome apartheid barrier, but it’s clear that no matter how massive a wall you build, you cannot stop a truly determined person. Their considered reaction is to accuse the Palestinian Authority – their Palestinians – of not doing enough to fight extremists. If there are no attacks, as during the past few years, it’s not because of the Palestinians, it’s because of the wall. This is a game the Palestinians know they can never win.
military and U.S. contractors in Iraq. The ones the reporter spoke to were among the very few who have managed to immigrate to America. Now they are out of work, out of money, and essentially unemployable except at the very bottom of the service economy. One man, speaking of his experience back in Iraq, told of how an American officer once told him that “working for the American government is a future”. Now this unfortunate fellow is contemplating taking another job in Iraq – no small consideration, since doing so could easily cost him his life. Here all he can find is janitorial work at McDonald’s-level wages, though he is a trained engineer. His expectation had been that in return for having served this country, he would be taken care of. All the government seems willing to do for these people is bring them here, get them hooked up with some goofy job counseling agency called “Upwardly Global”, and fuck up their paperwork so that it’s even harder to get a job. Welcome to America.
Iraqi expatriates like the ones NPR spoke to have learned this the hard way – by risking their lives to serve the U.S., only to be dropped like an apple core when their utility expires. (Our own G.I.s get similar treatment, but that’s another column.) Fact is, this is a world run by pirates, and America is Long John Silver. Ours is a fully bipartisan pirate ship, it bears remembering. Aside from style, there is little that separates the foreign policy establishment in the Republican and Democratic parties. The G.O.P. is mostly a scurvy crew of unabashed cutthroat privateers, ready to burn and plunder at will. The Democrats, well… they put a nice tie on it, dress it up a little bit, tone down the rhetoric, but it’s essentially the same set of rules: We own the world, and what we say goes. The first half of that is obvious from our behavior, the second and explicit declaration by Bush the First (a.k.a. “Pappy”).
reason for the shoot-down was the fear that its fuel supply would survive re-entry, land in a populated area, and possibly expose people to lethal chemicals. Once the deed was done, however, that rationale started breaking down, at least judging by what I heard of the coverage (from NPR’s Pentagon reporters, who are pretty close to being official spokespersons). The next day the military was suggesting, though its press surrogates, that the fuel wasn’t all that dangerous and that, in any case, chances of its falling near civilization were around 3 out of 100. (Good thing, too, since as of Thursday morning they couldn’t be certain they had destroyed the fuel tank.) Of greater concern to them at that juncture was the possibility that components of the satellite’s surveillance technology would fall into the “wrong hands”, such as those of the Russians and the Chinese. (You heard right – the Russians and the Chinese. Apparently it’s 1960 again.) 
Anyway… no reason to be surprised that they’re more concerned with caring for their satellites than for the human race. By Friday of this past week, the newspapers were running stories about how this shoot-down was a crucial test of our “missile defense” capability. Missile defense is, as you likely know, that amazing system we’ve been spending tens of billions of dollars developing and deploying that, while not so good at shooting down incoming missiles, provides excellent protection for favored military contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. The satellite story morphed into basically a P.R. bonanza for Raytheon, inventor of the famously ineffective Patriot missile (much touted during the Gulf war as a tremendous success, the Patriot was later shown to have failed consistently and even to have erroneously targeted one of our own planes). Assuming the Pentagon is telling us the truth when they say the missile struck its target (i.e. assuming a lot), the system may be marginally useful if our adversaries start lobbing broken-down spy satellites at us with more than a week’s notice.