U.S. journalist turns Iranian dissident

Question: How narcissistic must The Washington Times' Eli Lake be to believe adding a "green overlay" to his Twitter avatar in an act of solidarity with supporters of Mir-Hossein Mousavi would do anything other than make him look like a desperate moral exhibitionist? Truly, could there be a more pathetic and meaningless gesture?

(Since I first wrote this Lake appears to have reverted to a non-green avatar. Such is the fleetingness of online solidarity.)

Who me, unaware?

After courageously changing his avatar green, the almost endearingly unaware Lake offered this advice:

What's happening in Iran is about Iran. We in the US should refrain from using the demos there as a partisan cudgel here.
about 1 hour ago from web

I think I agree with this statement, but I'm not sure the tone of the domestic debate is helped by accusing people like former National Security Council member and CIA analyst Flynt Leverett of being "an [A]hmadinejad man" -- as Lake does -- for merely pointing out that plenty of Iranians voted for Ahmadinejad the last time around, so it's not entirely implausible that a great number would do so again. But Lake doesn't seem to do the whole self-awareness thing so well.

And while I believe sympathy for the Iranian people is to be commended, allow me to suggest others who it may be more appropriate for Americans to show solidarity with:

-- The more than 7 million Americans behind bars -- the largest prison population in world history -- many for non-violent drug offenses.

-- The 4 million-plus Iraqi refugees forced to flee their homes thanks to the U.S. invasion of their country.

-- Palestinians suffering under a U.S.-financed Israeli occupation and blockade whose votes were dismissed by the West because they weren't for the right party.

Obama administration still lying about Iran

Iran might be in the midst of another revolution or not, but one thing's certain: the Obama administration is going to persist in referring to an active Iranian nuclear weapons program that its own intelligence agencies say doesn't exist.

Speaking to reporters today on Air Force One, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declared that the U.S. government's "concerns" about Iran aren't any different than they were before the election fiasco:

Obviously we continue to have concern about what we've seen. Obviously the Iranians are looking into this, as well. We continue to be heartened by the enthusiasm of young people in Iran.

But I think what's important is the concerns that we have about their nuclear weapons program, and the concern we have about their support for terror isn’t any different than it was on Friday.

It should be noted that Iran vehemently denies have any desire for a nuclear weapons program, and the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran (pdf) states that "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran." Admiral Dennis Blair, President Obama's director of national intelligence, also testified under oath earlier this year that Iran neither has the highly enriched uranium needed to make a nuke nor has its leadership made the decision to pursue nuclear weapons.

Still, Gibbs, following the lead of Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, continues to refer to an active Iranian "nuclear weapons program", a distortion of intelligence worthy of Dick Cheney. So far no reporters have called him on it.

United Against Nuclear Iran giddy over Ahmadenijad 'victory'

In light of earlier polling data (pdf) showing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad trouncing his opponents in last week’s election, I’m inclined to believe his victory is “legitimate”, as far as these things go, however unfortunate that may be for the Iranian people and for the prospect of improved relations with the U.S. That said, Juan Cole and others have pointed to seemingly credible evidence the election may have been tampered with by the powers that be, preventing anyone from yet concluding with complete certainty what exactly just happened.

Except, that is, for the good folks at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), a hardline group co-founded by Obama officials Richard Holbrooke and Dennis Ross committed to preventing Iran “from fulfilling its ambition to become a regional super-power possessing nuclear weapons.”

Providing further evidence for Daniel Luban of Inter Press Service’s observation that neoconservatives and others itching for a confrontation with Iran were eagerly rooting for an Ahmadenijad victory -- fearmongering about a nuclear Iran being that much easier when there’s a Holocaust-denying demagogue to point to -- UANI President Mark Wallace, a former ambassador under George W. Bush, in a June 14 statement asserts with complete confidence that “Iran has reelected President Ahmadinejad.”

What’s most interesting about Wallace’s statement, though, might be the fact that UANI has finally given up the pretense of giving a damn about the Iranian people. A typically breathless, fear-inducing ad the group is currently running on TV warning Iran’s “radical rulers [are] seeking nuclear weapons” -- an assertion curiously missing a citation -- nonetheless claims Iranians themselves are “young” and “vibrant”, a “people Americans have no quarrel with.”

Ahmadinejad’s apparent election victory, however, has changed all that, with the Iranian people presumably now fair game for America’s liberating firepower. “President Obama offered the hand of diplomacy to the Iranian people,” Wallace says. “Iran has rejected that hand.” The evidence? “Since President Obama's inauguration we have seen more nuclear enrichment from Iran and more missile tests. And now Iran has reelected President Ahmadinejad - a hard-line, holocaust-denying radical.”

The solution? “America and the international community must increase Iran's economic isolation.” After spending a good chunk of change on slick anti-Iranian propaganda with which to scare geriatric cable TV watchers, I have a good feeling UANI would have issued that same call for even more economic sanctions no matter who won the election.

Fear nutjobs with guns, not 'anti-government' ideas

Casting your political opponents as enemies of the state who are aiding and abetting terrorism -- was it so long ago this was the favored debating tactic of the political right? Fast forward one historic, transformational election, however, and it is the nominal left in this country accusing their opponents of fomenting violence, calling for increased domestic surveillance and alluding to a coming civil war. By no means unexpected, the transformation has been rather stunning, though I must admit I find the prospect of a shoot-out between Daily Kos diarists and Free Republic posters to be somewhat amusing, if a bit unlikely.

Since the tragic shooting at the Holocaust museum, legions of earnest Democrats have been quick to lay blame at right-wing talk radio and the GOP, none less than the hysterical “progressive” journalist David Neiwert, who has spent the better part of a decade selling books to Concerned Liberals on the specter of right-wing violence in America -- along the way smearing anyone who may hold (gasp!) anti-government views. With right-wingers generally reviled as of late -- and for good reason -- it makes sense for someone trying to hawk a new book on the evils of the right to pin the acts of murderous nutjobs on the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. But Neiwert’s latest hack job, typified by the juvenile “wingnut” name-calling in the opening sentence, goes far beyond criticizing right-wing blowhards, instead tarring certain ideas as Officially Off Limits.

For example, criticism of the Federal Reserve is out of bounds -- anti-semitic even -- or so Neiwert implies in this passage about the suspected museum shooter:

[T]he truly telltale aspect of his record: In 1981, he was arrested for attempting a "citizen's arrest" of Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve Building in D.C. and was sentenced to a prison term for it.

More to the point, this is precisely the same belief system that today fuels the cottage industry in conspiracy theories -- promulgated by the likes of Ron Paul and Alex Jones -- that the Fed is part of a massive conspiracy of "international [read: Jewish] bankers" to enslave Americans and destroy the country.

First: Paul Volcker was Federal Reserve Chairman in 1981, not Alan Greenspan, who didn’t take over for another six years. This is probably a good indication of how closely Neiwert has followed economic policy. Admirably, this doesn’t stop him from accusing folks like Ron Paul from being wink-and-a-nod anti-Semites for criticizing Fed policy, despite the fact Paul hates the Fed for inflating the money supply while the Holocaust shooter hated the Fed for precisely the opposite reason: that it wasn't inflating fast enough. Say what you will about Paul’s philosophy, but the man is clearly driven by economic ideology, and in speeches and columns he drones on at length about monetary policy, not The Jews. Example:

The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

Huh. I guess there was a secret code in there somewhere.

Neiwert’s suggestion that criticism the Fed is destroying the country is somehow the sole domain of the racist far right is symptomatic of his rigid and outmoded definition of what constitutes “left” and “right”. One needn't be a Bircher to see something wrong with the way the Fed operates, as evidenced by Dennis Kucinich's speeches on the topic. A nominally private institution dominated by banking interests and given the monopoly power to manipulate a nation's currency is of concern to people of many political stripes – witness the majority of the House, including progressive Democrats like Lynne Woolsey, who are co-sponsoring Paul's bill calling for an audit of the secretive Fed. No doubt Neiwert will inform us these people are all promulgating “the same belief system” that drove the Holocaust museum shooter, the bastards.

In many respects, Neiwert is doing for the left what hate sites like Little Green Footballs do for the right: conflating every isolated instance of violence with an emerging “fascist” threat, only replacing Muslims with paranoid hicks. More troubling, he uses his fearmongering to paint his peaceful, non-violent political opponents – like the consistently anti-war Paul – as in league with the basest members of society, not because they objectively incite violence, but because in some instances their views sound superficially similar to those embraced by right-wing conspiracy theorists; ergo a U.S. congressman voicing criticisms of the Fed's monetary policy gives aid and comfort to those who think Ben Bernanke is actually a Jewish-Lizard hybrid.

That The New Republic's insufferable Jamie Kirchick uses the Holocaust museum shooter and the exact same formulation as Neiwert to smear the left -- even citing the “fringe” left's interest in Ron Paul's presidential campaign as evidence of their “views about Israel, the Middle East and 'neocons'” are the same as those of the Holocaust museum shooter -- is a strong indication of how silly this type of argument is, and how it's nothing more than a dishonest tool of partisan hacks too lazy or incapable of rationally debating policy.

And not to undercut Neiwert’s theory of an emergent reactionary menace, but since Obama took office, how many people have been killed in the United States by politically motivated violence? I’m not sure, but I can guarantee you the number’s less than those killed in Pakistan from the drone attacks Obama has authorized. And in terms of threats to minorities, the enlightened, liberal Obama administration oversees the world’s largest prison population, largely consisting of non-violent drug offenders – disproportionately black and Hispanic -- and has shown no signs of promoting serious reform to address this scandalous condition.

Unfortunately, Neiwert and his fellow liberal travelers prefer focusing on the violent hyperbole of their domestic political opponents to the very real and much greater evil of state-sanctioned murder and incarceration. While quick to denounce the “eliminationist” rhetoric of the right, Neiwert characteristically had precious little to say about liberal Hillary Clinton's vow last year to “obliterate” the more than 65 million people of Iran should their government attack Israel. Likewise, Neiwert’s preoccupation with his theories on freelance fascism have caused him to go conspicuously silent on those the progressive Obama administration slaughters overseas, suggesting a rather misplaced set of priorities.

As Reason's Jesse Walker writes of the spate of right-wing violence:

Yes, these murders are terrorism, but they're the sort of terrorism that can be contained by the average small-town police force. If you try to blow them up into a grand pattern that threatens ordinary Americans, you're no different from the C-level conservative pundits who treat every politically motivated crime by a Muslim as evidence of a broad Islamic threat to ordinary Americans' well-being.

Exactly. Conflating a few gun-toting crazies with the threat of a looming civil war might sell a few books and reassure a few liberal of their own superiority, but is about as loony as Glenn Beck accusing Ron Paul supporters of (wait for it) . . . being domestic terrorists.

Meanwhile, as the notorious right-wing extremist Henry David Thoreau wrote when the U.S. government was similarly engaged in an indefensible, immoral war, "How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it."

I'm guessing Mr. Thoreau would have a hard time in the Age of Obama posting that on most liberal blogs, the traitorous old kook.

Style over substance

President Barack Obama is nearly doubling the U.S. occupation force in Afghanistan, is ramping up unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan that have killed 50 civilians for every one "Taliban", and is continuing the grand U.S. tradition of cozying up to despots and distorting the intelligence concerning Iran's nuclear program. At the same time, he is actively covering up torture and other war crimes committed by his predessor while proposing a program of indefinite imprisonment for those deemed threats to the state. But according to The Nation's Robert Dreyfuss, Obama has through his speech in Cairo "turned the corner on the post-9/11 nightmare." No, really:

I want emphasize one thing today: that by not mentioning "terror" or "terrorism" in his 55-minute address, Obama has formally turned the corner on the post-9/11 nightmare conjured by by President Bush and his ilk. If Obama sustains this, it has enormous potential not only to improve US relations with the Muslim world. It will utterly alter the discourse inside the United States, which for nearly eight long years has been distorted by the fear-mongering, Muslim-bashing, Osama-inflating, homeland security-worrying neoconservatives and their political allies.

That is, while Obama's continuing much of the same policies toward the Middle East, he's no longer talking about it -- at least not in the strident terms favored by neoconservatives -- so all is well. To be fair, Dreyfuss does say that after the Cairo speech "comes the test of Obama's sincerity." However, I'd suggest the test of Obama's desire to fundamentally alter U.S. policy toward the region took place soon after he took office.

While disappointing, the liberal tendency to elevate lofty rhetoric and speechifying over the actual substance of the policies their progressive leaders are implementing continues to amaze.

Nancy Pelosi forgets her oath of office

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has no idea what her oath of office is, nor does she understand her ostensible duties under the U.S. Constitution -- or so she implied in June 3rd remarks marking the unveiling of a statute honoring former President Ronald Reagan.

"President Eisenhower, President Reagan and all of us who take the oath of office know that our first responsibility is to protect and defend the American people, and that's why it's so appropriate that President Reagan's statue has contained within it chunks of the Berlin Wall as a symbol of his commitment to national security and his success."

This is wrong. Entirely wrong, actually. The president's oath of office says nothing about protecting and defending the American people, as Salon's Glenn Greenwald pointed out when a Brookings Institution "scholar" made that same erroneous claim while defending President Obama's support for indefinitely imprisoning those deemed threats to the United States.

Rather, the oath of office all U.S. heads of state are required to swear by asserts the president will, to the best of his or her ability, "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That is, rather than anointing the president as America's Great Protecter defending us proles from the evildoers abroad, the oath states the president must seek to uphold constitutional protections and the rule of law. Understanding that distinction is crucial to putting in context the Bush/Obama administration's efforts to indefinitely imprison terrorism suspects in the name of national security while shredding the bill of rights along the way.

Of course, politicians have rarely been much influenced by a piece of paper signed hundreds of years ago by a bunch of white dudes in wigs -- how many divisions does Thomas Jefferson have anyway? Still, it would be nice if those in government at least pretended to abide by the document that ostensibly binds U.S. citizens in perpetuity to the "social contract" it purportedly represents.

Like most of her fellow lawmakers, however, Pelosi -- who herself took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (again, no talk of protecting the homeland) -- has no desire to speak of constraints upon her political power, rather having every incentive to portray herself and her cohorts as the last line of defense between the barbarians at the gate and our beloved children.

But whether Pelosi is actually acknowledges or is even aware it is her responsibility to defend the Constitution or not is really of no consequence, for that particular piece of paper American politicians swear to uphold certainly hasn't stopped those in power from regularly trampling its protections for individual rights. As Lysander Spooner observed, "whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

Meanwhile. In dedicating a statue to a man who funded death squads in El Salvador and Nicaragua, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, Pelosi had this to say about the ever-so inspiring example the Reagans provided to the American public:

President Reagan and Mrs. Reagan had one of the great love stories of all time, and the American people benefited from that. The support, the love that Mrs. Reagan gave the president were a source of joy to the American people, and, again, of strength to the president of the United States.

I was too young to remember the period, so a sincere question: Did anyone out there really find the marriage of Ronald and Nancy Reagan -- a modern day Anthony and Cleopatra, says Speaker Pelosi -- to be a "source of joy"?

'The ax in my head is really bumming me out . . . got any Prozac?'

An ad for the anti-depressant Cymbalta that I saw on TV the other night cautioned any would-be consumer not to take the product if suffering from “uncontrolled glaucoma.” This raises the obvious question: If you have freaking uncontrolled glaucoma, don’t you think that might have something to do with any sense of unhappiness you may feel? And might I suggest that -- despite the average American’s propensity to pop prescription happy pills like popcorn -- you talk to your doctor about that whole impending blindness thing first, before asking about your media-induced fears of mood-altering chemical imbalances?

I’m guessing the treatment for glaucoma might also help with any other lingering feelings of malaise. Just a thought.

U.S. liberalism: promoting 'reform' while sustaining the status quo

"The history of American liberalism is one of promoting substantively modest if superficially radical reforms in order to refurbish and sustain the status quo. From Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to Bill Clinton's New Covenant, liberals have specialized in jettisoning the redundant to preserve what they see as essential. In this sense, modern liberalism's great achievement has been to deflect or neutralize calls for more fundamental change - a judgment that applies to President Obama, especially on national security."

-- Andrew Bacevich, "Obama's sins of omission"

Writing for The Boston Globe last month, historian Andrew Bacevich alluded to a critique of liberalism long voiced by the likes of radical "New Left" writers like Gabriel Kolko: that rather than curtailing corporatist or imperial polices, or fundamentally altering the nature of the corporate state, liberal politicians have regularly sought the appearance of change while reaffirming the reality of the status quo, albeit with minor superficial changes designed to keep the rabble in check and prevent the chance of actual change unscripted by the establishment taking place.

That Bacevich sees less change than more-of-the-same coming out of Washington is notable as, prior to the election last November, he penned a piece for The American Conservative on why he, a life-long conservative, was voting for Barack Obama rather than John McCain. "The election of John McCain would provide a new lease on life to American militarism, while perpetuating the U.S. penchant for global interventionism marketed under the guise of liberation," Bacevich wrote. While hardly a glowing endorsement of the American state's new caesar -- "Obama’s habit of spouting internationalist bromides suggests little affinity for serious realism" -- Bacevich argued his election would at least "constitute something approaching a definitive judgment of the Iraq War"; namely, as Obama declared during the campaign, that it was a war which never should have been waged in the first place.

But with Obama's election -- and with the benefit of hindsight -- has that really been the case? Or has the election of a self-styled war critic, resulted in a "rather breathtaking bait-and-switch," as Michael J. Smith posits, whereby the discussion of Iraq and Afghanistan has shifted among the once anti-war Democratic base from one focused on the morality of the policy to "a discussion of means -- means to an end which is never explicitly stated but is implicitly agreed upon by all: namely, conquest"?

Judging by the muted response among the Democratic base to Obama's decision to dramatically escalate the U.S. war Afghanistan, his continued acts of war inside of Pakistan and his rather timid Iraq "withdrawal" plan that leaves 50,000 troops -- more than half the size of the initial invasion force -- there until 2011 (unless, that is, the Iraqi government "requests" the U.S. stay a bit longer), I'd have to say Smith is clearly right: the anti-war movement, in so far as there ever was one, has been co-opted by the Democratic Party. One need look no further than the top liberal blogs for evidence of this: simply compare the number of outraged posts about bloated, right-wing talk radio blowhards to the ones expressing concern over the morality of extrajudicially killing suspected Taliban with remote-controlled drones.

This process of co-option and deflection -- pay no attention to state-sponsored murder, but did you hear what crazy shit Rush Limbaugh just said? -- is reinforced by the fact that Obama's nominal opposition on the right, though they more or less share the same underlying assumptions on the desirability of a global U.S. empire, has reacted to the president's mild shifts in rhetoric with the type of hysteria one would expect should he have gay married an illegal immigrant. To the stubborn third of the country that thought President Bush was doing a heckuva job to the bitter end, any dealings with "anti-American" foreign leaders which don't end with an insult and an ultimatum amount to appeasement; any policy shift that proposes something less than complete annihilation for Iran and others should they defy "U.S. interests" degenerate pacificism.

This was in full display after Obama's trip to the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad & Tobago, when the likes of Bill Bennett and Newt Gingrich took the airwaves to hyperventilate about the his shaking hands with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, claiming the Republic imperiled by an American president sullying his office by appearing to be on equal footing with his Latin American counterparts. In doing so, "Obama’s opponents on the mainstream right showed how ready they are to lash out at any gesture or move, however meaningless and harmless in itself, and declare it proof of Obama’s naivete, weakness, folly, etc.," notes conservative blogger Daniel Larison.

In this context, it's no wonder Democrats feel the need to form a protective circle around their chosen Godhead, cook up some popcorn and enjoy the spectacle of the Republican faithful crying "fascism!" at the first change in upper-income marginal tax rates -- all the while propounding an economic and foreign policy platform of their own that would make Mussolini blush. That partisanship on both sides of the corporatist political spectrum trumps factual analysis comes as no surprise, but it is unfortunate since those best positioned to criticize Obama's imperial agenda instead spend their time explaining to reactionaries that no, Obama is neither a Muslim nor Malcolm X's lovechild, while right-wingers busy themselves calling for ever more imperialism and blasting anything short of unilateral, preemptive war as "blame America" McGovernism.

Thus, while he's busy boosting the Pentagon budget and expanding U.S. wars overseas -- with the help of Bush administration Defense Secretary Robert Gibbs -- the only real vocal opposition to Obama's policies comes from, absurdly, those who argue he's not being militaristic enough. Sure, a few liberal bloggers voice objections, but for every Glenn Greenwald there appears to be a about a dozen Paul Begala's unwilling to criticize Obama's endorsement of what Bacevich calls "the Second Trinity of global power projection, global military presence, and global activism - the concrete expression of what politicians commonly refer to as 'American global leadership.'"

As Bacevich suggests, the issue is not so much Obama -- though he's obviously in a position to effect the most change in U.S. foreign policy -- but American liberalism, which has all too often excelled at engaging in the same policy of covert coups and overt invasions as conservatives but cloaked in an easy-on-the-conscience veneer of human rights.

“[H]owever much Obama may differ from Bush on particulars, he appears intent on sustaining the essentials on which the Bush policies were grounded,” Bacevich writes. “Put simply, Obama's pragmatism poses no threat to the reigning national security consensus. Consistent with the tradition of American liberalism, he appears intent on salvaging that consensus.”

The curious case of the establishment liberal

From an inflammatory piece I had published last week:

A peculiar notion has arisen of late, maintaining that things like torture, domestic spying and illegal wars are all attributable to the Right -- namely, the administration of President George W. Bush -- and are in fact historical anomalies, not at all in keeping with the traditions of these great United States . The idea that war crimes and civil liberties violations are strictly conservative affairs is particularly comforting to wide-eyed Democrats in awe of America’s First Black President ™, and it affords the heirs to the same liberal establishment which brought us Vietnam and Hiroshima another opportunity to grandstand about their commitment to human rights even as the noble humanitarian Barack Obama continues to extra-judicially murder foreigners with unmanned drones. Unfortunately for partisan Democrats – and even more so the victims of U.S. exceptionalism – American imperialism and its associated evils have long enjoyed bipartisan backing, though liberals tend to be somewhat more sheepish about their support for killing, torturing and maiming poor people overseas.

Read the rest.

Who cares about this 'Nancy Pelosi torture crap'?

Hanging around the U.S. Capitol this afternoon, I overheard a reporter for a major publication you probably last read at the dentist's office bemoaning how ever so bored she was the news this week. Actual quote:

"I don't care about any of this Nancy Pelosi torture crap . . . I'm a forward-looking girl."

That "Pelosi torture crap" to which the reporter refers is of course the news that self-styled progressive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was reportedly briefed on the Bush administration's use of torture and did not object, supposedly out of "respect" for the "'appropriate' legislative channels."

Yet to some reporters, the news that one of the leaders of the nominal opposition party during the Bush years was informed -- and indeed complicit -- in the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques used on suspected terrorists is just so bor-ing. But no, it's Google that's killing journalism . . .

Who could object to Mother's Day?

Apparently a whole lot of of folks once did, as Bill Kauffman reminds us, citing the lopsided defeat the first resolution proposing a national Mother's Day suffered back in 1908:

Senator Henry Moore Teller (D-CO) scorned the resolution as “puerile,” “absolutely absurd,” and “trifling.” He announced, “Every day with me is a mother’s day.”

Senator Jacob Gallinger (R-NH) judged the very idea of Mother’s Day to be an insult, as though his memory of his late mother “could only be kept green by some outward demonstration on Sunday, May 10.”

“There are some thoughts that are so great and so sacred that they are belittled by movements of this character,” lectured Senator Charles Fulton (R-OR), who went on to suggest the consecration of “Mother-in-Law Day.”

Besides—and this objection may strike modern ears as bizarre—whether or not young men honored their mothers was none of the federal government’s damned business.

“It is not a proper subject for legislation,” declared Senator Weldon Heyburn (R-ID). “[T]he sentiment that exists between the parent and the child” was “too sacred to be made the subject of bandying words” and symbolic resolutions.

By a margin of 33-14, the Senate contemptuously returned this first Mother’s Day resolution to committee.

Read the rest.

Senator Kit Bond talks sports with a dog

Senator Kit Bond (R-MO), vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, may be on the very fringes of sanity and losing all sense of awareness or an under-appreciated comedic genius. You decide:

For another glimpse into the state of Bond's perception of the world around him, check out this news conference from earlier this month where he speaks for over 6 minutes behind a blinking (and quite distracting) traffic light. It had something to do with a report Bond was releasing -- or else he was just trying to communicate with his home planet.

The militarization of law enforcement

While reading a news story this week about the tragic murder at Wesleyan University, I came across this rather interesting picture:
The caption insists the photo is of "Middletown police and Wesleyan University security", which perhaps makes it even more disconcerting to see them decked out in military garb, yet further evidence of the militarization of U.S. law enforcement -- a trend made more disturbing by the number of cops that have served in the military or are in the reserves, and one accelerated by the bipartisan fondness for adopting the language -- and tactics -- of war to fight illicit drugs.

Unfortunately, outside of a few paranoid "rule of law" types, there doesn't seem to be much of an outcry over military-style police forces, the public perhaps conditioned to images of military occupation from years of CNN and the "war on terror". This bumper sticker photographed by Radley Balko captures much of the problem:
As Balko writes:

Once again, cops aren’t soldiers. American cities aren’t battlefields. And U.S. citizens aren’t potential combatants. This isn’t pedantry. It’s about the mentality with which police officers approach their job, and about what sort of relationship they’re going to have with the people whose rights they’re supposed to be protecting.

Video: Obama official speaks 'off the record'

Last month I highlighted another instance of the increasingly popular phenomenon of b-list political appointees and congressional staffers seeking to go "off the record" at public events. In this most recent case, U.S. Trade Representative Tim Reif spoke was to speak on a panel at the Cato Institute about "restoring the pro-trade consensus", and while his fellow panelists' remarks were to be on the record, his, inexplicably, were not.

Well, in case you were unable to attend the undoubtedly thrilling event, Cato has helpfully provided a video recording. Reif's remarks begin around the 43 minute mark.

Is being black a 'political leaning'?

I don't typically start my day by reading The Washington Times, but a copy of the moonie rag happened to be sitting next to me on the subway this morning, enabling me to read what may be the stupidest opening to a story I've read this year:

WASHINGTON — The same Homeland Security Department office that categorized veterans as potential terrorists issued an earlier report that defined dozens of "extremists" ranging from black power activists to abortion foes. The report was nixed within hours and recalled from state and local law enforcement officials.

Whites and blacks, Christians and Jews, Cubans and Mexicans, along with tax-hating Americans were among several political leanings listed in the "Domestic Extremism Lexicon" that came out of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) in late March.

Note to Times editors: unlike one's politics, a person's race or ethnicity tends not to be subject to change, ergo it is inaccurate to describe, say, being black as one of many "political leanings". And while it's great you're exposing the Department of Homeland Security's rather inept attempts to define domestic "extremists", you might want to invest in an in-house lexicon of your own.

Senators echo Clinton in push for 'crippling sanctions' on Iran

Following up on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's promise to impose "crippling sanctions" on Iran should it continue to defy the "international community" (that is, the U.S. and the E.U.) with regard to its nuclear program, a bipartisan group of the Senate's finest have introduced legislation that would empower the president to engage in a new round of economic warfare by sanctioning companies that sell refined oil products to Iran.

As one might expect, the April 28 press conference announcing the bill was filled with unsubstantiated fear mongering, including this from Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN):

If events continue to go as they are currently going, at some point, during the next two to four years, Iran will have a nuclear weapon.

Actually, if "events continue to go as they are currently going," the IAEA will continue inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities to ensure its compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which allows Iran to pursue nuclear power so long as they permit international inspectors to verify the non-diversion of nuclear materials to a weapons program. To that end, the most recent IAEA report (pdf) states that its inspectors have "been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran." If Iran were to have a nuclear weapon in "the next two to four years", as Bayh asserts, it would have to withdraw from the NPT and kick the IAEA officials inspecting its nuclear facilities out of the country. Even then, it would likely take months if not years for Iran to stockpile the highly enriched uranium necessary to build a bomb -- which Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair recently testified they currently do not have and which they have not made the decision to pursue.

Later in the press conference, Bayh claimed Iran could avoid all this nastiness about economic sanctions "if they simply will agree to a civilian nuclear power and to forego with international oversight and that sort of thing [sic]." Iranian officials have always insisted their program is peaceful in nature and IAEA inspectors have so far been able to verify that, so it's unclear from Bayh's garbled statement what would qualify as "international oversight" in his view.

One might be tempted to chalk the statement up to ignorance -- U.S. senators are generally not revered for their intellectual prowess -- but Bayh, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, should certainly know his claim that "everyone agrees" Iran is on "a nuclear weapon path" is just not true. Indeed, back in March Bayh attended a hearing where Blair reaffirmed the view of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran suspended any weapons program it may have had years ago and has not in fact made the decision to pursue nukes. Either Bayh wasn't paying attention, in which case he's incompetent, or else he's a liar -- take your pick.

Following Blair, independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman -- who told me back in the summer of 2007 it would be irresponsible to not attack Iran for its supposedly "waging a deadly proxy war" against U.S. troops in Iraq -- likewise inaccurately referred to Iran's "nuclear weapons program" before launching into a self-congratulatory, albeit accurate, description of congressional support for more economic warfare against Iran spanning "not only Democrats and Republicans but, I'd say, probably by self-description, some of the Senate's most liberal and conservative members."

Lieberman also noted that despite Obama's public statements on the need for diplomacy with Iran, his top diplomat for the region -- United Against Nuclear Iran co-founder Dennis Ross -- was informed of the Senate bill enabling more sanctions, and "I will tell you he didn't say don't. . . . we've even sent him a copy of it."

Finally, Senator John Thune (R-SD) joined his Senate colleagues at the press conference -- which also included Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) -- in the fear mongering fun, saying if Iran possessed nuclear weapons, "we know inevitably [they] would be transferred or given to terrorist nations that would target Israel."

But do we? If Iran actually someday develops nukes, we are to believe that after all the sanctions and hardship it suffered to build them, it would proceed to give them away to some uncontrollable terrorist group or "terrorist nation" in order to attack a country -- Israel -- that would immediately annihilate Tehran's 10 million-plus inhabitants in response? And assuming Iran really is run by a messianic death cult committed to the death of Jews in Israel (yet curiously not the 25,000 or so living in Iran right now), even at the expense of its own power by using nuclear weapons, don't you think its leaders would want to press that big red button themselves?

Spouting off about an endless series of external, "existential" threats, however inconsistent and exaggerated, typically goes unquestioned in Washington. If anything, it insulates the fearmonger from the dreaded charge of displaying "naivete" in foreign affairs. If everything you say is wrong, at worst a few people might be further impoverished or killed in some far off land. And how many of them are registered to vote?

It's not 'murder', it's 'harsh involuntary liquidation'

If an agency within the U.S. military was willing to call interrogation techniques like waterboarding "torture" back in 2002, and if the International Committee of the Red Cross -- tasked under the Geneva Conventions with verifying prisoners of war are treated humanely -- calls such techniques torture, and if Japanese soldiers were sentenced to death for using such techniques against U.S. soldiers, then why the hell are journalists at The Washington Post still describing such techniques (when used by the American government) as merely "harsh tactics"?

And how can a 1,400 word piece dealing with the interrogation and imprisonment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- during which he "was put through a routine in which he was deprived of sleep, doused with cold water and had his head repeatedly slammed into a plywood wall, according to the report. The interrogation also included days of extensive waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning." -- fail to use the word "torture" once?

Any takers?

Jamie Kirchick: put down the thesaurus, buy a dictionary

Jamie Kirchick of The New Republic has a typically asinine column in The Los Angeles Times today blasting President Obama for being insufficiently jingoistic and arrogant during his recent European tour. Unfortunately, there are a few glaring errors in the piece -- beyond the fact that it is premised on the inside-the-Beltway bullshit notion that rhetoric on foreign affairs is more important than actual policy -- that undermine his case.

For starters: "apologetics" is not the plural form of "apology", but rather a term meaning a formal argument in defense of a belief, typically concerning theology. Thus, saying "Obama waited to ramp up the apologetics until his first trip overseas" implies he waited until he was in Europe before launching into a detailed defense of the Trinity and transsubstanation.

Furthermore: Kirchick claims "the use of the atomic bomb in ending the war with Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and America's possession of nuclear weapons prevented the Cold War from becoming bloodier." Of course, dropping nuclear weapons on Japan -- twice -- was a political decision made by President Truman intended primarily to scare the Soviet Union, as Japanese leaders had already sought to surrender. Hypotheticals about lives saved do not negate the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians were intentionally killed by the U.S. military. And as that committed pacificist, Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, remarked to Newsweek, the war with Japan was nearly over at the time the bombs were dropped, and "it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.''

Finally: Kirchick trashes Obama for not defending the concept of "American exceptionalism" with enough vigor, his bombing of a sovereign, nuclear-armed ally apparently not being indication enough of the exceptional status he believes the U.S. enjoys on the world scene. To Kirchick's dismay, Obama apparently chose diplomacy over arrogance during his European tour, telling other countries that, yes, you too can be exceptional! But that's "impossible," writes Kirchick:

If all countries are "exceptional," then none are, and to claim otherwise robs the word, and the idea of American exceptionalism, of any meaning. Besides, American exceptionalism is demonstrable -- Cuban journalists, Chinese political dissidents, Eastern Europeans once again living in the shadow of a belligerent Russia and, yes, even some Brits and Greeks look toward the U.S. and nowhere else to defend freedom.

It's unclear to what extent Mr. Kirchick has traveled the globe and spoke to its several billion inhabitants, but a few anecdotes about certain select peoples officially recognized as Oppressed by the State Department supposedly looking to the "U.S. and nowhere else to defend freedom" demonstrates precisely nothing. For every Cuban journalist looking to the US to defend their freedom one can point to a thousand Vietnamese civilians burned to death liberated by American military might, for example. It's also much more likely the vast majority of the world's people who seek freedom do not hinge their hopes on the benevolence of a foreign power thousands of miles from their home with a dubious commitment to liberty itself, but in fact look to themselves and their compatriots to fight for their rights.

To Kirchick and his neoliberal/neoconservative brethren, however, if a dictator falls and a CIA agent wasn't there to see it, then it never really happened. In their view, the United States government is the last best hope of man and really is god's gift to the world. An exaggeration? Hardly. Consider Kirchick's own definition of American exceptionalism.

This is the notion that our history as the world's oldest democracy, our immigrant founding and our devotion to liberty endow the United States with a unique, providential role in world affairs.

Skipping past the fact that the United States is not "the world's oldest democracy" -- women only gained the right to vote here in the 1920s, for one -- rather telling is Kirchick's use of the word "providential" to describe the U.S. role in the world; that is, his apparent belief that the U.S. government is "of, pertaining to, or resulting from divine providence." If anyone's guilty of engaging in "apologetics," it's Kirchick.

Arlen Specter: enemy of rule of law, Democrat

The big news of the week here in Washington is that long-time Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter will be leaving the Republican Party to join the Democrats, in large part to avoid a tough primary challenge from a conservative opponent. While others are focused on how the move will impact upcoming votes on healthcare and other pending legislation, I'm more interested in how seamless the transition for Specter appears to be and how readily the Democrats are willing to take on a lawmaker who backed the very worst excesses of the Bush administration -- yet further evidence that switching between the two political parties requires as much philosophical introspection as switching from Coke to Pepsi.

Oh sure, Specter will bemoan how he didn't leave the Republican Party, the Party left him -- that's to be expected. Yet even the cable news blowhards accept he is switching not because of deep-seeded ideological disagreements but out of of fear he may lose power (the prime motivator for all politicians), which should be a lesson to Specter's newfound Democratic allies: don't trust this man. Eager to capture the spotlight, Specter, like any other politician, is much less eager to fulfill what is (ostensibly) his role as a lawmaker: to uphold and defend the Constitution.

In September 2006, when the Senate was about to vote on the Military Commissions Act -- which abolished the right of habeas corpus for those imprisoned by the U.S. military -- I listened as Specter told me and other reporters outside the Senate chamber that the bill was "patently unconstitutional on its face" and that he wasn't going to vote for it. "I'm not going to do it," he said.

Six hours later and Specter voted for it, and not because he suddenly came to view the bill as constitutional, but rather he decided, as he told The Washington Post, "to back the bill because it has several good items, 'and the court will clean it up' by striking the habeas corpus provisions."

While expecting the court to clean up the unconstitutional details of the bills you help to pass is . . . cute . . . it's not at all consistent with the oath Specter took "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." By voting for a bill he admits is "unconstitutional on its face," he was most certainly not defending the constitution, and he certainly did no favor for those imprisoned without trial in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. Furthermore, it is not the judiciary's role to be the One and Only arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional. Rather, all three branches of government are supposed to uphold the constitution and guard against usurpations from the other branches.

While it may be an imperfect anachronism that has failed miserably at one of its chief purported goals -- limiting the size and scope of the state -- political leaders claim the "consent of the governed" in part by expressing their fidelity to the allegedly binding "social contract" contained in the Constitution. Perhaps they should be held to their word. In the case of Specter, the violation of his avowed duty is made all the worse by the fact that he knew the bill he was supporting ran counter to the constitution and rights given lip service by even tyrannical monarchs since at least the Magna Carta. As Salon's Glenn Greenwald writes, "Arlen Specter is one of the worst, most soul-less, most belief-free individuals in politics."

Pennsylvania voters: the guy belongs in a cell, not in some DC steakhouse dining with corporate lobbyists. At least give someone else a chance to screw you over.

Obama official to speak 'off the record' . . . live on the internet

On April 28th, General Counsel to the U.S. Trade Representative Tim Reif will be speaking on a Cato Institute panel about "Restoring the Pro-Trade Consensus". If you're in the Washington-area, you can stop by Cato's downtown building and hear the discussion in person. If you're not nearby, according to Cato, you can "Come back to this page to watch the event live."

There's just one catch: Mr. Reif's remarks are "off the record", or so we are to believe.

The details of how one can speak covertly live on the internet are still sketchy. For one, if a panelist is responding to something Reif says, can one report their remarks -- even if it's clear from their response what it is they are responding to? ("I disagree. We shouldn't put babies in blenders.")

A lot of absurd questions come to mind for a reason: because it's absurd to speak "off the record" at a public event, during a panel discussion, live on the internet. To use the phrase in that context is to demonstrate one does not know what it means. As Washington City Paper editor Erik Wemple writes, "You cannot speak into a microphone and be off the record at the same time."

The most frustrating aspect of the absurdity? That there's no chance the "General Counsel to the U.S. Trade Representative" will say anything remotely of interest or newsworthy to justify the supposed "off the record" nature of the remarks.

"[D]on’t think for a moment that Reif, or any other government official operating under the same rules, will use that off-the-record protection to say amazing and insightful things about U.S. trade policy," writes Wemple. "He’ll go common denominator all noon long. Because it’s a public event."