ken Hatch |
|
Links and Writings:
Art, Aviation, Photography,
Photoshop, and Politics
email Kenneth M. Hatch
Houston Center for Photography Photoshop Restoration & Retouching Buzzflash Media Whores Online Brad DeLong's Simi-Daily Journal Talking Points Memo The Daily Howler Archives |
Monday, March 31, 2003
Time Magazine has a long-thumb sucker on how we ended up in this mess. As usual, they are too kind to the major players, but it gives a pretty good outline. The “First Law of Holes” is if you find yourself in one is to stop digging. Robin Cook understands; now if the boy idiot from Midland can stop pumping his fist long enough to see the ground disappearing under his feet maybe we can get out of this mess. Sunday, March 30, 2003
From :Josh Marshal ."President Bush's aides did not forcefully present him with dissenting views from CIA and State and Defense Department officials who warned that U.S.-led forces could face stiff resistance in Iraq, according to three senior administration officials. Instead, Bush embraced predictions of top administration hawks, beginning with Vice President Dick Cheney, who predicted Iraqis would joyously greet coalition troops as liberators and that the entire conflict might be over in a matter of weeks, the officials said." That's the devastating lede of Warren Strobel's piece on the administration meltdown..." Unfucking real. From ABC News: "They may be the ones facing danger on the battlefield, but US soldiers in Iraq are being asked to pray for President George W Bush. Thousands of marines have been given a pamphlet called "A Christian's Duty," a mini prayer book which includes a tear-out section to be mailed to the White House pledging the soldier who sends it in has been praying for Bush..." Saturday, March 29, 2003
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History March 20, 2003 By Thom Hartmann The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world. It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.) But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones. Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference. "You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion. Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display. Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism. To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it. Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.) Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will." As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us. Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League Of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite. His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity." Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true. Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals." He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader. He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments. His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at out disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies. To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished. But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family. With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece. It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time." Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources. In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators." To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies. Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent. A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life. A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy. As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering. February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year." Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS. We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press. Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." 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. Thom Hartmann is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached. Thursday, March 27, 2003
From the Washington Post and Harold Meyerson : “...Combine the neos and CEOs with a president who seems ego-invested in his own provincialism and -- voilà! -- the United States has alienated a planet that has long looked to us as a force for decency in human affairs. In George Bush's America, however, it's the bombs that show the human face of our nation, while our statecraft, to steal a line from W.B. Yeats, reveals a gaze as blank and pitiless as the sun.” Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Friday, March 21, 2003
I grew up during the same time and just down the road from Shrub Bush in the white-collar city of Midland. My home in the rougher blue-collar town of Odessa. I can still remember the ”Get the US out of the UN” signs. Well, it looks like Shrub and Company believe they have at last accomplished that goal. Thursday, March 20, 2003
From David Corn : “...Unlike other big-time endeavors sought by the neocons and conservatives, this is a no-holds-barred effort. To use a cliché, a swing for the fences. Conservatives often gripe that their principles are never fully put to the test. Ronald Reagan cut taxes, but deficits occurred because Congress didn't curtail spending. Welfare reform was passed, but it wasn't strict enough. Ballistic missile defense hasn't gone operational yet because the program has not been sufficiently funded and supported. Saddam Hussein was pushed back in 1991, but not pursued. This time out, the cons and neocons should have no complaints. This is what they have desired for years. Bush has his war, and it's step one in their (and his) crusade. Bush and the rest are placing much at risk for their grand promises. Let them take credit, if success transpires. And let them bear responsibility for whatever might be unleashed.” Sunday, March 16, 2003
Monday, March 10, 2003
No one should forget Bush mocking a woman on Texas’ death row pleading for life. Bush has moved on to greater things and is no longer the Governor of Texas so at least as Delma Banks Jr. goes to his death, for a murder he most likely did not commit, he will not have to endure being an object of Bush’s famous moral clarity. Bob Herbert on the national disgrace of the Texas Criminal Justice system. Richard Perle is just another scumbag, money grubbing, un-ethical Republican and then he has the balls to call Seymour Hersh a terrorist. While I respect Mr. Reese’s desire to support Americans and not criticize the war they are in once the fighting starts I think he is wrong. The rest of the column is must reading. Sunday, March 09, 2003
I don’t know about you but I’m tired of the constant outrage, of my government acting like bullies, of seeing the same ignorant thugs running Washington D.C. that I fled in 1961 when I left Odessa, Texas. I had hoped I’d left that meanness of spirit and bigotry behind. I started this Blog to write about Art, Aviation, Photography, Photoshop and Politics pretty much in that order and as I look over my Blog all I read are posting about the incredible stupidity of the Bush government. I’m sorry it has come to this, I feel like a one trick pony, but the fear and anger are all consuming. My hope, my light shining for a better future is the knowledge that most systems reach their zenith and then quickly fade away. We can only hope this is the death rattle of the Reactionary Right and the U.S.A. rejects Shrub and Company’s vision of the world. If this doesn’t convince you that we have a government of dangerous kooks you are living in a fantasy world and need help: “...He (Bush) and his aides have outlined a quick and successful overthrow of Hussein and rebuilding of a democratic Iraq that spreads peace through the Middle East. Establishing unchallenged world dominance for the United States, it cows the leaders of Iran, North Korea and al Qaeda. In this view, the domestic economy would soar, and help Bush and his party in 2004 to a victory that would realign the country's political allegiances...” For the complete article. “... If we are not now at the mercy of the least rational, least humane, least responsible pack of yahoos who ever seized control of the American war machine, then I have learned exactly nothing in 35 years as a professional observer...” For all of the rant, it’s long but worth the time. Are there any men and women of principle in Shrub's government? Mr. Powell where is yours or does Europe have a monopoly on balls? Does anyone else find this AP story disturbing? My understanding of the U.S.A. is changing and the new country is not the home of hope and freedom I have known for most of my life. Bush has wished for a dictatorship in one of his throwaway “jokes.” I have found people “joke” about things they believe but haven’t the balls to tell you but if you watch what they do their true beliefs and wants will show. Bush gives every indication of wanting a police state from the way he was selected to his control of who is allowed a voice in his presence. I have disagreed with some of the policies of every President as I have watched them try to balance the conflicting demands on our country, Republican much more than Democrat, but this is the first time in my life I have feared for the future of my country and the world because of the actions of the President. “Large Groups Barred From Protesting Near White House Washington (AP) - Large groups of anti-war demonstrators will no longer be allowed anywhere near the White House. U.S. Park Police have been limiting the number of people near the White House since September 11. Chief Teresa Chambers says groups larger than 25 will not be allowed in Lafayette Park. They will have to apply for a permit and will be monitored by officers using a helicopter and closed-circuit TV cameras. Groups that are granted a permit will be relegated to a section of the Ellipse. Chambers says individuals will still be allowed on the sidewalk in front of the White House. She says if war breaks out and large groups want to get to the White House, officers will ring Lafayette Park top make sure no one gets in. Park Police will get some work handling anti-war demonstrators tomorrow, then the group "Code Pink" plans a march to the White House. Thousands are expected to participate.” Saturday, March 08, 2003
From the Daily Mirror: BUSH: CLAP ME OR NO EU SPEECH Mar 8 2003 By Paul Gilfeather GEORGE Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn't guarantee a standing ovation. Senior White House officials said the President would only go to Strasbourg to talk about Iraq if he had a stage-managed welcome. A source close to negotiations said last night: "President Bush agreed to a speech but insisted he get a standing ovation like at the State of the Union address. "His people also insisted there were no protests, or heckling. "I believe it would be a crucial speech for Mr Bush to make in light of the opposition here to war. But unless he only gets adulation and praise, then it will never happen." Mr Bush's every appearance in the US is stage-managed, with audiences full of supporters. It was hoped he would speak after he welcomed Warsaw pact nations to Nato in Prague last November. But his refusal to speak to EU leaders face-to-face is seen as a key factor in the split between the US-UK coalition and Europe. The source added: "Relations between the EU and the US are worsening fast - this won't help." Friday, March 07, 2003
From Brad DeLong “Right-Wing British Financial Newspaper Calls Bush Economic Policy "Lunacy" Gerard Baker, the Washington correspondent for the Financial Times, calls the Bush Administration's economic policy "lunacy." Note that Gerard Baker is not a partisan Democrat. Gerard Baker is a normal, smart, conservative, keen-eyed financial reporter who is trying to give the largely well-off European readers of the Financial Times some idea of what is going on in economic policy in Washington... ...Some day, at great cost to the American taxpayer and the economy, someone will have to deal with the consequences of this lunacy. It will make running Iraq's central bank look like a breeze by comparison.” Tuesday, March 04, 2003
Monday, March 03, 2003
Brad DeLong ...”This picture, as painted by Powell or whichever of Powell's people is Woodward's source, is not at all pretty. It has a wavering president, a wavering secretary of defense, and a madman of a deputy defense secretary (Wolfowitz) who has not only forgotten that we in the United States are supposed to be the good guys but who has next to no conception of who the good guys are, accompanied by a national security advisor who wants a war that can be characterized as "short and victorious" and doesn't seem to much care whether the rapid victories are won against people who were in some way linked to 9/11...” Auckland - New Zealand - Prime Minister Helen Clark said Sunday she believes war in Iraq was likely around March 17... Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson ... Project for the New American Century ... If those three don’t give you night terrors you live in the fantasy world of the New American Century. Sunday, March 02, 2003
When the history of this administration is written it will be a story of almost total incompetence. Everything they touch gets fucked up. Then after it is in total disarray, the SOP is to blame Clinton. What I can’t believe is how the mainstream press has allowed the process to happen time after time. I expect we will see thumb-sucking stories about how Clinton is the reason Turkey’s Parliament will not allow our troops to use Turkey as a staging base to attack Iraq. |