• "God invented war so Americans could learn geography" -- Mark Twain.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Limp Duck Lames Its Way to the Finish Line

It was something of a Lame Duck surprise but, after two centuries of bigotry, Congress finally ended official discrimination by the military against homosexuals. Gays were, of course, ecstatic. Progressives rejoiced. Senator Barbara Boxer, ear to ear smiles, bowled over and bear-hugged a supporter. We did it babe! Some commentators went so far as to suggest that Obambi had "restored" his crediblity with the "left". And at this point, one might very well say: Get a grip, babe.

A few Bah Humbugs, are in order.

1. Gays were never prevented from serving in the military. Sexual orientation may in fact be genetically determined but, whether it is or not, being homosexual is a matter of conduct. Unlike blacks or women who cannot change their physical appearance, gays were always able and always did serve in the military. They were able to do so precisely because the military is highly "mission-focused". Conduct that is not relevant to the mission is not relevant. As long as gays kept their sexual behavior private (not a bad rule for anyone) no one much cared. Dynamic Duos like McCain/Thurmond tried to make gayness relevant by yapping up Ewnit Kaheszhun. As to which no one can do better than (gay) aviator Lt. Tracy Thorne who remarked with deadpan sarcasm that, from listening to the likes of Congress, "one would think everyone in the Navy did nothing but take showers."

2. Military discrimination against gays was less a question of keeping gays out than of embarrassing their military careers once they were in. The 14,000 gays discharged since the enactment of DADT (Don't Ask Dont Tell), is ample evidence that gays had little difficulty getting enlisting. Nor, for the greater part, was their discharge due to inadequate military performance -- i.e. not keeping eyes on the mission. Their discharge was due to a switcheroo by the military itself which, taking its eyes off the mission, suddenly decided to make an issue of what was not relevant. There were subtler forms of hypocricy and discrimination as well, particularly in the ranks of career officers whose advancement was made dependent on a plethora of heterosexist expectations such as having a wife (of the right gender), 1.3 kids and a dog. There is no question (at least on this pile of chips) that it was long time to end what boiled down to a culture of inequality that was not justifiable except by recourse to self-serving excuses.

3. But "progressives" ought not (in our opinion) loose sight of the fact that what we are talking about is the right to participate in blowing away villages in Af-Pakistan. The military is the Machine of Empire. It is the force that the United States is using, not to defend itself, but to impose its will on others. It was not always that way. The War of Independence, the Civil War, the Great War and the World War may all be considered episodes of honorable soldiering. Not so Indian Removal, Central America, the Philipines, Vietnam and now the so-called War "against" Terror. Today, the U.S. military is the agency of civilian slaughter, devastation and plunder. One might wish the Cause of Equity were whored to a better john.

4. Nor should the "left" let itself be taken in by claims that Obambi has "delivered" on at least some of his promises. Administration apologists are at work coupling the repeal of DADT with Obama's other "success" -- health care reform. It needs to be said unequivocally that so called health care reform was a health care sell out and that, at the end of the day, repeal of DADT is small beer. To say that ending discrimination against homosexuals is right is not to say that it is the summum bonum of all things. There are many other issues which affect many more people, in more critical ways and which are simply more important: affordable education, employment, housing, income-equity, fair taxation, health care, retirement security and, above all, saving our stunning, beautiful, beautiful Mother Earth from a devastation that will in the end devour us.

On these more critical issues, the Democratic Duck failed to deliver even when it had its two feet. Senator Boxer is head of the Senate Environmental Committee; and on this score, the Babe ain't done nuthin.


Thursday, December 16, 2010


The Washingto Post (WAPO) has a new Bloghead. Her name is Jennifer Rubin. Rubin makes no bones about what she believes in:

"For starters: American exceptionalism, limited government, free markets, a secure and thriving Jewish state, defense of freedom and human rights around , enforced borders with a generous immigation policy..."
She also believes in terminal car accidents.

"We should continue and enhance espionage and sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program. Every nuclear scientist who has a "car accident".... buys us time... , while exacting a price for those who cooperate with the nuclear program. Think of it as the ultimate targeted sanction." [ yes she really did say it ]
We suppose that one more agro-psychotic voice added to the lunatic cacophany emanating from the bogs of Potomac can't really matter any more, but several points may be noted for the record.

The Washington Post is one of America's two national papers. It, along with the New York Times, is the voice of what used to be called the Establishment. For better or worse they speak to and for the perceived interests of this Republic. Who gets to blather what from their pages is an editorial policy decision.

And the policy decision apparently has been to find someone who can fill Abe Rosenthal's passing void with fresh Pro Israel / Anti Pal-Iranian invective.

Does Ms. Rubin also believe in a secure and thriving England (the dear cousin of our Special Relationship)? Perhaps she believes in a secure and thriving France (our oldest ally without whom we would not exist)? Maybe she believes in a secure and thriving India (our newest, best friends and partner)? No? Why not? And if not, then what's so special about the "Jewish State" as she puts it?

A member on the OpBlog board of one of our national papers should have a broad and encompassing purview. That ought not translate however into a double focus.

But more shameful than a certain confusion, is the pure thuggery of Ms. Rubin's "ideology".

"Nearly all wisdom is found in the Godfather movies (no, not Part 3!) and the Torah."
We note with passing contempt that "no not Part3!" is Rubin-code for "I hate Catholicism" - a not unheard of vice from the usual suspects. We will leave it to any sincerely religious rabbi (or for that matter any observant Jew) to protest the desecrating coupling of God's widom with the Godfather's.

We Chipsters will content ourselves with the observation that Rubin positively leaves ol' Thrasymachus ( "justice is the advantage of the stronger") in the dust, panting (if not yet blushing) as he brings up the thuggery's rear. No doubt Rubin has never heard of Thrasymachus, seeing as Bibi Netanyahoo does just as well.

Since when does a supposedly sober, establishmentarian, national -- indeed "cosmopolitan" -- paper publicly allow its pages to be used to incite the murder of foreign scientists and the sabotage of the infrastructure of sovereign nations with whom we are not at war?

That's a good question.


Tuesday, December 7, 2010

U.S. Officials Seek Law for the Protection of Knowledge

In an interview with Fox News (12/7/2010) Senator Joseph Lieberman stated that not only did WikiLeaks violate U.S. law under the Espionage Act, but the New York Times itself was on shaky legal ground for republishing some of the cables. Lieberman went on to say,

“To me, The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, but whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department."

One is left to wonder. Does Senator Lieberman mean that the law should seek to punish some sort of unspecified "bad citizenship"? Or does he mean that "bad citizenship" (whatever that might be exactly) should be subject to equally vague sanctions or pretextual prosecutions under other statutes?

In either case, the Senator's remark bespeaks an official mindset that is hostile to any exercise of free speech that might inconvenience or have an actual impact on the impunity of government.

Given the hysterical reactions of elected, appointed and self-appointed public persons, it will perhaps serve to call attention to Section 13 of the Reich Editorial Law (4 October 1933) which provided as follows:

"Editors are especially bound to keep out of the newspapers anything which:

"1. in any manner is misleading to the public, mixes selfish aims with community aims

"2. tends to weaken the strength of the German Reich, outwardly or inwardly, the common will of the German people, the German defense ability, culture or economy, or offends the religious sentiments of others,

"3. offends the honor and dignity of Germany,

"4. illegally offends the honor or the welfare of another, hurts his reputation, makes him ridiculous or contemptible,

"5. is immoral for other reasons."

Americans need to take remarks such as Lieberman's very seriously and consider them a wake-up call to what is taking place in the name of security and protecting at risk "assets" as Attorney General Holder put it in his recent news conference (11/29/2010).

The imposition of sanctions, whether formal or informal, against the dissemination of "harmful" information is the cornerstone on which State control of expression and opinion is erected.

©WCG, 2010

Sunday, December 5, 2010

NIPP & CIKR - Whom the Gods Would Destroy

BBC reports that "A long list of key facilities around the world that the US describes as vital to its national security has been released by Wikileaks."

The State Department document, published by BBC on line with embedded links, is dated 18 February 2009 and was compiled by diplomatic posts around the world at the behest of the Secretary of State.

The aim of the document was to compile a list of "critical infrastructure and key resources" outside the United States deemed essential to U.S. national security.

The compilation was initiated in order to provide "unifying structure" for the Department of Homeland Security's "National Infrastructure Protection Plan" (NIPP) authorised by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7, (HSPD 7).

Under 42 U.S.C. 5915 (d), (Patriot Act of 2001), "critical infrastructure" is defined as "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States [that] the incapacitation or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety or any combination [thereof]."

According to the BBC, the list includes communication hubs, gas pipelines, mines, pharmaceutical plants, and even an anti-snake venom factory in Australia.

After reporting on the above, the BBC article concludes by stating that the wikileak "inevitably prompts the question as to exactly what positive benefit Wikileaks was intending in releasing this document."

Woodchip Gazette will proffer an answer.

The benefit of the leak is that it shows that the United States Government is clinically insane. It has simply laid claim to whatever it wants in the world, anywhere.

Let it be clear. The NIPP explicitly calls for the "protection of the nation's CI/KR" -- that is, the infrastructure and resoures of the United States. But Siberia, Denmark and Australia are not in the United States. They are foreign and sovereign countries responsible for their own security and welfare.

Nevertheless, in the eyes of the United States Government this minor detail is irrelevant. Anything we need is deemed essentially ours. This is not a slip of the tongue or a mere casual way of speaking. It is the necessary and inevitable result of neocon strategic policies which this Gazette has warned against many times.

The essential premise of neocon strategy, as initially drafted in 1992 by Dick Cheney's Defense Planning Guide (DPG) was that the military preeminence of the United States following the collapse of the Soviet Union required a strategic "refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential global competitor." The DPG noted that potential threats could arise in any area of the globe ("including Europe, East Asia, the Middle East, Southwest Asia...the terriotry of the former Soviet Union...Latin America, Oceania and Sub Saharan Africa") and thus "the U.S. will be concerned with preventing the domination of key regions by a hotile power."

Eight years later, the neocon Project for a New America Century, incorporated Cheney's DPG draft into a defense policy paper entitled "Rebuiling America's Defenses." The paper called for the promotion of "America's principles" abroad by a "grand strategy" which would seize the opportunity of the USSR's demise and "preseve American preeminence" by a strategy of full spectrum power projection.

Fundamental was the maintenance and enhancement of nuclear and missile systems "to defend the American homeland ... and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world. (Op. Cit. p. v.)

Power projection itself would take place by "securing and expanding" so-called "zones of democratic peace". These zones (e.g. Kosovo or Iraq) would comprise "forward operating bases" which would serve as a "force multiplier in power projection operations as well as help solidify political and security ties with host nations. (Op. Cit. pg. 20.)

The Report explicitly discounted the existence of any serious or actual threat to American national security. Instead, it argued that American military strategy should aim to preclude any potential threat from arising.

"Even if such enemies [we]re merely able to threaten American allies... America's ability to project power will be deeply compromised."
In other words, power projection had become an end itself. The policy did not simply argue for the projection of power to prevent an actual or imminent harm but to preclude any potential compromise to power projection itself.

This bully policy was made official in Bush's “National Security Strategy” of 2003. Most recently, this past month, NATO's mission has been redefined so as to subsume that organization to the U.S strategy of ongoing power projection around the world.

The thesis has to be properly understood. It's premise is that the United States is "safe" only when it acts to prevent "potential" threats from arising. Since a "potential" threat can arise anywhere, the United States must project power everywhere in some form or another. The PNAC paper makes clear that there is no question of regional trade offs or triage and that the new strategy requires a full spectrum build up of all defense systems and all types of forces.

By and large, both the DPG and the PNAC paper conceived this strategy in gross geo-political terms. Although both documents recognized the existence and potential of true terrorist actions, the primary "potential" enemies and threats were seen to be other nation states.

However, immediately upon 9/11, the full spectrum paradigm became extended so as to encompass actions and threats by individual terrorists or ad hoc terrorists networks. National security now included detecting and combatting potential terrorists.

As we pointed out the day following the Trade Center attacks,

And who is the enemy? All Arabs? No.... not all.... The American militias? Perhaps, but not always. The Irish? At times. The Basque? Could be. What the Government will have to presume is that everyone is at least a potential terrorist. In the most fundamental sense that is a presumption which is entirely antithetical to the concept of civil friendship, i.e., societas."

It was therefore of no possible surprise that just the past holiday week, Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano stated that the Department was considering installing full spectrum scanners on trains and bus stations. Defending against an initiated attack is a limited undertaking. Once one undertakes to fight a potential then any potential becomes the enemy and that includes "blendables" like any of us...or them...

But neither actual nor potential terrorists exist in a vaccum. They operate against targets of one sort or another. Thus, the correlative to fighting "potential" terrorists is the need to protect "potential terrorist targets" and since any potential terrorist can hit a potential target which could potentially have an effect on the perfectly safe and unimpeded military, economic or social security of the United States, it follows that protection of "the Homeland" requires protection of any and all assets anywhere that are of use or necessity to the homeland.

This is the thought process of a criminally insane paranoiac and it is the declared policy of the United States Government.

It is certainly the case that industrial processes are highly interconnected and that, even more so, in a globalized economy, there is no real national autonomy or autarchy. But what this means is that nation states no longer exist as independent universes but , on the face of the earth together, are more nearly analogous to individuals in society.

What we learn as individuals is that all life under the sun suffers conflict and must abide risks. It is a fact we learn to live with by exercising our courage and taking reasonable precautions to avoid (but not to prevent) harm while respecting the autonomy and interests of others. We do not assert a claim or seek to control or plan to "protectively" seize the property of others simply because it might be of use to us. We refrain from such conduct because the spontaneity of life is a varied and complex reality and this is more valuable to us than the deadliness of total security. We may be led to songs of sorrow or shouts of joy, but we resolve to accept the viscitudes of our existence with courage.

But the coward cowers under his blanket quivorously conjuring up all possible horrible things that could go wrong. Given power, the coward's inflamed imagination turns him into a tyrant who sees potential threats everywhere and seeks to pre-emptively, pre-vent and pro-tect against all harm to the repression and misery of all else and, ultimately, to the extinguishment of life itself because, as we have said, life itself is full of conflict and risk.

It is thus that the coward becomes a tyrant and the tyrant an agent of death.

Perhaps that answers BBC's question.

deposuit potentes de sede et dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.

©WCG, 2010

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Top Two Percent seeking to Gun Down Social Security & Medicare

The Top Two percent that own this country are gunning for your medicare and social security, the New York Times inadvertently disclosed today.

As has been widely reported, Obama’s Budget Deficit Commission, chaired by Erskin Bowles and Alan (“Cow Tit”) Simpson, has recommended a variety of “cut backs,” “rate holds” and changes to Social Security in order to balance the budget by 2030. (Simpson, it will be remembered, was the jackass who denigrated Social Security as a “cow with 300 million tits.” ) However, the reportage on the Commission's “findings” and recommendations has been somewhat on the vague side, giving the general impression that whatever cut backs to Social Security were envisioned they were something way off in the distance...nothing to worry about ... not to worry.

Not so. Today the New York Times ran a budget balancing interactive which allowed viewers to try their own hand at appeasing the Balanced Budget gorgon. Inadvertently, the Times let slip what the ruling class has in mind for the rest of us. Summarizing the “options” that are on the table the Times disclosed the following proposal:

Proposal: Raise the Social Security Retirement Age to 68 or, even better yet, 70.

"The increase in longevity has caused some to favor higher eligibility ages for Social Security. This option would gradually raised the age from the currently planned 67 to 68. "

Proposal: Increase Medicare eligibility age to 68 (and make people buy private insurance)

“...Americans who are living longer ...should work longer...” after all “the new health care bill will allow people in their late 60s ...to buy a policy through an exchange..”

Proposal: Reduce Social Security benefits for those with high incomes.

“Under this option workers below the 60th percentile of life time earnings would continue to have their retirement over time....” Workers “just above the 60th percentile” would have their
retirement benefits cut.

Proposal: Tighten eligibility for disability.

Hey! If you got only one leg, you can still shine shoes!

Proposal: Cap Medicare Growth starting in 2013

“...among other things this would crack down on many hospitals and doctors with the highest costs...” And among the other things...?

In other words the Top Two percent who plunder the country and its workers in order to fatten their bulging pockets want to impoverish you further in the name of a balanced budget that will only benefit financial speculators.

The Top Two percent working through their Republican Puppet Party and Fauxbama want you to work until you drop and while you do pay more, and more, and more, to fatten the coffers of “insurance” companies that pull the plug on you when you fall ill. And if you do survive at 70, they still want to cut your benefits. Sixtieth percentile? It goes like this
0 ----|50|--60----2-100
In plain English, the plan is to reduce benefits for everyone who is not destitute and living out of a car at a Walmart parking lot.

The French took the streets in face of such proposals, so should Americans. Very loud and very clear.


Saturday, November 6, 2010

Pope Does El Camino

Since it was not reported by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or the U.S. press in general (except for the Washington Post on its back pages), the Woodchip Gazette will note that Pope Benedict has paid a second visit to Spain where he made pilgrimage (mini-version) to the tomb of Saint James, at Compostella.

The Princes of Asturias, welcome Pope Benedict to the Accompaniement
of the Papal and Royal Anthems

Arriving in Galicia, the Pope exhorted Spain and Europe to be "concerned not only with people’s material needs but also with their moral and social, spiritual and religious needs, since all these are genuine requirements of our common humanity."

At the Shrine of St. James Benedict stated that "To go on pilgrimage really means to step out of ourselves in order to encounter God where he has revealed himself The Church is this embrace of God, in which men and women learn also to embrace their brothers and sisters and to discover in them the divine image and likeness which constitutes the deepest truth of their existence, and which is the origin of genuine freedom."

The Pope has called for a rapprochment ("meeting") between the Church and the Spanish Government which are in conflict over the issues of abortion, divorce and marriage. Spain's prime minister Jose Luis Zapatero was not in attendance to greet His Holiness at the airport, and a gay "kiss in" is planned on Sunday when Benedict visits Barcelona to consecrate Gaudi's fantasmagorical Cathedral of the Holy Family, a hundred years in the building.

Earlier in the week, at a Papal Audience on the eve of All Saints Day, the Pope stated that "God Excludes No One."


Sunday, October 31, 2010

Zionist Halloween

David Salzer Broder, the highly respected, Pulitzer Prize, Pundit on the OpEd board of the Washington Post has decided to ring in Halloween with a sorcerer’s call for “confrontation” against Iran. The witches’ brew of Broder’s argument goes like this:

1. To get reelected in 2012, Obama must get the economy moving again (i.e., “harness the forces that might spur new growth”).

2. No human being can do anything to accelerate the immutable “tidal force” of the “business cycle” (i.e., the invisible hand of that “market magic” that governs our lives like some remote and impersonal god).

3. But there is one other thing that “might affect the economy” and that thing is “war”. After all, it was World War II, that “finally resolved” the Great Depression.

4. Therefore, if he wants to get reelected, Obama should prepare for war against Iran because “as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.”

If Broder truly swallows his own bubbling concoction of sophistries, he needs to locked up in a sanatorium as a demented, dangerous psycopath.

In fact even if Broder does not swallow his own fetid brew he needs to be locked up as a demented, dangerous psycopath for once again doing Israel’s dirty work of poisoning the public well.

The Washington Post has long provided pulp for Washington’s coven of think-tank experts and press pundits agitating on Israel’s behalf. What David Broder is stirring up is simply more of the same ol’ tired Zionist swill for war against an Iran whom Broder labels --- without an iota of explanation or argument -- as “the greatest threat to the world”... The one which now replaces that former greatest threat to the world which replaced the one before that came after the one that came before.... But we digress.

Let us deconstruct Broder’s Brew

“I am not suggesting,” Broder intones piously, “that the president incite a war to get elected.” Oh nooooo. Far be it from Broder to do such an “awful and frightening” thing. Noooo. Noooo. BUT

“[C]hallenging Iran’s ambition” and “orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs” will:

a. “help” Obama “politically” because the GOP will have to support him.

b. “And, as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.”

Anyone can see that being helped “politically” has nothing to do with the stated issue of reviving the economy. Item “a” is thrown into the stew as a polemical “extra benefit” to Obama. More importantly, this irrelevant extra goodie occupies the space where the middle premise normally appears and thus conveniently obscures the fact that Broder’s economic “argument” boils down to: “Orchestrating a showdown” will improve the economy because “as tensions rise” the economy will improve.

Such a logical tour de force is truly awesome! A more exquisite petitio principii can hardly be imagined! A tethered ox could not trod a more perfect circle!

To wrap it all up, Broder concludes with the marvelous non sequitur of :

“The nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world ... [and] ... if he can confront this threat... he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.”

In other words, the Q.E.D. of it all has nothing to do with economics but is all a question of “rallying” the nation and being hailed as a hero in the saecula saeculorum of history.

The sum and substance? David S. Broder is incapable of anything resembling an argument and simply throws anything into the bubbling pot in order to urge a confrontation with Iran.

But let it be granted that, being a paid political cackler, Broder isn't very good at a passably cogent sequence of thought; and, Broder's inarticulateness aside, let us analyze the claim on its merits that "accelarating preparations for war" will improve the economy. No sane or decent person would make such an “argument”. Ever.

Saying that war resolved the Great Depression is a highly dubious proposition. That global catastrophe left only two nations in the entire world standing: the United States and Argentina. Argentina held maybe 3% of the world gold reserves (there were so many bars that they were stacked in the Ministry’s corridors); the United States held the remainder. In addition, the United States had the only factories, railways, roads and vessels that weren’t bombed, blasted, sunk or otherwise destroyed. (Argentina had the cows.) In this sense, and at the cost of a mere 60 million lives around the world, the U.S.A. was left economically triumphant and could dictate terms to everyone else to its own benefit -- which is what we did.

That situation did not improve the economy so much a it destroyed the competition and left the victor with a huge hoard of plunder. Serious historians (and this excludes cackling harpies like Broder) understand that the underlying issue of the World War was economic hegemony: who would amass control of what regions’ gold and resources to the detriment and loss of whom else. If Broder is arguing for this type of “economic growth” a warrant for his arrest needs to be issued forthwith so that he may be arraigned before the International Court in the Hague and tried on counts of inciting genocide, crimes against humanity and war. Yes.... Broder’s little brew is a crime under European law.

If Broder means that the process of manufacturing tanks and bombs and boots and tons of tins of spam is what “got the economy going again” -- that too is a dubious proposition because while it certainly made capitalist cash registers jingle, it did so by running up a stratospheric public debt... a public debt that was only balanced by the fact that we could get the rest of the world to pay off huge junks of it because, as just stated, we were left as the sole standing top dog.

But let us indulge further and let it be supposed that a “war economy” gets things booming by creating jobs in munitions, shoe and spam factories and by running up orders for the slaughter of millions of pigs to be hashed up into tins. Every economist who has studied this issue knows that this process is a “junk recovery” much like the spam is the junk food the process produces. This type of recovery benefits what used to be called “war profiteers” but it benefits no one else. Instead of creating anything that can be further capitalized, it creates a mountain of destructibles -- stuff that gets blown up, sunk to the bottom of the sea, pulverized. Just as spam or fast food don’t produce anything resembling real nutrition, this type of “economic growth” in fact only leads to further impoverishment.

Has Broder truly forgotten that the "preparations for war" in Vietnam far from making the United States more prosperous bankrupted the prospects for the Great Society?

A simple but basically true observation will illustrate the point. “To he who hath, more shall be given...” and “It takes money to make money” are two proverbs that focus on the same thing: capital creates more capital. But capital is not just money profits. Resources and materials that are put into production are capital, as is the machinery used to process those materials, as are the roads and railroads that are used to transports the goods, as are the schools and books that are used to produce an intelligent work force. An economy that produces serviceable things that can be used to create more serviceable things is an economy that truly grows because it is always producing more useable forms of capital. An economy that produces bombs that get blown up, basically wastes capital in order to produce a mere monetary profit for a few.

Thus, even on its own terms Broder’s argument is economically obscene. What he is palavering for is to “stimulate” the economy by throwing more money at the military industrial complex and the excuse for doing so is saber rattling against Iran.

The “defense budget” of the United States already exceeds the defense budgets of all other nations in the world combined. A HUGE amount of public treasure is already spent on defense procurement, research and development. And still the economy is in the tank. How is throwing yet more money at this devouring gargantuan monster going to “create good paying jobs” for the 20 million unemployed. It isn’t. Nor will it solve the problems of liquidity and what is now being called “foreclosuregate”.

Broder’s argument is unworthy of an imbecile.
But let us boldly go where no imbecile has gone before. Let it be supposed that we could “revive” the economy by making war-like noises and preparations all “without suggesting of course that the president incite a war to get reelected.”

Noooo! Noooo! Perish the thought. David Salzer Broder is simply recommending a form of economic and diplomatic masturbation that will stop short of actually shooting.

To which one may reply: good luck.

We suggest that Broder, even if it is late in life, engage in some penis practice and when he is finished, come back and re-write the article.

©WCG, 2010


Sunday, October 24, 2010

The Mudia and the Mud

According to the Associated Press, the White House is now letting it leak that, in expectation of getting trounced in the November elections, Obama "will put greater emphasis on fiscal discipline, a nod to a nation sick of spending and to a Congress poised to become more Republican." ["Obama Likely..."]

As usual, the corporate mudia muddies the issue by not making clear which nation it has in mind. If the mudia means the "corporate nation" then, true enough, any spending on the poor, the unemployed, the sick, the young is just plain profligate! But if by "nation" the AP means the rest of us, the what the "popular nation" is sick of is spending to bail out banks and crooks -- but I repeat myself.

Worse than mudia mudification is Obambi's craven cowardice. A Quisling would have shown more gumption; and, in fact, Palestinian President Abbas has -- which is not saying much. After pre-emptively caving in to the Mitch McConnell and his gang of corporate slime within days of his inaugural and getting roundly kicked in the teeth for doing so, Obambi now says that he must crawl even more abjectly than before licking the boot of the Budget Balancers.

What kind of imbecile could have lived through the Clinton years and be in politics and not know that the Republicans are not interested in consensus. In fact anyone with a smattering acquaintence with America history realizes that they have never, never, ever been interested in reasonable consensus. They are rabid ideologues of corporate selfishness. The only time they ever raise a plaintive, pitiable cry for cooperation is when they are about to get trounced and the instant their opponent gives pause to consider they spring up from their hunched and meek position and stab him in the kidneys. Republicans are a moral and human putresence. How could Obambi not have known that?

If this is what Harvard does to the human brain, parents are advised to Save Their Children by sending them to some junior college which will at least leave their balls alone.

Of course Obambi was already licking the heel of the Social Security Doomsdayers, indicating that he is ever willing to "balance the budget" on the broken back of the old and the infirm, when, that is, he is not balancing it on the shoulders of the young, the jobless, the weak.

If Obama really wants to balance the budget GET OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

If Obama really wants to balance the budget CUT DEFENSE SPENDING.

If Obama really wants to balance the budget TAX THE RICH AT PROGRESSIVE RATES.

If Obama really really really wants to balance the budget he will increase productivity which will generate revenues; and the way to do that is to STOP INCENTIVISING THE EXPORT OF JOB AND CAPITAL OVERSEAS.

Yes, folks, although we at the Gazette have, the mudia will never tell you ; but American banks and corporations are currently rewarded for shipping production overseas and for NOT reinvesting the profits earned overseas back into the U.S. More and more, everything corporations do they do abroad. The only connection they have with the United States is a shadow office. The Republican claim that tax breaks will create jobs is a brazen cheat. It will create jobs, indeed, OVERSEAS.

What the Democrats need to do is pull the dildo out of their asses and start marching with determined fearlessness to the left in order to put some social sanity back into the country's political economy while there still is something worth being called a "country".

Oh for a party that had the courage to say: "We will march into the marble halls of Congress, bringing with us the revolutionary will of the broad masses from which we came, called by fate and forming fate. We do not want to join this pile of manure. We are coming to shovel it out!


Wednesday, October 20, 2010

A Large Investment into Britains Future

In addition the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the lay-off of 500,000 paid government workers and drastic cuts to social services, pensions, and local council subsidies. Chancellor George Osborne said the cuts were needed to promote sanity, fairness and growth. "It is a hard road, but it leads to a better future," Mr. Osborne said.

Bravoh ol' Boy
Osborne getting the Pat Pat from PM

Monday, October 18, 2010

The Difference an Ocean Makes

The news from France shows what a stiff mid-section can do. Since September, French workers have been on intermittent strikes in protest against President Sarkozy's austerity reforms.

Like pro-bank, pro-corporate, pro-fat cat politicians anywhere, Sarkozy has been warning and whining of the need to cut back on worker living standards in order to protect the "national" (i.e. corporate) balance sheet.

Compared to the draconian cut-backs in Greece and the seldom mentioned IMF devastation imposed on Lithuanian society, Sarkozy's proposal to increase the retirement age by two years seems small beer. But the French worker is quick to taste the vinegar in wine. The International Monetary Order (aka IMF) is out to fatten up something called "trade" on the backs of the actual working people who produce the goods and services traded. The French worker is taking a stand.

At the beginning of September 1.2 to 2.7 million workers throughout the country went on strike. On 23 September and again on 2 October 1 to 3 million. On 12 October an estimated 1.2 - 3.5 million filled the streets.

Not unexpectedly the whores in the French National Assembly voted the Sarkozy line notwithstanding this outpouring of popular discontent. The response of the French worker since Saturday (16 October) has been to go on Stike Plus: they have barricaded petrol stations and shut down the country's oil refineries.

Oil is to countries what blood is to humans, and the Workers Tourniquette has put the squeeze on the Elysée Palace.

It remains to be seen what the government will do. To date, it is treading cautiously, warning its own forces of repression (the police) not to provoke anything. This has nothing to do with humanitarian sentiment, a quality lacking in most governments and certainly not one of Sarko's salient characteristics, as was amply demonstrated by his violent response to the unrest in immigrant housing projects and, more recently, in his Reich-like deportation of gypsies.

No-- the government is treading lightly because the polls show that 70% of the French people continue to support the strike action. The government is sitting on the proverbial tinderbox -- or, perhaps more acurately, doesn't know that it isn't.

This is an astonishing figure. There can be no doubt that the strikes have inconvenienced the rest of the French population; and yet despite that, the people still support the strike.

What a difference an ocean makes! The French are not afraid of revolution. They know that revolutions are at times the only way to rectify organized injustice and that, despite the temporary pain, society survives and improves.

It is a canard that revolutions leave things worse off than before or that they do not change anything. Revolutions can never change human nature; but while they usually fall short of their highest goals, they just as usually do result in corrective change. For a people that have the courage, stand up for their own interests the gains are worth the risk.

It remains to be seen what the denouement will be. Much depends on whether the 70% holds. The government will do everything it can divide the people before marginalizing "disruptive radicals" and, it must be said, governments have a good record at doing precisely that.

But the contrast remains. Americans like nothing more than thumping their guts and sneering at the supposedly "cowardly" and "effete" French; and yet, when successive state and federal governments propose cut backs to social security, medicare and social services, make college education a road to debt peonage, allow illness to become the road to bankruptcy and plunder the country by shipping jobs overseas and rewarding corporations for investing their capital in foreign countries, the response of the American so-called "middle class" is so enfeebled as to make Calvin Coolidge look like an activist.


Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Democracy In Action

Without warning, GAP, the San Francisco-based clothing chain, changed its logo from white-on-blue letters to blue on blue letters within a white square. The company, which has a Facebook Following of 700,000 received an immediate negative feedback from its customer base.

Thoroughly chastened, GAP put the old logo back. "We've heard loud and clear that you don't like the new logo. We've learned a lot from the feedback. We only want what's best for the brand and our customers," the company said.

Fans were relieved; said one: "Thanks for listening. The blue box logo is truly classic. We love it as it is."

Democracy is at least as alive in America as it was in Byzantium where the wrong preference for an icon was enough to cause a riot in the stadium and the fall of the government.


Tuesday, October 5, 2010

A Life to Mull Over False Oaths

In the news, Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani born American citizen who pled guilty to attempted car-bombing in Times Square, was sentenced today to life in prison without parole. In imposing sentence U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum said "I do hope you will spend some of the time in prison thinking carefully about whether the Quran wants you to kill lots of people." Shazad replied, the "Quran gives us the right to defend. And that's all I'm doing, " adding "We do not accept your democracy or your freedom because we already have Sharia law and freedom." Judge Cederbaum cut him to ask if he had sworn allegiance to the United States when he became a citizen last year.

"I did swear but I did not mean it," said Shahzad.

"So you took a false oath," the judge told him.

Torquemada, wherever he is, must certainly have managed a smile.

But it is not likely Shazad will mull over anything very concrete for long. As a "terrorist" he will no doubt be subject to a Super Max regimen. For those who have no idea what the United States does to convicted "terrorists" suffice to say that it boils down to being locked in a white box 24/7/365. As one defense attorney has put it, "Within a year they become living mushrooms"

There is no reason under Heaven for such sadism. The official justification is that as "potential terorrists" these convicts need to be guarded extra heavily. The problem lies in the "potential". What potential does a person behind several layers of barbed wire, concrete walls and steel bars have of committing further social harm? None. Zero. Zip. An ordinary lock and key will suffice quite well.

No. The Super Max regimen is simply institutionalized sadism of the vilest sort. It is extremely painful to be isolated from human contact, to feel yourself loosing grip as you fall into repeating loops of your own fantasy until, tired of hearing yourself, you become deaf to yourself and turn into a mushroom.

The Government can certainly be expected to punish criminals of various sorts and to take steps to protect the nation and the public from further harm. We have no quarrel with that principle. But no government has the right to engage in cruelty and governments that do are at the end of their historical cycle.


Saturday, October 2, 2010

A Map is Worth 1000 Words

For years we Chipsters have implored the U.S. mudia to print a map of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. We must have sent at least 10 chips to the Public Bullshit System's News Hour alone. Back in the 1990's when the Washington Post and the New York Times were blaring away that Arafat had "rejected" Israel's "magnanimous" offer neither of those august organs of disinformation bothered with a MAP. Of course, maps were available. They were just not made available to the American public.... all the more to keep it stupidly in Israel's corner.

Today the headlines from Palestine were much the same as always. Quoth the NY Times,

Palestinian Leaders Urge End to Talks With Israel

In an article by Ethan Bronner and Mark Lander it was explained to the rest of us that once again them stiff necked Arabs were refusing to speak to Israel... to an Israel that plaintively just wanted to talk.... for the sake of peace... and to talk some more... and some more

BBC also carried the story that the Palestinian were refusing to talk unless Israel ceased building settlements while the talks went on... and on... But lo and behold -- mirabilis dictu -- BBC also published a MAP:

Makes all the difference in the world, don't it?


Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Political Kitsch and Economic Crime

It couldn't have happened to a more deserving creep: out of the blue, a month before the elections the airwaves are filled with the stunning revelation that Meg Whitman employed an illegal Latina nanny. ... for nine years. Oh but it gets better. When the Social Security Administration requested she clarify the small matter of a mis-match between name and number. ... Whitman ignored the request ..... for six years. Oh buts it gets even better still. After requiring the illegal Latina to work unpaid overtime, Whitman fired her without cause the day after she declared her candidacy for California's governship.

But that's just the script. As for the drama, the allegations got read to a phalanx of press cameras by a perfectly coiffed and facial'ed Gloria Aldred in tones of aggrieved and outraged victimhood while The Victim herself, all but dressed in sackloth looked on plaintively and providesdsobbing punctuations to Aldred's delivery. When the complaint was read, Aldred turned to the helpless, illegal, victimized victim and hugged her with emotive solidarity as the victim emoted some more. What next? Aldred standing shoulder to shoulder with Oppressed Nanny on the rush hour subway to Brooklyn? It was enough to out-emote the most contrived and collusive trials ever performed in the Roman Forum.

We did some quick calculations. At 15 hours a week, at $23.00 an hour, 15 months lost wages from unlawful termination comes out to $20,700.00. That's less than peanuts for a $400.00 an hour lawyer like Aldred. So Aldred's accountants must have rustled up a hell of a lot of unpaid overtime to beef up the "compensables".

The whole thing has the unmistakeable air of a political contrivance -- a bloody shirt, a "Grover, Grover, Where's my Pa?" We wonder if Aldred realizes that her act has become political kitsch?

But what is not political kitsch or, more importantly, economic kitsch, is that a woman of Whitman's colossal net worth paid another human being spit in the bucket wages of $23.00 an hour.

Of course, the capitalist answer, is that $23.00 an hour was at least, if not more than, the going market rate. But that is precisely the kind of pseudo justification that makes capitalism so disgusting -- it justifies its conduct by the disparity of income it itself creates. It is truly nauseating.

One would think that a person in Whitman's position would want to display her magnanimity, her ability to be over-flowingly generous. A truly generous spirit would say: I have more money than I know what to do with, so I will at least make sure that anyone who is fortunate enough to work for me gets paid more money than they need. This is what it means to "shower blessings" and just as God has showered blessings on Whitman, it was Whitman's Christian duty to shower blessings on people who made her bed, cut her lawn and washed her floors.

Instead, Whitman sees nothing wrong with a system that generates such incredible disparities of wealth and feels no compunction in behaving as miserly and contemptuously as she can get away with. Marie Antoinette paid more for less.


Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Holocaust Newspeak at BBC

In the Shrieking News department, today's BBC headlined that "British Holocaust denier David Irving has arrived in Poland to lead a tour of sites from the Nazi occupation." The article explains that Irving has written a book containing "the suggestion that Hitler knew nothing of the Holocaust until late 1943, and that he never gave the order for the annihilation of Europe's Jews."

Does BBC know the meaning of its own English? Does it know what an indirect object is? To say that someone knew nothing of something is not to say that the something did not exist or that it did not take place.

For some reason David Irving is intent on exculpating Hitler for the project to annihilate european Jews; but that does not equate with denying that the genocide took place.

By now, it is unlikely that the fervid scriveners in the BBC Ministry of Truth are even aware of the origins of their own taboo. In the 1960's and 70's Germany, France and other european countries passed laws outlawing racism, denigrating an ethnic group and denying or minimizing the holocaust. Irving has not "denied" Nazi genocide, he has "minimized" some aspect of it.

The problem with any law that seeks to curtail free speech is that it inevitably paints with too broad a brush. What does it mean to "minimize" Nazi genocide? At bottom, it means to disagree in some manner with someone else's imposed, mandatory account. Turning disgreement or divergence from orthodoxy into a crime is simply demanding, under penalty of law, mute, subservient and unthinking assent to an official truth.

The resultant absurdities are never ending. Of late, Bishop Williamson was also accused of "denying" {beat your breast and gasp here} the holocaust. Shrieked the New York Times: he denied "that six million Jews were gassed...."

Well, no serious historian had ever claimed that six million anybodies were "gassed". Neither is there any agreement on the precise number of people who were gassed, starved, murdered, or left to die of exhaustion or disease -- i.e. in some sense "killed" in the overall Nazi "cleansing" programme for Europe.

Raul Hilberg, the jewish historian who is responsible for coining the current usage of the word "holocaust" and who is accepted by Jews and the German government as the "chief historian" of the episode, estimated the total number of deaths from all causes at 5.4 million. Has Hilberg therefore "minimized the holocaust" by deviating from the Weisenthal Institute's "official" figure of "six million"? Certainly 5.4 is less than 6.0.

Hilberg also stated that estimating the total number of deaths was a very complex and uncertain task. A thinking person can see why. The genocide of european Jews was not a simple act of "murdering" X number of Jews. The genocide took place through multi-level and permuting programmes and policies over a four year period. At some point, in such a convergence of processes, an ultimate result or threshold is reached at which point one could easonably say "taken all together this amounts to the equivalent of a systematic plan". (In legal parlance this would be called a "constructive conspiracy" FN-1 .) But to say that calculating the number of deaths is "complex" is to admit that what is called "the holocaust" is also complex.

But if an historical event is complex that necessarily means that there is no simple truth about it. Rather it involves equivocal or uncertain facts giving rise to different inferences and implications. In short, a complex event is something over which reasonable men can in good faith differ. But not, apparently, when it comes to a select group. To question (as Williamson did) the number of Jews who were gassed, becomes the crime of "minimizing" which was then equated with the criminal taboo of "denying" the Holy Holocaust.

It is foolish and in any case beside the point to exculpate Hitler from knowledge of the genocide carried out on his watch. It is true that there is no Fuhrer Order or document which clearly and unequivocally connects him to a planned extermination of Jews. So what? History is as much a question of knowledgable and probable inference as it is of so called "hard facts". In all events, to argue that Hitler did not know of the extermination "until 1943" and then did nothing to stop it afterwards certainly qualifies as an unworthy quibble. But a foolish quibble is not the same as blasphemy.

When the State, at its own initiative or upon the initiative of a faction, turns foolish quibbles into blasphemies, then we have all lost our freedom of speech and with it our freedom of thought.


Saturday, September 18, 2010

All the Significance Fit To Print

Although it was symbolic, it was historic. For the first time ever, the Roman Pontiff addressed the English Parliament and then, together with the Archbishop of Canterbury and all Christian leaders assembled, held services in Westminster Abbey. The two prelates affirmed the need for Christian evangelization in society and gave visibile evidence of their inescapable unity in Christ. For those in the English speaking world, it was no small matter, since the planting and then rupture of Christianity among the British people has defined who and what we are.

Not for the New York Times:

Mezuzahs left on people's door jams was evidently more significant.


Monday, September 6, 2010

Social Basics

The Obama Administration announced that it is coming forward with a 50 billion dollar work-fare bill.

Whether Hoover/Roosevelt's WPA or Hitler's Arbeitsdeinst, everyone has understood the necessity and utility of public works projects. The defect in the Administration's policy is that it conceives of such programs as temporary, stop-gap measures. They are not; such programs are only the beginning of economic recovery and stability.

A truly social conception flows from the premise that every citizen is directly entitled to a guaranteed standard of living in terms of: education, employment, housing, health-care recreation and retirement.

This is not a question of "welfare" or "minimal scroungables". It is a question of building a society that has as its broad basis (not as its limit) a soci-economic egalitarianism that protects the integrity and develops the potential of the whole person.

National Socialism understood this from the beginning. FDRoosevelt promoted this concept at the very end in his 1945 speech about an "economic bill of rights".

And of course, economic rights is the social premise of communism and social democracy. Everyone has understood the concpet except for the US ruling caste from and after LBJ. The neo-liberal premise -- espoused by all administrations from Reagan to and including Obama -- is that if we throw enough goodies at the rich enough of it will miss its mark and actually hit the poor...sometimes, maybe. I seem to recall that Eduardo Porter of the New York Times editorial board once wrote an article entitled "Feeding the Rich feeds the Poor."

The time for this kind of thinking has come to an end. It is not necessary to abolish capitalism, but only to regulate so that it becomes the servant of society not its master.


Sunday, September 5, 2010


AP Headline:

Despite Formal Combat End, US joins Baghdad Battle



The Devil in the Drone

It was announced this Monday (Aug 30) that the United States had fully militarized its southern border with predator drones. [ here ]. The Secretary for Homeland Security announced with pride that the border was more secure than ever.

The reaction from "progressive" quarters was predictable. Typical was an opinion piece in Truthout.Org which disclosed that various Congressoids who had been pushing for the militarization were themselves been humped by military contractors.

But paid-for-political whoring is not really the issue. The border is being militarized because that is American geo-political strategy. Drones will patrol the border regardless of whether congressoids get themselves greased.

This Gazette has discussed the issue so many times before, it is pointless to spill more ink on the matter yet again. Suffice to call attention to our latest survey of neo-con doctrine in December of last year [ Obama's Jihad II ]. The issue may be summarized succinctly as follows.

1. United States' strategic thinking is based on the idea of creating concentric defensive perimeters. The sanctum behind the inner-most perimeter is called "the homeland". This is the land of the Folk-Righteous. Beyond the wall of this inner perimeter, American security is carried forth by creating layered "zones of democratic freedom".

2. Zones of democratic freedom are neither democratic, nor free. In fact they are not very secure. They are areas "secured" by so-called "constabulary" or "multi-disciplinary" military forces -- working with or through subservient regimes -- whose task it is to "shape the security environment". The shaping usually takes the form of degrading civil society and making the zone itself less viable and less secure on the theory that a weakened zone presents less of a "potential threat" (as policy pleonasms would have it) than a strong one. Gaza and Afghanistan are good examples of "extended zones of democratic freedom." It is not a coincidence that where American troops go, chaos follows.

3. The outermost cordon sanitaire encirles Russia (remember Georgia?) and skirts along gas pipelines through China's Xianjing province. Ibero-America comprises what might be called an intermediate perimeter with Mexico and Columbia as second and third level moats. Although the police and military-assistance pacts known as the Plan Mérida (Mexico) and Plan Columbia are falsely billed as neighborly help in narcotics interdiction, the real aim is to reduce those regions to ongoing zonal war. This much was admitted when an Air Force doctrine given behind closed doors to congressional committees was leaked to the public. Per the US Air Force document,

“Access to Colombia will further its strategic partnership with the United States. The strong security cooperation relationship also offers an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America to include mitigating the Counternarcotics capability.” [See source "Preparing for War..."]
Although the U.S. press duly (if cryptically) reported that the base at Planquero (Columbia) was in fact to be used for full spectrum ops they did not explain what that term meant. As a result the ever-dumbed American populace got barely a whiff of the cat in the bag. (See here and here if you don't want to take the Gazette's word for it.) Note the word "include". Advertising has acculturated Americans into thinking that "include" refers to the all the goodies you get for the price. But "include" actually points to all the things over, around, on top of the goodies, which you might not want. Full specturm operations refers to the entire range of U.S. military options and operations from targetted assasinations to thermonuclear war. One does not use conventional theatre attacks to fight drug dealers; thus, the full spectrum operations, over and above drug interdiction, also include "shaping zonal security envirionments" as part of an integrated and graduated military responses "in space and cyber-space," contra mundum.

4. What this means is that the United States is getting reading to Iraqify and Afghanisize Mexico. Drones are not needed to protect against ragged immigrants, illegal as they may be. Drones are not really needed to guard against drug smuggling because most smuggling occurs in ways that are impervious to surveillance drones. Drones are needed as inner-sanctum insulation against a break-out of all out chaos in Mexico. Put another way, the border is being militarized for military purposes... in anticipation of full spectrum ooops.

5. Most people are too damn stupid to realize that every wall has two sides. A wall that keeps them out, also serves to keep us in. The "securitization" of Mexico necessarily implies a correlative securing within the United States; "extending democratic freedom" south of the border is the other side of "extending a police state" north of it. We at the Gazette reported this back on September 12, 2001, when we warned that "the 'war on terror; will be used to undo what remains of civil liberty and stampede the populace into a police state." As of 2003, the FBI and US agents were patrolling inside Mexican airports. Perhaps the point needs to be bludgeoned home for those who think "the whole world is a map of America". Mexico is (or ought to be) an independent nation in charge of its own police and security. Once US agents take up securty operations inside a foreign country, such "cooperation" becomes the first step towards "constabularization" of the zone. And so it is that as we yin into them they yang into us.

6. In this way the whole notion of "security zones" becomes a massive, heteronomous self-contradiction. People are suckered into accepting walls because they think that whatever grit and grief it will take to keep the enemy out will at least take place out there. From their arm chairs they smirk, "Yeah well, war is hell...." What people do not understand is that every "extension" of the zone of democratic freedom produces an equalization of functions on both sides of the perimeter. The wall, the perimeter, exist but the "securitization" entails the same modalities and functions on boths sides. Far from having "them foreigners" pay the price for "our peace and freedom," both sides end up loosing both. As we reported back in February 2008, the inevitability of this compromise was demonstrated when CIA Chief, Mike McConnell, told Congress that Al Qaeda had improved its ability to recruit, train and position operatives capable of carrying out attacks inside the United States, with new Western recruits, capable of blending into American society and attacking domestic targets. Blendables. What this meant was that the proverbial “potential terrorist” included people just like you and me, indistinguishable from those other swarthy rag head types. To hell with racial profiling! Scan 'em all!!!! O'Connell entirely confirmed, what we Chipsters said in 2001, that the "war on terrorism" meant

"...the Government will have to presume is that everyone is at least a potential terrorist. In the most fundamental sense that is a presumption that is entirely antithetical to the concept of civil friendship, i.e., societas. "
7. No moat ever protected against anything. It destroys natural life on the inside in pursuit of a vainglorious and inevitably breached protection against the outside. What we witness in Mexico today is merely a harbinger of things to come if this spectral policy is pursued. Americans derisively laugh at Mexico but when American "constabulary" troops are sent into Mexico they will rue their hubris, for the savagery of the natives appalled even Cortez. War in Mexico is and always has been a festival of gore. One way or another, despite drones, the full spectrum of civil chaos and social securitization will recoil on us as on our victims. By pursuing a strategy of layered perimeters the U.S. Government pursues a policy that, by its inherent nature, subverts the very foundations of human civilization and will, in the end, be the funeral wreath for mankind.

You were warned.

©WCG, 2001, 2003, 2008, 2009, 2010


Thursday, August 26, 2010

Senator Simpson and Bovine Body Parts

Social Security hatchet-man and former Senator Alan Simpson, co-chair of Obambi's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, has compared social security to a “milk cow with 310 million tits” [ here ].

We would rather be 1 of 310 million tits than a bovine asshole.


Sunday, August 15, 2010

Obambi Tuffs it Out.

Typical Obambi. After careful waiting to see if Michael Bloomberg could "get away with" defending the First Amendment, the Prez. weighs in. Then, at the slightest wiff of opposition (oh, surprise!) he backs off.


Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Another Pyrrhic Obamacrat Victory

With evident glee, the New York Times reported that Michael Bennett, the "Obama-backed" candidate in the Colorado Democratic Senate primary, had won out over the progressive challenger, Andrew Romanoff.

Minimizing the divide within the Democratic Party, the Times relegated the Romanoff challenge to an inference and reported only that Bennett "reached out to Mr. Romanoff’s supporters, saying that he would work hard to prove himself worthy of their support, but that in the end the things that divided Democrats were small compared with the issues that would be discussed in the coming midterm elections."

In other words, once again Obama backed a blue dog Democrat and once again the Democratic Party establishment "reached out" to progressives by telling them that they were caught between a rock and a hard place.

Actually the divisions between progressives and sell-out Democrats are hardly "small". Obamacrats are basically Blue Dogs that talk the talk but walk another walk. It is simply another form of double-talk.

The Republican double talk is to talk about "individual freedom" where "individual" really means "corporation". The Obamacrat double talk is to talk about "individual welfare" where "individual" really means "corporation". Both parties are willing to feed the country into the corporate maw with the promise that the remains of country will trickle back down on us.

Obama has produced nothing on the progressive agenda, except sell out and defeat labelled "compromises" and "first steps".

Romanoff had virtually no money and lots to say. Bennett had nothing to say but lots of money. In the end money won out. “It is long past time to cast off the do-nothing, divisive politics of the past and get to work,” Mr. Bennet said. Yawn. It is long past time to cast OUT the do-nothing politicians of the past and get to work saving America for the American people.

What Romanoff stands for; What the Times did not report; What Obamacrats reject:> [here ] .

©WCG, 2010

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Disconnects Redux

Needless to say, the press was aghast at Michelle Obama's extravagant vacation to Spain, topped off by a visit with the Royal Family at their summer palace on Mallorca. We will not add to cacophony except to say that Eleanor Roosevelt had the better idea.

The Democrats are running scared. It finally seems to have percolated into their sorry brains that they cannot win the November elections without their, by now, thoroughly disaffected progressive base. So President Obambi, discards his consensual and reasoned academic tone for displays of "hold-me-back!" pugnacity. It is worthy of Vaudeville. Only Vaudeville rang truer.

How is it possible for Michelle Obama to galavant off to the Costa del Sol when America's industrial base is gutted, when real unemployment has reached 17%-20% and when so many homes have been foreclosed on that the banks are hiding the trust deeds in their basements?

It is possible because no party in Washington really gives a damn about the working class. Apart from Obambi doing Rocky, the real talk in Washington is all about austerity, "flat" and jobless "recoveries" and structural readjusment to accept the "reality" of 10 percent permanent unemployment while corporate profits are mysteriously up and the HinWis are making out like the scumbag bandits they are. If the First Lady parties with high net worth individuals it is because that is where her priorities lie. And it is worth remembering that it was another HinWi -- the Democrat Senator Feinstein -- who said the other week that extending unemployment benefits encouraged laziness.

Neither Franklin nor Eleanor had much of any idea of what to do about the Depression; and, to this day, it is argued that nothing they did do really pulled the country out of the economic morass into which it had fallen. But said FDR, "We must be seen to do something!!" And what he made sure was that everyone saw that the something which was being done was something to help the UnWis -- the great un-worthies among the rest of us. For that they are remembered fondly. For their despicable indifference Obama and his 'Crats merit nothing but opprobrium.

Editorial Nut Cracking in Response to a Reader


Saturday, July 17, 2010

Connecting with Tar Baby and Disconnecting from Reality

Well... it's summer-time and the hydrants are in full-flush -- this time with gushing verbiage from the New York Times and other media outlets over a heated wrangle about an allegedly racist Tea Party billboard in Iowa.

The entire news-world furore driving this issue is a massive exercise in false consciousness that seeks to deflect attention from the political idiocy of the tea-bag movement with a mis-focus on America's handy-dandy, sticky, obsession for all seasons.

Looking at the Iowa billboard the last thing any reasonable, objective observer could think is that it was racist. What in the world is racist about it other than the fact that Obama is black? Is it necessary to "white-face" a black man in order to avoid accusations of "racism "? Nothing in the billboard harps on anything racial.

If anything stands out from the billboard it is "SOCIALISM SOCIALISM SOCIALISM" The message is not Black Black Black but S O C I A L I S M.

And here we come to the utter, beyond moronic idiocy of the tea party movement : carping about "the far left, socialist policies of Barack Obama and the current administration".

Far left socialist policies of a candidate for office who was bankrolled by Goldman Sachs? The far left policies of a graduate from neo-liberal Harvard Inc. ? What kind of drivelling nonsense is that? I have said it on my blog (Woodchip) and I'll say it again BISMARCK was more left than Barack Obama.

Yes ... the Great Otto Von Bismarck who (after a secret rendezvous with Germany's socialist leader) stole socialist thunder and instituted what is known as "state socialism" -- the socialism-within-capitalism that is the basis for modern European social democracy. When accused of dread and evil socialism by his own conservative party, Bismarck shrugged "Call it socialism or what you will, it's all the same to me."

The true meta-political fact is that (whatever else they might have called for) Soviet Socialism, National Socialism, Fascism, Falangism, and "Social Democracy" all espoused certain institutionalized social benefits deemed basic to the social compact and fabric. As President Sarkozy said in his recent trip to the U.S., his countrymen beheld our disastrous (lack of) health-care debate with astonishment and found it "incomprehensible" that anyone would be denied health care. So too would have Bismarck, Bonaparte, Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler, and ultimately Bevans who introduced "socialism" into England. "The collective principle asserts," he said, "that no society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means."

This is not to say that the "collective principle" has been without a voice in America. On the contrary; a progressive idealism, often drawing strength from religious conceptions, has long been an engaging and redeeming feature in the American political landscape. In fact shortly before he died even FDR aimed to bring up America up to Bismarckian standards. (See his Economic Bill of Rights speech on Youtube or here ).

Since then, however, there has been a massive, coordinated and consistent effort funded and spearheaded by reactionary corporate and banking interests to de-educate the American public. As a result, there is a profoundly ignorant and intellectually diseased disconnect in American political discourse that prevents people from seeing that the political message of the billboard makes no more sense than the braying of an ass.

The capitalist-run press and the Pundits of Destraction that shape what passes for American political consciousness would rather NOT focus on the true meaning and evolution of "socialism" and on how politically retarded the American social compact has become. Rather than educate people on the imbecility that drives the Tea Party movement, the press would rather we all obsess over America's perennial bugbear ... racism.


"Call it socialism or what you will; it's all the same to me."

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Disconnects & the Guilty Conscience

In the news, it was reported these past days that the Government of Canada has spent 1 billion Loonies providing "security" for the G8/G20 meeting in Toronto. The security costs include 5 million dollars for a fence, which left 995 million dollars for other unstated purposes.

There is probably no one in the Western World who has not heard of Marie Antoinette's famous disconnect -- the one that led to her other; and it would appear to be a proposition that governments -- like people -- reaching the end of their viabilities suffer from certain connection deficits. What kind of irreality could have seized the Harper government to spend such lavish sums on protecting a Coddled Club of twenty big wigs in the middle of a Great Recession which is daily costing people their presents and their futures? One is reminded of Hoover the Great, who donned and dined in a tuxedo thinking it would give an "uplift" to the dispirited hobos of Hoovervilles.

There was an Antonine innocence (or at least insouciance) to Hoover's disconnect. Neither the ill-fated queen nor the ill-fated president were malicious people. On the contrary, it was their very good naturedness (and Hoover's indisputable humanitarian instincts) that made their remove from the reality of others so maddening. The same cannot be said for that creamy face scumbag, Harper. Harper, and the neo-liberal hoodlums he hosts, understand very well what they are about. Their disconnect is connected to a fear that is born of their own social and economic guilt. Although they don't care about the dislocations and deprivations their policies will cause, they do know that their policies will cause them. What we see on the streets of Toronto is the shadow of their own self-betraying conscience.

The brioche of the matter is very simple. The meeting in Toronto is aimed at deciding whether to save the banks or to save large non-bank corporations. Obama-Geithner-Bernake have saved American banks and now want to promote trade in order to push the American corporate economy back into the clover. This is called "ending the recession" -- although it is understood and admitted that it is an End-Of-Recession that will not -- repeat not -- involve an End of Joblessness. In other words, OGB is pushing The People be Damned Option 1.

Europe (and particularly Angela Merkel) is pushing The People be Damned Option 2, otherwise known as "Save Our Banks!--The Sequel" Throughout 2008 and 2009, Europe was quite Le Smug. Those uncouth Americans had wrecked themselves with their Wild West Finance. One could cut the swell of Budenbrooksian self-righteousness with a busser-knife. In fact, Germany, and France too, even played the victim, quietly accepting U.S. taxpayer monies for assorted injuries to their banks at the hands of the credit-swapping genies of Wall Street.

But lo and behold! Quite on their own Swiss, German and French banks were out lending massive sums to those credit-unworthies now known as the PIGS of Europe. To be sure, Goldman Sachs played a "constructive role" in cooking Greece's books; but it took a sure-as-hell willing fool to be duped. As the Wall Street Journal put it with inimitable bluntness, Greece is a nation of taxis and tourists; it couldn't "produce" its way out of a paper bag and will never have an "economy" that can repay its debts. This is news?

Of course, Greece is small pork. The real pigs in the poke are Spain and Italy with outstanding debts of one trillion each. That leaves European banks holding a lot of worthless paper. The answer? Austerity & Privatisation. The People have to get used to doing with less and - in Greece's case in particular, in addition to that, what it has in terms of national infrastructure needs to be privatized. (Indeed two weeks after the "rescue package" was announced a "privatisation schedule" was also announced.)

And so the meeting at Toronto boils down to arguing over imperilled salmon fumée whether to pursue Austerity or a Jobless Recovery. Which side of yes we have no bananas do you prefer?

If there were a Protocols of Toronto this would be it; and there is no way these demons do not know that they are Screwing the People big time. They might turn out their media-cannons to dumb-wit the populace but they know that if the people knew they would be up in arms. Ergo: SECURITY.

In fact, once one perceives that todays coddled cadre of leaders is just a milder speaking version as the same neo-con beast we illusorily got rid of at the last election, it can be seen that they have always had a guilty conscience. Back in 2004 the chipsters reported on the announced development of crowd control weapons -- including slippery jelly, sonic cannon and burn lasers -- avowedly aimed at defending against "terrorists" -- or, as the police chief of Toronto called them yesterday, "multi-issue terrorists". You see in the Austerity Police State a person with an issue (e.g. joblessness, hunger, health care or clean air) is a "terrorist".

There is, in reality, no serious security threat to the very precious leaders of the G8/20. There will be the usual carnival protests by powerless progressives accompanied by assorted minor acts of vandalism by anarcho-theatre groups. But a torched cop car and some smashed windows do not topple Empires and -- more even more importantly-- come nowhere close to presenting a danger to well guarded leaders within their security-perimeters.

So unlike hapless Hoover or the unhappy Autrichenne, the disconnects of todays leaders are in fact well connected to what they are about. Today, their police goons are in fact firing plastic bullets at the shadowy spectres of their haunted conscience; tomorrow they will fire real burn lasers and deaf rays at the truly desperate.