Life as a Spectator Sport

Back home after a long week of driving around in the mountains of West Virginia and western Virginia. No major surprises for me this trip, except for one store which was closed when it was allegedly supposed to be open. I'll have to go back there tomorrow, but wen I got home, I found the information for another store waiting in my email, this one about ten miles from the one that was closed, so I would have had to go back out there anyway.

For once, no one demanded to know why I was taking pictures. No one had hysterics over the idea of signing my consent form. No one complained when I said I couldn't answer questions about regulatory compliance. Only two store owners rolled their eyes and said that of course, I just had to show up the day before their grocery vendor restocked the shelves. I commiserated with them and told them about the supermarket I visited during the worst of last year's winter weather—this store had missed nine deliveries in a row due to the weather, and the shelves were nearly bare. They both said that made them feel better about the spotty nature of some of their stock.

I've been doing this long enough now that I've been to some of the stores two or three times. It's not uncommon for an owner to remember me from the previous visit, but one man is either pulling my leg or just isn't working on all thrusters. I had been to the store he owns with his two brothers on three earlier occasions. Both the others remembered me. But the third brother, the one who is usually at the cash register, gave me a blank look when I came through the door, addressed him by name and said cheerily, "Hi, it's me again." Nope, he didn't remember me, he said. I musta talked to his brother when I was there the last time. The funny thing is that this is exactly what he said the last time, and the time before. I have to wonder whether he really has trouble remembering names and faces, or is simply allergic to anyone who shows up with a badge and a clipboard.

Nick found some pieces of coal along the stream at the back of this little store, and one of the brothers opened up their coal-burning space heater and showed him what coal looked like when it was burning. Until that point, coal for Nick was something he'd read about in his fifth grade science book, so we had a learning experience. Nick asked me whether he could keep one lump of the coal, and the store owner, laughing, told us about a Louisiana cousin who came to visit and wanted to take some coal home with him. "He varnished it," the man said in disbelief. "Varnished it and set it up on a shelf like some kind of decoration." Nick and I agreed that this was bizarre behavior, though I could see Nick mentally reassessing his obvious intention to display his own lump of coal as a shelf decoration.

All in all, it was an easy trip, compared to many others.

Saturday, March 20, 2004

CID Vicious Nazi . . . huh?

I use Free-Stats for my counter and statistics, because—among other things—they show you the search phrase from any search that ended up on your site, something you don't get from a lot of the free counter/stats sites. Some bloggers actually have a list on their sites of crazy search phrases, and after the last few days, I'm tempted to add one of my own. The most recent search phrase with which someone found my blog was "cid vicious nazi shirt." I'm not awake enough to even guess.

1300 miles and 38 hours of driving later, I arrived home to find that one of the field offices had sent me another 30 stores to inspect, so I guess I'm going to be completely off the radar for a while.

Thursday, March 18, 2004

Brief entry before I hit the road again (by tomorrow night, I'll have logged approximately 34 hours of driving to inspect 14 stores—something wrong with that equation).

I added PressThink by Jay Rosen to the sidebar. Professor Rosen is chair of the department of journalism at New York University, among other things. He says of himself:

I am a press critic, an observer of journalism's habits, and also a writer trying to make sense of the world. I am interested in the ideas about journalism that journalists work within, and those they feel they can work without. I try to discover the consequences in the world that result from having the kind of press we do.

I call this blog PressThink because that's the kind of work I do. The title points to forms of thought that identify "journalism" to itself-- but also to the habit of not thinking about certain things. The subatomic force that holds the pack of reporters together as they swarm around a story, there's an example of pressthink. Without it there could be no pack; the pieces would come flying apart. There is a strange energy there, holding smart people to dumb practices.

The mind of the press is under strain these days. Part of it comes from citizen critics who are gaining some of the tools to do what professional journalists have always done. Often, they don't think the way the pros do, which is fortunate... more or less. Another strain involves turnover in the technology platform on which mainstream journalism has rested for so long. The supremacy of the "one to many" media system has ended, and vastly different patterns are emerging.

Another source of strain, of course, is the gradual state of tending toward Absolute Commercialization, (AC) which is present in almost all media environments. AC is a dark force in journalism, a hollower out. It chills and empties. And a fourth strain on press thinking is there because the professional culture of the press is not as open (about journalism) as it might be, even though individual journalists are quite aware of what's happening and bear a sophisticated sense of their profession's role in it.

My writing career started in a pressroom, under the old-fashioned leadership of the editor of a rural weekly. I can still hear him yelling, "Too many words! Cut it in half!" One of the happiest memories of my young life was opening the paper to my column of Clermont, Florida, Elementary School news to find that he'd had to put a filler at the end of it, because I had reduced it more than he had expected me to.

He also allowed me to watch the great noisy linotype machine at work and to hang over the shoulders of the headline and ad copy typesetters. That world is gone forever, but Jay Rosen's philosophy brings back at least the best memories of it, while honoring what the future may become.

Wednesday, March 17, 2004

Today I shipped two boxes from the local post office—one to my daughter in North Carolina and one to a re-shipping customer in New Zealand. In the past, my receipt from the post office would simply have shown two numbers and a total. The receipt I got back today listed not just the destination city but even the zip code for the domestic shipment, and the destination country and customs form number for the box going overseas. The post office has installed new equipment and software to better track what you send through the mail.

Is this really an issue for me now? No—my business is legal to begin with, and conducted legally. And the information that was collected today does not automatically tie any given shipment back to me. Someone would have to actively look at the information on the customs form to know that I'm the person who sent on the box of DVD's that my New Zealand customer ordered from Amazon. But it does provide an avenue both for additional data-collection later on and for undisclosed use of the information.

In fact, the new system practically demands additional data-collection for verification purposes. There is nothing to prevent a sender from falsifying the information on the customs form. The only thing which must be correct in order for a package or letter to reach its overseas destination is the actual destination address. The obvious next step is to require the sender to provide some form of government-issued ID, and for its unique code or number to become part of the shipment record.

What next? Data-mining techniques to sift through the mass of shipping data and look for patterns. In my case, they would find one pretty quickly. A small branch post office that probably doesn't do much overseas shipping has suddenly started handling packages to South Pacific destinations, as a result of my apartment-sitting for Shelley and sending boxes from here instead of from my home post office.

I don't suppose I'd have much trouble explaining why this pattern suddenly emerged, and proving that it is quite innocuous, if someone knocked on the door one day to demand an explanation. What I object to is the presumption of suspicious activity. No, what I most object to is the automatic anxious tension of a populace controlled by fear. Should I accept the business of the group from the Phillipines who inquired recently about mail forwarding? If I suddenly begin sending things to Manila, will I get a visit some day from a man in a suit who wants to know what I'm up to? Maybe I'd better play it safe and not risk coming to the attention of the government.

This is how totalitarian governments control their populations. How ironic that we started a war to bring democracy to a dictatorship, and are busily implementing the exact opposite of democracy in our own land.

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Funny 'facts' . . .

Speaking of Lex, he did some checking up on an anti-Kerry email that's been circulating lately. I've gotten two copies of it myself, said "Yeah, right!" and deleted them both. I should have paid more attention, but my mind, of necessity, has been focused mostly on work. Anyhow, here's the email, copied from Lex's site:

He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988
He voted to kill the Aegis anti aircraft system
He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle
He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16
He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
He voted to Kill the B-1
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missile system
He voted to Kill the FA-18
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the F117

In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the battle armor for our troops. With Kerry as president our Army will be made up of naked men running around with sticks and clubs.

He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of the U.S. Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.

But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800%!!!

Is THIS a President YOU want?

Lex decided to check out some of these claims. I urge you to read his whole entry, but here's what he found out about two of them. Yes, Kerry did vote in 1995 to cut spending for a specific intelligence office—which, by the way, had a large surplus of funds—by $1.5 billion (a cut supported by Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee). However, the Republican controlled Congress increased the cut to $3.8 billion, more than twice what Kerry initially voted for. So much for that one.

What about voting to kill the B-2? Lex says:

As for the B-2, the first President Bush halted production on it. So if Kerry opposed it -- and he might have, although I haven't seen a link or cite yet that proves it -- he was in good company.

We tell our kids, "Don't believe everything you read," and it's still good advice.

It's interesting to note where the accusation of intelligence budget cuts originated. The Washington Post reported on March 12:

"President Bush, in his first major assault on Sen. John F. Kerry's legislative record, said this week that his Democratic opponent proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget, a proposal that would "gut the intelligence services," and one that had no co-sponsors because it was "deeply irresponsible."

Odd, that similarity in wording.

So let's ask the question again: Is THIS a President YOU want?

Reading one's server logs can be fun. You see all those entries from people whose blogs you've been reading, who wondered who you were when you showed up in their logs, and dropped in to check. One of my favorites, Lex Alexander at Blog on the Run, did me the honor of adding me to his blogroll. Thanks! I've been enjoying the dialogues with his children, recalling similar conversations with my own at that age, and more recently with my grandson, Nick.

Long rainy day today, three huge supermarkets to inspect, and then the unpleasant realization that I wasn't going to make it to the fourth one before it was too dark to take an exterior picture. So we headed back home. The day consisted of a four hour drive to Richmond, four hours of work and four hours back home. Not the most productive day of my career. I must find someone to come in during the day with Clarence so I can stay on the road long enough to finish up each group of stores.

Monday, March 15, 2004

Off to the races with work, it looks like. 14 stores to inspect over the next three days, so not much blogging is going to take place. But I did take note of one thing, a New York Times article about "video news releases" created by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to publicize the changes in Medicare benefits. In some of the ads, a journalist explains how the new laws will affect Medicare beneficiaries. It turns out, however, that "Reporter Karen Ryan," was actually an actor hired by the production company, Home Front Communications.

The Times article notes that, "Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for 'publicity or propaganda purposes' not authorized by Congress. In the past, the General Accounting Office has found that federal agencies violated this restriction when they disseminated editorials and newspaper articles written by the government or its contractors without identifying the source."

I've commented in the past about ads which show vibrantly healthy senior extolling the virtues of the new Medicare provisions. I'd be interested to know why, if these changes are really so beneficial, they're being marketed with all the subtlety of a huckster at a side show. The only change I personally know about is that Medicare-eligible seniors will no longer be able to purchase supplemental coverage from private insurers. I'm not sure I think that's an improvement.

According to the Times article, Senator Frank Lautenburg called the videos a "covert attempt to manipulate the press." Of course, manipulation of the press is nothing new these days. It's a sad day when we have to say caveat emptor about our own government.

Saturday, March 13, 2004

Personal rants for a change instead of political ones. Nick and I decided to go to the movies last night. I had a choice between watching Agent Cody Banks (another Spy-Kids-rehash) or the movie remake of Starsky and Hutch. I knew I wasn't going to like the latter, but I couldn't bring myself to sit through the former so I watched it.

Yep, I didn't like it. It was a pathetic excuse of a slapstick parody of one of the better 70's cop shows. The writers made a thief out of Hutch (showed him stealing money from the wallet of a homicide victim), had the pair meet for the first time at the beginning of the movie when in series canon they had attended the police academy together, and couldn't even manage to spell their supervisor's name right (Dobey, folk, not Doby!).

I know, how trivial. What's ironic is that the character whom I thought would be the least believable was the one who had been something of a stereotype to begin with in the series--the bar-owner-sometimes-informant Huggy Bear. Antonio Fargas played Huggy in the series--no doubt a white producer's idea of what a "soul brother" would be--but considerably improved by Fargas' cool amused attitude. Snoop Dogg was cast for that character in the movie, and to my surprise—though he played Huggy as a far more over-the-top, almost campy, black bar owner—it was a stereotype of a bar owner more than of an African-American man. He wasn't just cool, he was almost over the line into cold, much more like what a bar owner might actually have been in that time and in the most seedy part of town.

Ben Stiller didn't actually do a bad job of portraying Starsky. He managed the same kind of loose-limbed frenetic restlessness and the same malleable face as Paul Michael Glazer, the original Starsky. But like the rest of the production, his Starsky was little more than a parody of Glazer's—his facial expressions wild where Glazer's had been little-boy-appealing, his physical presence nerve-wracking where Glazer had been only high-strung.

Owen Wilson did what he could with what he had. Not good, not bad. What he had to work with was pretty wretched, and he at least didn't make it any worse.

The movie naturally had to take note of something the series glossed over—the alleged relationship between the characters. Many reviewers have noted that the two of them lived practically in each other's pockets. Starsky never got into the back seat of a vehicle via the door; he always climbed over Hutch. They hugged unashamedly, comforted each other when relationships broke up, spent as many nights in each other's apartments as in their own. David Soul, who played Hutch, went so far as to say (years later), "If you can think that way--if you want to think it's a homosexual relationship, if you think that's what it is--then that's what it is."

Whether one thinks that way or not, what was depicted was at least a close friendship, the kind of bond one expects to find between people in high-stress occupations. Partners, buddies, brothers, etc. The movie made a caricature of that relationship with cheap shot images of the two of them in skimpy towels in the squad's shower room, and an imaginary dream-image scene that showed them wearing identical sweatshirts with "Starsky and Hutch" embroidered in rainbow colors.

But to mitigate at least a little the waste of seven bucks, the fact that this was an obvious intentional caricature started me thinking. Hollywood made a movie version of Wild Wild West that had the same kinds of faults, and one of Charlie's Angels that I didn't see, but have heard described with the same disgust and disbelief by people who enjoyed watching the original series. You have to begin wondering after a while whether this is one generation's way of spoofing what their parents held dear, a way of saying, "Can you believe they really watched THAT?"

Well, yeah, kiddies, we really did, and you did a lousy job of recreating it. If you want to poke fun at other people's entertainment, you might want to consider the possibility that some day your kids are going to watch Buffy, and Friends, and Sex in the City, and roll on the floor laughing at you.

The one good feature of the movie was the very brief cameo appearance of David Soul and Paul Michael Glazer in the last few seconds. I could have gotten recent pictures of them off the net, though, and not had to sit through seven bucks and 90 minutes worth of juvenile silliness.

Sorry, rant mode off now.

My belated contribution to the Friday catblog. Yes, his eyes really are that color, and he doesn't seem to mind Nick making a pillow of him.

Spring hath sprung, at least if it doesn't snow again

What Nick and I are doing instead of blogging--planting roses and digging up roots that go halfway to China. Tomorrow we'll plant six Coral Bells azaleas to fill in the spots between the hostas that have been there for years.

We also have 72 tomato seedlings growing like crazy on the dining room table, and a packet of radicchio to plant in a tub. Nick has never had a garden of his own, so I promised him a section of the old garden spot after it's plowed again. He is planning cherry tomatoes, broccoli and watermelon, what a combination!

---

Friday, March 12, 2004

And MY opinion is . . .

Phayngula mentions (via Mustang Bobby) that Alabama wants to allow the teaching of "intelligent design" (the new euphemism for creationism) in its public schools and universities. The bill currently under discussion in the Alabama House refers rather vaguely to "alternative theories or points of view on the subject of origins."

You can't teach the science of origins without presenting a whole slew of "alternative theories." Evolutionists don't agree on every point any more than quantum physicists agree on every theory in their field. The problem is that sneaky little phrase, "or points of view." Since when has a "point of view" been accepted as a valid scientific theory? I don't mind the mention that not everyone agrees with evolution. It won't stunt children's educational growth to be told that while evolution is the best scientific hypothesis we have right now, some people reject it in favor of a non-scientific hypothesis. But in a day when the United States educational system is struggling to keep up with the rest of the world, the last thing we need is to be presenting "points of view" as part of the science curriculum.

As a Christian, I certainly believe God had something to do with the creation of the universe. At the same time, however, God hasn't seen fit to tell us exactly how He did it. Until He does so, I'll go with the best information we do have (which, of course, doesn't conflict with the possibility that God set into motion the processes we have observed).

By the way, the state school board of Ohio has approved a lesson plan that includes intelligent design, and a group called "Intelligent Design Network, Inc." is lobbying in Montana, Minnesota, West Virginia, New Mexico and Kansas for similar changes.

Interestingly, the background on IDNetwork's website depicts artwork from Jody F. Sjogren showing a Peregrine Falcon morphing into an F-16 Falcon jet fighter. Another image by Sjogren shows a bald eagle being transformed into an F-15 fighter. The accompnying text reads:

The Bald Eagle - America's symbol of peace and freedom. The F-15 Eagle - America's ultimate air-superiority fighter. Two birds brilliantly adapted to their elements, both a part of America's heritage and defense, converge in this work by artist Jody F. Sjogren. "Metamorphosis III: Eagle's Eye" is a vision of the power and majesty of the unrivaled bird of prey and its strategic military counterpart. From the great winged predator to the most powerful guardian of freedom in the skies, both birds show the evidence of intelligent design and purposeful function in their complexity, beauty, and power.

The military mindset of these people could hardly be better expressed than in their juxtaposition of "power and majesty" with one of the most effective killing machines ever developed. How ironic that Christians who want to encourage the study of God's creation publicize it with images of man's weapons.

Thursday, March 11, 2004

Brief post, up to my ears in paperwork.

In the occasional moments of unallocated time recently, I've been re-reading Elaine Pagels' book The Origin of Satan, and marveling at what I missed on the first reading. Things at which I nodded sagely and then blithely passed over rise up now and hit me between the eyes.

Pagels points out that in the early Hebrew scriptures the satan described merely an adversarial role; it was not the name of a particular person. In the story of Balaam's ass, for example, Balaam is determined to go where God has ordered him not to go, and God sends an angel to block his way, a satan. Later, however, in the wake of the Maccabbean revolt, Satan became an increasingly personified figure, as the struggle between Pharisee and Hasmonean intensified. The mostly rural Pharisees, backed up by tradesmen and merchants, accused the Hasmonean priestly families of having abandoned their ancestral Judaism to become Hellenized secular leaders—accused them, essentially, of consorting with the enemy. The more radical of the Pharisaical groups began to invoke Satan to actually characterize the Hasmoneans, as the authors of the Gospels did years later to describe the Jewish enemies of Jesus. Satan was the traitor, that one of "us" who defected and became one of "them"—not an external enemy, but one of our own who turned against us.

I put the book down, thinking "Cain and Abel," and "Jacob and Esau." Indeed, another page later, Pagels used the phrase "sibling rivalry" to describe the evil that "Satan" had by then come to embody. One sibling works hard and follows the rules, does what is expected of him, yet the other wins the prize, either through actual trickery, or at least the appearance of favoritism. Bingo--instant resentment at best, and murder at worst.

Fast forward to today, and the resentment manifests itself as good ol' boy versus Massachusetts Liberal, NASCAR dad vs. northern rich guy, defender of the ancestral faith versus Jane-Fonda-hippy-traitor. Bush himself probably doesn't realize to what extent he is trading on that old smoldering indignation. But it's a potent meme on which to draw, and you can bet someone on Bush's campaign staff understands it perfectly well.

I don't have much hope that the American public can be made to see how manipulative an argument it is, and how devoid of any real substance.

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

The s**t hits the fan?

Retired Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski shares the real goods about how we went to war, in an article published in Salon.com.

Col. Kwiatkowski worked in the Pentagon office of the Near East South Asia (NESA) directorate for 10 months before her retirement. She watched as career employees with years of experience and no political axe to grind were replaced by administration appointees from various think tanks.

At the time, I didn't realize that the expertise on Middle East policy was not only being removed, but was also being exchanged for that from various agenda-bearing think tanks, including the Middle East Media Research Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Interestingly, the office director billet stayed vacant the whole time I was there. That vacancy and the long-term absence of real regional understanding to inform defense policymakers in the Pentagon explains a great deal about the neoconservative approach on the Middle East and the disastrous mistakes made in Washington and in Iraq in the past two years.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (often called by its acronym MEMRI) describes itself as a non-profit, non-partisan organization which "explores the Middle East through the region's media." Their "About Us" page says

MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East.

That sounds good, but even to someone as unversed in Middle East affairs as I, examination of their site shows an odd bias: almost no articles from Israeli media are reported, all the cartoons they reproduce are of a virulent anti-American or anti-Semitic nature, and the 26 "Special Reports," dating from February 4, 1998 to February 27, 2004 deal almost exclusively with anti-Semitic rhetoric (the single exception is an article about Egyptian president Mubarak). MEMRI certainly has a right to report anti-Semitic bias, even to focus on it. But such a focus seems inconsistent with MEMRI's description of itself as non-partisan.

The only information I could find online about the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, other than its own website, was a suggestion that it was tied politically to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the primary pro-Israel lobbying group. An article from the Washington Report on Middle-East Affairs says, "A glance at names of its officers and board members reveals, however, extensive overlap not only with AIPAC but also with pro-Israel political action committees (PACs) and other organizations identified with support of the government of Israel and its policies." Unfortunately for objective reporting, WRMEA (despite its official sounding name) is as anti-Israel as it accuses the Washington Institute of being pro-Israel, leaving the poor innocent inquirer with a definite feeling of mutual finger-pointing.

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) says its two-fold mandate is:

1. To educate the American public about the importance of an effective U.S. defense capability so that our vital interests as Americans can be safeguarded; and

2. To inform the American defense and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.

JINSA makes no bones about being pro-Israel, saying "Founded as a result of the lessons learned from the 1973 Yom Kippur War, JINSA communicates with the national security establishment and the general public to explain the role Israel can and does play in bolstering American interests, as well as the link between American defense policy and the security of Israel."

I have to say that I'm straying into areas that make me distinctly uncomfortable. As a Christian, I know what I owe to the Jewish faith and the Jewish people. I strongly admire every one of the Jews I personally know. And I share every decent person's horror at what happened to the Jews during World War II. As the member of a pretty unpopular minority myself, I have some understanding of what it means to be despised for something of which I am not only unashamed, but proud. Yet I want my country's policies to be arrived at in as objective a manner as possible, without favoritism to any one group. It doesn't trouble me in the slightest that the Bush administration listened to experts from the Middle East Media Research Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. What bothers me is that other voices were apparently silenced or ignored.

I'd also like to know that an organization as powerful the one which become the "Office of Special Plans" within the Pentagon is managed by someone who knows what he is doing. Col. Kwiatkowski lambasted the performance of Douglas Feith:

Doug Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, was a case study in how not to run a large organization. In late 2001, he held the first all-hands policy meeting at which he discussed for over 15 minutes how many bullets and sub-bullets should be in papers for Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. A year later, in August of 2002, he held another all-hands meeting in the auditorium where he embarrassed everyone with an emotional performance about what it was like to serve Rumsfeld. He blithely informed us that for months he didn't realize Rumsfeld had a daily stand-up meeting with his four undersecretaries. He shared with us the fact that, after he started to attend these meetings, he knew better what Rumsfeld wanted of him. Most military staffers and professional civilians hearing this were incredulous, as was I, to hear of such organizational ignorance lasting so long and shared so openly. Feith's inattention to most policy detail, except that relating to Israel and Iraq, earned him a reputation most foul throughout Policy, with rampant stories of routine signatures that took months to achieve and lost documents.

Perhaps organizational competence was not really necessary, however, as Col. Kwiatkowski says that OSP's functions duplicated those of other Pentagon departments:

The facts we should have used to base our papers on were already being produced by the intelligence agencies, and the war planning was already done by the combatant command staff with some help from the Joint Staff. Instead of developing defense policy alternatives and advice, OSP was used to manufacture propaganda for internal and external use, and pseudo war planning.

Kwiatkowski describes the "talking points" developed by OSP:

The talking points were a series of bulleted statements, written persuasively and in a convincing way, and superficially they seemed reasonable and rational. Saddam Hussein had gassed his neighbors, abused his people, and was continuing in that mode, becoming an imminently dangerous threat to his neighbors and to us -- except that none of his neighbors or Israel felt this was the case. Saddam Hussein had harbored al-Qaida operatives and offered and probably provided them with training facilities -- without mentioning that the suspected facilities were in the U.S./Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was pursuing and had WMD of the type that could be used by him, in conjunction with al-Qaida and other terrorists, to attack and damage American interests, Americans and America -- except the intelligence didn't really say that. Saddam Hussein had not been seriously weakened by war and sanctions and weekly bombings over the past 12 years, and in fact was plotting to hurt America and support anti-American activities, in part through his carrying on with terrorists -- although here the intelligence said the opposite

These talking points changed as public information made some positions untenable. "First," says Kwiatkowski, "was the deletion of entire references or bullets."

The one I remember most specifically is when they dropped the bullet that said one of Saddam's intelligence operatives had met with Mohammad Atta in Prague, supposedly salient proof that Saddam was in part responsible for the 9/11 attack. That claim had lasted through a number of revisions, but after the media reported the claim as unsubstantiated by U.S. intelligence, denied by the Czech government, and that Atta's location had been confirmed by the FBI to be elsewhere, that particular bullet was dropped entirely from our "advice on things to say" to senior Pentagon officials when they met with guests or outsiders.

Kwiatkowski remarks upon the attempt to blame the intelligence community for "failures" in Iraq. In August 2002, Senators Bob Graham and Dick Durban wanted to know why no National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) had been produced to explain why the US needed to engage in a pre-emptive war.

In fact, it had not been written, but a suitable NIE was dutifully prepared and submitted the very next month. Naturally, this document largely supported most of the outrageous statements already made publicly by Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld about the threat Iraq posed to the United States. All the caveats, reservations and dissents made by intelligence were relegated to footnotes and kept from the public.

In a scathing summary of the reasons for the war on Iraq, Kwiatkowski says:

War is generally crafted and pursued for political reasons, but the reasons given to the Congress and to the American people for this one were inaccurate and so misleading as to be false. Moreover, they were false by design. Certainly, the neoconservatives never bothered to sell the rest of the country on the real reasons for occupation of Iraq -- more bases from which to flex U.S. muscle with Syria and Iran, and better positioning for the inevitable fall of the regional ruling sheikdoms. Maintaining OPEC on a dollar track and not a euro and fulfilling a half-baked imperial vision also played a role. These more accurate reasons for invading and occupying could have been argued on their merits -- an angry and aggressive U.S. population might indeed have supported the war and occupation for those reasons. But Americans didn't get the chance for an honest debate.

Kwiatkowski will surely be criticized for her frequent use of the term "neoconservative," a moniker that right-wingers haven't yet decided is pejorative or complimentary, and for leaking some of this information while she was still on active duty. But it's hard to argue with someone who was there, and saw what happened, without calling her an outright liar, and you can't read her account without hearing the bewildered anger of an indignant, sincere and patriotic career officer.

Karen Kwiatkowski also writes for MilitaryWeek.com, and her column Without Reservation is a revealing adjunct to the Salon.com article. It will be interesting to see what kind of smear campaign is mounted against her in the coming days.

Tuesday, March 09, 2004

I wasn't going to post again today, but when I read Mustang Bobby's quote from Tapped, I had to sit back down at the computer. It all started with a GOP.com article trumpeting. "Communist North Korea Is Only Government On Record Supporting John Kerry."

What makes this so absolutely priceless that Kerry is probably the last person on earth the government of North Korea would like to see in the Oval Office. In 1986, Kerry uncovered evidence of Nicuaragan contra drug trafficking. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church was heavily involved in raising money for the contras, so it's hardly surprising that Moon's newspaper, the Washington Times, attacked him. ConsortiumNews.com
says:

The newspaper first published articles suggesting that Kerry was on a wasteful political witch hunt. "Kerry's anti-contra efforts extensive, expensive, in vain," announced one Times article. [Aug. 13, 1986] (The Consortium News is an online investigative journal, on the internet since 1995.)

Where is the North Korea connection? Moon has also sent large amounts of money to North Korea, including a $3 million dollar "birthday present" to Kim Jong Il.

Another ConsortiumNews.com column notes that while Donald Rumsfeld was heading up the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, he reported that "The extraordinary level of resources North Korea and Iran are now devoting to developing their own ballistic missile capabilities poses a substantial and immediate danger to the U.S., its vital interests and its allies."

U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency was monitoring a series of clandestine payments from Sun Myung Moon's organization to the North Korean communist leaders who were overseeing the country's military strategies.

According to DIA documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, Moon’s payments to North Korean leaders included a $3 million “birthday present” to current communist leader Kim Jong Il and offshore payments amounting to “several tens of million dollars” to the previous communist dictator, Kim Il Sung.

The alleged payments – and broader Moon-North Korean business deals reported by the DIA – came at a time of a strict U.S. government ban on financial transactions between North Korea and any U.S. person or entity, to keep hard currency out of North Korea's hands.

The article goes on to say:

In 1999, a House Republican task force followed up the work of Rumsfeld's commission and declared that North Korea and its missile program had emerged as a nuclear threat to Japan and possibly the Pacific Northwest of the United States.

"This threat has advanced considerably over the past five years, particularly with the enhancement of North Korea's missile capabilities," said the Republican task force. "Unlike five years ago, North Korea can now strike the United States with a missile that could deliver high explosive, chemical, biological, or possibly nuclear weapons."

Ironically, Moon's newspaper joined in laying the blame for North Korea's progress at the feet of the Clinton-Gore administration.

"To its list of missed opportunities, the Clinton-Gore administration can now add the abdication of responsibility for national security," a Washington Times editorial stated on Sept. 5, 2000.

Not surprisingly the Times did not mention that its founder and financial backer, Sun Myung Moon, had lent a hand to North Korea by agreeing to multi-million-dollar business deals and allegedly putting millions of dollars in the personal accounts of the leaders masterminding the strategic weapons development.

Equally unsurprising, former President George H.W. Bush and his about-to-be-president son have never explained the family's financial involvement with Rev. Moon, a messianic leader who has vowed to build a movement powerful enough to eliminate all individuality and freedom in the United States.

Kerry, the senator who investigated the Nicuaragan drug traffickers operating with Rev. Moon's monetary backing—the Sun Myung Moon who also flooded North Korea with financial good will—that Kerry receiving the approval of North Korea's government?! I don't think so!

A different kind of terrorist, part 1

Much has been said lately about Bush losing his "base," one important segment of which is a loose collection of various flavors of Christians.

It can be difficult to understand why all these people are so fervently in favor of Bush, given that many of them disagree loudly with each other. The obvious answer is that Bush opposes many of the same things as they—for example, homosexuality and abortion. Being against some of the same things doesn't mean any two groups are for the same things, however, and some of these people might be surprised to learn who else Bush counts among his religious faithful.

The strangest bedfellow of all must be the Unification Church, headed by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. Televangelist Pat Robertson was so uneasy about the prospect of Moon's organizations receiving government funds that he publicly questioned the wisdom of Bush's "faith-based charity" program. His concern was evidently justified, as last summer, a group associated with the Unification Church received a grant of $475,280 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for Free Teens USA, an after-school celibacy club in New Jersey. Free Teens denies any affiliation with the Unification Church, but according to documents obtained by Salon.com under the Freedom of Information Act, "the director and chief finance officer of the Free Teens USA club, as well as others listed on the group's board of directors, are former or present high-ranking Unification Church officials who omitted those leadership roles from their applications for the federal grant."

An earlier Moon organization, "Pure Love Alliance" was kicked out of Chicago's public school system in 2000, after being accused of using the abstinence program as an opportunity to proselytize. PLA's message and goals are still widely disseminated on the internet, but the group's own website is no longer in existence.

Regardless of the value of abstinence, some of the educational methods used by Moon affiliates are dubious, at best. This post to a forum called ChristianLinks seems to be far more about money than about education:

Call for Abstinence Curriculum Representatives

From: Peter F. Brown
Date: September 1, 2003

Dear UC Brothers and Sisters,

Some of you may know that I've written a curriculum for teenagers, called "The True Love Thing to Do", at http://worldcommunity.com/tl. It's a 2 1/2 hour marriage preparation, abstinence and character education seminar workbook that can be done at home by parents, or in a group setting.

The curriculum content and information are all posted at the above url.

As you all know, educating young people about these issues is a very important cause in our efforts to build the Kingdom of Heaven. I believe that the above curriculum helps educate young people about the "heartistic" reasons to be abstinent, and also helps prepare them for a heartistically based marriage.

As the publisher of said curriculum, I'm actively looking for part time reps who feel comfortable approaching churches and other organizations, to ask them to purchase quantities of the booklets and then hold seminars in their venues (the rep doesn't have to hold the seminar -- it's hosted by the church deacon, etc.).

The seminars are very easy to do and don't require any training or high-tech elements. They use the 'Reading and Discussion' method used at ALC conferences, where one teenager reads a section from the podium and the rest of the teenagers follow along with their copies of the booklet. Then they discuss the content in round table discussions -- all moderated by the teenagers. Usually, only one adult needs to be present. The directions about how to hold the seminar are in the booklet.

The sales rep who approaches the churches gets a very healthy commission -- $4 for each booklet. The booklets retail for $15 and wholesale for $9, so the churches can make a good profit also. Commissions are paid immediately upon receipt and clearing of the payment from the church.

It's the kind of process that might require a month to broker a sale to a church, but can be done part time, based on a few conversations. So, a box of 100 brings in $400 to the sales rep and $600 profit to the church, a *hot* selling point for churches! (The churches can charge the parents for the teenagers' seminar "tickets".)

For those of you who are in or have access to foreign language countries, I'd be delighted to have the curriculum translated into other languages. It's been written in a style that will hopefully "work" for any culture. The first, very early draft was actually written on spec for Communist Chinese High School students. It mentions God very briefly, in context of scientific study, so it should appeal to a broad audience.

If you're interested in becoming a commission-based rep, please email me at 'peterbrown@worldcommunity.com' or call 804-769-9045. Again, you can view the curriculum at http://worldcommunity.com/tl.

God bless you all!

Peter F. Brown

--
Damian J. Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net

The "ALC" referred to by Peter Brown is "American Leadership Council," whose website states that American Leadership Councils are a project of the American Family Coalition and the Washington Times Foundation. The Washington Times, of course, is the newspaper owned and operated by Rev. Sun Myung Moon. "UC" refers to the Unification Church.

Not all Christian leaders are flocking to Sun Myung Moon (though Jerry Falwell accepted $3.5 million through the Christian Heritage Foundation to bail out financially troubled Liberty University). Christianity Today, in an article titled In Perspective: Why Are Pastors Flying to Moon?, said:

Many conservative evangelical speakers have attended Moon-connected rallies including a Family Federation for World Peace event in 1986 where Ralph Reed, Beverly LaHaye, Gary Bauer, and Robert H. Schuller spoke. A 1998 Christianity Today article reported:

"Conservatives find Moon attractive because they share many of his moral and political values," says James Beverley, theology and ethics professor at Ontario Theological Seminary. "Those similarities are significant enough that questions of theological differences are put on hold." Beverley, who has studied Moon for two decades, also notes that speakers at such events often have their trips to exotic locales fully financed in addition to receiving generous honorariums.

The links between the Bush family and the Unification Church (now known as the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification) are manyfold. The elder President Bush and Barbara Bush have both spoken at events sponsored by Rev. Moon. Attorney General John Ashcroft was the featured speaker at a prayer luncheon in 2001 where Rev. Moon received an award for his work in support of "traditional family values."

One of the inaugural events for the new President George W. Bush was sponsored by Rev. Moon. Called "America Come Together," the luncheon was ostensibly an interdenominational event to which 1400 pastors and religious leaders were invited. Rev. Moon spoke to the attendees, however, and on the way out of the hall, participants were offered a book on the Unification Church and other Moon pamphlets. To their credit, some of the Christian leaders who attended the luncheon expressed their dismay upon learning that the event was sponsored by Moon.

David Caprara, a former director of Moon's American Family Coalition, was appointed by George Bush to head the AmeriCorps VISTA program, part of the War on Poverty. Caprara continues to participate in work to bring Christian pastors under Moon's influence.

Josette Shiner, a longtime Unification Church member whose writing is still published on church websites, was appointed a deputy U.S. trade representative for Asian and African negotiations, according to a press release dated August 6, 2003. Shiner claims to have left the church, but unlike other ex-Moonies, would say nothing of her experiences in the church or her reasons for leaving it. While an editor at the Moon-owned Washington Times, she gave a speech on the role of women in the 21st century during a WFWP (Women For World Peace, a Moon affiliated organization) tour.

Perhaps the association between Rev. Moon and the Bush administration is not so surprising, as they seem to share some goals besides teen celibacy and opposition to gay marriage. There is an eerie similarity between much of Bush's rhetoric and the phrasing of Rev. Moon's followers. The online book, Application of the Divine Principle, is described in its introduction as a "companion to Divine Principle in Plain Language by John Godwin. The Divine Principle is the basic theology of Sun Myung Moon. The Principle teaches God's providence—His plan for mankind. We learn how God has worked in human history to bring the Messiah who will teach us how to build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. After we hear the Divine Principle and accept its perfect logic and truth, the first thing we ask is: What do I do now? How do we build an ideal world?"

The book explains one way to build an ideal world: "Father explains that democracy is of God now, and we need to elect godly men who [are] not afraid to be hawks and use force against tyrants and not afraid to impose democracy on authoritarian nations." (Note: Moon styles himself as the 'True Father' of mankind and is therefore often referred to as 'Father' by his followers)

Among other statements, Sun Myung Moon has said, "the Unification Church is plus and Christianity is minus." He teaches that Jesus was illegitimate, born of an adulterous relationship between his mother Mary and John the Baptist's father, Zechariah. He states that Jesus failed in his mission to create a "Heavenly Kingdom" on earth, because he was killed before he could marry, and that he, Rev. Moon, is the final Messiah who will complete the work.

What is his position on Christian scripture? "Until our mission with the Christian Church is over, we must quote the Bible and use it to explain the Divine Principle. After we receive the inheritance of the Christian Church, we will be free to teach without the Bible. Now, however, our primary mission is to witness to the Christian Church." (Sun Myung Moon, Master Speaks: 7, 1965, p.1)

What is his position on the future of America? In a speech to British followers, a tape of which was smuggled out by dissidents within the movement, Moon said: "History will make the position of Reverend Moon clear, and his enemies, the American population and government will bow down to him. That is Father's tactic, the natural subjugation of the American government and population."

It is completely baffling that Christian leaders continue to support Sun Myung Moon and his anti-Christian message. It is equally baffling that a president who uses his religion as a selling point for re-election would continue to be associated with this movement.

Friday, March 05, 2004

Dave Pell is uncharacteristically bitter in this week's Next Draft. I don't usually quote whole entries from other people's work, but this seemed to be worth passing on in its entirety:

Let's start with the basics. They think you're stupid. At least that's what they think of you if you're an undecided voter in an important 2004 swing state. The Bush marketing machine, which just rolled out their first ads for the general election, doesn't think that you realize that September 11th changed the political landscape in this country. And they didn't even think that mere mentions of the event (such as ad voiceovers that read: "Then... A day of tragedy. A test for all Americans." or "Some challenges we've seen before. And some were like no others. But America rose to the challenge.") would be enough, so the marketing wizards behind the campaign saw fit to include a key visual. What is it?

Perhaps, you might imagine, they included some video of President Bush visiting troops in Iraq last Thanksgiving. Or maybe they showed Tommy Franks standing next to the President as they announced Franks' leadership of the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. No. They didn't think that would do the trick. So instead they served up a picture of a small section of gutted concrete and twisted steel that was left standing at Ground Zero after the 9-11 attacks.

It goes quickly enough that you might just pause to remember that terrible moment (as if you could have forgotten it) and not really think about it much more. Well think about it. Images From 9-11 are being used to market a product. Not a fund being raised for victims families. Not a tribute to firefighters or police officers who lost their lives. But to launch a political campaign.

To paraphrase another ad campaign, images are everything. Let's start with the ones you haven't been allowed to see: The coffins of U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq. We have been told that the American people will be required to sacrifice. Shouldn't part of that sacrifice be to at least allow the images of the real sacrifices being made by our fellow Americans to work their way into our living rooms and into our consciousness. Shouldn't we be asked to press pause on American Idol long enough to psychologically absorb a hint of the pain (the real pain, not the ad campaign pain with an authoritative voice reading over a carefully selected musical piece) being felt by those who have lost loved ones in Iraq or Afghanistan?

No. Why? Because those images don't sell the message. Well in my book, the images of the shattered shell of the World Trade Center do not sell any message other than the fact that for political gain, the Bush team is willing to turn Ground Zero into rock bottom.

Karen Hughes insists that such complaints are just whining Democrats. "With all due respect, I just completely disagree, and I believe the vast majority of the American people will as well. I can understand why some Democrats might not want the American people to remember the great leadership and strength the President and First Lady Laura Bush brought to our country in the aftermath of that."

I guess she's right. Because when I see those images, I think of the great leadership and courage of the firefighters who climbed up smoke-filled stairways and of families who wandered the streets posting fliers with pictures of their missing loved ones. Or maybe I think of my wife's friend who we simply call The Sarge who was shipped off to Iraq a few hours after his Valentine's Day wedding and didn't return for well over a year. But frankly, when confronted with those images, I never think of Laura Bush. Good to have that disconnect finally resolved.

Monica Gabrielle (whose husband died in the twin towers) must be among those "Democrats" that Hughes is talking about. Gabrielle told the NY Daily News that: "It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people. It is unconscionable." Sounds like she just doesn't want to remember the leadership shown by the President, huh? Same with Tom Roger whose daughter died in the attack: "To show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that's just some advertising agency's attempt to grab people by the throat." And firefighter Tommy Fee of Queens must be a real lefty because his response was: "It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at ground zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics."

We're in a national tizzy over the supposedly threatening indecency of a split second of a pop star's breast or a few words from a shock jock's mouth. Meanwhile those who are most offended by such violations of our airwaves are silent or even supportive when it comes to something as flat-out sick as this.

This is not an argument that President Bush failed to show leadership in the aftermath of September 11th. It's about what is O.K. and what is not O.K. when it comes to selling a product -- be it a can of beer or a candidate for president. It's something this president speaks of often enough; a matter of simple right and wrong. Reminding us of W's leadership skills can be done without these images, which are of course forever etched in our minds anyway. Forget about the hypocrisy of co-opting the loss, sacrifice and courage of others in the name of self-aggrandizement. Let's just leave it at this. A President who feels quite at ease marketing his own faith should at least realize that some things are sacred.

Unfortunately, Dave is preaching to the choir, because the Bush ad is aimed at those people who do see images of 9-11 as some kind of twisted icon of Republican power and might—"Remember the Alamo," and so forth.

I'll rephrase Dave's final sentence: to a man who uses his faith as a marketing tool, nothing is sacred.

Monday, March 01, 2004

Looks like there there are going to be a lot more long days on the road. The word from my prime contractor is that the field offices are about to start issuing the "reauthorizations," the annual flood of inspections that ensure participating stores still meet the criteria to accept Food Stamps. So my time will be extremely short for anything but work.

I must also find someone who can come in every day to check on Clarence, as he can no longer stay by himself for days at a time. Nick will be coming with me, partly because he must keep up with his school work, and partly because no one in the family wants to leave him for any length of time with Clarence. It's fortunate for me that Nick is such an agreeable child. I do not see how I could manage to teach him, take care of Clarence and do the work that pays the bills if he were anything like a typical teenager.

I'll try to read and comment on other people's blogs, and post here when I can, but it's likely to be sporadic.

The template is set to display 10 posts. To see all the posts for this month, click on the month name in the Archive section

This site is a member of WebRing. To browse visit here.

RSS Feed PERSONAL Send email to liz at life-as-a-spectator-sport.com Home I'm a mother, grandmother, a computer professional, Democrat, Christian. I welcome politely worded comments and email, my spam filter throws the rest away, so don't bother to flame me WHY 'LIFE AS A SPECTATOR SPORT' "If you're lucky not to live in the gutters of a slum, but still can't afford to take vacations in the Alps, you're part of that enormous middle class who lives life through the medium of the television, further separated from "real" life by air conditioner, by automobile, by dishwasher, microwave and ice-in-the-door refrigerator, by automatic washer and dryer, and all the other appliances and conveniences that make it possible for America to live life at second hand. I'm not sure why Americans decided that televised drama was better than the real thing, that cardboard microwave food containers were an adequate substitute for real dishes, and their contents for real food, or that cooking, dishwashing and face-to-face conversation wasn't worth the effort and time it required. Someone fed this nation a plastic crate of out-of-season tomatoes and told us it was life and we took them at their word, and we're so much the poorer for it that it's hard to know where to start to list the shortcomings." I wrote this a couple of years ago, but I have to admit it's much less amusing than I thought it would be to see the artifical construct falling apart. THE NON-ELECTRIC HOME Cleaning, 1 Cleaning, 2 Cleaning, 3 KNITTING BLOGS Extravayarnza Knitting Heretic Mind of Winter Pie Knits Persistent Illusion See Eunny Knit The Keyboard Biologist Taleweaver's Ramblings TECHnitting Wendy Knits FINISHED PROJECTS -------FINISHED IN 2006------- Peruvian Cap Tutti-Frutti Socks Shelley's Socks Carol's Socks -------FINISHED IN 2007------- Chain Link Socks Baby Surprise Jacket Valerie & Friend Baby Bonnet Rainbow Baby Socks Girls Pixie Hood Mitred Square Heart Red & White Socks Coffee Cup Pot Holder Nubbins Dishcloth Garterlac Dishcloth Suede Booties Kate's Socks Norwegian Sweet Baby Cap Half Thumbless Mittens Red Mittens for Akkol -------FINISHED IN 2008------- SELF-RELIANCE AND THE FUTURE -- Blogs and websites -- Causubon's Book Club Orlov Food Storage Made Easy From the Wilderness In the Wake Listening to Katrina Survival Topics The Modern Homestead The Oil Drum Notes from a Hillside Farm -- Mailing Lists -- 12vdc Power Living on the Land Rainwater Refrigeration Alternatives Old Ways of Living POLITICAL BLOGS and SITES The political sites have moved BOOKS I'M READING How to Grow More Vegetables, etc. Small Scale Grain Raising ARCHIVES February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002