Truth to Power: A Blunt Assessment of US Crimes in Iraq

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

I have not merely blogged. I would like to think that I spoke 'truth to power'. I literally petitioned, perhaps harassed, my congressman --John Culberson, representing the 7th District. To his credit, Culberson responded though nothing he said was true, accurate or relevant. Most of the time he (or his staffers) just rewrote the official Bush 'line'. It requires K-street size money to get real and/or effective access to your elected representatives.

Having put into place numerous Draconian measures, George W. Bush, it was feared, would not leave the White House. He had, after all, declared the Constitution to be 'just a worthless piece of paper'; he had already begun a war against Iraq upon a pack of bald-faced lies!

§ 2441. War crimes(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

--U.S. Codes, Title 18, Section 2441">TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 118 > § 2441

Not only Americans but much of the world were suckered by 911 cited by Bush as justification to attack and invade Iraq! An attack on Iraq might have been justified if Iraq had attacked the United States or, if it had posed a clear and present danger. Iraq had posed no threat! In fact, during the administration of George H.W. Bush, Saddam consulted with American diplomats before lowering the price of oil! For his efforts, he was misled --perhaps deliberately ---by U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie. Upon a nod, Saddam lowered the price of oil but later paid the price for having done so: Persian Gulf War I.

911 was not nearly so subtle! In fact, George W. Bush committed heinous crimes for which U.S. Codes prescribe the penalty of death! It remains beyond logic, commonsense, fact or psychotic delusion to consider for a moment that Iraq had anything to do with the attacks of911! Yet --Bush would puke up 911 to umbrella a panoply of capital crimes, atrocities, and heinous crimes against humanity not seen since A. Hitler or Pol Pot! As long as the rich and powerful remain above those laws applying to everyone else, then justice does not exist! As long a elites are exempted, the phrase 'rule of law' is hollow. As long as Bush is 'free' no one else is!

Not even Bush or his corrupt administration dared to claim that Saddam had anything whatsoever to do with 911!

Stiglitz received renewed attention for a paper [PDF], co-written with Harvard professor of public finance Linda Bilmes that projected that the total economic costs of the Iraq War would exceed a trillion dollars. The hundreds of billions Congress has already approved for the war, they argued, tells only half the story. It doesn't account for, among other things, increases in defense spending, the long-term costs for veterans' health care and disabilities, the lost earning potential of the Americans killed and wounded, and increases in the price of oil.

Once considered provocatively high, Stiglitz's estimates now appear conservative in light of escalating sectarian violence and the American troop surge in Iraq. The president's latest budget proposal, while calling for deep cuts to Medicare and other domestic programs, dramatically ramps up funding for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also adds another $44 billion to the Pentagon's budget, which has already expanded nearly 50 percent since Bush took office. On the same day the administration sent its latest budget proposal to Congress, Mother Jones spoke with the iconoclastic economist about myopic Iraq War accounting, the need for a military draft, and the task of putting a price tag on human life.

--Koshlan Mayer-Blackwell, MotherJones, Iraq War Sticker Shock: The Trillion Dollar War that Will Bankrupt America?

Bush had been warned ---but, upon a pack of lies, he marched this nation off to war and ruin! After repudiating the very sovereignty of the people by way of our Constitution, after abrogating the guarantees of Due Process of Law, having repudiated habeas corpus, and arrogating unto himself the powers of a dictator --why did Bush leave willingly?

It is not as if the disaster had not or could not have been predicted. Following (everything below the line) is the text of my letter to my congressman. For 'readability' issues, I have not 'blockquoted' it. I was remiss not to record the date of the letter.

---

John Culberson
Member of Congress
7th District

Honorable Member of Congress:

Thank you for your reply to my concerns about the Bush administration's case for War in Iraq. I have considered your points --in block-quotes --followed by my reply:

I believe that the Bush administration made the correct decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power and liberate Iraq after Saddam continue to disobey numerous United Nations resolutions and refuse diplomatic offers.

No one disagrees that Saddam was a "bad man". With all due respect, that is not the issue. The world is full of "bad men" and, in most cases, the United States does not invade and occupy their countries. One wonders: what is the compelling difference in Iraq? That it has oil?

Secondly, it is unclear and most certainly not proven by anything available in the public record that Saddam was not in compliance with United Nations resolutions when he was attacked and invaded. U.N. inspectors had, in fact, asked for a reasonable amount of time in which to complete their tasks.

Only if they had been allowed to complete their responsibilities could it have been known conclusively whether or not Saddam was or was not in compliance with specific U.N. Resolutions. Moreover, U.N. resolution 1441 orders Iraq to comply with said resolutions – but does not sanction the use of force by the United States --specifically invasion of a sovereign nation and occupation of same by U.S. Forces.

Lacking the "cover" of International law or sanction, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is a violation of the Nuremberg Principles. [Principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal]

Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people many times, and since the end of hostilities dozens of mass graves and torture rooms have been discovered.

Saddam's use of chemical weapons "...on his own people" is a reference to a well-publicized gassing of Kurds in 1988 – some 15 years ago. If this were a pressing issue, why has it taken the US so long to go to war. Obviously --Saddam was not a priority and most certainly not a 'clear and present danger'.

Persian Gulf I was fought since that time and the U.N.'s Hans Blix raised the credible possibility that Hussein's weapons were destroyed either by the Persian Gulf War itself or voluntarily by Saddam in its wake --or both! In any case, no weapons have been found since U.S. troops have occupied Iraq.

Moreover, former CIA analyst Stephen Pelletiere argued persuasively that Saddam's alleged gassing of Kurds in the waning months of the Iran-Iraq war may have been perpetrated by Iran --not Iraq! If that is the case, then none of the arguments with regard to Saddam's alleged gassing of the Kurds is relevant.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that Saddam indeed used gas some 15 years ago! At that time, the Saddam regime was nothing more than a U.S. puppet regime. What was the source of his weapons if not the United States? That question has not been answered by either our elected officials or the mass media.

References to the "gassing" incident in the Bush case for war is really this subtle argument: because Saddam used gas on his own people, if he should obtain nuclear weapons, he will use them. In fact, Saddam had many opportunities to use poison gas and biological agents on the Coalition forces and Israel during the Persian Gulf I. But not even Bush partisans have alleged that he did so. UN arms inspectors later found warheads capable of delivering these weapons that could have been used by Iraq -- but were not!

More recently, it was widely reported and speculated in the Bush administration's run up to war that in the event, Saddam Hussein would be most likely to use biochemical weapons if he felt under mortal threat. He was most certainly under mortal threat --yet there is no evidence that he used such weapons --either on his own people who were expected to rise in up revolt against Saddam or against the invading U.S. army or against U.S. troops.

Most speculation [and 'speculation' is, in fact, all that it is] about why he did not involves complex violations of Occam's Razor and other logical legerdemain. The simplest explanation for Hussein's failure to use such weapons is that he, in fact, did not have any.

He never offered any evidence that he had ceased his chemical, biological, and nuclear programs.

That such weapons were never found confirms Hussein's version. It does not support Bush. By that time, the burden of proof was on Bush to prove his assertions. Those who assert must prove. This is true in any legitimate courtroom; it is true in 'debate'; it should be true of propaganda! That is it not is a defining characteristic of propaganda! Negatives cannot be proven.

Nevertheless – U.N. inspectors had been and were doing their jobs in Iraq! This was true even as Colin Powell made his presentation to the United Nations. The mechanism by which Saddam's claims could have been proven or disproved was in place. Clearly – the Bush administration had nothing to gain by allowing the truth to be discovered and heard! The truth would have undermined the plans that were already in place, perhaps, even before Bush v Gore would award the election to Bush.

But the search for WMD continues as it had before the invasion. But now the American people are picking up a huge tab. The cost of the war and the occupation must be added to the cost of a weapons search. U.N. inspectors could have been allowed to complete their jobs at much less cost. It is increasingly difficult to see what has been gained. Yet --the American people are expected to pick up the tab.

We have learnt from September 11 that we cannot afford to ignore those who hate us and are willing to use weapons of mass destruction.

Our current policies --if continued --are guaranteed to multiply the number of people who hate us. We are --in fact --less safe!

The search team led by Dr. David Kay has already discovered troubling evidence about Saddam's intentions.

Here is the thesis sentence from Dr. David Kay's report which I have read in its entirety:

"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related programme activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations."

David Kay also cautioned: "It is far too early to reach any definitive conclusions and, in some areas, we may never reach that goal." It his this sentence which you failed to mention in your reply.

George Bush and Colin Powell, however, have most certainly reached definite and firm conclusions --conclusions which together made up their case for war and Colin Powell's presentation of ten year old, black and white satellite photos to the United Nations.

Again --with all due respect: the American people were not "sold" war with Iraq on the basis of Saddam's intentions; we were told repeatedly that Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction --not that he was merely --and not surprisingly intending --to develop them or that he had merely a "programme". This focus on "intent" is new to administration rhetoric and nothing less than an ex post facto case for war! It is the Bush administration (and GOP) attempt to re-write the record, to 'spin' history.

What is said about Bush's case now was not the case that Bush and Colin Powell had, in fact, made in the run up to war nor is it the case that Colin Powell had made to the United Nations. The GOP rewrite of history is 'Orwellian'.

It has uncovered papers showing Saddam recently attempted to purchase missile parts from North Korea.

That's hardly surprising! It does, however, point up the hypocritical differences in the way Bush treats North Korea and Iraq. North Korea is a nation which openly pursues the development of Nuclear Weaponry. Your letter raises the question of whether or not U.S. rhetoric has motivated other nations to seek not only missile parts but also "yellow cake".

Besides --Iraq was cheated. According to the Washington Post, North Korea never made good on the deal and refused to refund some $10 million to Iraq.

Investigators have also discovered new research on biological agents and unmanned aerial vehicles that could disperse chemical or biological weapons. The team has repeatedly found evidence of deception, from burned computers to recently scrubbed missiles trailers.

Intentions! If Bush and Powell had made only this case, how deep would have been the support for war?

Two Iraqi weapons scientists cooperating with Dr. Kay were shot to prevent them from telling what they know.

Every media report that I have read concerning this incident attributed it to solely to Dr. Kay. There is, so far, no independent corroboration of the motive to which you refer. What is your source? Secondly, the fact that two scientists who were most probably involved in a weapons program of some sort does not prove that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction at the time of the U.S. invasion and occupation. Nor does it change the fact that there is no authorization under International Law for the U.S. attack.

Iraqi roughly the size of California, and Dr. Kay noted that the yet unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction could be stored in a space the size of a two car garage.

We are paying a high price in lives and dollars if the U.S. case for war has been reduced to a search for a two-car garage --a search that might have been conducted less expensively and more efficiently under the cover of International Law by U.N. inspectors.

Additionally, it does not follow that because WMD were "unaccounted" for that they, in fact, existed. The term "unaccounted for" implies that there is a mysterious "inventory" somewhere against which existing reports are measured. Where is that inventory, who compiled it --and how?

Until those questions are answered, any statement about "unaccounted for" weapons is meaningless. Furthermore --Kay's report made no claim that Hussein had actual weapons of mass destruction although, selectively, Bush read a passage from the report that indicated that Saddam was determined to get them. That was to be expected but it hardly justifies a war of aggression.

Significantly, a different tact is taken in the case of North Korea, and perhaps in the cases of other nations that have escaped the glare of administration assisted publicity. I am not sure what this proves --other than an uneven, inconsistent, and impractical policy of pre-emption cannot possibly form the cornerstone of a viable foreign policy in a civilized and rational nation.

Finally, there is no compelling reason to believe that Dr. Kay, however professional he may be, will find weapons when in fact there is dubious probable cause that they existed during the run up to war. Good money --billions --after bad. No one can find that which does not exist!

In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing in the Kay report that supports Bush's original case for war. The Kay report, however, was expertly used to divert attention from Bush's original case --best summed up by Sen. Robert Byrd:

We were told that we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they have not been seen.

We were told that the throngs of Iraqi's would welcome our troops with flowers, but no throngs or flowers appeared.

We were led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, but no evidence has ever been produced.

We were told in 16 words that Saddam Hussein tried to buy "yellow cake" from Africa for production of nuclear weapons, but the story has turned into empty air.
We were frightened with visions of mushroom clouds, but they turned out to be only vapors of the mind.

We were told that major combat was over but 101 [as of October 17] Americans have died in combat since that proclamation from the deck of an aircraft carrier by our very own Emperor in his new clothes.

--Sen Robert Byrd

Bush himself had stated that Saddam had tried to buy "yellow cake" in Niger. That this statement may have lead to "leaks" which imperiled the CIA's search for WMD world wide is reason enough in and of itself for Congress to investigate the entire case for war, how the case was presented, how intelligence and evidence contrary to the Bush case were handled.

America is safer now that Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction, and I support building a stable and prosperous Iraqi democracy that can lead by example in the Middle East.

Everyone supports a stable and prosperous Iraq. The question is: is invading and occupying a sovereign nation in violation of the Nuremberg principles a prudent way to accomplish that aim?

It is easy enough to assert that America is safer --but unless and until WMD are found in Iraq, it is simply fallacious to ascribe that "safety" to Bush administration policies in Iraq. My neighbor may sprinkle salt on his lawn to keep elephants out of his front yard; but the fact that there is not an elephant within 5,000 miles of his house is hardly proof that it works.

A more compelling case can be made, however, that the world as a whole is less safe as a direct result of the Bush "doctrine" of pre-emption.

Clearly, Bush has made no "aggressive" attempts to disarm nuclear powers Pakistan and India. North Korea, meanwhile, clearly seems to have accelerated its nuclear program as a direct result of the perceived "Bush" threat.

Furthermore, there is documentary evidence from the FBI (published by the Brookings Institution) that as Ronald Reagan waged a similar "war on terrorism" with similar rhetoric ("...you can run but you can't hide") terrorist attacks on the United States increased. There were, in fact, three times as many such attacks during the Reagan years as during the Clinton years. I doubt seriously that America, indeed, the world, is safer under the Bush administration.

I sincerely hope that you would give my views serious consideration. At a time when most Americans have become convinced that politicians of both parties are merely pawns of big money, big lobbies, and/or the Military/Industrial complex, it would signal a triumph for Democracy itself if – just once – a political issue might be won upon verifiable facts and the merits of a real debate as opposed to various transparent and/or stupid labels and slogans.

Sincerely

Len Hart

---

---

How the Right Wing Stole the People's Media for the Big Corporations

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Those who defend the GOP/right wing assault on media and free speech defend media consolidation with an irrelevant 'factoid'. Before 'deregulation', they say, there were only three huge networks --CBS, NBC, ABC. This may be true on the surface but misses the point that throughout the nation there were several thousand locally owned television and radio stations; all of them were required by the FCC to 'serve local interests'. As a result, many radio stations in small and large 'market's maintained viable 'News' and/or 'Public Affairs Departments'. These stations had a finger on the pulse of the listening community like few if any have today.

The record refutes right wing spin. In 1983, 50 corporations controlled most or all news media operating in the U.S. Nevertheless, Ben Bagdikian was labeled "alarmist" when he pointed out that fact in his book -- The Media Monopoly. He was no alarmist! His 4th edition [1992] stated: "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures' own and operate 90% of the mass media"! He was right. These 'extraordinary creatures' dominate and/or control almost all of America's media to include newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies.

Before the GOP attacked the media, a 'network' was precisely that -- a network of locally owned radio or TV stations. A CBS or ABC affiliate station, for example, was 'affiliated' with ABC --not owned by it! For such an outlet, ABC was just a source of news. Many of these stations maintained very large and impressive news organizations. Early in my career, as I worked in a small radio station in Odessa, TX., I was given a tour of KRLD AM-TV, the CBS affiliate in Dallas, TX. KRLD was made famous world wide for its local coverage of the assassination of JFK. As large and as impressive were KRLD's facilities --both radio and TV --it was local!

It was not until the late sixties that many 'stations' began to automate; it was not until Ronald Reagan attacked the Fairness Doctrine that locally-owned outlets were no longer required to provide 'public affairs' airtime to local groups. In other words, they were no longer required to be responsible to a 'service' area. Interestingly, the term 'service' area is no longer used, replaced recently with the the term: 'coverage'. Ergo: you --as a person --are no longer 'served'. You are 'covered'!

The Supreme Court proved willing to uphold the doctrine, eking out space for it alongside the First Amendment. In 1969's Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, journalist Fred Cook sued a Pennsylvania Christian Crusade radio program after a radio host attacked him on air. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld Cook's right to an on-air response under the Fairness Doctrine, arguing that nothing in the First Amendment gives a broadcast license holder the exclusive right to the airwaves they operate on. But when Florida tried to hold newspapers to a similar standard in 1974's Miami Herald Publishing Co. V. Tornillo, the Supreme Court was less receptive. Justices agreed that newspapers — which don't require licenses or airwaves to operate — face theoretically unlimited competition, making the protection of the Fairness Doctrine unneeded.

The doctrine stayed in effect, and was enforced until FCC chairman Mark Fowler began rolling it back during Reagan's second term — despite complaints from some in the Administration that it was all that kept broadcast journalists from thoroughly lambasting Reagan's policies on air. In 1987, the FCC panel repealed the Fairness Doctrine altogether with a 4-0 vote.

Time: A Brief History of the Fairness Doctrine

It was not until Ronald Reagan waged war on a 'liberal media' (in fact, a 'local' media) that smaller stations were routinely bought out and or merged with increasingly larger media conglomerates, in other words, huge corporations. By the early 90s, some six or seven huge corporations were reported to have acquired some 90 percent or more of all broadcast and/or cable programming in the United States.

It was not until Ronald Reagan and the GOP gave 'license' to big corporations, that the corporate owners began to 'clone' their programming among their properties. It was not until the Fairness Doctrine was trashed that ilk like Rush Limbaugh were given license to flout responsibility, public service, the pursuit of truth or, if not truth, accuracy in reporting. Ilk like Limbaugh were given a license to lie, propagandize, proselytize on behalf of the increasingly rabid, ideological and utterly absurd GOP and the rabid right wing in general.

It is interesting to note that the rising costs of electronic 'advertising' was concurrent with the rise of Ronald Reagan and the GOP. It was hard to tell which is the dog and which is the tale. In any case, one hand washed the other. Less politely --it was a right-wing circle-jerk!

A candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from a district in metropolitan Chicago would find the economics of TV advertising impossible without heavy financial backing. The typical House district has 150,000 households. A Chicago-based television station that reaches a typical district also reaches three million households in thirty-five counties in four states. The candidate either pays for the 2,850,000 unwanted households or loses the television access to his or her district that a richer candidate can buy. (A prime-time, thirty-second commercial for a major sponsor can cost more than $250,000 to produce. Few political commercials cost as much, but the cost even for less elaborate political ads on television is so high that it has created an ominous barrier to entry into American politics.) Thirty-second commercials must be repeated to be effective. The thirty-second political ad on a Chicago station, repeated ten times, would cost more than $50,000 just for air time. The ad would then be broadcast over a station that reaches so large an audience that 95 percent do not vote in the candidate's district.

--Ben H. Bagdikian, Democracy and the Media: The Media Monopoly

'Reagan Revolution' is a misnomer. It was, rather, a reactionary counter-revolution which succeeded in undoing FDR's 'New Deal'. The broadcast industry in which I cut my teeth may be traced to the Federal Radio Act of 1927, an act which nationalized the airwaves, establishing the fact that the 'airwaves' are owned by the people collectively. A Federal Communications Act created the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] to whom fell the task of allocating broadcast frequencies to those wishing to own and operate a radio or television facility.

The Communications Act of 1934 'refined' and 'expanded' this authority and empowered the FCC to administer the issuing of broadcast licenses to persons or entities wishing to broadcast on the 'airwaves' that the law had said belonged to the people collectively. The measure required that the FCC act responsibly in the 'public convenience, interest or necessity'. There are no such requirements today, thus the horror stories about small towns hit by tornadoes or worse because the so-called 'local' radio station had not issued warnings. In fact, most of those so-called radio stations are automated and/or owned by absentee owners or, worse, a huge corporation based hundreds, perhaps thousands of miles away. Such an owner feels no obligation to serve his/her/its 'coverage' area. They are in it for the bucks! They have no interest in tornadoes but for the loss of ad revenues they represent.

Most repugnant to the huge corporations which are now placed above the law was a 'fairness doctrine' which required broadcast licensees to provide equal time to citizens believing that their positions or groups had been neglected. Not surprisingly, the largest broadcast companies --ABC, NBC for example --had lobbied Congress to establish very high fees for broadcast licenses. Interestingly, Congress deemed this a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech.

Media democracy is founded on two important notions: one, that public forums such as radio and television airwaves are public property, and two, that everyone has a right both to have their voice heard and to access a variety of viewpoints and information . Currently there is much debate over the benefits and downsides to media regulation. The FCC's proposed deregulations of media ownership laws are inciting this fiery debate between proponents and opponents of deregulation.

Proponents argue that deregulating current media ownership laws would increase media outlets by promoting more competition, while opponents argue that similar deregulations in the past which were supposed to increase competition (such as the 1996 Telecommunications Act) in fact had the opposite effect. These previous deregulations caused a surge of mergers that discouraged competition. Without competition, the two founding notions of media democracy have been significantly marginalized in recent years as the diversity of media sources shrink at an alarming rate.

The loss of diversity in media ownership is a concern for democracy in the U.S., as citizens need a variety of information on all sides of the spectrum in order to make educated, informed decisions that will affect both their lives and the future of democracy. It is essential to provide media forums in which people can speak for themselves and communicate with one another. This paper will explore the impending FCC decision, the history of communication regulations and the ramifications of potential deregulation.

--Kristin Lee, The FCC and Media Democcracy, WIFP Associate

I don't believe that 'consolidated media' are serving or can serve 'public interests'. Nor can they be 'fully accountable and dependable'. If, for example, only one or two media conglomerates dominate in a single market it is doubtful that a diversity of opinions will ever see the light of day. In fact, as research reveals increasing levels of consolidation, it likewise reveals that fewer issues are covered from increasingly narrow points of view.

The most notable effects are local. Reporters say their stories are often edited and worse --refused! 'Exposes' in which advertisers are threatened by 'potentially damaging information', are routinely re-written to ameliorate potential damage to advertisers' reputations. At the very worst the 'offending' material is re-written, edited or censored outright.

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S.

in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

--Media Consolidation -- a Historical Perspective

The term "media consolidation" is clearly detrimental and problematic. There are numerous reports of networks refusing to air 'anti-war' ads though they were 'paid'. Routinely, news stories may be revised or dumped should they offend a sponsor. Money itself is allowed to slant the news --wealth as propaganda!

Over the past several years, NOW has consistently reported on the topic of media ownership. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created in 1934 with jurisdiction over radio, interstate telephone communication, and later television. But the FCC has always struggled with a fundamental lack of clarity about its proper functions. In its mission to serve the public interest, should the FCC crack down on indecency on the airwaves? Should it use its power to rescind the licenses of wayward stations? The FCC continues to face such questions. Get background information on some of the FCC's more recent decisions below:

• The Fairness Doctrine
• Media Regulation Timeline
• Details of FCC Rule Changes
• Local and National Media
  Ownership

UPDATES: Since the FCC voted on the rule changes there have been developments in the courts and in Congress.

• October 8, 2003: NBC said it would purchase the entertainment arm of Vivendi Universal for $3.8 billion.
• September 3, 2003:
  a federal appeals court in Philadelphia issued an order blocking the rule changes from taking effect. (Read the ruling.)
• September
  4, 2003: The Senate Appropriations Committee passed a spending bill that contained a provision that would effectively block the ownership rule changes.
• July 23, 2003: The House voted 400-21 to approve a spending bill that included a provision to block the FCC decision to allow major television networks to own up to 45% of the country's viewers. The Bush administration has voiced opposition to the attempt to rescind the FCC ruling.
  

--Bill Moyers, NOW

'Wires and Lights in a Box':
Complete Murrow Speech From Good Night, and Good Luck

---

---

The Origins of Artificial Intelligence in English Romantic Poetry

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Ada Byron, daughter of the English Romantic poet Lord Byron is – arguably --the world's first computer programmer. She is otherwise known to history as Lady Lovelace. The case on her behalf is so strong that the Department of Defense developed a programming language in her honor: ADA. It was among the first so-called "Object-Oriented Languages," a set of languages dominated by C++, Java, etc. But that gets ahead of the story by some one hundred years or more.

Ada Byron was born in 1815. Divorced from Lord Byron, Lady Byron brought up her daughter, Ada, fearful that she might suffer Romanticist, "poetical" tendencies as did her father. Her education, therefore, consisted of mathematics and science. Predictably, Ada's understanding of mathematics –though profound –was influenced by simile, analogy, and metaphor.

It is not surprising that Ada was fascinated and intrigued when, in 1834, she encountered Charles Babbage's idea for a "calculating machine" about which Babbage offered a daring conjecture: a machine acting upon foresight.
Most of what we know of Babbage's "differential engine" we have learned from Ada Byron. Inspired by the "universality" of Babbage's ideas, Ada proceeded to write more notes on Babbage than Babbage wrote at all. Her fascination with Babbage's "engine" is noteworthy for at least two outstanding developments.

It was Ada, inspired by Babbage's calculating machine, who first articulated, if not invented, the very concept of "software" –a set of instructions to be carried out by a "universal" machine – a machine capable of acting meaningfully upon those instructions. The obvious progeny of this concept is the multitude of software packages that now drive everything from desktops to mainframes.

Of even greater interest to physicists and cosmologists is that Ada's ideas and hopes for the 'computing machine' lead inexorably to Claude Shannon's concept of information as the inverse of entropy – a western version of the yin and yang. Entropy is or is associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a general principle constraining the 'direction' of 'heat transfer'; in the vernacular: things run down. Chaos increases. Organization becomes dis-organization and disorder. Hot things cool down in the absence of new infusions of energy. Eventually all movement ceases entirely. Some have called it the 'heat death' of the Universe –a final and eternal 'thermodynamic state' in which there no longer exists sufficient 'free energy' to sustain motion or life.

Shannon then spent 31 years at Bell Labs, starting in 1941. Among the many things Shannon worked on there, one great conceptual leap stands out. In 1948, Shannon published "The Mathematical Theory of Communication" in the Bell System Technical Journal, along with Warren Weaver. This surprisingly readable (for a technical paper) document is the basis for what we now call information theory--a field that has made all modern electronic communications possible, and could lead to astounding insights about the physical world and ourselves.

Names like Einstein, Heisenberg, or even Kurt Goedel are better known among the people who have led twentieth-century science into the limits of knowledge, but Shannon's information theory makes him at least as important as they were, if not as famous. Yet when he started out, his simple goal was just to find a way to clear up noisy telephone connections.

--Heroes of Cyberspace; Claude Shannon

Shannon wrote A Mathematical Theory of Communication [PDF] for Bell Labs in 1948 –more than a hundred years after Ada wrote what is considered to be the world's first computer program, a plan that she shared with Babbage. In it, Ada suggested how his machine might calculate Bernoulli numbers. This was the world's first computer program.

The second development began the debate about Artificial Intelligence. In his paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence, Alan Turing, devoted several paragraphs to "Lady Lovelace's Objection" to the very concept of A.I. It was a concept which Ada discounted in her notes:

The analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to [do]. It can follow analysis; but it has no power of anticipating any...truths. Its province is to assist us in making available what we're already acquainted with.

Some 100 years later Turing ascribes to her a cautious "logical positivism:"

It will be noticed that he [ D. R. Hartree ] does not assert that the machines in question had not got the property [ A.I.], but rather that the evidence available to Lady Lovelace did not encourage her to believe that they had it.

The point is not whether Lady Lovelace or Turing is correct with regard to A.I., but rather that it was Ada who foresaw the playing field and terrain, the scope of the debate. It was Turing, however, who defined 'artificial intelligence'. By his definition, computers have already achieved consciousness. Turing had said that we may consider a machine intelligent if, in a blind test, we cannot differentiate the computer's response from that of a living, breathing person. By that standard, computers are now conscious and intelligent. IBM's 'Big Blue' defeated Chess champion Boris Spasky who charged that human beings had directed the machine. I often share that attitude with my own computer's chess program. It actually seems to learn from its mistakes.

Ada understood that the meaning of a machine is what it does. Her contribution is that this meaning may be shaped by what are now call 'programmers' who literally instruct the machine, providing it a well-planned list of discrete tasks, a program –in other words: software.

Computer technologists speak of "state". Each state is particular, analogous in some way, to a particular task that may be accomplished while in that "state." Before computers, machines may have processed information –but in a crude way. The instructions had been built-in. Consider the lever –a simple machine that nevertheless may be said to have two "states" –up or down. The meaning of either state is to be found in the work done by (or in) that state. As a general principle, the meaning of a given state is the utility it creates, the work that it does.

In Ada's wake, early computers were mere assemblages of electrically controlled "levers" called "relays." The origin of binary languages may be found in relays which are either 'on' or 'off' . Mechanical relays would be replaced by vacuum tubes and, later, by transistors. Simple circuits were called either "and-gates," or "or-gates", or, generally –'flip/flop' circuits. Even now, the largest supercomputers, reduced to their smallest components, are capable only of processing just two states: 0 and 1. But upon this basic alphabet, patterns of increasing complexity have grown exponentially. The computer has become an electronic loom in which each pattern represents a "state."

That Ada glimpsed this future almost a century and a half ago is remarkable.

---

---

A Declaration of Class Warfare

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

When I started following the flow of wealth upward, the top 10 percent already owned more than the rest of us combined. Now --the 'ruling' one percent owns and/or controls more wealth than is owned by the rest of us combined. Enron was not an aberration. Enron's crime was not only that of putting the screws to California; Enron's crime was 'getting caught'. The sell out to China by Nixon/Bush was not an aberration; it was, like Enron, a part of the game plan. It is no accident that China props up the buck but only because and when it is in their interests to do so. Lately, China, it is said, is reconsidering its 'bargain' with Satan.

Monied interests control our daily lives in ways that we have not fully understood. We need dollars to buy not just 'luxury items' but essentials --housing, food, transportation. But, as a result of Nixon's Faustian bargain with China, our dollars are worth less (worthless?).

In the meantime, the ruling elites own the media that we watch. That's worth repeating: the elites --about a half-dozen huge corporations --own the media! Thanks to the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the media was relieved of its responsibility to serve public interests. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, the Fairness Doctrine was trashed, limits on corporate ownership rescinded. Thanks to Ronald Reagan primarily, the corporate media have no other job but to serve up lies and bullshit and tell you what to think! Fox is but the most obvious and repugnant example, but, in fact, no other outlet is, in any way, encouraged to be factual, fair, or responsible. The 'public interest' is considered to be 'quaint'.

When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better. But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your own television set when your station goes on the air and stay there, for a day, without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you.

Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland. You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly commercials — many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you'll see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, I only ask you to try it.

--Newton Minow, Upon his Appointment to the FCC by President John F. Kennedy

But this article is not solely about the media but about how the ruling 'elites' own and control K-Street and, hence, the government of the United States. It is about how the media is but a means by which the 'people' --you and I --are, in fact, ruled and manipulated. The elites own not only the media but the Military/Industrial complex! They are the sole beneficiaries of wars for which 'we the people' are expected to sacrifice both our lives and our lifestyles. Wars are fought entirely for the benefit of of this ruling elite. Bobby Darin's 'Simple Song of Freedom' nailed it: "....we the people here don't want a war!" Anyone not a member of the elite are cannon fodder.

Every major economist from the conservative Adam Smith to Karl Marx, from Ricardo to Krugman concedes: 'wealth' is created by labor. Ergo: wealth flows upward --never down as the GOP would have you believe. Supply-side ecnomics (trickle down theory) was clearly designed to fool a gullible public. It is nothing more than a disingenuous rationalization, in fact, a bald-faced lie! Understanding this reality explains why no GOP tax cut has ever benefited the U.S. economy. It also explains why, in fact, every GOP administration is defined by the recession/depression that inevitably catches up with them. It is a credit to the great and awesome GOP noise, bullshit and propaganda machine [NBPM] that any intelligent person in the United States should buy into 'supply-side economics', otherwise called 'trickled down theory'.

It is interesting that while 'labor' creates wealth, it is the 'ruling elite' which --alone --benefits! Only the word slavery can describe an absurd upside-down, through-the-looking-glass world in which the rich have acquired the political power required to grant themselves 'largesse' --tax cuts and lucrative contracts!

A perfectly egalitarian society could get along just fine if there were perfect equality, i.,e if there were no rich folk whatever. I would put money on such a society being much more productive, happier, peaceful! Why are wars fought? Wars are fought to seize the resources of other nations and in almost every case the assets seized are distributed in various ways to the ruling elites who are most certainly the most vocal proponents of war. Rome is still the best analogy. Rome was often bankrupt! Rome invaded Dacia for its 'gold'! Why? Roman sesterces were worthless as a medium of exchange. As a mere token to facilitate a head-count, sesterces would get you into the Coliseum. It is doubtful that it was worth a load of bread. When the Praetorian Guard auctioned off the empire, it was purchased by a nobleman --Didius Julianus! He paid in Greek Drachmas --not the worthless roman 'currency'.

Who risks his/her life in wars abroad, wars which benefit only the ruling one percent? It is the poorer classes who are honored with front-line duties. It was those 'left behind' by GOP policies who were, in various ways, rounded up and sent to the front lines in Viet Nam and, more recently, Iraq! Because of the 'draft' --involuntary servitude --Viet Nam was especially troubling. Iraq is no less disturbing; because of a failing economy, recruiting was easy from among those left behind by the GOP and exploitative right wing policies in general. How many members of the 'ruling one percent' have been killed in Afghanistan and/or Iraq? I want names and numbers!

The very presence of elites distort markets. If there were no 'elites' the price of advertising would adjust to reality --a little thing called 'supply' and 'demand'. Basic economic concepts include 'elasticity' or 'inelasticity' of demand, concepts that describe the responsiveness of 'demand' to changes in price. The same concepts describe 'demand' for money, i.e, the effect of great wealth upon money markets. The demand for most necessities (food, medicine, basic clothing) is said to be ineleastic, i.e, people who are very sick, for example, will pay almost any price for relief or cure. The hungry will pay almost any price for food --if they should be lucky enough to have it.

For everyone but the very rich, this is true of money. For us, money is a necessity. Elites, however, increase their holdings most dramatically when the dollar is lowest vis a vis other world currencies. Thus, great wealth controls the world market for money. We are but pawns, monetary cannon-fodder, thrust into the front lines of the money wars. We plebs are but pawns who must inevitably take the fall for 'Queen and country'.

If there were no 'elites' to bid the prices up with their mere presence, ski resorts might enjoy a 'plebeian' clientele. But, because skiing is 'in' among jet setters, playboys and glamorous blondes, folk will spend absurd sums to ski in Aspen. These people are not better than you and I --just richer. I know at least one extremely wealthy health-club magnate drawn to Aspen like a bee to honey. He turned out to be, like many another rich asshole, a psychopath who left his wife, moved in with a hot 'honey' and when things did not go his way hired incompetent hit men who tried but (fortunately) failed to murder the intended victim, a beautiful blonde pageant winner. She recovered, changed her identity and, presumably left the country.

In fact, little would change but for those items in which the ultimate retail price is bid up by big money. But if there is no big money, the production and sale of 'goods' would simply find a new level, a new equilibrium. The elites have bid up prices unnecessarily and there is no evidence that there is or ever has been a rationale, a reason why this must be the case. It is often implied that this is just the way the world works, the 'way things are'! I don't think so! I often got into trouble as a high schooler for daring to ask: who sez?

In fact, many are priced out of markets. But why? What is the net gain to society as a whole? Some items that are prohibitively expensive to produce and/or market might go the way of the dodo unless they are absolutely essential to --say --national security! I don't think Beluga caviar qualifies.

I daresay --more egalitarian economies are the more efficient economies; inequitable economies much less so as inequities increase. In the U.S. the degree to which an economy is determined to be either egalitarian or skewed toward elites is measured by the GINI INDEX. I would urge a bright seeker of a doctorate in economics to make the case (in his/her paper) that in the U.S. the most egalitarian regimes are and have been the most productive as measured by the ratio of GINI to GDP. It is no coincidence that every major recession – at least –since WWII has occurred during and as a result of GOP economic/monetary policies, primarily Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush. Who did I leave out? It must be pointed out that every GOP administration since World War II has, likewise, run up the largest debts and deficits. On this point, it is the administration of Ronald Reagan that is the specimen that is typical of the GOP 'species' as a whole.

Recessions may not be defined by joblessness but are always characterized by it. Typical of the right wing, Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter dismissed this result saying that the Great Depression (for example) was simply a 'good, cold douche' for the economy'. Douche! A 'douche', he called it! I don't buy that. I think his argument was and remains shallow and flippant and, rather, missed the point! Rather --recessions benefit only the investor class perhaps by design. It is hard not to conclude that they are manufactured so that the investor class can take its profits, sell short, and, in other ways, consolidate positions. We buy into this because, in America, it is all we've known. Face it ---we've all been brainwashed since birth!

The very, very rich benefit from what I call the 'Malibu Effect' defined by the ability of rich folk to 'price' poor folk 'out of a market'. For a long time, the houses on Malibu were nothing to write home about. Until, that is, the very rich discovered Malibu! Big money wasted no time bidding up the price of wood frames on stilts. You could have had the same house in Lazbuddy, TX for a song. But because it is 'in' or 'fashionable', the word MALIBU on your address is worth a lot of money ---wood frame or not!

But --what if there were fewer inequities in income and wealth? What if it were not possible for the absurdly rich to bid up prices so...well...so absurdly? I can recall a time when 30 thousand bought you a two story, three or four bedroom, den, state of the art kitchen, two car garage with a lawn. Get an old B and W video of "Leave it to Beaver". Check out that house! These people were 'middle class'. Try getting a house like that on what is called a middle class income today!

It was in the late 60s that a distinguished economist (whose name I cannot recall) wrote that 'status symbols' were on the wane as income and wealth inequities declined. His words were written during the administration of LBJ. Perhaps Lyndon had created a 'great society' after all.

I am quite sure that as this economist was writing, the GOP base of elites were already scheming to change all that. Since that time, the GOP has succeeded in proving that they have the power to price you out of the market for many things that are not only desirable but often necessary. Why should the very wealthy be allowed to deny the middle and lower classes of access to health care, quality education, decent housing, transportation to jobs? Health care is often the battleground on which is waged this war between the classes! It is not enough that the elites can afford to get care and you cannot, the elites --by way of their control over both K-street, Wall Street and Congress --deny you what should be declared a universal, human right to 'universal health care'!

Addendum:

Yes, the S.S. Minnow from Gilligan's Island is being restored and will be available for tours. More than one boat was used on the show, but this is the one in the opening credits.

I have special affection for this boat because it was named after my father, Newton Minow, whose famous speech to the broadcasters calling television a "vast wasteland" annoyed "Gilligan's Island" creator Sherwood Schwartz. So Schwartz named the sinking boat after him! My dad got a huge kick out of it and later had a very cordial exchange of letters with Schwartz. It is a great point of pride for our family. [Read more]

Bobby Darin: A Simple Song of Freedom


Lost on Gilligan's Island

---

---

Texas Attorney: the FBI Executed David Koresh, Branch Davidians

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

The FBI lied to the media and the American people when it dared claim that David Koresh and the 'Branch Davidians' were responsible for the deaths of some 74 men, women and children that resulted when the FBI ordered an attack on the Waco compound, April 19, 1993. It was a bald-faced lie!

I don’t think that the FBI in Waco was giving full information to Janet Reno or those in Washington that were making the decisions. They had this agenda that they wanted to do this tear gas thing and force them out and make it so the FBI could be the heroes. They didn’t give them the reasons not to do it. They lied to them about child abuse going on at the time. They gave them false information about the type of tear gas that was to be used. It was a deadly form of it.

The people became completely immobilized...it wouldn’t have forced them out. Those that got subjected to a heavy does of it would just collapse. They couldn’t come out. It did create a tremendous fire hazard. A lot of the autopsy reports show a high degree of cyanide in the blood streams of those people who were in a position to have breathed some of the gas. What happens with CS gas is that, when it burns, it creates cyanide gas, the same kind of gas that is used in the gas chamber.

--Dick DeGuerin, Houston Attorney, For the People

I recall a broadcast interview with the sheriff in Waco! He had investigated the Davidians, and found them to be 'law abiding American citizens'. He found no basis whatsoever for the complaints against them. I am hard pressed to find anyone at any time in any office who can tell me --precisely and authoritatively --the laws that had been broken by David Koresh and those living peaceably in the compound near Waco, TX. What crimes were committed? What is the probable cause to begin an investigation of Koresh et al? If crimes had been committed, why could not Koresh have been arrested on one of his regular visits to town?

The sheriff had said that '..these were law-abiding American citizens' who believed in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights which had explicitly guaranteed them 'freedom of religion', the right to practice their faith free of government restraints. They had trusted the government whose only responsibility under the Constitution is the protection of the people. The government not only failed them, it betrayed both them and the U.S. Constitution!

The fact is the Branch Davidians were murdered by FBI agents acting upon orders given them by the U.S. government itself, presumably the Justice Department of one Janet Reno.

Attorney General Janet Reno says she's "very, very frustrated" over recent revelations that the FBI fired explosive devices at the Mount Carmel community outside of Waco, Texas, during the April 1993 siege. I know how Reno feels. I was one of only nine survivors of the Waco blaze -- 74 men, women and children died -- and I've devoted the last six years to understanding what happened there. Frustration is a mild word to describe my feelings about that quest.

Reno's frustration, and mine, has only gotten worse recently as more damaging revelations have surfaced. First there was the CIA agent who told Salon News and the Dallas Morning News that members of the Army's secret Delta Force unit had actively participated in the siege. Then the FBI turned over tape recordings that include audio of an agent requesting and receiving permission to use pyrotechnic devices. Reports on Wednesday revealed the government also used incendiary flares during the Waco siege similar to those used to burn down the hideout of white supremacist Robert Mathews.

The film "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" purported to show infrared images of government agents firing on the building. Now there is also a rumored videotape, uncovered by the film's co-producer, Michael McNulty, that reportedly shows agents in an ATF helicopter shooting into Mount Carmel. No doubt there will be more evidence "discovered," more agents coming forward, their six-year amnesia about April 19 suddenly cured. The FBI has not come close to revealing the full government complicity in the Waco massacre.

--By David Thibodeau, Salon, The truth about Waco: A survivor says the government still isn't admitting its role in the deaths of 74 Branch Davidians

I recall my first reaction to the news feeds from Waco. I asked myself and friends: where and what is the 'probable cause' that Koresh, indeed, any member of his 'compound' had broken the law? Last time I had checked the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, had not been repealed. Last time I had checked, people had a right to believe or not believe as conscience dictates. Last time I checked, any American had a right to belong to a kooky cult if it had not broken the law! The Baptists, a kooky cult if ever there was one, were proof of that! And, as I recall, even Puritans thought Baptists to be 'weird'! And Waco, home to the Baptist Baylor University, was Baptist 'country' to be sure! To this day, no one has cited any 'probable cause' that Koresh or any member of the compound had broken any law whatsoever --not even minor offenses that might have been addressed with a simple arrest upon one of Koresh's regular visits to the town of Waco for provisions.

Simply --the U.S. government, in arrogant violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights --MURDERED some 74 free citizens of the United States of America. By standards established by our founders the U.S. government has broken its 'social contract' with the people and is no longer legitimate!

What I found was a bunch of people who were devoutly religious and dedicated to their beliefs. They weren’t dedicated to David Koresh. He wasn’t to them a savior or some person who held their rapt attention or controlled their actions at all. He was just the latest of their prophets and they believed his view of the Bible but it wasn’t that he was controlling what they did.

He was difficult in that his religious agenda was more important than his personal agenda.

I could make him understand logically that the best thing for him to do was to surrender and go to court and fight in court whatever battles were ahead.

I could also make him understand that he would be better off if he voluntarily walked out with me than if they had to come in and get him.

I could also make him understand that the people who had him surrounded wanted to kill him. They didn’t want him to survive...that we would have to make it work to have him survive. I didn’t predict the fire. I didn’t predict that they were all going to be killed but I told him in no uncertain terms, “Don’t get by the window. They’ll take you out.” I believe they would have. They had snipers all around the place.

--Dick DeGuerin, Houston Attorney, For the People

David Koresh: Like it is!

---

---

How America Lost its Soul

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Literature is characterized by recurring themes. On a short list of archetypal stories is the 'pact' which some are said to have entered into with 'Satan'. In many variations, a protagonist agrees to exchange his soul for worldly or temporary gain. As a 'cultural motif', it is most often associated with or exemplified by the German legend of Faust or Mephistopheles.

It is significant that Faust or Faustus means 'lucky' --or 'auspicious' in the original Latin. It is, I'm sure, merely coincidental that Larry Silverstein who is the most obvious, the most notable beneficiary of 911, is called 'Lucky' Larry! In Latin --Faust!

In Goethe's retelling of this archetypal legend, Faust is unhappy, unsatisfied though he is a highly successful scholar. Mephistopheles makes him a 'bargain' that he cannot refuse. Faust agrees to exchange his soul for 'unlimited knowledge' and worldly pleasures. This motif is archetypal and not unique to Western or Christian traditions. It is found, I am told, in almost all cultures throughout history.

To be expected, the western versions of this legend are heavily influenced by traditional Christian beliefs in witchcraft. The pact is between a person and Satan or any other demon; the person offers his or her soul in exchange for diabolical favors, most often material, monetary or sexual but may include youth, knowledge, wealth, or power in various forms and proportions. It was also believed that some persons entered into such a pact in exchange for nothing; it was a sign of recognizing the devil (Satan) as master.

"I told the invited scientists who the Committee was, the Interim Committee, what it was established for, and then I switched over and told them what we wanted of them, the invited scientists; first, to congratulate and thank them for what they have done and then to get them started in talking and questioning. It was a little slow sledding at first but I think I got some wrinkles out of their heads in regard to my own attitude and that of the Army towards this new project. I told them that we did not regard it as a new weapon merely but as a revolutionary change in the relations of man to the universe and that we wanted to take advantage of this; that the project might even mean the doom of civilization or it might mean the perfection of civilization; that it might be a Frankenstein which would eat us up or it might be a project 'by which the peace of the world would be helped in becoming secure'. Well after a while the talk went pretty well. I had Marshall in and during a time when I had to be absent to go over to the White House he took a vigorous hand in the discussion and I think impressed himself very much upon them. I think we made an impression upon the scientists that we were looking at this like statesmen and not like merely soldiers anxious to win the war at any cost. On the other hand, they were a fine lot of men as can be seen from their records. Dr. Fermi, Dr. Lawrence, and Dr. Compton were all Nobel prize winners; and Dr. Oppenheimer, though not a Nobel prize winner, was really one of the best of the lot."

--HIROSHIMA: HENRY STIMSON'S DIARY AND PAPERS: Part 5, May 31, 1945 - June 6, 1945

The development of nuclear weapons is often said to be 'Faustian'. Indeed, for a few post war years, the United States, as the sole possessor of atomic power, ruled the world. Even before the bomb was dropped there were doubts about the wisdom of unleashing the atomic genie. It was Physicist Robert Oppenheimer, supervising the U.S. 'Manhattan Project' who quoted the Bhagavad-Gita:

"...now I am become Death [Shiva], the destroyer of worlds..."

Another version differs only slightly:

If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty one...
I am become Death,
The shatterer of Worlds.

Forbidden Planet of 1956 is a classic Sci-Fi tour de force staring Leslie Nielson, Walter Pidgeon, and Anne Francis. It holds up surprisingly well against Star Wars of the 1970's and even the most recent digital entries.

The story of Dr. Morbius, re-discovering the technological marvels of a lost race of Krell on the distant planet Altair, is updated Shakespeare: The Tempest. And while Forbidden Planet excels in special effects, it's enduring fascination is found in a parable: technology vs its inventor, the monster vs Dr. Frankenstein, in fact any one at war with the enemy of his/her own making.

Forbidden Planet lays bare the dark side of human kind, a forbidding gestalt of uncontrollable urges, the monster from the ID! Just as Lord of the Rings depicts the absolute corruption of absolute power, Forbidden Planet confronts us with a question we would rather not answer: what are we to do with the physical manifestations of our inmost monsters?

Is "Terrorism" the Monster From the ID?

FBI statistics published by the Brookings Institution repudiate the political exploitation of terror by the recent Bush administration, the right wing in general. The FBI's own statistics indicate that while Ronald Reagan most vociferously waged his famous "War on Terrorism", terrorist attacks against the United States actually increased. There were three times as many terrorist attacks during the Reagan years as were the case under Clinton. Yet --Clinton was criticized for not having waged such a 'war on terrorism'. Either the American right wing has not bothered to check the numbers or it has checked them and lies about them. In retrospect, only the wealthy, elite right wing constituency has ever benefited in any way by various 'wars' on terrorism. The rest of us are cannon fodder. The right wing consisting of powerful lobbies and military contractors has made a Faustian bargain. The U.S. is akin to Morbius of Forbidden Planet --too late do we recognize that the only demons that howl are of our own making.

In the United States, if not everywhere, it is the ruling elite that, like Faust, made the bargain. Scrooge was wrong and so is the contemporary right wing. Scrooge was wrong because the terms 'rich' and 'poor' are subjective and often the 'poor class' is the result of elitist greed. The 'monster' that is thus created is not merely the statistical imbalance between right and poor but the insidious economic inefficiencies that result. For example, in the U.S. just one percent of the population owns more than some 95 percent of the rest of the population combined. A inequitable society is an inefficient society. The U.S., for example, seems always to plunge into recession/depression during GOP regimes in which it is also true that the very, very rich have gotten even richer.

By way of influence, lobbies and campaign contributions, et al, the U.S. elite controls the apparatus of government. Naturally, this 'ruling elite' favors economic policies which enrich them to the detriment and/or impoverishment of everyone else. This is the reductio ad absurdum of the Scrooge (Herbert Spencer) position which maintains, wrongly and fallaciously, that the rich are rich because they are smarter and better.

Robert Oppenheimer on the Manhattan Project

---

---

Save the Wolves from GOP Predators and Palin

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

A bone-headed decision to remove gray wolves from the federal endangered species list applies to wolf populations in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Idaho and Montana, and parts of Utah, Washington and Oregon. Apparently, gray wolves in Wyoming remain protected under terms of the Endangered Species Act. This 'act' has transferred the 'management' of the wolf population from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to state and tribal agencies. In Idaho -- the wolves have become legal targets for hunters in short order.

Idaho Fish and Game commissioners have already adopted dates for the wolf hunting season in the state and will set quotas once delisting takes effect.

"We have to move on and manage them similar to other big-game animals," Idaho Fish and Game Director Cal Groen said. "This is good news for wolves, elk, rural communities and hunters. I believe this action will help defuse the animosity and anger associated with wolves when we can manage wolves in concert with our other big game species."

The Fish and Wildlife Service will monitor the delisted wolf populations for a minimum of five years to ensure that they continue to sustain their recovery. At the end of that time, it will be decided if relisting, continued monitoring or ending service monitoring is appropriate.

Idaho governor C. L. "Butch" Otter has said he supports reducing his state's wolf population from its current level of around 800 animals to 100. "I'm prepared to bid for the first ticket [hunting license] to shoot a wolf myself," he once said.

--Lindsay Barnett

Ranchers are apparently the largest group demanding the eradication of Wolves. Especially troublesome are incidents in which the Alpha male is 'murdered'. In Washington state, an alpha male over several generations was killed, his 'pelt' sent to Canada, presumably for 'sale'. Hideous! And --no ---states do not have the right to eradicate any population! Some laws are unjust if not stupid! Alaskan attempts to eradicate wolves are disingenuous and Sarah Palin knows that that is the case. And, in any case, the wolves were there first! What if a law saying that wolves had a right to 'eradicate' were put into effect?

Ranchers have no legitimate complaint. Many have in fact encroached upon 'ancient' habitats and, in any case, they use land owned by the public for 'free grazing'. Anyone getting a 'free lunch' has nothing to complain about. But now --we are expected to turn a blind-eye to the murder of noble animals. In fact, wolves were never a problem until their habitats were encroached upon. As someone who spent much of his childhood on a ranch in West Texas, I can say with some experience: animals are a threat only when we have trespassed upon them. They have rights too!

Wolves also occupy an essential niche in vast, complicated ecosystems.

Wolves are the top predator in most environments in which they live and the trickle down effect of their presence is astounding. In Yellowstone, prior to the wolves' reintroduction in 1995, elk basically roamed wherever they chose and tended to spend most of their time in the river valleys. This excessive streamside grazing prevented willow and cottonwood tree growth along the river banks. But when the wolf returned, the elk quickly learned they couldn't set up permanent housekeeping in the valleys and they moved on to make a living in other areas. This, in turn, allowed young trees to grow along the riverbeds. The new trees shaded the river water, creating improved habitat for trout, which thrive in cooler, darker waters. The new willows and cottonwoods attract additional migratory birds and provided new food sources and building materials for beavers. The beavers then built dams which created new marshes and wetlands that in turn attracted otters, ducks and other species.

Wolves provide tremendous economic benefits

Ecotourism is quickly moving to the forefront of family recreational activities. The longing to see animals in their natural habitat has created an economic boom throughout the United States. In Yellowstone, fishing has always been a big industry and the improved environment along the river caused by the wolf's presence has improved fishing opportunities. The wolves themselves are also a huge tourist draw, with many people making Yellowstone their vacation destination expressly for the purpose of seeing wolves. Indeed, most sunrises in Yellowstone are accompanied by rows and rows of nature lovers with spotting scopes, all straining for a glimpse of the elusive wolf.

Wolves pose little threat to livestock and humans. In fact, their prey of choice has been wild game like deer and elk for centuries. The same is true for human/wolf interactions. Despite claims by wolf opponents, the fact remains that aggression by wolves against humans is a very rare event.

--Benefits of Wolves : The ecological and economic benefits they bring

The only justification for killing of animals is for food! However, no one has ever said that wolf meat is going to make any difference whatsoever to those who go hungry because the GOP has transferred vast amounts of American wealth upward to a ruling elite of just one percent of the total population. The greatest threat to those who may be near starvation is the GOP --NOT the noble wolf! Again --the American right wing, the GOP in particular, is not only wrong but dead wrong and wrong-headed, and, at their very core, stupid, evil and --charitably --misguided!

---

---

How the U.S. Invented 'al Qaeda'!

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Al Qaeda was a U.S. creation, specifically a product of inverted right wing psuedo logic. If 'al Qaeda' did not exist, never mind --the shills would invent it and cite it to justify wars abroad, crackdowns on freedom at home! They would bestow upon it a virtual existence via press releases, propaganda and outright lies --deliberate attempts to mislead the American people!

Bin Laden should pay royalties to the U.S. right wing if, indeed, he ever benefited from his new found celebrity, his holographic 'creation' by the mass media, his elevation to arch-enemy status! His is falsely characterized as the 'mega-terrorist' brain behind a sinister world terrorist organization resembling an octopus with tentacles in every real or fictitious terrorist attack. There had not been anything like it since Bond fought SPECTRE --an evil terrorist organization specializing in terrorism and extortion. In the Bushco rewrite the part of Blofeld is played by Bin Laden.

It was a crock!

It was the CIA which bestowed upon Bin Laden himself his near mythical image of sinister master terrorist who commanded a vast world wide network from deep inside a cave in Tora Bora. This was all really, really bad fiction. Many Hollywood producers would have laughed out of their offices anyone daring to pitch it! It was, it seems, a very, very bad rewrite of Ala Baba and his 40 thieves. Ali, like Binny, lived in a cave but --alas --did not have cell phones. But neither did Bin Laden.

The immediate acceptance of the Bush official conspiracy theory proves the diminishing IQs of those who insist upon believing it. The consolation is this: the CIA has no future in Hollywood!

A bad b-movie!

According to the official version of the lie (charitably: the 'myth') goes something like this: the CIA and the Saudis are said to have funded and armed Bin Laden throughout the 80s. His mission impossible: wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. In fact, Bin Laden was working for the CIA.

Simply --Al-Qaeda means 'the base'; in this case --the computer data base of thousands of mujahideen trained and recruited by the CIA. The mission: defeat the Russians. This is cold war James Bond stuff and, in some cases, a just a bad rewrite. Life imitates spy movies.

The problem has become apparent over time: Washington did not know what to do with this 'database', this network that had become obsolete with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It obviously never occurred to DC spooks and/or analysts that with the withdrawal of the Soviet Union, Ala Baba, uh, Bin Laden would focus upon U.S. imperialism throughout the Middle East! But did he? More likely --he was just the convenient scapegoat for an inside job that would become the pre-text, the boogie-man to be cited as justifying a war for the oil resources of Iraq, the poppy (opium) resources of Afghanistan.

The source for how 'al Qaeda' got its name is Sir Robin Cook, the former British Foreign Secretary. In order to protest the British connection to this sorry story, Cook resigned his job.

Benazir Bhutto: Bin Laden was Murdered

---

---

Bush's Tragic Legacy at Home and Around the World

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

One hopes that thinking about Iraq has gotten clearer since Bush violated U.S. laws and international commitments in order to: 1) seize the oil fields of Iraq; 2) exploit the 'threat of terror' to consolidate his 'base' at home, 3) subvert Constitutional guarantees that give Americans the right to denounce incompetent and/or traitorous 'leaders'.

An evil legacy of this idiocy is the recent decree that would allow the government to 'sanction' i.e, kill its vocal opposition.

Civil liberties advocates and legal authorities struck back Friday at what they describe as the “deliberate targeted killing of U.S. citizens far away from any active hostilities, as long as the executive branch determines unilaterally that they meet a secret definition of who the enemy is.”

In an admission that took the intelligence community and its critics by surprise, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair acknowledged in a congressional hearing ... that the U.S. may, with executive approval, deliberately target and kill U.S. citizens who are suspected of being involved in terrorism.

--William Fisher, Legal Experts Slam Assassinations of US Citizens, February 06, 2010

This reminds one of the infamous assertion by the newly appointed Gen. Michael Hayden that the legal standard to begin an investigation or, possibly more Draconian measures, was 'reasonable suspicion' --not 'probable cause' as it is, in fact! The General was wrong! He betrayed the fact that he had never bothered to read the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That the possible murder of U.S. citizens by our own government even saw the light of day is not just worrisome, it is cause for alarm! We should be yelling --crowded theater or no! The very concept is repugnant and those politicians entertaining it should be fired, impeached, removed, tried upon the probable cause they have violated U. S. laws against sedition.

Next time --unless these ideas are exposed, eviscerated and laid bare --a future would-be tyrant may find it easy to carry out a program of rampant murder upon a mere 'suspicion' about which he might even be inclined to lie. Such a tyrant might order the round-up and incarceration of anyone daring to express a disagreement! There is precedent! In the Germany of Adolph Hitler one need not 'do' anything to be arrested, detained, imprisoned and, eventually, murdered. One had only 'be'! A Jew ! A Gypsy! A non-Aryan! Thus not even the pure Aryan was free to act! He could only 'be' but not as a free individual but as a cog in the enslaved collective! This is what happens when the rule of law is flouted and or ridiculed as it was during Bush's eight years each of which were Annus horribilis!

The President revealed this ... as he fairly spat through his teeth, words of unrestrained fury directed at the man who was once the very symbol of his administration, who was once an ambassador from this administration to its critics, as he had once been an ambassador from the military to its critics.

The former Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, had written, simply and candidly and without anger, that "the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."

This President's response included not merely what is apparently the Presidential equivalent of threatening to hold one's breath, but within it contained one particularly chilling phrase.

"Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," he was asked by a reporter. "If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"

“If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic,” Bush said. “It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.

Of course it's acceptable to think that there's "any kind of comparison."

And in this particular debate, it is not only acceptable, it is obviously necessary, even if Mr. Powell never made the comparison in his letter.

Some will think that our actions at Abu Ghraib, or in Guantanamo, or in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, are all too comparable to the actions of the extremists.

--Keith Olberman, Bush owes us an apology

While he occupied the White House, his opposition was often called traitorous by that term and others as well. That this chill upon 'free speech' could happen in America where it was often said It Can't Happen Here begs an explanation! The question is not whether it might happen but why it happened in the first place and when it will happen again!

A state is not, like the ground which it occupies, a piece of property (patrimonium). It is a society of men whom no one else has any right to command or to dispose except the state itself. It is a trunk with its own roots. But to incorporate it into another state, like a graft, is to destroy its existence as a moral person, reducing it to a thing; such incorporation thus contradicts the idea of the original contract without which no right over a people can be conceived.

--Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace

Thus, it was in 1795 that Kant made quick work of the very concept of aggressive war. I find it ironic that as soon as this nation under incompetent and criminal leadership abandons those principles we find ourselves in a state of Perpetual War from which only an increasingly tiny ruling elite will benefit! This elite is Moloch by any definition!

Totalitarian regimes and other "fear based" societies are considered by Natan Sharansky to be "tyrannies". Though an apologist for Bush, Natan Sharansky is at least correct about that much! However, the "basis" for the specific principles of International Law to which the U.S. is "obliged", indeed, even insisted upon are as follows:

• Nuremberg Principles
• Geneva Convention
• U.S. Codes; Section 2441

An excerpt:

(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.

I also recommend ‘Preventive War’ and International Law After Iraq. An excerpt from the introduction and executive summary:

However if change is to be effected, it must be carried out in way(s) that promotes international peace and security through multilateral action and the rule of law. This may be time consuming and frustrating, but the alternative danger is a weakening or even abandonment of the rule of law and undermining the prohibition on the use of force which has been the product of not only the international consensus to avoid war following two world wars but decades of consensus.

--‘Preventive War’ and International Law After Iraq, Duncan E. J. Currie LL.B. (Hons.) LL.M., 22 May, 2003

To conclude that because one has power its exercise is always right is, simply, wrong! It's a non sequitur! On trial for his Nazi crimes at Nuremberg, Goering called it "victor's justice"!

The victor declares what is right and moral and through some charade transforms these propositions into "legal" form and engaging in some meaningless ritual, punishes the losers.

--Hermann Goering

Goering's position is the Nazi position and that of anyone else, most recently, Republicans who subscribe to it! The law of the jungle, it will describe the ultimate descent of civilization unless it is eschewed. It must be pointed out that even Goering --a Nazi --did not consider for a moment that it was 'right'. It was and remains, as he said, the exercise of power by those who have it against those who don't! There is nothing 'right' about it and no victory can make it so.

Eventually Iraq will form an Islamic socialist/theocracy and --if it wishes to survive --an alliance with Iran. American soldiers will have been sacrificed for nothing! Is this how conservatives and/or GOPPERS define 'victory'?

Iraqis opposing a U.S. war of aggression are hardly "subversive"; many Iraqis will call those who oppose the U.S. by the word: "patriots". I refer you to William Pitt, Earl of Chatham who admonished the British parliament with what was very nearly his dying breath:

If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country I never would lay down my arms,—never! never! never!

--William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (1708–1778)

And what term is used to describe the Americans who fought with the Lincoln Bridge and others against Franco during the Spanish Civil War. Are they terrorists?

Terrorism is Worse Under GOP Regimes

It used to be that one need not be "left" to denounce wars of naked aggression! I denounce the idea of "pre-emptive" strike; it is a return to the law of the jungle in which "...life is nasty, brutish, and short"! Every tin horn dictator from N.K. to Iran need only cite the Bush doctrine to justify their armaments.It's hard to imagine how one can win a moral argument by so willingly, so eagerly giving up the moral high ground --as Bush has clearly done!

My remarks are not merely theoretical. Just as FBI statistics prove conclusively that terrorism against the United States was worse as Ronald Reagan waged his similarly failed "war" against 'terrorism', so, too, Bush has failed! In fact 'terrorism' against U.S. 'interests' is always worse under GOP regimes. Coincidence? No! It is the understandable reaction of people to U.S. imperialism as it was the reaction of Zulus and eventually the people of India against the British!

Terrorism under Bush increased with his declaration of no quarter for those nations harboring or nurturing terrorists! Though he would not admit it, Bush had in mind administering his new acquisition--Iraq --by way of puppet governments. The ex post facto rationalization --bringing Democracy to Iraq --was not conceived until it was clear that no WMD would be found and, secondly, that the mis-named insurgency would not go away! At various stages, Bush and Bushy thought things would get better.

They never did!

But we are expected --I suppose --to surrender our freedoms willingly because a moron fucked up! I don't think so!

---

---