July 03, 2006

If Iraq had been a democracy before 9-11

SCENE: An apartment in Hamburg, Germany, near the al-Qods mosque. It is winter, 1999, and 9-11 pilots Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Sheihi, Ziad Jurrah and Hani Hanjour are discussing the plot.

ATTA: The Emir wishes us to press forward with the mission! Death to the infidel!
AL-SHEIHI: Just a style note, Atta. Do you always have to speak in exclamation points?
ATTA: The Emir's will has been expressed! We shall cut off the head of the Serpent Satan!
AL-SHEIHI: Answers that, I guess.
HANJOUR: What, again, is the Emir's beef?
ATTA: Be not frivolous! The army of the infidel even now defiles the holy cities of Medina and Mecca, at the invitation of the corrupt rulers of Sacred Arabia! He shall be driven out!
JURRAH: And that's because we're going to...
AL-SHEIHI: Don't get him started...
ATTA: The Emir is clear!
JURRAH: Verse, yet...
ATTA: This is the year to finish our pilot training! In America!
JURRAH: Any idea what that FAA cert is worth on the open market? I know a guy...
HANJOUR: You're very unclear on the concept of this thing, Ziad.
ATTA: The Emir awaits us with The Brain in Islamabad!
Al-SHEIHI: We have to go there again?
ATTA: Final instructions before we move to realization of jihad!
HANJOUR: One thing, Mohammed...
ATTA: Yes?
HANJOUR: (clearing spit from eye) Are you aware Iraq is a democracy, kind of?
ATTA: I am aware that a pro-Iranian Shiite government has replaced Saddam, yes! I've got CNN too!
HANJOUR: Well, how's this thing supposed to work now?
Al-SHEIHI: I'm not seeing the difference, Hani. I'm from the UAE.
JURRAH: Lebanon, here.
ATTA: Egypt!
HANJOUR: Yeah, but it's a democracy, kind of, in the heart of the Arab world.
AL-SHEIHI: Heart? Where'd you learn anatomy, Baywatch?
JURRAH: Ankle, maybe.
HANJOUR: But with the swamp drained, how do we even exist?
AL-SHEIHI: You mean, how did four or five guys from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Lebanon and Yemen come to Hamburg, become radicalized by exposure to the West, then get recruited by the Kuwaiti Khallid Sheikh Mohammed and the Saudi Osama bin Laden, then arrange to get about 15 additional guys from Saudi Arabia as muscle on a hijack plot, all of which had nothing to do with Iraq? Is that your question?
HANJOUR: Yes!
AL-SHEIHI: Now you're doing it. I don't know, Hani, why don't we leave that question to the Americans.

July 02, 2006

Plato's Odyssey: A Story from the Political Nightmare Future: Chap. 2

Plato’s Odyssey: Chapter 2

Plato had simply faced unflinchingly that it was a New America which confronted the Twenty-first Century, and he was a Twenty-first Century Man. Maybe one of the very first. The extrication strategy involving Sheila, which presumably Control knew all about, might impress his handlers, who were themselves implacably New Americans.

Plato had been chosen by a top secret search engine designated “ApoCalypso®,”jointly developed by DataGen® and the Counterterrorism Unit of the Department of State® (“CUDS®”). ApoCalypso® was a drill-down type of database which sought a category of Americans termed the “ÜberDeracinated®,” the most untraceable and undistinguished citizens available in the population, for top secret activities related to the ongoing War on Terror®. Plato was first notified by CUDS® in early 2013. He was given a round trip ticket to Los Angeles International Airport, then driven in an airport shuttle to an elementary school in Fullerton, California, where a meeting was held on a Saturday morning in March. None of the participants was aware of the purpose of the meeting; the calls summoning them were disguised as promotional events in which they would be given free passes to GlobalLand® in exchange for their agreement to listen to a sales pitch for a new development of condominiums in Marina Del Ray.

It is probably a measure of ApoCalypso’s® acuity that the come-on met with a 100% success rate. ApoCalypso® had identified ten American male finalists, and these ten males arrived at John Adams Elementary within fifteen minutes of each other. They were greeted there in Miss Simmons’s homeroom by three men in their late thirties or early forties, dressed casually in sweaters and jeans, sporting conservative haircuts and pleasant smiles, and graciously thanking each of them for agreeing to come. The leader, transparently enigmatized as “Bill Jones,” began by apologizing for the ruse, while assuring each of them that in fact the attendees would be given free passes to GlobalLand® and Knott’s Berry Farm, but that no new condominium developments had been built in Marina Del Ray for more than two decades.

Jones then got down to business. The recruited attendees, or AmeriCruits®, were chosen because they were “positioned” to give the United States a unique form of assistance in the WarOnTerror®. Because of their demonstrated intelligence, good citizenship, impeccable records (no criminal raps, no credit derogatories more than thirty days, many other parameters), lack of personal entanglements (none of the men had wives, children or surviving parents) and other desirable qualities, they could serve as “cut-outs” for a top secret mission which would be described to the survivors among them. The AmeriCruits® assumed, understandably if incorrectly, that Jones was referring to a winnowing process or competition among them for the five jobs available.

The truth was somewhat otherwise. ApoCalypso® was compiled through a crash joint effort by the private and “public” sectors, beginning in late 2001, while the heat of Ground Zero was still gradually dissipating in New York’s early winter. It was, as operatives within the Department of Defense were fond of saying, the Mother of All Databases, the database of databases, designed to run on a network of superfast Crawfish Computers®, which crunched billions of data bytes about every American who had ever surfaced sufficiently to attract any form of attention by the human race. Thus, prior to “augmentation” through an analysis of subjective data, ApoCalypso® churned at relativistic speeds through personal data such as birth certificates, report cards, high school diplomas, religious affiliation, military records, high school and college transcripts, voting registration, vehicle license and registration records, driving records, any purchases ever made on the Internet, any registration ever made on any Website, credit reports from all reporting agencies, records of all bank accounts, all tax returns ever filed, Social Security accounts, professional licensing and discipline records, any appearance on any customer list ever sold in commerce (this tended to multiply exponentially all other data points culled from all other sources, since many of the customer tendency databases resembled a lower-level ApoCalypso® search), all records of marriage and divorce, court records, any land records in any County Recorder’s office, all hotel registrations domestic and abroad, any petitions ever signed regarding any issue, passport records, all books ever purchased or checked out of any public library, visa records, credit card statements, brokerage account statements, utility bills, telephone bills, wiretap records, clandestine surveillance tapes (visual and audio), any request ever made under the now-abolished Freedom of Information Act regarding anything, all letters to Congress or to the editor of any newspaper, all travel arrangements and itineraries ever undertaken, and a catchall category called “idiosyncratic behavior.” This massive data “snapshot” of all subject Americans was subjected to a secondary analysis by a subsidiary application called “ApoCoSorter®” which used weighted values for various data points in an effort to optimize the “InnocoScale®” (short for “innocuousness scale”) and to be certain that the population of this subcategory was comprised solely of the most unremarkable, faceless, anonymous and undistinguished American males between the ages of forty and fifty-five then extant in America.

There were two hundred and fifty semi-finalists in this preliminary cohort. 98% of them were Republicans (affiliates of the Incumbent), 75% of them were members of a social or business club (such as the Optimists or American Pioneers), 83% of them played golf, 97% were football fans, 97% were somewhat overweight, 86% percent of them read Tom Clancy novels, 73% were graduates of a four year university, 3% had been to graduate school, 83% had served in the military, 4% had been to Vietnam, and 0% of them appeared in any Google® match.

The initial cohort was then studied manually by CUDS® operatives, who undertook an exhaustive subanalysis to discover what were termed indistinguishing secondary characterists or ISC® index. The ISC® was then given a logarithmically derived scalar value of 1 to 10, with 1 representing one or two mentions in a local daily newspaper before the age of thirty (such as a wedding announcement or agate-type boxscore for interscholastic sports) and 10 signifying what was termed a “borderline fictitious existence.” Each of the finalists in Ms. Simmons’s homeroom had ISC index ratings between 9.5 and 10.0. Plato’s ranking was 9.7, exceeded only by a balding forty-eight year old from Nebraska, about fifteen pounds overweight, brown hair, brown eyes, brown polyester pants, plaid orange and blue shirt, blue windbreaker, black work shoes and white socks. Names were not used during the orientation session, but the ISC rankings were explained and given for each of the finalists.

Plato had mixed feelings about his inclusion, of course. He knew he was quiet, was aware he didn’t believe in “rocking the boat,” and was peripatetic in his romantic life precisely because he did not like the complications which seemed inevitable with “commitment,” such as shared finances, co-ownership, mutual friends and intimate secrets. All of this simply appeared wise to Plato in the second decade of 21st Century America. It did not mean he did not have a mind of his own.

For example, after ApoCalypso® was preliminarily explained by Jones, Plato, thinking to himself, was aware of certain logical fallacies and elisions in its design. Plato was actually well-read and as informed as an average American could be in 2014. He made use of the extensive law and general library available at City Hall, but was careful not to check books out, as a rule, although occasionally he would break this pattern so as not to arouse too much suspicion through holding an underused library card. When a new number was published by Karl Manrove or Deborah Jousting or one of their numerous imitators who had achieved fame since the Ascendancy of the Incumbent, Plato checked the book out or at least placed his name on the computerized waiting list. He knew that this practice must have improved critical subcategory values within his overall ISC®, although he did not know by how much.

Plato’s Internet use was similarly misleading, since he always signed on using Mae Wan’s handle and password, which he’d gotten from her during their brief period of physical and “emotional” intimacy, covering his acquisition with his occasional need to sign-on while hanging out at her Inner Richmond District flat on rainy Saturday mornings. He then used the remote function of her ISP to sign on at City Hall’s computer research room, and from there he could acquire the foreign press, opinion journals from European Union capitals and dissident websites hoisted by Americans exported during the period since the Incumbency began. Plato imagined, with a twinkle, what sort of ISC® Mae Han must have been tagged with by ApoCalypso®. The mind reeled. All those hours logged on to anti-American sites, the late night perusal of articles written by exiled American investigative journalists; not a pretty picture and not a salutary index. Mae Han might find herself eating Hunan in its place of origin.

So despite his impressive ISC®, Plato was something of a pretender, someone who, despite outlandishly adverse odds, had apparently outsmarted the system. He found it difficult to credit that viewpoint, however. Increasingly, the Administration of the Incumbent left absolutely nothing to chance. Which was probably the reason for this written examination which Plato found himself enduring in the early afternoon in Ms. Simmons’s homeroom, his knees jammed under the little hinged top of the laminated desk, sitting on a hard blond laminated chair, the helical flourescent lights above humming and crackling. The test did not seem designed to test the power of the intellect. It seemed cast more toward a personality multiphasic, but with a weird orientation toward “American values,” including questions such as:

“1. Does the United States have any history of supporting dictators abroad?

“2. Does freedom of speech extend to battlefields during wartime?

“3. Does the United States owe any obligation to explain its foreign policy to any international body?”

Plato suspected that some sort of Game Theory was at work here. There were only two columns of dashed spaces to blacken with his No. 2 pencil: “Yes” and “No.” To answer “No” to all three questions, which seemed like the safe approach under the Regime® looked suspiciously like pandering. To answer “Yes” to one or more might prove disastrous. Plato resolved the conundrum by answering “No” to Questions 1 and 2 and “Yes” to Question 3, reasoning that the qualifier “any” to the harsh word “obligation” to engage in an action as noncommital as“explaining” was fairly benign and did not signify any sort of impermissible intrusion on American autonomy, which had been raised over the last fourteen years to the status of a religious tenet.

Yet at base, Plato was profoundly uneasy about this entire exercise, the selection by ApoCalypso®, the trip to Los Angeles, the vague references to “serving” the country in a unique capacity. With the broad shroud of secrecy cast over every governmental action during the past decade, it was certainly possible (and no credible means existed to refute this possibility) that the Government used the ruse of honor as a cover to lure dissidents (or “traitors,” as they were termed by the Administration) into just such a self-revealing exercise as this Multiphasic he was now second-guessing his way through. Still, there was no way out of the exercise, and he completed the questionnaire, listened to a few more of Jones’s remarks regarding future contacts, received his free passes to GlobalLand®, and left quietly with the other AmeriCruits®.

June 30, 2006

Fun with President Bush

On "learning" about the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, President George W. Bush reportedly reacted as follows: "To the extent there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so. The American people need to know that the ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street."

Presumably, this final remark reflects Bush's relaxation at the news the Hamdan case will not result in his immediate impeachment and removal from office.

But what of the rest of this sparkling verbiage? This is an opportunity to delve into the cognitive workings of the Leader of the Free World and see what's up. Assuming that his verbalization is symptomatic of underlying thought processes, let us deconstruct this quote phrase by phrase:

1. "To the extent there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether..." Right away you get an inkling how screwed up this guy's thinking is. (It never takes long, in fact.) First of all, "to the extent" and "latitude," as used here, really amount to the same thing. "Extent" and "latitude" cover identical ground. The phrase could have been stated, "to the extent we can work with Congress to determine..." The latitude is implied in the phrase. But what does the phrase mean? Here we follow along thusly:

2. "or not the military tribunals will be an avenue..." The first thing that comes to mind here is, why wouldn't there be "latitude" to work with Congress sufficient to figure something out? Of course, the "latitude" exists to talk to a bunch of other Republicans about Bush's burning desire to find something that comports less with procedural due process than Uniform Code of Military Justice procedures. Bush doesn't need to be anxious that someone in the Republican Party, including Arlen Specter, is going to go so far as to suggest Guantanamo scum deserve an actual "trial." Let's not get ridiculous. These are people (we guess - no one in authority has ever said, and very few of the Gitmo inmates have ever actually been charged with anything other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time) who supported Osama bin Laden's 9-11 attack. As did Zacarias Moussaoui, who was recently tried and convicted in a federal district court in Manhattan. But these people are different. They were captured "on the battlefield" and are therefore more like "enemy combatants," much like Jose Padilla who was captured on the battlefield of Chicago's O'Hare Airport and classified an enemy combatant, although he's an American citizen. Fortunately, we're a nation of laws, and not an autocracy run at the capricious whim of one man, like some countries we could name. Where were we? Oh yeah. So the latitude is there to figure something out, George. You don't need to "determine" that part. What is it you're trying to figure out?

3. "whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court,..." Well, George, there you go again. The "military tribunals," as you cooked them up, are the very thing the Supreme Court said you couldn't use, because you usurped Congressional legislative authority, under Article 1 of the Constitution, to determine UCMJ rules and the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. So I can save you time here. In using your latitude to discuss things with Congress to determine anything, don't bother talking about the military tribunals you pulled out of John Ashcroft's ass, because those are off the table. Although keep heart: Congress will come up with some Draconian amendment to the UCMJ to get you closer to your true hope of staging your very own Show Trials, just like some of your heroes used to do. Leading to the summary:

4: "an avenue in which to give people their day in court." Avenue is such a sunny, cheery word. Alas, the whole point of your star chamber procedures in the first place was to make two things certain. That the Gitmo detainees never have a day in court, and that they never have an open forum to discuss all the Geneva Convention violations inflicted upon them. The idea of a "day" in court, however, sounds just about right. Thirty minutes, to be exact.

So what is George W. Bush actually pledging to do, when you read his statement as a whole? He is saying he will figure out whether there is any point in talking to Congress to see if they'll go along with his kangaroo court. Read it through carefully and you will see the man revealed.

Simpler Times in Israel

Three Wise Men In Attendance, Bethlehem

FIRST WISE MAN: (to Joseph)

It's funny, he doesn't look much like you. Doesn't even look Jewish.

JOSEPH:

I'll let you in on a little secret. I'm not the father.

FIRST WISE MAN: (shocked)

No-o-o! What are you saying to me?

JOSEPH:

Not that this should shock you, but he's God's kid. She told me.

FIRST WISE MAN:

Uh, Joe. Look, she hadda come up with something, okay? It happens.

JOSEPH:

I think it's true.

SECOND WISE MAN:

Your wife's shtupping God? What kind of town is this?!

JOSEPH:

Not actually God, I don't think. But how do I know? Apparently I was the last to know about a lot of things. God, you know, He could have asked. I mean, He wrote the Ten Commandments, not me. Seems like two of them covered this. But she's saying the deed itself was done by an angel.

THIRD WISE MAN:

I mean no disrespect, Joe, but it's tough to compete with that. You take great care of yourself, don't get me wrong. But an angel…So the kid favors the father, you think?

JOSEPH:

Time will tell. From what I hear, the angel was blond, and sort of….radiant.

SECOND WISE MAN:

You don't think....?

JOSEPH:

No.

FIRST WISE MAN:

Well, anyway, we'll leave this stuff here.

JOSEPH:

Tell you what, fellas. The gold is great, and thanks. But the frankincense and myrrh, please, it's bad enough we're in a stable.

(Exeunt all)

June 29, 2006

What, Them Worry?

One idea that floats around in my mind and occasionally alights long enough for me to think through its implications is this: suppose Bush's prosecution of the war in Iraq is not incompetent, as it is so frequently described by liberals, but is going exactly according to plan?

The liberal critique is based upon a false equivalence between Bush's values and liberal values, in my opinion. The critique misses the mark precisely because it presupposes that Bush's overarching presidential agenda has something to do with the commonweal, i.e., is directed toward improving the lot of the "ordinary American."

Another approach taken by the Left and by Administration critics generally is to call Bush a tool of Big Business and a corrupt neo-Fascist, who serves only the interests of the Big Money whose agenda he faithfully executes. I would surmise that Bush's more-or-less constant support at about the 35% level is comprised of 2 principal groups, (1) a cynical tycoon class lacking public ethics and (2) religious and militaristic morons. 65% of the American people fall into neither class and thus see Bush for what he is. But what is that?

I descry a tension between these two viewpoints. In a sense, it can't really be both. How could Bush be incompetent at protecting and advancing the interests of the American commoner and competent at retaining the support of Big Business for his actual agenda? Competence or incompetence is more of a piece than that. Bush can accomplish what interests him. It is simply that the welfare of the American people, as a whole, does not interest him at all. This, I would argue, is the true meaning of debacles such as Katrina, and why Bush strenuously argued for giving the United Arab Emirates, home of Flight 175 Pilot, Marwan al-Sheihi, control over America's main sea ports. He just doesn't give a shit.

I never see this paradox discussed. I think it's because the Left is so busy describing Bush as an idiot they overlook the inherent contradiction. Bush is not an idiot; he is an intellectual mediocrity, to be sure, but numerous corrupt leaders with autocratic tendencies have been intellectual mediocrities. The limited intelligence is not a serious obstacle to achieving corrupt goals when the leader is backed by the full force of a police and military apparatus, as Hitler was, as Stalin was, as Castro is. In Bush's case, he has the full backing of a solid Republican majority, duly elected, whom he has never vetoed, and who will enact any legislation he really cares about (tax cuts and war funding) and will only resist on symbolic issues Bush does not really care about (immigration and gay marriage) for reasons of local electoral politics.

So Bush has gotten nearly everything he wanted and accomplished the main goals of the money class. Iraq fits into this picture very nicely. Halliburton, for one egregious example, was trading at $20 per share in 2001 and is at $70 per share now. Cheney holds 433,000 stock options on Halliburton, all of which are now in the money to a greater or lesser extent. The VP signed an agreement to donate any profit on the exercise of these options to charity as a means of avoiding serious conflict-of-interest problems. Worrying about Halliburton and Cheney specifically, however, is another hobby horse of the Left, who let such easy targets obscure the view of the larger picture. A broader picture would encompass a perspective that a slow, grinding, protracted stalemate in Iraq is perfect for Big Business. No other approach can yield such high financial returns from the prosecution of the war.

Consider the alternatives. A quick and efficient victory, turning over a stable government to the Iraqis, would end the gravy train, frustrate bomb and munitions makers, deny defense contractors huge paydays for Humvees, personnel carriers, helicopters, etc., and probably result in a decrease in the defense budget generally. Similarly, a rout of American forces (which won't happen) would also terminate the feeding frenzy. What works perfectly, like Baby Bear's porridge and bed, is a protracted stalemate in the desert. We neither win nor lose, and any call by the Democrats for withdrawal is called "cowardly" cut and run politics which will "embolden" America's enemies.

That's actually pretty good, when you think about it. Bush deliberately screws around in Iraq so that the conflict consumes his entire presidency and then (successfully) complains that any criticism is "defeatist." The National Priorities Project places the current cost of the war at $292 billion, and of course a compliant Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, will authorize any further funding requests from Bush so that they can claim to "support the troops."

Ah yes, the troops. That is one possible downside of playing rope-a-dope in Iraq. Over 2,500 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and probably 6 times that number have been seriously wounded to such an extent their lives will never be the same. From each fatality or wound, effects like ripples on a pond spread in all directions to affect sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, husbands, wives. They are, however, "volunteers," and cannot be pitied (so the reasoning goes) for being asked to do what they contracted to do. In this case, as George Carlin neatly summarized, their job is to carry out the war plan. That plan is to ride around in a truck until you get blown up.

I think until the American public as a whole simply accepts how deeply cynical, venal and plutocratic the Bush administration really is, it will never accurately analyze why BushCo does things the way it does. The arrogance of the Left is that it imagines that its very simple analysis, that America doesn't "have enough troops," or that we failed to secure the ammo dumps, or that we disbanded the Iraqi Army too soon, etc., were all tactical blunders that only the Left can see, and "Bush" (actually, Rumsfeld and his High Command) were unable to perceive. This seems fanciful to me. Of course they could see the same things, and the option has always been available until recently (when troop deployments have been overextended) to dramatically increase the manpower in Iraq.

But why do that? Why not keep cutting checks to Halliburton, to Bechtel, to KBR, to Sikorsky and Bell, to Martin Marietta, to United Technologies? Think about it. The federal government's hands are tied by entitlements to a useless payout of pensions and health benefits under Social Security and Medicare. A large part of the budget is spoken for before Congress and Bush even start talking about what can be spent on favored, inner-circle defense businesses. But that residual, that remainder, commands a lot of respect and loyalty among defense tycoons, and the American arms merchants, whatever the fate of the rest of America's moribund manufacturing industries, continue to lead the world. They make big money peddling death, and they depend on the federal government to promote war, to stir up hostility in the world, even to turn the world against us, so their services never become unnecessary. And when they make all that money, they keep it, thanks to Bush's other great obsession, "tax relief."

He's not incompetent. He accomplished what he came to do, to shift the burden of government onto the backs of America's disappearing middle class, and to suck off the federal largesse for the benefit of the fat cat cronies. Mission, that is, Accomplished.

June 28, 2006

You May As Well Stay Here, Right Now

MEMORY

You can’t actually remember anything, he said.

Apropos of nothing, not even of the still air or the drooping leaves above the slatted table, rickety in the uneven gravel underfoot.

Try it. What do you think is vivid for you?

The tennis games, with a friend. Years ago. My knees creak now, there isn’t much flexibility in my back, I don’t flow as I once did. So I don’t play. But then we did. I looked forward to it even when I didn’t.

Try to remember a point.

Okay. I serve…

What did you do? Describe all of it.

I toss the ball with my left hand…

Can you see your hand?

Well, now I can…

But not a moment ago. You were going to rush by that, the way you would see your upturned palm. You saw it then, when you hit the serve, but now, as you describe it, you weren’t going to say anything.

Well, how much time do you want me to take to describe one serve?

Then don’t describe it. See it in your mind and make it happen at the same speed as the serve really happened.

He took a drink from his tall glass of mineral water and put it back on the slatted table. The paint-scaling top of the white table. The table wobbled a little, and parabolic waves washed to the lip of the glass.

I’m doing that.

Who else is in the picture?

Well, I see my friend across the net…

There must have been other people at the court. Who are they, what do they look like, what are they doing?

I don’t know.

Does the serve go in?

I don’t know.

Is it returned? What does it sound like? Where are the clouds in the sky that day? Where precisely on the blue concavity are they located, and do they move as you do after you serve? What do the people do that must have been there?

I can’t see any of that.

You must have seen it at the time.

Probably. Maybe peripherally.

Much that is central is also missing.

True.

Making love. There must have been transcendent moments.

Yes. Of course.

Try to remember one such moment, and follow it with your mind keeping all perceptions in view as you follow it, her eyes, did they grow bigger?, the color of the walls in the room, the pattern of folds in the sheet, the feel of entry, the warmth of skin, the play of light through the window. How much can you see?

I can only see one little thing at a time.

And the one thing you can see, you can’t tell from which time, can you? You’re remembering a composite experience, an idealization of many events as if they happened all at once. Did you commute to work?

I felt a great weariness as I said yes.

Try to remember how you went to work.

I took the ferry across the Bay for awhile.

How exotic. For how long?

Three years. Maybe four years, maybe five even.

He took his right index finger and brushed down the right side of his gray mustache. He smiled. Try to remember a single passage. How many times would you have crossed? Two hundred times a year, twice a day? That’s perhaps two thousand trips. That’s 1500 hours, shall we say? That seems right. That’s sixty-two and a half days of travel, two full months of nothing but riding on that ferry all day and all night. Can you remember a trip?

Parts of one or two. At the beginning. I usually worked a crossword.

Try to think of a word. Try to remember one intersection of words in one puzzle.

Nothing comes to me.

How did you get to high school?

By bus. Then by car, later.

Can you remember a single trip to school? From start to finish?

No. One day we were on a semi-circular street, in an old coupe, and we stopped to pick up this guy who had a deformed hand. I remember being first aware of that hand on the way to school, one morning. Though I’m not sure we were going to school, or why we picked him up.

I can’t remember anything completely.

No you can’t. Yet do you think you live to acquire memories?

Sometimes that seems the point of accumulating experience.

Yes. But an illusion. You haven’t acquired anything you can ever retrieve.

No, I suppose not. But still something.

Yes.

Something was there. A feeling.

Yes. That is what you are left with. A feeling. A million feelings, emotional senses, reactions, the flow of blood to the skin, the rush of anticipation. In those sketchy fragments the feelings are caught up, like dew on a spider’s web. That is what remains after the moving wave of time pushes by the moment. It is why you have been so skimpy in your description of where we are. A few remarks about scaly tables, a few leaves, a glass of water. It will all be lost anyway.

It’s inevitable.

I won’t trouble you further.

© 2003

On Reading Emily Dickinson and Seeing An Inconvenient Truth, All in the same weekend

Oh Lord I doth fear
We have made the Earth too hot this year.
Everywhere, the signs are plain to see,
First, glaciers melt like
Niagara Falls,
Then Vegas-by-the-Sea.
I think we should have dialed it back
Before the Pole un-froze
We can’t expect a polar bear
To swim like Murray Rose.

Alas, there was a time I hoped,
When humans, loathsome turds,
Would bear their folly all alone,
And not the beasts and birds.
But no; we’ll take them as we go,
And not by dribs and drabs,
When greenhouse morphs to runaway
And oceans boil their crabs.

Sir Hawking says we ought to flee,
To Mars or deepest space,
And save a vestige of our genes
To wreck some other place.
With all respect for such a mind,
I can’t but thus remark,
Let’s send the creatures in our place
A Noah-less Noah’s
Ark.

June 25, 2006

Plato's Odyssey: A Story from the Poltiical Nightmare Future

PLATO’S ODYSSEY


Plato Tsukalis made his preparations carefully during the final two weeks he remained in San Francisco. Closing up the details of a long residency was clearly not something that could be accomplished responsibly without lead times, notice periods, the other obeisances to a civilized life.

It was necessary, of course, to call Sheila and tell her it was over. At fifty-two and never married, Plato was inured to this process, knew intimately its stages, progression and end point. Indeed, he made the breakup an early item on his March 15 to-do list, the first time he could remember making a bullet point of something so emotionally intimate; but the distractions which would ensue after he told her needed time to resolve so the more pressing items could be attended to with a focussed attention. This proved to be a wise course of action. He was, frankly, unprepared for the furor of her response. In the previous twelve breakups over the preceding decade, he had encountered all manner of reaction, from outrage to weepy collapse. But the vitriol, importuning, blackmail, threats and aggression which Sheila brought to the process was altogether something new.

Plato, always logical, considered the distinctions between this breakup and the prior episodes, and chalked up the difference to chronology. It was always the first place to look, when you think about it. The chief difference between our reactions to predictable events at any point in our lives relates to the passage of time, which is only to say that inevitably anything that happens now occurs at a later point in life than something which happened then. Thus, we bring to our analysis the life lessons acquired in the interim between events, and also our increasing suspicion that things of this kind don’t matter much because eventually we’ll reach the point where nothing can happen anymore. This, at least, was Plato’s sense of the inevitable.

He essayed this explanation to Sheila in the small kitchen of her two bedroom Russian Hill apartment. He was leaning against her Corian® counter top, his left palm resting on the attractively beveled edge, while he sipped a Bourbon and soda. The drink was a good idea but the condescension was disastrous.

“You think you can fucking leave me now, after more than a year! You fucking bastard! I’m forty-seven years old! You think you can just throw me off and walk out of here so you can continue your ‘life adventure,’ you fucking creep! Why didn’t I see this about you? You can’t stick to anything, you fucking jerk! You asshole, you motherfucking asshole!”

She took her own drink and threw it violently against the cabinet door just behind Plato. The cabinet door, unfortunately, was also made of glass, and shards fell loudly onto the virtually indestructible Corian® surface, leaving it unmarked but Plato shaken, as he jumped away from the counter to avoid laceration. He set his drink down and headed for the front door. Sheila slumped, head in hands and sobbing, against the Corian® on her side of the galley kitchen, the key components of which were arranged in the classic triangle pattern, the range to the right of the shattered glass cabinets, the refrigerator on Sheila’s side, and the sink to the left of the spot just vacated by Plato. He thought with a moment’s regret that he would miss this ordered habitat as he gripped the door handle for perhaps the last time.

He was very wrong about its being the last time, however, as he needed the entire two weeks of the latter part of March for negotiations, damage control, feigned capitulation and other extrication devices in order to make the separation stick. This complicated, of course, the other more quotidian processes of terminating the lease on his own Telegraph Hill apartment, quitting his job at City Hall, placing his furniture in storage, and informing those few people who needed to know that he would be gone for “an extended period.” He wanted to delay disconnecting his telephone, of course, until the very last since it was essential to accomplishing many of the items on his to-do list, but leaving the line intact entailed a serious jeopardy. The same day he walked out of Sheila’s apartment for what was not the ultimate, nor the penultimate, nor even very far down the list of last times, she began calling, frequently, at any hour, in many moods, on different tacks and at wildly varying volumes. It made Plato rethink the wisdom of relying so heavily on the Internet for introductions.

She could be cajoling: “Plato,” she might murmur into the phone at three am, as if operating on heavy doses of unprescribed prescription drugs, acquired from a spam-dealer with access to high quality shit, “I know you’re confused right now. It’s a confusing time of life for both of us, we’re afraid because we’ve been hurt before and we don’t know who to trust. We can’t walk away from every challenge, Plato.”

She could be threatening: “Plato,” she would start, more often in the business-like hours of late morning, “I don’t know if you know what ‘living hell’ actually means, but I can make your life one. You know that? You give me this bullshit about a fucking ‘extended period of absence,’ like I don’t know we both know you’re talking about a woman, a much younger woman of course, you fucking creep, and like I’m not going to find out who she is, you fucking moron, like you could actually get away with this. Give me a fucking break, Plato. Who the fuck you think you’re dealing with?”

Plato was increasingly unsure about the answer to that last one. From the language, maybe a former long-haul truck driver or steel plant foreman. She called him at work many times during those two weeks. The City Hall operator would put the call through to his department in Legal Filing, where Plato had worked for seven years. He was a valued employee in the Civil Division as the only clerk whose first language was English. Any question from a fast-talking lawyer was handed off to him by the stoic Mandarin- or Spanish-speaking junior clerks, who had particular trouble following the rapid fire cadence of transplanted Manhattanites who impatiently demanded answers about filing fees, numbers of copies, format, et cetera.

“Lemme gi’ you Misser Tsukalis,” Plato would hear Mae Wan Huang say. With averted eyes, Mae Wan would murmur that Plato had a call on line one. Plato and Mae had dated desultorily for awhile about six years ago, before Plato gave up on co-employees and focussed on dating services, the immediate precursor to the Internet.

“Who?!” Plato would hear through Mae’s phone just before Mae hung up.

“Choo-kalis,” Plato would say calmly, picking up the phone, informing the caller that clerks could not give legal advice, then answering the question in elaborate legal detail. He adopted a collegial tone when answering questions from lawyers about format, copies, even legal strategy. Plato had two years of night law school behind him and he understood the basic concepts of contract and tort law, had read thousands of legal briefs, complaints, petitions and the rest of the Dickensian costly nonsense of the lawyer’s trade, all during the many slow hours in a filing clerk’s life. The rushes were in the early morning, when the doors first opened, and around four fifteen, just before closing, when the procrastinating legal profession scrambled to avoid missing deadlines and malpractice suits. Over the course of seven years, Plato had acquired a considerable fund of practical understanding, based as it was on a vantage point from which he could follow the natural history of lawsuits from thundering advocacy in the early filings to meek, quiet, disinterested settlement at the bitter end.

“A Miz Adams on line four,” the City Hall operator would say disapprovingly, and Plato would take a deep breath, check to see if Mae Wan was, uncharacteristically, distracted with work, take a deep breath, and pick up the phone.

Before he could say anything:

“No extended absence yet, huh Plato? Still on the job, still slinking around behind my back, still lying and cheating with someone new, huh? What happens when she finds out you got a few loose ends you haven’t cleaned up yet, huh Plate-brain? What then?”

Plato had taken the precaution of placing the receiver on the ear farthest from Mae Wan, who sat about six feet away behind her gray metal desk, but the only effect of this was to involve his head as an amplifying gourd for the Volume Ten recriminations coming through loud and clear. Mae Wan looked up and gave just the slightest inscrutable smile.

“For a filing like that, I’d recommend coming in by four, I could be there to meet you. Here, to meet you. Or closer to five-thirty.”

“You fucking be here then or tomorrow it’s all day long, sucker, you read me?”

“Sure, Mr. Slamgold, that’s when it will be.”

Mae Wan smiled a little more obviously as she said, “How can anyone file anything at five-thirty, Plato? We close at four-thirty, you know.”

“It’s uh, it’s uh…what the fuck difference does it make what it is,” Plato mumbled.

Plato stopped by a Powell Street florist on his way to Sheila’s apartment and picked up a nosegay of iris and daffodil. He took the elevator up to her eighth floor apartment on Taylor Street and knocked on the heavy paneled door about five forty-five. It was a classy building. Sheila’s apartment was the residuum of a twelve-year marriage to a prominent San Francisco gynecologist, socialite, piano-and-photography amateur whom she had met while he was on the job, in 1988. Eventually, or so Dr. Mellerman said, the constant close-quarters inspection and manipulation of female anatomy dulled his sexual passion to the point where he could not bear to be around a woman in his off-hours. This pronouncement followed suspiciously close on the heels of a photography expedition to Thailand, Sheila noticed, so she wasn’t altogether surprised when Pad Nuan took up her conspicuous place in Dr. Mellerman’s life. She was young, lithe, black-haired and schooled in arts which allowed the man as much sexual satisfaction as he could possibly handle without coming anywhere near the female anatomy.

Sheila opened the door slightly and smiled coquettishly at Plato, then opened it widely to reveal the gleaming expanse of dark hardwood which led to the living room overlooking the Bay. It also revealed her short red dress, black high heels and tasty expanse of late-forties legs encased in subtle fishnet. If a higher duty had not been calling Plato so insistently, this would have been very hard to leave behind.

The view over the Bay took in the Bay Bridge and the Embarcadero skyline. Plato wondered again about the ability of women to take interior space and transform it into something so amazingly livable, so gleaming, balanced, efficient. He wondered at the subtleties of art, flowers, sideboards, sofa cushions, carpets, built-ins. Such a rich look, so far beyond the bricks-and-boards, Toulouse Lautrec poster motif he could not rise above. If only women were worth it, it would be so nice to live like this.

“A drink?” Sheila asked.

“Yes, Scotch, in a glass, a lot of it, no ice.”

She walked to the sideboard and poured a hefty slug into a Waterford tumbler, brought it to him.

“Sheila, you have to stop calling me at work.”

“You have to come to your senses, Plato. I have no intention of going quietly into that good night. And anyway, I don’t think this is really in your best interests either. What do you hope to accomplish?”

“I’m on the verge of taking you into my confidence, Sheila, if that’s what’s necessary. Something has come up that requires me to leave, for an extended period, as I’ve said. I need you to trust me. It does not really involve leaving you, per se. If you see what I’m trying to get at.”

She smiled noncommitally at him, sat in an upholstered armchair and crossed those long legs, revealing another six inches of voluminous thigh, more of the black lattice-work of the stockings, presumably going all the way up there, Plato realized.

“I wonder if you have any idea what you’re trying to get at.”

“I’m willing to return here after my mission is accomplished and to resume with you. I’m not averse to that.”

“You’re such a romantic fool, Plato. To think you’re not averse to resuming with me.”

He was a little thrown by the controlled intensity of her approach today, so unlike the glass-smashing encounter a week ago. He supposed this was the way it was with hysterics; you never saw the same spin two pitches in a row.

“I simply can’t go any further right now with an explanation. That has to be final, for your sake and mine. I recognize, however, that flitting from woman to woman may be no better an approach than remaining with one woman and working things through, more satisfying in some ways, and the strength of your feeling encourages me to think we could have the kind of commitment necessary to endure. Plus, ever since reading your profile on the Net, I’ve thought we might have that ‘soul mate’ quality that can be so elusive, so once-in-a-lifetime, if you know what I mean.”

She looked away, and the light of the equinoctial sunset burnished her well-formed profile. A handsome woman, Plato thought. He probably did underestimate her.

“I wonder if you mean that.”

“Just this once, indulge yourself in a little trust.”

“All right, Plato, I’ll do that. But for the health of your soul, you better not be bullshitting me.”

He rose and extended his hand to her, pulled her to her feet. He caught a glimpse of a crimson pressure oval beneath the fishnet of her right thigh as she uncrossed her legs. He loved details like that, the responsiveness of flesh to touch, how alive it all was. He took her in his arms, spoke softly in her ear.

“This is vital to me. Believe me, I knew nothing of this six months ago, and I’ve never misled you.”

“Don’t you want to stay?” she whispered. “Don’t you wonder where I might be going later, all dressed up like this?”

“I do, Sheila, but I’ve got to face there will be many nights like that in the coming months, and I’ve got to steel myself, beginning now. Please wait for me. I hope to be worth it.”

June 24, 2006

Gitmo & Other Sorrows

"The Road to Guantanamo" is a good movie, if unusual in its composition. It tells the story of the 3 Brithish Pakistanis who found themselves trapped in Afghanistan near the conclusion of the U.S invasion in 2001, their subsequent capture by the Northern Alliance and eventual shipment to Guantanamo. The movie is unable, obviously, to use archival film of the their actual travels in Afghanistan or incarceration as suspected al-Qaeda operatives, since none exists, so it demonstrates what happened by means of talking-head narration by the 3 Pakistanis (now at home in England) and dramatized footage based on their narration. So, to a major extent, we have to take their word for it. If 50% of what they claim is true (and independent sources suggest the percentage is probably much higher), then the United States of America has descended into a moral sewer of degradation and inhumanity which will unquestionably plague us for decades to come.

The happier parts of the movie demonstrate the close friendship and camaraderie of the four friends (one is lost in the escape from Kunduz) as they cheerfully endure the hardships of rustic travel in Pakistan and Afghanistan. One senses bonds of culture and religion that are distinctly "un-American" in their style, meaning they lack the ironic detachment more characteristic of modern American loner-ism. These bonds, I suspect, proved decisive in assuring their survival. If George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld had ever been capable of experiencing this kind of camaraderie and emotional support, it seems unlikely they would have found it necessary to preside over the sadistic freak show which the American P.O.W. system has become.

I found myself tensing up as the happy idyll in Aghanistan was apparently about to end, and I realized that my apprehension had an unusual source for a kid who grew up watching John Wayne surmount Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima, and Audie Murphy take on an entire German patrol in Europe. The three hapless Pakistani-Brits were about to be captured by the Americans. One of the captives voices this irony in his narration, saying, in effect, we thought everything would be okay once the Americans had us. "We were wrong," he said. Wrong because Bush & Co. are now in charge and they have instituted a program of always appearing as macho and unsparing as inhumanly possible, and these attitudes have been internalized by the Gestapo-like apparatus running American detention camps in Gitmo and abroad. Essentially, they treat the enemy, whether they have any actual proof or not (of the hundreds held at Gitmo for years, only 10 have ever been charged with anything), like vermin, pushing them around, abusing them, screaming at them, depriving them of sleep, tricking them with Photo-Shop pictures of the POW attending a bin Laden rally, placing them in stress positions in isolation chambers where thundering rap music is played at ear-splitting levels, binding them in unnecessary restraints, placing bug-like blackout glasses over their faces for any movement, etc., etc. Truly sickening.

All of this abuse is apparently in the service of something, although the Bush Administration never says what. The 19 hijackers who attacked America died in the operation, and the actual mastermind, Khallid Sheikh Mohammed, is somewhere in CIA custody, undergoing, no doubt, much worse treatment at the hands of American surrogates with even less humane inclinations. The war on terror is a massive exercise in guilt-by-association, but fundamentally it is an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim jihad. I doubt seriously this is lost on the world's 1.2 billion Muslims, and the anti-American feelings we are engendering with this mindless campaign will play out for a long, long time.

June 22, 2006

Weekly Sitdown at HQ

Time: Spring, 2008

Scene: Oval Office, Morning

Having lost all need for pretense, Capo George “Big G” Bush arrives at gang headquarters wearing a black suit, black shirt and broad white tie. He wears spats and carries a jaunty cane, which he slaps on the pool table to awaken Captain Dick “The Scowl” Cheney from a spell of hypoxia. Big G sets his black fedora on the refrigerator, opens the door and pulls out a frosty Bud. Unscrewing the cap, he looks at the long table running the length of the office.

“We got any cannoli? Where the fuck’s the cannoli?”

“Right here, right here,” mutters Don “The Torque” Rumsfeld, pushing a tray toward Big G.

G nods his head derisively.

“Real nice, real nice, Torque,” he says. “Maybe you’ll show a little more fuckin’ respect if I break your fuckin’ head for you.”

The Scowl breaks in. “What’s up today? We got somethin’ more pressing than fuckin’ cannoli to talk about?”

G gives The Scowl a long look. Sorry, didn’t know it was that time of month.”

Josh “The Shutter” Bolten strolls around G at the head of the table, taking pictures of G’s hands from different angles.

“Think you got enough fuckin’ pictures of my hands, Bolten?” G tosses his head at Bolten, his cheeks bulging with cannoli. “What’s wid dis guy?”

“What’s the body count on Iraq?” the Scowl cuts in.

“Who gives a fuck?” G says. “You and yer fuckin’ numbers.”

“5 grand and change,” John “Black Bridge” Negroponte says.

“That’s what happens when ya go to the mattresses,” G says. “No broke eggs, no omelettes. Where’s Halliburton stock? Anybody runnin’ the numbers?”

“Trew da roof,” breaks in Bolten.

G smiles, tossing his head at Bolten. "Get a load. Talkin’ like a wiseguy now, huh? Dat’s real good, Josh. Why don’t you take a picture of my ass next?”

“Hey Scowl,” G says. “You welsh on that Halliburton deal we made, and you’ll be standin on the bottom of the Potomac, capisc’?”

“Who’s welshin?” the Scowl scowls. “You’ll get your cut, same as always.”

“Sweet. Okay, what else we got? Say, Black Bridge, you oughta know. How you say ‘Our Thing’ in Eye-talian?”

“Cosa nostra,” Black Bridge answers. “Why?”

“I like that. Runnin this thing's Our Thing, huh? Anything else? Okay, I’ll be over at the social club with Lacquer Head if you need me.”

June 21, 2006

Catch-22 and Iraqi Amnesty

I can't quite help myself. I've been reading Joseph Heller's masterpiece again. I saw it on the shelf and intended only to confirm whether I remembered the very first line: "It was love at first sight." I had remembered, and now I'm on page 200. I have a facility for remembering the prose of great books verbatim which unfortunately dispels much of the pleasure of multiple perusals. I would guess this is pass #6 or #7 through Catch-22, but the prose is such absolute perfection it withstands repetition, like listening to a great monologue from early Woody Allen.

Anyway, it's a disconcerting juxtaposition to read this brilliant parody of the insanity of war, even a war as just as World War II (the last one, I suppose, in which America wholeheartedly agreed to its necessity and righteousness) while occasionally watching C-Span coverage of Congress and reading on-line news reports. Yesterday the Senate argued at length about the language of a Senate resolution expressing the "sense" of the Senate about reports the Iraqi government of al-Maliki was considering granting amnesty to insurgents who had killed American soldiers. The Senators were posturing, thundering, and declaiming like mad to make sure they appeared to be the most outraged over such a suggestion. John Warner seemed to take the whole thing personally, as if that mane of white hair should have been proof enough that no one could possibly be more supportive of America's brave young men and women, and that if any ambiguity seemed to seep from the edges of the resolution...

Well, you see, that's the problem. The Senate, in expressing its "sense," does not want to be in the position of telling the Iraqi government what to do. We would never do that, because Iraq is a "sovereign" country that we set up and are dying to preserve. And as we set it up, defend it and die to preserve it, Maliki & Co. are trying to make peace with the unrelenting insurgents who attack them 600 times a week by letting them off the hook for killing the people who are dying to preserve the Maliki government.

So I'm wondering what the great, the incomparable, the brilliant, the one-and-only Joseph Heller would do with priceless material like this. Remember Milo Minderbinder? The entrepreneur who bombed the air base on Pianosa on a for-profit basis? Well, it really happened. It's called Kellog Brown & Root, and they furnish "services" to the military on a contract basis. They constantly short-change and cheat the military. They serve them substandard food and pad their invoices. If the Administration entered a contract with KBR to kill American troops, would Congress say anything about it? Wouldn't the Republican majority rise up and defend the Bush Administration's absolute right to conduct the war under the President's constitutional war powers in any way he saw fit? And if bombing American troops using American planes is part of that conduct, does Congress really have anything to say about it? Didn't they sign an Authorization for Use of Military Force in 2001? And if bombing American troops using American bombers isn't a use of military force, what is?

And Colonel Cathcart, who Yossarian kept saying was trying to get him killed by making him fly combat missions. Isn't Donald Rumsfeld the perfect Colonel Cathcart? Isn't he trying to get Americans killed by sending them in insufficient numbers with inadequate armor against an implacable foe who are so tenacious the government wants to tell them it's okay if you only killed Americans? Doesn't the American soldier have the right to say that his enemy is anybody who's trying to get him killed? And if some Clevinger, some unthinking grunt challenges the would-be Yossarian and tells him, they're not trying to kill you, they're trying to kill everybody, isn't the rational response -- what difference does that make?

Thank you, Joseph, for letting me see it was always thus. Contextually, the Iraq War is even crazier than World War II, of course. The entire exercise has become very similar to Captain Black's Great Loyalty Oath Crusade, where airmen were forced to sign nonstop loyalty oaths to eat, to get a parachute, to get a bombing map, to move about the base. The question now is who supports the troops? Maybe they shouldn't be there at all, maybe the whole project is insane, maybe we'll go bankrupt doing this forever, but that doesn't matter. Do you support the troops or don't you? You could say you support the troops by trying to get them out of Iraq, where the government you're fighting and dying to preserve says it's okay to kill you, but that's too complicated. And anyway, nobody cares anymore. Long ago everyone forgot why we're in Iraq. We call it the "central front" in the war on terror, but it's the central front only because we're there, and if we weren't there, it wouldn't be the central front anymore.

Gee, I can see how intoxicating it must have been to write the original Catch-22. All you have to do is open your eyes and see. And be an insightful genius, of course. The world is crazy.

And getting crazier. It now develops that Iraqi troops trained by Americans have used their training to kill Americans, including two soldiers from California in 2004. The Pentagon was a little slow in delivering that news to the parents of the soldiers killed by American-trained Iraqis. We may need another sense of the Senate on that one, that it's none of our business how the Iraqi government uses the training we give their soldiers, but our sense is that we'd rather they kill the insurgents with their training, even if the insurgents who kill our American soldiers will be given amnesty for killing us directly, although it's our sense we're not too crazy about that either.

June 20, 2006

Meanwhile, back in Pyongyang

Last week's post about Stephen Hawking concentrated mostly on one catastrophe in Hawking's Unholy Trinity, the looming possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect. I suppose Hawking is one apocalyptic horse shy of a full team for his Stagecoach to Hell, but give us time - we'll devise something. After all, we're the human race.

#2 horse on the list was nuclear annihilation, and this way out (which I think I might prefer to the Venus scenario) was given a sharp whip to the rump by Bush's Arch-Nemesis, North Korea's Tyrant-for-Life, Kim Jong Il, he of the rattling sabre and botanical haircut. As a California resident (for how much longer? yikes), I was pleased to see Condi Rice rise up and protest Kim's planned missile test. Maybe this is because Taepodong-II has an enhanced range of 9,300 miles, nearly reaching to Washington, D.C. Back when we all thought it could only reach California, Bush & Co. seemed fairly sanguine about the whole thing. After all, nuclear incineration of the West Coast could only improve Bush's grip on Congress. A major Blue State: Ka-BOOM! Just like that. Would Boxer & Feinstein be permitted to continue representation of a state where all their constituents were dead? How would Scalia handle that delicate Constitutional question?

But Kim added a little juice to the booster stage and now all bets are off. One of his nukes might hit Crawford, Texas, if I'm reading the range maps correctly. So Condi is sounding very stern, or as stern as she can sound, which is not all that stern. When I watch her on Meet the Press or at a press conference, I'm always taken with her diligence. She knows exactly what she's going to say and how she's going to say it. Of course, we know exactly what she's going to say and how she's going to say it. It's as if a Spelling Bee Champion has been elevated to the post of Secretary of State. I'll bet when she plays a Bach Two-Part Invention on the piano, it is absolutely flawless, note perfect, the time impeccable. Also, completely soulless. Just my hunch.

When I think about the various ways we seem to be hurtling toward catastrophe, I can't help but wonder: is it possible the rest of the world shares the perspective of the American Troublemaking Left? That this President and his team, including Note-Perfect Condoleezza, are in way, way over their heads? That they suck at their jobs? Do you suppose A-Jad in Iran and Kim in North Korea noticed what went on after Katrina, and FEMA's grotesque mishandling of the destruction of an American city? And then said to themselves: This guy is what we've been worrying about?

I never see the media discuss that angle, although, when you think about it, it's as obvious as the crook in Dick Cheney's smile. Or grimace, I've never been sure which. Media blather, when it comes to America's reputation in the world, is limited to the question of America's loss of "moral authority." There may have also been a loss, during the last 6 years or so, of another kind of stature. Simple respect for American competence in high places. I don't think Kim and A-Jad give a shit about moral authority, but pulling the lion's tail reflects a different kind of calculation. The idea you can get away with the unthinkable. Develop your own atomic bombs and the means to deliver them, for example. Test, right out in the open, a missile which can hit Omaha. I doubt that it's been lost on these guys that Bush, with the largest defense budget in the world, a budget which is many multiples of Iran's and North Korea's combined, nevertheless managed to strand the American military in an endless street fight in a wrecked country out among the sand dunes. He can't leave and he can't stay. He can't seem to make a good decision under pressure, that he's a choke artist, that he doesn't know what the hell he's doing, in other words.

The stakes have been raised very recently by the American threat to shoot Kim's Taepodong out of the sky, a suitably war-of-the-phalluses kind of image. Now that's what I call proactive intervention. And for those of you who may have forgotten, George has kinda been itchin' for just such an opportunity. Please recall that an early act of his leadership was to withdraw the United States from the ABM Treaty of 1972, which prevented the development of anti-missile missiles. What Bush had in mind was just this kind of moment: the threat of a "rogue" state (hard to think of many countries roguer than N. Korea) or terrorist group with its finger on a nuclear-armed Button. This is Bush as Gary Cooper, strolling confidently on to that dusty street at midday, while Laura looks on in that loving, Grace Kelly way. True, because of the poofy hair, Kim Jong Il looks weird standin' down there near the entrance to the saloon. Still: Bring it on.

One note of caution, however, and it relates to the point with which we began. Bush might want someone on his staff to re-read Steven Weinberg's "Can A Missile Defense System Work?" [http://socsci.colorado.edu/~parisr/IAFS_1000/Can_Missile_Defense_Work.htm]. The ABM has a spectacular record of failure even when 1) we know when the missiles are going to be launched, 2) we know where they're going, and 3) we know (1) & (2) because they're our missiles. Then again, Mr. Weinberg is a Nobel Prize winning physicist and part of the Reality-Based community. Irrelevant, in other words.

But suppose he's right? Suppose we aim an ABM at Kim's Taepodong (it's just fun to say) and miss? Do you realize how many times the vaunted Patriot ABM missed Saddam's crummy Scud missiles in Gulf War - I: This Time We're Stoppin? Every single time. I hope they rethink it. We don't need this. If you're going to shoot something, use a cruise missile to blow Jong's 'Dong up while it's still in the silo. I know it's not "High Noon," kind of like shooting the Bad Guy while he's still asleep. But it might be good to do something smart for a change.

June 19, 2006

Bush & Hitler's Line of Work

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." President George W. Bush.


"The purpose of propaganda is not to provide interesting distraction for blasé young gentlemen, but to convince… the masses. But the masses are slow moving, and they always require a certain time before they are ready even to notice a thing, and only after the simplest ideas are repeated thousands of times will the masses finally remember them." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 185.

There are, to be sure, critical differences between the two leaders. For one thing, I'm not aware Bush ever wrote a book or manifesto, let alone a sentence with the reasonably felicitous and evocative phrase, "...to provide interesting distraction for blasé young gentlemen..." Nor is Bush an overpowering, mesmerizing orator, and his roots, unlike Hitler's, were patrician rather than plebeian.

Hitler went from a failed career as an architect and artist to the Beer Hall Putsch, which stamped him indelibly on the pages of German history. Bush meandered his way in an alcoholic haze through failed academic and business pursuits until he found his true calling, as a Hollow Man perfectly suited to makeover by the Image Machine responsible for choosing American candidates and presidents. Lacking a discernible character or any principles of his own, Bush was an ideal vessel for media manipulation, a sort of Human Hologram on which the Conservative Right could project any laudable quality they desired. Mostly this was done through simple acts of substitution; for example, for his obvious vapidity, they could insert "straight-talking." Or, better, "talkin." For foolishly stubborn intransigence, they could sub in "resolute." As to his clear penchant for pathological lying, they could explain it away as an aspect of his sense of "loyalty" to his "inner circle." Confronted with the man's sick enthusiasm for torture and for indefinite detention of Untermenschen captured in his neverending war on terror, the Right could applaud his steely determination to do the necessary in a time of crisis.

Bush lacks Hitler's subtlety, but Bush doesn't need it. He can use the word "propaganda" openly and can even brag about misleading the American public. As one obvious and oft-cited example, Bush deliberately created the impression that Saddam Hussein played a key role in the terrorist attacks of 9-11. When confronted directly with this ruse, Bush allowed us to see the man behind the curtain in ways his stylistic mentor would have avoided: "I was careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack on America." March 20, 2006. I suspect Goebbels did not have to worry nearly as much about Hitler's Fuss-in-Mundt tendencies. Bush's propaganda, repeated many times according to the Mein Kampf playbook, always gave the general impression that Saddam Hussein was mixed up, somehow, in the 9-11 plot. It never made any sense; there was never any proof; and none of that ever made any difference. So why was Bush being so fastidious about pointing out this trivial distinction between what he did say and what he says he didn't say?

This is where Rove has always had a harder job than Goebbels. Hitler - well, the Fuhrer you could trust with freelancing. Bush, on the stump, is likely to go sideways on you. Under pressure, trying to remember amidst the dense fog of lies he tells everyday about what the U.S. Government is up to, something he did say about Saddam and 9-11, the only thing that popped into Bush's subnormal cerebrum was Karl's admonition: "Always be careful never to say directly that Saddam ordered the attacks of 9-11." So Bush could, under the pressure of the moment, confidently remember that he must have avoided that. He was, for our amusement and dissection, reproducing faithfully and exactly how Rove talks to him when only the Inner Circle is around.

Hitler, I'm sure, would have simply made up another lie on the spot. He didn't really care whether he was lying or not. Neither does Bush, but his handlers have told him he's supposed to appear to care, so he does his best to fake it. He's punctilious that way. If you pay attention, it's all there. The man's trying to tell you -- this is how I've been programmed. I suppose it isn't really a cry for help. Hitler was made of sterner stuff, that's for sure, but then he was actually a soldier in World War I, saw combat, was wounded. He came up through the ranks the hard way and wore his ruthlessness as a badge of honor. See, it's the only way a guy like me could make it against those blasé young gentlemen. Hitler was a monstrosity forged in an iron crucible of aggrievement. Bush is from a cushy, pampered, authoritarian-lite tradition. It's difficult to think up an excuse for being like Bush, really. He is one of those blasé young gentlemen, yet he allowed himself to be molded into another Hitlerian monstrosity, while we stood by and let it happen.

What on Earth will we tell History is our excuse?










Living in Interesting Times



"It took all of human history until 1830 for world population to reach one billion. The second billion was achieved in 100 years, the third billion in 30 years, the fourth billion in 15 years, and the fifth billion in only 12 years. In 2005, world population exceeded 6.5 billion people, growing by nearly 80 million per year with virtually all of the growth taking place in the poorest countries in the world, where population already strains economies, environments and social services."

In 1950, not so long after I was born, the world population was only about 2.5 billion. My grade school memories seem to confirm I was living in a world with 3 billion people. Not so long after that, in the early 1960's, Paul Erlich began writing about a "population bomb" and the Malthusian concept of exponential growth entered the common lexicon. Erlich warned the world population would double every 35 years or so. In the rear view mirror, his mathematics look pretty spot on.

With the exception of the United States, the developed countries, the First World, have stopped growing. Did they get Erlich's message? I don't think that was it. I don't believe, frankly, that environmental concerns ever manifest themselves from the bottom up. The declining birth rates, to levels below population replacement, in Europe, Japan and (almost) the United States reflect other pressures. The disappearance of what I call Life's Margin of Ease. As life became more difficult in the First World, as its real standard of living began to decline, the citizens of the advanced West forwent family in favor of "lifestyle" advantages, a way of saying that materialism replaced kinship as the chief measure of wealth. For concerted action to be successful, it must be part of top-down, mandated policy. China's success in controlling a once-burgeoning population explosion, while Draconian in nature, explains its success in defusing its own Bomb. The rest of Asia, much of Africa, nearly all of Latin America, meanwhile continue on their Malthusian way. Children, for the most part, are what they have. Until someone makes them stop having them, they won't.

Which takes us back to our first graphic. These days, with the success of Al Gore's PowerPoint movie, the airwaves are abuzz with initiatives to arrest global warming, to hold CO2 concentrations at present levels. All language describing these efforts is in the future conditional. "We can begin to decrease emissions when..." "The technology is available now to start a transition..." While all of this talk goes on, Massachusetts-size chunks of Antarctica are breaking off and floating north, 80% of the world's glaciers are in retreat, and Hemingway, if alive today, might write "The Green Hills of Africa," but never "The Snows of Kilimanjaro."

The Keeling Curve continues to ratchet skyward, even as we talk, even as we dream of the transition. We all keep driving, keep heating and cooling our houses, keep blogging away on computers plugged into the electrical grid. No one, in America, is telling us what to do. They're busy with more important things. In Washington, they're concerned they might not get reelected, and would find themselves struggling among the hoi-polloi. No sense bumming the electorate with discussions of reality. Better to protect Americans from burning flags and marriageable gays, and above all else, to spend every dime we don't have on that stupid war in Iraq.

And high above Mauna Loa, the latest reading clicks up another notch.