AFTER DECADES OF OBSTRUCTION, THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT BELATEDLY AGREES TO OPEN BAD AROLSEN HOLOCAUST ARCHIVES

Bad Arolsen, Germany--This is the name of the town in-which the 16 miles of files is housed. For over sixty years, an 11-nation commission--the International Tracing Service--have administrated the meticulous files kept by the Nazis for millions of victims of the Holocaust/Shoah. The usual excuse was Germany's strict (especially for people who murdered tens-of-thousands personally) privacy laws, with the nation's representative generally obstructing the release of documents for researchers and historians, especially in within the last 20 years. The real reason was to protect Nazi war criminals, and to allow the clock to run out so they could die in-obscurity.

This week, efforts to lift the 52-year-old blanket of secrecy from this historical treasure are likely to take a big step forward. The 11-nation commission governing the International Tracing Service, an arm of the International Committee of the Red Cross, meets in Amsterdam Monday and Tuesday to decide when and how to make electronic copies of its files available to researchers. ...But survivors have been pressing for direct access, unsatisfied with the formalistic and partial answers to questions about the persecution they suffered. So a year ago the commission decided to unlock the vast storehouse for research. (AP, 05.13.2007)

But even with survivors clamoring to have the archives in Bad Arolsen opened, one can discern a pattern of neglect and abuse. Just a cursory-glance at the billions owed to slave-laborers and victims of Nazi-confiscations will show you how serious German leadership is about reparations and justice. By the late-1980s, the excuse of "privacy" was becoming threadbare and insulting. It only took one of the 11-nation board to quash an opening of the archives over the years, and it was generally the German government who did that obstructing.

For the last 20 years, it was Germany who was doing the obstructing, allowing many of the guilty to escape justice let alone identification. Thanks to several German governments (frequently under the conservatives in the former-West Germany), Holocaust revisionism has proliferated throughout the developed world, even further-penetrating into the Middle East as evinced by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's (پايگاه اطلاع رساني رياست جمهوري ) comments denying the event ever occurred in December 13th, 2005. The Palestinian crisis hasn't helped either. Of course, the Nazis were spreading anti-Semitism throughout the region during WWII--the beginnings of the dissemination of the classic forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Ahmadinejad:

"They have created a myth in the name of the Holocaust and consider it above God, religion and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in an address carried live on state television. ...But Wednesday was the first time Ahmadinejad declared that the Holocaust had not happened, and the assertion served to further undermine Iran's efforts to persuade other countries that it can be trusted with its nuclear program. (Washington Post, 12.14.2005)

Comments like Ahmadinejad's don't deserve serious debate, and are not credible on any basis. We know full-well that the Shoah occurred, and to deny it betrays a desire to make it happen again, though this writer wagers it was classic "Jew-baiting" on the Iranian President's part, his regime has been in trouble for some time. Again, blame the outsider when your governance is being questioned. The opening of the archives should dispell most all of the myths, and ample documentation will be everytwhere on the internet soon through the ITS.

Again, why the scapegoating? In the case of skinheads, it's more complicated, and has more to do with the self-destructive behavior of the poor and miserable. Taking their class rage out on minorities is their lot, the burden of the damned. Like their predecessors under National Socialism, they want that Big Daddy to tell them when to eat and when to think, and it's almost understandable living in the uncertainties of this modern technological age. These uncertainties are very real in the former-East Germany and Russia, and a subsequent rise in skinhead and neo-Nazi groups is the result, frequently in a nationalist-context.

This brings us to another facet of protecting Nazi war criminals: Germany's death penalty and its genesis from 1948-49. Like the decision to keep the archives at Bad Arolsen closed based on "reasons of privacy," the laws created banning the death penalty were expressly designed to hide to identities of the guilty to shield them from allied and civil justice. Noting American programs that co-opted ex-Nazis like Operation Paperclip, most of the Western allies had no problem as long as it served the interests of power. We can assume that by now, most of the worst-offenders have passed from this existence. On Article 102:

But the actual history of the German death penalty ban casts this claim in a different light. Article 102 was in fact the brainchild of a right-wing politician who sympathized with convicted Nazi war criminals -- and sought to prevent their execution by British and American occupation authorities. Far from intending to repudiate the barbarism of Hitler, the author of Article 102 wanted to make a statement about the supposed excesses of Allied victors' justice. ...Meanwhile, there was little opposition in West Germany to capital punishment for ordinary criminals. A poll by the Allensbach Institute in February 1949 showed that 77 percent of West Germany's population favored it. The largest left-wing party, the Social Democrats, had a long anti-death-penalty tradition, but, given the political climate, it did not campaign on it. (Washington Post, 06.04.2005)

In a real sense, skinheads and Aryan nations-types are useful in collaring the most radical elements of the Western subproletariat, and help serve a traditional role in governance that requires a scapegoat minority. For centuries, the Jews served as this minority, and one can be assured that Turks will fill this much needed void in governance. This is one reason why Turkey is being stalled in their bid for entry into the EU, but this is also a complicated story that involves their own human rights violations. However, anti-Turk racism certainly figures-in.

Some habits are hard to break. But the shielding of ex-Nazis can also be seen as part of an overarching policy in the postwar (Cold War) years to limit the spread of the Left in Western Europe, emboldened by their role in the resistance. Europe was radicalized by WWII, and for millions, the old-structures of power were delegitimized. Many ex-Nazis and fascists throughout Europe were utilized in the Cold War NATO program "GLADIO," paramilitary armies that were created to limit the Left, and a hypothetical Soviet invasion that never happened.

Preserving fascist-networks was counterintelligence and pacification of a radicalized Europe, and hiding the crimes of the expediters was crucial. Perhaps the Bader-Meinhof gang were right. The Bad Arolsen archives should have remained open from 1955-on. Germany hasn't done much to allay the fears of the world here, but who wants to face the fact that their grandfather murdered thousands of people? This writer would have, because wrong is wrong.

AP on the update to the opening of the Bad Arolsen archives (05.13.2007)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_on_re_eu/nazi_archive

Der Spiegel on the opening of the Bad Arolsen, 04.19.2006:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,411983,00.html

The Washington Post on Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial (12.14.2005): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402403.html

"The Paradoxes of a Death Penalty Stance," The Washington Post, 06.04.2005:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/03/AR2005060301450.html

JERRY FALWELL DEAD AT 73: THE END OF A DEMAGOGUE

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." --Jerry Falwell

Good-riddance asshole. He told America that we're a religious nation--we sure are, and it's been an albatross around our necks for decades. Believers need to keep their morality out of politics, we don't want you, go-away. As disgusting as Larry Flynt is, he was right about you: you were a scumbag who was lower than a pornographer, the Big Pimp selling lies and false-hope to the miserable. Finally, you're going to be useful--fertilizing the flowers. Consider the lilies, asswipe.

No-thanks for the Moral Majority, no-thanks for legislating petty morality, no-thanks for your ugly-mug on my tv set, no-thanks for your phony university, and no-thanks for your fake version of Jesus and his teachings. When the planes slammed-into the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001, Falwell blamed the ACLU!

And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen." (Washington Post, 09.14.2001)

What a jackass, but at least Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner, and Al Goldstein outlived Falwell. That's because God liked them more, obviously. When all these evangelists who believe that their personal wealth is attached to their beliefs lose all their money in a crash, it's going to entertaining to watch them blame themselves as their moronic grandparents did over seventy-years-ago. This is because they never learn, and never will.

Falwell dying is a watershed, and the ending of 27 years of bullshit from the religious right. They're in-disarray, and need to be kept that way. To neutralize them and their arguments isn't enough--they need to be inundated with truth, fact, and empiricism, daily. I'm not advocating the stifling of these folks' right to their own faith, but Americans also deserve the right to freedom from religion, and these twits have made it clear they want to force their beliefs on all of us. It seems he didn't like Jews either:

In 1999, he told an evangelical conference that the Antichrist was a male Jew who was probably already alive. Falwell later apologized for the remark but not for holding the belief. A month later, his National Liberty Journal warned parents that Tinky Winky, a purple, purse-toting character on television's "Teletubbies'' show, was a gay role model and morally damaging to children. Falwell was re-energized after family values proved important in the 2004 presidential election. (AP, 05.15.2007)

Yeah, 2004, the good-old-days, eh? When you're protecting raw power, you need ambulance chasers, pimps, preachers, and shills. This is what makes them anti-democratic and basically worthy of targeting for criticism and debate, though most of them aren't worthy of either. What's best is to ignore them in the mainstream dialog, while limiting their influence everywhere one can within the law. They found Falwell like they did Stalin.

There is something that Falwell and Flynt share: both of his families were engaged in bootlegging-hooch during Prohibition. Welcome to oblivion, Jerry, you never mattered. Welcome to darkness and the void. The lives of you and your parsonage aren't worth any more than anyone else, and you were never special. What you were was an embarrassment to most reasonable Americans and human beings the world over.

Your death couldn't have come at a better time, when your theocratic president is embattled, and your agenda is dying. Yes, there are few of your mutants in the Supreme Court, but they're going to become more-and-more isolated and marginalized, coming-off as a dowdy reminder of bad-times when our nation truly lost its mind and acted accordingly. Nobody had to catch you with an ugly, white-trash prostitute like Swaggert--we all assumed you were the same kind of trash. Your death is a blip. Jew-baiter, feminist-baiter, gay-baiter, nigger-baiter--you were a scumbag and worthless-piece-of-squirm. Your university will close, and you'll be a sad-footnote in American history, just like that other racist demagogue, Gerald L.K. Smith.

AP Today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6634769,00.html

Give President Cheney and George W. Bush your opinions on Michael Moore's trip to Cuba

wArSHINtuHn/ www.michaelmoore.com --The confrontation between Michael Moore and the Bush administration isn't the first time, we can be assured that someone at Disney was tapped to pull the film from their distribution schedule back in 2004. As we all know, it backfired in an astonishing-sense: it made the documentary a much bigger hit than it would have been otherwise. If you think that the Weinsteins and Moore didn't figure the fines into their budgets, you're mistaken. Also, these things can be appealed for years. Once the Bush administration's cronies are out-of-office, the charges and fines--if there ever are any--will likely be dropped.

It seems everyone in the mainstream media wants to speculate (wildly) over what the fines are likely to be. At-most, they shouldn't be more than what Oliver Stone's Ixtlan Productions paid in toto, which was $6,322.20, spread amongst four individuals. The New York Yankees were recently fined $70,000, so we can assume they brought a lot of players there on business. To fine Michael Moore more would be obvious discrimination against Michael Moore, and censorship of anyone outside of Establishment media who wants to convey the real story of the conditions in Cuba--Americans are the last-to-know about nearly everything pertinent in the island nation, and how American foreign policy really works. You don't have to inform the victims, they know better than anyone.

Tell the crooks how you feel: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

An interview with Dr. Noam Chomsky, from "Interpol Magazine," February 1995 (Part 1 of 2)

This was an interview conducted through the mail with Dr. Chomsky while I was finishing my degree in American History at Ball State University. Just two-months after I received his answers in the mail, we all witnessed the Oklahoma City bombing, and the stirrings of the war on terror (really a domestic one against all of us). It's been a long road from the Spring of 1995. At that time, the internet was just starting to become accessible, and its impact on the political and cultural discourse is only now being realized.

1995 was a year when the "zine revolution" was occurring, and it was quickly-supplanted by the high-price of paper and the internet. This interview was done for one of those little zines--my own--called "Interpol." I actually got copies of it in zine-central, the legendary Quimby's Queer Store in Chicago. It was pretty surreal going-up to the Windy City and seeing those copies in the store (I never got paid, incidentally), it felt pretty good.

All that said, I would never trade the blog format, it's superior in every respect to that old digest format, and it's getting better all the time. Dr. Chomsky is a very friendly and encouraging person, and when he passes from this world, we will have lost a wonderful human being. Appreciate the flowers in life, they are fleeting. Try to be that person you admire, and strive to make a better world for all. That's the meaning of life.


Matt Janovic: Dr. Chomsky, in the past you've made comments on the importance of the FBI's COINTEPROs (Counterintelligence Programs) against the Black Panthers and the multi-faceted "New Left" as having a preponderant effect on the demise of these groups in the 1960s and early 1970s--do you feel that the effect of this element of American History is overlooked by most historians?

Noam Chomsky: There is no doubt that this material has been marginalized--by historians, the media, and the intellectual community general. Merely to give one personal example, I have a long article on "domestic terrorism" that is still unpublished after 15 years, apart from excerpts way at the margins. Recently, a leading criminologist asked for it for an anthology, but was finally unable to work it in (not his judgement; he wanted it).But the story is far more dramatic. Simply consider the relative attention given to Watergate and to COINTELPRO. It's a very revealing comparison. They were disclosed at the very same time. COINTELPRO was vastly more significant: it was a program by the national political police, acting on the highest authority through three administrations, to undermine and destroy independent thought and political action; its methods reached as far as Gestapo-style political assassination, under Nixon. These facts are not contested. In contrast, Watergate was a tea party.

For unknown reasons some tenth-rate burglars ransacked a Democratic Party headquarters; one minor part of COINTELPRO was massive disruption of a legal political party, which has the same status as the Democrats in our constitutional system, except that it has no private wealth behind it (the Socialist Workers Party)--that single episode is far more significant than all of Watergate. There was great outrage over Nixon's "enemy list"; nothing happened to anyone on it, as I know personally, since I was on it. But also on it were the head of IBM, McGeorge Bundy, etc., and to call powerful people bad names in private is a scandal that undermines the foundations of the republic. In contrast, to assassinate a Black Panther organizer in an FBI-organized early morning police raid, killing him in bed (probably drugged), is quite OK. And on, and on.

Now, simply check the reaction to these simultaneous disclosures. Ask yourself how Watergate and COINTELPRO figure into the political culture and history crafted by the privileged and educated, and what the impact has been on the repeated disclosure of these very startling and revealing facts. There is only one conclusion: it's a crime to annoy the powerful, but it's fine to terrorize and disrupt the lives of the weak. It could hardly be more clear that that is the dominant value of the political-intellectual culture.

MJ: In past interviews, you've refrained from any call for specific action, yet your analysis of the present domestic and world situation regarding the rights of individuals seems bleak. In the face of such widespread oppression and exploitation by various transnational corporations (usually implemented by the apparatus of domestic governments), why do you generally refrain from doing so?

NC: I don't refrain from calls to specific action. I've undertaken plenty myself, and recommend them to others. What I don't do is stand up on a podium and say: Do This or That. I don't feel I have any right to do so. What I try to do--whether successfully or not others can judge--is to lay out the situation as I see it, encourage others to inquire with independent minds, and when they draw their own conclusions, to act to change what I am convinced they will see as dangerous and often horrifying developments. If asked about specific actions, I always try to answer. And as I mentioned, I've undertaken plenty myself, including organizing direct resistance.

MJ: How did the discussions on the Donahue/Pozner show [Ed-the short-lived political talk show from the early-1990s] on CNBC come about? Did the main host, Mr. Donahue, have any serious problems taking you on a network that is mostly owned by General Electric, a major defense contractor to the Pentagon?

NC: My impression is that Phil Donohue would be very pleased to have people like me on his show regularly, and to get enough corporate sponsorship (it's not easy to get any other, in our system of private tyranny) to allow such discussions to be widely heard. My impression also is that it's not easy even for a person of his stature in the mainstream media to break the rigid rules of Political Correctness imposed by private power, largely. As to whether these impressions are accurate in this particular case, you'd have to inquire elsewhere, of course.

MJ: This is probably pretty pedestrian to you by now, but: do you feel as an older man that youth culture can have a serious and positive impact towards humanistic thought and action, or is it just another social dynamic that we can only exert a minimal amount of control over? Specifically, I'm talking about non-conformist rock culture.

NC: I'm too ignorant to comment, frankly. My impression--and again it's only that--is that the rock culture has had an effect on getting young people to think and act independently. But like the youth culture generally, it's been readily absorbed into the vast system of private power, which wants to distort it to serve its own ends of commercialization, separation of people from one another, and so on. How these tendencies play out, others who know better than I would have to say.

MJ: Why do you think that Europe has maintained a greater tradition of Leftism than the United States.

NC: Europe has been rather different from the US in many respects. As England has fallen more into the US orbit, there are by now quite striking differences between an even broader Anglo-American model and a continental European-Japanese model. It shows up quite clearly in many features of the societies. Take family values: they have been under severe attack for the past 15 years in the Anglo-American model, while support systems have been encouraged and sustained these values in the contrasting model. This has been studied in some depth right in the mainstream, and the results are pretty striking, but you'd have to find all that out. I have some references and comment in the January and February issues of Z Magazine.But this is only one facet. It's even recognized by the Courts. Thus, the Sixth Court of Appeals in a 1994 decision denying legal protection to older workers thrown out of their jobs takes explicit not that "Unlike law and social policy in many European countries, the laws of the United States do not prohibit" actions by owners undertaken for private profit, whatever the effect on workers and communities. In brief, the prevailing values here are that what counts is private power, not human beings. The Court's decision is accompanied by a good deal of utter nonsense about "legal and economic theory," but the distinction the Court draws is quite real, and has been for a long time. US labor history, for example, is unusually violent. Even the right-wing press in England was appalled, for many decades, at the brutal treatment of American workers by the government security forces mobilized by the owners.

What are the reasons? It's a complicated story, but in part it reflects the fact that American society began as a kind of "blank slate," once the native population was exterminated or driven away. It therefore reflected the quite sharply the values of those who had domestic power, business interests overwhelmingly. Of course, they never believed in a free market, and still don't: the US is also unusual in its record of extreme protectionism and public subsidy to private power through the state system ("welfare for the rich," we would call it, if honesty were permitted).

That's the primary reason for the very rapid economic growth of the US. But though the business world has always demanded ample state protection from market discipline, and still does, they've naturally demanded such discipline be imposed rigorously on the poor and defenseless at home and abroad, and have relied extensively on state power to insure that result as well. In societies where industrial capitalism grew out of existing social networks, support systems, traditional societies that recognized a "right to life," etc., the edges of the system were softer, a labor movement was able to survive and grow, and a social contract was achieved that is scarcely known here.

In an era of transnational capital, those systems are eroding everywhere; that's a large part of the perceived value of globalization of production and the huge expansion of speculative financial capital. The whole industrial world is leveling downward under consciously undertaken social policy, for reasons that are well understood. That's not inevitable; contrary to their illusions, these are human decisions taken within human institutions with their own historically contingent power relations, not laws of physics (let alone economics). But it is entirely natural as private tyranny increases its sway worldwide.

On the other hand, there are respects in which the US is much more free than other societies. Take freedom of speech, for example. Since the 1960s, at least, the US leads the world in defending this fundamental right--and it didn't just "happen"; the great 1964 victory at the Supreme Court was part of the civil rights movement, to mention one example. There's also a streak of independence and a lack of deference and class subordination in American social life that's very refreshing, and different from most of the industrial world. More generally, it's a complicated story, and one should be wary of easy formulas.

End of Part 1 (and statement of intellectual ownership): This interview is the intellectual property of Dr. Noam Chomsky and Matt Janovic. Permission to reprint, quote, or reproduce can be obtained through written permission from the authors. All rights reserved as of 2007, Noam Chomsky and Matt Janovic.

REPS. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA) & JEFF FLAKE (R-AZ) NSA OVERSIGHT AMENDMENT PASSED TODAY: FISA MUST BE OBEYED

“When Congress said the Administration must get court approval for domestic surveillance, we meant it. Today, Congress reaffirmed that basic protection.” --Rep. Adam Schiff, today.

Washington D.C.--Both Reps. Schiff and Flake deserve some thanks from all of us--they've ended the Bush administration's illegal warrantless surveillance programs early this morning. The bill was H.R. 2082, or the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2007, and reaffirms the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act of 1978. In other words, you have to have authorization from a federal FISA court for a warrant to surveil suspected terrorists, and whatnot. You cannot simply declare some arcane loophole, or create your own signing-statements or creative interpretations--you have to have a warrant from a FISA judge, period.

Schiff also made some comments today that there could very well be a need for another committee to investigate all of the violations of FISA during the Bush administration, much like the Church Committee in mid-1970s. FISA came out of the findings of the Church Committee that more oversight was needed when the Executive branch was authorizing wiretappings in domestic cases. Congress created these laws because of rampant criminality during the Cold War, and particularly within the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. COINTELPRO needs to be brought-up in the dialog over this, as well as CABLE SPLICER, GARDEN PLOT, and CHAOS. Heady times, eh?

MICHAEL MOORE SHOOTS-BACK, JUST NOT LIKE DICK CHENEY

wAsHInTuhN/ http://www.michaelmoore.com/ --This is getting pretty interesting, and we all knew it was just going to feed-into the publicity of the film "Sicko." Well, everybody knew it except "dry-drunks" Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, our two co-presidents. It's mind-boggling to imagine how stupid or chemically-impaired one has to be to miss this fact: you never respond to the request by Michael Moore to get permission to go shooting his footage in Cuba (Spielberg was granted his right-away, while Oliver Stone had to pay a minimal-fine), then you wait to "bust" him the month before the release of the film with an absurd letter you direct the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury (Henry Paulson) to write and send to Moore with no specific charges or penalties listed in them.

It just doesn't even make any sense. CNN and Fox were chiming-in that "Moore could expect fines up to one million per-violation," which is a lie. A lie is a lie. Not one American filmmaker has ever been fined in such a fashion, and certainly not in the ballpark CNN was claiming. Bizarre, but when you don't have the truth on your side, lies are all you have. I'm proud of Michael Moore for defending himself and confronting this stupid attack on his integrity, and of his film. Nobody has even seen it yet, and we get this. What they want to do is create the appearance of criminality where it simply doesn't exist. Did the Bush administration kill Oliver Stone's "Comandante"? It's a question worth asking.

It all reminds me of the controversies surrounding The Last Temptation of Christ and Apocalypto, only this time the volleys are coming from: the media/press, Big Pharma, the insurance companies, and the White House and their allies in Congress. It's going to be a fine, we all know this. It's unlikely that the Treasury Department are going to want to confiscate the footage of the 9/11 first-responders getting health care they couldn't afford in the United States, that's like shitting on the flag. Moore hit them hard in his open letter to Secretary Paulson:

I believe that the decision to conduct this investigation represents the latest example of the Bush Administration abusing the federal government for raw, crass, political purposes. Over the last seven years of the Bush Presidency, we have seen the abuse of government to promote a political agenda designed to benefit the conservative base of the Republican Party, special interests and major financial contributors. From holding secret meetings for the energy industry to re-writing science findings to cooking the books on intelligence to the firing of U.S. Attorneys, this Administration has shown time and time again that it will abuse its power and authority.
(michaelmoore.com, 05.11.2007)

When you're right, you're right, and Michael Moore is right about this. It's been obvious even before they took-office that this was a bunch of criminals, and now they're trying to create the impression that others are. This is typical criminal behavior, and it's not going to wash in the current political environment. Perhaps because they don't share any of the traditional values the public does, they're just completely unaware of how horrible they truly are.

Even so, the coordinated campaign against "Sicko" is like giving the Weinsteins, Lionsgate, and Michael Moore the best free-advertising one could ever hope for. The stunning thing about all this is that this is the GOP's and the Bush administration's second clumsy attempt at sinking a Moore documentary, only insuring that a critical-mass of publicity comes out of it. It will also insure record box-office for the film, making a wider-release for Moore's next documentary inevitable. After this, Michael Moore is a household name, all thanks to the blundering of dumb CEOs and corrupt politicians. It's been fun watching his work grow since 1989, and I think he's on the right course.

He's not a Father Coughlin or a Huey Long--he's much better than that, and he comes from a solidly blue-collar background. Technology--just as it did with radio in the 1930s--is transmitting the next wave of progressivism, and there will be pratfalls. That's life. I applaud Michael Moore for his activities, he's hitting the right targets, and we all know it. The time has come to bite back, and to never forget that you never let-go. That's the rule of the jungle, you have to do some hitting-back, and you have to defend yourself. It's time that the working-class did just that.

ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES AIDE MONICA GOODLING GRANTED IMMUNITY: BRACE YOURSELVES

Washington D.C.--A federal U.S. District Judge has granted former-aide to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales legal immunity from prosecution if she testifies about her knowledge in the firings of the eight U.S. Attorneys. She will not have immunity from perjured-statements. All the wires are hitting this one hard right-now. It's the perfect storm. Let the investigations commence. I guess all those stories that Gonzales was "pushing-back" yesterday didn't mean much, but we knew this. It should be pointed-out that Gonzales and the Justice Department are still refusing to turn over emails that pertain to Karl Rove.

HOOKERGATE: DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY TEMPORARILY BANNED BY FEDERAL JUDGE FROM RELEASING MORE PHONE RECORDS

"The Court is ordering both the Defendant and her agents and attorneys, including counsel in her civil cases, Montgomery Blair Sibley, to not release, further distribute, or otherwise provide any person or organization the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates and/or the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey." -- From the court order issued today by U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler.

Washington D.C.--And so, we have the reason for why Ms. Palfrey's site is down, it was by a court order. This last Sunday, the "DC madame" and her civil attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, threatened to release her remaining phone records (once stated from 1993-2002, now "1996-2002"). In a strange twist, federal U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler has placed a "temporary restraining order" on the records, claiming the situation is akin to "witness intimidation."

So let's get this straight: I go and have illegal sex with a "prostitute," and I'm suddenly a "witness" to the crime that I was a co-conspirator in. That's a pretty creative interpretation of the law, isn't it?

Not that Palfrey seems the type to let this deter her; if she's as cunning as I assume she is, there's an individual (or more) out there who's going to do timed-releases onto the Internet of the phone records--if the judge and prosecutors turn up the heat or jail Ms. Palfrey. It could be done from another country, too, and shutting it down would be a real challenge, especially if the people releasing it were mobile.

In a letter dated Sunday, Palfrey's civil attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, had demanded that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales conduct a special investigation into what Sibley described as an unfair prosecution of Palfrey's business. Sibley said that he would release Palfrey's phone records for all to peruse -- including Internet bloggers -- if Gonzales did not take action. Noting that ABC News had identified one federal prosecutor -- now deceased -- in its review of Palfrey's phone records, Sibley suggested that the remaining records probably contain the numbers of other notable customers and escorts. (Washington Post, 05.11.2007)

Man, what I would give for those records. Why, I would be proud to be one of the millions of bloggers who posted some of them on my site (with analysis). Ms. Palfrey and her lawyer might want to invoke whistle-blower laws, but one has to wonder the precise reasoning for the judge's injunctions.

Surely, it could be a bluff on Palfrey's part, but we have no reason to think so. Just ask Randall Tobias. It should be noted that Sibley has an expertise in federal forfeiture laws, and has even written a textbook on it that's available through Amazon.com. Perhaps Ms. Palfrey is ignorant in her ideas of "fairness" in Washington D.C., and all the other corridors of power. Has "fairness" ever entered into it? I should think not, and so her path is clear: she has to play as dirty and as ruthless as her former clients, and she has begun to.

This woman is a real quandary to established power, and it's not unlikely that she and her service were part of an infrastructure of rewards, secrets, and information networking. The reason for the new injunction is made clear in an AP release from May 8:

In his letter to Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Sibley said several years of phone records were never given to ABC News and that he plans to widely distribute the records in seven days unless a deal can be reached with the Justice Department. Mr. Sibley suggested in the letter that "the journalists and Internet bloggers who will receive these records have decidedly different standards than that of ABC News." Further release of the phone records might cause conflict with a judge's order barring Miss Palfrey from making certain disclosures. The exact scope of the order is under dispute [Ed-my emphasis.]. (AP, 05.08.2007)

And today, it's no longer disputed. Let's face it, powerful men usually never have anyone they can confide in--not even their trophy-wives--and that's OK. They should feel isolated, paranoid, and lonely because they covet power. In intelligence parlance, "pillow talk" has always been one of the easiest routes in obtaining intelligence. Getting into a man's--or woman's--head tends to work best after coitus.

You can see the possibilities in this, can't you? It's possible--even likely--that a whole lot of blabbing occurred [Ed., 06.14.2007-Ms. Palfrey has been comparing the whole case with the Profumo scandal in the UK, during the 1960s recently]. Damage control is almost impossible in this situation, especially with the potential for dissemination in the age of the Internet. But what's lost in all of this is the dead federal prosecutor:

In a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Palfrey’s civil lawyer, Montgomery Blair Sibley, contends that the Justice Department should compel ABC to disclose the prosecutor’s identity and whether he had any role in the Palfrey investigation. (ibid)

Today, the Department of Justice (Gonzales) has stated the prosecutor is "long-dead." Can we trust them at their word? Considering we know attorney general Gonzales is a serial liar, the reasonable answer would be "no." Simply releasing his name would clear everything up, wouldn't it? That's what we should expect from any legitimate investigation. Which leads us to...The investigation of Pamela Martin & Associates: when did the investigations really begin? Justice seems to be implying it wasn't before 2004. The problem is, how does the Justice Department have the name of the deceased prosecutor? Was ABC's statement that he was dead a tip-off to Gonzales? Did ABC have contact with the Justice Department over the contents?

A "career Justice Department prosecutor" identified in a news report as a client of alleged Washington madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey has been dead for nearly three years, the Justice Department said Tuesday. ...In a statement Tuesday, the Justice Department said the individual died in 2004, presumably before authorities began investigating Palfrey. "I don't know how dead people can influence prosecutions," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said. (AP, 05.08.2007)

Curious, all that. I think Ms. Palfrey knows more about what's in those records than she's letting-on. Is the dead prosecutor a red-herring? He could be, but it's obvious you cannot trust anyone at face-value in this story.

The Washington Post Today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051001450.html

AP, 05.08.2007: http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20070507-110432-5627r.htm

AP on the dead prosecutor, 05.08.2007: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/08/national/a102104D46.DTL&feed=rss.crime

MICHAEL MOORE FACING BUSH ADMINISTRATION HARASSMENT FOR GETTING 9/11 HEROES MEDICAL CARE IN CUBA

wAsHINtUhn/www.michaelmoore.com--This has the Bush administration's fingerprints all over it. When Nixon was in-trouble, he sicked the IRS on people. When George W. Bush's White House is sinking, it's the Treasury Department. So, they send two-letters to Michael Moore and his production company telling him he's under investigation for doing-business in Cuba, particularly for getting medical care for a number of 9/11 rescue workers.

You see, Americans don't have the freedom of movement that say someone in Canada does to go to Cuba. We get fined a minimum of $600-per-day that we're there. The interpretations of aiding the Cuban government and economy are fast and furious, and highly-selective. You cannot make a documentary about Cuba that is even-handed if you're an American, you'll get this type of harassment.

The reasons for attacking Moore should be obvious: they don't want us to know what things are really like in Cuba, and that people have free-access to some of the finest medical care on this earth. Unlike the United States, Cuba recognizes the human right to shelter, food, and medical care. Certainly, conditions aren't great in Cuba, but we can ascribe a lot of that to the illegal State Department embargo that nation has been under for decades.

The majority of the world firmly opposes the Cuban embargo in the UN. But consider the fact that economic-ties with Spain, Venezuela, and most of the world besides the US, are beginning to raise-up economic conditions in Cuba. And Jesus Christ are they stupid at Big Pharma and the Bush administration, they fell right into this trap. It wouldn't be that hard-to-believe that it was wilfully set by Moore, the Weinsteins, and their PR campaign. More power to them. The forces of reaction never learn, because they aren't supposed to. AP points-out the obvious:

The timing of the investigation is reminiscent of the firestorm that preceded the Cannes debut of "Fahrenheit 9/11," which won the festival's top prize in 2004. The Walt Disney Co. refused to let subsidiary Miramax release the film because of its political content, prompting Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein to release "Fahrenheit 9/11" on their own. The Weinsteins later left Miramax to form the Weinstein Co., which is releasing "Sicko." They declined to comment on the Treasury investigation, said company spokeswoman Sarah Levinson Rothman. (AP, 05.10.2007)

Some master-prints of Moore's documentary film "Sicko" have been secreted to a safe house, probably in Canada. Maybe Bush's buddy conservative Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper can send the Mounties in to retrieve them. I would wager that Lion's Gate Films has them, since they're a Canadian company. One also has to realize that the Weinsteins and Moore are waging a publicity campaign simultaneous to all of this. Confused? That's OK.

Hiding the film was good thinking on Michael Moore's part, he knew they were likely going to seize the film. If you can say one thing about the Bush administration, they're preemptive. The problem is, it doesn't take a genius to be eight-steps ahead of them. Even Gerald Ford was smarter than this, and he was pretty stupid. Reagan too. But this is the capper White House, isn't it? They never learn.

In December of 2006, Oliver Stone was fined for taking a documentary film crew into Cuba. Considering no specific-charges were attached to the letters to Moore, we can consider it a smear, or a "bad-jacketing" to injure his credibility. In the current political climate, it's bound to fail. It should be remembered that Oliver Stone was also hit with a fine for his first documentary on Castro ("Comandante," which is still being suppressed by HBO within the United States), and was also forced by HBO to go back to Cuba and make another work that was "harder" on Castro called "Looking for Fidel." The DVD for Comandante is only available as a PAL-import (we use NTSC in North America). You can obtain the PAL version here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00022VML2/imdb-adbox/

Moore has posted both letters from the Treasury Department's OFAC (Office of Foreign Asset Control) on his site, as well as a statement from his producer making it clear that the film is coming-out regardless. Oliver Stone was also hit with the $6,322.20 fine from this same office in December, though it was spread amongst four individuals whose names have gone undisclosed, so it's unlikely that he paid the total sum. With the heft of the Weinsteins and Lion's Gate, it's likely that this whole investigation will only insure the release of the film and yet another box-office record. If there is one issue that cuts-to-the-heart of these times in the United States, it's the impending collapse of access to health care for most Americans.

Ask most health care workers (like my neighbor's wife, for example), and they will tell you we're in a serious crisis. Added to this anthropological-mess is the fact that the Baby Boomers are retiring. We could have a demographic meltdown on our hands. There will certainly be political-costs attached for not meeting the demands for reform that are surely coming. Right now, today, what we seem to be seeing is a three-pronged assault by the allies in government of the pharmaceutical, insurance, and corporate-modeled health care industries (the Bush administration, and shills like Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), the media (frequently owned by the same folks), and the aforementioned industries themselves.

Today, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America senior vice president Ken Johnson preemptively attacked Moore's film again, though it has only been screened in excerpts at the Toronto Film Festival. Does he have his own copy? It gets a full-screening at Cannes on May 19. Based on these facts alone, you have an obvious coordination going on, possibly from the Oval Office. Why? The Bush family has controlling-interests in Eli Lily for one, and there's a mountain of money at stake.

AdAge.com claims that the pharmaceutical industry is attempting to discredit Moore's film by trying to spin the filmmaker as biased and one-sided. Ken Johnson, senior vice president for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), says America needs a "thoughtful and well-researched" investigation into America's healthcare problems, and insists Moore's film won't provide that. But consumer health advocate Mike Adams disagrees. "Big Pharma is the king of spin and propaganda," he says. "And drug companies will paint anything as 'biased' if it doesn't bow down to the lies, distortions and fraud being promoted by the industry. Big Pharma is not merely afraid of Michael Moore, they're afraid of anything resembling honest scrutiny or investigative journalism," he added. (http://www.newstarget.com/z020085.html)

This is from August 22nd, 2006. Is it possible that a propaganda campaign is being conducted utilizing interlocking-networks between government and the business community? This would also mean that public monies are being used to fund them, which is in-itself a federal offense. At most, Moore is probably only going to have to pay a fine of around $7,000, since the New York Yankees recently got busted in Havana for doing business there, along with Stone and some folks who mistakenly-bought Cuban cigars online.

Cuba is known for its great baseball players--even Castro could beat George W. Bush at a game in his current state of deteriorated health. This is all being done to smear Michael Moore and his documentary before its release, but what these forces are also doing is hurting those 9/11 heroes, those firemen and rescue workers whom Moore took to Cuba for medical care. They still suffer from the effects of that day, and the government isn't helping them, just like our veterans. Just like all of us. What the media, the Bush administration, the GOP, and the health care giants don't realize is that they're messing-with their own iconography. They're shitting where they eat (nothing new there).

Considering that the Senate overwhelmingly-passed S.1082 (the bill), S.Amdt. 990 (Senate Amendment 990), allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to approve the importation of cheaper pharmaceuticals from other countries, it's clear which way the wind is blowing. The cloture has begun, and the bill is veto-proof. There won't be anything in Moore's film that isn't congruent with the congressional conclusions of S.1082, amendment 990. I'll be sure to see "Sicko" twice.

AP Today: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/10/entertainment/main2784703.shtml
The Treasury Department Letters to Michael Moore: www.michaelmoore.com

Some opinions on Cuba: http://www.cubatravelusa.com/the_experts_opinions.htm

OFAC's decision on Oliver Stone's "Comandante" (PDF): http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/civpen/penalties/12012006.pdf

HAVE THE FEDS SHUT-DOWN DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY'S DEFENSE FUND SITE?

www.deborahjeanepalfrey.com --It might just be my connection--which sucks--or maybe she's getting it primed for a lot of phone records. Who knows? The story is getting pretty quiet. Is it the quiet before the storm? I sure hope so, I have some popcorn on-hand for the occasion (and some Absinthe, Cuban cigars, and some bootleg DVDs). David and Goliath is right, I just hope the outcome is the same. It's time to end prostitution laws, and this case could be the beginning of that end.

WARNER BROS. PULLS PREVIEW SCREENINGS IN CANADA: THE REAL REASON

TORONTO, EH?--Man, this is totally hosed, eh? These hosers at Barner Wros. just make lousy movies. You noo? Hollywood makes the cinematic equivalent of the disposable-lighter, and the majority of movies made during the last 15-16 years hold their catalog value about as long as a lighter without any fluid. In just a couple years, you can buy legitimate DVDs of their biggest movies for around $5.00 USD used.

Maybe this is why so many classic, cutting-edge films from the late-1960s, early-1970s remain unreleased onto DVD: the studios don't want anyone to know how much the movies have degenerated since then. You know, back when the MPAA was created to contain the creative freedom of that era? The major studios couldn't put as many tits, violence, and adult-themes in their fare as the indies, so the ratings-system was created to sink the competition. It worked. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. The viewing public is overdue for another such renaissance, and we'll get one if we have to let the current Hollywood order crumble under their own weight.

Maybe they need a hint: your movies aren't worth paying-for, they suck, like junk-food. They're satisfying if you're unaccustomed to thinking, but then thinking sets-in eventually, belatedly, and it's no good anymore. A bad movie makes the viewer feel sad and lonely. Now, the technology is prevalent to pirate this pap. The other place they forgot to mention where piracy is rife is in China, but there's only so much the movie industry can do about that one.

Then, there's all the overseas military theaters, and South Korea, and-on-and-on. A pal in the Middle East told me you could get Fahrenheit 9/11 on bootleg DVD before it hit in the US! I should add that most American soldiers in Iraq have seen the film before all of us here did. He got it at those little "Hadji-stands" that dot Iraq and much of the region.

A Suggestion to Hollywood: quit making-movies, and only distribute independently-produced ones. Stay out of the creative-process altogether, and stop underestimating your audiences. Also, stop with the stupid test-screenings (almost always without a permanent score, basically unfinished sound and dialog, etc.) that cause directors and producers nightmares and don't tell you anything about how the film will really be received by the public.

If you allow maverick filmmakers to do their thing, you'll have films that have a genuine catalog value, and pirating means a lot less after that. People will want to buy them! You can do more "special editions," put deleted scenes on the discs, a director commentary--things you cannot obtain in a theater. Give the people who create the ability to do so properly without all the meddling by a bunch of mindless suits. If not, the public will continue to stay at home, and the pirating will continue unabated.

Make movies with some meaning to ordinary people that have stories. Make movies for adults again. Stop sucking, then you can show previews in Canada again. And don't think we didn't notice it was to pre-emptively bar any bad reviews from Canada, eh. Jack Valenti (Satan) is dead, it's safe to come out. It's kinda like when Franco croaked in Spain, or when Stalin bit it in 1953. We should be pushing for the thaw. The MPAA? Again, it was created to destroy independent film and distribution, period. It was never about "protecting the public." All that said, I still love the movies of Steven Soderbergh!

AS CHENEY SITS IN THE WIZARD'S EMERALD CITY, THE RED ARMY SHELLS THE BUNKER

THE GREEN ZONE, BAGHDAD--I was watching Dr. Strange's comments on what we've already known for over-a-year: that security in Iraq is disintegrating due to poor-planning and no strategy for postwar-Iraq by the Bush administration. I was watching this one on CNN, live. As President Cheney misspoke (he doesn't do anything else, he'll tell you), you could hear explosions...then, the broadcast was cut. The talking-necks at CNN seemed aghast, and for once, had no words for what happened.

The laws of physics are still holding. Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg must have placed the suitcase closer to der Fuehrer this time. Hey, it's not even July 20th. Pray for the soul of the vice president, it died from alcohol-poisoning in the 1960s. They say cyanide smells like rotted-almonds. Crunch-crunch. An interesting sidebar: the VP claimed (he lied) that he "didn't hear the explosion." Well yeah, neither did Hitler after it hit, his eardrums were punctured.

It's just like that lousy lie from Gonzales being confronted by protesters at his Harvard law school reunion (class of 1982!). Some retard official there lied to AP that most of the AG's fellow-classmates (kissass lawyers) "didn't see them," which is proven false by a series of photos at www.michaelmoore.com. Like Anderson Cooper and Jerry Rivers at the Superdome, it was an AP reporter conveying rumors--that's not journalism. More guffaws from a Philip K. Dick Cheney novel. Green is right, those stupid insurgents have shitty aim...

NEWT GINGRICH ON THE "WAR CZAR" IDEA, AND WHY HE DOESN'T GET THAT HIS CONSERVATISM IS DEAD

OBJECTIVE REALITY--He's dead, Jim. It wasn't enough to harass the people--most just like us--who work in the government bureaucracies back in the middle-1990s. Now, Newt Gingrich, the guy who cheated on his wife when he was accusing another man of doing the same, is trying to save the tattered-remnants of his brand of so-called "conservatism" (TM). Check this quote, I love it, he's desperate:

"The problem is not broad strategy and policy, it's that the bureaucracy is so inefficient and there's been so little follow-up that the machine doesn't work," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said. ..."It's the nuttiest idea ever," said James Carafano, a defense expert at Heritage Foundation. He said a war coordinator at the White House would be outside the regular chain of command. "It confuses lines of authority. It's like adding a fifth wheel on a car." Trying to integrate government operations inside the White House is a prescription for disaster, he added. (AP, 05.07.2007)

Sorry, it's the CPU (the head/the White House/Cheney/Bush/Rove) that doesn't work. Thanks Newt, I couldn't have scripted it any better as a way of tripping-you-up. You must be desperate, considering that what you're suggesting is the opposite of traditional conservatism--you want to consolidate power and authority even further in Washington, a no-no to most (rational) conservatives. Well, the ones that are remaining and still believe what you say. They must feel lonely.

What's ridiculous is that what Gingrich wants is exactly what was done in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a boondoggle if there ever was one. Remember how botched the reaction to Hurricane Katrina was? Get ready for more-of-the-same in Kansas, they screwed-up the lines of communication and authority with that one. You see, the bureaucracy worked much better before George W. Bush and the neocons began occupying the Oval Office like the students at Columbia University back in 68.'

What they've illustrated--boldly--is that it's not the bureaucracy that's the problem--it's the politicians. I'd say they should start drinking again, but...It was a U.S. Attorney (part of the bureaucracy) who even-handedly investigated "Scooter" Libby and the push to smear former-U.S. Diplomat Joseph Wilson over cooked CIA data from Nigeria (found those WMDs in Iraq yet?). The Bush administration also outed a field CIA agent, Valerie Plame (Wilson's wife), which is highly-illegal under federal law. Then, there are the hundreds of whistle-blowers within the federal bureaucracy who have anonymously reported hundreds of illegal-acts authorized and committed by the GOP and the Bush administration.

These bureaucrats did their jobs, protecting all of us, and they demonstrated their loyalty to this nation by doing these things. When you look at Gingrich and the GOP in-general, it's hard to see anything but a horde of brigands and traitors.The lie that the bureaucracy is inherently-evil, destructive, and anti-democratic is absurd. This is the same as saying technology is evil. It isn't, it's benign, and the evil comes from how someone misuses it. The bureaucracy of the federal government of the United States of America answers primarily to the Executive branch and to the public for whom they serve.

In short, federal bureacracy is more-accountable than corporations, the institutions we should have the most concern about. Yes, there was J. Edgar Hoover, and there have been individuals in positions within those bureaus and departments who didn't bring honor to their jobs--the majority of these people were appointed by the Executive. So why is Gingrich doing all this talking about creating a "War Czar"? Because it's the only way he's sees in preserving his shibboleth musings.

Newt Gingrich is a demagogue and a whoremonger. He jokingly calls his cobbled-together assertions as an "ideology." Central to the Gingrich religion is that federal bureaucracy is "bad," never mind that it's provided human services to a needy public--it should just deliver the mail and feed the war machine according to Newt and sundry flat-heads. Right, let's ..."add another layer of bureaucracy," that won't slow anything down, or gum anything up more than it already has been by the Bush administration. We didn't see that with the war or Katrina, not at all. The value of the "plan" is made clear by how many upper-ranking generals have agreed to serve as the War Czar: exactly zero.

The idea for such a czar has been promoted by various people, including former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who sent a memo to the White House several weeks ago advocating it as part of an 18-point plan. "The slowness and ineffectiveness of the American bureaucracy is a major hindrance to our winning, and they've got to cut through it," Gingrich said in an interview yesterday. Under the proposal by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, the execution manager would talk daily with the military commanders and U.S. ambassadors in Iraq and Afghanistan. The official would then meet with Bush each morning to review developments.(Washington Post, 04.13.2007)

Problem: you've already alienated a bureaucracy that isn't going-away, but you need them to cooperate with you. Also, you've compounded your problems by betraying and jettisoning anyone you can to save yourself from your poor decisions and illegal-actions. You've also alienated the High Command, both active duty and retired, and nobody in the military--or any of the federal bureaucracy--trusts you. This is wise of them, and the reasons why there will be no generals coming-forward to be War Czar. The formula of "nothing succeeds like failure" works fine with a "Drug Czar" or even an "Education Czar," but that's not going to float with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's not going to provide a backdoor escape for the Bush administration.

Everyone has already seen numerous examples of Bush administration scapegoating, and nobody with a modicum of sanity would take the position. It just gives them one more career bureaucrat to blame for their own mistakes. This is the real subtext to what Gingrich is suggesting, since he doesn't believe anything substantial except seizing-power and holding it. That never constituted an ideology, only a will to power. Well, and how to cheat on his wife, but he's good at hiding such things. Ms. Palfrey: did Newt Gingrich ever utilize your services? There have been a lot of questions as to the timing of this renewed-call for a War Czar, but the truth is that it's because there won't be anybody to run the wars, and soon:

Retired Marine Corps Gen. John J. Sheehan was approached about the job, but declined because he thinks that decision-making in Washington lacks connection to a broader understanding of the region. ...At the White House, the Iraq team is shrinking. Meghan O'Sullivan, one of Hadley's deputies who handled day-to-day coordination of Iraq, recently announced she is leaving. On Friday, Hadley's deputy, J.D. Crouch, said he was departing next month. (AP, 05.06.2007)

At the rate they're going, they should have a War Czar in the next presidency, and they won't be a Republican. It should also be noted that some of this is to limit the damage to the Office of President, that gun they all want in their pocket. The damage has already been done, and we've seen a dwarfing of Watergate (and COINTELPRO) as evidence of deeply-rooted corruption in our political culture. The Teapot Dome scandal was nothing compared to the last six years, and it isn't simply isolated to George W. Bush and his administration. Clinton was easily as corrupt, but Republicans had their hands in the same pies, so a blowjob-it-would-be. They just didn't like him personally, and he had stolen their fire.

But it isn't the bureaucracy who's to-blame, it's the politicians who give them their unethical and illegal marching-orders. The politicians, their appointees, lobbyists, and the biggest campaign-donors are the problem. The rich and their servants are the problem in Washington. This can be changed when the public won't have it anymore. It appears that that time is nigh. Keep pushing. Silly me, I misread the Constitution when it said that the president is Commander in Chief of the military. Apparently, George W. Bush has never been up to the challenge. So why does he keep insisting he is Commander in Chief, or even president? Power, and access to the public-trough for poppy's friends.

This administration's, Gingrich's and Norquist's so-called "conservatism" has failed, not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is why we hear anything from Newt Gingrich at all--he has friends who own swaths of the mainstream media who want to salvage their vision of American economy and misgovernance, when it's already dead. Even the Heritage Foundation is distancing-themselves from the mess. Worshipping at the Temple of Ronald McReagan isn't going to cut it. Time's up.


AP Yesterday on Gingrich's bloviating: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/4780415.html

The Washington Post on a poor idea, 04.13.2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041202147.html?nav=rss_world

AP, 05.06.2007: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6612584,00.html

"Guatemalan gals won't you come out tonight!": http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=24922

ABC AND HOOKERGATE: WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW

"Their names won't mean anything to our audience. They just weren't newsworthy enough." --ABC journalist, Brian Ross last week.

Washington D.C.--ABC has quashed the story for-the-moment, but it isn't going to go-away anytime soon. It's been going on since October of 2006. What most of the public doesn't know is: D.C. madame Deborah Jeane Palfrey only gave them four years of her phone records, covering 2002-2006.

This leaves 9 years of records that cover 1993-2001, the Clinton years, and the years of increased GOP control in Congress. Remember how they said they were "going to clean-up Washington"? Palfrey, the Bush administration, and Mark Foley are putting that myth to bed forever. "The D.C. madame" also has the potential to do serious damage to Sen. Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House, and there are certainly interested parties.What's galling about the ABC piece is the assertion that because we don't know the names of everyone involved through instant name-recognition, that it "isn't newsworthy," and so we're supposed to trust the judgments of journalist Brian Ross and his producers at the network.

This writer doesn't buy it, but it's possible that Ross and ABC have decided to release the information slowly. They should be given some credit, however, since they've released the names of at least four prominent-individuals from the records, Randall Tobias and Dick Morris being the biggest fish so far. Ross hinted at some of the strategy, and it's certainly a smart one:

Instead, he said, "what we really wanted to do is demonstrate the range of official Washington" involved with the escort service. Their positions, as described by Ross, made them important, at least by the capital's standards: A federal prosecutor, who recently died. A handful of military officers, including the head of an Air Force intelligence squadron. A senior official at the World Bank [Ed.-my emphasis.]. But their relative anonymity spared them exposure as a result of the decision by Ross, "20/ 20" Executive Producer David Sloan and Senior Vice President Kerry Smith. Ever since Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who is fighting federal prostitution-related charges, gave ABC the last four years of her phone records on March 15 (Washington Post, 05.05.2007)

No word on whether there were any ABC execs on the list. A "senior official at the world bank" is extremely significant, and begs-the-question of whether there are numerous other faceless "insiders" we should know about. Considering the behavior of the press in the last six years, ABC cannot be taken at their word on this one.

It's likely that Ms. Palfrey is shopping her information around, including outlets on the internet, and she's not concerned about money for the other nine years of phone records. Considering her actions so far, it's very likely that the D.C. madame has a lot more documentation. If she doesn't, she's basically sunk. On the ABC interview, she made-it-plain she has no intentions of serving time without a swath of revelations coming as retribution. Today, Palfrey's defense fund site wouldn't load any of its text present there before Friday's broadcast [Ed.-It could easily be my great dial-up connection!].

Also on this day, Palfrey has been granted a new attorney, after her request to replace federal public defender A.J. Kramer (her court appointed lawyer) with other court appointed representation.

A federal judge has appointed Preston Burton to represent Deborah Jeane Palfrey in her federal racketeering and money laundering case. Burton tells WTOP, "I've just been on the case for 20 minutes so I don't have much to say yet." Burton represented Monica Lewinsky during the President Clinton impeachment, and he's represented the FBI's Robert Hanssen and former CIA agent Aldrich Ames in their spying cases. (WTOP Radio, 05.07.2007)

Palfrey probably knew that it wasn't going to be easy releasing the names of her prominent clients, and that class loyalties and careerism were going to be her greatest obstacles in disseminating their identities to aid in her defense. This is definitely the reason she only gave ABC just four years of those records--their assertion that "the revelations are dull" only covers four of thirteen years of her "Pamela Martin & Associates" escort business.

It should be noted that identifying lobbyists (covering both parties), World Bank & IMF executives, and military officers is hardly "dull." It's damage control to cover-up for a system of rewards in Washington, and Palfrey continues to be a threat. It would be unsurprising if she met a convenient "accident," and that anything is possible with this scandal when the stakes are this high. [Ed., 08.24.2008--A contention I no longer stand by, barring the release of new evidence.] Ms. Palfrey is that loose-cannon that Washington insiders have always feared would come along. It doesn't matter if the public knows who these people are (instant name-recognition). The fact is that they're going to slink-away while the prostitutes take the legal bullets, just as they always do under our absurd laws surrounding the profession.

Those on the lists and records should be afraid, she's ruthless about her survival and isn't going to be a victim, as she asserted on last-Friday's 20/20 segment. Consider that her statements almost totally contradict those of Brian Ross and ABC, and you begin to understand that both-sides are lying and telling the truth. [Ed., 08.24.2008--This has proven to be true.] The trick is figuring-out when and where they're doing it, and context is everything in this game of chess.

In case you thought Friday's 20/20 piece was the end of this story, check http://www.wsradio.com/ in the intervening-weeks for new interviews with Ms. Palfrey:

Palfrey and the Internet radio station wsRadio.com will auction tapes of five one-hour interviews with her next week, The Washington Post reported for Friday's editions. The bids will start at $5,000 (euro3,700). The station's president, Chris Murch, would not disclose details of the contract to the newspaper but said Palfrey will donate 10 percent of the proceeds to charity. (AP, 05.03.2007)

So, there's more to come. It's entertaining watching prominent individuals sweat in this iniquitous system, and Palfrey seems to understand that the public wants blood at this particular historical moment. It might just be a female "pimp" that brings the behaviors of certain sectors of American public life into-line, making them accountable under the same rules as the rest of us. It would certainly be a bourgeois-hoot (thanks Shawn).

For reasons of Alpha male accountability, feminists should be coming to her aid. Certainly, there are feminists who support her, but it needs to become substantial and visible. Or do they really admire the uberdaddies? ABC isn't telling the whole story, and there has been some very genuine back-peddling. http://www.loftydonkey.com/ are claiming that Grover Norquist is on Deborah Jeane Palfrey's list, and they might be correct. Whatever the case, one should be suspicious of any claims that the story is over, and should be viewed as attempts at shifting-the-focus away from the scandal to keep it from widening as it naturally should.

It should also be noted that in teasers, public statements, and promotion for the 20/20, Brian Ross and ABC have stated "the White House is involved." Of course it is, we just saw Randall Tobias--a Bush appointee--fall over a week ago. Surely, most politicians and lobbyists in Washington D.C. knew of Ms. Palfrey's escort service, and many of them were returning customers. It's hardly over, and neither is the public's hunger for accountability and blood. I can sense the tar and feathers being prepared now...

The Washington Post, 05.05.2007: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070505/LOCAL19/705050521/-1/ZONES04

WTOP on Palfrey's new legal representation: http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=1134534

AP, 05.03.2007: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/4197

PRESIDENT BUSH REITERATES HIS ANNOUNCEMENT THAT HE STILL HAS FULL CONFIDENCE IN HIS OWN LEADERSHIP

wArshINtUHn--One--after all--is the lonliest number that you've ever seen. Take this away, it is wrong. That'll learn ya.'

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AT 28% APPROVAL RATING AS OF THIS WEEK: NEWSWEEK

"The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the U.S." --Barry Goldwater, indirectly agreeing-with Noam Chomsky.

Washington D.C.--It's interesting how they're framing this one in the press. Yes, the last president to have this low an approval-rating was Jimmy Carter. Yes, he was a lousy president who was ineffectual and a divider. Yes, he armed Indonesia's military so they could invade East Timor and commit genocide, allowing the American Navy to have secure submarine bases in Southeast Asia (as well as the natural resources in the region). Yes, Carter was a founder of the Trilateral Commission, but so was the current president's daddy, George H.W. Bush and David Rockefeller. Tom Foley was recently the North American chair--pretty bipartisan, no?

28% is pretty low, but he's got over a year-to-go yet, but he's only four-points-away from Nixon's when he left-office. Now you can understand why he's trying to buy as much time as he can get. Iraq and Afghanistan are in meltdown, and so is our currency and economy. Yet, he's still the goat for private interests that are staggering in their wealth and influence. He's a lightweight crony. What George W. Bush doesn't get is that his time's up, and that the forces of law and order are circling. Maybe he shouldn't have broken hundreds of federal laws, then bragged-about-it. At least the Trilateral Commission paved-the-way for him by collaring the media, and buying-off the right people:

The crucial task [of the Trilateral Commission] is "to restore the prestige and authority of central government institutions, and to grapple with the immediate economic challenges." The demands on government must be reduced and we must "restore a more equitable relationship between government authority and popular control." The press must be reined. If the media do not enforce "standards of professionalism," then "the alternative could well be regulation by the government" -- a distinction without a difference, since the policy-oriented and technocratic intellectuals, the commissars themselves, are the ones who will fix these standards and determine how well they are respected. (http://www.chomsky.info/, from "Radical Priorities, 1981.)

Then, you have the economy and the price of gasoline/oil. All the scandals we witnessed prior to November 2006 would fill this entire blog, and even in-summary. The public--even Republicans--have had enough. I'm unsure what Congress is waiting-for. The crisis of democracy is still with us--it might just work someday, then where would the elites be? Hopefully scrubbing bathrooms somewhere.

Were it not for the Trilateral Commission, there would be no George W. Bush as president. He was just expediting their priorities...badly. Even Carter did a better job, hiding most of his criminality better, but that's what separates the boys from the men (and the Democrats from the Republicans). Is the American public waking-up? They had better if they prefer not living in shit and mud-huts, policed by paramilitary death squads and private security firms.

Political Friendster, an interesting site: http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=128&name=George-H-W-Bush

The Trilateral Commission's Site: http://www.trilateral.org/

A--gulp--Libertarian view of the Trilateral Commission: http://www.antiwar.com/berkman/trilat.html