Saturday, July 8, 2006

When you read Paul's piece, keep in mind that recruiters are breaking all kinds of rules to meet quotas. The military's ranks are insufficient; but who wants to join and be sent to an illegal war that turns more brutal every day? So they take anyone they possibly can. And perhaps a minor explanation of some of the horrific atroticities that have been committed by American troops can be explained by the recruitment of people with personality disorders and committed race warriors. Of course there's so much more to it, but it is an element deserving attention. Paul Krassner: Dueling Quotes. In Washington D.C., they know only too well that if there were a draft, it would swell the ranks of anti-war protesters, just as it did during the Vietnam war. Some members of SDS (Students For a Democratic Society) wore lapel buttons that said "Not With My Body You Don't." Here are two disparate dispatches datelined July 7 which together indicate what could be described as the fallout perils of an all-volunteer military force in these particularly perilous times. Elizabeth Dunbar in the Associated Press: "A former Army private charged with raping an Iraqi woman and killing her and her family...was discharged because of an 'anti-social personality disorder,' according to military officials and court documents. President George W. Bush...said the Iraqis should understand that the allegations will be handled 'in a very transparent, upfront way.' "But he also defended the U.S. military overall. 'What I don't want to happen is for people to then say, "Well, the U.S. military is full of these kind of people." That is not the case. Our military is fabulous.'" John Kifner in the New York Times News Service: "A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed 'large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists' to infiltrate the military....The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines. 'We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad,' [said an] investigator.... "The groups are being abetted, the report says, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas. The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, 'Recruiters are knowingly allowing the neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members....' He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis. 'They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities decret, about organizing within the military. Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq.'" Oh, well, at least they're not gay. [The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed] 11:41:05 AM    comment []

RJ Eskow: Ed Schultz, You're Off-Course With Lieberman. Two usually reliable sources went way off-track this week. Yesterday the LA Times used Orwellian language, pre-scripted for them by neocons, to repeat false claims. (I reviewed the subliminal spin here.) And today Ed Schultz - who I always figured would make a great fishing buddy - swallowed Lieberman's nonsense hook, line, and sinker. Ed can support Lieberman, and we'll still be pals. The problem is that he bought a talking point that was custom-made by Lieberman's handlers, and by the Republicans (if, in fact, the two are different). A savvy talk radio guy should know better. While I don't have a transcript of Ed's radio show today, he kept repeating this talking point: "Joe Lieberman says he's voted with the Democrats 90% of the time. If that's true, why isn't that enough? What is enough? 95%? 98%?" Ed, Ed, Ed. This is wrong in so many ways. First, what does the statement even mean? Is Joe saying he voted with ALL the Democrats 90% of the time? Or is he saying that when all the OTHER Democrats voted one way, he went along with them nine times out of ten? And how many times is that? If you don't understand a spin point, don't repeat it. Second, even if it were true - which 10% are we talking about? Joe's been wrong on almost all the key issues of the last five years. Who cares what percent it represents? The question is: How much harm did he cause? And the "percentage" game leaves out all the rhetorical support Joe's been giving the GOP. Lastly, to answer your question: "What's enough" is whatever Connecticut's primary voters say is enough. Period. If Ned Lamont can convince a majority of primary voters on Aug. 8 that Lieberman doesn't represent them, for any reason - then that's enough. It's called "democracy." Ed, buddy, I love ya - but don't buy into this nonsense. I voted for Lieberman the year I lived in Connecticut. And I want the Dems to win back the Senate. So if he wins the primary, I'll encourage people to vote for him again (although I might have to take up drinking again to do it.) I think the people of Connecticut can do better, though. Once they get to know Ned Lamont, I'm confident they'll vote for him. It's true that Lamont has support from committed Democrats around the country, as well as in his home state. But - since when is that a bad thing? Where you really got my goat, though, when you talked about Lieberman and Israel. Ed, you said (and I'm paraphrasing slightly) that "Lieberman's Jewish, so he's going to support Israel. Get over it." Ed, I'm Jewish (and Southern Baptist and Catholic - but I'm Bar-Mitvah'd so I'm in the club.) I take offense, pal. This is old-fashioned ethnic stereotyping. You're not the only one to make this mistake. Lots of people think that "supporting Israel" is the same as "supporting the Israeli hard right and its aggressive anti-Palestinian policies." I can't blame you. There are people like Alan Dershowitz and AIPAC working full-time to make you believe it. In fact, some of them will tell you anyone that opposes Likud's policies is "anti-Semitic." But we on the sane side of the political spectrum need to think more clearly than that. Lieberman doesn't take the positions he does on Israel, or on Iraq, because he's Jewish. He does it because he's a right-winger and a neoconservative. That's why most Connecticut Jews are supporting Lamont, according to one poll. And what does Joe's extremist backer John Droney say about that (in the same link)? ""I find the behavior of a large segment of the Jewish community to be reprehensible and outrageous ... they all ought to rally to him." That's the kind of person we're dealing with here. It would never occur to him that Jews might reject Lieberman because they love America and support Israel. They probably believe, as I do, that his policies are bad for both. Ed, if you take a minute and think about it you'll come around, like you did when you stopped being a conservative. You don't really believe this is a party "purge." You're too sane for that. So how about knocking off all this nonsense and teaching me the right way to fish? I never could bait a hook worth a damn, but I'm willing to learn. I'll even set a date: August 9. We can agree then to support the Democratic nominee together, whoever he may be. But if it's Lieberman, keep those frosty cans of Bud well out of my reach. A Night Light Freedom Summer 2006 UPDATE: A number of people wrote me and/or commented about my original title and one sentence of this post, which made reference to Ed being on Air America. They point out that that he's syndicated separately and doesn't appear on Air America's website. He appears on the Air America line-up in many of their markets, including mine. Their business model is designed to promote the idea that there are "Air America stations," but - although he appears on several such frequencies - he's not part of their programming. Air America itself was tangential to my original post, but I've removed all reference to it for accuracy's sake. 10:03:44 AM    comment []

A Peach of a Scandal in Georgia By Garrison Keillor The Baltimore Sun Thursday 06 July 2006 If a preacher secretly accepts a bucket of money from a saloonkeeper to organize a temperance rally at a rival saloon and maybe send in a gang of church ladies to chop up the bar with their little hatchets, this would strike you and me as sleazy, but others are willing to make allowances, and so Ralph Reed's political career is still alive and breathing in Georgia. He has bathed himself in tomato juice and hopes to smile his way through the storm. The facts are fairly simple. Mr. Reed left the Christian Coalition in 1997 as it was sinking, and he was paid by Jack Abramoff to organize opposition to a gambling bill in the Texas legislature, which would have opened the door to competition for Mr. Abramoff's client casinos in Louisiana. So Mr. Reed got the good Christians of Texas to bombard the legislature with phone calls and letters denouncing gambling, for which Mr. Reed was paid millions of dollars in gambling money, by way of Mr. Abramoff's bagman, Grover Norquist. Mr. Reed also helped defeat a state lottery and video poker in Alabama, in behalf of casinos in Mississippi. In Alabama, he told Mr. Abramoff, he had "over 3,000 pastors and 90,000 religious conservative households." He enlisted these Baptists in a fight against one saloon while he was on the payroll of another. Imagine if Ralph Nader had solicited money from Ford and Chrysler when he went after General Motors' Corvair. Or the Southern Baptists raising money from Sony and Universal to condemn movies by MGM. A true party loyalist would withdraw from the Republican primary for lieutenant governor of Georgia and say, "I will not allow this mess to distract people from the good work of my party." But Mr. Reed is no quitter. "Had I known then what I know now, I would not have undertaken the work," he said, when the details came out in a Senate Indian Affairs Committee report. Mr. Reed insists he didn't know it was gambling money, which, given the e-mail traffic between him and Mr. Abramoff, is a thin twig on which to hang a defense. Either Mr. Reed understands English or he does not. Mr. Abramoff tells him that he'll get a check as soon as the Coushattas send in the money. The Coushattas were in the casino business. You don't come up with $5.3 million from selling beaded coin purses. Mr. Reed also argues that his stopping gambling in Texas and Alabama was a good thing in and of itself, even though he was hired by rival casinos to do it. Using the same reasoning, Lucky Luciano was on solid moral ground when he knocked off Dutch Schultz. The sexual trespass of a president is a story any mortal can understand, and the use of your father's influence to sneak you into a military unit where you're less likely to face combat is an act of cowardice all of us cowards can appreciate. But the chutzpah of Mr. Reed in wheedling money from Mr. Abramoff to snooker Christians into an uproar against gambling is cold-hearted greed. And his work in behalf of the sweatshops and sex factories of the Marianas, arguing that the Chinese women imported there were being given the chance to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, takes us to yet an entirely new level. Mr. Reed is a Presbyterian, and the Westminster Confession says, "He that scandelizeth his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or public confession and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended; who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him." But Mr. Reed is running for office, and that's no time for repentance. Time to hunker down and hope that the prosecutors are occupied with other matters. Smile and shake hands and keep changing the subject. If a reporter mentions Mr. Abramoff, smile and say, "I've said as much as I'm going to about that, and now I want to talk about my plan to strengthen families in Georgia." Gambling? "I've always been opposed to gambling." Deceit? Greed? "No charges have been filed. I have been exonerated of wrongdoing." Will it work? We shall soon see. Garrison Keillor's "A Prairie Home Companion" can be heard Saturday nights on public radio stations across the country. His e-mail is keillorj@prairiehome.us. ------- 9:55:42 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2006 Patricia Thurston.