Saturday, February 11, 2006

Clear and Present Danger

Frightening scenario from this weekend's Counterpunch comes a warning from Paul Craig Roberts, well-known economist and high ranking official in the Reagan administration Treasury Department, also former Assistant Editor of the Wall Street Journal...

Forget Iran, Americans Should be Hysterical About This

Nuking the Economy

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics re-benchmarked the payroll jobs data back to 2000. Thanks to Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services, I have the adjusted data from January 2001 through January 2006. If you are worried about terrorists, you don’t know what worry is.

Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. That’s one good reason for controlling immigration. An economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.

Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities--primarily credit intermediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government.

US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.

The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is “the envy of the world.” Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.

The knowledge jobs that were supposed to take the place of lost manufacturing jobs in the globalized “new economy” never appeared. The information sector lost 17% of its jobs, with the telecommunications work force declining by 25%. Even wholesale and retail trade lost jobs. Despite massive new accounting burdens imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting and bookkeeping employment shrank by 4%. Computer systems design and related lost 9% of its jobs. Today there are 209,000 fewer managerial and supervisory jobs than 5 years ago.

In five years the US economy only created 70,000 jobs in architecture and engineering, many of which are clerical. Little wonder engineering enrollments are shrinking. There are no jobs for graduates. The talk about engineering shortages is absolute ignorance. There are several hundred thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years. No student wants a degree that is nothing but a ticket to a soup line. Many engineers have written to me that they cannot even get Wal-Mart jobs because their education makes them over-qualified.

Offshore outsourcing and offshore production have left the US awash with unemployment among the highly educated. The low measured rate of unemployment does not include discouraged workers. Labor arbitrage has made the unemployment rate less and less a meaningful indicator. In the past unemployment resulted mainly from turnover in the labor force and recession. Recoveries pulled people back into jobs.

Unemployment benefits were intended to help people over the down time in the cycle when workers were laid off. Today the unemployment is permanent as entire occupations and industries are wiped out by labor arbitrage as corporations replace their American employees with foreign ones.

Economists who look beyond political press releases estimate the US unemployment rate to be between 7% and 8.5%. There are now hundreds of thousands of Americans who will never recover their investment in their university education.

Unless the BLS is falsifying the data or businesses are reporting the opposite of the facts, the US is experiencing a job depression. Most economists refuse to acknowledge the facts, because they endorsed globalization. It was a win-win situation, they said.

They were wrong.

At a time when America desperately needs the voices of educated people as a counterweight to the disinformation that emanates from the Bush administration and its supporters, economists have discredited themselves. This is especially true for “free market economists” who foolishly assumed that international labor arbitrage was an example of free trade that was benefitting Americans. Where is the benefit when employment in US export industries and import-competitive industries is shrinking? After decades of struggle to regain credibility, free market economics is on the verge of another wipeout.

No sane economist can possibly maintain that a deplorable record of merely 1,054,000 net new private sector jobs over five years is an indication of a healthy economy. The total number of private sector jobs created over the five year period is 500,000 jobs less than one year’s legal and illegal immigration! (In a December 2005 Center for Immigration Studies report based on the Census Bureau’s March 2005 Current Population Survey, Steven Camarota writes that there were 7,9 million new immigrants between January 2000 and March 2005.)

The economics profession has failed America. It touts a meaningless number while joblessness soars. Lazy journalists at the New York Times simply rewrite the Bush administration’s press releases.

On February 10 the Commerce Department released a record US trade deficit in goods and services for 2005--$726 billion. The US deficit in Advanced Technology Products reached a new high. Offshore production for home markets and jobs outsourcing has made the US highly dependent on foreign provided goods and services, while simultaneously reducing the export capability of the US economy. It is possible that there might be no exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.

Polls indicate that the Bush administration is succeeding in whipping up fear and hysteria about Iran. The secretary of defense is promising Americans decades-long war. Is death in battle Bush’s solution to the job depression? Will Asians finance a decades-long war for a bankrupt country?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

Saturday, February 04, 2006

The Price of Globalization


Free Trade or Free Speech?

by Niranjan Ramakrishnan

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries...wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live... The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith...and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

—Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

I was watching an episode of the Simpsons last night, enjoying their brilliant mockery of Catholicism, Mormonism, and other Christian faiths. Even as I doubled over in mirth, there lurked in some corner of my mind a nagging question whether they would dare do the same with Islam or Sikhism , Hinduism or Judaism. Few politicians or journalists speak or write their minds in our day as Churchill did in his, or Marx or Mohammed or Gandhi in theirs. Political correctness has sapped the ability to, in Mencken's words (full quote later), "utter what seems at the moment to be the truth".

A vestigial self-assurance may still remain. On ABC's Nightline many years ago. Ted Koppel was interviewing a Soviet dignitary visiting Washington. Accompanying him was a junior functionary from the Embassy who spoke fluent English. In the middle of the program the young man protested to Koppel, "You are being unfair, you are not giving us equal time". Saying, "I'll worry about it when we get equal time on Moscow Television!", Koppel continued on without skipping a beat.

The incident came to mind when I saw reports of protests, among other countries in Saudi Arabia (where one cannot possess a copy of the Bible or the Gita, and the only public worship allowed is that of Islam), and Pakistan (where there are recent reports of young women being forcibly converted to Islam, and people of the "wrong" religions being on death row for blasphemy). Angry young men were up in arms against cartoons making fun of the Prophet in a Danish newspaper. In Gaza, Fatah activists (eager to make up for their recent electoral loss, perhaps) were seen bustling about carrying shoulder fired missiles, reading out warnings to people from certain countries to leave in 10 hours, failing which their lives would be in jeopardy.

Of course, one can be sure none of these same protesters have any complaint with western personages Carlyle, Bernard Shaw or Goethe for praising Prophet Mohammed. Like the rest of us, they are happy when they or theirs is praised, unhappy when criticized or satirized.

Except, however, most of us don't threaten to kidnap and kill people who have criticized us, nor write specious screeds pointing out the difference between freedom and license. We shrug and move along, knowing that not everyone needs to accept our beliefs for us to be secure in ours. It is as simple as that.

And as vital. The question is whether the West will defend the central pillar of the Enlightenment, or will it abandon it to the new faith of 'getting along at any price' mealy-mouthed obeisance to self-censorship in the name of multiculturalism. Will it protect the one thing that has distinguished life in the West from life elsewhere on the planet -- the protected freedom of expression? Or will it surrender before the threat of Danish biscuits vanishing from Arab store shelves?


For in this crisis is laid bare the real cost of globalization -- Western ideals in hock to the formula of free trade. Notice how the same people who are willing to start wars eight thousand miles away in the name of Democracy are ready to water it down at home at the first sign of economic disruption emanating from far-away lands. The global chickens have come home to roost.

After the principled stand by the Danish prime minister, who politely told critics that the government in Denmark could not order the press, some EU high-up issued a disingenuous statement about the need to be sensitive to religion and culture. Following bravely was that unctuous hypocrite, Kofi Annan -- a man who sullied his post by watching mutely when a UN member nation was savaged in a pre-meditated war -- now expostulating on the need for freedom of the press to be tempered by respect for religion.

Weighing in the following day was Condoleezza Rice's Department of State, whose spokeswoman blasted the Danish and other European papers for publishing the cartoons, stressing the need for press responsibility. Perhaps for once they were sincere -- no one loves a "responsible" press more than this administration!

The assault on free speech has been happening on a smaller scale for some time. I recall some company in the US that had used a picture of Gandhi in some unflattering fashion. A howl of protest went up on the Internet, and the company folded with the usual noises of forced apology and assurances of how much they respected the great man, etc. etc. About a year back, a play had to be canceled in the UK because members of the Sikh faith felt it offended them. The British state was nowhere about to protect the right of the organizers (in fact, the playwright, I recall reading, had to hide in fear of death threats. Not all are as prominent as Salman Rushdie).

Where is the State when it has a real role, to preserve and protect everybody's right of free _expression? President Bush speaks often about the threat to our way of life. If there is anything worth preserving in our way of life, the freedom of speech is first on that list. HL Mencken wrote, "[I] know of no human right that is one-tenth as valuable as the simple right to utter what seems (at the moment) to be the truth." Thomas Jefferson went further, " "...truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."

The president needs to speak out on this matter and defend free speech in clear terms. As does every Democrat and Republican, every organization, including the ACLU, and indeed, every individual.

There has been criticism of the unwritten and the written laws of censorship, which European and American media meekly follow, notably in the matter of criticizing Israel, for fear of being tagged 'anti-Semitic'. This is real enough. And the meekness of the media around the Bush Administration is there for all to see. But just as a person protesting a speed limit of 60 mph would drive at the maximum speed allowed even while campaigning for its raising, instead of driving at 40 mph in protest, expanding the right of _expression, not its curtailment, should be the goal.
"We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us", went the joke in the Old Soviet Union. Similar is the demand by protesters that Denmark, France, Norway and Germany apologize. Such is the nature of both apology and the demand for it in these cases. Galileo recanted, but did he stop believing the Earth went round the Sun? Compliance may be enforced, but respect is earned.

The editor of the Jyllands-Posten, accused of not 'respecting' Islam, said that what was being demanded was not 'respect', but 'submission'. When told that Danish law allowed the newspaper to publish what it saw fit, the imam of the largest Muslim congregation in Denmark declared, "If this is Democracy, we want no part of it!"

I doubt if the imam had read Ved Mehta's autobiography. Before Mehta left India for America for his studies, while not yet out of his teens, his father took him to meet Jawaharlal Nehru. Nehru wished the young man well, adding, "Remember that when abroad, you are always an ambassador of your country." In the chorus of outrage from Muslim lands, Ayatollah Al Sistani in Iraq alone seemed to have grasped the wisdom of Nehru's words. While protesting the cartoons, he also criticized Muslims for bringing a bad name to their religion by postures of intolerance and threats of violence.

As the late Nirad Chaudhuri admonished his fellow Indians, "A tree is known by its fruits."

Related Readings
1. The Trouble with Infallibility by Niranjan Ramakrishnan
2. Newsweek: A Contest of Hypocrisies by Niranjan Ramakrishnan
3. Danes Apologize (finally, but for the wrong reasons) by Rachard Itani
4. A Mountain out of a Molehill by Mona Eltawahy

An earlier version of this article also appeared on Counterpunch on Feb 4/5, 2006.

Niranjan Ramakrishnan can be reached at njn_2003@yahoo.com.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Harry-Kerry in the Senate

January 31, 2006

Doctor (Frist) Assisted Suicide

By NIRANJAN RAMAKRISHNAN

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Benjamin Franklin, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. "

Mark Twain

An Englishman does everything on principle: he fights you on patriotic principles; he robs you on business principles; he enslaves you on imperial principles.

George Bernard Shaw

Jeeves: That jacket does not become you, sir.
Wooster: But it was made by the best tailor in London!
Jeeves: I'm not saying a word against his morals, sir.

PG Wodehouse (paraphrased)

That last quote came to mind as I saw that four Democrats had decided to vote for Alito because they thought him to be an 'honorable man'.

A similar impulse (so they say) led 19 Democrats who did not think a filibuster, on principle, was the way to stop Samuel Alito from being an arbiter of our lives for the next several decades, to vote for cloture on the Alito filibuster. Most of them would vote against him, again on principle, the following day,

It reminded me of the guy who invited his friend to breakfast one morning. When the friend showed up, he found his host sitting at the table, dressed in formal jacket and tie, awaiting him. "Wow", said the friend. "I didn't realize this was a formal affair...Is someone else coming?" "No, no", replied the host. "But I like to be prepared, because you never know when someone important might stop by..." The friend found this logic a little intricate for that early hour, but he sat down to breakfast. Meal over, the host got up, and the friend was shocked to see him wearing just a pair of shorts under his jacket. "How come you're wearing shorts with that jacket and tie?" he asked. The host replied, "Well, you see, sometimes no one important stops by..."

The Democrats are astonishing. This president stands before the country and says, "... the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world." If Bush feels laws from 1978 are antiquated (and therefore don't need to be obeyed), how do you think he views the Constitution, written in the 1780's? Dealing with such a cabal, which speaks openly of its contempt for the laws, the Democrats are overcome with notions of decorum. Trotsky summarized the attitudes of the contenders in the Russian Constituent Assembly in 1918, "Thus democracy entered upon the struggle with dictatorship heavily armed with sandwiches and candles." Trotsky's own side had come prepared with guns.

When Bush says, we're in a post-9-11 world, he is right in a way, but not in the way one might think. What he means is the politics, not the national situation. In terms of national emergencies, 9-11 is hardly a greater tragedy than the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, the Depression, Pearl Harbor and WWII, the Oklahoma bombing,.. After all, the country got along fine without a Patriot Act for forty years during the Cold War, when there was a superpower with missiles aimed at every major city in the US, whose spies were everywhere, all backed by a militarily impregnable state! What does Bush mean when he says 9-11 changed everything? It changed everything for Bush. He could use it as his Reichstag Fire (I use the analogy only for what was done with the incident, not its cause) to create an endless fear psychosis, a political ATM to be milked at will for expanding his powers.

The Democrats have played right along. What deference they have for decorum and politeness, what passion for examining each issue on its merits! As for the seven members of the group of 14 -- Peace in our Time! Robert Byrd has set all his magnificent speeches at nought by his Alito vote -- an honorable man is the judge, he says. Would Byrd's idol, George Washington, have disbanded his forces because the British deployed an honorable man as general?

Bush is correct. We are at war -- with a rampant executive and a rogue president determined to squander our wealth and steal our rights. This is nothing less than a struggle for the country's freedom, even if the Democrats still don't get it. Like old Mr. Micawber, they think a majority will 'turn up' in November. It will not matter. After all, it was when they had a majority that the Iraq resolution was passed!

And so my fellow Americans, ask not, "When will they learn?" They never will. They now regret voting for the Iraq resolution. Two years later, when Alito casts a couple of bombshell votes, I'm sure they'll regret voting for the cloture resolution. They remind me of a joke about a bumpkin who was trying to push his old car into the sea. Try as he might, was unable to. He ran off to a wise man of the village for advice. "Get some of your buddies to help you", said the wise man. "If all of you push together, it should be no problem". So the bumpkin took three others with him. An hour later, all of them returned, complaining that the car was still not moving. They had pushed and pushed, but the car wouldn't budge, they said. Upon closer inquiry, it turned out that each had been pushing from a different direction -- one from the front, one from the back, etc.

That is the story of the Senate Democrats -- twenty nine of them voted for the Iraq resolution. Many of them voted to confirm Alberto Gonzales and Condoleezza Rice. Yesterday, 19 of them voted to confirm Alito (effectively). The bumpkins did it unknowingly. The Senators did it knowingly. "This chamber reeks of blood", George McGovern said while moving the McGovern-Hatfield amendment in 1970 calling for an end to American engagement and withdrawal of troops from Vietnam. Yesterday's act smeared the 19 with the blood of their country's freedom.

As to the Republicans, where is the Hatfield for our times? Instead, there are only money changers, despicable nodders and handmaidens to an incipient fascism, all for no greater cause than to bolster an administration which happens to be rated 'R'.

You who were sent to defend the country's laws surrendered before a law-breaking president.

Shame on you all.

Niranjan Ramakrishnan is a writer living on the West Coast. He can be reached at njn_2003@yahoo.com. This article also appeared on today's Counterpunch.

Monday, January 30, 2006

The Second Childhood?
Development, Interrupted

Niranjan Ramakrishnan
Jan 30, 2006

After months of pointing out -- first the shortsightedness and then the criminality of the Bush Administration -- columnist Paul Craig Roberts has now begun to confront a deeper malaise, the idiocy of the populace. If true, this is a glacial problem and presages a catastrophe far worse than Bush's eight years. After all, leaders come and go, but the people remain. And Roberts has a point: there seems no bar to a coexistence between intelligence, education and knowledge on the one hand and complete idiocy on the other. But 'idiocy' is a rather harsh word. Perhaps childhood, or more properly, second childhood, is better.

Let me illustrate with an example.

The other evening I saw a movie, "Paul Jacobs and the Nuclear Gang". It was about the how the US government had hidden information about low-level radiation arising from its nuclear tests in the Nevada desert, and the corresponding rise in cancer incidences among those living in the vincinity. There was a brief Q and A session after the talk. Saul Landau, the brilliant author and filmmaker whose gentle but perceptive answers were as educational as the film itself, was asked the following question: What are the rulers thinking when they engage in this kind of cover up? And why would anyone invest in a technology where the waste material is so hazaradous that it renders places unsafe for tens of thousands of years? [1]

Landau's answer (paraphrased) was that powerful people seldom admit mistakes. We tried to identify a few who did -- I mentioned Richard Clarke ("A Sorry Spectacle") and he mentioned Cy Vance. We did not waste time on the likes of Colin Powell and Robert McNamara, mute time servers when they could have done something, compulsive hand-wringers after their moment had passed. But the question goes deeper than that: Where do people who start wars, poison the environment for immediate gain and gratification, hock their country to keep interest rates low, plan to move? Mars? Unless that is their plan, their actions make no sense. American administrations may be beholden to Israel, but I don't think either nuclear radiation or global warming believes in the passover. Prophet and plebian are imperiled alike and with certainty.

Yet, we have Tony Blair proclaiming a fast push toward nuclear energy, and Iran insisting on its rights (to cancer?) Where does such idiocy spring from? Perhaps from an addiction to the mantra of growth, and development. "To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land, and read their history in a nation's eyes", has this not been the dream of every leader in history?

And in the last half-century, the nation's eyes have become key - "But it wasn't on TV, was it?" Hence the difficulty. Radiation, like global warming or disinformation, is a peril without a face. And in our image-driven times, something does not exist if it doesn't have pictures. Hence the insistence on Bush's photographs with Abramoff, as though that would somehow prove something that Abramoff's being on the transition team would not. This is perfect for a ruler. So, development. Make sure that everyone gets a TV.

The second is to keep them shopping, so their minds quit working. How else do you explain the poll in which, asked if domestic spying without a warrant was ok, there was such an equivocal response? Freedom to shop is all we care about (see Open your Wallets, not your Mouths).

The third is perhaps the result of the first two, the blithe unawareness of the addict to the immediately unobvious: Let me buy at Wal Mart, even if it is means my own job going to China tomorrow.

These are signs of regression into childhood. It takes children a few years before they learn the connection between cause and effect when the two are not in close proximity. It takes them some time to understand non-visual cues. And they need instant gratification. What Roberts sees is the fact that all three components seem present in large measure in America.

Fifty years of growth, development, unimaginable technological progress, all have led to a state where people are willing to surrender their rights.

Gandhi (whose death anniversary falls today) alone, among the leaders of the 20th century, saw the perils of mad devotion to economic progress.

"...Hinduism, Islam, Zorastrianism, Christianity and all other religions teach that we should remain passive about worldly pursuits, that we should set a limit to our worldly ambitions and that our religious ambition should be illimitable. Our activity should be directed into the latter channel..." (Hind Swaraj, 1909).

"...We notice that the mind is a restless bird; the more it gets the more it wants, and still remains unsatisfied. The more we indulge our passions, the more unbridled they become. Our ancestors, therefore, set a limit to our indulgences. They saw that happiness was largely a mental condition. A man is not necessarily happy because he is rich, or unhappy because he is poor. The rich are often seen to be unhappy, the poor to be happy. Millions will always remain poor. Observing all this, our ancestors dissuaded us from luxuries and pleasures..." (Hind Swaraj, 1909)

"...We have retained the same kind of cottages that we had in former times and our indigenous education remains the same. We have had no system of life-corroding competition. Each followed his own occupation or trade and charged a regulation wage. It was not that we did not know how to invent machinery, but our forefathers knew that, if we set our hearts after such things, we would become slaves and lose our moral fiber..." (Hind Swaraj, 1909)

Thus did Gandhi see the plunge into consumer comfort as the first step towards the loss of freedom.

Yatha Raja, Tatha Praja (as the king goes, so go the subjects), went the old Sanskrit saying. Since this was before the Age of Democracy, we should modify it : "as the people go, so goes the leader". Hence the trend -- whether it is Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush (or even Gore or Kerry, although the former may now be revising his opinions) in America, or whether it is Narasimha Rao, Vajpayee or Manmohan Singh in India, the mantra of growth and development has us -- and them -- in its thrall.

"I can promise you nothing but blood, toil, sweat and tears" said another wartime leader, a real one. Ours promises low interest rates and personal savings accounts. What happened in between? We don't know. We were watching television.

Niranjan Ramakrishnan is a writer living on the West Coast. He can be reached at njn_2003@yahoo.com. His blog is at http://njn-blogogram.blogspot.com. A shorter version of this article appeared on Counterpunch.

[1] "The radiological half life of plutonium is about 24,000 years and the biological half life is about 20 years for liver and 50 years for skeleton. Plutonium deposited in the gonadal tissue is assumed to be permanently retained. See full essay "Plutonium" by Gary Masters (http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/pluto.htm).

[2] More quotations of Gandhi are available here.

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Who Benefits from Technology?



A Passage to Palani
Information Superhighway or Information-Scuppered-Highway?
Niranjan Ramakrishnan

On a visit to Madras/Chennai, eyes glazed over with ads for computer courses, cellphones and broadband connections at every turn, I was further floored by the quick installation of a fast internet link within a couple of days of reaching Madras. Thus it was that I waved aside my mother's anxious enquiries about getting tickets for our forthcoming trip. We were planning to go to Palani, home of the ancestral deity, and to visit our village and a couple of other places, all within the same area.

Piece of cake, I told myself and her. We'll plan out the whole thing in no time via the internet. With that, and with my newly-acquired cell phone.

Famous last words, unfortunately, and spoken far too soon.

After spending a whole day hunched over my computer riding my broadband connection, I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to Information Technology (IT), India itself (Tamilnadu, anyway, and I suspect the story is not too different elsewhere) is rather like the poor laborers from Rajasthan I used to see growing up in Delhi, building palatial homes for the rich while living in hovels themselves.

But the facts first.

I want to chart out a schedule for a one day visit to Palani and some places nearby. I start out by seeking a map of Tamilnadu on the internet, one that would show the various places we intend to visit. I discover that there are none that combine information, quality and detail. I finally settle for a passable version, but it has taken me two hours already.

A spanking new Mofussil bus terminus at Koyambedu was opened a few years back, not far from where we live in Madras. Everyone I've met has waxed lyrical about the merits of the bus service, so I ask the scooterwallah to swing by the Terminal so I can pick up a bus time table for Tamilnadu.

The people at the reservation counter outside look at me like I was Oliver Twist. There's no such thing, they tell me. Finally they give their standard answer: "Ask inside", they say, vaguely, pointing to the cavernous structure of the terminal. I go in. There is an Enquiry Counter, vacant in the middle of the day. There is a cop sitting opposite at another counter. He assures me a bus time table for Tamilnadu does not exist. I notice that there's a website listed outside the Reservation Counter. This I quickly jot down on my PDA, convinced that they must have all the timings and routes listed there.

I come home and visit the site (http://www.setctn.com), the web presence of the State Express Transport Corporation. The initial impression is good. But there is no mention of "Schedule" or "Bus Timings", which is the first thing one would expect of such a site. I plough on and discover a philosophical-sounding link: "Availability of Buses". Sure enough, the page asks you to select a destination and brings up a list of buses to the city you select. I rub my hands in glee. I now know what bus to take to Palani. From there to our village? Instinctively I try selecting Palani for the origin, but discover I can't -- the only place of origin available on the website is Chennai!

So the site tells me all the buses from Chennai, but from nowhere else! Forget going to other places, how do I even figure out getting back from Palani to Chennai? The website offers no clue. I have also noted down, from the reservation counter, the Tamilnadu Government's transport department site (www.tn.gov.in/transport). I go there. It lists a number of other websites, one for each district, the few I check are all equally silent about schedules. They list the names and phone numbers (including residence) of sundry officials, and proclaim that they carry so many lakh passengers each day, all doubtless of frightful interest to bus travelers. But on the matter of schedules, to recall Wodehouse, they are vague and evasive.

I call the Koyambedu terminal, using the number listed on the State Express website. A few tries later, I get through, and ask them about buses from Palani to Chennai. The question strikes them as idiotic. "Please ask them when you get to Palani", is the answer. "Do you have a phone number for the Palani bus station?", I venture. You've got to be joking, the tone says, as the official at the other end disavows all knowledge.

I reach a random official in Coimbatore or Palani (number obtained from the Tamilnadu Transport Department website). A helpful soul, he suggests I try the private bus service, suggesting KPN Travels of T. Nagar. Visions of the glories of private enterprise in India float around in my head as I google for KPN Travels. They have a website (http://www.kpntravel.in). I go there, and Hey Presto, a sophisticated flash website! Except it is impregnable. The animated first page has no links, you can't proceed beyond it, and it has no information, not even a phone number. I dig up the phone number elsewhere on Google, and give the fellows a call. "Palani", barks the official, "There is one at 9:15 from Koyambedu". About buses back from Palani? "No idea", he says and slams the phone down.

I have long given up on my grandiose scheme for mapping out a travel plan for doing the entire journey by bus, resigned to hiring a taxi once we get to Palani. But I do want to make sure there's a late enough bus from Palani to Madras, giving us sufficient time for our local peregrinations.

I suddenly have a brain wave: Why not call up some hotel or lodge in Palani to find out? I now look for websites with information on lodges in Palani. Several of them list some lodges lackadaisically, but with no phone numbers. Finally I reach a good website (http://www.palanicity.com) which has a nice list of not only lodges but other institutions (except there is no mention of transportation). The first three or four numbers I call elicit a "this number does not exist" response before I realize that the website has not been updated and does not have the '2' in front of each number.

Mystery solved, I call up one of the lodges and, knowing we would need a room to rest and freshen up after the night journey, ask for the room rates. "Where are you calling from?" comes the response. Perhaps I have spent too long in America. "Why does that have anything to do with your room rates?" I find myself asking. "Unless you tell me where you are calling from how can I give you an answer? You may be an anonymous caller also...". If I had not had four hours of frustration leading up to this, I should have chuckled. "Are your room rates different for people from different places?" I still manage. "First learn how to speak", this denizen of the Mother of all Call Centers snaps. "I'll take lessons from you when I come there", I counter. That breaks the ice, and we are as brothers thereafter. Mr. A tells me there are buses, but doesn't know the time, nor does he have a phone number for the bus station.

The train to Dindigul (an hour-and-a-half bus journey from Palani) is growing in attraction. The mere fact that the Indian Railways have a printed timetable (have had one forever) shines in contrast to a bus service which has not even heard of one, and I turn my hand at their vaunted online reservation system. It is far better than the bus website, but it is still punishing on the user. For example, there is no way I can give my origin and destination, date of travel and number of passengers, and sit back to get a summary of all my options, including the the "Buy" link. Instead, I have to plod through a list of possible trains, trying each one, with each quota (General, Tatkal, etc.) to see whether there are seats available. There aren't, so I am back to the bus option!

By the time I am done with all this, night has fallen. I call the Koyambedu stand just as they are closing, and the gentleman advises me to show up at the ticket counter first thing in the morning. I do, and am first in line, a half hour before opening time. When the counter opens and I am talking to the clerk, a guy pokes his head around me. When I point out to him that I am ahead in the queue, he gives me a pained look, saying, "It was only a question". On his heels is another individual who has, meanwhile, reached around me and handed the clerk a one-rupee coin. She gives him a form in return. When I ask him to wait in line, he says to me, "I have to get this form. Do you think I should wait just to get a form?" He shouldn't have to, but that's the way the system is set up. The same counter dispenses forms (which you need to fill to buy a ticket) and issues tickets too. There is only one counter. First you fill the form by hand, and hand it to the clerk, who then enters the form into her computer. Why not have her enter the information directly?

Which leads back to my original point. Information technology, to paraphrase Edgser Dijkstra, is not the art and science of diddling bits in a computer, any more than astronomy is swinging telescopes about. Information technology is about having information available in a convenient and usable form, in friendly and timely fashion. Nothing I have described here requires a customer to have a computer or an internet connection. A simple phone would do just fine.

My greatest amazement is that in a milieu where almost everyone is convinced that India is the information superpower-in-waiting, with the remainder in no doubt that we are already there, no one seems to think anything amiss when a clerk tells you, Abhimanyu-like, that she knows the timings for the bus from Chennai to Palani but not that from Palani to Chennai. Or that no one is surprised when an official says he can't tell you something over the phone, you'll have to come over to get the same information. Or that there is no outrage when a state transport website has information for one city and not for any others.

Long before computers were common, the Ma Bell phrase, "let your fingers do the walking" was taken to heart in America. We have copied the symbol quickly enough, but forgotten its import. People travel from place to place for things that could -- and should, in a country deficient in petroleum and casting about for energy supplies in every part of the world -- be done over the phone and the computer. Making useful information available easily to the people -- now that would be a goal worthy of a true IT superpower and information innovator.

The author is a software professional living in the United States. This article also appeared in Countercurrents.org.

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

The Original Sin

Read Niranjan Ramakrishnan's article on a singular coincidence that took place yesterday:
The Original Sin.

Thursday, November 03, 2005

Rove's Legacy

Good article by Jacob Weisberg in Slate, drawing parallelst between Bush and Rove at the cusp of the 20th-21st centuries to McKinley and Hanna at the cusp of the 19th-20th.

But the article makes the larger point that Rove is a failure. The permanet Republican majority of which he dreamt has drifted farther than it seemed only a few months ago. By the very nature of his client's ineptitude (as noted in Bush, Baath and Beyond):

Rove is a master strategist, his success all the more creditable given the material he has to work with.
Rove is in a difficult situation. Wrongdoing in high places is at best a temporary expedient.

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Mommy, it Speaks!!!!

(Finally!) Senator Harry Reid spoke this on the floor of the Senate yesterday (transcript):
SEN. HARRY REID: America deserves better than this. They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation into how the Bush administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:

– How did the Bush administration assemble its case for war against Iraq? We heard what Colonel Wilkerson said.
– Who did the Bush administration officials listen to and who did they ignore?
– How did the senior administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?
– What was the role of the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics? We know what Colonel Wilkerson says.
– How did the administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the administration’s assertions? We know what happened to them — I listed a few.
– Why has this administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that would shed light on their misconduct and the misstatements?

Unfortunately, the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine these questions more than a year and a half ago, he has chosen not to keep that commitment. Despite the fact that he restated the commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing. …

Mr. President, enough time has gone by. I demand on behalf of the American people that we understand why these investigations aren’t being conducted, and in accordance with Rule 21, I now move that Senate go into closed session.

SEN. DICK DURBIN: Mr. President, I second the motion.

PRESIDING OFFICER: The motion has been made to go into closed session, and it has been seconded. The motion having been made and seconded, the Senate will go into closed session. The chair, pursuant to Rule 21, now directs the sergeant at arms to clear all galleries, close all doors of the Senate chamber, and exclude from the chamber and its immediate corridors all employees and officials of this Senate who under the rule are not eligible to attend this closed session and are not sworn to secrecy. The question is nondebatable.
Here's an excerpt from today's editorial in the New York Times, "Remember that Mushroom Cloud?":
Last year, the Senate Intelligence Committee did a good bipartisan job of explaining that the intelligence in general was dubious, old and even faked by foreign sources. The panel said the analysts had suffered from groupthink. At the time, the highest-ranking officials in Washington were demanding evidence against Iraq.

But that left this question: If the intelligence was so bad and so moldy, why was it presented to the world as what Mr. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, famously called "a slam-dunk" case?

Were officials fooled by bad intelligence, or knowingly hyping it? Certainly, the administration erased caveats, dissents and doubts from the intelligence reports before showing them to the public. And there was never credible intelligence about a working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Under a political deal that Democrats should not have approved, the Intelligence Committee promised to address these questions after the 2004 election.
That's the key. The Democrats agreed to consider this AFTER the elections! How daft do you think they were?

Still, better late than never, and the dissention does spread. Trent Lott has said Karl Rove should resign. This is an excerpt from a Washington Post report:

Not all Republicans were quick to defend Rove. Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said of Rove, "If this is going to be ongoing, if he has a problem, I think he's got to step up, and, you know, acknowledge that and deal with it."

Interviewed on Fox News, Lott said Bush should be looking for "new blood, new energy, qualified staff, new people." The senator added, "I'm not talking about wholesale changes, but you've got to reach out and bring in more advice and counsel."

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Fitzgerald threw a softball

"Fitzgerald had to indict Libby. Libby's lies were so blatant that Fitzgerald had no choice. But Fitzgerald had a golden opportunity to do enough work to prove the underlying crimes that he was originally investigating."
Read this article on Fitzgerald's indictment. Sheldon Drobny writes that he missed a great opportunity to indict the real crime.

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Miers Withdraws

Harriet Miers has withdrawn her name from consideration for Supreme Court justice. President George W. Bush has 'reluctantly' acceded to her request.

I wondered if they had chosen today to do this so as to take the sting out of an announcement from Patrick Fitzgerald, thereby diluting the news impact. Or maybe it was just happenstance. Whatever the case, Miers never gave the impression of one passionate about the Law. There are many people in various professions, who do a reasonable job, but are not really interested in their job. She certainly wasn't suited for the Court, as far as one could tell from what one learned from the papers.

It is really ridiculous that both Republicans and Democrats seem to see only one issue at stake with the Court nomination - abortion. When the country is being stripped of liberties left and right, is abortion the main issue?

Fitzgerald is chewing his way into the administration's gut, on nibble at a time. Tomorrow it should all be out. An interesting prediction on Fitzgerald came out yesterday, written by Richard Sale, with the terse title, "Aides to be indicted, probe to continue".

Another great article, Look Who's Talking Now by Michael Donnelly, provides a clever set of quotes from various personages in relation to perjury, obstruction of justice, etc.

See also Waiting for Fitzgerald by Niranjan Ramakrishnan, which points out the silliness of looking to a prosecutor to find something that is clear to anyone who has watched the administration for the past five years.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

What's going on in Iraq - Robert Fisk interview

Click here to view Amy Goodman's interview with Robert Fisk, one of the clearest expositions of what is happening in Iraq.

You can skip the initial news section. The interview begins around the 30 minute mark.

Must view stuff!

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Plamegate: The Known and the Unknown

I read the New York Times article, I read the other newspapers, and all that's clear is that something is not adding up. What exactly is difficult to say. So I thought I'd tabulate what I understood and what I don't:

Known Facts

January 28 2003
Bush stated in his State of the Union speech that Iraq had been shopping for Uranium in Niger.

July 6, 2003
an op-ed piece by Joseph Wilson, former diplomat to Niger and Charge'd Affairs in Iraq appeared in the New York Times. In it, Wilson revealed that he had been sent (by the CIA) to Niger as early as February 2002 to investigate the Niger connection, which had been aired earlier by Secretary of State Colin Powell. He returned with the conclusion that there was no basis for the Iraq-Niger-Uranium connection.

July 14, 2003
Article by syndicated columnist Robert Novak, "Mission to Niger" mentions Valerie Plame by name, and identifies her as a CIA operative involved in Weapons of Mass Destruction:
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. "

September 26, 2003
The Justice Department begins a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26 following protests from the CIA about such a blatant exposure of one of their clandestine operatives.

Circa October 2, 2003
The New York Times mentions Karl Rove as being involved in the Valerie Plame matter. When asked about this, Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary, dismissed such speculation and added that anyone involved would be removed from the administration.

December 30, 2003
After some questions of Ashcroft's conflict of interest, because of Rove's connection with him, having been his advisor on three of his campaigns, Ashcroft's Department of Justice appointed Patrick Fitzgerald special prosecutor to investigate the crime of endangering national security.

December 30, 2003 - Now
Following the leaks to various sources, Fitzgerald tracked down several journalists who had received this information, including Tim Russert of NBC, Matt Cooper of Time, Judith Miller of New York Times. The first two cooperated with the investigation, Judith Miller refused on the plea of protecting her source. For this she was sentenced to prison, and spent 85 days there before agreeing to testify before Fitzgerald's grand jury.

Questions
  1. A report published recently said that Bush had been furious with Rove (see Bush Whacked Rove on CIA Leak). The report says Bush lost his temper with Rove on the matter 2 years ago! That means, knowing his involvment, he kept Rove around for two years. So what else did Bush know, when did he know it, and what did he do about it?

  2. If Bush knew that Rove was involved and did nothing about it (private admonitions aside, how could such a person -- and certainly Rove from today's account conferred with Libby -- so Libby too -- be kept on the staff without the President being a co-conspirator, at least in spirit? After all, no one said Nixon was the one to break open the door at Watergate? Was his silence and complicity in the silence of others not his crime?

  3. Judith Miller went to jail saying she would not reveal her source. Then she came out, saying her source had said OK for her to reveal his name. The ostensible source, 'Scooter' Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, says he had given her authorization to use his name a year back, refuting her claim of wanting to protect her 'source'. Then it was discovered that there were two or three references in her reporter's notebook to Valerie (F)Plame. After all this, she says the name was not from Libby, but from another source, whose name escapes her! So who was she trying to protect during her 85 day ordeal?
References:
  1. Today's Counterpunch has an excellent article by Ray McGovern, former CIA official, on the Niger yellowcake-Valerie Plame - Joe Wilson - Karl Rove - Scooter Libby story. See 16 Fatal Words
  2. This CBS timeline is also helpful.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Iraq Election Article, Judy Miller, New York Times

An Iraqi doctor has written an article in tomorrow's NY Times. Voting 'Yes' to Chaos by HATEM MUKHLIS is a clear picture of why the balkanization of Iraq is the end-result of the wrong-headed constitution they are trying to push.

Yesterday's Times carried a 6000 word report on what had gone so badly at the paper as to be scooped on stories about its own correspondent -- Judith Miller. Miller herself wrote a rather opaque article which appears to make things more rather than less murky. It fell to Randi Rhodes of Air America to state it succinctly: What do you make of this? A reporter goes to jail for 85 days saying she will not reveal her source. Then she comes out with much fanfare, goes to the grand jury, and tells them she doesn't remember who here source was! No other commentator has put it quite so elegantly. Yahoo had a news headline today that several members of the media felt Judy Miller should have been sacked for the humiliation she brought upon the paper. Not only did the paper toe her line, but it backed up its suckering by spending millions of dollars on her defense.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg News Service reports that Vice-President Cheney may be the one path of Patrick Fitzgerald's inquiries. [Read article]. And just now, the top headline in the Washington Post is: Cheney's Office Is A Focus in Leak Case.

On Sunday, Condoleezza Rice was on several talk shows. Asked about the Fitzgerald inquiry by Chris Wallace of Fox, she took the usual Bush Administration (we don't talk about matters sub-judice) line. Rice, as revealed in a fine article by Frank Rich, was one of the eight members of a secret group called "White House Iraq Group", created in summer 2002 to 'sell the Iraq War' to the American public. Neither Russert nor Wallace asked about it, though.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

What the Media has Wrought

That should be the real title of Paul Krugman's article, "A Question of Character". He says,

"Read the speeches Howard Dean gave before the Iraq war, and compare them with Colin Powell's pro-war presentation to the U.N. Knowing what we know now, it's clear that one man was judicious and realistic, while the other was spinning crazy conspiracy theories. But somehow their labels got switched in the way they were presented to the public by the news media."

The disservice of the American media to the American people during these crucial years will be a standing black mark on its record.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Training the Iraqi Army

A fine article by Brian Cloughley in Counterpunch Weekend Edition, titled, "Training Soldiers in Iraq". Shows how the lying culture has seeped into the Army top brass, and the despicable performance by Generals Abizaid and Casey last week when the changed their own testimonies ex post-facto to suit the administration.

I am, however, not in favor of the armed forces defying civilian command, so the best thing for Casey and Abizaid would be to resign, if they felt they were being made to tell lies. But, as Cloughley says, whoever resigns on principle?

Saturday, September 24, 2005

Blasphemy Laws, Free Speech, Orianna Fallaci

I was reading Irfan Husain's column in Dawn, where this week's article, Things Better Left Unsaid, refers to (and quotes from) Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's 1972 interview with Oriana Fallaci, the famous Italian journalist. The article makes the point that good outcomes are often spoilt by politicians saying too much.

The article made me wonder about Oriana Fallaci, and I came across another article about her,
Oriana in Exile, which raises an even more vital issue, the future of free speech in the West. Written by Christopher Orlet, whom I have never read before, and who, on cursory research, appears to be a strong supporter of the Iraq war, and an admirer of Ann Coulter and Christopher Hitchens, the article brings up the seldom mentioned advent of political correctness, both vis-a-vis religion in general and Islam in particular. This can be said to have stared with the Satanic Verses, and given a grotesque shape by 9-11 and 7/7. As Orlet says, blasphemy laws of the medieval times are either back in full strength or close to being back.

Indeed, the only safe ecclesiastical criticism, more especially humor, in Western society any more is aimed at either Christianity or Judaism (in Eastern societies in general, public humor is so fraught with taboos that it is moot to discuss in this context). I was watching an episode of the Simpsons some weeks back. It was full of satirical remarks about Catholicism and Judaism. I wondered whether biting humor about Islam, Sikhism, or Hinduism would be tolerated by societies where these communities were in a majority or were powerful. Fallaci, as the title of Orlet's article indicates, is in exile from Italy for her last book in which she made no secret of her poor view of Islam.

The irony of it all is that to spread free civil society to the Middle East, Europe and America are turning into cloistered images of that same society they set out to change, as observed in Niranjan Ramakrishnan's Who's Transforming Whom? and Little Minds and Large Empires).


Monday, September 19, 2005

North Korea: Breakthrough?

The six-party talks on North Korea have ended in avoiding immediate impasse -- the North Koreans have agreed to do away with their nuclear weapon program, if the US gives aid to them, and also promises not to attack North Korea.

This will be trumpeted, no doubt, as a showpiece of diplomacy by the Bush administration. If you go back and look at the old newspapers, I think you'll find that this is exactly the demand NK has been making all these years, mainly that the US should promise never to attack NK. On top of that, the US has agreed to give NK food and energy aid as well.

It was Talleyrand who said, "The art of statesmanship is to foresee the inevitable and to expedite its occurrence". Long ago in grad school, my friend from India had a Thanksgiving card for our department: "Thank goodness Columbus didn't find India. Imagine stuffing an elephant!". Likewise, if this is the price of peace in North Korea, imagine having to feed and heat Iran...

Read North Korea's Gambit: Back to the Future? by Niranjan Ramakrishnan

Saturday, September 17, 2005

John Roberts

Ralph Nader has a good article in Counterpunch. He makes two points. Why is Congress on such a tight schedule when it comes to such important decisions? The senators had to run after three days of John Roberts, and just about a day of other testimony about the nominee. Where is the great rush that they can only give five minutes to the witnesses? Ralph Nader himself was not even invited to testify, though he his submission of written questions was accepted.

Nader makes his second point - why did no Senator ask Roberts vital questions like his opinion on power of corporations Vs individuals, the considerations of city, state and federal governments that corporations may be 'too big to fail'.

Roberts himself was a cold fish. It is a truism that lawyers are passionate, judges dispassionate, but there was no evidence of passion in Roberts even as a lawyer. And since he was careful to note at each turn that just because he had argued one way in a case did not mean he himself felt that way (nor would he say that he didn't), there was nothing to be gained from the exercise. It was, as usual, only a place for senators to grandstand on CSPAN. Another Washington replay of the old Soviet worker's joke, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us".

Friday, September 16, 2005

Bush speaks from Jackson Square

George W. Bush stood beneath a statue of Andrew Jackson in the French Quarter and gave a speech.

I have never understood why such a huge fuss was made about the 'Bullhorn moment' of September 14, 2001. I had always thought of it as a Bull**** moment, as most other moments of this presidency. But for whatever it was worth, it was at least novel. He tried to repeat it this time, but there was no audience, there was no spontaneity, and the bullhorn, as someone wrote, was buried in the water.

The obvious thing that came out of it was the fact that a few hundred billion dollars would be spent on New Orleans. The deficit would further skyrocket, of course, but the old conservative thought of prevention being better than cure has never been popular with the Bush crowd.

The more insidious thing was the explicit statement that the armed forces would now have a greater role. What this means is not clear, but it sounded ominous to me, more like the statement after a coup in some West African country.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Galloway Vs. Hitchens

The Grapple in the Big Apple
On Sep 14, Baruch College in New York held a debate between George Galloway (author of Mr. Galloway goes to Washington) and Christopher Hitchens (left-wing author who after 9-11 became a huge supporter of Bush, and the Iraq war).

One wishes the Presidential debates would be of this caliber. First, the Brits know how to debate with wit and sardonicism.

Hitchens spoke well, although he tends to swallow his words. Galloway has a clarity of thought and expression which must be the result of years of political streetfighting and parliamentary politics. Both were eloquent. Hitchens stood his ground, though Galloway, I thought, had the better of the exchanges.

For two hours they sparred, and it was a true delight. You can watch it on C-SPAN, which is broadcasting it on the BookTV channel on Sep 17, 9 PM Eastern Time, and also on Sunday (see schedule).

Two good pieces, one about the debate (Oona King, The Guardian) and the other on George Galloway by Greg Palast, both unflattering to Galloway.

* * *
Pat Buchanan's Place
Patrick Buchanan has been writing on New Orleans, but focusing on the cries of racism, ignoring the rest of the story. See Niranjan Ramakrishnan's "Brawl in the Family" in today's Counterpunch.

* * *
Row Vs. Wade
Question: What does Bush think of Roe Vs Wade?
Answer: People should get out of New Orleans any way they can.

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Tide and Tidings -- King Canute Old and New

The king who silenced his courtiers by ordering the tide to roll back was Canute.

That was then. Well before the 21st century. A millenium ago or more.

Our leader is quite the opposite. According to both Time (Living too much in a Bubble) and the even blunter Newsweek (How Bush Blew It), President Bush is so averse to getting bad news that his courtiers...er...advisers are scared to take anything but happy tidings to him.

Aside from the finger pointing and the cries of "Finger Pointing!", there is the vital issue of what a President is for. The years in Congress or the city attorney's office, the doggedness of the primary or the irritants of governorship, all designed to groom a person to gain an understanding of all strata of society.

But when primaries can be waged by smearing opponents out of contention, and presidencies can be won by friendly having your campaign chariman double as the state's secretary of state, rubbing elbows with the common people becomes unnecessary.
"That," he said, "is what happens when you got rich people who never been nothing but rich people running your country."
* * *
John Roberts spoke without notes and without pause, a pithy and crisp opening statement. Most impressive. That was yesterday. Today he answered questions from senators, a rather predictable affair, save for Specter, who did ask him some tough questions. I think there is a special version of the Fifth Amendment for judges seeking confirmation. Instead of the usual "I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me...", this one goes, "If I answer, that would reveal my predelictions, so I respectfully decline...". John Roberts showed absolutely no passion. He did not seem moved by anything, did not appear to have anything dear to his heart. This may be a good thing in a judge. He kept on message -- one was not to answer questions, the second was to say that anything he had said or written in the past was on behalf of a case, and should not be construed as his view. At one point it got so exasperating that I was surprised when Diane Feinstein did not lose her cool. He basically repeated to her, in different words, her own question in statement form, making her say, "Basically you are saying this was the decision taken". Yes, ma'am.

In today's NYT, John Tierney, in his tongue in cheek Making Roberts Talk, says Roberts claims to like PG Wodehouse. In that case, he must have modeled himself after the Beach the Butler, or even Jeeves. He simply refused to be drawn.

Saturday, September 10, 2005

Four years later: Wherrrrrrrrrrres's Osama?

It is over 1400 days since the twin towers came down, and Bush promised to get Bin Laden, alive or dead.

Well, where is he?

One would have thought such an important quarry would have figured in the newspapers each day. And when we have forgotten him, poor fellow, he feels insulted and himself reminds us of his existence via video and audio releases. Here's an excerpt from an article by Michael Tomasky in the American Prospect, entitled "Day 1,461 And Counting":
Just imagine bin Laden having been at large this long in President Al Gore’s administration. In fact, it’s impossible to imagine, because President Gore, under such circumstances, wouldn’t have lasted this long. You probably didn’t know, until you read this column, the number of days bin Laden has been at large. But I assure you that if Gore had been president, you and every American would have known, because the right would have seen to it that you knew, asking every day, “Where’s Osama?” If Gore hadn’t been impeached, it’s doubtful he’d have survived a re-election campaign, with Americans aghast at how weak and immoral a president had to be to permit those 2,700 deaths to go unavenged this long.
The statement is as much a testament to the Bush administration's chain failure technique -- before it can be held accountable for one failure it fails somewhere else, the very distraction warding off the consequences -- as to the Democrats' total lack of strategy (if nothing else).

As one more anniversary rolls around, Tomasky notes some historical facts:
America vanquished world fascism in less time: We obtained Germany’s surrender in 1,243 days, Japan’s in 1,365. Even the third Punic War, in which Carthage was burned to the ground and emptied of citizens who were taken en masse into Roman slavery, lasted around 1,100 days (and troops needed a little longer to get into position back in 149 B.C.).
Keep this in mind as you watch the news networks shamelessly bring you the self-serving pageantry of presidential ceremony at New York and elsewhere, with bold graphical gymnastics of "9-11: America Remembers" and the like.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Katrina Heads East, Bush Heads West!
















From Niranjan Ramakrishnan's article in Counterpunch today, "From New York to New Orleans: Still Clueless in Crawford, Witless in Washington".

Consider this: As the storm approaches, after warnings of levee collapse and what awaited if that happened, Bush waits it out in Crawford (550 miles from New Orleans), clearing brush and God knows what else. Then, on the day it hits, he moves another 1000 miles away from New Orleans, playing golf in Arizona! The next day, when the levees break and the city is below water, he heads further away (San Diego, 1840 miles from New Orleans) to address veterans!

When the going gets tough, the toughs head due W.

Gore's Wonderful Stand-Up Tragedy

Last night, I had the opportunity to watch Al Gore's interactive presentation on Global Warming. I cannot recall when I have ever seen such a masterly presentation: great visuals, accompanied by telling but low-key commentary.

Here are some salient facts:
  1. There is a direct and well-established correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperatures.
  2. Both have shown distinct rises in the past 30 years.
  3. In every part of the world, glaciers are melting (excellent side-by-side photos of the same place some decades ago vs. now demonstrate this)
  4. If the half the Antartica glacier drops into the sea, it will cause a 20 foot rise in sea level.
  5. Hurricanes, forest fires, both have shown a sharp rise in the beginning 1990 (order of magnitude)
  6. Global warming not only causes hurricanes, it also soaks up soil moisture from the interior lands too -- if this continues, much of the continental US, for example, will be turned to desert.
A heart-warming talk on global-warming. The danger is real.
It is the real issue facing the world.

Friday, September 02, 2005

Holy Cow! An Indian Connection?

RIP, JCD
A news report says the Mad Cow disease could have been caused by human remains in cattle-feed, remains coming from Indian funerals.

New Orleans Blues
President Bush and the administration have no excuse this time. The storm, if anything, spared New Orleans by turning east at the last minute, unlike the direct hit which was talked about for weeks. Despite that, the man spent his time biking, golfing, and collecting funds (for his party). This is right there alongside Nero fiddling. Many people have written about this. One such article is by Van Jones, called, "Bush's Role in the Drowning of New Orleans".

Sunday, August 28, 2005

Gary Hart Speaks Out, Bush's worst Days lie ahead

Gary Hart, former senator and presidential aspirant, and with Warren Rudman one of the two chairs of the security commission whose warnings were ignored by the administration prior to Sep 11, has spoken out about the Democrats (Who will say, 'No More'?). Here are excerpts:

"Like the cat that jumped on a hot stove and thereafter wouldn't jump on any stove, hot or cold, today's Democratic leaders didn't want to make that mistake again. Many supported the Iraq war resolution and -- as the Big Muddy is rising yet again -- now find themselves tongue-tied or trying to trump a war president by calling for deployment of more troops. Thus does good money follow bad and bad politics get even worse."

Hart continues:

"History will deal with George W. Bush and the neoconservatives who misled a mighty nation into a flawed war...But what will history say about an opposition party that stands silent while all this goes on?

To stay silent during such a crisis, and particularly to harbor the thought that the administration's misfortune is the Democrats' fortune, is cowardly. In 2008 I want a leader who is willing now to say: "I made a mistake, and for my mistake I am going to Iraq and accompanying the next planeload of flag-draped coffins back to Dover Air Force Base. And I am going to ask forgiveness for my mistake from every parent who will talk to me."

The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating "Stay the course" even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken."

None of the Democrats in the Senate or House will come anywhere close to this. The most disappointing is Howard Dean, who is actually suggesting increasing troop strength!

Also in the Washington Post, an article by Colbert I. King, saying, "Bush's worst days are ahead". King says there are two tracks in progress -- while Bush goes around the country trumpeting the call to arms, Washington's officialdom is quietly resigning itself to a different reality, that Iraq will remain a violent, theocratic, spoils system after the Americans leave. One of the officials is quoted as saying (rough paraphrase), "We will not say a day longer than necessary. But necessary for us or for the Iraqis?"

From King's article:

"Consider the Iraq now unfolding on the ground.

What's the value of Americans giving their lives so that cleric-dominated Shiites and northern Kurds can get their hands on political power and oil revenue?

Why are American women and men sacrificing lives and limbs in a country where women may have to settle for less?

Stay the course. What course? So religious-based militia can divvy up the northern and southern portions of the country? So Islam can be enshrined as a principal source of new Iraqi legislation?

Are any of those things worth dying for? Do any of those likely outcomes represent an American victory? They certainly aren't why Bush said we went over there.

Okay, the Bush folks also promised us weapons of mass destruction, and greetings with rice and rose water, and Iraqi oil money to pay for reconstruction, and a model new democracy in the Middle East, none of which has happened.

But this is different.

President Bush is out selling a vision of victory in Iraq while U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad are resigned to settling for less. George Bush can't make good on his original promise, and they know it. They also know that more Americans are going to die in Iraq for what may end up as a theocracy-tinged spoils system.

When those carrying the burden of this war realize what they have sacrificed and died for, the worst days of George W. Bush will have just begun."


Monday, August 22, 2005

If 4 times is too much, what is 400 times? Mangal Pandey

Disparity and Democracy
Chinese scholars have warned that the rising income disparities in their country will undermine social stability by 2010.
From a news report:

Annual urban incomes that are due to surpass 10,000 yuan ($1,200) on average are growing twice as fast as those in the countryside, the China Daily said, citing a report commissioned by the Labor and Social Services Ministry.

Rural incomes linger at around 3,000 yuan ($370) per year.

"We are going to hit the red light scenario after 2010 if there are no effective solutions in the next few years," it said. The team uses blue, green, yellow and red light indicators to track income disparity trends, with red being most serious.
Just by way of comparison, the salary gap between an average American worker and his CEO is around 400 or thereabouts (turns out I was being conservative -- it was actually 500+ even in 2001, and has likely increased since then, see article by Neil Pearce). No wonder the war is fought and billions are spent in Iraq, while America parties on (see Bob Herbert's article in the New York Times, Blood runs Red, not Blue, or Niranjan Ramakrishnan's in Counterpunch (Shaming the Shameless).

John Kerry - Serial Blunderer
John Kerry has sent around an email asking the President to answer some questions, in his address to the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) at Salt Lake City, UT. Kerry has a bunch of questions for Bush (copied verbatim from Kerry's message):
  • When will the President get it right in Iraq?
  • When will he deliver to the nation and those sacrificing so much in Iraq a concrete plan for peace and victory?
  • Why, at this late date, is the Pentagon still struggling to get the right supplies and body armor to America's troops?
  • When will the President support a military large enough to face the challenges of today's world?
  • And when will the President stop short-changing America's veterans? When will he stop closing hospitals, cutting benefits, and making veterans wait weeks for a doctor's appointment?
Talk about limp... Nowhere in Kerry's message is Cindy Sheehan or the protest in Crawford mentioned. Get it right in Iraq? Give us a break. To think this was the alternative to Bush so many of us worked for! Makes you want to crawl under a doormat and disappear.

FSTV and Democracy Now!
I recently discovered Free Speech Television, a channel that features, among other things, an excellent 1 hour news broadcast called Democracy Now! While the Big 3 and the little 3 (CNN, Fox, MSNBC) talk about Eric Rudolph, BTK and Aruba, Democracy Now! gives hard news with good quality presentation and graphics too. I know it is on Dish Network, and I believe it is also available on Cable and Direct TV. You can go directly to their website at http://www.democracynow.org. They have streaming video where the show is also available. No commercials, and solid news.

The Rising -- The Ballad of Mangal Pandey
I paid little attention to the new movie starring Aamir Khan, featuring the first rebel of the First Indian War of Independence of 1857 (also known as the Sepoy Mutiny). But an article by Rajiv Rawat (The Rising of the Rising) brings out a contextual view of the movie, which, he claims, uses the metaphor of 1857 British imperialism in India to hold up 2003 American Imperialism in Iraq to scrutiny. Whether by design, or by ignorance (the latter is more likely) the American media have almost wholly ignored what Rawat claims is a technically flawless film.

Friday, August 19, 2005

If Bush's OK, why not Modi?

Arundhati Roy, in an interview, asks a salient question: If George W. Bush, mass murderer and war criminal, is acceptable enough to Manmohan Singh to pose with on the White House balcony, why should he criticize Narendra Modi? Read this wide ranging interview with S. Anand.

Another fine article, this one called, "There is such a thing as Too Late", by Ray McGovern, on the matter of speaking out.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

A Satyagrahi is Born -- Shaming the Shameless

When history is written, I think Cindy Sheehan's act will be viewed as being in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi's Salt Satyagraha or Rosa Parks' defiance. See article by Niranjan Ramakrishnan with the above title.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Cindy, Don and George

In this one article is captured the entire megatragedy of Bush, Cheney, the Democrats, Iraq, the deficit, and the deepening morass. Like a survey article in a professional publication, this is a complete yet concise rendition of where we are and the lies that brought us here. A few samples:
Bush on arriving for a meeting with families of the bereaved, including Cindy Sheehan and her husband on June 17, 2004: "So, who are we honoring here?"
Or,
Ellen Knickmeyer of the Washington Post reported last week that "a US general said ... the violence would likely escalate as the deadline approached for drafting a constitution for Iraq". For two years now, this has been a dime-a-dozen prediction from American officials trying to cover their future butts. For the phrase "drafting a constitution" in that general's quote, you need only substitute "after the killing of Saddam Hussein's sons" (July 2003), "for handing over sovereignty" (June 2004), "for voting for a new Iraqi government" (January 2005) - or, looking ahead, "for voting on the constitution" (October, 2005) and, yet again, "for voting for a new Iraqi government" (December 2005), just as you will be able to substitute as yet unknown similar "milestones" that won't turn out to be milestones as long as our president insists that we must "stay the course" in Iraq, as he did only recently as his Crawford vacation began.
Or this:
Iraq - you can't leave home without it - has, of course, been at the heart of everything Bushworld hasn't been able to shake off, at least since May 2, 2003. On that day (when, ominously enough, seven American soldiers were wounded by a grenade attack in Fallujah), our president co-piloted a jet onto the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier halted off the San Diego coast (lest it dock and he only be able to walk on board). All togged out in a military uniform, he declared "major combat operations" at an end, while standing under a White House-produced banner reading "mission accomplished".
Read the entire article by Tom Engelhardt for yourself on Tomdispatch.com or at Asia Times.





Thursday, August 11, 2005

The Cost of War -- An Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan

A beautiful letter from Ralph Nader to Cindy Sheehan: May you succeed where others have failed.

I had heard about this website before, called The Cost of War. Tells you precisely how much the war is costing, and relates it to hard facts -- e.g., how many teachers you could have hired -- in your own town -- for the corresponding proportion amount of money.