Salad Fingers #7

David Firth has posted a new episode of Salad Fingers titled Shore Leave. As always, I find it strangely soothing.

Follow the money

It's depressing watching billionaire Bush and his billionaire cronies plunder the world. We are like villagers under a spell. We cannot grasp the evil that is upon us. Even when we hear the truth we crave the lie, prefering it's twisted comfort.

How does that joke go? It reminds me of all this. Oh yeah... If you teach a man to start a fire he will be warm for the night. If you set a man on fire he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Anyway, here's an article about the Corporatacracy and the Dubai port deal. It appeared in the Palestine Chronicle. You might find interesting. At least I did.

Dirty Little Secret Behind Port Scandal by David Sirota

Politicians and the media are loudly decrying the Bush administration's proposal to turn over port security to a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - a country with ties to terrorists. They are talking tough about national security - but almost no one is talking about what may have fueled the administration's decision to push forward with this deal: the desire to move forward Big Money's "free" trade agenda.

How much does "free" trade have to do with this? How about a lot. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the trade accord. Rejecting this port security deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting the port security deal - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Security - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interests - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.

The Inter Press Service highlights exactly what's at stake, quoting a conservative activists who admits that this is all about trade:

"The United States' trade relationship with the UAE is the third largest in the Middle East, after Israel and Saudi Arabia. The two nations are engaged in bilateral free talks that would liberalize trade between the two countries and would, in theory at least, allow companies to own and operate businesses in both nations. 'There are legitimate security questions to be asked but it would be a mistake and really an insult to one of our leading trading partners in that region to reject this commercial transaction out of hand,' said Daniel T. Griswold, who directs the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank."

Look, we've seen this before. Just last year, Congress approved a U.S. taxpayer-funded loan by the Bush administration to a British company to help build nuclear technology in Communist China. Despite major security concerns raised - and a legislative effort to block the loan - Congress's "free traders" (many of whom talk so tough on security) made sure the loan went through so as to preserve the U.S.-China free trade relationship that is allowing lawmakers' corporate campaign contributors export so many U.S. jobs.

There is no better proof that our government takes its orders from corporate interests than these kinds of moves. That's what this UAE deal is all about - the mixture of the right-wing's goal of privatizing all government services (even post 9/11 port security!) with the political Establishment's desire to make sure Tom-Friedman-style "free" trade orthodoxy supersedes everything. This is where the culture of corruption meets national security policy - and, more specifically, where the unbridled corruption of on-the-take politicians are weakening America's security.

The fact that no politicians and almost no media wants to even explore this simple fact is telling. Here we have a major U.S. security scandal with the same country we are simultaneously negotiating a free trade pact with, and no one in Washington is saying a thing. The silence tells you all you need to know about a political/media establishment that is so totally owned by Big Money interests they won't even talk about what's potentially at the heart of a burgeoning national security scandal.

Corporatacracy, port of entry - point of diminishing returns

2287










The March issue of Harper's has an excellent article by Lewis Lapham titled: "The Case For Impeachment". It details House Resolution 635, Rep. John Conyer's motion to impeach President Bush. In the interview, Conyer explained, "What would you have me do? Grumble and complain? Make cynical jokes? Throw up my hands and say that under the circumstances nothing can be done? At least I can muster the facts, establish a record, tell the story that ought to be front-page news". He's right and I'm grateful to him for taking action.

Lapham writes, "on reading through the report's corroborating testimony I sometimes could counter its inducements to mute rage with the thought that if the would-be lords of the flies weren't in the business of killing people, they would be seen as a troupe of off-Broadway comedians in a third-rate theater of the absurd." Too bad for us, these thugs have made it to the main stage. They are engaged in a very real, very deadly deceit such as Bush's insane plan to turn over six major American ports (including New York City) to the United Arab Emirates. It's another mind boggling triumph of the creeping Corporatacracy. The Arabs. the boys at the Bilderberg Group and the Carlyle Group must be delighted over this one, what to speak of the terrorists scheming in their secret cells.

Birthday strawberries

Today is my daughter's birthday. Her alarm rang this morning just as I called to wish her a happy day, year and many happy years to come. She was born just before dawn that February morning. The night before we had shared a half gallon of strawberry ice cream right out of the box so, once again, I reminded her to be sure to eat her ice cream and promised I would do the same.

Also to celebrate today, I whipped up a batch of Marvel Meal (vegetarian suet) for the bird park. It was a huge hit. Everyone was going for it then a big crow showed up and pried open the cage. Now it's completely gobbled and gone.






My daughter was big, over 10 lbs, and born at home before the midwife arrived. Her (very nervous, well-meaning) dad tried to help but I finally had to ask him to please, just let me be. I'd been practicing a relaxation technique for a while and when the contractions started all I wanted to do was relax and let them happen. I didn't use drugs of any kind but the experience was completely painless, in fact it was ecstatic. It was as though I became a primordial force like a great wave upon which she tilted, riding quickly, easily into the world. Her birth is one of my touch stones. It proved to me that life really does take care of life and that sometimes the best, the only thing we need do, is get out of the way.

I have a strawberry for you, Mother.

It's also my mother's birthday today although she died many years ago. We were never close. We clashed terribly but then I was not easy by anyone's standard. It's hard making amends to a person long dead but I'm picking my way. I like to think it's not, that it's never . . . too late.

Fur Free

The old bottle and the sea

For some reason this bottle has been on my mind for the last couple of days. I photographed it while we were camping on the Caribbean last November.

It was a lovely glass home for the several creatures clinging to its neck. The clouds drifting over the sea are from the edge of a hurricane that was passing by not too far south.

The NYT doth protest too little

The New York Times posted a rehash of Bush's crimes today and pulled their punches, as usual. Bush commits treason and they note that he has a "central flaw". They should be calling for Bush's resignation and impeachment. But this is the paper that withheld information regarding Bush's police state spy program for a year. That makes them part of the "Trust Gap", not valued members of the free press protecting truth and freedom which are supposed to be "the American way".

The Trust Gap / Editorial
Published February 12, 2006 by the New York Times

We can't think of a president who has gone to the American people more often than George W. Bush has to ask them to forget about things like democracy, judicial process and the balance of powers and just trust him. We also can't think of a president who has deserved that trust less.

This has been a central flaw of Mr. Bush's presidency for a long time. But last week produced a flood of evidence that vividly drove home the point. archived at CommonDreams.org

The article briefly covers DOMESTIC SPYING - PRISON CAMPS and THE WAR IN IRAQ but fails to mention that during the KATRINA DISASTER Bush preferred to go golfing rather than tend to the business at hand. And another thing that belongs on the short list is the fact that his administration committed an act of TREASON by leaking the identity of a CIA undercover operative to the press. That's pretty fucking noteworthy. The United States government takes betrayal very seriously, especially in a time of war. We execute traitors. Bush, on the other hand, just keeps going.

But we all know why the Times didn't bring up the "T" word. They CO-OPERATED with Bush Co.. They were the leakies. They published the fact that Valerie Plame was a deep cover CIA operative. I always marvel at the irony. She was risking her life working undercover in the Middle East gathering critical information for the United States about who has weapons of mass destruction and what they are planning to do with them and Bush outs her, destroying the entire network she was associated with and puts many operatives lives in danger. If other agents were killed because of it, we'll never know because, after all, it's secret. Why would the President of the United States do such a thing?

I'm not impressed with the Time's show of "getting tough" on Bush at this late date. They are part of the whole, stinking mess.