little red cookbook | fair and balanced thought is free

Better than CNN: The Agonist | Cursor | BuzzFlash
Act: VOTE IN 2004 | 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action | Take to the Streets

Saturday, March 15, 2003

Congresswoman wants to bring those buried in France back home

I was terribly embarrassed about the freedom fries...but I am thoroughly ashamed of this. Two of my most cherished friends come from Normandy; I have been there and observed the respect that all there share for the collaboration between American, French and British citizens in the campaign against Hitler. When I checked my email after the events of September 11th, the first message in my inbox came from my friend, Jean-François. There is, in my opinion, absolutely no excuse for the ignorance and cruelty with which some of my fellow US citizens are treating the French people. In the past, I used to analyze this behavior with feminist and social movement theory and yes, rationalize it with a sort of forced compassion masking my uncertainty, but I have lost all tolerance, and I can only say that my heart breaks a little bit more each time when I read of the new and increasingly ridiculous ways in which Americans slander "Old Europe", turning their backs on our common humanity. How well the media and administration have programmed us, and how readily we accept their libelous fodder.

posted by Jenny at 3:17 PM |

The Richard Perle saga continues...check out the latest Ari and I...

posted by Jenny at 2:48 PM |

Grrr, just tried to include a long post on this, but blogger and my FTP access conspired to kill it. At any rate, click here to learn about a cool initiative begun by the Swedes last December. You know how western countries often receive figures from the "Third World", individuals running from repressive regimes? Well, the Swedes are granting asylum to US officials who are threatened by the Bush administration for speaking out about our deeply flawed fatal foreign policy. Ahh, Scandinavia.

posted by Jenny at 2:45 PM |

Benetton clothing to carry tiny tracking transmitters

This all came about because Cathy sent me an article this morning...

Fashion designers from New York to Milan have filled the runways in recent weeks with all the latest Spring looks. Hemlines are up, heel heights are down and pink is all the rage. But regardless of what you think of this season's haute couture you should be made aware of a trend that's catching on... it could make you think twice before buying new clothes. Tiny specks capable of tracking virtually every single item are now being imbedded by manufacturers. This Orwellian technology, called RFID (radio frequency ID) will now be used by Italian clothing designer Benetton in the form of trackable chips woven into it's apparel. The chips, which function as itty bitty radio transmitters will be inserted when the clothes are made and will remain intact throughout the life of the garment. According to chip manufacturer Philips Electronics, the devices will be "imperceptible" to the wearer.

...

Benetton is not alone in implementing this frighteningly invasive technology. Gillette has already purchased 500 million of these tracking devices and starting in July will imbed them in shaving cream and razors sold at Wal Mart stores. The chipped items will sit atop "smart" shelves that will work in unison with the chipped products to tell Gillette and Wal Mart all kinds of things; and the info-gathering doesn't end there. As an extra added bonus ,when shoppers take their Big Brother -branded purchases home (and wherever RFID "readers" are located,) their purchase will be tracked. RFID Journal touts the technology as a way to eliminate bar codes, cut down on labor costs and theft and says it will be a boon to inventory control.

Yeow! At any rate, I dug into it and found the AP link above and also this one, originally from the industrial journal EE Times. This story just broke last week, and there are numble of articles listed on google if you're interested. And, as I wrote in a recent email, it's not just scary on the Brave New World angle...these suckers EMIT something, can that really be healthy? Yet another reason to boycott Proctor & Gamble, Wal-Mart, and Benetton...I'm about to dig up my mom's old Foxfire books and learn how to make my own damn clothes. Who's with me?

Update: By the way, lest we forget the international involvement of such efforts to limit our freedoms, Philips, the RFID manufacturer, is based in Germany.

posted by Jenny at 3:55 AM |

Thursday, March 13, 2003

Wag the dog

The Pentagon hires a Hollywood designer to set the stage at the new military media briefing facility in Qatar.

Via the Cursor.

posted by Jenny at 3:06 AM |

Yes!!!!

posted by Jenny at 2:18 AM |

Wednesday, March 12, 2003

Ah yes, but all is not lost. WorkingForChange has a good This Modern World up...

posted by Jenny at 7:27 AM |

I don't get Talk Radio Network here in Old Europe, but Lying Media Bastards has some good (if frightening) ruminations on its connections to a "cult", the Foundation for Human Understanding. Oooh, and you thought Tom Cruise's scientology construction bootcamp was scary!

posted by Jenny at 7:24 AM |

Well, we're now starting to sound like the former Eastern bloc...and god forbid it goes any further, but if it does, I'll enjoy seeing the Bush administration being held accountable during trials and lustrace. I guess they've always had files on us, but the thing that makes it sound like the Cold War is that, like the Soviets, they admit that they do, perhaps as a means of crowd control?

Not in some distant Brave New World, but in the here and now, the government is assembling dossiers on American citizens, and then assigning them each their own Threat Assessment Color -- red, yellow or green. Under a pilot program, from March until June the dossiers are being collected as soon as a citizen buys a ticket on Delta Airlines to fly out of a handful of unspecified airports. The dossiers -- to be kept in a database for up to 50 years -- include "financial and transactional data", which the ACLU observes could include "credit card and other consumer-purchase data, housing information, communications records, health records and many other sources of information about us." They will also include law enforcement and legal records, and things like whether one travels abroad often. The Transportation Security Administration reserves the right to "routinely" share its file on a US citizen with, well, just about anyone -- including state and local law enforcement, the CIA, even foreign governments (!) and international agencies. All it needs is "an indication of a violation or a potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation."

...

See a discussion of this here, and also the original Federal Register notice language.)

No citizen will be able to challenge a dossier, or even see it; or even to learn whether he or she has been labeled a yellow citizen or a green, much less why.

More.

posted by Jenny at 7:09 AM |

Okay, so apparently this was an episode of 24 a few days ago: a government suspect's children are abducted in order to bribe him into talking. I am beginning to wonder if the producers of that show are actually spying on, if not in cahoots with, the CIA, either to gain story ideas or to use television as a medium to desensitize the viewing public about the disgraceful ways in which the US government goes about intelligence-seeking. As TalkLeft reports, London Sunday Telegraph writer Olga Craig recently broke the story that the CIA is holding two young sons of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to force their imprisoned father to talk:

Yousef al-Khalid, 9, and his brother, Abed al-Khalid, 7, were taken into custody in Pakistan in September when intelligence officers raided an apartment in Karachi where their father had been hiding.

He fled just hours before the raid, but his two young sons, along with another senior al Qaeda member, were found cowering behind a clothes closet in the apartment.

The boys have been held by the Pakistani authorities, but this weekend they were flown to America, where they will be questioned about their father.

CIA interrogators confirmed last night that the boys were staying at a secret address where they were being encouraged to talk about their father's activities.

"We are handling them with kid gloves. After all, they are only little children," said one official, "but we need to know as much about their father's recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times, and they are given the best of care."

Outraged, I forwarded this article to several friends, and received the following reply from the estimable Oz:

yes, this is definitely kidnapping...[Mohammed] kids who they have was actually (so they say...) part of the 9/11 attacks, not to mention many other attacks around the world. it is a promising bargaining tool to make the man talk. as long as the kids are unharmed I have no problem with their methodology in this case. it's unfortunate, but so is war, so is buildings falling, so is life.

...

While I do think that the "right thing" should always be done, we only have to look at nature to see that suffering is as much a part of life as anything else. And while the kids are most likely scared shitless, there is a possibility that they are being deceived to prevent mental anguish, and as I said before (tho I can't prove it) I doubt the kids will be harmed.

Well, what constitutes "harm" in this context? Bodily harm, I presume...although the terror that these children are experiencing may also be considered damage, at least in my book. There are several issues at play here--the international law angle, human rights and basic moral concerns, and ultimately the idiocy of US intelligence officials in expecting this to bring information. I'll address the last one first.

The CIA, Pentagon and their affiliates pride themselves on their psychological approach to enemy entities--whether it's the plan to physically and psychologically crush Baghdad or the intrusive interrogation proceedings of individual terrorists. However, I submit that there is nothing to be gained strategically through the interrogation of 7- and 9-year-old boys. First of all, it's highly likely these boys have either been sheltered from the activities of their father, or exposed in such a way that it seems doubtful that the government can glean any useful information from them, particularly without undergoing some permanently traumatizing attempts. In addition, the use of these boys as "bargaining chips" seems to imply that harm is threatened, but in itself, this move also seems shortsighted and culturally insensitive. Let's assume for a minute that all al-Qaida operatives really are as heartless and fundamentalist as the media depicts them to be. Would this man, often considered the right hand and "the brain" of the 9/11 attacks, really fess up details about his activities and those of Osama bin Laden to protect his children? Aren't these folks popularly touted to believe in eternal rewards in heaven for "sacrifices" in the name of Allah and his people? I have never read about Muslims adhering to the sacrament of baptism--somebody correct me if I'm wrong here--so it seems that there would be little concern about protecting the "innocent" children from the scythe of the CIA...should Mohammed's children die or be harmed in this process, I believe that would be viewed as another point on the side of bin Laden--two more children martyred for Allah, two more lives sacrificed for the greater cause. What better way to feed anti-American, pro-Islamic fundamentalist sentiment (or at least, this particular strand of Islamic fundamentalism)? Once again, the CIA trips over its own feet in assuming that their enemies hold the same values that they do--or at least, the same values that they purport to have.

Some might say that these children are better off in US custody anyways, that detainment in America is "healthy" for them. Well, that's incredibly naive on a number of levels. By virtue of the fact that their dwelling-place was bust in upon by special forces, they have been kept in custody and transported to a foreign country (which has doubtless been described to them as the epitome of evil), and are being coerced to give information they probably don't have about their father, they have to be pretty messed up right now. Never mind the fact that these children, too, have human rights--and as TalkLeft says, I didn't realize that enemy combatant status had suddenly become hereditary (oh, THIS explains why people I know hate Germans for Nazi actions six decades ago).

The Bush administration would have us believe that international law and the mandate of the UN is fundamentally flawed, broken at best. The United States has ignored international courts on more than one occasion, and the apathy of its citizens and the lack of belief in true democracy and accountability has empowered it to do so. But the rest of the world has to play by these global legal safeguards, and frankly folks, so should we. Under international law, is it fair and just to uproot children under the age of 10 to a foreign country simply to force their father to talk? Are children really still chattel for government exchanges? We could just say that "life sucks" and "people get hurt", but is actively hurting others any way to repair the damage done after September 11th? To continue this cycle of disrespect for the most innocent and vulnerable of lives?

posted by Jenny at 5:34 AM |

Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Holy shit. I don't have any other words to describe the depth of American national stupidity. And leave it to CNN to bring us this inane news...:

"House cafeterias change names for 'french fries' and 'french toast'"

Via Tom Tomorrow.

posted by Jenny at 3:23 PM |

Yet another letter of resignation from a US dipomat because of Iraq.

posted by Jenny at 3:20 PM |

Libraries Warn Patrons of Big Brother, or "Reason to Move to California #312"

Libraries in Santa Cruz, California have posted signs in ten county library branches warning that the USA PATRIOT Act "prohibits library workers from informing you if federal agents have obtained records about you," the San Fransisco Gate reported yesterday.

The signs go on to say that "Questions about this policy should be directed to Attorney General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530."

That's right, folks. The USA PATRIOT Act (as I've mentioned here before) allows the FBI to seize the borrowing or purchase records of library and book store patrons. They can find out what you're reading — and therefore what you're thinking without so much as suspicion that you've committed a crime. They just need to say that you're "connected to an investigation" of terrorism or espionage.

The Gate also reports that Representative Bernie Sanders (Ind., Vt) has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to roll back the "particularly onerous" provision regarding the release of library and bookstore records.

Sanders' bill, the Freedom to Read Proection Act, would allow searches of library and bookstore records only if federal agents showed they were likely to find evidence of a crime. This is still not what it should be — I believe there should be a blanket prohibition on the seizure of reading lists — but it's a good step back into the right direction.

Hop on the phone or open your email and let your representative know what you think!

Update: And if you don't know who your elected representative is, click here to find out.

posted by Jenny at 1:52 PM |

Just found a great new resource: Warblogs:cc, which indexes the latest headlines from the war blogs. Don't miss it!

posted by Jenny at 11:43 AM |

Biotech vs. the European Union

Sitting through a semester of European Politics nearly put me to sleep--not because the instructor was bad, but because of the incredibly bureaucratized and utterly calculated nature of the emerging European Union. In the words of Eddie Izzard, it is indeed the "cutting edge of politics in an extraordinarily boring way". However, reading up on Europe's success in banning imports of unlabeled genetically-modified foods from the United States (another reason to villify them, what say?), I must admit that they seem to know what they are doing, at least in some sectors. Of course, some would be prompted to construe European actions as "anti-American", but in fact, it all revolves around the fact that US companies refuse to undertake the extra spending necessary to label their products...something that might please US citizens themselves, if I'm not mistaken...

posted by Jenny at 11:27 AM |

Since it mentions the bodhisattva of the little red cookbook, why not include this hypothetical comparison between Fred Rogers' and John Ashcroft's respective neighborhoods? It's a bit overdone, but then again, maybe it isn't.

posted by Jenny at 11:04 AM |

Bush Sr. warning over unilateral action

Stuff like this reminds me of why it was easy to like George 41, compared to some. He's an international player, more Clintonian in his seeming appeasement of US allies. Oh, not to discount his more corrupt dealings to any degree, and his words here certainly have an equally revolting purpose as does the rhetoric of the current administration...but at least he hung on to the respect for camaraderie within the international community spawned in the years following World War II, which, to his credit, scores points with self-interested leaders abroad. It seems that both 41's gang and George W's cronies represent two opposing political mutations of the same old Cold War ethos; father belonging to the cadre of suave, intellectual diplomats and his spoiled son, who never paid attention in school, is captain of the nuclear wrecking crew. At any rate, the article is worth reading.

posted by Jenny at 10:48 AM |

Via Lying Media Bastards:

The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war correspondent, Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio, Ms. Adie said that questioned about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions, a senior Pentagon officer had said: "Who cares.. ..They've been warned."

According to Ms. Adie, who twelve years ago covered the last Gulf War, the Pentagon attitude is: "entirely hostile to the the free spread of information."

"I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs," she told Irish national broadcaster, Tom McGurk on the RTE1 Radio "Sunday Show."

Ms. Adie made the startling revelations during a discussion of media freedom issues in the likely upcoming war in Iraq. She also warned hat the Pentagon is vetting journalists according to their stance on the war, and intends to take control of US journalists' satellite equipment --in order to control access to the airwaves.

The sound file and more here.

posted by Jenny at 10:40 AM |

Yet another sigh.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that a federal appeals court upheld a ruling that the 600 suspected Taliban and Al-Qaida fighters being held at Guantanamo Bay have no right to hearings in American courts, shirking the argument that since Guantanamo is under control of the United States, those held there are granted such rights according to international law. The appeal had been raised by families of detainees from Australia, Kuwait, and Britain.

posted by Jenny at 10:32 AM |

Meanwhile, at home...

Duncan Campbell from the Guardian explores California's Three Strikes law and its outrageous misapplication. Do click.

posted by Jenny at 10:26 AM |

Check out why France is America's true friend...because it's true and, among other things, because I enjoy the description of Bush as "steroidal".

posted by Jenny at 10:23 AM |

US firms set for postwar contracts

The American government is on the verge of awarding construction contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild Iraq once Saddam Hussein is deposed.

Halliburton, one of the companies in the running for the deals, was headed by the US vice-president Dick Cheney between 1995 and 2000. Halliburton has already been awarded a lucrative contract, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to resurrect the Iraqi oilfields if there is a war.

Other companies have strong ties to the US administration, including the construction giant Bechtel, the Fluor Corporation, and the Louis Berger Group, which is presently involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Both Bechtel and the Fluor Corporation undertake construction and project management work for the US government.

Only US companies are on the shortlist of five...

Is there anyone out there who really didn't see that one coming?

(P.S.--I'm not really a cynic. I just play one on the internet.)

posted by Jenny at 10:15 AM |

Tom Tomorrow has a good post up quoting Bartcop on the Project for a New American Century and the long-standing plans to reshape the Middle East by overthrowing Saddam Hussein. I think it's great whenever new dirt (albeit secondary dirt) on the PNAC pops up. I find it all the more amusing and annoying when arguing with conservative acquaintances who claim that the plans to take over Iraq only sprouted after September 11th because they refuse to peruse the PNAC documents themselves. Indeed, the truly incredible thing is that Bush's neoconservative cadre actually publishes their plans for increased economic and psychic hegemony--I guess, to paraphrase Michael Moore's Stupid White Men, this is simply more evidence that the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the latter tells you all the ways that they're going to screw you, whereas the former simply do it behind your back and say exactly the opposite. *sigh*

posted by Jenny at 10:05 AM |

oh goody, a new activist opportunity!

To those who read and were similarly revolted by the plans of the Forest Service to start logging the Sierra Nevadas, here's a chance to tell the Bush administration and their minions what you think. This info is via Matt Bivens at the Daily Outrage, who says that the National Resources Defense Council maintains that this will include the logging of old-growth trees and the sequoias themselves. Click here and the NRDC will help you tell the administration your opinion...but hurry! we only have until March 17th.

posted by Jenny at 8:13 AM |

The Nation has a great piece on that lawsuit organized by congresspeople and constituents asserting that Bush is violating the constitution seeking a congressional declaration of war. Good stuff, and it names some names and legislation currently working to repeal the president's special "war powers", etc. Check it out.

posted by Jenny at 8:06 AM |

Oh, score. Just saw the new Mark Fiore Flash cartoon over at Mother Jones. Good to brighten your day...

posted by Jenny at 8:02 AM |

Just catching back on life in the blogosphere. I've really got to send my blog link to some folks and get it promoted (or you, loyal readers, could also pass it on). However, reading postings like Sean-Paul's excellent explanation of why he now opposes the "war", I start to get antsy...how will I keep up with these folks when on vacation?

posted by Jenny at 7:59 AM |

Monday, March 10, 2003

Now that we've indulged in some good (and deserved) NYT critique, here's one reason why we should still read it--Jimmy Carter's op-ed piece on "Just War--or a Just War?"

posted by Jenny at 8:12 AM |

Jeanne D'Arc has a great series of posts on the NYT and its hesitancy to delve honestly into US foreign policy--here's the first one, just start there and scroll up.

posted by Jenny at 8:10 AM |