The Golden Ratio-n-ale

Back in biz

2006-03-03T11:05:00.000-05:00

At the urging of my esteemed colleage, Golden Raio-n-ale will be manned once again, much like the US missle defense system. Praise be to Jesus. Stay tuned
Amen

The Silicon Age - Part1: Obesity

2004-07-29T18:08:00.000-04:00

Prologue:
In the literary tradition of describing portions of history (e.g. The Stone Age, The Bronze Age, etc.), I decided to put down on paper my theory of the current historical period that I have dubbed The Silicon Age, and the factors that I believe will result in its sudden decline in the mid-21st century. This is just one man's theory - so take it or leave it.

Part 1: Obesity
Since the beginning of time, well up and into the 20th century, being 'overweight' was a sign of opulence - for only those that were wealthy and powerful enough, were able to obtain more-than-necessary sustinance wto become overweight.

Beginning just last century, a change in the world, and certainly Western society, has led to abundant sustinance from a multiplicity of sources - most of which are manufactured 'food-stuffs'. This has led to the masses becoming essentially 'addicted' to these manufacured foods, resulting in a society freakishly overweight, especially over the past 20 years.

And obviously, the single most important substance of this 'age', Silicon, has a lot to do with the obesity plague. Our society has become immensly lazy, exhibting a sloth-like exhibited by do many people. Everything has become automated, autoconditioned and autodelivered. Silicon, the exact same vehicle that contributed to a wealth of information being available to nearly the entire population of the world, has deteriorated our minds and bodies at exactly the same right.

Relying on such devices as cars, microwaves, telephones, computers and, of course, televisions, for everything from our very basic of necessities to an inherited necessity of virtual entertainment and travel, has turned our world upside-down.

This last vice, a dependant upon manufactured inanimate objects, has become less a sign of vanity, and more a sign of humanity.

Please stay tuned for The Silicon Age - Part2: Dependence

Manufactured Insanity

2004-06-29T20:19:00.000-04:00

As one dives into the deep dark sea of information, the tendency to feel alone or insane can be enough to crush any willing soldier of truth. As I arrive at my point early, I see that this is a common goal of the elite. However pretensious we may be, we are the bewildered masses. A properly functioning powerhouse, as Chomsky has shown me, must "distract and marginalize" the "ignorant public". As we are properly distracted by social characteristics such as capitalism, the media, sports, entertainment, etc., we are also marginalized by intimidation and fear of an over-complicated government hierarchy. If the elite is to succeed in accomplishing any goal that may not be in the best interest of the public, they must not allow the public to be aware of the goal. Ideally, if the goal is made apparent to any one, they must at all cost prevent that one from become two or three for that matter. If you are bold enough to dig a bit, you will see that this is proven through history to be accomplished. The general feeling produced within the image of the aware is eventually insanity. Specifically, if you are unable to see if any others in the herd feel the same you do about an issue, you are overwhelmed by a bewildered majority and you feel alone. You feel abnormal. You feel insane. It has become all too difficult, in our social system, for a group to converge that feels the same about any issue. It is far too threatening to the elite. So, in the end, as you learn more alternative ideas, you learn that the majority may disagree (because they are supposed to) and you are left to feel one thing...insane. So, my curious friends, let us not look down upon one another, but encourage each other. We are not alone, and must realize that there are ways to congregate and promote any idea, however damaging it may be to the majority. Insanity is the bud of realism. As you realize, share. Thanks for listening. I love you all.

Curtis

Question of the Day: Who Will Liberate Us?

2004-06-29T20:10:00.000-04:00

"No reason was given for going to war that could not be refuted by a literate teenager in about two minutes. That again is the hallmark of a totalitarian culture."
-Chomsky

Two quotes of the day

2004-06-29T16:39:00.000-04:00

"One fifth of the people are against everything all the time."
--Robert Kennedy

'No tyrant need fear till men begin to feel confident in each other."
--Aristotle

View From The Choir

2004-06-29T11:33:00.000-04:00

Originally published in the PE Week Wire newsletter on 29 June 2004, by Daniel Primack.

"Fahrenheit 911" came to the Boston suburbs this past weekend, approximately two years after I first heard that Michael Moore was shooting a film that would involve The Carlyle Group. For those who don't know, Moore's original focus was the Bush family's close relationship with the Saudi royal family and, ipso facto, to terrorist attacks that ultimately emanated from Saudi Arabia. Such supposition still dominates the first half of "Fahrenheit 911", but is nowhere near as intellectually honest, emotionally wrenching nor politically damning as is the film's second half, which focuses almost exclusively on the Iraq War (which was launched after Moore began shooting).

Spoiler Alert: The film begins with a black screen and harrowing audio footage of Sept. 11 (far more effective than replaying the planes flying into buildings), moves over to President Bush's reaction (concerned but immobile) and then launches into a laundry list of ties between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family. It is in discussing these linkages that Moore invokes The Carlyle Group, a massive private equity firm with an affinity for defense industry investments. Carlyle also holds a soft spot for onetime politicos like former President George H.W. Bush (who resigned from his senior advisor post last year), former Bush Secretary of State James Baker (current senior counselor), former Bush budget director Richard Darman (current senior advisor and managing director, not mentioned in the film) and former Clinton Chief of Staff Mack McLarty (current senior advisor, not mentioned in the film).

Moore doesn't shed any new light on the Bush-Carlyle-Saudi connection (at least for those who have read The Iron Triangle by Dan Brody). Instead, he rehashes old chestnuts about how H.W. and members of the Bin Laden clan both served as limited partners in Carlyle funds, thus sharing a common financial interest. There also is a claim that both H.W. and some Bin Ladens were at Carlyle's annual investor meeting on Sept. 11, although a Carlyle spokesman says that H.W. was not in attendance (the same spokesman adds that the film does not contain any other overt inaccuracies in regards to Carlyle).

And that's really it for The Carlyle Group's role in "Fahrenheit 911." My guess is that the Iraq War may have pushed some other Carlyle footage to the cutting room floor, but what viewers ended up seeing was, in the words of my wife, no big deal. Two rich families invested in a private equity fund that made them even richer. No big deal. Perhaps you could argue that other Saudi links to the Bushes - such as Saudi backing for W's failed oil ventures - could have caused the Administration to look the other way on Saudi-born terror, but it just doesn't apply to the Carlyle connection. After all, both CalPERS and the Michigan State Treasury also serve as limited partners in Carlyle funds. Are they both somehow complicit in terrorism? Are the Democratic Party bastions of California and Michigan somehow complicit in electing George W. Bush?

In fact, Moore is guilty here of just what the Bush Administration is guilty of when it comes to juxtaposition. (Note: the following argument was made Sunday morning by Gwenn Ifill on NBC) Bush, Cheney and company have repeatedly used the words Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11 in the same sentence, hoping that Americans will connect the two, even though there is no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Hussein and Al Qaeda. Ditto for Moore, who shows the Bushes and Bin Ladens together just enough so that viewers may believe that there is some collaborative relationship between the two families and, in turn, the Bin Laden family's most notorious member. Bad governance, bad documentary-making.

Random "Fahrenheit 911" notes: (1) There was a uniformed cop at the door, in case "the crowd gets rowdy." I've only been at one film that got rowdy (opening night of "New Jack City"), and even that didn't have cops until the very end. Glad to see my town is paying for useful police details. (2) While I disliked the first half, the second half more than made up for it. Expertly done, and worth seeing for people on both sides of the war aisle. (3) FYI 1: "Roger & Me" is one of my all-time favorite films, but I disliked "Bowling for Columbine." (4) FYI 2: I was interviewed in 2000 by Michael Moore in a "man on the street" bit for his TV show. I was unable to really answer his questions - thanks to a combination of ignorance and alcohol. No idea if it ever aired...

Interview with 22-year CIA veteran

2004-06-24T12:34:00.000-04:00

Following is the transcript from an interview that Andrea Mitchel (NBC correspondent)conducted with a current CIA operative who hs been with the agency for 22 years, and currently heads the unit that is specifically devoed to Osama bin Laden: the first ever unit to be dedicated entirely to a single person.

He offers a truly interesting perspective on the state of foreign affairs and specifically the problems with our war on Iraq, highligting the Muslim perspective of this truly being a Holy War--both from our end and that of Muslims.
=======================================
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror

By Andrea Mitchell
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 9:03 a.m. ET June 24, 2004

A career CIA officer claims in a new book that America is losing the war on terror, in part because of the invasion of Iraq, which, he says, distracted the United States from the war against terrorism and further fueled al-Qaida’s struggle against the United States. The author, who writes as “Anonymous,” is a 22-year veteran of the CIA and still works for the intelligence agency, which allowed him to publish the book after reviewing it for classified information.

In an interview with NBC’s Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, he calls the U.S. war in Iraq a dream come true for Osama bin Laden, saying, “Bin Laden saw the invasion of Iraq as a Christmas gift he never thought he’d get.” By invading a country that’s regarded as the second holiest place in Islam, he asserts, the Bush administration inadvertently validated bin Laden’s assertions that the United States intends a holy war against Muslims.

In his book, titled "Imperial Hubris," he calls the Iraq invasion "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat,” arguing against the concept of pre-emptive war put forward by President Bush as justification for the Iraq war.

The book also argues that the U.S. focus on bin Laden as a terrorist is the wrong way to fight him and the wrong way to think of the foe. The real enemy, he asserts, is the radical form of Islam that bin Laden and his followers espouse. And he calls for escalating the level of violence in the war against al-Qaida.
Read the complete transcript of Andrea Mitchell’s interview with Anonymous below:

Andrea Mitchell: "What is your background? How many years were you, are you in the agency?"

Anonymous: "Well, I've been in the intelligence community for 22 years. My background is I was trained as a historian, British imperial history. But I've been here since 1982 and have had a very good career."

Mitchell: "Starting in 1996, the CIA decided to create a station devoted to Osama bin Laden. Why?"

Anonymous: "I think it was created because the intelligence community had turned up bits and pieces of information in multiple areas of the world, after the end of the Afghan war, that indicated bin Laden was involved in one way or another with various Islamist groups who were opposing the Egyptian government or the Saudi government, the Yemeni government. And it was decided to try to make a concerted effort against this individual, to see where it would lead, to see if he was either a spendthrift billionaire, or if he was a serious military-minded opponent of the United States. And that was, I think, the genesis of the effort."

Mitchell: "Now, you were placed in charge of this station, the first time that the CIA developed a station just devoted to a man, to a person, not to a country."

Anonymous: "That's what I understand, yes."

Mitchell: "You say in your new book that the United States is not making a dent in the war on terror against these foes. Why do you think so?"

Anonymous: "Well, I think we have made a dent in some areas. I think in the leadership, the first generation of al-Qaida leadership, we've made a — certainly made a dent. America's clandestine service has done a terrific job in that regard. But we are — we remain in a state of denial about the size of the organization we face, the multiple allies it has, and more importantly probably than anything, the genius of bin Laden that's behind the movement and the power of religion that motivates the movement. I think we are, for various reasons, loath to talk about the role of religion in this war. And it's not to criticize one religion or another, but bin Laden is motivated and his followers and his associates are motivated by what they believe their religion requires them to do. And until we accept that fact and stop identifying them as gangsters or terrorists or criminals, we're very much behind the curve. Their power will wax our costs in treasure, and blood will also wax."

Mitchell: "But isn't it a distortion of Islam, what they espouse? How can you say that this is the Muslim belief to attack us and to wage war against us?"

Anonymous: "I'm certainly not an expert and neither am I a Muslim. I think the appeal that bin Laden has across the Muslim — I indeed think he's probably the only heroic figure, the only leadership figure that exists in the Islamic world today, and he does so because he is defending Muslims, Islamic lands, Islamic resources. From his perspective it's very much a war against someone who is oppressing or killing Muslims.
"And the genius that lies behind it, because he's not a man who rants against our freedoms, our liberties, our voting, our — the fact that our women go to school. He's not the Ayatollah Khomeini; he really doesn't care about all those things. To think that he's trying to rob us of our liberties and freedom is, I think, a gross mistake. What he has done, his genius, is identify particular American foreign policies that are offensive to Muslims whether they support these martial actions or not — our support for Israel, our presence on the Arabian Peninsula, our activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, our support for governments that Muslims believe oppress Muslims, be it India, China, Russia, Uzbekistan. Bin Laden has focused the Muslim world on specific, tangible, visual American policies.
"And there seems to be very little opposition to him within the Muslim world, and that's why I think that our assumption that he distorts Islam is just that, it's analysis by assertion. I'm not sure it's quite accurate."

Mitchell: "Well, you say in your book that the reality is that there is a large and growing among the world's 1.3 billion Muslims against America, not because of a misunderstanding of America but because they understand our policies very well."

Anonymous: "That's exactly right. I certainly believe that, and I think the substantial amount of polling that's been done by the Pew Trust and by other very reputable pollsters in the Islamic world indicate that most of the Islamic world believes they know exactly what we're up to, and that's to deny the Palestinians a country, to make sure that oil flows at prices that may seem outrageous to the American consumer, but are not market prices in the Islamist's eyes, supporting Russia against Chechnya. I think very coolly bin Laden has focused them on substance rather than rhetoric. And his rhetoric is only powerful because that is the case. He's focused them on U.S. policies."

Mitchell: "You're saying that no amount of public diplomacy will reach the Muslim world and change their minds because they hate everything that we stand for."

Anonymous: "No, I don't think they hate everything that they — that we stand for. In fact, the same polls that show the depths of their hatred of our policies show a very strong affection for the traditional American sense of fair play, the idea of rule by law, the ability of people to educate their children. I think the mistake is made on our part to assume that they hate all those things. What they hate is the policy and the repercussions of that policy, whether it's in Israel or on the Arabian Peninsula. It's not a hatred of us as a society, it's a hatred of our policies."

Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"

Anonymous: "I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived. We've arrived at the point where the only option is military. And quite frankly, in Iraq and in Afghanistan we've applied that military force with a certain daintiness that has not served our interests well.

Mitchell: "But in fact in your book you argue that we are waging half-failed wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan that have only further incited Osama bin Laden and his sympathizers."

Anonymous: "Well, I think we made no impression on them with our military might. We are unquestionably the strongest military power on earth. And in both Iraq and Afghanistan, our opponents rode out that war. I wrote in the book that if we give the military, you know, substantial credit for actions, probably 40,000 Taliban fighters went home with their guns in Afghanistan; probably 400,000 Iraqis went home with their guns in Iraq, all to fight another day. We seem to have a little bit of trouble distinguishing between winning a war and winning a battle. And I think —

Mitchell: "In other words, we're winning the battles but not the war."

Anonymous: "We're — yes, ma'am. We've won, we won quite a few battles and marvelously so, but we're fighting opponents that perceive tactical losses rather than strategic losses. And it's quite clear that these wars are half-started."

Mitchell: "You call the invasion of Iraq, ‘an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat.’ Why do you think so?"

Anonymous: "For several reasons. That was a passage cut from a larger passage where I describe my personal aversion to aggressive war, to the war started by the United States. And I tried to draw an analogy between our war against Mexico in the 19th century and just saying it is not part of the American character or our basic sense of decency to wage wars except in self-defense or preemption.
"The major problem with the Iraq war is that it distracted us from the war against terrorism. But more importantly, it allowed—it made us invade, or it caused us to invade a country that's the second holiest place in Islam. It's not really the same as the Russians invading Afghanistan in 1979. Afghanistan is an Islamic country, but it was far from the mainstream of world Islam.
"Iraq, however, for both Sunnis and Shias, is the second holiest place in the Islamic world. And to invade that country, on the face of it, is a great offense to Islam and an action which almost entirely validated bin Laden's assertions about what the United States intended vis-à-vis the Islamic world."
Mitchell: "But we were encouraged by many of Iraq's neighbors quietly saying, you know, go ahead and do it as long as you get Saddam, which we did."
Anonymous: "Yes, they certainly did. But you need to remember that, I think the neighbors of Saddam were afraid of Saddam. I'm not sure our goals were their goals in those countries."

Mitchell: "You believe that, you believe that al-Qaida is going to hit us again and harder, in this country?"

Anonymous: "I believe that's the case, yes."

Mitchell: "Why?"

Anonymous: "Well, they stay very much on message and on task. And although the line is not perfectly straight, bin Laden since 1996 has told us he will attack us periodically with incremental increases in the amount of destruction he causes. And he's been true to his word. Whether you start with Somalia and move on to the explosions in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, you take one step further to 1998 and two embassies that were destroyed in East Africa. The attack on the Cole in 2000, and then the attack on New York City and Washington in—"

Mitchell: "Since there has not been an attack on the homeland since 9/11 —"

Anonymous: "Yeah?"

Mitchell: "— doesn't that suggest that al-Qaida has either lost some of its ability to mobilize and/or that our homeland security has been improved?"

Anonymous: "Well, that might indeed be the case. I tend to think that's more analysis by assertion. The one thing these people have, bin Laden and his ilk, is tremendous patience. One huge failing of the American counterterrorist community throughout its existence has been the assumption that if someone hasn't attacked us in a while, they can't attack us. And I think that's where we are, the kind of mindset that if it hasn't happened, it's because they can't. I tend to think bin Laden will attack us when he wants to. He's an individual who has been very unmoved by external events. If there's a man who marches to his own drummer in terms of timing, it's certainly bin Laden and al-Qaida."

Mitchell: "Have we not managed, by capturing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other of his henchmen, have we not managed to get at al-Qaida and undermine his ability to attack?"

Anonymous: "There is no doubt that the clandestine service of the United States has staged stunning attacks against al-Qaida. I would say that damage that the clandestine service has inflicted on al-Qaida would have wiped out any other terrorist group that we've ever known of in the last 30 years, maybe longer. The point I would make is al-Qaida is not a terrorist group. It's more akin to an insurgent organization. It pays tremendous attention to succession, to leadership succession. Were all of those people that were killed or captured important? Absolutely. Did it hurt the organization? Of course it did. But there were successors waiting in the wings; there were understudies. The organization goes on.
"Just the other day in Saudi Arabia, the Saudis killed the man responsible for the, the kidnapping and murder of Mr. Johnson."

Mitchell: "Al-Moqrin?"

Anonymous: "Yes, Mr. Moqrin. And within hours of that, al-Qaida announced that Moqrin was indeed dead and named a successor. Part of the problem when we're judging success is looking at this group as if it is a gangster organization or a criminal organization or a traditional terrorist organization. It's none of those things. And just as the American army or any army in the West would have a backup to their leader in the field, so does al-Qaida. And it's an organization that replicates itself with tremendous dexterity and speed."

Mitchell: "Do you think bin Laden is still able to call the shots?"

Anonymous: "My own inclination, for what it's worth, is yes. He's in a country where he is, as Kipling would say, the little friend of all the world. He has no enemies in Afghanistan or most of Pakistan. He's been there for 20 years. For better or worse, he stood by the Afghans from the invasion in 1979 until today. I think he probably has an ability to elude us for the, for the foreseeable future."

Mitchell: "And why do you think the CIA has not been able to capture him, to find him?"

Anonymous: "As I wrote in the book, the intelligence community as a whole has been at war against bin Laden and al-Qaida with various degrees of commitment. I would go beyond that and say the Defense Department and the intelligence community, from my, from my personal experience as I've watched as a member of the intelligence community, the Directorate of Operations at the CIA has been, has turned in a performance that's nothing less than stellar. But it cannot do it all itself."

Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"

Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."

Mitchell: "And what do you think the size of the problem is, first?"

Anonymous: "I think the size of the problem is — I think the first step in understanding the problem is to try to divorce yourself from the emotions generated by bin Laden's activities and rhetoric and the activities and rhetoric of the people who agree with him, or support him. The decapitation of people, the flying into the World Trade Center, the destruction of the, of the Destroyer Cole raise emotions that they must raise among Americans. But they — when we respond to those in a law enforcement manner, in a manner that describes these men as, again, criminals or terrorists, we, we fail to understand the size of the organization that supports al-Qaida and the size of the organization that al-Qaida has bred for over 20 years. I think we also forget that it's a 20-year-old organization. It's an organization that has Muslims from every ethnic group in the world. It's extraordinary. It's a singular accomplishment on bin Laden's part to have created an organization where all those Muslims from different ethnic groups, different linguistic groups work together in a manner that's effective enough to take on the United States in a war. We watched the Palestinians for 50 years unable to agree amongst themselves — and they're all Palestinians.
"So that's one problem. The other is an analytic problem. If you're looking at a terrorist group, you don't put together an order of battle as you would for an army or an insurgency. And so you talk about taking down three-quarters of al-Qaida's leadership. Well, at the end of the day, what we, what we've done is take down three-quarters of the al-Qaida leadership we knew of on 11 September 2001. And if you take that as a measurable success, it is. But you don't know, first, how big the organization was you started to work against; and second, the assumption is that it's a static, sterile organization that doesn't grow. And the one thing we can be certain of is that the attack on Afghanistan by the United States and the continued occupation of Afghanistan has caused the number of volunteers going to al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and the amount of money going to al-Qaida in Afghanistan, to have increased, I would say, probably dramatically.

Mitchell: "What is George Tenet not telling George Bush?"

Anonymous: "I'm not in a position to tell you that. I'm in a position where I could tell you what I would like to tell the president."

Mitchell: "What would you like to tell the president?"

Anonymous: "I would like to tell the president, I think, and, and it's presumptuous of me, but I genuinely think that we have underestimated the scope of the enemy, the dedication of the enemy and the threat that it poses to the United States. I think someone should have gone to the president when the, when the discussion of going to Iraq was broached and have said, Mr. President, this is something that can only help Osama bin Laden. Whatever the danger posed by Saddam, whatever weapons he had, is almost irrelevant in that the boost it would give to al-Qaida was easily seen. And if that message wasn't delivered, then I think there was a mistake made. I also think that Mr. Lincoln's view that one war at a time is plenty is probably a good piece of guidance."

Mitchell: "Now, you told the 9/11 commission that there were people in the agency who basically ignored the advice of your unit, the Osama bin Laden station, because they thought you were a little over the top, a little too zealous."

Anonymous: "Yes. I think we, we were certainly convinced by late in 1996 that we had an organization that was militarily competent, that was structured in a way that made it very difficult to isolate and attack, in the sense that it was structured in 40 or 50 countries around the world…"

Mitchell: "Do you think, do you think that your advice was ignored? Did they, did the people within the CIA, the people in charge think that you were all exaggerating the threat of Osama bin Laden before 9/11?"

Anonymous: "I'm not sure if the people thought we were exaggerating so much as they just didn't take it very seriously at all. They thought that bin Laden was just one more terrorist on a list of terrorists. I really believe Mr. Tenet was the one person who did take it seriously almost from the start, but the rest of the senior leadership in much of the intelligence community, I think, did not take it seriously.
"But I think the most important failure was in the, in the years between 1996 and 2001, the failure to correct obvious dysfunctions within the intelligence community was what led in large part to no one being able to claim that the intelligence community did the best it could before 9/11. They were failures of cooperation, failures of leadership that were brought to the attention of the senior-most members of the intelligence community and to the attention of some people at the NSC. And whether or not they ever got to the people who could actually change things, to the, to the committees in the Congress or to the president, to our elected leaders, I'm not sure.
"I know for, for many years we told various members of the Congress and the executive branch that there was seamless cooperation between the FBI and the CIA. And from my seat and from — and admittedly, from a very small portion of the total relationship between those two organizations— I cannot imagine that in any way that could have been true."

Mitchell: "The CIA and the FBI weren't cooperating even though they were supposedly assigned together in the counterterrorism which you worked."

Anonymous: "From my — over my career in the intelligence community, the CIA is an organization that produces intelligence for the rest of the government. The idea that somehow we, somehow the CIA produced information and didn't share it is a, a, a shibboleth that, that receives wide repetition. In my experience, the flow of information out of CIA to the community is extraordinary.
"The people, as I understand it, the people who were placed in the terrorism components of the intelligence community from FBI or other U.S. government agencies were put there to ensure that the CIA did not become involved with domestic U.S. criminal prosecutions, looking at U.S. citizens— anything that was beyond our purview, our legal statutory responsibilities. And so they brought in officers from other agencies who, again, in my knowledge, read everything that a CIA officer would read. And their responsibility was to cull through that information and return it, as appropriate, to their own headquarters for use domestically, something that was, again, meant to ensure the rights, the privileges of American citizens. And rightly so.
"My biggest experience was that was not done. And I think if there is a failure in these various investigations of 9/11, it's, it lies in the fact that many members seconded to the counterterrorist arena did not perform the intermediary job they were assigned to perform."

Mitchell: "According to Steve Coll of the Washington Post and his book, the White House complained over the course of several years to George Tenet that you were too myopic in your approach to bin Laden. Do you want to respond to that?"

Anonymous: "Let me say that within the intelligence community there was a group of officers, mostly women, very young, who worked extraordinary hours, who gave up vacations, delayed operations, and ruined marriages because, by the fall of 1996, they had recognized the threat posed to the United States by bin Laden and al-Qaida and the rising tide of, of the resentment in the Islamic world directed against U.S. policies; and that those two factors— the lethality of bin Laden's organization and the increasing ire of Muslims against America who were coming together in a way that threatened the United States.
"I can't take any personal credit for identifying that. My role, to the extent I had one, was to bring forth the findings of those extraordinary officers and their extraordinary colleagues in the field."

Mitchell: "But what about the criticism that you were too myopic?

Anonymous: "‘Myopic’ is generally a term for ‘fanatic’ that's used by senior bureaucrats when you're delivering a message that they don't want to take to the White House. I genuinely don't believe that an elected official, whether it's the President of the United States or a congressman or a senator, would not want to hear the truth. My suspicion is that accusations of fanaticism or myopic focus came from senior bureaucrats at the White House rather than anyone else.
"But the book explains. And it's one guy's opinion. You need to take it for what it's worth. My own experience in the intelligence community for the past now almost 10 years on this particular issue is that the hard, hard truth has not been delivered to the elected officials. Certainly the truth that — as it is seen by the people who work the issue on a day-to-day basis has not been delivered — again, with the possible exception of, of Mr. Tenet, who, to his credit, recognized this early on, perhaps did not as much as he could to drive the community to address the issue."

Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"

Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."

Mitchell: "Even if it means civilian casualties?"

Anonymous: "That's the way war is. I've never really understood the idea that any American government, any American elected official is responsible for protecting civilians who are not Americans. My experience working against bin Laden was there was multiple occasions when we did not take advantage of an opportunity to solve the problem because we were afraid of killing a civilian, we were afraid of hitting a mosque with shrapnel, we were afraid of disrupting sales of arms overseas. Very seldom in my career have I ever heard anyone ask what happens if we don't do this.
My own opinion is we should err on the side of protecting Americans first. And if we make a mistake in that kind of action, I think the American people will accept that. It's — this is a matter of survival. This is not a nuisance anymore. No one wants to be bloodthirsty, but we're at a position in this war where we've cornered ourselves in many ways, to the point where only the military option is available to us. And if we don't use that, and we continue to pursue the policies we are pursuing, then it's a very dicey situation for America…that the war in Iraq was bin Laden's dream come true."

Mitchell: "You've said that you think the war in Iraq motivated bin Laden. What do you think the impact of the war in Iraq was on bin Laden?"

Anonymous: "Bin Laden, I think, and al-Qaida and other of America's enemies in the Islamic world certainly saw the invasion of Iraq as a, if you would, a Christmas gift they always wanted and never expected to get. It validated what they all said about American aggressiveness against Islam. It made us the occupiers of the second holiest place for Muslims in the world. In fact, now we are occupying, in the eyes of our opponents, we're occupying the two holiest places, Saudi Arabia, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and the Israelis are occupying the third, in Jerusalem. The reaction of the clerical community to our invasion of the Islamic clerical community to our invasion of Iraq was uniformly negative."

Mitchell: "So what, what is the war in Iraq to bin Laden?

Anonymous: "It is, I think, a proof of his thesis that America is malignantly inclined toward Muslims, that it is willing to attack a Muslim country that dares to defy it, that it is willing to do most anything to defend Israel. It's certainly viewed as an action which is meant to assist the Israeli state. It is in every way predictably, if you will, a godsend for those Muslims who believe as bin Laden does."

Mitchell: "It's a dream come true."

Anonymous: "If you're familiar with that wonderful Christmas movie, ‘The Christmas Story,’ at the end of the day, Ralphie getting his air rifle even though his mother was worried his eye would get shot out. It's a terrific gift."

Mitchell: "OK. Thank you very much."

Anonymous: "You're welcome."

Post of the dizzy fa'shizzy

2004-06-23T15:38:00.000-04:00

"The closest to perfection a person ever comes is when he fills out a job application form."
--Stanley J. Randall

Media Control

2004-06-11T22:53:00.000-04:00

"The role of the media in contemporary politics forces us to ask: What Kind of a world and what kind of a society we want to live in, and in particular, in what sense of democracy do we want this to be a democratic society? The issue is whether we want to live in a free society or whether we want to live under what amounts to a form of self-imposed totalitarianism, with the bewildered herd marginalized, directed elsewhere, terrified, screaming patriotic slogans, fearing for their lives, and admiring with awe the leader who saved them from destruction, while the educated masses goose-step on command and repeat the slogans they're supposed to repeat and the society deteriorates at home. We end up serving as a mercenary enforcer state, hoping that others are going to pay us to smash up the world."

-Noam Chomsky

And this is just the jacket. Chomsky puts a difficult subject in plain language (as only he can) in Media Control, The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. Although the heading is quite telling, he describes our democratic system as it is versus how it should be classically defined. Chomsky writes of a business-run society where it is necessary to marginalize and properly distract the ignorant masses in order to put forth plans and policies that would otherwise be unacceptable to these masses. Time and time again these masses have communicated enough to voice political concern only to be incapacitated and overwhelmed by the elite. Although it may push you to disgruntlement, remember that we are not alone and exposure to these ideas and facts is the first step toward a massive realization of the truth.

Thanks to Joel, again, for passing along another Chomsky gem. Peace.

2004-06-06T19:33:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting site for any aspiring biblical analysts out there... http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Thanks, Jeff.

Time to CYA, CIA

2004-06-03T18:05:00.000-04:00

Main-stream media has hit us with the "sudden" resignation of CIA director, George Tenet today. Because I am virtually unemployed, I was fortunate enough to catch the "special report" as it interrupted my therapeutic soak in daytime smut. As soon as this otherwise meaningless news hit my ear, I posed some questions to the empty room around me. Firstly, I tend to doubt that Tenet's decision was based solely, as he put it, "on the wellbeing of his family." A man who has spent a government career giving his time to the most powerful agency in the "free world", who has been exposed to actions and information that the average working American can not even imagine enough to fear, and who has learned the sacred mechanics behind our capitalist war machine suddenly pulls out? I see other factors that should be known as possible reasons for resignation. How about shame for the murder of thousands upon thousands of "common" Americans that has lead to several unanswerable questions recently trickling upon his desk from a confused and frustrated public? A limit was no doubt reached in his ability to "stay the course" that the warmongering big business Bush buddies have set. Appointed henchmen seem to be getting shaky and beginning to drop.

Lastly, the most obvious question remains. What does this say about our current status abroad when the man who potentially knows the most about it tucks tail out of fear for the safety of his own family here in the states? The message is clear. Let's go Leafs!

2004-05-26T16:07:00.000-04:00

"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers." -- Mignon McLaughlin

READER CONTRIBUTION: Ahem...

2004-05-24T11:38:00.000-04:00

...as Principal Weatherbee would say.

I visited a certain Fox news website (www.foxnews.com) for curiosity purposes and noticed a huge ad for hats being sold with "W" on it. The ad said to show your support for Bush this election year. I propose the question; "Are ethics still involved in Journalism" and if so, why the f-ing ad? Is bias a matter of the wallet? Does shopping on the web continue politically on news sites? And if so, is Canada still open?

My last question, which could be the most important, is that how can a network that has had politically ambigous programming such as the Family Guy and The Simpsons glide so far one way when it comes to news? Now I wanted to be anti-rebel rouser when sending this, so I sent to people on both sides. Good and wrong.

Discuss

--Contributed by Jeff Williams, 22 May 04

Capitalist Dogma, Part 1

2004-05-18T22:30:00.000-04:00

By now, I am sure you have heard the liberal theory that our foreign policies may be economically driven. The obvious connection pointed out is usually the simplest and most memorable. In our case it's the connection of our president, check that, our entire administration's ties to oil and defense corporations that clearly profit from efforts such as the "liberation of Iraq." This is frustrating enough. My frustrations are motivating me to dig a bit into our country's history. The more facts I find, the more I realize what most of us were taught was not fact. It's clear that the "winners write the history books." This I will elaborate on in later blogs. For now, I will focus on a recorded history of economic motives cloaked in the public appeal of human rights and liberation.

Rather than clouding the site with a time line, I will also choose the simplest and most memorable. Prior to World War II we depicted a horrible villain to our public, Adolf Hitler, who was on a familiar quest for what he felt was just. The quest was for a rapid spread of his culture and economy by conquering surrounding cultures using (among other methods) murder, slavery, and economic strangulation. The "free" world clearly saw this as a cause for liberation, and America (knowing a good deal) jumped on board at all cost. This sounds familiar already, no? So, eventually we cause an increased hell for all cultures in eastern Europe until finally we "liberate" them. The horrible terror is gone, and now Europe is presented to America as a pathetic mess. The Marshall Plan (the European Recovery Program) was then enacted. In the next four years, 12 billion US dollars was selectively pumped into war-torn European countries willing to participate in the "rebuilding" process. We are so generous to others in hard times...god bless us. This Marshall Plan can also be described as "an extension of a capitalist plan for American economic domination."(Kenneth Davis) Just as it is today, "if there was no organized Europe to sell to, who would buy all those products the American industrial machine was turning out?" As the common American saw it, we did wonderful things and gave life to those in torment. As big-business saw it...chaching!

How does this relate to our current conquests? How does it not? For me, it is clear. War, especially in the middle-east, yields an obvious profit to companies such as defense contractors, oil/energy corporations, and private security agencies. More importantly to our system, and less obvious, is the spread of a strong "capitalist plan for American economic domination." The modernized Marshall Plan continues to aid us on our present-day conquests funded by a mis-lead general public. The majority of the American public, like in earlier times, is happy to contribute in order to promote "peace, life, and liberty." I, however, feel that this "blank check" has been over-drawn.

Let us see how capitalism survives without spending American lives and tax dollars in order to promote it. And to this administration: Please stop organizing a personal profit through foreign affairs and unnecessary warfare. The world is watching!!

The World At Large

2004-05-16T20:25:00.000-04:00

by Isaac Brock

Ice-age heat wave, can't complain.
If the world's at large, why should I remain?
Walked away to another plan.
Gonna find another place, maybe one I can stand.

I move on to another day,
to a whole new town with a whole new way.
Went to the porch to have a thought.
Got to the door and again, I couldn't stop.

You don't know where, and you don't know when.
But you still got your words, and you got your friends.
Walk along to another day.
Work a little harder, work another way.

Well uh-uh baby, I aint got no plan.
We'll float on maybe would you understand?

The days get shorter and the nights get cold.
I like the autumn, but this place is getting old.
I pack my belongings and I head for the coast.
May not be a lot, but I feel like I'm making the most.

The days get longer and the nights smell green.
I guess it's not surprising, but it's spring and I should leave.
I like songs about drifters and books about the same.
They both seem to make me feel a little less insane.

Walked on off to another spot.
I still haven't got anywhere that I want.
Did I want love? Did I need to know?
Why does it always feel like I'm caught in an undertow?

The moths beat themselves to death against the lights.
Adding their breeze to the summer nights.
Outside, water like air was great.
I didn't know what I had that day.

Walk a little farther to another plan.
You said that you did, but you didn't understand.
I know that starting over is not what life's about.
But my thoughts were so lound I couldn't hear my mouth.
My thoughts were so loud...

Bratwurst and Labor -- Who Knew?

2004-05-13T08:57:00.000-04:00

Just read an article in today's Wall Street Journal about VW's woes this year, coming on the heels of a miserable launch of the pricey '04 Golf, nicely equipped for $24K... (Wealthy Drivers Wanted)... and the obvious horrendous sales of the luxury Patheticon... did ANYONE really pay $70 grand for a VeeWee? C'mon...

In any case, an interesting side-note about German law. Noted in the article is the fact that all corporations must adhere to a strict law stating that half of seats of the board of directors must be filled by employee representatives. Take that US labor unions! John Gotti would role over in his watery grave for the opportunity to reek such havoc!

In my truly humble opinion, this is such a wonderful idea. Talk about checks and balances. Imagine if American corporations were required to fung-shuai the same way? No more crack-head multi-millionaires wheeling their swords like a friggin nut-job in an hall of mirrors! Seriously, do you think that MCI, no wait, WorldCom, no wait, back to MCI, would ever have gone bankrupt if some rich assholes on the board were able to make such asinine decisions that could crumble a telecommunications giant in a few short months?... perhaps it still would've happened. But I doubt it, if Joe Blue Collar would've been sitting at the table asking, "What the fuck are you prep-school Ivy League assholes thinking?! Sit down and take another one of Mommy's valuum!"

Peace in Greece... hardly

That's What Friends Are For

2004-05-06T23:25:00.000-04:00

As is the case with any newly budding collaboration, sometimes the creators disagree. In this case, I feel I must poor some light on the shadows casted by my fellow "co-editor" (who I respect dearly).

I am sure he too would agree that it is our right to form our own opinions, especially when it comes to such trivial things as primetime entertainment. In these confusing days..."opinions are like kittens, always giving them away" (for all you early modest mouse fans).

I, for one of 50 or 60 million, watched the finale of Friends tonight. Although the last season to 10 years of front running television left me visualizing the short arms and deep pockets of the nbc writing staff, I felt I had to pay my respects. I believe the Wu Tang referred to the Simpsons and Seinfeld in his antipop revolt. I also put these two shows far above Friends, but am blessed with the time and curiosity to open my mind to other well written powerhouse network television. Americans have every right to watch and enjoy shows like this. Comparing any of these shows to each other is like apples and oranges. The bottom line is that people (an arguable majority) can relate and find comfort in characters such as Ross, Rachel, Joey, Chandler, Monica, and Pheobe (thats right I named 'em). We, as AMERICANS, are entitled to our simple comforts, however disliked they are among the minority that has to try hard not to watch an episode or two.

So, in closing, I encourage everyone to watch what you want (just not the commercials...fear the neuromarketing). Be happy when you can, these writers and programs are the best of the best given to you in short, easy to swallow tablets of comfort. That sweet warm glow of the tele. Even the Simpsons can't deny their love for the warm glow of pop culture. Live on, whatever, whenever...who cares.

Friends Sucks

2004-05-06T13:37:00.000-04:00

"Aight, yo, this goes out to all my boys who are goin' to be stuck watching the final episode of a shitty sit-com tonight!"

Face it. Its a ridiculous show that "jumped the shark" a long, LONG time ago, not that it was ever good to begin with... alright, when Jennifer Aniston kissed Winona Ryder that was awesome... but besides that, what the hell was that show about? A bunch of people that were so completely obnoxious that they never could make any other friends except for themselves? Get real...

Now, take for instance, the two greatest television shows of our time (no offense, Baywatch), Seinfeld and The Simpsons were pure, unadulterated comic genius, and in the case of The Simpsons, still is. The names Kramer and Homer are buzzwords of not only their respective hit television comedies, but those two characters have developed an entire language (albeit body-language in Kramer's case - and Homer too) for gen Xers, if that's what we're still called. The creators and writers of The Simpsons took a would-be plot about a boy with a potty mouth that likes to skateboard and turned it into a running political, historical and even theological (on more than one occasion) commentary. Pure brilliance to the masses that could comprehend such genius.

And so I say, in parting words, Friends sucks... but I'll probably have to watch it anyway...

The Corporation

2004-05-06T12:49:00.000-04:00

Familiar Villain Emerges
In Dark Documentary Film

By IANTHE JEANNE DUGAN and DENNIS K. BERMAN
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
May 6, 2004; Page B1

CEOs in handcuffs march across the screen. Bolivians riot in the streets to wrest control of their drinking water away from a business consortium. Cows with inflamed udders walk by, allegedly harmed by growth hormones. Even Kathy Lee Gifford appears, expressing her dismay that child laborers made clothes sold under her label.

The scenes unfold in "The Corporation," a Canadian documentary creating a stir with an unusually harsh critique of big business. Between vignettes, the screen fills with a white page from the World Health Organization's Manual of Mental Disorders. A big red check mark appears next to symptoms of antisocial personality disorder, or psychopathic behavior. Soon, all the boxes are checked off -- from "callous unconcern for the feelings of others" to "an incapacity to maintain enduring relationships."

On screen, Robert Hare, a psychiatrist who consults on psychopaths for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, concludes: "In many respects, corporations are the prototypical psychopath."

It's an exceedingly dim view of modern companies, and it has helped a Canadian documentary win the kind of international momentum most independent filmmakers only dream of. Since opening in Toronto in January, "The Corporation," which took six years and nearly $1 million to make, has packed theaters in Canada and broken domestic box-office records for a homegrown documentary. It has aired on TVOntario, the broadcaster that helped bankroll the film. It won the Documentary Audience Award for World Cinema at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year and is set to open in 19 U.S. cities next month. Distribution deals are lined up for Europe, Japan and Australia; a tie-in book was published in March.

'The Corporation' includes news clips of globalization protests.

After three years of corporate scandals and executive prosecutions, "The Corporation" is only the latest movie to put big business on the barbecue. Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" skewered the U.S. gun culture, the defense industry and the media, and it went on to win an Oscar for Best Documentary Feature last year. "Super Size Me," a low-budget film diary of one man's experience eating exclusively at McDonald's for one month, is set to open tomorrow on 37 screens, an unusually wide release for such a film.

"Documentaries are more exciting than canned fictional stories," says Alex Gibney, a filmmaker who is writing and directing his own entry in the genre, a documentary on Enron Corp. called "Black Magic" that is set to be released later this year.

"The Corporation" is a 145-minute fusillade of clips of present-day newscasts and interviews, juxtaposed with old black-and-white newsreel footage, corporate ads and cartoons. Painstakingly edited down from hundreds of hours of raw material by the film's third creator, Jennifer Abbott, it is a fast-moving collage, an ironic, surreal visual riff.

Parts are funny. One sequence that gets a laugh features a string of talking heads pronouncing the words, "Bad apple." Other sections are more pious. "What kind of a person is the corporation?" a woman's voice asks, at one point. A faceless man answers, "Persons who have no moral conscience."

Joel Bakan, a 44-year-old Canadian law professor, and Mark Achbar, a 48-year-old Canadian filmmaker, came up with the idea to illustrate how corporations have supplanted the government and the church as the dominant societal institution. Mr. Bakan was intrigued with the U.S. legal idea that corporations are like people, with rights to borrow money, buy and sell property and sue in court.

Predictably, the premise delights Noam Chomsky, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguist and long-time anticapitalist activist who appears in the film. "This is the first time I've heard the word 'psychopath' applied to corporations," he said in an interview, "and it's exactly right."

But others don't care for it. Toronto's Financial Post called the movie an "evil, ugly and dishonest pack of lies" by "cultural welfare recipients." The Winnipeg Free Press gave the film 3½ stars out of a possible five, taking the film to task for its "unremitting grimness," adding that it "might not be enough to get audiences out of the shopping malls and onto the streets."

Most of the companies mentioned in the movie declined to comment because they hadn't seen it. Pfizer Corp. comes off relatively unscathed. The film crew interviewed a vice president about the company's community involvement, including the donation of turnstiles at a subway station and an security intercom. The executive pushes a button to demonstrate and gives a huge smile. Nobody answers.

Bryant Haskins, a Pfizer spokesman, says executives haven't seen the movie, but he bought the book. "Had we known that this was about portraying the corporation as a psychopath, we wouldn't have cooperated," he says.

Still, the movie has found its audience. The University of Western Ontario's business school has made "The Corporation" the subject of a study group. A business school in the South of France, the Theseus International Management Institute, last month screened the film at its annual alumni conference and flew Mr. Bakan in to speak. "There is a very important change taking place in what society expects of the corporation," says Ahmet Aykac, the school's director. "We assigned rights and privileges yet none of the moral constraints of physical persons."

Actually, "The Corporation" does have a hero: Ray Anderson, chairman of Interface Inc., an Atlanta rug maker whose shares trade on the Nasdaq stock market. The movie shows Mr. Anderson close to tears while confessing that he was a "plunderer" of the Earth. A few years ago, he read Paul Hawkens's "The Ecology of Commerce," an indictment of modern industry's effect on the environment. Interface, with $924 million in sales and 5,500 employees, began recycling and taking other steps to protect the environment.

"The film makes us look pretty good, doesn't it?" Mr. Anderson says. When he showed up at a question-and-answer session after the Sundance screening in Salt Lake City, he got a standing ovation.

At one point in the film, Milton Friedman, the Nobel prize-winning economist, makes an appearance. "A corporation is simply an artificial legal structure," Dr. Friedman says in the film, "but the people who are engaged in it -- whether the stockholder, whether the executives in it, whether the employees -- they all have moral responsibilities."

In an interview, Dr. Friedman disagreed with Mr. Bakan's notion that more regulations are needed for corporations to behave more ethically. "The problem is that we have too much regulation, not too little," Dr. Friedman said. "The best punishment for a corporation is open competition."

--this article originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday, May 6, on the front page of Marketplace

Stern-tology

2004-04-30T16:47:00.000-04:00

Before you have a gag-reflex, just listen for a minute, won't take much time.

One morning, en route to becoming your "alternate ego," whether it be a hairdresser, custodian, CEO or lowly account executive, take a few minutes and catch Howard Stern.

Yes, I know that some of you think he's just a filthy old man, and you may be right, but listen to what he is standing up for. Beyond the audio T&A, there is a major debate raging, and if you aren't already, you should be VERY interested.

Under the rule of W, Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell and chairman of the FCC, is trying to put an end to free speech. I won't bore you with the minutiae, but take a minute to try to imagine the world we live in without the rights empowered to each and every one of us by the FIRST AMENDMENT.

George W, along with the assistance of Powell, is trying to turn this country into a bunch of self-righteous Christians, who believe "the cause is just," and feel no reason to try to think otherwise.

We AMERICANA are NOT PROTECTED unless we stand up for ourselves! Don't let this country become a dictatorship! Don't give up your voice!

Everyone Loves an Impeachment

2004-04-27T20:31:00.000-04:00

There are many guilty pleasures among americans. Car wrecks, boxing, bullriding, fast food, a good execution, and britney spears come to mind at this minute. However, I also feel that each american has within them a drive to join a cause and rise up to see it through. As it has been proven in several historic revolutionary movements, all we humans need is the proper motivation.

Ralph Nader is at it again. Although every elephant and jackass in the house has made it a back-burner mission to publicize him as delusional, the truth disagrees. Nader's latest efforts have won me over. It seems it's Bush-wackin' time and Ralph has found the right tool. Using a documented recent history of "at least five(5) untruths" and the resulting mayhem in Iraq, Nader has formed a petition to impeach both Bush and Cheney. I think many of us have watched and wondered how this hasn't been brought up earlier, but at least now we have "the proper motivation." It is the classic mob mentality, and Nader is proud to have the courage and the connections to rise for the cause. The basic proposition is to gain enough public approval to bring an investigation committee to congress. The investigation will lead to a motion to impeach, and bring change regardless of another potentially fixed election (that's right government monitors...fixed).

You can join the efforts of the brave Ralph Nader by signing the petition to impeach Bush and Cheney at www.VoteNader.org/get_involved/impeach.php

I ask america to drive by the car wreck, come to the rodeo wearing a Britney Spears t-shirt, and just see how this one pans out. We may as well help our fellow americans see how deep the "untruth" has perculated. Thanks for listening.

Also, thanks to Joel for keeping me posted on the latest from the Nader camp.

Brew Speak

2004-04-26T20:26:00.000-04:00

Yes indeed, 'tis time to unwind and let loose with a little brew chatter. In my last beer segment, I asked the difference between an ale and a lager. I have finally sorted through the countless responses to the piece (sarcasm), and can now share the brewer's truth about this family feud.

The difference comes in the fermentation process, so first let's define the most important step in the brewing process. Fermentation is the chemical breakdown of sugars by yeast (a single-celled microorganism) to yield consumable ethyl alcohol (a buzz) and carbon dioxide (suds).
A Lager is brewed with bottom fermenting yeast at cooler temperatures. This usually creates an aged, smooth, full bodied taste. Pilsners, such as most domestic beers, are brewed as lagers.
An Ale is brewed with top fermenting yeast, usually at warmer temperatures and for a relatively short period of time. The ale family includes most of my favorite beers, such as wheat beers (wheat and barley based with fruity aromas) and stouts among other groups. Many microbrewers stand by the ale family due to the ability to brew quickly and at room temperature with minimal equipment.

Since this is beginning to write like a school essay, I will not elaborate on this part of the brew process. I do think it is useful for beer drinkers to appreciate the process and definitions within the brew world in order to take drinking the end result to a new level.

It would be great to get some new info and ideas on the subject, so feel free to email us and share some new sites or brews to try. Also, we are opening up the great gates of blog to anyone who emails some text to be considered. Peace, and enjoy your beer.

Another Day, Another Dollar

2004-04-22T21:06:00.000-04:00

I have tried all too long to hold down this beast of a frustration with our social matrix. Those of you who know me may be choking on your spritzers as you read yet another one of my many descriptions of an embellished problem with no tangible solution.

As I drove home tonight, from my newly acquired retail position at a shop designed by and for people in a tax bracket that I will never block print on my 1040, I finally understood a growing issue in this nation formerly known as great. (how's that for a run-on...f- you)

The problem can be boiled down to a concentrated over-generalization as follows. Wages, particularly in this part of the country, don't seem to be proportionate to the increased standard of living. I have many theoretical explanations for this, and will provide only a few to make my point. Most businesses are obviously driven to make a profit, meaning as little overhead as possible. Gasoline prices, taxes, material costs, and energy demands are all on the increase due to economic and foreign affairs management plans that are unacceptable. These costs force businesses to offer minimal wages even in areas with outrageous standards of living, including Connecticut. Many production companies are even encouraged to seek labor overseas by the same economic, foreign affairs, and trade policies that drive up the production costs initially. The result seems to be a greed powered steam engine barreling out of control and polluting along the way.

If there is no control of the standard of living combined with efforts to keep wages in proportion to these social standards, how is this economy to evolve? More over, how will I and my family survive? Then again, maybe someone is in control and everything is going according to plan. Good luck to you, young working class.

Email us...thegoldenrationale@yahoo.com

Beer is Proof

2004-04-21T18:18:00.000-04:00

I will skip a pompous self-introduction to the blogger scene and begin with a tribute my favorite human discovery...beer.

"Beer is proof that the good lord loves us, and wants us all to be happy."
Our goofiest founding father, and life-long brewer, Benjamin Franklin claims rights to that statement. Whether you agree with his theological reference or not, you must admit the man had a point.
I say favorite not only because of beer's reliable ability to make things better, but more because of the complex chemical reactions and intricacies that each brewer tweaks to create an original and creative product. This is a blog for another day. For now, I give you my tribute in the form of a review of my current top 5 best loved brews. Like a bad VH1 feature, I too will begin with number 5.

5. Sierra Nevada - Although taxonomists tend to overclassify this gem as an IPA (India Pale Ale), its fruity kick and smooth darker finish put it in a category all its own on my list. Unfiltered and brewed micro style, each bottle seems to taste different, and even leaves sediment to keep me feeling like a man. If price is no object, this is my favorite all night drinkin' buddy.
4. Shipyard, Pumpkinhead Ale - The Shipyard sold me quick on the pumpkin. Its seasonal, but I am fortunate to have a packy nearby who over stocked long enough to hook me. Its actually brewed with pumpkin and ginger in the mash, making for an awesome bud shocker, but I find it is good only in moderation.
3. Oak Creek Amber Ale - The scenery may have something to do with this one. I found this in Sedona, Arizona brewed by Oak Creek Brewing Company. After a long day in the red-rocks, I was revived by the greatest tasting depressant west of the Apache Trail. Smooth, dark, full, and hoppy.
2. Fat Tire - Brewed by the New Belgium Brewing Company; Fort Collins, Colorado. I have yet to see this one on the east coast, and we yanks are surely missing out. Its micro blended after the classic belgium beauties in style. An awesome toasty malt flavor blended with a fresh hoppy fruit kicker. A reason all its own to buy a ticket westward.
1. Magic Hat #9 - Thats right, of all that I have had and have loved, this is my all time cake-taker. Magic Hat (in South Burlington, VT) tends to skip around on styles and blends, but they have remained true to me and stuck by the obvious bread winner. In short, it is a darker pale ale with hints of fruity apricot flavors and just the right amount of hop tang. I had a friend take one sip for the first time and say, "I could drink the shit out of this!" Whatever that meant, I agreed.

So there it is my top 5. What's yours? I would love to hear some new must-tries. Hit us with a note if you care to spread the good word.
I will end this one with a quiz question for any brew nut out there, and for the rest of us to share as party wisdom.

What is the difference between an ale and a lager?
Email the answer or wait until this brewdork writes again. I would like to say there is a prize for the right answer, but this is america. Cheers!

Global Warming Sux and so do You!

2004-04-20T21:36:00.000-04:00

That's right boys and girls--OK, let's be realistic, we're all just consumers, regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.

Call me a bleeding heart liberal, and you'd be wrong. I'm a realist. Within 100 years, the earth will be no more, at least not as we know it. It will more resemble Mars.

We're killing the earth, quite quickly. And the worst part is, none of us can do anything about it, but sit idly by and keep consuming. And our grandchildren will ask why we did just that.