The Mound of Sound

Americans have spent an enormous amount of time, energy and money over the past half century to convince themselves that they had finally left behind their nation’s horrible racist history.

Even if Barack Obama should lose to McCain in November, he’ll have done his country an invaluable service by exposing just how alive and well racism is in today’s America, among Democrats as well as Republicans, even among some feminists who ought to be the last to tolerate much less embrace racial bigotry.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen calls it “A Campaign to Hate.”

“Wherever I go — from glittering dinner party to glittering dinner party — the famous and powerful people I meet (for such is my life) tell me how lucky I am to be a journalist in this the greatest of all presidential contests. I tell them, for I am wont to please, that this campaign is indeed great when, as history will record, it is not. I have come to loathe the campaign.

I loathe above all the resurgence of racism — or maybe it is merely my appreciation of the fact that it is wider and deeper than I thought. I am stunned by the numbers of people who have come out to vote against Barack Obama because he is black. I am even more stunned that many of these people have no compunction about telling a pollster they voted on account of race — one in five whites in Kentucky, for instance. Those voters didn’t even know enough to lie, which is what, if you look at the numbers, others probably did in other states. Such honesty ought to be commendable. It is, instead, frightening.

…So I see little to be happy about, little that pleases my jaundiced eye. Yes, voter participation is way up and in the end, the Democrats will choose a woman or an African American and, to invoke that tiresome phrase, history will be made. But this messy nominating process has eroded the standing of both candidates. It has highlighted the reality that racism still runs deep and that misogyny, although more imagined than real, is not yet a wholly spent force. This is an ugly porridge that has been placed before us, turned rancid since the cold, pristine days of Iowa only five months ago. We were, with apologies to Bob Dylan, so much younger then. “

Bill Clinton used to know how to keep his cool. His ability to maintain his composure no matter how many times he got caught lying his ass off, mainly about his chronic inability to keep it in his pants, was instrumental in helping him survive the Republican’s attempted impeachment coup.

Let’s remember, the Republicans paid dearly for going after Bill because they weren’t able to make a fatal dent in his public support. That might’ve been much different had then president Clinton revealed the ugly temper he’s shown so often during his wife’s campaign for the Democratic nomination.

It’s not that Bill doesn’t have reason to be upset. This nomination, after all, was supposed to be hers in a cakewalk. She was so far ahead of all the other Democratic candidates combined that she was as unsinkable as the Titanic.

It’s useful to recall that Hillary, not Obama, had the black vote sewn up. Black voters were devoted fans of Bill Clinton. Barack Obama didn’t steal those votes, the Clinton camp drove them out with their repeated race-baiting stunts. That was an event of seismic proportions that shook the black community. Interestingly enough it was Bill, not Hillary, who began that blunder.

And the Clinton campaign just kept tripping over a string of blunders. When she realized that what she had wasn’t selling, Hillary kept trying to re-invent herself and pandered shamelessly to one group after another. She downed boilermakers with the blue collar crowd in Pennsylvania and professed her love for hot peppers to the Latino voters in Texas and showed up wearing an Indian necklace to appeal to South Dakota natives who had already decided to back Obama. Then there was that miserable “3 a.m.” phone call ad, her attempt to knife Obama in the back by saying only she and McCain were experienced enough to be commander in chief, her crack about “I think he’s a Christian,” the one about her exclusive affinitity to “hard working Americans, white Americans,” the outright and oft-repeated lie about braving sniper fire, the Bobby Kennedy assassination ploy. All this and more and yet Mrs. William Clinton and her rabid supporters claim the nomination was stolen from her. That is a pathetic, bordering on sick, joke.

Yet Bill still contends that “she wuz robbed.” Of course it’s the media’s fault, especially the black media, those disloyal, ungrateful darkies. This campaign has shown the ugly side of Bill Clinton.

The New York Times’ own black columnist, Bob Herbert, plainly won’t be sad to see the Big Dog depart from the campaign:

“The cry of “McCain in ’08!” at the Democratic rules committee meeting in Washington over the weekend came from a supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton.

It reminded me of Bill Clinton’s comment that “it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country.”

He was talking about Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The former president’s comment played right into the sustained effort by opponents of Barack Obama to portray the senator as some kind of alien figure, less than patriotic, not fully American, too strange by half to be handed the reins of government.

This was supposed to have been the Democrats’ year. But instead of marching to victory, the party has been at war with itself in some of the ugliest ways imaginable. There was a time, not that long ago, when Democratic voters were crowing about how happy they were with all (or almost all) of the potential nominees.

But the Clinton and Obama partisans spent months fighting bitterly on the toxic terrain of misogyny, racism and religion. It can only make you wonder about the vaunted Democratic claims of moral superiority when it comes to tolerance.

This should have been the year when the Democrats just hammered the Republicans over the economy, the war, energy policy, health care, appointments to the Supreme Court, the failure to rebuild New Orleans, and so on. The list of important issues on which the Republicans are vulnerable is endless.

There is no end of blame to be apportioned among the Democrats. The Clintons have behaved execrably. But weak-willed party leaders showed neither the courage nor the inclination to stop them from fracturing the party along gender and ethnic lines.

As for Senator Obama, he’s been mired in a series of problems of his own — problems that have done serious damage to the very idea that brought him to national prominence in the first place: that he was a new breed of political leader, a unifying candidate who could begin to narrow the partisan divides of race, class and even, to some extent, political persuasion.”

The federal government is running in the red and it should bring cheers from all of us.

Transport Canada’s “clean car” rebate programme is running far over budget. The government earmarked $160-million for the two year programme. The department now expects to spend up to $145-million of that in the first year alone.

So, will the Harper Cons build on this success, one of the few they can boast about? Not likely.
Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon says the Reformatories have no intention of expanding the programme because it “served its purpose.”

Way to go, you clowns.

The BC government has warned it may intervene to keep the Harper government from shutting Vancouver’s safe injection clinic, Insite.

Last week a BC Supreme Court judge, Ian Pitfield, ruled that Insite is a health care facility for drug addicts and, as such, can stay open despite the wacko fundamentalist views of the Harpies. The Cons have announced they’ll appeal that decision so they can shut down the clinic.

This is an issue that puts Harper squarely at odds with the people and government of British Columbia. The safe injection clinic where addicts are given clean needles and a place to use them under limited medical supervision is strongly supported in this province in part because it’s also the one place where addicts can get counselling and access to rehabilitation programmes.

BC Health Minister George Abbott was unequivocal in expressing his government’s support for Insite. “It is a very important case involving a health facility we believe is important in the continuum of care for people with addictions and for people with mental illness.” Abbott suggested that what British Columbia needs isn’t the end of Insite but more such clinics.

Most of this province isn’t keen on Harper’s social conservative ways, especially not in major population centres. BC is also more tolerant of drug use than other provinces which is reflected in relatively light sentencing in criminal cases.

But, if the Furious Leader wants a fight on this issue, he couldn’t have picked a better place for it in my view. If he wants a fight, a fight he’ll get and, next time, all the cameras will be on Lardo. He may suddenly find that he’s the one who’s really on trial out here. Welcome to Beautiful British Columbia, Steve, c’mon in!

Legendary bluesman Bo Diddley will play no more. Diddley died today at his home in Florida at age 79.

It was early in Bush’s first term and we were all getting used to his malapropisms and other grammatical blunders. It seemed that, whenever the president of the United States opened his mouth (and wasn’t reading from a speech), something goofy was almost sure to come out.

Some took that as a sign that Bush was genuinely moronic. Yet we keep getting assured that the guy is actually fairly bright, not that there have been many tangible signs of that.

But early on I read a report of an American linguistics prof who anaylyzed Bush’s candid speech and came up with a startling finding. There was one circumstance in which Bush always spoke with total clarity and coherence – when the topic was death.

Death has played a prominent role in little George’s life. He used his dad’s influence to get a posting in the air national guard in order to dodge the prospect of death fighting in Vietnam. When he was governor of Texas, condemned prisoners were toast. It was said that Bush never saw a death warrant he didn’t like and he signed them all as they came across his desk.

But death has never been as central to Bush’s life as it has since 2001, beginning with the invasion of Afghanistan. It was the conquest of Iraq two years later, however, that saw the Bush legacy really steeped in blood as tens, probably hundreds of thousands, of innocents died in the aftermath of the botched occupation.

It turns out that there were times when Bush’s blood lust was blatant, at least to those around him. US Army general Ricardo Sanchez recounts the bloodthirsty bent of his commander in chief in Sanchez’ memoir, “Wiser in Battle,” in which he relates what passed during a video conference call between Sanchez and Bremer in Baghdad and Bush, Powell and Rumsfeld in Washington during the reduction of the Sunni city of Falujah. From AlterNet:

According to Sanchez, Powell was talking tough that day: “We’ve got to smash somebody’s ass quickly,” the general reports him saying. “There has to be a total victory somewhere. We must have a brute demonstration of power.” (And indeed, by the end of April, parts of Fallujah would be in ruins, as, by August, would expanses of the oldest parts of the holy Shiite city of Najaf. Sadr himself would, however, escape to fight another day; and, in order to declare Powell’s “total victory,” the U.S. military would have to return to Fallujah that November, after the U.S. presidential election, and reduce three-quarters of it to virtual rubble). Bush then turned to the subject of al-Sadr: “At the end of this campaign al-Sadr must be gone,” he insisted to his top advisors. “At a minimum, he will be arrested. It is essential he be wiped out.”

Not long after that, the President “launched” what an evidently bewildered Sanchez politely describes as “a kind of confused pep talk regarding both Fallujah and our upcoming southern campaign [against the Mahdi Army].” Here then is that “pep talk.” While you read it, try to imagine anything like it coming out of the mouth of any other American president, or anything not like it coming out of the mouth of any evil enemy leader in the films of the President’s — and my — childhood:

“‘Kick ass!’ [Bush] said, echoing Colin Powell’s tough talk. ‘If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can’t send that message. It’s an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal.

“There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!'”

The last six years have been one long John Wayne moment for George w. Bush and he’s relished them to the full. What remains to be seen is how many more commander in chief moments will Bush try to cram in before he’s given his eviction notice. Could he “do” Iran, even if just for the fun of it?

And what sort of world awaits Bush come January when he’s back at the ranch in Crawford and there’s no one left he can kill? Not even a stack of death warrants to sign. How’s the guy going to cope in a strange, small world in which everyone lives?

Up til now we’ve been content to view science as something for the geeks – essential, sure, but that’s why we have geeks, right?

Whether we like it or not, our dismissive attitude may not work for us much longer. We’re on the dawn of an age where holding well-informed scientific views is going to be essential to how we live and even how we vote.

Our parents’ world, our grandparents’ world is now much in the past. That world is gone, utterly gone, and it isn’t coming back for centuries. When I was born the world’s population had just set an all-time record of 2-billion people. Little more than half a century later and we’ve bumped that all-time record to 6.5-billion people which we expect to hit 9-billion before the next half-century is out. Just churn that over for a minute and digest it.

For all the thousands of years of our civilization, it wasn’t until about 1814 that we first broke the billion-person mark. 140-years or so later than that, we’d doubled that record. Barely another 60-years yet, we’d gotten 6.5 times more populous than we were when the record was set in 1814. In another 50-years we’re looking to be bigger by up to half again. This is something we really need to come to grips with in order to create the informed citizenry we’re going to require in just a decade from now.

Here’s something to chew on. There is a host of very important, social change decisions that will have to be taken, on a regular basis, fairly soon. What you need to bear in mind is that someone is going to be taking those decisions, one way or the other. If we don’t recover our ability to make suitably important decisions in these critical times, we run the very real risk of that core power of our democracy becoming forfeit to others who believe they will make the decisions for us. Also bear in mind that those who usurp this power can’t necessarily be trusted to make the best decisions in our interest.

Without wanting to sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, there is a tendency today and has been for about two decades of dumbing down the public. People seem to be transforming into cogs, losing their intellectual and political robustness. This sort of thing needs to be reversed if we’re not to let our political freedom slip through our fingers. A New York Times article by Columbia physics prof Brian Greene suggests the key may be in science:

A COUPLE of years ago I received a letter from an American soldier in Iraq. The letter began by saying that, as we’ve all become painfully aware, serving on the front lines is physically exhausting and emotionally debilitating. But the reason for his writing was to tell me that in that hostile and lonely environment, a book I’d written had become a kind of lifeline. As the book is about science — one that traces physicists’ search for nature’s deepest laws — the soldier’s letter might strike you as, well, odd.

But it’s not. Rather, it speaks to the powerful role science can play in giving life context and meaning. At the same time, the soldier’s letter emphasized something I’ve increasingly come to believe: our educational system fails to teach science in a way that allows students to integrate it into their lives.

Allow me a moment to explain.

When we consider the ubiquity of cellphones, iPods, personal computers and the Internet, it’s easy to see how science (and the technology to which it leads) is woven into the fabric of our day-to-day activities. When we benefit from CT scanners, M.R.I. devices, pacemakers and arterial stents, we can immediately appreciate how science affects the quality of our lives. When we assess the state of the world, and identify looming challenges like climate change, global pandemics, security threats and diminishing resources, we don’t hesitate in turning to science to gauge the problems and find solutions.

But here’s the thing. The reason science really matters runs deeper still. Science is a way of life. Science is a perspective. Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding in a manner that’s precise, predictive and reliable — a transformation, for those lucky enough to experience it, that is empowering and emotional. To be able to think through and grasp explanations — for everything from why the sky is blue to how life formed on earth — not because they are declared dogma but rather because they reveal patterns confirmed by experiment and observation, is one of the most precious of human experiences.

It’s striking that science is still widely viewed as merely a subject one studies in the classroom or an isolated body of largely esoteric knowledge that sometimes shows up in the “real” world in the form of technological or medical advances. In reality, science is a language of hope and inspiration, providing discoveries that fire the imagination and instill a sense of connection to our lives and our world.

Like a life without music, art or literature, a life without science is bereft of something that gives experience a rich and otherwise inaccessible dimension.”

This isn’t to say that we all need to become scientists, not at all. Fortunately our society’s ability to quickly disseminate their discoveries in a form we can comprehend them via the internet and other media is advancing rapidly.

We’ve certainly reached a critical mass of the production, dissemination and access to credible, lay science. RJ Reynolds and Big Oil aren’t gone yet, nor are their shills, but the world is changing, right in front of our eyes, day in and day out, and the list of unresolved challenges gets a bit longer every year.

They always knew their scam couldn’t last forever but that wasn’t what they’ve been after. They were there to buy time they otherwise wouldn’t have had, an extension, a little more time for another round of their rapacious and highly profitable ways.

There are big changes looming and they’ll bring big opportunities as well as big challenges. It would be naive to expect that we’ll all rally to these challenges to seek the greater good. There will certainly be individuals and industries that move to exploit it, to set up their interests against ours. The less we understand what’s happening the greater their prospects of prevailing against us.

That’s why it’s becoming important, vital even, that we re-open our minds to science.

The misery is almost over. Hillary Clinton swept the Puerto Rico primary today, for what that’s worth. Now there are just two states left – South Dakota and Montana, both of which are expected to be wins for Barack Obama.

The Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg wrote this touching obituary of the Clinton campaign:

“…A lifetime’s worth of ambitions, 16 years of acquaintances in the Democratic party establishment, 16 grinding months of rallies and debates, and $215m (£108m) in campaign funds, all now are exhausted.

So too was Clinton. Her face as she took the stage at the Pine Ridge reservation was drained of colour. People took pictures anyway. Those old enough to remember are still talking about the late Robert F Kennedy’s visit to this remote outpost during the 1968 campaign.

They were already talking about Clinton’s campaign in the same way: history. “I’m just curious to see her in person,” said Beverly Tuttle, a grandmother from nearby Porcupine. That was as far as it went. Tuttle was voting for Obama. “I’m looking at her more like a celebrity than candidate,” she said.

Clinton still has ardent supporters, even in a remote location such as Kyle (population 1,000). They just have been swifter than she has in recognising defeat. “She should be vice-president,” said Tangerine LeBeau, who is just 18 and will be voting for the very first time.

Strength and resolve can only carry Clinton so far. Obama has powerful backers in the west. Tom Daschle, a South Dakota native who was once Senate majority leader, was one of Obama’s earliest supporters. Obama’s deputy campaign manager is also from South Dakota.

Despite the courtship by the Clintons, Obama was endorsed by the entire tribal leadership of South Dakota, and was adopted as a son of the Crow tribe in Montana. Obama also has the money to pour resources into South Dakota and Montana. Clinton’s coffers are beyond empty. Her campaign, now $20m in debt, has no money for the prime venues that she favoured in the early months of the campaign. Almost all of her campaign events are held outdoors despite unpredictable weather. At one rally, Clinton’s only stage prop was a giant cottonwood tree.

She has little money to get voters to the polls – a huge liability on the reservations where poverty and long distances depress turnout. Clinton also has little money for advertising. Her first television ad in South Dakota went on air less than a week ago. The ad, despite her own insolvent campaign, attacks President George Bush for running up the national debt.

Her entourage on the campaign trail is similarly shrunk. Her assistant, Huma Abedin, once deemed so glamorous she was given a Vogue photospread, remains along with a couple of other aides. News outlets have scaled back their coverage. Camera crews once used to jostling for positions on risers now have yards of space to themselves.

But it’s possible to forget all of that, even in a modest crowd. At the end of her big rally in South Dakota last week, Clinton worked the rope line long after people had dispersed, stretching out to every last hand, unwilling to let go.”

Despite all the reasons Hillary has given her opponents to dislike her, distrust her, perhaps for some even despise her, it is both touching and sad to watch her play out these final days. It’s also just a bit painful to have to observe the spectacle.

The Brits used them, so did the French. They were all the rage in the 18th century – prison galleys, ships (usually mere hulks) used for the long-term confinement and transportation of convicts.

Now it seems the Bush regime may have revived this quaint tradition. According to The Guardian, the United States is rumoured to be operating floating prisons to hold captives from the War (without end) on Terror.

According to the human rights group, Reprieve, the US has used a fleet of naval vessels as floating prisons since 2001:

“Details of ships where detainees have been held and sites allegedly being used in countries across the world have been compiled as the debate over detention without trial intensifies on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government was yesterday urged to list the names and whereabouts of all those detained.

Information about the operation of prison ships has emerged through a number of sources, including statements from the US military, the Council of Europe and related parliamentary bodies, and the testimonies of prisoners.

The analysis, due to be published this year by the human rights organisation Reprieve, also claims there have been more than 200 new cases of rendition since 2006, when President George Bush declared that the practice had stopped.

It is the use of ships to detain prisoners, however, that is raising fresh concern and demands for inquiries in Britain and the US.

According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as “floating prisons” since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed.

Ships that are understood to have held prisoners include the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu. A further 15 ships are suspected of having operated around the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which has been used as a military base by the UK and the Americans.”

What’s next, Devil’s Island? Oh, sorry, I forgot, they renamed that Guantanimo.