CommonPrejudice

Stay with it, Bob.

There appears to be some changes coming to one the best blogs out there, the Daily Howler. If it is undertaken because of a perceived lack of influence or a tone too 'shrill' then I believe it to be a mistake. From an article in CJR:

..Somerby cannot seem to decide whether he matters. In the blogosphere, he probably does. In October, the Howler was ranked 115 out of 15,788 Weblogs being tracked by The Truth Laid Bear, a Web site that gauges a blog’s stature by how often other sites provide links to it.

But does Somerby — or any blogger — influence newsrooms?

Scott Kraft, national editor of the Los Angeles Times, doesn’t read the Howler. “You know,” Kraft says, “there is so much noise on the Internet that I just don’t have the time to tune into everything.” He is hardly the only prominent member of the profession to confess that the Howler is not on the radar. Wilgoren says her editors at The New York Times have never mentioned Somerby or anything he wrote about her coverage.

“I don’t think he’s having a tremendous impact,” says a Somerby friend, Gene Lyons, the Arkansas political columnist, co-author of The Hunting of the President and author of Fools for Scandal. “For one thing, he never runs out of targets.”

So much noise on the internet?... good god, that is a pathetic excuse for ignoring the best media critic out there. It does not take a genius to sort out the crap from the relevant. Put together a half decent blog roll that includes Somerby, read it daily and you're set.

And really it's truly a shame that the NY Times editors don't read the Howler. They would learn so much. I certainly check out the Howler before clicking on the Times website. And Times reporters really should do the same.

Somerby is needed. While his critiques can be offensive to those he attacks and his tone a little harsh, the work he produces is invaluable. His blog is the first one I check, before Atrios, before TPM and before the Daily Kos. He is so very right when he says.

“And increasingly, I think they (mainstream journalists) just have to be yelled at,"...

In terms of being off the radar of these mainstream journalists; that is precisely why he should continue. Direct and stinging critiques such as his have got to get on the radar if change is going to occur and neither toning down the diatribes nor radically changing the focus are likely to accomplish this. Blogs will continue to grow and influence mainstream journalism and Somerby is one of the blogosphere's most respected and influential elders whose presence would be sorely missed. If the so-called journalists would only treat their craft as seriously as he does we would all be so much better informed.

Somerby matters.

(of course if any changes to his blog are a result of personal financial considerations, then nothing can be said against this. We all gotta live)

On the dispute between Venezuela and Colombia

I believe it's time I weigh in on the dispute between Colombia and Venezuela regarding the kidnapping of FARC political representative Rodrigo Granda in Venezuela by bounty hunter hired by the Colombian government. James Petras gives a good summation of the crisis.

A major diplomatic and political conflict has exploded between Colombia and Venezuela after the revelation of a Colombian government covert operation in Venezuela, involving the recruitment of Venezuelan military and security officers in the kidnapping of a Colombian leftist leader.

Following an investigation by the Venezuelan Ministry of Interior and reports and testimony from journalists and other knowledgeable political observers it was determined that the highest echelons of the Colombian government, including President Uribe, planned and executed this onslaught on Venezuelan sovereignty.

Once direct Colombian involvement was established, the Venezuelan government demanded a public apology from the Colombian government while seeking a diplomatic solution by blaming Colombian Presidential advisers. The Colombian regime took the offensive, launching an aggressive defense of its involvement in the violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and, beyond that, seeking to establish in advance, under the rationale of "national security" the legitimacy of future acts of aggression. As a result President Chavez has recalled the Venezuelan Ambassador from Bogota, suspended all state-to-state commercial and political agreements pending an official state apology. In response the US Government gave unconditional support to Colombian violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and urged the Uribe regime to push the conflict further. What began as a diplomatic conflict over a specific incident has turned into a major, defining crises in US and Latin American political relations with potentially explosive military, economic and political consequences for the entire region.

Meanwhile this is how the Washington Post's reporter Marcela Sanchez saw the crisis on the 20th of January.

Granda was arrested by Colombian police in the border town of Cucuta, Colombia, after Venezuelan authorities seized him in Caracas and handed him over. What might have been celebrated at the time as a victory for international law enforcement cooperation took a nasty turn when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez claimed that Colombia had "bribed'' Venezuelan officials to kidnap Granda. Decrying this violation of Venezuela's sovereignty, Chavez withdrew his ambassador from Bogota, ordered the suspension of trade deals with Colombia and demanded an apology from Uribe.

Of course, being from the Post she got it wrong. Uribe has already admitted the "bribe" and it does appear there was involvement by members of paid off members of the Venezuelan army. Moreover, calling the incident a "victory for international law enforcement is bizarre.  Hiring members of the Venezuelan army to act as bounty hunters without any consultation with the Venezuelan authorities nor any international legal body can only be termed a victory for international law by those truly clueless. Sanchez also typically blames Chavez for the turning the incident into a crisis.

But it was Chavez who -- a month later-- heightened the situation into a crisis . Perhaps it was an attempt to please his political base and garner some kind of solidarity from an international community more and more sensitive about issues of sovereignty. But his belated reaction did more to highlight his unpredictability than to convince anyone he suddenly had become an advocate for international law.

Calling the reaction belated is reprehensible. For weeks after the December 15th capture, the Colombian government constantly peddled the lie that  “The Police acted fully within their rights in capturing a Colombian citizen in Colombian territory.” The Venezuela authorities continued to investigate the case and the Colombian government's claims that they did not violate Venezuela were vividly exposed for the lies that they were. Of course in Sanchez's deluded perspective it was Chavez who instigated the crisis. I suppose she prefers reckless unsubstantiated allegations and bald faced lies to proper investigation. (Hit the link for a good accounting of the events of the crisis)

That said I don't see this as a black and white issue, especially as the Bushies produce more terrorists everyday with their reckless and incompetent policies. Those who are supporting Chavez on this issue point to the clear violation of sovereignty by Colombia and how Uribe is following in Bush's path by proclaiming "the right of unilateral intervention in any country in which the Colombian government perceives or claims is harboring or providing refuge to political adversaries (which the regime labels as "terrorists") which might threaten the security of the state."

Chavez has even claimed that the U.S. was involved, though the evidence of a direct involvement is sketchy.

Thousands of demonstrators backed President Hugo Chavez, who on Sunday accused US and Colombian officials of provoking a diplomatic crisis between the Caribbean neighbours.

"I know where this provocation comes from: from Washington, not from Bogota!" Chavez said before a crowd of cheering supporters.

However, before discussing the legalities of the action it is important to establish who Granda is and what are his 'terrorist' connections. Today there is an AP article out on Granda. Among the things we learn about him:

• "he has hobnobbed for years at conferences with prominent Latin American leftists, including at least one former president..."
• "Days before bounty hunters - purported to be moonlighting Venezuelan soldiers - snatched him off a Caracas street, bundled him into the trunk of a car and handed him over to Colombian authorities at the border for a reward, Granda attended a conference of Latin American leftists in Venezuela. There, he even met with a member of Venezuela's Congress. [who did not know whom Granda was representing]"
• "Tomas Borge, who was Nicaragua's interior minister during the 1979-1990 rule of the leftist Sandinista government, said he and former Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega both know Granda. Borge stressed in an interview with AP that they knew Granda as a political representative, not as a combatant, of the FARC."
• "Miguel Gonzalez, Granda's attorney, said Granda was an organizer for the leftist Patriot Union party in Colombia in the 1980s before fleeing the country amid death threats. The party's leaders, including two presidential candidates, were assassinated by right-wing death squads during that period."
• "Granda lived in several countries and spent the last couple of years in Venezuela, Gonzalez said. His job was to foster "diplomatic-political relations with friendly governments and political organizations," the FARC said."

The Colombian government obviously points to a more sinister side of Granda. A report from five years ago by the Colombian police claims:

"Granda and another rebel arranged in Mexico for other FARC representatives to meet with the Tijuana cartel, headed by the Arellano Felix brothers. The FARC wound up selling cocaine to the cartel in exchange for guns and money, according to Mexican authorities."

But the Mexican government today denies this and there is certainly no reason to suspect they would lie to protect Chavez on this issue

"Mexican Deputy Attorney General Jose Luis Santiago Vasconcelos, who investigates organized crime, told AP he has no information that Granda played such a role."

Colombia also claims Granda was involved in a deal "allegedly brokered by former Peruvian spymaster Vladimiro Montesinos for the sale of 10,000 assault rifles to the FARC in 1999" though no evidence was offered. In that it involves an egregious violation of sovereignty, Colombia's case looks weak.

Any issue involving the Chavez government inevitably produces polar responses which often fail to consider the merits of the other side's argument. And invariably we get incoherent rants like that of Carlos Alberto Montaner who sees the whole situation as an indication - if you can believe it - of Chavez's desire to go to war with Colombia AND Chile. In this case, I haven't seen nearly enough evidence that Granda was anything more than a political representative (not a combatant) of FARC to justify Uribe's clearly illegal and unscrupulous action. But if we would assume that Granda was, in fact, directly implicated in illegal activities such as drug and arms trafficking with cartels in Mexico, then would Colombia be right in offering money for his capture regardless of which country he was in? This is not a simple question to answer.

If it is difficult to contemplate such a situation for those who are avid Chavez supporters, then try to imagine the following scenario.  An opponent of the Chavez regime who is wanted for terrorist attacks within Venezuela that resulted in many deaths is apprehended in Mexico by bounty hunters hired by Chavez's government and brought to Venezuela for a trial (without, of course, the knowledge of the Mexican government). Would the Venezuelan authorities be justified in doing so? And could we carry this further and conclude then if the proof of the Colombian government were more extensive and the legal system in Colombia could be counted upon to give Granda a fair hearing, one would be forced to accept Uribe's actions as legitimate?

No. And here's why.

Although Granda was not wanted by Interpol, the U.S. State Department demanded an explanation from Venezuelan President Chavez as to why he permitted a high-level official of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) to move freely within Venezuelan territory and to obtain a passport. According to Venezuelan officials, a request for criminal records to Interpol prior to issuing him Venezuelan citizenship turned out negative. Colombia had never requested Granda's detention. The guerrilla activist had entered Venezuela in several opportunities before Hugo Chavez came to power, traveled more than 200 times outside of Colombia -according to Colombian authorities-, and had lived in several Latin American countries.

After Bush's disastrous, bloody and illegal escapades in Iraq and with the potential for more and more terrorists running amuck it has never been more necessary for states to respect international law and sovereignty. In an age when weapons of incredible destructive power exist throughout the world and the terrorism problem only seems to get worse with every Bush misstep, we can not risk nations going to war over such issues nor inflaming more embittered victims to join the terrorist ranks. There is a procedure that Colombia could have undertaken if it were serious about respecting international law while dealing with it internal security problems

Present your case first and get him on the Interpol list if you believe your evidence is so strong. Request assistance from the nation that is supposedly harbouring the alleged criminal even if a negative response is anticipated. And be consistent. If it a figure who has freely traveled for many years throughout the region including in the country of question under previous governments then you had better damn well follow proper legal procedures and explain how this clear violation of sovereignty is necessary now.

The world needs no more cowboys.

Chickens With Rice

Some prominent black Democrats are actually playing the race card in supporting the nomination of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state. Is it any wonder that for the most part the Democrats in the U.S. are a pathetic excuse for an opposition party?

Why are Senate Democrats debating the qualifications of a woman whose accomplishments speak for themselves, some prominent black Democrats wondered on Tuesday.

Andrew Young -- the former Atlanta mayor, U.S. congressman and United Nations ambassador in the Carter administration -- and C. Delores Tucker, chair of the National Congress of Black Women, agreed to appear with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Tuesday, to urge support for Dr. Condoleezza Rice as the next secretary of state.

"We think that Condoleezza Rice not only deserves the support, but the country needs a strong, wise secretary of state with a bipartisan mandate to help establish democracy, not only in Iraq, but around the world," Young said.

Yes, her 'accomplishments' do speak for themselves. As national security adviser, she has helped prevent a major terrorist attack on the United States, has contributed to the rounding up of Bin Laden and his terrorist cohorts, and has been key in implementing a plan that has led to any overwhelming, facile and rapid military victory in Iraq, while severely limiting casualties....hmmm, then again maybe not quite.

But her honesty couldn't be doubted, could it? From the incomparable Daily Howler of last April during Rice's testimony during the 9/11 commission. (You remember, when the 'strong, wise' Rice would only appear in front of the commission as long as no one would question her for more than 10 minutes - and, of course, during the testimony, the wise women was capable of blabbing on about irrelevancies for the 10 minutes so as to avoid actually answering any of the questions that she was posed)

BEN-VENISTE: Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB [presidential daily briefing].

Rice gave the title, slightly inaccurately. (Actual title: Bid Laden Determined To Strike in US.) Then, she answered Ben-Veniste’s first question. Remarkably, this was her answer:

RICE: You said, did it not warn of attacks? It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information, and it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States.

What a remarkable bit of testimony! The PDB “did not warn of attacks inside the United States,” Rice said. In fact, she made the odd statement twice. To state the obvious, this comes close to contradicting the language of the PDB, which warns about “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings and other attacks.” Having sworn to tell the whole truth, Rice offered a highly crafted account of what the PDB said.

And please remember, because this is crucial—at the time of this testimony, the PDB was a classified document. Americans watching Rice on TV had never been able to see the brief—and as far as Rice knew, they never would. All they would know of this PDB would come from the things Rice was saying. And what was her first account of the brief? “It did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States,” she said.

If you can believe it, Tucker actually wants to know why Rice is being questioned at all before being confirmed as secretary of state.

Tucker questioned the Senate's need to debate Rice's qualifications on Tuesday. "And why we're doing this Monday morning quarterback -- I don't know why," she said.

"When I was secretary of the state of Pennsylvania, I had none of this problem," Tucker said. "And I just think now that we need to stop trying to find any kind of Monday morning quarterback problems [on] why [Rice] should not be immediately confirmed."

"And we just are here to support her and let her know that we're with her and we don't like what is being done here.

Truly bizarre. They "don't like what is being done here." My god, an incompetent, lying ideologue is simply being questioned over several dubious past actions and remarks before her obvious confirmation and they don't like that. To even bring up the matter of race is incredibly insulting to one's intelligence. No one gets treated with kid gloves more than Rice.

Update

It must be said, though, that not all Democrats are so spineless. Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota tells it like it is.

She [Rice] repeatedly deceived members of Congress and Americans at large about justifications for the war, said Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn.

    "I don't like impugning anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to," Dayton said. "Repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally."

Homer in the Peg

I just can't let this opportunity to plug my old hometown pass.

Seeking cheap Canadian prescription drugs, Homer Simpson crossed the border into Manitoba Sunday night.

The affable cartoon character was welcomed to Winnipeg -- a city known for its booming cross-border Internet pharmacy industry -- with a sign that read "We were born here, what's your excuse?"...

Then again, I guess this really wouldn't be plugging.

Wishful Thinking

How is it that the U.S. administration believes so simplistically and without evidence that by merely killing the leader of a widespread, disparate group of fighters that the whole movement will come tumbling down?

Branding Zarqawi the "head of the snake," Brig.-Gen. Jeffrey Hammond said on Friday that taking out the shadowy Jordanian Islamist leader, who tops America's wanted list, would deal a crippling blow to Iraq's insurgency.

They just don't have a clue about what the insurgency - or for that matter -  any insurgency is about.

Can't you just picture it?
Damn, they got al-Zarqawi, well that's it for me. No point in going on now. He was the MAN.

If they were to get him, it would be just like the kind of peace that resulted after Saddam's capture, that non-existent kind.

Oh, and it appears that Bin Laden is no longer America's most wanted. What a shame. After over 1000 weeks at number one his record is over. Al-Zarqawi has rocketed to number one on the charts with his hit, 'Don't Lose Your Head Over Me." (I'm sorry, that was in bad taste)

Numbers, shmumbers..

I don't really believe that a perfectly clean and a highly participatory election is absolutely vital for Iraq to turn a corner and begin some semblance of a peaceful, normal society. Nevertheless, the standards being deemed necessary by US government officials are quite laughable.

"I would ... really encourage people not to focus on numbers, which in themselves don't have any meaning, but to look on the outcome and to look at the government that will be the product of these elections," a senior administration official said.

Do you understand that first comment? "- "encourage people not to focus on numbers, which in themselves don't have any meaning," What the hell are they trying to say? I suppose if I said  45, 5 and  612  without adding anything further, these numbers "in themselves don't have any meaning." But if these numbers stood for, oh perhaps, the overall percentage of Iraqis voting, the percentage of Sunnis voting and the number of Iraqis killed on election day, then these numbers most definitely would mean something. The logic here seems to imply  that anything simply called an election and producing an outcome is valid regardless of the manner in which the election was carried out or who participated in that election (though I still don't quite get how the lack of focusing on numbers entirely fits in)

From the same story

The official highlighted the low voter turnout in U.S. elections as evidence that polling numbers are not essential to legitimacy.

The only  numbers which really concern the official are the ones that will surely portray an election where a very significant portion do not vote. One, of course, could argue that simply because the much of the American public and certainly most of the mainstream media accept the idea that US presidential elections are legitimate even when barely half the population bothers to vote does not make it so. But I'll avoid that rather involved topic for the time being and just note how the government official really is comparing apples and orangoutangs.

To state the obvious, Iraq is in the middle of a war with one very significant portion of the population essentially boycotting the election. And to be sure, despite whatever arrangements made prior to the outcome, the Sunnis will not be satisfied in the upcoming Shiite cakewalk to victory. Further many believe the mere presence of a foreign army without international legitimacy and in complete charge of all military and security operations in the country makes a fair result impossible.

In the end it won't be the American public nor the cowering mainstream media who'll determine the legitimacy of the election. It will be the Iraqis and if they're not participating it's hard to see how they will view the whole process as legitimate, especially as they witness the new government as equally dependent on US forces for security as the old one.

Crossfired

The new president of CNN is shaking things up at the network and Jon Stewart's appearance last fall may have got the ball rolling on one longtime fixture on the CNN schedule.

CNN has ended its relationship with the conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and will shortly cancel its long-running daily political discussion program, "Crossfire," the new president of CNN, Jonathan Klein, said last night.

I don't believe it serves anyone's interest to be overly cynical. Certainly the move away from partisan hackery is a positive one. Klein:

Mr. Klein said he wanted to move CNN away from what he called "head-butting debate shows," which have become the staple of much of all-news television in the prime-time hours, especially at the top-rated Fox News Channel.

"CNN is a different animal," Mr. Klein said. "We report the news. Fox talks about the news. They're very good at what they do and we're very good at what we do."

Mr. Klein specifically cited the criticism that the comedian Jon Stewart leveled at "Crossfire" when he was a guest on the program during the presidential campaign. Mr. Stewart said that ranting partisan political shows on cable were "hurting America."

Mr. Klein said last night, "I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Stewart's overall premise." He said he believed that especially after the terror attacks on 9/11, viewers are interested in information, not opinion.

Information not opinion. Is that the issue Stewart took the CNN to task over?

Klein frames the debate in terms of "reporting" the news and "informing" the citizenry versus shows which focus much more on opinion than fact. Of course the first thing that must be noted is that the whole selection process of what goes on the air and what doesn't and who is selected to explain and expound on the issue in question by its very nature has a profound impact on how one understands the current state of our world and thus is a form of editorializing. To portray oneself solely as a neutral reporter of information is denying the responsibility of being a journalist.

That issue aside, I don't believe Klein quite gets what Stewart was saying. Let's look at a couple of Stewart's comments last October 15 on Crossfire. In the following exchange I believe it evident that Stewart's claim regarding 'ranting partisan political shows on cable were "hurting America," does not necessarily lead to Klein's conclusion that "viewers are interested in information, not opinion."

Stewart: see, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.

BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.

STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

Stewart is not advising a shift away from debate to simply information gathering and reporting. It is not that that opinions are being presented, rather it is the manner in which they are presented, ie blind partisanship and a thorough lack of professionalism and competence. Later on in the show:

BEGALA: Let me get this straight. If the indictment is -- if the indictment is -- and I have seen you say this -- that...

STEWART: Yes.

BEGALA: And that CROSSFIRE reduces everything, as I said in the intro, to left, right, black, white.

STEWART: Yes.

BEGALA: Well, it's because, see, we're a debate show...

STEWART: I would love to see a debate show.

BEGALA: We're 30 minutes in a 24-hour day where we have each side on, as best we can get them, and have them fight it out.

STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.

Most certainly, honest, spirited, professional debates are sorely lacking on American television. Misinformed, childish shouting matches dominate much of the so-called cable new programs and virtually all of talk radio. It is clearly not the concept of debating itself that is the problem. Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post cites a comment by Klein that does get to the point of what Stewart was saying:

CNN/U.S. President Jonathan Klein sided yesterday with comedian Jon Stewart, who used a "Crossfire" appearance last fall to rip the program as partisan hackery. "I think he made a good point about the noise level of these types of shows, which does nothing to illuminate the issues of the day," Klein said in an interview. Viewers need "useful" information in a dangerous world, he said, "and a bunch of guys screaming at each other simply doesn't accomplish that."

If the move at CNN is simply one away from 'a bunch of guys screaming at each other' then great. However, the idea that the network will become a neutral reporter of information is a naive one. Furthermore that should never be the aim of any journalistic organization. The public desperately needs informed, civilized debate in order to fully understand the profound issues of importance in today's dangerous times. Up until now this has rarely been the case. As Stewart said:

[Y]ou have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.

Rampant Ignorance

We've got an earlier front-runner for the most tasteless headline of the year. Would it surprise anyone that it comes from Ann Coulter?

LIBERALS LOVE AMERICA LIKE O.J. LOVED NICOLE

The rest of the article is so not worth going through. I'll leave it to someone who has the patience to deal with this type of rampant ignorance.

Wait, I have to say one thing. She actually has the temerity to believe that the United States should receive credit for foreign aid due to their 'peacekeeping' in Iraq. Yeah, I bet those Iraqis are pretty damn tired of all that 'peace.'

Gonzales and Torture

This Thursday begins the confirmation hearings of Alberto Gonzales for the post of attorney general of the United States.

A proud moment for American latinos no? Well, maybe if you’re an Augusto Pinochet fan. Robert Scheer of the Nation and LA Times accurately depicts the reality.

At stake is whether Congress wants to conveniently absolve Gonzales of his clear attempt to have the President subvert US law in order to whitewash barbaric practices performed by US interrogators in the name of national security.

There obviously can be no excusing the demented actions of those at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.Nevertheless there will always be some conservative blockhead who seems to think, as Tex at Unfairwitness says, “that as long as Al Qaeda is doing something worse than them, they're OK.”

Talk about lowering your standards. Everything south of beheading or blowing yourself up in a crowded area would seem to be alright and any objection would have to be termed ‘quaint.’ Dangerous times, right Alberto? His infamous memo to Bush:

"In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions,"

Still, though, many of your dittoheads will equate the torture at Abu Ghraib with some sort of college fraternity prank. Scheer notes how Gonzales tried to distinguish between ‘real’ torture and what has been going on in Iraq and Cuba.

Gonzales based his case for doing away with the Geneva protections on memos produced by a small group of Justice Department lawyers that, along with making other controversial claims, infamously argued that physical abuse of prisoners was torture only if it was "of an intensity akin to...serious physical injury such as death or organ failure," and mental abuse was torture only if it caused "lasting psychological harm." Presumably these pain and damage levels are to be determined by the interrogator.   

Unfortunately for the interrogators, I suppose, determining death or organ failure is not up to their discretion. These were not fraternity pranks. Here’s a few lowlights as compiled by Yoram Gat at CounterPunch (click the link for the complete list, via Unfairwitness - and please note that this is an official list, not one of accusations)

• Prisoners left to soil themselves (1)
• Forcible enemas (1)
• Shackling in fetal positions for 24 hours or more (2)
  Deprivation of food and water (2)
• Strangulation (4)
• Use of military dogs (4)
• Rape of a juvenile male prisoner (4)
• Burning (6)
• Administering electric shocks (6)
• Killing (6)
• Sexual humiliation (6)
• Mock executions (6)
• Prisoner photographed with a pistol being held to head (6)
• Dousing a prisoner with alcoholic liquid and setting on fire (6)
• Squeezing of testicles (6)
• Sodomizing with a rifle muzzle (6)
• Forcing prisoner's heads into the dirt (6)
• Prisoner dragged by the neck and dies (9)
• Forcing prisoners to masturbate publicly (10)
• Piling prisoners into a naked human pyramid (10)
• Hooking wires on the hands and feet of a hooded prisoner who was told to stand on a box or else be electrocuted (10)

And the nominee for attorney general has no problem with this. Wonderful. Now we should see during the confirmation hearings whether the Democrats have grown a spine or whether their recent defeat has made them even more irrelevant in the battle against right wing extremism.

Meanwhile, Clarence Thomas may soon be chief justice of the Supreme Court. In today's LA Times:

...Thomas has reaped a windfall of freebies, by judicial standards, since he joined the court in 1991. Between 1998 and 2003, the only period for which disclosure forms are on file at the court, Thomas accepted $42,000 in gifts, from a Bible valued at $19,000 to a set of tires. Sandra Day O’Connor is a distant second, reporting a paltry $5,025 during the same period...

With minorities like these in positions of power, who needs rednecks?

Que Se Vayan Todos

What to make of last week's tragic fire in a nightclub in Buenos Aires when nearly 200 youths lost their lives in the stampede out the door after someone had launched a flare inside the club during a rock concert? For Argentines the issue is corruption and the cacerolazo (banging of pots and pans) lives on.

With the same pots, pans and chants from the economic crisis three years ago, Argentines are returning to the streets to punish their politicians, this time for not averting the country's deadliest disaster in decades...

Many were teenagers, who walked arm-in-arm in their rock group T-shirts carrying signs saying: "It wasn't the fire that killed them, it was the corruption."

But they were joined by thousands of parents of all economic classes and elderly neighbors banging pots and pans from their balconies along the majestic Avenida de Mayo.

And they say they will not stop until Ibarra quits and those responsible, like inspectors and club owner Omar Chaban, are in prison. Another march is planned for Thursday.

I spent nearly 4 years in Buenos Aries and know the area where this occurred fairly well. Unfortunately it is not all that shocking that something like this could occur. The corruption that exists in that country cuts very deep into all realms of society and that 6000 people would be squeezed into a hall that was meant to hold 2000 is not the least bit unusual. And that the emergency exits would be locked to prevent a few from entering without paying is also par for the course. Grease a few palms in Argentina and you can get pretty much anything done.

President Nelson Kirchner was supposed to change this. His ally and the mayor of the capital, Anibal Ibarra, was also part of the new faces in charge after the economic, political and social crisis in 2001 that toppled a president and devastated the economy. It's all nice and good to proclaim yourself against corruption and certainly stripping the immunity of the scum that ruled Argentina during the military dictatorships of the 1970's was a crucial step in combating impunity in the country. Nevertheless corruption runs deep and invariably Ibarra deserves much of the responsibility for the tragedy. There are few excuses that suffice for this type of reckless endangerment and rampant corruption. And now protests are breaking out throughout Buenos Aires demanding Ibarra's head. It appears, though, he is not ready to take the fall.

Ibarra, a young leftist politician who emerged from the 2001 protests unscathed, said this is the worst moment of his five years in office, but he will not resign.

Even though there certainly would be no guarantee the next mayor would be any better and it doesn't seem Ibarra has done a particularly poor job, the buck stops with him and given the enormity of the tragedy, it seems he must resign. And now we will see how tough and serious Kirchner is as he faces his first very serious adversity while president. Because, as we know, the banging of pots and pans can be as dangerous to a politician's future as any violent attack. Just ask Fernando De La Rua. He used to be president until the banging got too loud.

Moreover this banging combined with massive street demonstrations seems to be the only way in Argentina to bring about change. So, keep it up.