American idol: The new US foreign aid fund, the Millennium Challenge Account, is, in what passes for reality, just the latest in the rash of 'reality talent' shows spreading across the mainstream media.
The NY Times says Millennium Challenge, previewed in detail for the first time on Monday, is part of an effort by the US government to 'get the rest of the world to follow Mr. Bush's own philosophy'. For 'philosophy', of course, read the automated TV profiling provided by the President's Tivo set and whatever dad's old buddies dream up next. . .
Not quite Big Brother - that's left to the new Department of Homeland Security, Millennium Challenge will follow democratic wannabes around as they try to win a portion of the $5 billion promised to the fund over the next three years.
With average per capita incomes below $1,445, the half-dozen or so countries will be given expert training in every aspect of the Washington economic consensus, from predictable and sound fiscal policy to deregulation and a willingness to let in US goods and services.
Watched around the clock by US officials, the competing countries run the risk of being voted out of the international community if they fail to score on a range of performance tests. Contestants on earlier versions of the game have ended up in the axis of evil - which runs on Fox.
The new series comes at a time when the US government faces accusations that it's putting the chase for ratings ahead of its public service commitments.
But series producers argue that the contest is just about grooming the next generation of free market talent.
One of the President's senior advisers told the NY Times: 'No one is requiring countries to apply for this money. It's voluntary.' He added: 'If they want it, they have to show they play by the rules of the game.' [NY Times].
Courting trouble: Labour MP Tony McWalter had the nerve to ask the PM yesterday what weight he gives to 'independence of mind' when considering applicants for government appointments. The House of Commons fell about laughing. Last year, McWalter asked after Blair's political philosophy. To similar gales of laughter.
Simon Hoggart describes what happens to anyone foolish enough to demonstrate 'independence of mind' around Blair:
'They make speeches in the Lords, but no one pays any heed. Quangos are set up, and their names are not put forward. Important meetings are held on topics in which they are expert, but they are never included.
'At Christmas there will be glittering parties at which the illuminati of New Labour drink champagne and bask in each other's admiration, but those of independent mind will be outside, their noses pressed to the glass as they make their lonely way to All Bar One.' [Guardian].
Baying at the moon: Although he also takes a weak swing at anti-war groups,
something about the 'self-righteous self-loathing' left's aversion to risk,
its 'economism', Mick Hume is generally on good form, blasting away at the Bush clique and the 'lamest' case for war ever heard.
He cites the US Defence Secretary's comments during an August 27 press conference, saying: 'Never in the field of human conflict have so many had to listen
to so much risible nonsense from so few.' [Spectator].
Nonsense is right. Rumsfeld hypothesised about a pre-emptive strike against,
yep, that longtime enemy of the free world, the Man in the Moon:
'And of course, the advantage of not acting against the moon would be that
no one could say that you acted. They would say, `Isn't that good? You didn't
do anything against the moon.' The other side of the coin of not acting
against the moon in the event that the moon posed a serious threat would be
that you then suffered a serious loss and you're sorry after that's over.' [NPR];
[NPR radio].
Good to know the Bush administration is thinking so deeply and seriously about
international law, the legality or otherwise of unilateral US strikes.
Goodbye Hitch: The Nation's Katha Pollitt tells former colleague and
comrade Christopher Hitchens that he's misrepresenting anti-war protestors when
he calls them apologists for terrorism:
'Next time you put on your Orwell costume for the TV cameras, I hope you'll
put on his fairness and modesty too. You may have spent years as a man of the
left in America, but I don't think you really knew the American left.' [Nation].
What the world thinks: US journalist Mark Hertsgaard asked people around
the world what they thought of America:
'I was surprised that people were really able -- and I heard this repeatedly
-- to distinguish between America and Americans. There's America in the sense
of the official government and the military. That official face of America in
the world is not very well liked. And then there's Americans -- the people of
the country, the ideals of the country, our popular culture. . .
'They were able to still say, but you know, we love Americans and we love
what you stand for. I heard that over and over again from all different walks
of life and all different parts of the world.' [Salon].
Happy birthdays: History is clearly on Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's
side. The Brazilian politician who calls Bush 'Comrade' was born on
October 6 1946. Exactly 56 years later, on October 6 2002, he took the lead
in the first round of voting in the Brazilian presidential election. His
father registered his birth on October 27 1946. And exactly 56 years later,
yesterday, the former shoeshine boy won a landside victory and became president
of Brazil. Viva Lula!
Correction required: Novelist Jonathan Franzen admits that 911 took
away his certainty that a pacifist, diplomatic approach is always best. However,
he still thinks that Bush is the wrong person to run America:
'He's a silly man. I have nothing good to say about him, really. Nothing
good to say about him. And I think it verges on a disaster that he's the
man in place at this time.
'One places one's hope in his handlers. I've been issuing spiritual life
insurance polices for Colin Powell for more than a year now.' [Today].
Rule of gun: Soldier 027 tells the Bloody
Sunday enquiry that on 30 January 1972 his Parachute Regiment comrades
needlessly shot and killed 13 civil rights demonstrators:
'Two people towards the centre of the barricade fell within seconds of
each other in the opening burst of fire.
'I did not see anyone with a weapon or see or hear an explosive device. I
have a clear memory of consciously thinking "what are they firing at?"
and feeling some inadequacy. What was I not seeing that I ought to be seeing.'
[Guardian].
Strangelove revisited: Newly declassified documents show how close
the world came to nuclear war 40 years ago during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
At a conference over the weekend to mark the anniversary, senior politicians and generals
from the US, Russia and Cuba revealed:
The US planned covert operations against Cuba - operations Northwoods and
Mongoose - well before 15 October 1962, the start of the crisis.
On 27 October 1962, the Joint Chiefs recommended an air attack within 48 hours against Cuba followed by an invasion.
Castro, expecting an attack, ordered his anti-aircraft gunners to fire
on US planes.
The US Navy dropped a depth charge on a Soviet submarine carrying nuclear
torpedoes. The Russian officers prepared to attack. They backed down at the
last minute.
Tension continued past the 13 days of the crisis into November 1962 as Cuba
rejected Soviet concessions.
Prague autumn: Every day, in every way, Vaclav Havel, president of
the Czech Republic, grows more afraid as his understanding of the gap between
the poetry of freedom and the reality of politics improves:
'There is no more relying on the accidents of history that lift poets
into places where empires and military alliances are brought down. The warning
voices of poets must be carefully listened to and taken very seriously, perhaps
even more seriously than the voices of bankers or stock brokers. But at the
same time, we cannot expect that the world—in the hands of poets—will suddenly
be transformed into a poem.' [NY Review of Books].
What the papers don't say: Not many news stories around today about David Shayler,
the former MI5 officer currently standing trial at the Old Bailey on charges
under the Official Secrets Act.
But Google News' list of recent 'Shayler'
news stories speaks volumes about the UK government's relationship with
the media and, perhaps, the truth.
'After the judge's ruling on Monday, several articles detailing Mr Shayler's
anticipated evidence - and the government's efforts to keep it secret - were
withdrawn from newspaper websites across the country.' [The
Age].
Calculating spin: While President Bush's televised speech in Cincinnati last night was rich in rhetoric, it contained little that was new. The Bush administration wants to keep everybody happy, both at home and abroad, while it reassembles its military machine in the Gulf and gets ready for war.
Saddam Hussein is a 'murderous tyrant' who can be compared to Stalin, said Bush. Nothing much for US voters, gearing up for midterm elections on 5 November, to disagree with there.
Saddam Hussein may have weapons of mass destruction which he may use against America. Nothing much for Congress, expected later this week to give Bush authority to go to war, to disagree with either.
Significantly, the Bush pr people, while touting the speech as important, failed to ask TV networks for air time. Neither ABC, CBS nor NBC showed the speech live.
In Wisconsin, regulars in a bar watched the Green Bay Packers on TV and didn't even know that the President was on. [Wisconsin Post-Crescent].
Possibly the Bush spinmeisters figured out from their focus group surveys that, as reported in the CBS/New York Times poll, most Americans think Bush is concentrating too much on Iraq when he should be concentrating on domestic economic issues. [CBS].
Bush did give a new definition of 'regime change'. If Iraq cooperated with weapons inspectors, if it disarmed, if it behaved decently towards its minority groups, it would be making a change that would constitute a change in the Iraqi regime and war would be averted, he suggested. Saddam may be finished, but his generals have a choice.
Bush's (relatively) conciliatory language gives the UN Security Council the opportunity to meet him half way and agree to a new, tougher UN resolution.
10/7 and endless warfare: Rory McCarthy writes about life in
Afghanistan one year after the start of the US bombing campaign.
In Bibi Mahru, he meets Orfa. Her husband and children were killed by a Mk
82 500lb bomb which mistook the family mud and stone hut for a Taliban radar
station.
Orfa was given only £190 in compensation - by Taliban officials.
'Mistakes can be made by anyone but the pilot who has bombed this house
should come here and see how many people died. Maybe he could help us.' Figures for how many Afghans have died as a result of the US campaign
vary. According to the US government, fewer than 400 people died. The US
human rights group, Global Exchange, says at least 812 died. Others put the
number of dead at 2,000 or more.
The amount of explosive dropped on Afghanistan equals half the amount dropped
on London during the Blitz.
The $4.5bn reconstruction plan agreed by the international community amounts to $225 for each Afghan. [Guardian].
In New York, at one of over 25 national rallies organised by the Not In Our Name group to remember
the anniversary, actress Susan Sarandon asked:'Do we the people
really want to be a new Rome that imposes its rule by the use of overwhelming
force whenever its interests are threatened?
'Even perceived potential threats? We do not want endless warfare.'
[BBC].
Checks and balances: As well as reluctantly agreeing that communism
was a god that failed, historian Eric
Hobsbawm tells Newsnight's Jeremy Paxman that any world empire runs the risk
of overreaching itself:
'For the last 50 years - and it's lucky for you and for me and for all
of us that this was so - there were two world empires that kept the position
in check.
'One of them was a more agreeable one that one would prefer to live under;
the other was less agreeable. But nevertheless both had the function of keeping
each other in check.
'One of them has disappeared and the net effect of this, I think, is a certain
degree of the occupational disease of, you might say, world conquerors, particularly
people that feel their military power is unlimited: megalomania.
'I think there needs to be a learning curve because there are even in the
United States a lot of people, even among the officials of the United States,
who believe that world empires live in the real world and the real world
is a bit too big and a bit too complicated to be run singlehanded from Washington.'
[Newsnight
video].
Scornful woman:Edwina Currie
in her first interview about her affair with former Tory prime minister John
Major says his family values campaign was 'evil':
'I can tell you he may say now he's ashamed of it, but he wasn't ashamed
of it at the time and he wanted it to go on. He then as a policy decided
to have 'back to basics', all about family morality, how awful single
parents were. . .
'I thought that was evil, really rotten, really cruel and it was then open
house on the way his ministers have been behaving.' [BBC]; [BBC
- realplayer].
Artificial intelligence: Sci-fi writer Wil
McCarthy gets a goodie bag and a flicker of 'nerdy patriotism'
after taking part in a secret CIA panel discussion on the things that might go wrong:
'From those tapes will spring transcripts and minutes, and eventually
a summary document – all of which probably will be classified. The Agency
produces millions of pages every year. But in the way of such things, this
info will filter up through layers of bureaucracy, summarized and resummarized,
until some ghost of it impinges on policy. And in the circle of a few hundred
people who encounter our raw input, decisions will be subtly influenced.
At the very least, the butterfly effect ensures that we’ve made some kind
of difference, rippling out into the future.' [Wired].
'Nothing staggering': The government's dossier on
Iraq seems a damp squib.
Major Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies: it doesn't contain any
convincing evidence that says Hussein has to be taken out straight away.
Thomas Withington, a research associate at the Centre for Defence Studies,
Kings College, London: 'Nothing staggering, is it? It firms up a lot of
what is already known.' [Times].
According to the BBC's Paul Reynolds, the dossier's accumulation of
detail will convince some; others will continue to argue that there's no
imminent Iraqi threat.
He points out the dossier contains nothing linking Iraq to international
terrorism. [BBC].
A democratic deficit: As anti-war protestors crank up Give Peace A
Chance in Parliament Square, MPs continue debating the seriousness of the
threat from Iraq, whether it justifies going to war.
To what end? No matter if the dossier fails to convince. Amazingly, shockingly,
typically, Tony Blair doesn't need the approval of Parliament to go to war.
The US President needs the permission of Congress. The German
Chancellor needs the backing of the Bundestag. In Britain, the Prime Minister,
acting through the Royal Prerogative, can act alone. [Independent].
Anti-war MPs can't even be explicit about their disapproval of the PM's policies.
Tam Dalyell, 'father' of the Commons, the MP with the longest unbroken
parliamentary service, failed this afternoon to secure a vote giving MPs
the chance to oppose backing a war unless it had UN authorisation. [Daily
Telegraph].
When the debate finishes at around 10 pm tonight, MPs still unconvinced by
the government's case can only register their disapproval by voting on a technical
motion, a 'motion to adjourn'.
An American tragedy: Steve Earle explains why he wrote a song from
the point of view of John Walker Lindh, the all-American Taliban fighter. The Marx-spouting country singer wanted to
tell a typically American story. Lindh looked outside the confines of his
culture and, via hip-hop, found Islam. He was set up 'as a warning to
any American that got out of line'. [Guardian].
