Pakistan is the silent Iraq. It happens slowly, and kills quietly. It has been argued that, since most Americans do not have relatives fighting in Iraq, they do not care as much about the war as they would have if there was military draft. So they should care less so when they don’t even have to see its disfigurements and amputees.

Not that an analogy, or extrapolation, would be needed to reach such a conclusion. Bluntly put, they don’t give a flying fuck! (Cruel pun!) It is abundantly clear–with rare exceptions in the progressive margins.

Someone quoted a figure of 40,000 Pakistanis dead in the last decade. Drones make the killing convenient.

Americans are fooling themselves if they think Pakistani drones are not going to hit them at some point in the future. Look what damage two planes did (with the knock-out blow coming from Al Qaeda on Wall St–or “financial terrorists”, as Max Keiser calls them.) Drones are already being made at nano sizes; it is inevitable that Stinger-sized drones will be available to rebels groups real soon.

I’ve read that target-selection is based solely on cell-phone tracking. That is, they analyze cell-phone usage, and so assume the relationships, and then designate people as targets! The only reason why such nonsense passes is because it is incomprehensible by the public, and barely so by the military/civilian decision makers. Even the media can’t quite get its head around it–witness the Rafiq Hariri inquiry.

–

Draft: to be continued!

Aegis. Untested systems.

Democracy Now: Pakistan: U.S. Accused of Using Drones to Target Rescue Workers and Funerals

Ralph Nader, on drones.

It has to be asked: What is the media‘s interest in pushing for war? For the war on Iraq, they claimed that they were misled; what is their excuse now? Why is it happening all over again, in the media? Whatever one may say about the Likudniks and the Christian evangelists and (let’s bring-in the usual suspect of the Whatchamacallit Formerly Known as the American Anti-War Movement) oil interests,  the media is left with no clear explanation for why it is foaming at the mouth!

So what is the press’s role? Why the push? The press needs sensational stories. But this is more than just a pastor burning the Quran. And, besides, the media can choose to avoid covering it.

Maybe they just have nothing better to report on? Better to deflect attention away from their own complicity in the financial terrorism that has afflicted the world and Americans? They do have the Republican freak-show to focus on, but then those people are driven by their funders–at least a few of which are pushing for war on Iran. … But this does not add up.

On the other hand, I do recall reading that the family which owns the New York Times meets with them every morning for a briefing!

Not who is the best choice for America, but who is best for the rest of the world? Who is best for the planet, and for the rest of its inhabitants? Considering his record, and the decades-long pattern of American politics which precedes him, Obama ain’t the one, nor is anyone else that the system offers–or, indeed, can offer.

Look at the climactic scene here, concluding the season. All the different characters who are involved, one way or another, in the drama which is about to unfold. They assume their places, and take part in the scene. Thirty-two cuts in two minutes. … But you really need to know what their stories are, before you can understand why the camera covers each, the angles of view, the editing of the shots, the characters’ glances, and why they behave the way they do. In a fleeting moment, Brian mis-reads the glances, Jordan seeks approval from his buddy, Angela’s friends give her space, and Brian’s world comes crashing down with only a bitten lip to hint at the devastation within.

NB imdb shows other writers as well eg Jason Katims co-wrote the “Life of Brian” episode.

And what is that “trust”? It’s when you know that you won’t suddenly be let down by the next track or transition; that, once you are in, you can stay in. You can go on the ride, with faith in the conductor.

In part 3 he foreshadows what is happening in 2012, and outlines what has happened again and again in the past:

they’re so freaked out by not having another four years of Republicans (and this happens every four years, you know, 2004, 2000, 1996) that they make no demands on the Democratic nominee. We scanned in 2004 twenty groups who supported Kerry–labor, anti-poverty, civil rights, the ACLU–you know, all these groups that, you know, came out from the consumer, environmental, agrarian reform, antiwar, none of them made a demand on John Kerry. Same this year. They’re basically, “We’re so freaked out with McCain. Don’t make any demands.” Therefore, by not pulling Obama this way, they don’t make Obama better. And, of course, he’s being pulled by the corporate interests.

Here’s another prophetic statement:

When he gets a status of president-elect, you’ve got to watch the signs: Who’s going to be his transition team? Who are going to be his appointees? And who does he invite?

The question is whether someone who does not intend to change the system…can get in! He was never to be a transformative figure, never to be a Gorbachev; but did any of his supporters expect him to be so? In part 2, Nader says, “He does not have a challenging personality.” In Part 1 he says:

If you don’t pay attention while you’re a candidate, the chances of suddenly becoming a populist, you know, Paul Wellstone or whatever are very, very slim. Second of all, he doesn’t have a transforming personality. He doesn’t like to take on power.

In Part 3 he says:

That’s the key: fire in the belly. Rosa Parks had fire in the belly. … Barack Obama does not have fire in the belly. His advisors in private used to ask him, “Show passion.” And, you know, this is in private. And he’d say, “Is that enough passion?” And they’d say, “No, it’s not enough passion.” He doesn’t have the passion, and he won too easily.

“No Drama Obama”. He could not even take on BP, you think he can take on the system? Of course, there are those who argue that this is what has to be done in order to get into the seat of power. In Part 1, Nader responds:

To me, you can’t just say this is tactical. I know that Willie Brown said the other day, when I was on a stage with him, he said he has to get elected. [But] It doesn’t work that way. [Obama] was against the embargo on Cuba. He goes to South Florida. He says he’s for the embargo. He was against offshore drilling; he says he’s now for offshore drilling. He was against snooping on Americans without a warrant, and he still voted for FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] and the Patriot Act.

JAY: So the question is: what’s the mandate?

NADER: There is no mandate. It’s a landslide without a mandate. I mean, that’s the tragedy of it.
…The two-party system is a prison, and it’s got the voters in a slavery situation. It makes the voters become masochistic voters. How many more times, decade after decade, they vote for these two parties who betrayed them and basically turned the government over to large corporations?

As someone else said about Obama’s election, the voters projected onto him whatever they wanted to. Issues and stances fail candidates, but do not elect them. Feel-good is what elects presidents. Is there any surprise that Mitt Romney holds two stances on every issue!
And what mandate? These politicians claim mandates on so few votes! Look at Stephen Harper’s election in Canada. How can he claim to have a mandate, with so few people voting, and so few of the voters voting for him?
Nader said, in one of these interviews IIRC, that all that the large youth turn-out does is to create another generation of disillusioned youths.

As I’ve said before, the American electorate have disqualified themselves for the task. And I don’t even blame gerrymandering or the media; these are systems which the citizenry voted for, either actively, or passively let stand. The end result is an electoral system, in both US and Canada, that pivots on the least sophisticated members of the electorate–what the Ontario Tories targetted as “the urban stupid”!

Nader, in Part 3:

[inaudible] give you an example [inaudible] the trade union movement is stronger in Europe, out of the rubble of World War II, okay, through their trade unions’ cooperatives, multiparty system, people in Western Europe demanded and got for all their people, by law, universal health care, decent wages, decent pensions, paid-for week vacation, paid maternity leave, paid family sick leave, decent public transit, university–free tuition. Sixty-three years later, the Republican and Democratic Parties have not delivered the most basic fundamental benefits of a productive economy.

The show Family Guy says that the undecided are the most stupid people. No wonder. I used to be surprised when poll after poll showed people still undecided about Bush! The UK newspaper asked how 40 million people can be so stupid! Jon Stewart, exasperated with the Red States, asked, “What, do we have to get these people boats?”
No wonder attack ads work. No wonder the success of the Tea Party. The whole system is rigged to sway power via a very impressionable few.
No wonder that Nader’s disillusion was followed by his book, “Only the Superrich Can Save Us”!

Update 26 Jan. 2012: Ralph Nader gives brilliant advice to liberals, progressives, Democrats, and everyone else who does not want Republicans to win, and who wants Obama to deliver on his promises: Stay home! Demand that Obama delivers, or that you will stay home on voting day.

Really, what else do you have to lose? How many times are you going to go round this Merry-Go-Round vicious circle? Is there a lower bottom than Bush? You hit that one twice!

I am loyal to the flag that protects me.
Louis Riel

The shameful conduct of Canada towards Omar Khadr is continuing. Watching the documentary Four Days in Guantanamo on Al jazeera, by filmmakers Patricio Henriquez and Luc Côté, has been a disturbing reminder.

Loyalty works both ways. How is one to phrase the conduct of the Canadian government with respect to this child, the protection of whom is its duty! “Treason” applies in the opposite direction, but neither “betrayal” nor “dereliction of duty” seem to convey sufficient meaning. I am forced to say that, in the extent and persistence of its malice, the Conservative government has been treasonous in its conduct towards Omar Khadr. It takes an American intelligence agent to tell the “kinder, gentler nation” that it ought to be ashamed.

The undercurrent of anti-multi-culturalism, if not outright racism, which ran through the Reform party, and now perhaps through the darker outposts of Conservative support, were followed by attacks on Maher Arar. Stephen Harper’s government did not merely neglect Omar Khadr; their responses have been counter-measures! No charter flights for this boy to fly him home.

Look at the tests they have to undergo. They do write mathematical tests, though their jobs seem to depend mostly on relationships, networking and other such subjective, unscientific qualifications. And then there are the brain teasers, endless interviews, and just plain being a pain up your arse for no crucially good reason! Like most jobs nowadays (and indeed the past decades) they have more qualified people than they have vacancies for. So it really comes down to randomness. They may put a veneer of assessment on it, but it really is a crap shoot! It is not pivotal which one of these suckers/morons gets in, so long as the bozo appears to have run a gauntlet or completed some pointless quest.

So why are the salaries so high? The usual Market claptrap says that, if you have lots of applicants, the pay rate will go down. Not here, though, and in some other jobs I’ve noticed. The pay remains high even though they have gobs of desperate graduates and professionals debtors knocking down their doors. My only guess is that, in the case of the banksters, there are larger issues involved eg their competitors, and/or their candidates’ qualifications are so generic that they may simply move to other industries. I don’t know.

Of course, as is indicated elsewhere in that article or the series, getting the job does not mean that you will keep it! Lots of people get fired. I remember reading, years ago, someone’s account of how her firm kept on hiring people, and firing them as soon as they clued in as to what’s what. I’ve noticed an analogous pattern elsewhere. Companies want you to know some stuff–so they won’t have to train you–but not so much that you’ll discover what’s really going on!

#####

Well, as no-one has interviewed me, I figured I’ll make up my own. So here goes nothing!

*****

- Hello, this is Huffington Worthington, with The Paris Review of London Supplement. We are here today with Anar Green, author of such legendary books as “A Beat, a Bong, and a Bang” and “Mescaline Catechism and Other Dreams.”
- Hello. Thank you for having me.

- Can you tell us a bit about yourself?
- No.

- OK. Why not?
- I’m a very private person.

- And yet you chose to write books–albeit ebooks!–that are sure to make you rich and famous.
- My life’s a never-ending contradiction.

- I see. How original! How and when did you get started as a writer?
- A very original question! Well, I was sitting at home, there was nothing on TV, and I figured starting a band didn’t get me laid, but writing might.

- Has it?
- You have no idea!

- How could you not get laid in a band?
- I was a drummer. Drummers don’t get laid. They get leftovers, at most!

- I see. Where do you usually find your ideas?
- Well, I live, things happen, stuff comes up.

- That explains your terse style.
- Yup.
- When did you first know you were going to be a writer?
- I never thought of myself as a writer; still don’t! To me, writing was something that dead people did: if you wanted to be a writer, you had to die, then wait two hundred years, then you get published.

- Then why did you write?
- I just had some stuff to say.

- Tell us about your books.
- Well, the first one is about a guy who’s really pissed off, but he gets laid. The second one is about a guy who’s really pissed off, and a guy who gets laid.

- Hmm, I think I see a pattern here. Who are the authors who influenced you the most?
- Everything I have ever learnt has come from The Simpsons.

- Anyone else you’d care to mention?
- Well, let’s see….No! Nothing! It’s all blank….Well, if you must ask, I’d say Willy!

- Willy? Who’s Willy?
- William Shakespeare. Oh yes, The Bard! Still as relevant today as he was…whichever century he was alive.

- More relevant than “A Beat, a Bong, and a Bang”, if I may say so.
- Yes. Because if there’s anything that the youth of today are preoccupied with, it’s the machinations of the Court of Denmark!

- That’s a rather superficial way of looking at the play.
- Thank you.

- What books are you reading now?
- I’m reading books?

- Don’t you? Typically, good writers are voracious readers.
- Oh, good writers! I don’t read books, I only write them. It’s called division of labour.

- Tell us about your next book.
- Well I was planning on developing the Seed character. Originally, she was written for a short story, but ended up in “A Beat”. I figured she’ll go around, do her het-hunting, and get laid a lot.

- So there’s a happy ending.
- Is there any other kind?

- What is your advice to young writers?
- Get into carpentry. The pay’s much better, and people actually get to enjoy your work.