Event Horizon

It's tempting at times to signify Iraq as "the situation in Iraq" or maybe "the war in Iraq" or "the war against terrorism and how it justifies bombing the fuck out of Iraq". However, simply put, Iraq is a mess and the mess is reality.

Anyone old enough to remember the "end" of the Viet Nam War knows what it means to witness a seemingly endless conflict draw to a close. It's a surreal experience on many levels. One day the Fearless Leaders proclaim inevitable victory and the next day people grasp at helicopter skids as the last chopper powers away from the rooftop. Real people, from innocents to cognisants to conspirators, get lost in the propeller wash. Chaos. Helicopters swarming the carrier decks, dumped into the ocean to clear the decks for the next wave, human cargo spilling out like ants, the fortunate, the canny, the connected. Meltdown and retreat. Defeat.

Iraq is headed toward the event horizon. At some point the Bush Administration is going to make decisions that bring the entire horrific episode to a close--at least as far as American involvement is concerned. But the day is coming. Iraq is not going to be pacified. That much is clear. Just today NPR is reporting that the 3rd Infantry Division is being primed for a return to Iraq, a re-invasion 20 months after the same force thundered across the desert and into Baghdad. Mere days after the horrific assault on Fallujah is declared a resounding success, attacks across central Iraq beget American and British military crackdowns--Mosul, Jabella, Anbar. They call it the Triangle of Death, the hotbed of Hussein loyalists insurgency. If Viet Nam was a quagmire, Iraq is quicksand and tar pits. The USA either pulls out or risks occupation without end. This strategy cannot succeed. The Bush Administration is busily strangling our federal government, which some of its advisers have publically advocated as desirable, racking up record deficeit spending and declaring it our patriotic duty to pour billions more into the endless conflict in Iraq. And we are doomed to repeat history.

Edwin Black, author of the recently released Banking on Baghdad, Inside Iraq's 7,000-Year History of War, Profit, and Conflict, had this to say in a Chicago Sun-Times article published on November 21:

America cannot succeed in Iraq until we understand the history we ignored and recently repeated. For the past century, Iraq has offered only one attraction to the Western powers: oil. It has been a fatal attraction.

During World War I, Britain invaded Mesopotamia (as the three neglected Turkish provinces were called) for oil and only for oil. Despite this, the British declared in their May 18, 1918, proclamation, read aloud in Baghdad: ''Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.''

As part of that liberation, the British illegally seized the most valuable oil lands in Mesopotamia, the Kurdish Mosul region, this on Nov. 7, 1918, a full week after the general armistice with Turkey. This invasion enabled Britain to cobble three ethnically separate provinces together -- Kurdish Mosul, Sunni Baghdad and Shiite Basra -- into a single land that London would rename Iraq. The name ''Iraq'' came from the ancient Arab cartographic designation.

The British then established Iraq as a nation for the sole purpose of structuring the exploitation of its oil. Arnold Wilson, the British civil administrator of Mesopotamia, the man who authorized General William Marshall's unauthorized push into Mosul, wrote, ''Thanks to General Marshall, we had established de facto, the principle that Mosul is part of 'Iraq,' to use the geographical expression. . . . Whether for the woe or weal of the inhabitants, it is too soon to say.'' Wilson added that, had General Marshall waited just 24 hours for the restraining instructions from London to arrive, history would be otherwise. But, Wilson continued, Marshall did not wait to invade Mosul, and so ''laid the foundation stone of the future State of Iraq.''

But Arab and Islamic nationalists in the newly invented Iraq did not want to share their land with infidel European Christians. Nor did they choose to share European values of democracy and pluralism, ideals that had never taken root in the Islamic Middle East for 7,000 years. It did not take long for the Iraqis to rise up in terror raids, burning, bombing, kidnapping and massacring Westerners, including those sent to commercially develop the land and its waterways.

Source

Like the equally disastrous Anglo-American "social engineering" in Iran that led, after years of unrest and persecution, to the rise of fundamentalist government there and its theocratic sanctioning of violence and terror, the British atrocities in Iraq led more or less directly to the rise of Saddam Hussein. A strongman, chieftain, and brutal oppressor of the people of Iraq. Hussein was "our man" and then he wasn't. Unhinged and power-mad, Hussein eventually overstepped his bounds and was brought down. As always, the Iraqi people suffer most. Black again:

The outraged British response to such horrors was aerial bombardment to shock and awe the villages. But the Iraqi violence and the British resolve to combat it with troops and tanks persisted, all for the oil wealth of Iraq.

After World War I, the British and the French, becoming ever more dependent upon oil, engineered a secret petroleum pact, sanctioned by the League of Nations, which divided up oil drilling and pipeline rights in Syria and Iraq. The oil pact was announced at San Remo the same day the League of Nations granted mandates to Britain to rule oil-rich Iraq, and France to rule Syria where the pipelines would run to the Mediterranean. The British worked hard to instill democratic values in Iraq, thus creating a stable environment for the oil to flow. But it was a governance disaster because the people did not want it. Genocide against minorities, ethnic cleansing, repression, corruption and neglect were the rule in Iraq for years.

Another, more recent episode in history looms over the bloody American actions in Iraq; the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The then-rival superpower never recovered from the protracted occupation of that country and was rent asunder by the ensuing chaos. It is unlikely that the USA would suffer a similar fate, for numerous reasons, but it's almost certain that the greater aims of the neocons infesting the Bush Administration won't be realized. Quietly, some of the hawks circling the beltway are advocating the withdrawal of the U.S. military from Iraq. To say this is a pragmatic view is an understatment. Beneath the measured tones is a sense of urgency.

A growing number of national security specialists who supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein are moving to a position unthinkable even a few months ago: that the large US military presence is impeding stability as much as contributing to it and that the United States should begin major reductions in troops beginning early next year.

Their assessments, expressed in reports, think tank meetings, and interviews, run counter to the Bush administration's insistence that the troops will remain indefinitely to establish security. But some contend that the growing support for an earlier pullout could alter the administration's thinking.

Those arguing for immediate troop reductions include key Pentagon advisers, prominent neoconservatives, and some of the fiercest supporters of the Iraq invasion among Washington's policy elite.

The core of their arguments is that even as the US-led coalition goes on the offensive against the insurgency, the United States, by its very presence, is stimulating the resistance.

Source

What this newfound pragmatism ignores, of course, is the number of Iraqi civilians murdered and maimed, terrified and displaced by the ongoing conflict. Estimates of civilians murdered by American military actions range from 16,000 to 100,000. As the resistance grows--and it surely will--there's no telling how many Iraqis will wind up caught in the crossfire. For this reason alone, the Bush Administration should abandon its overarching scheme of exploiting Iraqi oil resources and stabilizing the Middle East.

You've failed, President Bush, in spectacular fashion. You brought this down out of sheer arrogance. You and your cronies lied about the rationale for war, you continue to lie about Iraq's significance in your chimerical war on terrorism, and you're lying to yourself about its success and the eventual benefits. You risk engulfing the entire region in a massive, endless conflict and dismiss criticism with a smirk and a swagger. You ignore the building threat to Americans, who are and will be the most accessible and vulnerable targets of any future terrorist actions, and demand we sacrifice young men and women for a cause that is as futile as is it bloody. You are an amoral and arrogant elitist frittering away the chance to use our nation's boundless creativity and wealth in order to prop up a handful of multinational corporations and a wasteful, rapacious energy policy. And the greatest travesty, should the worst of worst case scenarios manifest, is that you will be among those protected, coddled, whisked away to some secret bunker in the interest of Continuity of Government while the American citizens, for whom you profess such deep abiding affection, eat shit.

Oh, and I've been meaning to ask you this; did you get a flu shot, President Bush?

Manufacturing Assent

Iraq Tells Media to Toe the Line

Friday 12 November 2004

(Reuters) Baghdad - Iraq's media regulator warned news organizations Thursday to stick to the government line on the U.S.-led offensive in Fallouja or face legal action.

Invoking a 60-day state of emergency declared by Iraq's interim government ahead of the assault that began Monday, Iraq's Media High Commission said media should distinguish between insurgents and ordinary residents of the Sunni Muslim city.

The commission, set up by the former U.S. governor of Iraq, was intended to be independent of the government and to encourage investment in the media and deter state meddling after decades of strict control under President Saddam Hussein.

The commission statement bore the letterhead of the Iraqi prime minister's office.

It said all media organizations operating in Iraq should "differentiate between the innocent Fallouja residents who are not targeted by military operations and terrorist groups that infiltrated the city and held its people hostage under the pretext of resistance and jihad."

Source

I was watching a news program with some friends the other day when they showed a picture of a Baghdad newsstand. There were literally dozens of newspapers on display, stacked side by side, with a hefty rock on each to keep the desert winds at bay. "Look at all those damn papers they have," someone said. I had read that the popular press was flourishing in parts of Iraq, particularly in Baghdad, and I suddenly realized I couldn't even imagine all the possible viewpoints in those stacks of paper. I wondered how all that information compared to the information we receive in America. The signal to noise ratio over there has got to be a shrill roar. Over here, the major papers dominate and carry pretty much the same stories from essentially the same sources. What's it like to see everything from militant broadsides to religious screeds to blatant government propaganda? Some would argue that's exactly what we see here but I don't think we know how bad we got it.

Most Americans don't even see the warp and woof of information in the hypermedia age. What is a "good story"? Who decides whether to run with a story or kill it? Take it a step farther--which is the better story, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and their accusations, or, how the group got their funding? The group paid to run those ads in a handful of states. Yet a helluva lot of Americans saw them because the networks played them over and over again, nationwide, for free. In Prime Time. Suddenly, swift boat veterans were all the rage, floating in behind the talking heads and squaring off against other swift boat veterans. Their opinions and recollections became the story. Meanwhile, the story behind the ads--the money, the partisan operatives, the transparent political game--was lost in the noise.

No one can tell you what to think. But the media works overtime to tell us what to think about.

This is the path down which Iraq is headed. The Iraq media regulator's statement makes clear how it expects the Iraqi media to behave:

"Differentiate between the innocent Fallouja residents who are not targeted by military operations and terrorist groups that infiltrated the city and held its people hostage under the pretext of resistance and jihad... guide correspondents in Fallouja not to promote unrealistic positions or project nationalist tags on terrorist gangs of criminals and killers... set aside space in your news coverage to make [clear] the position of the Iraqi government, which expresses the aspirations of most Iraqis."

It's time, then, to homogenize the Iraqi media, bring them in line, form a system modeled after the nascent democracy's older, wiser Uncle, the United States of America. Narrow "sanctioned" information to a few, nominally autonomous sources. Make sure the market favors those sources and the tempered, narrow interpretations they offer. Restrict access. Soon that access is mistaken by the public to indidcate respectable and trustworthy journalism.

The Reuters article contintues; "In August, satellite television channel Al Jazeera said it had been asked to close its Baghdad office for one month for backing 'criminals and gangsters' by airing parts of videotapes from groups claiming to have seized or killed foreign hostages.

A month later it said the ban had been extended indefinitely."

Al Jazeera, of course, has long been criticised by Administration officials as, at best, being biased against America and, at worst, fanning the flames of ant-American hatred. By extension, the American-backed government in Baghdad has to apply the same sanction. There's no point in allowing Iraqis to filter the information that's available to them and deciding for themselves what is credible or reliable. That's a job government ministries will now do for them. And if there's any question about the government's intent or resolve the following passage leaves little doubt:

"We hope you comply ... otherwise we regret we will be forced to take all the legal measures to guarantee higher national interests." Retuers reports the statement did not elaborate. One suspects there is no need to elaborate. Before launching his disastrous and inhumane invasion of Iraq, President Bush proclaimed that a free and democratic Iraq would serve as a "shining example" for other nations in the region. Those other nations would do well to take note of exactly what America means by a free press.

Vote Your Values

The cat's out of the bag. This election was about traditional values versus, I dunno, cosmopolitan values. This "divided America" is framed either as an assault by an immoral cultural elite on traditional values, or as the corrosion of true American values by an ignorant, moralistic herd. The cultural elite contorls the media and undermines the efforts of those trying to uphold the real issues--abortion, the homosexual agenda, the war against evil. The corporate media panders to the public while whitewashing or outright ignoring influence peddling, the destruction of the environment, the futility of a global war that, if anything, has all but destroyed the nation's image and future security.

In last Sunday's edition of the Orlando Sentinel, Kathleen Parker's opinion piece "Who You Callin' 'Ordinary'?" defines the "two Americas" in precisely these terms:

It's the elitism, mes freres....

The folks who re-elected Bush not only voted for the man they felt best represents their interests, but also against a culture they see as alien and hostile. The Bush vote was equally a protest agasint Hollywood, and increasingly untrustworthy media and the peurile Michael Moore contingent....

People who velieve in heterosexual marriage because the traditional family model best serves children and therefore society are not ipso facto homophobic. Americans vexed about our casual disregard for human life are not necessarily Stepford-Neanderthals. And, those people who believe in some power greater than themselves are not always rubes.

Source...

It's incomprehensible that a vote for Bush would be a vote against elitism. Bush is the elite incarnate. And while he indeed panders to the so-called moral majority, carefully and skillfully mesmerised by the GOP's unctuous message of values and fear, he is the most arrogant man on the planet. Parker's opinion, however, is right in line with just about all Bush supporters. It is just this type of mind-boggling, contradictory and illogical belief that prompted nearly half the nation to vote against Bush. It isn't snobbery or the sense of superiority. It's outrage.

On Saturday, November 5, the NPR program All Things Considered ran a piece discussing of the Born Again vote. They played a sermon delivered on the Sunday before the election by pastor Tim Wilder:

We're so faithful for so many other things, and yet... we get ready to go into the voting booth and make a very important decision for our country. And we don't need to go in there as a democrat or a republican or an independent. We need to go in there as a child of god, a believer in christ. Be faithful to God and faithful in Biblical convictions. What breaks my heart and I know breaks the heart of God is a lot of people don't go into the voting booth that way. They separate their Christianity from being a democrat or a republican or an independent or whatever. And God has been so faithful to us and yet when it comes to things like that we're not faithful to Him. I need you to listen to Matthew, Chapter 22 -- I'm going to start off by saying my name is pastor Tim Wilder and I approve of this message.

According to NPR pastor Wilder is a longtime political activist for the religious right. In 2000 he distributed "scorecards" for the candidates based on, one assumes, their respective positions on issues central to christian beliefs. NPR spoke to him about the election.

Wilder: The line was drawn very clear this year and some decisions were made in our country this year that kind of pushed this stuff in our face and, I think, pushed the Christian community back against the wall. We finally woke up and said, "Let's go to fight."...

We're just talking about a lot of moral issues. When we started to see, the Christian community has kinda been apathetic over the years, you know, let Government do Government's thing and let the Church do their thing... [What the judge did there was] trying to force their values on us and we thought we're not going to take it anymore, enough is enough....

I said to make a list... most of you probably have on your list; health care, education, social security, taxes, all these kinds of things, but what I want you to look at are the values that I think really matter even more deeply to God... [T]here's three values that I believe as Christians we need to deal with when we get ready to go vote. Other issues are important but these things need to be on the front line, these are the priorities. We value life, speaking up for life, the life of the unborn... and speaking up for the family.

When the interviewer, NPR's Jennifer Ludden, pointed out that the war on Iraq is certainly an issue involving the sanctity of life, innoncent life in the case of Iraqi citizens, Wilder says, "We talked about the Iraq war... I believe that war is even being fought to protect the freedoms of others--to stop the spread of evil."

He then immediately turns the question back on its head: "But I've been upset when I've been hearing people on TV say that the homosexual issue, which is dealing with the marriage issue, the abortion issue, which is to me an issue about life, those things are a side issue, they're not really important--what's more important is social security, tax plans, all this kind of stuff, education plans. What I said, is if we don't value family and start standing up for the traditional Biblical view of family--one man, one wife committed together in marriage--those other issues won't matter whatsoever... This country won't stand long. Some of the most mighty nations in the world, like the Roman Empire, they didn't fall from the outside, they fell from the inside. When the morality and the family starts going [away], the nation goes."

The view, then, is that the war in Iraq is a war against evil. Therefore, the lives of American and Iraqi soldiers (those fighting for us, anyway) and the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire are sacrafices in a greater struggle. The real struggle is to keep the empire strong--strong in its fear of God, strong in its moral certitude, strong in its conviction to continue bringing the innocent unborn into the world, into the fold, into the ranks of the empire's armies. Because if we waver in our fight against evil, and the empire falls, Jesus cannot return to fight the final war and bring the everlasting peace. Confused? Jerry Falwell explains:

With the Bible clear on our responsibility to live peaceably, it seems that there would be no reason to ever go to war. However, if one depends on the Bible as a guidepost for living, it is readily apparent that war is sometimes a necessary option. In fact, just as there are numerous references to peace in the Bible, there are frequent references to God-ordained war.

Many present-day pacifists hold Jesus as their example for unvarying peace. But they ignore the full revelation concerning Jesus pictured in the book of Revelation 19, where He is depicted bearing a "sharp sword" and smiting nations, ruling them with "a rod of iron"....

President Bush declared war in Iraq to defend innocent people. This is a worthy pursuit. In fact, Proverbs 21:15 tells us: "It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity"....

We continue to live in violent times. The Bible tells us war will be a reality until Christ returns. And when the time is right, Jesus will indeed come again, ending all wars.

Source...

But Jesus needs a base of operations, an empire to launch his war of peace. How, then, does the party of God, Family and Fear reach the faithful? What are God's talking points?

Wilder: We had two rallies here called Save America Now rallies. [The] Christain Coalition sponsored one here at our church... And I preached a sermon here the Sunday before the election; 'Fighting For America: Vote Our Values.'

I'm part of the Southern Baptist Convention... President Bush even spoke [via] satellite at the Southern Baptist Convention. And we're one of the largest demoninations in the United States, there's 16 million of us. We have an organization called I Vote Values. And of course, James Dobson, [director of] Focus on the Family, sent out a pastor packet kit to, I think, every pastor in the United States. It was [about] how to talk to your people. And a lot of the information I got for my sermon was from his materials.

NPR: There are laws prohibiting churches from endorsing a specific candidate -

Wilder: Yes, right... I never have done that. I never said, "vote for Bush," or anything. I told people don't go into the voting booth as a republican or a democrat. Go in the voting booth as a Born Again believer in Jesus Christ and vote your values. If anybody kinda read between the lines, they knew. Of course, they knew how I felt. I never did come out and say 'I'm voting for Bush,' which I could have said, personally. I cannot tell the church who to vote for. But if people asked me personally outside the pulpit I can tell them who I'm voting for and that kind of thing. But I've never said from the pulpit, and I'm real careful about [endorsing a candidate.]

[Bush] stands strong for these issues and now that he's got more Republicans in the senate [maybe] he can get more done... [I also said to the congregation] whoever wins this election is going to appoint Judges that probably are going to have a big say-so on the pro-life movement. I know everybody's turning it into the homosexual issue. It was not just about that. It's about morals, period.

We deliberately included this extensive quote, practically the entire interview, because it is imperative to understand that Wilder's views are not those of the radical fringe. Nor is Wilder, despite his name, a hell-and-brimstone preacher. He speaks in calm measured tones, almost dispassionate, and he's articulate. We can assume other pulpits echoed this message all across America that Sunday. This is a large movement and many, many more Americans not necessarily Born Again are in agreement. But the churches got out the vote.

Bush is seen as a decisive, morally correct man who protects marriage, protects the unborn, protects the nation. That he is body and soul the very embodiment of the political and corporate elite is lost in the clamor to Vote Your Values. That he would send thousands of innocent civilians to their death and pour young men and women into a hideous, possibly endless war are acts that betray an amoral, delusional being. One that admits no mistakes, that receives wisdom from the Almighty, that sees no contradition in proclaiming himself pro-life while planning an invasion, or espousing family values while shattering more and more families every day when they learn their son or daughter won't be coming home. That his most ardent admirers would return this man to the White House on the basis of moral issues is truly an act of blind faith. Onward Christian Soldiers.

Buzz Words

On November 1st we posted the following:

A second Bush term, especially one born from a contested, possibly suspicious election, is likely to result in massive domestic strife. Bush will see re-election as a concrete mandate for further aggression. His policies will continue to push sense and decency past all credulity. His followers will continue to see his lack of reflection and inability to admit mistakes as signs of his conviction and decisive leadership. The backlash will make the 60s look like a picnic. The Bush Cartel is perfectly capable of implementing a police state and all attendant forms of control. Some would say we're already there but I don't think we've seen anything yet.

That's just a bunch of alarmist gibberish. We sincerely apologize.

We should have told you not to bother voting at all and to RUN FOR THE FUCKING HILLS!

At his first press conference following re-election, Bush had the following exchange with a reporter:

REPORTER: Mr. President -- thank you. As you look at your second term, how much is the war in Iraq going to cost? Do you intend to send more troops or bring troops home? And in the Middle East, more broadly, do you agree with [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair that revitalizing the Middle East peace process is the single most pressing political issue facing the world?

BUSH: Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions [laughter].

Heh heh. What a card. Next question.

REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. President. How will you go about bringing people together? Will you seek a consensus candidate for the Supreme Court if there's an opening? Will you bring some Democrats into your Cabinet?

BUSH: Again, he violated the one-question rule right off the bat. Obviously, you didn't listen to the will of the people.

No laughter. At least none was noted on the official White House transcript. I certianly wasn't laughing when I watched it. Why? Because Bush looked irritated with the reporter. I can imagine past Presidents joking around this way, but invoking "the Will of the People" to suppress discussion? What next, posing for his official portrait with his hand tucked inside his jacket lapel?

"But the country is better off when we have a vigorous and free press covering our elections," the President said just moments before dictating to the members of our free press that the Will of the People precludes more than one question.

This wouldn't be worrying were it not for the insistence that Bush has been given a "mandate." A mandate is formal, something with clearly defined terms. A ballot initiative, where the exact nature of the proposal is known and understood by everyone voting on it and the voters decide on that particular issue alone, is a mandate. Calling Bush's re-election a mandate of the people is the equivalent of a superior officer handing a soldier his or her orders and saying, "There you go, signed and certified. Just fill in at the bottom there what it is we're ordering you to do."

This is echoing all over the place. I haven't heard the President himself use it, yet, but he said as much when he stated:

"I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. I'll reach out to anyone who shares our goals."

Is this what Riverside County Superior Court Judge Christian F. Thierbach had in mind when he stated that the election showed that many people in his community would expect sentencing that reflects high moral standards? Granted, the case involved unseemly practices but since when does the result of a Presidential election dictate sentencing guidelines?

It's likely we can expect much more of this. In Texas yesterday the Board of Education approved new health textbooks after pressuring the publishers to change wording about marriage.

On Thursday, a board member said that proposed new books ran counter to a Texas law banning the recognition of gay civil unions because the texts used terms like "married partners" instead of "husband and wife."

One board member, Mary Helen Berlanga, a Democrat, asked the panel to approve the books without the changes, but her proposal was rejected on a 10-to-4 vote.

"We're not supposed to make changes at somebody's whim," Ms. Berlanga said. "It's a political agenda, and we're not here to follow a political agenda."

Another board member, Terri Leo, a Republican, said she was pleased with the publishers' changes. She had led the effort to get the publishers to change the texts, objecting to what she called "asexual stealth phrases" like "individuals who marry."

"Marriage has been defined in Texas, so it should also be defined in our health textbooks that we use as marriage between a man and a woman," Ms. Leo said.

Source

Unfortunately, a spokesman for one of the publishers involved thought making the requested changes "was a reasonable thing to do." The other publisher did not respond to questions. Both companies are probably far more worried about being locked out of the Texas market. The state is the second largest buyer of textbooks, according to the AP, which filed the initial report.

One change that both publishers were able to avoid making is the following passage that Ms. Leo proposed for the teacher's edition of the textbook:

"Opinions vary on why homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals as a group are more prone to self-destructive behaviors like depression, illegal drug use and suicide." (ibid)

I'm sure the residents of Fallujah this morning would prefer a President with those sorts of problems as opposed to one who is a lying megalomanical mass murderer. You heard about Fallujah, right? Like the American heartland it's swimming in red. Blood red.

Revolution

Over the past several weeks I've devoured books, articles, blogs and broadcasts like crazy. Crazy even for me, which, any of my friends can tell you, is damn crazy. This research is the foundation of our collaborative efforts found here, the articles and the latest Radio Sub Rosa program.

Clearly, we oppose the Bush Administration at every turn and fervently hope America does the same in tomorrow's election. But the amount and type of research I've done has convinced me that neither of the political parties has the capacity to, a) grasp the depth of the crises facing the world, or, b) engage in substantive, transparent efforts to reverse decades of disastrous foreign policy. We support Kerry and we hope for a clear and decisive result in his favor. But then its time to face the real challenges.

There are literally dozens of grass roots movements afoot that could and should lead to an era of drastic reforms. This election represents the first step. We certainly don't think that Kerry is going to magically transform this nation. His campaign is founded on the idea that he can flex bigger than Bush. If Kerry is elected we should push harder and more relentlessly. But we see some hope for reform under Kerry if it is inexorably and consitently driven home by the public.

A second Bush term, especially one born from a contested, possibly suspicious election, is likely to result in massive domestic strife. Bush will see re-election as a concrete mandate for further aggression. His policies will continue to push sense and decency past all credulity. His followers will continue to see his lack of reflection and inability to admit mistakes as signs of his conviction and decisive leadership. The backlash will make the 60s look like a picnic. The Bush Cartel is perfectly capable of implementing a police state and all attendant forms of control. Some would say we're already there but I don't think we've seen anything yet.

Vote Kerry and then never let up. Work within the law but take to the streets when necessary. Show the world we know when enough is enough, that we're tired of reducing things to rubble when we aren't busy undermining governments and economies while commandeering their resources. Work to show our behemoth and entrenched political parties that we're tired of paying the price of admission to a system that we allegedly own and operate. Work to create truly independent and informed sources of information. Work harder than ever.