Earlier this week, this BBP Observer observed an episode of The Daily Show wherein Jon Stewart interviewed journalist John Bowe about his new book Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy. Now, I wasn't able to gather from their brief chat a very clear idea of the book's contents -- though it seems to focus on particular cases of slave labor (or labor conditions very very close to slavery) in the US and the US territory of Saipan -- but in any case it reminded me strongly of some of my own musings on the issue.
When we consider bonded child labor in India's silk industry, child slavery in West African cocoa production, and slavery in various industries in the Brazilian Amazon, and when we further consider that the products of those slaves' labor is primarily consumed in the rich countries of the world, then we can have no doubt that slavery is, in some sense, certainly alive, if not well, in America today. Bowe's book and similar reports, of course, show that slavery is occurring clandestinely within America's borders, but in some respects, globalization has rendered the exact geographic locations in which slavery occurs less relevant than ever before. In the sense that most matters, the moral sense, it doesn't matter where the slavery occurs if we are benefiting from it -- whether it is in our backyards or some backwater country around the world, we become culpable for it, culpable in the enslavement of other human beings, when we consume the products of slave labor.
But let me revise that a bit. Actually, it does matter where the slavery is occurring inasmuch as that affects very much the stomach we as consumers have for it. Indeed, we do not have slavery anymore out in the open in America -- where it does exist, it is done in secret -- because American consumers, in general, decided long ago that we could not tolerate seeing such ugliness right before our eyes. If the slavery is occurring far far away, however, it is another matter -- out of sight, out of mind. The American public and the American government are far far more tolerant of slavery in the Third World, where it is unlikely to put a damper on their evening TV viewing. In some ways, it as if America, uncomfortable with slavery at home, has simply exported it around the globe.
Oh, but perhaps I will come across as too cynical (though I sometimes wonder if there is such a thing). The truth, to be sure, is that the vast majority of American consumers don't even know that some of the products they consume are tainted by slavery. Or, at the worst, having seen or read one of the rare news stories on the subject, they engage in a kind of convenient self-delusion, "forgetting" what they've learned when they want some new silk sheets, a box of chocolates, or a hardwood floor of Brazilian "teak."
And that gets at one of the very real dangers of globalization and the truly global supply chains that it entails. If I buy a product that has passed from a slave to a slaver to a middleman to a processor and on and on along the supply chain until it comes around the world and winds up in some mall down the street, then it can, indeed, be quite difficult to know of its sordid provenance. If I am being utterly honest, then I have to admit that even though I have learned far more about these labor abuses than most people and have made a strict effort not to purchase products that I know to be tainted by them, there are quite probably still products I do purchase that are tainted in some way, if only because I do not know where they all are coming from. It is so difficult for an individual consumer to know the origin of every product he or she purchases, much less every ingredient within those products -- it would require an almost encyclopedic intellect.
Ah, but here we return again to our old, ugly friend the BPP. Individuals are not capable of regulating such things, but governments, with all their resources, certainly are, or should be. And the US gov't, in fact, has laws on the books prohibiting the importation of products produced with slave labor. But does it enforce them? Hardly, not with all the corporations that would lose billions of dollars if they were enforced, and not with all the money that politicians receive to make sure those slave-tainted goods keep rolling in.
But then again, what is government if not a collection of individuals, a collective reflection of all of us? By no means am I suggesting that we as consumers can abdicate our responsibility by saying that the gov't should take care of it. Certainly, the gov't should, but it is up to us to force the government's hand. It is our hand, in some way, after all. And maybe, just maybe, if we try hard enough, we can someday end this scourge that has stained the collective soul of humanity since time immemorial.
- - - - - - - - -
But speaking of grim situations that afford only the faintest glimmer of hope, it would be remiss not to mention the ongoing uprising in Burma (Myanmar). For now, suffice it to say that our thoughts are with the Burmese people, and though we fear the worst, we will hope for the best.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
The Weekly Weigh-in -- Black Death Edition
So, a few weeks ago your friendly BBPO wrote a post about how the US gov't has harassed and abused whistleblowers in Iraq who dared to speak out against the corruption of numerous government contractors. The post linked to an msnbc story detailing how these courageous people were variously fired, demoted, imprisoned, and interrogated for trying to stop illegal arms sales, reconstruction fraud, and the like. One even spent 97 days in a US military prison in Iraq for speaking out.
Of course, those whistleblowers were Americans. This week we've gotten a clearer picture of what it means to be an Iraqi who gets in the way of an American company.
In an incident last weekend, armed employees of the much loathed security company Blackwater allegedly slaughtered 11 Iraqi civilians without provocation. And as for that "allegedly" -- did it really happen like that? Or were the dead Iraqis insurgents, as Blackwater claims? Well, given the reports, the answer to that first question, unfortunately, is "probably." Word today from the Iraqi authorities is that they have a videotape proving that the Blackwater guards fired first, and I doubt very much that anything will emerge to show that said authorities can't tell the difference between a bunch of dead insurgents and 11 unarmed civilians.
In any case, the incident has brought further reporting that Blackwater employees have a wide reputation for terrorizing the civilian populace. An excellent, if stomach-turning, piece by Michael Hirsh even describes an incident in which a Blackwater employee got drunk and "boasted to his friends that he was going to kill someone " before stumbling away and doing just that.
What is most disturbing of all, however, is not that certain despicable people have committed despicable acts in this war zone -- history records enough atrocities that this should not surprise us -- but that the Bush administration is so complicit in these crimes by dint of the protections it affords to the criminals. By the laws, so-called, that the administration has created in Iraq and foisted upon the Iraqi gov't and civilians, it has given these private contractor paramilitaries immunity, apparently, from any form of criminal prosecution. If a Blackwater employee murders an Iraqi, the Iraqis are powerless to punish him, and the US cannot prosecute him under the rules that govern the regular American military. Is it any wonder, then, that some of these armed-to-the-teeth paramilitaries would commit murder, knowing that they will never face any consequences? And is it any wonder, by the way, as Hirsh notes in his article, that the US effort to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi populace hasn't been working out so great? When Blackwater guards are the ones protecting the State department diplomats charged with that mission, I gotta say, no, it isn't any wonder at all.
So yeah, the Bush administration, for all its lofty rhetoric, protects cold-blooded murderers working for the US gov't in Iraq. Meanwhile, back in America, Bush has recently vowed that he will veto a bill to provide health coverage to millions of uninsured children.
Of course, those whistleblowers were Americans. This week we've gotten a clearer picture of what it means to be an Iraqi who gets in the way of an American company.
In an incident last weekend, armed employees of the much loathed security company Blackwater allegedly slaughtered 11 Iraqi civilians without provocation. And as for that "allegedly" -- did it really happen like that? Or were the dead Iraqis insurgents, as Blackwater claims? Well, given the reports, the answer to that first question, unfortunately, is "probably." Word today from the Iraqi authorities is that they have a videotape proving that the Blackwater guards fired first, and I doubt very much that anything will emerge to show that said authorities can't tell the difference between a bunch of dead insurgents and 11 unarmed civilians.
In any case, the incident has brought further reporting that Blackwater employees have a wide reputation for terrorizing the civilian populace. An excellent, if stomach-turning, piece by Michael Hirsh even describes an incident in which a Blackwater employee got drunk and "boasted to his friends that he was going to kill someone " before stumbling away and doing just that.
What is most disturbing of all, however, is not that certain despicable people have committed despicable acts in this war zone -- history records enough atrocities that this should not surprise us -- but that the Bush administration is so complicit in these crimes by dint of the protections it affords to the criminals. By the laws, so-called, that the administration has created in Iraq and foisted upon the Iraqi gov't and civilians, it has given these private contractor paramilitaries immunity, apparently, from any form of criminal prosecution. If a Blackwater employee murders an Iraqi, the Iraqis are powerless to punish him, and the US cannot prosecute him under the rules that govern the regular American military. Is it any wonder, then, that some of these armed-to-the-teeth paramilitaries would commit murder, knowing that they will never face any consequences? And is it any wonder, by the way, as Hirsh notes in his article, that the US effort to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi populace hasn't been working out so great? When Blackwater guards are the ones protecting the State department diplomats charged with that mission, I gotta say, no, it isn't any wonder at all.
So yeah, the Bush administration, for all its lofty rhetoric, protects cold-blooded murderers working for the US gov't in Iraq. Meanwhile, back in America, Bush has recently vowed that he will veto a bill to provide health coverage to millions of uninsured children.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Weekly Weigh-in #2 - Abe bye-bye edition
Item 1:
Yes, with the news that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has decided to step down, we would like to think that this mighty blog has claimed its second victim. Could it have been reading our devastating critique of his recent, risible cabinet appointments that spurred Abe san to commit his political hara kiri? Okay, probably not, but a lil blogger can dream, can't he? And, I don't think it would too bold to say that it was mildly prescient to commentate on Abe's fecklessness so soon before his departure, if for no other reason than that nary an American outlet (that I saw, anyway) seemed to think the Endo ending to be worth even a shred of discussion. Why, you'd almost get the impression that Americans (generally speaking, of course) are completely provincial and narcissistic when it comes to international politics :^)...
No doubt, anyhow, that some Japanese folk predicted Abe's end was nigh, but I have actually read that even in Nippon (see the link), people were, by-and-large, quite surprised by the announcement. Not to be narcissistic myself, but could it be that even they, after having observed America's stay-the-course-even-if-it-means-driving-off-a-cliff leader for the last six years, and taking Abe to be a knucklehead of the same ilk, couldn't imagine that he'd actually throw in the towel?
Well, in any case, at long last, Mr. Abe, you have done something right - both for your country and your party. You have spared everyone the trauma of more of your bungling...
Man, imagine if America were so lucky: why, this particular national nightmare, at least, would have been over after Katrina. I mean, many could make the argument, of course, that Bush had made plenty of errors well before then to justify his resignation (justify, mind you, in this magical fairytale in which he admits and takes responsiblity for his errors), but hardly anyone with more than a half a brain would deny that "You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" should've sealed the deal (again, in fairytale land). Alas, we are doomed to live with reality, stubborn, idiotic reality, and will have to do so for another 14 months.
Thing, the second...
In a story not unrelated, perhaps, to last week's item on FDA and HHS corruptibility, Newsweek reports that the number of deaths, disabilities, and other unpleasantries linked to prescription medicines nearly tripled between 1998 and 2005. According to the article, FDA spokeslady Sandy Walsh says the FDA ain't disputin' the accuracy of those numbers: "[They're] consistent with FDA's report tracking, but they don't tell us why." (Presumably, she said this with a shrug and look of puzzlement.)
Well, here's a wild guess for ya, Sandy: maybe, just maybe, as the FDA has transformed itself more and more into a pharmaceutical industry lackey over those years, some unsafe medicines got approved for the sake of good old-fashioned greed. Oh, and around 15,000 people died in 2005 as a result. Still...15,000 dead people vs. piles of moolah...hmm, 15,000 dead people vs. piles of moolah...Which would you choose? Well hey, the great news for Big Pharma and the FDA is that you don't have to choose - you can, like, totally get both! Awesome!...
Oh, wait...
Yes, with the news that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has decided to step down, we would like to think that this mighty blog has claimed its second victim. Could it have been reading our devastating critique of his recent, risible cabinet appointments that spurred Abe san to commit his political hara kiri? Okay, probably not, but a lil blogger can dream, can't he? And, I don't think it would too bold to say that it was mildly prescient to commentate on Abe's fecklessness so soon before his departure, if for no other reason than that nary an American outlet (that I saw, anyway) seemed to think the Endo ending to be worth even a shred of discussion. Why, you'd almost get the impression that Americans (generally speaking, of course) are completely provincial and narcissistic when it comes to international politics :^)...
No doubt, anyhow, that some Japanese folk predicted Abe's end was nigh, but I have actually read that even in Nippon (see the link), people were, by-and-large, quite surprised by the announcement. Not to be narcissistic myself, but could it be that even they, after having observed America's stay-the-course-even-if-it-means-driving-off-a-cliff leader for the last six years, and taking Abe to be a knucklehead of the same ilk, couldn't imagine that he'd actually throw in the towel?
Well, in any case, at long last, Mr. Abe, you have done something right - both for your country and your party. You have spared everyone the trauma of more of your bungling...
Man, imagine if America were so lucky: why, this particular national nightmare, at least, would have been over after Katrina. I mean, many could make the argument, of course, that Bush had made plenty of errors well before then to justify his resignation (justify, mind you, in this magical fairytale in which he admits and takes responsiblity for his errors), but hardly anyone with more than a half a brain would deny that "You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" should've sealed the deal (again, in fairytale land). Alas, we are doomed to live with reality, stubborn, idiotic reality, and will have to do so for another 14 months.
Thing, the second...
In a story not unrelated, perhaps, to last week's item on FDA and HHS corruptibility, Newsweek reports that the number of deaths, disabilities, and other unpleasantries linked to prescription medicines nearly tripled between 1998 and 2005. According to the article, FDA spokeslady Sandy Walsh says the FDA ain't disputin' the accuracy of those numbers: "[They're] consistent with FDA's report tracking, but they don't tell us why." (Presumably, she said this with a shrug and look of puzzlement.)
Well, here's a wild guess for ya, Sandy: maybe, just maybe, as the FDA has transformed itself more and more into a pharmaceutical industry lackey over those years, some unsafe medicines got approved for the sake of good old-fashioned greed. Oh, and around 15,000 people died in 2005 as a result. Still...15,000 dead people vs. piles of moolah...hmm, 15,000 dead people vs. piles of moolah...Which would you choose? Well hey, the great news for Big Pharma and the FDA is that you don't have to choose - you can, like, totally get both! Awesome!...
Oh, wait...
Sunday, September 9, 2007
The Weekly Weigh-in (Inaugural Edition)
Well, guess what? Your friendly BBPO just went and got himself a job. Which explains the shortage of posts this week. See, I figured I'd get to just sit around in my sweatpants surfing the web all day like most bloggers, but through a series of strange coincidences and (what I can only assume to be) misunderstandings, someone decided they would pay me to sit at a different desk all day - and I don't even get to wear sweats! :^( But, money is useful ("Explain how." "Money can be exchanged for goods and services."), so I figured I should take it.
Unfortunately, jobbing significantly limits the time I have for blogging, so I decided I'll have to scale back the frequency of my posts. And so, I give you the Weekly Weigh-in, a short summary of some of the BBP's more disgusting activities:
1. We start out - why not? - with our old buddy Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, who has announced that he will indeed fight to retain the Senate seat he had just said he'd resign the week before. Crazy. Not much else to say that I haven't said, except that it's a bit amusing that Craig now wants to take back his resignation, much like he now wishes to recant his earlier guilty plea on the disorderly conduct charge (which led to the resignation). Sounds like somebody needs to think things out a little more clearly before he makes his major decisions.
2. Iraq's top corruption fighter has resigned, basically saying that the Iraqi government is so corrupt he was fighting an unwinnable battle. What's more, he had begun to fear for his life, on account of all the death threats. Not altogether unreasonably, he suggests that the US should stop supporting said government, although it's not entirely clear that any alternatives would be any better. Indeed, it remains hard to imagine any way that Bush can extricate America from the mess he's made over there, regardless of whatever Pollyannaish spin General Petraeus spouts in his testimony before Congress next week.
3. And finally, another disturbing story about the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA. Seems they approved an implantable microchip that causes elevated rates of cancer in lab rats. To be fair, it's not clear that there will be a similar risk for humans, but the evidence is disturbing enough to have prompted a number of doctors quoted in the article to say that further research ought to have been conducted. What's more, seems that former head of the HHS and laughable, non-candidate for president Tommy "Tom-Tom" Thompson was given scads of cash and stocks by the maker of the chip mere months after leaving the department. Illegal? Probably not, given the almost non-existent anti-corruption laws in today's America. But shady as a snake's belly? You bet.
But then, they gots ta feed the ol' BBP.
Unfortunately, jobbing significantly limits the time I have for blogging, so I decided I'll have to scale back the frequency of my posts. And so, I give you the Weekly Weigh-in, a short summary of some of the BBP's more disgusting activities:
1. We start out - why not? - with our old buddy Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, who has announced that he will indeed fight to retain the Senate seat he had just said he'd resign the week before. Crazy. Not much else to say that I haven't said, except that it's a bit amusing that Craig now wants to take back his resignation, much like he now wishes to recant his earlier guilty plea on the disorderly conduct charge (which led to the resignation). Sounds like somebody needs to think things out a little more clearly before he makes his major decisions.
2. Iraq's top corruption fighter has resigned, basically saying that the Iraqi government is so corrupt he was fighting an unwinnable battle. What's more, he had begun to fear for his life, on account of all the death threats. Not altogether unreasonably, he suggests that the US should stop supporting said government, although it's not entirely clear that any alternatives would be any better. Indeed, it remains hard to imagine any way that Bush can extricate America from the mess he's made over there, regardless of whatever Pollyannaish spin General Petraeus spouts in his testimony before Congress next week.
3. And finally, another disturbing story about the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA. Seems they approved an implantable microchip that causes elevated rates of cancer in lab rats. To be fair, it's not clear that there will be a similar risk for humans, but the evidence is disturbing enough to have prompted a number of doctors quoted in the article to say that further research ought to have been conducted. What's more, seems that former head of the HHS and laughable, non-candidate for president Tommy "Tom-Tom" Thompson was given scads of cash and stocks by the maker of the chip mere months after leaving the department. Illegal? Probably not, given the almost non-existent anti-corruption laws in today's America. But shady as a snake's belly? You bet.
But then, they gots ta feed the ol' BBP.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Just when you thought is was over
Well, well, guess who's having second thoughts about resigning? Yes, it appears that Larry Craig just doesn't know when to give up. Most people tend to go ahead and do so after having, like, said they were going to - it's kinda hard to retract a widely publicized and humiliating resignation. But, looks like Craig might try.
What on earth would make him think he could pull this off? Hard to say, but I'd guess it's the same massively delusional brain that may have actually convinced the Senator that he's "not gay." "Sure," says said brain, "I like to have sex with other men in public restrooms, but that doesn't make me gay!" Well, actually, it does, but it seems there's no limit to how far a hypocrite-politician can twist semantics. Of course, I can't actually say if Craig really believes his absurd "not gay" claims, or if he just has no compunction about lying. Either way, he's obviously unfit to remain in office (much like the vast majority of his congressional colleagues).
But, perhaps he will try, and frankly I'd like to see it. As noted here before, it'll just prolong the damage to the GOP, and, while your BBPO is no fan of the Democrats - the inevitable beneficiaries of Republican missteps in this, alas, two-party system - he is willing to view them as the lesser of two evils for the time being.
So, yeah, fight the power, Larry. You can the beat the rap!
What on earth would make him think he could pull this off? Hard to say, but I'd guess it's the same massively delusional brain that may have actually convinced the Senator that he's "not gay." "Sure," says said brain, "I like to have sex with other men in public restrooms, but that doesn't make me gay!" Well, actually, it does, but it seems there's no limit to how far a hypocrite-politician can twist semantics. Of course, I can't actually say if Craig really believes his absurd "not gay" claims, or if he just has no compunction about lying. Either way, he's obviously unfit to remain in office (much like the vast majority of his congressional colleagues).
But, perhaps he will try, and frankly I'd like to see it. As noted here before, it'll just prolong the damage to the GOP, and, while your BBPO is no fan of the Democrats - the inevitable beneficiaries of Republican missteps in this, alas, two-party system - he is willing to view them as the lesser of two evils for the time being.
So, yeah, fight the power, Larry. You can the beat the rap!
Monday, September 3, 2007
"Winning" the War
So, a new Newsweek article shows the reality belying the lunatic unreality of the Bush administration's argument that the "surge" is working. Here's a taste:
It was their last stand. Kamal and a handful of his neighbors were hunkered down on the roof of a dun-colored house in southwest Baghdad two weeks ago as bullets zinged overhead. In the streets below, fighters from Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army fanned out and blasted away with AK-47s and PKC heavy machine guns. Kamal is a chubby 44-year-old with two young sons, and he and his friends, all Sunnis, had been fighting similar battles against Shiite militiamen in the Amel neighborhood for months. They jumped awkwardly from rooftop to rooftop, returning fire. Within minutes, however, dozens of uniformed Iraqi policemen poured into the street to support the militiamen. Kamal ditched his AK on a rooftop and snuck away through nearby alleys. He left Amel the next day... [emphasis added]
See, whatever Bush says about reduced violence (and bear in mind that thousands of Iraqis are still dying every month), it doesn't mean a thing so long as the government is also involved in the sectarian bloodletting. I.e., so long as "Iraqi policemen" are helping Shiite militiamen in their on-going pogrom against Sunnis, so long as al-Maliki and other politicians are supported by and beholden to such militias, things are just not going to turn out well. It wouldn't matter how many troops America sends - it will all be for naught if the Shiites and Sunnis (and let's not forget the Kurds) can't produce a united government between them.
So, can they? Well, so far, not so good, if the stories of people like Kamal and thousands of others are to count for anything in this debate (which, y'know, they probably ought to). And unfortunately, regardless of any slight decrease in violence that may be occurring for now, there has been no indication that the sectarian divisions show any signs of healing, which, alas, is not too surprising - people tend to hold grudges against people they perceive to be responsible for murdering their family members, stealing their land, destroying their businesses, etc., etc.
Accordingly, one has to wonder about the wisdom (duh) of Bush's stubborn "srategeries" for Iraq.
Of course, don't put it past the administration to eventually employ a deeply cynical definition of victory, which the article hints at here:
When Gen. David Petraeus goes before Congress next week to report on the progress of the surge, he may cite a decline in insurgent attacks in Baghdad as one marker of success. In fact, part of the reason behind the decline is how far the Shiite militias' cleansing of Baghdad has progressed: they've essentially won.
Yes, someday all the Sunnis may be purged from Shiite areas, and all the Shiites from Sunni areas, and members of both groups may all be driven from the Kurdish north. And hey, maybe then, after thousands have been killed, and millions driven from their homes - after, that is, Iraq has been torn into three along sectarian and ethnic lines - maybe things will be relatively peaceful. Maybe there just won't be any killing left to do. And maybe that, in the end, is how Bush and his cronies will find a way of "winning" the war.
It was their last stand. Kamal and a handful of his neighbors were hunkered down on the roof of a dun-colored house in southwest Baghdad two weeks ago as bullets zinged overhead. In the streets below, fighters from Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army fanned out and blasted away with AK-47s and PKC heavy machine guns. Kamal is a chubby 44-year-old with two young sons, and he and his friends, all Sunnis, had been fighting similar battles against Shiite militiamen in the Amel neighborhood for months. They jumped awkwardly from rooftop to rooftop, returning fire. Within minutes, however, dozens of uniformed Iraqi policemen poured into the street to support the militiamen. Kamal ditched his AK on a rooftop and snuck away through nearby alleys. He left Amel the next day... [emphasis added]
See, whatever Bush says about reduced violence (and bear in mind that thousands of Iraqis are still dying every month), it doesn't mean a thing so long as the government is also involved in the sectarian bloodletting. I.e., so long as "Iraqi policemen" are helping Shiite militiamen in their on-going pogrom against Sunnis, so long as al-Maliki and other politicians are supported by and beholden to such militias, things are just not going to turn out well. It wouldn't matter how many troops America sends - it will all be for naught if the Shiites and Sunnis (and let's not forget the Kurds) can't produce a united government between them.
So, can they? Well, so far, not so good, if the stories of people like Kamal and thousands of others are to count for anything in this debate (which, y'know, they probably ought to). And unfortunately, regardless of any slight decrease in violence that may be occurring for now, there has been no indication that the sectarian divisions show any signs of healing, which, alas, is not too surprising - people tend to hold grudges against people they perceive to be responsible for murdering their family members, stealing their land, destroying their businesses, etc., etc.
Accordingly, one has to wonder about the wisdom (duh) of Bush's stubborn "srategeries" for Iraq.
Of course, don't put it past the administration to eventually employ a deeply cynical definition of victory, which the article hints at here:
When Gen. David Petraeus goes before Congress next week to report on the progress of the surge, he may cite a decline in insurgent attacks in Baghdad as one marker of success. In fact, part of the reason behind the decline is how far the Shiite militias' cleansing of Baghdad has progressed: they've essentially won.
Yes, someday all the Sunnis may be purged from Shiite areas, and all the Shiites from Sunni areas, and members of both groups may all be driven from the Kurdish north. And hey, maybe then, after thousands have been killed, and millions driven from their homes - after, that is, Iraq has been torn into three along sectarian and ethnic lines - maybe things will be relatively peaceful. Maybe there just won't be any killing left to do. And maybe that, in the end, is how Bush and his cronies will find a way of "winning" the war.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Sayonara, Endo san
You know, the BBP is really, really B (the first B), such that he's pretty much everywhere at once - kinda like Baby Jesus. Yup, he's not merely an American, but truly a citizen of the world.
Sometimes he even likes to put on one of those big diapers and roll around like a sumo, as evidenced by the latest scandal from Japan: Today, Agriculture Minister Takehiko Endo has decided to resign, mere days after being appointed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Seems that in a bid to improve the corruption-tainted image of his government, Abe decided to appoint a guy who, uh, has some corruption issues of his own. Probably not a good idea. In fact, I'd say it makes Abe the number one contender for the crown of most bone-headed political appointments currently held by undisputed champion George "The Decider" Bush.
See, this is, like, the third agriculture minister Abe's had in the last few months, and both of the first two had to quit because of corruption also. (Well, actually, the first one didn't quit, exactly, but committed suicide, which made it hard, I guess, to keep showing up for work.) So, for Abe not to have vetted this latest guy properly is arguably as moronic as Bush's all-time classic appointments like Bernard Kerik, Harriet Miers, and John Bolton.
That said, it's amusing to note that Endo is losing his job over an amount of money that reportedly comes to about $10,000, which is pretty amateurish when compared to the American Big Leagues of political graft. Does this mean Japan is better at punishing corruption than the US? Probably not. But it's hard to imagine how many more of Bush's buddies would have to go if they got hounded out for a measly ten thousand bucks. Accordingly, I'd say Abe's got his work cut out for him if he truly wants to challenge the dimwit-in-chief.
Sometimes he even likes to put on one of those big diapers and roll around like a sumo, as evidenced by the latest scandal from Japan: Today, Agriculture Minister Takehiko Endo has decided to resign, mere days after being appointed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Seems that in a bid to improve the corruption-tainted image of his government, Abe decided to appoint a guy who, uh, has some corruption issues of his own. Probably not a good idea. In fact, I'd say it makes Abe the number one contender for the crown of most bone-headed political appointments currently held by undisputed champion George "The Decider" Bush.
See, this is, like, the third agriculture minister Abe's had in the last few months, and both of the first two had to quit because of corruption also. (Well, actually, the first one didn't quit, exactly, but committed suicide, which made it hard, I guess, to keep showing up for work.) So, for Abe not to have vetted this latest guy properly is arguably as moronic as Bush's all-time classic appointments like Bernard Kerik, Harriet Miers, and John Bolton.
That said, it's amusing to note that Endo is losing his job over an amount of money that reportedly comes to about $10,000, which is pretty amateurish when compared to the American Big Leagues of political graft. Does this mean Japan is better at punishing corruption than the US? Probably not. But it's hard to imagine how many more of Bush's buddies would have to go if they got hounded out for a measly ten thousand bucks. Accordingly, I'd say Abe's got his work cut out for him if he truly wants to challenge the dimwit-in-chief.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Missed it by that much
So, the soon-to-be former Senator Craig announced his resignation this morning (though it won't take effect until Sept. 30, I gather). What a punk. Besides being a hypocrite, a corporate lapdog, and surprisingly unstylish for a gay guy (though this outfit is pretty (unintentionally) fabulous, I must say), he had to go ahead and wait an extra half-day before giving up the ghost, thereby proving my prognosticating to be less than perfectly accurate. Way uncool. O sure, the gist of my guess was right - that he would do it when it would receive the least possible attention (and Friday afternoon and Saturday morning are interchangeable on that score, I guess) but I kinda picked Friday, so I'm a bit disappointed.
On the other hand, I hear Larry Craig had to resign today, so that cheers me up some.
On the other hand, I hear Larry Craig had to resign today, so that cheers me up some.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)