Friday, August 31, 2007

The Great Iraq Swindle- How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S. Treasury

As any reader of this blog knows, I believe Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone is the best political analyst and writer working today. His importance as a journalist cannot be overstated. His bravery and cunning are at a new high with his investigative piece for the latest issue of Rolling Stone.

Quite simply, he has written a piece that should be read by every American citizen. If you pay taxes. If you vote. If you have ever supported the War in Iraq. If you have ever served in the military or love someone in the military, especially someone serving in Iraq, you must read this article.

If 25% of this article is accurate (and I believe it is much higher), there are people and companies working in Iraq that are treasonous war profiteers, some of whom are ex-military and ex-office holders. We already has these hunches and have seen reports, but this is huge. If Congress had any guts (which it doesn't), it would force high level hearings and investigations of these goings on.

Here is a link to the article.

If you have an incredibly short attention span or need a teaser, here is the link to a 4 minute video by Taibbi giving a synopsis of what has happened.

Be prepared. If you are not a completely partisan political hack, this article will anger you on many levels. If it does not anger you, or you feel it is liberal media bashing, help me to understand your point of view on this.

Thank you to Matt Taibbi for doing the most Christian thing a journalist can do... taking your calling seriously and bringing that which is in the dark into the light of day.

a teaser passage for you.

Operation Iraqi Freedom, it turns out, was never a war against Saddam ­Hussein's Iraq. It was an invasion of the federal budget, and no occupying force in history has ever been this efficient. George W. Bush's war in the Mesopotamian desert was an experiment of sorts, a crude first take at his vision of a fully privatized American government. In Iraq the lines between essential government services and for-profit enterprises have been blurred to the point of absurdity -- to the point where wounded soldiers have to pay retail prices for fresh underwear, where modern-day chattel are imported from the Third World at slave wages to peel the potatoes we once assigned to grunts in KP, where private companies are guaranteed huge profits no matter how badly they f--- things up.

And just maybe, reviewing this appalling history of invoicing orgies and million-dollar boondoggles, it's not so far-fetched to think that this is the way someone up there would like things run all over -- not just in Iraq but in Iowa, too, with the state police working for Corrections Corporation of America, and DHL with the contract to deliver every Christmas card. And why not? What the Bush administration has created in Iraq is a sort of paradise of perverted capitalism, where revenues are forcibly extracted from the customer by the state, and obscene profits are handed out not by the market but by an unaccountable government bureauc­racy. This is the triumphant culmination of two centuries of flawed white-people thinking, a preposterous mix of authoritarian socialism and laissez-faire profit­eering, with all the worst aspects of both ideologies rolled up into one pointless, supremely idiotic military adventure -- American men and women dying by the thousands, so that Karl Marx and Adam Smith can blow each other in a Middle Eastern glory hole.

It was an awful idea, perhaps the worst America has ever tried on foreign soil. But if you were in on it, it was great work while it lasted.

and
Such excuses speak to a monstrous vacuum of patriotism; it would be hard to imagine contractors being so blithely disinterested in results during World War II, where every wasted dollar might mean another American boy dead from gangrene in the Ardennes. But the rampant waste of money and resources also suggests a widespread contempt for the ostensible "purpose" of our presence in Iraq. Asked to cast a vote for the war effort, contractors responded by swiping everything they could get their hands on -- and the administration's acquiescence in their thievery suggests that it, too, saw making a buck as the true mission of the war. Two witnesses scheduled to testify before Congress against Custer Battles ultimately declined not only because they had received death threats but because they, too, were contractors and feared that they would be shut out of future government deals. To repeat: Witnesses were afraid to testify in an effort to ­recover government funds because they feared reprisal from the government.
lastly
For the most part, nobody at home cared, because war on some level is always a waste. But what happened in Iraq went beyond inefficiency, beyond fraud even. This was about the business of government being corrupted by the profit motive to such an extraordinary degree that now we all have to wonder how we will ever be able to depend on the state to do its job in the future. If catastrophic failure is worth billions, where's the incentive to deliver success? There's no profit in patriotism, no cost-plus angle on common decency. Sixty years after America liberated Europe, those are just words, and words don't pay the bills.


Hillary, really?

I must say... I don't get the Democrats continued desire to nominate Hillary Clinton. Do they really think the Republicans will not run the singularly dirtiest and most efficient campaign in history to make sure is not elected President?

Plus, do they think that living in the White House for 8 years trumps everything else? Do they really think she is more "qualified" than anyone else? As Obama said, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield had the most impressive resumes we have ever seen. Experience does not mean wisdom.

Do they care that her Iraq and terrorism policies are more conservative than many Republicans?

Do they care that we will leave the clean up of one of the worst Presidencies in history, which happened to be a political dynasty to yet another political dynasty?

Do you realize that if she is elected President, we will have a Bush or Clinton in office since January of 1989 (and one in the White House since January of 1981)? We might as well establish a monarchy. Does this not bother others? Of course, as I just stated, the Republicans will sell their first born children to keep her out of the WH.

Democrats just don't know enough Republicans to understand this. They are foolish enough to blow the next election.

sorry- I was just looking at some pol #s and really bothered.

Thursday, August 30, 2007

my little radio head

Listening to Radiohead's The Bends a few days ago, I had 2 revelations...
  1. the 3:13 mark of the song The Bends is a moment of complete and absolute musical nirvana (and yes, I wish it was the sixties, I wish I could happy, too).
  2. Jesus Christ is my Iron Lung*
*albeit a much more productive one than Thom Yorke's

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

so, can a Pacifist like The Departed?

-Okay. I am back for a moment-

On his blog, someone directed a comment towards me, not understanding how someone that practices nonviolence and abhors its glamorization could find a film such as The Departed a positive storytelling experience. It seemed inconsistent with my world-view to enjoy such a film.

It is not inconsistent for someone to be repulsed by the glamorization of violence and find a film which is very bloody to be worthwhile watching. I know I have spoken on this very many times, but I ask for patience as I try to explain it once more (apparently I am not very cogent at this argument- which is in my opinion one of the key blind spots of modern Christianity- along with the embrace of materialism and consumerism)...

It is very simple. Films such as The Departed deal with the implications of violent acts upon persons and the world around them. They do not glorify violence. In fact, they deglamorize its usefullness in film and society (making it repulsive and shocking, thereby stripping it of its power) and they do not embrace The Myth of Redemptive Violence which is a very dangerous myth and controls much of American Christianity.

The myth that the hero attains the salvation of others through the use of violence has been around since pre-Biblical literature. However, it stands in marked contrast to the idea of Jesus and the early church martyrs. It has much more in common teachings within with Islam, Crusade and Inquisition era "Christianity" and our Mormon friends. Sadly, it is the dominant myth of present day society.

It is not violence in film which I reject. It is the glorification of violence in popular culture I reject. It is the dehumanization of our enemies, which leads to seeing Iraqi kids as collateral damage and torture as a needed evil in present war. It leads to seeing some people as deserving their violent ends, such as a murderer or gangbanger. It slowly dehumanizes us, which separates us from Christ.

Some of my favorite films, such as The Departed, Three Kings, Schindler's List, The Proposition, Unforgiven, V for Vendetta, Children of Men and Pan's Labyrinth are terribly violent. They deal with violence in a serious, thoughtful, even handed manner. It is not something to be embraced or celebrated. It is something with human and societal costs. It dehumanizes the person doing the violent act more so than the person murdered. It is not something to be cheered, laughed at or embraced. It is to be rejected. The hope in these films comes from the rejection of the dominant myth and embrace of hope (I might say that the opposite of violence is not peace, but hope- is there a need for redemptive violence when hope is there?).

On the other hand we have the Die Hard films (which I loved as a child, yet turned away from as an adult), Rambo films*, 24, The Sopranos, Sin City, Grindhouse, the Saw trilogy and pretty much every horror and action** film at the cineplex. The myth of redemptive violence in film reverberates throughout our cities like an Adhan, calling the faithful to prayerfully embrace its ideal in its moviehouses and televisions weekly.

We are a marked contrast to other cultures, which see these films as another form of pornography, one (dare I say it) which is even more damaging to our lives. What is the difference between the pornography of sexuality and the pornography of violence? They both lead us away from the way of Jesus towards materialism (in the Marxist assessment) and the death of our humanity.

Although I seem to be a cynic, I must embrace the hope which came through the destruction of the myth of redemptive violence by Christ. I have no choice.

Here is the ironic part...

...I am still inconsistent to some degree. I think Pulp Fiction, which simultaneously embraces the myth and revels in its absurd destruction is among the greatest movies ever made. I accept it because of its superior storytelling skills and acting. Greatness in film will trump conviction, you know.

*Speaking of Rambo films... one day I will tell you about my moment of clarity revolving around the murder of Vietnamese and its glorification sickening me as a young teenager.

**Think even of Jason Bourne, one that does not embrace his darkness and runs from violence when possible and does not indiscriminately kill. He is a marked contrast to Jack Bauer and Tony Soprano.

Monday, August 27, 2007

to be continued????????

So, I am reevaluating my web presence. I have had plenty to blog about lately, but found myself not running to the computer to offer up my opinion on a number of matters. I am not sure if it is due to busyness in general, desire to spend more time with the family or the fact that I cannot get my head out of a couple of books. Spending time in professional ministry and a church daily bears much of the blame for my lack of blogging, which is not a bad thing.

Plus, whenever I am on the computer, I should be spending time looking for long term employment options. So, there are a number of reasons...

Plus, coming to the realization that only a few people come by to read the blog (I blogged a lot more when the traffic was high) and that these things are cyclical (or blogging has just lost its allure). I am not sure what it is.

Maybe I am not that interested in my own opinions on political or cultural matters or find that more of blogging is just an excuse to be a windbag for most of us, hoping to show how smart we are and how insightful our thoughts are, when most of our thoughts are run of the mill, garden variety boring and lacking in any real insight (especially when compared to what we can get from real writers). I have also found myself spending much less time on the blogs of others, coming to the realization that very few of us have original voices and have much to say in the end.

I may change my mind tomorrow. Heck, I may not even agree with this assessment in a few minutes (considering the fact that I have felt similarly in the past and it has not shut me up). Maybe I am looking for a more constructive way to add to the conversation 9whatever the heck that means- BTW, what is this "conversation" we are having on the web).

For now, I will let everyone else debate Michael Vick, Christian behavior, angels dancing on needleheads, the latest debacle from the Bush administration* and the theological and social implications from the latest treacle from Hollywood or the publishing world. I am going to find a new career path and spend time with my newborn.

I may be back (maybe tomorrow)....

TBC?


*I just heard that Alberto Gonzales is resigning as Attorney General. Just remember as you get older that he is the answer to the following future trivial pursuit and jeopardy questions...

1. Who is the most inept Attorney General in US History?
2. Who is the worst AG in US History?
3. Which Attorney General politicized the office in creative manners no one before had thought of?
4. Which Attorney general made John Ashcroft look moderate and level headed?
5. Why should presidents appoint only qualified people to head up the Justice Department instead of loyal friends and followers?

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Cats and Dogs and their political agendas

It is a few years old, so you may have seen this, but it is new to me. Thanks to Phil for posting it first (as an Independent I like this... by the way- I am a cat person, but I own a dog, so figure that one out).

Monday, August 13, 2007

a prophet called the Iraq Quagmire in 1994

It has been viewed 300000 times in 3 days, so you may have seen it. However, as the father of a newborn, I am behind the times. Here is Dick Cheney in 1994 explaining how an Iraq invasion would create a quagmire. I wish he had shared his knowledge with the present administration...

the birth of Rhys






































On Thursday, August 9 at 9:44 p.m. the Bennett family added another member to the brood, joining mom, dad, firstborn Marley the Dog, second born Gillian Flannery Grace and heir to the throne, Aedan Walker Coltrane. Rhys (reece) Gabriel Patrick is the newest Bennett.






















Check out our picture blog for more pictures and Kristi's blog if you desire to know about labor and birth (natural, short, no doctors involved).

picture blog

Kristi's blog

years too late, it finally happens

George W. Bush is no longer the 3rd most powerful man in the administration. He is now up to #2 on the depth chart.

story

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Deadly Sins for Kids

I felt as if I was reading a diary of my own personal jihad against mainstream child-based consumerism and media when reading this article from our local Independent Weekly entitled, The Seven Deadly Sins of Kid Culture.

His 7 are:
  1. Insipidness (i.e. Teletubbies and most children's tv- the reason we call it the boobtube. this prepares kids to become American Idol and Age of Love watching adults)
  2. Brattiness (i.e. letting kids watch Simpsons and many "kid movies" that elevate smarting off to adults)
  3. Princess-ness (no explanation needed- this is evil and taints a girls view of femininity, gender roles, fairy tale weddings, etc. This is a constant battle in my house)
  4. Stereo-typing (not as bad as it used to be, but you still have to be careful- think Jar Jar Binks and old Disney movies, like the cats in Lady in the Tramp)
  5. Violence (my kids have a violent steak although they own no toy guns, etc. It is innate, so we must be vigilant. Even some kid movies are Revenge fantasies with that Myth of Redemptive Violence all over them. Needless to say, we have not yet introduced the wonders of the Looney Tunes- maybe soon)
  6. Vulgarity (Potty humor is all the rage these days, especially in Hollywood films. Shrek is infamous to bodily functions masked as thoughtful humor. It is tired and shoots for the lowest common denominator, making kids think such outbursts are okay in public- which our son takes advantage of)
  7. Sluttiness (yes, the Bratz, which our daughters classmates regularly bring to school and have as themes of parties- our daughter wants this stuff and it is difficult to explain that we don't want our 5 year old dressing like Lindsay Lohan's little sister)
His pet names for these adversaries for each parent (liberal and conservative alike) are Blandy, Bratty, Dippy, Bleedy, Gassy, Trampy and Jar Jar. Interestingly, parenting and child culture is one of those things that can bring people together across the political and religious divides. I find strong agreement on these issues with my ultra liberal hippy friends and my fundamentalist friends. Both groups see the dangers in excessive consumerism and childhood (sadly, the rest of the middle ground seems to miss this).