Thursday, May 26, 2005

Boom - you're Fucked






Watch the umbrella closely...



... because your economy's going the same way


Almost Unnoticed, Bipartisan Budget Anxiety

By Dana Milbank
Post
Wednesday, May 18, 2005; A04

The timing could not have been more apt. On the eve of a titanic partisan
clash in the Senate, eggheads of the left and right got together yesterday
to warn both parties that they are ignoring the country's most pressing
problem: that the United States is turning into Argentina.

While Washington plunged into a procedural fight over a pair of judicial
nominees, Stuart Butler, head of domestic policy at the conservative
Heritage Foundation, and Isabel Sawhill, director of the left-leaning
Brookings Institution's economic studies program, sat down with Comptroller General David M. Walker to bemoan what they jointly called the budget "nightmare."

...

With startling unanimity, they agreed that without some combination of big
tax increases and major cuts in Medicare, Social Security and most other
spending, the country will fall victim to the huge debt and soaring interest
rates that collapsed Argentina's economy and caused riots in its streets a
few years ago.

"The only thing the United States is able to do a little after 2040 is pay
interest on massive and growing federal debt," Walker said. "The model blows up in the mid-2040s. What does that mean? Argentina."

"All true," Sawhill, a budget official in the Clinton administration,
concurred. "To do nothing," Butler added, "would lead to deficits of the scale we've never seen in this country or any major in industrialized country. We've seen them in Argentina. That's a chilling thought, but it would mean that."

...

The unity of the bespectacled presenters was impressive -- and it made their conclusion all the more depressing. As Ron Haskins, a former Bush White House official and current Brookings scholar, said when introducing the thinkers: "If Heritage and Brookings agree on something, there must be
something to it."

...

But such haggling seems premature when both parties still deny the problem. "I don't think we're there yet," Walker said. "The American people have to understand where we are and where we're headed."

And where is that? "No republic in the history of the world lasted more than
300 years," Walker said. "Eventually, the crunch comes."


Daddy's friends bought George W Bush a company called Harken Oil, and he ran it into the ground. Then daddy's friends bought him another company called Arbusto, and he ran it into the ground. Then daddy's friends bought him the Texas Rangers and he inflated transfer fees so high, he ran baseball into the ground... Then daddy's friends bought him the United States of America.

As I wrote in a previous post: keep following the money... Because pretty soon there ain't gonna be much left.


Best Cup Final Ever




"In one game of football I learnt most of what I know about life"




- Albert Camus, existentialist & goalie











Never stop fighting. Never give up. Fight fate.

Everything is possible and as the clock strikes thirty past midnight - dreams become reality.

The game of football is the game of life.

Anything can happen.

Nothing is written until the last second of the last minute of the last half.

And in Istanbul, life, death and rebirth all played out in 120 minutes...

... plus penalties.



Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Follow the Money





This is how they want you.

Just to cut to the big picture on the 'nuclear option', the right to filibuster and these awful fucking human beings they've decided to turn into judges.

It has nothing to do with cultural values.

Abortion? Gay marriage? Stem cell research? Right to die?

Macguffins, all of them.

Sure, there's millions of folks out there who get whipped up into a rage of pure white fury over this stuff - but they're the chumps. The people motivating all this, moving it, directing it. They have a plan.

Cultural values are the smokescreen. The white noise. The dazzle pattern.

This is what it's about:

Money. Power.

Which, of course, are the same thing.

Remember 'All the President's Men' (two American journalists questioning power and investigating a story: was it just a dream?) Remember the mantra: follow the money. Cuts through the noise everytime.

So let's follow the money:

The return of the conservative Constitution in Exile, Rosen argues, would mean, “reimposing meaningful limits on federal power that could strike at the core of the regulatory state for the first time since the New Deal. [New conservative] justices could change the shape of laws governing the environment, workplace health and safety, anti-discrimination, and civil rights, making it difficult for the federal government to address problems for which the public demands a national response.” Adam Cohen reminds us, "In pre-1937 America, workers were exploited, factories were free to pollute, and old people were generally poor when they retired. This is not an agenda the public would be likely to sign onto today if it were debated in an election. But conservatives, who like to complain about activist liberal judges, could achieve their anti-New Deal agenda through judicial activism on the right. Judges could use the so-called Constitution-in-Exile to declare laws on workplace safety, environmental protection and civil rights unconstitutional."
And by the way, they don't don't want to stop with the New Deal. After that, they'll repeal the Enlightenment. And then, the scientific revolution (except for weapons companies). Then the Magna Carta. And then, what remains of New Testament communitarianism. Till all you're left with is what these people truly believe in:

Tyrannic capitalism underpinned by the Book of Revelations.

Compromise





So 14 'moderate' Senate Democrats and Republicans have come together to make a deal. Whatever the meaning of the deal, no one seems happy with it.

Rightist Republicans are having hissy fits, while leftist Dems feel they've been rolled yet again. I've no idea what I feel, but I do think this: now's too soon to cast judgement. 6 months, a year down the line, after a Supreme Court fight and running into the 2006 mid-terms, that's when we'll know whether this deal was a good, bad or utterly insignificant.

To be sure, it sticks in my craw to think that William Pryor, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown will now get lifetime positions on the federal judiciary:

Pryor is a far right activist. He tried to repeal the voting Rights Act, disenfranchise gays, lobbied hard for the NRA and big tobacco. Now, you could say all this is just political - unpalatable to some though it may be - but Pryor has been fingered in a major fundraising scandal. He solicited political contributions from the same corporations facing litigation in his state. To anyone with any sense of values, that makes him damaged goods. Brown wants to repeal the New Deal, end the minimum wage, repeal church-state separation and end retirement as we know it. Owen is so extreme Attorney General Gonzales - himself a hideous choice - accused her of repeatedly ignoring the law, pursuing “an unconscionable act of judicial activism” and trying to “judicially amend the statute". She too is demonstrably corrupt: she took contributions from law firms and corporations — including Enron and Halliburton — and then, ruled in their favor when their cases came before her.

These people have no business practicing any form of professionally regulated work. They shouldn't be regional mangers of an office supply company. They shouldn't be running a McDonald's franchise. They shouldn't be teaching kindergarten. But they're going straight to the circuit courts. Now, that pisses me off. But I guess creeps like this will always exist. It's just they shouldn't get given silver-platter chances to prosper. And as for those who'd propose such people, who'd sponsor them and wish to enable them - we catch another glimpse of their thought process: self-denying, valueless and amoral. A philosophy of life that, considering their religious pretences, borders on the sociopathic.

But these judges weren't the worst. These were the ones the Dems found it in themselves to let through.

The Republican guard wants to destroy all dissent. It's sickening that they'd willingly wipe away one of the oldest and most venerated Senate traditions - the right to filibuster - but the fact is: they would. That's the reality. I can understand the reasoning that would want to keep that right (which should be non-negotiable) intact for the time being. Because what we're up against is an existential threat. Just think about it: 2004, by hook or by crook the Repubs snag the Senate seats they need to make this 'nuclear option' a reality and then, drop of a hat, they're are ready smash the place to hell to get these kinds of characters in to rule in the highest courts of the land.

They don't have your best interests at heart.


But more importantly - and again this is not the kind of thing you can judge until far later in the game - is whether the deal's real value is psychological.

The Democrat's only hope right now is to let the Republicans fissure along ideological grounds. A key part of this is prising Republican moderates free from the vice of the rump party which has gone completely fucking loco.

I have my own opinions about the backbone these 'moderates' possess, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt - they must be under unimagineable pressure from people who could teach the mafia a thing or too about blackmail, bribery and extortion. So if this deal is just a babystep in letting Senate Republican moderates act for themselves - go with your conscience, sure feels good don't it? - then that's no small thing and that's good. The only way you fight successfully with a 44-55 disparity is by peeling off some of the other side's guys. That's basic tactics. And I imagine that was a big part of the thinking behind this deal.


Finally, whatever I or someone like me on the other side likes and dislikes about this thing - it's a classic, textbook compromise. How can I be so sure? Because everyone hates it. Everyone thinks they've been screwed. No one's happy. That's how you know you've reached a compromise. Whether it was a good deal for your side or not, you won't know that till the game's far further down the line. And there's a lesson there, too - if you think this hurts, imagine how tough it must be for the different sides in the Middle East to come to an agreement.

You don't make deals like this without everyone hating it. That's why Rabin was killed by one of his own. And that's what the leaders of the Palestinians and the Israelis are going to have to manage to make any lasting agreement.

I'm not condoning their behaviour either way, I just think it's interesting to taste the disappointment and emotional effect of a political compromise - even one as limited as this - and then magnify it a few thousand times to feel what stands between violence in the Middle East and some kind of lasting agreement.

Sunday, May 22, 2005

The Human Milk Banquet



Once again,
truth is stranger than fiction:


Chinese chefs will go to great lengths to please their customers and the unusual ingredient they are reported to be using of late seems to confirm that reputation.

According to local newspapers, a restaurant in southern Hunan province has started offering dishes cooked with human breast milk.

When the customers are having the human milk banquet, they can experience maternal love at the same time

Restaurant owner

Two dishes were offered for the first time on 25 January, featuring abalone and perch.

The eatery, in the provincial capital Changsha, is said to be hoping to expand to the town of Shenzhen - a booming economic zone, across the border from Hong Kong.

It plans to offer a banquet featuring 108 dishes made with human milk, which would cost in the region of 280,000 yuan (US$33,000), one report said.

The milk used so far is reported to have come from six peasant women who were still breast-feeding their children.

No details have been given on how much they were paid or how much milk was used.

'Maternal love'

The restaurant owner, who was not named, said he had been working on the idea since October and that the milk used in the dishes was safe and hygienic.

"Our opinion is that we should respect natural things," he said.

"When the customers are having the human milk banquet, they can experience maternal love at the same time."

However local journalists who were invited to sample the dishes reportedly refused on health grounds.

It was not clear whether using breast milk for cooking violated any laws.

Taking the Fi out of Sci





Wow:

2050 - and immortality is within our grasp

...

'If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine, so when you die it's not a major career problem,' Pearson told The Observer. 'If you're rich enough then by 2050 it's feasible. If you're poor you'll probably have to wait until 2075 or 2080 when it's routine. We are very serious about it. That's how fast this technology is moving: 45 years is a hell of a long time in IT.'

Pearson, 44, has formed his mind-boggling vision of the future after graduating in applied mathematics and theoretical physics, spending four years working in missile design and the past 20 years working in optical networks, broadband network evolution and cybernetics in BT's laboratories. He admits his prophecies are both 'very exciting' and 'very scary'.

He believes that today's youngsters may never have to die, and points to the rapid advances in computing power demonstrated last week, when Sony released the first details of its PlayStation 3. It is 35 times more powerful than previous games consoles. 'The new PlayStation is 1 per cent as powerful as a human brain,' he said. 'It is into supercomputer status compared to 10 years ago. PlayStation 5 will probably be as powerful as the human brain.'

The world's fastest computer, IBM's BlueGene, can perform 70.72 trillion calculations per second (teraflops) and is accelerating all the time. But anyone who believes in the uniqueness of consciousness or the soul will find Pearson's next suggestion hard to swallow. 'We're already looking at how you might structure a computer that could possibly become conscious. There are quite a lot of us now who believe it's entirely feasible.

'We don't know how to do it yet but we've begun looking in the same directions, for example at the techniques we think that consciousness is based on: information comes in from the outside world but also from other parts of your brain and each part processes it on an internal sensing basis. Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, and that's what we're trying to design in a computer. Not everyone agrees, but it's my conclusion that it is possible to make a conscious computer with superhuman levels of intelligence before 2020.'

He continued: 'It would definitely have emotions - that's one of the primary reasons for doing it. If I'm on an aeroplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground.

...

'We can already use DNA, for example, to make electronic circuits so it's possible to think of a smart yoghurt some time after 2020 or 2025, where the yoghurt has got a whole stack of electronics in every single bacterium. You could have a conversation with your strawberry yogurt before you eat it.'

In the shorter term, Pearson identifies the next phase of progress as 'ambient intelligence': chips with everything. He explained: 'For example, if you have a pollen count sensor in your car you take some antihistamine before you get out. Chips will come small enough that you can start impregnating them into the skin. We're talking about video tattoos as very, very thin sheets of polymer that you just literally stick on to the skin and they stay there for several days. You could even build in cellphones and connect it to the network, use it as a video phone and download videos or receive emails.'

...

The next age, he predicts, will be that of 'simplicity' in around 2013-2015. 'This is where the IT has actually become mature enough that people will be able to drive it without having to go on a training course.

'Forget this notion that you have to have one single chip in the computer which does everything. Why not just get a stack of little self-organising chips in a box and they'll hook up and do it themselves. It won't be able to get any viruses because most of the operating system will be stored in hardware which the hackers can't write to. If your machine starts going wrong, you just push a button and it's reset to the factory setting.'

Pearson's third age is 'virtual worlds' in around 2020. 'We will spend a lot of time in virtual space, using high quality, 3D, immersive, computer generated environments to socialise and do business in. When technology gives you a life-size 3D image and the links to your nervous system allow you to shake hands, it's like being in the other person's office. It's impossible to believe that won't be the normal way of communicating.
There's so much mindfood here, it's a glut. So I'm just gonna be really general -

I can believe all this only because, to my puny mind, it seems to take the trajectory we're moving on further along its natural path. And also we're all aware at how certain types of technology - computer power in particular - seems to increase at an exponential rate. I think that these predictions beggar 2 questions:

1. Will we be around to make this happen? It kind of assumes that we don't knock ourselves back by letting the environment collapse around us or wiping ourselves out in a war. The odds of both happening in the near future are not unreasonable. But that's what I like about this kind of science writing - there's an innate optimism in all its assumptions of untramelled progress.

2. Are we equipped to deal with the real-life philosophical questions this kind of technology forces on us? Once you start creating forms with their own consciousness, once you start instilling emotions into machinery, once you start manipulating life from before conception - then you're entering realms of responsibility no human has has ever had to deal with before. They may have wanted to, but they never had the chance.

Do we have the equipment to handle this? Are we ready to accept other forms of consciousness as our equals - or will we regard them as our servants? And what then? And how soon before reality as we understand it ceases to have any practical sense?

Paging Plato, Socrates, Aristotle - we really need you right about now.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Stone Cold Denial


So Newsweek reports that American interrogators are flushing the Koran down the shitter and anyone who's been half following the atrocities of the neo-con gulag archipeligo is saying: "Yes... Now tell me something I didn't know."

Riots across the Mid East, they retract the story, theo-cons do what they do best: self-righteous, high-decibel hypocracy. They're so good at that. Case in point, from
some idiot:

"Republicans in Congress should open an investigation of Newsweek, to determine who leaked this, what the basis was for the leak, what the motive was for the leak. If there is some basis of truth in it, we should know that. If not, we should find out who is responsible for this, and if they are government employees who circulated a lie, they should be disciplined. An appropriate committee should subpoena Isikoff and his colleagues. Make them produce all emails, notes, correspondence, telephone records. We may well find that the motive for this was partisan damage to the President. That is what I would bet on...

"We need to get to the bottom of this. The United States has just suffered a global strategic defeat akin to Abu Ghraib, and many people have lost their lives, and many more will in the future, probably all based on a complete lie."

No.

The United States suffered a global defeat when it ignored over 50 direct threat reports through summer 2001 that a terrorist attack was credible and imminent.

The United States suffered a global defeat when it's leader displayed confusion, cowardice and moral weakness as he flew - like Penelope Pitstop - fleeing terr'ists across the length and breadth of his own country on September 11th 2001.

The United States suffered a global defeat when it allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora.

The United States suffered a global defeat when it failed to catch Mullah Omar.

The United States suffered a global defeat when it failed to secure a global alliance in it's so-called fail-safe case to go to war with Iraq.

The United States suffered a global defeat when Afghanistan returned to being the biggest heroin producer in the world.

The United States suffered global defeat when it entered a prolonged guerilla war in Iraq.

The United States suffered a global defeat when evidence of torture, sadism, child abuse and murder was revealed at Abu Ghraib.

The United States suffered a global defeat when it was finally ascertained that WMD did not and had not existed in Iraq.

The United States suffered a global defeat when it could no longer enlist enough troops to maintain its volunteer army.

And you blame a journalist on a magazine for this.

The hyprocracy. The self-negation. The complete, self-brutalizing denial. The willful refusal to understand where you are and therefore who you are. It's so violent, so extreme and visceral that it only has one term: pathology.

Keep telling yourself a magazine journalist is responsible for this.

Then count to 10.

And watch everything you believe in evaporate.




Tuesday, May 17, 2005

A Breath of Cold, Clear Air






That was an interesting one. Seeing George Galloway take on the US Senate. The man did well, he was hard, clear, consistent and he put Senator Norm Coleman well into his box where one hopes he will stay. And I say that as someone who dislikes Mr Galloway intensely. He's a sleazy, permatanned, rabble-rousing self-publicist who looks like Swiss Tony without the bouffant - though you know he'd have one given half the chance and the necessary folicles.

Whilst not a - proven - criminal, the smell of semi-legitimate corruption hangs thick around Galloway, like a day old Big Mac. Though like many such characters, no one's managed to lay a hand on him: all charges against him remain unproven. Galloway's clearly a formidable operator. Underestimate him at your own peril and underestimate him is exactly what the Senate sub-committee did. Now, whilst Galloway's performance was impressive, he said nothing we didn't know already. Indeed, I'd imagine his speech was not disimilar to the speech many of us dream of giving in the Senate Sub-comittee of our minds. And he disproved nothing that was in any way complex - his demolition of the charges against him seem to have involved less than ten minutes research and not even a Google check.


But here's the thing - everyone goes on about how slick and professional these Senators are, wheels-within-wheels, power games hidden to the naked eye - but if one publicity-hungry British upstart can leave them speechless (which is exactly what Galloway did) then what does it say about the quality of the guys he was up against? The newer Republican Senators in particular, men like Coleman, were hand-selected and chosen by Karl Rove. They're there because they'll tow the line - no other reason. And it shows. And if one guy, speaking out for 40 minutes is a shocking injection of abrasiveness and radical information to American viewers - then they're in for a harsh surprise. Because Galloway wasn't that harsh - it's just their body politic has grown so limp and flaccid.

This is something that's been creeping up on me for a while now... it's not that Bush and Rove are particuarly great operators, they aren't. It's the culture has been narcotized into meaninglessness. Coleman's a lightweight - Jesus, put him up against a real bareknuckle politician, an LBJ-type, and he'll be a puddle on the floor - but the mainstream culture has been rendered meaningless, the mainstream press has been reduced to nothing and the political culture, both Republican and much of the Democrats are empty vessels afraid and unable to voice real resistance. Galloway didn't do anything particularly special, he just showed what a real voice of opposition, unafraid and unrestricted, sounds like.

And it sounded pretty clear.

Octo's lesson no.1 of politics: if you stand up and get counted, if you do it clearly and eloquently, then people may not agree with you... but they'll always respect you. Which may or may not be why Swiss Georgie's party is called 'Respect'.

So pay attention, Democrats.

The Future Was Yesterday


Confused by the sudden amount of German spam you've been getting? Well, here's the explanation: you've been hit by a worm programmed by German neo-Nazis trying to raise their profile in the upcoming elections in Rhineland-Westphalia.

Yes, you read that right.

Neo-Nazis using hi-tech viral technology to hi-jack personal computers on a world-wide hub and seize power in a regional election..? Ten years ago such a wild, and quite frankly cartoonish, projection would have been the sole preserve of cyberpunk fiction.

Today, it's our reality.

Sunday, May 15, 2005

... on the other hand...


I'm sorry to see that Norwich have not made it for another season in the Premiership. All the more sorry
after reading this article about them and their chair-woman, official national treasure and dude, Delia Smith. For everything Malcolm Glazer's not just look at Delia and what she did with Norwich:

The real Delia, the football one, bears little resemblance to 'Saint Delia' (a tag she loathes). Football is where she can let her passionate, exuberant personality let rip - and she does. She received more than 200 letters of support after that speech and has filed them all in a folder marked 'Passion'. It's a big folder - she likes her pitch invasions, announcing the signing of Darren Huckerby to the crowd on Boxing Day 2004 and joining an impromptu knees-up on the pitch at Portman Road after we beat Ipswich to go top of the league.

Delia has had, for many years, a seat next to me in the Lower Barclay - one of the most vocal areas of Carrow Road - because she loves the banter and enjoys escaping what she says can be a 'stuffy' atmosphere in the directors' box. She comes down four or five times a season. And, yes, she sings - although when the crowd start up 'Delia's Barmy Army' she'll always try to drown us out with 'Worthington's Green 'n' Yellow Army'...

Since then [Delia's arrival], the club have worked hard to foster the feelgood factor. Norwich have nine supporters' working parties, advising on everything from ticket prices to merchandising. They boast the largest family area (in percentage terms) of any Premiership club. More than 60,000 Norfolk children take part in the Football in the Community scheme.

Season tickets have had to be capped at 20,250 this year (and there are 2,000 people on the waiting list), up from 8,800 in the dark days of 1995. But it's not thanks to the Premiership - the club have been selling out for more than three years, achieved through initiatives such as interest-free credit facilities - the only club to offer this. It costs Norwich £40,000 a year, but the sales figures prove its worth.

In the past nine years the club have hosted more than 50 supporters' roadshows, taking players, board and management out to the fans - be they in Norfolk, London or even Blackpool. It epitomises Delia's feeling that 'football is the best kind of community you're likely to be exposed to in the twenty-first century. And community is where we flourish and become human. Football can be wonderful, life-enhancing.'

I've got to say, I'm sorry this kind of attitude didn't see Norwich to another year at the top. If only for the amusement value of seeing a juiced-up celebrity chef screaming out terrace chants. But they seem like they'll be in good shape in the Coca-Cola Championship and well-placed for another push at the Premiership: older, wiser, better-equipped to survive.

Get Real (... but not Madrid)


By tomorrow Malcolm Glazer will be owner of Manchested United and a pretty much inexorable chain of events – certainly since last year and most would say pretty much ever since the club was floated in 1991 – has now reached its conclusion. Despite everyone’s wishes – Man United supporters, their board and everyone else in the country who normally can’t stand the club – the club will assume $250 million of debt, get sold to a man who knows nothing of football and for better or worse leave behind community-based football club status to finally evolve into a fully fledged, bottom-line, profit making, brand machine. For better if Glazer’s professional advice is correct and he makes a shit ton of money out of this – which is the only reason he’s here to play – for worse if things move in unexpected ways, forecast not be met and the brand suffers. Unexpected? Unpredictable? Hey, welcome to European football. If you want to learn about best laid plans etc, just have a word with a Mr Perez over at Real Madrid.


Many people have commented on how the United fans need to get a reality check, how once the club was floated it became a business to be bought and sold. And that’s right. If they’d thought about all this a bit sooner then they could have figured out a way to tie up 25% of the stock and thwart raiders like Glazer. But I say, Mr Glazer needs a reality check too. The man's famously gnomic, he barely reveals him
self to the light of day so it’s hard to say exactly what he’s thinking but I guarantee this: he’s thinking this is a business deal, pure and simple. He’s seen a potential profit margin - no doubt huge - and he’s out to make it. But here’s the thing, football isn’t so clear. That’s why it’s never been successful in America, where they like their sports glitzy, loud and obvious. In football, the best team often loses. In football, signings that appear foolproof on paper turn out to be horrendous mistakes. And this applies doubly off the pitch as on it. Look at Leeds United, who went from Champions League to mid-table 1st Div. in four years. It would be a brave man who could guarantee “this will never happen to us” and perhaps as some of his research Mr Glazer – or more specifically his son – can have a dossier drawn up around the phrase: “too good to go down”. Hell, I’ll save them the effort: there is no team that is too good to go down. Now I’m not saying Man United are going to get relegated next season. But it’s not unlikely they may have another disappointing season. Or, worse, that this might be the end of a cycle for them. That cycle of success that began with Fergie winning the FA cup in 1990 and climaxed in Barcelona in 1999.

Another thing, if Mr Glazer was under the impression that, after a few teething problems, he could soon settle into the kind of relationship that Roman Ambramovch now holds with his supporters – undiluted love – then he ‘s horribly misread his own position and the game. Ambrovich’s intention in buying Chelsea had nothing to do with business. Ambrovich had his own uses for Chelsea - but never as a profit-making enterprise. He was aware that he had to switch his resources out of Russia pretty fast, and also cover his back. Preferably by making himself indispensable to another nation with few extradition agreements with Russia. Therefore he took the ingenious move of saving a major UK football team from massive debt, turning them into global contenders and securing the undying love of a large amount of Londoners at the same time. Try and extradite me now, Mr Putin.

Ambrovich – previously as much of a recluse as Glazer – bought Chelsea to get popular, not to get rich. And it’s worth noting that all the things he’s done to secure this popularity – and revolutionise Chelsea – have been poor business decisions. I’d be surprised if the Glazers would be convinced to shell out £24 million on a player like Didier Drogba for example. Or let players hang around so long whilst still playing their wages.


The third thing is, the fans. America has nothing like an English League football supporter - except possibly in some of their maxim security insane asylums – so, whatever he thinks he knows Glazer is in for an education here. An education in obsession, devotion and sheer bloody intensity. Many of these people would destroy their club in order to save it and he better hope they’re significantly outnumbered by the branded-apparel buying consumer zombies he so hopes to find. This is where I think that the Glazers may be most naïve. They think they’ve bought a business, plain and simple. That’s what they’re used to, that’s the American way and on paper that’s just what they’ve done. But they haven’t. they’ve bought an entire culture of life and death. They’ve bought what is pretty much a religion for hundreds of thousands of people. Manchester United is what they live for. It’s what their fathers lived for and it’s what their children will live for. Their families – may – be the only things more important in their lives because let me tell you, their country certainly isn’t. If Glazer hasn’t factored this massive collective devotion into his forecasts then he’s in for a bumpy ride. And parallels with recent American history are too obvious to state.

In the 40s this would have been classic Ealing comedy material: the big American tycoon waltzes into Manchesterburg and is finally outwitted by the honest-to-goodness wiles of the local citizenry. It all ends with him drinking a cuppa down in Mother Smith’s house while the supporters secretly take the stadium down and hide it piece by piece in their back gardens. However, this is not the 40s and I imagine that while the honest-to-goodness citizenry are shrewd, their readiness to fight nasty is considerably better-developed.

May you live in interesting times, indeed. It will be fascinating to see where all this goes.

Monday, May 09, 2005

Two lives, another America



I read the news today - oh,oh - and I came across a pair of obituaries.

They told the lives of two extraordinary-sounding men who figured large in the touchstone events of recently past American history: Vietnam and Watergate.

First, the warrior:


David Hackworth

Unorthodox Vietnam commander immortalised in Apocalypse Now

Michael Carlson
Monday May 9, 2005


In June 1971, Colonel David Hackworth, probably America's most decorated soldier in Vietnam, appeared on ABC television and told his countrymen that the war could not be won, that US military leaders had failed to understand or train their men for the nature of the country or the conflict, that Saigon would fall to the communists within five years and that one of every five American casualties had been the victim of so-called friendly fire.

This criticism put Hackworth, who has died of cancer aged 73, under concerted attack from his superiors, an assault made easier to sustain by the fast and loose approach to regulations he had employed as commander of a Blackhawk air cavalry brigade in Vietnam. His troops wore US civil war hats, and Hackworth, as commander of the unit, later became the model for Colonel Kilgore, the abrasive, cigar-chomping officer played by Robert Duvall in the 1979 film Apocalypse Now.

Hackworth had set up his unit's own bordello in Vietnam, and the US army used that and other violations to threaten him with court-martial. However, General Creighton Abrams, the overall commander in Vietnam, called him "the best battalion commander I ever saw", and, in 1971, he was allowed to resign with an honourable discharge. He threw away his medals in protest, and moved to Australia.

In the 1980s, Hackworth returned to the US after his medals were reissued, and his book about Vietnam, About Face, became a best-seller. From 1990 to 1996, he was a contributing editor on defence at Newsweek magazine, where, in 1996, he wrote a column revealing that Admiral Michael Boorda, a former chief of US naval operations, wore combat medals he had not earned.

When the admiral committed suicide, Hackworth again incurred the military's wrath. He was accused of lying when he claimed to be the army's "most-decorated soldier" - the US keeps no statistics on such matters - and of wearing an unearned Ranger tab. An army investigation found that Hackworth had been issued the tag in error, but had never been given a number of medals he had earned. His decorations included two distinguished service crosses, the second highest US award for valour, 10 silver stars, eight bronze stars and eight purple hearts.

After leaving Newsweek, Hackworth wrote a syndicated newspaper column, Defending America, with his third wife, Eilhys England. Covering both Iraq wars and peacekeeping actions in Somalia, the Balkans and Haiti, he became a fierce critic of the US establishment. His website, Soldiers For Truth, lambasted the Pentagon's "perfumed princes", whom he claimed constantly betrayed the ordinary solider. He was particularly incensed that Donald Rumsfeld used a machine to sign condolence letters sent to the families of dead soldiers in Iraq.

Hackworth's army connections began young. Orphaned at five months, and raised by his grandmother in Santa Monica, California, he shined shoes at a local army base, becoming a mascot to the soldiers, who gave him his own uniform. At 14, he lied about his age and joined the US merchant marine; a year later, he paid a sailor to impersonate his father and get him into the army, where he served in postwar Italy, policing the border dispute over Trieste.

He won his first silver Star in Korea at the age of 20, when his battlefield commission made him the army's youngest captain. Commanding the Wolfhound Raiders, he led one attack despite being shot in the head, modelling himself on General James Gavin, America's youngest second world war general (played by Ryan O'Neal in the 1977 film, A Bridge Too Far).

Hackworth volunteered for service with the US special forces in Vietnam, and, as the army's youngest full colonel, returned in 1965, commanding a paratroop unit. With General SLA "Slam" Marshall, he wrote the Vietnam Primer, a guide to counter-guerrilla tactics. He used his theories about the enemy, whom he referred to as "the G", to transform a hapless 4/39 infantry unit into what became known as the Hardcore Battalion, driving his men so hard they allegedly put a cash bounty on him.

But he also won their loyalty, by such acts as leading the rescue of a trapped company while riding on the strut of a helicopter. It was one of three times on which Hackworth was nominated for the congressional medal of honour, America's highest award.

After leaving the army, he was successful in property and restaurants in Brisbane, and became active in the Australian peace movement. He returned to Greenwich, Connecticut, in the 1980s.

Hackworth's many books included a novel, Price Of Honor, a volume of war dispatches, Hazardous Duty, and a memoir of the hardcore battalion, Steel My Soldier's Hearts. Serving soldiers fed his website with information about the army's leadership shortcomings. Last February, he wrote, "Most combat vets pick their fights carefully. They look at their scars, remember the madness and are always mindful of the fallout ... the White House and the Pentagon are run by civilians who have never sweated it out on a battlefield."

Hackworth died in Tijuana, Mexico, while pursuing alternative treatments for bladder cancer, a common cause of death among soldiers exposed to the dioxins Agent Orange and Agent Blue, used to defoliate Vietnam.

He is survived by Eihlys and his stepdaughter, two daughters and a son from his first marriage, and a son from his second marriage.

· David Haskell Hackworth, soldier, born November 11 1931; died May 4 2005


Second, the politician:

Peter Rodino

US congressman whose fastidious chairmanship of the impeachment committee helped bring down Richard Nixon

Harold Jackson
Monday May 9, 2005


As chairman of the US house judiciary committee, Peter Rodino, who has died aged 95, presided over the 1974 impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, who was accused of illegally trying to cover up the burglary of the Democrats' Watergate election headquarters. Rodino's impeccable conduct of the highly charged hearings brought this little-known Democrat congressman from New Jersey a respectable niche in America's political pantheon.

The overwhelming demand for the president's impeachment came in October 1973, in the wake of his infamous Saturday night massacre. Nixon ordered the dismissal of Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate break-in, after Cox subpoenaed secret tapes of the president's Oval Office conversations, which the White House refused to hand over.

The US attorney general refused to carry out the presidential order to sack Cox, and was himself fired. His deputy then refused, and was also sacked. Finally, an acting attorney general was sworn in, and the deed was done. By the following day, the House of Representatives registered 22 impeachment motions, and the speaker proposed selecting a special committee of leading congressmen to consider the charges.

Rodino, a stickler for procedure, argued that his judiciary committee already existed to deal with the issue, and he was supported by the powerful Democrat majority leader, Tip O'Neill.

As it turned out, Rodino's shrewdest move was to recruit a Republican lawyer, John Doar, to head the investigation - the two men reinforced each other's belief that it was vital for public confidence to eschew partisanship, maintain a strictly judicious approach, and build a mountain of irrefutable evidence. With that in mind, they set about reviewing the vast body of legal precedent (going back to colonial days) and the mass of paper already accumulated by the senate's Watergate investigation.

When the hearings opened in May 1974, the committee had 21 Democrat and 17 Republican members. It was a potentially explosive political mix, but Rodino managed to sustain a calm and judicial air, courteously reining in attempts to score party points. Rivetted by the daily television coverage, Americans quickly signalled their approval of Rodino's slow, but inexorable assembly of the evidence, a factor which undoubtedly played a significant part in the outcome.

Committee members had to vote on five articles of impeachment, and there was a wide expectation that there would be a straight party split. That happened on two of the lesser counts, but a majority of the Republican members came out in support of the three main charges - obstructing justice, abuse of power and withholding evidence. It was a clear response to the pile of carefully assembled evidence and the discipline that Rodino had imposed on the hearings.

The vote was dramatically justified three days later when a new federal disclosure order revealed the existence of a recording of a key conversation in the Oval Office on June 23 1973, six days after the Watergate break-in. It showed that Nixon had ordered the CIA to obstruct all the investigations being carried out by the FBI, a multiple breach of his oath of office. Dissident Republicans on Rodino's committee immediately switched their votes to make the impeachment recommendation unanimous, and Nixon became the first US president to be forced out of office.

Rodino took no pleasure in the outcome; he said later that he had been praying that his committee would be able to exonerate Nixon. He was, however, outraged by President Gerald Ford's decision to issue a blanket pardon to his predecessor. "When I heard that I almost went bananas," Rodino said in 1992. "Ford had just misread the whole thing."

The son of an immigrant Italian carpenter, Rodino grew up in a poor district of Newark, New Jersey. In the classic tradition of second-generation US immigrants, he pulled himself up by his bootstraps. To help recover his speech, badly affected by a childhood bout of diphtheria, he spent hours reciting Shakespeare through a mouth full of marbles. As an adult, he endured 10 years of menial jobs while studying at night for a law degree.

When he achieved it, at the age of 28, he joined a local law firm and became immersed in politics, running unsuccessfully for the New Jersey state assembly. He served in north Africa and Italy during the second world war, and was demobilised as a captain.

After the war, he renewed his political ambitions, securing a congressional seat in 1948. He was subsequently re-elected for 19 terms, during which he showed steady dedication to civil rights reform. He became one of the main congressional sponsors of President Lyndon Johnson's landmark legislation of 1966, and finally retired in 1988.

Rodino's first wife, Marianna, died in 1980. He is survived by his second wife, Joy, and by a son and daughter.

· Peter Wallace Rodino, politician, born June 7 1909; died May 7 2005
These two men, in their own ways, encapsulated a kind of American spirit we all know, or used to know. One, the politician, was a poor immigrant's son who pulled himself up, taught himself, worked hard, served loyally and lived out a kind of classic version of the American dream - he became a successful politician who found himself managing the impeachment of a criminal president and doing so with honour, dignity and scrupulous care. The other was a military hero - a classic maverick hellraiser. The kind a man who wore Confederate uniforms and clung to helicopter struts as they flew into battle. The kind of figure who appears in movies and indeed he did - played by Robert Duval in Apocalypse Now.

You may argue with their views, but you can't argue with their sense of duty. To their own values and those of the communities they served: the military, the body politic.

And both these men really do have mythic - as in the 20th century American mythic - qualities. One seems to have stepped out of a Frank Capra, a Preminger or an Elia Kazan film, the other from Fuller, Peckinpah or Siegal. These were the kinds of characters and stories that struck me strongly growing up. They inspired that fascination with the American myths and fables, cinema, books that was the defining cultural flow of the 20th century.


But when I read about their lives, I also get a feeling of sadness. A sense that that cultural flow that bore them is starting to dry up, switch currents. When I compare their struggles with the people who now govern America - I can feel the shift, the emptiness that lays there.

America as a country seems to be changing. And in the future that's coming around the corner, it will need the spirit of men like Rodino and Hackworth who bravely, relentlessly, often at thier own risk, protected those institutions that were their life.



Sunday, May 08, 2005

Death ends feud of Kabul's last Jews


Declan Walsh in Kabul
Sunday May 8, 2005
The Observer


For Years Afghanistan's last two Jews carried on a bitter feud. From the Taliban tyranny to the American occupation, Ishaq Levin and Zablon Simintov squabbled and plotted against one another in Kabul's Flower Street synagogue.

The only thing they could agree on was their mutual loathing. Now fate has decided the fight. On a chilly morning, Levin, in his 70s, was found dead in his ramshackle apartment. The Red Cross flew his remains to Israel, leaving just Simintov, a 45-year-old carpet seller, the last Jew in a Muslim country. And an unforgiving one. 'The old man was crazy,' said Simintov, screwing a finger against his temple.

The row is an inauspicious coda to the proud history of Afghanistan's 800-year-old Jewish community. The population swelled to 40,000 at the turn of the 19th century as Persian Jews fled from forced conversions in neighbouring Iran. The numbers plummeted after Israel was established in 1948, and again after the 1979 Soviet invasion.

By the time the Taliban seized power in the mid-1990s only Levin and Simintov, the quarrelsome, tragi-absurd 'Odd Couple', remained.

The pair lived at opposite ends of the synagogue, refusing to speak except to exchange curses. Both were jailed and tortured by the Taliban. Each accused the other of betrayal.

'They beat me with cables and a Kalashnikov,' said Simintov. 'Ishaq paid them to put me in there. He told them I was a spy.'

Levin, when alive, made almost identical accusations.

The acrimony first erupted in 1998 when, according to Simintov, Jewish elders told him to bring the elderly Levin to Israel. Levin refused to go, and each man accused the other of wanting to sell the synagogue. The rift deepened when the Taliban took their Torah Scrolls, a lambskin containing Jewish law. When Levin died, police suspected Simintov of murder until a post-mortem examination showed natural causes.

Now Simintov is alone in this two-storey complex of empty rooms. His carpet shop long gone, he lives in penury, asking visitors for whisky and phone cards. Down the hall, tattered religious texts are piled in a cupboard and thick dust coats the altar along with globs of excrement from birds which nest in the light fittings.

Levin's apartment is directly underneath. It has been sealed by police but through paint-splattered windows can be seen broken furniture, clothes spilling from a chest, and stacks of useless banknotes from the former regime piled on the carpet.

He would join his wife and daughters, who left for Israel six years ago, he said. But soon the issue of the synagogue ownership will be reopened, when Levin's son arrives from Israel to collect his father's belongings. In Kabul's soaring property market, the building is worth several million dollars.

Simintov has appealed to Israel to fund its rehabilitation, but as he is the last Jew standing in Afghanistan it is unclear for what purpose.


To me, this is extraordinary. Like a Kafka or Elias Canetti story: two ancient men, the last of a race, surrounded by mortal enemies, the last embers of a society in collapse, fight each other in the ruins of a dicrepit temple.

Wow. Just when you think humankind has done its best... it comes up with some crazy metaphorical meta-allegorical shit to follow. Reality? Fiction? Reality always wins hands down.

In a way, that's heartening.

Friday, May 06, 2005

Weird, discordant, strangely unsettling


So, that was a weird one.


The results were pretty much as everyone expected. The exit polls seem to have been spot on – BBC predicted a Labour majority of 66 seats and with a few results left to come the majority stands at 65 seats (remarkable, isn’t it, how exit polls perform to pinpoint accuracy…. except that one freak mistake in America on November 2nd 2004? What an unfortuinate coincidence that was) .

So, if they all knew how it was going to play - why is it that everyone seems so dejected? There’s no one – not politicians or voters – who’ve enjoyed this election. Had much stomach for it. There’s been a strange sense of of dislocation. Of having a vote, because you must - rules of a democracy you see. There were so many odd discordances this time. An election devoid of passion, where no one felt they had much to choose from - which also had the highest turnout for years. It was an election where people seemed to vote clinically. There was a weird nuancing to the voting patterns – people wanted to give Labour a bloody nose… but not so much to let the Tories in. Just enough to hurt, no more. Nuanced tactical voting. Now, that’s a first.

The Conservatives allowed themselves to get so boxed in strategically, they ended up running one of the oddest, smallest-scale, most bilious campaigns for years. Facing a desperately vulnerable PM, they were unable to strike at the festering wound on his body – Iraq – because they’d have done exactly the same thing. Already ostracized by a Republican White House – an odd and counterintuitive position for a conservative leader to be in - Michael Howard couldn’t be seen to touch on any of the substantive issues that made the war so divisive. Meanwhile, Europe was struck off the agenda – a toxic, implosive issue the Tories had to sweep under the carpet. Their other bread and butter issue –crime and punishment – was entirely neutralized by decent crime figures and a Labour government that’s swung so hard on order issues (id cards, anti-Terrorist laws etc) that they’ve been completely outflanked. So, once you refuse to attack the opponent on the issues which will really hurt him, what are you left with? Hospital cleaning and an immigration scare. Like I said, small-bore, small-vision and unpleasant at the same time. The old tie your hands behind your back and then scream flecks of spittle at your opponent strategy. Hardly an election-winning approach. At least when George Bush ran on the equally rancid message of “If you vote for the other guy, you’ll die” it had a certain visceral resonance.


BILL 03
Originally uploaded by octoplex.


gyppos
Originally uploaded by octoplex.

Meanwhile the Lib Dems suffered from a similar curse: lack of vision and the negative political charisma that comes with it. Fine, they have 60 seats, best result since 1923 etc but… c’mon. You’re running against a fatally wounded Prime minister as the only party which clearly, vocally opposed his hated war. The opposition, led by an unloved mistrusted man, is running one of the worst-judged campaigns in recent memory and… 60 fucking seats? Please. Politics, is opportunity. Take it when you see it. The field was clear, people were desparate to vote for someone promising genuine change and… 60 poxy seats. Opportunity was wide-open for the Lib Dems to ravage the bases of both the Tory’s and Labour, running hard on the war, public services and trust they could have single handedly pulled down a struggling Tory party whilst laming Labour terribly. All it took was some balls, some brio. A guy to clearly, openly say what everyone out there was thinking. And they failed. I read somewhere that they were using this election as a stepping stone, cement themselves for big gains in 2009. What? The chance is now. Who knows what’ll happen in 2009. When the train leaves, you jump on it. You don’t wait for another one to come in a few hours. These guys are the political equivalnet of the A&R man who turned the Beatles down because ‘electric guitar music has no future’.

And then there was the weirdest thing of all. This was an election where nothing of import was discussed. Many things are going to happen between now and the next election. Many things. We’re heading into some choppy water and I guarantee you this: none of the things which will shape our lives over the next 4 years were so much as whispered by any party in this campaign.

No mention of the environment. No mention of energy efficiency. No mention of our positioning with Europe or the United States. No mention of terrorism. No mention of the trouble brewing in Iran.

Nothing.

And that is unconscionable.

Again, I reserve my deepest contempt for the Lib Dems. Of course, one expects Blair and Howard to not broach these issues it’s in their nature. But the Lib Dems – they could have made so much hay. The state of the two main parties, the peculiar state of the electorate - just think what a smart, populist, firebrand kind of politician could have done. Just think.

60 seats.

Weak, limpid, small-beer thinkers who allowed their greatest opportunity in the last hundred years slip straight through their hands just as we all knew they would from the very start. I knew it. I was pissed off. And you know what else..?

I voted for them anyway.

Which, somehow, just about sums up this election in a nutshell.

You see, I just couldn’t, couldn’t bring myself to vote for that war. Though I tell you this, my constuency is Labour, safe as houses – if there was even a glimmer of a chance I was letting Howard in, I’d have ticked that Labour box in heartbeat.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

The right guys win... Finally


Priceless
Originally uploaded by octoplex.


I don't know whether Liverpool played particulary fine football or not. I don't support them. I'm an Arsenal fan. But even I was almost in tears by the end of last night's game - maybe it was the stress of seeing the possiibilty of Chelsea nick a goal everytime they drove forward (I almost wanted Liverpool to just bloody concede one at 50", when they'd still have a chance to fight back, rather than see one struck in at 93" and get utterly, unfairly screwed). Maybe it was seeing the Reds fans who just wanted it so much. Maybe it was the echoes of Liverpool's past glory somehow making there way into even my soul, but they deserved it.

Anytime in this avaricious, driven, power-worshipping society of ours - anytime where sheer passion outruns might, money and arrogance (©Jose Mourinho), even (especially) if it's ugly, inelegant, rough - that's a good day.

Mourinho did not deserve to win this: because he felt he deserved to win this. He felt that it was his due. Liverpool aren't as good as Chelsea. But they had the soul last night. Real life is very seldom like Hollywood. The gritty underdogs seldom outplay the cold cohorts. Last night they did. That's why I felt the emotion.

Now, there's no way they'll beat Milan...

But I'll still be betting on them.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

Funtime

So, there's an election in Britain in five days time.

Hmm.

Just thought I'd let you know that.

Now, I'm not going to vote Tory because I'd rather scoop out my eardrum with a rusty spoon. And I'm not going to vote Labour because whatever else they did, they lied us into a war and my parents always taught me that lies must not be rewarded. And I'm not going to vote LibDem because they look like they couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery. I'm not going to vote Green because, whilst I think energy and environment will without doubt be the most pressing, overriding, enormous and terrifying challenge we face as a species in the very near future (and isn't it interesting that no one discusses this. I suppose fox hunting and hospital cleanliness is much more important), the Greens will not get my vote whilst they still ride around in hemp-powered bicycles and generally assume the cliche of Glastonbury crusty. UKIP, Veritas, BNP - nope. I rather like multiculturalism - give us more I say, it's made Britain a much better place!

But here's the problem... I can't not vote. It's like religion, I love voting. it took thousands of years for everyone to be able to get a vote and now... I'm stuffed if there's anyone there I want to give my X to. So, what to do?

Any suggestions?

Hail the Pope!




All hail the new Pope! A humble picker in the vineyard of the Lord etc. he seemed so self-effacing and sweet with that weird Bavarian porcelain skin and the creepy smile it was all just a wonderful chance for him to get the nod, hell he didn’t even want it. It’s not like he spent the last 20 years scaring the shit out of every priest who stepped out line, and I’m sure he spent the 2 weeks before the conclave buffing his figurine collection rather than clamping down on anyone with half an independent mind who was about to cheat him of the prize. One look in that guys eyes and you tell he is probably not one to play Vatican corridor power games with.

Now there’s been some talk about the guy being a Nazi because he was young and in the Hitler Youth. Which I think is a little unfair. Although, it seems his family certainly didn’t fall on the right side of the fence. From the Independent:

Yet, in Traunstein, some of the town's older residents feel that questions about the Pope's early years remain unanswered. Herta Kaiser, an 83-year-old pensioner recalled that several people in the town hid Jews from the Nazis and helped them to escape to neutral Switzerland. "Traunstein was not all Nazi, it was also a Catholic stronghold," she said.

There is no evidence that the Ratzinger family felt inclined to help the town's few remaining Jews, or the smattering of anti-Nazi resistance fighters who dared to oppose the regime.

Elizabeth Lohner, 84, whose brother-in-law was sent to Dachau concentration camp for being a conscientious objector, recalled: "It was possible to resist and those people set an example for others." She added: "The Ratzingers were young and made different choices."

In 1937, another Traunstein family hid a local anti-Nazi resistance fighter, named Hans Braxenthaler. He had been tortured in Dachau for his opposition to the regime. Frieda Meyer, 82, one of the Ratzinger family's neighbours at the time, said: "When Braxenthaler was betrayed and the Nazis came for him, he shot himself rather than give himself up."


However, though Ratzinger was hardly a Nazi, he chose to be mentored by one:


Ratzinger's election will also raise questions about the dubious role played by the Catholic Church during the Nazi era. The extent to which leading Catholics felt obliged to reach compromises with the regime is outlined by the stance taken by Ratzinger's mentor, Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, one of the Pope's most important early influences.

Documented evidence shows that the cardinal visited Hitler's mountain retreat during the 1930s and was entertained to lunch by the Führer in person. During their meeting, Von Faulhaber is on record as telling Hitler that the Church saw him as an "authority chosen by God, to whom we owe respect".


Doe this matter? Yes, it fucking does. This is the spiritual leader of 1.1 billion people. The competition was tough. Did you check out the CVs of the other Cardinals? These guys are serious people. They all speak about 8 languages + Latin, have incredible records of social justice and communitarian christian activities. Many are expert theologians and they’re all conservative and spiritually acceptable because… well, the last Pope made it that way. So why would they choose the guy with Hitler Youth on his CV? I mean, it just doesn’t look good. And if there’s one thing that the church of the sitine Chapel, St Peter’s dome and a billion gaudy Virigins should know something about, well – it’s appearances. Why pick the guy who, when the vast bulk of the Church faces 3rd World issues of AIDS, subsistence, poverty and oppression is obsessed by ‘relativism’? (A 1990s canard, if you ask me. I think that in the present climate with the limits of globalism and Western market capitalism becoming more and more apparent, there’s in fact a great openness to spiritual and moral quality in Western life. The Catholic Church was perfectly poised to mine that, and could do so with a savvy, aware Pope at its helm. But that’s not this guy. And one more thing: relativism ain’t so bad. Not compared to oppositional state which this Pope presumably desires, ie: Absolutism. But more on his recidivist tendencies below).

In any case, for a man who likes to wang on about spiritual purity so much, he certainly likes to stick his fat greasy thumb into temporal affairs. As Sidney Blumenthal wrote, concerning his involvement in the recent American election:

About a week later, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent a letter to the U.S. bishops, pronouncing that those Catholics who were pro-choice on abortion were committing a "grave sin" and must be denied Communion. He pointedly mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" -- an obvious reference to John Kerry, the Democratic candidate and a Roman Catholic. If such a Catholic politician sought Communion, Ratzinger wrote, priests must be ordered to "refuse to distribute it." Any Catholic who voted for this "Catholic politician," he continued, "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion." During the closing weeks of the campaign, a pastoral letter was read from pulpits in Catholic churches repeating the ominous suggestion of excommunication. Voting for the Democrat was nothing less than consorting with the forces of Satan, collaboration with "evil."

In 2004 Bush increased his margin of Catholic support by 6 points from the 2000 election, rising from 46 to 52 percent. Without this shift, Kerry would have had a popular majority of a million votes. Three states -- Ohio, Iowa and New Mexico -- moved into Bush's column on the votes of the Catholic "faithful." Even with his atmospherics of terrorism and Sept. 11, Bush required the benediction of the Holy See as his saving grace. The key to his kingdom was turned by Cardinal Ratzinger.

That’s not all. The Pope is also linked to Neil Bush. George Bush’s brother – the ‘bad’ brother. Neil Bush is quite something. It seems that there’s no dirty deal or shady geopolitical power play that he’s not linked to in some bizarre and unexpected way. In fact, he’s kind of like the Forrest Gump of global shady finance and we’ll no doubt be taking a look at him some future time. Meanwhile, here we find him in a boardroom with Cardinal Ratzinger, the Aga Khan and the Chief Rabbi. No, that isn’t the opening to a joke. I’m sorry folks, but as long as this shit goes on we’re the fucking jokes:


The Foundation for Interreligious and Intercultural Research and Dialogue was founded in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1999 to promote ecumenical understanding and publish original religious texts, said a foundation official. The foundation, based at the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Geneva, is listed by Dun & Bradstreet business credit reports as a management trust for purposes other than education, religion, charity or research.

Neil Bush, the president's controversial younger brother, six years ago joined the cardinal who this week became Pope Benedict XVI as a founding board member.

….

The federal Office of Thrift Supervision sanctioned Bush for having "multiple conflicts of interest" in his role as a director of Silverado Savings and Loan, a Colorado thrift whose failure cost taxpayers $1.3 billion. Bush paid $50,000 in a settlement. Gary Vachicouras, a theologian and foundation official in Geneva, would not explain in a telephone interview yesterday why Bush, who has no clear public connection to religious causes, was on the first board.



The charter members of the board were all well-known international religious figures, except for Bush and his close friend and business partner, Jamal Daniel, whose family has extensive holdings in the United States and Switzerland, public records show.

Besides then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, founding board members included former chief rabbi of France Rene-Samuel Sirat; Jordan's Prince Hassan, a Muslim dedicated to religious dialogue; the late Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, another prominent Muslim; Olivier Fatio, director of the Institute of the History of the Reformation; and foundation president Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Damaskinos.




Fantastic. A new Pope who preaches a creed of spiritual purity that bares no relation to what most – good, hardworking, God fearing – Catholics endure everyday and yet, he he’s able to rack down the Holiness enough levels to figure out gloabal crony capitalism and the demographic shifts in the US Electoral college. What a guy. Some may say, a spiritual realist. Others: a fucking hypocrite. A stinking fucking hypocrite who now lays claim of infallible superiority over 1.1 billion people. Now, what’s going to happen here? Will the 1.1 billion, eat crow and take this shit? Or will they figure this man’s out of touch and leave him and his bankrupt church behind? Did I say bankrupt? Yes I did. Why’s that? Well, the Vatican had to pay over $5 billion in legal costs in America alone due to the tsunami of sex abuse scandals that’s engulfing them. Why? Not only because the code of celibacy has now rendered almost 50% of the priesthood homosexual, some of them predatory homosexuals, but because Cardinal Ratzinger made it his job not to deal with the rising, systemic crisis that threatens the very moral and financial fabric of the institution he claims to uphold. He refused to broach the issue, he refused to speak to victims, he refused to investigate. And so, he is bankrupting the Church for billions upon billions of dollars.

And while I’m at it, please allow me to point out how much it mystifies me that a man who has never had sex, should have an infallible right to dictate the sexual behaviour of 1.1 billion people. I mean, what the fuck does he know about the issue? It’s insane. Bonkers. It’s like making David Beckham chairman of the Bank of England. It’s like having a ten year old fly a passenger plane. It’s ridiculous. Maybe, if he loosened up a bit, then he wouldn’t want to repeal the enlightenment – Blumenthal again:


The new pope's burning passion is to resurrect medieval authority. He equates the Western liberal tradition, that is, the Enlightenment, with Nazism, and denigrates it as "moral relativism." He suppresses all dissent, discussion and debate within the church and concentrates power within the Vatican bureaucracy. His abhorrence of change runs past 1968 (an abhorrence he shares with George W. Bush) to the revolutions of 1848, the "springtime of nations," and 1789, the French Revolution. But, even more momentously, the alignment of the pope's Kulturkampf with the U.S. president's culture war has also set up a conflict with the American Revolution.


And to hammer the point home, here’s the Pope’s view on Galileo. A 400 year old controversy, that pretty much got settled by the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, but still raging on in one one man’s tiara-ed head:


Calling Pope Benedict XVI, aka Joseph Ratzinger, a "medievalist" is not just an empty insult. This guy literally believes the Earth is the center of the universe, or perhaps something even crazier. Check out what he said about Galileo in a speech in Parma, Italy, on March 15, 1990: "At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just."

He also said this at that time, which I consider to be more expository of Ratz' antipathy toward rational thought: "But Galileo did not limit himself to attacking Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy. Leaving the terrain of science, he went further and entered the realm of theology as well. To harmonize them with the Copernican theory, he proposed to modify the traditional interpretation of various texts of Scripture that mentioned the movements of the sun and earth."



So: Pope Benedict: Recidivist. Taught by a Hitler-loving Cardinal. Refuser of the Enlightenment. Denier of the most widespread and financially ruinous sex scandal of all time. A man who stands for spiritual purity – but shares a boardroom table with a convicted fraudster. A man who will not back down an inch on abortion – but will interfere in a sovereign country’s politics to allow the man who started a war his own church opposed to hang on to power. A man who will not confront the sexual and moral dilemmas his flock confront every second of the day – but will confront… Galileo.

You know, I’m no Catholic. But I think the Vatican has the reach and the placement to be a powerful and important player in who we are as humans, where we’re going. All the issues that confront us - issues like poverty, global warming, globalism, terrorism and war – are ones that the Catholic Church is uniquely placed to deliver moral leadership on. And, indeed, from the sound of some of the cardinals in the conclave, they would have been intellectually well-equipped to do so.

But instead, this monkey gets elected. Well, that’s nothing new, politics, hypocracy and bad decision making in the Vatican: it’s just the 16th century all over again. And they wonder why there was a Reformation.