Arthur Miller: What I've Learned

The famed playwright offers up his list of wisdom, gleaned over 87 years. A sample:

I've always done things physical. When I was about six, I made a go-cart. You couldn't steer it and you'd be doing thirty miles an hour down the street, but I remember telling my brother, "Pretty good for my own making." He always used to kid me about that sentence.

* * *

Some failures are right. And some people fail because society isn't ready for them. That's what makes it so difficult.

* * *

To write any kind of imaginary work, you gotta fall on your sword. You gotta be ready to be blasted out of existence. Lots of times, the blood is on the floor.

(Via Cursor)

Eggs: The final frontier for marketers?

Marketing seems to have weaseled into every nook and cranny, public or private, from billboards over urinals to Got Milk stickers on bananas at the supermarket, e-mail spam to cellphone text messages announcing Madonna's new concert tour. As BadAds reports, now even our ovoid proto-chicken friends are fair game for mini-billboards: Quebec-based Egg Ads Media has begun selling ad space on eggs. Get a load of their spiel:

Egg Ads Media offers you a cutting-edge visual contact solution aimed at increasing the spontaneous memorization of your brand.

The very symbol of the egg triggers positive associations, including health, simplicity, purity, speed, and versatility. Though we may be unaware of the impact, these common, everyday associations are known to attract and reassure the consumer, thereby promoting the spontaneous memorization of an advertisement message.

Uh. Right. They claim the distinguished ability of being able to apply polymer labels onto 100 million eggs a year. What unexplored frontier might marketers tackle next? Walnut shells?

Kucinich and the family farm

I'm liking Democratic presidential contender Dennis Kucinich more and more. Not only has he introduced a Resolution of Inquiry forcing the White House to substantiate it's claims of Iraq's WMDS ("The President led the nation to war, and spent at least $63 billion on that war, on the basis of these unfounded assertions.”), but he's also making corporate control of agriculture a campaign issue. Focusing on family farmers, he vows to break corporate farm monopolies by banning meat packers from also raising livestock. Other elements of his ag policy:

- Providing incentives for farmers to join collective bargaining units to deal with large agribusinesses.

- Labeling food that contains genetically modified ingredients.

- Focusing the Department of Agriculture on family farms, rural communities, the environment and consumers.

- Establishing new air and water quality protections.

- Investing federal money in rural schools, hospitals, libraries and parks.

Jack Balkin on WMD

Jack Balkin ponders the WMD issue (scroll down to June 5):

If the Administration did not deceive the American people about the existence of WMD in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, then the possibility that these weapons have already proliferated and spread to terrorist groups becomes much greater. And that should be troubling for any Administration that insists it is acting to make the American people safer. (Which raises an interesting question: should we be happier if it turns out that the Administration was merely dishonest because it misled the public about WMD's in Iraq or incompetent because it let the WMD's fall into the hands of terrorists?)

Many people have defended the recent war on the grounds that even if weapons of mass destruction were not found, it's worth the price because we have freed the Iraqi people from a terrible tyrant. I agree that this is a very good thing, especially as we learn more and more about how terrible Saddam's regime truly was, although I wonder whether we are now prepared to invade Burma or Zimbabwe, or any other country ruled by a terrible tyrant, in order to free those people as well.

But what is more important is the question whether we would be willing to free the Iraqi people if we knew that the price would be the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their placement in the hands of terrorist organizations. No one who has supported the war on the grounds that it freed the Iraqi people has come to terms with *that* question.

(Via Sivacracy.)

More on the F-word

In the new issue of Adbusters, James MacKinnon interviews Princeton professor emeritus Richard Falk on "The Early Signs of Fascism." Defining fascism as "the convergence of military and economic power on behalf of an ultranationalist ideology that views its enemies - internally and externally - as evil and subject to extermination or extreme punishment," Falk describes one of the harbingers of fascism's rise:

A disillusionment with representative democracy as a path to change. For example, if the Democratic Party in the United States doesn't elect a candidate who will challenge these policies, I think it would lead an increasing number of people to become disenchanted with normal politics and be more inclined to feel that the only way change can come about is by more extreme political tactics, which in turn would lead the government to feel justified in expanding its powers of control over the citizenry.

On a personal note, I've got two pieces in the July/August issue that are currently unavailable online, a conversation with Siva Vaidhyanathan and an update on ad-creep in the music industry. Buy onlineor pick up a newsstand copy and support a one-of-a-kind publication. (And me.)

Terrorists for Jesus

Is accused bomber Eric Rudolph a Christian terrorist? If the answer's "no," why not?

New UNICEF study on children's health in Iraq

According to a UNICEF study released yesterday,

The number of children in Iraq suffering from diarrhoea and related diseases appears to have risen dramatically in the past year... The incidence of diseases such as cholera, dysentery and typhoid was 2.5 times higher this May than for the same month last year, said Unicef spokesman Geoffrey Keele, quoting from a limited survey.

Gay Shame: Justice department bans Pride event

Another first for the Bush Administration! For the first time in history the Department of Justice has barred its employees from holding its annual gay-pride event, DOJ Pride. A tradition since the mid-1990s that draws hundreds of DOJ employees, the event was canned because, unlike President Clinton, Bush never formally declared June Gay Pride Month. Remind me again: why would anyone who's gay also be Republican?

Sen. Byrd on WMD

Sen. Robert Byrd seems to be the only one in Congress with much to say about Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction. I recommend you read the whole speech, but here are a few excerpts:

What amazes me is that the President himself is not clamoring for an investigation.  It is his integrity that is on the line.  It is his truthfulness that is being questioned.  It is his leadership that has come under scrutiny. And yet he has raised no question, expressed no curiosity about the strange turn of events in Iraq, expressed no anger at the possibility that he might have been misled.  How is it that the President, who was so adamant about the dangers of WMD, has expressed no concern over the where-abouts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Indeed, instead of leading the charge to uncover the discrepancy between what we were told before the war and what we have found – or failed to find – since the war, the White House is circling the wagons and scoffing at the notion that anyone in the Administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq... 

* * *

...Such weapons may eventually turn up. But my greater fear is that the belligerent stance of the United States may have convinced Saddam Hussein to sell or disperse his weapons to dark forces outside of Iraq.  Shouldn't this Administration be equally alarmed if they really believed that Saddam had such dangerous capabilities?

Saddam Hussein is missing.  Osama bin Laden is missing.  Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are missing.  And the President's mild claims that we are "on the look" do not comfort me.  There ought to be an army of UN inspectors combing the countryside in Iraq or searching for evidence of disbursement of these weapons right now.  Why are we waiting?  Is there fear of the unknown?  Or fear of the truth?

More on WMDs

Did the vice president lean on the CIA to dress up their evidence of WMDs? Could be, says the Independent. Apparently, Cheney and his chief of staff paid several visits to the CIA in the months leading up to the war, which some analysts see as him putting on the heat. As some in Congress are pushing for an investigation, Ray McGovern, a member of Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (IPS), said that intelligence used to sell the war "was manipulated, forged or manufactured."

As to whether Bush and Co. lied to justify war, TomPaine.com says, "Judge for yourself."

McLibel

McDonald's has sued one of Italy's top food critics for raking its restaurants over the coals, but the critic says he has no intention of going back on saying its burgers taste of rubber and its fries of cardboard.

It really is the oil, stupid.

6/4 Update: Via Cursor, apparently The Guardian botched the translation of Wolfowitz' statement. According to CalPundit, the correct English translation should've read: "Look, the primarily (sic) difference -- to put it a little too simply -- between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage..."

Last month, deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction." Now he's exposing the real reason for war with Iraq--the one we suspected all along. Why attack Iraq and not North Korea? "Let's look at it simply," he said at a Singapore security conference this weekend. "The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Clock watchers

You've heard of the US National Debt Clock--now well over $6.5 trillion (a record high!). Now there's the Cost of War clock. As of this second, we've spent $59,151,217,003 in Iraq.

We used to impeach liars

"We used to impeach liars," writes William Rivers Pitt. Not in 2003, and certainly not with a Republican Congress. Pitt runs a lengthy list of proclamations by Bush and his advisors on Iraq's alleged weapons programs, from Dick Cheney's August 26, 2002, declaration that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" to Bush's own State of the Union address in late January, during which he got pretty detailed:

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

Five. Hundred. Tons!? Whether a vial of sarin is uncovered or a nuclear warhead is dug up or a mobile lab possibly used for the production of biological agents is found, it's clear: this guy's been lying to us. Through his teeth. And the scale is collossal.

Pardon my French, friends, but a stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress--a thousand stains--is nowhere near the scale of this deception. Do the math: between 5,430 and 7,046 civilians, maybe more, were killed in a war over "weapons of mass destruction" of which the administration had "no doubt." Add the Iraqi soldiers and paramilitaries that were killed, as many as 45,000 lives, according to The Guardian. How much will it cost in dollars? No one seems to be keeping track, but a study in February estimated the cost of war and reconstruction of Iraq at a trillion dollars. And don't forget the incalculable costs: the effects of depleted uranium on our troops and their children, the lasting environmental effects in Iraq, the skyrocketing costs of occupying a country less and less fond of our presence there, the mushrooming costs of defending the nation againsts terrorists who've grown more pissed off--not less--from our little war.

As the bumpersticker says: If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention. But what to do? Join the thousands who are calling for a vote on Bush's impeachment. Or, more realistically, pressure your Congressional representative. Urge them to reconvene the Office of the Independent Counsel and call on the administration to appoint a special prosecutor. Then get all your friends to do the same. It's about time Bush gets the Ken Starr treatment.

We Interrupt Your Normal Show to Bring You an Important Message from Michael Powell and the FCC:

"Go to Hell, Americans!"

Krugman: Lie Another Day

Bush is a liar, says inimitable Times columnist Paul Krugman. About Iraq's WMDs, about tax breaks. An excerpt:

Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which — to an extent never before seen in U.S. history — systematically and brazenly distorts the facts.

Am I exaggerating? Even as George Bush stunned reporters by declaring that we have "found the weapons of mass destruction," the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households — including a majority of those with members over 65 — get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes.

(Thanks, John.)

Kids in Iraq

According to UNICEF's recent rapid assessment survey of conditions in Iraq, children in the country are doing worse now than before the war:

The results showed that acute malnutrition among children had almost doubled since before the war, jumping from 4 per cent to 7.7 per cent. Children who are acutely malnourished are literally wasting away, and for severe cases their condition can be fatal. Acute malnutrition sets in very fast and is a strong indicator of the overall health of children.

Dishonesty Matters: A Benedictine nun on the false path to war

Writer Gordon Livingston wrote today that "each of society's institutions is a crystallization of the dominant values of the culture. If so, we appear to be living in the time of the lie." In the National Catholic Reporter, Joan Chittister raises the same issue this way: "Is there anything left that matters?"

The unspoken truth is that either as a people we were misled, or we were lied to, about the real reason for this war. Either we made a huge — and unforgivable — mistake, an arrogant or ignorant mistake, or we are swaggering around the world like a blind giant, flailing in all directions while the rest of the world watches in horror or in ridicule.

If Bill Clinton's definition of "is" matters, surely this matters. If a president's sex life matters, surely a president's use of global force against some of the weakest people in the world matters. If a president's word in a court of law about a private indiscretion matters, surely a president's word to the community of nations and the security of millions of people matters.

And if not, why not? If not, surely there is something as wrong with us as citizens, as thinkers, as Christians as there must be with some facet of the government. If wars that the public says are wrong yesterday — as over 70% of U.S. citizens did before the attack on Iraq — suddenly become "right" the minute the first bombs drop, what kind of national morality is that?

Of what are we really capable as a nation if the considered judgment of politicians and people around the world means nothing to us as a people?

What is the depth of the American soul if we can allow destruction to be done in our name and the name of "liberation" and never even demand an accounting of its costs, both personal and public, when it is over?

Read it all. (Via Cursor)

Central Casting: The Times covers Sinclair

Today, as the FCC votes to relax media ownership rules, The New York Times writes about "central casting," the format Sinclair Broadcast Group uses to simulate local news. From their offices in Maryland, the company uses a stable of on-air talents--from the weatherman who pretends to be in Flint to a corporate VP who offers right-wing commentaries to close off a newscast--to provide content to 62 local news stations (you might have read about it here or here).

To the company, it is an efficient way to cut the costs of local journalism, bringing news to small stations that otherwise would go without.

But to opponents of a proposal before the Federal Communications Commission to loosen media ownership rules, the set in Maryland is a frightening sign of things to come.

Today the commission is expected to enact new rules that will allow media companies to increase the percentage of the national television audience they can reach from 35 to possibly 45. It is also expected to make it easier for companies to own two or even three stations in a single market--or a newspaper and television station in a single market.

Traitors and Sympathizers

"If you do not support our President's decisions, you are a traitor," proclaims the website ProBush.com. Its "Traitor List" includes the usual cast--Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon--but also a few surprises: Dr. Patch Adams, artist Laurie Anderson, guitarist Bill Frisell, dancer Bill T. Jones, Jimmy Carter, and James Abourezk. Who? Abourezk is a senator from South Dakota, and he's not pleased about being included on the list. According to The Progressive, he's suing the website and its editor/publisher, Michael Marino, for defamation. He's seeking $2 million in actual damages, $3 million in punitive damages, plus attorney's fees and the removal of any reference to Abourezk on the website. "They've impugned my integrity and my patriotism," says Abourezk.

Tom Tomorrow makes an excellent point about the logic of the likes of Marino--or, rather, his cousins who defame anti-war activists like Sarandon and Noam Chomsky as "terrorist sympathizers." Refering to those who feel for the plight of accused Olympic Park pipe bomber Eric Rudolph, he writes, " I wonder how soon the vociferious denunciations of these actual terrorist sympathizers will begin":

Betty Howard made many people happy today, and it was not for her daily special. Around noon, Mrs. Howard walked outside, glanced up at the sign in front of her diner and decided to change the lettering on the marquee from "Roast Turkey Baked Ham" to "Pray for Eric Rudolph."

"Bless his heart," Mrs. Howard said. "Eric needs our help."

* * *

"I didn't see him bomb nobody," said Hoke Henson, 77. "You can't always trust the feds."

Concluded Tomorrow: "Except when it comes to WMDs in Iraq, and then you can trust the federal government implicitly because they'd never lie. Speaking of which, it appears that--at least, according to the hard right NewsMax site--Paul Wolfowitz is now floating the idea that Saddam was not only the mastermind behind 9/11, but was also responsible for Oklahoma City and the 1993 WTC bombing. Wonder if the folks in Peachtree are gonna trust the feds on that one."

Selected Fictions

The Jessica Lynch Story: Despite eyewitness accounts stating its falsehood, NBC will air the US government's version of the rescue of Private Jessica Lynch. Calling the Pentagon's story "one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived," the BBC reported that, contrary to Pentagon assertions, there were no Iraqi soldiers present, no shots were fired, Lynch sustained no gunshot or stab wounds, and that Iraqi doctors had arranged two days earlier for Lynch to be picked up by an American ambulance. While Lynch can't recall any details of the "rescue," her father commented, "We're really not supposed to talk about that subject."

Vanishing WMDs:There's still no trace of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, 73 days into the search, and it's beginning to get a bit embarassing for George Bush and Tony Blair. With accusations piling up that Blair "sexed up" intelligence briefings to justify war, he announced that he stands "absolutely 100%" behind the evidence of WMDs the US and UK presented prior to the war. US News writes that Colin Powell wasn't so glowing in his assessment; he was reportedly so frustrated with poor evidence he was given to convince the UN of Iraq's WMDs that he declared: "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit." Malcolm Savidge, one of 73 MPs calling for the publication of the government's evidence on WMD, said: "I cannot conceive, in fact, of a more serious accusation than that parliament and the people could have been misled into being brought into a war on false pretences - that to me is more serious than Watergate."

Liberate Iraq! For some time now I've wanted to, under cover of darkness, alter those "Liberate Iraq!" signs to include the subhead "End the occupation!" While the pro-war folks might feel we liberated the country, the opposite is apparently true. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers are threatening suicide attacks against US troops if they don't leave soon. With US soldiers still taking fire, and some dying, it's not hard to imagine a return to all-out war. When US soldiers are no longer dying in Iraq (or killing Iraqis), then I'll take down my "No War with Iraq" sign and stop seeing the bitter irony in the signs that are now inadvertently calling for the end to American occupation.