Morpheus Breaks for August!

DOUBLE NERDS!! Once again, Little Anthony Fremont (above) has wished me away to the cornfield! I'll be spending my time watching the Democratic National Convention and as much of the Republican National Convention that I can stomach (because "that's all the TV there is!"). Then hopefully get some reprieve time to enjoy my Labor Day the only way I know how--out on Eastern Prkwy the West Indian way. Try to keep your sanity in the mean and between time. See you in a month!


I'm GONE. There ain't no more! Pay attention!

Read More...

Summary only...

Crisis in the Caucus

Last week, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, ordered an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia--shelling the area and possibly killing Russian troops (deemed "peacekeepers") stationed there. The reaction from Moscow who backs the separatist region, was swift. Within days Russia had not only bombed key cities and strategic areas in South Ossetia and beyond, but had routed the Georgian army that fled in disarray. The response from the US has been a mingle of shock and indignation. The Bush administration has condemned Russia for its aggression, demanding they withdraw from Georgia. But with its own military stretched thin, and tarnished credibility when it comes to invasions and occupations, the US has been able to do little more than lodge sullen complaints to deaf Russian ears. Let the corporate news media tell it, and the narrative coming out of the White House on this crisis is the only valid one. It goes something like this: Russia is having delusions of grandeur from their Soviet days, and has attacked a staunch bastion of freedom and democracy; President Saakashvili is a courageous David up against a menacing Goliath.

Of course, foreign policy matters are rarely that simple.



If Russia is a bully, it is only a greater bully than Georgia itself, who launched the initial attack on South Ossetia. The Russian response has certainly been disproportionate, but in this era of a global War on Terror and Israeli blitzes on Lebanon, restraint is in short supply. While Russia certainly does want respect and power, there is little evidence to the claim this is a move back to Empire. If anything, this flare up has exposed some of the dangerous consequences of American global expansionism. Russia's opposition over NATO moving into their backyard has been voiced since the 1990s, and repeatedly ignored.

And America's friend and hero Saakashvili hardly a boyscout, creating close military ties with the US and suppressing demonstrations with the type of violence that is condemned in China, but ignored in Georgia. What's further, exactly what kind of dangerous game was he playing? Did he really believe that the US would, and should, get into a military conflict with a nuclear armed adversary?

Below are some nuanced and balanced articles on the crisis, pointing out that not only is it complex but perhaps more dangerous than most imagine.



The War We Don't Know

Mark Ames, editor of Moscow's alternative paper The eXile, gives a detailed account of the origins of the Russian-Georgian conflict.

Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?

Robert Scheer examines how neconservatives are exploiting Russian conflict to push their Pax Americana agendas, and prop up GOP presidential candidate John McCain--who it turns out has extremely close ties to lobbyists for Georgia.

McCain's War: Playing With Nuclear Fire

Steve Weissman examines the dangerous gamble McCain's intended policies towards Russia means when taking into account the nuclear factor.

Ceasefire and Chaos in Georgia

Georgian journalist Margarita Akhvlediani points out that after the cease-fires are met and the new boundary lines are drawn, someone is going to have to investigate just who started this conflict.

Up to 2,000 Killed as Russia-Georgia Fighting Enters Fourth Day

Amy Goodman interviews Col. Sam Gardiner on the Russian-Georgian war, and the danger of any possible escalation or American intervention leading to the possibiilty of nuclear showdown.

The New American Cold War

Originally published in 2006, this article by Russian Studies Professor Stephen Cohen (updated with a new intro for 2008) predicted much of the current discord between the US and Russia, much of it due to American arrogance and expansionism.

Read More...

Summary only...

Remembering Fat Man & Little Boy

In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose.--J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb and head of the Manhattan Project.

In the predawn morning of August 6, 1945, an American B-29 bomber called the Enola Gay piloted by Col. Paul Tibbets flew past the Tinian Island in the Marianas toward the city of Hiroshima in the Empire of Japan. In its bay the Boeing carried a secret cargo dubbed "Little Boy." Though innocently named, "Little Boy" was actually a weapon of mass destruction unseen before in human history. And when released upon the citizens of Hiroshima at 8:15 that morning, it unleashed an explosive force equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT and plunged the world into a new era.



Three days later on August 9th, 1945 a second B-29 called the Bock's Car took off for the Kokura Arsenal on the southwest Japanese island of Kyushu. Due to harsh weather the pilot of the Bock's Car decided to divert to a secondary target, Nagasaki. A second and larger weapon of mass destruction code-named "Fat Man" was dropped on the military manufacturing and civilian populace.

Some 230,000 Japanese--mostly civilians--died instantly from the blasts, while tens of thousands more were fatally injured. Over the years, radioactive fallout would claim even more lives.

By August 14, a psychologically traumatized Japan accepted the terms of surrender. By Sept. 2, 1945 the last major event of WWII was officially as the last of Axis powers signed a surrender agreement. But the legacy of August 6th and 9th still trouble and haunt the world.

This week marks the 63rd anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States, and marks as well the yearl debate on whether the action was necessary.

Those who supported and still defend the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki often claim that had it not been carried out, over 1 million American soldiers (an near equal an amount of Japanese) would have died in any possible invation of the island nation. This has bolstered veterans groups and those who steadfastly refuse to apologize for what the most remorseful see as a regretful but necessary act.

Yet these statistics remain in question.

It actually began in 1947 when former Secretary of War Henry Stinson, trying to defend the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, claimed there would have been over 1 million American "casualties." President Harry Truman later claimed a half million lives were at "risk." As can be seen the number problems begin instantly, and were hardly in agreement. Even more noteworthy, both were postwar estimates used to rebut critics. These discrepancies haven't stopped both the popular media and many WWII veterans groups from repeating the "1 million dead" hypothesis as literal fact.

So what are the real numbers according to the best known evidence?

Wartime statements by US generals like Douglas MacArthur, George C. Marshall and joint chiefs of staffs show that postwar projected estimates of the loss of a half million American deaths was much too high. One million was simply out of the question. The real numbers many believe probably lay around many tens of thousands of dead, perhaps 30 to 50 thousand on the high end.

It may be argued that tens of thousands of American lives is a high number. Still, tens of thousands is a very long and winding road from a half million. One million isn't even on the ma. And it bears comparing such a number to the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians killed in the bombings.

In fact, not everyone in the American defense department was equally "gung-ho" about dropping Fat Man and Little Boy. In the summer of 1945 leading US military figures argued that a combination of blockade and consistent bombing campaigns had already heavily weakened Japan. With the other Axis powers defeated and Japan on its own, they argued that the island nation's meager forces could not hold out much longer. Its armies were in constant retreat and its once large air and naval fleet had been decimated. Top navy admirals at the time believed a continued blockade would force Japan to stop fighting, while army and air force generals said conventional bombing would do the job. All estimated that the war would be over by November of 1945 as Japan was literally pounded, exhausted and starved into surrender.

Truman's chief of staff Admiral William D. Leahy was skeptical the bomb would even work. By 1950 he had denounced the acts upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki as approaching "ethical standards common to barbarians in the dark ages." More than a few have asked, in Leahy's lead, whether the use of atomic weapons violated rules of warfare. Throughout WWII the Allies had denounced the Axis powers of terror-tactics against civilian populations. The Germans had done it in everywhere, from Barcelona to the Blitz of London. The Italians had done it years earlier in Ethiopia. Japan had committed such acts upon China. Generals from Eisenhower to Marshall, though later closing ranks to support the atomic bombings, had reservations about targeting civilians in a way similar to their enemies.

Though a later supporter of the atomic bombings, in May of 1945 Marshall had argued the bomb should only be dropped on a definite massive military target. If it was going to be a civilian target he said, a warning should be given beforehand so the populace could flee. Postwar defenders of the atomic bombings have argued that a warning would have endangered Allied servicemen and a mere demonstration would have not worked. In their estimate only the first hand lethal force of the weapons would convey the correct message.

The use of atomic bombs, and the choice made to do so, inevitably brings up race. 1940s America was hardly some bastion of racial tolerance. While the Germans were debased with ethnic slurs such as "Krauts" throughout WWII, full blown racial caricatures and claims of sinister "Japs" out to steal white women were all part of the wartime US propaganda. Japanese-Americans would find themselves stripped of their belongings and moved into internment camps, a shameful act for which the US has since apologized.

But perhaps we only need compare Europe to Japan. In Europe US air power kept up precision attacks on military targets, or at least claimed to try. Even the infamous Dresden bombing was disavowed by US military leaders. Yet only days after this denouncement of the use of such tactics in Europe, US forces under General Curtis E. LeMay began a consistent campaign of napalm bombardment on Tokyo. More Japanese civilians were killed in these firebombings in five months than were killed by the Allied bombings in Germany in five years. That most white Americans held Asian lives less valuable than European lives is hardly surprising. What role this may have played in the decision to use atomic weapons remains in question.

Some have postulated another reason for the bombings, one based on shrewd politics. Signed agreements by the US with the Soviet Union called for the invasion of Japan by Russian forces in the waning days of WWII. The Soviets in fact, sticking to the script, officially declared war on Japan two days after the destruction of Hiroshima on August 8. Some have suggested that the rush to use atomic weapons on Japan was meant to intimidate Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Even during the war, the US had watched warily as their ally of convenience pushed into Eastern Europe, with no intentions on leaving. Is it possible that Truman, fearing the possibility of Soviet dominance in postwar Asia, ordered the atomic bombings in part as a lightly veiled threat to Stalin? Most historians do not accept this as a primary reason, but have not ruled it out as part of the puzzle.

Supporters of America's tragic decision often point out that Empire of Japan was no innocent. And there is little argument to be made against that. Japan willingly joined the Axis powers of Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Japanese bombings of cities in China resulted in the deaths of thousands. The use of mass rape and sex slaves by those deemed to be "lesser Asians" was practiced by the Japanese military. There were massacres of civilians, the use of biological weapons on some Chinese cities and reports of bizarre medical experiments upon non-Japanese, hauntingly familiar to those a continent away at Dachau and Buchenwald.

Yet whatever crimes the Empire of Japan committed, they were not ordered or carried out by its civilian population. And it was everyday civilians---men, women and children---who paid the greatest price. Nagasaki for instance targeted in part because of a Mitsubishi plant that manufactured torpedoes. Yet by August of 1945 the Japanese navy was for all intents and purposes null and void, having been crippled at battles like Midway and utterly destroyed at Leyte. By the time Fat Man was dropped on the naval weapons manufacturing complex, the Japanese fleet had been relegated to last ditch kamikaze attacks. Most of its ships sat in harbors devoid of fuel and waiting to be picked off by US air power that dominated the skies. Thus an atomic bomb was dropped on a plant in the midst of a larger civilian population, even though the building was manufacturing weapons that couldn't be used by the Japanese navy. If Nagasaki was indeed chosen because it offered a "military target," it would be a tragically stunning case of using a hammer to crush a fly.

In reality, Hiroshima and Nagasaki offered little military value to the US. What it did offer however was a showcase of power--the shock and awe strategy of its time. Its purpose was to induce terror, to plant such fear in America's adversary that they would either surrender or fall beneath the weight of a stunned and frightful populace. Whether it was meant only for the Japanese, or also for the USSR, the fires unleashed that August announced to the world that a superpower had been born.

So here we are on the 63rd anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since the US first dropped Fat Man and Little Boy, it has fiercely guarded membership to the nuclear club. The effort has been less than successful as the weapons have proliferated around the world, leaving the fate of humanity always in doubt and worry. The Soviet Union would be the first to join, helping launch the already burgeoning Cold War and taking us a few steps away from Armageddon with incidents such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Today membership has extended to the UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and N. Korea. Others that have flirted with membership have included Libya, Iraq, and Iran. A few like Algeria, Argentina, Belarus and Brazil gave up on joining. Libya too took its hat out of the ring, seeing little incentive in the quest. And though Iraq had long since lost interest in entering the club, a manufactured war was concocted to "allegedly" bar them from entrance. In 2006 former Soviet Republics Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan left the club altogether, giving up their nukes. Opting for sanity, or perhaps fearful of the weapons inevitably ending up in black hands, apartheid South Africa also returned its membership card.

Today the US is equipped with about 11,000 nuclear warheads, all trained on someone. The current US administration has pushed a belligerent nuclear strategy, threatening pre-emptive strikes on its enemies and pushing for a new generation of weapons. Russia's massive and crumbling arsenal stands at 22,000---that is if none have been sold on the black market yet---equally all trained on someone. Altogether there are probably over 33,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The remaining nuclear powers make up the rest, at much smaller numbers. Yet in this game numbers are illusionary because it really doesn't take much to do the job. The US Navy's 18 Trident Missile Submarines alone have enough nuclear firepower to end near all human life on the planet - twice.

Each year since 1945, on Aug. 6th and continuing on to Aug. 9th, Hiroshima and Nagasaki mourn the dead of the atomic bombings as well as what has been termed "the end of human innocence"---if we ever had any to begin with. Names are added to the register of dead who were found to have died from the fallout in later years. Paper Lanterns are lit and doves fly over Peace Memorial Park. Japan has disavowed its move towards Empire, militarily anyway, opting for non-nuclear principles after having witnessed the horror first hand. The US, who now hunts the world to make sure its creations aren't unleashed by others but at the same time seems ready to abandon set principles to stop proliferation, yet remains the only nation ever to use atomic based weapons of mass destruction against another. Sixty-three years later many would argue whatever the reasoning behind the decision, the price was too great.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists keeps a clock that records the current political climate to determine how close the world is to a nuclear holocaust. Noon is the furthest away from such a disaster. Each second past noon indicates the possibility of an approaching nuclear nightmare. In case you're wondering, the hands on the current clock are set at 5 minutes to midnight.

Sleep tight.

"...uneasy is the peace that wears a nuclear crown. And we cannot be satisfied with a situation in which the world is capable of extinction in a moment of error, or madness, or anger." -- President Lyndon B. Johnson

Read More...

Summary only...

Playing the Ignorance Card

Forget the over-hyped "race card," good old fashioned ignorance is the ace up the sleeve of the Grand Old Party.



At a speech last week, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama replied to a question about how ordinary people can save on gas. The Illinois Senator pointed out that if drivers kept their tires properly inflated and gave their cars regular tune-ups, the nation would save more oil than through offshore drilling.

"There are things that you can do individually though to save energy; making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much."

Republicans have gone into spasms of joy ever since, with conservative radio and tv ridiculing his comments. The Republican National Committee is selling tire gauges for $25 with the words "Barack Obama's Energy Plan" written on the side. They even handed them out to the press corps in a mock celebration of Sen. Obama's birthday.

Sounds funny right? Only thing is, turns out when it comes to tire gauges Obama is RIGHT...and for the GOP, ignorance is bliss.

Not only have Republican governors like Arnold Schwarzanegger (CA) and Charlie Crist (FL) stated as much in the past, but so has McCain mascot Sen. Joe Lieberman (CT), NASCAR and even the Department of Energy. In their snickering, Obama's detractors are only calling more attention to their own lack of insight.

Of course the problem here for Sen. Obama, is that there is even a problem to begin with. That the GOP can so easily distract voters with gimmicks, half-truths and the ridiculing of facts is a problem that spans from the corporate media to the viewing and listening public. With a few bright exceptions, most of the media reporting on this "Tire-Gauge" story has been he-said, she-said--with not much explanation on who is right and who is dead wrong. But no surprise there. This is the same media that turned Al Gore's intellect into a handicap, and found fault for Sen. John Kerry having nuanced and complex responses. Coupled with an American populace often so woefully misinformed they can't be bothered to google the facts, and one can see why using the ignorance card has become a popular GOP strategy. After all, who's going to call them on it?

Well, in a refreshing change of politics-as-usual, turns out the Democrat will.

Unlike past candidates who seemed to fear that "acting smart" would not be seen as "cool," Sen. Obama has thus shown he's not "dumbing it down" for anyone. At a town hall meeting in Ohio, he blasted the GOP with wit and withering humor not only on their silly antics, but the anti-intellectualism they seem to praise.

"It's like these guys take pride in ignorance! It's like they like being ignorant."--Sen. Obama

Gotta respect that. Of course, they'll probably start claiming he's being "Uppity."

From TIME magazine:

The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

2006 Press headline, NASCAR

Tires are the Rodney Dangerfield of the automotive world…[they] get no respect. Tire maintenance key to safety, fuel economy.

Mark Silva at swampolitics.com:

It looks like the Republican National Committee might owe Democrat Barack Obama a tire rotation, wheel balancing and brake job while they're at it. After all the grief that Obama has taken from the RNC and from rival John McCain this week over the Democrat's comment that motorists could save some more oil if only they put some more air in their tires, it turns out a search of the clips -- conducted by a motivated party -- has found that the administraiton of President Bush -- George H.W. Bush -- was telling Americans the same thing back in 1990.

The official response of the Obama Campaign:

"And while the McCain team may is busy amusing themselves, the fact is that the idea they’re attacking is supported by, among others, top McCain surrogate Joe Lieberman, conference call host Mike Rogers, Governors Charlie Crist and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Department of Energy, and NASCAR — all of whom have urged Americans to help save energy by minding tire pressure," the Obama team continued in the email. "But hey, who ever let the facts — or supporters’ positions — get in the way of a political attack? Aboard the Low Road Express, that’s no problem at all."

Read More...

Summary only...

Murs for President

A Hip Hop Quotable if I ever heard one...

That's what my album Murs For President is. It is a literal shout out to the world. It’s me screaming out that, yes, the Hip Hop generation is intelligent. Yes, we do care. And at the same time we can still have fun while being decent human beings...I am the fresh breath of air in an industry that is bereft of good human beings. Not only are they bad rappers but they are just bad people. What decent human makes songs about murdering other humans or selling poison to other people? The time for that BS is over! I'm taking a stand for our kids, our community and our culture. So if you're looking for someone who represents positive, intelligent and fun rap music. Sept 30th vote Murs For President!

Say WORD!

http://www.mursmusic.com/



http://www.myspace.com/murs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MURS

Read More...

Summary only...