Stuart Moore's A Thousand Flowers: Flagg, United Fruit, History, and Deja Vu

[MattBrady]

<center><a href="http://www.newsarama.com/Thousand_Flowers_index.htm"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/flowers_banner.jpg" width="475" height="75" border="0"></a></center>

<center>A THOUSAND FLOWERS</center><center>Comics, Pop Culture, and the World Outside</center><center>Installment 26</center><center>by Stuart Moore</center>

<b>The Return of El Octopo</b>

Americans didn’t pay much attention to politics in the ‘90s, and we’re all paying for it now. (I’m as guilty as the next idiot.) It really is true: If you don’t remember history, it comes back to bite you -- hard.

Comics from the ‘80s might not seem like the best place to start for historical perspective, but indulge me for a minute. In our last column (http://newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=5331), we discussed Howard Chaykin’s ground-breaking <b>American Flagg!</b> series, which combined an innovative home-base setting -- the Chicago “PlexMall” living/working/shopping quarters -- with an international political backdrop.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/Amflag11.jpg" width="185" height="288" border="0" hspace="1" align="right">The second <b>Flagg!</b> storyline took Reuben Flagg to Brazil where, in one bit of casual satire, he passed a street sign labelled “United Fruit Avenue.” In issue #11, a reader wrote in to complain about Chaykin’s perceived homophobia, and cited the sign (calling it “United Fruit Boulevard”) as an example. Editor Mike Gold replied:

“I have a policy of not explaining jokes: no sophisticated gag in any of our books is likely to be understood by our entire readership. But the point is, you missed the point entirely with ‘United Fruit Boulevard.’”

What did it mean? Let’s follow the trail to <b>Brought to Light</b>, a “graphic docudrama” published by Eclipse in 1989. This unique volume features two separate stories. The first, by Joyce Brabner (who appears in the new <b>American Splendor</b> film) and Tom Yeates, is a straight documentary account of the death of several international journalists in Costa Rica as a result of a CIA plan, and of a resulting lawsuit launched by the Christic Institute against the U.S. government. In a 2000 interview, Alan Moore tells the sad result of the case: the government basically bankrupted the Christic Institute with countersuits. (See bibliography.)

The second story, <b>Shadowplay – The Secret Team</b>, is a nightmarish history of America’s involvement in foreign revolutions, written by Alan Moore with savage art by Bill Sienkewicz. Moore recounts this catalog of dirty tricks through the narrative device of a drunken, raging, coke-snorting eagle representing the CIA, sitting in a Central American bar, bragging about his macho acts around the world. Among the story’s conceits is a running index of how many swimming pools full of blood the dead in each war would fill, graphically illustrated by Sienkewicz’s plain red rectangles juxtaposed with realistic images of war.

On page seven of <b>Shadowplay</b>, among the CIA eagle’s dialogue, we find this little gem:

“Guatemala had been ours since ’54, when we protected the innerests o’ the United Fruit Company by overthrowing the socialist government and suppressin’ the banana worker’s union.”

History time. I’ll make it brief.

In 1944, Guatemala experienced the Central American equivalent of a miracle: a genuine people’s revolution, led by the middle class, university students, and young army officers. Juan Jose Arevalo was elected president in a free, democratic election, succeeded in 1950 by Jacabo Arbenz Guzman. Neither man had strong links to Russia, or any particular alliance with the Soviet Bloc or its ideology. But both were self-proclaimed socialists…which provided their enemies with a stick to attack them with.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/flaggfruit.jpg" width="350" height="403" border="0" hspace="1" align="left">The U.S.-based United Fruit Company -- UFCO, now United Brands -- had conducted extensive operations in Central America for decades, largely in Honduras, Costa Rica, and Guatemala. United Fruit was known in the region by several nicknames, including “El Octopo” -- The Octopus -- because of its long reach and crushing grip.

By the early ‘50s, United Fruit owned 42% of Guatemala’s land, operated the country’s railroads, and paid virtually no taxes. The company’s role in Central America is controversial: Representatives claimed that it paid its workers better than anyone else, and it’s arguable that the company raised standards of living throughout the region.

But United Fruit demanded loyalty for those rewards. When the Arevalo/Arbenz government started chipping away at its favored status -- taking back land, demanding the company pay import taxes -- United Fruit took extreme measures. It went directly to the Eisenhower administration, painting the Guatemalan government as Indochina-style Communist collaborators (which they weren’t) and describing the situation as urgent. CIA head Allen Dulles -- who had served on United Fruit’s board of trustees -- launched a campaign to portray the Communist presence in Central America, and Guatemala in particular, as “more dangerous than open physical aggression.”

In the McCarthy-scare era of the early ‘50s, these tactics proved successful. In 1954, U.S. troops and CIA tricks combined to force a counterrevolution in Guatemala -- overthrowing the democratically elected President, and replacing him with a dictator. This dictator, Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, was of course much friendlier to U.S. companies, including United Fruit, which moved back in with a vengeance.

Castillo Armas, however, did not enjoy popular support, and was assassinated just three years later. Guatemala entered a period of great instability and economic hardship. But from 1954-1970, the U.S. pumped more money into Guatemala -- in aid, military support, and private investment -- than any other Central American nation. United Fruit was happy. Bananas and coffee flowed freely once again.

Scholar Pedro Gliejeses described the situation from 1944-1954 this way:

"Even without the hazy prospect of a communist takeover of Guatemala -- and the more real threat to Guatemala's neighbors -- Arbenz posed an intolerable challenge. In the heart of the American sphere of influence…this president and his communist friends were successful. The agrarian reform was proceeding well…and basic freedoms were being upheld. It was an intolerable challenge to America's sense of self-respect.”

In his book <I>Inevitable Revolutions</I>, Walter LaFeber says, “The fruit firm’s success in linking the taking of its lands to the evil of international communism was later described by one UFCO official as ‘the Disney version of the episode.’”

<a href="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/broughttolight.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/broughttolight_T.jpg" width="350" height="226" border="0" hspace="1" align="right" alt="Brought to Light"></a>Arbenz’s government fell swiftly, not because of any lack of popular support, but because…well, he didn’t really have much connection to the Soviet Union at all. It’s pretty hard for a small country to defend itself, alone, against the U.S. once we decide to invade.

Allen Dulles, United Fruit trustee and CIA head. The twisting of facts to make Arbenz’s Guatemala seem closely allied to the Soviet Union. The rapid invasion of a small country. The use of American troops to pursue a private company’s agenda. Huge amounts of American money pouring into the small country post-invasion.

Is any of this sounding familiar yet?

If not, let’s look at a recent Washington Post article headlined “HALLIBURTON’S DEALS GREATER THAN THOUGHT,” by Michael Dobbs. The link is in the bibliography, and I encourage you to read it all, but here are a few choice excerpts:

“Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Cheney, has won contracts worth more than $1.7 billion under Operation Iraqi Freedom…The size and scope of the government contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the war in Iraq are significantly greater than was previously disclosed and demonstrate the U.S. military's increasing reliance on for-profit corporations to run its logistical operations. Independent experts estimate that as much as one-third of the monthly $3.9 billion cost of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq is going to independent contractors.”

“[A]ccording to Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and other critics, the Iraq war and occupation have provided a handful of companies with good political connections, particularly Halliburton, with unprecedented money-making opportunities. ‘The amount of money [earned by Halliburton] is quite staggering, far more than we were originally led to believe,’ Waxman said. ‘This is clearly a trend under this administration, and it concerns me because often the privatization of government services ends up costing the taxpayers more money rather than less.’”

“Often dressed in Army fatigues with civilian patches on their shoulders, Halliburton employees and contract personnel have become an integral part of Army life in Iraq.”

The article describes the administration’s repeated promises to open private contracts for bidding -- contracts which are then slipped under the table, consistently, to Halliburton and its subsidiary, Brown and Root. Perhaps most disturbingly, the article notes that when traditionally military functions are outsourced to private companies, those companies are likely not to perform their duties when conditions get hazardous:

“‘At the end of the day, neither these companies nor their employees are bound by military justice, and it is up to them whether to show up or not,’ [P.W. Singer, a Brookings Institution scholar] said. ‘The result is that there have been delays in setting up showers for soldiers, getting them cooked meals and so on.’”

To bring this briefly back to comics: Over the course of <b>American Flagg’s</b> first year, Reuben Flagg discovers that the Plex -- the governing authority, based on Mars -- is selling off the United States piecemeal to private corporations. This, too, is Bush’s pattern, from the time he was governor of Texas: privatize formerly government-controlled operations (many of which employ large numbers of African-Americans and other minorities), then award the contracts under the table to his friends. The result, consistently, has been inferior services and, ultimately, greater costs to the taxpayer. Private companies are smart enough to bid low at the beginning, then increase their demands once the process is too far along to return the services to government operation.

In <b>American Flagg!</b>, the Plex pumps video entertainment full of subliminal messages that keep the masses pumped up and violent, to distract them from what’s really going on. Welcome to Fox News, with its tank fetishism, screaming male anchors, female reporters with platinum porn-star hair, and manipulative, flashy music. And it’s aimed at the ordinary Joe who wants to make sense of this new, dangerous world -- exactly the person who’s getting screwed most by the Bush administration.

Remember the justifications for the war in Iraq: An imminent threat. A spurious, disproved link between the target and a known enemy (al-Qaeda).

There comes a point where too much evidence accumulates to dismiss the facts as mere conspiracy -- especially when they’re backed up by the weight of history. In 1954, America overthrew a democratically government in Guatemala for the United Fruit Company. In 2003, we fought a war in Iraq for Halliburton.

There's no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime was a horrific dictatorship, rife with torture, murder, and oppression of innocents. Looking at a catalog of Saddam's atrocities, one can see how right-minded officials could be talked into supporting his overthrow. Except for two things:

(1) Saddam's record of torture and murder pales next to the horrific situations in Niger, the Congo, and Liberia, whose government has for years practiced systematic amputation of the limbs of major parts of the population. (In the ‘90s, Rwanda -- probably Clinton's biggest failure -- was a similar bloodbath.) When asked why, faced with even greater human rights crises, we don't invade those countries, Donald Rumsfeld's customary response is: "We can't be everywhere." But that leaves the crucial question unanswered: Why are we <b>here</b>?

(2) As my father used to say: You have to not only want what you want, you have to want what it leads to. Overthrowing Saddam's brutal dictatorship sounded like a rallying cry that free people could all get behind. But what happens in a poor, chaotic country once that regime is gone? And what's the United States's place in that "new" country?

There's no easy way out of Iraq, now. If we pull our troops out, we condemn the country to anarchy, civil war, and a continued existence as the haven for anti-American terrorists -- a situation we ourselves have created with our arrogance and our uninvited invasion. If we stay, we're a constant occupying presence for the Iraqis to hate, and the terrorists to stage attacks against.

But none of that matters to United Fruit -- I mean, to Halliburton. They get the lucrative contracts and, eventually, control of the oil flow, either way. Regardless of what kind of corrupt, anticompetitive process got them those contracts in the first place. Regardless, even, of whether they actually do the jobs they're contracted for, and whether our exhausted, relief-starved soldiers get food and water.

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/flowers/dick_cheney.jpg" width="250" height="179" border="0" hspace="1" align="left">If it doesn't matter to Halliburton, it doesn't matter to Dick Cheney. The American media are always careful to note that Cheney stepped down as Halliburton’s chief executive when he decided to run for Vice-President. But his tax returns show that he still receives “deferred compensation” from them -- between $100,000 and $1 million per year. In my book, that’s an employee, and a pretty highly placed one at that.

And if it doesn't matter to Dick Cheney, it doesn't matter to George W. Bush.

Make no mistake: this is big corporations using the government to fight their wars. It's an administration filling its friends' pockets and strutting arrogantly around the globe, while ruining our nation's economy. It's legalized graft; it’s blood spilled to make the richest few even richer. It's war profiteering.

The Republicans have a very successful tactic for dealing with any criticism along these lines. They get indignant. More specifically, they practice a kind of paternalistic outrage: How dare you suggest the President might lie to the American people?

Here’s a newsflash: Presidents lie all the time. Democratic Presidents, Republican Presidents, Whig Presidents. Clinton lied about blowjobs. Nixon lied about coverups. Bush Sr. lied about Iran-Contra. Kennedy lied about a lot of things (including blowjobs, probably). It’s a fact of life.

The trick is deciding when the lies are important. When they’re actively hurting you and me.

I’d like to see more overtly political entertainment right now. Comics is the perfect outlet; TV, music, and movies are scared, afraid that their sponsors will pull out or that they won’t get played on Clear Channel radio stations. We’re still small enough, and outlaw enough, to get away with it.

So let’s make some noise.

‘Cause I don’t know about you, but I don’t want the Iraqi people living in United Fruit’s Guatemala. And I sure as hell don’t want to live in Dick Cheney’s private PlexMall.

**

Bibliography

Books

John H. Coatsworth, CENTRAL AMERICA AND THE UNITED STATES (Twayne/Macmillan, 1994)

Pedro Gliejeses, SHATTERED HOPE: THE GUATEMALAN REVOLUTION AND THE UNITED STATES, 1944-1954 (Princeton University Press, 1991)

Walter LaFeber, INEVITABLE REVOLUTIONS: THE UNITED STATES IN CENTRAL AMERICA (2nd edition, W. W. Norton & Company, 1993)

Ernest van den Haag and Tom J. Farer, U.S. ENDS AND MEANS IN CENTRAL AMERICA: A DEBATE, (Plenum Publishing, 1988)

Articles

Robert Bryce and Julian Borger, “Cheney is still paid by Pentagon contractor,” Guardian Unlimited, March 12, 2003:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515,00.html

Michael Dobbs, “Halliburton's Deals Greater Than Thought,” Washington Post, August 28, 2003:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56429-2003Aug27.html

Alan Moore interview re the Christic Institute:
http://www.blather.net/articles/amoore/brought_to_light2.html

“Banana Republic: The United Fruit Company”:
http://www.mayaparadise.com/ufc1e.htm

United Fruit Historical Society Bibliography:
http://www.unitedfruit.org/bibliography.html

Comics

Howard Chaykin, AMERICAN FLAGG! (First Comics, 1983-1989). Out of print.

Alan Moore, Bill Sienkewicz, Joyce Brabner, & Tom Yeates, BROUGHT TO LIGHT: A GRAPHIC DOCUDRAMA (Eclipse Books, 1989). Out of print. An audio adaptation was published in 2000 by Codex Books (http://www.codexbooks.co.uk/brou.html ); this is also out of print.

**

Stuart Moore has been a writer, a comics editor for Vertigo and Marvel Knights, a kitchen worker, a book editor, and the nighttime manager of the Lawrenceville, NJ Woolworth's curtain department. He has won the Will Eisner award for Best Editor 1996 and the Don Thompson Award for Favorite Editor 1999.

My current comics work: LONE, a new future-western series from Dark Horse/Rocket Comics coming September 17th. It’s drawn by Jerome Opena, this year’s Russ Manning Award-winner for best newcomer, and you can read half the first issue, free, right now here (http://www.rocketcomics.net/downloads/index.html?sku=lone1.1&mediatype=ecomic). (If you get the solicitation page, just click the link labelled “e-comic.”)

My own political comic -- which, in the words of one former President, is much “kinder and gentler” than the above column -- is GIANT ROBOT WARRIORS, coming in December from AiT/PlanetLar. Details on that and other new projects, including VAMPIRELLA and PARA,here (http://www.popimage.com/content/viewnews.cgi?newsid1058854264,10752,). And check out Ryan Kelly’s great double-page International Robot spread from GIANT ROBOT WARRIORS here (http://newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4639) .

Next time: No history. Just comics. Well, maybe some comics history…!

[Jeremy Williams]

Fantastic column, Stuart.

Reading this makes me wish for a political comic outthere. It would be interesting if say...a Captain America book would be that political.

[the4thpip]

Yes, great piece indeed. Thanks for posting a link on Joe Quesada's politics board. By a strange coinicidence, I mentioned United Fruit there just this week in a thread about farm subsidies of all things.

I came across a very obscure comic book the other day, the only published issue of Solson Publications T.H.U.N.D.E.R , which tried to do a Watchmen like thing with Wally Wood's agents.

I typed out the introduction because I found it kind of eerie how well they predicted the Ashcroft/Bush years back in 1987:


The country is ripe for a change and we are it – New Republic.

New Republic – also known as “People For A New Republic,” “The New Republic Party,” “The Right Way,” “American Pride.”

Group responsible for the defeat of Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party in the 1980 elections, the trend of conservatism that followed those elections, and the national wave of isolationism that has surfaced in the past 15 years.

“America is weak because of all the outside interests that control her industries, her banks, her government. Real Americans have no voice in the affairs of their own nation. Now is the time that we should change that. Protect your own, root out the foreign interests, deport the millions of aliens which are stealing our jobs, taking all the space in our schools. Now is the time of the Real American! Now is the time for the New Republic!”

How Americans responded to the call to protect the “National Pride” varied. But New Republic reached enough to start a move that would result in the complete expulsion of the United Nations from the United States. And US activities outside its borders increased; where before she had moved only to protect interests that were actively being threatened, the US now moved against any threat, real or imagined, as if to warn other nations not to cross the mighty eagle that represented all hope for freedom in the world.

UNESCO was one of the first casualties of the new American attitude toward other nations. Funding was drastically cut when the US withdrew from that UN agency. Then came the series of diplomatic “expulsions;” the US would expel 10 Russians, the U.S.S.R. would then expel 10 Americans. World opinion of Americans dropped to its lowest levels ever.

New Republic’s next move was to put forth the proposal that with growing anti-American sentiment overseas, the danger to the US and its president was greater than ever before. Threats from foreign terrorists would increase the need for a strong internal defense... And it was up to the "Patriotic Businessmen” of the US to provide funding for that defense.

(...)

“Deportation of foreign citizens would decrease the threat from within by terrorists in the guise of students and scholars!” So visas for all foreign visitors were cancelled and those people were ordered to report to immigration center for questioning and deportation. (...)

[xdemon]

"I’d like to see more overtly political entertainment right now. Comics is the perfect outlet; TV, music, and movies are scared, afraid that their sponsors will pull out or that they won’t get played on Clear Channel radio stations. We’re still small enough, and outlaw enough, to get away with it."

Bring back and support Priest's Black Panther!!!

It sounds like Morales may try to bring politics into Captain America.

[fish1000]

I read 'Shadowplay' as a teenager in my local library, and it really opened my eyes - It is a real shame this book is out of print, I think it should be on the school syllabus, just as a warning to citizens to keep their eye on whats going on in the world.

[Hebime]

Fool me once, shame on you....

Nice bait and switch there Stuart, reeling me back in with talk of one of my favorite comics of all time, then , bam, hit me with another far left polemic...

*sigh*

Oh well, I guess I've learned my lesson this time.......

[TheWriteJerry]

Excellent work, Stuart.

I normally stay so far away from politics that I never even comment on other people's comments on politics. Call it fear of confrontation, or head in the sand, or a feeling of powerlessness to change anything anyway.

But this was such an indepth, well researched, thought-provoking piece that I plan to cull through the bibliography you provided. Time to peek my head out; I hate sand in my hair anyway.

Jerry A. Novick
Political Scaredy Cat, Looking to reform

[adamania]

Stuart & Howard sittin in a tree...

Geez, man. Two straight American Flagg installments? Somebody need a little Chayk break?

[Robot H Brian]

Originally posted by Hebime
Fool me once, shame on you....

Nice bait and switch there Stuart, reeling me back in with talk of one of my favorite comics of all time, then , bam, hit me with another far left polemic...

*sigh*

Oh well, I guess I've learned my lesson this time.......

Yeah. Why craft an intelligent rebuttal when you can just dismiss it as "another far left polemic"?

Silly liberals...going on and on with their "facts" and "historical perspective" when they should be enjoying their time before Ashcroft's Patriot Act III is passed and they're all sent to Utah to face a firing squad.

[AvenGerbils Assemble]

Well-researched. Brilliant column.

I second the motion for a politically-charged Cap book. There is a precedent.

[Stuart Moore]

Thanks, everybody.

But I'm disappointed so far. Where are the Bush Republicans? Where are the right-wingers who gave us six pages of replies back here (http://newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2875 )?

Best,
Stuart

[Dave Hudson]

Originally posted by AvenGerbils Assemble
Well-researched. Brilliant column.

I second the motion for a politically-charged Cap book. There is a precedent.

After the knee-capping Peter Milligan's Princess Di story got do you really expect Cap to be going up against Bush Jnr.?

[adampasz]

>>> hit me with another far left polemic...

Are you serious? Hey, at least he admitted Dems lie too. And I think his point about lies that <i>really matter</i> (i.e. cost people's jobs and lives) is dead on. Anyway, I hope these views are mainstream at this point as people finally start to see the truth of what the Bushies have been up to...

[slug N lettuce]

Im not sure why Stuart Moore thinks Americans didnt pay attention to politics in the 90's. Its about as annoying as the people who think nobody protested the first Gulf War. I was a part of many boycotts, protests, etc. as were many others who found that their leaders were not representing the people of their communities.

[lesterbangs]

Isn't Imperialism fun? For a country that's all fired up about sticking it to the terrorists (I think I'm detecting a vicious circle here) for messing with Texas and the like, the US sure seems to have a history of pissing in other people's cereal bowls. United Fruit, Allende, Cuba, Vietnam... not to mention that the CIA once helped to install the "Butcher of Baghdad" (It was in his A&E Biography so it must be true); the things that get done in the name of Ideology and profit. As a Canadian, I thank God that people haven't figured out that we're more than hockey players, maple syrup, snow and French Canadians or I'm sure we'd get hit with more than the run of the mill cultural imperialism that we are lavished with right now. Anyway, ranting aside, love the column, keep up the good work and, yeah, maybe some more political comics would be super.

"This is our policy is French IndoChina, Not one domino shall fall"
-Minutemen, "Viet Nam"

[Super Skrull]

Woh, I need to dig out my American Flagg Graphic Novels!

I read them when I was 13, and I got becuase I loved the art and thought the clothing/fashion was great on the characters. I need to reread them, my fragile little mind didn't catch on that they were about real historical events.

Although. now I'm much older, wiser, and I still care more about clothes than politics. How's that for shallow?

[blackandwhite]

Great article, Stuart.

Keep them coming.

Really learned alot here.

Thanks for a great lesson :)

Peace

Im with you on making "the" noise...really loud noise.

[Zonker]

GWB Republican #1765487 checking in as requested! :p

There's no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime was a horrific dictatorship, rife with torture, murder, and oppression of innocents. Looking at a catalog of Saddam's atrocities, one can see how right-minded officials could be talked into supporting his overthrow. Except for two things:

(1) Saddam's record of torture and murder pales next to the horrific situations in Niger, the Congo, and Liberia, whose government has for years practiced systematic amputation of the limbs of major parts of the population. (In the ‘90s, Rwanda -- probably Clinton's biggest failure -- was a similar bloodbath.) When asked why, faced with even greater human rights crises, we don't invade those countries, Donald Rumsfeld's customary response is: "We can't be everywhere." But that leaves the crucial question unanswered: Why are we <b>here</b>?

(2) As my father used to say: You have to not only want what you want, you have to want what it leads to. Overthrowing Saddam's brutal dictatorship sounded like a rallying cry that free people could all get behind. But what happens in a poor, chaotic country once that regime is gone? And what's the United States's place in that "new" country?



Well, thanks for at least acknowledging the historical reality of Saddam's reign. To your points...
(1) the other countries you mentioned posed no potential threat to the US-- largely because of the lack of oil revenue. So yeah, the Iraq war was about oil, but not to give Haliburton control of the oil, but to deny the Iraqi regime the oil revenue to fund its weapons programs (real or potential). Yes, Saddam was contained with sanctions, no-fly-zones and the US Military in Saudi Arabia prior the war, but understand that status quo was a source of considerable tension in that part of the world, and was at least nominally Osama bin Laden's reason for jihad against Americans: we we encamped on the Arabian peninsula too close to Mecca.

(2) it does look dark now with respect to rebuilding Iraq, but remember on what Day 3 of the war (the Sunday when the Jessica Lynch convoy was taken) when it looked like we would be bogged down militarily? Check back with the perspective of a few months and let's compare notes then. After all, the threshold for improving Iraq is set very low when you consider the previous status quo.

Regards,
Z.

[dollman]

Originally posted by Hebime
Fool me once, shame on you....

Nice bait and switch there Stuart, reeling me back in with talk of one of my favorite comics of all time, then , bam, hit me with another far left polemic...

*sigh*

Oh well, I guess I've learned my lesson this time.......

Double **sigh**

It's a shame. When presented with facts that challenge one's perceptions, rather than acknowledge there may be a flaw in one's preconceptions, and investigate the truth, the easy path is to ignore the evidence.

Well done Stuart! A very timely piece given Friday's anniversary.

[shade14]

[Double **sigh**

It's a shame. When presented with facts that challenge one's perceptions, rather than acknowledge there may be a flaw in one's preconceptions, and investigate the truth, the easy path is to ignore the evidence.]

So as long as its YOUR perception, there is no flaw. And as long as I don't have a month to write a point by point counter arguement, I'm taking the easy path and ignoring the evidence.

The truth is that politics is like sausage, closed (minded) on the left and closed (minded) on the right.

AND, bureaucracy, whether governmental or private, wastes the tax payers money.

[cyclopsfan]

"As my father used to say: You have to not only want what you want, you have to want what it leads to. Overthrowing Saddam's brutal dictatorship sounded like a rallying cry that free people could all get behind. But what happens in a poor, chaotic country once that regime is gone? "


To answer your question with another, 1. What happens in that country with the regime still in controll. Granted no wmd's have turned up, i won't (or can't) debate you on that. But to say that those people aren't better off without Saddam in Power is to say the the concentration camp prisoners were better off with Hitler still in controll.

It's to easy to say to point a finger at a company, and stir up concerns over who is going to make a dollar. If we wanna start following money trails, you would probably find a much more interesting one involving a former vice president, and China Governmental Officials...

[Michael Norton]

It's to easy to say to point a finger at a company, and stir up concerns over who is going to make a dollar. If we wanna start following money trails, you would probably find a much more interesting one involving a former vice president, and China Governmental Officials...

You're probably right about that.

I would also remind you of who's jet Bush flew around in for his presidential campaign. One guess. If you said Enron, you are correct sir!

Or here's a better question. The 9/11 report. What did the Saudis do that had to be vetted from that report? Maybe nothing illegal. Most likely nothing extremely bad. Except we don't elect the Saudi government. It most likely reflects badly on the current adminstration. And we are suppose to elect our government.

Speaking of which...(1) the other countries you mentioned posed no potential threat to the US-- largely because of the lack of oil revenue. So yeah, the Iraq war was about oil, but not to give Haliburton control of the oil, but to deny the Iraqi regime the oil revenue to fund its weapons programs (real or potential). Yes, Saddam was contained with sanctions, no-fly-zones and the US Military in Saudi Arabia prior the war, but understand that status quo was a source of considerable tension in that part of the world, and was at least nominally Osama bin Laden's reason for jihad against Americans: we we encamped on the Arabian peninsula too close to Mecca.

OK,how about instead of worrying about denying Saddam oil money, we worry about attacking Saudi Arabia? They are a much more potent threat to the US. Not only did 15 of the 19 Sept.11th terrorists come from there, they held a public telethon to support their families shortly after! Or do we not remember that?

Michael Norton

[cyclopsfan]

Originally posted by Michael Norton
OK,how about instead of worrying about denying Saddam oil money, we worry about attacking Saudi Arabia? They are a much more potent threat to the US. Not only did 15 of the 19 Sept.11th terrorists come from there, they held a public telethon to support their families shortly after! Or do we not remember that?

Michael Norton [/B]

Well the question isn't really where do you start, but instead when do you stop? You could make an arguement for most middle eastern countries. Hi Syria and Iran Saudi Arabia Egypt. I mean which one of them wasn't mentioned in post 9/11 fallout.

I dont follow this administration with blinders on. I simply believe that it is the lesser of all political evils. As far as large companies, I for one do not get allarmed at seeing them involved in politics. They have to know something about economics, or they wouldn't be in business. I take selling yourself to internal interests over foreign interests any day.

[Michael Norton]

I dont follow this administration with blinders on. I simply believe that it is the lesser of all political evils. As far as large companies, I for one do not get allarmed at seeing them involved in politics. They have to know something about economics, or they wouldn't be in business. I take selling yourself to internal interests over foreign interests any day.

C'mon though. Enron having Bush(and a myriad of other politicians of both parties) is why they got away with what they did. I mean, you don't see Kenny-boy in prison do you? Whether they are foreign or domestic, Bush took an oath to protect the constitution from it's enemies. And when we have such a huge jobless rate, civil liberties are being thrown out the window and yet Ken Lay and the Saudis are all fine and dandy?

Let's make a leap, let's say that the unemployment means less money which means less money to retain a lawyer, so when the FBI or Homeland Security comes knockin' to search your home without a warrant, you can't fight back.

See? It's all interconnected. Wake up people.

Michael Norton

[cyclopsfan]

Ok, to make the unemployment lines shorter, we continue to nail big companies. That makes sense. Keep wiping out large companies, and you elimiate jobs by the millions.

I know it was the acounting practices of these companies that is to blame for them going under. But whose economic structure was in place when all the deficits arose to cause the faulty book keeping?

The facts are simple, Clinton economics leaned heavily on large corporations, and cut away from defense spending. At the end of his Presidency (this current economic trend had had already started) we were left with two things. Large companies collapsing, and a country that was ill prepared for the task of defending itself both at home and abroad.

[mpg]

i do not like obvious and cheap bush bashing.

however, discussing events, is another issue.

I find it truly amazing, that the Administration that declared that no one will be arrested for the Enron fiasco because it was "too complicated" is the same administration that is trying to find 2 terrorists that previous administrations helped create. Gee, it aint too complicated to find desert folk hiding in the desert?

The whole Halliburton thing, people who don't see whats happening, are the type of people who will only beleive that their significant other is cheating on them if they catch them in the act. no amount of evidence will clue them in.

great article. our sense of patriotism and wealth as a nation of workers is being exploited right in front of our eyes. no 80 billion for schools? that is cause there is no money in it.

[shakey]

"Ok, to make the unemployment lines shorter, we continue to nail big companies. That makes sense. Keep wiping out large companies, and you elimiate jobs by the millions. "


I must disagree.

What has happened in the past 30 years, with both dems and republicans backing the changes, is the de-regulation of the rules that governed large companies, allowing them to buy-out their former competitors, and outsource jobs to forgien countries.

Today a big company swallows a bunch of small ones, and eliminates their workforce by downsizing . Look at banking, the Media, manufacturing, etc.

Again, BOTH sides of the political spectrum have backed the trend of de-regulation.

Another trend is the personification of Corporations, when it it comes to their rights to free speech and their business conduct.
As if an IBM should be treated in the samwe way as an individual citizen.

Check out the Supreme Court's hearing on campaign finance law from the past couple of days, and listen to the arguments made by lawyers arguing on behalf of corporations.

[Hannibal Tabu]

Also fun to check out, a blog written by an educated Iraqi woman, describing the madness from street level ...

http://www.riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

My favorite bit -- a contract for a bridge gets a $300k bid from Iraqi contractors, but is awarded to a US company for more than three million bucks.

Good times, good times ...

[OM]

...The whole gay uprising over the United Fruit gag ranks right up there with the feminazis picketing Chemical Brothers concerts over <i>Smack My Bitch Up</i>. One day, the CB's went into the song, the feminazis started screaming and throwing things, and they stopped the concert to address the issue as follows:

"Lady, it's not about spouse abuse, it's about <I>heroin</i> abuse!"

...According to eyewitnesses, every single one of the protesting feminists turned immediately into Emily Litellas, and quietly left the concert hall in shame :-)

[Kerouac]

A very timely piece given Friday's anniversary.

And Friday would be the anniversary of what, exactly? The day AFTER September 11??

Matt

[Kerouac]

Let's make a leap, let's say that the unemployment means less money which means less money to retain a lawyer, so when the FBI or Homeland Security comes knockin' to search your home without a warrant, you can't fight back.

That's a fucking leap, alright. I wish you were being sarcastic, but I'm pretty sure you're not.

You just keep on living in that fantasy world where Bush and the evil Republicans are INTENTIONALLY keeping people jobless. 'Cause that's sooo good for his re-election campaign, y'know...

Matt

[blackandwhite]

Originally posted by Hannibal Tabu
Also fun to check out, a blog written by an educated Iraqi woman, describing the madness from street level ...

http://www.riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

My favorite bit -- a contract for a bridge gets a $300k bid from Iraqi contractors, but is awarded to a US company for more than three million bucks.

Good times, good times ...

thanks for this great link, hannibal. real informative and sad

[the4thpip]

Originally posted by Zonker
GWB Republican #1765487 checking in as requested! :p


Well, thanks for at least acknowledging the historical reality of Saddam's reign. To your points...
(1) the other countries you mentioned posed no potential threat to the US-- largely because of the lack of oil revenue. So yeah, the Iraq war was about oil, but not to give Haliburton control of the oil, but to deny the Iraqi regime the oil revenue to fund its weapons programs (real or potential). Yes, Saddam was contained with sanctions, no-fly-zones and the US Military in Saudi Arabia prior the war, but understand that status quo was a source of considerable tension in that part of the world, and was at least nominally Osama bin Laden's reason for jihad against Americans: we we encamped on the Arabian peninsula too close to Mecca.


Regards,
Z.

Charles Taylor, the vicious dictator who was just driven into exile by a joint effort of the UN and the US (who knew,eh?) actually laundered money for al Qaeda and thus probably posed a greater immediate threat to US security than Saddam Hussein. What Iraq has in oil, Liberia has in Diamonds.

Try again.

[the4thpip]

Originally posted by cyclopsfan
"As my father used to say: You have to not only want what you want, you have to want what it leads to. Overthrowing Saddam's brutal dictatorship sounded like a rallying cry that free people could all get behind. But what happens in a poor, chaotic country once that regime is gone? "


To answer your question with another, 1. What happens in that country with the regime still in controll. Granted no wmd's have turned up, i won't (or can't) debate you on that. But to say that those people aren't better off without Saddam in Power is to say the the concentration camp prisoners were better off with Hitler still in controll.

It's to easy to say to point a finger at a company, and stir up concerns over who is going to make a dollar. If we wanna start following money trails, you would probably find a much more interesting one involving a former vice president, and China Governmental Officials...
The main problem caused by Saddam's removal is the formation of a Shi'ite axis that reaches from Lebanon and Azerbaijan to Iran, Iraq and Bahrain. Where they used to mostly communicate clandestinely, they can now join in pilgirmages as much as weapons trade. And for many Shi'ites, bowing to a secualr court is unthinkable, so good luck to Rummy for his statement that the US will not allow Iraq to become another Islamist state like Iran.
And one would do well to remember how the US fared in a standoff with Shi'ite terrorists in Lebanon in 1983.

[the4thpip]

Originally posted by OM
...The whole gay uprising over the United Fruit gag ranks right up there with the feminazis picketing Chemical Brothers concerts over <i>Smack My Bitch Up</i>. One day, the CB's went into the song, the feminazis started screaming and throwing things, and they stopped the concert to address the issue as follows:

"Lady, it's not about spouse abuse, it's about <I>heroin</i> abuse!"

...According to eyewitnesses, every single one of the protesting feminists turned immediately into Emily Litellas, and quietly left the concert hall in shame :-)

1. I hate when the suffic "nazi" is added to anyone who did not commit genocide.
2. It was the Prodigy, not the Chemical Brothers.

[Stuart Moore]

I second the thanks for the link, Hannibal. That woman's an amazing writer...the essay about September 11th and the deaths during the first Gulf War was really powerful. I could only stand so much -- I'll go back and read more later.

OM: There wasn't exactly a "gay uprising" about United Fruit -- just one confused letter writer.

Best,
Stuart

[cyclopsfan]

Originally posted by shakey
"Ok, to make the unemployment lines shorter, we continue to nail big companies. That makes sense. Keep wiping out large companies, and you elimiate jobs by the millions. "


I must disagree.

What has happened in the past 30 years, with both dems and republicans backing the changes, is the de-regulation of the rules that governed large companies, allowing them to buy-out their former competitors, and outsource jobs to forgien countries.

Today a big company swallows a bunch of small ones, and eliminates their workforce by downsizing . Look at banking, the Media, manufacturing, etc.



This is where you are completely wrong. Deregulation did not allow the larger companies to buy out the smaller ones. De-regulation allowed the smaller companies to exist. Deregulation has done more to kill large companies than help.

I speak from experience on this one. I was an employee of a CLEC Phone company. Without boring you with all the details i will put it into Comic Terms.

Deregulation would allow me to open my own comic store, and buy books from Marvel (and every other company) at an escalated discount rate. In other words, Marvel would be forced to sell Comics to me lower than they sold them to anyone else. In turn, i am allowed to sell those same books to the public lower than Marvel can, and it becomes ILLEGAL for Marvel to match my price. They can't compete with me re-selling THEIR product.

Please explain how that allows the companies to downsize by any reason other than going bankrupt?

[Zonker]

Originally posted by the4thpip
Charles Taylor, the vicious dictator who was just driven into exile by a joint effort of the UN and the US (who knew,eh?) actually laundered money for al Qaeda and thus probably posed a greater immediate threat to US security than Saddam Hussein. What Iraq has in oil, Liberia has in Diamonds.
:) Thanks for the insight, and for noting your judgement of the greater immediate threat as "probably." This conclusion certainly is debatable.
Try again. :mad: No friggin thanks at all for your condescending dismissive tone.

[dollman]

Originally posted by Kerouac
And Friday would be the anniversary of what, exactly? The day AFTER September 11??

Matt

Oops...sorry, I looked at the wrong month. I meant Thursday of course.

[Holy Diver]

Great column Stuart. I like how you brought up the example of Guatemala which, when you consider the massacres by the Guatemalan military in the 70s and especially the 80s, ranks as one of the blackest marks on the US foreign policy record. (It's this record in fact that was one of the main reasons I was apprehensive about Bush's whole drive) However, from what I have read it is even questionable how much of a socialist Arbenz was. Certainly he was far more progressive than anyone else in Guatemalan history (or anyone in that region) though he actually declared in 1950 that he wanted to "convert Guatemala from a backward country with a predominantly feudal economy into a modern capitalist state." His attack on United Fruit's privileges would actually be in line with this vision because he wanted to shore up Guatemala's own private sector and reduce the country's dependence on foreign capital. Moreover, you could say that United Fruit's land holdings in the country were an unnatural monopoly since 85% of the land they owned was unused (the company claimed they were reserves against natural disasters).

And if I am going over what you already know...sorry about that. At least the other posters here having something to read and something more to think about.

And I agree. Where are all the Bushies? It's no fun polemcising without someone to yell at you. ;)

Originally posted by Zonker
(1) the other countries you mentioned posed no potential threat to the US-- largely because of the lack of oil revenue. So yeah, the Iraq war was about oil, but not to give Haliburton control of the oil, but to deny the Iraqi regime the oil revenue to fund its weapons programs (real or potential).

That's my problem with the argument for the Iraq war. The evidence for a real threat by weapons of mass destruction was lacking from the Bush administration. Certainly it was likely that Saddam had WMDs given his past behaviour. On the other hand though the main justification Bush gave for the war turned up no evidence, and even relied on faked evidence in some cases such as forged documents that claimed Saddam was trying to get Uranium from Nigeria. Even with the regime gone and no longer there to hide anything they haven't turned up anything concrete. As for "the potential threat," well that's hardly a concrete proposition at all, especially considering the degraded conditions of Iraq's infrastructure.

And as for the role of US companies in this? Well the claim that it wasn't oil for Halliburton, but then there's the matter of the US government simply awarding the contracts without any sort of bidding process and all to American comapnies, including one I know of that has connections with the vice-President. Frankly, it looks suspicious.

Yes, Saddam was contained with sanctions, no-fly-zones and the US Military in Saudi Arabia prior the war, but understand that status quo was a source of considerable tension in that part of the world, and was at least nominally Osama bin Laden's reason for jihad against Americans: we we encamped on the Arabian peninsula too close to Mecca.

And so does the invasion of Iraq. Hell it looks worse because you have US (which is VERY unpopular with the Arab world right now) invading and occupying a nation there.

[Holy Diver]

Originally posted by Kerouac
And Friday would be the anniversary of what, exactly? The day AFTER September 11??

And the day after Pinochet overthrew Allende in Chile and instituted a brutal dictatorship. Hey, there's two things to justify me getting drunk on Thursday and listening to nothing by gloomy post-punk like Joy Division. :)

[Darth Presley]

Fantastic column, Stuart - Thanks! But...we never got into why "United Fruit Ave" intersects with "Benjamin Siegel Blvd" in that Flagg panel.

Can we get another column on how the mob exploited Latin America and Cuba and maybe colluded protection-wise with Corporate America (the intersection of big business and big crime, get it?) and really explain that joke -

[Zonker]

And so does the invasion of Iraq. Hell it looks worse because you have US (which is VERY unpopular with the Arab world right now) invading and occupying a nation there.

Thanks for your polite response. :)

I'd just say it's too early to tell whether a US intervention in Iraq is more or less destabilizing that US boots on the ground of the Arabian peninsula. Prior to 9/11/2001 what exactly were we doing to provoke Arab wrath anyway?

- Clinton was furiously working on the Israel/Palestine problem his last summer in office (that legacy push of his). Arguably, this raised unreasonable Arab expectations, but I'll not push that argument too hard. ;)

- We'd recently either run from a fight (Somolia) or ignored provocations (embassy bombings and the attack on our ship)

- And we had a large presence in Saudi-- bin Laden's stated purpose for going ape-shit against Americans.

So it's at least possible to argue that...
a) a position of strength rather than accomodation is more highly respected in the Arab world (any terrorist attacks on the US since we hit hard in Afganistan?); and
b) Arab governments and elites are secretly glad to be rid of Saddam by any means necessary.

Regards,
Z.

[mpg]

we will never be popular in the arab world.

we are the biggest kid on the block with the most money and best toys. it goes with the territory.

i read an article in reader's digest, that changed how i looked at things. basically, various arab nations are kept in check thru suppressing the population, keeping them impoverished, and pissed. the quality of life is low. the people are angry. thru various methods, the regimes place the blame of the quality of life on various things, israel,the jews, western influence.

we have given countless dollars (pre 9-11) but it never sees the people. it stays up top. yasser arafat is worth 2 billion. how do u think he got that money ? his wife and family live in france. middle east not safe enough or nice enough for ya?

i also read where an arab citizen spoke out against suicide bombings, because the general's that recruit men , children (and even women) only ask poor or less fortunate people. they wouldnt dare as the higher ups or their kids. They promise a man, say $25,000, to be a suicide bomber, which would go to his family. Being poor, desperate, and pumped up with righteousness, what do you do?

granted, i cant say we or israel have helped the situation in alot of cases, but we have an uphill struggle.

we are dealing with an ancient land with civilizations dating back thousands of years while we arent even a 300 year old nation. kinda like a lil kid telling a man what to do.

it is a bit scary. there might not be a solution. personally, i think this iraq war is a smoke screen for some bigger action we are taking. i have no proof, but i assume that we dont even know 10% of what is really going on .

[the4thpip]

Originally posted by Zonker
Thanks for your polite response. :)



- Clinton was furiously working on the Israel/Palestine problem his last summer in office (that legacy push of his). Arguably, this raised unreasonable Arab expectations, but I'll not push that argument too hard. ;)


Regards,
Z.

Good, as that is the only stupidity I ever heard Ari Fleischer apologize for saying.

[mpg]

the real blmae goes upon the world leaders post ww2.

they never kept promises to the middle east.

they feared a unified muslim nation, so they pushed for separte nations, thinking they would be easier to deal with

(i took a world history 2 class recently, so its all fresh in my mind :)

[Nicholas Burns]

I dunno, Stuart. American Flagg came out in the early 80's. It was the apotheosis of 'ground level' comics comics that combined the sexual and political revolutionary fervor of 60's underground comics and wrapped it up in a stylish, mainstream, colour comics format. IIRC, the movie 'Missing' (about the US-backed coup in Chile) came out about the same time. Your essay mentions several other politically aware comics publications from that era. And there have been other movies, and there have been TV shows on PBS and elsewhere, and there have probably been other comics too (although none come to mind immediately). With the advent of the Internet, all the information you could ever want about decades of CIA dirty tricks as well as countless other misguided (to be generous) other foreign policy decisions-- is available. Hell, you can even find out where to purchase Noam Chomsky videos.

Meanwhile, in what remains of so-called mainstream comics, Lex Luthor has been U.S. President for what? Five years? Six? I doubt that's the sort of hard-hitting, incisive political commentary you're calling for in comics, but don't you think portraying the president as a ruthless, murderous, power-mad, scientist and businessman would tip even the most thick-headed comics readers off? Hey kiddies, the president is a bad guy!

In other words: I think people know, Stuart.

I think they know their government is largely dysfunctional. Or, more correctly, they know government primarily functions in favour of large corporate interests rather than working for the nations' citizenry and the greater public good. I think they know their government covertly destabilizes democratically elected foreign governments and invades sovereign nations on the flimsiest of pretexts, or under blatantly false rationales. Should anyone protest government action, they are labeled 'unpatriotic' or worse. Supposedly, what's good for corporation 'x' or the World Bank is good for the nation, good for the world. Maybe it depends on your definition of good.

Comics have satirize this sort of thinking before. IIRC, Al Capp ridiculed corporate control of government in the 50's and 60's with his General Bullmoose. The mantra "What's good for General Bullmoose, is good for the USA" was even included in the Li'l Abner musical... but who under 40 years of age remembers Li'l Abner?

We, the people, now sit in our homes and tolerate what's going on because that's what the majority of us have been raised to do. We are supposedly living in the best of all possible worlds, right? We are supposedly more or less comfortable, healthy, educated, and free, right? Why would we want anything else? And as for the rest of the world well, that's just on TV, right?

Many of us have no idea if any viable alternatives are possible. And if viable alternative are possible, we don't know what those alternatives are. Or we're afraid of the alternatives. We're afraid of what they'll do to our lifestyle, our earnings, our comic books.

So, if people are going to do politically aware comics --which is what you're calling for, and what I'm in favour of too-- I think such books should offer some realistic alternatives as well as pointing out how and why things are currently going so wrong. How do we go from being citizens of nations primarily run for the benefit of corrupt corporate oligarchies to something resembling democracy with as little bloodshed and misery as possible? What do we, as individuals, do on a daily basis to bring about a peaceful 'redemocracy', a healthier environment, a safer, saner world?

The other question that comes to mind: is there a market for such comics?

[mpg]

we can barely handle political comic threads! lol

if you can find a way to mix hard hitting politics with Jim Lee and spandex.....

[the4thpip]

Originally posted by Nicholas Burns


Meanwhile, in what remains of so-called mainstream comics, Lex Luthor has been U.S. President for what? Five years? Six?



He took office when Bush did in the real world.
Not even 3 years.
Just feels longer.
In both cases. :p

[sgauthier]

I can't help but notice that every time your comic related columns continue to go down hill you roll out one of your left wing propaganda columns.

Normally I don't critizie contributors to message boards but this routine is just getting boring.

[Charles RB]

Originally posted by AvenGerbils Assemble

I second the motion for a politically-charged Cap book.

Nahhhh. He's not really the right character for a political story. Create a new character & title instead.

[Charles RB]

Originally posted by cyclopsfan
But to say that those people aren't better off without Saddam in Power is to say the the concentration camp prisoners were better off with Hitler still in controll.

A lot of the Iraqis are saying they aren't better off with Saddam gone, coz under Saddam they still had power and water. And while being free from tyranny and all is great, people want water.

[mpg]

a lot? riiight

[Charles RB]

Originally posted by mpg
a lot? riiight

No, really. A lot.

Because whatever the nationality, people want running water and get pissy when it goes away because some foreign git bombed it (and guerilla activists seem to be making sure it stays off- they probably stocked up on bottled water).

[mpg]

i dont think those pissy people should be taken too seriously, there. its safe to say an overwhelming majority of iraqis will accept whatever consequence of saddam's exit, water shortage included. you should know full well, judging by this site, people will complain about anything.

and, if iraq likes water so much, why not live somewhere that has some!? (that is a joke, folks)

[lesterbangs]

Originally posted by cyclopsfan
Ok, to make the unemployment lines shorter, we continue to nail big companies. That makes sense. Keep wiping out large companies, and you elimiate jobs by the millions.


This is a certainly a flawed argument, especially when most major North American Corporations seem to be interested in taking their manufacturing base overseas. Punishing corporations for illegal and/or socially immoral actions will not cost millions of North American Jobs, the quest for profits and a willingness to exploit the poor and starving in manners that make Dickensian sweatshops look pleasent will. I strongly suggest that you read Naomi Klein's No Logo (I am willing to cop to a decidedly left wing bias here, but from an academic standpoint I found the book tobe solid). The Bush administration is just following a long tradition of intervening where it is convenient and politically expedient to do so. Bush & Co tried to sell a war based on the threat of non-existent WMDs and on abuses of the Iraqi people, and they managed to pull it off. Sure Iraq wasn't much of a threat, who cares they got rid of a tyrant right? Hm. I wonder what people find when they search for the US on Amnesty International's website?

Damn politics. And people wonder why I hold on to that dream of a socialist utopia.

[the4thpip]

Originally posted by mpg
i dont think those pissy people should be taken too seriously, there. its safe to say an overwhelming majority of iraqis will accept whatever consequence of saddam's exit, water shortage included. you should know full well, judging by this site, people will complain about anything.

and, if iraq likes water so much, why not live somewhere that has some!? (that is a joke, folks)

Not sure what you base that on. From all we hear, support for the occupation forces grows weaker every day.

[OM]

Originally posted by the4thpip
1. I hate when the suffic "nazi" is added to anyone who did not commit genocide.
2. It was the Prodigy, not the Chemical Brothers.

...In order:

1) If they had their way, the male side of the species would be extinct. That, IMB, makes them guilty as charged. Besides, "neofeminazi" doesn't have the right ring to it :-P

2) AUGHHHH! You're right. It <i>was</i> Prodigy. Mea culprit :-(

[the4thpip]

Originally posted by OM
...In order:

1) If they had their way, the male side of the species would be extinct. That, IMB, makes them guilty as charged. Besides, "neofeminazi" doesn't have the right ring to it :-P


I'm pretty sure they're only after those named "Rush" and "Arnold".

[Stuart Moore]

Since the word Nazi is being debated: If I were trying to beat Arnold S, I'd spend less time talking about his supposed mistreatment of women and more time on his documented connections to, and past sympathies with, REAL Nazis. But then, he seems to be self-destructing pretty well without help.

Best,
Stuart

[mpg]

Originally posted by the4thpip
Not sure what you base that on. From all we hear, support for the occupation forces grows weaker every day.

and you know full well we can trust everything we hear :)

[Holy Diver]

Well sorry I didn't get around to this sooner Zonker, but...

Originally posted by Zonker
Thanks for your polite response. :)


No need to thank me. I am just extending the basic courtsey and politeness that expect from everyone (but is woefully lacking on most internet message boards :( ).

I'd just say it's too early to tell whether a US intervention in Iraq is more or less destabilizing that US boots on the ground of the Arabian peninsula.


So far I'm going to say it's been destabilizing. The invasion was followed by a wave of lootings that the US military failed to deal with and there was significant damage to the country's infrastructure during the course of the war. Also we have to take into account that now the occupation forces are experiencing attacks from guerilla groups.

Now whether or not this will be destabilizing in the long term depends on how well it deals with these matters.

Prior to 9/11/2001 what exactly were we doing to provoke Arab wrath anyway?

If I remember some of them were: sanctions on the Iraq that were devastating that country's civilian population. There was the US's longstanding support for the House of Saud and other such unpopular regimes (there you go MPG). Hell in Iraq Washington had supported Saddam throughout the 80s, and when they became his enemies Bush I asked the people of Iraq to rise up against him. Thinking they had US support they did, but were left out to dry by Bush Sr.

- Clinton was furiously working on the Israel/Palestine problem his last summer in office (that legacy push of his). Arguably, this raised unreasonable Arab expectations, but I'll not push that argument too hard. ;)

Well that's looking at it a bit too much in the short term. You have to recall the years of support (and military subsidies) that the US gave Israel without once criticising the country's abuses. Though I am ignorant of the details regarding Clinton's work on an Israel/Palestine deal other than somehow it didn't work out.

- We'd recently either run from a fight (Somolia) or ignored provocations (embassy bombings and the attack on our ship)

Clinton did bomb a pharmeceutical plant in Sudan though.

- And we had a large presence in Saudi-- bin Laden's stated purpose for going ape-shit against Americans.

Hmmm...I certainly know that Bin Laden talked about that, though I think he referred to the Palestine situation as well, but if anyone can back me up on that or debunk it, go right ahead. I'd rather be proven wrong than be kept in the dark.

So it's at least possible to argue that...
a) a position of strength rather than accomodation is more highly respected in the Arab world (any terrorist attacks on the US since we hit hard in Afganistan?);

No, but last I checked not even Kabul was secure enough to prevent US soldiers from being shot at. You could certainly argue that Al-Qaeda's operations were disrupted by the invasion, though a lot of the higher ups have been taken through police action.

b) Arab governments and elites are secretly glad to be rid of Saddam by any means necessary.

I've also heard that most governments in the region, including Iran which was invaded by Iraq, were trying to normalize relations with Iraq. I suppose I doubt this statement in part because most Arab governments did not support the war. Still this can be taken in different ways. Either they did this to make sure they weren't the targets of popular unrest in their respective countries or they were worried about the invasion of Iraq destabilizing the region (personally I think it maybe a little of both).

And why are we bragging about the Arab governments and elites being happy? They are scumbags. The whole reason Al-Qaeda gets recruits is they can link

Originally posted by sgauthier
I can't help but notice that every time your comic related columns continue to go down hill you roll out one of your left wing propaganda columns.

Well I haven't followed Stuart's column that much so I haven't seen a pattern. Though not to be a prick about this or anything, but I can't help but notice you simply call the column 'left wing propaganda' instead of mustering anyother response. In fact why has no one here discussed much the implications of past US foreign policy such as Guatemala for the present?

Personally I don't see it as propaganda. Guatemala is part of an established pattern of US foreign policy throughout the post war period. El Salvador is a similar case - though the US did not overthrow a democratic government it did support a brutal dictatorship. Similar with Chile, Argentina (which I heard was also supported by the Soviets), Uruguay, Suharto's Indonesia, etc. Now the US hasn't committed similar crimes recently, though the Cold War is over the *ahem* 'competition' has been eliminated. However, given its willingness to put economic and power interests during it's Cold War policy above that of human rights it leaves me suspicious of how things will turn out in Iraq.

Originally posted by Charles RB
Nahhhh. He's not really the right character for a political story. Create a new character & title instead.

On the other hand are superhero comics a good place to do political stuff? Or more importantly, are the Marvel and DC universes a good place to interject politics into superheroes?

[mpg]

i detest the assignment of left and right to arguments. it is a cheap ploy to devalue points made.

i think a major flaw in our foreign policy is that arab leaders have the benefit of not having term limitations. they knew clinton was leaving office. each new administartion has something new to prove. i only hope that they could put bi-partisan politics aside and continue working on each others plans. bush could very well not get his own party's nomination. then, we would send in another president , who will swear he can handle this issue. it is pretty arrogant to think you can solve hundreds of years of conflict in four years. i know politicians are just saying keywords to get elected, but it gets broadcast around the world.

there is a huge difference between arrogance and confidence. we are the most powerful nation (my history teacher recently told us that the u.s budget for military is more than the combination of every country in the world's budget). we will be feared, even hated, for this reason alone. we are stronger, not superior. we are better off, not better.

[Robot H Brian]

Originally posted by mpg
i read an article in reader's digest, that changed how i looked at things.

Definitely consider the source. I'm not saying all of the information you read isn't true, but despite the innocuous title, Reader's Digest has a most definite conservative slant.

I can say that reading Chaykin's "Flagg!" (the first couple of years, at least), helped to shape my early teen sociopolitical worldview. And "Brought to Light" hit at the same time that I was learning about Central American atrocities from super-cool Sister Debbie at my Catholic high school. I became a fairly lasseiz-faire (sp?) liberal over the last decade, but with all the bullshit going on these days, and with the recent birth of my first child, I'm not gonna sit idly by anymore.

...and as far as OM's "feminazi" thing, I honestly didn't think anyone still used that tired Limbaughism. But I guess some people out there probably still listen to "The Macarena" every day, huh?

-Brian

[mpg]

Originally posted by Robot H Brian
Definitely consider the source. I'm not saying all of the information you read isn't true, but despite the innocuous title, Reader's Digest has a most definite conservative slant.


-Brian

I would hope that considering the source goes without saying, but i know it doesnt.

I can do you one better thought. What i read was a five part editorial piece from a former resident of the middle east who is living in the us. he broke down, in five parts, why arabs hate americans. he spoke of the propaganda they are subjected to, the aid money that never sees their hands, the relations of the countries and the regions, and two others (i was at the doctor, so i didnt get to finish. i should have stole the damn thing!) lol

so i picked up no conversative slant. i picked up an individual's recollection of events and his feeligns on the mater. it was very informative.

[Nicholas Burns]

Stuart: don't know if you've read this article from the Independent, a newspaper in England.

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=442120

I think it helps explain why there aren't more political comics. Apparently, Pulitzer Prize winner Art Spiegelman (Maus) can't get his recent work In The Shadow of No Towers published in the US.

[Stuart Moore]

Thanks; hadn't seen that. It's hard to tell from the excerpts how much new Spiegelman really has to say on this issue, but he's got a good track record -- and the actual cartooning in the excerpts is incredible.

And the way the climate is changing, I think he'll get the strip published here in a mass edition soon.

Best,
Stuart

[Jeremy Williams]

Originally posted by Charles RB:
Nahhhh. He's(Captain America) not really the right character for a political story. Create a new character & title instead

If you have to make this count instead of doing it on this little comic that nobody will read, if you want this to matter, a book with a larger profile would be the best thing to do a politicaly-charged comic. Especialy with Captain America. He`s walking, talking propaganda! He`s perfect.

[Charles RB]

But Captain America has no character, is utterly dull and I don't really know if anyone actually gives a crap about him. Nobody will give a buggery if his book is made political.

[Avedon]

Just want to say thanks for an excellent post.

*sigh* It's sad when merely knowing the facts gets you classified as a left-wing ranter. But there's a lot of that going around, these days. :(

[Michael Norton]

OK folks, here is the absolute truth about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and why America gets it's ass kicked where this whole thing is concerned.

The truth is that there are Palestinian terrorists who stupidly blow themselves and other people up. This instead of a mass sit-in.

The other part of this truth is that Israel, to this day, is constructing settlements that are considered illegal. They are also doing something to the Palestinians that the King George did to us back in the 1700's. They are humiliating the Palestinians. Now, I'm not saying everyone should go blow up the guy who disrespects you but let's face it, 50 years of this and....

So where is America's part? Well, we've tried to tell Israel that they're being naughty and we'll be mad at them if they continue,but we haven't put the stick out, just the carrot.What happens if we withdraw from Israel totally until they straighten up and actually try to come to a conclusion?

But that won't happen because the politicians are afraid of the jewish-judeo-christian contingent in the voting public. It also now can't happen because, and I don't know if anyone has noticed this yet, we're doing the exact same thing in Iraq.

We go to a person's home, basically destroy it saying we are looking for "persons of interest" and then leave(either with someone in custody or not).Remember what I said about disrespecting someone?



If you have to make this count instead of doing it on this little comic that nobody will read, if you want this to matter, a book with a larger profile would be the best thing to do a politicaly-charged comic. Especialy with Captain America. He`s walking, talking propaganda! He`s perfect.

Actually I personally believed that before and since the Patriot Act was passed, Cap should've walked into the Oval office and asked the president just what the hell he thought he was doing with that attrocious peice of legislation?

I certainly hope everyone complaining is writing their respective representitives and everyone else and trying to oppose Patriot Act 2.

Michael Norton

[salgood]

Originally posted by Hebime

Nice bait and switch there Stuart, reeling me back in with talk of one of my favorite comics of all time, then , bam, hit me with another far left polemic...

*sigh*

Oh well, I guess I've learned my lesson this time.......

Interesting choice of words, "polemic" (http://www.bartleby.com/61/0/P0410000.html). So your saying you didn’t want to hear a challenging, and for you, controversial opinion on the current governments shenanigans? Hear no evil fear no evil eh?

It's hardly a left Op by the by, let alone far left. Corrupt is corrupt, not left or right.

No need to respond really, this is just plain baiting ;)

[salgood]

Originally posted by Michael Norton


If you have to make this count instead of doing it on this little comic that nobody will read, if you want this to matter, a book with a larger profile would be the best thing to do a politicaly-charged comic. Especialy with Captain America. He`s walking, talking propaganda! He`s perfect.

Actually I personally believed that before and since the Patriot Act was passed, Cap should've walked into the Oval office and asked the president just what the hell he thought he was doing with that attrocious peice of legislation?

I certainly hope everyone complaining is writing their respective representitives and everyone else and trying to oppose Patriot Act 2.

Michael Norton

I'd love to see that but frankly i don't think Marvel has the nerv.

there is a Pt2? when did this happen?! (I’ve had my head buried in a drafting table...working on a political comic of sorts actually)

[salgood]

Originally posted by Zonker
Thanks for your polite response. :)

I'd just say it's too early to tell whether a US intervention in Iraq is more or less destabilizing that US boots on the ground of the Arabian peninsula. Prior to 9/11/2001 what exactly were we doing to provoke Arab wrath anyway?

Regards,
Z.
Oh my god where to begin....!!!!

Holy Diver and the others hit on a few recent salient points already, but really you should do some research on this your self. The American government has consistently carried the ball passed to it by the UK after ww2, frequently passing off to International corporations for spectacular hat-tricks (a tactic recently further streamlined by putting their CEO’s in hign ranking jobs in the government- sort of the point of this article) in their long long long long long standing tradition of royally rogering the middle east with hair brained boarder drawing and general raping a and pillaging of resources & people. Not to mention frequently propping up sadistic nasty evil evil bastards time and again. IF you do the reading it’s really not very hard to see how they might not trust anyone from the west farther than they can throw a hummer. It’s probably way to late now but at some point we should have just gotten out and left them be, like around 1700 maybe… anyway they and we are continuing to pay the price for other morons mistakes and we only seem to make things worse when we try.

[salgood]

Originally posted by slug N lettuce
Im not sure why Stuart Moore thinks Americans didnt pay attention to politics in the 90's. Its about as annoying as the people who think nobody protested the first Gulf War. I was a part of many boycotts, protests, etc. as were many others who found that their leaders were not representing the people of their communities.

I share your rankle & as a blanket statement it’s unavoidably un-factual. But unfortunately, while there certainly was an anti-war movement at the time of the last gulf war, it was a very week and miserable one in the shadow of Bette Midlers wings. So statistically he’s right. Aside from that showing, some bright moments in the feminist movement (I was personally warmed buy the rise of the Riot Girrl) and the MTV led ‘*get-out-the-vote’, the 90’s were a political waste land of catchphrases and platitudes to barely understood concepts.
IE: sound bite culture

The best we can claim is that the better part of ‘genX’ & co. was reasonably well read on the antics of the powerful and corrupt, along side faces on mars, serial killers and circuses freaks. How else could we sit in front of the tube and be all witty and snide to cover for being very very scared children. Lots of talk - little do.

* ha ha, I joke, that was a pretty shallow bit of marketing too.

[salgood]

So, if people are going to do politically aware comics --which is what you're calling for, and what I'm in favour of too-- I think such books should offer some realistic alternatives

The problem there of course being that you would have to be smart enough to come up with an alternative that is realistic and better. Just saying.

I don’t think we can look to media to provide answers. Not sure where we should look, aside from just, as a species, sitting down and talking sensibly about it. As an artist/author I’m all to painfully aware of my own inability to pose real solutions to all the problems so I’m keeping it simple, one or two ‘problems’ or ‘issues’ that i have some ideas about per book. Bite size chunks. That’s a approach I’d suggest to anyone caring to listen, makes it a bit more approachable.

”I think they know their government is largely dysfunctional. Or, more correctly, they know government primarily functions in favour of large corporate interests rather than working for the nations' citizenry and the greater public good. I think they know their government covertly destabilizes democratically elected foreign governments and invades sovereign nations on the flimsiest of pretexts, or under blatantly false rationales. Should anyone protest government action, they are labeled 'unpatriotic' or worse. Supposedly, what's good for corporation 'x' or the World Bank is good for the nation, good for the world. Maybe it depends on your definition of good.”

“We, the people, now sit in our homes and tolerate what's going on because that's what the majority of us have been raised to do. We are supposedly living in the best of all possible worlds, right? We are supposedly more or less comfortable, healthy, educated, and free, right? Why would we want anything else? And as for the rest of the world well, that's just on TV, right?

Many of us have no idea if any viable alternatives are possible. And if viable alternative are possible, we don't know what those alternatives are. Or we're afraid of the alternatives. We're afraid of what they'll do to our lifestyle, our earnings, our comic books.”

There’s the rub eh? The old ‘It’s not likely to change baring a major mass revolution in American ethical thinking of individuals or the collapse of the American lifestyle’ bit. The inertia of a million comfy sofas.
I think your half right. I think MOST Americans do have an inclination that something is not kosher. They get enough of the bits and bites on CNN between headers and anchors. But you point to the reason they don’t know more yourself (and they don’t, I’ve chatted with far more un informed Americans then informed), they choose not to think about it too much cus it’s depressing, they, we, ‘sit in our homes and tolerate’ it. I mean, it’s SO SO far gone past bad. We’re talking nightmare bad but were so used to the vainer of it all that most don’t register the extent of it and don’t want to, it would be to much to think about at length. So we get drunk, screw, have big ol’ bash and go back to work the next day, hi diddly ho like what we personally do has no impact. Might as well keep on keeping on, being the working parts of the machine that drives that juggernaut onward.

That’s the line they want you to snort of course, and it’s bull.
The people are the machine [not a socialist statement, just an appropriate metaphor], if the parts stop cooperating it won’t work anymore and it will be stopped. It’s could be messy and it might even get violent, but it will stop. And eventually, some time latter after a more sensible machine that doesn’t need oil or blood to run can be built that will let you have your comics and many of the other things we take for granted. Maybe not quite as much for some, but enough to be happy.
The only people who would really lose that much is that annoying 10% Bogieing the planet. To barrow a Dr Phill, they do it cus we let them do it.

[mpg]

The thing that Capm should be focused on is his sometimes direct conflict with American politics.

all govs have covert and secret operations. i bet they would do their best to keep cap out of the loop on a lot of things.

Cap would be for of a nusance to the gov.

he would be able to appeal to the people, bringing them into conflict with the gov.

i could see them needing to silence him somehow, or replace him with a more user friendly model

[salgood]

Originally posted by mpg
The thing that Capm should be focused on is his sometimes direct conflict with American politics.

all govs have covert and secret operations. i bet they would do their best to keep cap out of the loop on a lot of things.

Cap would be for of a nusance to the gov.

he would be able to appeal to the people, bringing them into conflict with the gov.

i could see them needing to silence him somehow, or replace him with a more user friendly model

Yah I think Cap as a character is ideal for a grass roots hero character that could be used for stories like that. It would help that he is actually a product of that sort of culture. And there is an established president for exactly that incarnation of the character, Kyle Baker's recent story is a good example, & the version of Cap that appeared in Born Again was also along these lines, so it's possible I suppose. What I doubt is if it would be made an editorial mandate for the character for a prolonged storyarc or more and that they would really go all out and comfront the issues without censoring it. Maybe their recent luck with the Max line will help. If they wanted to I’d say there’s a huge amount of ‘law and order’ potential in the daily news and recent history for stories, Captain America as a government watchdog for America the collective whole rather than for the elite, as a human lead more by conscience than self interest. Written well he’s always been good at expressing the more admirable ideals of the USA.

[Zonker]

Originally posted by salgood
Oh my god where to begin....!!!!

at some point we should have just gotten out and left them be, like around 1700 maybe… anyway they and we are continuing to pay the price for other morons mistakes and we only seem to make things worse when we try.

OK, I got it-- you're in favour of 100% withdrawal from the world stage; that is at least logically consistent and might indeed reduce the US as a target for 9-11 style atrocities.

But it'll never happen nor should it. International politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. After the British empire passed, if it had not been the US, it would have been the Soviets, or Japanese, or Germans.

All in all, the world could have done much worse in terms of global leadership.

Flame on, everyone!

Cheers,
Z.

[salgood]

Originally posted by Zonker
OK, I got it-- you're in favour of 100% withdrawal from the world stage; that is at least logically consistent and might indeed reduce the US as a target for 9-11 style atrocities.

But it'll never happen nor should it. International politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. After the British empire passed, if it had not been the US, it would have been the Soviets, or Japanese, or Germans.

All in all, the world could have done much worse in terms of global leadership.

Flame on, everyone!

Cheers,
Z.


Actually no I’m not in favour of total withdrawal from the world. But there is a difference between going into another home and being a guest and helpful, vs. going in and making yourself at home, putting you’re feet up and telling the homeowner what to do and how to do it.

Americans are guests in foreign countries. They DON’T act like one. American corporations bribe, cajole and even kill to get what they want, and leave relatively little or nothing behind for the people compared to the huge piles of wealth and goods that they take out with them. And then they tell them and the rest of the world they should be thankful for the incremental improvements in their lifestyle and the privilege of becoming consumers, meanwhile their traditional cultures is usually left in taters and all but spit on. This is supposedly an improvement over the British and other colonials who just said kiss my ring finger I am your god.

The Current US administration has adopted the same sort of attitude towards the world, not surprising seeing as they are all former CEO’s. They go in now in the name of diplomacy and grease the way for the corp-rats. This is not a new tactic, but it had become a little less overt in recent years till BushII hit the office. It has never been one of Americas more endearing habits. And the American people are the ones who will most likely pay for their hubris and stupidity. Several thousand did indirectly a few years ago and a few in uniform are every day now.

By getting out and leaving them alone I meant getting out of their business and behaving like guests, if anything. And given the damage that had been done by the colonials that would have been best gaped by a period where we didn’t do much of anything for 5 or so years. This not nature were talking about, or is it a vacuum. It's people and lives and cultures.

Think arguments, if your in an argument …..no, better metaphor, if your BEATING on some poor buggers head, you don’t just stand up and say, ‘hey, that looks like that hurts, can I help?’. If anything, you go away. And if you genuinely realize that you’ve done wrong and want to help, you go back with hat in hand prepared to get the door slammed in your face and apologize on our knees for having been an ASS. And then, maybe you get to be the good guy again, if the victims feel like granting you the status. And if not you go away and get on with your life and live with the fact that no, NOT every one in the world likes you. This is a reality the US is going to have to except at this point because the damage of the last 50 years is done and cannot be undone or erased by anything other then saint like behaviour for 50 more.

You don’t bring freedom at gun point, you don’t force ‘help’ or aid on people, you don’t act like you own the world simply because your happen to be the most heavily armed or richest. If you do then your victims have every right to scream and call you evil, cus’ in you behaviour, that’s exactly what you’re being.

All in all, the world could have done much better as well, in terms of global leadership. Adequate should never be accepted as qualifying for the job of leader. And frankly this bunch is just plain incompetent at anything other than lining their pockets.

[mpg]

blame canada! blame canada!

[salgood]

Originally posted by mpg
blame canada! blame canada!


for?

[mpg]

celine dion!

she inspires terror

[the4thpip]

We finally found something we all can agree on!
Celine Dion's voice is a Weapon of Mass Destruction™!
:D

[Michael Norton]

I'd love to see that but frankly i don't think Marvel has the nerv.

True, I believe that it's possible Ney Reiber was moving towards a Cap who took on the more radical elements in the administration, but I think Marvel chickened out. That's my own personal theory.

there is a Pt2? when did this happen?! (I’ve had my head buried in a drafting table...working on a political comic of sorts actually)

By now I hope everyone is aware of it? It was originally called the "Domestic Security Act of 2003". Now it's called Patriot Act 2. It is slightly different than but no less dangerous than, the "Victory Act". Another law that should be fought against.

Here's a link about the Patriot Act from April.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15541

Feel free to email or pm me for info at anytime about these things. I can put you in touch with groups and things fighting such abuse of power.

Michael Norton

[salgood]

Originally posted by mpg
celine dion!

she inspires terror



oh yah, wepon x.

[mpg]

and alpha flight, jeez what a bunch of losers!

[salgood]

Originally posted by Michael Norton


By now I hope everyone is aware of it? It was originally called the "Domestic Security Act of 2003". Now it's called Patriot Act 2. It is slightly different than but no less dangerous than, the "Victory Act". Another law that should be fought against.

Here's a link about the Patriot Act from April.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15541

Feel free to email or pm me for info at anytime about these things. I can put you in touch with groups and things fighting such abuse of power.

Michael Norton

Jesus Christ on a wobbly crutch! And people aren’t rioting yet why?
Seems to be making the rounds (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=PATRIOT+II&sa=N&tab=wn)
Not much international press yet though, nothing on the BBC or CBC that I can find.

[salgood]

Ah, well it seems to be having trouble getting around, it's #2 on Project Censored's Annual List (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16784)

[salgood]

Originally posted by salgood
Jesus Christ on a wobbly crutch! And people aren’t rioting yet why?
Seems to be making the rounds (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=PATRIOT+II&sa=N&tab=wn)
Not much international press yet though, nothing on the BBC or CBC that I can find.

and to rivise my statement, PATRIOT II (http://news.google.com/news?as_q=PATRIOT+II&svnum=10&as_scoring=r&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nsrc=&as_nloc=usa&as_occt=any&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=18&as_minm=8&as_maxd=17&as_maxm=9) gets 397 on google us, while saddam (http://news.google.com/news?as_q=saddam&svnum=10&as_scoring=r&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nsrc=&as_nloc=usa&as_occt=any&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=18&as_minm=8&as_maxd=17&as_maxm=9) gets 15,600. as a rough measure of proliferation that's hardly representative of their threat level.

[mpg]

i am not going to waste my precious weekends on rioting and protesting. their is too much booze to drink

[the4thpip]

Originally posted by mpg
i am not going to waste my precious weekends on rioting and protesting. their is too much booze to drink

Ya know, it's that kind of thinking that let Celine Dion get as far as she did!

[mpg]

"and thats the way it is"

i have never seen titanic, nor will i go to the celine dion theatre. i will not contribute to the madness. i just drink.

[fantomex]

bizarre

[Elayne Riggs]

Originally posted by cyclopsfan
Ok, to make the unemployment lines shorter, we continue to nail big companies. That makes sense. Keep wiping out large companies, and you eliminate jobs by the millions.

Yeah, we should leave the task of eliminating jobs by the millions to these same big companies, they're the experts at it!

- Elayne

[shakey]

This is where you are completely wrong. Deregulation did not allow the larger companies to buy out the smaller ones. De-regulation allowed the smaller companies to exist. Deregulation has done more to kill large companies than help.

Your example comes from one side of the telecomminications industry. I won't argue , because I'm not from that business .My arguments come from the broadcast side, where I've spent 19 years.

Once upon a time there were dozens of small to large sized broadcast companies that were limited in their ability to grow, due to FCC restrictions on their ability to have too much influence over what the people heard on radio and saw on TV. With a few grandfathered exceptions , no one company was allowed to own more than a couple of radio staions in each given local market. In the early 80's, Regan began the FCC DEREGULATION , that eventually spawned the early 90's telecominications act (that's where Clinton comes in Righties) .

Now a company could own as much as 35% of the stations in a given market.Big comapnies opened their checkbooks and bought a bunch of privatley owned radio and TV stations. Former station competitors, were now owned by the same company. The usual downsizing of departments began in each sepearte station.
Jobs that were crucial to keep a station running were elimintated.
Local talent and manegement has been minimized .

Also there are less voices in the market. The argument that the NET and CABLE has cut into the old broadcast guards turf is laughable, given that many are owned by the same giant conglomerates:

TIME WARNER- AOL HBO CNN ,

VIACOM- CBS MTV INFINITY RADIO, CMT,TNN, NICKELODEON, Paramount , UPN .

25 years ago, such multi ownership wasn't possible.

This Summer the FCC has propsed rasing the limit to 45%. The senate voted the move down last week with some pretty interesting bi-partisan support, with the same basic arguments comming from conservatives and liberals.Sadly, the House probably has enough of a majority, to agree with the FCC and make the raise official.

This kind of unfair influence is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to get away from in the first place. WILDCATS 3.0 issue 2 does a better job of explaining it than I can , or Stuart for that matter.

[shakey]

I can't spell, but I'll stand by my misspelled words

[Darth Presley]

still relevant?
:)

[Brando Fett]

hunh.

[Darth Presley]

Originally posted by Brando Fett
hunh. brilliant first post and Welcome to Newsarama!