How did it get to be so late in the evening?? Ah, well, a few short notes.

There are several great items at the always excellent blog This Modern World. Current features include debates over misrepresentations about WMDs, threats from the Bush Administration against Head Start employees who speak about their plight, and a link to an article suggesting that Colin Powell really had difficulty delivering his presentation to the UN with a straight face. Also: a link to the very long Al Franken v. Bill O'Reilly book talk. Which was sort of worth seeing.

*

An aside: during Bill O'Reilly's speech before Franken spoke, O'Reilly said that now he REALLY wants WMDs to be found in Iraq. For the Good of the Country. NOT the good of the Bush Administration -- he insists he is not an idealogue. No, he fears the US will lose its credibility if no WMDs are found.

I'm not sure the US HAS enough credibility to lose on this issue: most of the world opposed this war and their governments seemed pretty confident in noting that we likely entered Iraq under false pretenses. But let's say, hypothetically, that there are none. Is it the US that loses credibility, or the Bush Administration? If the Bush Administration, oh say, LIED, wouldn't it be good for the country to learn that, and to act appropriately to impeach? I kept hearing that the Clinton impeachment for lying over oral sex was for the good of the country. Surely lying about intelligence information and dragging our nation into war requires a proportional response. Perhaps impeaching Bush hundreds of times would do it?

*

The news in brief: the Washington Post reports that Ashcroft Wants Stronger Patriot Act, because he just can't apply the death penalty to enough people.

Alrighty then.

Here's a charming sample from the article:

Ashcroft acknowledged that authorities had subjected some illegal immigrants detained after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon to harsh jail conditions for long periods of time before the FBI cleared them of links to terrorism. That was a central finding of the critical report issued Monday by the Justice Department's inspector general, Glenn A. Fine....

[This relates to the 762 foreign nationals taken into custody.] While none has been publicly charged with terrorism, they spent an average of 80 days in jail before the FBI completed its investigation, and many went weeks before being charged with immigration violations or seeing attorneys. About515 were eventually deported.

*

The BBC reports that there is a not-so-secret September 2002 Pentagon intelligence report [which] concluded that there was "no reliable information" that Iraq had biological or chemical weapons. A few searches on the BBC or Guardian sites will bring you a lot more of the same. TMW also cites Australian articles wherein Aussie intelligence claimed to know the allegations were false.

Hooo boy.

Also of note: the US still doesn't want UN nuclear inspectors to interact with people in Tuwaitha , where a nuclear facility was left unguarded by the US, and radioactive containers were looted for food and water storage by locals. The U.S. says it is responsible for people's health, yet there has been no announcement that it has taken on this responsibility through action.

*

Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector who the Bush Administration does not want back in Iraq, had some interesting things to say to the BBC in this article:

Blix has noted that US intelligence on weapons sites, which his inspection team followed up on and came up empty handed. "I thought - my God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?"

According to the BBC, the U.S. is using heavy metal 'music' and American children's songs to break the will of their captives in Iraq. Among the music selected to demoralize the captives: Barney, the big purple dinosaur's songs, plus Metallica.

I ask you: how must it feel to know that your songs are being used to browbeat prisoners of war? How must it feel to hear the repeat playing of yours songs day and night described at torture by Amnesty International?

I fear the inevitable Metallica interview that will follow.

The SF Chronicle's World Views column is great today, as it so often is. It covers both the pressure that Blair is under to explain why all intelligence used to justify the war against Iraq was completely wrong, and then touches on the G8 protests, with unfavorable comments and some amusing accusations that the residents of Geneva loved the feeling of importance that huge demonstrations gave their community.

I can't say I trust the reports about the G8 "riots," however. Since last October, I have regularly attended peaceful anti-war protests in the city center made up of more than a hundred thousand of people, plus smaller protests in local neighborhoods. And after each protest, I have reviewed the media coverage of the protest I just attended.

It was as if the reporters were reporting on a completely different event. Television coverage was especially bizarre: the evening news would feature a reporter standing in a public square that I had left more than 8 hours before, as if there was something there to see. The reporter would then relate a story about violence that had occurred in an area some significant distance from the protest, hours after the protest had ended. The reporter would then say that the protest had been marred by this distant, time-separated violence.

I was waiting for a report saying that the tides were responsible for a pet drowning in an inland bathtub as the next story.

I have seen images and videos of police attacking peaceful, seated protesters. The only video of that which has ever made the news was the police-made video of officers swapping pepper spray into kids eyes with Q-tips, which is being used against the police in court. My local paper printed some good photos of police attacking peaceful demonstrators when the U.S. attacked Iraq this year, but it was something of an exception to the local press' police of reporting political demonstrations primarily as obstacles to the commute.

So while I'm sure there are violent folk among the demonstrators at the G-8, I'm convinced of that fact primarily because I've read editorials by demonstrators who are there, bemoaning way violent protesters and violent police always seem to feed from each other.

So the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, which regulates popular media, has relaxed restrictions on media monopolies, which will likely resort in more national megacorporations controlling more local media outlets.

Here in the U.S. corporate media represents its own interests so thoroughly under the guise of free press, that most people can't even tell that their coverage is self-serving. News stories promoting the latest movie MUST just be a service, and not free advertising for a sibling company. Business news must be of general interest to workers, while labor news... Well, perhaps there just isn't any? Celebrity gossip must be important, or it wouldn't be replacing world news, would it?

Ouch ouch ouch.

Meanwhile, thousands of people are protesting the G8 meeting in Evian, France, but today's Yahoo news photos are primarily devoted to the Miss Universe pageant. Let's see, which will have a bigger influence on my life: global trade or Miss U? Yahoo believes it's Miss U. And their main news page doesn't mention the protests at all, but does have a photo of lifestyle maven Martha Stewart and speculation about her upcoming indictment.

Go figure.

*

In a short news summary where the G8 was mentioned in part of a larger article about a massive international poll on attitudes toward the U.S. and other topics, there was a quick comment: "Kohut said the anti-globalization forces that have protested in America and overseas don't seem to be making inroads. He said the survey found there is 'great acceptance of a connected world with most people saying trade and growing business ties are good for them and their countries.'"

I was completely taken aback by this statement, because their questions apparently had NOTHING to do with what anti-globalization protests are about. Not that we'd know, since the mainstream media refuses to report on anything more than broken windows and spray paint whenever there is a protest against any establishment institutions. But let me try to make a short summary of MY understanding of why the G8 is being protested.

-exploitation of the poor for sweatshop labor.
-exportation of jobs overseas to avoid paying decent wages.
-environmental obligation dodging.
-corruption.
-a lack of human and humane services in developing AND developed nations.
-violence toward labor organizers.
-back breaking debt for developing nations.
-privatization of public resources against the public's will.
-censorship of views that favor public services, environmental stewardship, and fairness.
-censorship of protests.
-violence toward peaceful protesters, both of the exploited and exploiter nations.

I thought I'd mention this, since you likely won't hear this anywhere mainstream. (The Indymedia G8 site is good for many viewpoints, especially if you are multilingual. I recommend it, and UK Indymedia highly.)

Blair's presentation of Iraq's alleged WMD evidence is being probed in England, while manipulation of alleged WMD intelligence is being investigated in the U.S.. BBC articles are questioning the legitimacy of WMD claims more directly than in the past.

It's great that the BBC is asking these questions, because it's a big white elephant in the middle of the room that the U.S. press appears afraid to remark upon.

According to the Washington Post, Iraqis aren't pleased with the U.S.' plans to skip forming an interim government in favor of an advisory council. Bremer, the U.S. Occupation Authority head, says "We think it's important for the Iraqi people to be seen to be involved in some very important decisions that are going to have to be made in the weeks and months ahead, and we have felt the best way to get that forward quickly is to broaden our consultations, to step up the pace of our consultations, and to arrive at a decision about the political council rather quickly." The article then goes on to say that, since the U.S. was given the authority to run Iraq, they don't really need to make good on their promise about setting up a democratic government yet.

Oh-oh.

*

Chirac makes it clear that he hasn't changed his mind about Bush's attack on Iraq."We consider that all military action not endorsed by the international community, through, in particular, the Security Council, was both illegitimate and illegal, is illegitimate and illegal. And we have not changed our view on that," according to the BBC.