Open Letter to the BBC

Apparently it is time to revive this blog. And what better occasion than to call out the BBC's atrocious reporting on the refugee crisis affecting the Middle East and Europe.

The BBC continues to insist on calling the refugees migrants. Migrants are people, and understood as such by the public, who leave their homeland for economic reasons. Does anyone in their right mind think that people are running away in their millions from Syria because of economic reasons?

Also, in case Europe has her panties in a bunch about 500,000 people coming to their shores one needs to point out that Lebanon already takes care of over a million refugees from Syria. Lebanon has 17 million inhabitants. The EU over 500 million.

Also, in case our dear leaders have amnesia, which is a rhetorical flourish, they should remember that the direct causes for this refugee crisis are the wars that the USA and her Allies, for example Europe, have waged in the Middle East for the past 15 yeas and counting.

So here goes nothing, because unless I stand with a Molotov Cocktail in front of the BBC's office, they won't listen to little old me, unless you make this go viral. You can also write the BBC yourself here.

Dear Madams and Sirs,

Please rectify your naming convention of the people fleeing the Middle East. They are not migrants, they are refugees. 

Migrants denotes economic reasons for leaving a home country. These are not economic migrants. It should be obvious, even to a formerly highly regarded news organization such as the BBC, that women and children are not economic migrants.

Call them what they are, Refugees from the war torn Middle East. 

You might as well do some real reporting and talk about the power vacuum, which is the cause of this refugee crisis, left behind by the departure of the USA and her allies, after having destroyed any semblance of civil societies in the Middle East. 

Sincerely,

Peter Illetschko

npr war porn

This little story has been on a slow burn for a while now. I used to live in LA up until nearly three years ago. There are not many nice things about traffic in the city of Lost Angels. I can only think of one. You know what I am talking about, the good old companion of the road more traveled: NPR. Untold are the days that Larry Mantle made more interesting and thoughtful.
When I left LA my next stop was Phoenix, as of today state with the honor of enforcing the most restrictive illegal immigrant laws in the land, and where my (lefty) radio is like the East Goths to the West Goths - further right.
So I was looking forward with some gusto to arriving in Seattle after returning to work last year in January. I thought, well, this is an independently streaked lefty state. Exactly what I need, because San Francisco was like Alabama.
You can imagine my chagrin when I was confronted with repeated versions of what can only be called War Porn. Something I thought was confined to the long waves. Far be it from me to judge the merits of such programs (I hate them), but what is more important, is that NPR never used to broadcast sob stories of the good soldier before. Until Barak Obama was elected.
So not only do I have to eat my words in regards to the left bias of the media, I also have to assume that NPR was equally manipulative in its actions before this. Did you ever hear a story of a soldier who died in the wars, and what an excellent person he was, and how people will miss him, and how he always helped the underdogs, and was a natural leader, and helped pick up the books of a kid that was being picked on in school? Right, never. In fact, the opposite was the truth, there seemed a much higher willingness to dehumanize the soldiers of the USA. Considering that my traffic radio time here is roughly 10 % of what it was in LA, I can only hope that this sort of thing is just done more often here in the PNW. Except that I really only listen to a national program just before Marketplace (way to many adds these days, what do I donate for?) at 6.30, so there isn't really much time to get a healthy dose of the we love our soldiers fair. Yet, this drivel is fed to me, and I admit it plays with my emotions too which may be why I dislike it so, on a quite frequent basis. I remember the kid that used to go wild ginger hunting in some godforsaken beautiful eastcoast redneck/Indian hero setting. Then he came back in a bag.
I wonder what the statistics of a survey of NPR stories would result in. Can we get some eager communications graduate to count npr war porn please? I would love to be wrong this time. But like my friend Z. says "I am always right, once I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken".

Disclaimer 1: No, I am not talking about getting off on war when I talk about War Porn.
Disclaimer 2: Stop playing bugles to make me feel bad for a kid whose only mission in life was to kill or be killed. Brave, gallant even, but I would prefer some real porn any day of the week.

Footnote 1: Here is the only other guy writing about War Porn. A somewhat different outlook on matters should be assumed.

The Golden Years

Remember the time when all we had to do on a sunny day late in January was listen to good old Georgie Boy blow smoke up our asses? Daring us to tell it to his silly grin that no, we would not knowingly like to be told that it's raining when he is pissing on our shoes. But somehow, from telling African women that they could not have any condoms anymore - even the Pope is considered medieval for this; to declaring Kyoto dead on arrival; to a refusal to sign a small arms treaty together with IRAN and VENEZUELA - and that's just funny. Through all that we told ourselves:"He may not know how to talk, but that man sure knows how to lead." Right?

Remember when we thought nothing of declaring the market free for all times, when we thought less about blowing another trillion in Iraq than you do about buying a cup of overpriced Joe? And when it all tumbled down and our own personal free market knight in shining armor proceeded to force Banks into near nationalization, all I said was "A good thing we had the Hammer to work out the kinks in the nearly rusted through knightly haberdashery." And the student of the Great Depression? Bush just pulled him out of the hat by accident? First the old master of no interest rates at all, and then the guy who has been studying for 40 years what happened the last time we insisted on paddling further up shit-creek than any known human being ever before?

But the Hammer is who we could rely on in those days. And that man surely set things right for, uhm, his former colleagues. Oh no, its not his fault at all. Those highly complicated CLFs that his board approved as investment vehicles had nothing at all to do with today's deficit. Whats a CLF? A CLusterFuck, thats what it is. In fact the current malaise (JFGI) can be sweetly and squarely laid at the next guy's feet. With all his highfalutin ideas, with his fancy wife and his golden voice. "What, just 'cause he can talk doesn't mean he actually knows what he is doing."

Are you listening to yourself at all? Anyone at home? Are you kidding me? It took eight years to create this mess, and you blame the guy for it who is trying to fix it? How about gas prizes during Bush years? How about teen pregnancies? How about deficit spending? You like it better to buy cluster bombs than to give someone a job fixing a road or, for that matter, digging a hole in the ground?

OK, lets instead bring the princeling back who cant talk or lead. Oh wait, no lets bring his father back, the guy who faints into Chinese soup - I would consider it a promotion for excellent service performed during Iran-Contra state affairs. Oh hold on, even better, lets get the good old gipper, he should have been called gibber(ish) for all the BS that he always had to be reminded of by his wife to exhale together with his asinine grin while booting tens of thousand of Vietnam Vets out of mental clinics - because the god Damn government was too big.

What does this lilly-livered pussyfooting president do? How about throwing money at the vets returning from Reagan's Vize's Sunnyboy's war? He wants to freeze the budget, to which the Republicans say no because they think its a trick to increase taxes. And the Democrats join them from the other side, not wanting to agree to budget cuts.

Dear Mr. President, If you feel so moved to go on TV tomorrow. And instead of saying "I will not quit" you tell us "FUCK IT". I promise I wont be mad. Instead I'll hope that all the white trash republicans of this fine best-health-cared-in-the-world (do yourself a favor and search for "health care" on this page) country keep saying no to universal health care, because that way at least I don't have to pay more taxes for their overweight asses to be nursed through diabetes, heart disease and all the various ailments of an overfed yet undernourished body. Reminds me of the body politic of this country. If vox populi were any denser it would fall like a lump of coal from our lips and suffocate our strongest spirits with its dusty tendrils.

who pays the bribes, I mean bills, sorry

Did you notice the ads after last night's presidential debate?

ABC had Chevron. CBS had Exxon. CNN had the coal lobby. But you know what happened last week? ABC refused to run our Repower America ad -- the ad that takes on this same oil and coal lobby.

I sent a letter asking ABC to reconsider their decision and put our ad on the air, but still we haven't heard back more than a week later. I think they need to hear from all of us. Can you help? Please send a message to ABC and tell them to air the Repower America ad this Friday on 20/20.

You can view the ad on the ABC petition page, here.

As Al Gore has said, "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the future of human civilization. And every bit of that has to change.

Note on side: Guess who said exactly this during the campaign? It wasn't the other one, I can tell you that.

in response to “The please like us Party”

Once again I must congratulate the Crack Emcee. I love how he puts it all together. Short and sweet sentences, pictures that say more than a thousand words, easily digestible and easier to follow. It’s just hard to read at work, people wonder why I am checking out “Give ‘em Hell, Harry” Truman and Easy Rider pictures while I am supposed to be diligently cogging away in my cube.

The analysis of Clinton and Gore as war mongers who wanted to increase the Offense Budget, while not inhaling, and of Mini Bush (this is an age categorization, when you measure the Bushes by their fuck-ups, he outshines daddy like a stadium flood light would a candle) as the humble Foreign Policy guy, who never really wanted to fly that damn plane anyway, let alone in Vietnam really surprised me. I must have been dreaming when I saw all that “weak on FP liberal” dirt thrown at them. And I must have been dreaming when it was assumed that George Bush would be strong on National Security and proceeded to fumble his way through every international situation like only a Bush can (head in soup in China, planes shot down in front of China, non-signatory of small arms treaty).

However entertaining the above reversal of roles is, the salient point seems to be that once a President is in office, he can not afford to cater to either his hard right or hard left anymore. Real Politik sets in, and the world has to be taken seriously and with as little ideological baggage as possible. The USA is not in an easy situation, the most powerful nation on the planet, everybody wants a pie(ea)ce of her – you know this if you ever played Civilization. Mostly we seem to be running around like a schizoid teenager, who wants nothing more than to be loved for her loyalty and friendship (export of democratic freedoms), yet is painfully aware that if make-up (oil) is not secured in the short run she will loose power, and that for that reason her grand station in this high school (world) relies on dominating commerce and the procurement of certain lipsticks (metals) and mascara (resources). Morals and walking over dead bodies to get the resources you need in order to impose your will is difficult to pull off at the same time, at least not without smallish PR fallouts. Especially while remaining the good guys the USA used to be after WWII - for which I personally am hugely grateful, as I would have grown up either a Nazi Youth, or behind the Iron Curtain.

I suspect that the same situation vexed Truman and grand old Roosevelt, the difference being that not every Joe Blow was blogging their ass off about it, JFGIing every bloody comment while digging up divorce statistic and old campaign buttons. The lies don’t fly as easy anymore. And lies are part of the game. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, you need to play an international game of chess with people who are absolutely ruthless and with their backs to the wall. That’s like putting me in the ring with a rabid, wounded Doberman. I know you gave me a gun to defend myself, but most likely that bitch will be way faster than I can ever hope to be.

I think we should leave the ideology behind, leave the campaigning behind, leave all the rhetoric behind, and judge both Republicans and Democrats by their results. This gets hard when you consider that a lot of these wars stretch out over opposing administrations. But lets try: It would seem that WWII was rather well done. Korean War, was a write-off, probably quite useful though. Vietnam, a big clusterfuck. And the Gulf Wars could only be described as silly, if they wouldn’t be so expensive. What is the thin red line through all these wars? I believe it to be that the USA does better the more right she is. I am all for kicking some ass around the world, and nothing annoys me more than my Euro Friends who just yadda after their media and hate everything the USA does, BUT it seems that when the dust settles and we actually consider if we had a right to enter into a war, we can directly correlate that to our success with it. This makes me hopeful. In fact I rejoice that the USA always looses when she looses her moral compass. It makes watching all those tedious Hollywood happy endings bearable, as it seems as if really only the good guys can win in the end. And whenever even our glorious behind is wrong we fall on it, just like the Ruskies did and hopefully the Chinese will soon.

We did not have the right to invade Iraq. If you base that argument on human rights, you need to ask your congressman (the ones with the actual power to declare war) to invade China right now. And you should have done the same when every single democratically elected government in South America was overthrown with our help. If you base it on WMD, let’s go to N. Korea, and Pakistan right now. Both of which are a lot more unstable and actually HAVE some, compared to Iran for example. If you think that our current success (I measure success by not seeing white boys dying on the beaches of the Korean Peninsular) in N. Korea is based on hardass Foreign Policy you are plain wrong. It is based on what you would call lily-livered democratic “please like us” party principles, which was only initiated because we saw that kicking ass didn’t work in the Middle East, and because we ran out of money. I am not sure which reasoning I prefer.

You, the citizen, were conned into going to war in Iraq; remember Colin Powell and his little sample of whatever-the-bloody-hell scared us just so in front of the UN? Although I do believe that every citizen bears responsibility, and that in this regard you failed only a little less than Colin Powell, I will halfheartedly grant that you were conned into sending your boys to die for nothing. For this reason we need to present a bill for the huge error of judgment and arrogant group-think that was the result of a bunch of neo-cons getting together and trying to reorder the world in their image.

This is not a somehow diffuse case, with lots of competing variables to consider. Just look for the people who planned and implemented the war. They are gone. Their own party, their own President has forsaken them. This is not a liberal conspiracy. If they would have been right, they would still be dancing victory laps on The Mall. And don't tell us we didn't tell you so. We did, Obama for example. The people of the USA were tired of being conned back then, and they are pissed at being conned now, and they will present a bill to the Republican Party who is, as I write this, running for the hills (yup, an undisclosed location). The upcoming bill will be the second part of a lay-away bill, the first part of which was presented during the last mid-terms.

I think McCain’s story is absolutely fascinating. Nobody can even come close to imagining what it is like to spend 5 years at the Hanoi Hilton except for Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago. I have tried, but I gave up. I admire his politics of the past years even if most died-in-the-wool Republicans wanted to vomit in their mouths when he was driving campaign finance reform. And he was nominated exactly for these reasons. He won the Republican nomination because he is the most Democratic of all Republican candidates. So please spare me all that talk of why Republicans are better on FP. They are not; they conceded that by nominating McCain. Campaign Finance Reform? Bring it on! Marrying one hot woman who looks just like the last one he dumped? Bring it on! (I am Austrian; I have no problem with how he lives his private life. You do though, you hated Clinton's BJ, so be honest.)

But supporting the President unconditionally in regards to the failed policies of the Middle East? That is unacceptable. The Republican Party and John McCain have to learn that lying to the people will cost them dearly. It might even usher in a new Democratic Age, how ironic that would be, and so sweetly and justly making Carl Rove rotate in his little southern (yup, undisclosed as well) plantation grave.

spousal matchup

Today I enjoyed watching speeches by the democratic presidential spouses. To make a long story short, I think Mrs. Obama is a skilled orator. She is self possessed, she has good cadence and she knows English much better than the current Prez, even though he is married to the first librarian. But putting her up against old Billy is like putting me in sumo ring with the current Yokozuna.

For that reason I think it would be fair to establish a handicap for presidential spouses. Similar to golf, where a player’s handicap allows all players with different skill levels to play against each other competitively this would level the playing field in the spousal matchup of 2008.

With that in mind I propose Bill Clinton, who after all is used to addressing the nation and the United Nations, to be categorized as a handicap -2. Which on the Illetschko-Volo Electoral Spousal Scale means that he may not use the letter L. This should put him on equal footing with Michelle Obama, who may use all vowels and consonants indiscriminately. So when she rhetorically asks the crowd “Why am I leaving my kids at home running around with my husband, running for president?” Billy Goat may only respond by saying “Goba cimate change is neary as bad as No Chid eft Behind”. With the successful adoption of this scale you can look forward to Mr. Clinton introducing his wife with “I woud ike to introduce my wife, Hiary…uhm. My wife Senator Cint… this is just not fair! My wife, the junior senator from New York.” It should add much needed levity to this year's presidental contest.

In other news, Bi Cinton compained heaviy about the imiatations of the ietschko-Voo Eectora Spousa Scae as impemented in this very bog. He obviously thinks it is a “Repubican Conspiracy”.

Why I don’t want the First Lady in the White House

Nothing and I mean nothing would be better than having a Woman President. Except maybe a black man. First of all let me state, that I belong to the majority that thinks the Republicans should just save their money and not bother running in 2008. I am convinced that every sane person who is eligible to vote in 2008, and those two are not mutually assured, knows what is good for them at this point.

The choice of Democratic candidates is large (I wrote this a while ago). I realize that most people and pundits are thinking how silly it is to start campaigning so early. What they, and Al Gore, do not seem to understand is that the Presidential Election 2008 are like the NBA Playoffs last year. They will be decided in the early rounds. The final will be a formality. Which only shows that it’s OK not to vote for an Oscar winner (I wrote this a long while before the Nobel thingy happened, maybe that would cancel out the Oscar).

I write this article with the above premises in mind. A Democrat will win, and the choice is between a black man and a woman. I guess it would be too easy to just give us the choice between a black man and white man of comparable status, or a woman and a man of comparable stature. But instead it has to be a relatively inexperienced black man, and the nearly former wife of a former President. Anyone want to take bets that Mrs. Clinton was playing a long game when she stuck with her husband? We could discuss the merits of each candidate, for example various policy choices, their foreign affairs mettle, their stance on universal health insurance and global warming. But I don’t think that their differences in policy statements are huge. I think that they are equal in their skills at being politicians, although with strengths in different areas.

The choice comes down to an issue different from politics and policies. It comes down to adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America. That original founding statement of the country was conceptualized with one specific purpose. A later President succinctly said “…that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”. I take the most important meaning from the Constitutions and Mr. Lincoln’s speech to be that the self governance of the people in this country is inviolable. This was extraordinary at a time when the common mode of governance was the absolute monarchy, a hereditary system based on the belief that rulers of monarchies were chosen by a god, or at least proxies of that deity. This modus operandi became unacceptable in this young nation. Both the issue of hereditary and god-given right to rule were made obsolete with the first confident John Hancock on that parchment.

This to me is the crux of the choice between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Today seven years ago, Mr. Clinton was the President. I know I am stating the obvious, who could forget those good old days? But I do find it surprising that all those Democrats who were taking issue with the son of a former President being elected into the White House after only eight years of interlude, think nothing of accepting the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton without blinking an eye. What happened to the “sanctity of our democratic values”? What happened to the “raison d’etat” of this land? Suddenly lefties think nothing of putting together another political dynasty, when only recently they were so against it. What are we going to do next, elect the daughter? I hear she is quite smart. I find this dishonest and inconsistent. I also think it dangerous. Instead of nipping the acceptance for this form of hereditary rule in our political system in the bud, we would encourage it. We would extend our blessing from the left to the last example from the right. It would become common place for politicians with family ties to strive for the highest offices in the country. Are we not close enough to being led by a political and elitist caste as it is? With politicians groomed from an early age, going to the right schools, joining the right fraternities to making the correct career choices we are on our best way back to the bad old days. John Hancock would rotate in his well earned resting place.

I know that in these insecure times we long for something known, something that we think safe that carries minimal risk. Maybe that is the reason why absolute monarchies evolved in the first place and were successful for such a long time. But being afraid of the unknown may not enter this equation. This country has managed to peacefully transfer power from one reasonably independent individual to another for over three centuries and that process should remain intact. Then there is also the fact that most people who would vote for Mrs. Clinton would at least as much be voting her husband back into the White House. In fact, to most people this seems to be the good idea here. I wholeheartedly disagree. Not only is it unconstitutional for the spouse of the President to have undue influence, it also shows that we should not be voting for that candidate in the first place. If she was qualified on her own, we would not feel the need to bring her husband into the equation. It is sad to have to apply this logic to the first female candidate with a serious chance of success. But integrity and the law of this land, given to us by one of the nicer documents in the history of humankind, demand it.

Because of this I choose the greater of two goods. Not only would we preserve our democratic institution but we would also send a clear signal to every citizen of the United States of America and to the rest of the world. That this country elects colorblind and without prejudice in regards to sex and origin of the candidate. There is no higher proof that this country is truly governed of the people, by the people and for the people, and that this bastion of universal equality shall never perish. What better way to claim leadership of the free nations of the world in these globally insecure days could there be?

(I must have just watched some patriotic movie when I wrote this, or something)

fast ohne worte

De Oratore Obama

No matter where you sit on the spectrum, you have to appreciate a good Orator. I do, so have a look at the JJ Dinner, if you haven't had a chance so far. And if you have a yen for good speeches check this speechifying site out.

Give me some Blood, Sweat and Tears, and make that Government of the People, by the People and through the People!

Not that I am saying Obama is in the same league, but it is nice to think that there is a chance of someone being there at some point in their future career.

Presidential Frankenstein

I watched an interesting forum Friday night on TV. The economic advisors (possible future Treas Secs, please keep that I mind) of five of the major candidates expounded on their and their candidates' economic views. To say that they are smart is stating the obvious. It is however interesting to see their boss’s character reflected in them. Hillary Clinton’s guy is this pouty looking Wall Street guru, wearing an impeccable suit and a chip on his shoulder. Our free economics gunslinger, representing Giulliani doesn’t give a damn what he looks like, he is at least as ugly as his boss, and like him not afraid to go against the grain. John Edward’s proxy was a gentle professor, who is not affected by either rising oil prices or healthcare costs. John McCain’s man kept to himself a lot. And Obama’s passionate, but reading from notes, young’un was the only one who came remotely close to saying that we should stop spending 500 Billion of your money on kicking ass around the world. The other candidates don’t have economic advisors.

Looking at the session from a holistic point of view I want to take all of the candidates, rip them into little pieces and build myself a presidential Frankenstein consisting of all the good things that I want from your next president. I want him to do a Broadband Initiative (John Edwards) because without that, not only will a lot of menial jobs be sent to China, we will also not create any more new economy jobs. I want to stop wasting money on weapons of mass destruction (Presumably Obama, although he can’t say it for fear of being a dove). I want to keep the USA on a firm free market standing (Giulliani) because I am from Austria, and I witnessed the policies of economic stagnation in the old world. I want John McCains guy to keep to himself a little less, because then I could maybe talk myself into taking a piece of his boss for my presidential Frankenstein as well. And I like the idea of universal health coverage (Hillary Clinton’s guy seemed most passionate about that).

The one thing that stood out is that not one of them has a short term solution for foreign oil dependency and global warming. Not one of them wants to have a hydrogen car by the end of the decade. If this is depressing, at least it is honest.