« March 2004 | Main | May 2004 »

April 24, 2004

Who is the public, and what space is theirs?

Sarah Kanouse, a talented local artist and activist probes the question of the existence and/or purpose of public space in her MFA thesis show piece titled "The Public Square." The piece uses a variety of technologies and public meetings to address the answer to this question. From her website:

While microphones record museum murmurings in a square claimed as public, people gather to make public what before was merely space. For the three-week duration of the MFA exhibition at the Krannert Art Museum, in Champaign, IL, participatory events occur daily in roaming public spaces around the city. Museum viewers become speakers by using microphones to rupture the spectatorship, privilege, and permanence of the public museum, and spectators become discussants by joining or questioning the gatherings. The sounds from each location are relayed to the other space to contrast the implicit or explicit limits on engagement established by those who monitor, manage, and control.

The work seems particularly relevant in our current political climate, which is dominated by attempts to enact significant restrictions of free speech. The USA PATRIOT act has allowed the government to essentially silence those who protest against it by pushing them into "free-speech" zones--areas hidden from public view, miles away from the activity being criticized. Our government is conducting a war that was sold to the public with undisputable lies, yet that same public is labeled 'unpatriotic' for criticizing the war and seems afraid of admitting its faults for initially supporting it. Classified documents revealing the government's conduct surrounding 9/11 are kept from the 9/11 commission, only to be declassified on a whim for the purposes of political retribution. Major media is increasingly dominated by a very small number of global corporations whose financial interests conflict with objective reporting of almost any government action. Press conferences with the President or his spokespersons are designed to ask little and reveal nothing of substance.

Perhaps more important than the question of public space is the question of who is the public? Is the public the common person, working a job, reading the paper, voting one vote? Is it the corporate CEO, buying political campaigns and reaping political favors? Is it the government elite, collecting that money and handing out changes that help their 'investors'?

Certainly many in positions of power hold little regard for the regular public. Those without power don't consider those in power as part of their public. Perhaps the public is most accurately defined as those with similar standing to oneself, as those with more or less power rarely seem to be subject to the same sets of rules or restrictions. How can a public be all-inclusive if those included aren't participating on equal terms?

These are a few of the things that Sarah's work brings up for me at this stage, as gleaned through the website. On her project blog, she explores questions such as why public space matters, as well as looking at the successes and failures surrounding the implementation of this piece so far. I look forward to the opening of the show this evening, and to various events throughout its duration. I encourage you to visit her project homepage, and to listen to a live webstream from the museum. If you're in central IL, check out the event schedule and drop by sometime.

Posted on 01:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 21, 2004

See What You Bought

The U.S. Treasury is campaigning for Bush, and you're paying for it. Read all about it.

Posted on 03:07 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 14, 2004

Too Many Stories, Not Enough Brain Cells

“There was nothing in there [the Aug. 6 PDB] that said, you know, there's an imminent attack.” -- George W. Bush, Crawford, TX, 4/12/2004 (source)

If this quote had been made before September 11th, I might believe it. But when Bush said this a few days ago he forgot to put on his “post-9/11” hat. You know, the one that says he can attack anyone anywhere because they might do something later even if we’re not sure what that might be?

“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? … Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is … not an option.” -- George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 1/28/2003 (source)

Here we see that Bush remembered that hat. He is clearly using the administration’s failure to act before 9/11 as justification for a war with Iraq. He gathers support by inciting fear in the unknown, but gathering threat.

But while vacationing in Texas the other day, he forgot which way he’s supposed to view the world now. Looking back at the August 6th PDB in the present time (i.e. post-9/11) he should certainly see that document differently. It should scream “imminent threat!” “Must go to war!” “War footing!” “Osama, threat!” “Preemptive attack!” If he were being consistent with his own thoughts, he should have said “The August 6th PDB contained all the evidence we needed of an imminent threat that warranted military engagement with Afghanistan and al Qaeda, but we just didn’t see it as imminent at that time.”

Instead, he’s consumed with covering his mistakes, and forgets which ‘era’ he’s living in now. Is it the ‘post-9/11 kill everything that moves’ worldview, or the ‘pre-9/11 sure there’s a threat but I’d rather go on vacation for a month’ worldview? He’s so afraid that someone might blame him for 9/11 that he can’t even remember his own ideology. One has to wonder if there’s something else he’s scared might come out, or if he just doesn’t have enough brain cells to keep it all straight.

Or both.

Posted on 07:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 13, 2004

A Busy Person's Guide to the Bush Press Conference

Since most people don't like to watch an hour of Bush on television (and for some reason I don't mind even though it drives me nuts), I decided to boil down the questions and answers from tonight's press conference in the East Room of the White House to their bare essentials. The questioners (Q:) are not identified. All answers (A:) are (paraphrases) from George W. Bush. (transcript of the conference)

----

Q: April is the deadliest month in Iraq, people are comparing it to Vietnam and support for the war is declining to less than 50%. What say you?

A: Its not Vietnam. This is hard. A free Iraq will be great. This is hard. We've been there a long time, but its not that long. Things have been hard for me. I don't listen to polls.

Q: How long will US troops be in Iraq?

A: I don't know--ask someone else. We'll be there as long as we need to.

Q: You have said we'd be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil would pay for the war and that we'd find WMD in Iraq. Why were you so wrong on all of these counts?

A: September 11th. Threat. Saddam, threat. Intelligence told me so. I told UN to act but they didn't so I did. Saddam could have made WMD. Danger. Oil? It wasn't destroyed and its flowing. Iraqi's are happy...the silent majority supports us...Iraqi's are happy.

Q: You told Bob Woodward that Osama wasn't a priority before 9/11. Do you feel any personal responsibility for 9/11?

A: I was angry and sad on 9/11. Before 9/11 I was not.

Q: And do you feel personal responsibility for 9/11?

A: No. The patriot act is good. We were stovepiped. No war footing. 9/11 was gathering threat...thats why I dealt with Iraq. We must preempt all who hate us.

Q: You never admit mistakes (WMD, postwar planning, 9/11). Should people be unhappy about that? Did you screw up?

A: No war footing. Osama hated us. We didn't know what was coming. I wonder where the WMD are. Saddam, threat. World, better. Iraqi's are happy.

Q: You said the Aug. 6th PDB didn't warn of hijacking airplanes into buildings, but just some things really close to that. Did you do anything in response?

A: I asked for the briefing and then went on vacation. The report was historical. I was concerned. If I didn't know something its George Tenet's fault. Nothing new in PDB. FBI was doing good. I would have acted. If only they had told me: "9/11, NYC, WTC, 8:30am" I would have been there.

Q: The PDB says there were 70 FBI investigations. Today the 9/11 hearings found that as wrong. Did you get bad info?

A: I expect to get valid information.

Q: Has the FBI talked to you since?

A: No.

Q: Richard Clarke apologized to the nation. Do Americans deserve an apology from you?

A: If only they had told me "9/11, NYC, WTC, 8:30am" I would have been there. Its Osama's fault, not mine.

Q: The "coalition" forces constitute hardly any of the troops. Isn't it window dressing? What happens when you turn Iraq over to them?

A: Don't say mean things about other people. We must remain strong. The Iraq war is a blow against terrorism. Iraq will be free someday.

Q: Why won't you testify before the 9/11 commission without Cheney at your side?

A: Because they want to ask us questions.

Q: I asked why you're appearing together, instead of separately as they requested?

A: Because we can both answer this way.

Q: Some say you let 9/11 mature too far--Iraq not far enough. What do you think? What's next?

A: They say we should have taken out Afghanistan and they say I shouldn't have attacked Iraq. See? War footing. I thought about Al Qaeda. Our oceans don't protect us. We let people in. Its a tough decision for me to use the military. We'll use it whenever we need to. They found 50 tons of mustard gas in Libya. I worry about WMD. We're at war against terror.

Q: People are unhappy about Iraq--will you lose your job over it?

A: I don't plan on losing my job. I don't like seeing dead people on television. Its hard to console family members. I will make my case. Lets talk about the war against terror. Our soldiers are great.

Q: After 9/11, whats your biggest mistake?

A: I wish you could have given me the questions beforehand. I went to war in Afghanistan. Even though there were no WMD I still would have taken Iraq. They found 50 tons of mustard gas. Saddam is dangerous. He had WMD. I can't come up with a mistake I've made.

Q: Several thousand FBI agents wrote you today begging you to not split up law enforcement and counterterrorism but you said today you might. Will you?

A: Lets talk. The war will be long. Our enemy is ruthless. It will be long. We should learn from mistakes. A free middle east will be hopeful. Free. Freedom. Freedom. Freedom. Freedom. We are a great power. We feed North Korea, we fight AIDS in Africa. I am leading and making the world a better place. We'll stay the course. Stay the course. Soldiers are dying in Iraq for freedom.

Q: Why are you such a bad communicator?

A: "When I say something, I mean it."

[end]

Posted on 08:56 PM | Comments (154) | TrackBack

April 11, 2004

Standard of Judgment

A short piece on Newsday.com by Pinkerton asks a great question:

If you knew that President Franklin D. Roosevelt had received a memo a month before Pearl Harbor entitled, "Japanese Determined to Attack the United States in the Pacific," and that he had done nothing about that information, would that knowledge change your perception of FDR as a wise war leader?

The answer is simple, of course. Frankly, I think the answer is pretty simple for Bush's reaction too. The media seems to be actually covering this story...lets see where it goes.

Posted on 10:47 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 09, 2004

Everybody Deserves Some Time Off

Bush has spent 233 days at his Texas ranch since stealing the White House. He's spent a total of "500 days in office at one of his three retreats, or more than 40 percent of his presidency."

As an example of one of those days, he spent today watching Condoleeza Rice try to cover up his ignorance for three hours on live television in the morning. In the afternoon he gave a tour of his ranch to the chief executive of the National Rifle Association and an interview to Ladies' Home Journal. In the meantime, we've seen the most deadly week in Iraq since Bush declared the war a victory last March, and things are only getting worse.

On August 6, 2001, he was given a presidential daily brief with the title "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within the United States." On August 7, he left for vacation at his ranch in Crawford, where he stayed until a few days before September 11th. By this time in office, 8 months or so, he had only spent 54 days (i.e. less than 2 months) in Washington.

While everybody else in the country is either looking for work, struggling to keep the job they have, or suffering at a manufacturing job on the McDonalds hamburger assembly line, Bush has sure taken his job lightly. You might think that the man who was so concerned with an impending al qaeda attack that he found time to vacation more than any president in history might be a bit more concerned over the state of things since that attack.

It almost makes you wonder if he got another PDB just before he left this week. You know, one of those briefs that says there's going to be a terrible attack--but sorry, we can't tell you the exact time or place, so why don't you just blow the whole thing off.

Frankly I think that would be giving him too much credit. Despite the fictions being put forth by Rice and others, we all know that Bush doesn't read these briefs, and if he did, he could care less. He doesn't direct policy--he at best approves it. If its not Iraq, tax cuts, or campaign paybacks, he has little use for petty distractions like protecting the country or telling the truth.

I do agree with Mr. Bush that everybody deserves time off from their job from time to time. In fact, he's so deserving that he should take a permanent vacation.

(Most of the vacation info comes from the Post. Thanks to TPM for the tip.)

Posted on 01:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 05, 2004

Interested in Half the Facts?

Gary Hart asks a great question in an op-ed on Salon today:

Suppose that in March or April 1941, 14 Americans with lengthy backgrounds in national security affairs had reported to President Franklin Roosevelt that the United States was going to be attacked somewhere, sometime, somehow by the Japanese, that this attack would result in large numbers of American casualties, and these officially appointed Americans had strongly recommended to the Roosevelt administration that it take urgent steps to help prevent such an attack. Further suppose that Roosevelt had done little if anything in response to this warning, and that almost eight months later, as it happened, the Japanese attacked American facilities at Pearl Harbor, and almost 2,000 Americans died. Suppose after this attack official inquiries were launched, as it also happened, as to why there was a failure of intelligence, what actions were or were not taken based on what intelligence there was, and what could be done to prevent such catastrophic surprises in the future. And finally suppose that the official commission created to investigate the tragedy of Pearl Harbor failed to call upon the original 14 Americans who forecast the attack and forewarned against it.

Now move this supposed scenario forward to 2004 and you have virtually a perfect fit and an actual set of circumstances. The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, co-chaired by former Sen. Warren Rudman and myself, reported to President George W. Bush and his new administration in January 2001 that terrorists were surely going to attack the United States and that our country was woefully unprepared. We documented the lack of intelligence coordination against this threat and the lack of preparation of up to two dozen federal agencies, as well as state and local governments, to prevent such attacks or respond to them when they did occur. Though we had no ability to forecast specific times, places and methods for such attacks, we were united in our certainty that they were bound to occur. In our first report we said: "America will become increasingly vulnerable to hostile attack on our homeland [and] Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers." In our final report we urged the new Bush administration to create a national homeland security agency to prevent terrorist attacks.

Read on for the rest of the story...

Posted on 11:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Burn Gas and Make War

Billmon over at Whiskey Bar has a great, yet depressing entry on the stupidity and shallowness of the American people. Bush's approval number was way down in a new Pew poll today (43%), but the reason has a lot more to do with "high" gas prices as opposed to the burned Americans hanging from bridges in Iraq this last week.

You would almost think that not only do people care little about the ongoing death in Iraq (that we crossed 600 dead soldiers was hardly covered), but that they also don't realize the connection between our war in Iraq and the price of their gas. I guess gas guzzling SUV owners think a few burned and mutilated soliders are a small price to pay to get their gas prices down a few cents/gallon. The new poll also found that support for the war has not eroded at all.

Are we really paying that much for gas? Do we really care? Sure, companies who drive things everywhere will pay more, but what are we talking about here? My honda civic gets 30 miles to the gallon--if you raise the gas price $0.10/gallon, then I guess it costs me another $1/tank or so. I fill up a couple times/month--lets see--that makes about $4/month more. OH MY GOD! GET THOSE SOLDIERS OVER THERE AND PROTECT MY OIL!!! I DON"T CARE HOW MANY LIMBS OR LIVES THEY LOSE!

Kerry really needs to come out and tell the truth on this issue. Don't let Bush strike you down with a stupid flip-flip story on a gas tax you didn't vote for--come out talking about Bush having completely blocked raising fuel efficiency standards and substantive investments into new energy technologies. Sure, a few small bucks towards hydrogen fuel cells is nice, but how about supporting the technologies being developed today that we could actually use very soon. I'm getting really tired of Kerry not using these things to promote an agenda that a lot of people would really go for right now--on both sides of the aisle. What better time to harp on our reliance on oil than when Iraqi's are dragging charred flesh around the streets? Instead he talks about raiding the national oil reserves and pushing for OPEC to produce more oil. What party is this guy from, again?

Posted on 09:47 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack