Of Reichs and Men

UPDATE: Sorry, no InstaDean for UC Irvine. An agreement has been reached, But the point made below stands.

=====

The University of California prides itself on being at the educational cutting edge; and it is, if by ‘curring edge’ what you mean is ‘in the vanguard of the new conservative reich’.

Not content with resting on its laurels after producing such horrors as UC Berkeley’s Boalt Professor of Law John “Torture Memo” Yoo, now via Lawyers, Guns and Money comes the story of the university’s politically-motivated dismissal of eminent legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky:

IRVINE, Calif. — In a showdown over academic freedom, a prominent legal scholar said Wednesday that the University of California, Irvine’s chancellor had succumbed to conservative political pressure in rescinding his contract to head the university’s new law school, a charge the chancellor vehemently denied.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a well-known liberal expert on constitutional law, said he had signed a contract Sept. 4, only to be told Tuesday by Chancellor Michael V. Drake that he was voiding their deal because Chemerinsky was too liberal and the university had underestimated “conservatives out to get me.”

Later Wednesday, however, Drake said there had been no outside pressure and that he had decided to reject Chemerinsky, now of Duke University and formerly of the University of Southern California, because he felt the law professor’s commentaries were “polarizing” and would not serve the interests of California’s first new public law school in 40 years.

Oh, give me a break. No outside pressure? My ass. This kind of political censorship and pressure is not new to the university; it has quite a history of political repression and coercion.

Read More

Today’s Must Read

Many left bloggers in America and in the UK wrote about the blatant theft of billions of dollars in cash and antiquities by US contractors and others in Iraq while it was happeniing; we also wrote about the fact that the looting was only made possible by the incompetence and collusion of the fundy-staffed, Paul Bremer-led Coalition Provincial Authority (aka ‘What Liberty U students did on their gap year“).

But, as has become usual in Bush’s America, it’s taken years for big media to actually notice ( or to be more accurate, to have the guts to write about it) and to get the story to Mrs and Mrs Average Glossy Mag Buyer.

Vanity Fair’s account of the mercenary free-for-all following the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation (however odious its regime), Billions Over Baghdad, although it’s a day late and a dollar short will, I hope, deeply shock those American voters who still have residual faith in the probity of their politicians and government officials and in the good intentions and morals of the senior ranks of their military. These are not the Good Guys.

[…]

Over the next year, a compliant Congress gave $1.6 billion to Bremer to administer the C.P.A. This was over and above the $12 billion in cash that the C.P.A. had been given to disburse from Iraqi oil revenues and unfrozen Iraqi funds. Few in Congress actually had any idea about the true nature of the C.P.A. as an institution. Lawmakers had never discussed the establishment of the C.P.A., much less authorized it—odd, given that the agency would be receiving taxpayer dollars. Confused members of Congress believed that the C.P.A. was a U.S. government agency, which it was not, or that at the very least it had been authorized by the United Nations, which it had not. One congressional funding measure makes reference to the C.P.A. as “an entity of the United States Government”—highly inaccurate. The same congressional measure states that the C.P.A. was “established pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions”—just as inaccurate. The bizarre truth, as a U.S. District Court judge would point out in an opinion, is that “no formal document … plainly establishes the C.P.A. or provides for its formation.”

This isn’t just about the criminality and greed of the Bush administration but also about the incompetence of Congress and the corruption of the civil service and the military.

Not only did the institutions of government fail to stop the criminality, they allowed it to happen.

Even if individual congresspersons, civil servants or army officers didn’t personally benefit from the smash and grab they didn’t speak out, except in very rare cases: Bunnatine Greenhouse, for example, should be a national hero but instead she’s demoted and vilified.

Those who knew what was happening and failed to speak out failed in their duty and are therefore in it up to their necks, as much as any apparatchik or noncom with a handy cash sum stashed in the Cayman Islands.

Accountable really to no one, its finances “off the books” for U.S. government purposes, the C.P.A. provided an unprecedented opportunity for fraud, waste, and corruption involving American government officials, American contractors, renegade Iraqis, and many others. In its short life more than $23 billion would pass through its hands. And that didn’t include potentially billions more in oil shipments the C.P.A. neglected to meter. At stake was an ocean of cash that would evaporate whenever the C.P.A. did. All parties understood that there was a sell-by date, and that it was everyone for himself. An Iraqi hospital administrator told The Guardian of England that, when he arrived to sign a contract, the army officer representing the C.P.A. had crossed out the original price and doubled it. “The American officer explained that the increase (more than $1 million) was his retirement package.” Alan Grayson, a Washington, D.C., lawyer for whistle-blowers who have worked for American contractors in Iraq, says simply that during that first year under the C.P.A. the country was turned into “a free-fraud zone.”

Iraq has been the biggest home invasion of all time. Murder, rape, torture, looting; Genghis Khan would be proud. But it’s not just Iraqi money that these slime are stealing, though, it’s yours too, if yoiu’re a US or UK taxpayer – Bush has just asked Congress for another 50 billion dollars more and the UK has spent 6.6 billionpounds so far. Who knows into whose pockets it goes?

America may not be the Good Guys their self-image tells them they are, but then neither are we British and there is another, untold story here.

What was the role of the British military and diplomats in the CPA? They were as deeply involved as the Americans in the invasion – what were they doing while this as happening, sitting on their hands and going ‘Oh, dear”?

Take Basra: who handled the money for Basra province? Where’s it gone and to whom and for what? Has there even been an accounting?

I note that British diplomats, in concert with the US, pressured the UN for the CPA to be accepted as a valid interim government. They worked hand in hand with the Pentagon: do we really think our diplomatic staff and senior military had no inkling of the wholesale theft that was going on? Can we believe that if they did know, that they were so morally spotless as not to have been tempted to have a dip themselves? Of course it may not have been necessary to be quite as crude as that: there are other ways to benefit from criminality. Turning a blind eye can be quite rewarding, as our country’s record on rendition has shown.

But surely, if there are any malefactors, heaven forbid, in the ranks of our government, diplomatic corps or military, good old British justice will sort it out. Won’t it?

I mean, just look at the way George Galloway has been hounded by New Labour for being a bit equivocal reporting a donor in his paperwork for the Mariam Fund (total value 1.4 million) – that’s how punctilious New Labour is. They’d never do something sio venal as to take cash for honours or anything like that, oh no.

Shorter Uk government – criminals and war profiteers? What criminals and war profiteers? We’re British! We’re honourable!

Hardly. Some of our recently retired generals and diplomats are now issuing their own revisionist versions of recent history – what they say, in short, is that they were against the invasion all long, really, and it was all the fault of those naughty Americans. They didn’t want to do it – a big boy made them do it and ran away, wasn’t us, guv, we said it was a bad idea.

Unfortunately for untold thousands of dead Iraqis they weren’t so honourable as to say so at the time. Only now, when there’s autobiographies to be sold and the information is of no earthly use do they come forward. There’s the honour of our glorious military.

Meanwhile the Iraq war continues to be highly profitable – for some.

Aegis turnover soared from £554,000 in 2003 to £62m last year – three quarters through work in Iraq, including its role coordinating all private military and security firms operating in the country. Aegis is led by Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Spicer, who broke a UN arms embargo on Sierra Leone with his former company Sandline International, and was jailed in Papua New Guinea for earlier activities. The firm DSC, now part of British company ArmorGroup, was implicated in providing intelligence that helped Colombian death squads identify groups opposed to a BP oil pipeline project. ArmorGroup, which trebled its turnover from $71m in 2001 to $233.2m last year, typifies the private military sector in hiring former government officials and officers to wield political influence. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former UK defence and foreign secretary, is a non-executive director of ArmorGroup. In 2005 the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development awarded the firm armed security contracts in the Afghan capital Kabul, as well as in the Iraqi cities Baghdad and Basra, together with control of the Iraqi police monitoring programme.

Aegis’s non-executive directors include ex-UK defence minister Nicholas Soames, as well as Lord Inge, former chief of defence staff, and Roger Wheeler, earlier professional head of the British army as chief of the general staff.

That’s the kind of moneymaking from war that goes on all the time, but no-one complains and if they do well, they’re just whiny peacenik hippies who want to curb free trade.

The difference in Iraq is that war profiteering, instead of being a covert operation, has been carried out in the open with actual cash money and a blatancy that takes the breath away.

The big question, to my mind, is if, when those alleged to be the ‘good guys’ commit crimes of such magnitude, who, if anyone, is to step in and enforce the law? The Democrats don’t seem to have the bottle for it and neither do either of the British opposition parties.

This is a question that no-one seems to want to answer, because it would mean questioning the fundamental bases of our entire political systems, on both sides of the Atlantic. That way lies revolution – and that would never do.

Democratic inaction works

It seems the Democrats might just have the presidency locked up for the foreseeable future, if Jamie Carville is to be believed:

A late July poll for Democracy Corps, a non-profit polling company, shows that a generic Democratic presidential candidate now wins voters under 30 years old by 32 percentage points. The Republican lead among younger white non-college-educated men, who supported President George W. Bush by a margin of 19 percentage points three years ago, has shrunk to 2 percentage points. Ideological divisions between the Republican party and young voters are growing. Young voters generally favour larger government providing more services, 68 per cent to 28 per cent. On every issue, from the budget to national security, young voters responded overwhelmingly that Democrats would do a better job in government.

It is not just Democracy Corps that has found this. A host of new polls and surveys over the course of the past few months has served as a harbinger of a rocky 2008 election for Republicans.

The March poll from the Pew Research Center showed that 50 per cent of Americans identify as Democrats while only 35 per cent say they are Republican. The June NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed 52 per cent of Americans would prefer a Democratic president while only 31 per cent would support a Republican, the largest gap in the 20-year history of the survey.

Now earlier this week I talked about what seemed to be the Democratic tactic of not doing much to oppose Bush and to let the mounting disgust of the voters for him get them elected; this may just be the vindication of this tactic.

Had the Democrats opposed Bush more effectively earlier, for example on the War on Iraq, the American voters might not have become as disgusted with Bush and the Republicans as much and the Democratic lead would therefore be much smaller. Also, as I’ve also argued before, the Democratic leadership essentially agrees with quite a few of the politics Bush has enacted over the past six-seven years, not the least being the War on Iraq.

By mounting a token opposition on these points, by playing the victim in the Republican’s demonisation strategy, the Democratic Party’s leadership has tried to have its cake and eat it too: get unpopular policies enacted without being blamed for them…

After all, who’d want to be another Gerald Ford?

Ever get the feeling the Republican Party as a whole is not expecting to win next year’s presidental elections, nor much wanting to? When your strongest candidates are Mitt Romney, Rudy Guliani and Fred Thompson (who hasn’t even declared its candidacy yet), outsiders all, it doesn’t show any great enthusiasm for the job… Where are the
true Republican heavyweights? Where are the Bushes?

Waiting for somebody else to clean up the mess Georgey made is my bet. It won’t be fun to be the next president, as all the chickens come to roost: the War on Iraq, the War on Terror, the dire economic situation domestically, the loss of power internationally. Far better to let a Democratic president clean up the mess and take the blame for everything. Then, in 2012 or 2016, depending on how bad things get, enter a brand new Republican superstar, unsullied by any of the current nastiness, but funnily enough surrounded by the same sort of people who now surround Bush and who earlier surrounded Reagan and Nixon. Karl Rove has already taken a leave of absence in preparation…

Meanwhile, in the Democratic camp, the Clintons and Obamas see that their wait it out strategy is working. Instead of taking a firm oppositional stance against Bush and his wars, like their base wanted, they thought they could have their cake and eat it. Get Bush to do their dirty work for them, invading Iraq (Bill Clinton was fond of bombing the place himself and Hilary hasn’t exactly been a dove herself) and getting all those nasty illiberal policies through they’re supposed to oppose as Democrats but wouldn’t mind using themselves once president, while providing a handy enemy for the peons to hate. They’ll get back into power in 2008, make some sops at home, more or less continue the wars only smarter and work on ways to win the important elections, in 2012 or 16, once Iraq has receded in the background.

An arrangment then that suits everybody, apart from the voters…

Why the netroots aren’t taken seriously

Shadow of the Hegemon has the answer:

The problem is that while having people provide your content for you is pretty much what “Web 2.0” is about, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Markos is going to be seen as anything but a representative for his own community. They’ll pander to him as much as they need to ensure that he keeps his people on-message and donating time and cash, but don’t really care about anything his diarists write. DailyKos isn’t like the “institutes”: nothing the diarists or commentators write is being cited on television or in print, or really acknowledged by anybody outside the community. None of them are going to be talking heads on television, and while some may have books, they aren’t going to be pushed like the right’s think-tank stuff. It seems to have stalled as being seen as a “community”, nothing more.

(Not surprising: a lot of the “netroots” seemed to stop paying attention to the actual generation and discussion of ideas back in 2004 or so, and for all their faults that’s what think tanks and instututes and the like are for. If Kos et al don’t care about anything other than scooping up as many bodies as possible under the label “Kossack”, not caring about what they’ve got to say, then why on earth should the Dem leadership?)

I must admit to feeling a bit of schadenfreude at seeing the socalled big boys of the liberal blogging world being treated as beyond consideration, since they themselves decided they didn’t need the little people anymore. It was Kos and co who decided to purge their blogrolls, to turn the open network of the liberal blogs into a closed, oneway pyramid with themselves at the top and all the little blogs feeding into them, but not the other way around. They thought they didn’t need to built a proper infrastructure, didn’t need to support smaller players, and now it turns out the Democratic apparatniks they’ve been chasing only want them for their readers? That’s worth a “ha-ha!”