Some words of wisdom from Paul Krugman

Krugman, on the chocked-full-of-ridiculous-tax-cuts Obama stimulus plan:

The House has passed the stimulus bill with not a single Republican vote.

Aren’t you glad that Obama watered it down and added ineffective tax cuts, so as to win bipartisan support?

And Krugman again on the Obama plan to set up a "bad bank," which will reward Wall Street's destructive behavior by overpaying them for toxic assets:

As the Obama administration apparently prepares to launch Hankie Pankie II — buying troubled assets from banks at prices higher than they will fetch on the open market — it occurred to me that an updated version of an old Communist-era joke may be appropriate: under Bush, financial policy consisted of Wall Street types cutting sweet deals, at taxpayer expense, for Wall Street types. Under Obama, it’s precisely the reverse.

Update: Maybe I was too cryptic. The original joke was, “Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Socialism is the reverse.”

My goodness, he is a breath of fresh air! Unfortunately though, he's on the outside looking in like the rest of us.

Mr. President, this is not change we can believe in.

Something you should read

If you're interested in reading an excellent, in-depth explanation of the Israeli assault on Gaza, which places the actions of Israel and the United States in historical context, please check out this piece by Noam Chomsky that appeared on Z Net today. It's a bit long, but totally worth it.

Don't be fooled by the word "ceasefire"

Thankfully and finally, the Israeli attack on Gaza has come to a halt after three weeks of constant and horrific violence. Hamas and other allied political forces in Palestine have responded by offering a conditional ceasefire of their own. Like any sane person with a conscience, I am relieved. Hopefully, the pause in the violence will at least allow United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) staff and other rescue workers to provide basic humanitarian aid to the beleaguered people of Gaza and prevent more senseless deaths. However, Israel's offering of a supposed "ceasefire" is no cause for celebration. History shows us that there is little reason to accept Israel's public pronouncements at face value. As Justin Podur reminds us in his column on Z Net today, "Israel used the word "disengagement" in 2005 to mean continued occupation, control of movement, periodic massacre, and blockade [of Gaza]". An examination of the specifics of the "ceasefire" demonstrates that Israel has agreed to cease very little.

First and foremost, a unilateral Israeli cessation of military operations is by its nature weak and designed to give the the Israeli armed forces as much freedom to act as possible and avoid having to make concessions to Hamas, as Al Jazeera pointed out. Israel showed no interest in participating in an Egytpian-moderated ceasefire with externally verifiable conditions. Rather, by acting on their own, they have imposed their own conditions, or lack thereof. For instance, Israel has not agreed to end its land, sea, and air blockade of Gaza, or even to ease it. Israeli troops also remain on the ground in Gaza, armed to the teeth. This fact is the main reason why Hamas has only offered a conditional ceasefire; Hamas has stated it will resume its attacks on Israel unless they withdraw all of their troops from Gaza within a week (which appears highly unlikely). As such, the root cause of Hamas rocket fire, Israel's imprisonment of the people of Gaza, not only remains in force but has gotten worse thanks to the presence of Israeli soldiers in the strip. Of course, I do not condone Hamas's indiscriminate firing of rockets into civilian areas. Nonetheless, As Israeli professor Neve Gordon argued on Democracy Now, the firing of rockets is an act of resistance to the increasingly severe Israeli occupation, the "primordial act of violence".

Given the conditions stated above, I believe it is likely that Israel will resume its assault on Gaza within a week, though at a lower intensity. However, even if Israel does not resume military operations within the strip, there is little chance life in Gaza will get better any time soon. Since Hamas was elected in 2006, Israel has been blockading the Gaza strip, collectively punishing the Palestinian people for voting in the wrong political party. The United States has openly supported this war crime and most European and Arab governments have been complicit in it. Further, all of these actors behaved similarly in the face of Israel's assault on Gaza, a far more intense and visible act of aggression than the less dramatic, though still deadly blockade. As such, I agree completely with Justin Podur that it's highly unlikely that any of these important regional and/or global actors will take any serious action to halt the intensification of Israel's occupation of Gaza, even if it involves the long-term re-introduction of Israeli troops.

Of course, the United States could fundamentally alter its policies towards Israel once Barack Obama is sworn into office this Tuesday. Unfortunately however, the likelihood of such a dramatic shift in American foreign policy is slim to none. The U.S. has supported Israeli aggression and blocked a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for over forty years and many powerful interest groups in the United States support and/or benefit from Israeli violence. But hey, I can dream can't I? And in all honesty, is there anything Obama could do which would more clearly and dramatically demonstrate that his administration represents "change" from business as usual in Washington than ending our support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine? At least in terms of foreign affairs, I think not. Everyone who cares about this issue ought to realize, though, that a fundamental shift in American policy in the Middle East will only happen if average Americans organize a large movement in solidarity with the peoples of the region and, as Produr put it, "raise the cost" of imperialism. Only then will we get change we can believe in. Here's to hoping that the convergence of widespread public outrage at the recent round of overt Israeli violence and the election of Barack Obama will bring about a new era in America's relationship with the Middle East.

Costa Ricans Protest Gaza Massacre, Israeli Occupation

As many of you are likely well aware, Costa Rica has been reeling from a major earthquake that struck the province of Heredia last week. As of today, 23 have died, hundreds have been injured, and 13 are still missing. Yet despite suffering from a natural disaster, many Costa Ricans have come out to oppose the man-made disaster that has been inflicted on the people of Gaza over the past three weeks. There have been two protests against the massacre in Gaza in San Jose: a march last Friday, which began at the Israeli embassy and was attended by as many as one thousand people, and a smaller protest in front of the Casa Presidencial (office of the President) this past Tuesday. Although I was unable to see the march on Friday, I was fortunate enough to witness the protest on Tuesday.

The protest on Tuesday (and Friday) was organized by the Costa Rican Committee in Solidarity with the People of Palestine and was attended by members of various socialist groups, the federation of students of the University of Costa Rica, the Society of Friends (Quakers), and others. As the name of the committee suggests, the protest was called to express solidarity with the besieged people of Gaza. The demonstrators frequently chanted "America Latina apoya Palestina" (Latin America supports Palestine). Those who spoke at the protest also called for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador from Costa Rica and sanctions against Israel at the United Nations Security Council (of which Costa Rica is currently a non-permanent member) unless Israel ends the military operation in Gaza, the blockade of Gaza, and the occupation of both Gaza and the West Bank. The demonstrators blocked off a small section of the street in front of the Casa Presidencial, held banners, distributed literature to passers by, and made their demands heard over a loud speaker. As has been the case in protests I've attended in the United States, there were nearly as many police as demonstrators (though to be clear, I witnessed and did not participate in this one). However, the police were quite laid back and entirely civil towards the peaceful protesters. There was not a single confrontation. Here are some photos of the event. I apologize for the low quality but I hope you get the picture:

"Long Live the Palestinian Resistance"- Party of Revolutionary Workers

"Stop the Genocide in Gaza" - Federation of Students of the University of Costa Rica

The loudspeaker

The Police, just hanging out

"We call for the end of relations with Israel"- Movement towards Socialism

Waving the Palestinian Flag

To say the least, it's been very encouraging to see such an outpouring of support for the people of Gaza in the United States, Costa Rica, and around the world. The contrast between the increasing level of awareness, solidarity, and plain decency of everyday people worldwide and the utter ruthlessness of the governments (with some exceptions) and corporations that rule over them could not be more stark. I just hope the protests keep on coming and eventually, Israel is compelled to end its genocide of the people of Gaza.

Israel continues its assault on Gaza

Photo Courtesy of Al Jazeera

Since I last posted on this blog on December 29th, the situation in Gaza has continued to spiral downwards. Every morning, there's another horrific story which displays the Israeli army's utter contempt for civilian life: The Israeli armed forces have killed aid workers from the Red Cross, bombed a United Nations school, killing 40 innocent civilians, killed 9 women and 11 children in their homes just so they could assassinate a single Hamas leader, and deliberately targeted police officers, likely with the intention of undermining order and sowing chaos in the strip. There are even reports that Israel may be dropping white phosphorous, a poisonous chemical which can burn human flesh to the bone, on Gaza. Of course if this is true, Israel is committing a war crime, but you don't have to be an expert in international humanitarian law to know that dropping a chemical which causes severe burns on an enclosed, densely populated area is utterly despicable and likely to cause civilian injuries.

One of the many unfortunate realities of the violence in Gaza is that it repeats a familiar historical pattern. As Noam Chomsky and other astute observers have long pointed out, Israel would not be able to occupy the West Bank and Gaza and could not have committed many its myriad other crimes over the course of its existence without the military, economic, and political support of the United States. Israel's current round of war crimes are no different. Immediately, President Bush and Speaker Pelosi offered strong rhetorical support for Israel's actions. At the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. first blocked a resolution calling for a ceasefire on January 4th and then abstained from voting on January 8th. Just yesterday, Nancy Pelosi sponsored a resolution in the House backing Israel's actions which passed with an overwhelming majority of 390 to 5, with 22 members abstaining. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the resolution reflected "the will...of the American people". And as always, much of the Israeli military equipment used against Gaza is American made and/or designed.

Another historical constant, also documented by Chomsky, is the quiescence of the mainstream American media in the face of Israeli (or American) state crimes. The justification offered by the Israeli and United States governments are absolutely ridiculous, yet of course, the entire mainstream American media nonetheless parrots their claims. If you're interested in more specifics, check out this piece by Jennifer Lowenstein, who completely debunks the U.S./Israeli arguments for the violence and Paul Street for an analysis of the criminal role of the U.S. media in the Gaza Massacre. In fact, just check out anything that's appeared on ZNet over the past several weeks on the violence in Gaza. Norman Finkelstein also did a great job of debunking the U.S./Israeli arguments for violence and providing historical context for the massacre on Thursday's Democracy Now.

There's little to nothing new I can say about the carnage in Gaza that hasn't already been said more eloquently by the victims of the atrocities themselves or other persons of conscience. Nonetheless, I do have a few thoughts.

Firstly, I have to say that watching Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, debate Norman Finkelstein on Democracy Now on Thursday was a very strange, puzzling experience. Ambassador Indky, who served under the Clinton administration, was a direct and active participant in the Camp David and Taba talks of 1999-2000 and just wrote a book about these talks. Despite his direct participation, Dr. Finkelstein points out that his recount of the events at these talks is not only inaccurate but if you compare his statements with official U.S. government documents, you'll find that Ambassador Indyk's version of history is almost the complete opposite of what actually happened. In Dr. Finkelstein's own words:

According to Mr. Indyk’s account of the negotiations that culminated in the Camp David and Taba meetings, he says it was the Palestinians that were blocking a settlement. What does the record show? The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at Camp David, then under the Clinton parameters, and then in Taba, at every single point, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. Israel didn’t make any concessions. Every concession came from the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly expressed a willingness to settle the conflict in accordance with international law.

The law is very clear. July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled Israel has no title to any of the West Bank and any of Gaza. They have no title to Jerusalem. Arab East Jerusalem, according to the highest judicial body in the world, is occupied Palestinian territory. The International Court of Justice ruled all the settlements, all the settlements in the West Bank, are illegal under international law.

Now, the important point is, on all those questions, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions. They were willing to allow Israel to keep 60 percent of the settlements, 80 percent of the settlers. They were willing to compromise on Jerusalem. They were willing to give up basically on the right of return. They made all the concessions. Israel didn’t make any concessions. How is this rendered in Martin Indyk’s book? It’s rendered as, quote, “Barak’s bold and courageous initiatives for peace” and “Arafat and the PLO rejecting the bold and courageous initiatives of Barak.”

As for the current violence in Gaza, according to Mr. Indyk, Israel's assault is an act of self-defense and a response to Hamas breaking its five-month ceasefire with Israel:

I think that what happened here was that there was a ceasefire, an informal ceasefire, between Hamas and Israel that had lasted for about five months. Hamas decided to break that ceasefire with a prolonged series of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians in southern Israel. And the Israeli government responded with overwhelming force, designed, as they have said, to try to reestablish deterrence, to prevent Hamas from doing that again

Yet, Dr. Finkelstein points out that Indyk's claims about the current violence are also completely false and contradict the official documentary record:

Well, the record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Mr. Indyk is correct that Hamas had adhered to the ceasefire from June 17th until November 4th. On November 4th, here Mr. Indyk, I think, goes awry. The record is clear: Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.

Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one, as Mr. Indyk I think correctly points out, to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.

After witnessing Mr. Indyk's performance on Democracy Now, I would really like to know what actually goes on inside his head. Is he just a terrific liar and actor who makes claims on the show and in his book the he knows are false, or has he somehow convinced himself that his incredibly distorted versions of contemporary history are true? More generally, I suppose that same question could be posed to the various U.S. and Israeli politicians and media elites who have participated in and/or closely followed events in Israeli-occupied Palestine. Some day I would really like to know the answer to that question. I suppose George Orwell would say I was just witnessing a spectacular instance of doublethink, where in the interests of serving the powerful, Indyk and others are actually capable of holding two completely contradictory thoughts at once. Whatever the case, I suggest you read some of Chomsky or Finkelestein's work on the actual history of Palestine and then listen to Indyk's debate with Finkelstein. It really is a mesmerizing, though also maddening and horrifying experience.

Lastly, I have to take issue with Harry Reid's repugnant claim that Friday's House resolution in favor of Israel's massacre of the Palestinians represents "the will...of the American people". For one, my girlfriend, family, friends, acquaintances, and I who know better and oppose Israel's actions are Americans, too, and the resolution certainly doesn't reflect our will. Moreover, it's not just a small cadre of Arab-Americans/America haters/ hippies/ commies/ anarchists (add whatever category of non-persons here you'd like) who oppose Israel's actions. In fact, according to Max Blumenthal, a December 31st Rasmussen poll revealed that 44% of Americans supported Israel's attack on Gaza and 41% opposed it. Given that the casualty figures have risen dramatically since then, it's entirely likely, in my opinion, that even fewer Americans support the so-called "war". In other words, Mr. Majority Leader, if the House resolution represented the "will of the American people" it would have been a much closer vote. Unless of course by "American people" you meant the military-industrial complex and segments of high-tech industry which benefit from Israeli violence, our nation's opinion elite, and AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, and the rest of the Israel lobby, in which case I certainly agree with you.

As offensive as the House resolution is, which the entire Connecticut delegation despicably voted for, the results of the Rasmussen poll are encouraging. The poll shows that, despite the near unanimous support of Israeli aggression among politicians from both parties and the utter lack of objective information on the Israeli occupation in the mainstream media, there is a large swath of the population which opposes American-supported Israeli violence. This suggests to me that there is significant potential for popular organizing. The myriad protests across the country are already a good sign and step in the right direction. And, as a side note, as I am living in Costa Rica, there was a protest of more than 1,000 people at the Israeli Embassy in San Jose last Friday in solidarity with the people of Gaza. Given it's much smaller population, the protest on Friday was equivalent to a 75,000 person protest in the U.S. It was an amazing show of public support for peace and justice, especially given that the Costa Rican media and political elite are also incredibly biased towards Israel. In order to have a real impact on the situation in the Palestinian territories, I agree with Naomi Klein and most Palestinian civil society that these protests, in Costa Rica, The United States, and around the world ought to be channeled into an international movement for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions of Israel. Israel is small enough and so dependent on international trade that such a movement could have a real impact. Leading up to and until then, we all have a responsibility as Americans to write, call, and lobby our congresspeople, demonstrate, employ civil disobedience, and do everything and anything we can (Absent acts of violence, of course) to bring an end to the siege of Gaza. As U2 sang decades ago about a different imperial occupation at a different time in history: No More!

Act of Genocide: Israel Attacks Gaza

"A Palestinian family rushes from the scene of an Israeli missile strike on a building in the Rafah refugee camp, southern Gaza Strip, 28 December 2008". Photo Courtesy of Electronic Intifada

Anyone who's even marginally aware of world events no doubt knows that for the past three days, Israel has been attacking the Gaza strip. So far, at least 325 people have been killed and 1,400 have been injured. According to Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the purpose of the attack is to prevent Hamas from firing rockets into Southern Israel from Gaza. Israel's leaders claim that the targets of their attack are Hamas security forces. To provide some context, Hamas is an Islamist political party which won the 2005 parliamentary elections in the Palestinian territories and currently controls the Gaza strip. Characteristically, Israel received strong support for its actions from officials from both political parties in Washington. President Bush endorsed Israel's military action and referred to the Hamas leadership as "terrorists" and "nothing but thugs". Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi echoed Bush's support and said "When Israel is attacked, the United States must continue to stand strongly with its friend and democratic ally". And David Axelrod, spokesman for President Elect Barack Obama, said Obama sympathized with Israel and understood their "urge to respond" to rocket fire from Hamas.

If anyone is interested in getting some background information and a broader explanation of this conflict, please check out today's Democracy Now, which features interviews with several witnesses to the attack on Gaza.

I apologize for my frankness, but anyone with a basic sense of decency and half a brain would no doubt regard Israel's three-day attack of the Gaza strip as an act of unconscionable barbarism. There simply is no justification whatsoever for the carnage that Israel has wrought in Gaza, a region of the world that on the best of days is mired in state-manufactured misery. This weekend's attack is widely considered to be Israel's most brutal act of violence against the Palestinians in decades and perhaps since the beginning of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. The rockets fired from Gaza that Israel's leadership are supposedly so concerned about are makeshift, amateur weapons that do little damage. 16 Israelis have been killed by rockets fired from Gaza over the past several years, a significant number, but still just 5% of the casualties suffered by the Palestinians over the past three days. Also, we cannot look at the launching of these rockets in a vacuum without considering the context of the situation. According to Dr. Moussa El-Haddad, a retired physician and resident of Gaza City, Israel and Hamas had been in a military ceasefire for months in late 2008. For one and a half months of the ceasefire, Israel has blockaded Gaza, preventing food, fuel, medicine, and other essential supplies from reaching the 300-square mile strip, home to nearly 1.5 million people. Despite this blockade, which is without a doubt a form of collective punishment and a severe war crime, Hamas kept to the ceasefire. It was only in response to renewed Israeli military actions in the strip, which resulted in the deaths of 23 people, that Hamas began firing rockets into Southern Israel. In other words, the rocket fire was an act of resistance by a beleaguered and desperate people who were suffering unbearable cruelty at the hands of Israel.

Furthermore, the events which have taken place subsequent to the initiation of the Israeli bombing campaign demonstrate that the government of Israel is more concerned with killing Palestinians than with the security of its own population. As Noam Chomsky often points out, Israel's colonial, expansionist operations in the Palestinian territories, which they have carried out since 1967, are not designed to enhance the security of the Israeli civilian population. Rather, they are a threat to their security, as they provoke resistance from the indigenous Palestinian population. This fact is obvious to the Israeli armed forces and its state planners. Thus, the logical and almost certainly predicted reaction to Israel's bombing of the strip has been an intensification of Hamas rocket fire into Israel, which has penetrated deeper than ever into the heart of the country and led to several Israeli injuries.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni claims that Hamas is to blame for the violence because they initiated the fighting by firing rockets into Southern Israel. The actual time line of events, which I laid out above, illustrate that her claim is patently ridiculous. Furthermore, she has claimed that Hamas is to blame for the civilian casualties because they located their military targets in close proximity to Israeli population centers. George Orwell would doubtlessly point out that anyone who believes such nonsense is engaging in a spectacular form of "doublethink". When civilians died during the September 11th terrorist attacks on the Pentagon in the United States, did anyone claim that the fault for the civilian deaths lay with the U.S. government for placing a military base so close to a major urban area? Of course not! Moreover, as Doctor Mustafa Barghouti pointed out on Democracy Now today, Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the entire world, a situation for which Israel is entirely responsible (80% of its residents are refugees). Any attack on a military compound is thus inevitably going to cause civilian deaths. Finally, Israel's claim that they are attacking solely military targets is quite dubious. Among the supposedly "military targets" attacked by Israel are mosques, a female dormitory at the Islamic University in Gaza, and a house in the Jabaliya refugee camp. In attacking the house in Jabaliya, the Israeli air force killed 5 sisters and severely injured their mother.

Another vital point which cannot be stressed enough is that Israel's terrorist attack on the people of Gaza over the weekend is but one in a series of attacks that this population has suffered since 1967 and particularly since 2005, when Palestinians went to the polls and democratically elected the wrong political party. As Ali Abunimah, founder of Electronic Intifada points out,

orders over the past few months to withhold insulin, chemotherapy drugs, dialysis supplies, all forms of medicine from the people of Gaza, were just as lethal and just as murderous as the orders to send in the bombers and warplanes to attack mosques, to attack universities.

By pounding Gaza with rockets, choking off its population from basic supplies, and imposing a ruthless Apartheid system in the West Bank that surpasses in cruelty anything accomplished by the racist white regime in South Africa, Israel is, in the words of Noam Chomsky, attempting to kill a nation. Those of us who stand by and do nothing are enabling an atrocity with few precedents in modern history. It's no surprise, therefore, that many Palestinians have referred to the Gaza bombing as an act of genocide and an attempted holocaust against their people.

As an American, what is most disappointing about this whole situation is the role of the United States. As in all of Israel's atrocities, the United States is never the innocent bystander or neutral broker it claims to be. Rather, our government, using our tax dollars, is nearly always a major supporter of Israeli aggression. If the United States did not support Israel's actions, both diplomatically and financially, it is doubtful that it would be able to behave in such a way. George Bush's statements are of course repulsive but highly expected from a radical rightist with close ties to the oil and defense industries. However, the statements by David Axelrod and in particular, our supposedly liberal speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, are unbelievably disappointing. The continued support for Israeli crimes from both political parties is a reflection of the immense strategic significance of Israel as a client state for the American Empire (in Noam Chomsky's words, our "cop on the beat" in the Middle East)and its status as a major source of profits for our vast and deadly military industrial complex, among other industries. It's not a coincidence that Israel is bombing Gaza with American-designed F-16s and our political leadership is bending over backwards to support them. There are powerful, established interests which benefit from American-sponsored, Israeli violence. Nonetheless, as people of conscience and as citizens of the United States, it is our responsibility to confront these interests and demand an end to American support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine. It will be incredibly difficult, but not impossible and not without precedent. Powerful strategic and economic interests in the United States supported the Apartheid regime in South Africa but widespread citizen activism nonetheless succeeded in compelling Congress to pass the Anti-Apartheid act in 1986, over the objection of President Reagan. Sanctions from the United States and other powerful nations were integral to the defeat of the Apartheid system. I agree with Ali Abunimah that Israel's massacre in Gaza calls for the emergence of a second anti-Apartheid movement in the U.S., this time against Israel. Citizen activism is the only way the Israeli occupation will be eliminated and citizens in the United States, the most powerful state in the world and the chief supporter of Israeli aggression, must play a central role in this struggle.

Bush administration: putting a hit on a key witness?

I'm not sure what it's like in other countries, but here in the United States we love a good organized crime story. The Sicilian/Italian Mafia is endlessly glorified in American popular culture. And who could blame Hollywood for doing so? Let's face it, fictionalized criminal conspiracies make for good entertainment. Two of the best television programs to come out in recent years, The Sopranos and The Wire, deal explicitly with organized crime, the former with the Mafia in Northern New Jersey and the latter with African American drug organizations in Baltimore.

In The Wire, The Sopranos, and other fictionalized representations of organized crime, members of criminal syndicates constantly fear that one of their own might "flip" and divulge details of their criminal behavior to the authorities. Faced with such a threat, the syndicate is forced to kill the perceived informant or risk the demise of the entire organization. Examples from the terrific tv series mentioned above abound. Who could forget the tragic, dramatic turn of events from Season 2 of The Sopranos when Paulie, Silvio, and Tony had to kill their lifelong friend and associate, Salvatore "Big Pussy" Bonpensiero, upon learning he was an FBI informant? Similarly, fans of The Wire no doubt recall when Stringer Bell, interim head of the Barksdale drug organization, had D'Angelo killed in season 2 for fear that he might flip in the future. Such scenes are heartbreaking, but logical, reflecting the harsh realities of organized crime.

All kidding and entertainment aside, it appears possible that the Bush administration has borrowed a play from the Soprano and Barksdale playbook and had a potential informant eliminated to protect its criminal enterprise. Though the analogy with the Stringer's hit on D'Angelo in The Wire is likely more apt than the Sopranos case: there's little chance the leadership of the Bush crime family had the kind of direct involvement in their hit that Tony, Paulie, and Silvio had. Now what, you might be asking, am I babbling about? I'm talking about the case of Michael Connell, a Republican operative and Karl Rove's former IT guru who mysteriously died last week in a plane crash.

For those who don't know, Connell was a computer expert who designed software for a variety of elections, including the official Ohio vote tabulation software for the presidential election in 2004. According to Mark Crispin Miller, the software designed by Connell was instrumental in allowing George W. Bush to steal the election in Ohio and thus win reelection to the Presidency. He was also apparently involved in the 2002 Alabama gubernatorial race, in which the Republicans may have stolen the election from Governor Mike Siegelman. If you haven't heard of Connell, don't feel bad, he and the allegations against him have received basically no coverage in the mainstream press. As for the mechanics of the program he designed to commit election fraud, I'm a little hazy on the specifics, but the method is called "Man in the Middle". Essentially, he designed a program whereby the election results were "shunted" to another computer and then back to the secretary of State. Many believe the only purpose of such an arrangement is to commit fraud. After the election, Connell's "Man in the Middle" scheme caught the ire of Stephen Spoonamore, an expert on computer fraud and a lifelong Republican. Spoonamore successfully got the state of Ohio to hear a RICO, or racketeering, case against Connell and his company, GovTech Solutions, for allegedly fixing the Ohio presidential election. After much delay, Connell agreed testify as part of the RICO case. However, according to his lawyer, he and his wife repeatedly received threats from Karl Rove, who warned that they could suffer if they didn't "take the fall" in the RICO case.

Fast forward to last Friday, when Connell died in a plane crash in Akron, Ohio. Immediately after the crash, several stories were circulated which advanced possible explanations. However, Mark Crispin Miller, who was interviewed by Amy Goodman on yesterday's Democracy Now, claims that many of these claims were dubious:

I think we’re obliged to investigate this thing very, very thoroughly. And that means, first of all, taking a close look at some of the stories that were immediately circulated to account for what happened, that it was bad weather. That was the line they used when Wellstone’s plane went down. There had been bad weather, but it had passed two hours before. And this comes from a woman at the airport information desk in Akron. We’re told that his plane was running out of gas, which is a little bit odd for a highly experienced pilot like Connell, but apparently, when the plane went down, there was an explosion, a fireball that actually charred and pocked some of the house fronts in the neighborhood.

So basically, we have a situation in which a key witness in a case that could reveal that the Bush administration stole the 2004 election dies in a plane crash, despite the fact that he's an expert pilot. Further, his death occurred in the context of repeated threats by Karl Rove against him and his family, at least according to his lawyer. Now maybe I'm crazy and I watch too much tv. Maybe it's just a big coincidence that Connell, a key witness who was set to testify, ended up dead before the trial. But after eight years of Bush, I have grown suspicious of anything and everything these guys do. There's pretty much nothing I wouldn't put past them. Thus, I have a feeling they may have had their hand in this death. If not, maybe the stress of the case and the threats against him by Rove led him to suicide. Now, I know these are explosive accusations but if I've drawn false conclusions in this case, the Bush administration has only themselves to blame. Let's face it, this situation reeks of a Soprano/Barksdale style hit against a potential informant. I won't change my beliefs until I've seen unimpeachable evidence which proves otherwise.