Subject: Re: Query from Barrett Brown (Vanity Fair, HuffPo, Onion)
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
Date: 8/30/09, 18:23
To: Luke Mitchell <luke@harpers.org>

Hi, Luke-

I wanted to see if you might be interested in this piece I've just written on Oliver North's defense of civilian contractors in Human Events. I've pasted the piece below.

Thanks,

Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302

One Cat, Two Cats, Red Cat, Oliver North is a Fascist Nut

Oliver North is upset. It seems that the Pentagon's increasing reliance on civilian contractors has been receiving a minor degree of scrutiny as of late, a development he characterizes as involving "threats of inquisitions," which is literally true insomuch as that Congress will perhaps make some inquiries into the matter. Naturally, North has been adverse to congressional oversight ever since Congress forced him to lie about the crimes he had committed in service to what he once called the "neat idea" of selling weapons to Iran. He is no big fan of the media, either; both, North says, are today motivated by some sort of sinister pacifism. "Disparaging and de-funding civilian contractors is just one more way of disarming America," he explains in the pages of Human Events, itself reportedly the favorite magazine of the president who once fired him.

Now, one might point out that objections to private suppliers of men and arms are nothing new and have in fact been made by several prominent American statesmen who obviously had no desire to see American disarmed, and that such a fact would certainly seem to refute the argument that those who make such objections are necessarily seeking to disarm America. In fact, I was planning to point this out myself - but for some bizarre reason, North beats me to it:

In the opening days of World War II, then Sen. Harry Truman became famous for threatening to “lock up” civilian contractors for producing sub-par munitions, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower ominously warned against the threat of a “military-industrial complex.”

So after setting out to establish that those who criticize contractors are wacky peace creeps, North cites the Supreme Commander of the Alllied Forces in Europe and the fellow who dropped two atom bombs on Japan as having criticized contractors. This is a very interesting strategy, akin to claiming that all cats are red and then backing up one's assertion by pointing out two cats who are blue. But North, who no doubt thinks his argument is going very well at this point, suddenly decides that what he's actually arguing is that the two blue cats were only somewhat blue and thus don't count, but that other, bluer cats may be found today:

However, [the anti-contractor rhetoric of Eisenhower and Truman] is pale by comparison to the viscera now being aimed at civilian contractors supporting the campaigns in the land between the Tigris and Euphrates and in the shadow of the Hindu Kush.

Our colonel does not cite any examples of these mainstream objections which he deems so much more critical than Eisenhower's characterization of the military-industrial complex as something we must guard against lest "the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes," itself about as critical as critical gets. He doesn't cite any mainstream objections of a more critical nature because they don't exist; in order to top Eisenhower's warning, a fellow would basically have to claim that civilian contractors are secretly assembling a nuclear arsenal with which to destroy the world in service to some ancient Sumerian deity. Though he can't actually identify any of these terrible things that have been said about our nation's apple-cheeked mercenaries, North knows exactly who's been saying them.

“Contractor” is the new “dirty word” in the so-called mainstream media - and in Washington.

Of course, contractor is also a dirty word among some military men, including several I have spoken to over the years, but North's policy has always been to portray Washington and the media as being in effeminate opposition to members of the armed services, who must always be in agreement with himself. At any rate, North claims that the non-existent objections that are somehow more serious than Eisenhower's meta-objection are leading to some unprecedented and disheartening trends at the Pentagon:

In April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans to hire 30,000 additional DoD employees to cut the percentage of work being done by contractors. The FY 2010 Defense Budget request replaces nearly 14,000 contractor personnel with government employees - even though the “lifetime cost” - counting government benefits and retirement - will more than double the expense to American taxpayers.

So, in the midst of two wars and numerous operations elsewhere, the Department of Defense hires 30,000 employees who will be entirely accountable to the Department of Defense and our nation's rules of engagement rather than to Blackwater (which, of course, has now changed its name to "Xe" lest it be associated with itself), and suddenly North is worried that too much money is being spent on the military. Here's a fun little parlor game: try to find an instance besides this in which North has expressed concern about excessive military spending. And here's a fun little parlor game that you can actually win: Google "Oliver North military spending" and click on the first link that comes up, which itself turns out to be a Fox News article North wrote just a few months ago in which he calls on the federal government to increase military spending:

But the Obama administration and their supporters on Capitol Hill need to understand that when it comes to spending, there are few things government can do that has a more immediate, positive effect on jobs and the overall the economy than expenditures on national defense.

Good point, Ollie. Perhaps the DoD could hire 30,000 new employees to assist with the national defense. It might just be crazy enough to work.

Like any truly mediocre thinker, North does not anticipate the obvious counterpoint to his sudden and disingenuous call for fiscal restraint via increased mercenary deployment - the counterpoint that price-gouging, late deliveries, and shoddy worksmanship on the part of his beloved contractors have already cost the American taxpayer billions in wasted dollars, with a few of these incidents having resulted in injuries and even deaths among our troops. Here is a man who cannot see two steps ahead of his own argument and who does not seem to recall things he himself wrote months ago or even just a few sentences prior, as if he were a goldfish with thumbs and a keyboard and a crack pipe that somehow works underwater.

North is not content to assail the federal government for doing what he recently told it to do or to blast the mainstream media for things it hasn't actually done - he is also compelled to attack the media for failing to report things that it has in fact reported countless times:

Though it’s unlikely to make the lead story in any of the mainstream media, contractors are performing tasks that U.S. government entities either cannot do - or that cannot be done as economically.

Ready for another parlor game? Google "civilian contractors Iraq" without quotes and read the two mainstream news stories that immediately come up. The first of these is a CBS report from 2006 in which several contractors are interviewed about the risks they faced in Iraq and the injuries that their swell employers have refused to treat. The second is a CNN piece from 2004 that explains everything North says is unlikely to be explained about the important role that contractors can serve in U.S. military operations, and does so without a single word of criticism. Spend a few more minutes searching and you'll find other stories in the same vein, all written and published within the purview of the mainstream media, no doubt by accident.

There are legitimate reasons for the Pentagon to employ civilian contractors and outside firms to assist with a variety of tasks both at home and abroad; there are also legitimate reasons to call attention to the problems that have come up as a result. But there is no legitimate reason to cry "dolchstoss" each time serious concerns are voiced by the media, our elected representatives, or even members of the military; to deem such objections as being motivated by hatred for the armed forces or by a desire to see American disarmed, one would have to be an ignorant crypto-fascist like Oliver North. That lets Oliver North off the hook, of course.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Luke Mitchell <luke@harpers.org> wrote:
Dear Barrett -

Thanks for the look. I am always glad to mock religion, of course, but
I don't think this one is right for us. Best of luck with the piece,
though, and thanks again for thinking of Harper's.

All best,

Luke

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Barrett Brown<barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
> Luke-
>
>  I wanted to check to see if you'd be interested in a piece I just wrote,
> perhaps for use on the Harper's website. I currently serve as a contributor
> to Vanity Fair, The Huffington Post, Skeptic, and The Onion, and my other
> work has appeared in dozens of publications including National Lampoon,
> McSweeney's, American Atheist, and nerve.com. My first book Flock of Dodos:
> Behind Modern Creationism, Intelligent Design, and the Easter Bunny was
> released in 2007 (with a back-cover blurb from Matt Taibbi, among others);
> my second is set for publication next year. I also serve as director of
> communications for Enlighten the Vote (formerly known as GAMPAC), a
> political action committee dedicated to advancing the Establishment Clause
> as well as providing support to atheist candidates for public office. I've
> appeared on Fox News and other, more reasonable outlets.
>
> The article in question is pasted below; it's an allegedly humorous
> narrative of my experiences with posing as a devout Muslim on the internet.
> Let me know if this interests you or if you might like to receive other
> queries from me in the future.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Barrett Brown
> Brooklyn, NY
> 512-560-2302
>
> Confessions of a Phony Internet Muslim
>
>
>      It was never my intention to be an atheist. For one thing, atheism is
> impolite; intentionally or not, denying society's gods is a reproach to
> society itself. The wise man economizes his reproachfulness.
>
>     Worse, atheism is boring. An atheist can dream of space elevators that
> would allow us to mine the moon and self-replicating nanobots that could
> till the soil in places where food would not have grown previously, but so
> can a Christian, and Wiccans can have nightmares about such things.
> Meanwhile, the Christian also awaits Christ, the Muslim awaits the Mahdi,
> and the Jew awaits the Messiah which hopefully does not turn out to be
> Christ or the Mahdi.
>
>     So I decided to take a vacation from atheism. But eating acid at the
> Vatican was out of the question for a number of reasons, largely financial.
> Actually becoming religious would be somewhat problematic insomuch as that I
> serve as director of communications for a pro-atheist political action
> committee. Instead, then, I created an alter-ego for myself, becoming a
> devout Muslim going by the name of Ali Desu Hussein. And then I got on the
> internet.
>
>     My intention was to argue with Christians as a Muslim. This is harder
> than it sounds. Mostly, I got myself banned from Christian message boards
> immediately after posting the following:
>
> In the name of the Prophet, peace be upon him-
>
> I have come to bring you the truth of Islam, the religion of peace. Surely
> does the world itself cry out to you in testimony of this truth, but just as
> surely do its cries fall on deaf ears. Surely does the breath of Allah move
> over the waters, and just as surely does the Christian believe this to be
> the breath of Jesus, when, after all, it was Allah, as noted above. Surely
> surely surely.
>
>    But I wanted to have a dialogue, not simply to immediately convert others
> to Islam by way of such theological magic bullets as the message above. My
> Islamic Mr. Hyde would need a YouTube account.
>
>     YouTube, like the internet at large, is what the Holy Land would have
> been like during the Crusades if everyone in the Holy Land had too much free
> time on their hands. Groups once relatively isolated from each other now
> mingle freely, if unproductively. Evangelicals of a certain sort post
> damning animated narratives of Mormon theology which, sadly, are largely
> accurate; Muslims of a certain sort post clips of talking lions who are
> apparently Muslims themselves; Jews of a certain sort post videos of other
> Jews speaking at great length about something which I'm not entirely clear
> on because it is boring and I turned it off.
>
>     Then, there is the infinite debate over the infinite. Now was my chance
> to truly play the role of the believer, to walk a mile in the shoes of
> someone sitting at their computer in bare feet. I didn't have a camera, but
> this was probably for the best insomuch as that I would have had to pick up
> a lot of empty beer bottles and move them out of the way, and I'd just
> recently gotten them all organized the way I like them. But visuals are
> unnecessary anyway; aside from videos and video responses, YouTube
> theologians also ply their ancient trade by way of old-fashioned text, which
> was sufficient for their predecessors, particularly when coupled with the
> sword.
>
>     If I was to do the work of Allah on as grand a scale as I was planning,
> allies would be needed. Luckily, I came across TheFollower72, a fellow
> Muslim who appeared to be quite active in his own social network
> proselytizing insomuch as that his user page was heavy on comments left by
> others. But all was not well. One exuberant YouTuber had posted the message,
> "Go Christianity!!!" Clearly, my new friend was under virtual siege by some
> virtual Tueton. And there seemed to be treachery afoot even from our own
> alleged brethren; one user calling himself AyatollahKhomeini123 had left the
> following warning: "Please block and delete the user who is going around by
> the name of bakhtash. He is an evil munafiq akhee, and a shahan shahi
> royalist pig who has disguised himself as a Moslem but in reality he is a
> back stabber who be-friends with you making you thinik he is a moslem and
> then stabs you by revealing his own true identity as an anti Islam. Down
> with bakhtash. Allah o Akbar. Khomeini Rahbar." But the plot thickened;
> bakhtash himself had left this similar warning: "Please block and delete the
> users and comments that are only negative against Islam and or are
> hypocritical!, the false user 'AyatollahKhomeini123' is a munafiq akhee, he
> is a shahan shahi royalist pig whom in this account does a lot of bad
> things!"
>
>     It was clear that I couldn't trust even my alleged coreligionists; any
> one of them could be a royalist pig or even a false Muslim. I would have to
> be a false Muslim on my own. I resolved to face this task with all the
> bravery of a talking lion.
>
>      My next move was to contact the YouTube account of the Worldwide Church
> of God, a Christian sect founded by Herbert Armstrong, himself one of the
> most prominent prophets of the mid-20th century. I left a friendly message
> and got a similarly friendly response: "Greetings Friends! Praise the Lord
> Brethren and may God Bless the United States of America!" So far, so good.
> But then another, more traditional Christian intervened lest I eventually be
> converted to Lord Bretherenism or what have you. "Bro, the Worldwide Church
> of God is a dangerous cult," he explained. "This Herbert guy you are
> speaking to talks to the dead do not listen to him." This didn't bother me;
> if I was actually speaking with "this Herbert guy," then I, too, talk to the
> dead insomuch as that Herbert Armstrong died in 1986; it would be
> hypocritical of me to think less of him for doing the same thing. Also, I'd
> already made cruel fun of Armstrong in an article I'd written concerning the
> history of Evangelical prophecy, so it would have been awkward to speak with
> him further anyway, dead or not. Plus I'm just kind of neurotic.
>
>     It was time to approach the resident atheists, so I posted a couple of
> comments on their videos to the effect that Islam is the way and the light
> and whatnot. This turned out to be a mistake; atheists can be very, uh,
> prolific. One non-believer left three long messages on my user page in quick
> succession, each filled with grandiloquent denunciations of the one true
> faith. "We are apostates of Islam," wrote a user named CrissyFrog. "We
> denounce Islam as a false doctrine of hate and terror... We strive to bring
> the Muslims into the fold of humanity. Eradicate Islam so our people can be
> liberated, so they can prosper and break away from the pillory of Islam...
> Quran is replete with scientific heresies, historic blunders, mathematical
> mistakes, logical absurdities, grammatical errors and ethical fallacies. It
> is badly compiled and it contradicts itself. There is nothing intelligent in
> this book let alone miraculous." I realized I was bored, having accidentally
> encountered my own opinion.
>
>     But the ultimate cyber-novelty was still to be had - I would allow
> myself to be converted from Islam to Christianity. Covertly, I began
> interviewing candidates, finally deciding upon a fellow going by the handle
> of ps35ffi. The exchange went as follows:
>
> ps35ffi: Who was Jesus? What does the Koran say about him? That he was a
> prophet? What does the Koran say about it's prophets?
>
> AliDesuHussein: Qur'an says many things about the prophets my friend, but
> most important to know is that Muhammed (peace be upon him) is final
> prophet:
>
> 1. Allah
> 2. ???
> 3. Prophet!
>
> [Note: The Reader may recognize that bit as having been derived from an old
> South Park episode. Or the Reader may not, in which case it is mine.]
>
> ps35ffi: Does it not say that what the prophets say is Allah's word and
> should be obeyed?
>
> AliDesuHussein: Absolutely my friend, it does.
>
> ps35ffi: Ok my friend. Yeshua said I am the way the truth and the life, no
> one cometh to the Father but by me.
>
> AliDesuHussein: where does it say this?
>
> ps35ffi: In my text, it's in John 14.6
>
>     That, I decided, was enough evidence for Ali Desu Hussein. I sent my new
> spiritual advisor a private message to the effect that I was going to need
> to think very heavily on these matters. He was clearly pleased.
>
>     And thus it was that I gave this fellow a gift beyond measure: the
> belief that he had managed to win over a religious enemy to his own, true
> faith. Overcoming the bad manners inherent to my atheism, I had performed
> the greatest act of politeness that the world had seen since Christ. Then I
> pirated a bunch of games.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>