Hi, Barret - Good points herein, but I don't think it's quite right for us. LM

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Barrett Brown<barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

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.