This threat is already well covered in my new Liberal Street Tactics website, on page 234.
A website so secret that even I am unaware of the URL.
Check out these excerpts from page 234: “. . . and the emerging threat of microwave beam cannons, which are designed to sweep across an assembled crowd, briefly heating each individual’s skin temperature by about five degrees Farenheit, which results in extreme discomfort to severe pain. The biggest risk from exposure to these crowd control weapons is heating of the liquid within the human eyeball. While the heat added to human skin dissipates almost instantly, it can take the eyeballs several minutes to cool to body norms, which carries a risk of scarring and clouding of the retina, especially if contact lenses or eyeglasses are worn.”
“The weak point of these microwave weapons is their huge onboard generator, which is easily disabled by . . . (snip some rather explosive commentary here) . . . are simply not a problem for prepared personnel, since the effects of the microwave ray are easily warded off by the use of aluminum or tinfoil hats and umbrellas, or cardboard shields covered in aluminum foil.”
And let’s see, there’s some more stuff on the page here about winning hearts and minds, high speed projectiles, social networking with police, household incendiaries, handling the media, and making smudge pots but the gist of it is to use metallic reflectors and always — always — charge the barricades.
Wow, this is a great website. I hope I can find it again.
Anyhoo, these microwave cannons only got a Liberal Street rating of 2.1 on a ten point scale, so don’t sweat it.
But don’t leave the house without your aluminum foil.

Posted by: Antifa | Sep 13 2006 6:27 utc | 4

Zbig:“Victory Would be a Fata Morgana”
Brzezinski, my favourite pin-up boy, ( yeah, hand me those darts, will ya,) interviewed by Speigel.
Its quite long and I was just going to post excerpts, but there’s something for everyone in this.

“Victory Would be a Fata Morgana”
Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski discusses the errors committed by the Bush administration in its war on terror, the disastrous campaign in Iraq, and the risks of a global uprising against inequality.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, 78, served as National Security Advisor to US President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981. Today he is Professor of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and an advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, DC.
SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, President Bush compares the dangers of terrorism with the dangers of the Cold War. He has even spoken repeatedly of a “nation at war” and will only accept “complete victory.” Is he right or is he using exaggerated rhetoric?
Brzezinski: He is fundamentally wrong. Whether that is deliberate demagoguery or simply historical ignorance, I do not know. For four years I was responsible for coordinating the U.S. response in the event of a nuclear attack. And I can assure you that a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union on a comprehensive scale would have killed 160 to 180 million people within 24 hours.
No terrorist threat is comparable to that in the foreseeable future. Moreover, terrorism is essentially a technique of killing people and not the enemy as such. If one wages war on an invisible, unidentifiable phantom, one gets into a state of mind that virtually promotes dangerous exaggerations and distortions of reality.
SPIEGEL: What are these distortions?
Brzezinski: After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States was energetic and determined, and during the 40 years of the Cold War it was patient and deliberate. In neither case did any U.S. president intentionally preach fear as the major message to the people – on the contrary.
With his very loose formulations, the president is now creating a climate of fear that is destructive for American morale and distorting of American policy.
SPIEGEL: Is fear, as at the thought of a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, not something very natural?
Brzezinski: Certainly, such a notion is not entirely unrealistic, but on the other hand we are not confronted with the Soviet nuclear weapons arsenal. I do not wish to minimize the danger of a single or even multiple terrorist acts, but their scale is simply not comparable.
SPIEGEL: Yet sometimes the discussions, in the United States but also in Europe, create the impression that radical Islam has taken the place of the former Soviet Union and that some form of Cold War is continuing.
Brzezinski: Radical Islam is such an anonymous phenomenon that has arisen in some countries and not in others. It has to be taken seriously, but it is still only a regional danger most prevalent in the Middle East and somewhat east of the Middle East. And even in those regions, Islamic fundamentalists are not in the majority.
SPIEGEL: Fear-mongering is therefore not a valid response?
Brzezinski: We have to formulate a policy for this region which helps us to mobilize our potential friends. Only if we cooperate with them can we contain and eventually eliminate this phenomenon. It is a paradox: During the Cold War, our policy was directed at uniting our friends and dividing our enemies. Unfortunately our tactics today, including occasional Islamphobic language, have the tendency of unifying our enemies and alienating our friends.
SPIEGEL: So it is exaggerated rhetoric which ensures that Osama bin Laden is elevated to the level of a Mao or Stalin?
Brzezinski: Correct. And that is of course a distortion of reality – notwithstanding the fact that bin Laden is a killer. He is a criminal and should be presented as such, and not intentionally elevated into a globally significant leader of a transnational, quasi-religious movement.
SPIEGEL: Has there been any progress at all in the fight against terrorism for the past five years?
Brzezinski: Yes and no. Knock on wood. So far, there has been no repetition of a terrorist attack in the United States, and that – as was the case with the recent plot in London – is probably partly due to preventive measures we have taken.
Also, there is a growing realization among the modern elites in the Moslem world that Islamic terrorism is a threat to them as well – but it is a slow process. Moreover, this process has been handicapped, as with our invasion of Iraq, which has galvanized a lot of hostility in the Islamic world towards the United States. Our insensitive and ambiguous posture in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is also a very important reason for the hostility towards us. All this helps terrorism.
SPIEGEL: Is complete victory, as demanded by the president, actually possible?
Brzezinski: That depends on your definition of victory. If we act intelligently and form the necessary coalitions, the appeal of terrorism may diminish and limit its capacity to find sympathizers or even would-be martyrs. Then it will probably gradually fade away. If, however, we envision victory as the equivalent of a Hitler shooting himself in the bunker, that will not happen. This is precisely why the whole analogy with the war is so misleading. It is not helpful for making the public understand that we are dealing with a long-term problem in a very volatile region, the solution of which depends on mobilizing moderate forces and isolating fanatics.
SPIEGEL: What advantages does President Bush see in his war rhetoric?
Brzezinski: First of all it helped him get reelected – a nation at war does not dismiss its commander in chief. Secondly it enhances his ability to exercise his executive powers on a scale no other president before him has done. This of course brings risks with it, such as the infringement of civil rights. And, it gives him the claim that he can use the U.S. Armed Forces as he wishes, even without congressional sanction involving a declaration of war.
SPIEGEL: Is there an inherent danger for democracy?
Brzezinski: In the long run, yes. However, democracy is ingrained so deeply in the psyche and fabric of American society that such a threat could only arise if such a president were able to implement such policies over a prolonged period of time. But Bush cannot be reelected. Therefore it will all be over in two and a half years.
SPIEGEL: European politicians have never accepted the concept of a war on terror. Furthermore, there are fierce differences concerning interrogation techniques or prison camps such as Guantanamo. Given such diverse opinions, how can the United States and Europe cooperate at all?
Brzezinski: This is exactly what makes it so difficult to deal with the problem collectively. However, realistically one also has to take into consideration that there is, in a quiet way, extensive cooperation, especially among our police forces. But precisely this cooperation reflects the realization that fighting terrorism is ultimately an operation against criminal behavior. Although I share Europe’s criticism about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the mistreatment and even torture of prisoners, Europeans should in their indignation not lose sight of their own past – not the Germans, but also not the French, who have had extensive experience in the Algerian war.
SPIEGEL: The U.S. administration has declared Iraq the central front in the war on terror, but instead of disseminating democracy, Iraq today serves as a magnet for new terrorists. How can the United States extricate itself from its own trap?
Brzezinski: We should neither run nor should we seek a victory, which essentially would be a fata morgana. We have to talk seriously with the Iraqis about a jointly set withdrawal date for the occupation forces and then announce the date jointly. After all, the presence of these forces fuels the insurgency. We will then find that those Iraqi leaders who agree to a withdrawal within a year or so are the politicians who will stay there. Those who will plead with us, please, don’t go, are probably the ones who will leave with us when we leave. That says everything we need to know about the true support Iraqi politicians have.
SPIEGEL: Would such a rapid withdrawal not leave chaos behind?
Brzezinski: The Iraqi government would have to invite all Islamic neighbors, as far as Pakistan and Morocco, for a stabilization conference. Most are willing to help. And when the United States leaves, it will have to convene a conference of those donor countries that have a stake in the economic recovery of Iraq, in particular the oil production. That is foremost a concern of Europe and the Far East.
SPIEGEL: The donor conference will take place in the fall anyway.
Brzezinski: Yes, but I doubt that it will create much enthusiasm as long as U.S. soldiers are in the country indefinitely. Incidentally, this is not just my argument. All this corresponds almost verbatim with the proposals of the new Iraqi security advisor.
SPIEGEL: Opponents of a rapid withdrawal make the case that the sectarian war between Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis would become even more violent than it is already.
Brzezinski: Everyone who knows the history of occupying armies knows that foreign armed forces are not very effective in repressing armed resistance, insurgencies, national liberation movements, whatever one wants to call it. They are after all foreigners, do not understand the country and do not have access to the intelligence needed. That is the situation we are in. Moreover, there is this vicious circle inasmuch as even professional occupying armies become demoralized in time, which leads to acts of violence against the civilian population and thus strengthens resistance. Iraqis can deal with religiously motivated violence in their country much better than Americans from several thousand kilometers away.
SPIEGEL: So there is no alternative to troop withdrawal, even if there is an initial escalation of violence?
Brzezinski: Iraqis are not primitive people who need American colonial tutelage to resolve their problems.
SPIEGEL: In reality, isn’t the president worried that Iraq will fail to become the model democracy he envisages after the Americans have left?
Brzezinski: That’s for sure, and therefore any attempt to seek his definition of victory is pure fantasy. Still, there will be a government dominated by Kurds and Shiites, and some Sunni elements. That in itself is already an improvement compared to the regime of Saddam Hussein and therefore at least a partial success.
SPIEGEL: Are you sure that a religious civil war can still be prevented?
Brzezinski: Of course I cannot be sure. But was de Gaulle sure when he decided that it would be fine for France to end the Algerian war? Everybody around him warned him of the terrible consequences of his decision.
SPIEGEL: Are you not afraid that such a religious conflict could ignite the whole region?
Brzezinski: Quite the contrary. The longer we stay the more likely it will ignite. The fact is that we have been there for three years and the situation today is a lot worse than it was then. At least logically, there is some evidence to support my proposition.
SPIEGEL: Bush presented the “axis of evil” to the world. Did he not make it all too easy for himself by simply attacking the least dangerous part of this axis?
Brzezinski: Yes, Iraq was not dangerous. North Korea and Iran seem to presently be very calculating. However, Iran is a genuinely historic nation that has to play an important role in the region. My guess is that Iran will find some form of accommodation with the rest of the world, at least easier to achieve than for North Korea.
SPIEGEL: If negotiations with Iran fail, will America intervene militarily?
Brzezinski: There are some members of the administration who favor that. However, in view of the experiences in Iraq I consider it more likely that the government, together with its allies, will impose significant sanctions, which then have to be given a few years to show effects, which makes it highly unlikely that Bush will be the one to undertake such a dangerous course of action.
SPIEGEL: What would be the consequences of such an attack?
Brzezinski: The Iranians have a number of options open to them. Among them is the destabilization of Iraq and the western part of Afghanistan as well as the everpresent option of activating Hezbollah in Lebanon. They could cut down oil production, damage the Saudi oil production and threaten the passage of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz – with all the devastating consequences for the world economy. They could of course also accelerate the production of weapons of mass destruction, which then quite possibly would lead to renewed and more comprehensive military attacks – a vicious circle.
SPIEGEL: You said that the United States needs solid European counsel to avoid an unrealistic view of the world. Is Europe even in the position to give such counsel?
Brzezinski: In the Middle East, the United States is unintentionally slipping into the role of a colonial power, repetitive of extensive European experiences. A combination of self-interest, a sense of mission and an arrogant ignorance resulted in Americans doing what they do right now. Because Britain and France have had the same experiences in the past, they have a better sense for the fact that the American course in the Middle East is a political mistake and, in the long run, also dangerous for America. In the short run, it damages America’s principles and its international legitimacy.
SPIEGEL: Do you really believe that this is the kind of advice the British Prime Minister Tony Blair delivers to Bush?
Brzezinski: It is what he should deliver. But I think the British made a decision after the Suez crisis in 1956 to never again collide with the United States and to achieve an alternative source of global influence by becoming America’s closest partner.
SPIEGEL: There is fear in Europe that Bush could return to unilateralism should he regain his freedom of action in foreign policy.
Brzezinski: For that, he would miraculously have to achieve his phantom-like victory. But that recedes ever farther. It is exactly like it was with the Soviets, who used to insist that the victory of socialism was just over the horizon, overlooking the fact that the horizon is an imaginary line which recedes farther as you walk towards it. Moreover, in two and a half years he will no longer be president, and no successor will want to embrace the slogans and demagoguery of the past three years.
SPIEGEL: Are there any conditions under which America could lose its current political supremacy?
Brzezinski: One would only have to continue the current policies and, also, in future not give a serious response to increasingly louder complaints of global inequality. We are now dealing with a far more politically active mankind that demands a collective response to their grievances from the West.
SPIEGEL: Is your demand to eradicate global inequality not as illusionary as Bush’s demand that America free the world from evil?
Brzezinski: Achieving equality would indeed be an illusionary goal. Reducing inequality in the age of television and Internet may well become a political necessity. We are entering a historic stage in which people in China and India, but also in Nepal, in Bolivia or Venezuela will no longer tolerate the enormous disparities in the human condition. That could well be the collective danger we will have to face in the next decades.
SPIEGEL: You call it a “global political awakening.”
Brzezinski: Yes, and it is essentially a repetition, but now on a global scale, of the societal and political awakening that occurred in France at the time of the revolution. During the 19th century it spread through Europe and parts of the Western hemisphere, in the 20th century it reached Japan and finally China. Now it is sweeping the rest of the world.
SPIEGEL: The Islamic countries as well?
Brzezinski: Not really in the same way. It is a turbulent, multi-directional process which, however, is a challenge to global stability. If the United States, Europe and Japan, but also China, Russia and India cannot find a mechanism for effective global collaboration, we will slide into a growing global chaos, which will be fatal to American leadership. Therefore I consider the American leadership role vulnerable, but irreplaceable in the foreseeable future.

Brzezinski comes across as a thinking mans henry kissinger imo.. poker faced bald faced lies mixed with an eloquent and informed symapthy. the right hand man any despot might be delighted to employ.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 13 2006 10:19 utc | 6

A refreshing take on the current insanity, for which my warmest thanks, Uncle $cam.
But wait!…Are Brzezinski’s words about a “global political awakening” being picked up (and refracted) by that fun-house mirror in the Oval Office?
Peter Baker, in today’s WaPo, reports of comments from that quarter about a “Third Awakening”, a term meant to describe an ongoing, global, religious “awakening” after the pattern set by the followers of Jonathan Edwards (in Western Massachusetts during the 1740’s).
Weird words from the mouth of the Chimpanzee himself, who seems to think that he (along with bin Laden?) are channelling the collective mind of the whole wide world. Delusional grandiosity housed in a tiny, brain-damaged mind? Or did his speech-writers pick up Der Spiegel?…. Something of both, I suppose.

Posted by: alabama | Sep 13 2006 13:56 utc | 8

Bush told a group of conservative journalists that he notices more open expressions of faith among people he meets during his travels,…”
….
“He’s drawing a parallel in terms of a resurgence, in dangerous times, of people going back to their religion,” said one aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was not open to other journalists.

the “people he meets…”

Posted by: beq | Sep 13 2006 14:25 utc | 10

I hate to interrupt the flow of ideas here, but, what exactly is reification in the context of Billmon’s article. I read the wiki definition but I would like a concrete example followed by a more difficult one. As I understand it, reification is the process by which an abstract ideas is given material substance or some kind of material reality. From my reading of Bertrand Russell, the existance of the name implies the existance of the named. Can someone enlighten me on this please?

Posted by: Iron Butterfly | Sep 13 2006 15:01 utc | 12

he imagines bushCo will stick to the rules

Posted by: b real | Sep 13 2006 15:23 utc | 14

Strictly speaking, Iron Butterfly, “reification” means (among other things) turning an speculative concept into a fixed and positive law, into a static fact–taking a hypothetical concept and treating it as a “real thing” (a res, thereby obscuring its speculative character (or so I seem to recall). It’s a process of mystification demystified by Marx. Georg Lukacs gives it a working-over in his “History of Class Consciousness” (published, I think, in 1921).

Posted by: alabama | Sep 13 2006 16:04 utc | 16

yep, been happening for awhile, i was trying to log in earlier to review this very post. thanks for the tip on how to access lupin

Posted by: annie | Sep 13 2006 16:18 utc | 18

SPIEGEL: You call it a “global political awakening.”
Brzezinski: Yes, and it is essentially a repetition, but now on a global scale, of the societal and political awakening that occurred in France at the time of the revolution. During the 19th century it spread through Europe and parts of the Western hemisphere, in the 20th century it reached Japan and finally China. Now it is sweeping the rest of the world.
If the ideals of the French Revolution had been honored by France and the rest of the Euro-colonialists and slavers, the world would be a much better place today.
Practically every war on the planet today is the result of tensions created by the redrawing and manipulation of borders and ethnic affinities by the Euro-colonialists.
The Chinese particularly and others would be very amused by the notion that they are beneficiaries of the spread of a “political awakening” inspired by the French revolution.
And if the Euro-colonialists had gotten their hands on China, they would surely have carved it up arbitrarily and who knows what tensions would have been unleashed. Instead of the Taiwan stand-off we have today, we might have several, one or more of which might be of the India/Pakistani variety

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 13 2006 16:25 utc | 20

>i>my God, we’re facing a radical uprising against the system we’ve had since Franklin Roosevelt.
my god is right, and it can’t come fast enough is all i can say. i can’t quite go so far as to say i hope it happens by rove winning again but if it gets us there faster, well, whatever it takes.

Posted by: annie | Sep 13 2006 16:32 utc | 22

@ #4
That must be a great URL!

Posted by: gus | Sep 13 2006 16:41 utc | 24

as someone who wears glasses or contact lenses and is planning to be out in the street this weekend for a vigil/protest, the microwave article had me thinking in the shower this morning how much i wanted to disagree with billmon and believe that acheiving democratic majority in the legislature would do some good this november. the situation is becoming increasingly dire. while the dems surely are not the alternative we drastically need, i can’t help but cling to the belief that we need to fight and defeat them now wherever possible – not wait for a larger implosion in ’08 – even if it only builds a smaller, incremental wedge.

Posted by: conchita | Sep 13 2006 16:57 utc | 26

Alabama,
Thank you very much for your explanation. Interesting, given your definition, reification seems to be a common mode of thought. Could it also mean that a certain and specific mode of thought becomes the accepted definition of a thought?

Posted by: Iron butterfly | Sep 13 2006 18:04 utc | 28

IB,
I see reification, in the general sense, as the attempt to make concrete a human experience, not unlike a work of art. In the political sense here, reification is the attempt to “thingify” a complex human experience into a political catch phrase, useful to an end. The “thingification” is to delete and idealize the real experience into the status of an icon (an abstraction of the original). I thought Digbys example (above) was a concise example of how the administration has attempted to idealize the WWII experience, shorn of its complexities, into a “thing” to use for their own ends.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 13 2006 18:35 utc | 30

And its probable that Marx saw reification as elemental in his thinking on communal cultures — and their use of “fetish” objects as icons, replacements, or stand ins for “deities” or other sources of power. And while this may be a misreading of the true use of “fetish” objects, a reification itself (hic-up), the general importance and significance of iconifying experience is not lost.
Is’nt this word also slothrops favorite?

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 13 2006 18:58 utc | 32

Another fantastic book relating to reification is Stephen Jay Gould’s Mismeasure of Man, which is on the surface a history of intelligence testing and race, but more generally an examination of how the concept of “intelligence” has been reified into a conceivable measure.
Antifa, I’m glad my tinfoil hat is actually going to be useful.

Posted by: Rowan | Sep 13 2006 19:12 utc | 34

Reification, at least as I was taught the use of the term, has a fairly specific political meaning — it refers to the tendency in bourgeois society to treat class relations (specifically property relations) as objective, empirical facts, instead of subjective human constructs.
The best concrete example I can think of are the “laws” of liberal economic theory — as if the utterly selfish, rationalistic, utility-maximizing market actors of the Econ 101 textbooks were representative of all human beings at times and in all places. These “laws” then become the basis for asserting certain “rights” (such as private ownership of the means of production) that must be accepted as universal truths, instead of the instruments of class rule they really are.
Voila! If you don’t like the system, you’re meddling with the primal forces of nature (to quote Mr. Jensen from Network.) It’s a great con — maybe the greatest ever pulled.

Posted by: billmon | Sep 13 2006 19:20 utc | 36

“The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.”
If Peters wasn’t so fucking stupid, he’d be scary. But the empire isn’t on the offensive any more. Politically, economically, militarily and most of all psychologically, it’s now on the defensive. And over the next few decades the Pentagon is going to have its hands full just staving off the collapse of assorted comprador puppet states (possibly including the one right next door) and trying to keep the oil flowing.
The last sentence is probably correct, though (although I have a feeling that Ralph Peters’s definition of a “fair amount” of killing may not be much smaller than Heinrich Himmler’s)

Posted by: billmon | Sep 13 2006 20:34 utc | 38

that peters article was a trip, uncle. just finishing up manuel castells’ trilogy on the information age from the same period, so it’s very interesting to read that. thanks.

Posted by: b real | Sep 13 2006 21:03 utc | 40

Billmon, regarding #38
I know that and you know that, (But the empire isn’t on the offensive any more.) however, I don’t think they know that…
From top to bottom of the ladder, greed is aroused without knowing where to find ultimate foothold. Nothing can calm it, since its goal is far beyond all it can attain. Reality seems valueless by comparison with the dreams of fevered imaginations; reality is therefore abandoned.~Emile Durkheim

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 13 2006 21:11 utc | 42

Now that Malikhi has asked Iran for help with its “security situation” — and Ahmadinejad declares that “Iraq’s security is Iran’s security” — will we finally see some accounting in this administration?
In certain regimes I can think of the people responsible for this enormous fiasco of historical proportions would have been taken outside and shot.
With Wolfowitz at the World Bank what’s left for Rumsfeld? Bolton’s spot at the UN, maybe?

Posted by: SteinL | Sep 13 2006 22:16 utc | 44

pb there’s always hope, remember by in 04 ‘hope was on the way’…
It’s finally arrived…
Assimilated Press
Read Britney Spears Auctions Placenta On eBay
Some say, “Good chance for the Democrats to show they have some spine. Unfortunately, there is little evidence of it to date.” Thing is, there wont be any in the future either…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 13 2006 22:28 utc | 46

with some fava beans and a nice chianti

Posted by: gmac | Sep 13 2006 23:24 utc | 48

I recall seeing a recipe for Placenta parmesan in a natural childbirth how-to book once, but I’m guessing Brittney’s placenta probably doesn’t have the right texture. Plus it’s definitely NOT organic.

Posted by: billmon | Sep 13 2006 23:45 utc | 50

Okay,…Yuk, Yuk, Yuk.

Posted by: pb | Sep 14 2006 0:02 utc | 52

Extra tasty: Placenta Lasagne

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Sep 14 2006 1:25 utc | 54

My first child was born at home, and while we were busy with things after the birth, our cat ate the placenta.

Posted by: anna missed | Sep 14 2006 3:03 utc | 56

ya know, some things never change – boyz are gross!

Posted by: conchita | Sep 14 2006 4:13 utc | 58

askod @39
not only tinfoil would work against microwave beam weapons
That ran a coupla years ago @ activistmagazine.com

Posted by: gmac | Sep 14 2006 21:00 utc | 60