Some blogosphere folks, and other pundits, today are doing a demolition job on Bill Clinton by suggesting that he "lost it" during his Fox interview with Chris Wallace yesterday. To the contrary, a close observation of the interview will show that, while he was animated, the former president was right on the mark with respect to being asked to take the hit for not containing the nascent threat of Al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden.
Mr. Clinton was right on the money to suggest that the spotlight should not be on him but on the current administration. As suggested by an 18th century British poet, William Blake, "The voice of righteous indignation is the voice of God." Amen. We must learn to distinguish between justifiable, and misguided anger, a distinction which has, alas, been obscured by the right-wing warlords who have laid claim to this country since Newt Gingrich, and his Contract on America.
If Chris Wallace, of Fox, felt as if "a mountain" was coming down on him, maybe it was...Mount Justice!
Monday, September 25, 2006
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Cojones and "conservative hit jobs!"
In what has been described as a "combative interview" on "Fox News Sunday," former president, Bill Clinton who, you may recall, was impeached for having oral sex in the Oval Office, was cross-examined by anchor Chris Wallace about why he didn't launch a preemptive strike against Osama bin Laden. (AP) The former president recounted how he went after bin Laden to the fullest extent possible, trying to "kill him," as well as how the same folks who condemned his actions then are stepping up to the plate to attempt a "conservative hit job" now.
One can only say "amen, Mr. Cllinton." What a troubling statement about our national priorities, and ethos, that we impeach a president for a sexual contretemps while a sitting president gets to turn the military into an assembly line of bungled misadventures while hiding behind a flagrant misreading of the Second Amendment, all but shredding the First and Fourth Amendments, and has turned foreign policy into a simple, and deadly acronym, "CYA -- cover your ass."
Anyone who thinks Bill Clinton doesn't have the cojones to speak up needs corrective lenses. Happily, the former president defended himself against Chris Wallace's assertions that he was incompetent with regard to stopping Al Qaeda. Hello, anybody home? Which American leader has demonstrated competency with respect to diffusing Al Qaeda? Wallace's suggestions are equally ironic, and absurd, in light of the fact that Bill Clinton was the first president, on record, to talk about the danger posed by paramilitary groups, as well as to attempt to make inroads towards preventing their proliferation. About the only thing the Bush administration has been adept at exposing is how occupation of a conceptually neutral, if nefarious, state like Iraq can pose a clear and present danger to world peace for now, and possibly centuries to come.
Instead of putting a former president on the defensive with regard to the "handling" of bin Laden, how about holding the current president accountable for his mishandling of the hunt for the world's greatest terrorist, as well as for his exceptional deployment of weapons of "mass distraction." Make no mistake, Iran is at least as irrelevant to the "war on terror" as Iraq. This administration's jihad for global domination, whether it can be described as diabolical or otherwise, is at least as transparent as a Fox reporter's efforts to pin the blame for global insurgency, and insurrection, on a previous president.
One can only say "amen, Mr. Cllinton." What a troubling statement about our national priorities, and ethos, that we impeach a president for a sexual contretemps while a sitting president gets to turn the military into an assembly line of bungled misadventures while hiding behind a flagrant misreading of the Second Amendment, all but shredding the First and Fourth Amendments, and has turned foreign policy into a simple, and deadly acronym, "CYA -- cover your ass."
Anyone who thinks Bill Clinton doesn't have the cojones to speak up needs corrective lenses. Happily, the former president defended himself against Chris Wallace's assertions that he was incompetent with regard to stopping Al Qaeda. Hello, anybody home? Which American leader has demonstrated competency with respect to diffusing Al Qaeda? Wallace's suggestions are equally ironic, and absurd, in light of the fact that Bill Clinton was the first president, on record, to talk about the danger posed by paramilitary groups, as well as to attempt to make inroads towards preventing their proliferation. About the only thing the Bush administration has been adept at exposing is how occupation of a conceptually neutral, if nefarious, state like Iraq can pose a clear and present danger to world peace for now, and possibly centuries to come.
Instead of putting a former president on the defensive with regard to the "handling" of bin Laden, how about holding the current president accountable for his mishandling of the hunt for the world's greatest terrorist, as well as for his exceptional deployment of weapons of "mass distraction." Make no mistake, Iran is at least as irrelevant to the "war on terror" as Iraq. This administration's jihad for global domination, whether it can be described as diabolical or otherwise, is at least as transparent as a Fox reporter's efforts to pin the blame for global insurgency, and insurrection, on a previous president.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
The November Surprise---bin Laden on a Silver Platter?
This morning, the AP reported that French President Jacques Chirac acknowledged the intelligence suggesting bin Laden is dead is "not yet confirmed." What is puzzling is a widely practiced CIA, and administration policy of bypassing FISA by data mining U.S. citizens, all the while vowing ignorance with respect to bin Laden's whereabouts.
Whether he is dead or alive, the FBI's most wanted, Osama bin Laden, has a high profile niece who lives in this country, and has for years. Why is it that so-called "intelligence agencies" have been unable to wrangle his cell phone number, email address, and/or post office box from her? Better still, why is it that Dick Armitage, his friends at the NSA,and those who like to fool us into thinking they're in the "homeland security" business haven't thought of contacting those relatives of bin Laden's, back in Saudi Arabia, who were partying with the Bush clan, and jetted out, only hours before 9/11? Does domestic, and foreign surveillance, stop short of tapping the phones of those Saudi oil barons?
hmmmmm.... can it be that this administration is saving the discovery of bin Laden for a week before the November election to sabotage the clear and present danger (one hopes, anyway) of a Democratic landslide, and the placing of their great crusades on hold? is W. holding out for the November surprise -- bin Laden's head on a silver platter? What was that movie, from about 20 years ago, about the South American world leader who was dead for years, but kept afloat by spin? Maybe bin Laden has been gone for years, but kept in a state of suspended animation for precisely the best strategic moment for him to surface?As has been suggested, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
If nothing else, the past 6 years have shown us that we are no safer as a result of the "intelligence" gathering efforts of our government and, indeed, the world is an infinitely more terrifying place as a result of the politics of preemption, and selective prosecution.
Whether he is dead or alive, the FBI's most wanted, Osama bin Laden, has a high profile niece who lives in this country, and has for years. Why is it that so-called "intelligence agencies" have been unable to wrangle his cell phone number, email address, and/or post office box from her? Better still, why is it that Dick Armitage, his friends at the NSA,and those who like to fool us into thinking they're in the "homeland security" business haven't thought of contacting those relatives of bin Laden's, back in Saudi Arabia, who were partying with the Bush clan, and jetted out, only hours before 9/11? Does domestic, and foreign surveillance, stop short of tapping the phones of those Saudi oil barons?
hmmmmm.... can it be that this administration is saving the discovery of bin Laden for a week before the November election to sabotage the clear and present danger (one hopes, anyway) of a Democratic landslide, and the placing of their great crusades on hold? is W. holding out for the November surprise -- bin Laden's head on a silver platter? What was that movie, from about 20 years ago, about the South American world leader who was dead for years, but kept afloat by spin? Maybe bin Laden has been gone for years, but kept in a state of suspended animation for precisely the best strategic moment for him to surface?As has been suggested, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
If nothing else, the past 6 years have shown us that we are no safer as a result of the "intelligence" gathering efforts of our government and, indeed, the world is an infinitely more terrifying place as a result of the politics of preemption, and selective prosecution.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
The Myth of Third World Purity
What a grand spectacle the world was treated to this week, in the General Assembly, with the high drama, and hyperbole of world leaders including some from so-called third world countries like Venezuela and Iran. As has been widely reported, Mr. Chavez compared President Bush to "the devil," and insisted he could still smell sulphur. While the analogy may have been apt, the context was clearly inappropriate, and it was infinitely less appropriate that U.N. delegates laughed, and applauded.
It's time to demystify those who have been the targets, justifably or otherwise, of American hostility and aggression. While there are many, like myself, who respect Mr. Chavez, and largely agree with much of what he stands for, there are some who will accept any kind of behavior, and write it off, based on the fact that the individual, or country, has been defamed, occupied, or violated by another. To make allowances for someone, under any circumstances, is arguably among the biggest insults one can bestow upon him. Further, regrettably, history has shown that those who have been victimized themselves when given the chance will victimize others.
What galls even more is how hopelessly naive, and reductive, those of us are who suggest that being the victim of American imperialism somehow exempts one from being corrupt and imperialistic. Those who demonize Israel, and the U.S. do exactly as this president does by setting up their own "axis of evil;" substituting a different set of names for bad guys.
Somehow we, in this country, have this curious dialectic with respect to how we view third world countries like Iran, Venezuela, Korea, and Cuba. Either we cling to a bizarre, and antediluvian image of a land of "primitives" that rations food, proscribes free speech, condones torture, is volatile, as well as incapable of dialogue or higher order thinking or, conversely, we revert to the "noble savage" mythos in which underdeveloped, or geographically challenged nations are seen as victims of relentless occupation.
Consider this: at the United Nations today, the president of Iran, who is repeatedly likened to that other madman we recently deposed Saddam Hussein, gave a speech in which he denied that Iran wants a nuclear bomb. Ahmadinejad said, in effect, "bomb, who needs a bomb?" I don't know about you, but I'd sure sleep a whole lot better tonight if the so-called "leaders of the free world," Bush and Blair, felt the same way. Sounding more like a statesman than his nemesis, the Iranian president went so far as to call America "a great nation." It seems that Agmadinejad has found a viable alternative to the nuclear option: kill 'em with kindness.
But, what happens to the dynamic when one, or both, plugs are pulled on stereotypes we have? Indeed, what happens when the descriptions we formerly reserved for rogue, or renegade nations can no longer be distinguished from those of our own government? Essentially, the question then becomes how can we tell the good guys from the "bad?" How can we tell who's posturing from who's preaching? When we, in this country, are being prepped for war with a country whose leader tells us he's perfectly willing to move away from any notion of developing a bomb, and our own government has turned back the clock on nuclear nonproliferation by at least 30 years, who are we to believe poses the graver threat? When the world is turned upside down, moral complexity becomes nuanced such that essential differences between things vanish into thin air.
When we put a sword in someone's hand, can we expect them to act radically different if they happen to wake up south of the equator than if they happen to wake up north? I think not. The political cosmology is such that not being a superpower with a proven track record of occupying, and toppling the governments of other states does not make one any more ideologically sound, or less capable of committing the same high crimes and misdemeanors they themselves were forced to endure.
Finally, those of us ingenuous enough to think that one who is the victim of imperialism will not themselves, under the right set of cirumstances, become imperialists have allowed their preoccupation with nationalism, third world or otherwise, to obscure their understanding of human nature. Power is an equal opportunity corrupter.
It's time to demystify those who have been the targets, justifably or otherwise, of American hostility and aggression. While there are many, like myself, who respect Mr. Chavez, and largely agree with much of what he stands for, there are some who will accept any kind of behavior, and write it off, based on the fact that the individual, or country, has been defamed, occupied, or violated by another. To make allowances for someone, under any circumstances, is arguably among the biggest insults one can bestow upon him. Further, regrettably, history has shown that those who have been victimized themselves when given the chance will victimize others.
What galls even more is how hopelessly naive, and reductive, those of us are who suggest that being the victim of American imperialism somehow exempts one from being corrupt and imperialistic. Those who demonize Israel, and the U.S. do exactly as this president does by setting up their own "axis of evil;" substituting a different set of names for bad guys.
Somehow we, in this country, have this curious dialectic with respect to how we view third world countries like Iran, Venezuela, Korea, and Cuba. Either we cling to a bizarre, and antediluvian image of a land of "primitives" that rations food, proscribes free speech, condones torture, is volatile, as well as incapable of dialogue or higher order thinking or, conversely, we revert to the "noble savage" mythos in which underdeveloped, or geographically challenged nations are seen as victims of relentless occupation.
Consider this: at the United Nations today, the president of Iran, who is repeatedly likened to that other madman we recently deposed Saddam Hussein, gave a speech in which he denied that Iran wants a nuclear bomb. Ahmadinejad said, in effect, "bomb, who needs a bomb?" I don't know about you, but I'd sure sleep a whole lot better tonight if the so-called "leaders of the free world," Bush and Blair, felt the same way. Sounding more like a statesman than his nemesis, the Iranian president went so far as to call America "a great nation." It seems that Agmadinejad has found a viable alternative to the nuclear option: kill 'em with kindness.
But, what happens to the dynamic when one, or both, plugs are pulled on stereotypes we have? Indeed, what happens when the descriptions we formerly reserved for rogue, or renegade nations can no longer be distinguished from those of our own government? Essentially, the question then becomes how can we tell the good guys from the "bad?" How can we tell who's posturing from who's preaching? When we, in this country, are being prepped for war with a country whose leader tells us he's perfectly willing to move away from any notion of developing a bomb, and our own government has turned back the clock on nuclear nonproliferation by at least 30 years, who are we to believe poses the graver threat? When the world is turned upside down, moral complexity becomes nuanced such that essential differences between things vanish into thin air.
When we put a sword in someone's hand, can we expect them to act radically different if they happen to wake up south of the equator than if they happen to wake up north? I think not. The political cosmology is such that not being a superpower with a proven track record of occupying, and toppling the governments of other states does not make one any more ideologically sound, or less capable of committing the same high crimes and misdemeanors they themselves were forced to endure.
Finally, those of us ingenuous enough to think that one who is the victim of imperialism will not themselves, under the right set of cirumstances, become imperialists have allowed their preoccupation with nationalism, third world or otherwise, to obscure their understanding of human nature. Power is an equal opportunity corrupter.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
What's in a Name? -- a Contagion of Hubris
Forget the raging Southern California wildfires, forget e-coli poisoning from bad spinach that has contaminated more than a hundred people nationwide, I think a rabid outbreak of hubris, which is currently circling the globe, poses a far graver threat to the survival of the planet.
This malodor of arrogance can be detected not merely in our nation's capitol, but in the U.N. General Assembly this week, as well, coming from the mouth of Iranian President Ahmadinejad who calls his country's nuclear program "transparent, and peaceful;" talk about oxymorons; to call a nuclear program "peaceful" is like calling a pit bull docile. (AP) One thing is "transparent;" while the leader of the "free world" boasts of not reading newspapers, clearly his Iranian counterpart does.
Yes, friends, the unmistakeable smell of mendacity, the aroma of hubris is visible, too, in the words of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who, this morning, called Bush "the devil," and lashed out at U.S. "imperialism." I would like to ask Mr. Chavez, if I could, if there is another brand of "imperialism" he would prefer to American imperialism, or if he is is he indicting the concept of imperialism at large; one would hope the latter would apply. Mr. Chavez hit the nail on the head when he suggested that Bush " came here talking as if he were the owner of the world," (AP) I daresay one would be hard-pressed to find a better characterization of our president.
That said, the best example yet of this contagion of hubris comes from the Pentagon in its egregious effort to justify detaining an Associated Press photographer, Bilial Hussein, in Iraq, "indefinitely without charges" for his alleged "improper ties to insurgents." (AP) Unspecified "journalist groups" are calling for charges to be brought, or that the photographer be immediately released.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, claims that Mr. Hussein has strong connections to "insurgent" groups in Iraq, and is participating in activities one would not "expect a journalist to be doing." (AP) So, the press now has to look to the Pentagon for its job description. And what does Bilal Hussein's attorney want? Just that his client have his day in court, be formally charged, and have access to the evidence against him; in short, due process, a process which is due south thanks to the ongoing efforts of this administration to subvert the Constitution and international law.
As to the assertion by Mr. Whitman, the Pentagon's spokesperson, that Hussein has been known to consort with, and have "improper ties to insurgents," (AP), using that same argument, why not pick up, and detain, all members of this administration who are known to have consorted with, and had ties to Osama bin Laden's kinsfolk only hours before 9/11.
Maybe it's just that this poor photographer happens to be unlucky enough to share a name with a deposed dictator that leaves him vulnerable to incrimination. But, if so, why is it that the same transparency didn\'t result in rounding up, and incarcerating family members of one who is considered responsible for the most heinous crime against America ever.
This malodor of arrogance can be detected not merely in our nation's capitol, but in the U.N. General Assembly this week, as well, coming from the mouth of Iranian President Ahmadinejad who calls his country's nuclear program "transparent, and peaceful;" talk about oxymorons; to call a nuclear program "peaceful" is like calling a pit bull docile. (AP) One thing is "transparent;" while the leader of the "free world" boasts of not reading newspapers, clearly his Iranian counterpart does.
Yes, friends, the unmistakeable smell of mendacity, the aroma of hubris is visible, too, in the words of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who, this morning, called Bush "the devil," and lashed out at U.S. "imperialism." I would like to ask Mr. Chavez, if I could, if there is another brand of "imperialism" he would prefer to American imperialism, or if he is is he indicting the concept of imperialism at large; one would hope the latter would apply. Mr. Chavez hit the nail on the head when he suggested that Bush " came here talking as if he were the owner of the world," (AP) I daresay one would be hard-pressed to find a better characterization of our president.
That said, the best example yet of this contagion of hubris comes from the Pentagon in its egregious effort to justify detaining an Associated Press photographer, Bilial Hussein, in Iraq, "indefinitely without charges" for his alleged "improper ties to insurgents." (AP) Unspecified "journalist groups" are calling for charges to be brought, or that the photographer be immediately released.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, claims that Mr. Hussein has strong connections to "insurgent" groups in Iraq, and is participating in activities one would not "expect a journalist to be doing." (AP) So, the press now has to look to the Pentagon for its job description. And what does Bilal Hussein's attorney want? Just that his client have his day in court, be formally charged, and have access to the evidence against him; in short, due process, a process which is due south thanks to the ongoing efforts of this administration to subvert the Constitution and international law.
As to the assertion by Mr. Whitman, the Pentagon's spokesperson, that Hussein has been known to consort with, and have "improper ties to insurgents," (AP), using that same argument, why not pick up, and detain, all members of this administration who are known to have consorted with, and had ties to Osama bin Laden's kinsfolk only hours before 9/11.
Maybe it's just that this poor photographer happens to be unlucky enough to share a name with a deposed dictator that leaves him vulnerable to incrimination. But, if so, why is it that the same transparency didn\'t result in rounding up, and incarcerating family members of one who is considered responsible for the most heinous crime against America ever.
Monday, September 18, 2006
If the Dems...
As reported today, most Americans see the GOP as being out of touch with the problems facing the vast majority of us. Sadly, the Democrats, too, appear to be as out out touch as their counterparts. No one is making noise about the greatest casualty of this administration, the American worker.
If the Democrats, and those of us who want progressive social change want to win the midterm election in less than 2 months, as well as the presidential election in less than 2 years, then we'd better stop talking about torture and terror, and start focusing on Ford's recent announcement that it plans to cut 1/3 of its workforce, as well as a cost of living that has skyrocketed such that life in America is no longer affordable for the the vast majority of us. The Democrats play right into the opposition party's hands when they allow issues that don't immediately address the needs of those they hope to represent to deflect attention away from the growing disparity in income, as well as the ongoing erosion of the middle class.
Make no mistake, economic disenfranchisement is at least as important as voter disenfranchisement, and the party that has historically come to the rescue of the poor, and hungry will find itself exiled to the trunk of an abandoned Prius unless it gets into first gear, and addresses the anxiety of the masses, in this country, who suffer angst from ongoing financial uncertainty. While Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice make engaging targets, they do an equally compelling job of deflecting attention away from their neo-Con agenda which is election-proof. It is a platform that perpetuates wealth, and abandons equal opportunity that must be vigilantly opposed, and exposed; anything less is surrender. Moreover, any party that hopes to defeat the neanderthal right can only do so by acknowledging those they wrong.
The key to victory, in November, is no different now than it was when Bill Clinton ran against Bush Senior. Yet again, "It's the economy, stupid," and anything that distracts us from the core issues of the American worker will quell any chance for substantive, and lasting, social change now, and in years to come.
After nearly a decade of the "terror men," this is no time for the hollow men; it has never been more important for the Democrats to keep their eye squarely on the ball, and listen to the pain and outrage of those it has traditionally served.
If the Democrats, and those of us who want progressive social change want to win the midterm election in less than 2 months, as well as the presidential election in less than 2 years, then we'd better stop talking about torture and terror, and start focusing on Ford's recent announcement that it plans to cut 1/3 of its workforce, as well as a cost of living that has skyrocketed such that life in America is no longer affordable for the the vast majority of us. The Democrats play right into the opposition party's hands when they allow issues that don't immediately address the needs of those they hope to represent to deflect attention away from the growing disparity in income, as well as the ongoing erosion of the middle class.
Make no mistake, economic disenfranchisement is at least as important as voter disenfranchisement, and the party that has historically come to the rescue of the poor, and hungry will find itself exiled to the trunk of an abandoned Prius unless it gets into first gear, and addresses the anxiety of the masses, in this country, who suffer angst from ongoing financial uncertainty. While Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice make engaging targets, they do an equally compelling job of deflecting attention away from their neo-Con agenda which is election-proof. It is a platform that perpetuates wealth, and abandons equal opportunity that must be vigilantly opposed, and exposed; anything less is surrender. Moreover, any party that hopes to defeat the neanderthal right can only do so by acknowledging those they wrong.
The key to victory, in November, is no different now than it was when Bill Clinton ran against Bush Senior. Yet again, "It's the economy, stupid," and anything that distracts us from the core issues of the American worker will quell any chance for substantive, and lasting, social change now, and in years to come.
After nearly a decade of the "terror men," this is no time for the hollow men; it has never been more important for the Democrats to keep their eye squarely on the ball, and listen to the pain and outrage of those it has traditionally served.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Impeach Condi?
Anyone want to dance with Condoleezza Rice? Most likely not Colin Powell. Ignoring the lead of her predecessor, former Secretary of State Powell, Ms. Rice yesterday decided to stand by her man, the president, and Mr. Cheney, by backing this administration's continuing efforts to deconstruct Geneva in their dubious campaign against an invisible, and ostensibly invincible, adversary.
As you're already aware, the alternative bill proposed by John McCain at the meeting of the Armed Services Committee yesterday passed by a margin of nearly 2 to 1 which spells trouble for a White House determined to nuance what has been considered accepted practice internationally for treatment of prisoners detained during wartime for generations.
The one character who is always to be counted on for commentary, like the fool in "King Lear," White House Press Secretary Tony Snow hit the nail squarely on the head when he suggested that critics of this administration's attempt to circumnavigate international law by way of new legislation merely "misconstrue" their government's "intent" which is to "define the Geneva Conventions" ban on cruel and inhumane treatment, and not to undermine it." (WaPo) How dare any government that has been in power for 6 years tamper with accepted definitions of torture for decades? What unmitigated gaul, not to mention pernicious revisionism, to admit to tweaking Geneva so that it serves the unitary meglomaniacal mission of this presidency.
Yes, yes, Tony Snow is right---this administration's aim is not to endorse torture, but to neutralize it to such a degree, by linguistic sleight of hand, that it is no longer torture, but torture light. This is unacceptable, even to the most primitive, and sophistic minds. It is unacceptable to "redefine" torture such that it becomes conceptually palatable just as we've come to accept that counterfeit phrase "collateral damage" as a way to avoid the blood and guts behind wartime civilian death. Indeed, the White House press secretary (the president's fool?) hits a bull's eye when he asserts that this Commander-in-Chief attempts not merely to redefine torture, but prisoner of war status, as well as undermine the core principle of due process, namely that every prisoner held captive be entitled to know the reason for his detention, as well as the evidence that put him there.
Consider, too, for a moment the audacity inherent in Snow's suggestion that Colin Powell, himself a former Secretary of State, and a military man, is "confused" (WaPo) because he backs Senator McCain's alternate bill repudiating this government's ongoing attempts to reinvent the language by which we wage war, and take prisoners. Good for those senators, on both sides of the aisle, who endorsed McCain's bill which calls for full adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and giving detainees access to evidence against them. Good for those who stood up, in the Senate yesterday, to Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney's best efforts to award carte blanche to the CIA, and immunity from future prosecution, for what can only be considered war crimes. While the legislation proposed by John McCain is far from perfect, it's provides an effective starting point.
Shame on Condeleeza Rice, as well as any future secretary of state who is willing to go along for a ride down the slippery, and dangerous slope with a government that works overtime to rewrite the laws faster than they can break them.
As you're already aware, the alternative bill proposed by John McCain at the meeting of the Armed Services Committee yesterday passed by a margin of nearly 2 to 1 which spells trouble for a White House determined to nuance what has been considered accepted practice internationally for treatment of prisoners detained during wartime for generations.
The one character who is always to be counted on for commentary, like the fool in "King Lear," White House Press Secretary Tony Snow hit the nail squarely on the head when he suggested that critics of this administration's attempt to circumnavigate international law by way of new legislation merely "misconstrue" their government's "intent" which is to "define the Geneva Conventions" ban on cruel and inhumane treatment, and not to undermine it." (WaPo) How dare any government that has been in power for 6 years tamper with accepted definitions of torture for decades? What unmitigated gaul, not to mention pernicious revisionism, to admit to tweaking Geneva so that it serves the unitary meglomaniacal mission of this presidency.
Yes, yes, Tony Snow is right---this administration's aim is not to endorse torture, but to neutralize it to such a degree, by linguistic sleight of hand, that it is no longer torture, but torture light. This is unacceptable, even to the most primitive, and sophistic minds. It is unacceptable to "redefine" torture such that it becomes conceptually palatable just as we've come to accept that counterfeit phrase "collateral damage" as a way to avoid the blood and guts behind wartime civilian death. Indeed, the White House press secretary (the president's fool?) hits a bull's eye when he asserts that this Commander-in-Chief attempts not merely to redefine torture, but prisoner of war status, as well as undermine the core principle of due process, namely that every prisoner held captive be entitled to know the reason for his detention, as well as the evidence that put him there.
Consider, too, for a moment the audacity inherent in Snow's suggestion that Colin Powell, himself a former Secretary of State, and a military man, is "confused" (WaPo) because he backs Senator McCain's alternate bill repudiating this government's ongoing attempts to reinvent the language by which we wage war, and take prisoners. Good for those senators, on both sides of the aisle, who endorsed McCain's bill which calls for full adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and giving detainees access to evidence against them. Good for those who stood up, in the Senate yesterday, to Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney's best efforts to award carte blanche to the CIA, and immunity from future prosecution, for what can only be considered war crimes. While the legislation proposed by John McCain is far from perfect, it's provides an effective starting point.
Shame on Condeleeza Rice, as well as any future secretary of state who is willing to go along for a ride down the slippery, and dangerous slope with a government that works overtime to rewrite the laws faster than they can break them.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Democracy Israeli Style
.While we were busy putting the finishing touches on summer, Saturday, and remembering the first major terror attack on American soil, nearly 30,000 Israelis took to the streets of Tel Aviv to demand accountability from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for his mishandling of the war in Lebanon. As Reuters reports, the demonstration, in Israel, was "the largest public show of dissatisfaction" with the prime minister since his ascent to power.
Notably, many of the protestors were members of the Israeli reserve; speakers at the rally represented both sides of that country's political spectrum. From the right came outcries against how poorly equipped soldiers were to face battle, as well as contempt for the government's response to bombardment by Hezbollah rockets. From a former member of the leftist Meretz party came a warning to Prime Minister Olmert: "If you don't return home on your own initiative, Israeli democracy will send you home."
One can only applaud a battle-scarred, and much maligned nation, as well as marvel at how it is the teacher must now become the pupil. A country that mastered Occupation 101 through mimesis now sets the paradigm for how to nuance hubris and runaway power. Inexorably, one must ask why it is that members of the American military don't take their commanders to task. Why aren't our reservists, and infantrymen taking to the streets of Washington, D.C. to demand investigation, or war inquiry, into our failed leadership, and a pandemic of arrogance that has afflicted both Israel and America, and gutted foreign policy over the past several years.
How is it that we have become moral lemmings willing to accept the politics of preemption over statesmanship, and diplomacy. And why is it that the left and right, in our country, can't come together to challenge executive authoritanism and the dismantling of a representative government? How is it that we, the people, have come to accept a most pernicious level of toxicity that tries to pass itself off as national security while, at the same time, compromises the integrity of international harmony for generations to come.
So it is that America, the unilateral exporter of democracy for over a century, must now take a backseat to countries like Israel, and Mexico, who challenge authority. So it is that the teacher must now learn from the student, and if democracy is to survive and prevail on our soil, then we must do as our Israeli counterparts, and tell those in command of our military that if our troops don't return on their "own initiative," American democracy will bring them home.
Notably, many of the protestors were members of the Israeli reserve; speakers at the rally represented both sides of that country's political spectrum. From the right came outcries against how poorly equipped soldiers were to face battle, as well as contempt for the government's response to bombardment by Hezbollah rockets. From a former member of the leftist Meretz party came a warning to Prime Minister Olmert: "If you don't return home on your own initiative, Israeli democracy will send you home."
One can only applaud a battle-scarred, and much maligned nation, as well as marvel at how it is the teacher must now become the pupil. A country that mastered Occupation 101 through mimesis now sets the paradigm for how to nuance hubris and runaway power. Inexorably, one must ask why it is that members of the American military don't take their commanders to task. Why aren't our reservists, and infantrymen taking to the streets of Washington, D.C. to demand investigation, or war inquiry, into our failed leadership, and a pandemic of arrogance that has afflicted both Israel and America, and gutted foreign policy over the past several years.
How is it that we have become moral lemmings willing to accept the politics of preemption over statesmanship, and diplomacy. And why is it that the left and right, in our country, can't come together to challenge executive authoritanism and the dismantling of a representative government? How is it that we, the people, have come to accept a most pernicious level of toxicity that tries to pass itself off as national security while, at the same time, compromises the integrity of international harmony for generations to come.
So it is that America, the unilateral exporter of democracy for over a century, must now take a backseat to countries like Israel, and Mexico, who challenge authority. So it is that the teacher must now learn from the student, and if democracy is to survive and prevail on our soil, then we must do as our Israeli counterparts, and tell those in command of our military that if our troops don't return on their "own initiative," American democracy will bring them home.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Paying Tribute
The best way to pay tribute to nearly 3,000 people who lost their lives, five years ago today, when the World Trade Center collapsed is to go to the polls this November, as well as in 2008, and vote out those with the mindset of the vice president who Sunday acknowledged that the ouster of Saddam Hussein, and the war in Iraq, are irrelevant to the war on terror. The best way to pay homage to the memory of those who died that September 11th is to demand answers as to why capture of Saddam Hussein was relevant while capture of bin Laden gets music on hold.
The best way to honor the memory of all those whose sacrifice, at Ground Zero, will continue to disturb as long as the word "disturb" resonates is to demand accountability, across party lines, from those who forget that lives continue to be lost so others may profit.
An administration that proves to be relentless in its quest to roll back privacy, civil liberties, due process, checks and balances, and shred the First Amendment is hardly what one should expect, or allow, to rise from the eternal flame that was 9/11.
The best way to honor the memory of all those whose sacrifice, at Ground Zero, will continue to disturb as long as the word "disturb" resonates is to demand accountability, across party lines, from those who forget that lives continue to be lost so others may profit.
An administration that proves to be relentless in its quest to roll back privacy, civil liberties, due process, checks and balances, and shred the First Amendment is hardly what one should expect, or allow, to rise from the eternal flame that was 9/11.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
What Better Way...
What better way to commemorate the 5 year anniversary of the cowardly act that transformed a healthy, if neurotic, democracy into a totalitarian nightmare than with another cowardly act. As the Associated Press reports today, in Provo Utah, Brigham Young University has placed on academic leave a physicist, and university professor, who dared to challenge the accepted account of how the Twin Towers fell.
Steven Jones, who has been a faculty member at BYU since 1985, suggests that it was an explosion, and not aircraft, that demolished the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Further, in his book, "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out," published two weeks ago, Dr. Jones asserts that the incendiary chemical, thermite, was present at the Twin Towers site, after the event, which, to his mind, is evidence that the structure was brought down by explosives, and not Al Qaeda hijackers. Clearly, this account runs counter to the 9/11 Commission, as well as accepted notions of what is considered the cause of the death of more than 3,000 people. While, undoubtedly, the professor's position is controversial, is it acceptable for the administration of any university to repudiate the process by which alternative explanations for current events come about?
Whether one agrees with Dr. Jones, or his ideas about the veracity of his government, the underlying question is how can a faculty member who has taught at a university for more than two decades be subjected to intellectual harassment with impunity? Why aren't other faculty members, or students, coming to his defense? Moreover, is it really about the articles the professor wrote, his book, or the fact that he is co-chair of the group "Scholars for 9/11 Truth?" If participation in socially, or politically, unorthodox,or iconoclastic groups, is grounds for even temporary suspension from one's teaching responsibilities, how can we expect the integrity of scholarship itself not to be compromised?
Consider for a moment the flagrant irony in the fact that an administration which claims to be fighting "Islamic fascism" has engendered a climate in which the university, traditionally the safest place to practice irreverence, and engage in dissenting discourse would have such dire consequences, all in the name of securing our national ethos. In order to remain safe from attack from without, must we attack from within?. Wasn't academic freedom the first casualty of European fascism?
Consider, too, the complacency of the media, and the press, with respect to covering, or not covering, this crucial story out of Provo today. This is not the first instance in which a faculty member has been penalized for expressing contrarian views. Remember Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor, who wrote a most unpopular essay about 9/11 that ended up costing him the chair of his department, as well as several cancelled speaking engagements? What the hell is going on in this country, and why is no one speaking out? We are living in dangerous times indeed when we teach our freshmen English students about how to develop an effective argument, then expel their faculty members for their attempts to do so. It is important to note, as a rule of thumb, that an effective argument is not necessarily one with which one agrees, but one that provides evidence, and proof of its position.
Dr. Jones was placed on administrative leave for the mere crime of argumentation, something that is reprehensible. I daresay, if given the opportunity, Brigham Young would place another prominent physicist, Galileo, on administrative leave for declaring that the earth revolves around the sun? No, not for a minute am I suggesting that one may compare the findings of Steven Jones with those of Galileo. It just seems to me truly tragic that, nearly 5 years to the day, a scientist operating under the umbrella of an established university now also faces excommunication for the simple act of making inquiry.
What a sad statement about how little things have really changed, over the past several hundred years, when one who chooses to use tools of his trade to argue for a different view of what happened on 9/11 is met with the same brand of fearful contempt one would expect to find in the Middle Ages, but hardly in the age of the World Wide Web.
All those who care about free speech, and the First Amendment, must write to the president of Brigham Young, write to the editors of our local newspapers, as well as members of Congress, and speak out against this assault on academic freedom, and the spirit of inquiry without which learning is by rote, and without reason.
Steven Jones, who has been a faculty member at BYU since 1985, suggests that it was an explosion, and not aircraft, that demolished the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Further, in his book, "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out," published two weeks ago, Dr. Jones asserts that the incendiary chemical, thermite, was present at the Twin Towers site, after the event, which, to his mind, is evidence that the structure was brought down by explosives, and not Al Qaeda hijackers. Clearly, this account runs counter to the 9/11 Commission, as well as accepted notions of what is considered the cause of the death of more than 3,000 people. While, undoubtedly, the professor's position is controversial, is it acceptable for the administration of any university to repudiate the process by which alternative explanations for current events come about?
Whether one agrees with Dr. Jones, or his ideas about the veracity of his government, the underlying question is how can a faculty member who has taught at a university for more than two decades be subjected to intellectual harassment with impunity? Why aren't other faculty members, or students, coming to his defense? Moreover, is it really about the articles the professor wrote, his book, or the fact that he is co-chair of the group "Scholars for 9/11 Truth?" If participation in socially, or politically, unorthodox,or iconoclastic groups, is grounds for even temporary suspension from one's teaching responsibilities, how can we expect the integrity of scholarship itself not to be compromised?
Consider for a moment the flagrant irony in the fact that an administration which claims to be fighting "Islamic fascism" has engendered a climate in which the university, traditionally the safest place to practice irreverence, and engage in dissenting discourse would have such dire consequences, all in the name of securing our national ethos. In order to remain safe from attack from without, must we attack from within?. Wasn't academic freedom the first casualty of European fascism?
Consider, too, the complacency of the media, and the press, with respect to covering, or not covering, this crucial story out of Provo today. This is not the first instance in which a faculty member has been penalized for expressing contrarian views. Remember Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor, who wrote a most unpopular essay about 9/11 that ended up costing him the chair of his department, as well as several cancelled speaking engagements? What the hell is going on in this country, and why is no one speaking out? We are living in dangerous times indeed when we teach our freshmen English students about how to develop an effective argument, then expel their faculty members for their attempts to do so. It is important to note, as a rule of thumb, that an effective argument is not necessarily one with which one agrees, but one that provides evidence, and proof of its position.
Dr. Jones was placed on administrative leave for the mere crime of argumentation, something that is reprehensible. I daresay, if given the opportunity, Brigham Young would place another prominent physicist, Galileo, on administrative leave for declaring that the earth revolves around the sun? No, not for a minute am I suggesting that one may compare the findings of Steven Jones with those of Galileo. It just seems to me truly tragic that, nearly 5 years to the day, a scientist operating under the umbrella of an established university now also faces excommunication for the simple act of making inquiry.
What a sad statement about how little things have really changed, over the past several hundred years, when one who chooses to use tools of his trade to argue for a different view of what happened on 9/11 is met with the same brand of fearful contempt one would expect to find in the Middle Ages, but hardly in the age of the World Wide Web.
All those who care about free speech, and the First Amendment, must write to the president of Brigham Young, write to the editors of our local newspapers, as well as members of Congress, and speak out against this assault on academic freedom, and the spirit of inquiry without which learning is by rote, and without reason.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
From Newsday.... Karl Rove and Exorcists...
From Newsday
September 7, 2006
WASHINGTON —
"Karl Rove says he's not the Exorcist.
Rove, the Bush political shaman Democrats love to demonize, enlisted a trio of clergymen to exorcise Hillary Rodham Clinton's left-wing spirit when he moved into her West Wing office in 2001, according to> an unflattering new biography.
"I talked to Karl; he said it's not true and, beyond that, he will> have no comment," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
Clinton smiled and shook her head in disbelief Wednesday when asked> about the tale, which appears in "The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power," by James Moore and Wayne Slater. "I'm speechless," she finally said, heading toward a Senate elevator. Later, Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines quipped, "If the story is true … they sure did exorcise any lingering competence right out of the building.
Deal Hudson, a former Fordham University professor whom Rove enlisted to woo Catholic voters, told the authors that he witnessed the exorcism, which he described as "an actual liturgical ceremony."
He did not return a message asking for comment. "
What next? Can we expect to see Karl Rove channeling Machiavelli, or hanging Marie Antoinette out to dry in the West Wing?
September 7, 2006
WASHINGTON —
"Karl Rove says he's not the Exorcist.
Rove, the Bush political shaman Democrats love to demonize, enlisted a trio of clergymen to exorcise Hillary Rodham Clinton's left-wing spirit when he moved into her West Wing office in 2001, according to> an unflattering new biography.
"I talked to Karl; he said it's not true and, beyond that, he will> have no comment," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
Clinton smiled and shook her head in disbelief Wednesday when asked> about the tale, which appears in "The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power," by James Moore and Wayne Slater. "I'm speechless," she finally said, heading toward a Senate elevator. Later, Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines quipped, "If the story is true … they sure did exorcise any lingering competence right out of the building.
Deal Hudson, a former Fordham University professor whom Rove enlisted to woo Catholic voters, told the authors that he witnessed the exorcism, which he described as "an actual liturgical ceremony."
He did not return a message asking for comment. "
What next? Can we expect to see Karl Rove channeling Machiavelli, or hanging Marie Antoinette out to dry in the West Wing?
The Gift of Opportunity: George W. Bush and The Politics of Word Play
Nobody can say this president isn't gifted; he's gifted with opportunity, the opportunity to nominate two justices to the Supreme Court, and tilt it to the far right, the opening provided by 9/11 to deconstruct civil liberties, the prospect of classifying and declassifying information related to secret terror cells abroad based on political expediency, the capacity to introduce legislation, in the name of "the USA Patriot Act," that may forever change the First and Fourth Amendments, and now the chance to rewrite a manual that provides protocol to those inducted into the Army. Moreover, not only is this president gifted with opportunity, but he is also a gifted with the ability to seize opportunity.
While Mr. Cheney has, more often than not, been considered the "brains," and Mr. Bush the brawn, it's curious how a president who fumbles with the word "nuclear" can wax poetic when it comes to phrases like "Islamic Fascists." I know what you're thinking, that's Tony Snow's phrase, but remember this, the politics of word play predate Tony Snow. After all, the phrase "unlawful enemy combatant" dates back to the onset of the so-called war on terror. Yes, it was Donald Rumsfeld who coined that phrase, but it was this president who was gifted with the opportunity to employ it as a means to thwart the rights, and protections, traditionally afforded to Prisoners of War by the Geneva Conventions, a fact not lost on former Secretary of State Colin Powell who, you may recall, was the first, and only, member of this admininistration to call his president on violating Geneva.
While we can only agree with Amnesty International USA's director, Larry Cox, that it's a step in the right direction for the Pentagon, and the Bush administration, to acknowledge that the "Geneva Conventions apply," (AP) we're not convinced that this administration has any greater interest, or intention, of honoring those conventions unless forced to do so by the Supreme Court after failure on appeal. Our government's revisionist approach to the Magna Carta tradition of due process, a tradition that has lasted several hundred years, as well as its ongoing defiance of international law through the use of transparent linguistic chicanery has distracted maybe, but not duped anyone.
Yes, this president has been gifted, too, with the ability to provide a new army manual to our armed forces which now provides a laundry list of specific practices that are verboten, and yet remains sufficiently oblique to allow for psychological, and physical humiliations. Moreover, by inaugurating a policy by which the concept of torture itself is tweaked such that only certain practices are proscribed, without examining, and addressing, the fundamental notion of torture, this government is applying a tax loophole mentality when it comes to the treatment of those we detain both here and abroad. If only the Gross National Product were expanding as rapidly as our use of the word "terrorist," we'd be in no danger of a recession for generations to come.
Other modern Republican presidents come to mind who history will regard as gifted in certain ways. Richard Nixon may well be viewed, by future generations, as having had a flair for foreign policy. Though he could never have taught Economics 101, Ronald Reagan was a gifted Commander-in-Chief (Khaddafi---Khaddafi, who?) Maybe posterity will acknowledge the irony of this monosyllabic presidency and its phenomenal abililty to distract, and disarm by timing, as well as the politics of word play. How is it that a savvy country like America could be seduced into fighting a war with Iraq after a terrorist attack pulled off by a bunch of guys from anywhere but Iraq? Arguably, despite his reputation to the contrary, this president is a master of bait and switch, and will have a fine career selling large screen TVs at the Good Guys should he decide against a library, and the lecture circuit. After all, it would be ludicrous for a president who brags about not reading newspapers to build a library in his name.
But enough dumping on the president. One can only hope that Messrs. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld understand the maxim "you can fool some of the people some of the time" better than they do the Bill of Rights, but make no mistake, while it may be silent, the world community is listening, watching, and biding its time to call the egregious mistreatment of prisoners documented at Abu Ghraib, and other less than secret cells like Guantanamo Bay, for what they are high crimes and misdemeanors.
It is never a leader that poses a threat to a way of life, but a platform. Presidents come and go; at least, the''re supposed to. This is no longer about the president, it's about the precedent. Mr. Bush has been gifted with the greatest opportunity of all, the ability to make changes, enact laws, defeat laws, use signing statements, revise military rules of engagement, dissemble due process, checks and balances, as well as the First Amendment and, most importantly, know that he's put in place an infrastructure that will long survive his tenure. This is something those of who care about progressive social change, and cherish our constitutional rights and liberties, must work fervently to prevent.
While Mr. Cheney has, more often than not, been considered the "brains," and Mr. Bush the brawn, it's curious how a president who fumbles with the word "nuclear" can wax poetic when it comes to phrases like "Islamic Fascists." I know what you're thinking, that's Tony Snow's phrase, but remember this, the politics of word play predate Tony Snow. After all, the phrase "unlawful enemy combatant" dates back to the onset of the so-called war on terror. Yes, it was Donald Rumsfeld who coined that phrase, but it was this president who was gifted with the opportunity to employ it as a means to thwart the rights, and protections, traditionally afforded to Prisoners of War by the Geneva Conventions, a fact not lost on former Secretary of State Colin Powell who, you may recall, was the first, and only, member of this admininistration to call his president on violating Geneva.
While we can only agree with Amnesty International USA's director, Larry Cox, that it's a step in the right direction for the Pentagon, and the Bush administration, to acknowledge that the "Geneva Conventions apply," (AP) we're not convinced that this administration has any greater interest, or intention, of honoring those conventions unless forced to do so by the Supreme Court after failure on appeal. Our government's revisionist approach to the Magna Carta tradition of due process, a tradition that has lasted several hundred years, as well as its ongoing defiance of international law through the use of transparent linguistic chicanery has distracted maybe, but not duped anyone.
Yes, this president has been gifted, too, with the ability to provide a new army manual to our armed forces which now provides a laundry list of specific practices that are verboten, and yet remains sufficiently oblique to allow for psychological, and physical humiliations. Moreover, by inaugurating a policy by which the concept of torture itself is tweaked such that only certain practices are proscribed, without examining, and addressing, the fundamental notion of torture, this government is applying a tax loophole mentality when it comes to the treatment of those we detain both here and abroad. If only the Gross National Product were expanding as rapidly as our use of the word "terrorist," we'd be in no danger of a recession for generations to come.
Other modern Republican presidents come to mind who history will regard as gifted in certain ways. Richard Nixon may well be viewed, by future generations, as having had a flair for foreign policy. Though he could never have taught Economics 101, Ronald Reagan was a gifted Commander-in-Chief (Khaddafi---Khaddafi, who?) Maybe posterity will acknowledge the irony of this monosyllabic presidency and its phenomenal abililty to distract, and disarm by timing, as well as the politics of word play. How is it that a savvy country like America could be seduced into fighting a war with Iraq after a terrorist attack pulled off by a bunch of guys from anywhere but Iraq? Arguably, despite his reputation to the contrary, this president is a master of bait and switch, and will have a fine career selling large screen TVs at the Good Guys should he decide against a library, and the lecture circuit. After all, it would be ludicrous for a president who brags about not reading newspapers to build a library in his name.
But enough dumping on the president. One can only hope that Messrs. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld understand the maxim "you can fool some of the people some of the time" better than they do the Bill of Rights, but make no mistake, while it may be silent, the world community is listening, watching, and biding its time to call the egregious mistreatment of prisoners documented at Abu Ghraib, and other less than secret cells like Guantanamo Bay, for what they are high crimes and misdemeanors.
It is never a leader that poses a threat to a way of life, but a platform. Presidents come and go; at least, the''re supposed to. This is no longer about the president, it's about the precedent. Mr. Bush has been gifted with the greatest opportunity of all, the ability to make changes, enact laws, defeat laws, use signing statements, revise military rules of engagement, dissemble due process, checks and balances, as well as the First Amendment and, most importantly, know that he's put in place an infrastructure that will long survive his tenure. This is something those of who care about progressive social change, and cherish our constitutional rights and liberties, must work fervently to prevent.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
FDR on "the growth of private power"
Now that we're only two months away from a crucial midterm election, what better time to remember the prescient words of a former president:
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism ~ ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power."
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism ~ ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power."
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Monday, September 04, 2006
Some Thoughts on Putting "Labor" Back in Labor Day
A friend, in San Francisco, e-mails me today and tells me that money is taking over the Bay Area. From where I sit, it looks like money is taking over America; greed has evolved to such a degree that it has become not merely an art form, but a wild fungus that spreads from the roots to every nerve, every layer of modern society. From Los Angeles, it looks like the lords of the manor have stolen the piggy bank, and that only spiritual gridlock remains. On this Labor Day, nobody talks about labor; instead, everybody talks about sales. Everybody talks about war, but no one about the war on labor in the name of national security.
Despite its ongoing, and steadfast efforts at appearing vacuous, Southern California is a microcosm of the future, a mecca for the kind of corporate corruption that can only perpetuate poverty under the pretext of equal opportunity. The face of Los Angeles now is a harbinger of America in, say, 2025. The tyranny of traffic masks the illusion of mobility. The Bentleys, and Prada handbags, conceal the simple basic truth of sweatshops, and thousands of immigrants who work for far less than minimum wage, and live in substandard housing, in the hope that their children might yet share a piece of the apple pie which is continually being denied them. Labor Day now belongs to them as much as to you and me. Their song "si, si, si puede..." is no different from the one sung by my grandfather Sam on his way to Ellis Island from Minsk.
In today's big cities, hunger is multicultural, housing limited, and the specter of freedom, not religion, is the opiate of the people. And so, there are those who sweat, from morning until midnight, in our nation's sweatshops, and those who profit from their sweat. There are those who send their sons and daughters to the front lines of Baghdad, and those whose bank portfolios grow from the spilling of blood. There are those who promote world struggle in order to hold onto class privilege, and the kind of class system our ancestors left the mother country to escape.
When thinking of today's lords of the manor, those oil barons who make huge profits on the escalating cost of energy, those who steal from their employees' pension plan in order to secure their luxurious lifestyle, a line from a T.S. Eliot poem comes to mind: "We are the hollow men" as indeed we have a contagion of hollow men.On this Labor Day, one cannot help but wonder what Karl Marx would say were he to find himself on Main Street today; would his "Communist Manifesto" change, as well as his image of the proletariat? Would he see toxicity as merely an environmental issue, or instead as a record on a broken phonograph, a needle stuck in a groove playing the same empty tune over and over again like a little boy saluting a dead soldier in a stale parade.
More importantly, one wonders if it would even matter what Karl Marx would think as we quickly strip history, and the past, of all its working parts like a stolen Buick. America has become the beltway to all elements that have brought down civilizations from the beginning of time like a rack of unfulfilled dreams where hope hangs like a spineless steer. Hope now has become a lost prayer in the mouth of a homeless child, a cheap fraud inflicted on a welfare mother, a kind of antidepressant taken in order to survive. As, increasingly, survival comes at a higher and higher price, especially for those who can least afford it.
So, here I sit thinking about how someone ran off with the American Dream, and is now holding it for ransom. I think about how the truth has become yet another prisoner of war and, most of all, how instead of turning on each other over differences, we must affirm our common anguish, rise up, and take back what rightfully belongs to us, something we seem to have lost somewhere along the way to democracy.
(for Gerry Nicosia)
Despite its ongoing, and steadfast efforts at appearing vacuous, Southern California is a microcosm of the future, a mecca for the kind of corporate corruption that can only perpetuate poverty under the pretext of equal opportunity. The face of Los Angeles now is a harbinger of America in, say, 2025. The tyranny of traffic masks the illusion of mobility. The Bentleys, and Prada handbags, conceal the simple basic truth of sweatshops, and thousands of immigrants who work for far less than minimum wage, and live in substandard housing, in the hope that their children might yet share a piece of the apple pie which is continually being denied them. Labor Day now belongs to them as much as to you and me. Their song "si, si, si puede..." is no different from the one sung by my grandfather Sam on his way to Ellis Island from Minsk.
In today's big cities, hunger is multicultural, housing limited, and the specter of freedom, not religion, is the opiate of the people. And so, there are those who sweat, from morning until midnight, in our nation's sweatshops, and those who profit from their sweat. There are those who send their sons and daughters to the front lines of Baghdad, and those whose bank portfolios grow from the spilling of blood. There are those who promote world struggle in order to hold onto class privilege, and the kind of class system our ancestors left the mother country to escape.
When thinking of today's lords of the manor, those oil barons who make huge profits on the escalating cost of energy, those who steal from their employees' pension plan in order to secure their luxurious lifestyle, a line from a T.S. Eliot poem comes to mind: "We are the hollow men" as indeed we have a contagion of hollow men.On this Labor Day, one cannot help but wonder what Karl Marx would say were he to find himself on Main Street today; would his "Communist Manifesto" change, as well as his image of the proletariat? Would he see toxicity as merely an environmental issue, or instead as a record on a broken phonograph, a needle stuck in a groove playing the same empty tune over and over again like a little boy saluting a dead soldier in a stale parade.
More importantly, one wonders if it would even matter what Karl Marx would think as we quickly strip history, and the past, of all its working parts like a stolen Buick. America has become the beltway to all elements that have brought down civilizations from the beginning of time like a rack of unfulfilled dreams where hope hangs like a spineless steer. Hope now has become a lost prayer in the mouth of a homeless child, a cheap fraud inflicted on a welfare mother, a kind of antidepressant taken in order to survive. As, increasingly, survival comes at a higher and higher price, especially for those who can least afford it.
So, here I sit thinking about how someone ran off with the American Dream, and is now holding it for ransom. I think about how the truth has become yet another prisoner of war and, most of all, how instead of turning on each other over differences, we must affirm our common anguish, rise up, and take back what rightfully belongs to us, something we seem to have lost somewhere along the way to democracy.
(for Gerry Nicosia)
Sunday, September 03, 2006
"location...location...location"
Talk about ironies, more than 2 dozen Ku Klux Klan members chose this Labor Day weekend to declare their aversion to minority groups including blacks, Jews, Latinos, and gays at the spot, in the Civil War battlefield, where President Abraham Lincoln delivered his historical Gettysburg Address. Interestingly, nearly 5 times as many police officers as Klansmen showed up to keep the peace, a phrase that repeats on one like bad salami.
Moreover, a prominent member, if I may be allowed an oxymoron, of the World Knights of the Ku Klux Klan called for American troops to pull out of Iraq, and be redeployed at Mexican borders to prevent illegal immigration. The demonstration was granted a permit, a few months ago, by the Gettysburg park service in an effort to protect the group's First Amendment rights, thus there is double irony---first, that a demonstration of this nature would be held at a venue where the president who was responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation gave a momentous address and, secondly, because these KKK members are being protected by free speech, and freedom of assembly, two constitutional rights that would be, no doubt, among the first they would eliminate if given the chance to do so.
Somebody needs to tell these guys that it's just a matter of a decade or two before the face of the KKK may change such that they may well find themselves as the minority being targeted.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
A Wrongful Conviction
The word "conviction" is defined by Webster's in three ways: 1) the act or process of convicting of a crime, especially in a court of law, 2) the act of convincing a person of error of compelling the admission of truth, or the state of being convinced of error or compelled to admit the truth, and 3) a strong persuasion or belief. Taking the last first, Earl Washington was convicted of the 1982 rape and murder of a Virginia woman, Rebecca Williams, for which he spent 17 years in prison, and came within about a week of receiving the death penalty based on what we now know was a forced, and fabricated, confession. This week, as the Washington Post reports, based on DNA evidence, Virginia prosecutors brought charges against Kenneth Maurice Tinsley for the 1982 murder of Ms. Williams. Washington was convicted of a rape and murder he didn't commit largely because the jury was persuaded, or duped, by his false confession.
This week, we also witnessed another high profile confession fall apart, and must now ask, what place does persuasion, or belief have in a criminal justice system that provides for capital punishment? When DNA evidence is available to us, and we have science at our fingertips, doesn't the whole notion of "reasonable doubt" change such that it must now include indisputable scientific evidence that a convict is, in fact, culpable of the crime for which he, or she, has been charged?
While then Governor Wilder commuted Mr. Washington's sentence to life in prison, and not execution, it wasn't until 2003 that he was pardoned, but he was never officially vindicated.. No one has stood up and said: "We incarcerated, and nearly executed, the wrong man, an innocent man." One wonders where all the righteous indignation over not guilty verdict of O.J. Simpson is, and why it has been conspicuously absent where the wrongful conviction of innocent men is concerned? Is there no compulsion to admit that an error has been made, or are confessions of prosecutorial, or judicial, mistakes only viable when politically expedient? As Monday's Washington Post piece rightly states, "There is no place for arrogance in the criminal justice system." Further, there is no place for "conviction" that is predicated on a belief system, and not proof.
The release of accused Jonbenet Ramsey killer, John Mark Karr, shows how science, and DNA, can be used to invalidate, and challenge, those who are wrongly accused of committing a crime. The question inow becomes when we have scientific, irrefutable methods at our disposal to verify, and authenticate, culpability, how can we settle for anything less? Moreover, any conviction that is based on anything other than hard and fast DNA be viewed as anything but anecdotal, especially when the stakes are so high that the death sentence is on the table? Further, any inmate sentenced to die who has not been proven, through hard and fast scientific evidence, as having committed the crime for which he paid the ultimate price was murdered by the state, plain and simple.
Can a society that possesses the tools to produce evidence, beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, who the agent of a crime is, accept anything less than proof positive that a man sitting on death row belongs there before even contemplating whether to administer death. Maybe it's time to put the death penalty on hold until we can establish that it is conceptually viable in an age when convictions are based more on belief than knowledge while there is the possibility of absolute certainty with respect to evidence.
Arguably, the very framework, and presuppositions, upon which capital punishment were fashioned, in this country, have been forever challenged by a simple, but irrefutable fact out of the state of Virginia this week; an innocent man was wrongly convicted, sentenced, and nearly put to death for a crime he did not commit. Setting aside the obvious moral concerns, for a minute, wouldn't it be appropriate to factor belief, and persuasion, out of the criminal justice process, and allow DNA, and concrete, indisputable forensic data to prevail? Had forensics, and DNA, been paramount instead of dubious, often transparent confessions, Earl Washington, and many more innocents like him, would not have lost 17 years of their lives, and their dignity. Without a doubt, justice is the biggest casualty when we turn those we convict into victims of a system that was originally intended to uncover the truth not cover mistakes made by arrogant, ambitious lawyers and judges. It's time to examine what role, if any, "belief" has in a context in which it is possible to know whether or not a crime was committed, and by whom.
This week, we also witnessed another high profile confession fall apart, and must now ask, what place does persuasion, or belief have in a criminal justice system that provides for capital punishment? When DNA evidence is available to us, and we have science at our fingertips, doesn't the whole notion of "reasonable doubt" change such that it must now include indisputable scientific evidence that a convict is, in fact, culpable of the crime for which he, or she, has been charged?
While then Governor Wilder commuted Mr. Washington's sentence to life in prison, and not execution, it wasn't until 2003 that he was pardoned, but he was never officially vindicated.. No one has stood up and said: "We incarcerated, and nearly executed, the wrong man, an innocent man." One wonders where all the righteous indignation over not guilty verdict of O.J. Simpson is, and why it has been conspicuously absent where the wrongful conviction of innocent men is concerned? Is there no compulsion to admit that an error has been made, or are confessions of prosecutorial, or judicial, mistakes only viable when politically expedient? As Monday's Washington Post piece rightly states, "There is no place for arrogance in the criminal justice system." Further, there is no place for "conviction" that is predicated on a belief system, and not proof.
The release of accused Jonbenet Ramsey killer, John Mark Karr, shows how science, and DNA, can be used to invalidate, and challenge, those who are wrongly accused of committing a crime. The question inow becomes when we have scientific, irrefutable methods at our disposal to verify, and authenticate, culpability, how can we settle for anything less? Moreover, any conviction that is based on anything other than hard and fast DNA be viewed as anything but anecdotal, especially when the stakes are so high that the death sentence is on the table? Further, any inmate sentenced to die who has not been proven, through hard and fast scientific evidence, as having committed the crime for which he paid the ultimate price was murdered by the state, plain and simple.
Can a society that possesses the tools to produce evidence, beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, who the agent of a crime is, accept anything less than proof positive that a man sitting on death row belongs there before even contemplating whether to administer death. Maybe it's time to put the death penalty on hold until we can establish that it is conceptually viable in an age when convictions are based more on belief than knowledge while there is the possibility of absolute certainty with respect to evidence.
Arguably, the very framework, and presuppositions, upon which capital punishment were fashioned, in this country, have been forever challenged by a simple, but irrefutable fact out of the state of Virginia this week; an innocent man was wrongly convicted, sentenced, and nearly put to death for a crime he did not commit. Setting aside the obvious moral concerns, for a minute, wouldn't it be appropriate to factor belief, and persuasion, out of the criminal justice process, and allow DNA, and concrete, indisputable forensic data to prevail? Had forensics, and DNA, been paramount instead of dubious, often transparent confessions, Earl Washington, and many more innocents like him, would not have lost 17 years of their lives, and their dignity. Without a doubt, justice is the biggest casualty when we turn those we convict into victims of a system that was originally intended to uncover the truth not cover mistakes made by arrogant, ambitious lawyers and judges. It's time to examine what role, if any, "belief" has in a context in which it is possible to know whether or not a crime was committed, and by whom.
Monday, August 28, 2006
You've Got to Love a Country...
The heat has just been turned up a notch on the battle raging in the state of South Dakota to institute the most stringent, and draconian, ban on abortion nationwide. \n \nLast November, the South Dakota legislature approved a referendum to prohibit abortion in all cases except when the life of the mother is at stake. The bill, HB 1215, would criminalize doctors who perform abortions even in instances of rape and incest. The chief sponsor of the legislation, state Representative Roger W. Hunt, promises to track down, and prosecute, health care providers, and institutions, who are noncompliant, in his fervent fight to "defend the unborn." (WaPo)
Now that we find ourselves only a bit less than one year away from the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, what better time to focus attention on those hypocrites who claim to be so concerned about protecting human life, and who were manifestly unperturbed by the nonstop footage of thousands of stranded, drowning, and dying citizens of New Orleans. Those who scream the loudest about turning back the clock on legalized abortion are, more often than not, conspicuously silent when the cries of hungry children are heard. Those who want to deprive our daughters of their right to choose are more likely to vote against relief for poor welfare mothers, food stamps, and nationalized health insurance.
You've got to love a country that chooses to defend the rights of the unborn over the rights of the living. One can only hope that voters in South Dakota, and elsewhere should this madness spread, will recognize that choice has now become synonymous with sanity, and will vote accordingly when they go to the polls in November.
Now that we find ourselves only a bit less than one year away from the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, what better time to focus attention on those hypocrites who claim to be so concerned about protecting human life, and who were manifestly unperturbed by the nonstop footage of thousands of stranded, drowning, and dying citizens of New Orleans. Those who scream the loudest about turning back the clock on legalized abortion are, more often than not, conspicuously silent when the cries of hungry children are heard. Those who want to deprive our daughters of their right to choose are more likely to vote against relief for poor welfare mothers, food stamps, and nationalized health insurance.
You've got to love a country that chooses to defend the rights of the unborn over the rights of the living. One can only hope that voters in South Dakota, and elsewhere should this madness spread, will recognize that choice has now become synonymous with sanity, and will vote accordingly when they go to the polls in November.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Yes, yes, there is a doctor in the house...
"I must be first." "I must be supreme." "Our nation must rule the world." (Preach it) And I am sad to say that the nation in which we live is the supreme culprit. And I'm going to continue to say it to America, because I love this country too much to see the drift that it has taken.
God didn't call America to do what she's doing in the world now. (Preach it, preach it) God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war as the war in Vietnam. And we are criminals in> that war. We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation
But God has a way of even putting nations in their place. (Amen) The God that I worship has a way of saying, "Don't play with me." (Yes) He has a way of saying, as the God of the Old Testament used to say to the Hebrews, "Don’t play with me, Israel. Don't play with me, Babylon. (Yes) Be still and know that I'm God. And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power." (Yes) And that can happen to America. (Yes) Every now and then I go back and read Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. And when I come and look at America, I say to myself, the parallels are frightening.
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., "The Drum Major Instinct" sermon,
Atlanta, February 4, 1968
God didn't call America to do what she's doing in the world now. (Preach it, preach it) God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war as the war in Vietnam. And we are criminals in> that war. We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation
But God has a way of even putting nations in their place. (Amen) The God that I worship has a way of saying, "Don't play with me." (Yes) He has a way of saying, as the God of the Old Testament used to say to the Hebrews, "Don’t play with me, Israel. Don't play with me, Babylon. (Yes) Be still and know that I'm God. And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power." (Yes) And that can happen to America. (Yes) Every now and then I go back and read Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. And when I come and look at America, I say to myself, the parallels are frightening.
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., "The Drum Major Instinct" sermon,
Atlanta, February 4, 1968
Thursday, August 24, 2006
in a pizza parlor in Connecticut
Newfangled independent candidate for Senate, and incumbent from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman, spoke today about the importance of taking a strong stand against terror. (see comment below) The only question that remains, from his statement, is: is the "brutal enemy" we're allegedly fighting the only one who doesn't "distinguish based on party affiliation," or is the good senator's flip flop between a Democratic and Republican stance on issues really his own inability to be true to the differences that have historically separated these two parties?
"We are at war with a brutal enemy," Lieberman said while visiting a pizza parlor. "How the heck can we be in a battle in which we are fighting as Democrats and Republicans against each other when these terrorists certainly don't distinguish based on party affiliation? They want to kill any and all of us."
"We are at war with a brutal enemy," Lieberman said while visiting a pizza parlor. "How the heck can we be in a battle in which we are fighting as Democrats and Republicans against each other when these terrorists certainly don't distinguish based on party affiliation? They want to kill any and all of us."
Pluto bounced...
In Prague today, a group of renowned astronomers convened to declare that Pluto no longer qualifies as a planet. After a week of intense scrutiny, and analysis, the International Astronomical Union stripped Pluto of its planetary status, a position it held for more than 70 years.
By taking this historical act of dissembling established order of the universe, the notable union of astronomers suggests that there are certain criteria, and standards, "celestial objects" (CNN) must meet before they can be admitted into the elite planetary club. One wonders why there are standards heavenly objects must meet, and not presidents? If we can bounce Pluto, why not Bush?
It might be worth exploring the idea of an international leadership union applying the cognate concept that world leaders, too, must meet certain universally accepted, and acceptable, standards, or face excommunication. While theoretically the arbiter, and standard-bearer of relations between countries, the United Nations has been neutered by the meglomaniacal interests of superpowers it once sought to hold in check. An union of international leaders might be a vehicle for ensuring cooperation, as well as ejecting those who imperil others with their own ideological dysentery.
In today's cynical climate, one is hard pressed to find even one leader who would pass the litmus test with regard to human rights and civil rights. If a group of astronomers can come up with standards to determine which objects in the heavens deserve to receive hierarchical entitlement, and decide to bounce a planet that doesn't fit, surely a group of politicos can develop a way to rate, and eradicate, those whose hubris, and sense of entitlement, negate any potential benefit their actions may have.
An effective world union with the power to expel those leaders who compromise the survival of the planet, and eliminate those pesky rogue leaders who have traditionally proved to be such a pain in the rump for the rest of the planet might not be a bad idea, then folks who defy nonproliferation treaties, and Geneva Accords, would lose their stripes, and suffer the same fate as Pluto.
The concept of impeachment, as we know it, would become an archaism in light of an international approach to abuse of power, and nationalism, the subliminal cause of most of the world's conflicts, would go the way of the dinosaur. If such a global leadership union were to exist now that posited humane treatment,,due process, and freedom of expression as among their criteria for remaining in power, just think of how many world leaders would get bounced starting with Bush, moving on to Putin, Blair, Kim Jong II, and Mahmouid Ahmadinejah. Now think of how many would remain.
By taking this historical act of dissembling established order of the universe, the notable union of astronomers suggests that there are certain criteria, and standards, "celestial objects" (CNN) must meet before they can be admitted into the elite planetary club. One wonders why there are standards heavenly objects must meet, and not presidents? If we can bounce Pluto, why not Bush?
It might be worth exploring the idea of an international leadership union applying the cognate concept that world leaders, too, must meet certain universally accepted, and acceptable, standards, or face excommunication. While theoretically the arbiter, and standard-bearer of relations between countries, the United Nations has been neutered by the meglomaniacal interests of superpowers it once sought to hold in check. An union of international leaders might be a vehicle for ensuring cooperation, as well as ejecting those who imperil others with their own ideological dysentery.
In today's cynical climate, one is hard pressed to find even one leader who would pass the litmus test with regard to human rights and civil rights. If a group of astronomers can come up with standards to determine which objects in the heavens deserve to receive hierarchical entitlement, and decide to bounce a planet that doesn't fit, surely a group of politicos can develop a way to rate, and eradicate, those whose hubris, and sense of entitlement, negate any potential benefit their actions may have.
An effective world union with the power to expel those leaders who compromise the survival of the planet, and eliminate those pesky rogue leaders who have traditionally proved to be such a pain in the rump for the rest of the planet might not be a bad idea, then folks who defy nonproliferation treaties, and Geneva Accords, would lose their stripes, and suffer the same fate as Pluto.
The concept of impeachment, as we know it, would become an archaism in light of an international approach to abuse of power, and nationalism, the subliminal cause of most of the world's conflicts, would go the way of the dinosaur. If such a global leadership union were to exist now that posited humane treatment,,due process, and freedom of expression as among their criteria for remaining in power, just think of how many world leaders would get bounced starting with Bush, moving on to Putin, Blair, Kim Jong II, and Mahmouid Ahmadinejah. Now think of how many would remain.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Chez Denny's
You may have heard the president's press conference yesterday in which he said that as long as he is at the helm, there will be no withdrawal from Iraq. arguing that he's concerned about a civil war if we send the troops home. At last, there is something upon which this president and I agree. I, too, am concerned about the real prospect of civil war, only in this country.
The great divide between the haves and the have nots has swelled since Mr. Bush took office to Katrina proportions, and the result may well prove to be at least as catastrophic. The economic policies of this administration have widened the gap between rich and poor, with the rich getting fatter, and the poor leaner. And, if economic disenfranchisement is allowed to continue, we may yet see a civil war, in the form of class struggle, in these United States, as well as our own homegrown insurgency.
So, while Bush, Cheney, and the oil baron cartel are out conducting their "bogey man" campaign on terror, you and I are left to foot the bill, and the future can only go to the highest bidder. I can speak from personal experience as I'm spending my summer vacation looking for decent, and affordable, housing in Los Angeles, only to find that Don Quixote would have much better luck. The insane cost of living, in our largest cities, has rendered mobility, both literally and figuratively, a pastime only of the elite, and affluent. Those who have to work for a living had better find a place, and stay put, or find themselves in the horrific position of competing for run down, ranshackled spaces at Rodeo Drive prices. Courtesy of the Bush years, first time home buyers are priced out of the market, and are forced into renting apartments. Thanks to the pumping iron war mongering of the past 5 years, the price of crude oil has impacted the cost of everything from produce to prescription drugs. We can no longer afford to send our kids to college. We can no longer afford to save for a retirement which grows less and less certain by the minute.
So, this is how I'm spending my summer vacation, thinking about the civil war, in this country, which is all but inevitable if these economic policies are enabled, and accelerated, by a tuned-out populace. I sit under a combined "Best Western" and "Denny's" sign, in the San Fernando Valley, as lavish green light bathes a swimming pool. I munch on packaged ham as the mother of all pick-up trucks, with the word "Halliburton" inscribed on its belly, pulls out of the driveway buoyed eagerly by an American flag, and head for the lobby to find some paper when the driver, a guy named Joe, about 40 who weighs about 250 pounds, quietly fondles the flag on his lapel, and solemnly recites the names of his Halliburton brothers for whom he waits to join him at the hotel. His inflection is careful, and deliberate, as if he were reading off the names of war dead. Outside, in the hotel parking lot, there is a Lincoln town car snoozing in the handicapped zone next to a vintage Mustang circa 1988. The Halliburton truck shoots by, and is quickly followed by one marked "Jews for Jesus" which looks like it might have been a Pizza Hut delivery truck in its past life. One can only wonder whose side Jesus would be on, and whether He would buy any of the spam these guys are trying to pass off as righteousness.
Our government's declaration of war on "terror" was really a declaration of war on the American Dream, and nothing more than a transparent camouflage for an assault on the middle class. This was no mere assault, mind you, but assault with a deadly weapon, the weapon being nothing less than sabotage of the electoral process. That said, make no mistake, no government has ever dichotomized, and alienated, its people by divesting them of their civil liberties, economic opportunity, their piece of the pie, and survived. Never before, since we left the old country, has America seen a ruling class so intent on pursuing the politics of privilege, and ensuring, one way or another, a return to an economic caste system which our founding fathers thought they were leaving behind when they sailed off on the Mayflower. Moreover, one is hard pressed to recall a more egregious climate of religious intolerance, on our shores, since the days of Salem Bay.
That said, make no mistake, no government has ever dichotomized, and alienated, its people by divesting them of their civil liberties, economic opportunity, their piece of the pie, and survived. So,I return to my room, turn on the TV, watch a Lexus commercial as the Denny's menu falls to the floor. I think about the Lincoln town car sound asleep in the parking lot, its driver in his Calvin khakis, and the Ford Explorer next to it wearing an American flag like a proud tattoo. I think about the concept of equal opportunity, which rapidly approaches extinction, thanks to the antediluvian mindset of those who hold the purse strings. I think about what Marcuse, and others, have said about how a revolution, or class struggle, could never happen in this country because, quite simply, unless it was a made-for-TV movie first. I think about Mexico, and how the Mexican people bravely challenge their stolen election, and how we, land of the free, home of the brave, sit quietly by, on cruise control, while the upper 1% of our country run off with ours.
Yes, one can only hope that those most cynical among us aren't right, and "Class War," the DVD, isn't coming soon to a living room near you. In Paddy Chayefsky's words, I hope we decide "we're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore," that even if the American Dream is in tatters on Iraqi battlefields, in a cave in Pakistan, or in a demolished trailer home outside New Orleans, we will show up on Election Day, and let the whole world know we run best at higher octane despite the ambitions of those who profit from obscene rise in crude oil, and that, while we may eat at Denny's, the doors of the Ritz remain open to all of us.
The great divide between the haves and the have nots has swelled since Mr. Bush took office to Katrina proportions, and the result may well prove to be at least as catastrophic. The economic policies of this administration have widened the gap between rich and poor, with the rich getting fatter, and the poor leaner. And, if economic disenfranchisement is allowed to continue, we may yet see a civil war, in the form of class struggle, in these United States, as well as our own homegrown insurgency.
So, while Bush, Cheney, and the oil baron cartel are out conducting their "bogey man" campaign on terror, you and I are left to foot the bill, and the future can only go to the highest bidder. I can speak from personal experience as I'm spending my summer vacation looking for decent, and affordable, housing in Los Angeles, only to find that Don Quixote would have much better luck. The insane cost of living, in our largest cities, has rendered mobility, both literally and figuratively, a pastime only of the elite, and affluent. Those who have to work for a living had better find a place, and stay put, or find themselves in the horrific position of competing for run down, ranshackled spaces at Rodeo Drive prices. Courtesy of the Bush years, first time home buyers are priced out of the market, and are forced into renting apartments. Thanks to the pumping iron war mongering of the past 5 years, the price of crude oil has impacted the cost of everything from produce to prescription drugs. We can no longer afford to send our kids to college. We can no longer afford to save for a retirement which grows less and less certain by the minute.
So, this is how I'm spending my summer vacation, thinking about the civil war, in this country, which is all but inevitable if these economic policies are enabled, and accelerated, by a tuned-out populace. I sit under a combined "Best Western" and "Denny's" sign, in the San Fernando Valley, as lavish green light bathes a swimming pool. I munch on packaged ham as the mother of all pick-up trucks, with the word "Halliburton" inscribed on its belly, pulls out of the driveway buoyed eagerly by an American flag, and head for the lobby to find some paper when the driver, a guy named Joe, about 40 who weighs about 250 pounds, quietly fondles the flag on his lapel, and solemnly recites the names of his Halliburton brothers for whom he waits to join him at the hotel. His inflection is careful, and deliberate, as if he were reading off the names of war dead. Outside, in the hotel parking lot, there is a Lincoln town car snoozing in the handicapped zone next to a vintage Mustang circa 1988. The Halliburton truck shoots by, and is quickly followed by one marked "Jews for Jesus" which looks like it might have been a Pizza Hut delivery truck in its past life. One can only wonder whose side Jesus would be on, and whether He would buy any of the spam these guys are trying to pass off as righteousness.
Our government's declaration of war on "terror" was really a declaration of war on the American Dream, and nothing more than a transparent camouflage for an assault on the middle class. This was no mere assault, mind you, but assault with a deadly weapon, the weapon being nothing less than sabotage of the electoral process. That said, make no mistake, no government has ever dichotomized, and alienated, its people by divesting them of their civil liberties, economic opportunity, their piece of the pie, and survived. Never before, since we left the old country, has America seen a ruling class so intent on pursuing the politics of privilege, and ensuring, one way or another, a return to an economic caste system which our founding fathers thought they were leaving behind when they sailed off on the Mayflower. Moreover, one is hard pressed to recall a more egregious climate of religious intolerance, on our shores, since the days of Salem Bay.
That said, make no mistake, no government has ever dichotomized, and alienated, its people by divesting them of their civil liberties, economic opportunity, their piece of the pie, and survived. So,I return to my room, turn on the TV, watch a Lexus commercial as the Denny's menu falls to the floor. I think about the Lincoln town car sound asleep in the parking lot, its driver in his Calvin khakis, and the Ford Explorer next to it wearing an American flag like a proud tattoo. I think about the concept of equal opportunity, which rapidly approaches extinction, thanks to the antediluvian mindset of those who hold the purse strings. I think about what Marcuse, and others, have said about how a revolution, or class struggle, could never happen in this country because, quite simply, unless it was a made-for-TV movie first. I think about Mexico, and how the Mexican people bravely challenge their stolen election, and how we, land of the free, home of the brave, sit quietly by, on cruise control, while the upper 1% of our country run off with ours.
Yes, one can only hope that those most cynical among us aren't right, and "Class War," the DVD, isn't coming soon to a living room near you. In Paddy Chayefsky's words, I hope we decide "we're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore," that even if the American Dream is in tatters on Iraqi battlefields, in a cave in Pakistan, or in a demolished trailer home outside New Orleans, we will show up on Election Day, and let the whole world know we run best at higher octane despite the ambitions of those who profit from obscene rise in crude oil, and that, while we may eat at Denny's, the doors of the Ritz remain open to all of us.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
An Open Letter to the President
Dear President Bush:
The court recently declared your domestic warrantless wiretapping program to be illegal and unconstitutional. All rational, and patriotic, Americans agree with the federal court's decision which is an affirmation of our First Amendment rights.
If, as you have indicated, you think that the FISA law, which is more than 3 decades old, is outdated, then why not amend, or change the law to conform with the challenges of recent conflicts. If, on the other hand, an administration chooses to ignore the law, or surreptitiously circumvent it, what kind of message does that send to our youngsters, as well as posterity?
I believe that we can fight terrorism with protecting our rights and freedoms, and that's why I agree with Senator Feingold: we need to bring this program back within the law, as well as expand not merely implementation of legal infrastructure, but moral backbone and vision needed to return us to the days when we didn't think the enemy was the guy next door.
Most sincerely,
Jayne Lyn Stahl
The court recently declared your domestic warrantless wiretapping program to be illegal and unconstitutional. All rational, and patriotic, Americans agree with the federal court's decision which is an affirmation of our First Amendment rights.
If, as you have indicated, you think that the FISA law, which is more than 3 decades old, is outdated, then why not amend, or change the law to conform with the challenges of recent conflicts. If, on the other hand, an administration chooses to ignore the law, or surreptitiously circumvent it, what kind of message does that send to our youngsters, as well as posterity?
I believe that we can fight terrorism with protecting our rights and freedoms, and that's why I agree with Senator Feingold: we need to bring this program back within the law, as well as expand not merely implementation of legal infrastructure, but moral backbone and vision needed to return us to the days when we didn't think the enemy was the guy next door.
Most sincerely,
Jayne Lyn Stahl
In response to...
In response to the argument that all wars are barbaric, and the only difference between the heinousness of this war, and others, is how quickly the news spreads...
Agreed, to some extent, but I do think that the technological revolution, creation of video games, and concept of "virtual death," as well as the dope smoking napalm bombers of Vietnam war era certainly contributed to the desensitization of officers, and infantrymen alike.
Those who say there's nothing new about the powerful trying to cover their tracks are right, but what has changed is the extent to which the "enemy" has been objectivized such that it no longer matters if he, or she has a name, gender, or national identity. This grab-all attitude towards warfare now comes under the sorry heading of a "war on terror." When we declare war on an intangible, it follows that mortality, too, becomes intangible. And, should you have a question about whether mortality has an odor, taste, and smell, just ask any parent who has lost a child to the battlefield.
In the previous World Wars, there was a clearly defined target. In this one, the target is amorphous, protean and, for the most part, along with the war itself, used as a camouflage for an abortive coup. Nobody wants to talk about what happened back in 2000, as a Republican party coup, when the popular vote was overturned, and a president was appointed by the Supreme Court, but this is what it was, plain and simple, and future history books will record it as such
Agreed, to some extent, but I do think that the technological revolution, creation of video games, and concept of "virtual death," as well as the dope smoking napalm bombers of Vietnam war era certainly contributed to the desensitization of officers, and infantrymen alike.
Those who say there's nothing new about the powerful trying to cover their tracks are right, but what has changed is the extent to which the "enemy" has been objectivized such that it no longer matters if he, or she has a name, gender, or national identity. This grab-all attitude towards warfare now comes under the sorry heading of a "war on terror." When we declare war on an intangible, it follows that mortality, too, becomes intangible. And, should you have a question about whether mortality has an odor, taste, and smell, just ask any parent who has lost a child to the battlefield.
In the previous World Wars, there was a clearly defined target. In this one, the target is amorphous, protean and, for the most part, along with the war itself, used as a camouflage for an abortive coup. Nobody wants to talk about what happened back in 2000, as a Republican party coup, when the popular vote was overturned, and a president was appointed by the Supreme Court, but this is what it was, plain and simple, and future history books will record it as such
"Consider the Mindset"
Had enough of Jon Benet Ramsey's killer's most irregular confession to an egregious, and sensational crime? Well then, consider this: Marines Lt. Colonel Jeffrey A. Chessari saw nothing irregular, or out of the ordinary, in the murder, last November, of 24 Iraqi men, women, and children in the village of Haditha. To the lieutenant, this wholesale act of slaughter can be seen only as "a large combat action that had been staged by the enemy." (WaPo)
It boggles the mind to think that any key commander, whether it be in the marines, the army, or the air force, can be so audaciously complacent, and nonplussed, about any operation, under his auspices, that involves the gunning down of civilian "enemy." That there is no sense of responsibility, or desire to pursue at least the prospect of culpability, for what is clearly a shameful act that falls outside of the Geneva Conventions, as well as any civilized notion of battle, makes the notion that any country to whom we claim to export democracy, and/or respect for law and order, patently and grossly absurd. Such open, and provincial, acceptance of "collateral damage" constitutes blatant conceptual butchery, and far surpasses anything that can be accomplished by a mere bullet. While testifying, in Iraq, in preparation for a larger military trial in the Haditha matter, it appears that the good lieutenant didn't even bat an eyelash. According to the statement made, under oath, last spring, Chessari said that he did not think what happened in Haditha was in way, shape, or form out of the ordinary nor that it warranted an investigation on his part. Instead, he suggested that the killing of these 24 civilians in late November, in Iraq, was nothing more than a routine combat action. (WaPo)
It will be interesting to see who will walk away from the inquiry into Haditha with a slap on the wrist, what the Lt. Colonel's peers think, and the penalty, if any, this commander, and his subordinates, will face for what can only be seen as criminal acts. Moreover, what price will society at large pay for training, arming, and rewarding the kind of mindset that unilaterally, and universally, abnegates responsibility both as a critically-thinking commanding officer, and as a moral human being. What example can our military hope to set for an evolving Iraqi military?
Arguably, the larger question is what kind of skewered logic finds value in a preemptive military action that comes about from leadership that demonstrates no knowledge whatsoever of what the word "proactive" means. Is that what the enemy is to be used for, to cover our collective ass? Or, better still, has the truth itself become our biggest enemy?
More importantly, why is it that the press, in this country, as well as those born again neo-con artists aren't asking the hard questions about over the top, behavior routinely practiced, ignored, and/or sanctioned by commissioned officers in our armed forces? If we don't ask these questions, you can rest assured history will ask them for us as, indeed, with regard to Haditha, Abu Ghraib, and other travesties, we have met the enemy, and it is not terror, it is passive acceptance, blind compliance, and noxious insensitivity to the collective, and unequivocal, value of human life.
It boggles the mind to think that any key commander, whether it be in the marines, the army, or the air force, can be so audaciously complacent, and nonplussed, about any operation, under his auspices, that involves the gunning down of civilian "enemy." That there is no sense of responsibility, or desire to pursue at least the prospect of culpability, for what is clearly a shameful act that falls outside of the Geneva Conventions, as well as any civilized notion of battle, makes the notion that any country to whom we claim to export democracy, and/or respect for law and order, patently and grossly absurd. Such open, and provincial, acceptance of "collateral damage" constitutes blatant conceptual butchery, and far surpasses anything that can be accomplished by a mere bullet. While testifying, in Iraq, in preparation for a larger military trial in the Haditha matter, it appears that the good lieutenant didn't even bat an eyelash. According to the statement made, under oath, last spring, Chessari said that he did not think what happened in Haditha was in way, shape, or form out of the ordinary nor that it warranted an investigation on his part. Instead, he suggested that the killing of these 24 civilians in late November, in Iraq, was nothing more than a routine combat action. (WaPo)
It will be interesting to see who will walk away from the inquiry into Haditha with a slap on the wrist, what the Lt. Colonel's peers think, and the penalty, if any, this commander, and his subordinates, will face for what can only be seen as criminal acts. Moreover, what price will society at large pay for training, arming, and rewarding the kind of mindset that unilaterally, and universally, abnegates responsibility both as a critically-thinking commanding officer, and as a moral human being. What example can our military hope to set for an evolving Iraqi military?
Arguably, the larger question is what kind of skewered logic finds value in a preemptive military action that comes about from leadership that demonstrates no knowledge whatsoever of what the word "proactive" means. Is that what the enemy is to be used for, to cover our collective ass? Or, better still, has the truth itself become our biggest enemy?
More importantly, why is it that the press, in this country, as well as those born again neo-con artists aren't asking the hard questions about over the top, behavior routinely practiced, ignored, and/or sanctioned by commissioned officers in our armed forces? If we don't ask these questions, you can rest assured history will ask them for us as, indeed, with regard to Haditha, Abu Ghraib, and other travesties, we have met the enemy, and it is not terror, it is passive acceptance, blind compliance, and noxious insensitivity to the collective, and unequivocal, value of human life.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
This Just In...
A federal judge, in Detroit, today became the first to declare this administration's NSA surveillance program unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates First Amendment rights to free speech and privacy. According to the Associated Press, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered an "immediate halt to the program."
A spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union all but assures this administration will appeal the ruling. And, when the court's decision reaches the Vice President's desk, one can bet that Mr. Cheney will add Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to the long, and growing list of "al Qaeda-types."
A spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union all but assures this administration will appeal the ruling. And, when the court's decision reaches the Vice President's desk, one can bet that Mr. Cheney will add Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to the long, and growing list of "al Qaeda-types."
"If not for fake news..."
Whoever called it a "free press" was wrong; it's very costly. In fact, getting information, in this country, gets more and more expensive every day, not just for those who buy the newspaper, but for those who report the news.
A few days ago, in San Francisco, a federal judge ruled that two reporters for the San Francisco Chronicle, Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wadu, must satisfy a subpoena, and tell who provided them with secret testimony in the high profile Barry Bonds steroid case. Both reporters said they will go to jail before revealing their sources. When journalists face jail time for little more than fulfilling a prerequisite of Journalism 101, honoring confidentiality of material provided to them, the notion of tamper-free, and authentic information is in jeopardy. While, in recent years, we have heard much talk about the separation between church and state, no one is saying a word about a necessary separation between the press and the state. When those who bring us information about what our government is doing are called upon to account to representatives of that government for the news they report, or its sources, the credibility and accuracy of that information is forever compromised..
While we need separation between the press and the state, we also need separation between the press and big business, in this country. As the Washington Post reported, on August 15th, the Federal Communications Commission recently sent letters to 77 T.V. broadcasters nationwide requesting that they properly label "video news releases," or "fake news" promotional pieces for big companies like General Motors, Panasonic, and the American Dental Association. Evidently, these "video news releases" are introduced into broadcasts without any disclosure of the fact that they were subsidized by the companies whose services they promote. The FCC's action was prompted by a study by the Center for Media and Democracy, last spring, which found that news stations no longer differentiate between so-called video news releases, and verifiable news. This is a dangerous policy. And, the underlying question, of course, is: what is a verifiable news report, who's verifying it, and why is it that American journalists are being coerced, in an unprecedented way, to divulge their sources while high profile corporations, like GM, have been getting away with feedng their goods, and services, via prime time airwaves to consumers without disclosing that they are paying for these reports?
More importantly, for those of us who are fond of a phrase that reverberates from 9/11, it's time to connect the dots. What about the Lincoln Group? What about the public relations campaign conducted by the Bush administration to make the invasion of Iraq more sexy,. and more palatable to the American people? Where does big business and big government merge, and is this "the American way?"
While the Washington Post also asserts that "none of the releases in the (Center for Media and Democracy) study were paid for by the federal government," clearly there are many instances in which reports, in our nation's leading newspapers, that made the argument for "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq in the days leading up to the toppling of Baghdad, were, at the very least, sculpted by the White House press corps. Additionally, we hear of more and more photographs taken in the war zone being doctored, and can only speculate about how many words, and phrases, have been nuanced by this administration in an effort to put a happy face on a horrific conflict.
When, out of fear, reporters for leading newspapers are leaving the real investigative work to those like Sy Hersh who write, in The New Yorker, about U.S. collusion with Israel in the months before Hezbollah captured two Israeli hostages, a sad day has dawned on American journalism. When CNN takes material from Sy Hersh, in The New Yorker, and not The New York Times, or The Washington Post, that suggests the arming of Israeli, and support of the bombing of Beirut may, in fact, be a dress rehearsal for a prospective air strike on Tehran, one must inevitably ask, would Richard Nixon have been forced to resign if Watergate were to happen today? Would the information of wrongdoing that surfaced thanks to the efforts of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein be open for public viewing in 2006, as it was in the 1970s, or would Mr. Woodward and Mr. Bernstein be silenced by the prospect of doing jail time if they weren't prepared to reveal the identity of Deep Throat?
More to the point, what does it say about these times that a president of the United States would probably have been able to commit a burglary of his opposing party's headquarters, at the Watergate, and get away with it today only because of a press that has been neutralized by fear of the consequences that would come about by merely doing their job. Who needs censorship when we have self-censorship. When news is being withheld, or neutralized, at best, how can we expect anything but cynicism from those who read our daily papers? Maybe the reason many aren't buying newspapers isn't that they can get information for free on the Internet, but because they don't believe what they read, and how can they?
What a milestone we've reached when a governmental agency like the FCC sends out a mass mailing to ask that broadcasters say "and now a word from our sponsors" when presenting news reports designed for marketing purposes. When broadcasters no longer have the good sense to distinguish, on their own, between paid promotional material, and real news, how can we, the consumer, tell the real blonde from the fake? What a milestone this is, too, when the pressure for disclosure falls on the shoulders of those who bring us what little information we have about what our government is up to, without whom we, as consumers and as an electorate, would remain in the dark.
We agree that it's necessary to "properly label" video releases. It may not be a bad idea, too, to apply the label "caution: contents under pressure" to print, and broadcast, news as, increasingly, it appears that if not for fake news, there'd be no news at all.
A few days ago, in San Francisco, a federal judge ruled that two reporters for the San Francisco Chronicle, Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wadu, must satisfy a subpoena, and tell who provided them with secret testimony in the high profile Barry Bonds steroid case. Both reporters said they will go to jail before revealing their sources. When journalists face jail time for little more than fulfilling a prerequisite of Journalism 101, honoring confidentiality of material provided to them, the notion of tamper-free, and authentic information is in jeopardy. While, in recent years, we have heard much talk about the separation between church and state, no one is saying a word about a necessary separation between the press and the state. When those who bring us information about what our government is doing are called upon to account to representatives of that government for the news they report, or its sources, the credibility and accuracy of that information is forever compromised..
While we need separation between the press and the state, we also need separation between the press and big business, in this country. As the Washington Post reported, on August 15th, the Federal Communications Commission recently sent letters to 77 T.V. broadcasters nationwide requesting that they properly label "video news releases," or "fake news" promotional pieces for big companies like General Motors, Panasonic, and the American Dental Association. Evidently, these "video news releases" are introduced into broadcasts without any disclosure of the fact that they were subsidized by the companies whose services they promote. The FCC's action was prompted by a study by the Center for Media and Democracy, last spring, which found that news stations no longer differentiate between so-called video news releases, and verifiable news. This is a dangerous policy. And, the underlying question, of course, is: what is a verifiable news report, who's verifying it, and why is it that American journalists are being coerced, in an unprecedented way, to divulge their sources while high profile corporations, like GM, have been getting away with feedng their goods, and services, via prime time airwaves to consumers without disclosing that they are paying for these reports?
More importantly, for those of us who are fond of a phrase that reverberates from 9/11, it's time to connect the dots. What about the Lincoln Group? What about the public relations campaign conducted by the Bush administration to make the invasion of Iraq more sexy,. and more palatable to the American people? Where does big business and big government merge, and is this "the American way?"
While the Washington Post also asserts that "none of the releases in the (Center for Media and Democracy) study were paid for by the federal government," clearly there are many instances in which reports, in our nation's leading newspapers, that made the argument for "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq in the days leading up to the toppling of Baghdad, were, at the very least, sculpted by the White House press corps. Additionally, we hear of more and more photographs taken in the war zone being doctored, and can only speculate about how many words, and phrases, have been nuanced by this administration in an effort to put a happy face on a horrific conflict.
When, out of fear, reporters for leading newspapers are leaving the real investigative work to those like Sy Hersh who write, in The New Yorker, about U.S. collusion with Israel in the months before Hezbollah captured two Israeli hostages, a sad day has dawned on American journalism. When CNN takes material from Sy Hersh, in The New Yorker, and not The New York Times, or The Washington Post, that suggests the arming of Israeli, and support of the bombing of Beirut may, in fact, be a dress rehearsal for a prospective air strike on Tehran, one must inevitably ask, would Richard Nixon have been forced to resign if Watergate were to happen today? Would the information of wrongdoing that surfaced thanks to the efforts of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein be open for public viewing in 2006, as it was in the 1970s, or would Mr. Woodward and Mr. Bernstein be silenced by the prospect of doing jail time if they weren't prepared to reveal the identity of Deep Throat?
More to the point, what does it say about these times that a president of the United States would probably have been able to commit a burglary of his opposing party's headquarters, at the Watergate, and get away with it today only because of a press that has been neutralized by fear of the consequences that would come about by merely doing their job. Who needs censorship when we have self-censorship. When news is being withheld, or neutralized, at best, how can we expect anything but cynicism from those who read our daily papers? Maybe the reason many aren't buying newspapers isn't that they can get information for free on the Internet, but because they don't believe what they read, and how can they?
What a milestone we've reached when a governmental agency like the FCC sends out a mass mailing to ask that broadcasters say "and now a word from our sponsors" when presenting news reports designed for marketing purposes. When broadcasters no longer have the good sense to distinguish, on their own, between paid promotional material, and real news, how can we, the consumer, tell the real blonde from the fake? What a milestone this is, too, when the pressure for disclosure falls on the shoulders of those who bring us what little information we have about what our government is up to, without whom we, as consumers and as an electorate, would remain in the dark.
We agree that it's necessary to "properly label" video releases. It may not be a bad idea, too, to apply the label "caution: contents under pressure" to print, and broadcast, news as, increasingly, it appears that if not for fake news, there'd be no news at all.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Monday, August 14, 2006
"Demeaning Democracy," by Senator Ted Kennedy
Please enjoy the below piece by the Senator from Massachusetts which appeared in the op-ed page of a prominent Connecticut newspaper, The Hartford Courant:
"Demeaning Democracy
Cheney Paints Lamont Victory As Helping Terrorists"
August 13, 2006
By Edward M. Kennedy
Vice presidents are notorious for serving as an administration's chief attack dog, and time and again Dick Cheney has been unleashed to accuse anyone who is opposed to the Bush administration of aiding the terrorists. But this time he has gone too far.The comments he made on the result of the Connecticut Democratic primary -- that it might encourage "the al-Qaida types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task" -- are an attack not just on Democrats, but on democracy itself. What happened in Connecticut is in fact a model for democracies everywhere. The people of the state heard a vigorous debate between two competing visions of how to protect this country. Young citizens became deeply involved, and turnout was high. The primary reminded us of the miracle of our democracy, in which the nation is ruled by its people - not by any entrenched set of leaders. There are few better messages we could send the world in these troubled times.Cheney's comments about the election were ugly and frightening. They show once again that he and his party will stop at nothing to wrap Republicans in the flag and to insinuate that anyone who votes against them is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. It's obvious that this administration lacks basic respect for our fundamental freedoms.Cheney and his crowd are all for free and open elections - as long as they turn out their way. They are all for free speech - provided it supports the administration. They are all for the rule of law - as long as the law does not prevent them from doing whatever they want to do. When elections, speeches or laws are inconvenient, he does not hesitate to declare that they are helping the terrorists. I can think of no graver offense against our democracy.Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut scares Cheney for one simple reason: It demonstrates that a free and independent people can and do hold public officials accountable for their words and deeds.If the terrorists are indeed paying any attention to the Connecticut primary results, they must be worried.The people of Connecticut spoke out loud and clear in favor of change. Ned Lamont will stand strong for the people of Connecticut, and put tough and smart foreign policies ahead of the politics of fear and more "stay the course" failures. Republicans will stop at nothing to make sure that the November elections are not a referendum on their misguided policy in Iraq or on the way they have run our country for the past six years. Unfortunately, this time the facts are getting in their way.The American people are ready to change an administration that let Osama bin Laden escape. They are ready to change a Congress that let precious years go by without demanding the implementation of the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission to keep us safe.They are ready to change a policy on Iraq that has drained our resources, weakened our security, stretched our troops and recruited new terrorists.The November election will teach Dick Cheney and others of his ilk that they cannot use fear to cling to power. As Will Rogers said, "It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't."
"Demeaning Democracy
Cheney Paints Lamont Victory As Helping Terrorists"
August 13, 2006
By Edward M. Kennedy
Vice presidents are notorious for serving as an administration's chief attack dog, and time and again Dick Cheney has been unleashed to accuse anyone who is opposed to the Bush administration of aiding the terrorists. But this time he has gone too far.The comments he made on the result of the Connecticut Democratic primary -- that it might encourage "the al-Qaida types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task" -- are an attack not just on Democrats, but on democracy itself. What happened in Connecticut is in fact a model for democracies everywhere. The people of the state heard a vigorous debate between two competing visions of how to protect this country. Young citizens became deeply involved, and turnout was high. The primary reminded us of the miracle of our democracy, in which the nation is ruled by its people - not by any entrenched set of leaders. There are few better messages we could send the world in these troubled times.Cheney's comments about the election were ugly and frightening. They show once again that he and his party will stop at nothing to wrap Republicans in the flag and to insinuate that anyone who votes against them is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. It's obvious that this administration lacks basic respect for our fundamental freedoms.Cheney and his crowd are all for free and open elections - as long as they turn out their way. They are all for free speech - provided it supports the administration. They are all for the rule of law - as long as the law does not prevent them from doing whatever they want to do. When elections, speeches or laws are inconvenient, he does not hesitate to declare that they are helping the terrorists. I can think of no graver offense against our democracy.Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut scares Cheney for one simple reason: It demonstrates that a free and independent people can and do hold public officials accountable for their words and deeds.If the terrorists are indeed paying any attention to the Connecticut primary results, they must be worried.The people of Connecticut spoke out loud and clear in favor of change. Ned Lamont will stand strong for the people of Connecticut, and put tough and smart foreign policies ahead of the politics of fear and more "stay the course" failures. Republicans will stop at nothing to make sure that the November elections are not a referendum on their misguided policy in Iraq or on the way they have run our country for the past six years. Unfortunately, this time the facts are getting in their way.The American people are ready to change an administration that let Osama bin Laden escape. They are ready to change a Congress that let precious years go by without demanding the implementation of the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission to keep us safe.They are ready to change a policy on Iraq that has drained our resources, weakened our security, stretched our troops and recruited new terrorists.The November election will teach Dick Cheney and others of his ilk that they cannot use fear to cling to power. As Will Rogers said, "It's no disgrace not to be able to run a country nowadays, but it is a disgrace to keep on trying when you know you can't."
Sunday, August 13, 2006
"Some Thoughts on the Bombings in London" from July, 2005
(the below piece of mine was published last July 7th in the online magazine the-hold.com):
One day after it was announced that London was chosen to be the site of the 2012 Olympic games, there were multiple bombings, and multiple deaths, on subways and buses there. A group calling itself "the Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe" has claimed responsibility for this debacle. Increasingly, sadly, it appears that Al Qaeda of Iraq, and now Al Qaeda of Europe, are brought to you by Halliburton, and the CIA who trained Bin Laden and his boys when they were rogue rats back in Afghanistan. They've since been equipped, educated, and promoted, to be real live, hot wired terrorists. Worse still, one fears that the trail of infamy leads back to the Oval Office, and that even Tony Blair, prime minister, has blood on his hands. War makes strange bedfellows; capitalism even stranger. Halliburton growing fatter by the minute, China eating up our oil supplies, Bill Gates courting Beijing. The reign of terror surpassed only perhaps by the acid rain of history.
Just yesterday, we watched Judith Miller being led off to prison like a good little sacrificial lamb (not unlike Martha Stewart) while Karl Rove, Bob Novak, and the big boys of Enron get to keep manufacturing lies, and war toys. Cheney's Halliburton just got a $5 billion contract for military operations in Iraq. A beautiful old lady, on the BBC, who was punched, and had pieces ripped from her during the London subway bombing was socked by plain old corporate greed, the same corporate greed that sodomized the Statue of Liberty, and continues to rape the U.S. Constitution. Tony Blair, while shaken, had the presence of mind (unlike his American counterfart) to say that these dreadful events while devastating will not be used as an excuse to divest Great Britain of those freedoms they have come to hold near and dear. Good for him! How sorry for this planet that we have an empire with a loose cannon as commander-in-chief who has navigated this nation, and the world, into a nightmare that makes the apocalypse look like cotton candy.
Perhaps those who revel in Creationism shall yet have their way, and the Apocalypse will come sooner rather than later. Possibly, we are witnessing the coalescing of various elements that make for cosmic catastrophe, but then catastrophe preceded the dinosaurs and comets. Maybe these terrible days of innocence bombed, and burned, will show us how important it is for us all to work together as a world, as a planet, and not as a collection of half-wit nationalists bent on buffing up their own bottom line at great peril, carnage, and at the expense of what generations have seen, and continue to see, as civilization.
One day after it was announced that London was chosen to be the site of the 2012 Olympic games, there were multiple bombings, and multiple deaths, on subways and buses there. A group calling itself "the Secret Organization of Al Qaeda in Europe" has claimed responsibility for this debacle. Increasingly, sadly, it appears that Al Qaeda of Iraq, and now Al Qaeda of Europe, are brought to you by Halliburton, and the CIA who trained Bin Laden and his boys when they were rogue rats back in Afghanistan. They've since been equipped, educated, and promoted, to be real live, hot wired terrorists. Worse still, one fears that the trail of infamy leads back to the Oval Office, and that even Tony Blair, prime minister, has blood on his hands. War makes strange bedfellows; capitalism even stranger. Halliburton growing fatter by the minute, China eating up our oil supplies, Bill Gates courting Beijing. The reign of terror surpassed only perhaps by the acid rain of history.
Just yesterday, we watched Judith Miller being led off to prison like a good little sacrificial lamb (not unlike Martha Stewart) while Karl Rove, Bob Novak, and the big boys of Enron get to keep manufacturing lies, and war toys. Cheney's Halliburton just got a $5 billion contract for military operations in Iraq. A beautiful old lady, on the BBC, who was punched, and had pieces ripped from her during the London subway bombing was socked by plain old corporate greed, the same corporate greed that sodomized the Statue of Liberty, and continues to rape the U.S. Constitution. Tony Blair, while shaken, had the presence of mind (unlike his American counterfart) to say that these dreadful events while devastating will not be used as an excuse to divest Great Britain of those freedoms they have come to hold near and dear. Good for him! How sorry for this planet that we have an empire with a loose cannon as commander-in-chief who has navigated this nation, and the world, into a nightmare that makes the apocalypse look like cotton candy.
Perhaps those who revel in Creationism shall yet have their way, and the Apocalypse will come sooner rather than later. Possibly, we are witnessing the coalescing of various elements that make for cosmic catastrophe, but then catastrophe preceded the dinosaurs and comets. Maybe these terrible days of innocence bombed, and burned, will show us how important it is for us all to work together as a world, as a planet, and not as a collection of half-wit nationalists bent on buffing up their own bottom line at great peril, carnage, and at the expense of what generations have seen, and continue to see, as civilization.
"the al-Qaida type"
Nobody ever accused this vice president of being liberal, but he's sure liberal with his language. On Wednesday, he chose to put his own personal spin on Ned Lamont's victory, over incumbent Joe Lieberman. According to the Associated Press, Dick Cheney claimed that a win by the Democratic challenger will only serve to embolden and inspire " the al-Qaida types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."
One obvious question for Mr. Cheney is--what is an "al Qaida type, and what does he, or she, look like? Do they have any distinguishing characteristics? a birth mark on the forehead, perhaps, as with that biblical chap Cain? A double chin? Are they Arabs? Israelis? Asians? exclusively, or predominately? Also, might we expect to find an "al Qaida-type" lounging in a pair of Blonics, or in Calvin Klein boxer shorts? And, where, in a five star hotel in Beverly Hills, or maybe in what remains of a five star hotel in Beirut or Baghdad? Maybe even in a college dormitory in Berkeley, or, better still, might we expect to see one shopping for lingerie in Target, or Victoria's Secrets?
Oh, and while we're at it, why not ask the esteemed vice president what a "dissenter" looks like, and if, at some point, they, too, might misconstrued as an "al-Qaida type?" More importantly, when Mr. Cheney suggests that the "will of the American people" might be broken by those who question his vision, and that of the commander-in-chief, as to how best to prevent future terror attacks on our soil, is the default position one that suggests being contrarian compromises our national security? To the contrary, the inability to go against official governmental policy is antithetical to everything the framers of the Bill of Rights intended. Further, it must be asked,which "fight," in particular, is the vice president so consumed with, and which "task" is he so concerned with completing? Can it be the task of rebuilding Iraq for which his Halliburton, and other fortune 500 American contractors, are destined to make billions?
Very impressive phrase, "al Qaida type." It seems Mr. Cheney missed his calling; he should have been a casting director.
One obvious question for Mr. Cheney is--what is an "al Qaida type, and what does he, or she, look like? Do they have any distinguishing characteristics? a birth mark on the forehead, perhaps, as with that biblical chap Cain? A double chin? Are they Arabs? Israelis? Asians? exclusively, or predominately? Also, might we expect to find an "al Qaida-type" lounging in a pair of Blonics, or in Calvin Klein boxer shorts? And, where, in a five star hotel in Beverly Hills, or maybe in what remains of a five star hotel in Beirut or Baghdad? Maybe even in a college dormitory in Berkeley, or, better still, might we expect to see one shopping for lingerie in Target, or Victoria's Secrets?
Oh, and while we're at it, why not ask the esteemed vice president what a "dissenter" looks like, and if, at some point, they, too, might misconstrued as an "al-Qaida type?" More importantly, when Mr. Cheney suggests that the "will of the American people" might be broken by those who question his vision, and that of the commander-in-chief, as to how best to prevent future terror attacks on our soil, is the default position one that suggests being contrarian compromises our national security? To the contrary, the inability to go against official governmental policy is antithetical to everything the framers of the Bill of Rights intended. Further, it must be asked,which "fight," in particular, is the vice president so consumed with, and which "task" is he so concerned with completing? Can it be the task of rebuilding Iraq for which his Halliburton, and other fortune 500 American contractors, are destined to make billions?
Very impressive phrase, "al Qaida type." It seems Mr. Cheney missed his calling; he should have been a casting director.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Go Figure...
Don't you just love how the folks who brought us "the axis of evil," and "fear and trembling unto nausea," would just love to capitalize on the foiled terror plot, out of England, on Thursday, as a war on terror redux with made for cable footage of bin Laden, as well as other sinister "homegrown" threats to national security. Go figure, and what better time to arrange for the leak of this latest plot to blow up airlines less than 3 months before November's big race.
Already newfangled independent candidate Joe Lieberman stepped up to the plate, losing no time, he scrambled to put a happy face on the fortuitous nonevent with his suggestion supporting his opponent, Ned Lamont, would increase the odds of a terrorist strike exponentially. (WaPo). Needless to say, Lieberman's Republican cohorts, in Connecticut, agreed.
What better fodder for a precarious midterm election for the neo con artists than to resurrect the nightmare of 9/11, as well as the ominous specter of liquid, or chemical sabotage. And, indeed, what better time for the Democrats, and all those who oppose the failed operation in Iraq, to insist it was our own escalation of violence that emboldened, and inspired, the latest handiwork of Al Qaeda.
Moreover, what a cynical abuse of the electoral process, as well as the concept of representation, to prey on the vulnerabilities of a citizenry that is already overwhelmed, if bombarded with images of global viscera, and hostility. Still, as a rationale for an international agenda that amounts to little more than the exercise of testasterone over reason, we've now expanded the concept of multicultural terror to include domestic terrorists--coming soon to a Kent State near you?
The foreign policy misadventures of the Bush junior\'s administration are unparalleled since Napoleon\'s Waterloo, and some would say make even his papa blush.. Our old Roman friend Petronius, too, might well be impressed by the gross incompetence trying to masquerade as misguided leadership at every rung of the capital ladder. Beware a country that cries the loudest for national security. As history has shown us, repeatedly, all too often it is one that poses the gravest danger to world peace.
If nothing else, the past 5 years have shown us that the politics of preemption have brought us to where we are today in a real world, bloody battle, based on imaginary weapons, with an amorphous, and protean "enemy" that only increases, is better armed, and better equipped, than it was a few decades ago, in Afghanistan, where, as "freedom fighters," they were little more than rank amateurs.
Arguably, Hezbollah has gained supporters in Lebanon, Al Qaeda in Iraq, largely thanks to a military ethos that now threatens, once again, to reinvent itself, promising yet more misery to come unless warmongering, by any party, is seen for what it is, an act of terror against us all.
Already newfangled independent candidate Joe Lieberman stepped up to the plate, losing no time, he scrambled to put a happy face on the fortuitous nonevent with his suggestion supporting his opponent, Ned Lamont, would increase the odds of a terrorist strike exponentially. (WaPo). Needless to say, Lieberman's Republican cohorts, in Connecticut, agreed.
What better fodder for a precarious midterm election for the neo con artists than to resurrect the nightmare of 9/11, as well as the ominous specter of liquid, or chemical sabotage. And, indeed, what better time for the Democrats, and all those who oppose the failed operation in Iraq, to insist it was our own escalation of violence that emboldened, and inspired, the latest handiwork of Al Qaeda.
Moreover, what a cynical abuse of the electoral process, as well as the concept of representation, to prey on the vulnerabilities of a citizenry that is already overwhelmed, if bombarded with images of global viscera, and hostility. Still, as a rationale for an international agenda that amounts to little more than the exercise of testasterone over reason, we've now expanded the concept of multicultural terror to include domestic terrorists--coming soon to a Kent State near you?
The foreign policy misadventures of the Bush junior\'s administration are unparalleled since Napoleon\'s Waterloo, and some would say make even his papa blush.. Our old Roman friend Petronius, too, might well be impressed by the gross incompetence trying to masquerade as misguided leadership at every rung of the capital ladder. Beware a country that cries the loudest for national security. As history has shown us, repeatedly, all too often it is one that poses the gravest danger to world peace.
If nothing else, the past 5 years have shown us that the politics of preemption have brought us to where we are today in a real world, bloody battle, based on imaginary weapons, with an amorphous, and protean "enemy" that only increases, is better armed, and better equipped, than it was a few decades ago, in Afghanistan, where, as "freedom fighters," they were little more than rank amateurs.
Arguably, Hezbollah has gained supporters in Lebanon, Al Qaeda in Iraq, largely thanks to a military ethos that now threatens, once again, to reinvent itself, promising yet more misery to come unless warmongering, by any party, is seen for what it is, an act of terror against us all.
Friday, August 11, 2006
"You say you want a resolution..."
For those left who care about sanity, nowadays, the storm clouds parted, and the sun shone through, with news that the United States and France have reached an agreement on a cease fire between Israel and Lebanon at the United Nations this afternoon.
One would hope that both sides wouldn't wait for the ink to dry on the resolution before stopping their ground and air campaigns. Still, this may be the first time that the Americans and French have agreed on anything with the possible exception of french fries.
One would hope that both sides wouldn't wait for the ink to dry on the resolution before stopping their ground and air campaigns. Still, this may be the first time that the Americans and French have agreed on anything with the possible exception of french fries.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
In Defense of Joe -- taking the high road
The senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman, has taken quite a beating today from members of his own party and some, including myself, have suggested his behavior is duplicitous, and opportunistic, even dangerously so. To tar, feather, and filet a man for being a sore loser, ultimately, amounts to little more than doing the Republicans work for them.
While pundits universally call for his blood, and excommunication from his party, some perspective is needed. While one may personally disagree with his stance on certain issues, such as the war in Iraq and "homeland security," Senator Lieberman has had a distinguished career of service. He was elected to the United States Senate nearly 20 years ago, is now a third term incumbent from his state, and has been the majority leader of the Connecticut state senate for six years. Joe Lieberman deserves respect for having served the people of his state, as well as his country. We do a grave disservice to anyone who has made a lifelong commitment to public service by diminishing, and insulting them, as well as send the wrong message to future generations who may consider this path.
During these tumultuous, and difficult, times, it is even more essential to harbor an atmosphere that promotes unity, not divisiveness, and not let the politics of spin win. It would be cruel and unusual punishment to embark on the kind of vindictive rhetoric that results in the destruction of a man, and his career, thus it is imperative for progressives, and all Democrats, to respect the senator from Connecticut. Likewise, it is equally imperative that a member of the United States Senate, or any elected official, acknowledge, and respect, the will of the people he represents. Or, to paraphrase the words of Johnny Cochran: "If the glove don't fit, it's time to quit." The best thing Senator Lieberman can do for his party, his state, and his country is to step aside, do so graciously, not gratuitously, and support Ned Lamont's candidacy.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Lamont Not Lament
About the only news that could be bigger than Ned Lamont's surprise upset over Connecticut incumbent, Joe Lieberman, in the Senate primary last night would be the revelation that someone figured out a way to clone Fidel Castro. Still, while many covering the blog belt aren't amazed by this win for progressive Democrats, others are skeptical not just about whether or not Lieberman will run as an Independent, but just what, if any, overall impact this come from behind win will have in the presidential race of 2008.
Without a doubt, it's reassuring to see Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards all vying for first shot at photo op with the new contender for U.S. Senate, but it would be even more comforting if we heard the four, or five, most likely to run for president, in two years, line up behind the antiwar platform that turned a virtual unknown into a virtuouso player.
Moreover, among the big surprises of last night is not that Joe Lieberman didn't go gently into that night, vowing to run as an Independent, but that his decision to switch party affiliations was not challenged even by members of the Independent party. Is there not a platform, and does Lieberman reflect Independent party line, or can one merely switch back and forth from Democrat to Republican to Independent depending on political expediency and opportunity?
What is less obvious, and what the Democrats need to consider if victory in the most important midterm election, less than three months away, and the presidential election, two years away, is how to come up with a platform that doesn't readilly succumb to the politics of bait and switch, and actually has a distinctive, and discernible world view. How can anyone take a presidential, or any other election seriously when a prominent senator, with more than 30 years of experience under his belt, can morph so comfortably into the skin of another party without anyone even raising so much as an agnostic eyebrow.
When differences in party platforms break down such that a race becomes one of personality over principle, something is rotten in the body politic, and if we want leaders, not poseurs, we can't afford to overlook that. When candidacy is about opportunism and not opportunity, and ideas are pushed back stage, there is no way to avoid another Supreme Court appointment to the Oval Office. By now, it must be hugely apparent if representational government is to survive beyond the next two years, it's time to sharpen not merely pencils, but talking points, or we're guaranteed to see more lament, and less Lamont, come November.
Without a doubt, it's reassuring to see Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards all vying for first shot at photo op with the new contender for U.S. Senate, but it would be even more comforting if we heard the four, or five, most likely to run for president, in two years, line up behind the antiwar platform that turned a virtual unknown into a virtuouso player.
Moreover, among the big surprises of last night is not that Joe Lieberman didn't go gently into that night, vowing to run as an Independent, but that his decision to switch party affiliations was not challenged even by members of the Independent party. Is there not a platform, and does Lieberman reflect Independent party line, or can one merely switch back and forth from Democrat to Republican to Independent depending on political expediency and opportunity?
What is less obvious, and what the Democrats need to consider if victory in the most important midterm election, less than three months away, and the presidential election, two years away, is how to come up with a platform that doesn't readilly succumb to the politics of bait and switch, and actually has a distinctive, and discernible world view. How can anyone take a presidential, or any other election seriously when a prominent senator, with more than 30 years of experience under his belt, can morph so comfortably into the skin of another party without anyone even raising so much as an agnostic eyebrow.
When differences in party platforms break down such that a race becomes one of personality over principle, something is rotten in the body politic, and if we want leaders, not poseurs, we can't afford to overlook that. When candidacy is about opportunism and not opportunity, and ideas are pushed back stage, there is no way to avoid another Supreme Court appointment to the Oval Office. By now, it must be hugely apparent if representational government is to survive beyond the next two years, it's time to sharpen not merely pencils, but talking points, or we're guaranteed to see more lament, and less Lamont, come November.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
A Necessary Distinction
There needs to be a distinction made between actions by Hezbollah, and those of the Lebanese people. Attacks on Lebanon, by any country, under the pretext of diffusing, and eliminating, Hezbollah fail to take into account that the Lebanese people are multicultural, and multi-ethnic. Picture what we, in this country, would do if two Americans were seized by a Canadian paramilitary group. Would the world community consider it appropriate to decimate the city of Toronto because one radical faction captured two soldiers from Sausalito? This is, in essence, what the Israelis are doing.
Whether one agrees that this radical Muslim faction, in Lebanon, poses a threat to the survival of Israel or not, one must accept that to bomb Beirut in the hopes of eradicating Hezbollah is like bombing Iraq in the hopes of destroying Al Qaeda.
When nations start lining up their ducks, everyone must duck. When occupation becomes a preoccupation, a world war is all but inevitable.
Whether one agrees that this radical Muslim faction, in Lebanon, poses a threat to the survival of Israel or not, one must accept that to bomb Beirut in the hopes of eradicating Hezbollah is like bombing Iraq in the hopes of destroying Al Qaeda.
When nations start lining up their ducks, everyone must duck. When occupation becomes a preoccupation, a world war is all but inevitable.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
When Might makes Right
On July 31st, in a speech given in Jerusalem and published in Ha'aretz, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert tried to justify Israel's bombing of Kfar Kana, and the loss of dozens of children's lives in Lebanon, saying that those who make the 2500 plus rockets that are savagely tearing into major cities throughout Israel are using that small village, outside Beirut, as their base of operations. One would like to believe that Olmert's assertion is the truth, but so far it is just that--an assertion.
Further, Israel's prime minister goes so far as to call Hezbollah, "agents of the devil," which cannot help but remind one of our President and his "axis of evil." Olmert claims that the children of Kana would be sleeping quietly in their beds today were it not for Hezbollah. Once again, the argument that the carnage, and destruction, is defensive is made. Yet again, we are reminded of the six million Jews wiped out during the Holocaust. I can see my Uncle Joe, a gentle, sensitive man who wore a row of numbers on left arm from a camp in Poland, a small man with a huge heart who looked like he'd be hard pressed to kill a bee. This timid soul recounted. while I sat on his knee a child of nine, and asked how he got those numbers, about the camps, the Warsaw ghetto, how his wife, and children all perished, and how he had to shoot his way out. I can only wonder now what my Uncle Joe would have to say about Olmert's use of an inconceivable sacrifice as a rationale for wreaking havoc, and attempting to wipe out another sovereign state. One can only be haunted by a memory that doesn't belong to one--that of a fragile, humble human being who was forced to fire his way to freedom in order to escape an inescapable act of barbarism. I now ask, on Joe's behalf, can one ever justify barbarism, under any flag, or for any reason?
I know my uncle would feel as strongly about survival of the state of Israel, and the Jewish people,as I do, but I also know that he\'d be as nauseated, and repulsed, by the image of a sanguine, tranquil corpse of a year old infant being carried out of the wreckage of Kana, cradled in her father\'s arms. That breath can be taken away from us so unceremoniously, and with such moving dignity so that even infancy buckles, and bends as if to make a mockery of war itself. \n\n \n"You are already familiar with the murderous taste of this terror. And you will taste it more," the Israeli prime minister warns his people. To think of Tel Aviv, or Haifa being demolished is horrific to me, but the thought of Beirut being destroyed is no less terrible nor can the taste of blood ever be confused with that of wine \n\n \nIn the final analysis, there is no justification for the taking of innocent life, and there can be no circumstance in which genocide can be seen as righteous. There are no holy men left after holy war. Regardless of whether it\'s Hezbollah. or Israel, when might becomes indistinguishable from right, the result can only be chaos, and we must all come taste the kind of terror that belongs in hell, and hell only. \n",1]
);
//-->
I know my uncle would feel as strongly about survival of the state of Israel, and the Jewish people,as I do, but I also know that he'd be as nauseated, and repulsed, by the image of a sanguine, tranquil corpse of a year old infant being carried out of the wreckage of Kana, cradled in her father's arms. That breath can be taken away from us so unceremoniously, and with such moving dignity so that even infancy buckles, and bends as if to make a mockery of war itself.
"You are already familiar with the murderous taste of this terror. And you will taste it more," the Israeli prime minister warns his people. To think of Tel Aviv, or Haifa being demolished is horrific to me, but the thought of Beirut being destroyed is no less terrible nor can the taste of blood ever be confused with that of wine
In the final analysis, there is no justification for the taking of innocent life, and there can be no circumstance in which genocide can be seen as righteous. There are no holy men left after holy war. Regardless of whether it's Hezbollah. or Israel, when might becomes indistinguishable from right, the result can only be chaos, and we must all come taste the kind of terror that belongs in hell, and hell only.
Further, Israel's prime minister goes so far as to call Hezbollah, "agents of the devil," which cannot help but remind one of our President and his "axis of evil." Olmert claims that the children of Kana would be sleeping quietly in their beds today were it not for Hezbollah. Once again, the argument that the carnage, and destruction, is defensive is made. Yet again, we are reminded of the six million Jews wiped out during the Holocaust. I can see my Uncle Joe, a gentle, sensitive man who wore a row of numbers on left arm from a camp in Poland, a small man with a huge heart who looked like he'd be hard pressed to kill a bee. This timid soul recounted. while I sat on his knee a child of nine, and asked how he got those numbers, about the camps, the Warsaw ghetto, how his wife, and children all perished, and how he had to shoot his way out. I can only wonder now what my Uncle Joe would have to say about Olmert's use of an inconceivable sacrifice as a rationale for wreaking havoc, and attempting to wipe out another sovereign state. One can only be haunted by a memory that doesn't belong to one--that of a fragile, humble human being who was forced to fire his way to freedom in order to escape an inescapable act of barbarism. I now ask, on Joe's behalf, can one ever justify barbarism, under any flag, or for any reason?
I know my uncle would feel as strongly about survival of the state of Israel, and the Jewish people,as I do, but I also know that he\'d be as nauseated, and repulsed, by the image of a sanguine, tranquil corpse of a year old infant being carried out of the wreckage of Kana, cradled in her father\'s arms. That breath can be taken away from us so unceremoniously, and with such moving dignity so that even infancy buckles, and bends as if to make a mockery of war itself. \n\n \n"You are already familiar with the murderous taste of this terror. And you will taste it more," the Israeli prime minister warns his people. To think of Tel Aviv, or Haifa being demolished is horrific to me, but the thought of Beirut being destroyed is no less terrible nor can the taste of blood ever be confused with that of wine \n\n \nIn the final analysis, there is no justification for the taking of innocent life, and there can be no circumstance in which genocide can be seen as righteous. There are no holy men left after holy war. Regardless of whether it\'s Hezbollah. or Israel, when might becomes indistinguishable from right, the result can only be chaos, and we must all come taste the kind of terror that belongs in hell, and hell only. \n",1]
);
//-->
I know my uncle would feel as strongly about survival of the state of Israel, and the Jewish people,as I do, but I also know that he'd be as nauseated, and repulsed, by the image of a sanguine, tranquil corpse of a year old infant being carried out of the wreckage of Kana, cradled in her father's arms. That breath can be taken away from us so unceremoniously, and with such moving dignity so that even infancy buckles, and bends as if to make a mockery of war itself.
"You are already familiar with the murderous taste of this terror. And you will taste it more," the Israeli prime minister warns his people. To think of Tel Aviv, or Haifa being demolished is horrific to me, but the thought of Beirut being destroyed is no less terrible nor can the taste of blood ever be confused with that of wine
In the final analysis, there is no justification for the taking of innocent life, and there can be no circumstance in which genocide can be seen as righteous. There are no holy men left after holy war. Regardless of whether it's Hezbollah. or Israel, when might becomes indistinguishable from right, the result can only be chaos, and we must all come taste the kind of terror that belongs in hell, and hell only.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
"Dereliction of Duty"
The Hebrew edition of Israel's daily newspaper, Ha'aretz, has reported today of a huge demonstration, in downtown Tel Aviv, that included more than 5,000 Israelis protesting the occupation of Lebanon, and demanding an immediate cease fire. Present at today's protest in Israel's capital city was none other than Yael Dayan, current vice-mayor of Tel Aviv, and daughter of former Defense Secretary, the late Moshe Dayan. The image of 5,000 Israelis marching down the streets of Tel Aviv to speak out against the occupation, and bombing, of Lebanon should be plastered on the front page of every newspaper both here and abroad. The question is: will it be and, if not, why not?
While Human Rights Watch reports, alternately, on acts committed both by Hezbollah, and Israeli forces that constitute war crimes, targeting of innocent civilian life whether it be by Hezbollah rockets, or Israeli ground forces, the mainstream media, in this country, is conspicuously silent with regard to reporting human rights violations, and a growing climate of dissent for Israel's hawkish policies among that nation's citizens. Is the failure to monitor, and report the truth, from all vantage points, in the U.S., not dereliction of duty? And, is it also, in a profound sense, collusion between those who bring us information, and those who make foreign policy?
Moreover, is yellow journalism, and the push for the highest Nielson ratings, not a greater threat to the survival of American culture, and life as we know it, than bird flu, and mad cow disease? It's time the press, in America, stop doing a lap dance for the Bush administration, and start bringing us the news, as it happens, when it happens, without being a propaganda delivering vehicle for a rabid defense department. Clearly, thanks to neutering of the news, over the past six years, an informed electorate may not merely be the first, but possibly even the last, casualty of war.
While Human Rights Watch reports, alternately, on acts committed both by Hezbollah, and Israeli forces that constitute war crimes, targeting of innocent civilian life whether it be by Hezbollah rockets, or Israeli ground forces, the mainstream media, in this country, is conspicuously silent with regard to reporting human rights violations, and a growing climate of dissent for Israel's hawkish policies among that nation's citizens. Is the failure to monitor, and report the truth, from all vantage points, in the U.S., not dereliction of duty? And, is it also, in a profound sense, collusion between those who bring us information, and those who make foreign policy?
Moreover, is yellow journalism, and the push for the highest Nielson ratings, not a greater threat to the survival of American culture, and life as we know it, than bird flu, and mad cow disease? It's time the press, in America, stop doing a lap dance for the Bush administration, and start bringing us the news, as it happens, when it happens, without being a propaganda delivering vehicle for a rabid defense department. Clearly, thanks to neutering of the news, over the past six years, an informed electorate may not merely be the first, but possibly even the last, casualty of war.
In Response to a Response
First, let me apologize for my absence from le blog; I have been preoccupied with making a much-needed, and personal, transition. Also, you may now find posts of mine, happily, featured on Huffington Post, as well as OpEd News.
Recently, it was with delight, and honor, that I happened to come upon a response to my blog post, "Is Psychosis Contagious?," from "Gay in Florida," (see below), a most intelligent, and astute comment which aptly compares the psychopathic, and pseudo-religious, warfare in the Middle East to the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. While I don't share "Gay's" conclusion that folks in Ireland have their act together just yet, they've come a long way, baby, from that nexus of road rage known as the Middle East.
Moreover, I quite agree with Gay's suggestion that my post underemphasized the "religious" aspect of the conflict; that may be because I think both Muslims and Jews have strayed so far from the tenets, and core principles of their faith that to suggest their strife has anything to do with a credo, or belief system, of any kind, is ludicrous. That said, while it may likewise be argued that Capitalism and Communism, too, are merely paper ideologies, no one can deny, or dismiss the existence of the Cold War. It doesn't take a Marxist to see that the root cause of war has little or nothing to do with political theory, and almost invariably is about economics, and basic human greed.
But, most importantly, "Gay's" conclusion that no lasting peace is possible without religious tolerance is a profound, and profoundly accurate one with which I concur. We "daughters of the American revolution," and descendants of those who came over on the first swift boat out of Britain often forget that the reason our forbears fled their mother country, overcame and displaced Native Americans to occupy the original 13 colonies was to escape the kind of religious intolerance we practice as routinely, these days, as flossing our teeth.
Best of all, it's good to see something other than Jeb Bush coming out of Florida!
Recently, it was with delight, and honor, that I happened to come upon a response to my blog post, "Is Psychosis Contagious?," from "Gay in Florida," (see below), a most intelligent, and astute comment which aptly compares the psychopathic, and pseudo-religious, warfare in the Middle East to the conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. While I don't share "Gay's" conclusion that folks in Ireland have their act together just yet, they've come a long way, baby, from that nexus of road rage known as the Middle East.
Moreover, I quite agree with Gay's suggestion that my post underemphasized the "religious" aspect of the conflict; that may be because I think both Muslims and Jews have strayed so far from the tenets, and core principles of their faith that to suggest their strife has anything to do with a credo, or belief system, of any kind, is ludicrous. That said, while it may likewise be argued that Capitalism and Communism, too, are merely paper ideologies, no one can deny, or dismiss the existence of the Cold War. It doesn't take a Marxist to see that the root cause of war has little or nothing to do with political theory, and almost invariably is about economics, and basic human greed.
But, most importantly, "Gay's" conclusion that no lasting peace is possible without religious tolerance is a profound, and profoundly accurate one with which I concur. We "daughters of the American revolution," and descendants of those who came over on the first swift boat out of Britain often forget that the reason our forbears fled their mother country, overcame and displaced Native Americans to occupy the original 13 colonies was to escape the kind of religious intolerance we practice as routinely, these days, as flossing our teeth.
Best of all, it's good to see something other than Jeb Bush coming out of Florida!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
