by Mary Pitt
4/29/07
Years ago, I developed the habit of watching the cable television Sunday news channels in order to learn what was happening in the world. Today I watched but not for the same reason; today it was just for comic relief! I snickered, snorted, and even laughed out loud as the vaunted pundits lied, alibied, and wriggled out of their share of responsibility for the mess in which our nation now finds itself. They discussed the stories about Tilman and Lynch. Why did they buy into them with such gusto? Well....... they had those twenty-four hours a day that they had to fill and they were such good stories! And, besides the tales were spoon-fed to them by the military!
On to critiques of the Democratic debates. Who "won"? Who "lost"? They are all married to the "tier system". Hillary did well, and Barack was not up to par. For "some reason" the major question posed to Edwards was his $400 haircut! Mike Gravel made the most of his "moment in the sun" but he has no money and probably will not be heard from again, while Dennis Kucinich was also there but nobody paid any attention except the "loony left". The talking heads have decided that it is going to be Hillary vs. Rudy in 2008 and they are all slavering over the number of "big stories" they will glean as the year wears on.
Howard Fineman delivered a touching eulogy for David Halberstam and reviewed his efforts against the Vietnam War and the suppression that he suffered at the hands of the Kennedy-Johnson administrations. He did not compare him to any of the brave journalists who are risking not only their lives but their careers by "telling it like it is" in today's ill-conceived war. In fact, he studiously avoided mentioning the parallels between the views of Halberstam and those of the "loony left" today.
Barely, if ever, mentioned was the death count of 100 troops for the month of April, the most deadly month to date despite the "surge". They seemed almost relieved to have the looming elections to discuss in order to avoid the bad news and the fact that, if Congress does not stand firm and re-enact the funding bill with the deadlines attached, it may go on forever..
The "big story du jour" was, of course, George Tenet's new tell-all book. There was no shortage of Republicans who were available to deny its authenticity, (as there were with all the other books on the subject.) "There were no plans to invade Iraq; everybody thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction; we had tried every option to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. orders; etc., etc, blah, blah, blah."
They are still going at it as I write, but I have about had my fill of derisive laughter. As Democratic Representative Jane Harmon is trying mightily to downplay Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney, she and Republican Representative Adam Putnam are still groping around in the dark, trying to find a "middle way", I turned to my computer to learn the truth.
I know that I am not in the minority in my frustration with the items that are chosen by the mainstream media as subjects for discussion. I can only think about the old adage of "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel". The "third rail" of politics is no longer Social Security; it is now the honesty and integrity of the people who have our nation in their deadly talons and threaten to destroy it if the people do not rise up as one and depose them. Short of starting a fund to put a computer in every home in the country so that the truth is available to all, is there a way that we can educate the public short of a campaign to destroy television as a medium? We know that most Americans get their news from television but how do we get our views aired on TV?
Phil Donahue was cancelled rather promptly as the war began because he was opposing the administration, and now Rosie O'Donnell is "voluntarily" removing her opinions from daytime television. How much longer will Keith Olbermann last? And then who is next? Jon Stewart? Stephen Colbert? It seems that the noose is drawing more tightly as the most outspoken critics of the administration are being deprived of their public voices. What's next? Tapping our phones? We have that. Monitoring our computers? Done! Censoring our television? Completed! Monitors on our streets? Coming right up. Listening devices in our pillows? Don't be too sure.
Mary Pitt lives in a house by the side of the road in a little rural village in Kansas where she can observe the world both as it is and as she would like it to be. Questions and comments will reach her at mpitt@cox.net
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
Son of Stay the Course
Posted by Jeff Huber
April 27, 2007
http://www.atlargely.com/2007/04/son_of_stay_the.html
As the Senate sent legislation to the White House that calls for troop withdrawal timelines, General David Petraeus, top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that the war will require "an enormous commitment" by the United States. When asked by reporters what kind of troop commitment would be required to get the job done, Petraeus answered, "I wouldn't try to truly anticipate what [that] level might be some years down the road." Petraeus noted historic case studies of long-term U.S. peacekeeping missions, and added that Iraq is "an endeavor that clearly is going to require enormous commitment and commitment over time." Petraeus has revealed himself to be a follower in the fine tradition of other four-star officers who have served under the Bush administration--a mouthpiece who's perfectly willing to polly cracker whatever message the regime wants injected into the echo chamber.
The Very Model of a Modern Four-Star General Petraeus seems to have mastered the fine neoconservative art of talking out both sides of his mouth. He gave the press new details on the "exceedingly unhelpful activities" by Iran, revealing links to the Khazaali terrorist network allegedly responsible for the abduction and murder of five U.S. soldiers in Karbala in January.
He said the Khazaali network "is directly connected to the Iranian Quds Force, received money, training, arms, ammunition and at some points in time even advice and assistance and direction." But then, incredibly, he said there is no direct evidence that Iranians were directly involved in the Karbala incident. Of the troop increase, Petraeus said "I think there is the very real possibility that there's going to be more combat action and that, therefore, there could be more casualties," Petraeus said.
"When you're expanding your forces' presence, when you are going into areas that have been very lightly populated with coalition forces in the past, that there is going to be more action." But he also said that “My sense is that there would be an increase in sectarian violence, a resumption of sectarian violence, were the presence of our forces and Iraqi forces at that time to be reduced.” Yeah, Petraeus has the Rovewellian patter down pat all right: cover all outrageous assertions with plausible disclaimers and hedge all bets: things may be bad if we go with our plan but they may be worse if we don't go with it. Wittingly or not, Petraeus has also offered himself up as the escalation strategy poster boy.
The administration's pro-escalation argument goes that the Senate's confirmation Petraeus as the U.S. commander in Iraq was a de facto endorsement of the escalation plan. That's nonsense on several counts. Patreaus didn't propose the escalation plan; Bill Kristol's neoconservative cronies Fred Kagan and Jack Keane proposed it. Petraeus was, obviously, receptive to Mr. Bush's way forward of choice, or Bush wouldn't have nominated him for the four-star Iraq post. But whatever Petraeus really thinks of the escalation strategy (he's rumored to have said he estimates it has a one in four chance of succeeding), it's not his prerogative to dictate foreign policy, even if he's the head of a regional unified command.
I don't envy Petraeus his job, but I'm not at all comfortable with the way he's going about it. It's starting to look like he's putting more effort into spinning the war than winning it. That little propaganda stunt he stage managed with John McCain and Lindsey Graham and a hundred of their best heavily armed friends going on a shopping spree in an outdoor market in Baghdad was downright embarrassing. Mr. Bush has stated he has no intention of withdrawing troops from Iraq during his tenure, and Petraeus seems determined to create conditions that give the boss what he wants. At this point in our Iraq misadventure, anything Petraeus or any other active duty general or admiral has to say is moot. To date, everything we've heard from the folks with stars on their collars has been administration serving double talk, and Petraeus is beginning to sound just like his predecessors. Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling aptly describes today's general and flag officer community in a recent Armed Forces Journal article titled "A Failure in Generalship."
While the physical courage of America's generals is not in doubt, there is less certainty regarding their moral courage. In almost surreal language, professional military men blame their recent lack of candor on the intimidating management style of their civilian masters. Now that the public is immediately concerned with the crisis in Iraq, some of our generals are finding their voices. They may have waited too long… … Neither the executive branch nor the services themselves are likely to remedy the shortcomings in America's general officer corps. Indeed, the tendency of the executive branch to seek out mild-mannered team players to serve as senior generals is part of the problem. The services themselves are equally to blame. The system that produces our generals does little to reward creativity and moral courage. Officers rise to flag rank by following remarkably similar career patterns. Senior generals, both active and retired, are the most important figures in determining an officer's potential for flag rank. The views of subordinates and peers play no role in an officer's advancement; to move up he must only please his superiors. In a system in which senior officers select for promotion those like themselves, there are powerful incentives for conformity. It is unreasonable to expect that an officer who spends 25 years conforming to institutional expectations will emerge as an innovator in his late forties.
The future of our Iraq involvement lies in the current struggle between Mr. Bush and Congress over war funding and timelines. Mr. Bush says he won't back down. Here's hoping Congress won't either. I don't know what Democratic congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi plan to do when and if Bush vetoes the spending bill, but I'm ready to support a draconian measure. If Congress responds to a veto by saying, fine, then we'll cut off all future funding and you, Mr. President, can use what's left in the money pipeline to bring our troops home right now, that will be just fine by me.
Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Read his commentaries at Pen and Sword.
April 27, 2007
http://www.atlargely.com/2007/04/son_of_stay_the.html
As the Senate sent legislation to the White House that calls for troop withdrawal timelines, General David Petraeus, top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that the war will require "an enormous commitment" by the United States. When asked by reporters what kind of troop commitment would be required to get the job done, Petraeus answered, "I wouldn't try to truly anticipate what [that] level might be some years down the road." Petraeus noted historic case studies of long-term U.S. peacekeeping missions, and added that Iraq is "an endeavor that clearly is going to require enormous commitment and commitment over time." Petraeus has revealed himself to be a follower in the fine tradition of other four-star officers who have served under the Bush administration--a mouthpiece who's perfectly willing to polly cracker whatever message the regime wants injected into the echo chamber.
The Very Model of a Modern Four-Star General Petraeus seems to have mastered the fine neoconservative art of talking out both sides of his mouth. He gave the press new details on the "exceedingly unhelpful activities" by Iran, revealing links to the Khazaali terrorist network allegedly responsible for the abduction and murder of five U.S. soldiers in Karbala in January.
He said the Khazaali network "is directly connected to the Iranian Quds Force, received money, training, arms, ammunition and at some points in time even advice and assistance and direction." But then, incredibly, he said there is no direct evidence that Iranians were directly involved in the Karbala incident. Of the troop increase, Petraeus said "I think there is the very real possibility that there's going to be more combat action and that, therefore, there could be more casualties," Petraeus said.
"When you're expanding your forces' presence, when you are going into areas that have been very lightly populated with coalition forces in the past, that there is going to be more action." But he also said that “My sense is that there would be an increase in sectarian violence, a resumption of sectarian violence, were the presence of our forces and Iraqi forces at that time to be reduced.” Yeah, Petraeus has the Rovewellian patter down pat all right: cover all outrageous assertions with plausible disclaimers and hedge all bets: things may be bad if we go with our plan but they may be worse if we don't go with it. Wittingly or not, Petraeus has also offered himself up as the escalation strategy poster boy.
The administration's pro-escalation argument goes that the Senate's confirmation Petraeus as the U.S. commander in Iraq was a de facto endorsement of the escalation plan. That's nonsense on several counts. Patreaus didn't propose the escalation plan; Bill Kristol's neoconservative cronies Fred Kagan and Jack Keane proposed it. Petraeus was, obviously, receptive to Mr. Bush's way forward of choice, or Bush wouldn't have nominated him for the four-star Iraq post. But whatever Petraeus really thinks of the escalation strategy (he's rumored to have said he estimates it has a one in four chance of succeeding), it's not his prerogative to dictate foreign policy, even if he's the head of a regional unified command.
I don't envy Petraeus his job, but I'm not at all comfortable with the way he's going about it. It's starting to look like he's putting more effort into spinning the war than winning it. That little propaganda stunt he stage managed with John McCain and Lindsey Graham and a hundred of their best heavily armed friends going on a shopping spree in an outdoor market in Baghdad was downright embarrassing. Mr. Bush has stated he has no intention of withdrawing troops from Iraq during his tenure, and Petraeus seems determined to create conditions that give the boss what he wants. At this point in our Iraq misadventure, anything Petraeus or any other active duty general or admiral has to say is moot. To date, everything we've heard from the folks with stars on their collars has been administration serving double talk, and Petraeus is beginning to sound just like his predecessors. Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling aptly describes today's general and flag officer community in a recent Armed Forces Journal article titled "A Failure in Generalship."
While the physical courage of America's generals is not in doubt, there is less certainty regarding their moral courage. In almost surreal language, professional military men blame their recent lack of candor on the intimidating management style of their civilian masters. Now that the public is immediately concerned with the crisis in Iraq, some of our generals are finding their voices. They may have waited too long… … Neither the executive branch nor the services themselves are likely to remedy the shortcomings in America's general officer corps. Indeed, the tendency of the executive branch to seek out mild-mannered team players to serve as senior generals is part of the problem. The services themselves are equally to blame. The system that produces our generals does little to reward creativity and moral courage. Officers rise to flag rank by following remarkably similar career patterns. Senior generals, both active and retired, are the most important figures in determining an officer's potential for flag rank. The views of subordinates and peers play no role in an officer's advancement; to move up he must only please his superiors. In a system in which senior officers select for promotion those like themselves, there are powerful incentives for conformity. It is unreasonable to expect that an officer who spends 25 years conforming to institutional expectations will emerge as an innovator in his late forties.
The future of our Iraq involvement lies in the current struggle between Mr. Bush and Congress over war funding and timelines. Mr. Bush says he won't back down. Here's hoping Congress won't either. I don't know what Democratic congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi plan to do when and if Bush vetoes the spending bill, but I'm ready to support a draconian measure. If Congress responds to a veto by saying, fine, then we'll cut off all future funding and you, Mr. President, can use what's left in the money pipeline to bring our troops home right now, that will be just fine by me.
Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia. Read his commentaries at Pen and Sword.
Bush's So Called "War Against Evil"
by Richard L. Franklin
4/27/07
"Demagogue" is often applied to one who spouts spurious oratory that nonetheless is emotionally stirring. We think of people such as Hitler, Mussolini, or the American neofascist Father Coughlin when we use words such as 'demagogue' or 'demagoguery'. These three men had an oratorical gift, which is why I never feel totally comfortable referring to the inarticulate Bush as a 'demagogue', most notably when he speaks off the cuff. In either case, his language is nonetheless often marked by some of the classic devices of demagoguery.
Such is the case when Bush takes a shot at those who question his reasons for the so-called 'war' in Iraq and Afghanistan. A growing number of Americans are coming to realize that the supposed ongoing 'war' is not even a real war. It's a bloody, imperialistic occupation of another country. A growing number of Americans are beginning to suspect the massive bloodshed and destruction inflicted on Iraq is being done simply to create a permanent outpost for Imperial America in the Middle East. As more Americans are becoming suspicious of what the cabal in the White House is up to, Bush is forced to fall back more heavily on the most common tools of jingoistic demagoguery, even though he scarcely has the verbal ability to become a true demagogue in the tradition of a Hitler or a Father Coughlin.
One of the most absurd examples of his rhetoric take place when he turns to an old and reliable obfuscatory term, namely "evil". When asked by reporters what the purpose of the current war is, he has more than once replied, "This is a war against evil." That kind of response seems to be extremely handy for putting a damper on any follow up questions. Reporters never follow up be asking Bush or Rice or Cheney what they mean by "evil".
Of all the words of the demagogic vernacular, "evil" is the most meaningless, yet one of the most emotionally charged words used by demagogues --- which is why they love using it.
So what exactly is an "axis of evil"? It admittedly sounds nasty, dangerous, and dark. We tend to feel we had best keep a wary eye on the members of an axis of evil and even keep ourselves primed for preemptive wars.
Well, it's time we called Bush on this kind of language. More exact parsing of comments and defining of words need to be somehow injected into public discourse. Rational thinking and speaking are absolutely essential in a democracy. Democratic theory has always embraced rational thinking as a core element of its very being. Never forget that democratic theory came primarily out of the Enlightenment, and rationality was a defining characteristic of that age. The whole democratic ethos is directed toward rational, open, lucid public discourse.
I propose a small start. Let's begin with the noun "evil". This word does not refer to anything among the furniture of the Universe. It is an absolutely empty term. It cannot properly refer to a single concrete object in the world. It does not. and cannot, denote a thing. It can only vaguely connote a vague darkness or diabolism. It also admittedly suggests a powerful dislike or fear on the part of the speaker, but tells us little more. In practice, it's main purpose is to stir up negative emotions about persons or events, thereby gaining popular support for killing or imprisoning people or making radical societal changes that serve a ruling class..
Once strong, negative emotions are stirred up, demagogues use these feelings to generate popular support for such niceties as foreign wars, empire building, concentration camps, torture, and the elimination of civil liberties at home.
Philosophers refer to "evil" as a reification. Put more simply, the word "evil" has no referent whatsoever. It refers to no more than empty air, or perhaps some kind of amorphous, veiled, supposedly pernicious phantasm. We never know, even murkily, what that something is. We only know it is very, very bad, and we must destroy it before it destroys us.
The pure relativity of the word "evil" becomes evident when we note that Hitler was adored as a savior by millions, while still more millions came to see him as a dangerous menace to civilization. Those who adored him saw him as a good man, a veritable savior of the German people, while his detractors labeled him as an "evil" maniac; however, those who described him as mentally ill and being an extreme danger to world peace were actually saying something.
Those who label certain criminals of the world as little Hitlers in order to suggest those people are "evil", really are not saying anything more than something like, "I hate those people". The term "evil" places targeted individuals or groups into groups who require some attention, but does little to rationally understand or effectively deal with such people.
This brings me back to Bush's "war against evil". What has been spent in the way of treasure, human life, and the prestige of America is incalculable. It therefore would be prudent to be precise about exactly what it is that we have bought for ourselves with these enormous costs. Saying we are being called upon to fight "a war against evil" is pure, unadulterated, manipulative propaganda, calculated to stir up emotions of fear and hatred. Popular attention is thusly turned from such horrors as America's genocidal policies and its role in global poisoning.
Amorphous, elastic, non-denotative words are worthless noises. When Bush tells us the current, so-called "war against evil" will protect us from mushroom clouds, he has drained a blatant lie of any meaning whatsoever by framing it within a "war against EVIL". We have no idea what he has said. Is such meaningless speech worth spending lives and treasure upon? Is it worth the devastation of our economy for decades to come? Is it worth massive destruction of environments for millions of years to come?
As my final look at the word "evil" (or its close relative, the word "bad"), permit me to offer this prosaic example of what such words really mean, assuming they mean anything at all. Suppose you decide to make a lemon pie. To do so, you buy lemons and sugar. If the lemons turn out to be saccharin sweet, you would probably label them as "bad" because they failed to answer your interest in having tartness in your pie. If the sugar turned out to be tart, you would probably label it as "bad" because it failed to answer your interest in having sweetness in your pie.
So what does this suggest about these appellations? It simply tells us that "good" and "bad" have no core meaning other than being an indication that X does or does not answer to certain wishes or interests a person has. It's really that simple. I kid you not.
Beware of the "fog of war", and try to avoid contributing to that fog with this kind of metaphysical nonsense or to allow semantic folderol to confuse your own thinking about what your government is doing or not doing. Those who use empty terms such as "evil" should be called upon to give us real, tangible reasons for their acts. We must challenge the penchant of the White House illusionists to make meaningless noises with their mealy mouths.
Richard L. Franklin is the author of 'The Mythology of 'Self-Worth'
4/27/07
"Demagogue" is often applied to one who spouts spurious oratory that nonetheless is emotionally stirring. We think of people such as Hitler, Mussolini, or the American neofascist Father Coughlin when we use words such as 'demagogue' or 'demagoguery'. These three men had an oratorical gift, which is why I never feel totally comfortable referring to the inarticulate Bush as a 'demagogue', most notably when he speaks off the cuff. In either case, his language is nonetheless often marked by some of the classic devices of demagoguery.
Such is the case when Bush takes a shot at those who question his reasons for the so-called 'war' in Iraq and Afghanistan. A growing number of Americans are coming to realize that the supposed ongoing 'war' is not even a real war. It's a bloody, imperialistic occupation of another country. A growing number of Americans are beginning to suspect the massive bloodshed and destruction inflicted on Iraq is being done simply to create a permanent outpost for Imperial America in the Middle East. As more Americans are becoming suspicious of what the cabal in the White House is up to, Bush is forced to fall back more heavily on the most common tools of jingoistic demagoguery, even though he scarcely has the verbal ability to become a true demagogue in the tradition of a Hitler or a Father Coughlin.
One of the most absurd examples of his rhetoric take place when he turns to an old and reliable obfuscatory term, namely "evil". When asked by reporters what the purpose of the current war is, he has more than once replied, "This is a war against evil." That kind of response seems to be extremely handy for putting a damper on any follow up questions. Reporters never follow up be asking Bush or Rice or Cheney what they mean by "evil".
Of all the words of the demagogic vernacular, "evil" is the most meaningless, yet one of the most emotionally charged words used by demagogues --- which is why they love using it.
So what exactly is an "axis of evil"? It admittedly sounds nasty, dangerous, and dark. We tend to feel we had best keep a wary eye on the members of an axis of evil and even keep ourselves primed for preemptive wars.
Well, it's time we called Bush on this kind of language. More exact parsing of comments and defining of words need to be somehow injected into public discourse. Rational thinking and speaking are absolutely essential in a democracy. Democratic theory has always embraced rational thinking as a core element of its very being. Never forget that democratic theory came primarily out of the Enlightenment, and rationality was a defining characteristic of that age. The whole democratic ethos is directed toward rational, open, lucid public discourse.
I propose a small start. Let's begin with the noun "evil". This word does not refer to anything among the furniture of the Universe. It is an absolutely empty term. It cannot properly refer to a single concrete object in the world. It does not. and cannot, denote a thing. It can only vaguely connote a vague darkness or diabolism. It also admittedly suggests a powerful dislike or fear on the part of the speaker, but tells us little more. In practice, it's main purpose is to stir up negative emotions about persons or events, thereby gaining popular support for killing or imprisoning people or making radical societal changes that serve a ruling class..
Once strong, negative emotions are stirred up, demagogues use these feelings to generate popular support for such niceties as foreign wars, empire building, concentration camps, torture, and the elimination of civil liberties at home.
Philosophers refer to "evil" as a reification. Put more simply, the word "evil" has no referent whatsoever. It refers to no more than empty air, or perhaps some kind of amorphous, veiled, supposedly pernicious phantasm. We never know, even murkily, what that something is. We only know it is very, very bad, and we must destroy it before it destroys us.
The pure relativity of the word "evil" becomes evident when we note that Hitler was adored as a savior by millions, while still more millions came to see him as a dangerous menace to civilization. Those who adored him saw him as a good man, a veritable savior of the German people, while his detractors labeled him as an "evil" maniac; however, those who described him as mentally ill and being an extreme danger to world peace were actually saying something.
Those who label certain criminals of the world as little Hitlers in order to suggest those people are "evil", really are not saying anything more than something like, "I hate those people". The term "evil" places targeted individuals or groups into groups who require some attention, but does little to rationally understand or effectively deal with such people.
This brings me back to Bush's "war against evil". What has been spent in the way of treasure, human life, and the prestige of America is incalculable. It therefore would be prudent to be precise about exactly what it is that we have bought for ourselves with these enormous costs. Saying we are being called upon to fight "a war against evil" is pure, unadulterated, manipulative propaganda, calculated to stir up emotions of fear and hatred. Popular attention is thusly turned from such horrors as America's genocidal policies and its role in global poisoning.
Amorphous, elastic, non-denotative words are worthless noises. When Bush tells us the current, so-called "war against evil" will protect us from mushroom clouds, he has drained a blatant lie of any meaning whatsoever by framing it within a "war against EVIL". We have no idea what he has said. Is such meaningless speech worth spending lives and treasure upon? Is it worth the devastation of our economy for decades to come? Is it worth massive destruction of environments for millions of years to come?
As my final look at the word "evil" (or its close relative, the word "bad"), permit me to offer this prosaic example of what such words really mean, assuming they mean anything at all. Suppose you decide to make a lemon pie. To do so, you buy lemons and sugar. If the lemons turn out to be saccharin sweet, you would probably label them as "bad" because they failed to answer your interest in having tartness in your pie. If the sugar turned out to be tart, you would probably label it as "bad" because it failed to answer your interest in having sweetness in your pie.
So what does this suggest about these appellations? It simply tells us that "good" and "bad" have no core meaning other than being an indication that X does or does not answer to certain wishes or interests a person has. It's really that simple. I kid you not.
Beware of the "fog of war", and try to avoid contributing to that fog with this kind of metaphysical nonsense or to allow semantic folderol to confuse your own thinking about what your government is doing or not doing. Those who use empty terms such as "evil" should be called upon to give us real, tangible reasons for their acts. We must challenge the penchant of the White House illusionists to make meaningless noises with their mealy mouths.
Richard L. Franklin is the author of 'The Mythology of 'Self-Worth'
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The Great Wall of Segregation...
by riverbend - Baghdad Burning
Thursday, April 26, 2007
…Which is the wall the current Iraqi government is building (with the support and guidance of the Americans). It's a wall that is intended to separate and isolate what is now considered the largest 'Sunni' area in Baghdad- let no one say the Americans are not building anything. According to plans the Iraqi puppets and Americans cooked up, it will 'protect' A'adhamiya, a residential/mercantile area that the current Iraqi government and their death squads couldn't empty of Sunnis.
The wall, of course, will protect no one. I sometimes wonder if this is how the concentration camps began in Europe. The Nazi government probably said, "Oh look- we're just going to protect the Jews with this little wall here- it will be difficult for people to get into their special area to hurt them!" And yet, it will also be difficult to get out.
The Wall is the latest effort to further break Iraqi society apart. Promoting and supporting civil war isn't enough, apparently- Iraqis have generally proven to be more tenacious and tolerant than their mullahs, ayatollahs, and Vichy leaders. It's time for America to physically divide and conquer- like Berlin before the wall came down or Palestine today. This way, they can continue chasing Sunnis out of "Shia areas" and Shia out of "Sunni areas".
I always hear the Iraqi pro-war crowd interviewed on television from foreign capitals (they can only appear on television from the safety of foreign capitals because I defy anyone to be publicly pro-war in Iraq). They refuse to believe that their religiously inclined, sectarian political parties fueled this whole Sunni/Shia conflict. They refuse to acknowledge that this situation is a direct result of the war and occupation. They go on and on about Iraq's history and how Sunnis and Shia were always in conflict and I hate that. I hate that a handful of expats who haven't been to the country in decades pretend to know more about it than people actually living there.
I remember Baghdad before the war- one could live anywhere. We didn't know what our neighbors were- we didn't care. No one asked about religion or sect. No one bothered with what was considered a trivial topic: are you Sunni or Shia? You only asked something like that if you were uncouth and backward. Our lives revolve around it now. Our existence depends on hiding it or highlighting it- depending on the group of masked men who stop you or raid your home in the middle of the night.
On a personal note, we've finally decided to leave. I guess I've known we would be leaving for a while now. We discussed it as a family dozens of times. At first, someone would suggest it tentatively because, it was just a preposterous idea- leaving ones home and extended family- leaving ones country- and to what? To where?
Since last summer, we had been discussing it more and more. It was only a matter of time before what began as a suggestion- a last case scenario- soon took on solidity and developed into a plan. For the last couple of months, it has only been a matter of logistics. Plane or car? Jordan or Syria? Will we all leave together as a family? Or will it be only my brother and I at first?
After Jordan or Syria- where then? Obviously, either of those countries is going to be a transit to something else. They are both overflowing with Iraqi refugees, and every single Iraqi living in either country is complaining of the fact that work is difficult to come by, and getting a residency is even more difficult. There is also the little problem of being turned back at the border. Thousands of Iraqis aren't being let into Syria or Jordan- and there are no definite criteria for entry, the decision is based on the whim of the border patrol guard checking your passport.
An airplane isn't necessarily safer, as the trip to Baghdad International Airport is in itself risky and travelers are just as likely to be refused permission to enter the country (Syria and Jordan) if they arrive by airplane. And if you're wondering why Syria or Jordan, because they are the only two countries that will let Iraqis in without a visa. Following up visa issues with the few functioning embassies or consulates in Baghdad is next to impossible.
So we've been busy. Busy trying to decide what part of our lives to leave behind. Which memories are dispensable? We, like many Iraqis, are not the classic refugees- the ones with only the clothes on their backs and no choice. We are choosing to leave because the other option is simply a continuation of what has been one long nightmare- stay and wait and try to survive.
On the one hand, I know that leaving the country and starting a new life somewhere else- as yet unknown- is such a huge thing that it should dwarf every trivial concern. The funny thing is that it’s the trivial that seems to occupy our lives. We discuss whether to take photo albums or leave them behind. Can I bring along a stuffed animal I've had since the age of four? Is there room for E.'s guitar? What clothes do we take? Summer clothes? The winter clothes too? What about my books? What about the CDs, the baby pictures?
The problem is that we don't even know if we'll ever see this stuff again. We don't know if whatever we leave, including the house, will be available when and if we come back. There are moments when the injustice of having to leave your country, simply because an imbecile got it into his head to invade it, is overwhelming. It is unfair that in order to survive and live normally, we have to leave our home and what remains of family and friends… And to what?
It's difficult to decide which is more frightening- car bombs and militias, or having to leave everything you know and love, to some unspecified place for a future where nothing is certain.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
…Which is the wall the current Iraqi government is building (with the support and guidance of the Americans). It's a wall that is intended to separate and isolate what is now considered the largest 'Sunni' area in Baghdad- let no one say the Americans are not building anything. According to plans the Iraqi puppets and Americans cooked up, it will 'protect' A'adhamiya, a residential/mercantile area that the current Iraqi government and their death squads couldn't empty of Sunnis.
The wall, of course, will protect no one. I sometimes wonder if this is how the concentration camps began in Europe. The Nazi government probably said, "Oh look- we're just going to protect the Jews with this little wall here- it will be difficult for people to get into their special area to hurt them!" And yet, it will also be difficult to get out.
The Wall is the latest effort to further break Iraqi society apart. Promoting and supporting civil war isn't enough, apparently- Iraqis have generally proven to be more tenacious and tolerant than their mullahs, ayatollahs, and Vichy leaders. It's time for America to physically divide and conquer- like Berlin before the wall came down or Palestine today. This way, they can continue chasing Sunnis out of "Shia areas" and Shia out of "Sunni areas".
I always hear the Iraqi pro-war crowd interviewed on television from foreign capitals (they can only appear on television from the safety of foreign capitals because I defy anyone to be publicly pro-war in Iraq). They refuse to believe that their religiously inclined, sectarian political parties fueled this whole Sunni/Shia conflict. They refuse to acknowledge that this situation is a direct result of the war and occupation. They go on and on about Iraq's history and how Sunnis and Shia were always in conflict and I hate that. I hate that a handful of expats who haven't been to the country in decades pretend to know more about it than people actually living there.
I remember Baghdad before the war- one could live anywhere. We didn't know what our neighbors were- we didn't care. No one asked about religion or sect. No one bothered with what was considered a trivial topic: are you Sunni or Shia? You only asked something like that if you were uncouth and backward. Our lives revolve around it now. Our existence depends on hiding it or highlighting it- depending on the group of masked men who stop you or raid your home in the middle of the night.
On a personal note, we've finally decided to leave. I guess I've known we would be leaving for a while now. We discussed it as a family dozens of times. At first, someone would suggest it tentatively because, it was just a preposterous idea- leaving ones home and extended family- leaving ones country- and to what? To where?
Since last summer, we had been discussing it more and more. It was only a matter of time before what began as a suggestion- a last case scenario- soon took on solidity and developed into a plan. For the last couple of months, it has only been a matter of logistics. Plane or car? Jordan or Syria? Will we all leave together as a family? Or will it be only my brother and I at first?
After Jordan or Syria- where then? Obviously, either of those countries is going to be a transit to something else. They are both overflowing with Iraqi refugees, and every single Iraqi living in either country is complaining of the fact that work is difficult to come by, and getting a residency is even more difficult. There is also the little problem of being turned back at the border. Thousands of Iraqis aren't being let into Syria or Jordan- and there are no definite criteria for entry, the decision is based on the whim of the border patrol guard checking your passport.
An airplane isn't necessarily safer, as the trip to Baghdad International Airport is in itself risky and travelers are just as likely to be refused permission to enter the country (Syria and Jordan) if they arrive by airplane. And if you're wondering why Syria or Jordan, because they are the only two countries that will let Iraqis in without a visa. Following up visa issues with the few functioning embassies or consulates in Baghdad is next to impossible.
So we've been busy. Busy trying to decide what part of our lives to leave behind. Which memories are dispensable? We, like many Iraqis, are not the classic refugees- the ones with only the clothes on their backs and no choice. We are choosing to leave because the other option is simply a continuation of what has been one long nightmare- stay and wait and try to survive.
On the one hand, I know that leaving the country and starting a new life somewhere else- as yet unknown- is such a huge thing that it should dwarf every trivial concern. The funny thing is that it’s the trivial that seems to occupy our lives. We discuss whether to take photo albums or leave them behind. Can I bring along a stuffed animal I've had since the age of four? Is there room for E.'s guitar? What clothes do we take? Summer clothes? The winter clothes too? What about my books? What about the CDs, the baby pictures?
The problem is that we don't even know if we'll ever see this stuff again. We don't know if whatever we leave, including the house, will be available when and if we come back. There are moments when the injustice of having to leave your country, simply because an imbecile got it into his head to invade it, is overwhelming. It is unfair that in order to survive and live normally, we have to leave our home and what remains of family and friends… And to what?
It's difficult to decide which is more frightening- car bombs and militias, or having to leave everything you know and love, to some unspecified place for a future where nothing is certain.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Migrants Used to Justify a Homeland Security Police State
By Peter Phillips
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor
Tuesday 24 April 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042407C.shtml
Threats of terrorism and twelve million "illegal" immigrants are being used to justify new police-state measures in the United States. Coordinated mass arrests, big brother spy blimps, expanded detention centers, repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act, and suspension of habeas corpus have all been recently implemented and are ready to use against anyone in the US.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) flooded Mexico with cheap, subsidized US agricultural products that displaced millions of Mexican farmers. Between 2000 and 2005, Mexico lost 900,000 rural jobs and 700,000 industrial jobs, resulting in deep unemployment throughout the country. Desperate poverty has forced millions of Mexican workers north in order to feed their families.
In the wake of 9/11, Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) has conducted workplace and home invasions across the country in an attempt to roundup "illegal" immigrants. ICE justifies these raids under the rubric of keeping our homeland safe and preventing terrorism. However, the real goal of these actions is to disrupt the immigrant work force in the US and replace it with a tightly regulated, nonunion guest-worker program. This policy is endorsed by companies seeking permanent low-wage workers through a lobby group called Essential Worker Immigrations Coalition (EWIC). The fifty-two members of EWIC include the US Chamber of Commerce, Wal-Mart, Marriott, Tyson Foods, American Meat Institute, California Landscape Contractors Association and the Association of Builders and Contractors.
A new program, established by the Department of Justice in cooperation with Homeland Security, uses the code name Operation Falcon (Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally). Operation Falcon carried out three unprecedented federally coordinated mass arrests between April 2005 and October 2006. More than 30,000 fugitives, including immigrants, were arrested in the largest dragnets in the nation's history. The operations directly involved over 960 agencies, including the FBI, ICE, IRS, Homeland Security and other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.
To accommodate the detention of tens of thousands of people, Homeland Security, in 2005, awarded Halliburton's subsidiary KBR a $385 million contingency contract to build detention camps in the United States. According to the Halliburton web site, "The contract provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the US, or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Other new police-state programs include US government contracting with Lockheed-Martin to design and develop enormous unmanned airships, seventeen times the size of the Goodyear blimp, outfitted with high-resolution cameras to spy on the Mexican border. The airships are designed to float 12 miles above the earth, far above planes and weather systems. The high-resolution camera will watch over a circle of countryside 600 miles in diameter and could be moved to spy on any region of the US.
The programs described above, combined with two recent changes in US law, make the reality of a full police-state in the US increasingly more feasible. The Military Commissions Act, signed in October of 2006, suspends habeas corpus rights for any person deemed by the president to be an enemy combatant. Persons so designated could be imprisoned indefinitely without rights to legal counsel or a trial. And the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 allows the president to station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. By revising the two-century-old Insurrection Act, the law, in effect, repeals the Posse Comitatus Act and gives the US government the legal authority to order the military onto the streets anywhere in America.
Threats of terrorism and illegal immigrants are being used to justify the implementation of police-state programs. But once started, enforcement can be rapidly deployed to any group of people in the US, and we all become endangered. Mass arrests, big brother in the sky and the loss of civil rights for everyone does not bode well for those who believe in democracy, free speech and the right to critically challenge our government without fear of reprisals.
Peter Phillips is a professor of sociology at Sonoma State University and director of Project Censored, a media research organization. He is co-editor with Dennis Loo of Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney from Seven'Stories Press, 2006.
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor
Tuesday 24 April 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042407C.shtml
Threats of terrorism and twelve million "illegal" immigrants are being used to justify new police-state measures in the United States. Coordinated mass arrests, big brother spy blimps, expanded detention centers, repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act, and suspension of habeas corpus have all been recently implemented and are ready to use against anyone in the US.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) flooded Mexico with cheap, subsidized US agricultural products that displaced millions of Mexican farmers. Between 2000 and 2005, Mexico lost 900,000 rural jobs and 700,000 industrial jobs, resulting in deep unemployment throughout the country. Desperate poverty has forced millions of Mexican workers north in order to feed their families.
In the wake of 9/11, Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) has conducted workplace and home invasions across the country in an attempt to roundup "illegal" immigrants. ICE justifies these raids under the rubric of keeping our homeland safe and preventing terrorism. However, the real goal of these actions is to disrupt the immigrant work force in the US and replace it with a tightly regulated, nonunion guest-worker program. This policy is endorsed by companies seeking permanent low-wage workers through a lobby group called Essential Worker Immigrations Coalition (EWIC). The fifty-two members of EWIC include the US Chamber of Commerce, Wal-Mart, Marriott, Tyson Foods, American Meat Institute, California Landscape Contractors Association and the Association of Builders and Contractors.
A new program, established by the Department of Justice in cooperation with Homeland Security, uses the code name Operation Falcon (Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally). Operation Falcon carried out three unprecedented federally coordinated mass arrests between April 2005 and October 2006. More than 30,000 fugitives, including immigrants, were arrested in the largest dragnets in the nation's history. The operations directly involved over 960 agencies, including the FBI, ICE, IRS, Homeland Security and other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.
To accommodate the detention of tens of thousands of people, Homeland Security, in 2005, awarded Halliburton's subsidiary KBR a $385 million contingency contract to build detention camps in the United States. According to the Halliburton web site, "The contract provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the US, or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Other new police-state programs include US government contracting with Lockheed-Martin to design and develop enormous unmanned airships, seventeen times the size of the Goodyear blimp, outfitted with high-resolution cameras to spy on the Mexican border. The airships are designed to float 12 miles above the earth, far above planes and weather systems. The high-resolution camera will watch over a circle of countryside 600 miles in diameter and could be moved to spy on any region of the US.
The programs described above, combined with two recent changes in US law, make the reality of a full police-state in the US increasingly more feasible. The Military Commissions Act, signed in October of 2006, suspends habeas corpus rights for any person deemed by the president to be an enemy combatant. Persons so designated could be imprisoned indefinitely without rights to legal counsel or a trial. And the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 allows the president to station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. By revising the two-century-old Insurrection Act, the law, in effect, repeals the Posse Comitatus Act and gives the US government the legal authority to order the military onto the streets anywhere in America.
Threats of terrorism and illegal immigrants are being used to justify the implementation of police-state programs. But once started, enforcement can be rapidly deployed to any group of people in the US, and we all become endangered. Mass arrests, big brother in the sky and the loss of civil rights for everyone does not bode well for those who believe in democracy, free speech and the right to critically challenge our government without fear of reprisals.
Peter Phillips is a professor of sociology at Sonoma State University and director of Project Censored, a media research organization. He is co-editor with Dennis Loo of Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney from Seven'Stories Press, 2006.
to confuse and obfuscate
By Ann Davidow
Finding A Voice
April 16, 2007
http://www.findingavoice.com/mt/archives/000376.html
Because language is so often used these days to confuse and obfuscate rather than to clarify and define it is difficult, but more important than ever that voters dig feverishly beneath the surface of prevailing information sources. Getting at the truth is confounded by an avalanche of banter and disinformation that consumes much network and cable air time as well as newsprint - - such is the ongoing challenge for all of us.
In an appearance on a recent Washington Journal, James Dorn of The Cato Institute provided some insight into the mind-set of right-wing conservatives. Callers who spoke of job losses to overseas companies were told that often those losses were due to expensive union contracts that left US businesses less competitive in world markets. But should American workers have to lower their living standards in order to compete with third-world or emerging economies where working conditions and pay scales fall far below ours? What convoluted thought process dismisses the needs and expectations of ordinary Americans as if they were robotic nonentities on the fringes of society?
A global economy it may be, but surely US workers have a right to expect that trading partners be held to some semblance of fair-labor practices. Mr. Dorn said that cheap merchandise flooding Wal-Mart, for example, means consumers can fill their shopping carts more cheaply. As for our huge trade imbalance with one of the largest providers of cheap goods, China, he said we should be glad China is willing to underwrite our national debt by purchasing government paper. It seems odd that such a quid pro quo business model is acceptable in commerce-driven Cato World. For we are hardly the masters of our fate when foreign countries undercut our labor force and our conduct is influenced by governments who, well, kind of own us.
As consumers of news we are awash in talking points not only from ideologues like Mr. Dorn but from foreign initiates as well. The remarks of an Iraqi government spokesman last week sound so much like those of the president as to be almost indistinguishable.. ‘If America can secure Baghdad we can undertake our own security and stabilize our government’ - - in time he said. It’s the “in time” shudder step that causes concern. Disregarding the original decision to invade, there is so much wrong with the conduct of the war and so many problems created in the wake of our invasion, it is hard to imagine a positive outcome. That is unless “in time” means a permanent, costly commitment. And far from ameliorating regional concerns, our actions have exacerbated Middle East tensions and made players in the region increasingly agitated about our intentions.
And what we should know is often kept hidden from us. A recent interview with a congresswoman revealed that the actions of Blackwater Security forces in Iraq are never discussed by the administration nor is Blackwater funding distinct from that of the regular military. Originally this company was said to provide security for various contractors, but today many thousands of what has become a legion of mercenaries acting in our name but unaccountable to our leadership are actively engaged in combat operations.
The urge of the Bush administration to privatize everything from Social Security to our war-making capability to veterans’ care is a disturbing trend. And there is no proof that private competition produces cost savings or better service, far from it. At Walter Reed the result was a depleted support staff that may have cut a few financial corners but failed to fulfill its main function of proper after-care for wounded veterans. In the case of Social Security no-one has yet explained how private accounts could be established without adding to the national debt or to what extent private investment firms would be involved.
But Blackwater represents perhaps the scariest departure from national normalcy with its status as a para-military force answerable only to its corporate managers but hired by our government to perform a variety of functions. Blackwater details patrolled the streets of New Orleans after Katrina, for example, at enormously inflated salaries with little or no accountability or oversight. Enlisting the services of this shadowy group of militants should be of grave concern to Congress and the American people.
That a private military entity should ever patrol the streets of this country or represent us by the thousands abroad seems profoundly un-American. That we are purposely un-informed about this means that, with a few exceptions, the media and our representatives in Congress have failed to expose the level of Blackwater involvement in our affairs. The new Congress shows signs of challenging this back-door establishment of a mercenary contingent with Republican ties dispatched at the pleasure of the president. If such unfettered power doesn’t strike fear into our collective heart nothing can.
Every day brings some newly discovered corruption or weakness within this administration. It is hard keeping up, but luckily there are still investigative reporters and conscientious legislators with whom we should connect to express our concerns and our support for the work they do to ensure that our country remains dedicated to the principles that form the bedrock of our most important institutions.
Finding A Voice
April 16, 2007
http://www.findingavoice.com/mt/archives/000376.html
Because language is so often used these days to confuse and obfuscate rather than to clarify and define it is difficult, but more important than ever that voters dig feverishly beneath the surface of prevailing information sources. Getting at the truth is confounded by an avalanche of banter and disinformation that consumes much network and cable air time as well as newsprint - - such is the ongoing challenge for all of us.
In an appearance on a recent Washington Journal, James Dorn of The Cato Institute provided some insight into the mind-set of right-wing conservatives. Callers who spoke of job losses to overseas companies were told that often those losses were due to expensive union contracts that left US businesses less competitive in world markets. But should American workers have to lower their living standards in order to compete with third-world or emerging economies where working conditions and pay scales fall far below ours? What convoluted thought process dismisses the needs and expectations of ordinary Americans as if they were robotic nonentities on the fringes of society?
A global economy it may be, but surely US workers have a right to expect that trading partners be held to some semblance of fair-labor practices. Mr. Dorn said that cheap merchandise flooding Wal-Mart, for example, means consumers can fill their shopping carts more cheaply. As for our huge trade imbalance with one of the largest providers of cheap goods, China, he said we should be glad China is willing to underwrite our national debt by purchasing government paper. It seems odd that such a quid pro quo business model is acceptable in commerce-driven Cato World. For we are hardly the masters of our fate when foreign countries undercut our labor force and our conduct is influenced by governments who, well, kind of own us.
As consumers of news we are awash in talking points not only from ideologues like Mr. Dorn but from foreign initiates as well. The remarks of an Iraqi government spokesman last week sound so much like those of the president as to be almost indistinguishable.. ‘If America can secure Baghdad we can undertake our own security and stabilize our government’ - - in time he said. It’s the “in time” shudder step that causes concern. Disregarding the original decision to invade, there is so much wrong with the conduct of the war and so many problems created in the wake of our invasion, it is hard to imagine a positive outcome. That is unless “in time” means a permanent, costly commitment. And far from ameliorating regional concerns, our actions have exacerbated Middle East tensions and made players in the region increasingly agitated about our intentions.
And what we should know is often kept hidden from us. A recent interview with a congresswoman revealed that the actions of Blackwater Security forces in Iraq are never discussed by the administration nor is Blackwater funding distinct from that of the regular military. Originally this company was said to provide security for various contractors, but today many thousands of what has become a legion of mercenaries acting in our name but unaccountable to our leadership are actively engaged in combat operations.
The urge of the Bush administration to privatize everything from Social Security to our war-making capability to veterans’ care is a disturbing trend. And there is no proof that private competition produces cost savings or better service, far from it. At Walter Reed the result was a depleted support staff that may have cut a few financial corners but failed to fulfill its main function of proper after-care for wounded veterans. In the case of Social Security no-one has yet explained how private accounts could be established without adding to the national debt or to what extent private investment firms would be involved.
But Blackwater represents perhaps the scariest departure from national normalcy with its status as a para-military force answerable only to its corporate managers but hired by our government to perform a variety of functions. Blackwater details patrolled the streets of New Orleans after Katrina, for example, at enormously inflated salaries with little or no accountability or oversight. Enlisting the services of this shadowy group of militants should be of grave concern to Congress and the American people.
That a private military entity should ever patrol the streets of this country or represent us by the thousands abroad seems profoundly un-American. That we are purposely un-informed about this means that, with a few exceptions, the media and our representatives in Congress have failed to expose the level of Blackwater involvement in our affairs. The new Congress shows signs of challenging this back-door establishment of a mercenary contingent with Republican ties dispatched at the pleasure of the president. If such unfettered power doesn’t strike fear into our collective heart nothing can.
Every day brings some newly discovered corruption or weakness within this administration. It is hard keeping up, but luckily there are still investigative reporters and conscientious legislators with whom we should connect to express our concerns and our support for the work they do to ensure that our country remains dedicated to the principles that form the bedrock of our most important institutions.
Monday, April 23, 2007
A Review of Chris Hedges' Christian Fascism
by Stephen Lendman
4/23/07
Chris Hedges is a journalist who for two decades was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times spending much of his time reporting from conflict zones in El Salvador, the Middle East and from Serbia covering the Balkan wars of the 1990s that divided and destroyed a country under the guise of humanitarian intervention providing cover for naked imperialism. There it allowed NATO (meaning the US) to expand into Central and Eastern Europe to keep predatory capitalism on the march for markets, resources and cheap labor everywhere using wars to get them and eliminate "uncooperative" heads of state like Slobodan Milosevic who was kidnapped, Mafia/Mossad-style, by the ICTY kangaroo court in the Hague, hung out to dry when he got there, and in the end effectively or, in fact, murdered to shut him up and prevent ugly truths coming out about what the conflict was really about and who the real criminals were.
The wars and subsequent show-trials had nothing to do with myths about it fed us by Western media. Those wanting the truth can find it in excellent books like Diana Johnstone's Fools' Crusade; the extensive research and writings of Edward Herman, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, law professor Michael Mandel; and the newest book out on the subject titled Travesty: The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic and the Corruption of International Justice by British journalist John Laughland. Edward Herman wrote a superb review of the book in the April, 2007 issue of Z Magazine now available in which he pointedly says "the rules of the (illegally constituted) ICTY (established by the US and UK) stood Nuremberg on its head" and Laughland states "instead of applying existing international law, the ICTY has effectively overturned it" to hide NATO's crimes and allow more of the same playing out now in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.
The Christian Right supports these type of crimes, and motives for them readers will understand from Hedges' new book. He's also written many articles and is the author of four books including his bestselling War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning drawing on his experiences in the conflicts he covered describing how people and nations behave in wartime. The book was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for nonfiction. His newest book is American Fascists - The Christian Right and the War on America published in 2007 and subject of this review. It's an incisive examination of the huge threat extremist Christian fascists pose to a shaky free society most people in the US take for granted but no longer will after reading this important book.
Hedges was educated at Colgate University and received a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School. For a time he was a seminarian and is now a senior fellow at the Nation Institute as well as a writer and lecturer at Princeton University where he teaches in the Program for American Studies. He was also an early vocal critic of the Bush administration's plan to attack, invade and occupy Iraq characterizing war as "the most potent narcotic invented by humankind" while professing not to be a pacifist.
This review will cover the essence and flavor of American Fascists beginning with some background on the Christian right, its influence, and danger it poses that Hedges covers in detail. He said he wrote the book out of anger and fear of the fundamentalist Christian Right seeking to establish theocratic dominion over society in America in the name of God and is using the Republican party as their vehicle to do it....
full article
4/23/07
Chris Hedges is a journalist who for two decades was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times spending much of his time reporting from conflict zones in El Salvador, the Middle East and from Serbia covering the Balkan wars of the 1990s that divided and destroyed a country under the guise of humanitarian intervention providing cover for naked imperialism. There it allowed NATO (meaning the US) to expand into Central and Eastern Europe to keep predatory capitalism on the march for markets, resources and cheap labor everywhere using wars to get them and eliminate "uncooperative" heads of state like Slobodan Milosevic who was kidnapped, Mafia/Mossad-style, by the ICTY kangaroo court in the Hague, hung out to dry when he got there, and in the end effectively or, in fact, murdered to shut him up and prevent ugly truths coming out about what the conflict was really about and who the real criminals were.
The wars and subsequent show-trials had nothing to do with myths about it fed us by Western media. Those wanting the truth can find it in excellent books like Diana Johnstone's Fools' Crusade; the extensive research and writings of Edward Herman, Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti, law professor Michael Mandel; and the newest book out on the subject titled Travesty: The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic and the Corruption of International Justice by British journalist John Laughland. Edward Herman wrote a superb review of the book in the April, 2007 issue of Z Magazine now available in which he pointedly says "the rules of the (illegally constituted) ICTY (established by the US and UK) stood Nuremberg on its head" and Laughland states "instead of applying existing international law, the ICTY has effectively overturned it" to hide NATO's crimes and allow more of the same playing out now in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine.
The Christian Right supports these type of crimes, and motives for them readers will understand from Hedges' new book. He's also written many articles and is the author of four books including his bestselling War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning drawing on his experiences in the conflicts he covered describing how people and nations behave in wartime. The book was a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for nonfiction. His newest book is American Fascists - The Christian Right and the War on America published in 2007 and subject of this review. It's an incisive examination of the huge threat extremist Christian fascists pose to a shaky free society most people in the US take for granted but no longer will after reading this important book.
Hedges was educated at Colgate University and received a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School. For a time he was a seminarian and is now a senior fellow at the Nation Institute as well as a writer and lecturer at Princeton University where he teaches in the Program for American Studies. He was also an early vocal critic of the Bush administration's plan to attack, invade and occupy Iraq characterizing war as "the most potent narcotic invented by humankind" while professing not to be a pacifist.
This review will cover the essence and flavor of American Fascists beginning with some background on the Christian right, its influence, and danger it poses that Hedges covers in detail. He said he wrote the book out of anger and fear of the fundamentalist Christian Right seeking to establish theocratic dominion over society in America in the name of God and is using the Republican party as their vehicle to do it....
full article
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Who Grieves For Them?
by Mary Pitt
4/22/07
While spending my usual Sunday morning, watching the news shows on television, I founds myself in total empathy with the parents of the slain college students at Virginia Tech. Having lost a child of my own a year ago, I understand intimately the pain which they now must bear. I thought of how nice it is that some find solace in speaking to the nation which mourns with them about their lost sons and daughters via the television interviewers. Also, according to the news, grief counselors are being sent in to help the students and families to deal with this intense grief.
Then, as it is wont to do, the news moved on to the war in Iraq and so did my thoughts. Without taking a thing from the sympathy for the Blacksburg parents, I realized that these young people who are dying in Iraq are contemporaries of the college kids. Who grieves for them? While we have lost a hundred children in that conflagration for every student who fell prey to the mad gunner, the nation mourns only those who were presumably safe from harm while those who fell in service to our country are hidden from our sight and rarely mentioned by name unless they qualify as "heroes". They fly home under cover of night and then are treated as baggage on commercial flights until they are taken to their home town. Their family, friends, and neighbors turn out for their funeral with none taking notice except, perhaps, Rev. Fred Phelps and his little band of ghouls. The funeral over, the families go home to deal with their own desolation as they reflect on the life that was lost and the hopes and dreams that will never come to fruition. They will forever wonder why.
But these loving families are forbidden from learning the specifics of the untimely death which their child suffered. Only rarely are any details given and then only after a long, painful investigation by people who are ill-equipped for the task. Cindy Sheehan went to Washington to ask why. She was told, in essence, "Your son is dead. Accept it and move on!" Government officials and their partisans regard her as a mentally ill person and a pariah. The Tillmans have been more fortunate in that they did uncover the fact that their son fell to "friendly fire" which was covered up in order to provide the warmongers with a famous "hero". When all is said and done, these two families may be more responsible for bringing this war to an end than will any other factor.
As the youngest child in a large family, I saw five of my seven older brothers march off to war against "Hitler and Tojo" in the company of many others from our community. The pain of missing family members was a common one as almost every home wore the placard of stars in a window, denoting the home of a member of the armed services, blue for a stateside deployment, silver for one serving overseas, and gold for one who had fallen. I recall all too well the sense of emptiness on departure and the tension that pervaded the home when a "missing in action" notice was received. The sight of a Western Union delivery boy brought the neighbors to learn which son had disappeared and all prayed that he had been captured rather than perishing. A military car at the curb brought neighbors with food and sympathy and the whole community joined in the mourning. There was an article in the local newspaper with a photograph and a letter of condolence from the President.
During that war, the soldiers who did not volunteer were drafted and the burden was borne by all. Now, with the "all-volunteer army", the fear and grief fall upon young wives and small children in most cases as the fighting is done by a few who are having their service extended until it must seem to them that the only way home is "in a box". When they are killed, they are little more than numbers on a tote board and little grief is known outside their intimate circle. Their survivors will not have the comfort that is brought about by televised funeral services, on-camera interviews, and the knowledge that the whole nation is sharing their grief.
It simply does not seen fair, during this Sunday morning contemplation, that while the sky-scrapers are going up in New York City as a memorial to the fallen in the World Trade Center and we mourn the loss of the lives and potential of the students at Virginia Tech, several more young men and women will lay down their lives in Iraq in what seems as senseless an endeavor as whatever the troubled youth was trying to prove in Blacksburg. If the citizens of the United States cannot stop our government from hiding them away like so many little dirty secrets, we should at least be all owed to mourn them.
Mary Pitt lives in a house by the side of the road in a little rural village in Kansas where she can observe the world both as it is and as she would like it to be. Questions and comments will reach her at mpitt@cox.net
4/22/07
While spending my usual Sunday morning, watching the news shows on television, I founds myself in total empathy with the parents of the slain college students at Virginia Tech. Having lost a child of my own a year ago, I understand intimately the pain which they now must bear. I thought of how nice it is that some find solace in speaking to the nation which mourns with them about their lost sons and daughters via the television interviewers. Also, according to the news, grief counselors are being sent in to help the students and families to deal with this intense grief.
Then, as it is wont to do, the news moved on to the war in Iraq and so did my thoughts. Without taking a thing from the sympathy for the Blacksburg parents, I realized that these young people who are dying in Iraq are contemporaries of the college kids. Who grieves for them? While we have lost a hundred children in that conflagration for every student who fell prey to the mad gunner, the nation mourns only those who were presumably safe from harm while those who fell in service to our country are hidden from our sight and rarely mentioned by name unless they qualify as "heroes". They fly home under cover of night and then are treated as baggage on commercial flights until they are taken to their home town. Their family, friends, and neighbors turn out for their funeral with none taking notice except, perhaps, Rev. Fred Phelps and his little band of ghouls. The funeral over, the families go home to deal with their own desolation as they reflect on the life that was lost and the hopes and dreams that will never come to fruition. They will forever wonder why.
But these loving families are forbidden from learning the specifics of the untimely death which their child suffered. Only rarely are any details given and then only after a long, painful investigation by people who are ill-equipped for the task. Cindy Sheehan went to Washington to ask why. She was told, in essence, "Your son is dead. Accept it and move on!" Government officials and their partisans regard her as a mentally ill person and a pariah. The Tillmans have been more fortunate in that they did uncover the fact that their son fell to "friendly fire" which was covered up in order to provide the warmongers with a famous "hero". When all is said and done, these two families may be more responsible for bringing this war to an end than will any other factor.
As the youngest child in a large family, I saw five of my seven older brothers march off to war against "Hitler and Tojo" in the company of many others from our community. The pain of missing family members was a common one as almost every home wore the placard of stars in a window, denoting the home of a member of the armed services, blue for a stateside deployment, silver for one serving overseas, and gold for one who had fallen. I recall all too well the sense of emptiness on departure and the tension that pervaded the home when a "missing in action" notice was received. The sight of a Western Union delivery boy brought the neighbors to learn which son had disappeared and all prayed that he had been captured rather than perishing. A military car at the curb brought neighbors with food and sympathy and the whole community joined in the mourning. There was an article in the local newspaper with a photograph and a letter of condolence from the President.
During that war, the soldiers who did not volunteer were drafted and the burden was borne by all. Now, with the "all-volunteer army", the fear and grief fall upon young wives and small children in most cases as the fighting is done by a few who are having their service extended until it must seem to them that the only way home is "in a box". When they are killed, they are little more than numbers on a tote board and little grief is known outside their intimate circle. Their survivors will not have the comfort that is brought about by televised funeral services, on-camera interviews, and the knowledge that the whole nation is sharing their grief.
It simply does not seen fair, during this Sunday morning contemplation, that while the sky-scrapers are going up in New York City as a memorial to the fallen in the World Trade Center and we mourn the loss of the lives and potential of the students at Virginia Tech, several more young men and women will lay down their lives in Iraq in what seems as senseless an endeavor as whatever the troubled youth was trying to prove in Blacksburg. If the citizens of the United States cannot stop our government from hiding them away like so many little dirty secrets, we should at least be all owed to mourn them.
Mary Pitt lives in a house by the side of the road in a little rural village in Kansas where she can observe the world both as it is and as she would like it to be. Questions and comments will reach her at mpitt@cox.net
The Bush-Cheney Stupid Iraq War
by Rodrigue Tremblay
April 23, 2007
"We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
- Donald Rumsfeld, (March 30, 2003)
"The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy [to invade Iraq]."
- Downing Street Memo (July 2002)
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
- Mark Twain. The Mysterious Stranger 1916
Now Karl Rove, Bush's political brain, says that the Iraq War was "Osama bin Laden’s Idea." —This is crazy.
The fact is that the world was ready to accept a case for destroying and eradicating the terrorist-training camps located in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, after 9/11. That is the reason the United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions to that effect in the fall of 2001 and in early 2002. These were Resolution 1373, adopted on September 28, 2001, and Resolution 1390, passed on January 16, 2002.
But the case for going to war against Iraq is entirely different: It was a fabrication from day one. That is the reason the United Nations Security Council refused to pass a resolution authorizing it, in January 2003. The Bush-Cheney regime nevertheless went ahead with this illegal war and will carry the historical opprobrium for having done so. It took the low moral road, thus reducing the moral stance of western civilization in the world and doing irreparable damage to international law and order. It has also brought discredit on the very institution of representative government and on democracy in general. This is a scandal of high proportions, above and beyond all the crimes being carried out on the ground in Iraq.
The British ambassador to Australia and former British cabinet minister Helen Liddell recently rendered a service to many when she stated the obvious, i.e. that the Bush-Cheney war of aggression against Iraq had little to do with a war against terrorism. The Bush-Cheney regime is marketing any imperialistic and colonialist adventure around the world as an "anti-terrorist" mission and a push for democracy. —This is a lie. It is a propaganda trick to silence critics and chloroform the American public. All these wars of aggression are illegal attempts by the United States and its willing co-conspirators to dominate militarily the strategic oil-rich Middle East and Caspian region in order to displace Russia, China and even Western Europe from this region of the world. It has nothing to do with fighting Islamist terrorism. In fact, it feeds and exacerbates terrorism.
Therefore, the historical reality remains that the Bush-Cheney regime disregarded truth and international law in order to justify taking military control of oil-rich Iraq, without provocation, even though it knew perfectly well that this country had no ties to the 9/11 attacks nor to bin Laden's terrorist organization, and that it had no weapons of mass destruction. In the process, however, this Karl Rove-inspired Republican regime took partisan advantage of the anger present in America after 9/11 to run two elections, in 2002 and in 2004, on the theme of national security and on a platform of war hysteria, thus profiting immensely politically from this propaganda scam.
Now that hundreds of people die daily in occupied Iraq, that they have triggered a religious and sectarian civil war, and that a majority of Americans have seen through their lies and machinations, the architects of this disaster are trying to shift blame and find new excuses. But to no avail. The truth is now too powerful to be extinguished by crude propaganda tricks and by lies.
For a while, however, the campaign of disinformation and propaganda worked remarkably well. For example, immediately after the events of 9/11, only three percent (3%) of Americans made a link between the terrorist attacks and Iraq; by February 2003, weeks before the March 20, 2003 onset of the Iraq War, a whopping seventy-two percent (72%) of Americans had been persuaded by the Bush-Cheney regime and their sycophants in the media that the president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, had been personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. Political analysts will study this propaganda coup for decades to come.
Even the Democrats in Congress—goaded by the pro-Israel Lobby—were suicidally content to go along with the Bush-Cheney's scam until the 2006 elections. They now adopt the majority view that there is no military solution in Iraq, that to believe so will only lead to bad policies and make matters worse, and that a promise to withdraw all American troops from this country is a prerequisite to reintroduce some stability in this ravaged country.
But how many thousands more deaths must occur before sanity prevails?
Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com
Visit his blog site at: www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.
Author's Website: www.thenewamericanempire.com/
Check Dr. Tremblay's coming book "The Code for Global Ethics" at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com
April 23, 2007
"We know where [the weapons of mass destruction] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
- Donald Rumsfeld, (March 30, 2003)
"The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy [to invade Iraq]."
- Downing Street Memo (July 2002)
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
- Mark Twain. The Mysterious Stranger 1916
Now Karl Rove, Bush's political brain, says that the Iraq War was "Osama bin Laden’s Idea." —This is crazy.
The fact is that the world was ready to accept a case for destroying and eradicating the terrorist-training camps located in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, after 9/11. That is the reason the United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions to that effect in the fall of 2001 and in early 2002. These were Resolution 1373, adopted on September 28, 2001, and Resolution 1390, passed on January 16, 2002.
But the case for going to war against Iraq is entirely different: It was a fabrication from day one. That is the reason the United Nations Security Council refused to pass a resolution authorizing it, in January 2003. The Bush-Cheney regime nevertheless went ahead with this illegal war and will carry the historical opprobrium for having done so. It took the low moral road, thus reducing the moral stance of western civilization in the world and doing irreparable damage to international law and order. It has also brought discredit on the very institution of representative government and on democracy in general. This is a scandal of high proportions, above and beyond all the crimes being carried out on the ground in Iraq.
The British ambassador to Australia and former British cabinet minister Helen Liddell recently rendered a service to many when she stated the obvious, i.e. that the Bush-Cheney war of aggression against Iraq had little to do with a war against terrorism. The Bush-Cheney regime is marketing any imperialistic and colonialist adventure around the world as an "anti-terrorist" mission and a push for democracy. —This is a lie. It is a propaganda trick to silence critics and chloroform the American public. All these wars of aggression are illegal attempts by the United States and its willing co-conspirators to dominate militarily the strategic oil-rich Middle East and Caspian region in order to displace Russia, China and even Western Europe from this region of the world. It has nothing to do with fighting Islamist terrorism. In fact, it feeds and exacerbates terrorism.
Therefore, the historical reality remains that the Bush-Cheney regime disregarded truth and international law in order to justify taking military control of oil-rich Iraq, without provocation, even though it knew perfectly well that this country had no ties to the 9/11 attacks nor to bin Laden's terrorist organization, and that it had no weapons of mass destruction. In the process, however, this Karl Rove-inspired Republican regime took partisan advantage of the anger present in America after 9/11 to run two elections, in 2002 and in 2004, on the theme of national security and on a platform of war hysteria, thus profiting immensely politically from this propaganda scam.
Now that hundreds of people die daily in occupied Iraq, that they have triggered a religious and sectarian civil war, and that a majority of Americans have seen through their lies and machinations, the architects of this disaster are trying to shift blame and find new excuses. But to no avail. The truth is now too powerful to be extinguished by crude propaganda tricks and by lies.
For a while, however, the campaign of disinformation and propaganda worked remarkably well. For example, immediately after the events of 9/11, only three percent (3%) of Americans made a link between the terrorist attacks and Iraq; by February 2003, weeks before the March 20, 2003 onset of the Iraq War, a whopping seventy-two percent (72%) of Americans had been persuaded by the Bush-Cheney regime and their sycophants in the media that the president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, had been personally involved in the 9/11 attacks. Political analysts will study this propaganda coup for decades to come.
Even the Democrats in Congress—goaded by the pro-Israel Lobby—were suicidally content to go along with the Bush-Cheney's scam until the 2006 elections. They now adopt the majority view that there is no military solution in Iraq, that to believe so will only lead to bad policies and make matters worse, and that a promise to withdraw all American troops from this country is a prerequisite to reintroduce some stability in this ravaged country.
But how many thousands more deaths must occur before sanity prevails?
Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached at rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com
Visit his blog site at: www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.
Author's Website: www.thenewamericanempire.com/
Check Dr. Tremblay's coming book "The Code for Global Ethics" at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com
Saturday, April 21, 2007
We Have Lost In Iraq
by Mary Pitt
4/21/07
These words spoken by Senator Harry Reid have raised the Republican hackles and created headlines. While, actually, these words were predicated by a phrase which was widely overlooked, "Unless the President changes his plan." However, even if we "win" the war in Iraq, what will we have won? How does that compare with what we have lost?
First and foremost, we have lost the lives of well over 3,000 of our most precious treasure, the young men and women who might have been our future leaders and certainly would have been mother and fathers, factory workers, professional people, and generally productive and responsible citizens. Add to that the many thousands of lives that have been blighted by permanent disabilities, both mental and physical, due to the wounds and horrors which they have needlessly suffered. And the question will endure as to how much more they will suffer at the tender mercies of the VA health care system.
We have, as a nation, lost our moral compass. With the torture and indefinite detention policies which were established by this administration, we have lost our reputation as a compassionate nation, Not since the Civil War have we offered such miserable treatment to prisoners of war. We have unilaterallty repealed the Geneva Convention which once guaranteed the humane treatment of prisoners in time of war and substituted policies of brutality.
We have lost the war in Afghanistan, out only possible legitimate target as we have pulled out the bulk of out troops for the ill-advised attack on Iraq and we have spread the interest in Al Qaida all over the Middle East while the warlords have assumed their accustomed control and the Taliban thrives due to our neglect, Furthermore, Afghanistan poppies fill the coffers of Al Qaida throughout the world.
We have lost almost all of the nations which once were our allies as they become disgusted with our rampant militaristic imperialism. Where once we were a vital and effective participant in the world's search for peace, we are now feared and loathed throughout the world. The word, "respect", is no longer used in reference to the United States and our influence for peace and prosperity has simply disappeared.
We have lost our sense of purpose as we became obsessed with "winning" without knowing what winning is supposed to look like. Few of us could answer the question as to why we invaded Iraq in the first place as more of the reasons which we were given at the beginning are disproved and revealed as merely manipulation in order to accomplish whatever undisclosed goal the administration hoped to achieve. Meanwhile, we have abandoned, one by one, the principles upon which our very society was built. As the national budget is plunged into unimaginable debt as the war expenses eat up our resources, it is necessary to cut social programs and virtually dismantle our society as we know it.
We have lost our sense of "nation" as our borders are left unprotected and millions of immigrants pour in to tax our schools, welfare system, and hospitals while flooding our plants, factories, and construction crews with workers who are willing to accept smaller wages, often "under the table" with no tax or unemployment liability for the companies that employ them. As a result, our standard of living is falling as citizens lose their jobs, their homes, and their hope.
So, if and when we actually should "win" this war or the planned invasion of Iran, what will we have left? I foresee about three generations of Dickensian drudgery for the common man with exorbitant taxes as we struggle to repay all the indebtedness assumed by this administration. And we will have to do it without our once-teeming factories, our productive farmland, and our state-of-the-art research and development firms. The entire structure of our once-great nation will take many years to rebuild and the restoration of our reputation as a land of hope, opportunity, and compassion will take even longer. We may look forward to the year 2009 with hope but it will take many years and many good governments to heal the wounds of this war, win or lose.
It took two centuries to build this nation and, after eight years of ill-chosen leadership, it will take another century to restore it. Perhaps than we can say that we have "won".
Mary Pitt lives in a house by the side of the road in a little rural village in Kansas where she can observe the world both as it is and as she would like it to be. Questions and comments will reach her at mpitt@cox.net
4/21/07
These words spoken by Senator Harry Reid have raised the Republican hackles and created headlines. While, actually, these words were predicated by a phrase which was widely overlooked, "Unless the President changes his plan." However, even if we "win" the war in Iraq, what will we have won? How does that compare with what we have lost?
First and foremost, we have lost the lives of well over 3,000 of our most precious treasure, the young men and women who might have been our future leaders and certainly would have been mother and fathers, factory workers, professional people, and generally productive and responsible citizens. Add to that the many thousands of lives that have been blighted by permanent disabilities, both mental and physical, due to the wounds and horrors which they have needlessly suffered. And the question will endure as to how much more they will suffer at the tender mercies of the VA health care system.
We have, as a nation, lost our moral compass. With the torture and indefinite detention policies which were established by this administration, we have lost our reputation as a compassionate nation, Not since the Civil War have we offered such miserable treatment to prisoners of war. We have unilaterallty repealed the Geneva Convention which once guaranteed the humane treatment of prisoners in time of war and substituted policies of brutality.
We have lost the war in Afghanistan, out only possible legitimate target as we have pulled out the bulk of out troops for the ill-advised attack on Iraq and we have spread the interest in Al Qaida all over the Middle East while the warlords have assumed their accustomed control and the Taliban thrives due to our neglect, Furthermore, Afghanistan poppies fill the coffers of Al Qaida throughout the world.
We have lost almost all of the nations which once were our allies as they become disgusted with our rampant militaristic imperialism. Where once we were a vital and effective participant in the world's search for peace, we are now feared and loathed throughout the world. The word, "respect", is no longer used in reference to the United States and our influence for peace and prosperity has simply disappeared.
We have lost our sense of purpose as we became obsessed with "winning" without knowing what winning is supposed to look like. Few of us could answer the question as to why we invaded Iraq in the first place as more of the reasons which we were given at the beginning are disproved and revealed as merely manipulation in order to accomplish whatever undisclosed goal the administration hoped to achieve. Meanwhile, we have abandoned, one by one, the principles upon which our very society was built. As the national budget is plunged into unimaginable debt as the war expenses eat up our resources, it is necessary to cut social programs and virtually dismantle our society as we know it.
We have lost our sense of "nation" as our borders are left unprotected and millions of immigrants pour in to tax our schools, welfare system, and hospitals while flooding our plants, factories, and construction crews with workers who are willing to accept smaller wages, often "under the table" with no tax or unemployment liability for the companies that employ them. As a result, our standard of living is falling as citizens lose their jobs, their homes, and their hope.
So, if and when we actually should "win" this war or the planned invasion of Iran, what will we have left? I foresee about three generations of Dickensian drudgery for the common man with exorbitant taxes as we struggle to repay all the indebtedness assumed by this administration. And we will have to do it without our once-teeming factories, our productive farmland, and our state-of-the-art research and development firms. The entire structure of our once-great nation will take many years to rebuild and the restoration of our reputation as a land of hope, opportunity, and compassion will take even longer. We may look forward to the year 2009 with hope but it will take many years and many good governments to heal the wounds of this war, win or lose.
It took two centuries to build this nation and, after eight years of ill-chosen leadership, it will take another century to restore it. Perhaps than we can say that we have "won".
Mary Pitt lives in a house by the side of the road in a little rural village in Kansas where she can observe the world both as it is and as she would like it to be. Questions and comments will reach her at mpitt@cox.net
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Will conservatives support our troops when they mutiny?
By Dennis Rahkonen
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Apr 19, 2007
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1987.shtml
U.S. soldiers’ tours of duty have been extended by three months in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In the latter country, this development plays out ominously against unprecedented levels of popular anti-Americanism, as evidenced by a huge rally targeting the occupation, recently held in Najaf, which united Shiites, Sunnis, and uniformed members of Iraq’s police and military.
It’s a recipe for disaster, in more ways than one, as past history demonstrates.
Those too young to remember the early ’70s are unaware of a remarkable phenomenon from that era.
During the latter stages of the Vietnam war, as Americans were still being sacrificed in a conflict that was both unequivocally wrong and hopelessly lost, U.S. rank-and-file troops engaged in open rebellion.
Downplayed by the government and major media as it was occurring, evidence of that rebellion has been expunged or whitewashed in official, revisionist histories of Vietnam.
But the truth manages to get through, sometimes in utterly damning fashion, such as the following, written in 1971 by Col. Robert Heinl in the Armed Forces Journal:
“Our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and noncommissioned officers, drug-ridden and dispirited, where not near-mutinous . . . [C]onditions [exist] among American forces in Vietnam that have only been exceeded in this century by . . . the collapse of the Tsarist armies in 1916 and 1917.”
Three circumstances finally brought the Vietnam debacle to an end.
First in importance was the fact that Vietnamese guerrillas and North Vietnam’s regular army prevailed against the American superpower.
Then there was the highly potent, domestic antiwar movement that routinely filled U.S. streets with militant protests while also engaging in student teach-ins, neighborhood organizing, voter registration, draft counseling, and other forms of pivotal defiance.
But it was the realization, so demoralizing to those who wished to continue the war, that “their” army was literally dissolving before astonished eyes that made withdrawal from Vietnam inevitable. A final congressional cutoff of war funding was anticlimactic. Johnny had already put down his gun.
Considering that George Bush’s Iraq folly represents equally as futile an effort to trump objective reality with stubborn, subjective will as was once attempted in Vietnam -- and also because his escalating, open-ended “surge” erects a human shooting gallery in which U.S. troops will be mercilessly picked off -- it’s only a matter of time before already severely eroded military morale in Iraq decisively breaks down.
Disobeying commands that would result in certain slaughter has already taken place.
One such incident happened in Ramadi. A squad from the Second Battalion, Fifth Marines was asked to duplicate a mission performed by another Marine squad that had been completely wiped out -- to take the same path, invite fire, and hopefully expose Iraqi insurgents to cover fire. Fearful of a second massacre, the chosen squad, to a man, refused to move out. At the last minute, an alternate mission was authorized, thereby avoiding possibly violent insubordination.
Significantly, it’s been reported that roughly half a dozen generals have indicated they’ll resign if Bush expands the Iraq war through an attack on Iran. This adds an entirely new dimension to the overall dynamic.
Our troops are being asked to accomplish the impossible, through now longer, repeated deployments. The psychological stress of facing a determined Iraqi insurrection that will continue until either the sun explodes or the last American is driven out is almost worse than the physical destruction Iraq’s resistance fighters relentlessly inflict.
Sooner or later, major refusal is bound to occur. When it does, will conservatives continue to support our troops, who -- at that juncture -- will need all the public backing they can possibly get?
Or will they condemn as “traitors” American parents’ precious sons and daughters who choose to turn around and say, “Enough of this murderous bullshit!” rather than march dutifully into an exploding death trap of Dick Cheney’s malicious making?
Let’s not forget that crass manipulation of emotions surrounding the Support Our Troops theme by right-wingers got Americans onboard for an illegal, immoral aggression in the first place.
Back before the war even began, after principled peace activists had already marched in great numbers to try to stop Bush’s impending travesty, conservatives countered with jingoistic rallies where opposing the coming disaster -- which would prove so devastating to our troops -- was falsely presented as betraying them.
Republicans “supported” our soldiers and Marines straight into graves, and into horrific survival absent arms, legs, and sanity.
That was the actual, abject betrayal!
As awful as it was, I’m afraid we’ll see it sordidly surpassed in the not too distant future as conservatives castigate service personnel who exhibit the wisdom, and enormous courage, to no longer fight in a rich man’s dirty war for oil.
Dennis Rahkonen of Superior, Wisconsin, has been writing for various progressive outlets since the ’60s. He can be reached at dennisr@cp.duluth.mn.us.
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Apr 19, 2007
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1987.shtml
U.S. soldiers’ tours of duty have been extended by three months in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In the latter country, this development plays out ominously against unprecedented levels of popular anti-Americanism, as evidenced by a huge rally targeting the occupation, recently held in Najaf, which united Shiites, Sunnis, and uniformed members of Iraq’s police and military.
It’s a recipe for disaster, in more ways than one, as past history demonstrates.
Those too young to remember the early ’70s are unaware of a remarkable phenomenon from that era.
During the latter stages of the Vietnam war, as Americans were still being sacrificed in a conflict that was both unequivocally wrong and hopelessly lost, U.S. rank-and-file troops engaged in open rebellion.
Downplayed by the government and major media as it was occurring, evidence of that rebellion has been expunged or whitewashed in official, revisionist histories of Vietnam.
But the truth manages to get through, sometimes in utterly damning fashion, such as the following, written in 1971 by Col. Robert Heinl in the Armed Forces Journal:
“Our army that now remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and noncommissioned officers, drug-ridden and dispirited, where not near-mutinous . . . [C]onditions [exist] among American forces in Vietnam that have only been exceeded in this century by . . . the collapse of the Tsarist armies in 1916 and 1917.”
Three circumstances finally brought the Vietnam debacle to an end.
First in importance was the fact that Vietnamese guerrillas and North Vietnam’s regular army prevailed against the American superpower.
Then there was the highly potent, domestic antiwar movement that routinely filled U.S. streets with militant protests while also engaging in student teach-ins, neighborhood organizing, voter registration, draft counseling, and other forms of pivotal defiance.
But it was the realization, so demoralizing to those who wished to continue the war, that “their” army was literally dissolving before astonished eyes that made withdrawal from Vietnam inevitable. A final congressional cutoff of war funding was anticlimactic. Johnny had already put down his gun.
Considering that George Bush’s Iraq folly represents equally as futile an effort to trump objective reality with stubborn, subjective will as was once attempted in Vietnam -- and also because his escalating, open-ended “surge” erects a human shooting gallery in which U.S. troops will be mercilessly picked off -- it’s only a matter of time before already severely eroded military morale in Iraq decisively breaks down.
Disobeying commands that would result in certain slaughter has already taken place.
One such incident happened in Ramadi. A squad from the Second Battalion, Fifth Marines was asked to duplicate a mission performed by another Marine squad that had been completely wiped out -- to take the same path, invite fire, and hopefully expose Iraqi insurgents to cover fire. Fearful of a second massacre, the chosen squad, to a man, refused to move out. At the last minute, an alternate mission was authorized, thereby avoiding possibly violent insubordination.
Significantly, it’s been reported that roughly half a dozen generals have indicated they’ll resign if Bush expands the Iraq war through an attack on Iran. This adds an entirely new dimension to the overall dynamic.
Our troops are being asked to accomplish the impossible, through now longer, repeated deployments. The psychological stress of facing a determined Iraqi insurrection that will continue until either the sun explodes or the last American is driven out is almost worse than the physical destruction Iraq’s resistance fighters relentlessly inflict.
Sooner or later, major refusal is bound to occur. When it does, will conservatives continue to support our troops, who -- at that juncture -- will need all the public backing they can possibly get?
Or will they condemn as “traitors” American parents’ precious sons and daughters who choose to turn around and say, “Enough of this murderous bullshit!” rather than march dutifully into an exploding death trap of Dick Cheney’s malicious making?
Let’s not forget that crass manipulation of emotions surrounding the Support Our Troops theme by right-wingers got Americans onboard for an illegal, immoral aggression in the first place.
Back before the war even began, after principled peace activists had already marched in great numbers to try to stop Bush’s impending travesty, conservatives countered with jingoistic rallies where opposing the coming disaster -- which would prove so devastating to our troops -- was falsely presented as betraying them.
Republicans “supported” our soldiers and Marines straight into graves, and into horrific survival absent arms, legs, and sanity.
That was the actual, abject betrayal!
As awful as it was, I’m afraid we’ll see it sordidly surpassed in the not too distant future as conservatives castigate service personnel who exhibit the wisdom, and enormous courage, to no longer fight in a rich man’s dirty war for oil.
Dennis Rahkonen of Superior, Wisconsin, has been writing for various progressive outlets since the ’60s. He can be reached at dennisr@cp.duluth.mn.us.
Wednesday in Iraq
In case you missed it.
Wednesday: 312 Iraqis, 1 GI Killed; 302 Iraqis Wounded
Updated at 11:29 p.m. EDT, April 18, 2007
http://antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=10837
A series of coordinated bomb attacks shook Baghdad hours after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said that security would be in Iraqi hands by the end of the year. Overall, at least 312 people were killed and 302 wounded throughout Iraq. One American soldier died yesterday of non-battle releated injuries.
In Baghdad, one truck bomb killed 140 people and wounded 150 more in the mostly Shi’ite Sadriya neighborhood. A second bomb killed 41 and wounded 76 in Sadr City. In Karrada, the third bomb killed 11 and wounded 13 more. Two were killed and eight wounded in a checkpoint bombing in Saidiya. And, a bomb in a mini-bus in Risafi killed four and wounded six people.
Also in the capital, gunmen killed a police major who also worked a security detail for the Speaker of Parliament. Four policemen were killed and six civilians wounded during an attack by gunmen in central Baghdad. Mortars in Amil wounded three civilians. And, 15 dumped bodies were recovered.
Another 25 decomposed bodies were retrieved from a school in Ramadi. Yesterday, 17 bodies had been discovered.
A suicide bomber injured seven people southwest of Mosul at al-Ghayah. Two brothers were killed and a policeman was wounded in a gunbattle in central Mosul. Mortars rained on a security checkpoing where they injured eight people. Two people were killed, three wounded in a roadside bomb attack. An explosive device killed senior Iraqi army officer and wounded three soldiers. Also, eight bodies were found in Mosul.
A suicide bomber killed two policemen and wounded four people, including two civilians, near Mahmudiya.
A policeman and a soldier were wounded during multiple checkpoint attacks in Tal Afar.
In a drive-by shooting in Kirkuk, a judge and his wife and son were wounded. Four bodies, one beheaded, were found in separate locations.
The son of the Interior Minister and his two bodyguards were killed in Baiji.
Gunmen killed soldier and kidnapped two civilians in Khalis.
Two farmers died of injuries they received in a U.S. attack in Al Bo Asi Al Abagiyah village.
Three bodies were found in separate locations near Baquba.
Five civilians were injured in Khanaqeen.
The bodies of three kidnapped workers were found in Hawija.
The Basra homes of three Fadhila party members were attacked by bombs, but no casualties were reported.
Mortars landed on the U.S. base in Haditha, but no casualties were reported. A U.S. vehicle was damaged in a blast in Fallujah.
Three people were injured on Tuesday when a roadside bomb struck an ambulance near Mukayshifah.
During U.S. military raids in Taji, one suspect was killed and eight others were detained. Near Garma, five suspects were killed and 18 arrested. The Iraq army killed six suspects and captured 126 others during operations throughout the country. Three gunmen were killed in Muqdadiya. Combined U.S.-Iraqi forces killed 23 gunmen during security operations in Diyala.
Also, the governor of Karbala warns that armed groups are poised on the western borders of the province.
Compiled by Margaret Griffis
Wednesday: 312 Iraqis, 1 GI Killed; 302 Iraqis Wounded
Updated at 11:29 p.m. EDT, April 18, 2007
http://antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=10837
A series of coordinated bomb attacks shook Baghdad hours after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said that security would be in Iraqi hands by the end of the year. Overall, at least 312 people were killed and 302 wounded throughout Iraq. One American soldier died yesterday of non-battle releated injuries.
In Baghdad, one truck bomb killed 140 people and wounded 150 more in the mostly Shi’ite Sadriya neighborhood. A second bomb killed 41 and wounded 76 in Sadr City. In Karrada, the third bomb killed 11 and wounded 13 more. Two were killed and eight wounded in a checkpoint bombing in Saidiya. And, a bomb in a mini-bus in Risafi killed four and wounded six people.
Also in the capital, gunmen killed a police major who also worked a security detail for the Speaker of Parliament. Four policemen were killed and six civilians wounded during an attack by gunmen in central Baghdad. Mortars in Amil wounded three civilians. And, 15 dumped bodies were recovered.
Another 25 decomposed bodies were retrieved from a school in Ramadi. Yesterday, 17 bodies had been discovered.
A suicide bomber injured seven people southwest of Mosul at al-Ghayah. Two brothers were killed and a policeman was wounded in a gunbattle in central Mosul. Mortars rained on a security checkpoing where they injured eight people. Two people were killed, three wounded in a roadside bomb attack. An explosive device killed senior Iraqi army officer and wounded three soldiers. Also, eight bodies were found in Mosul.
A suicide bomber killed two policemen and wounded four people, including two civilians, near Mahmudiya.
A policeman and a soldier were wounded during multiple checkpoint attacks in Tal Afar.
In a drive-by shooting in Kirkuk, a judge and his wife and son were wounded. Four bodies, one beheaded, were found in separate locations.
The son of the Interior Minister and his two bodyguards were killed in Baiji.
Gunmen killed soldier and kidnapped two civilians in Khalis.
Two farmers died of injuries they received in a U.S. attack in Al Bo Asi Al Abagiyah village.
Three bodies were found in separate locations near Baquba.
Five civilians were injured in Khanaqeen.
The bodies of three kidnapped workers were found in Hawija.
The Basra homes of three Fadhila party members were attacked by bombs, but no casualties were reported.
Mortars landed on the U.S. base in Haditha, but no casualties were reported. A U.S. vehicle was damaged in a blast in Fallujah.
Three people were injured on Tuesday when a roadside bomb struck an ambulance near Mukayshifah.
During U.S. military raids in Taji, one suspect was killed and eight others were detained. Near Garma, five suspects were killed and 18 arrested. The Iraq army killed six suspects and captured 126 others during operations throughout the country. Three gunmen were killed in Muqdadiya. Combined U.S.-Iraqi forces killed 23 gunmen during security operations in Diyala.
Also, the governor of Karbala warns that armed groups are poised on the western borders of the province.
Compiled by Margaret Griffis
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
New US Postal Rates Undermine Small Publications
by Stephen Lendman
4/18/07
The US Constitution's First Amendment guarantees the right of free expression including a press free to do it in. Jefferson, Madison and Congress wanted information easily and cheaply disseminated to the public and structured a comprehensive postal system designed to do it reaching into cities and villages alike including in new developing parts of the country in the West. The mass media of that time consisted largely of pamphlets like those Tom Paine wrote and colonial era newspapers beginning with the first ever published called the Boston News-Letter debuting in April, 1704 and later Ben Franklin's Pennsylvania Gazette first published in 1728 that gained the largest circulation of that time and was considered the best newspaper in the colonies.
Later ones survived and flourished because Congress wanted them to. It chose to underwrite their proliferation by not taxing them and through a system of low affordable postal rates and free exchange of newspapers among themselves. Congress then gave all newspapers equal privilege to encourage their growth and help prevent government from manipulating news and public opinion the way it's done now through the dominant media in all forms.
In his 2004 book, The Creation of the Media, Princeton sociologist Paul Starr explained how politics in early America assured the nation's postal system would make it possible for the press to grow and thrive. He wrote: "In the 18th century, the idea was that the press could be people's guardian. (It) could help check abuses of power." Unanticipated at the time was how media would develop becoming so concentrated and dominant it would end up "pos(ing) new problems for democracy." It's even worse when the media decides it's in its own interest to partner with government instead of being its watchdog.
Such is the state of things today, and it's led to first time ever changes in postal policy directly subverting USPS' own 215 year history. That's according to the urgent message just sent his Free Press supporters (including this writer) by the organization's founder, author, media critic, activist, and noted professor of media studies at the University of Illinois' main campus in Champaign-Urbana Robert McChesney.
He noted how rarely he sends out messages to "everyone in (his) address book (but did it this time on a matter he finds) "of staggering importance and urgency (because) There is a major crisis in our media taking place right now; it's getting almost no attention and unless we act very soon the consequences for our society could well be disastrous. And it will only take place because it is being done without any public awareness or participation (going against) the very foundations of freedom of the press (in all) American history."
McChesney goes on saying (unless stopped) the US postal system is implementing "a radical reformulation of its rates for magazines" to place a much larger cost burden on smaller periodicals than on the largest ones standing to benefit from the policy change. Up to now, postal policy "converted the (First Amendment's) Free Press clause....from an abstract principle into a living breathing reality for Americans," and it's been that way "throughout our history."
All that's about to be scrapped with new rates scheduled to take effect July 15 under which small publications will pay postal rates as much as 20% higher than the largest ones in a willful plan to undermine them, weaken media competition further, and as McChesney explains: "make it almost impossible to launch a new magazine (or other publication) unless it is spawned by a huge conglomerate" wanting to get huger. This new postal policy, crafted "in the dark of night," will adversely affect every small political journal in the nation including those providing the only print source of real news, information and analysis of vital world and national issues many readers rely on but may lose.
That's the whole idea with the nominally independent US Postal Service (USPS) in bed with big media to stack the deck in its favor and in the process subvert the sacred First Amendment moving flank speed toward the dustbin of US history unless derailed. That's no small statement with this policy less than 90 days from taking effect along with the still unresolved battle in Congress over Net Neutrality allowing readers access to this article they may not have if telecom and cable giants gain control of the internet so it's no longer free and open.
McChesney notes the new postal rates "were developed with no public involvement or congressional oversight (in a scheme) drafted by (media giant) Time Warner, the largest magazine publisher in the nation." McChesney believes responsible postal bureaucrats failed to consider how adverse their action is to a free and open press. This writer has darker thoughts, however, believing it's another example of dirty political machinations with corporate America telling government and bureaucrats to jump and their responding how high.
McChesney continues saying how hard it is to exaggerate the "corruption and sleaziness of this" whole business with a big media lawyer he quotes admitting: "It takes a publishing company several hundred thousand dollars to even participate in these rate cases. Some large corporations spend millions to influence these rates."
He continues saying the "genius of the postal rate structure over the past 215 years was that it did not favor a particular viewpoint (and) it simply made it easier for smaller magazines to be launched and to survive." It's a democracy issue, it affects all small and mid-sized ones, on the left and right, in all fields or subjects like "politics, music, sports or gardening."
The whole dirty business went on with so little publicity with only big media involved, it's only come to light a few weeks ago, and it's now late in the game to try stopping it. But that's just what must be done and here's how:
Go to www.stoppostalratehikes.com. Sign the letter to the Postal Board protesting the new rate system and "demanding a congressional hearing" with no radical changes until one is gotten.
Help spread the word on this to friends and family and get them to act as well - NOW.
Important: THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS IS MONDAY, APRIL 23. Action is needed promptly.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to the Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on The Micro Effect.com each Saturday at noon US central time.
4/18/07
The US Constitution's First Amendment guarantees the right of free expression including a press free to do it in. Jefferson, Madison and Congress wanted information easily and cheaply disseminated to the public and structured a comprehensive postal system designed to do it reaching into cities and villages alike including in new developing parts of the country in the West. The mass media of that time consisted largely of pamphlets like those Tom Paine wrote and colonial era newspapers beginning with the first ever published called the Boston News-Letter debuting in April, 1704 and later Ben Franklin's Pennsylvania Gazette first published in 1728 that gained the largest circulation of that time and was considered the best newspaper in the colonies.
Later ones survived and flourished because Congress wanted them to. It chose to underwrite their proliferation by not taxing them and through a system of low affordable postal rates and free exchange of newspapers among themselves. Congress then gave all newspapers equal privilege to encourage their growth and help prevent government from manipulating news and public opinion the way it's done now through the dominant media in all forms.
In his 2004 book, The Creation of the Media, Princeton sociologist Paul Starr explained how politics in early America assured the nation's postal system would make it possible for the press to grow and thrive. He wrote: "In the 18th century, the idea was that the press could be people's guardian. (It) could help check abuses of power." Unanticipated at the time was how media would develop becoming so concentrated and dominant it would end up "pos(ing) new problems for democracy." It's even worse when the media decides it's in its own interest to partner with government instead of being its watchdog.
Such is the state of things today, and it's led to first time ever changes in postal policy directly subverting USPS' own 215 year history. That's according to the urgent message just sent his Free Press supporters (including this writer) by the organization's founder, author, media critic, activist, and noted professor of media studies at the University of Illinois' main campus in Champaign-Urbana Robert McChesney.
He noted how rarely he sends out messages to "everyone in (his) address book (but did it this time on a matter he finds) "of staggering importance and urgency (because) There is a major crisis in our media taking place right now; it's getting almost no attention and unless we act very soon the consequences for our society could well be disastrous. And it will only take place because it is being done without any public awareness or participation (going against) the very foundations of freedom of the press (in all) American history."
McChesney goes on saying (unless stopped) the US postal system is implementing "a radical reformulation of its rates for magazines" to place a much larger cost burden on smaller periodicals than on the largest ones standing to benefit from the policy change. Up to now, postal policy "converted the (First Amendment's) Free Press clause....from an abstract principle into a living breathing reality for Americans," and it's been that way "throughout our history."
All that's about to be scrapped with new rates scheduled to take effect July 15 under which small publications will pay postal rates as much as 20% higher than the largest ones in a willful plan to undermine them, weaken media competition further, and as McChesney explains: "make it almost impossible to launch a new magazine (or other publication) unless it is spawned by a huge conglomerate" wanting to get huger. This new postal policy, crafted "in the dark of night," will adversely affect every small political journal in the nation including those providing the only print source of real news, information and analysis of vital world and national issues many readers rely on but may lose.
That's the whole idea with the nominally independent US Postal Service (USPS) in bed with big media to stack the deck in its favor and in the process subvert the sacred First Amendment moving flank speed toward the dustbin of US history unless derailed. That's no small statement with this policy less than 90 days from taking effect along with the still unresolved battle in Congress over Net Neutrality allowing readers access to this article they may not have if telecom and cable giants gain control of the internet so it's no longer free and open.
McChesney notes the new postal rates "were developed with no public involvement or congressional oversight (in a scheme) drafted by (media giant) Time Warner, the largest magazine publisher in the nation." McChesney believes responsible postal bureaucrats failed to consider how adverse their action is to a free and open press. This writer has darker thoughts, however, believing it's another example of dirty political machinations with corporate America telling government and bureaucrats to jump and their responding how high.
McChesney continues saying how hard it is to exaggerate the "corruption and sleaziness of this" whole business with a big media lawyer he quotes admitting: "It takes a publishing company several hundred thousand dollars to even participate in these rate cases. Some large corporations spend millions to influence these rates."
He continues saying the "genius of the postal rate structure over the past 215 years was that it did not favor a particular viewpoint (and) it simply made it easier for smaller magazines to be launched and to survive." It's a democracy issue, it affects all small and mid-sized ones, on the left and right, in all fields or subjects like "politics, music, sports or gardening."
The whole dirty business went on with so little publicity with only big media involved, it's only come to light a few weeks ago, and it's now late in the game to try stopping it. But that's just what must be done and here's how:
Go to www.stoppostalratehikes.com. Sign the letter to the Postal Board protesting the new rate system and "demanding a congressional hearing" with no radical changes until one is gotten.
Help spread the word on this to friends and family and get them to act as well - NOW.
Important: THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS IS MONDAY, APRIL 23. Action is needed promptly.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to the Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on The Micro Effect.com each Saturday at noon US central time.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Now Do You Understand?
by Larry C Johnson
Monday, 16 April 2007
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/04/now_do_you_unde.html
Breaking news! At least 22 Virginia Tech students gunned down. Cable news channels are wild with activity as they pump up the coverage a focus on the latest "crisis". The media is commenting that this shooting is overwhelming the local medical facilities. Crisis is in the air. Well, at least it ain't Iraq.
Okay. Big deep breath. This is horrible and this is tragic and this gives us an idea of what it is like to live just one day in Iraq. Consider the following:
04/15/07 Reuters: 19 bodies found in Baghdad on Saturday
Police found the bodies of 19 people in various parts of Baghdad in the past 24 hours, police said
04/15/07 Reuters: 20 Iraqi troops and policemen abducted
A group linked to al Qaeda said it abducted 20 Iraqi troops and policemen and demanded the release of all Sunni women held in Iraq's prisons, according to a Web statement
04/15/07 Reuters: 4 killed by suicide bombers in Mosul
Four people, including two Iraqi soldiers, were killed and 16 wounded when two oil trucks driven by suicide bombers exploded outside a military base in the northern city of Mosul, police said.
04/15/07 AP: Suicide bomber kills 5, wounds 11 in northwest Baghdad
a suicide bomber blew himself up on a minibus in northwest Baghdad, killing at least eight people and wounding 11, police and hospital officials said.
04/15/07 AP: 37 die as car bomb hits near Iraq shrine
A car bomb blasted through a busy bus station near one of Iraq's holiest shrines Saturday, killing at least 37 people, police and hospital officials said.
Let's total the score: at least 65 Iraqis dead in four attacks vs. 22 Americans shot at Virginia Tech. Whoops, forgot the 20 kidnapped policemen. Can you imagine?
The next time you hear Dick Cheney or George Bush blame the public attitude regarding Iraq on the media's failure to report "good news", examine carefully our reaction to the shooting at Viginia Tech. Look at our collective shock. Our horrified reaction. The public sorrow. Yet, in truth, this is an exceptional, unusual day in America. It is not our common experience. But we cannot say the same about Iraq.
The people of Iraq are living in a Marquis de Sade version of Groundhog Day. It is like the Bill Murray movie--the same horrible day repeated with some new, bizarre twists--only not funny. Multiple body counts and explosions and shootings are the daily experience of the people of Iraq. They have been living this hell for four years. Just keep that fact in mind as you mourn the deaths of 22 American students slain in Blacksburg, Viginia.
Monday, 16 April 2007
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/04/now_do_you_unde.html
Breaking news! At least 22 Virginia Tech students gunned down. Cable news channels are wild with activity as they pump up the coverage a focus on the latest "crisis". The media is commenting that this shooting is overwhelming the local medical facilities. Crisis is in the air. Well, at least it ain't Iraq.
Okay. Big deep breath. This is horrible and this is tragic and this gives us an idea of what it is like to live just one day in Iraq. Consider the following:
04/15/07 Reuters: 19 bodies found in Baghdad on Saturday
Police found the bodies of 19 people in various parts of Baghdad in the past 24 hours, police said
04/15/07 Reuters: 20 Iraqi troops and policemen abducted
A group linked to al Qaeda said it abducted 20 Iraqi troops and policemen and demanded the release of all Sunni women held in Iraq's prisons, according to a Web statement
04/15/07 Reuters: 4 killed by suicide bombers in Mosul
Four people, including two Iraqi soldiers, were killed and 16 wounded when two oil trucks driven by suicide bombers exploded outside a military base in the northern city of Mosul, police said.
04/15/07 AP: Suicide bomber kills 5, wounds 11 in northwest Baghdad
a suicide bomber blew himself up on a minibus in northwest Baghdad, killing at least eight people and wounding 11, police and hospital officials said.
04/15/07 AP: 37 die as car bomb hits near Iraq shrine
A car bomb blasted through a busy bus station near one of Iraq's holiest shrines Saturday, killing at least 37 people, police and hospital officials said.
Let's total the score: at least 65 Iraqis dead in four attacks vs. 22 Americans shot at Virginia Tech. Whoops, forgot the 20 kidnapped policemen. Can you imagine?
The next time you hear Dick Cheney or George Bush blame the public attitude regarding Iraq on the media's failure to report "good news", examine carefully our reaction to the shooting at Viginia Tech. Look at our collective shock. Our horrified reaction. The public sorrow. Yet, in truth, this is an exceptional, unusual day in America. It is not our common experience. But we cannot say the same about Iraq.
The people of Iraq are living in a Marquis de Sade version of Groundhog Day. It is like the Bill Murray movie--the same horrible day repeated with some new, bizarre twists--only not funny. Multiple body counts and explosions and shootings are the daily experience of the people of Iraq. They have been living this hell for four years. Just keep that fact in mind as you mourn the deaths of 22 American students slain in Blacksburg, Viginia.
Dare To Look Back
By Sheila Samples
4/16/07
"...the high office of the President has been used to forment a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office, I must inform the citizens of this plight."
- John F. Kennedy (November 12, 1963, Columbia U, 10 days before his assassination)
I cannot recall a single day since Vulcans' Godfather James Baker sent his thuggish henchman John Bolton to Florida's Palm Beach County to screw up the vote count that has not been filled with horror, anger, shame -- despair. On Dec. 9, 2000 -- three days before the Florida deadline -- the US Republic shuddered on its axis when Bolton crashed through the doors of a Tallahassee library where Miami-Dade ballots were being recounted and shouted triumphantly -- "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count!"
In that instant we lost most of what had taken more than two centuries to build. In one fell swoop, Americans were thrust into the mire of an Orwellian World spinning out of control on the other side of the Looking Glass. What a tragedy -- not that so many failed to realize their government had just been seized in a coup de'etat -- but that the few who did refused to acknowledge it.
The sudden unconstitutional decision by five unelected right-wing activist Supreme Court justices to blatantly steal an election for one of their own -- to stop the vote count so Bush would not be "embarassed" by losing -- was a frightening assault upon the separation of powers, the American people, and upon democracy itself.
Having upset the national equilibrium, George Bush and Dick Cheney hit the deck at a dead run, trashing everything in their path. Like a couple of deranged Benny Hills with "Yakety Sax" blaring in the background, they trashed treaties, insulted other world leaders, and undermined Constitutional restraints on everything that stood between them and their goal of worldwide corporate pillage and total executive power.
Those who dare to look back will be struck by the speed at which they resurrected the zombies of the Iran-Contra era, the tyrannical neo-Straussians, and the godless right-wing evangelical warmongers, Talk about an Axis! The stage was set for their long-planned crusade to gain control of not only the world and its resources but of space and cyberspace as well. The only thing lacking was an incident to catapault them into the war for which they lusted -- an incident of such magnitude that cries of dissent would be lost in the roar for war.
Their vision of global dominance supplied them with moral justification for the filthy lies that took us into two wars and is threatening a third. "It is ironic," writes Canadian author and professor Shadia Drury, "that American neoconservatives have decided to conquer the world in the name of liberty and democracy, when they have so little regard for either." Drury has written two books on the philosophy of Leo Strauss, and she writes that Strauss believed "religion and war -- perpetual war -- would lift the masses from the animality of bourgeois consumption and the pre-occupation with 'creature comforts'. Instead of personal happiness, they would live their lives in perpetual sacrifice to God and the nation."
Neoconservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz, Irving and Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, John Negroponte, and many others, took from Strauss a doctrine of "all politics all the time" -- nasty, deceptive and repressive -- whatever it takes for the elite to exercise control over the vulgar unwashed. That would be you and me, fellow Americans, and Strauss said we could be inspired to rise above our "brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe." The lies they told, and continue to tell, according to Drury, are "noble lies for the consumption of the masses."
We are in the clutches of an evil, evil group of psychopaths -- warmongering moral cowards whose faux leader, George W. Bush, is a shallow, self-destructive little bully who deserted his military post during a time of war. Perhaps the most frightening of all is Michael Ledeen. Looking back, some might remember that Ledeen was Secretary of State Alexander Haig's advisor, a member of the National Security Council and a consultant for Ronald Reagan's Department of Defense. He played a central role in the Iran-Contra scandal. It was Ledeen who made the initial contact with Iranian arms dealers, which launched the arms-for-hostages affair and could have -- should have -- brought down the Reagan presidency.
Anyone reading Ledeen's book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, will recognize the Bush doctrine and know that the horror of 9-11 was a foregone conclusion -- a "done deal" -- the minute they seized the 2000 election. Ledeen wrote, "To be an effective leader, the most prudent method is to ensure that your people are afraid of you. To instill that fear, you must demonstrate that those who attack you will not survive."
On the evening of 9-11, Bush went before a paralyzed nation and, after a brief comment about praying, grieving and mourning for the 3,000 victims of that terrible day, he announced, "Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil." Then, warming to his subject, Bush rammed home what would become his mantra for the next six years -- "These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve." He then assured the masses that he would make no distinction between the "terrorists" and the regimes that harbored them. Bush's vision for revenge was to chase them all over the world and kill them all...
But a vision is not a plan. Looking back, it appears that Bush's plan for perpetual war is sending Americans to their deaths, unequipped and untrained, while bellowing, "Support the Troops!" Bush's plan is destroying an entire nation, its culture, its infrastructure -- raping, torturing and slaughtering its people for no reason other than he can. It is creating a humanitarian crisis of mind-boggling proportions -- more than 3.9 million Iraqis have fled their homes to safer areas in Iraq and in neighboring countries.
For Americans, it is more than a momentary inconvenience that 3,302 of their sons and daughters have needlessly been killed, 40 just last week, and that more than 26,000 have been wounded, broken, maimed -- their lives and those of their loved ones utterly destroyed. Stretching our military with its proud and honorable tradition of protecting this country until it breaks and then outsourcing legions of mercenaries to do our dirty work of preemptive attacks and occupation of other countries is not a plan that Americans will support.
Bush reminds us on a daily basis that our world changed on "September the 11th." That is true. But we must dare to look back even further to that dark December day when five Supreme Court judges made the ghastly decision that spawned the horrors of not only 9-11, but of the carnage in which we are embroiled today.
Before that bleak day, I had never used the f-word nor uttered the Lord's name in vain. However, as this nation teeters on the cusp of spiritual, physical and political death, I can only pray that God will damn them. Every last fucking one of them. Please God. Damn them all.
Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at: rsamples@sirinet.net
4/16/07
"...the high office of the President has been used to forment a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office, I must inform the citizens of this plight."
- John F. Kennedy (November 12, 1963, Columbia U, 10 days before his assassination)
I cannot recall a single day since Vulcans' Godfather James Baker sent his thuggish henchman John Bolton to Florida's Palm Beach County to screw up the vote count that has not been filled with horror, anger, shame -- despair. On Dec. 9, 2000 -- three days before the Florida deadline -- the US Republic shuddered on its axis when Bolton crashed through the doors of a Tallahassee library where Miami-Dade ballots were being recounted and shouted triumphantly -- "I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the count!"
In that instant we lost most of what had taken more than two centuries to build. In one fell swoop, Americans were thrust into the mire of an Orwellian World spinning out of control on the other side of the Looking Glass. What a tragedy -- not that so many failed to realize their government had just been seized in a coup de'etat -- but that the few who did refused to acknowledge it.
The sudden unconstitutional decision by five unelected right-wing activist Supreme Court justices to blatantly steal an election for one of their own -- to stop the vote count so Bush would not be "embarassed" by losing -- was a frightening assault upon the separation of powers, the American people, and upon democracy itself.
Having upset the national equilibrium, George Bush and Dick Cheney hit the deck at a dead run, trashing everything in their path. Like a couple of deranged Benny Hills with "Yakety Sax" blaring in the background, they trashed treaties, insulted other world leaders, and undermined Constitutional restraints on everything that stood between them and their goal of worldwide corporate pillage and total executive power.
Those who dare to look back will be struck by the speed at which they resurrected the zombies of the Iran-Contra era, the tyrannical neo-Straussians, and the godless right-wing evangelical warmongers, Talk about an Axis! The stage was set for their long-planned crusade to gain control of not only the world and its resources but of space and cyberspace as well. The only thing lacking was an incident to catapault them into the war for which they lusted -- an incident of such magnitude that cries of dissent would be lost in the roar for war.
Their vision of global dominance supplied them with moral justification for the filthy lies that took us into two wars and is threatening a third. "It is ironic," writes Canadian author and professor Shadia Drury, "that American neoconservatives have decided to conquer the world in the name of liberty and democracy, when they have so little regard for either." Drury has written two books on the philosophy of Leo Strauss, and she writes that Strauss believed "religion and war -- perpetual war -- would lift the masses from the animality of bourgeois consumption and the pre-occupation with 'creature comforts'. Instead of personal happiness, they would live their lives in perpetual sacrifice to God and the nation."
Neoconservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz, Irving and Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, John Negroponte, and many others, took from Strauss a doctrine of "all politics all the time" -- nasty, deceptive and repressive -- whatever it takes for the elite to exercise control over the vulgar unwashed. That would be you and me, fellow Americans, and Strauss said we could be inspired to rise above our "brutish existence only by fear of impending death or catastrophe." The lies they told, and continue to tell, according to Drury, are "noble lies for the consumption of the masses."
We are in the clutches of an evil, evil group of psychopaths -- warmongering moral cowards whose faux leader, George W. Bush, is a shallow, self-destructive little bully who deserted his military post during a time of war. Perhaps the most frightening of all is Michael Ledeen. Looking back, some might remember that Ledeen was Secretary of State Alexander Haig's advisor, a member of the National Security Council and a consultant for Ronald Reagan's Department of Defense. He played a central role in the Iran-Contra scandal. It was Ledeen who made the initial contact with Iranian arms dealers, which launched the arms-for-hostages affair and could have -- should have -- brought down the Reagan presidency.
Anyone reading Ledeen's book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, will recognize the Bush doctrine and know that the horror of 9-11 was a foregone conclusion -- a "done deal" -- the minute they seized the 2000 election. Ledeen wrote, "To be an effective leader, the most prudent method is to ensure that your people are afraid of you. To instill that fear, you must demonstrate that those who attack you will not survive."
On the evening of 9-11, Bush went before a paralyzed nation and, after a brief comment about praying, grieving and mourning for the 3,000 victims of that terrible day, he announced, "Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil." Then, warming to his subject, Bush rammed home what would become his mantra for the next six years -- "These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve." He then assured the masses that he would make no distinction between the "terrorists" and the regimes that harbored them. Bush's vision for revenge was to chase them all over the world and kill them all...
But a vision is not a plan. Looking back, it appears that Bush's plan for perpetual war is sending Americans to their deaths, unequipped and untrained, while bellowing, "Support the Troops!" Bush's plan is destroying an entire nation, its culture, its infrastructure -- raping, torturing and slaughtering its people for no reason other than he can. It is creating a humanitarian crisis of mind-boggling proportions -- more than 3.9 million Iraqis have fled their homes to safer areas in Iraq and in neighboring countries.
For Americans, it is more than a momentary inconvenience that 3,302 of their sons and daughters have needlessly been killed, 40 just last week, and that more than 26,000 have been wounded, broken, maimed -- their lives and those of their loved ones utterly destroyed. Stretching our military with its proud and honorable tradition of protecting this country until it breaks and then outsourcing legions of mercenaries to do our dirty work of preemptive attacks and occupation of other countries is not a plan that Americans will support.
Bush reminds us on a daily basis that our world changed on "September the 11th." That is true. But we must dare to look back even further to that dark December day when five Supreme Court judges made the ghastly decision that spawned the horrors of not only 9-11, but of the carnage in which we are embroiled today.
Before that bleak day, I had never used the f-word nor uttered the Lord's name in vain. However, as this nation teeters on the cusp of spiritual, physical and political death, I can only pray that God will damn them. Every last fucking one of them. Please God. Damn them all.
Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at: rsamples@sirinet.net
Sunday, April 15, 2007
General Pace, Gays, And Women
by Mary Pitt
4/15/07
Poor ole General Pace is not getting the respect he deserves. He is opposed to having gays in the military because he feels it is "wrong and immoral" and demoralizing to the other troops who have to share facilities and sleeping quarters with them. It must be greatly disturbing to know that there are people in your fighting group who regard you as "a piece of meat", to be fantasized and slavered over. It would be hard to sleep at night for the fear that you would be attacked in your sleep and raped, or worse. You are there for one pupose, to "defend your country" by killing other guys and trying to stay alive until it is time to go home. Yet there you are, huddled in sleeping mats or army cots, thousands of miles from home, surrounded not only by "bad guys" who want to kill you for your skin color or nationality, but you have to constantly worry about your own comrades who may be just lying in wait for your one unguarded moment when they can pounce on you and defile your body.
The danger in the field is all-consuming. Your body is full of adrenalin, your mind on high alert with every step you take, knowing that a bullet with your name on it could collide with a vital body part in an instant as you are riding in a HUMV, looking in all directions at once, aware that, at any instant, an IED could blow you, your vehicles, and all your comrades to Kingdom Come. The night will be welcome, getting back to your compound for some chow, taking off your boots, and unwinding a bit, giving the mind and body some rest. But wait! Your mental warning system cannot turn off. You are still in danger. The latrine is some distance from your sleeping quarters, a long walk in the dark, and predators are lurking and watching you; not the enemy but your own comrades who are almost as big a danger. When did you have that last drink of water? Three o'clock? Four? Shouldn't have drunk anything that late in the day, might not be able to get rid of it before dark. But, God! it was so hot out there! Bad enough lying awake, listening for footsteps in the dark without having to do it with a full bladder!
No, my friends, I am not talking about male American soldiers, doing their duty for God and country, living in fear of an attack from a homosexual. This is the real life, right now, of a female American soldier serving in Iraq. Rapes, even murder, are a constant danger for them and they are painfully conscious of it at all times. Worse yet they know that, if it happens, they are on their own. Reporting an attack is useless. The military cannot be bothered with doing anything about it, not do they take any measures to prevent it. The men know there is no disciplinary action for such "minor" offenses and any attempt at "prevention" is entirely up to the woman. That is why they continue to do their assigned jobs in 110 degree heat, denying themselves liquids after the middle of the afternoon and, according to Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, some eighty women were reported to have died in their sleep from dehydration before the military stopped reporting them!
Of course, the answer to these problems may sound simple, since it consists of only one word: Discipline! At some time, officials have stopped indoctrinating young soldiers with the ethos of honor and respectability which used to be ingrained in the men and who were sent abroad to represent the finest priciples of our nation. The punishment for breaking these laws should be as swift and sure as it is for other "major" infractions of the military code. Further, there should be an end to officers who hear of sexual assaults and just don't give a damn. After all, they always opposed the idea of women in the military, anyway, and perhaps they feel a certain sense of satisfaction when women are punished for interfering in man's business. In the male chauvinism which permeates the services, women are only good for recreation and procreation and the standard response is that "she asked for it". This attitude may be responsible for the fact that the sexual assault hotlines lead only to answering machines!
And so, General Pace, you should not be worried about gay soldiers causing discomfort among your little soldier-boys. If regulations and enforcement were in place that would protect women from their comrades-in-arms. they would also serve to ensure the "safety" and peace of mind of the heteros who may think that the gay guy in the next bunk may be planning to assault his virginal little body. While we may acknowledge that "boys will be boys" these are not boys but men and should be expected to act like it. We have become a culture of "anything goes" and it is to our national detriment. Our military with its reputation for rape, murder, and torture is no longer viewed by foreigners as benign and kindly saviors or liberators but as something to be feared, in peace as well as in war.
And to think that this came about under an administration that was brought about with the support of the "religious right" who feel themselves to be the monitors of morality and the champions of our family values and the American Way! Gays are just peachy-keen in the White House or in Congress, but they should never be tolerated in the armed forces! Right on, Gen'ril!
Mary Pitt is a septuagenarian Kansas who longs for the "good old days" of freedom, decency, and personal respect but realizes that we can only get there by going forward.
4/15/07
Poor ole General Pace is not getting the respect he deserves. He is opposed to having gays in the military because he feels it is "wrong and immoral" and demoralizing to the other troops who have to share facilities and sleeping quarters with them. It must be greatly disturbing to know that there are people in your fighting group who regard you as "a piece of meat", to be fantasized and slavered over. It would be hard to sleep at night for the fear that you would be attacked in your sleep and raped, or worse. You are there for one pupose, to "defend your country" by killing other guys and trying to stay alive until it is time to go home. Yet there you are, huddled in sleeping mats or army cots, thousands of miles from home, surrounded not only by "bad guys" who want to kill you for your skin color or nationality, but you have to constantly worry about your own comrades who may be just lying in wait for your one unguarded moment when they can pounce on you and defile your body.
The danger in the field is all-consuming. Your body is full of adrenalin, your mind on high alert with every step you take, knowing that a bullet with your name on it could collide with a vital body part in an instant as you are riding in a HUMV, looking in all directions at once, aware that, at any instant, an IED could blow you, your vehicles, and all your comrades to Kingdom Come. The night will be welcome, getting back to your compound for some chow, taking off your boots, and unwinding a bit, giving the mind and body some rest. But wait! Your mental warning system cannot turn off. You are still in danger. The latrine is some distance from your sleeping quarters, a long walk in the dark, and predators are lurking and watching you; not the enemy but your own comrades who are almost as big a danger. When did you have that last drink of water? Three o'clock? Four? Shouldn't have drunk anything that late in the day, might not be able to get rid of it before dark. But, God! it was so hot out there! Bad enough lying awake, listening for footsteps in the dark without having to do it with a full bladder!
No, my friends, I am not talking about male American soldiers, doing their duty for God and country, living in fear of an attack from a homosexual. This is the real life, right now, of a female American soldier serving in Iraq. Rapes, even murder, are a constant danger for them and they are painfully conscious of it at all times. Worse yet they know that, if it happens, they are on their own. Reporting an attack is useless. The military cannot be bothered with doing anything about it, not do they take any measures to prevent it. The men know there is no disciplinary action for such "minor" offenses and any attempt at "prevention" is entirely up to the woman. That is why they continue to do their assigned jobs in 110 degree heat, denying themselves liquids after the middle of the afternoon and, according to Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, some eighty women were reported to have died in their sleep from dehydration before the military stopped reporting them!
Of course, the answer to these problems may sound simple, since it consists of only one word: Discipline! At some time, officials have stopped indoctrinating young soldiers with the ethos of honor and respectability which used to be ingrained in the men and who were sent abroad to represent the finest priciples of our nation. The punishment for breaking these laws should be as swift and sure as it is for other "major" infractions of the military code. Further, there should be an end to officers who hear of sexual assaults and just don't give a damn. After all, they always opposed the idea of women in the military, anyway, and perhaps they feel a certain sense of satisfaction when women are punished for interfering in man's business. In the male chauvinism which permeates the services, women are only good for recreation and procreation and the standard response is that "she asked for it". This attitude may be responsible for the fact that the sexual assault hotlines lead only to answering machines!
And so, General Pace, you should not be worried about gay soldiers causing discomfort among your little soldier-boys. If regulations and enforcement were in place that would protect women from their comrades-in-arms. they would also serve to ensure the "safety" and peace of mind of the heteros who may think that the gay guy in the next bunk may be planning to assault his virginal little body. While we may acknowledge that "boys will be boys" these are not boys but men and should be expected to act like it. We have become a culture of "anything goes" and it is to our national detriment. Our military with its reputation for rape, murder, and torture is no longer viewed by foreigners as benign and kindly saviors or liberators but as something to be feared, in peace as well as in war.
And to think that this came about under an administration that was brought about with the support of the "religious right" who feel themselves to be the monitors of morality and the champions of our family values and the American Way! Gays are just peachy-keen in the White House or in Congress, but they should never be tolerated in the armed forces! Right on, Gen'ril!
Mary Pitt is a septuagenarian Kansas who longs for the "good old days" of freedom, decency, and personal respect but realizes that we can only get there by going forward.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Free Speech
Free Speech Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry
by Stacie Adams
April 14, 2007
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr07/Adams14.htm
[…]
Don Imus and his ilk are the price you pay for living in a freewheeling democracy. If you want your media and speech regulated by authority figures, move to some despotic country of your choosing…
[…]
…Regulating speech, for any reason, is a disastrous proposition. Very few people find what Imus said appealing and it truly would be no great loss if he was never heard from again. But what I wonder and fear is this: who’s next?
Firing Don Imus Stinks
4/13/2007
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2007/04/firing-don-imus-stinks-no-no-for-rude.html
[…]
Because, ultimately, what happened to Imus happened because of his speech, and if you wanna, say, giggle when the Rude Pundit attacks someone, then Don Imus gets to say his non-FCC violating insults. Yes, the Rude Pundit's aware that there's a qualitative, historical, and ethical difference between calling white conservative evangelicals nasty names and calling a women's college basketball team "whores," but it's still speech. Hate speech is speech; yes, sadly, angrily, we must call it "speech."
The Rude Pundit's concern can be divided into two incompatible areas with cliched names: the slippery slope and the sacrificial lamb.
[…]
…Advertisers, too, knew where they were putting their ad dollars. Like the lefty blog that gets Ann Coulter book ads (and doesn't decline them, it should be noted, because the blogger doesn't want to be seen as "endorsing" the products that advertise on the blog), companies know exactly who they are trying to reach and why. They knew the demographics of the show. They knew the content. No one involved is innocent or clean. And, to turn this shit around another way, yeah, if all the advertisers pull out, then, yeah, good capitalist society that we are, that's a reason to take Imus off the air. But that's not the reason we were given, even if it is the real cause.
But once Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, et al are chased from the air, what next?...
[…]
…That Imus is taking the hit for the place of that speech in our culture and the endless degradation that cuts across race and class lines. And that, now that Imus is off-the-public-air, we can, like this blog will, move on to other things rather than get down to the nitty-gritty of curing the diseases that have plagued this nation since it began.
[…]
Economic bloodbath required for Bush’s impeachment
by Ben Tanosborn
2007-04-13 08:50:38
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=20362
It was George Santayana who felt patience and courage are necessary human virtues to our existence. And for many of us waiting for the impeachment of George W. Bush is certainly very trying with our patience… virtuosity aside.
Congressional legislators of both parties probably have it right to keep impeachment off the table. It would be a very unpopular thing to bring about when much of the nation, politicos as well as citizens, have been complicit to the happenings in Washington either by condoning the administration’s deceit, or by being part of it. Americans are just not quite ready to put themselves on trial. Accusing Bush and Cheney of high crimes and misdemeanors on the Iraq war is nothing short of passing sentence on ourselves.
Some of us can clamor to the four winds for the malefic-duo’s impeachment, but we know that it won’t do any good. We can reason that it might be the only way to get our credibility restored in the world, and our sense of morality retrieved, but the truth is that people don’t seem to much care. We can also appeal to our inner humanity by pointing to the pain, death and destruction brought about by these wars of choice that we are engaging in, but the compassion strings simply won’t play in tune with our pharisaical congregations during Sunday’s sermons.
Continuous deceit and criminality in government just don’t seem to warrant a high profile trial in the United States these days, and a handful of righteous congress people will never garner the support of their peers to get the vehicle started; much less to get anywhere with it.
There is, however, a sure-fire way to get Americans up in arms. All that’s needed is a reality check on the economy, and that may not be long in coming. And when that light goes on, people will forget their share of the blame, setting aside any thoughts of greed and waste, and start pointing fingers at the Bush Administration that got us there. Bush could easily become the Herbert Hoover of 2008 sans the brains or the compassion, even if the recession does not go into full bloom until the November election.
A river of blood that has been Iraq appears not to have fazed Americans in a big way, but waking up to an economic bloodbath in late 2007 or early 2008 could easily enlist over two-thirds of the population in rebellion against a government that has been not only deceitful but incompetent and wasteful as well. At that time, even if Bush has only a few months left in his presidency, there will be calls for his head to roll… and there could be a major popular outcry for impeachment; and many of the religious, social and fiscal conservatives will repudiate him… if for no other reason than self-preservation.
The Fed is still painting a rosy, if cautious, picture of the short term economy, somehow dismissing, or at the very least downplaying, the true impact that the housing slump will have on the overall economy. But just as housing inflated to unsustainable values with 5, 10 or 15 trillion dollars of “hot air,” it will deflate much the same way, and we could be in for more than just a 3-5 year down cycle, experiencing something similar to Japan’s real estate purge which lasted over a decade. Home ownership, politically- touted for reaching almost 69%... is a wrong statistic to give when in “real equity” of land-brick-and-mortar actually owned (without fluff) Americans likely had a greater overall stake in their homes four decades ago.
Deceit as to the real state of the economy has been comparable to that given by the White House and Pentagon on the war, with both Fed and administration “ideologically” joining forces to achieve a form of political stability likely to bring dire future results. And in terms of economic blame, high crimes and misdemeanors were committed not just by Bush Son, but also by the Fed’s pontiff of almost two decades, saxophonist turned economic-wizard, Alan Greenspan.
Housing price-meltdown is likely to occur by late summer this year with repercussions in Wall Street within the following two quarters as corporate earnings start to deteriorate with little or no geographical padding for multi-nationals since the recession will have a global face. When all that happens, there will be no economic tools left for the Fed to use, or misuse, and fiscal and monetary policy won’t be able to save the day; or at least postpone the inevitable a little longer as it has been doing in the past, allowing crises to be passed on to future generations.
Without trying to appear as a latter-day Nostradamus on economic forecasting, I have had a contrarian view for at least a decade from that espoused by most mainstream economists, the American Association of Realtors and “for the most part” laughable monotonic choir at CNBC. But if results are in the pudding, I will say that I had the dot-com bubble burst perfectly pegged in both timing and severity almost two years before; and it’s starting to look as if my predictions two years ago on the current housing fiasco are happening true to course. I also indicated at that time that its sibling, commercial real estate, would undergo a comparable collapse two quarters thereafter in an arena that will appear even bloodier.
On that sad economic note, however, we will find some form of consolation by getting Messrs. Bush and Cheney impeached, and perhaps even some members of their retinue of political and corporate hacks indicted. And we might even find the courage and display the patriotic cojones to turn over some of these folks, who have masked themselves as public servants, to the International Criminal Tribunal at The Hague to be tried for war crimes. That will go a long way into restoring our credibility with the international community, and serve as a moral down payment on what we owe Iraq for the crimes we have perpetrated against them.
Patience and courage, George Santayana asks of us to attain virtuosity. We’re trying.
http://www.tanosborn.com/
2007-04-13 08:50:38
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=20362
It was George Santayana who felt patience and courage are necessary human virtues to our existence. And for many of us waiting for the impeachment of George W. Bush is certainly very trying with our patience… virtuosity aside.
Congressional legislators of both parties probably have it right to keep impeachment off the table. It would be a very unpopular thing to bring about when much of the nation, politicos as well as citizens, have been complicit to the happenings in Washington either by condoning the administration’s deceit, or by being part of it. Americans are just not quite ready to put themselves on trial. Accusing Bush and Cheney of high crimes and misdemeanors on the Iraq war is nothing short of passing sentence on ourselves.
Some of us can clamor to the four winds for the malefic-duo’s impeachment, but we know that it won’t do any good. We can reason that it might be the only way to get our credibility restored in the world, and our sense of morality retrieved, but the truth is that people don’t seem to much care. We can also appeal to our inner humanity by pointing to the pain, death and destruction brought about by these wars of choice that we are engaging in, but the compassion strings simply won’t play in tune with our pharisaical congregations during Sunday’s sermons.
Continuous deceit and criminality in government just don’t seem to warrant a high profile trial in the United States these days, and a handful of righteous congress people will never garner the support of their peers to get the vehicle started; much less to get anywhere with it.
There is, however, a sure-fire way to get Americans up in arms. All that’s needed is a reality check on the economy, and that may not be long in coming. And when that light goes on, people will forget their share of the blame, setting aside any thoughts of greed and waste, and start pointing fingers at the Bush Administration that got us there. Bush could easily become the Herbert Hoover of 2008 sans the brains or the compassion, even if the recession does not go into full bloom until the November election.
A river of blood that has been Iraq appears not to have fazed Americans in a big way, but waking up to an economic bloodbath in late 2007 or early 2008 could easily enlist over two-thirds of the population in rebellion against a government that has been not only deceitful but incompetent and wasteful as well. At that time, even if Bush has only a few months left in his presidency, there will be calls for his head to roll… and there could be a major popular outcry for impeachment; and many of the religious, social and fiscal conservatives will repudiate him… if for no other reason than self-preservation.
The Fed is still painting a rosy, if cautious, picture of the short term economy, somehow dismissing, or at the very least downplaying, the true impact that the housing slump will have on the overall economy. But just as housing inflated to unsustainable values with 5, 10 or 15 trillion dollars of “hot air,” it will deflate much the same way, and we could be in for more than just a 3-5 year down cycle, experiencing something similar to Japan’s real estate purge which lasted over a decade. Home ownership, politically- touted for reaching almost 69%... is a wrong statistic to give when in “real equity” of land-brick-and-mortar actually owned (without fluff) Americans likely had a greater overall stake in their homes four decades ago.
Deceit as to the real state of the economy has been comparable to that given by the White House and Pentagon on the war, with both Fed and administration “ideologically” joining forces to achieve a form of political stability likely to bring dire future results. And in terms of economic blame, high crimes and misdemeanors were committed not just by Bush Son, but also by the Fed’s pontiff of almost two decades, saxophonist turned economic-wizard, Alan Greenspan.
Housing price-meltdown is likely to occur by late summer this year with repercussions in Wall Street within the following two quarters as corporate earnings start to deteriorate with little or no geographical padding for multi-nationals since the recession will have a global face. When all that happens, there will be no economic tools left for the Fed to use, or misuse, and fiscal and monetary policy won’t be able to save the day; or at least postpone the inevitable a little longer as it has been doing in the past, allowing crises to be passed on to future generations.
Without trying to appear as a latter-day Nostradamus on economic forecasting, I have had a contrarian view for at least a decade from that espoused by most mainstream economists, the American Association of Realtors and “for the most part” laughable monotonic choir at CNBC. But if results are in the pudding, I will say that I had the dot-com bubble burst perfectly pegged in both timing and severity almost two years before; and it’s starting to look as if my predictions two years ago on the current housing fiasco are happening true to course. I also indicated at that time that its sibling, commercial real estate, would undergo a comparable collapse two quarters thereafter in an arena that will appear even bloodier.
On that sad economic note, however, we will find some form of consolation by getting Messrs. Bush and Cheney impeached, and perhaps even some members of their retinue of political and corporate hacks indicted. And we might even find the courage and display the patriotic cojones to turn over some of these folks, who have masked themselves as public servants, to the International Criminal Tribunal at The Hague to be tried for war crimes. That will go a long way into restoring our credibility with the international community, and serve as a moral down payment on what we owe Iraq for the crimes we have perpetrated against them.
Patience and courage, George Santayana asks of us to attain virtuosity. We’re trying.
http://www.tanosborn.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)