Jerome Berlin, a Miami lawyer once described as "one of the nation's most powerful Democratic fundraisers," was found dead Tuesday, the victim of two gunshot wounds to the chest. He was found with the body of his business partner, Michael Pecora, in what the police are calling a murder-suicide.
Democratic Fundraiser Murdered
Who hired this clown?
This gets repetitive, but unfortunately every part of Bush's resume [PDF] is accurate. (HTML version here.)
You'll love this. You may also be amazed at how little of this true conservatives know.
Rolling Back the 20th Century
If we oppose them, what do we then stand for? They have the power (the legitimacy of which is irrelevant), they have the money, they seem to have a game plan, and they plan to use their money, power, and influence to achieve their objectives.
I've been wondering for some time what the conservative agenda was all about. I figured there had to be some end state they were aiming for. Hatred is strong and certainly a factor in their decision making (hatred of the earth, of us, of their children, of themselves), but that can only take you so far. I believe this article may have broken the code for me.
Rolling Back the 20th Century
by William Greider
Bush's governing strength is anchored in the long, hard-driving movement of the right that now owns all three branches of the federal government. Its unified ranks allow him to govern aggressively, despite slender GOP majorities in the House and Senate and the public's general indifference to the right's domestic program.
The movement's grand ambition is to roll back the twentieth century, quite literally. That is, defenestrate the federal government and reduce its scale and powers to a level well below what it was before the New Deal's centralization. With that accomplished, movement conservatives envision a restored society in which the prevailing values and power relationships resemble the America that existed around 1900, when William McKinley was President. Governing authority and resources are dispersed from Washington, returned to local levels and also to individuals and private institutions, most notably corporations and religious organizations. The primacy of private property rights is re-established over the shared public priorities expressed in government regulation. Above all, private wealth--both enterprises and individuals with higher incomes--are permanently insulated from the progressive claims of the graduated income tax.
These broad objectives may sound reactionary and destructive, but hard-right conservatives see themselves as liberating reformers who are rescuing old American virtues of self-reliance and individual autonomy from the clutches of collective action and "statist" left-wingers. Right-wingers--who once seemed frothy and fratricidal--now understand that three steps forward, two steps back still adds up to forward progress. "It's a long march", they say. "Stick together, because we are winning."
If we oppose them, what do we then stand for? They have the power (the legitimacy of which is irrelevant), they have the money, they seem to have a game plan, and they plan to use their money, power, and influence to achieve their objectives.
We can not sit here festering and bemoaning the "phantoms of lost liberties". We have to stand up, we have to stand together, we have to stand FOR something, and we have to know what it is and defend it. Defeating Bush in 2004, while a worthy (lofty) goal, even if it's possible, will only last for a few moments, if it happens at all. I don't even think it will happen if we can't tell the world what we want. We've gotten good at saying what we DON'T want, but who's listening? And why would anyone? If we can't agree on and present valid alternatives (like progress, health, safety, defense of freedom, true democracy, a working society that actually cares for its members) we won't win anyway. And we shouldn't.
Let's sing in tune, for once
I nominate the following notes for our little choir to sing: (in no particular order):
- Bush's record on the environment
- Kenneth Lay, Enron, and the Bush connection
- Karl Rove, the most powerful man in America who is accountable to no one.
- George Bush, Commander in Chief, went AWOL.
- George Bush's grandfather's wealth resulted from his business with the Nazis.
- Harken and the SEC investigation.
- The criminal records of W, his brothers, his wife, his brothers' wives, his children, his brothers' children, his grandfather, his grandfather's children.
- Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, and the Florida voting scandal of 2000.
- Bush/Rove's mistreatment and lies about John McCain in the primaries.
- Campaign fund raising
- Bin Laden and James Bath, Robert Jordan and James Baker
- The stifling of the investigation of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
- Republicans spent $40,000,000 investigating Clinton; $3,000,000 on 911.
- Republican choices for federal judges.
- Fuel efficiency standards
- Social (un)Security
- Tax cuts for the wealthy
- Reduction of government services (and tax cuts)
- Increasing the military budget more than the Pentagon requested (and tax cuts)
- From budget surplus to record deficits (and tax cuts)
- The budget crises in almost all the states (and the national debt)
- Attack on Veterans' benefits
- Iraq / WMD / UN Inspections / Why we (supposedly) invaded / Why we (really) invaded / WMD
- Post-Taliban Afghanistan and the opium trade
- The Skull and Bones Society (and the opium trade)
- The University of Michigan's admission policy and the Presidential briefs claiming reverse discrimination
- Republican hypocrisy over abortion (and Bush's obligations to the Christian right)
- Republicans' stance on homosexuality and AIDS
- John Poindexter, 5 felony convictions, Total Information Awareness
- Larry Lindsey, Paul O'Neil, Harvey Pitt
- Trent Lott, Rick Santorum
- Arsenic levels
- Secrecy vs. Freedom of Information
- Cheney and the Energy Task Force (and the Congressional Accounting Office having to sue to (not) review documents)
- Burden of debt left to future generations
- Halliburton, Carlyle, Adnan Khashoggi, Richard Perle, Thomas White, Project for a New American Century, Rumsfeld and Hussein, Rumsfeld and Swiss-based ABB (the company that sold N. Korea its reactors)
- Patriot Act, TIPS, Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003
Blogs Brought Down Trent Lott:
Is Rick Santorum Next?
Total time lapsed between Lott's remarks and the press making the story front-page news? Just two weeks.
Is Rick Santorum Next?
Last night, The Newshour With Jim Lehrer focused on the growing popularity and influence of web logs. Blogs may even have helped bring down Trent Lott by keeping the senator's racist remarks - made at Strom Thurmond's birthday - in the public consciousness long enough for the mainstream media to pick it up. Joan Connell of MSNBC.com noted: "... this story gathered momentum enough in the blogosphere to shake the foundations of traditional journalism, and then the traditional news organizations jumped on board."
Which weblogger led the charge against Lott? It may very well have been Josh Marshall, who authors talkingpointsmemo.com:
"Blogs sort of kept it from dying for a critical period, until the rest of the media paid attention.
"It was one of those things that kind of needed to be repeated and unpacked over time to really get a sense, and so, blogs, I think, were... had all the right characteristics to be able to do that."
Total time lapsed between Lott's remarks and the press making the story front-page news? Just two weeks.
Could Rick Santorum's days be numbered? Doubtful. The GOP was eager to have an excuse to cut Lott loose. Santorum is a rising star. I predict that the party and the president will defend him, to their detriment.
Spin Is What The Other Guys Do
On Tim Russert this weekend, Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox's "O'Reilly Factor" and author of "The No Spin Zone," was spinning freely. He used the words "steal" and "misappropriate" in a particularly gross generalization about how federal dollars are spent on health and social programs.
Speaking of stealing and misappropriation, the lead story on tonight's 60 Minutes - "Halliburton: All In The Family" - focused on government contracts awarded to Halliburton, Bechtel and others, secretly and without competitive bidding. The connections between these companies and Bush Administration insiders like Vice President Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, George Schultz and others is impressive. This story is getting harder and harder to spin as it reeks of influence peddling, graft and backroom deals.
An Open (Form) Letter to Bill Frist
The Honorable Bill Frist
Washington, DC 20510-4205
Dear Senator Frist,
I am writing to urge you to take quick and decisive action to repudiate the discriminatory and hurtful statements made by Senator Rick Santorum against lesbian and gay Americans in an interview with the Associated Press.
Many American families have members who are lesbian and gay and those families should be treated with dignity and respect. I say this also to include the family of Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian.
In his statements, Senator Santorum compared homosexuality with polygamy, incest and adultery. These kind of hateful remarks do not display the compassionate conservatism that is espoused by President Bush.
Discriminatory remarks like these only fuel prejudice that can lead to violence and perpetuate discrimination against the lesbian and gay community.
Senator Santorum's remarks are neither compassionate, nor truly conservative. They are simply un-American.
I look forward to your reply.
Whom does Senator Rick Santorum represent?
When asked whether President Bush defends the homophobic remarks made by Senator Rick Santorum, Ari Fleischer said, "The President judges people by who they are, as individual souls."
We're hearing more and more of this nonsense since President Bush began criticizing the international body for not supporting his invasion of Iraq. Bush may not appreciate this, but an American president coined the phrase "United Nations."
Ted Turner, BBC Director Criticize Fox News
Powell Defends Attacks on Journalists
The Pentagon and Powell claim that the Palestine Hotel was fired upon in self-defense, but eyewitnesses say there was no gunfire heard coming from the Hotel. I have not come across any statements that the hits on the offices of Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV were unintentional.
"I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts."
"We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."
When asked whether President Bush defends the homophobic remarks made by Senator Rick Santorum, Ari Fleischer said, "The President judges people by who they are, as individual souls."
Some conservatives feel compelled to ask, "Have Republican leaders been so intimidated by the smear tactics of the homosexual lobby and its Democratic attack dogs that they are cowering in silence?" I was unaware that there even was a homosexual lobby, but they now have my support.
What is Rick Santorum so afraid of? And does he really think that homosexuality has anything to do with bigamy, polygamy, incest or adultery? That just sounds ignorant and intolerant to me.
If you disagree with Santorum, write Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist a letter reminding him that we know that Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter is gay and that's okay. Tell him that homophobic speech made by a Senator holding the No. 3 position in the Republican Party reflects poorly on the president and the GOP. An appeal to reason might work. Otherwise, we'll have to embarrass Santorum and his party by exposing them as idiots. That shouldn't be too difficult.
Did anyone else notice that Santorum's remarks coincided with the Supreme Court considering the legality of state sodomy, i.e. gay-discrimination laws?
Sailors Return Home
The USS Mobile Bay and Shiloh made an emotional return to their home port of San Diego today, and two lucky sailors won a lottery to get the first kiss, i.e. the sailors were first off the boat, and their wives were first across the gangway to greet and kiss them. It was a great photo moment, and even included kids and other relatives. After one kiss went on for more than just a few seconds, one CNN Anchor said, "I'm blushing."
Conservatives Want US Out of UN
The Federalist, "the most widely read conservative e-journal on the Internet," is asking its readers, "fellow American patriots, especially families and friends of our armed forces," to:
"terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, terminate any and all U.S. taxpayer-funded support for the UN, and prohibit American Armed Forces from serving under the command of the United Nations anywhere in the world." The U.S. should remove itself from this "mother of all" -- "entangling alliances."
We're hearing more and more of this nonsense since President Bush began criticizing the international body for not supporting his invasion of Iraq. Bush may not appreciate this, but an American president coined the phrase "United Nations."
The Media Research Center, a right-wing 501 (c)(3) non-profit research and education foundation founded in 1987 to expose the "liberal" media bias, gave Fox News and David Bloom the highest grades in its media "War Report Card" - the Bill O'Reilly network and the guy who died because he didn't get out of the tank to stretch his legs.
The MRC, without any sense of irony that I could detect, had this to say about Santorum's comments and the media's coverage:
"With this, the media show not only liberal bias, but contempt for free speech and open debate on crucial social issues. This isn't Saddam Hussein's Baghdad. This isn't a George Orwell novel. This is still a democracy, and legislators ought to be free to talk about the law without the media acting as publicity agents for gay groups as they try to pick off conservative Republican leaders."
Ted Turner, BBC Director Criticize Fox News
Ted Turner called Rupert Murdoch a "warmonger," for using jingoistic war packaging to boost his network's ratings.
Greg Dyke, Director General of the BBC, criticized the US Media, namely Fox News, for its propagandistic reporting of the Anglo-American invasion:
"And we must never allow political influences to colour our reporting or cloud our judgement.
"Commercial pressures may tempt others to follow the Fox News formula of gung-ho patriotism but for the BBC this would be a terrible mistake."
Powell Defends Attacks on Journalists
In a letter to Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio, Colin Powell defended the US bombing of journalist sites which struck three known locations for journalists in a one hour period, killing two Spanish journalists. Powell said:
"Our review of the April 8 incident indicates that the use of force was justified and the amount of force was proportionate to the threat against United States forces."
The Pentagon and Powell claim that the Palestine Hotel was fired upon in self-defense, but eyewitnesses say there was no gunfire heard coming from the Hotel. I have not come across any statements that the hits on the offices of Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV were unintentional.
Castro Cracks Down on Dissent
It looks like Castro is using our war as a distraction to crack down on political dissidents and human rights activists in his country. Colin Powell, referring to the arrests of 75 dissidents, journalists and activists, had this to say:
"We call on Castro to end this despicable repression and free these prisoners of conscience. The United States and the international community will be unrelenting in our insistence that Cubans who seek peaceful change be permitted to do so."
"Media, military investigated for taking art, artifacts, cash from Iraq"
Should we be surprised that some of our soldiers and members of the embedded press decided it was okay to bring home some souvenirs from their trip to Iraq?
Government officials are on the record as having made comments like:
"These goods are rightfully the property of the people of Iraq."
"This is theft. We are there to liberate. This must cease."
"This activity is clearly illegal."
Illegal?! You mean its against the law for us to take things that don't belong to us? Well, call me a stickler for consistency, but isn't it hypocritical that our military could preemptively invade a sovereign nation, our president could violate the Constitution by declaring "war" without Congressional approval, and our generals could violate the Geneva Conventions by intentionally targeting journalists, yet our Customs officials are coming down hard on G.I. Joe and Fox News Guy for indulging themselves in some harmless, petty larceny?
Its not like they stole some "ancient art and writings and gold jewelry that is 4,000 years old." And I'm not "bemoaning the lack of pre-emptive U.S. military force to protect Baghdad's national museum" either. We're talking about a gold-plated AK-47 rifle here! What's the big deal? Can't they have a little spoils? They did win, after all, and doesn't that make everything permissible?
In response to the above mentioned news article:
I come from the "Conan, the Barbarian" School of thought... regarding conquests: if you can't take home the gold, the cash, the artwork, and the women, then what's the point of going to war?
This hogwash about the goal of the war being liberation of the Iraqi people is like betting on a horse after it's won the race. It may make you feel good, and it might fool some of your friends, but it's far from candidly answering the question as to why, initially, Mr. Bush committed our troops to the effort thereby placing a $100 billion bet. The true goal of the war was in our national interest insofar as we sought to destroy a regime bent on destabilizing the Middle East region by perhaps employing Weapons of Mass Destruction; the region which we depend upon for the steady flow of cheap crude oil.
The elimination of the military dictator and his tyranny of fear is a crowd-pleasing side show.
Americans' Views on Taxes
An NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Kennedy School of Government Poll
Now for the bad and the ugly surprises:
Not surprising, but no less disturbing, is that the wealthiest Americans have the best understanding of the tax system and tend to favor measures designed to widen the gap between themselves and the middle class:
"The starkest differences based on income are found in an examination of the responses of people in the top 5 percent of income (those making $150,000 per year or more). They are more likely to favor a variety of proposals including eliminating the tax on dividends, speeding up and making permanent the 2001 tax cuts, and changing to a flat rate system than are those at lower incomes.
They also are more likely to strongly disagree that it is the responsibility of the government to reduce the gap in incomes between the top and the bottom, or the top and the middle. Furthermore, they are considerably more likely to be knowledgeable about the tax system."
An NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Kennedy School of Government Poll
It's not surprising that most Americans really don't understand the tax system, but the results of an NPR/Kaiser Family Foundation/Kennedy School of Government Poll are still surprising. "Most Americans think high-income people don't pay their fair share of taxes. Yet most Americans also want the government to dump a tax paid almost entirely by the wealthy: the estate tax."
First, some of the good surprises:
- 80 percent of Americans believe it is more important to maintain spending on popular domestic programs like education, health care and Social Security than it is to cut taxes
- 72 percent believe the tax system should be used to encourage things like financing a home, giving to charities and buying health insurance
- 53 percent think it's more important to keep down the federal deficit than it is to lower their taxes
- 41 percent support the current estate tax law, which exempts estates worth $1 million
- Only 35 percent believe a dividend tax cut would stimulate the economy (take that Mr. Bush)
Now for the bad and the ugly surprises:
- 24 percent believe a temporary cut in payroll taxes would be an economic stimulant (nothing would inject more money into the economy)
- 28 percent say they don't know whether people with higher incomes pay a higher percentage of their income in income taxes (the truth is that they do in theory, but not in practice)
- 50 percent don't know that in the past two years there has been a cut in federal income taxes (so much for Bush's tax cuts winning him reelection)
- 54 percent believe an across-the-board cut in federal income taxes would stimulate the economy; 70 percent of Republicans
- 57 percent support eliminating the estate tax; 26 percent want to eliminate the tax even on estates worth $25 million
- 72 percent of Americans have neither heard of the proposal to do away with the tax on dividends or don't have an opinion about it (so much for Bush's tax cuts winning him reelection)
Not surprising, but no less disturbing, is that the wealthiest Americans have the best understanding of the tax system and tend to favor measures designed to widen the gap between themselves and the middle class:
"The starkest differences based on income are found in an examination of the responses of people in the top 5 percent of income (those making $150,000 per year or more). They are more likely to favor a variety of proposals including eliminating the tax on dividends, speeding up and making permanent the 2001 tax cuts, and changing to a flat rate system than are those at lower incomes.
They also are more likely to strongly disagree that it is the responsibility of the government to reduce the gap in incomes between the top and the bottom, or the top and the middle. Furthermore, they are considerably more likely to be knowledgeable about the tax system."
Ultimately, it will always be easier to rally American voters against taxation using populist rhetoric; its just a matter of disguising anti-taxation's true goals. Bill Gates, Sr., Paul Volcker and others have warned that dismantling our nation's progressive tax system - as Republicans have been trying to do for more than 30 years - will dismantle one of the basic tenets upon which America is built: economic opportunity.
"More than six out of 10 (63 percent) think that low-income or middle-income people pay the highest percentage of their income in federal taxes. Only a quarter (25 percent) know that upper-income people actually pay the highest percentage. This misconception is likely why so many Americans (57 percent) think that high-income people don't pay their fair share in taxes."
Give the people credit, this "misconception" is likely related to the innate understanding that most Americans have, which is that, although the wealthy pay the highest percentage in federal taxes in theory, in practice they pay much less than their fair share thanks to deductions, shelters and other means of tax evasion.
Bush's continued cuts on income, dividend and estate taxes will only accelerate us on our path to a post-democractic, post-capitalist world. Brave and new it won't be, more 1st Century than 21st Century.
Those Borrow-and-Spend Republicans Just Don't Quit
First they passed a huge tax cut to benefit the richest Americans, then started a war with Iraq that will cost US taxpayers untold billions while making companies like Halliburton and Bechtel richer, and now they want another round of tax cuts for the superrich. And in the face of growing criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike, they refuse to back down from their elitist tax cut policies. And if they have to lie to get what they want, no problem. Last week, Bush declared that tax cuts of "at least" $550 billion are needed to stimulate the economy and promote jobs growth.
Promote jobs growth? Sure, if you work for Halliburton or Bechtel, or are some Republican corporate pig looking to feed at the trough. Talk about class warfare - the Republicans couldn't care less about poor and middle-class Americans!
Its about time we faced the truth - Americans need to pay more taxes. Compared to other First World countries, we just don't pay that much.
- In 2001, total federal, state and local taxes in the United States were 29.0% of our gross domestic product, ranking 27th among the 30 OECD countries. Only Korea (27.5%), Japan (27.1%) and Mexico (18.3%) had lower taxes.
- In 2001, total taxes in the 26 OECD nations with higher taxes than ours ranged from 29.2% of GDP in Ireland to 53.4% in Sweden.
- In 2002, total U.S. taxes fell to only 26.3% of GDP.
Find out how much these rich Republicans stand to steal with the latest Bush Tax Scam by taking the quiz at: www.democrats.org
In Defense of the Estate Tax
Bill Gates, Sr. is on a crusade. It may come as a surprise to many Americans to learn that Bill Gates's father has just written a book, and is lecturing to educate Americans about the value of the estate tax. That's right, the father of the richest American is fighting to make sure that his son does NOT get to keep all of his money when he dies.
And Bill Gates agrees with his father. As does William Buffet, famed American billionaire of Berkshire Hathaway fame, and Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve. Why would these men support a tax that has been labeled by conservative opponents as the "death tax"? Because they believe that it serves our democracy. In Paul Volcker's words:
"The unavoidable fact is that government has certain responsibilities. The discharge of those responsibilities costs money....we would be hard-pressed to find evidence that, compared with the alternatives, a reasonable estate tax significantly discourages work effort or innovation or savings....our traditional values -- our moral values -- should weigh heavily, in fact conclusively, on the side of some tax on exceptionally large estates."
Many Americans have been led to believe that taxes are bad, and this is a credit to the public relations war that Republicans have waged for the past thirty years. Using a mix of misleading rhetoric and populist phrases such as "smaller government," "fiscal restraint," "cutting bureaucracy," "double taxation" and "the death tax," Republicans have convinced many Americans that taxes are bad. In fact, some Americans have gone so far as to believe that income taxes are illegal and unethical!
We should thank men like Franklin Roosevelt who had the wisdom and courage to propose an income tax in the first place, to serve the greater good and to provide an anecdote to the disease of wealthy disparity. The first Gilded Age brought enormous amounts of wealth and power to the US, but only a small group of Americans enjoyed them. Roosevelt and others realized that a federal income tax was necessary to put people back to work and build a viable middle class, and insure a healthy democracy
We should thank men like Bill Gates Sr. who are willing to stand up in the face of national ignorance about the meaning of progressive taxation, so that future Americans will enjoy the benefits of a public society: decent schools, decent health care, and decent economic opportunity for everyone.
This is not the current state of affairs. More on this later.
A Response To Reader's Feedback
RESPONSE:
Pardon me, but at what point do we push someone to want to put a gun to our head?
Could it be the current U.S. government forcing other people of diverse cultures to adhere to Christian beliefs that legitimize greed, torture and other perverse cruelties...
I didn't feel the metal of Saddam's gun on my temples... Did you?
I mean, really. There's enough proof that this dictator, appointed and anointed by the U.S., lacks humanity, and that he hadn't the ability and weapons to strike U.S. soil. But the meaning behind the far-fangled polls showing Americans' support for war is nonsense.
YOU get a grip!
I sense you are the victim of the bushy "fear factor." This is the latest reality show, LIVE (but carefully edited for a "G" rating) and full of jingoism, baby.
How many times did the White House change its reasons for this invasion of another country? Count them:
1. To destroy weapons of mass destruction. Findings: 0
2. To topple Saddam and cut off his connection with Bin Laden and his terror network: The average reader knows that Bin Laden called Saddam an Infidel. (Look up Infidel.) Saddam is not a fundamentalist Muslim. (Yet G.W. is a self-proclaimed Fundamentalist Christian, a soldier of god, he believes.). But Saddam has every reason to convert to fundamentalism now that the U.S. has plundered and destroyed his country, its art, values, and many innocent people's lives who also despised Saddam.
3. To liberate Iraqis. (From what? The new U.S. occupation of Iraq, perhaps?)
Meanwhile, in keeping with the shameless corruption from the White House, Halliburton, for which U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO, is offered Iraq's oil fields, without a bidding process giving other interested parties a chance to profit from Iraq's oil fields. (Besides, why be bothered with those pesky minority-owned businesses right now?)
Qualify your nonsense first before throwing popular media histrionics at the innocent AND to those working hard to be informed.
When Hitler made up claims that his country was being attacked, just to support his terror, heartfelt yet ignorant Germans screamed "revenge." What a recent familiar ring it has... Tragically, I sense it resonates comfortably with many ignorant and fearful people in this country.
From: "Jeffrey"
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 22:43:12 -0400
To: feedback@testpattern.org
Subject: Get a grip
You claim that our soldiers can't fire on a buidling because we know there are journalists there. My question is this. If I go into a house and start shooting at the neighbors from the front window, how long do you think it will be before the police shoot me, even if there are other, innocent people in the house with me?
Get a grip. The war is justified. 80% of the US support it. Many of those who don't, don't believe that war is ever justified, which isn't a reasonable position. If you don't believe that, simply answer this question. If I put a gun to your head, and say, give me all your cash or I'll kill you, what will you do? Most likely you would give me the money. Now, what if this happens every day? Eventually you will get your own gun and use it to defend yourself. Otherwise, you will get someone else to defend you (police, etc). The mere persents of a police officer might be enough to get me to think twice about using my gun again. But maybe I just don't care and want to take my chances. If that officer isn't willing to use his gun, he is powerless and there is NOTHING to stop me from using my gun to steal from you every single day. You could try "diplomacy" and ask me nicely to leave you alone, but what if I won't listen to reason? Sometimes war is necessary.Like I said, get a grip.
RESPONSE:
Pardon me, but at what point do we push someone to want to put a gun to our head?
Could it be the current U.S. government forcing other people of diverse cultures to adhere to Christian beliefs that legitimize greed, torture and other perverse cruelties...
I didn't feel the metal of Saddam's gun on my temples... Did you?
I mean, really. There's enough proof that this dictator, appointed and anointed by the U.S., lacks humanity, and that he hadn't the ability and weapons to strike U.S. soil. But the meaning behind the far-fangled polls showing Americans' support for war is nonsense.
YOU get a grip!
I sense you are the victim of the bushy "fear factor." This is the latest reality show, LIVE (but carefully edited for a "G" rating) and full of jingoism, baby.
How many times did the White House change its reasons for this invasion of another country? Count them:
1. To destroy weapons of mass destruction. Findings: 0
2. To topple Saddam and cut off his connection with Bin Laden and his terror network: The average reader knows that Bin Laden called Saddam an Infidel. (Look up Infidel.) Saddam is not a fundamentalist Muslim. (Yet G.W. is a self-proclaimed Fundamentalist Christian, a soldier of god, he believes.). But Saddam has every reason to convert to fundamentalism now that the U.S. has plundered and destroyed his country, its art, values, and many innocent people's lives who also despised Saddam.
3. To liberate Iraqis. (From what? The new U.S. occupation of Iraq, perhaps?)
Meanwhile, in keeping with the shameless corruption from the White House, Halliburton, for which U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO, is offered Iraq's oil fields, without a bidding process giving other interested parties a chance to profit from Iraq's oil fields. (Besides, why be bothered with those pesky minority-owned businesses right now?)
Qualify your nonsense first before throwing popular media histrionics at the innocent AND to those working hard to be informed.
When Hitler made up claims that his country was being attacked, just to support his terror, heartfelt yet ignorant Germans screamed "revenge." What a recent familiar ring it has... Tragically, I sense it resonates comfortably with many ignorant and fearful people in this country.
This link was recently sent to me. Some food for thought ...
http://www.StarSpangledIceCream.com/
"Like millions of your fellow Americans, you enjoy ice cream but do NOT
enjoy seeing your money funneled to wacko left-wing causes."
Oh really. Try licking this.
First of all, every Republican-led White House in the past 36 years has consistently increased governmint. And these days, baby bush's activities come closest to mimicking George Orwell's novel 1984. It seems these ice cream people of the conservative claim continue to savor the foul flavors of ignorance.
But "quelle suprise" once again. And I try hard not to be jaded. For after all, those hyper-masculine Republicans in the bush White House are very educated (which was recently discussed in these pages), and fear not repercussions from the intellectualizing of their contempt for humanity.
Anyway.
We see the White House wheel of propaganda is well-oiled, as bush followers (in their uncanny similarity to The Stepford Wives) believe that promoting peace means death to US troops and other unconnected atrocities. I've marched in a number of anti-war demonstrations, and I have yet to see an anti-war protestor proclaiming "death-to-our-troops."
And let's not forget about those "Nutty Environmentalists" who are not only by default promoting the Bible's claim that we be "...shepherds of the Earth", but that these tree hugging freaks should care about preserving the planet (for which I believe Christians claim god created).
I just don't understand people who think that invading other countries has longterm benefits. So lick my Peace Pop and luxuriate in its goodness, my loving Star-Spangled-Bannered sheep of bushy propaganda.
Where are we going?
Do people who live in a fascist system KNOW they live in a fascist system? What did the Germans think of Hitler? Was Adolf the madman we took him for or was he admired (even loved) in Germany?
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security. This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter."
These are the Germans we're talking about here. 1930's. Not America in the 21st Century.
Bush View of Secrecy Is Stirring Frustration
For Bush, secrecy is a matter of loyalty
Bush administration using guise of security to expand corporate secrecy
Climate in U.S. threatens freedom of information
Looking back at the evolution of the German mindset, (From "They Thought"):
"Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think? To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head."
Celebrities and Free Speech
Charlie Daniels isn't someone whom you would turn to for his expertise on politics. He has recently characterized the peace movement, especially as represented by Hollywood actors, as being a bunch of "pampered, overpaid, unrealistic children." Pundits like Cindy Osborne have labelled those who have opposed the war: drug addicts, alcoholics, philanderers, convicts or worse, even terrorists.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of actors and artists who support the war: Brad Pitt, Kid Rock and Bruce Willis are just a few. But have any of them made the case for our invasion and occupation of Iraq any more intelligently than those who oppose the war, such as Brian Eno?
I'm not suggesting that eloquence should be equated with what is ethical or moral, but there does seem to be a common thread running through the ranting of the jingoists and racists who have come out of the woodwork to back the Bush administration in its unholy quest to stay in the White House, dictate energy policy and determine the fate of the Middle East at least until 2008.
If nothing else, those pro-war rallies hosted by Clear Channel have given these poor idiots a chance to meet other idiots and, God help us, breed. I don't blame these people for their ignorance, but I do wish they didn't make it so easy for the government and the media to brainwash and lie to them.
Let me state for the record that I don't identify with peace protesters, at least not on a superficial level. Many of them are long-haired, unemployed, stinky, granola-eating, Birkenstock-wearing, pot-smoking freaks. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but I don't look at them and see myself. I will also admit that many of them oppose war for nothing more than some naively-held pacifist ideal. I'm not a pacificist, but I stand with Jimmy Carter and the Pope when I say that the US invasion of Iraq was unjust. Our winning doesn't change anything; the ends don't justify the means, nor should they.
Returning to celebrities. Why should celebrities speak out? What could they possibly know about politics?
Has anyone attempted drawing a correlation between education and attitude towards the war? I only ask because I don't know any smart person who supported this war, at least anyone who wasn't working for the administration or the media. I'd guess that the Dixie Chicks are a lot smarter than Charlie Daniels.
If you're a fan of the Dixie Chicks or the First Amendment, you can sign a petition to support Natalie Maines exercising her constitutional right to free speech, i.e. her recent comments about President George W. Bush.
Speaking of the Dixie Chicks and free speech, the South Carolina legislature "adopted a resolution requesting an apology and a free concert for military families when they open their U.S. tour in Greenville in May."
How about a petition to give medical care to the innocent Iraqis who were maimed by the US-led invasion?
A typical argument made by the ignorant and naive is that the Bush team knows more than Hollywood types and we should trust and support them. I agree that they certainly know more, but that doesn't mean they implicitly deserve our trust or support.
Protests Continue; Robin Williams & Eddie Vedder Speak Out; Madonna Cowers; Al Defends the Dixie Chicks
As hundreds of protestors picketed Chevron's world headquarters in San Ramon today, one is reminded of last week's rally at the Port of Oakland, where police fired wooden dowels, rubber pellets and tear gas into a crowd of protesters and longshoremen, many who were attempting to flee the scene. Today's protest wasn't as dramatic, but there were 60 arrests. A Chevron employee was quoted on NPR as saying, I don't support this war or President Bush, but its wrong to picket Chevron. Everyone needs oil, right?
Robin Williams lampoons his country's mixed messages when it comes to national security.
"America is broke, basically, but Bush wants to wage a war that costs pretty much a billion dollars a month.
"We have a president for whom English is a second language. He's like 'We have to get rid of dictators,' but he's pretty much one himself.
"In America, we have orange alert, but what the hell does that mean? We're supposed to be afraid of Krishna? Of orange sorbet? Then it's like, 'You can't go out and shop, it's too dangerous out there,' but if that happens then the economy falls.
"The message is so mixed: 'Be afraid, but not too afraid.'"
Pearl Jam frontman Eddie Vedder is standing by his onstage bashing of President George W. Bush.
Last week at a concert in Denver, Vedder made anti-war remarks to boos and cheers and performed "Bushleaguer" from their new album Riot Act. After the show he responded to the reported "mass walkout":
"There were close to 12,000 people at the show. It's possible two dozen left during the encore but it was not noticeable among the 11,976 who were applauding. People were led to believe a mass exodus took place. It didn't."
"Dissension is nothing we shy away from, it simply should be reported more accurately.
"Ed's talk from the stage centered on the importance of freedom of speech and the importance of supporting our soldiers, as well as an expression of sadness over the public being made to feel as though the two sentiments can't occur simultaneously."
Madonna shied away from airing the anti-war video for her new single. Madonna claims that she pulled the tape out of "sensitivity and respect" to the armed forces involved in the Iraq war.
"I have decided not to release my new video.
"It was filmed before the war started and I do not believe it is appropriate to air it at this time.
"Due to the volatile state of the world and out of sensitivity and respect to the armed forces, who I support and pray for, I do not want to risk offending anyone who might misinterpret the meaning of this video."
And finally, Al Gore was brave enough to stand up for the Dixie Chicks.
"They were made to feel un-American and risked economic retaliation because of what was said. Our democracy has taken a hit.
"Our best protection is free and open debate."
Hear, hear, Al. Too bad you didn't protect our democracy from the Bush Administration when you had the chance.
The War for Oil Continues
A Newsweek poll from March 29 indicates that the propaganda coming out of the White House, The Pentagon, and the Department of Defense was working well just one week after the invasion of Iraq began.
President Bush's approval rating rose to 68 percent - not nearly as high as the 86 percent approval that his father had one week into Gulf War I, but higher than it had been in six months.
Why? Because every indication was that we were winning the war quickly and decisively. We suffered negligible casualties - try telling that to the families of the 101 soldiers who gave their lives for this cynical cause - and the Iraqi people loved us, or at least we would like to think they do.
Better yet, 53 percent of those polled said they approve of the way Bush is (mis)handling the economy. "Handling?" I'd say "reckless disregard" and "callous neglect" would be more accurate, if it weren't for the fact that he is "handling" the economy by putting it in permanent war mode - 18 months now - and handing out huge tax cuts to the superrich.
Sixty three percent of those polled thought that the US was right to invade Iraq when it did. Sounds to me like we're witnessing firsthand the consequences of an uninformed, uninterested populace. Interesting sidenote: I'm told that the Germans during the time of Hitler had a similar proclivity for isolation, arrogance and ignorance as many Americans do now. I know, it sounds crazy and paranoid to even suggest that the United States in 2003 is anything like Germany in 1933, but there are other noticeable similarities.
If anyone requires further proof of America's ignorance ... only 62 percent felt the war would cause problems for the US in the Middle East, and only 55 percent were concerned with resulting divisions between the US and its allies.
Now that the third phase - terrorist cells, Taliban & Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein - and 18th month of the war is winding down, many questions still linger. Is this war really about making America safe from terrorism and the bin Ladens of the world? Is it about oil? Is it about geopolitical power and influence? (A Mother Jones article, " Jane Bryant Quinn suspects, as do many others including myself, that oil was a big reason for this war.
Oil analyst Charles Maxwell, of Weeden & Co., thinks we're drawing toward the end of the era of surplus oil. In the not-too-distant future, he says, we'll pay higher prices for more limited supplies. Good bets for the future will be companies and technologies that adapt to energy conservation.
When the shortages show up, we'll be even more in the hands of the Middle East, Maxwell says. That's why I think the Iraqi War is mainly a bid for keeping large oil reserves in friendly hands. In her new book, "Leap of Faith," Jordan's Queen Noor recalls the first President Bush telling the king, about Saddam, "I will not allow this little dictator to control 25 percent of the civilized world's oil." From Poppy to son.
Bombs Away on Netscape founder
You don't have to watch FOX News to find supposedly smart people saying stupid things about the war. Take Marc Andreessen, 31-year-old founder of Netscape and now chairman of Opsware Inc., who said this just a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq began:
You look at the people protesting the war and you think, 'I gotta be on the other side.' There are people out there who actually want to kill us, and the appropriate response to that is to kill them. Bombs away.
At least one Chronicle reader was "flabbergasted by his comment":
No wonder Netscape turned to doo-doo; with comments like "bombs away"(on Iraq), Mr. Andreessen displays his ignorance.
Marc, thanks for representing the 63 percent of ignorant Americans. You're not alone.
Journalists killed by US strikes
The Pentagon claims that three strikes which killed three journalists and wounded many more on Tuesday were done in "self-defense." It sure doesn't look that way, as journalists at two of the sites observed no shooting that would have called for a defensive response, and all three targets were known media locations: the Baghdad office of the Al-Jazeera satellite network, the offices of Abu Dhabi TV, and the Palestine Hotel, "the main base for international journalists covering the war from Baghdad."
Not only is the US in violation of international law by attacking a nation without legal authority, we're now in violation of the Geneva Conventions by knowingly attacking and killing journalists. I guess that's what non-embedded journalists get for trying to report on the war without our approval.
Nominee for worst example of objective reporting
This report from the Associated Press - "Iraqis Cheer Collapse of Saddam's Regime" - is startling for its blatantly unobjective observations:
"Men hugged Americans in full combat gear and women held up babies so soldiers riding on tanks could kiss them."
I saw the scenes for myself - there were maybe 100 Iraqis, and we're not sure how many of them flew in on US military transport with Dr. Chalibi. I saw the half dozen or so men dragging part of Saddam's statue, and at least as many photographers recording the "spontaneous" event. A ring of Marines stood around al-Firdos (Paradise) Square guarding the celebrators, while fighting was going on just a few blocks away. And the Army used an M88 tank recovery vehicle to bring down the statue. Nice irony there.
How many Americans realize that the enemy has already won this war?
Does this mean that the war is over?
There were scenes of jubilation in Baghdad today, as it became apparent that Saddam Hussein's regime would no longer resist the US military in any organized fashion. Watching Iraqis topple statues of Hussein and loot government buildings, I couldn't help but feel happy for them, and hopeful that their future might be brighter than their past. But I'm disappointed that the United States has sunk to such brutish, callow behavior that it could invade a nation which didn't pose a direct or immediate threat, and do so without the support and approval of the United Nations or the Western Alliance, or the disapproval of the American people.
I doubt that many of my fellow Americans are displeased or unsatisfied with how this war has turned out, despite any initial misgivings they may have had about conducting it without the support of our allies or the United Nations. Will these feelings change as we discover that the pretense we were given for this war - the existence of weapons of mass destruction - was nothing more than a ruse, a supposition, mere wishful thinking, a confidence game? No, it won't matter to most Americans. Saddam is gone - good riddance.
Whether Hussein is dead or alive now is the question on everyone's lips, but it doesn't matter - he's already gone the way of Elvis. If he is still alive, we'll never see him again, and if he's dead, his image will haunt us for decades, even centuries.
So if Hussein isn't dead, who is to say exactly when this war is over? When it started in the days following September 11, 2001, the war was against terrorism and al-Qaeda. As we approached last year's mid-term elections, we shifted our attention to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Who will we pre-emptively attack in time for the 2004 presidential election? Syria? Iran? North Korea? More Americans who are suspected of being "lone-wolf" terorists?
We still don't know how much this war has cost us. "Liberating" a country isn't cheap - $75 billion just for the first month. (There is some interesting math to consider: $75 billion to bring down a regime and $1-2 billion to rebuild it. I always thought that demolition was less expensive than reconstruction.) I'm certain that this war will translate into record profits for the military industrial complex, and we can't say that someone like General Dwight D. Eisenhower didn't warn us of the dangers of money, politics and military contractors.
There are also the costs to our freedom and civil liberties to be reckoned with. As Ed points out in the post below, many Republicans seem not to care at all about 30 percent of the Bill of Rights.
I'm continually impressed by how effectively the right-wing propagandists have gotten out their messages. To some extent peace activists were able to convince Americans that this war was about oil, nothing more. While there has always been more to it than that, there is some truth in this argument. Now the hawks are saying that this war was never about oil. How could it be? A report on CNN claims that there isn't enough oil in Iraq to make this a profitable war for the US, and Iraq is sidled with huge debts. I'm glad they straightened that out for those naive peace activists.
I'm also impressed by how quickly the spin doctors have spun their message about the billion-dollar government contracts secretly awarded to Cheney's Halliburton, without competition. Their claim is that expediency was paramount, that a competitive bidding process would have taken too long; although competitive bidding might save the government some money, it would also lead to inefficient legislative oversight.
I suppose the same can be said for democracy - it may be good for the people, but its a hindrance to an administration that is only interested in getting its way and making its friends richer.
You probably already know this, but...
According to former U.S. Justice Department Nazi War Crimes Prosecutor John Loftus - who is today the director of the Florida Holocaust Museum - "The Bush family fortune came from the Third Reich," according to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Along with the Rockefellers, the DuPonts, General Motors and Henry Ford, banks and shipping companies operated by the Bush family were crucial players in setting up the industrial power behind the Third Reich. These companies poured hundreds of millions of dollars into IG Farben and provided it with technology for tactically essential synthetic materials - while withholding the same materials and patents from the U.S. government.
According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, IG Farben built and operated more than 40 concentration camps in Nazi-occupied Europe, including Auschwitz. At their slave labor/factory/death camps, chemicals, weapons, drugs, synthetic fuels and other materials vital to the Nazi war effort were manufactured.
That the Bush wealth and prominence in American politics is derived from Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker's support of Hitler is a historical fact. To offset their reputation as WWII traitors, former President Bush joined the US Air Force after the US Congress seized his father's banking assets in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
More Here:http://www.citypaper.net/articles/011801/sl.slant.shtml
A NEW THEORY
Maybe the time has come to point out the similarities between
George Bush in the USA and Milosavich in Serbia.
It seems that both of these leaders believe in Jesus.
One believes in Orthodox Christianity and the other believes in Christian fundamentalism. So both are Christians and both believe that Islamists are evil. One of them believes that Muslims can be made democratic if they give away their oil, but basically they both believe that Muslims are expendable.
Both are war criminals except one has paid public relations companies writing news copy and young men with recently reduced veteran's benefits stomping around in fields of depleted uranium looking for weapons of mass destruction.
When those young men find out that the half-life of their benefits won't cover the half-life of the uranium-related mutations of their children we will probably get some new perspectives on what wisdon is and what we were really doing in the Middle East.
It's OK, see, 'cause I wasn't drinking with the kid.
This article lists what is going to be the basis of Michael Moore's next documentary.
US Arms Group Heads for Lisbon
"The financial assets of the Saudi Binladen Corporation (SBC) are also managed by the Carlyle Group. The SBC is headed up by members of Osama bin Laden's family, who played a principle role in helping George W. Bush win petroleum concessions from Bahrain when he was head of the Texan oil company, Harken Energy Corporation - a deal that was to make the Bush family millions of dollars. Salem, Osama bin Laden's brother, was represented on Harken's board of directors by his American agent, James R. Bath."
You may recognize the name James Bath. Yes, that was Major James Bath, whose name appears just after Bush on the order rescinding both of their flight status at Ellington Air Force Base in San Antonio. The Talion
"Top of the meeting's agenda is expected to be the company's involvement in the rebuilding of Baghdad's infrastructure after the cessation of current hostilities. Along with several other US companies, the Carlyle Group is expected to be awarded a billion dollar contract by the US Government to help in the redevelopment of airfields and urban areas destroyed by Coalition aerial bombardments."
Hitler on Propaganda
In chapter six of Mein Kampf, Hitler reviewed the use of propaganda during World War I. In the course of his criticism of the German effort, he included comments on the function of propaganda in general. His statements offer insight into the methods used by the Nazi Party.
Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1943.
"The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision ...
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction. The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are. Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
- It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous.
- In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
More death in the news
The death toll in Iraq has quietly risen over the weekend. In Friday's "WAR ON IRAQ" pull-out section of the San Francisco Chronicle - which has included a "Casualties" box for at least a week - the number of US dead since March 19 was listed at 55. Two days later that number has ballooned to 80, and we have yet to take Baghdad.
At least 18 were killed today in the war's bloodiest friendly-fire incident. It appears that US aircraft bombed a convoy of Kurdish fighters and U.S. special operations forces in northern Iraq. Fratricide is still an unavoidable part of warfare, even despite the impressive technology which is at the disposal of the modern military. A story on MSNBC points out that "Thirty-five of the 146 Americans killed in action during the 1991 Gulf War were killed by their own comrades; U.S. soldiers killed more British than the Iraqis did in that conflict." Whatever technical improvements the last 12 years have brought, the Army still can't avoid killing its own, not to mention unlucky innocents.
There is little mention of Iraqi casualty totals in the American press. One web site is offering web banners to track the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed. Iraqi casualties are estimated between 877 and 1050.
As for the number of dead Iraqi soldiers, there are no official counts, as far as I can tell. We never did get good counts from Gulf War I or Vietnam, so there is no reason to expect this war to be any different. The military claims that its not in the "body count" business anyway, so I guess we shouldn't ask. And don't even mention that thousands of US servicemen have died from "Gulf War Syndrome" illnesses since 1991.
Some journalists, sensing that Americans are losing interest in the war, have moved on to discuss how post-war Iraq will be governed. Experts estimate that US troops may occupy Iraq anywhere from two to ten years. I'm sure there were similar estimates when we stationed troops in Germany and Japan after World War II, or Korea after that war was put on hold by a truce that still tenuously stands 50 years later.
NBC correspondent David Bloom died in Iraq from "natural causes," an apparent pulmonary embolism. This is the same condition that can afflict airline passengers. He was just 39 years old.
SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome, has killed at least 90 worldwide. Dr. James Hughes, CDC director for infectious diseases, believes, "This is a good example of many of the issues that we will face when the next influenza pandemic begins. . . . This has many similarities to the way the next influenza pandemic might begin."
Most Americans, myself included, are too young to remember the "great Spanish Influenza pandemic of 1918, where perhaps one of five died of flu or its complications. At least 20 million around the globe perished." I've heard stories of my great grandfather logging months of endless days to treat patients who were stricken. Only time will tell how the world community deals with this new killer.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan passed away last week. Moynihan was an intellectual and a statesman who was equally respected by Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.
My sense is that Moynihan wasn't an anomaly in American politics forty or fifty years ago, although he is now. At some point liberal intellectuals decided that politics was distasteful, and granted political power to the less intelligent, right-wing faithful such as Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Its a shame, and the country has suffered greatly as a result.
Here is to the hope that these troubling times might produce the likes of Moynihan, because Lord knows we need someone like him today.
Support the troops, but not the fear
I recently received an email from a friend, encouraging me to sign an online petition supporting our troops:
Please visit the Department of Defense web page below and sign in thanking the men and women of the U.S. military services for defending our freedom.
The compiled list of names will be sent out to our soldiers at the end of the month. So far, there are only about 3.6 million names.
That is less then 10% of this Country.
What a shame.
National Military Appreciation Month.
The entire exercise takes 10 seconds...literally.
Please pass it on to your email friends.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/nmam.html
As a veteran who served during Gulf War I, I wholeheartedly support the troops. My father served in the Air Force, my mother still serves in the US Navy, and I have friends who are now serving in the Gulf.
If this "Defend America" petition and "National Military Appreciation Month" had anything to do with supporting the troops, I would support them. I think its a worthy cause to show our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen that we support them, even if we think the Bush administration is using them recklessly.
Think about this for a minute: two weeks ago, Congress was asked to vote on a resolution to show its support and appreciation for the troops. Fine. It passed unanimously in the Senate, and in the House only 11 Democrats voted against it, while 22 abstained. Why wouldn't everyone support such a resolution? Because it wasn't just about the troops. It also included language that gave "unequivocal support" to the President.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi said, "I disagree with the policy that took us to this war. I dispute some of the arguments used in favor of this resolution, and I am disappointed in some of the provisions in this resolution. But even those objections cannot overcome the pride and appreciation that I have in our troops. And the message I want them to hear from us tonight of our support for them." She voted in support of the resolution.
Rep. Jim McDermott of Seattle, who is a decorated Vietnam veteran, was one of the few who had the courage and moral conviction to vote against this cynical and misleading resolution. When he did, I wrote a letter praising him for bravely speaking out against this absurd vote of loyalty. He said, "I, for one, will not be forced to praise the president's reckless decision when what I want to do is praise the troops."
I think you get the picture - supporting the troops shouldn't have anything to do with supporting the President.
But notice the differences in language used by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, who was one of the chief authors of the resolution.
"We salute every person taking risks to confront terrorism and tyranny to expand the frontiers of freedom. And we salute the president for showing the world the power of strong, moral leadership."
DeLay doesn't mention the troops, but rather "every person taking risks." I take this to include every American, whether politician, fireman, janitor, whatever. This is good, populist language, but doesn't address the troops, who are risking their lives in this war. (I might add that the children of Senators and Congressmen, for the most part, don't serve.)
DeLay doesn't mention weapons of mass destruction, which were used as justification for our invasion, but rather confronting "terrorism and tyranny to expand the frontiers of freedom." Does anyone think we're fighting terrorism with this war? If anything, this war is certain to create new terrorists by its very nature. Violence begets violence.
And of course, DeLay salutes the president specifically, not for doing what is best for America or the people of Iraq, but rather "for showing the world the power of strong, moral leadership." The world doesn't see it quite this way, nor should they. They see our power, yes, but not our moral leadership. On the question of the morality of this war, read Jimmy Carter on a "just war," or the remarks of Pope John Paul II and Bishop Melvin G. Talbert.
I don't have to tell you that the US military isn't "defending our freedom" by invading Iraq. Does anyone feel safer now than they did before this war began? Does anyone feel more free?
Does anyone feel their freedom is defended by Republican State Senator John Minnis, who "has filed an 'anti-terrorism' bill in the Oregon senate that would put war protesters in jail for at least twenty-five years? The bill defines terrorism as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended ... to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, governments, or free assembly."
Does anyone feel their freedom is defended when a man is "charged with trespassing in a mall after he refused to take off a T-shirt that said 'Peace on Earth' and 'Give peace a chance.'?"
Does anyone feel their freedom is defended by Jim Bunning, a Republican senator from Kentucky, or others who would like to convict Peter Arnett of treason for giving an interview on Iraqi television that was critical of US war strategy?
The list goes on and on, these are only recent examples.
I would encourage my fellow Americans to carefully consider the motives behind initiatives like the "Defend America" petition and "National Military Appreciation Month", and think twice before participating or encouraging others to do the same.
Sources:
"11 Democrats vote 'no' on war resolution"
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030322-499738.htm
"Arnett is treacherous, but not a traitor"
http://www.modbee.com/24hour/opinions/story/839733p-5904703c.html
"Just War -- or a Just War?" by Jimmy Carter
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html
"Man Arrested for Wearing Peace T-Shirt"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=514&ncid=514&e=8&u=/ap/20030305/ap_on_re_us/mall_activists_5
"Oregon Law Would Jail War Protesters as Terrorists"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14942-2003Apr2.html
"Pelosi doesn't represent us"
http://www.sfbg.com/37/27/x_oped.html
"Praying for Peace"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/882331.asp?0cv=KB20
"The U.S. Needs to Open Up to the World"
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2003/0120/cover/view_eno.html
HAVE THE REBORNS UNDONE THE USA?
One of the more perplexing elements of this Middle East fiasco; aside from its questionable economic incentives, is the zealotry that has been mustered to carry it out. How has rural Christianity jockeyed itself for such influence in Washington D.C., and how has preaching to the choir become a substitute for authority? How is it that adult people can be told a lie and not only believe it, but go to war in behalf of it's utterance? The same people that were topics for Walker Evans and James Agee in Let Us Now Praise Famous Men are often instrumental in voting in a regime that cuts back funding for today's oppressed; and assuring the loss of whatever civil liberties our Constitution has come to guarantee. How quickly they forget and why has it been so easy for them to do so?
Today's middle class is so uncertain about where their gratitude should be that they are signing up for military service and singing sermons for 20 years of a bull market where anything you did in the past was wiped clean if you were "born again." The pastoral rhetoric of the bible worked and television ministries made it possible to live downtown with "country." The only sin from then on was to be poor.
During the Nixon administration the nation was shocked that the presidency could be so compromised. Like Enron executives, the culprits seemed to get off the hook and find themselves saved by a loving God. They were reborn and wrote about it. What was deplorable became acceptable and the method of using God to get off the hook became the faith that claimed the day.
This attitude about culpability became so all-pervasive by the Clinton administration that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was reduced to a guy who "just needed to get laid." This popular form of "Reborn Christian Ministry", while of good intentions, took the validity of the sacrament of Baptism and turned it into an act of contrition for "often," baptized Christians who deserved to be in jail. If one was baptized, one didn't need to be born again because one was supposedly in the body of Christ by being baptized in the first place. Out of this reborn heresy came much of the distorted values that contribute to the arrogance that has become the Christianity of Washington D.C. Somehow people began to realize that the only real sin was getting caught and the mantra of the day became "so sue me!" And if you could be a practicing Christian and still not get caught then you would be less likely to need a public relations agency.
A whole generation of college grads watched this "Machiavellian" activity take place and decided to become MBAs. Admitting that you were a sinner was apparently a lot easier than being specific about it in court and from this came the professional conceits that we have now come to see as common in Enron, Global Crossing et. al, and not to forget the method the Bush administration used to acquire the presidency (see Greg Palast's The Best Democracy Money Can Buy if you have any doubts about this.) Let us never forget that this is the Lamb of God these guys are talking about.
People become amoral when they question morality. They become immoral when they are convinced that it simply doesn't matter. For those who saw the hypocrisy there was little that they could do and they became apathetic and didn't vote. The reborns were on the phone every minute during political campaigns and fund raisers as if their life depended on it, and it did. Unbelievable people, demonizing anyone who wasn't like them and calling it "making the world safe for democracy." All done for the love of Jesus. All done to show gratitude for a windfall of new technologies and a home in the suburbs. The same people who are sold an SUV because it's "safe." The same people who justify the use of a "Daisy Cutter" bomb on Afghanis and Iraqis and raise Hell about the rights of the unborn.
If a heresy was only between you and your Maker the reborn thing wouldn't be so strident and so evil, because it would be a matter of faith. But it's not about faith, it's about power and this consensus is a tyranny of the uninformed and economically opportunistic holding the rest of the world hostage to a war no one wants. And why not? We even watched our President use questionable practices and when in Rome, well, do as the Empire. After all, Pat Robertson is there to make sure that the right God will be the mouthpiece for their efforts. The days of watching Al Capone movies are over. The hoods in Washington today make yesterday's bad guys look like chump change as they tear down institutions that took centuries to create and threaten the very future of civilization, all in the name of their idea of Jesus Christ.
And as the rest of the world watches this with better information then the democracy the US is supposed to uphold, the tragedy of these vanities becomes inevitable and we, the apathetic, cry for impeachment as our boys over there learn what it means to murder for the reborn.
I, like many others, send mail regularly. It seems anymore that the only stamps available are ones featuring Old Glory. I don't dare ask for any others, but I have made it a habit of pasting the stamps on upside down. As many of you may know, the upside-down US flag is to be displayed only in times of dire distress. I think it is appropriate, since it is now somehow acceptable to declare someone a traitor for not just simply speaking his or her mind, but by speaking the truth. Dire distress indeed. I know people who have served and fought for this country, many of whom have known and even watched people die in the same pursuit. And while I am a pacifist, I do not dishonor or disrespect what they do. I only hope that the rights they fought to preserve are not entirely taken away by those who claim to want to preserve them, because if not, the battles fought for them before will seem like schoolyard scuffles in comparison. I have seen a comparison of the current situation to that of a frog in a pot of boiling water. Throw the frog in while the water boils, it will react and try to escape immediately. Put the frog in cold water and turn on the heat, and he might not realize what is happening until it is too late.
Humor in wartime
OK, these are hard times, what with thousands of innocent Iraqis caught in the crossfire between an invading/liberating Anglo-American Army, and US and British troops dying in freak accidents or suicide bomb attacks. But there are some lighter moments at home, like this anecdote from P.J. Corkey of the San Francisco Examiner:
"Yesterday morning around ten, a dozen ragtag demonstrators marched up Market near Second, evincing support for the U.S.A. The group was mostly school kids, led by a few adults. The grown-up leader carried Old Glory and an impromptu eternal flame, made of aluminum foil and an old Tiki torch. ... As the leader called out chants, the kids responded in kind. So as he said, "Support our troops!" the kids chorused, "We support our troops!" And as he said, "God Bless the U.S. of A," the kids returned with, "We are still blessed!" When the leader yelled out, "We are God-fearing!" the kids were momentarily taken aback. Then one yelled out, "We are still afraid!" ...
No doubt you've heard that Morocco offered 2,000 monkeys to help detonate land mines in Iraq. Dolphins, one of which has defected or gone AWOL, seals, dogs, chickens and pigeons have also been enlisted to do grunt work in Gulf War II. The Marines were given 43 chickens to detect biological or chemical attacks, but in a week and a half, 42 were dead! (Jarheads, you weren't supposed to eat them!) Which species will be the next sent to fight in Gulf War II, elephants, or maybe horses?
I don't know about you, but I have trouble believing that Salam Pax is really a "gay Iraqi architect living in Baghdad." You can read his blog for yourself, and let me know what you think. Actually, he hasn't posted in a week, so if he was in Baghdad, he could be dead by now, along with thousands of others.
In non-war news, the Bush administration has decided to respect California's ban on oil and gas exploration off its coast line. Of course, the leases were set to expire in 1999, but then-President Bill Clinton's Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt, extended them. I can only imagine that Interior Secretary Gale Norton made the following statement without laughing:
"Strongly supports environmental protection"? I'm sorry, but naming does not equal protection. The Healthy Forests Bill has nothing to do with "healthy forests," nor does the "Clean Sky Initiatives" protect air quality. Can't these people come clean with the American people and tell them that they're just returning favors to their wealthy corporate donors?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)