Well, First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, it was nice knowing you. Take that, Osama.
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.
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!" ...
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)