Shortly after W took office, discussion began among my friends about the resemblance his administration’s approach to governance to the rise of Fascism in Germany in the 30s. I have seen nothing in the years that have passed since then to convince me that this was not a fair characterization.
A short time ago a friend sent me a story that really hits home on the subject. Give it a read and see if you don’t agree. http://justicefornone.com/article.php?story=20050527204356114&query=holocaustHolocaust I have written many times on the political chicanery BushCo has employed in its manipulation of public opinion and policy over the years, but have only occasionally brushed up against the role of the press.
In case you didn’t follow the link above, here is an excerpted reference to Nazi Germany: “. . . the news refused to question the government, and the ones who did were not in the newspaper business much longer.”
BushCo is a little more subtle these days, but not all that much. Ask the wrong question at a Bush press conference and a reporter will be relegated to the back row and ignored. Ask too many questions and she will no longer be invited to attend. Hitler’s Brownshirts used to just bomb the offices of newspapers that printed criticism of government policy. BushCo buddies just use ridicule and twisted reporting. FOX “accidentally” reports on television that John Conyers is being tried for fraud and other ethics violations. No one outside of Keith Olberman and Bill Moyers are reporting strong truths about the administration on widely viewed media. Oh, I forgot that Bill Moyers no longer has his Frontline show on PBS, does he? Wonder why that is. You can frequently see him on Link TV’s “Democracy Now!”, but how many people even know that Link exists? Why is Olberman allowed to rant? Well, he isn’t on the network news and allowing one tiny voice accomplishes a couple of things – he can be pointed to as evidence that the press is free to speak its mind and at the same time he can be denounced as the shrill voice of irrational dissent with the footnote that his irrationality is obvious because his is the only voice saying these things.
Moyers, by the way, is coming back as the PBS token dissenter. Since his suspension from Frontline he has been particularly vocal in his condemnation of the press for its failure to investigate and report on BushCo’s many, many transgressions of law and ethics. He is the strongest and best voice currently speaking to the death of the free press in this country.
A good part of the problem, of course, is the loss of the multiple owners of independent newspapers that used to dot the country. Our press is basically owned by about a half dozen conglomerates these days, and their voice is stringently muted in favor of profits heightened not by critical analysis of administrative policy but by “human interest” stories. After all, it’s so much more fun to follow the twists and turns of Brittany Spears’ pathetic little life than trying to follow the machinations of political manipulations.
Top all this off with the replacement of printed news with TV sound-bites, and there is precious little in-depth information available to people unwilling to do their own research. In this kind of an atmosphere, it is almost embarrassingly simple to wave the flag and sell a few million “support the troops” bumper stickers to have folks feel like that’s all the justification needed to keep a good war going.
In the meantime though, back in the shadows behind the scenes where, thanks to the silent press, domestic freedoms are eroded by all kinds of legislative sleight-of-hand, and the neo-cons’ vision of American hegemony stalks its malevolent way onward and downward. Oh for a government without hidden agendas. Does such a one exist anywhere? Could such a one ever exist in the U.S.A.?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
P.S. I'll miss an issue again tomorrow - gone fishin'! See you later in the week. - BR
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Back to the Real World
As promised, I made it back. I spent the past week umpiring a Futures level professional tennis tournament in Godfrey, Illinois. It is always one of the highlights of my year because the town is so beautiful and its people so friendly and caring, but this year was made special because of my roommate. He was a 16 going on 35, and his maturity and clear-headedness restored my faith in the future. If the bulk of his generation is half as astute and thoughtful as my new friend, Buddy Hippen, we may have a chance of surviving the mess past generations have made of things.
On the other hand, the news this morning sure didn’t say much to give a fellow hope in this generation making any positive headway. The first thing I heard this morning was that one-third of Iraq’s people are in need of emergency help because lack of water, sanitation and other utilities has put their lives at immediate risk.
So what’s our response? Nothing. We continue to quibble over whether or not there should be deadlines for troop withdrawal while upping our budget for protective gear and new weapons.
Over 500,000 Iraqis killed; over 2 million Iraqis forced to become refugees in lands not entirely friendly to them; anywhere from 50 to 100 additional Iraqis killed each month the war goes on; about 100 Americans killed per month in Iraq (And are we even counting the subcontracting “support” people killed and wounded?), and finally; $12 billion dollars a month in American tax dollars and borrowed funds going out of our national pocket every month to cause all this.
Will any political party in this country ever see that we could commit to spending less in a successful effort to generate goodwill and improve the well-being of the entire world while eliminating the death and destruction we cause now in the course of routine gunboat diplomacy?
Wealth invested in the people of the world, is repaid with industriousness and good will – our own G.I. bill after WWII was a great example of the effects of that kind of spending. Wealth invested in wars designed to maintain our economic superiority to the detriment of others will continue always to be repaid with hatred. After a full century of American gunboat diplomacy isn’t about time we convinced our “leaders” to change course?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
On the other hand, the news this morning sure didn’t say much to give a fellow hope in this generation making any positive headway. The first thing I heard this morning was that one-third of Iraq’s people are in need of emergency help because lack of water, sanitation and other utilities has put their lives at immediate risk.
So what’s our response? Nothing. We continue to quibble over whether or not there should be deadlines for troop withdrawal while upping our budget for protective gear and new weapons.
Over 500,000 Iraqis killed; over 2 million Iraqis forced to become refugees in lands not entirely friendly to them; anywhere from 50 to 100 additional Iraqis killed each month the war goes on; about 100 Americans killed per month in Iraq (And are we even counting the subcontracting “support” people killed and wounded?), and finally; $12 billion dollars a month in American tax dollars and borrowed funds going out of our national pocket every month to cause all this.
Will any political party in this country ever see that we could commit to spending less in a successful effort to generate goodwill and improve the well-being of the entire world while eliminating the death and destruction we cause now in the course of routine gunboat diplomacy?
Wealth invested in the people of the world, is repaid with industriousness and good will – our own G.I. bill after WWII was a great example of the effects of that kind of spending. Wealth invested in wars designed to maintain our economic superiority to the detriment of others will continue always to be repaid with hatred. After a full century of American gunboat diplomacy isn’t about time we convinced our “leaders” to change course?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Monday, July 23, 2007
Rights for the Earth and those on it
Once in a while a person experiences a convergence of events and/or information that helps clarify things. This has happened to me over the past few weeks; watching the efforts of a few congressmen to rein in the reign of terror our government foments with extraordinary rendition and inhumane treatment of prisoners yet to be charged with, let alone found guilty of, anything and the efforts of the administration to pretend to be espousing rules against such things while continuing to practice them; reading a book titled “Overthrow” by Steven Kinzer which details an American history of bloody, under-the-table, below the belt gunboat diplomacy from the overthrow of Queen Lilliuokilani in Hawaii to give American fruit growers control there, and finally; catching an Amy Goodman interview with Marco Simons of Earth Rights International on LinkTV then tieing them altogether with a lifelong interest in ecological issues.
Those who don’t wear the government-issue blinders of flag waving, unquestioning “patriotism” understand that our political issues are closely tied to serious environmental concerns. Goodman and Simon were discussing an Earth Rights International lawsuit filed against Chiquita Fruit Co. for irresponsible pesticide use resulting in environmental degradation and sterility among field workers. At the same time, the government of Colombia is prosecuting Chiquita for using or allowing use of its private airstrip to smuggle guns in support of guerilla forces trying to oust the government. If Chiquita is engaged in, supporting, or even quietly ignoring gun smuggling and you think they are supporting insurrection without the knowledge of the U.S. government, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.
On another front, ERI is looking at applying an old law, the Alien Tort Claims Act against BushCo. This law was created to allow suits for torture and other abuses ordered by foreign officials against U.S. citizens. The reasoning is that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, i.e. that it is just as wrong for the U.S. to do these things to foreigners as it is for foreigners to do them.
This group is worth watching and learning about. I highly recommend visiting them at http://www.earthrights.org/.
BTW – I will not be able to work on my blogs for the next week, but will return a week from today. Thanks to all of you who take the time to stop by. I shall return!!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Those who don’t wear the government-issue blinders of flag waving, unquestioning “patriotism” understand that our political issues are closely tied to serious environmental concerns. Goodman and Simon were discussing an Earth Rights International lawsuit filed against Chiquita Fruit Co. for irresponsible pesticide use resulting in environmental degradation and sterility among field workers. At the same time, the government of Colombia is prosecuting Chiquita for using or allowing use of its private airstrip to smuggle guns in support of guerilla forces trying to oust the government. If Chiquita is engaged in, supporting, or even quietly ignoring gun smuggling and you think they are supporting insurrection without the knowledge of the U.S. government, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.
On another front, ERI is looking at applying an old law, the Alien Tort Claims Act against BushCo. This law was created to allow suits for torture and other abuses ordered by foreign officials against U.S. citizens. The reasoning is that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, i.e. that it is just as wrong for the U.S. to do these things to foreigners as it is for foreigners to do them.
This group is worth watching and learning about. I highly recommend visiting them at http://www.earthrights.org/.
BTW – I will not be able to work on my blogs for the next week, but will return a week from today. Thanks to all of you who take the time to stop by. I shall return!!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Fighting for Freedom? You'll Have to Show Me
Every morning’s paper is loaded with sentiment about Iraq. Everything from reader’s letters to a story on the deliberations of the joint chiefs of staff prompt us to believe that the war in Iraq holds the potential for an American victory. All remind us, too, of the dedication and value of our troops stationed there.
The letters and editorials especially exhort us to remember that our soldiers serve in order to protect our freedom. Just once, I wish one of those folks who fling that phrase around would explain exactly how the fighting in Iraq protects our freedom. Iraq never threatened our freedom. Iraq is now much less stable than it was before we invaded them. Iraq now has active Al-Qaeda cells though it did not before we invaded.
Don’t misquote me here – our military does protect our freedom, but it is not doing so nor has it ever done so in Iraq. We hear that if we don’t fight them there we’ll have to fight them here. If that ever turns out to be true that it will be because by the time we finally admit there is no way to win there, we will have created so many more hate filled enemies that they will attack us at home for revenge.
Characterizing what we do in Iraq as protecting our freedom satisfies those unwilling to take an honest, hard look at what we really do there. Here, in an article that focuses on the damage our air strikes have done in Iraq, is a quick picture of the effect of our efforts in that country:
As Nick Turse tells us in “Bombs Over Baghdad,” the Lancet report “estimated 655,000 ‘excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war.’ The study...found that from March 2003 to June 2006, 13 percent of violent deaths in Iraq were caused by coalition air strikes. If the 655,000 figure, including over 601,000 violent deaths, is anywhere close to accurate—and the study offered a possible range of civilian deaths that ran from 392,979 to 942,636—this would equal approximately 78,133 Iraqis killed by bombs, missiles, rockets, or cannon rounds from coalition aircraft between March 2003, when the invasion of Iraq began, and last June when the study concluded.” Turse adds that, “According to statistics provided to TomDispatch by the Lancet study’s authors, 50 percent of all violent deaths of Iraqi children under 15 years of age, between March 2003 and June 2006, were due to coalition air strikes.”
Here, then, are the final rough numbers: Every day, between 50 and 100 Iraqis die as a result of “coalition” airstrikes. Every airstrike kills, on average, one Iraqi, and wounds three more. Updating the numbers from the Lancet study, we discover that overall, since the U.S. invaded Iraq, somewhere between 102,180 and 147,051 Iraqis have been killed by U.S. airstrikes alone. Between 306,540 and 441,153 have been wounded.
Z Magazine Online June 2007 Volume 20 Number 6
SPECIAL REPORT The Secret Air Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Unreported casualties By Jeff Nygaard
Note that this story doesn’t delineate the number of civilians that have died as the result of ground fire, suicide bombs, etc. They are included in the total dead, but there is no differentiation between Iraqi warriors and Iraqi civilians killed. Nor does it examine the causes of those deaths – many of which have come from the lack of health care, sanitation services, power, food, etc. which are collateral damage from our bombings.
To get a final picture of the results we have wreaked upon Iraq, we have to take a moment to remember that we were led to do this by an administration that did its best to convince the American people that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. At the time of our invasion more than one-half of Americans believed that. By now they should all know that it was not true. The fact is that we attacked Iraq not to remove Saddam Hussein from power, nor for any high minded reason, but to avenge the 3,000 deaths we suffered that day. (BushCo had their own reasons, but I believe that this is the central reason why the American people went along with it.)
The result of our invasion has been the creation – not the destruction – of enemies determined to destroy us. I ask again – who will be the next terrorist, the son whose father we kill or the father whose son we feed?
Finally, I’m asking for a straight answer to this question: Exactly how does our killing of over 500,000 people in Iraq protect our freedom? If you want me to support your war, you will have to answer this question. Just saying that’s what we are doing is not enough. We should all be saying, "I'm from Missouri. You'll have to show me."
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The letters and editorials especially exhort us to remember that our soldiers serve in order to protect our freedom. Just once, I wish one of those folks who fling that phrase around would explain exactly how the fighting in Iraq protects our freedom. Iraq never threatened our freedom. Iraq is now much less stable than it was before we invaded them. Iraq now has active Al-Qaeda cells though it did not before we invaded.
Don’t misquote me here – our military does protect our freedom, but it is not doing so nor has it ever done so in Iraq. We hear that if we don’t fight them there we’ll have to fight them here. If that ever turns out to be true that it will be because by the time we finally admit there is no way to win there, we will have created so many more hate filled enemies that they will attack us at home for revenge.
Characterizing what we do in Iraq as protecting our freedom satisfies those unwilling to take an honest, hard look at what we really do there. Here, in an article that focuses on the damage our air strikes have done in Iraq, is a quick picture of the effect of our efforts in that country:
As Nick Turse tells us in “Bombs Over Baghdad,” the Lancet report “estimated 655,000 ‘excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war.’ The study...found that from March 2003 to June 2006, 13 percent of violent deaths in Iraq were caused by coalition air strikes. If the 655,000 figure, including over 601,000 violent deaths, is anywhere close to accurate—and the study offered a possible range of civilian deaths that ran from 392,979 to 942,636—this would equal approximately 78,133 Iraqis killed by bombs, missiles, rockets, or cannon rounds from coalition aircraft between March 2003, when the invasion of Iraq began, and last June when the study concluded.” Turse adds that, “According to statistics provided to TomDispatch by the Lancet study’s authors, 50 percent of all violent deaths of Iraqi children under 15 years of age, between March 2003 and June 2006, were due to coalition air strikes.”
Here, then, are the final rough numbers: Every day, between 50 and 100 Iraqis die as a result of “coalition” airstrikes. Every airstrike kills, on average, one Iraqi, and wounds three more. Updating the numbers from the Lancet study, we discover that overall, since the U.S. invaded Iraq, somewhere between 102,180 and 147,051 Iraqis have been killed by U.S. airstrikes alone. Between 306,540 and 441,153 have been wounded.
Z Magazine Online June 2007 Volume 20 Number 6
SPECIAL REPORT The Secret Air Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Unreported casualties By Jeff Nygaard
Note that this story doesn’t delineate the number of civilians that have died as the result of ground fire, suicide bombs, etc. They are included in the total dead, but there is no differentiation between Iraqi warriors and Iraqi civilians killed. Nor does it examine the causes of those deaths – many of which have come from the lack of health care, sanitation services, power, food, etc. which are collateral damage from our bombings.
To get a final picture of the results we have wreaked upon Iraq, we have to take a moment to remember that we were led to do this by an administration that did its best to convince the American people that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. At the time of our invasion more than one-half of Americans believed that. By now they should all know that it was not true. The fact is that we attacked Iraq not to remove Saddam Hussein from power, nor for any high minded reason, but to avenge the 3,000 deaths we suffered that day. (BushCo had their own reasons, but I believe that this is the central reason why the American people went along with it.)
The result of our invasion has been the creation – not the destruction – of enemies determined to destroy us. I ask again – who will be the next terrorist, the son whose father we kill or the father whose son we feed?
Finally, I’m asking for a straight answer to this question: Exactly how does our killing of over 500,000 people in Iraq protect our freedom? If you want me to support your war, you will have to answer this question. Just saying that’s what we are doing is not enough. We should all be saying, "I'm from Missouri. You'll have to show me."
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Go See Sicko
Yesterday, we went to see the movie Sicko, a movie that should be required viewing for every American citizen. Yes, Michael Moore made it, so those wearing their right wing knee-jerk blinders will refuse to go, and, yes, Mr. Moore paints a rosy picture of the effectiveness of state run medical systems around the world, but also yes, the American health care system is a greedy mess that costs people more for care than any other system in the world and yet ranks #37 in the world in effectiveness. As Moore points out, that puts us one rank above Slovenia – or was it Slobbovia?! What everyone should see, though, is the comparison of the costs of care and the quality of care faced by American vs. those faced by citizens of France, England, Canada and Cuba under state run systems as presented by patients and physicians in both systems.
Before going on I must point out that I do not speak from total ignorance here myself. I was raised in a health care family and made my career in managing and consulting with primary care medical practices in rural areas. For years I have argued the two primary points raised in the movie; that if we as a society are willing to spend billions of our tax dollars to kill people, we should also be willing to spend fewer billions to care for them, and; that, as Moore so deftly put it, our nation would be better off if we were “we” oriented instead of “me” oriented.
I used to argue that all we needed to do was to expand the Medicare program to cover everyone and emplace a premium scale based on income. Between the last two administrations, though, Medicare has become privatized so that PPOs now limit patients’ choices of providers and access to secondary care. That leaves only one viable option in my mind and that is nationalization of the entire system. Sure that would initially cause a downgrade in facilities and high dollar service development but only because we have no history in the field. Maybe we would have to sit on folding chairs in waiting rooms instead of the lush couches I sat in Monday while waiting for an X-ray, but if the change resulted in changing the focus of care from maximizing profits to maximizing preventive and quality primary health care I could live with the folding chair.
The ultimate upshot, though, would be to lift the onus of health care costs from each of our personal economic pictures and reduce the capability of our government to wage inappropriate wars to keep the economy chugging along while lining big corporate pockets at the expense of the little guy.
If we ever get to national health care, the first effort ought to be to try and heal the national neurosis that allows us to think our tax money is better spent in killing people than in curing them.
Please. Go see this film and then urge everyone you know to go. In Springfield it is showing at Campbell 16 at 1:15, 4:05, 6:50 and 9:35.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Before going on I must point out that I do not speak from total ignorance here myself. I was raised in a health care family and made my career in managing and consulting with primary care medical practices in rural areas. For years I have argued the two primary points raised in the movie; that if we as a society are willing to spend billions of our tax dollars to kill people, we should also be willing to spend fewer billions to care for them, and; that, as Moore so deftly put it, our nation would be better off if we were “we” oriented instead of “me” oriented.
I used to argue that all we needed to do was to expand the Medicare program to cover everyone and emplace a premium scale based on income. Between the last two administrations, though, Medicare has become privatized so that PPOs now limit patients’ choices of providers and access to secondary care. That leaves only one viable option in my mind and that is nationalization of the entire system. Sure that would initially cause a downgrade in facilities and high dollar service development but only because we have no history in the field. Maybe we would have to sit on folding chairs in waiting rooms instead of the lush couches I sat in Monday while waiting for an X-ray, but if the change resulted in changing the focus of care from maximizing profits to maximizing preventive and quality primary health care I could live with the folding chair.
The ultimate upshot, though, would be to lift the onus of health care costs from each of our personal economic pictures and reduce the capability of our government to wage inappropriate wars to keep the economy chugging along while lining big corporate pockets at the expense of the little guy.
If we ever get to national health care, the first effort ought to be to try and heal the national neurosis that allows us to think our tax money is better spent in killing people than in curing them.
Please. Go see this film and then urge everyone you know to go. In Springfield it is showing at Campbell 16 at 1:15, 4:05, 6:50 and 9:35.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Let’s Get Real About Iraq
This morning’s paper is loaded with sentiment about Iraq. Everything from reader’s letters to a story on the deliberations of the joint chiefs of staff prompt us to believe that the war in Iraq holds the potential for an American victory. All remind us, too, of the dedication and value of our troops stationed there.
The letters and editorials especially exhort us to remember that our soldiers serve in order to protect our freedom. Just once, I wish one of those folks who so fling that phrase around would explain exactly how the fighting in Iraq protects our freedom. Iraq never threatened our freedom. Iraq is now much less stable than it was before we invaded them. Iraq now has active Al-Qaeda cells though it did not before we invaded.
Don’t misquote me here – our military can and does protect our freedom, but it is not doing so nor has it ever done so in Iraq. We hear that if we don’t fight them there we’ll have to fight them here. If that ever turns out to be true that it will be because by the time we finally admit there is no way to win there, we will have created so many more hate filled enemies that they will attack us at home for revenge.
Characterizing what we do in Iraq as protecting our freedom satisfies those unwilling to take an honest, hard look at what we really do there. Here is a quick picture of the effect of our efforts in that country:
As Nick Turse tells us in “Bombs Over Baghdad,” the Lancet report “estimated 655,000 ‘excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war.’ The study...found that from March 2003 to June 2006, 13 percent of violent deaths in Iraq were caused by coalition air strikes. If the 655,000 figure, including over 601,000 violent deaths, is anywhere close to accurate—and the study offered a possible range of civilian deaths that ran from 392,979 to 942,636—this would equal approximately 78,133 Iraqis killed by bombs, missiles, rockets, or cannon rounds from coalition aircraft between March 2003, when the invasion of Iraq began, and last June when the study concluded.” Turse adds that, “According to statistics provided to TomDispatch by the Lancet study’s authors, 50 percent of all violent deaths of Iraqi children under 15 years of age, between March 2003 and June 2006, were due to coalition air strikes.”
Here, then, are the final rough numbers: Every day, between 50 and 100 Iraqis die as a result of “coalition” airstrikes. Every airstrike kills, on average, one Iraqi, and wounds three more. Updating the numbers from the Lancet study, we discover that overall, since the U.S. invaded Iraq, somewhere between 102,180 and 147,051 Iraqis have been killed by U.S. airstrikes alone. Between 306,540 and 441,153 have been wounded.
Z Magazine Online June 2007 Volume 20 Number 6
SPECIAL REPORT The Secret Air Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Unreported casualties By Jeff Nygaard http://zmagsite.zmag.org/June2007/nygaard0607.html
Note that this story doesn’t delineate the number of civilians that have died as the result of ground fire. They are included in the total dead, but there is no differentiation between Iraqi warriors and Iraqi civilians killed. Nor does it examine the causes of those deaths – many of which have come from the lack of health care, sanitation services, power, food, etc. which are collateral damage from our bombings.
To get a final picture of the results we have wreaked upon Iraq, we have to take a moment to remember that we were led to do this by an administration that did its best to convince the American people that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. At the time of our invasion more than one-half of Americans believed that. By now they should all know that it was not true. The fact is that we attacked Iraq not to remove Saddam Hussein from power, nor for any high minded reason, but to avenge the 3,000 deaths we suffered that day. (BushCo had their own reasons, but I believe that this is the central reason why the American people went along with it.)
The result of our invasion has been the creation – not the destruction – of enemies determined to destroy us. I ask again – who will be the next terrorist, the son whose father we kill or the father whose son we feed?
Finally, I’m asking for a straight answer to this question: Exactly how does our killing of over 500,000 people in Iraq protect our freedom? If you want me to support your war, you will have to answer this question. Just saying that’s what we are doing is not enough.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The letters and editorials especially exhort us to remember that our soldiers serve in order to protect our freedom. Just once, I wish one of those folks who so fling that phrase around would explain exactly how the fighting in Iraq protects our freedom. Iraq never threatened our freedom. Iraq is now much less stable than it was before we invaded them. Iraq now has active Al-Qaeda cells though it did not before we invaded.
Don’t misquote me here – our military can and does protect our freedom, but it is not doing so nor has it ever done so in Iraq. We hear that if we don’t fight them there we’ll have to fight them here. If that ever turns out to be true that it will be because by the time we finally admit there is no way to win there, we will have created so many more hate filled enemies that they will attack us at home for revenge.
Characterizing what we do in Iraq as protecting our freedom satisfies those unwilling to take an honest, hard look at what we really do there. Here is a quick picture of the effect of our efforts in that country:
As Nick Turse tells us in “Bombs Over Baghdad,” the Lancet report “estimated 655,000 ‘excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war.’ The study...found that from March 2003 to June 2006, 13 percent of violent deaths in Iraq were caused by coalition air strikes. If the 655,000 figure, including over 601,000 violent deaths, is anywhere close to accurate—and the study offered a possible range of civilian deaths that ran from 392,979 to 942,636—this would equal approximately 78,133 Iraqis killed by bombs, missiles, rockets, or cannon rounds from coalition aircraft between March 2003, when the invasion of Iraq began, and last June when the study concluded.” Turse adds that, “According to statistics provided to TomDispatch by the Lancet study’s authors, 50 percent of all violent deaths of Iraqi children under 15 years of age, between March 2003 and June 2006, were due to coalition air strikes.”
Here, then, are the final rough numbers: Every day, between 50 and 100 Iraqis die as a result of “coalition” airstrikes. Every airstrike kills, on average, one Iraqi, and wounds three more. Updating the numbers from the Lancet study, we discover that overall, since the U.S. invaded Iraq, somewhere between 102,180 and 147,051 Iraqis have been killed by U.S. airstrikes alone. Between 306,540 and 441,153 have been wounded.
Z Magazine Online June 2007 Volume 20 Number 6
SPECIAL REPORT The Secret Air Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Unreported casualties By Jeff Nygaard http://zmagsite.zmag.org/June2007/nygaard0607.html
Note that this story doesn’t delineate the number of civilians that have died as the result of ground fire. They are included in the total dead, but there is no differentiation between Iraqi warriors and Iraqi civilians killed. Nor does it examine the causes of those deaths – many of which have come from the lack of health care, sanitation services, power, food, etc. which are collateral damage from our bombings.
To get a final picture of the results we have wreaked upon Iraq, we have to take a moment to remember that we were led to do this by an administration that did its best to convince the American people that Iraq had something to do with 9-11. At the time of our invasion more than one-half of Americans believed that. By now they should all know that it was not true. The fact is that we attacked Iraq not to remove Saddam Hussein from power, nor for any high minded reason, but to avenge the 3,000 deaths we suffered that day. (BushCo had their own reasons, but I believe that this is the central reason why the American people went along with it.)
The result of our invasion has been the creation – not the destruction – of enemies determined to destroy us. I ask again – who will be the next terrorist, the son whose father we kill or the father whose son we feed?
Finally, I’m asking for a straight answer to this question: Exactly how does our killing of over 500,000 people in Iraq protect our freedom? If you want me to support your war, you will have to answer this question. Just saying that’s what we are doing is not enough.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Monday, July 16, 2007
Just a quickie today. Just took a fall off the bicycle this morning, so the next order of business is to find out whether my shoulder is going to fall off!!
Speaking of business, though, among all the other essential things we need to change in this country one of my favorites is to shift our corporate attitude from the notion that their only responsibility is to make money. That's actually the law here, you know, and that along with the legal recognition of corporations as human individuals is something that desperately needs changing. How else could we operate?
Last week the BBC ran a wonderful interview with the founder of a company that puts environmental and societal concerns ahead of profits in their mission statement. A look at their website can show you who they are and how they operate. A click on www.goodenergies.com will get you to their mission statement, and there are plenty of other pages to peruse. It's great food for thought.
Finally, a predictive news story I noticed last year has now come to fruition, and I think it's worth careful consideration. The paper today announced that the U.S. will soon send and unmanned attack plane to Afghanistan and then Iraq. On the surface this sounds like a reasonable thing for a nation to do. It can fight battles without risking the lives of its military personnel, but it doesn't take much reflection to see the flaws - especially while BushCo is in office.
Robotic weaponry that could be used in defense of the nation makes sense to me. Robotic weaponry that can be used to attack distant nations that have never attacked us does not. The American public is already too far removed from the realities of war. Already we can sit in our living rooms and eat popcorn while financing a war with our grandchildren's money. With robotics we can do it without asking our neighbor's son to go fly the bombers. When the most powerful nation in the world can wage war with minimal risk to itself and its people, the potential for abuse of the Iraq war variety is far too high for us to accept this "advancement" with alacrity. This is an alternative that should be examined closely and restricted in its usage by international law.
Just think about what the world would be like today if Hitler had had this technology in his hands while the rest of the world did not. Yes you can argue that we had atomic bomb technology and didn't use it to dominate the world and that is true to the extent that we didn't demand political dominance of the world at that time. Still, BushCo has threatened to use it in Iran, and these folks don't impress me as having the moral turpitude not to use it if they saw a way to gain more control of the world's resources - not to mention that there is some level of balance with regard to nuclear weaponry. Can we afford to give any military and people like W totally free rein with this potential?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M.K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Speaking of business, though, among all the other essential things we need to change in this country one of my favorites is to shift our corporate attitude from the notion that their only responsibility is to make money. That's actually the law here, you know, and that along with the legal recognition of corporations as human individuals is something that desperately needs changing. How else could we operate?
Last week the BBC ran a wonderful interview with the founder of a company that puts environmental and societal concerns ahead of profits in their mission statement. A look at their website can show you who they are and how they operate. A click on www.goodenergies.com will get you to their mission statement, and there are plenty of other pages to peruse. It's great food for thought.
Finally, a predictive news story I noticed last year has now come to fruition, and I think it's worth careful consideration. The paper today announced that the U.S. will soon send and unmanned attack plane to Afghanistan and then Iraq. On the surface this sounds like a reasonable thing for a nation to do. It can fight battles without risking the lives of its military personnel, but it doesn't take much reflection to see the flaws - especially while BushCo is in office.
Robotic weaponry that could be used in defense of the nation makes sense to me. Robotic weaponry that can be used to attack distant nations that have never attacked us does not. The American public is already too far removed from the realities of war. Already we can sit in our living rooms and eat popcorn while financing a war with our grandchildren's money. With robotics we can do it without asking our neighbor's son to go fly the bombers. When the most powerful nation in the world can wage war with minimal risk to itself and its people, the potential for abuse of the Iraq war variety is far too high for us to accept this "advancement" with alacrity. This is an alternative that should be examined closely and restricted in its usage by international law.
Just think about what the world would be like today if Hitler had had this technology in his hands while the rest of the world did not. Yes you can argue that we had atomic bomb technology and didn't use it to dominate the world and that is true to the extent that we didn't demand political dominance of the world at that time. Still, BushCo has threatened to use it in Iran, and these folks don't impress me as having the moral turpitude not to use it if they saw a way to gain more control of the world's resources - not to mention that there is some level of balance with regard to nuclear weaponry. Can we afford to give any military and people like W totally free rein with this potential?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M.K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Friday, July 13, 2007
In The Course of Human Events
Not long ago I joined in on one of those "write your senator" emails that groups like MoveOn send out from time to time. This one was urging impeachment of dick Cheney. It went out to all the reps for our area. Those being Roy Blunt, Kit Bond, and Claire McCaskill, I only had a slim hope for positive response from Claire. The other two march lockstep with W, so I only write them to aggravate them.
Claire did respond, but what she had to say aggravated me. Here's an excerpt:
"I am disappointed with the direction that the Bush Administration has
taken our country, and the Libby Trial raised further concerns about
the credibility and accountability of the Administration's most senior
officials, including Vice President Cheney. However, impeachment
should be used in only the rarest of cases. This country was founded
on the principle that the democratic process is the best means of
choosing leadership - and that is done through the American people and
their right to vote. American voters recently expressed their desire
for a change in leadership by voting a Democratic majority into
Congress. We now have much important work that must be done for
America and impeachment proceedings would consume most of the time,
resources, and energy of Congress with little likelihood of success."
Pure party line bunkum.
I was moved to write a response:
Ms. McCaskill:
That reply just cost you my vote.
There is no more important business than ensuring the safety of the
rights of the people through enforcement of Constitutional law. The
impeachment process was included in the Constitution just for instances
like the illegal and unethical actions taken by the Bush Administration
on several fronts.
I worked for you in the last election. I will work against you in the
next.
Bob Ranney
I must admit, though, that I was glad that she took the time to respond to me – this time. The last time I wrote her it was a hand written letter accompanying an article that detailed the provisions of the much touted oil income distribution law we are leaning on the Iraqis to produce as one of our "benchmarks of progress". For those who haven't read it or who missed my blog on the subject, that "benchmark" requires distribution of oil income to all Iraqi Sunni's, Shiites and Kurds. Sounds good, doesn't it – until you know that this distribution only applies to the 20% of their oil supply that is tappable through their existing infrastructure. The remaining 80% is to be handed over to the major western oil corporations.
Claire never bothered to respond to that one. Maybe it was just too complex for her to follow. Maybe the Dems didn't have a canned response on hand for her to use. Or maybe the benchmark as written fits into the Democratic Party line just as well as BushCo's restrictions on liberty do. You have to wonder why the Dems think the strong executive branch devised and emplaced by BushCo is such a good idea that they won't challenge it. You have to wonder if they plan on keeping the secret prisons for extraordinary rendition open, whether they will continue to condone torture and what they will do with all the surveillance programs that no one is talking about in Washington any more.
I sent Claire's message and my response around to a few friends, by the way, and they – completely on their own – all wrote to her withdrawing their support. I didn't suggest it to them, but I will to you. If you feel the same as I do about this, please write her and tell her so.
Finally, here's a little item that one party to all this sent to me along with the copy of his message to Claire:
On Wednesday the Lou Dobbs poll question on CNN was... "Whether you are Democratic or Republican, do you plan to abandon the party in favor of a third party candidate in the 08 election, or are you at least considering it?"
Of thousands that responded to the poll nationwide, 86% responding in the poll answered "yes."
This, I think, is where the nation needs to go. Unity08 (unity08.com) is working hard at putting together a third party or mixed party ticket and obtaining the right to have it on the ballot for the 2008 election. Check them out and register to vote on the structure of the ticket.
If the numbers in Dobbs' poll are really accurate, we should all vote for the alternative ballot. Even if the slate doesn't get on the ballot in every state, the excluded states could vote via the web instead of on the official ballot and then scream about the comparative results. If the government will not structure elections so that the people can choose and effectively vote for their candidates, then we the people should just do it ourselves and rub their faces in it.
This is the kind of revolt that could show the world that it is the American system that is screwing them just the same as it is screwing us. This is also the kind of revolt that Thomas Jefferson would have been thrilled to see, and, according to his philosophy, it is long overdue.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
P.S. -- Talk of Impeachment
Bill Moyers Journal
t r u t h o u t | Programming Note
Airdate: Friday, July 13, 2007 at 9 p.m. EDT on PBS
(Check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/about/airdates.html.)
Talk of impeachment. Bill Moyers Journal explores the talk of impeachment gaining steam as a new opinion poll says nearly half of Americans favor impeachment of the president and more than half want to impeach the vice president.
In the wake of President Bush's commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence, talk of impeachment is gaining steam as a new opinion poll says that nearly half of Americans favor impeachment of the president and more than half believe Vice President Cheney should be impeached. Bill Moyers gets perspective from constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, and The Nation's John Nichols, author of "The Genius of Impeachment." Also on the program, renowned poet Martin Espada speaks about his love of language and the human need for poetry as he reflects on how heritage and immigration, and violence and war, have influenced his work.
-------
Claire did respond, but what she had to say aggravated me. Here's an excerpt:
"I am disappointed with the direction that the Bush Administration has
taken our country, and the Libby Trial raised further concerns about
the credibility and accountability of the Administration's most senior
officials, including Vice President Cheney. However, impeachment
should be used in only the rarest of cases. This country was founded
on the principle that the democratic process is the best means of
choosing leadership - and that is done through the American people and
their right to vote. American voters recently expressed their desire
for a change in leadership by voting a Democratic majority into
Congress. We now have much important work that must be done for
America and impeachment proceedings would consume most of the time,
resources, and energy of Congress with little likelihood of success."
Pure party line bunkum.
I was moved to write a response:
Ms. McCaskill:
That reply just cost you my vote.
There is no more important business than ensuring the safety of the
rights of the people through enforcement of Constitutional law. The
impeachment process was included in the Constitution just for instances
like the illegal and unethical actions taken by the Bush Administration
on several fronts.
I worked for you in the last election. I will work against you in the
next.
Bob Ranney
I must admit, though, that I was glad that she took the time to respond to me – this time. The last time I wrote her it was a hand written letter accompanying an article that detailed the provisions of the much touted oil income distribution law we are leaning on the Iraqis to produce as one of our "benchmarks of progress". For those who haven't read it or who missed my blog on the subject, that "benchmark" requires distribution of oil income to all Iraqi Sunni's, Shiites and Kurds. Sounds good, doesn't it – until you know that this distribution only applies to the 20% of their oil supply that is tappable through their existing infrastructure. The remaining 80% is to be handed over to the major western oil corporations.
Claire never bothered to respond to that one. Maybe it was just too complex for her to follow. Maybe the Dems didn't have a canned response on hand for her to use. Or maybe the benchmark as written fits into the Democratic Party line just as well as BushCo's restrictions on liberty do. You have to wonder why the Dems think the strong executive branch devised and emplaced by BushCo is such a good idea that they won't challenge it. You have to wonder if they plan on keeping the secret prisons for extraordinary rendition open, whether they will continue to condone torture and what they will do with all the surveillance programs that no one is talking about in Washington any more.
I sent Claire's message and my response around to a few friends, by the way, and they – completely on their own – all wrote to her withdrawing their support. I didn't suggest it to them, but I will to you. If you feel the same as I do about this, please write her and tell her so.
Finally, here's a little item that one party to all this sent to me along with the copy of his message to Claire:
On Wednesday the Lou Dobbs poll question on CNN was... "Whether you are Democratic or Republican, do you plan to abandon the party in favor of a third party candidate in the 08 election, or are you at least considering it?"
Of thousands that responded to the poll nationwide, 86% responding in the poll answered "yes."
This, I think, is where the nation needs to go. Unity08 (unity08.com) is working hard at putting together a third party or mixed party ticket and obtaining the right to have it on the ballot for the 2008 election. Check them out and register to vote on the structure of the ticket.
If the numbers in Dobbs' poll are really accurate, we should all vote for the alternative ballot. Even if the slate doesn't get on the ballot in every state, the excluded states could vote via the web instead of on the official ballot and then scream about the comparative results. If the government will not structure elections so that the people can choose and effectively vote for their candidates, then we the people should just do it ourselves and rub their faces in it.
This is the kind of revolt that could show the world that it is the American system that is screwing them just the same as it is screwing us. This is also the kind of revolt that Thomas Jefferson would have been thrilled to see, and, according to his philosophy, it is long overdue.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
P.S. -- Talk of Impeachment
Bill Moyers Journal
t r u t h o u t | Programming Note
Airdate: Friday, July 13, 2007 at 9 p.m. EDT on PBS
(Check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/about/airdates.html.)
Talk of impeachment. Bill Moyers Journal explores the talk of impeachment gaining steam as a new opinion poll says nearly half of Americans favor impeachment of the president and more than half want to impeach the vice president.
In the wake of President Bush's commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence, talk of impeachment is gaining steam as a new opinion poll says that nearly half of Americans favor impeachment of the president and more than half believe Vice President Cheney should be impeached. Bill Moyers gets perspective from constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, and The Nation's John Nichols, author of "The Genius of Impeachment." Also on the program, renowned poet Martin Espada speaks about his love of language and the human need for poetry as he reflects on how heritage and immigration, and violence and war, have influenced his work.
-------
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Lord Pardon Us All
Thanks to good friend, Phil Carlson, I have this little gem to share with you this morning. It was sparked by the commutation of Libby's sentence. I've done a little editing as I thought the middle section of the original got a bit silly, but I especially love the closing bit about Pelosi for whose own impeachment I called a couple of weeks ago. I hope you enjoy it.
Bush Pardons Entire GOP
Prez "pre-emptively" saves all Repubs from becoming "prison bitches." Dems: "Can he do that?"
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Allegedly reacting to some sort of hallucinogenic fever dream following an overlong bubble bath during which he reportedly sputtered lots of motorboat noises and ate one too many purple crayons, President Bush today made the stunning yet somehow entirely understandable announcement that all Republicans in his administration are hereby officially excused from any and all crimes they have committed, are in the process of committing, are planning to commit, or even merely fantasize about committing while encased in sweaty latex bodysuits in any one of a number of GOP-friendly D.C. fetish dungeons.
"People! My people!" Bush shouted suddenly during an otherwise completely useless press conference, raising his arms over his head and tilting his head back and convulsing slightly, just as a nameless reporter finished asking a question about... oh like it even matters because we all know the answer would've been complete bulls--- anyway so let's just say, immigration policy reform.
"Come to me, you shockingly large numbers of corrupt and disgraced Republican senators, representatives, aides, deputies, secretaries, lobbyists, governors and mayors and secretly gay meth-snorting right-wing Christian evangelists, and I shall remove from you the burden of legal, ethical, spiritual and yes even genital responsibility for all crimes you have almost certainly committed under the dark umbrella that is me! I am the walrus!"
Bush was apparently emboldened by his unprecedented and widely reviled commutation of L. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence just recently, a move widely considered to be one of the more repellent abuses of power in a kaleidoscopic drunken funhouse of abuses lo these past 6.5 years, though he appeared to be staring up at the heavens as he spoke, just little bit astonished that lightning was not striking him dead on the spot.
"DeLay! Gonzales! Abramoff! Rumsfeld! Frist and Scalia and Ashcroft and Rove! Hastert and Duke Cunningham and Dusty Foggo! Ralph Reed! Mark Foley, Ted Haggard and Jeff Gannon! Abu Ghraib instigators! Guantanamo endorsers! WMD believers! FEMA! Plamegate! Terry Schaivo hypocrites! Torturers and influence peddlers and domestic wiretappers, Halliburton bribers and no-bid contractors and dark Carlyle Group overlords!
"Also: Sex education misinformers, global warming deniers, scientist muzzlers, Energy Task Force liars, Iraq Study Group deniers, 9/11 Report ignorers, Medicare scammers, Diebold voting machine swindlers! Bogus Jessica Lynch and Saddam statue and fake Thanksgiving turkey event stagers! And all the rest I can't remember because wow there are just so damn many! Come to me and be not someone's prison bitch despite how you really, really deserve it! I hereby pardon you aaaaaalllll!"
Curiously, the bizarre announcement came as no surprise to White House insiders. An anonymous source close to the president suggested that Bush secretly hoped that, if he made another big, vaguely unconstutional, degrading announcement that stabbed at the very heart of the republic, Dick Cheney might come up from behind again and give him another approving pat on the butt, much like a master gives a puppy. Cheney was unavailable for comment, as he was off shooting hundreds of flightless pheasants in the face with a shotgun from 2 feet away, and chuckling sinisterly.
White House spokesman and former Fox News automaton Tony Snow was quick to step in and deflect reporters' questions as Bush was carefully led offstage, frothing slightly at the mouth.
"Let me say right here and now: It is fully within the president's constitutional right to, uh, preemptively pardon all criminal Republicans who are all, of course, totally innocent and who have all been -- or, you know, will soon be -- wrongly accused by terrorist-loving liberals who hate our freedoms and have a very obvious gay agenda," he muttered, his eyes rolling around in his skull like marbles in Satan's pinball machine.
"Hey! Don't forget the crazy stuff Bill Clinton did almost 10 years ago! Oh my God! And what about Sept. 11th? Your children are in danger! Twin towers! Death from above! Support our troops! Gay agenda! Watch Fox News or the terrorists win! P.S.: Ann Coulter, please call me because you left a spiked bra and a switchblade and a gallon of ketamine at my apartment. Thank you. No more questions at this time."
Word of the Universal Republican Pardon (URP) quickly spread to the current Democratic congressional leadership, who were, naturally, slightly upset.
"This is a true outrage!" screamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, apparently frantically entering search terms into Wikipedia in her office iMac in an attempt to see what the hell was actually happening.
"He can't do that! Wait, can he? Can he do that? Isn't there some sort of, like, legal or constitutional mechanism in place to stop him from doing stuff like that?" Pelosi scanned the confused faces of the various congressional aides standing around her office, but got nothing back but lots of people staring at their feet. "Hello? Anyone? What the hell do I pay you people for?!"
Pelosi then sighed heavily and sipped some organic green tea. "You know what it makes me wish? It makes me wish there some sort of, say, large political body here in Washington, one that was right now controlled by, say, a completely different political party than this awful president," she said wistfully, as the aides glanced at each other furtively and rolled their eyes.
"Wouldn't that be great? And this group would have, say, some sort of legal and political oversight power to step in and stop this sort of thing, to formally rebuke the president and demand some sort of accountability and maybe even launch formal impeachment proceedings? Can you imagine?"
"I like to think it would be some sort of deeply flawed but absolutely essential system of, oh I don't know, checks and balances or something, and it would help ensure that this cretinous mealy mouthed little sonofabitch couldn't get away with stuff like this anymore.
"That would be so cool, wouldn't it? Man, I wish we had something like that here in America. Don't you?"
All that has gone on with BushCo would be really funny if it were just the product of some weird satirist's mind, but when you take a hard, sober look at the legacy this bunch leaves for the future of America, it is hard to laugh. Anyone who ever voted for this crew or who ever stood silent in the face of their deceit is in need of forgiveness. May your Good Lord pardon us all, undeserving as we are.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Bush Pardons Entire GOP
Prez "pre-emptively" saves all Repubs from becoming "prison bitches." Dems: "Can he do that?"
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Allegedly reacting to some sort of hallucinogenic fever dream following an overlong bubble bath during which he reportedly sputtered lots of motorboat noises and ate one too many purple crayons, President Bush today made the stunning yet somehow entirely understandable announcement that all Republicans in his administration are hereby officially excused from any and all crimes they have committed, are in the process of committing, are planning to commit, or even merely fantasize about committing while encased in sweaty latex bodysuits in any one of a number of GOP-friendly D.C. fetish dungeons.
"People! My people!" Bush shouted suddenly during an otherwise completely useless press conference, raising his arms over his head and tilting his head back and convulsing slightly, just as a nameless reporter finished asking a question about... oh like it even matters because we all know the answer would've been complete bulls--- anyway so let's just say, immigration policy reform.
"Come to me, you shockingly large numbers of corrupt and disgraced Republican senators, representatives, aides, deputies, secretaries, lobbyists, governors and mayors and secretly gay meth-snorting right-wing Christian evangelists, and I shall remove from you the burden of legal, ethical, spiritual and yes even genital responsibility for all crimes you have almost certainly committed under the dark umbrella that is me! I am the walrus!"
Bush was apparently emboldened by his unprecedented and widely reviled commutation of L. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence just recently, a move widely considered to be one of the more repellent abuses of power in a kaleidoscopic drunken funhouse of abuses lo these past 6.5 years, though he appeared to be staring up at the heavens as he spoke, just little bit astonished that lightning was not striking him dead on the spot.
"DeLay! Gonzales! Abramoff! Rumsfeld! Frist and Scalia and Ashcroft and Rove! Hastert and Duke Cunningham and Dusty Foggo! Ralph Reed! Mark Foley, Ted Haggard and Jeff Gannon! Abu Ghraib instigators! Guantanamo endorsers! WMD believers! FEMA! Plamegate! Terry Schaivo hypocrites! Torturers and influence peddlers and domestic wiretappers, Halliburton bribers and no-bid contractors and dark Carlyle Group overlords!
"Also: Sex education misinformers, global warming deniers, scientist muzzlers, Energy Task Force liars, Iraq Study Group deniers, 9/11 Report ignorers, Medicare scammers, Diebold voting machine swindlers! Bogus Jessica Lynch and Saddam statue and fake Thanksgiving turkey event stagers! And all the rest I can't remember because wow there are just so damn many! Come to me and be not someone's prison bitch despite how you really, really deserve it! I hereby pardon you aaaaaalllll!"
Curiously, the bizarre announcement came as no surprise to White House insiders. An anonymous source close to the president suggested that Bush secretly hoped that, if he made another big, vaguely unconstutional, degrading announcement that stabbed at the very heart of the republic, Dick Cheney might come up from behind again and give him another approving pat on the butt, much like a master gives a puppy. Cheney was unavailable for comment, as he was off shooting hundreds of flightless pheasants in the face with a shotgun from 2 feet away, and chuckling sinisterly.
White House spokesman and former Fox News automaton Tony Snow was quick to step in and deflect reporters' questions as Bush was carefully led offstage, frothing slightly at the mouth.
"Let me say right here and now: It is fully within the president's constitutional right to, uh, preemptively pardon all criminal Republicans who are all, of course, totally innocent and who have all been -- or, you know, will soon be -- wrongly accused by terrorist-loving liberals who hate our freedoms and have a very obvious gay agenda," he muttered, his eyes rolling around in his skull like marbles in Satan's pinball machine.
"Hey! Don't forget the crazy stuff Bill Clinton did almost 10 years ago! Oh my God! And what about Sept. 11th? Your children are in danger! Twin towers! Death from above! Support our troops! Gay agenda! Watch Fox News or the terrorists win! P.S.: Ann Coulter, please call me because you left a spiked bra and a switchblade and a gallon of ketamine at my apartment. Thank you. No more questions at this time."
Word of the Universal Republican Pardon (URP) quickly spread to the current Democratic congressional leadership, who were, naturally, slightly upset.
"This is a true outrage!" screamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, apparently frantically entering search terms into Wikipedia in her office iMac in an attempt to see what the hell was actually happening.
"He can't do that! Wait, can he? Can he do that? Isn't there some sort of, like, legal or constitutional mechanism in place to stop him from doing stuff like that?" Pelosi scanned the confused faces of the various congressional aides standing around her office, but got nothing back but lots of people staring at their feet. "Hello? Anyone? What the hell do I pay you people for?!"
Pelosi then sighed heavily and sipped some organic green tea. "You know what it makes me wish? It makes me wish there some sort of, say, large political body here in Washington, one that was right now controlled by, say, a completely different political party than this awful president," she said wistfully, as the aides glanced at each other furtively and rolled their eyes.
"Wouldn't that be great? And this group would have, say, some sort of legal and political oversight power to step in and stop this sort of thing, to formally rebuke the president and demand some sort of accountability and maybe even launch formal impeachment proceedings? Can you imagine?"
"I like to think it would be some sort of deeply flawed but absolutely essential system of, oh I don't know, checks and balances or something, and it would help ensure that this cretinous mealy mouthed little sonofabitch couldn't get away with stuff like this anymore.
"That would be so cool, wouldn't it? Man, I wish we had something like that here in America. Don't you?"
All that has gone on with BushCo would be really funny if it were just the product of some weird satirist's mind, but when you take a hard, sober look at the legacy this bunch leaves for the future of America, it is hard to laugh. Anyone who ever voted for this crew or who ever stood silent in the face of their deceit is in need of forgiveness. May your Good Lord pardon us all, undeserving as we are.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Smoke and Mirrors
Three stories struck me in the morning paper this morning. The first was a headline national article from Washington, D.C. – my favorite place!
Congress, Bush Clash over Firings.
This story concerned the Bush order to this staff to ignore congressional subpoenas. All Things Considered reported on this story yesterday afternoon by playing several excerpts from Sara Taylor’s testimony before Congress that day. Ms. Taylor used to be the White House political director (whatever that is). At first she refused to answer some questions about the president’s involvement in firing decisions and later answered the same question while still maintaining her position that she wouldn’t do so. Harriet Miers is up next. If her intelligence level is equal to Ms. Taylor’s even Congressmen won’t have much trouble getting the information they need to proceed.
The second story reveals even more dangerous bone-headedness:
Bogus company given ability to purchase radioactive material.
It turns out Congress conducted a little sting operation by applying for a license to buy fissionable nuclear material using a fake company name. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission helped them fill out the application and issued the license within a month of the application, but didn’t bother to do a background check. The upshot is that this fake company could then have legally bought enough radioactive material to build a small “dirty” bomb.
Way to go Homeland Security. Meantime, Michael Chertoff is up on the hill talking to the press about his “gut feeling” that al Qaida is about to do something to us. Lord save us from Homeland Security.
Mark that agency down on your list of demands for our next government to the effect that we should overhaul that agency to change it from a do-nothing organization designed to keep the general population edgy about another 9-11 into a bureau that actually does something to educate other government bodies and vulnerable agencies to what they could do to truly make the country safer.
And, finally:
New Al-Qaida video calls for Pakistanis to join jihad.
Ayman al-Zawahri spoke in the video telling Pakistanis that there is no political solution to our hostility. Has al-Qaida now gained so much ground in Pakistan that it can publicly challenge our “ally” the government of that country?
Immediately after 9-11 when W put aside Donald Rumsfeld’s calls for the immediate invasion of Iraq and instead focused American military efforts on Afghanistan for supporting al-Qaida there, I supported him. As time goes on, and we learn more about the fact that al-Qaida has hidden in Pakistan the whole time I have wondered whether the ouster of the Taliban was the more important target. After all, we do have oil pipelines in Afghanistan, too, and al-Qaida is still at large within the borders of a country that is supposed to be our ally.
Are we serious about eradicating al-Qaida or is their presence as the boogie man a handy way to keep the nation on edge and supportive of our military adventurism?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Congress, Bush Clash over Firings.
This story concerned the Bush order to this staff to ignore congressional subpoenas. All Things Considered reported on this story yesterday afternoon by playing several excerpts from Sara Taylor’s testimony before Congress that day. Ms. Taylor used to be the White House political director (whatever that is). At first she refused to answer some questions about the president’s involvement in firing decisions and later answered the same question while still maintaining her position that she wouldn’t do so. Harriet Miers is up next. If her intelligence level is equal to Ms. Taylor’s even Congressmen won’t have much trouble getting the information they need to proceed.
The second story reveals even more dangerous bone-headedness:
Bogus company given ability to purchase radioactive material.
It turns out Congress conducted a little sting operation by applying for a license to buy fissionable nuclear material using a fake company name. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission helped them fill out the application and issued the license within a month of the application, but didn’t bother to do a background check. The upshot is that this fake company could then have legally bought enough radioactive material to build a small “dirty” bomb.
Way to go Homeland Security. Meantime, Michael Chertoff is up on the hill talking to the press about his “gut feeling” that al Qaida is about to do something to us. Lord save us from Homeland Security.
Mark that agency down on your list of demands for our next government to the effect that we should overhaul that agency to change it from a do-nothing organization designed to keep the general population edgy about another 9-11 into a bureau that actually does something to educate other government bodies and vulnerable agencies to what they could do to truly make the country safer.
And, finally:
New Al-Qaida video calls for Pakistanis to join jihad.
Ayman al-Zawahri spoke in the video telling Pakistanis that there is no political solution to our hostility. Has al-Qaida now gained so much ground in Pakistan that it can publicly challenge our “ally” the government of that country?
Immediately after 9-11 when W put aside Donald Rumsfeld’s calls for the immediate invasion of Iraq and instead focused American military efforts on Afghanistan for supporting al-Qaida there, I supported him. As time goes on, and we learn more about the fact that al-Qaida has hidden in Pakistan the whole time I have wondered whether the ouster of the Taliban was the more important target. After all, we do have oil pipelines in Afghanistan, too, and al-Qaida is still at large within the borders of a country that is supposed to be our ally.
Are we serious about eradicating al-Qaida or is their presence as the boogie man a handy way to keep the nation on edge and supportive of our military adventurism?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Moment of Truth
Below is an article from the Center for American Progress Action Fund:
The Congressional Research Service reported on Monday that the "average monthly cost of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has been clocked at $12 billion." Iraq alone has cost American taxpayers approximately $450 billion. In addition, Bloomberg reported yesterday, "Four thousand U.S. service members have died in President George W. Bush's 'war on terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan 5 1/2 years after American forces ousted the Taliban in December 2001." As the costs of war continue to stack up, the Senate this week begins a debate to drawdown U.S. involvement in Iraq. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) will begin the debate by introducing a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that "requires active-duty troops to have at least the same amount of time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas." In recent days, a number of conservative senators, including Richard Lugar (R-IN), George Voinovich (R-OH), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Judd Gregg (R-NH) -- have offered rhetoric suggesting they are ready to break with Bush's escalation policy in Iraq. Put on the defensive, the White House is reportedly in "panic mode," concerned that the Republican discontent may be the "crack in the dike" that forces a long-overdue Iraq redeployment.
FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, IT'S JUST A GAME: The New York Times reported yesterday that White House officials were heatedly debating whether Bush "should try to prevent more defections" of war supporters by announcing a "gradual withdrawal" of U.S. troops. Calling it a "moment of truth for the President," neoconservative pundit Bill Kristol "confirmed that there are real discussions going on at the White House, with advocates of what is being called 'The Grand Bargain' pushing hard for the president to move soon to announce plans to pull back in Iraq." But rather than confirm that the White House is undertaking the kind of substantive debate about Iraq that is in the nation's security interests, Press Secretary Tony Snow yesterday denied such discussions were ongoing. "There is no debate right now on withdrawing forces right now from Iraq," Snow said. The Washington Post reports today that the White House is not talking about a true "strategic reset" in the Middle East, but instead, a "political strategy" to "shift [Bush's] message." According to the Post, the White House has "rejected calls to change course but will launch a campaign emphasizing his intent to draw down U.S. forces next year and move toward a more limited mission if security conditions improve."
All that money. All those lives. And BushCo is working on a political strategy to try and contain a PR disaster before the next election??!!
For the life of me, I can't understand why, beyond a greater interest in Paris Hilton, the American public can't see through these arrogant jerks and put a stop to the horrors they've perpetrated. Doesn't it just make you burn when you think about what this country could do if we were willing to spend $12 billion a month on social development like truly liberating aid to foreign countries (as opposed to WTO undermining loans), health care for employed Americans, actual teaching instead of training for mind numbing required tests, etc., etc., etc.
As Gandhi said when asked his opinion about western civilization - it sounds like a good idea.
Will we ever achieve it?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The Congressional Research Service reported on Monday that the "average monthly cost of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has been clocked at $12 billion." Iraq alone has cost American taxpayers approximately $450 billion. In addition, Bloomberg reported yesterday, "Four thousand U.S. service members have died in President George W. Bush's 'war on terror' in Iraq and Afghanistan 5 1/2 years after American forces ousted the Taliban in December 2001." As the costs of war continue to stack up, the Senate this week begins a debate to drawdown U.S. involvement in Iraq. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) will begin the debate by introducing a bipartisan amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that "requires active-duty troops to have at least the same amount of time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas." In recent days, a number of conservative senators, including Richard Lugar (R-IN), George Voinovich (R-OH), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and Judd Gregg (R-NH) -- have offered rhetoric suggesting they are ready to break with Bush's escalation policy in Iraq. Put on the defensive, the White House is reportedly in "panic mode," concerned that the Republican discontent may be the "crack in the dike" that forces a long-overdue Iraq redeployment.
FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, IT'S JUST A GAME: The New York Times reported yesterday that White House officials were heatedly debating whether Bush "should try to prevent more defections" of war supporters by announcing a "gradual withdrawal" of U.S. troops. Calling it a "moment of truth for the President," neoconservative pundit Bill Kristol "confirmed that there are real discussions going on at the White House, with advocates of what is being called 'The Grand Bargain' pushing hard for the president to move soon to announce plans to pull back in Iraq." But rather than confirm that the White House is undertaking the kind of substantive debate about Iraq that is in the nation's security interests, Press Secretary Tony Snow yesterday denied such discussions were ongoing. "There is no debate right now on withdrawing forces right now from Iraq," Snow said. The Washington Post reports today that the White House is not talking about a true "strategic reset" in the Middle East, but instead, a "political strategy" to "shift [Bush's] message." According to the Post, the White House has "rejected calls to change course but will launch a campaign emphasizing his intent to draw down U.S. forces next year and move toward a more limited mission if security conditions improve."
All that money. All those lives. And BushCo is working on a political strategy to try and contain a PR disaster before the next election??!!
For the life of me, I can't understand why, beyond a greater interest in Paris Hilton, the American public can't see through these arrogant jerks and put a stop to the horrors they've perpetrated. Doesn't it just make you burn when you think about what this country could do if we were willing to spend $12 billion a month on social development like truly liberating aid to foreign countries (as opposed to WTO undermining loans), health care for employed Americans, actual teaching instead of training for mind numbing required tests, etc., etc., etc.
As Gandhi said when asked his opinion about western civilization - it sounds like a good idea.
Will we ever achieve it?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Mum's The Word
I have to confess that I'm running behind already, and this is going to be a very full day. So, I'll have to brief this morning.
For a story about the firings of federal prosecutors, the local paper sports this headline: "Bush tells former aides not to talk"
That about tells it all, doesn't it? It's like Al Capone calling in his capos and saying the first guy that rats is dead. What a class act we have in our Whitehouse.
Is anybody ever going to do anything about it?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored. But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
For a story about the firings of federal prosecutors, the local paper sports this headline: "Bush tells former aides not to talk"
That about tells it all, doesn't it? It's like Al Capone calling in his capos and saying the first guy that rats is dead. What a class act we have in our Whitehouse.
Is anybody ever going to do anything about it?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored. But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Monday, July 9, 2007
Let's Talk
I got a call the other day from an irate right winger. The local paper printed my blog about Scooter Libby’s sentence commutation and the outing of Valerie Plame. With no introduction other than to tell me his name, my caller jumped right into my face from the start and quickly told me that he understood that I exaggerated things to suit my purposes. Even though I got the sense that this was a decent human being on the line, I didn’t wait to hear what grounds he had for that line, and I hung up on him.
When I called him back about ten minutes later to apologize for cutting him off, we wound up talking for fifteen minutes or so. When I asserted that if we would take the time to explore the issues we would find that we have more in common than we have in dispute, he disagreed, asserting that the best we could do would be to agree to disagree. I know, though, that I am right about this.
We could start off by agreeing that neither of us seeks to sink our nation into a morass of any kind from which it cannot extricate itself; that neither of us wants to bankrupt or otherwise destroy our country; that both of us would don a uniform and tote a gun in defense of our country if necessary; that there are problems extant in the world that are in want of solutions; that the U.S. is usually the most likely source of or leader toward those solutions; that preservation of life of all kinds should be valued above soaring profits; even that peace is a better thing than war; and so many other things that it becomes silly to keep writing them down.
In short, very few of us really differ in our core values – even religion. One man might bow toward Mecca five times a day, and another genuflect and kneel eight or ten times during a mass while another finds spiritual peace in the relationship of line or paddle to water, but all would agree that spiritual peace is of value.
These are the kinds of core issues I try to write about every day. My right wing detractors decry attacks on the Bush administration. I don’t give a flip about George Bush. He can do whatever he wants – except defile my country by spitting on the values upon which it was established as he does on a daily basis. His name could be John Kennedy. I wouldn’t care. If he acted the way George Bush acts, I would be against him. If he were a Democrat, a Communist, a Socialist, or a Green I would still despise his behavior.
Each of us would be wise to pause at least once a day and assess what it is that we are defending, railing against or being apathetic about. i.e. to ask ourselves whether we are reacting to the thing’s form, its effects or its core value. When focused on core values, we are more amenable to negotiations about the means of achieving that value. If we chose to fight to defend the only symbols of that value, we are at risk of letting the value itself become distorted. That is what I think both of our major political parties have done, and that is why I think the true value of democracy has deteriorated so much in this country. It is also why our value to the rest of the world has slipped so much that America is no longer held in high esteem around the globe.
We have become a hollow core surrounded by wildly waved flags and well thumped holy books – whited sepulchers as one well spoken fellow once pointed out.
Ironically, my caller interrupted me while I was reading an article that began with that assumption and went on to provide information that gave me heart. According to Hannah Lobel’s article
Now that’s the kind of talk I like to hear. I don’t think my caller would disagree with that goal either. So let’s sit down together and work out how to do it instead of sitting on opposite sides of the aisle shouting invectives at one another.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
When I called him back about ten minutes later to apologize for cutting him off, we wound up talking for fifteen minutes or so. When I asserted that if we would take the time to explore the issues we would find that we have more in common than we have in dispute, he disagreed, asserting that the best we could do would be to agree to disagree. I know, though, that I am right about this.
We could start off by agreeing that neither of us seeks to sink our nation into a morass of any kind from which it cannot extricate itself; that neither of us wants to bankrupt or otherwise destroy our country; that both of us would don a uniform and tote a gun in defense of our country if necessary; that there are problems extant in the world that are in want of solutions; that the U.S. is usually the most likely source of or leader toward those solutions; that preservation of life of all kinds should be valued above soaring profits; even that peace is a better thing than war; and so many other things that it becomes silly to keep writing them down.
In short, very few of us really differ in our core values – even religion. One man might bow toward Mecca five times a day, and another genuflect and kneel eight or ten times during a mass while another finds spiritual peace in the relationship of line or paddle to water, but all would agree that spiritual peace is of value.
These are the kinds of core issues I try to write about every day. My right wing detractors decry attacks on the Bush administration. I don’t give a flip about George Bush. He can do whatever he wants – except defile my country by spitting on the values upon which it was established as he does on a daily basis. His name could be John Kennedy. I wouldn’t care. If he acted the way George Bush acts, I would be against him. If he were a Democrat, a Communist, a Socialist, or a Green I would still despise his behavior.
Each of us would be wise to pause at least once a day and assess what it is that we are defending, railing against or being apathetic about. i.e. to ask ourselves whether we are reacting to the thing’s form, its effects or its core value. When focused on core values, we are more amenable to negotiations about the means of achieving that value. If we chose to fight to defend the only symbols of that value, we are at risk of letting the value itself become distorted. That is what I think both of our major political parties have done, and that is why I think the true value of democracy has deteriorated so much in this country. It is also why our value to the rest of the world has slipped so much that America is no longer held in high esteem around the globe.
We have become a hollow core surrounded by wildly waved flags and well thumped holy books – whited sepulchers as one well spoken fellow once pointed out.
Ironically, my caller interrupted me while I was reading an article that began with that assumption and went on to provide information that gave me heart. According to Hannah Lobel’s article
Redeeming America: What it Will Take to Win Back the World, Utne Reader, July-Aug, ’07, a Pew Research Center study released last January showed that 62% of 18 to 25 year olds say the U.S. needs to start listening to its allies and making compromises when necessary. Seth Green, 27 year old co-founder and president of Americans for Informed Democracy, was cited as saying that doesn’t mean foregoing American power; it means reimagining its possibilities.
Now that’s the kind of talk I like to hear. I don’t think my caller would disagree with that goal either. So let’s sit down together and work out how to do it instead of sitting on opposite sides of the aisle shouting invectives at one another.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Thursday, July 5, 2007
America the Ugly
I must begin by apologizing to loyal readers for failing to publish yesterday. All I can say is that personal affairs took precedence. Please forgive me for failing to work through them quickly enough, but I just couldn’t get to this task until late afternoon and so held this piece over until today.
Wednesday’s blog touched on my dissatisfaction with Mr. Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence and comparison of Libby’s actions to those of Bill Clinton. It brought a response from Canada that I thought American readers would find interesting. Here it is:
“Usually I don't enter into political debates of any kind, but this one act of Bushes was just too blatant to be ignored. How in the world the American People have put up with this (censored) through what will soon be two full terms of office is something I just cannot fathom. I am not a member of any political party, and don't intend to ever become one. I just can't imagine how there could have been such a row over Clinton screwing an intern, and yet turn a blind eye to Bush being responsible for thousands of deaths in Iraq, over a few barrels of oil.
Only in America!”
My response was simply - Amen.
It is incomprehensible except in the context of an almost completely uninformed public or rather a public so taken by the myth of America as the world’s savior and the Republican Party as the party of social conscience (How far off can you be?) to be unable to comprehend the enormity of the offenses we have committed by electing and supporting the kind of “leadership” that holds sway in Washington, D.C. today.
I live in a very red corner of a pretty darn red state where people seem genuinely convinced that the Republicans’ opposition to abortion and gay marriage makes them the more moral of the two parties. Combined with flag waving militarism these stances endear them to a public that steadfastly refuses to consider that the first two issues contribute to the subjugation of target populations and that the last is used to justify our greedy control of the world’s resources and economies.
During the wonderful celebration of the 4th in my neighborhood Wednesday, my sister-in-law commented on the Wiphala flying on our front porch. She, being a pretty darn savvy gal, understood my explanation that I was ashamed to fly the stars and bars and so much preferred the symbol of unity I chose to display. None of the other hundred or so folks in attendance asked about it, but I doubt that more than two or three would have been sympathetic to my position.
I would expect their reaction to be more like, “Love it or leave it.” But, of course, you know that my position is that if I don’t love it, I have an obligation to try to change it, although I must admit that these days I am often tempted to join my friend in Canada.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Wednesday’s blog touched on my dissatisfaction with Mr. Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence and comparison of Libby’s actions to those of Bill Clinton. It brought a response from Canada that I thought American readers would find interesting. Here it is:
“Usually I don't enter into political debates of any kind, but this one act of Bushes was just too blatant to be ignored. How in the world the American People have put up with this (censored) through what will soon be two full terms of office is something I just cannot fathom. I am not a member of any political party, and don't intend to ever become one. I just can't imagine how there could have been such a row over Clinton screwing an intern, and yet turn a blind eye to Bush being responsible for thousands of deaths in Iraq, over a few barrels of oil.
Only in America!”
My response was simply - Amen.
It is incomprehensible except in the context of an almost completely uninformed public or rather a public so taken by the myth of America as the world’s savior and the Republican Party as the party of social conscience (How far off can you be?) to be unable to comprehend the enormity of the offenses we have committed by electing and supporting the kind of “leadership” that holds sway in Washington, D.C. today.
I live in a very red corner of a pretty darn red state where people seem genuinely convinced that the Republicans’ opposition to abortion and gay marriage makes them the more moral of the two parties. Combined with flag waving militarism these stances endear them to a public that steadfastly refuses to consider that the first two issues contribute to the subjugation of target populations and that the last is used to justify our greedy control of the world’s resources and economies.
During the wonderful celebration of the 4th in my neighborhood Wednesday, my sister-in-law commented on the Wiphala flying on our front porch. She, being a pretty darn savvy gal, understood my explanation that I was ashamed to fly the stars and bars and so much preferred the symbol of unity I chose to display. None of the other hundred or so folks in attendance asked about it, but I doubt that more than two or three would have been sympathetic to my position.
I would expect their reaction to be more like, “Love it or leave it.” But, of course, you know that my position is that if I don’t love it, I have an obligation to try to change it, although I must admit that these days I am often tempted to join my friend in Canada.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Time for Another Revolution
There was a time when the world was so huge that everyone in Europe thought it was flat. It was also so scary that no one felt safe except under the protection of a strongman, so they allied as city states. Because the economy was agriculturally based it was necessary for most people to live on the land, but pledging allegiance to a lord in a fortress gave them a place to run to when attacked and a body of troops to fend off the attackers. And attackers were pretty common then If it wasn’t a neighboring city-state raiding to take crops, it was a glorified rowboat loaded with Vikings come to rape and pillage. Under those conditions city-states made sense, and each neighborhood had its own fortress and army.
As inter-state trade grew it became more sensible for city-states to join forces and form nation-states to expand their ability to engage in profitable trade. The world was shrunk to more manageable size by the sailing ships that plied the seas carrying trade goods to and from distant lands. As the distances shrank due to more and more efficient means of travel and communication, more trade ensued and nations worked out treaties and alliances designed to convert warring enemies into trade partners. Alliances were necessary, too, in order to join forces against the occasional rogue states who rose up in an attempt to conquer and take over other states ala the Roman and the Ottoman Empires and ultimately Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan.
On July 4 in 1776, the American colonists rose up through the Declaration of Independence declaring to the England and it’s king that they would no longer bear the yoke of colonial rule. Those wise and brave souls thus marked the beginning of the end of the colonial era, and formed their own nation-state to be called the United States of America.
Ultimately, they formed that union under the auspices of Articles of Confederation. Later, against the strong advice of one of the principle leaders of the revolution, Patrick Henry, they abandoned the Articles in favor of the Constitution that still serves as our principal law today. Patrick Henry’s objection to the constitution was that it would take power out of the hands of the people and put it, unacceptably, in the hands of a centralized government that would ultimately usurp all power and abuse the people. Once again, as so often in his support for revolution, Patrick Henry was right. What we see in Washington, D.C. today is the embodiment of his understanding of the abuse enabled by our constitution.
I have long argued that if the constitution were followed in its original spirit, Henry’s opinion would not be vindicated, but I have arrived at a perspective from which I can no longer celebrate the colonist’s liberation with the same fervor. I have been transported by the Bush administration and the last several Congresses from my belief in the myth that America is a morally motivated land to the understanding of the gross abuses of our long practiced imposition of our will on weaker lands for economic gain through the military.
I no longer believe that a rising tide floats all boats. I no longer believe that capitalism and freedom are the same thing. I no longer believe that any nation-state has any right to exclude itself from any aspect of international law. In fact, I no longer believe that the nation-state has any more legitimate right to existence than city-states do. The nation-state is the same kind of dinosaur as the city-state by virtue of a shrunken world and shrunken resources to serve the needs of that world.
The time has come for the world to abandon the nation-state concept; for America to recognize that God doesn’t bless it any more than it blesses anyone else; and especially to recognize that our continued use of the limited resources of the world in such a gluttonous manner is anything but moral world leadership.
It is time for us to furl our national flag and quit waving it in the world’s face as though we were something special in God’s eyes. It is time for us to have another revolution; this time a revolution based on a different realization about our role on the world stage. Not the role of dominating nation, but the role of cooperative, convivial arbitrator. National pride must give way to world pride. National gluttony must give way to international cooperation before we have passed the point of no return in terms of energy, water and food resources.
This Fourth of July my American flag, trimmed in black for the past seven years in mourning for its many losses in that period, stays in the closet. In its place, my front porch displays a multi-colored Wiphala – symbol of unity of all races and nations as flown by the indigenous peoples of South America. I don’t expect it in my lifetime, but I believe that unless the United States acts in some way as the world’s leader in cooperative international action, this country is, at best, doomed to destruction whether self-inflicted or inflicted by the rest of the world in defense of their right to the resources we horde. At worst the entire planet will succumb to the pollution most nations create daily through our abuse of it whether through conventional warfare, nuclear warfare, or just plain pollutant overload.
So it is indeed time for another revolution, but it will have to start with the American people standing up and declaring that they have had enough of this tyranny just the same as they did in 1776. I wish I could say I can see it brewing, but so far all I see is more of the same in Washington, D.C. and a majority of American people willing to wave the stars & stripes and shout God bless America. Those of us who don’t believe it are still a tiny minority with no power to achieve the needed changes.
I look forward to the day when I see Wiphalas flying from lots of porches.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
As inter-state trade grew it became more sensible for city-states to join forces and form nation-states to expand their ability to engage in profitable trade. The world was shrunk to more manageable size by the sailing ships that plied the seas carrying trade goods to and from distant lands. As the distances shrank due to more and more efficient means of travel and communication, more trade ensued and nations worked out treaties and alliances designed to convert warring enemies into trade partners. Alliances were necessary, too, in order to join forces against the occasional rogue states who rose up in an attempt to conquer and take over other states ala the Roman and the Ottoman Empires and ultimately Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan.
On July 4 in 1776, the American colonists rose up through the Declaration of Independence declaring to the England and it’s king that they would no longer bear the yoke of colonial rule. Those wise and brave souls thus marked the beginning of the end of the colonial era, and formed their own nation-state to be called the United States of America.
Ultimately, they formed that union under the auspices of Articles of Confederation. Later, against the strong advice of one of the principle leaders of the revolution, Patrick Henry, they abandoned the Articles in favor of the Constitution that still serves as our principal law today. Patrick Henry’s objection to the constitution was that it would take power out of the hands of the people and put it, unacceptably, in the hands of a centralized government that would ultimately usurp all power and abuse the people. Once again, as so often in his support for revolution, Patrick Henry was right. What we see in Washington, D.C. today is the embodiment of his understanding of the abuse enabled by our constitution.
I have long argued that if the constitution were followed in its original spirit, Henry’s opinion would not be vindicated, but I have arrived at a perspective from which I can no longer celebrate the colonist’s liberation with the same fervor. I have been transported by the Bush administration and the last several Congresses from my belief in the myth that America is a morally motivated land to the understanding of the gross abuses of our long practiced imposition of our will on weaker lands for economic gain through the military.
I no longer believe that a rising tide floats all boats. I no longer believe that capitalism and freedom are the same thing. I no longer believe that any nation-state has any right to exclude itself from any aspect of international law. In fact, I no longer believe that the nation-state has any more legitimate right to existence than city-states do. The nation-state is the same kind of dinosaur as the city-state by virtue of a shrunken world and shrunken resources to serve the needs of that world.
The time has come for the world to abandon the nation-state concept; for America to recognize that God doesn’t bless it any more than it blesses anyone else; and especially to recognize that our continued use of the limited resources of the world in such a gluttonous manner is anything but moral world leadership.
It is time for us to furl our national flag and quit waving it in the world’s face as though we were something special in God’s eyes. It is time for us to have another revolution; this time a revolution based on a different realization about our role on the world stage. Not the role of dominating nation, but the role of cooperative, convivial arbitrator. National pride must give way to world pride. National gluttony must give way to international cooperation before we have passed the point of no return in terms of energy, water and food resources.
This Fourth of July my American flag, trimmed in black for the past seven years in mourning for its many losses in that period, stays in the closet. In its place, my front porch displays a multi-colored Wiphala – symbol of unity of all races and nations as flown by the indigenous peoples of South America. I don’t expect it in my lifetime, but I believe that unless the United States acts in some way as the world’s leader in cooperative international action, this country is, at best, doomed to destruction whether self-inflicted or inflicted by the rest of the world in defense of their right to the resources we horde. At worst the entire planet will succumb to the pollution most nations create daily through our abuse of it whether through conventional warfare, nuclear warfare, or just plain pollutant overload.
So it is indeed time for another revolution, but it will have to start with the American people standing up and declaring that they have had enough of this tyranny just the same as they did in 1776. I wish I could say I can see it brewing, but so far all I see is more of the same in Washington, D.C. and a majority of American people willing to wave the stars & stripes and shout God bless America. Those of us who don’t believe it are still a tiny minority with no power to achieve the needed changes.
I look forward to the day when I see Wiphalas flying from lots of porches.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Just One More Reason
Today’s news tells of W’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s sentence. Commutation beats the pardon everybody was predicting, but it’s still a fairly ample reward for Scooter’s loyal sword fall.
At least his conviction won’t be expunged as it would have been with a pardon, but if we hide and watch for just a little while, I’m sure we’ll be treated to his re-emergence in the next Republican administration. All told, it provides just another reason to consider the entire Bush administration to be the corrupt stinking mess it is.
One pundit I read tried to compare Libby’s “overly harsh” sentence with Bill Clinton’s “evasion of punishment”, saying that both lied under oath and so should be treated similarly. Come on. Clinton lied to try to save his marriage and personal reputation. Libby lied to protect his bosses who had outed a covert agent and program of the CIA to identify and disarm terrorists – an act that should be considered endangering the national security and an act that was done in vengeful retaliation for a truthful report by the CIA agent’s husband that debunked BushCo’s claim of nuclear arms development by Saddam Hussein prior to our invasion of Iraq.
These are hardly comparable offenses. Clinton’s offense was worthy of public censure. BushCo’s offenses are worthy of impeachment, indictment, trial and conviction. This case is just one example of that worthiness.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
At least his conviction won’t be expunged as it would have been with a pardon, but if we hide and watch for just a little while, I’m sure we’ll be treated to his re-emergence in the next Republican administration. All told, it provides just another reason to consider the entire Bush administration to be the corrupt stinking mess it is.
One pundit I read tried to compare Libby’s “overly harsh” sentence with Bill Clinton’s “evasion of punishment”, saying that both lied under oath and so should be treated similarly. Come on. Clinton lied to try to save his marriage and personal reputation. Libby lied to protect his bosses who had outed a covert agent and program of the CIA to identify and disarm terrorists – an act that should be considered endangering the national security and an act that was done in vengeful retaliation for a truthful report by the CIA agent’s husband that debunked BushCo’s claim of nuclear arms development by Saddam Hussein prior to our invasion of Iraq.
These are hardly comparable offenses. Clinton’s offense was worthy of public censure. BushCo’s offenses are worthy of impeachment, indictment, trial and conviction. This case is just one example of that worthiness.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Muslims Against Theocracy & Violence
I believe that the U.S. government goes much too far in its efforts to demonize “enemies” in order to maintain the support of the American people. The caricatures of the Japanese used in American posters during WWII, for example, not only helped keep anti-Japanese army sentiment high, but also helped enable the use of interment camps for American citizens of Japanese descent.
The practice is no longer as blatant as it once was in terms of government sponsored poster art, but language like Muslim terrorist as opposed to simple terrorist serves the same purpose. Everyone in the country is familiar with political cartoons depicting burnoose wearing, sword wielding characters assumed to be Muslims, too. They aren’t government sponsored posters, but they serve the same purpose. Since I do not believe that the Muslim faith in general is the problem, I find such imagery disturbing.
I find comments of friends and acquaintances to the effect that Islam preaches salvation through violence equally disturbing. They refer to the famous line about killing the “infidels” as evidence that all Muslims are sworn to kill us, while sliding over allusions to Biblical injunctions like “an eye for an eye”. Like some Muslims, some Christians pick and choose the “holy” verses they want to apply to a given situation in order to justify actions that they would not otherwise take.
Another thing I find disturbing, though, is that while I do hear some Christian leaders - though far too few - speaking out against unnecessary violence, I do not hear Muslim leaders, even in those minimal numbers, speaking out against such horrible violence as suicide bombings, IEDs, and holy wars.
If the Muslim world would like Americans and the rest of the world to perceive them in ways other than those in which they are portrayed in the American press, it seems to me that they would be wise to begin a serious and sustained effort to publicize themselves and their beliefs in other ways. Their silence makes them look guilty of supporting the violence.
On the other hand, maybe the silence isn’t of their choosing. Here are some examples of what doesn’t make it into the popular American press:
Colgate University has put together a web page designed to provide readers access to Muslim thought on the events of and subsequent to 911. You can review it at: http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm
Here’s a more recent reference that reports increasing leadership from Muslim leaders speaking out against theocracy and radical Islam: http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=5818
It is obvious to me that the confrontational rhetoric on both sides needs to be toned down and voices of sanity and restraint ought to be turned up. Why won’t the American domestic press do its part and publish the words of moderate Muslim leaders who seek the same peace as moderate Christian leaders? For that matter, the least they could do is publish the Christians, but instead what we get are the voices of G. W. Bush, dick Cheney, and Osama bin Laden.
“Moderation in all things," unless you are the press - there only extremism sells.
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
– Martin Luther King, Jr.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The practice is no longer as blatant as it once was in terms of government sponsored poster art, but language like Muslim terrorist as opposed to simple terrorist serves the same purpose. Everyone in the country is familiar with political cartoons depicting burnoose wearing, sword wielding characters assumed to be Muslims, too. They aren’t government sponsored posters, but they serve the same purpose. Since I do not believe that the Muslim faith in general is the problem, I find such imagery disturbing.
I find comments of friends and acquaintances to the effect that Islam preaches salvation through violence equally disturbing. They refer to the famous line about killing the “infidels” as evidence that all Muslims are sworn to kill us, while sliding over allusions to Biblical injunctions like “an eye for an eye”. Like some Muslims, some Christians pick and choose the “holy” verses they want to apply to a given situation in order to justify actions that they would not otherwise take.
Another thing I find disturbing, though, is that while I do hear some Christian leaders - though far too few - speaking out against unnecessary violence, I do not hear Muslim leaders, even in those minimal numbers, speaking out against such horrible violence as suicide bombings, IEDs, and holy wars.
If the Muslim world would like Americans and the rest of the world to perceive them in ways other than those in which they are portrayed in the American press, it seems to me that they would be wise to begin a serious and sustained effort to publicize themselves and their beliefs in other ways. Their silence makes them look guilty of supporting the violence.
On the other hand, maybe the silence isn’t of their choosing. Here are some examples of what doesn’t make it into the popular American press:
Colgate University has put together a web page designed to provide readers access to Muslim thought on the events of and subsequent to 911. You can review it at: http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm
Here’s a more recent reference that reports increasing leadership from Muslim leaders speaking out against theocracy and radical Islam: http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=5818
It is obvious to me that the confrontational rhetoric on both sides needs to be toned down and voices of sanity and restraint ought to be turned up. Why won’t the American domestic press do its part and publish the words of moderate Muslim leaders who seek the same peace as moderate Christian leaders? For that matter, the least they could do is publish the Christians, but instead what we get are the voices of G. W. Bush, dick Cheney, and Osama bin Laden.
“Moderation in all things," unless you are the press - there only extremism sells.
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
– Martin Luther King, Jr.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
