Martial law is declared and protestors are herded into jail. An autocratic leader declares that the future of the country depends upon his remaining in power. The United States government urges the leader to modify his approach to governance and move toward democracy. Today, this describes Pakistan, but the more I hear about what's going on in Pakistan, the more I think about the Iran I remember from my youth.
When I was a kid the man in the news was Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran. I have a vague memory of his early days in power - days when he was represented in the papers as a shining example of positive governance in the Middle East. He was Washington's darling.
In 1961 I started college at the University of Iowa where I made a new friend named Mahmoud Zokaie. Mahmoud was an Iranian in his forties and was in the U.S. to get a degree that would undoubtedly give him access to a fine job back home. Mahmoud would tell me about his home, and I would take him to mass with me on Sunday mornings. All was well between us and our countries. Less than 20 years later everything had changed. The Shah fled Iran, his autocracy fell to the religious dictatorship of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the relationship between Iran and the U.S. went into the toilet it remains in today.
And today Pakistan has taken Iran's place in our history. Once again we are supporting an autocratic leader whose power is slipping away under the demands of an unwilling public. Once again, there is among those people a growing faction of religious fanaticism eagerly chomping at the bit in anticipation of charging onto that country's political scene to impose its particular brand of "holiness" on the inherently secular process of civic governance. This time, though, this faction is already well known to all of us – the Taliban in combination with Al Qaida.
Will our government once again hang onto its pact with the devil in the form of Musharraf or is there any chance that it will see the hand writing on the wall this time and do the hard work necessary to demonstrate to the people of Pakistan and the rest of the world that it truly is more interested in the establishment of democratic governments than in bolstering its own power through alliances with any strong man who will help them mow down our enemies? (Or even just pose as if that's what he's doing.)
Given the track record of BushCo and W's undying loyalty to any incompetent boob who'll bow to him first, (think, "Heckuva job, Brownie".) there is not much question in my mind which way we'll go. There's not much doubt as to the eventual outcome either. Once again, we will have taken official action seen by the administration as essential to our security, but ultimately acting to erode our security by handing control over to those who hate us most.
The key difference between Pakistan and Iran, though, is that 20 years after the debacle in Iran, we are worried that Iran might get the bomb. Thanks to us, Pakistan already has the bomb and has already begun to distribute it to rogue nations. (Check out what Adrian Levy says about W's complicity with Musharraf in slapping A. Q. Kahn's wrist for handing nuclear technology to North Korea and Iran.)
If we haven't managed to blow the world to smithereens by then, watch what's happening in Pakistan 20 years from now. If it isn't similar to today's Iran, I'll either be eating my hat or spinning in my grave.
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 reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Our Christian Soldiers
Today the newspaper tells us that the Senate Judiciary Committee is bamboozled by the question of whether or not to grant immunity to the telecommunications companies that aided BushCo in setting up a system of domestic surveillance. They just can't decide whether or not they might risk national security if they opened the companies up to legal action. Bush also asserts that in investigation might bankrupt the companies.
The only risk to the Senate in all this is that their bill might be vetoed if they don't exempt the companies from suit. This doesn't seem like much of a dilemma to me. If our Senators can't see that they need to have the right to investigate whether or not something already done was illegal, they can't see the nose on their own faces.
I don't see a national security risk here at all. The risk to BushCo is that someone might finally and legally call their hand on the invasion of citizen privacy by learning just how far they have overstepped their legal bounds. Not long ago I received a message that contained a story or a link to a story a telephone company executive about the huge effort that had gone into setting up the equipment and staffing necessary to operate the governmental spying program. I tried to find that reference for you this morning, but was unable to locate it. Sorry. All I can say is that this fellow was deeply upset by the size and nature of this program.
Henry Kissinger once said that it was a mistake to think that governments should be held to the same moral behavioral standards as individuals. He held that the business of government called for breaches of such standards for the well-being of the national community. I've never believed that at all. I think that kind of thinking is just a rationale that let him off the "guilty" hook his conscience would otherwise have imposed on him for all the murder and mayhem his policies caused.
Lawbreaking by governmental figures is often condoned under Dr. Kissinger's creed, though. His beliefs enable people like dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush to rationalize their actions under the old Al Capp saw of "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the country."
The bottom line to me, though, is that leadership that operates outside the bounds of individual decency drags the nation it represents into the gutter with it. The gains from such behavior are always short term. In the long run we all suffer from the world's perception of us as a people who cannot be trusted, and even in the short run many individuals among us suffer because they live by a higher moral standard and refuse to participate in the resulting misdeeds. Many of those people end up in prison because of their resistance to the immorality of the state. Daniel Berrigan comes prominently to mind in that regard.
We should demand of our leaders that they live up to the high standards of the religions they so loudly claim to espouse. As part of that process, we should ask our Senators today to refuse to vote for immunity to telecom companies. Let suits go forward. Let an investigation begin and let the chips fall where they may. We would know then that we had done the right thing regardless of the outcome. Isn't that what our moral code asks of us?
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 reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
The only risk to the Senate in all this is that their bill might be vetoed if they don't exempt the companies from suit. This doesn't seem like much of a dilemma to me. If our Senators can't see that they need to have the right to investigate whether or not something already done was illegal, they can't see the nose on their own faces.
I don't see a national security risk here at all. The risk to BushCo is that someone might finally and legally call their hand on the invasion of citizen privacy by learning just how far they have overstepped their legal bounds. Not long ago I received a message that contained a story or a link to a story a telephone company executive about the huge effort that had gone into setting up the equipment and staffing necessary to operate the governmental spying program. I tried to find that reference for you this morning, but was unable to locate it. Sorry. All I can say is that this fellow was deeply upset by the size and nature of this program.
Henry Kissinger once said that it was a mistake to think that governments should be held to the same moral behavioral standards as individuals. He held that the business of government called for breaches of such standards for the well-being of the national community. I've never believed that at all. I think that kind of thinking is just a rationale that let him off the "guilty" hook his conscience would otherwise have imposed on him for all the murder and mayhem his policies caused.
Lawbreaking by governmental figures is often condoned under Dr. Kissinger's creed, though. His beliefs enable people like dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush to rationalize their actions under the old Al Capp saw of "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the country."
The bottom line to me, though, is that leadership that operates outside the bounds of individual decency drags the nation it represents into the gutter with it. The gains from such behavior are always short term. In the long run we all suffer from the world's perception of us as a people who cannot be trusted, and even in the short run many individuals among us suffer because they live by a higher moral standard and refuse to participate in the resulting misdeeds. Many of those people end up in prison because of their resistance to the immorality of the state. Daniel Berrigan comes prominently to mind in that regard.
We should demand of our leaders that they live up to the high standards of the religions they so loudly claim to espouse. As part of that process, we should ask our Senators today to refuse to vote for immunity to telecom companies. Let suits go forward. Let an investigation begin and let the chips fall where they may. We would know then that we had done the right thing regardless of the outcome. Isn't that what our moral code asks of us?
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 reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Friday's Reference
In Friday's blog, I made reference to an article I had seen about the NSA program of spying on the American people through AT&T. A kind reader sent me this reference to an interview from Frontline that is even more complete than the article I had in mind. I'm listing it here today because this story is so crucial to understanding how Orwellian big brother has become. If only the bulk of the American people could get the big picture and react against it.
Just in case the link fails you, here is the reference: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html
Thanks Kathy.
Just in case the link fails you, here is the reference: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html
Thanks Kathy.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Christian Terrorism
I read a nationally syndicated column today pondering the reasons behind Pat Robertson's support for Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid. The ultimate reason is Robertson's conviction that the problem of "Islamic terrorism" outweighs the other issues upon which the two disagree such as gay rights and abortion.
It is refreshing to hear that someone like Robertson understands that there are matters of much greater import than those two hot button issues, but the most troubling aspect of this alliance is the underlying theme that Giuliani hammered home during his visit to Mt. Vernon, MO yesterday. Calling for a massive buildup of American troops, Giuliani sounded the trumpets of war loud and clear, and Robertson, a major voice of the Christian right, has a long history of harmonizing with that tune. The two together would have us in Iran in a New York minute.
What most of us have long failed or chosen not to understand is that the war that is now raging in the Middle East is indeed, despite what W says, a holy war. Yes, the United States government saw Saddam Hussein as an uncontrollable and therefore expendable obstacle in the region and yes, the U.S. saw control of Iraq's oil reserves as a valuable prize and yes, the neo-cons and AIPAC saw the invasion of Iraq as an opportunity to enhance Israel's strength and security in the region, but behind it all lies the manipulation of U.S. policy by right wing religious groups bent on not only dominating Middle Eastern politics, but also cramming their brand of Christianity down America's throat.
In their zeal to make their rigid religion America's guiding light, these American Talibanic believers in Armageddon are perfectly willing to trigger it through wars in the "Holy Land". These right wingnuts know that growing the military under their careful tutelage would ultimately give them the weaponry to push their religion so powerfully upon the U.S. and the rest of the world alike that they could not be ignored.
Under the careful leadership of people like Robertson and D. James Kennedy, a neo John the Baptist who actually teaches seminars on how to convert people to Christianity (i.e. "Save" them) and ultimately to advocate for America to recognize itself as a Christian nation, this bunch resembles no other group on earth as much as they resemble the jihadist Muslims they point at and call terrorists. Their railing against "Islamic terrorists" is as if they stand before a mirror and point out their own viciousness.
The ultimate result of the election of a candidate like Giuliani with the strong backing of the Christian right would be an even more warlike America that truly could trigger what would look like Armageddon with the only difference being that those lying and dying among the ashes would include these crazies who think that when they trigger all this Jesus will leap off a cloud with his flaming sword in hand and lead his faithful followers off to paradise while the rest of us are left to the fires of hell. The only thing missing from these Christians' version of paradise is 72 virgins.
For God's sake (literally) let's get and keep these nuts out of power.
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 reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
It is refreshing to hear that someone like Robertson understands that there are matters of much greater import than those two hot button issues, but the most troubling aspect of this alliance is the underlying theme that Giuliani hammered home during his visit to Mt. Vernon, MO yesterday. Calling for a massive buildup of American troops, Giuliani sounded the trumpets of war loud and clear, and Robertson, a major voice of the Christian right, has a long history of harmonizing with that tune. The two together would have us in Iran in a New York minute.
What most of us have long failed or chosen not to understand is that the war that is now raging in the Middle East is indeed, despite what W says, a holy war. Yes, the United States government saw Saddam Hussein as an uncontrollable and therefore expendable obstacle in the region and yes, the U.S. saw control of Iraq's oil reserves as a valuable prize and yes, the neo-cons and AIPAC saw the invasion of Iraq as an opportunity to enhance Israel's strength and security in the region, but behind it all lies the manipulation of U.S. policy by right wing religious groups bent on not only dominating Middle Eastern politics, but also cramming their brand of Christianity down America's throat.
In their zeal to make their rigid religion America's guiding light, these American Talibanic believers in Armageddon are perfectly willing to trigger it through wars in the "Holy Land". These right wingnuts know that growing the military under their careful tutelage would ultimately give them the weaponry to push their religion so powerfully upon the U.S. and the rest of the world alike that they could not be ignored.
Under the careful leadership of people like Robertson and D. James Kennedy, a neo John the Baptist who actually teaches seminars on how to convert people to Christianity (i.e. "Save" them) and ultimately to advocate for America to recognize itself as a Christian nation, this bunch resembles no other group on earth as much as they resemble the jihadist Muslims they point at and call terrorists. Their railing against "Islamic terrorists" is as if they stand before a mirror and point out their own viciousness.
The ultimate result of the election of a candidate like Giuliani with the strong backing of the Christian right would be an even more warlike America that truly could trigger what would look like Armageddon with the only difference being that those lying and dying among the ashes would include these crazies who think that when they trigger all this Jesus will leap off a cloud with his flaming sword in hand and lead his faithful followers off to paradise while the rest of us are left to the fires of hell. The only thing missing from these Christians' version of paradise is 72 virgins.
For God's sake (literally) let's get and keep these nuts out of power.
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 reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Extreme Patriotism
I'm feeling fairly well flag flogged this morning. It happens every Veteran's Day, but this morning's paper worked especially hard at driving the message home.
It always puts me on a narrow balance beam – recognizing the validity of giving thanks for those veterans who have put their lives on the line whether actually in defense of their country or only in the belief that there was good reason for them to risk their lives when it wasn't true as in the case of every war I can think of other than the World Wars I & II – and I'm not knowledgeable enough to be sure about WWI.
During the time when we were working so hard to try and get folks to understand that going to Iraq was a gigantic misstep, I was amazed and appalled at how many folks on the other side of the issue were equating Bush's push to Iraq with WWII. It is even more amazing that this feeling persists to this day.
How anyone who takes a hard look at why we went to Iraq and the impacts that decision has had on our own well-being can still think there is any similarity between the two wars is totally beyond me.
We went to war with Japan because they attacked us. We went to war with Iraq after that country's enemy, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida attacked us. We went to war with Germany because their totalitarian government wanted to take over the world and was willing to torture and exterminate people in the process. Now we are engaged in a war designed to heighten our control over the world and its resources and WE are willing to torture and kill innocent people in the process.
America – the world's liberator during WWII – has become the world's oppressor. At the time of WWII we hated the very thought of imprisoning people without just cause, detested any nation that would torture prisoners, and went to war only when the nation was attacked. Now we house thousands of uncharged prisoners whom we routinely torture and we espouse a doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. That has traonsformed us from the most admired nation on the globe to the most detested of the superpowers. The world has learned to fear us and hate us.
On the domestic front, legislation has been passed that puts the freedom of the American people at great risk and most citizens appear to be completely unaware of it.
President Bush has spoken over the past few days about his distaste Pakistan President Musharaf's declaration of martial law, but even that rings false. Many people I know fear that a body of legislation run through by the Bush Administration has been aimed at exactly that goal in this country. For a good, clear discussion of their reasoning, take about five minutes to read the two pages written by Frank Morales. (Sorry reference lost in translation from MySpace.)
We've looked at some extremes in this discussion this morning, but I wish that more people could discern that the kind of flag waving patriotism that glorifies the sacrifice people are willing to make for their country is also an extreme. It rightfully thanks those willing to wear the uniform and protect their fellow citizens, but it wrongfully glorifies doing so without first questioning whether or not the cause is worthy of that sacrifice.
I wore the uniform during Viet Nam. When I went in, I was willing to blindly follow and was an advocate of "just nuke 'em and get it over with". By the time I got out, I had learned that all of us in those uniforms were being asked to put our lives on the line for no good reason. Time has proven the latter to be correct.
Unless the citizens of America learn to discern between just causes and false patriotism, the kind of governance offered by the Bush Administration will eventually cost us our freedom. At that point, we will once again have something truly worth fighting for. Sadly, we will have realized far too late that we are our own worst enemy.
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 reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
It always puts me on a narrow balance beam – recognizing the validity of giving thanks for those veterans who have put their lives on the line whether actually in defense of their country or only in the belief that there was good reason for them to risk their lives when it wasn't true as in the case of every war I can think of other than the World Wars I & II – and I'm not knowledgeable enough to be sure about WWI.
During the time when we were working so hard to try and get folks to understand that going to Iraq was a gigantic misstep, I was amazed and appalled at how many folks on the other side of the issue were equating Bush's push to Iraq with WWII. It is even more amazing that this feeling persists to this day.
How anyone who takes a hard look at why we went to Iraq and the impacts that decision has had on our own well-being can still think there is any similarity between the two wars is totally beyond me.
We went to war with Japan because they attacked us. We went to war with Iraq after that country's enemy, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida attacked us. We went to war with Germany because their totalitarian government wanted to take over the world and was willing to torture and exterminate people in the process. Now we are engaged in a war designed to heighten our control over the world and its resources and WE are willing to torture and kill innocent people in the process.
America – the world's liberator during WWII – has become the world's oppressor. At the time of WWII we hated the very thought of imprisoning people without just cause, detested any nation that would torture prisoners, and went to war only when the nation was attacked. Now we house thousands of uncharged prisoners whom we routinely torture and we espouse a doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. That has traonsformed us from the most admired nation on the globe to the most detested of the superpowers. The world has learned to fear us and hate us.
On the domestic front, legislation has been passed that puts the freedom of the American people at great risk and most citizens appear to be completely unaware of it.
President Bush has spoken over the past few days about his distaste Pakistan President Musharaf's declaration of martial law, but even that rings false. Many people I know fear that a body of legislation run through by the Bush Administration has been aimed at exactly that goal in this country. For a good, clear discussion of their reasoning, take about five minutes to read the two pages written by Frank Morales. (Sorry reference lost in translation from MySpace.)
We've looked at some extremes in this discussion this morning, but I wish that more people could discern that the kind of flag waving patriotism that glorifies the sacrifice people are willing to make for their country is also an extreme. It rightfully thanks those willing to wear the uniform and protect their fellow citizens, but it wrongfully glorifies doing so without first questioning whether or not the cause is worthy of that sacrifice.
I wore the uniform during Viet Nam. When I went in, I was willing to blindly follow and was an advocate of "just nuke 'em and get it over with". By the time I got out, I had learned that all of us in those uniforms were being asked to put our lives on the line for no good reason. Time has proven the latter to be correct.
Unless the citizens of America learn to discern between just causes and false patriotism, the kind of governance offered by the Bush Administration will eventually cost us our freedom. At that point, we will once again have something truly worth fighting for. Sadly, we will have realized far too late that we are our own worst enemy.
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 reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
Monday, November 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
