Some don’t want to say it but the invasion of Iraq is about getting back at Islam and Muslims for their transgression of not accepting Christian ideology which we’ve managed to cloak in terms like “democracy” and “freedom”, etc. That’s not to say ours is not a “Christian” nation, but it’s also a “Jewish”, “Islamic”, “Buddhist” and “pagan” nation as well because our beloved Constitution says government is not a tool for religion, although it can allow for the safe and unfettered expression of any and all religion. However, the Bush administration and some inside the military don’t necessarily see it that way and instead allowed their representation of goverment to be an expression of Christian intent. That’ll get you in a lot of hot water constitutionally, and so it has with General Petraeus, leader of American forces in Iraq, who has “endorsed” a book entitled, Under Orders: A Spiritual Handbook for Military Personnel . Christian evangelism has been going on in the US military for sometime, but collectively it’s been demoralizing to those not Christian and is against military policy. A very diligent group, Military Religious Freedom Foundation, has been keeping an eye on this phenomenon for some time and much of what they discovered can be seen here. I hope to write more about what they’ve found in the months ahead. In the meantime that group, MRFF is calling for the immediate dismissal of General Petraeus because of his endorsement and nothing less than that should happen, the offense he committed is just that serious!
Category: Government
They’re at it again!
Neocons are very good at challenging national masculinity with such phrases as ‘bring ’em on’ or others which imply if we aren’t with their program we’re cowards. Of course such language has to be answered in the collective affirmative in the neocon call for war. This technique they have of denigrating the national will is a corruption of the civil discourse when it’s accompanied with the lack of perspective and reality that should come with war and the devastation it brings. Hence, the public is actively denied seeing the images of dead bodies, ours or Iraqis/Afghanis, and instead we are treated with expressions like precision strikes, collateral damage, post traumatic stress, etc all designed to dampen the impact of killing and death. I don’t understand why we fall for it, but we do, so it’s no surprise that the neocons are doing it again. Check out how facts and history don’t matter to this guy who wants the US to confront Russia for its sin of invading Georgia and then hits the American mentality in the gut by saying
Europeans and Americans, including very senior officials in the Bush administration, blame the West for pushing Russia too hard on too many issues.
Blaming America is simply not acceptable to the average American, otherwise how could we justify our invasion and occupation of Iraq. But neocons always work in a cabal, in tandem, never alone, so Kagan’s is not the only voice beating the drums for war. Neocons are persistent and I don’t necessarily think that’s a good trait, by the way, especially when used for their call to falsely defined wars, like Iraq and now Russia. So the mere fact they are making the claims seen in the link above means it will be a constant theme which they will go to for as long as it takes. We saw that with PNAC and their appeal to invading Iraq even back during the Clinton terms when Iraq was but a blip on the national conscious, but which has now become our Waterloo.
Unless we recognize the language and psychology used by the neocons, they will always be able to push our buttons for their own narrowly defined interests. I suggest the first question we should ask when their drums start beating is ‘which relative are they willing to sacrifice on the battlefield to fight their war’.
Muslim patriotism in the US military
I’ve heard a lot from people especially on the right about problems associated with having Muslims involved in anything American, as if the presence of Muslims is a threat to the process or would somehow leave it tainted. I remember vividly during the first Gulf war when America was concerned about its image, a lot was said about Muslims in the US military and especially those who converted to Islam because of their exposure to the Gulf. Now, however, those same people some of whom are still in the military and those who joined later are “tainted” goods, worthy of suspicion and distrust. America is cannabalistic in that sense when it comes to anyone other than blond hair and blue eyed soldiers fighting its wars. From the Civil War upto the Vietnam war people of color have always been looked down upon as unworthy of service in the US military. Today is no different, except now we have bloggers who point out to those who care to know stories of patriotism in the US military that work for the country. Check out this story of a young man who volunteered to join the military in response to Bush’s war on terror.
State sponsored terrorism
Will Grigg has an excellent blog that talks about the abuses of the federal government against its own citizens in the war on terror. It’s a compelling blog with plenty of examples of government’s terrorism directed towards its own. The state wasted no time solidifying its hold on Americans after 911. Homeland security swelled the ranks of people on no fly lists and interrogates randomly people who enter airports, either checking for terrorists or making them. What follows is another story of many that is a first hand account of what happens to everyday citizens in airports across this country. I have had friends who’ve recounted experiences similar to the one written about by Feder, making these kinds of encounters more the rule than the exception. We are told this is necessary to protect the “homeland” and while you are digesting that remember no amount of protection is worth the erosion of even one of the rights we have guaranteed us under the Constitution.
I arrived at JFK Airport two weeks ago after a short vacation to Syria and presented my American passport for re-entry to the United States. After 28 hours of traveling, I had settled into a hazy awareness that this was the last, most familiar leg of a long journey. I exchanged friendly words with the Homeland Security official who was recording my name in his computer. He scrolled through my passport, and when his thumb rested on my Syrian visa, he paused. Jerking toward the door of his glass-enclosed booth, he slid my passport into a dingy green plastic folder and walked down the hallway, motioning for me to follow with a flick of his wrist. Where was he taking me, I asked him. “You’ll find out,” he said.
We got to an enclosed holding area in the arrivals section of the airport. He shoved the folder into my hand and gestured toward four sets of Homeland Security guards sitting at large desks. Attached to each desk were metal poles capped with red, white and blue siren lights. I approached two guards carrying weapons and wearing uniforms similar to New York City police officers, but they shook their heads, laughed and said, “Over there,” pointing in the direction of four overflowing holding pens. I approached different desks until I found an official who nodded and shoved my green folder in a crowded metal file holder. When I asked him why I was there, he glared at me, took a sip from his water bottle, bit into a sandwich, and began to dig between his molars with his forefinger. I found a seat next to a man who looked about my age — in his late 20s — and waited.
Omar (not his real name) finished his fifth year in biomedical engineering at City College in June. He had just arrived from Beirut, where he visited his family and was waiting to go home to the apartment he shared with his brother in Harlem. Despite his near-perfect English and designer jeans, Omar looked scared. He rubbed his hands and rocked softly in his seat. He had been waiting for hours already, and, as he pointed out, a number of people — some sick, elderly, pregnant or holding sobbing babies — had too. There were approximately 70 people detained in our cordoned-off section: All were Arab (with the exception of me and the friend I traveled with), and almost all had arrived from Dubai, Amman or Damascus. Many were U.S. citizens.
We were in the front row, sitting a few feet from two guards’ desks. They sneered at each bewildered arrival, told jokes in whispers, swiveled in their office chairs and greeted passing guards who stopped to talk — guards who had a habit of looping their fingers into their holsters. One asked his friend how many nationalities were represented in the room. “About 20. Some of everything today.”
No one who had been detained knew precisely why they were there. A few people were led into private rooms; others were questioned out in the open at desks a few feet from the crowd and then allowed to pass through customs. Some were sent to another section of the holding area with large computer screens and cameras, and then brought back. The uninformed consensus among the detainees was that some people would be fingerprinted, have their irises scanned and be sent back to the countries from which they had disembarked, regardless of citizenship status; others would be fingerprinted and allowed to stay; and the unlucky ones would be detained indefinitely and moved to a more permanent facility.
There was one British tourist in the group. Paul (also not his real name) was traveling with three friends who had passed through customs soon after their plane landed and were waiting for him on the other side of the metal barrier; he suspected he had been detained because of his dark skin. When he asked if he could go to the bathroom, one of the guards said, “I wouldn’t.” “What if someone has to?” I asked. “They will just have to hold it,” the guard responded with a smile. Paul began to cry. I watched as he, over the course of four hours, went from feeling exuberant about his trip to New York to despising the entire country. “I speak the Queen’s English,” he said to me. “I’m third-generation British. I came to America because I’ve always wanted to come here, and now they’ve got me so scared that all I want to do is go home. We’re paying for your stupid war anyway.”
To be powerless and mocked at the same time makes one feel ashamed, which leads quickly to rage. Within a few hours of my arrival, I saw at least 10 people denied the right to use the bathroom or buy food and water. I watched my traveling companion duck under a barrier, run to the bathroom and slip back into the holding section — which, of course, someone of another ethnicity in a state of panic would be very reluctant to do. The United States is good at naming enemies, but apparently we are even better at making them, especially of individuals. I don’t know if it’s worse for national security — and more embarrassing for Americans — that this is the first experience tourists have of our country, or that some U.S. citizens get treated this way upon entering their own country.
The American people still have some fight left in them
The neocons have tried everything they could to frighten America into going along fully with the program meant to reduce the rights and freedom given to us by the Constitution and to keep people from complaining by calling into question their patriotism. Along the way neocons have enlisted the help and support of the main stream media as well as politicians. Unfortunately help was rendered by people on both sides of the ideological divide, liberals as well as conservatives, Democrats as well as Republicans, each chipping in to the effort of state sponsored control, each waiting for their turn to exert that control in ways they see fit, not necessarily for the benefit of the people.
Realistically speaking the political process is the only way for people to regain control of this great Republic; by removing recalcitrant politicians, irrespective of their political persuasion, there is hope that people can turn the country around to the point it respects the rights of its citizens as well as the rule of law, nationally as well as internationally. One cannot be deceived by party loyalty; politicians are to easy to purchase. Witness this bipartisan list of people who’ve had their loyalty purchased by the neocons whose goal it is to insure perpetual chaos internationally, swell the coffers of the war machine and curb the rights of citizens of the United States while increasing government control over their lives. Of particular note are the Democrats on the list and especially Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House and the third most important person in the US government’s hierarchy. She has steadfastly refused to consider impeachment of Bush or a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq despite pledges to the contrary when hers was a minority party in politics. However, anything goes in love and war, and by identifying with the mood of the country which was against war and presidential policies she was able to install her party to power and enrich her personal wealth in ways she had not been able to do previously.
However, politics can be redemptive, enter Cindy Sheehan, who has successfully petitioned to have her name included on the ballot to challenge Ms. Pelosi. Judging from the looks of what some people are saying in her district Pelosi may be in for a fight and that’s a good thing. Comfortable and unresponsive politicians should always have to feel the ire of the people when they are ignored or neglected.
Regime change, America’s pandora box
The US used the expression “regime change” to justify its incursion into Iraq in 2003, but the term has been around since the beginning of the 20th century and was used by Bill Clinton who like George Bush referred to it with regards to Iraq. In the language of geopolitics, or in other words raw power, regime change for the US means installing people in power who will place US strategic interests above their own country’s interests. The myth that regime change has something to do with democracy really is a lie when you look at those countries America has instituted regime change in which were at the time democracies, like 1953 Iran, 1960’s Republic of Congo, 1973 Chile and 1980’s Nicaragua just to name a few. Those are all examples where the overthrow of countries was attempted or done clandestinely by the US with results that were usually not democratic and in some cases autocratic and dictatorial. However the results were seen as favorable for long term US interests.
In the ’80s the methodology of regime change took a different direction as the US became an active, visible part in the dissolution of governments with the full might and power of the US military. Invasions with the insertion of US combat troops onto foreign soil to cause the overthrow of governments or the capture and/or arrest of government officials became the way by which regime change was done. Grenada and Panama are two prime examples arising from that time period. Elaborate excuses were advanced to the American public to win broad appeal for the invasion of these countries, and media outlets were used to put the spin on threats which were magnified to an extent that equaled existential threats to American security from mere banana republics. What is interesting is some of the people who were instrumental in trying to overthrow Iraq in the 21st century, Elliot Abrams, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle were honing their skills working in government, particularly the Pentagon, during the ’80s when America was overrunning small states, particularly in the “American sphere of influence” the Caribbean and Central America.
Of course we all know about the regime change which took place in Iraq where the Americans became an occupying power and conducted the plunder of Iraqi territory and the murder of many of its political figures. As in the recent past, rationale was given and the media was used to propagate that rationale to the satisfaction of the American public which gave its approval for grave violations of international law. Little if any consideration was given to world opinion and the rhetoric of the day made irrelevant bodies erected to maintain the rule of law, like the UN or Geneva Conventions, or opponents of American policy domestically or internationally were either belittled or completely ignored. Because America perceived itself, justifiably, as the only superpower in the world, there was no government strong enough to stop it and world opposition opinion was meaningless. What mattered to American lawmakers was instituting a policy which would insure American interests were given the highest priority of the newly installed government, even at the expense of American citizens. (Witness the kid glove approach the US Justice Department shows towards private contractors in Iraq who have committed crimes against American citizens in Iraq, and the extent to which the US wants these contractors to be immune from prosecution by the Iraqi government.) Little thought was given to the fact that this in your face behavior of the US would open the door for others to do the same thing, with the same behavior along the way and that’s exactly what has happened in the conflagration in the central Asian republic of Georgia.
Having lost its moral right to indignation because of its previous scorn for morality and international law, America is reduced to howling from the sidelines as Russia defines its interests in terms which are geopolitically correct with much more at stake. It is irrelevant for the sake of this discussion, who started the conflict that began in the late summer of 2008, what’s at issue is the unilateral military intervention of a superpower seeking to define its interests as it sees fit without regard to public opinion because there’s no one who can stop it, and more primordially, because it can! Russia’s conflict involved a neighbor on its border with whom it has had an almost two decade conflict, and this conflict is one of natural resources, oil. Under those circumstances it is understandable Russia would react to the slightest provocation, real or imagined. After all the “threat” exists on its borders. What is interesting is how quickly the US administration has forgotten this very principle it used to justify its own illegal acts merely months ago. It had to be reminded of its own transgressions when the Russian ambassador to the UN told that forum and the US directly that regime change was an American concept and therefore America had no right to use that as a pejorative term directed at Russia. Just as the US accused Saddam of gassing the Kurds and justified removing him from power because of that, the Russians accused the Georgians of ethnic cleansing and meant to remove Georgian insurgents from the disputed territories of Abkhaz and South Ossetia. They can also claim there was no shock and awe campaign designed to obliterate whole cities and neighborhoods which were of no military values, merely as an act of intimidation as was the case with the American invasion of Iraq. As we stand on what could be the precipice to world war, America ‘s disdain for Russian aggression is as meaningless as the world’s outcry against American aggression in Iraq. American policy wonks shouldn’t be allowed to forget they opened this box.
No comment
Images of war return to the public
A bipartisan effort initiated by Republican congressman Walter Jones, NC and co-sponsored by three Democrats and three Republicans has culminated in the The Fallen Hero Commemoration Act, or H.R. 6662, which states, “The Secretary of Defense shall grant access to accredited members of the media at military commemoration ceremonies and memorial services conducted by the Armed Forces for members of the Armed Forces who have died on active duty and when the remains of members of the Armed Forces arrive at military installations in the United States.”
We’ve blogged before about how the Administration has tried to control the images coming from their occupation in order to control public opinion and everyone from media to government and the public in general has gone along with the program. Finally, members of Congress are attempting to correct that situation by using the power they have as legislators to undo this Bush Administration policy. Let’s hope they can wipe the entire slate clean of the excesses done by this cabal.
Islamophobia and politics
One can expect the right wing of American politics to engage in distortion and race baiting. It goes as far back as I can remember and that includes the administration of Richard Nixon. So it is today, and the modern day target is the clean cut Arab/muslim guy or gal. Mazen Asbahi is “it” today and I’m baffled in one sense but not totally surprised in another. Baffled because monsieur Asbahi is as clean as they come, except for a really rather tangential connection to someone who had an equally tangentially inconsequential relationship with someone who…..well you know the rest. This all boils down to party politics; Asbahi worked for Obama, and I guess it’s a little too much for the American palate to digest, so many strange sounding names working together. But Asbahi has bonafides that not too many people who might even call themselves red blooded Americans possess, so I find his selection as a target unfortunate. No matter how squeaky clean you try to get you can never get clean enough if you have one of those strange names or a swarthy complexion, but it’s just those characteristics that make him such an easy target. What inevitably the racists in American politics are trying to do is dilute the potency of Islamic charities by calling into question their raison d’etre and the full might of the US government to shut them down and take their assets. For that reason I wish Asbahi had not resigned his position with the Obama campaign; there are bigger stakes here than helping someone who will gladly kick you to the curb in order to get elected. (That he decided to step down probably speaks more for his integrity than that of the Obama campain. ) Islamic charities have an important role to play in helping Muslims in developing countries maintain a subsistence level lifestyle; just as the cash strapped economies of central and south America depend on money from the American job force, so do those societies in the Middle East. (Just ask Israel) Mazen was a political football kicked around to hurt a candidate who is running scared from the Muslim label and to damage the work of some honest hard working Muslims who wanted to establish a viable organization to help people at home and abroad. I suspect there’ll be a lot more of this kind of election year posturing as the political season continues.
Quote
“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people
cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented,
in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet
under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public
liberty. … And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let
them take arms.” Thomas Jefferson
Unanswered questions
You’ve probably heard by now of the scientist who committed suicide after he learned he would be indicted for the anthrax terror attacks of 2001-2002, following 911. That suicide (?) rather conveniently ties up some loose ends in an investigation of the terror attacks that until recently had gone nowhere, but which played a major role in the US going to war in Iraq. You remember the headlines, don’t you? Media spoke of how the appearance of anthrax laced letters in the US postal system was Saddam Hussein’s way of waging biological warfare against America that would continue to even more disastrous levels unless we invaded his country right away. Those attacks were just one among many Saddam could launch against our country that could conclude with a giant mushroom shaped cloud hovering over one of the major cities of America.
However that scenario over time became diminished, especially after it was learned that the one who initiated those mailings most likely was an American scientist who worked in a biological weapons grade laboratory on a military base. False clues were strewn all along the landscape, some pointing to an Arab American employee of the lab and more prominently to a Dr. Stephen Hatfill. The Arab American Dr. Ayaad Assaad’s case is an example of the racism Arabs/Muslims face in 21st century America. A well orchestrated effort was made to implicate Assaad in the anthrax attacks starting with an anonymous letter mailed to the FBI before the first victim became sick of exposure to anthrax, which suggested he might be hatching such a plot. He was quickly cleared of any involvement and the case languished for almost seven years, despite highs and lows which featured another innocent man being accused and subsequently cleared of involvement. Several letters written magnifying an Islamic connection and spewing the usual anti-Israeli/American diatribes were prominently displayed for all to see the connection with terror and Islam. Turns out all that was a lie as has been most everything else that has to deal with Islam in the West post 911. But this is seven years later and with tremendous hindsight it’s brutally apparent these anthrax letters were used to scare an already frightened American public towards a policy it might not have considered otherwise. Fellow blogger Xymphora writes about this latest development with some background I suggest you link to and read. Even with Ivins’ death, there are still unanswered questions like the ones posed by Xymphora, and my own, such as if there was a financial payoff for Ivins to gain through the development of a vaccine for anthrax why wasn’t that discovered sooner? Why did he feel the need to make such a blatant connection with terror and Islam and Muslims? What was his mental state back in 2001 as well as his financial one? Most likely the authorities will be quick to close the case now there appears so much supporting evidence to say Ivins was responsible. Let’s hope they take their time and tie up all the other loose ends before doing so.
Think you’re not expendable?
Think again! The war party desperately wants to fight Iran and they’ll use any excuse to do so, no matter how flimsy, transparent, or false it may be. They were able to convince an unquestioning public to go to war in Iraq and tie that war to the black ops/psyops 911 and they’re cooking up equally sinister things for their war against Iran. Take a listen to some of the things they’ve considered already:
What strikes me about all this is this was a meeting held by some of the top American officials in government and one of them, even for just a moment, wanted to consider sacrificing Americans at the hands of other Americans in order to go to war against Iran. What if we alter the equation just a bit and sacrifice Americans at the hands of non-Americans, in other words, use Americans to provoke a response from a hostile enemy, knowing those Americans will be killed. This type of idea was thought of before during the Kennedy Administration in its war against Cuba and was called, Operation Northwoods and one could draw the conclusion, has extended to today and 911. An Administration intent on going to war will do anything, even sacrifice its own citizens, to realize that goal, even when a war is not necessary, nor in the best interests of the country. People who are so quick to give in to such urges need to be removed from office, never to return again.
America’s Brown Shirts
Paul Craig Roberts was on to something when he wrote in 2004 of America’s rise to fascism through right wing talk radio. The airwaves are filled with abuse against those who oppose the government of G.W.Bush and his policies.
Bush’s conservative supporters want no debate. They want no facts, no analysis. They want to denounce and to demonize the enemies that the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Savages of talk radio assure them are everywhere at work destroying their great and noble country.
Show hosts, who advertise themselves as truth-tellers in a no-spin zone, quickly figured out that success depends upon constantly confronting listeners with bogymen to be exposed and denounced: war protesters and America-bashers, the French, marrying homosexuals, the liberal media, turncoats, Democrats, and the ACLU.
Talk radio’s “news stories” do not need to be true. Their importance lies in inflaming resentments and confirming that America’s implacable enemies are working resolutely to destroy us.
Using tactics that resemble the Nazi Brown shirt movement’s slogan, “All opposition must be stamped into the ground”, talk radio has made dissent unpatriotic and akin to treason, the punishment of which is death. Hosts have attacked people who oppose the wars on terror, and they have attacked liberals, multiculturalism, immigration, and just about everything else not in lockstep with current right wing philosophy and just about anyone else not a card carrying member of the Republican Party. Those politicians that right wing radio supports lend their voices occasionally to these efforts, calling the shows to be tossed soft ball questions by hosts or make unchallenged policy announcements to an eager fan base which finds its voice in the voice of the Right. Rallying the people to the cause of talk radio’s right wing hosts, talk show hosts are even applauded by those very politicians the brown shirts support. Witness this dialog between the sitting president Bush and Rush Limbaugh on the occasion of LImbaugh’s 20 year anniversary on the air.
THE PRESIDENT: President George W. Bush calling to congratulate you on 20 years of important and excellent broadcasting.
RUSH: Well, thank you, sir. You’ve stunned me! (laughing) I’m shocked. But thank you so much.
THE PRESIDENT: That’s hard to do.
RUSH: (laughing) I know, it is.
THE PRESIDENT: I’m here with a room full of admirers. There are two others that would like to speak to you and congratulate you, people who consider you …
… friends and really appreciate the contribution you’ve made.
RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.
The divisive nature of talk radio has its own hazards for the American society in general. The latest victims of the polarization right wing radio fascism brings to American society were killed while worshipping on a Sunday morning.
Jim David Adkisson told investigators all liberals should be killed and admitted he shot people Sunday morning at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, according to a search warrant affidavit obtained by CNN affiliate WBIR.
“He felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets,” the affidavit said. “Because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement … he would then target those that had voted them into office.”
Talk radio pundits will not accept responsibility for the actions of their brown shirts; America, unlike Nazi Germany is an extremely litigious society, but the responsibility is theirs. On any given day, a listener can hear between three to nine hours of talk delivered to bolster an Administration intent on waging wars throughout the globe, usurping the rights of citizens in order to fight those wars and withholding for itself the right to interpret, frame and enforce laws. Vigilantism at the top makes it much easier for the Jim Adkissons of the world to carry it out against fellow citizens.
Another lie debunked
Remember the July 7, 2005 London city bombings where fifty-six people lost their lives? It inevitably came down to blame going to Al-Qaeda, although alot of what happened that day was clouded in confusion and open to a lot of speculation. The actions of the UK government didn’t help matters because they refused to hold any type of inquiry that would answer questions being asked by all in British society, citing how security concerns would be undermined by such efforts!(?) A great deal was made of the fact that the severity of the blasts, both in damage to property as well as loss of human life, was not characteristic of the Irish Republican Army, an organization which has been at odds with the British government for years, and could only be the work of Al-Qaeda. By default, the blame has stuck for the last three years. Now, comes word from the UK, that al-Qaeda is NOT the biggest threat of all the terrorist groups on the British horizon, but rather…..surprise…….the IRA!
Dissident republicans from Northern Ireland are engaged in suspicious activity more than any other radical group in the UK including Islamic extremists, according to security sources.
Statistics from the Home Office of the UK reveal dismal figures regarding arrests and convictions of people for terrorism. More than half of all arrests made for terrorism related offenses were bogus and the people were released without further charges, while the conviction rate for terrorist activity stands at a paltry 18%. However, since that fateful day in July,2005, two anti-terrorism laws were inflicted upon UK society which arguably led to the diminished rights of British citizens and the increased powers of the State which claims to protect them. Al-Qaeda has served as a useful tool for governments who while claiming to fight it, even when it poses no threat, are also fighting its own citizens.
Guess what some are saying is the greatest threat America has ever faced?
And it ain’t al-Qaeda, jihadists, or surprisingly my choice, the press. It’s Republicans! I’m not so sure I wholeheartedly support this notion because there have been a few Republicans who’ve called a spade a spade and denounced what’s going on in the American body politic, but there is a fringe, mentioned in the article whose mention I would like to underscore in the excerpt below.
The neoconned Republican Party is the greatest threat America has ever faced. Let me tell you why.
Republicans think the United States is the salt of the earth and that American hegemony over the rest of the world is not only justified by our great virtue but necessary to our safety. People this full of hubris are incapable of judgment. People incapable of judgment should never be given power.
Republicans have no sympathy for anyone but their own kind. How many Republicans do you know who care a hoot about the plight of the poor, the jobless, the medically uninsured? The government programs that Republicans are always adamant to cut are the ones that help people who need help.
I have yet to hear any of my Republican friends express any concern whatsoever for the 1.2 million Iraqis who have died, and the 4 million who have been displaced, as a result of Bush’s gratuitous invasion. Many tell me that the five- and six-year long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are due to wimpy Americans “who don’t have the balls it takes” to win. Killing and displacing a quarter of the Iraqi population is just a wimpy result of a population that lacks testosterone. Real Americans would have killed them all by now.
Macho patriotic Republicans are perfectly content for US foreign policy to be controlled by Israel. Republican evangelical “christian” churches teach their congregations that America’s purpose in the world is to serve Israel. And these are the flag-wavers.
Neoconservatives, such as Billy Kristol, insist that loyalty to the country means loyalty to the government. Thus, criticizing the government for launching wars of aggression and for violating constitutionally protected civil liberties is, according to neoconservatives, a disloyal act.
In the neoconservative view, there is no place for the voices of citizens: the government makes the decisions, and loyal citizens support the government’s decisions.
In the neocon political system there is no liberty, no democracy, no debate. Dissenters are traitors.
The neoconservative magazine, Commentary, wants the New York Times indicted for telling Americans that the Bush regime was caught violating US law, specifically the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, by spying on Americans without obtaining warrants as required by law. Note that neoconservatives think it is a criminal act for a newspaper to tell its readers that their government is spying on them illegally.
Judging by their behavior, a number of Democrats go along with the neocon view. Thus, the Democrats don’t offer a greatly different profile. They went along with the views that corporate profits and the war on terror take precedence over everything else. They have not used the congressional power that the electorate gave them in the 2006 elections.
The author of this essay is a former official in the Ronald Reagan administration, most probably making him a Republican himself! I applaud him for his courage and honesty. I disagree with him however, when he states towards the end of his article, that Democrats can’t be any worse. In due time, with the same forces at work on the Democratic party they can produce equally disastrous results as we’ll come to see in the near future.
Overstating Our Fear
I was surprised to find an editorial in the corporate press that has some semblance of reason to it regarding the phony war on terror. Written by a veteran CIA employee/operative/bureaucrat, several of the points bear mentioning here and any place else during this election season. It appears both of the presidential candidates are giving in to the war party in Washington which wants an indefinite war against global jihadists. Carle stresses there is no global jihad movement but rather disparate nationalist movements in various parts of the world. One could go on and speculate that what they all have in common is a desire to rid themselves of occupying forces.
The author dismisses al-Qaeda calling them small men and a secondary threat to the United States. Such a statement will not make him popular in the halls of a government that has spent the last seven years building up al-Qaeda as the second Russian coming. In fact Carle says the threat posed by al-Qaeda is an exaggerated one made by this Administration, and cautions Americans not to be fearful. The “nationalist” movements, Carle says hate America because of its freedoms, a rather typical neocon refrain, but he goes on to say such movements are neither interested in attacking America nor capable of overtaking their own societies. The unspoken point there being America need not get involved fighting them.
What I like the most about this piece is the timing. The emotional rollercoster the public has been on because of the bluffs, threats, intimidations of the Administration has taken its toll and seems to have prompted some to take a step back and call for cooler heads to prevail. The author didn’t come right out and say we’ve been fed lies by Bush and company but he says things aren’t as bad as they are made out by some to be. There is no mention of Iran in this peice, but one can certainly draw the same conclusions about that country as has been made about the global war on terror. Good editorial; it’ll take a lot more like these to restore my confidence in the main stream media so I’m not holding my breath.
The “Ten Commandments” of race and genetics
A recent article from newscientist.com which talks about the genetics of humanity puts to rest, sort of, all the “science” of yesterday which was used to denigrate people based on race, to a lower status in society.
1. All races are created equal
No genetic data has ever shown that one group of people is inherently superior to another. Equality is a moral value central to the idea of human rights; discrimination against any group should never be tolerated.
2. An Argentinian and an Australian are more likely to have differences in their DNA than two Argentinians
Groups of human beings have moved around throughout history. Those that share the same culture, language or location tend to have different genetic variations than other groups. This is becoming less true, though, as populations mix.
3. A person’s history isn’t written only in his or her genes
Everyone’s genetic material carries a useful, though incomplete, map of his or her ancestors’ travels. Studies looking for health disparities between individuals shouldn’t rely solely on this identity. They should also consider a person’s cultural background.
4: Members of the same race may have different underlying genetics
Social definitions of what it means to be “Hispanic” or “black” have changed over time. People who claim the same race may actually have very different genetic histories.
5. Nature and nurture play an important part in our behavior
Trying to use genetic differences between groups to show differences in intelligence, violent behaviors or the ability to throw a ball is an oversimplification of much more complicated interactions between genetics and environment.
6. Researchers should be careful about using racial groups when designing experiments
When scientists decide to divide their subjects into groups based on ethnicity, they need to be clear about why and how these divisions are made to avoid contributing to stereotypes.
7. Medicine should focus on the individual, not the race
Although some diseases are connected to genetic markers, these markers tend to be found in many different racial groups. Overemphasising genetics may promote racist views or focus attention on a group when it should be on the individual.
8. The study of genetics requires cooperation between experts in many different fields
Human disease is the product of a mishmash of factors: genetic, cultural, economic and behavioral. Interdisciplinary efforts that involve the social sciences are more likely to be successful.
9. Oversimplified science feeds popular misconceptions
Policy makers should be careful about simplifying and politicising scientific data. When presenting science to the public, the media should address the limitations of race-related research.
10. Genetics 101 should include a history of racism
Any high school or college student learning about genetics should also learn about misguided attempts in the past to use science to justify racism. New textbooks should be developed for this purpose.
A tale of two cultures
This or that?
Differences in east vs west were highlighted by two different stories about the actions and beliefs of people different from the indigenous people of the society where they lived. First off there is the story of Faiza M. a Moroccan woman who is married to a French citizen and has three children, all of them born in France with him, but who is herself not a French citizen yet. She wears the abaya and niqaab and claims to be a salafi which means, according to French press, she
showed up with the robes of a woman from the Arabian peninsula, with a veil covering her face and leaving only a slit for her eyes.
The couple had admitted that they are Salafi, a movement of Islam which advocates a literal and rigorous reading of the Koran, following the lifestyle of Mohammed’s original followers.
Faiza M. had confirmed that she was not veiled when she lived in Morocco and that she had adopted the dress after arriving in France at the request of her husband, and that she does so more out of habit than conviction.
The government commissioner says that her statement show that she leads leads a secluded life, cut off from French society. She does not know about laïcité or the right to vote and she lives in total submission to the men in her family. Faiza M. appears to think that this [is] normal and doesn’t think of contesting this submission. Prada-Bordenave says this is indicative of the lack of adherence to the basic values of French society.
At the same time, Faiza M. speaks French, which is a criteria for citizenship, and during her pregnancy was checked by a male gynecologist.
On the basis of that she was denied her request for appeal to the original court order which denied her immigration status. The denial was based on the principle of gender equality which it’s claimed she had not internalized nor practiced. It was the first time in France the Council of State took into account the level of religious practice to determine a foreigner’s ability to integrate.
I don’t understand why the signs of this weren’t seen years earlier when France banned the hijab in public schools for young Muslim women. If the alternative of private schools is available to Muslims then the public school ban is not insurmountable, but there is no alternative to belief. You either have one and practice it or you don’t. I think the logical extension of what’s going on in France is people will not be allowed to pray in houses of worship not sanctioned by the Government of France, nor will people be allowed to give their children names they feel are indicative of their culture. Most likely I’m being alarmist but the Islamophobia that reigns in western Europe and the US has unlimited potential, and this recent decision shows that. Until now the Muslim response to this has been muted.
Contrast that with what took place in Dubai, UAE recently. Michelle Palmer is facing six years in prison and expulsion from the UAE for being found having sex on a public beach, public intoxication and assaulting a police officer. Ms. Palmer had been living in the UAE for three years before her run in with the law, working and living large like most other British expats in that country. One of the manifestations of that is they get together for brunches which include alcohol, socializing with one another according to their customs in the UK. However, not all of those customs fly in the UAE so when Ms. Palmer, who had been drinking all day long,and her suitor were caught once in a rather intimate position by a member of the local constabulary and warned and caught a second time she was taken to police headquarters where she became belligerent and found to be under the influence of alcohol. Dubai is pretty lenient when it comes to excesses of the flesh….as long as they don’t become an embarrassment to the establishment, and most expats there know that.
As well as attracting lurid headlines, Miss Palmer’s case has focused attention on the fast-paced lifestyles of Dubai’s young British expats who are arriving in ever-increasing numbers seeking tax-free wealth and good times.
‘It is the new land of opportunity,’ said commercial property lawyer Nick Armitage, who has been based in Dubai for two years. ‘We live in a bubble, a kind of fantasy world of luxury living and, if you want it, endless partying.’
*snip*
In Dubai, Friday brunch has grown into an institution and offers an ideal opportunity to witness the British expats at play. The parties are held at hotels and range from the sedate to the raucous – and none is more raucous than brunch at the Meridien.
For about £70 a head the guests – lawyers, property developers, airline crew, building workers, architects, but few, if any, tourists – are given unlimited Bollinger champagne and a buffet meal.
‘It all starts off quite sophisticated,’ said property consultant John Burdon, 31, originally from Weston-super-Mare. ‘But when it gets going that wears off and the spirit of Magaluf takes hold. People just want to have fun and get absolutely smashed.’
‘I was thinking of going back to England because I do miss it,’ said Mr Burdon. ‘But we are all earning much more than we did back home and life here is good. You can fill up your car with petrol for six quid. So with the fuel crisis and the credit crunch I’m staying here.
‘I’d miss these brunches if I left – there is nothing like them in Britain. I love them.’
Life is good in the UAE for expats, and especially those who are prudent. If Ms. Palmer wanted a tryst with her lover I would suggest either a hotel room or the residence where either of them lived, but if that’s not available and you happen to find yourself on the beach, heed the first warning given to you by the police and cease and desist from lascivious behavior.
So here are two stories where cultures collide. In one a person is denied participation in a society because of religious beliefs that are interpreted as being against the values of a country and in the other a person is found to have broken the law because of actions that are clearly stated as illegal, recognized as such by most governments of the world and well known by the offender.
Is the Fourth Estate a Fifth Column
I have had my ups and downs with American media since 911. In some ways it has given us great human interest stories that deal with the heroism of everyday people who felt a duty to their fellow man and rose to the heights of human potential, but American media has done all that while keeping us in the dark about what our government is doing in our name, what it plans to do, and in many ways complicit in government’s illegality. Robert Scheer of The Los Angeles Times, once said, “This has been the most shameful era of American media. The media has been sucker-punched completely by this administration.” While the analogy is a good one, it’s incomplete: The media was sucker punched because it led with its chin. The media hasn’t resisted attempts to be a mouthpiece for the Administration, rather it has been a willing accomplice, and the message that compliance was absolutely necessary, was delivered by a military government that made it perfectly clear, especially during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that dissent from media would not be tolerated. Bullying outlets with “access” or allowing climates where media outlet representatives were in seriously jeopardy of death, government has made it clear it wants absolute power to control the message passed on to its citizens. We blogged about one such example here, where people who wanted the public to see the true casualties of war were denied oand fired from their jobs.
I have always felt media’s role in promulgating, cheerleading, and supporting the Iraq war bordered on criminality, despite their cries of self-cleansing to absolve themselves of that image and while not saying that Bill Moyers has spoken in a piece that I liked very much and which I want to excerpt here.
Our media institutions, deeply embedded in the power structures of society, are not providing the information that we need to make our democracy work. To put it another way, corporate media consolidation is a corrosive social force. It robs people of their voice in public affairs and pollutes the political culture. And it turns the debates about profound issues into a shouting match of polarized views promulgated by partisan apologists who trivialize democracy while refusing to speak the truth about how our country is being plundered.
*snip*
These organizations’ self-styled mandate is not to hold public and private power accountable, but to aggregate their interlocking interests. Their reward is not to help fulfill the social compact embodied in the notion of “We, the people,” but to manufacture news and information as profitable consumer commodities.
Democracy without honest information creates the illusion of popular consent at the same time that it enhances the power of the state and the privileged interests that the state protects. And nothing characterizes corporate media today more than its disdain toward the fragile nature of modern life and its indifference toward the complex social debate required of a free and self-governing people.
*snip*
Across the media landscape, the health of our democracy is imperiled. Buffeted by gale force winds of technological, political and demographic forces, without a truly free and independent press, this 250-year-old experiment in self-government will not make it. As journalism goes, so goes democracy.
Mergers and buyouts change both old and new media. They bring a frenzied focus on cost-cutting, while fattening the pockets of the new owners and their investors. The result: journalism is degraded through the layoffs and buyouts of legions of reporters and editors.
*snip*
…we needed to know the truth about Iraq. The truth could have spared that country from rack and ruin, saved thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and freed hundreds of billions of dollars for investment in the American economy and infrastructure.
But as reporters at Knight Ridder – one of the few organizations that systematically and independently set out to challenge the claims of the administration – told us at the time, and as my colleagues and I reported in our PBS documentary Buying the War, and as Scott McClellan has now confessed, and as the Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed in June, the Bush administration deceived Americans into supporting an unprovoked war on another country. And it did so using erroneous and misleading intelligence – and with the complicity of the dominant media. It has led to a conflict that, instead of being over quickly and bloodlessly as predicted, continues to this day into its sixth year.
We now know that a neoconservative is an arsonist who sets a house on fire and six years later boasts that no one can put it out. You couldn’t find a more revealing measure of the state of the dominant media today than the continuing ubiquitous presence on the air and in print of the very pundits and experts, self-selected message multipliers of a disastrous foreign policy, who got it all wrong in the first place. It just goes to show, when the bar is low enough, you can never be too wrong.
The dominant media remains in denial about their role in passing on the government’s unverified claims as facts. That’s the great danger. It’s not simply that they dominate the story we tell ourselves publicly every day. It’s that they don’t allow other alternative competing narratives to emerge, against which the people could measure the veracity of all the claims.
Back in the day, our parents would gather the morning paper, sit down for breakfast, read and discuss what they found in that one publication. Now, that simply isn’t enough. Because the media no longer feels the responsibility to inform the public in the true sense of the word inform, it is up to each person to get the information they need from as many sources as possible in order to make knowledgeable opinions about what is going on in the world around them.
Propelling the propaganda, part deux
The US administration has asked Americans to sacrifice their lives to fight the war on terror, while it tries to keep them deprived of information particularly about the failures of that war. The leaders are smart enough to remember the lessons from the Vietnam war in terms of how to spin war while keeping enthusiasm high for warmongering, but they weren’t smart enough to keep us out of a losing proposition. Any and all images which depict the human suffering of the war are kept out of the media because such images tend to evoke the emotions that are as self-preserving, instinctual as self defense because this administration, in fact the federal government of the United States is consumed with the notion of war and it needs all able bodied people it can muster to fight, even when that fight is not in the best interest of the people.
So, the news that people want to bring to America that truly reflects the costs of war has to be suppressed. What I found interesting about this story of the public affairs director of Arlington Cemetery was even after she secured the permission of the families of those being buried in Arlington, the Army tried to limit access to such funerals even though such limitations were baseless. I love how people want your enthusiasm, your patriotism, but only on their terms. Support the troops has been the battle cry for this war, yet the reality is so much more different. Hiding behind empty slogans is not characteristic of a great Republic, but rather of a banana republic.
Miscellany101's Weblog 