|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
|
Obama At House Republican Retreat In Baltimore: FU... AIG Loses Exec, Wins TARP Comp Ruling - Regulatory... Man v. Nature Spicy Predictable Consequences not why, but why not Tea Party Zombies Squishy Mice Pumpkin Star Trek Pumpkin Star Trek Follow Up Justin Oldham - Politics and Patriotism
Wilco The Flaming Lips The New Radicals John Mayer Zero 7 Dream Theater Radiohead Death Cab for Cutie The Notwist O.S.I. Ani Difranco The Shins Elliott Smith Badly Drawn Boy Chroma Key Coheed and Cambria The Streets Andrew Bird Sufjan Stevens Atom Site Feed 
|
3.31.2003
Open Forum On Legality Of War In Iraq - University of TulsaI visited this open forum at the University of Tulsa today and I wanted to share a few observations. I also wanted to issue a thank you to the professors that took the time to bring this discussion into the open. Most comforting was the affirmation that people of reason and knowledge understood the larger implications of this current policy and its possible consequences. You get the impression that all people are convinced that this war is the right thing to do and you can begin to question your own beliefs. Personally I always reserve the right to say "I'm completely wrong" based on some bit of information to which I do not have access. I always base my opinions on what know and understand that my convictions are only as strong as my knowledge. This, in my opinion should convince anyone to learn as much as they can about as many things as possible. One thought that I kept with after I left was this: precedent, not just in the legal sense but also in the social and political sense plays an important role. In this case there was an arguement made that protesting the war was poor policy because of the possible consequences on the morale of the people in harm's way. And for while that is a good case to make I would stress that it is the precendent that is established when an action (this war) is taken and the response is the end of dissent. To say that the proper response to instigation of violence is the end of debate means that the people wishing to end debate about a possible action will be to rush to war. Which was the case with this war. The end of debate will be a result of ongoing conflict. To me, protecting the right to dissent in the face of conflict is more important than troop moral. | 3.27.2003
Bush: Hard to Watch, Hard to Take SeriouslyGuardian Unlimited | Special reports | Would the real George Bush please stand down If you've just watched the wretched Press Conference just held with Blair you might be wondering if Bush is an animatronic as well. He is so awful when he isnt being coached. He has a few pat phrases that he spouts off when asked about anything that might relate. He can't ever elaborate on what he says because they're not his own thoughts! You may have noticed how quickly he shifted the subject about war crimes, because he doesn't know what he's talking about. He changed direction and started talking about how evil Saddam is, as if that's a contentious point! If he had any back knowledge behind the proclamations he makes then he might be able to answer a question or two. He even passed on one question! The fact that people seem willing to ignore the fact that their president is a talking puppet is shameful. The emperor has no brain and the rest of the world notices, but we refuse to do so because that would go against our own indoctrination. I wonder if any Bush lovers ever watch him at a press conference. You know he avoids them like the plague? | 3.26.2003
War is a Drug?Valley veterans long for combat - Local News - californianonline.com Civilians may find it inconceivable that a soldier would willingly return to combat. But it's also an adrenaline rush that can't be matched in peacetime, said Vietnam veteran David Keith of Salinas, 59. I'm not quite sure what to think about combat being a narcotic. Is the U.S. just an addicted nation that passes on the allure of the fix to each succesive generation? Of course war has become a vital component of the American mentality. Our society relies on war to reinforce our social structure. War brings back our nationalism, religious fervor and militaristic drive. Sons want wars to bring them closer to their fathers. Even though wars today are nothing like some wars of the past there is a feeling that war is war and living through the experience brings peope together. Indeed in our society where the ideal of individual versus individual rules we must have a overiding sense of national purpose. Its just as shame its killing other people. Otherwise we could build our society and educate people, move away from our poor fundamentalist mentality. Which is in fact what other modern societies are doing. "Religious rhetoric has played an important role in sanctifying major American political actions beginning with the War of Independence," said Stephen A. Kent, a University of Alberta sociologist. -NY Times War serves a function in the peculiar mishmash of American society. It siphons off excess production that is inherent in capitalists systems while at the same time working to procure favorable resource conditions for American business. At the same time it satisfies our sense of personal responsablity for each other. Once we go and kill some people under the flag then we've "served our country". This absolves people of serving their country everyday, which might have the unfortunate side effect of undermining the wealthy class hold on all aspects of society. How is that our patriotic politicians and pundits don't see any problems letting schools rot and children go without a quality education? | 3.24.2003
Statement: Why I Oppose this WarI oppose the use of any person's life, death or "purpose" for political ends. Which is the primary reason I opposed this war from the beginning. I feel a deep moral sense that sending people to potentially die is a decision not to take lightly which I feel we have. I have never served in the military because I don't trust the politicians who are more and more avoiding service themselves but seem more eager to send people off to die. People should only have to die for causes they believe in, not just for causes that the politicians beleive in. I would fight to protect my freedom and family but I would never fight just to serve some "policy goal". War in Iraq, despite the way it was sold is not about life and death, or protecting American freedom. Its a war for strategic military/economic position. That one person should have to die for that is personally repugnant. | 3.23.2003
Standing on a Street CornerPeople are not at their bests when yelling out their car windows, as evidenced by today's display of hatred directed towards peace demonstrators. Here are some examples: "Get a job!" yelled at least twice, even though it was Saturday. "How many kids do you got in the military?" I'm 28, which makes that near impossible. But my response would be "The same number as Bush." "Go to Russia!" - To which I might explain to them that Russia is now a free society. ----- But what really made me think today as I stood out in the nice weather on a busy street corner here in the heart of Tulsa, Oklahoma is that the response to our presence had predictable patterns. Patterns that I will try to present here. The most likely person to yell or gesture in anger over our presence was overwhelmingly white men in pickups. This in itself wouldn't be too telling because of the preponderance of white men in pickups but in contrast to that was the African American and other non-white response to our demonstrations. Their response was almost 100% positive with honks and peace signs and thumbs up. This was in marked contrast to the thumbs down, middle fingers and angry yells more likely to be eminating from that of middle aged white people. Pickups and SUV's were also more likely to harbor hostile reactions. But that could be a by-product of their desire to project a powerful image which leads to yelling out of windows as well. Ohe truck with a confederate flag license plate in front even swerved towards the curve where we were standing to scare us. But why the racial divide? My theory has to do with the dominate mythology within the different segments of American society. America demonstrated a national predilection for war and domestic violence long before the 9/11 attacks, but its leaders and intellectuals through most of the last century cultivated the national self-image, a myth, of America as a moral, peace-loving nation which the American population seems unquestioningly to have embraced. He says the American population embraces this myth. I would say that only certain segments of the American population have accepted this myth of America as a moral and peace loving country. The other parts of American society, namely the ones that were on the receiving end, have a slightly different view of America. So, to the extent that the violence that America has used benefitted you determines how likely you are to accept that violence as being in the service of good and moral ends. And I say that if you buy into the mythology of America you will be more likely to think that we are pursuing pure just goals in our invasion of Iraq. Whereas if you are skeptical of America's motives, as evidenced by Bush's revolving reasons for this war, then you will be more likely to oppose. The mythology of America affects how you pursue your life. If you accept that the U.S. government and other agents of American influence will act on your behalf and in your interest, you are more likely to vote, work for a large U.S. mutinational corporation, invest in the stock market, consume more products, buy an SUV or pickup and support our policies around the world. Of course this isn't a scientific conclusion but my mere speculation based on some observation. It also has more to do with perception than reality. We can expect to see someome that believes the myth of moral righteous America at the same time getting screwed by government or corporate policies. This mythology of America as moral and peace loving is mainly an American notion. The acceptance of that image also reflects the degree that you have been on the receiving end of American violence as well. This explains the massive protest in countries like Egypt and other parts of the middle east, where the perception is that the U.S. acts in its own self-interest and supports repressive regimes as long as they side with the United States. The image of America as a coercive regime that meddles in other people's affairs has little currency in the U.S. itself. Others see it, we don't. Another interesting observation from today is the numerous references to 9/11. This despite the complete lack of connection between this war in Iraq and the terrorist attacks. Apparently, a sufficient number of people are ready to bomb just about anybody to heal the psychic wound still left over from those attacks. And from a country that has repeatedly turned to violence as a way of addressing greivances the obvious action taken after an attack is a retaliation. A recent press photo had the words "pay back" written on the barrel of a tank gun. As I have mentioned before, military officers are using imagery from the World Trade Center towers to motivate troops in the invasion of Iraq. Polls have indicated that 45% of people that support war believe that Saddam Hussein is connected to September 11th. This is reinforced by repeated references to the terrorist attacks in the speeches justifying the invasion of Iraq. The message is "this is related". Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans, including, apparently, Bush himself, see it as revenge for 9/11. This is worse than bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious prejudice. Nobody has made even a faintly plausible case that Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity. It was Arabs that hit the World Trade Centre, right? So let's go and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, right? And Eye-raqis are Muslims, right? That does it. We're gonna go in there and show them some hardware. Shock and awe? You bet. The chilling message is that we are willing to commit violence against a people motivated by ethnic similarities. Not a unique event in American history but not one that fits easily with the mythology of a peace loving nation hell bent on bombing people to freedom. Another quote from Ira Leonard sums it up nicely. Despite the national, peace-loving self-image, American patriotism has usually been expressed in military and even militaristic terms. No less than seven presidents owed their election chiefly to their military careers (George Washington, 1789, Andrew Jackson,1828, William Henry Harrison, 1840, Zachary Taylor,1848, Ulysses S. Grant,1868, Theodore Roosevelt,1898, and Dwight David Eisenhower, 1952) while others, Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, for example, capitalized upon their military records to become presidents, and countless others at both federal and state levels made a great deal of their war or military records. Your value as an American is directly related to your willingness to kill? | 3.21.2003
War in the Context of Class StruggleIn my attempt at staying with the theme I have given to myself, which I have done miserable in following, and which now I will again attempt to commence, in the same style as Faulkner, who managed to make three thoughts into one sentence, to comment on the class issues involved in today's society which is dominated with war. David Neiwert over at Ornicus, one of my favorite blogs, mentions in his commentary that Howard Dean is attempting to reach out to the marginalized segment of white society, the pickup crowd if you will, which he refers to as the "confederate flag decal" crowd. The idea that Dean is trying to get out is that "Bush's policies are bad for the working class, so why would you support him?". Which is true. Bush's policies are undermining the abilities of the average working class folk to make their living and pursue life, liberty and happiness. But Bush is just continuing the legacy that began with the birth of this nation, which I feel was envisioned as a money making opportunity for the aristrocrats of Europe. The constitution was conceived not entirely for the American people but for the "American Elite" people. The assumption was that the landowners of this nation needed a set of rules to play by so they could go about their merry business without to much infighting. Only through the course of numerous movements and the shaping of that document to pertain to a broader segment of society have we reached the relatively enlightened level that we have. This is an easy conclusion to draw if you take a class view of history. Of course reading Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States of America will help as well. We reach this point in history and the basic idea of America has not changed much. The vast owners of American real estate and capital feel they have a right to determine the character and actions of this country. And to a certain extent they have done a thorough job of convincing the rest of us that we should let them. It is only through certain legal protections and tradition that restrains them if at all. Bush is just more blatent in his exploitation of power for class gains. He represents the clearest manifestation of American aristocracy, a son of a wealthy family who uses his position in society to gain wealth and power. Every so-called "patriotic" American should find his presidency distasteful to the ideas of hard work, personal responsibility and integrity. But unfortunately he's just the best specimen he is not the only one. The majority of powerbrokers in Washington are followers of the "new" golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rule. And in their ruling decision they look more to Wall Street than they do to Main Street. All This Talk About Patriotism Many people that oppose this war are being called Un-Patriotic. We do not have that unconditional love for the Father, the state. Patriotism can be defined simply as 'love and loyal support of one's country' I think its plain to see how our leaders stack up to these definitions. Being called unpatriotic is alot like being called just about anything else, its all in the intent. I personally don't feel so bad when its yelled at me from a passing pickup truck as I stand on a street corner defeding the idea of peace amongst humans. If my government does not stand with peace, justice, and liberty for all people of all places then I do not stand with my government. I do however stand for the ideas of America that everyone says they believe in but are not willing to stand up for; ideas such as equality and fairness. I respect the government of the state only if it represents the will of the people. There is a high standard for me to show allegiance to a government. My primary allegiance is to the community of humanity. Many times the artificial barriars that we call nations seperate people for the sole purpose of pitting humans against humans for the sake of power struggles. As it turns out, the Russians of the Former Soviet Union are not the baby eating killers we thought they were during the Cold War era. The Germans of the Nazi era were not some bad generation and now they're better. It turns out the Japanese would rather invent "cute" toys and games instead of flying suicide missions. Its plain to see that people naturally have peace in their hearts but are driven to war by their governments. It is for this reason that we see one of the primary causes of war is the willingness of a people to do their governments bidding when they would rather not. It is for this reason that I don't mind being called unpatriotic. My allegiance is conditional. There is no "love it or leave it" for me. also read: DECEPTIONS IN MILITARY RECRUITING: an ex-Insider Speaks Out | Family.org Hot Topics: A closer look at gambling, pornography, and drugs as public nuisances Every public nuisance stems from two elements: vulnerable people who are easily exploited, and industries willing to take advantage of their weaknesses. ---- From focus on the family. It seems a remarkably perceptive statement, to the extent that they implicate themselves in my mind. I consider this group to be one of the most exploitive industries in the world. Say what you will. Its amazing that people most willing to point the finger are the ones that never practive what they preach. What does that say about ourselves huh? - | 3.20.2003
Listening to all the yammering abou the war, something filtered through. A "Middle East Expert" made a remark that stated (in essence) "Saddam doesn't stand a chance against Bush". I was instantly angry. I thought, "So, now Bush looks powerful because he sits in the pilots seat of the most powerful killing machine in the history of humanity?" That was easy. All you have to do is get a group of wealthy businessmen together, annoint a new leader, spend an insane amount of money to get him elected, and now he's powerful? I feel a little like I've watched a five year old get put in the seat of an armored tank. Sure, now that little kid could kick just about anybody's butt. But he has no claim to moral superiority. Pres. Bush acts as if merely having the power to kill people and overthrow a ruler makes him morally secure. Its the ol' saying, might makes right. But theres a reason we don't form up a posse anytime a crime occurs. We have come to realize that justice is the result of shared responsibility. Moral authority comes from a "mandate from the masses" so to speak. By ignoring the will of the people of the world, Bush is revoking the now established law of the land. King George walks the land again. Peace to all | 3.19.2003
AlterNet: Metaphor and War, Again This essay by George Lakoff explores many of the metaphorical issues that are churning under the broil of war. I have included a quote from the article that I think is important in understanding the opposition that people have to Peace Activists. This idea of disciplining parents is apparent in the rhetoric of war. Combined with the ideas that Evil must be acted upon we see ourselves as parents that must act or face our own immorality for not acting in the face of evil. Peace activists are seen like parents that let their children scream and wail in the grocery stores. We all know what happens to children that aren't raised well. They treat their parents bad. In this case, they bomb us with nuclear weapons. read on... QUOTE: ""In the International Community, peopled by Nation-Persons, there are Nation-adults and Nation-children, with Maturity metaphorically understood as Industrialization. The children are the "developing" nations of the Third World, in the process of industrializing, who need to be taught how to develop properly and to be disciplined (say, by the International Monetary Fund) when they fail to follow instructions. "Backward" nations are those that are "underdeveloped." Iraq, despite being the cradle of civilization, is seen via this metaphor as a kind of defiant armed teenage hoodlum who refuses to abide by the rules and must be "taught a lesson."" | George Lakoff: on Evil as Metaphor Brilliant! Go read the whole article, right now. QUOTE: "The use of the word "evil" in the administration's discourse works in the following way. In conservative, strict father morality (see Moral Politics, Chapter 5) evil is a palpable thing, a force in the world. To stand up to evil you have to be morally strong. If you're weak, you let evil triumph, so that weakness is a form of evil in itself, as is promoting weakness. Evil is inherent, an essential trait, that determines how you will act in the world. Evil people do evil things. No further explanation is necessary. There can be no social causes of evil, no religious rationale for evil, no reasons or arguments for evil. The enemy of evil is good. If our enemy is evil, we are inherently good. Good is our essential nature and what we do in the battle against evil is good. Good and evil are locked in a battle, which is conceptualized metaphorically as a physical fight in which the stronger wins. Only superior strength can defeat evil, and only a show of strength can keep evil at bay. Not to show overwhelming strength is immoral, since it will induce evildoers to perform more evil deeds because they'll think they can get away with it. To oppose a show of superior strength is therefore immoral. Nothing is more important than the battle of good against evil, and if some innocent noncombatants get in the way and get hurt, it is a shame, but it is to be expected and nothing can be done about it. Indeed, performing lesser evils in the name of good is justified—"lesser" evils like curtailing individual liberties, sanctioning political assassinations, overthrowing governments, torture, hiring criminals, and "collateral damage."" | 3.18.2003
Watching the "Ultimatum Speech" last night I found that I had no opposition to the ideas that Bush was promoting. The Iraqi people need help. Freedom is a good thing. Self determination is the guiding light to peace. Saddam Hussein is a threat to his own people and they would benefit from a better government. The real heart of my opposition to war in Iraq is a matter of trust. I have a fundamental distrust of the people that are at the helm of this ship. I don't consider this mistrust to be unfounded. I know that the basis for any depth of support for the Bush agenda is a product of a massive amount of propaganda. I have witnessed the extent that right wingers will go to secure power for themselves and their politicians. And I see a level of intellectual insincerity that alarms me. It is for this reason more than any other that I oppose not just this war, but most of the Bush agenda. The reasons I don't trust President Bush and his administration: -- The Republican use of nationalism, racism, patriotism, religious fundamentalism and corporate interest in their politics. While not directly advocating most of these ideas outright, they are complacent in dealing with elements within their party that use these tactics to gain political support. The president has not taken the lead in calling for the restraint of French bashing that is being spurred on by many in the Republican party and their de facto propaganda unit, the talk radio network. They have made blatant use of the flag as a symbol for their cause as it changes from terrorism to invasion. Bush sprinkles his speeches with biblical and evangelical references as a way of showing support for the fundamentalist that are attacking Roe v. Wade and other issues on their own morals terms. What concessions will he make to this christian element in his governing of a predominately Muslim nation in a predominately Muslim part of the world? Related to this is the implication of the U.S. government that despite weak ties to the 9/11 terrorists that Saddam is in cahoots with the terrorists. This is capitalizing on the innate feeling that the American people will accept weak evidence because of the racial and religious connections of the Iraqis and the terrorists. A connection we would be more cautious to make about anglos and christians. Despite the weak assertion that we are not at war with Islam, I am sure that many fundamentalists are reassured by the liberal dose of religious overtones present in the president's speeches. The republicans in the house and senate have appointed themselves as protectors of the president, usually by pointing the Unpatriotic Finger at the offending person who dares question the "commander in chief". Even legitimate debate receives the once over to drive back any criticism. -- Political gain comes foremost before all else. Iraq will become a tool of the Bush Administration in their political strategy. Some would argue that this is already the case. I agree. Readers of the John Dilulio letter, a former member of the whitehouse team on Faith-Based issues know that with Karl Rove in the navigator position that no decision gets made without political calculations. Sometimes this means they never get around to substantive debate about the real-life merits of their actions. This is a by-product of Whitehouse team assembled for the intent of serving the political needs of the big contributors that bankrolled the Bush takeover of the whitehouse. The foreign policy has fallen into the hands of the hawks that were brought in to re-employ some old Bush and Reagan troops and to baby sit the foreign policy deficient Bush.What would be the worst case scenario is one in which the Bush politicos throw out all pretext of handing over power to the Iraqi citizens and start using the natural and human resources as bargaining tools for political favors. Do we have the confidence that this will not be the case. I think the historical evidence for this administration speaks volumes to that effect. -- The Bush administration's loyalty to the idea that public domain resources should be handed over to the wealthy to manage for the rest of us. And I fear that this guiding principle will be used in the decision making process in Iraq. This would lead to the handing over of Iraqi assets to whoever lobbies the US government for that privilege. Most importantly oil, after that, everything else. This policy held prominence in the United States up until 9/11 when the focus shifted to foreign affairs and the "war on terrorism". The Bush administration though has not stopped with the transfer of public assets into the hands of private corporations. Just witness the massive tax cuts that get passed even as the federal government slides further into deficits. -- The diplomatic process by which this war was executed undermined the credibility President and the United States. This only adds to the distrust created by the 2000 presidential election. On numerous occasions the president was spreading false or misleading information to bolster support for his decision. This fact makes it clear that none of these reasons were primary justifications for the invasion or else their falsification would have halted the process. Instead new reasons would crop up to replace them. It will also be difficult to determine the success of the rebuilding of Iraq. The evidence of our success will be as suspect as the evidence for our invasion. Indeed Rumsfeld has floated the idea that Saddam will falsify civilian Iraqi deaths. There will be pressure to preserve the "Knight on a White Horse" image that helped make this war go down easier with the American public. Any resulting political institution will be hailed as a success even if it fails to meet expectations. | You say War, I say Invasion BBC NEWS | Middle East | US invasion of Iraq 'inevitable' in·va·sion (n) -- The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. war (n) -- A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. Why I prefer to say "the invasion of Iraq". | 3.15.2003
Real Support for Iraq Invasion: 10% of American Public. The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq | csmonitor.com Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero. So, 45% of people think Saddam is the bad guy behind 9/11 and 55% support and invasion of Iraq right now. 55% - 45% -------- 10% <----- people that actually want to attack Iraq for non-9/11 reasons. That looks about right. That covers the "bring on the apocalypse!" fundie crowd, the "let's show those damn arabs who's boss" rumsfeld crowd and the "ooooo pretty planes, bombs go BOOM!" Dubya crowd. Most everyone else is falling in the "they did it to us lets do it to them" crowd. Kinda sad when you think about it. We go to war fueled up on a lie. Brought to us by the marketing people at the Whitehouse who are certain that if they mention Saddam and Sept. 11 enough times in the same sentence then we will believe it. Well, you can fool some of the people some of the time. And thats enough kill people I suppose. The following is a sublimininanal message: you have been warned! President Bush is the president. September 11th was a horrible event. Bush shouldn't be the president. Sept. the 11th shouldn't have happened. We should do something about September 11th. Some people want to impeach President Bush. The terrorists used airplanes to attack the world trade centers. Bush wants to use airplanes to bomb Iraq. The towers collapsed because of the fuel in the planes caught fire. Some people say that Bush wants the oil in Iraq. Oil is used to make airplane fuel. Innocent people died when the towers collapsed. There are lots of innocent people in Baghdad. The planes exploded when they hit the buildings. The bombs Bush will use in Iraq will explode when they hit buildings. September the 11th was a terrible crime against people. Iraqis are people. The terrorists hate Bush. Bush hates Saddam Hussein. We cannot impeach Saddam Hussein but he is a bad man for hurting innocent people. He hates people too. We couldn't do anything to stop 9/11. Bush is about to invade Iraq. We now return to regular Faux News programming | 3.14.2003
United Nations too Democractic for the U.S., Not Democractic Enough for the Rest of the World The United Nations has been embraced by the anti-war movement because of its usefulness as a roadblock to the "Invasion of Iraq" by the United States. Others, such as George Will have started to talk about the U.N. in terms of "a bad idea". The sticking point is the United Nations ligatimacy in regards to representing the will of the International Community. The Bush Administration follows the logic that the U.N. should be regarded in the same respect as any other democractic institution; good when it rubber stamps the will of the powerbrokers and "irrelavent" when it chooses to defy those wishes. This was not a terribly important issue as long as the United Nations, and in particular the Security Council was willing to go along with the will of the United States. Fringe voices have been calling for the United States to pull out of the United Nations for years because it threatens the soveriegnty of the U.S. It is telling to note the extent to which this right wing sentiment has become part of mainstream policy. The United Nations approaches the period of time in which it either starts to act as a true instrument of democracy or it will remain a tool of the United States and other designated power players. In this way it mirrors the historical progress of the U.S. government throughout its history. Here, many of the wealthy and powerful were quite content with the early forms of government that excluded the undesirable elements. Elements, of course that would question the role of elites as de facto leaders. Wealthy landowners used numerous methods to block the entrance of the majority of American people into the democractic process, and they continue to do so today. Whether through the requirements of being male, being literate, being white, being rich or being free of a criminal past, the bar of entering the democratic process has been lowered only by the efforts of various movements, rarly the willingness of the powerful. The ultimate goal of all people is to have the right to determine the nature of the governing body that represents them. Approaching that goal in the United States has taken two hundred years, a civil war and many mass movements. Do we have any reason to hope that the development of a democratic form of international government will take any less effort? We should, if you consider the lessons we have learned on our own road towards equal representation. Unfortunately, I already hear the same rhetoric in regards to the United Nations that was applied to the U.S. government decades ago. To the extent that one commentator has denounced the rights of one U.N. security member to express its opinion based on the fact that "over half the country is illiterate". A better question would be to ask whether the government has the right to represent the people, not whether the people are educated enough to determine there own leaders. One addresses a primary issue about the legitamacy of the United Nations, the other just engages in classist denouncements, of which I am sure we will hear more. The United Nations is far from perfect as an institution of international democracy. It was set up as an instrument of then-dominant powers and its composition reflects that. The security council is composed of five permanent members that have the power to veto military action by the U.N. This includes America, Russia, France, China and Great Britian. The other ten positions are occupied by rotating members. To which one must wonder, why should these five nations have the authority to veto any military action? Is it that they are all democracies, not so. China's government represents the will of the Chinese government more so than the people, and teh former Soviet Union did not as well. And its debatable whether any of these countries has a clear authority to represent the wishes of their peoples, though some clearly do better than others. Is it based on population? If so argues George Will, why not India, Japan, Brazil or Indonesia? As the populations of the world changes should the composition of the security council change? Would then Will accept the replacement of the U.S. with Brazil? I think not. In fact, I am sure he would not. But right now we are excluding vast numbers of people of a voice in important matters. Many new global powers will be eager to flex their muscle while other declining powers will fight to keep theres. The United Nations will have to, much in the same way the U.S. has had to, find a way of allowing fair representation for all. The debate about the "relavance" of the U.N. comes amid a squabble in the Security Council wherein the nation of France has said it will veto a vote by the U.S. and Great Britian to authorize an invasion of Iraq. To which the first question would be, has the United States ever opposed a resolution supported by other members of the Security Council? The answer is yes, and it has done so on numerous occasions. So what is the difference you might be asking. Why is the fate of the U.N. tied so closely to the will of U.S. but not to other states? The answer lies with power. Military power to be more precise. Or as it is stated by Mr. Will that America is ".... the only nation that has the power to enforce U.N. resolutions." He also alludes to the fact that we pay for one quarter of the U.N. funding. In essence the arguement is; we have the guns, we make the laws, we'll enforce the laws and if you don't like it we'll turn out the lights and lock up behind us. A powerful arguement, but sadly not one that will help the cause of international peace and democracy. This is a terrible arguement in this instance when we are dealing with a regional debate in which only ONE of the regional countries are allowed to express their opinions and vote. Even then, Syria cannot stop the Security Council from allowing the war on Iraq by the U.S. and Great Britian. I compare this to the hypothetical and improbable invasion of Brazil by Russia without the US, Mexico, Canada, Chile, Argentine or any other North or South American country except one, let's say, Ecuador, getting a non-veto vote on the matter. This scenario would not only be totaly unacceptable but would be regarded as sheer absurdity by the entire world. But we are to accept that the entire Middle East should stand by while non-regional powers decide the fate of their neighbors? We accept this in the same way the plantation owners accepted the ownership of their slaves. We have a over-inflated sense of our own abilities to determine what is right for other people and we will take advantage of what power is avaliable to protect our own interests. History has shown that when the minority insists on maintaining the right to determine the fate of the majority, movements will arise to take that so-called right away. This is not simply my opinion. We cannot assume that people of differing regions of the world will defer to the United States "right" to determine their regional affairs for them. It would be more than prudent, I would dare say neccesary that the United States not stand in the path of this freight train. Despite the flaws of the United Nations, even an imperfect institution that opens the way for people to have their voices heard needs to be nurtured. Right now the United States has the opportunity to help shape the United Nations in useful ways. As the sole superpower we have the chance to act as an arbitor for the rest of the world. But it is essential if we are to be seen as a benelovent force that we not insist that the UN do our bidding or risk "irrelavance". This, I fear is what we are doing in the name of attacking a petty dictator. We are threatening the voices of others for the sake of our own short term security and for domestic political gain. Once the United Nations ceases as a means for the world's marginalized to make their voice heard, and the United States takes up the mantle as the world's master a movement will form and it may well be aimed in our direction. Is Saddam Hussein really worth that possibility? I would appreciate your feedback on this article: satumma@hotmail.com | 3.13.2003
I was trying to come up with a good analogy that would help people realize the hypocrisy that America is exhibiting. But there was a few problems. Namely that there wasn't a similar situation on Earth from which to draw from. So here's my solution. Any resemblance to reality is simply a remnant of your last bad dream. ----- In the sky appears a giant spaceship. It hovers just above the atmosphere and broadcasts in multiple langauges that the United Planet's Federation has decided that the civilisation of humans on Earth pose a threat to its nearest neighbor in the galaxy, which just happens to be the most powerful planet in the UPF; Primus X. They cite as their case that Earthlings have devastating weapons, they have engaged in wars against their own species showing their tendencies towards violence, and they might have the technology to launch a weapon against the planet of Primus X. So they had approached the UPF with this case and after some debate and a few trade offs a consensus was reached that the Earthlings must be destroyed, in order to "Protect the inhabitants of Primus X and to secure Freedom and Security for all the Universe!". In the interest of fairness they allow the people of Earth to present their case before the UPF. The Earthling representative presents the case for mercy, making the point that any aggression was done in the name of tribal conflict against people of opposing nations, that we have never threatened the people of Primus X, and that our weaponry is only for defense. He argues that attacking Primus X would not make sense for the Earthlings. The people of Earth breathe a sigh of relief. A good case was made. Surely they would realize that it was only a few bad leaders that were responsible for the deaths of millions and that the entire planet should not be held accountable for the actions of a few bad apples. The UPF requests access to the historical records and the Earthlings comply. The representative from Primus X repeats that the history of the Human race shows that they are not to be trusted and they would help others that wish to attack Primus X or other planets. A few debates at the UPF center around the fact that Primus X is in desperate need of water and that their attack on the Planet Earth might be motivated by their desire to mine the water from Earth. The representative from Primus X denounces the claims as absurd despite what some see as an obvious connection between Primus X's needs for water and the choice of target, the water rich planet of Earth. Some make the claim that Earth's ability to use its weapons against Primus X are exaggerated but the leader of Primus X demands that he must act in what he sees as the interest of the security of his people. He simply cannot run the risk of not taking action against this hostile planet that may be able to attack them. It's a risk he won't take. He cites the attack by a rogue band of Space Pirates on his planet and the deaths of thousands of Primusians. He has pledged to defend his planet from any further attacks. Many Primusians feel that the Earthlings may have been involved in the Pirate attacks. The Primus X leader has even said that he reserves the right to attack Earth even if the UPF does not agree to allow it. He is trying hard to broker deals that will allow the attack on Earth. Many smaller planets have accepted generous aid from Primus X in exchange for letting the attack go forth. Some other larger planets are trying to get a comprmise deal that would allow the Earthlings to live as long as the Military of Primus X would be allowed to control the planet, mine the water and remove any and all weapons from the Earthlings. Primus X argues that on a planet the size of Earth, finding and destroying that millions of weapons the Earthlings have built could be an impossible task. They claim that it would be safer for the people of Primus X if the Earthlings were exterminated. The representative from Earth argues that giving up all their weapons would leave them defenseless against other hostile planets. And that the presence of Primus X miltary would limit their ability to govern themselves. Many Earthlings are afraid that the Primusian Military units might eat them. The Earth people argue that they will not attack Primus X and that they should be allowed to live in peace. Unfortunately, Earth is not part of the governing United Planet's Federation and they do not get a vote. The Earth representative is not allowed to speak to the people of Primus X to make its case. Earthlings are regarded as violent and everything they say will be seen as a lie. A few Primus X citizens that argue that the people of Earth should be allowed to live if they show cooperation are seen as anti-Primusian and are putting the planet at great peril by giving their enemies time to build up their weapons and attack them. The Earthlings are after all killers, and warlike, that has been proved by their history. The Primusian warships appear in the skies above Earth and the UPF warns the Earthlings that any attempt to defend themselves will be seen as an act of war against the UPF members and they will be destroyed. A UPF vote headed by the Primusians declares that the only way that humanity can be saved is if they get rid of all their weapons and show complete cooperation with the demands of the UPF. Many member planets agree hoping that they can prevent the attack by the Primusians if they agree to conditions. They declare that Earth has to destroy its weapons and prove that it has done so. Many Earthlings are upset. Many demand that Earth must not disarm and become defenseless. Some argue that Earth should disarm slowly and prolong the time for them to make their case to the members of the UPF. Others say that Earth should conceal some of their weapons so they can fight back in case the Primusians decide to attack without the UPF's approval. The leaders of Earth welcome a team of UPF representatives to watch as they destroy some of their weapons. The UPF team is convinced by the Earthlings that they will not pose a threat to Primus X. They report this to the UPF members. Primus X says that the disarmament is too slow and they cannot keep their warships in orbit about the planet forever, some of the ship's pilots miss their familes. So they demand that proof of Earth's complete cooperation be presented now or else they will proceed with the extermination. Earth presents its "proof". The leader of Primus X declares that it is incomplete and all lies, further proof that the Earthlings are intent on attacking Primus X. The leader of Primus X holds a press conference where primusians ask the leader to make his case for the annihilation of the human race. "Earth and its weapons are a direct threat to this planet, to our people and to all free people. If the galaxy fails to confront the threat posed by the Earth threat, refusing to use force even as a last resort, other planets would assume the unacceptable risks. The attacks of the Space Pirates, show what the enemies of Primus X did with primitive weapons. We will not wait to see what dangerous planets could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will not leave the Primusian people at the mercy of the Earthlings and their weapons. Planets of good will must also recognize that allowing a dangerous planet to defy the galaxy and harbor weapons of mass murder and terror is not peace at all, it is pretense.The cause of peace will be advanced only when the Space Pirates lose a wealthy race and protector, and when the Earthlings are fully and finally disarmed. Tonight I thank the Primusians of our armed services and their families. I know their deployment so far from home is causing hardship for many military families. Our planet is deeply grateful to all who serve in space. We appreciate your commitment, your idealism and your sacrifice. We support you. And we know that if peace must be defended, you are ready." The Primusians are convinced and they agree that UPF or not the people of Earth must be stopped. People that oppose the attack are said to be helping the Space Pirates. People who point out that the leader of Primus X was involved in the water industry and so were many of his advisors are dismissed as "Space Pirates". People that argue that Earth is only a small threat have to admit that there is a small chance that Earth could attack and kill thousands of Primusians. Some even point out that Primus X has engaged with wars with other planets and that the very act of wiping out a race of people will make them no better than the Earthlings. They are ignored and even laughed at. Most primusians admit that they will accept the annihilation of the Earthlings once it starts and they will send cards and care packages to the pilots of the warships. Most of the leaders of the Primusians support the attack so they don't appear to be soft on Space Pirates but some do think that they should be focusing more attention of catching the Space Pirates and less time picking on Earth. But they don't press to hard lest they be seen as whackos. | The Logical Fallacies: Index Tuned into some right-wing talk radio on the way home, (though I would never admit to it on any survey, ever!). And I was wondering how the hosts get away with what they do. Its sheer mockery. Its riddled with Logical Fallacies. It seems the subject of tonights fiesta of derision was celebrities that have come out against the war. The celebrities are not much better at making their case either in terms of being logical or reasonable. But they do better by miles that the talk show host. The typical session started with the playing of an audio clip of some celebrity that had recently appeared on a television interview show and expressed their views. During the clip the radio personalities made derisive comments not unlike ones you remember the "cool" kids making as the "not cool" kids would walk by when you were in High School. It had little or no real substance but was aimed at undermining the position of the celebrity. They played a clip from Tim Robbins who made his points about protests and the UN. To which the response was: "Oh, yeah, we have a guy that was in Bull Durham talking about maturity" An Ad Hominem if you didn't already guess.... The rest of the arguement was that since they were "Hollywood Celebrities" they were "Anti-Religious" and "Immoral". And they had no place expressing their opinions in the media. The anti-religious comments are based on the assertion by the celebrity that she was uncomfortable with President Bush's use of religious references in his discussion about the war, feelings which I happen to share. It seems crass to talk about your Christian faith as you prepare to invade and kill Muslims. Brings up bad memories of the crusades. Not to mention the recent naming of a new bomb after a Biblical figure. The irony of the situation is: The media, especially television want recognizable people so people will watch. And with the attention that is given to celebrities they are able to get access to media easier than other people. In some cases they are sought to give their opinions because they are in the public eye. Other celebs seek the spotlight so they can "give voice" to what they feel is people with their same opinions. They are not supposed to give their opinions when they are asked I suppose. But I think the mockery and the derision would be absent if they were pushing for a war. I don't think the problem is with their celebrity status but instead, their message. Some say that they do not reflect the opinion of mainstream america since they represent a small subgroup of society that lives in a different reality. That may be true. But there is also a history of celebrities that have gone into politics. The right wing / republican camp should be sensitive to the carte blanche write off they give celerities, especially given the presence of Reagan and Heston in their ranks. Many celebs are active in political issues, given their time and money. I do wish though that more people that are not notorious in some way were given more of a voice. We seem to be stuck with a choice of either Pundit, Celebrity or Government Official. As if those are the only voices that are allowed discourse. ----- There seems to be a new shorthand for being antiwar Its now simply known as being Anti-American. Anti-American... But having been to many anti-war marches and rallies I can say without a doubt that nobody there is anti-american. Most people consider their actions as being in the service of debate. Many of course feel that with the government is pushing for war and the media's not challenging the government's position. That the only way they can voice their opposition is by standing around on street corners and making noise. I don't think its fair to equate opposition to war as being equivalent to being anti-american. I don't want the war, but I don't hate america. Pro America Rally In some states and cities, including my own hometown of Tulsa, there was Pro America Rallies or Rallies for America. This seems to say that somehow the rallies oposing the war are "Rallies against America". I hope that is not the case. But from hearing the rhetoric of the AM talk show hosts that are behind some of the rallies i would say that would be the message. "Our purpose is to let the American people and the world know that we support our troops, that we say ‘no’ to terrorism, and that we want to liberate Iraq,’’ said Bob Johnson, a member of the board of directors for Free Republic Network, a nonprofit group associated with the conservative Internet bulletin board freerepublic.com. I support the troops (bring them home!), I say "no" to terrorism and I would like to see Iraq liberated. But I still think the proposed invasion of Iraq is ill-conceived and I dont support it. But I still think that by defining their rally in those terms lends credence to the idea that anti-war groups are opposed to those ideas. That's not what I see. I thinks its an attempt to blur the real issue. Being in opposition of the government's policy and opposing an invasion of another country is now simply know as being anti-american and by association you don't "support the troops". I think that would be hard to say about the various veterens that are active in the Anti-WAr activities. At a recent get together there were Veterens from Korea, Vietnam and the First Gulf War. Many were sympathetic to the actual soldiers but didnt see any inconsistency in opposing the governments position. I believe that the troops are being used as a screen to defend the war arguement. I am upset that we have already sent soldiers to the Middle East, in many instances calling up reservists for a war without broad nationaland global support. Now we are supposed to just accept the was because doing otherwise might be bad for the troops. I don't buy that. Commiting troops to deployment does not automatically mean we should attack. Careful consideration and support should be lined up before we commit to military action. Thats my thoughts on the recent "debates" about war or no war. satumma@hotmail.com | 3.12.2003
Wired News: Why Did Google Want Blogger? Strange, because a thought occured to me recently that Blogs were a very sophisticated form of web cataloging. Bloggers are doing the work of a service like Yahoo. We look through the links, create copies of the ones that bear the most interest and even write summeries and commentary on them. All for free. Imagine, you enter the information stream, and unless there is something ahead of you, a fork in the road you stop. You stare at the screen and wonder what to do next. Instead you enter the stream, and there is a list of possible "leads" that you get to choose from. Each in turn leads to more leads and you follow a series of streams that lead you through new parts of the internet. The problem right now seems to be that many of the links are just short hypertexted sentence fragments. And some of those just lead to dead ends without giving you much to go on. The web is an evolving form of global consciousness. Is that good or bad? | 3.11.2003
The Observer | Comment | Mr Bush goes for the kill Terry Jones: And yet it worries me that Mr. Bush says that one of the reasons he wants to kill a lot of Iraqis is because Saddam Hussein has also been killing them. Is there some sort of rivalry here? I'm not saying that George W. Bush shouldn't be allowed to kill as many people as he wants. After all he is the unelected leader of the most powerful country on earth, so if he can't do anything he likes, who can? ----- Masterful! I love it when people are able to cut ot the heart of an issue with such swiftness. It must be a by-product of comedy writing. The ability to see through the apparent reality and see the underlying truth. | House restaurants change name for 'french fries' and 'french toast' This is absurdity in its finest incarnation. "This action today is a small, but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure of many on Capitol Hill with the actions of our so-called ally, France," said Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, the chairman of the Committee on House Administration. "I represent a district with multiple military bases that have deployed thousands of troops," Walter Jones, R-North Carolina said in a statement. "As I've watched these men and women wave good-bye to their loved ones, I am reminded of the deep love they have for the freedom of this nation and their desire to fight for the freedom of those who are oppressed overseas," Jones said in a statement. "Watching France's self -serving politics of passive aggression in this effort has discouraged me more than I can say." What I love is his use of the term "passive aggression" which has to be used because France is doing nothing more than excersizing the power to act in its own best interest. The last time I checked the United Nations Charter didn't have a disclaimer saying that all nations had to do what the US thought was best. Pres. Bush has sent troops to the border without the consent of the rest of the rest of teh world. Whose fault is it that "these men and women wave good-bye to their loved ones"? I know the answer, its Bush. He and the Pentagon get to raise the order to move soldiers. Its not Frances fault that we have already sent troops for a mission that might not take place. So France is "self serving"? Last time I checked so are we. Are we not going to invade Iraq because we want to get rid of him to protect ourselves? Is that not self serving. We expect others to act in ways that we ourselves will not? That is hypocrisy. The people of Ohio and North Carolina need to know about this. | Fear, the Foundation of Religion Bertrand Russell, from the Essay Why I am not a Christian "Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing - fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand and hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by the help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the chuches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us get over the craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it." ----- Amen. The best way to help people that are suffering under the yoke of orthodoxy is to show them that you have no fear of death, no fear of the afterlife, and no fear of being human. You must enjoy life and act with kindness and compassion. And show by example that morality, kindness, compassion and humility can arise from a person without the aid of religious indoctrination. Treat their beliefs with respect but treat the myths and fables as you would any other children's story meant to frighten you. | 3.10.2003
Great! ----- Inhofe Upsets Democratic Aides Congressional Democratic aides are crying foul after Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, allowed a fellow from the Competitive Enterprise Institute to represent him at what Democrats said was a closed-door meeting on global warming. The meeting, which was requested by the United Nations and hosted by the State Department, was intended, Democrats said, to brief congressional staffers on a series of climate change reports required by the international body. But Christopher Horner, a fellow at the anti-regulation think tank, also sat in on the meeting -- telling the group that he was from the institute, representing the senator. Democrats described his attendance as highly unusual and a breach of congressional protocol. One aide said Horner would have been escorted from the meeting had the other staffers initially realized who he was -- and had they not been afraid of making a scene before their international visitors. Both Horner and a spokesman for Inhofe scoffed at the Democrats' complaints. The spokesman said the meeting, in fact, was not limited to congressional staffers. Horner, meanwhile, said senators are allowed to designate outside representatives and that Democrats have previously allowed their own outside partisans to sit in on what were ostensibly closed congressional meetings. But the White House appears to have sided with the Democrats on this one: An e-mail announcing a subsequent meeting on the reports noted, "the Administration has requested that this briefing be limited to Members and staff only." | Some ideas on what I see as I surf around the blogging universe. Bruce - satumma@hotmail.com ----- On being: A lefty, progressive, anti-war, etc... The idea is not to be partisan. That's what I feel must be fought. We stand for ideas, not alliances. You can't fight demagoguery and hateful attacks by attacking back with the same methods. Many people in the anti-war camp feel that the best way to defeat this war is to engage the hawks with the same level of illogical baiting. Some even feel that they do so in the cause of furthering their own party interests. This is destructive. I don't just despise people like Rush Limbaugh because he is promoting an agenda that I believe is wrong for this country and for any other country for that matter. What I fight is the methods as well as the message. We can't fight the assault on our ideals by thinking that we can use the same slandering methods to our own ends. This should be critical in our opposition of the war, on the grounds that is will undermine the ideals that America stands for. Not simply because stopping this war will give Bush the biggest black eye he has ever seen. I am heartened and saddened because I feel that the "left", a term that I use to mean progressive minded people has the best minds working for it. People that are adept at understanding long term goals for humanity, who articulate their message with consistency. People not prone to follow the winds of popularity. We stand for the advocacy of reason. What's good for us is good for others. We don't reserve the best for us and relegate the rest of humanity to dustbin. I am saddened when others that I agree with use methods that are below the quality of our thought. We don't need mindless parrots making our case for us. We should distance ourselves from them as well as the parrots from the other side. We cannot build our cause by simply being in opposition of the right. That in essence is what we should be fighting against. That is what the current administration is about, they are there because they criticized the Liberals for years that they were doing everything wrong. Well, of course now that they have control they are clueless, finding it is easier to attack people for their ideas than to have any of your own. They got what they wanted without a clue of what to do with it. That is our fate if we build our support by drawing caricatures of our enemies. You cannot build a base of support by feeding people's ignorance. For they will turn on you as soon as a louder voice drowns you out. You cannot build a base of support by arguing without reason, for you supporters will then be swayed by other arguments with little or no merit as well. Only a well reasoned and honest position will win in a free marketplace of ideas. We should not seek to limit the discourse. Or demonize others that disagree with our stance. We should support those that advance the ideas of reason, fairness, equality and justice, regardless of their party affiliation. We should forge respect in others by our willingness to listen. We will stay above the ad hominon and straw man attacks that only drive people of compassion away from political discourse. Ours is the victory of time. History has shown that our ideals have always won. People fought for equality and won. People fought for justice and won. People fought for freedom and won. Now we will fight for peace and unity and we will win, not because we attack louder, or slander our enemies. The weight of peoples sense of what is right and what is wrong will always prevail over the course of time. We must simply harbor that message against the tides of power. We must reject the rhetoric that says that we are better than they. We are them. We must reject the idea that power is more important than ideas. We must reject the argument that reality means acting in ways that contradict our ideas. Power will draw ire onto us faster than honey will draw the ant. Compassion for our enemies will soften their hearts. We must reject the urge to act in all matters. We must not be provoked by the hate of others. Action is not always the appropriate response despite the calls that "like must beget like". Jesus said turn the other cheek but we have never let ourselves take that advice to heart. Instead we are provoked by hatred to respond with violence. We must not forget that Ghandi won. Most importantly we must not defend bad ideas, poor reasoning or false arguments because we wish to defend the messenger. And likewise we should not dismiss good ideas, sound reasoning or true arguments because we care not for the messenger. There are still many problems to solve and we need all the help we can get. If the world were perfect we could stop thinking. If we knew with absolute certainty that we are right then we would stop listening to others. We are not always right. Nobody is right all the time. Mistakes will be made. We must forgive ourselves for our own ignorance. Forgive others for their arrogance. And remember that we are all just humans, nothing else. | 3.09.2003
Ahhh.. this is the kernal of truth that I feel, many say it but its doesn't sit well with those that see ACTION as the response that we must take. As if not doing anything is the greatest of all crimes. We simply have to lash out at those we hate. Create more to hate, and lash out again and again. That will fill out deep need to be whole. This same need to do anything, besides just doing nothing is the same gut response we see from all politicians and people. And to what extent does this grow out of our society that has no value for things with no productive value, things like tree and grass and sky and air? I don't know. Just read below: MOYERS: How do we protect ourselves, defend our security, do the right thing and yet not be taken by surprise again? HEDGES: By having the courage to be vulnerable. By not folding in on ourselves. By not becoming like those who are arrayed against us. By not using their rhetoric and not adopting their worldview. What we did after 9/11 was glorify ourselves, denigrate the others. We're certainly, now at this moment, denigrating the French and the Germans who, after all, are our allies. And we created this global troika with Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon. One fifth of the world's population, most of whom are not Arabs, look at us through the prism of Chechnya and Palestine. And yes, we certainly have to hunt down Osama bin Laden. I would like to see those who carried out 9/11, in so far as it is possible, go on trial for the crimes against humanity that they committed. But we must also begin to address the roots of that legitimate rage and anger that is against us. It has to be a twofold battle. We are not going to stop terrorism through violence. You see that in Israel. In some ways, the best friend Hamas has is Ariel Sharon, because every time the Israelis send warplanes to bomb a refugee camp or tanks into Ramallah, it weakens and destroys that moderate center within the Palestinian community. And essentially creates two apocalyptic visions. One on the extreme right wing of Israeli politics. And certainly one on the ex | 3.07.2003
U.S. Troops Use 9-11 for Inspiration ::shivers:: My nomination for the creepiest article I've read yet. The point of the article seems to be that the military is deliberatly tying the 9/11 attacks, the war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq all together. ``The reason I'm here is Sept. 11,'' said Ensign Robin Barnett, 30, a naval intelligence officer aboard the USS Kitty Hawk, one of three U.S. aircraft carriers operating in the Gulf. ``This person obviously hates the United States of America,'' Barnett said, referring to Saddam." Ouch, I am reminded of the scene in Starship Troopers where the troops head off to fight the Bugs for revenge. What I seem to have a problem with is the logic. I know, you ask, what logic? Well, the logic goes: 1) we have been attacked 2) we dont want to be attacked again 3) therefore, we must attack/prevent anyone that may attack us in the future There is a certain amount of merit to this line of reasoning. For instance, al-Qaida has proven that they have the motive and the will to commit crimes against the United States. They have commited a crime, so the people that have done so should be apprehended and prevented from doing it again. This also happens to be the law in the US as well. After their guilt is proven they will be punished. Ok, fair enough. So now we move onto Iraq. Iraq has not commited any crime against the U.S. They are however in violation of UN resolutions who would then hold the legal authority to enfore them. The Bush administration asserts that the crimes of 9/11 (commited by al-Qaida remember) warrants action against Iraq. The reasoning goes that since one organization commited crimes against us, another with similer characteristics will do so as well. But here's where I get confused. One: because Iraq has never to my knowledge professed a desire to destroy the United States. They have violated laws and commited atrocities in their own "Neighborhood" as Bush puts it, but that is different to my mind. Two, Iraq is not idealogically driven like the 9/11 terrorists were. Iraq is the product of a dictator that is pushing for power in his own country and more power in his region. The way I see it, Sadaam Hussein is an old problem, a egomanical leader that is abusing his power to commit crimes in the name of control. All of his actions fit that mold. On the other hand al-Qaida is driven by a different set of goals. They are not a state like Iraq. Their membership is not based on any sort of geography. The people of Iraq don't always choose to join Saddam, the people in al-Qaida do. They derive their power from opposition to a perceived injustice, much like other extremist groups. Like minded people band together to acheive goals. Anti-American terrorist groups get their support from the feelings of hate towards the U.S. that results in actions or perception of the United States. In large part we are a symbol of power and we are scapegoated for all manner of crimes that we have either commited or not commited. Any action that we take will be used in some way or another for recruiting new members for terrorism. So the goal should be to acheive the results we want: preventing attacks, while at the same time minimizing the amount of hate, fear and resentment. An invasion of Iraq without the clear and legal authority to do so will no doubt play into the hands of anti-american elements. . Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people. - President Bush on March 6, 2003 assertion 1) Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes -- true assertion 2) He possesses weapons of terror -- Not Proven assertion 3) He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists -- Not Proven assertion 4) Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country -- Not at all proven, even remotely assertion 5) ...and to all free people -- bald faced assertion and hyperbole What's wrong with this picture is that the case for invading Iraq rests on the last few assertions, which incidently happen to be the weakest. The strongest case seems to be that a history of reckless behavior means that Saddam is so unpredictable that he could do anything. That's possible. So then the burden is to show that Saddam is incapable of rational thought. Which is hard to prove if you look at the events of history. Ambassador Willson and others that witnessed the First Gulf War have stated that Saddam was acting out of cold calculation. That indeed he thought he could get away with the invasion of Kuwait. The U.S. and the U.N. he assumed would not act to forcibly remove him. Gen. WAFIC AL SAMMARAI, Iraqi Military Intelligence: [through interpreter] Saddam thought any reprisals would be limited and would tail off with time. He thought that America's involvement in Vietnam had badly damaged its willingness to use military power. Vietnam had been an outright defeat, militarily and politically. A mistake, but not exactly the action of a madman. If being a hack at foriegn policy was enough to make you a threat "to all free people" then I have a few nominations of my own. So what you had in essence was a leader acting out of self interest. He wanted Kuwait for the money and the oil. He had tried to bluff them into paying him $10 Billion dollars but they had refused. He attacked figuring the US wouldn't want to get involved. Bush however saw the opportunity to take down one of the largest militaries in the Middle East and deal with Saddam and his potential power in the region. RICHARD HAAS: Saddam probably figured the Arab world and the world at large would bitch and moan for a couple of days and then people would get used to it and the world would essentially learn to live with it. And the United States, which had left Lebanon a decade before, and so forth, was not going to do anything. And even if the United States wanted to do something, the local Arabs would never do anything. They would never work with the United States and stand up to Saddam. So I think Saddam took the pretty intelligent decision that he could probably get away with it. So there goes assertion number one. Which is the building block for all the others. Without the basis for an irrational killer with his finger on the button there goes alot of the rest of the arguement. He possesses weapons of terror Ok, This is the sticky one, where we get into a game of he said, she said. Iraq maintains that it destroyed it WMD's and the United States says that they still have these weapons and that they are hiding them. On the issue of nuclear weapons: "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq," International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in a report to the U.N. Security Council. Iraq says that it destroyed the weapons facilities, the inspectors states that he sees no evidence of the revival. Does that mean that there is no chance that Iraq has nuclear weapons? No, but the onus of proof does shift to the accuser in this case. After all we can't prove that Mexico doesn't have nuclear weapons as well. All that we can establish is a high level of certainty. For Iraq however the bar has been placed very high. On the issue of chemical and biological weapons there is a difference. For as I understand it, the manufacture and storage of these weapon types is much easier. So here we have an issue proof again. But with a higher level of uncertainty. So the other question goes back to the willingness of Saddam to use these weapons against the United States. To do so he would have to have the willingness and the quantity. I don't think that there is a willingness. And to those that bring up 9/11 they say that we didnt know that al-Qaida was going to do anything to us. Well that's not true: "And when people ask what has Saddam done to us, I ask what had the 9/11 hijackers done to us before 9/11?" Former Tenn senator and actor Fred Thompson in a recent television ad supporting the invasion of Iraq. In fact there had been a previous attempt to blow up the very same World Trade Center buildings before with speculation that Osama Bin Laden may have been involved. It is said that Ramzi Yousef trained in terrorist training camps in Pakistan. In the interview that CBS did with ABDUL RAHMAN YASIN , a participant in the first WTC bombings he says that he was recruited by Yousef to bomb Jewish neighborhoods in New York for revenge for what the Palastinians and Saudis were suffering through. He was eventually released by the FBI and he fled to Iraq where his family was from. There are some that suggest that this links the government of Iraq with terrorist activities in the U.S. STAHL: Do you think that Iraq was involved in the '93 bombing? POLLACK: I've seen the CIA and FBI reports, and there is nothing in them to suggest the Iraqis were themselves involved in the '93 World Trade Center attack. Of course, it still may be true. But once again it is a matter of proof. THE POWELL ARGUEMENT: It goes like this: 1441 said that Iraq must disarm or face the wrath of the U.N. and since they have not disarmed then they should be attacked and Saddam should be deposed. In a nutshell. This is true. But it squarely puts the legal authority of an invasion into the hands of the UN. They get to decide the timetable for disarmament and they must decide if the resolution is indeed enforced. This decision will be made by the Security Council and this is the cause of the ruckus going on at this moment. Several members of the UNSC have decided that they do not wish to proceed with the military enforcement of the resolution, but would instead proceed with more inspections. The United States thinks otherwise and is pushing for a second vote that would give them the legal means to enforce the resolution. For the US to attack Iraq without the UN support it would send the clear message that the US was determined to invade but was going through the security council to gain legitimacy. The calls that the UN will lose relavance if they choose not to follow the wills of US are absurd to say the least. Akin to saying that any democratic body must act in a prescribed manner. The manner in which the UNSC makes decision should be based on the wishes of the member states. As long as it does so it will remain relavant as a decision making body. However as soon as it is perceived to be the instrument of powerful government to do their bidding it will lose all trace of ligitimacy. Such may already be the case. I would argue that only by stopping the US at this point would sustain the status of the UN in the eyes of the non-western powers. My personal opinion is that the Security Council is not a democractic body by its very makeup. It was designed to serve the interests of the permanent members. They can always wield a veto to any resolution that threatens their interests. The US has done so for decades but now faces the possibilty that other permanent members see their interests as divergent to the United States. Thus the call for "relavance". I feel that some members of the Security council are not just acting out of a sense of morality or justice but are in fact acting out of their own self-interest. They are concerned that further control of energy resources will put the US in a better position to dictate terms of trade agreements and foriegn government policies. Not to mention the economic ransom that some may feel at having to come to the United States for their energy. But that is a nutshell is my analysis of the Invasion of Iraq situation. If I missed anything let me know. satumma@hotmail.com | 3.06.2003
So, what does America need for defenses and what should it cost? - Congressman Duncan Hunter, California Republican "Unfortunately, the $399 billion proposed in the new defense budget falls short." "This represents $431 billion in total defense spending for 2004. Such increases must be sustained for several more years in order to get all elements of our national security back on an acceptable and sustainable course. "Should the same casual observer visit the flight deck of one of our aircraft carriers, however, he will find a lineup of aging fighter aircraft, few of which will be younger than 15 years old." Maybe if the aircraft makers were not so busy making fighters for THE REST OF THE WORLD, then maybe we could afford a couple. "Lockheed Martin, 939 facilities in 457 cities and 45 states throughout the U.S.; Internationally, business locations in 56 nations and territories, Largest Miltary Contractor." - www.lockheedmartin.com Sounds like we need some accountability, just like the solution to education. Apparently the solution here is "throw more money at it". But the solution to schools that are decades old and falling apart is to blame teachers unions and call for more testing of students. When school children cannot get books with which to study the answer is to siphon money away from the education system to private contractors. I'm sure that Lockheed will be more than happy to run our education system for us as well. So now that we see a shortfall in state budgets we are talking about cutting teacher salaries and even asking for volunteers to teach for free. But for some reason we never ask the executives at these defense contractors to take a pay cut or work for free. That would be a nice show of patriotism, no? That would be government intervention into the workings of business. So maybe we need to make teachers into a corporation ( teachers inc.) so that they can be hallowed by prevailing logic of the Bushites. Or maybe we can try spending a billion dollars a day over the next four years and see if that has any positive effects on education. I think we know the answer. We know the answer because we get the answer from Congressman Hunter, he knows as well as we all know that if something needs done your going to have to spend money to get it done. There are never going to accept the logic of "accountability" to get defense work done. They know its a sham. We live in a capitalistic society, if you want people to work, you pay them, if you want raw materials, then you buy them. However that logic doesnt apply to the school system. There, if you want something done you threaten and manipulate and even divert money away from needed resources. Should we be suprised that after years of underfunding education that we have a system in shambles? I think not. Its a predictable result from a predictable strategy. So now we are offered a new solution when we know how to fix things. Now we are supposed to offer "school choice", which is nothing more than a subsidy for people that wish to put their kids into private schools. So what's wrong with that you may ask? Well, for one, the amount of money will not be enough to cover the full cost of getting your child into a good private school. For lower income people a partial payment of education still means that they will have to pay out of pocket for their childs education. This they cannot afford, as the cost of child care, insurance, health care, transportation and housing have all increased. So they will still find that they have to put their children in public education or even "on the cheap private" education. Maybe 7-11 will start a school program for low income people. Unless of course they are able to dredge up the funds to make up the difference. What this in effect does is give a tax refund to people that are already putting their children in private schools already. Unless you can give the full cost of each child that wishes to go to school then this plan will only benefit people with more money in their incomes than they have in expenses. In these days the middle class has watched a decade or two of watching their incomes stagnate. The cost of goods may have dropped due to exportation of labor, but the cost of real value goods remains and middle class and poor are feeling the pinch. In North Dallas there is a prep school for girls where the yearly tuition is $15,525, A tidy sum, but they get the best in education and the results are predictable.: Hockaday School Quick Facts "100% of graduating seniors attend prestigious colleges and universities. The average SAT scores for our recent graduates were Verbal, 710-590, and Math, 710-600. The average SAT II: Subject Test scores were: Writing, 750-580; Math 1C, 690-590; Math 2C, 700-620: American History, 670-570; Biology, 650-590; Spanish, 660-550; French and Literature scores are not yet available. In the Class of 2003 there are 23 National Merit semi-finalists and 21 National Merit commendees. National Merit finalists for the Class of 2003 will be named in the spring 2003. FACULTY/STUDENT RATIO: 1:10; average class size is 15 students" But for the people that will receive vouchers of two to three thousand dollars for their students this kind of education is still out of reach. But the results are predictable and they are not ashamed to admit that personal attention and good facilities produce well educated children. Thats not say that everyone can benefit from this, or that children cannot learn under other situations. But we know how to put the odds in their favor. WE KNOW how to educate children. We just dont want to pay for it. And I am sick and tired of the blame game that gets played while children gets lost in teh shuffle. Fundamentaly the truth is clear. Class warfare prevades the education system as well. Good pay for service education for the rich, poor state funded education for the poor. The reason is easy to see. A better education and a better pedigree means that you will have better access to the wealth of the country. The rich wish to dominate the market, reduce the competition. Their little darlings will be head and shouldres above the rest with their $50,000 educations while the near illiterate public school children will be forced into the ranks of workers and servants. Vouchers will not solve this problem, but rather give a rebate to those that already pay premiums for their childs education. What will happen is that a few poor kids will get into small religious school with heir vouchers but the money will not be sufficient and the major funding for the institution will either be for the benefit of a political, religious or commercial interest. The American Federation of Teachers, one of the EVIL teacher's unions has a completely unreasonable approach to this issue of school choice. They say: "The AFT supports parents' right to send their children to private or religious schools but opposes the use of public funds to do so. The main reason for this opposition is because public funding of private or religious education transfers precious tax dollars from public schools, which are free and open to all children, accountable to parents and taxpayers alike, and essential to our democracy, to private and religious schools that charge for their services, select their students on the basis of religious or academic or family or personal characteristics, and are accountable only to their boards and clients." How absurd?! (sarcasm) They have the nerve to point out the obvious facts, that under a voucher system the school system will be defunded to provide money to further widen the education gap between the haves and have nots. Which makes perfect sense if you have the money. Besides, if you are rich you dont even want your children to get a "public" education which is heavily indoctrinated to control public opnion and perception about all matters political and economic. You don't want one of your darlings to be subjected to the brainwashing that gets passed for education. Why would you let your kids schoolbooks be written by the corporations that promote consumerism. Why would you want unqualified teachers shaping your child. And even worse than that you don't want your little preciousness getting bullied by the unwashed masses or even experiencing the plight of the underclass. By god, they might have a class consciousness. As a point of further irony. I went to private school. A catholic school no less. It wasnt well funded but the class sizes were small and each student got attention from the teachers. It wasnt a great school, the education that I got was ok. At least at teh middle school level what was more valuable than the actual education was the lack of chaos. There was room to breathe without getting overwhelmed. In high school I did have great teachers. They were not the most well paid but many were catholic brothers and sisters that did the work for little or nothing. My parents paid out of pocket for this education. When I asked my dad if he resented paying for private school and public school he said "no". He thought that he made that choice for me. But he didnt think that justified robbing other kids of money for their education. Very noble. A trait lost on the current crop of so called "adults". It was a religious education but not overly so. But I don't trust the intentions of other religious groups. I was sent to private schools in part because of the education that my siblings received under the public system. They were sent to crowded schools that were not adequetely staffed. The lack of supervision and guidance is a major problem in larger public schools. Children need support and guidance, but we refuse to put forth the money and resources to provide that. So instead they are tossed into environment that cannot always provide the nest for kids. That's a shame in this nation. bruceblog@peoplepc.com | 3.05.2003
Confronting Empire "Still, many of us have dark moments of hopelessness and despair. We know that under the spreading canopy of the War Against Terrorism, the men in suits are hard at work. While bombs rain down on us, and cruise missiles skid across the skies, we know that contracts are being signed, patents are being registered, oil pipelines are being laid, natural resources are being plundered, water is being privatized and George Bush is planning to go to war against Iraq" Arundhati Roy ----- When people in America think of Empire, we still think of direct control. But as any of us might realize if we examine our own lives, its not direct control that always limits our freedom. We spend so much time defending ourselves from dictators and governments that we have a blind spot for people that control our lives through indirect manipulation. We don't wake up at the crack of dawn and drag ourselves to sucky low wage jobs because the dictator is watching us. We have pressures. Pressure is the nature of American empire. We have gained control over vast amounts of resources. Others resources in many cases. We allow access to resorces on a reward and punishment basis. We let our friends have access and keep our enemies from getting their grubby little hands on it. We see the riches that we control as ours. We gve to people out of the kindness of our own hearts. Because these people cannot take care of themselves we must take care of them. The actual picture as I see it is that we bear a better resemblance to the landowners and we allow sharecroppers to sustain themsleves if they make themselves useful. The old colonial model says that we have direct ownership by occupation. The new colonial model is that we have ownership through legal controls. Either way it determines the destiny of others. Its a distinction between influence and control. Either way it breeds resentment. We in the U.S. get very agigtated when we feel we are losing soviegnty, why should others be any different? | |
About Me
Any Box 
|
||
|
Dissolve into Evergreens
|
||||
