Feeling kind of blue during this holiday season
over the fact that you can’t afford the best gift-
relax... Here’s a present that's bound to bring a smile:
put your middle finger up in the air
erect your index finger along with it
and hold your hand out toward them
continue smiling and making this sign
each and every day (along with a smile)...
Minggu, 30 November 2008
Sabtu, 29 November 2008
Jumat, 28 November 2008
Kamis, 27 November 2008
Rabu, 26 November 2008
A (Grim) Fable Of Woe
Once upon a time ...
There was this single cell, alone in a body of billions of other cells.
And it was unhappy and malcontent of its lot in life.
There was this single cell, alone in a body of billions of other cells.
And it was unhappy and malcontent of its lot in life.
Now, in that body of billions of cells, and in order for that body to function, there was this assignment of specific roles to be played by each given cell - all for the common good of all.
Some were meant for infrastructure. Some were meant for protection. Some were meant for defense. Some were meant for repair. Other were meant to digest and absorb foodstuffs, or take in oxygen. Yet others were meant as roads and highways to keep the flow of nutriments and oxygen going to all cells. More others were meant as the motor of said vital flow.
Hence, some were workers, some were soldiers, some were mechanics, some were maintenance technicians, some were harvesters, some were waste managers, some were distributors, some were traffic comptrollers, some were programmers, some were entrepreneurs, some were decision-makers - and so on and so forth, altogether essential for the body-organism to thrive, prosper, adapt, reproduce and, through its progeny, evolve.
Again - all for the common good and perpetuation of all.
Except for the single, malcontent and unhappy cell of this story.
You see - this cell had come to resent rules and regulations. It fell in love with the idea of being able to do what it wanted to do, whenever it wanted to do it, and regulations be damned.
It also rejected the notion of long-term thinking - what it perceived as a slow, inane and petrificating way of looking at the world - in favor of pure short-term thinking.
The here and now - and maybe tomorrow, next week and/or the next three months, but that is it! - is what truly mattered in its life.
In other words: this cell had decided that it was in it for itself - first and foremost.
So this single, malcontent and unhappy cell started multiplying on its own, disregarding any signals it received from the regulators to stop.
But still the malcontent cell kept on growing.
Into two cells. Then four. Then eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four, one hundred and twenty eight, and thus more and more and more.
Soon enough, the one original malcontent and unhappy cell was now a growing crowd of equally-minded rebel cells - in fact, many of them having already become even more self-centered and self-serving than the original one.
Of course, the other neighboring cells came to be disturbed by such outrageous behavior of this crowd of rebel cells - why, these uncout ones ate much more than their fare share of the food available, most of what energy they produced they kept for themselves, their presence displaced or even stiffled other normal-behaving cells and - adding insult to injury - they left a lot of waste around and about them.
So police, ordely, maintenance, repair and decision-maker cells were called in to stop such reckless, utterly selfish nonesense.
But the rebel cells, now so many clumped together in a growing mass, came to be rather crafty and smooth-tongued cells.
Upon being confronted by the aforementioned authorities and their assistants, they pleaded victimhood:
"Growth serves the common good!" They chanted mendaciously. "Do not all tissues grow thus? Does the overall body-organism not grow thus? Growth is prosperity!" They continued, in earnest. "Sure, we use local resources - we have to! But through our growing numbers, how much more proteins, sugars and macromolecules we generate than what we take in." Regaining their composure, they then delivered their ultimate argument: "Give us the proper tools and the means, lend us more energy and foodstuff, let us employ other cells, and you will see how our growth will benefit all those cells in our neighborhood - for indeed, a good portion of all the proteins, sugars and other macromolecules we generate can and will be returned to those cells we will employ which, in turn, will likewise share in the general wealth and well-being of all cells in the end!"
At first unsure, the decision-making cells nonetheless came to be enthralled by such apparently unassailable argument in favor of growth, being lulled by the smooth tongues of the rebel cells.
Hence the police, orderly and repair cells were sent back to their stations, having been instructed henceforth to leave the rebel cells well enough alone.
The decision maker cells likewise instructed maintenance cells to remain available to the rebel cells in order to help them establish whatever infrastructure they required.
Hence, the tumor was granted irrigation with newly formed blood capillaries and vessels, allowing it greater access to food and oxygen - all the better for the common good, the rebel cells still claimed.
And thus supplied, the rebel cells went to work anew - with a vengeance.
As they kept on growing further in numbers, they came to co-opt (sorry: employ) the maintenance and road/highway cells, making them construct/deliver/divert more and more resources - which were in large part used first and foremost by the rebel cells, of course.
In time, some of the rebel cells even got the means to bribe supplier cells in giving them more resources than they needed, or endothelial cells to make cheaper capillaries, or quality control cells to look the other way, or even some decision-making cells to assure their continued support.
Then a momentous time came, when some of the rebel cells began to spread throughout their neighboring tissue - taking more and more place while increasingly displacing normal-behaving cells further.
So decision maker cells were called in again.
"We get little while they keep the most of what they make, in addition to having no other choice but to live in the mounting waste of their wake - waste which makes us sick or even dying!" The outraged normal cells shouted angrily. "Those capillaries and vessels they constructed are badly designed and all leaky!" They continued. "Not only is there less and less for us, and of us, now it has come to the point whereby we can't perform our roles adequately anymore in order to keep our tissue functional and healthy!" They added, thinking that such a potent argument would be quite difficult to counter, let alone dismiss.
But the ever crafty, self-serving rebel cells were more than prepared for such argument: "In order to keep growth going," they offered, "we must expand. Let those of us who grow the most quickly and who are the most sturdy leave this tissue in order to bring our growth-producing propsperity to other tissues and organs. Those others of us who will remain behind will slow down their growth and be more careful about waste, thus nevertheless keeping growth-producing prosperity alive and well here!"
Confused by such double-speak, the normal-behaving cells decided that this all made much sense. Consequently, the decision maker cells consented as well - especially since they were sold to the idea of "growth = prosperity" to begin with.
And so, many cancer cells used the leaky capillaries and vessels they constructed through their employment of connective tissue and endothelial cells in order tometastasize boldly go out and spread and practice their free, unregulated growth prosperity ideals to the rest of the body-organism.
Where the whole cycle was repeated again and again and again.
In between, those rebel cells which initially did slow down their growth and waste production eventually generated more aggressive cells anew - thus further amplifying the destructive cycle of unchecked, unregulated growth.
Leaving all their neighboring normal-behaving cells to gradually break down and die from lack of food, lack of oxygen and toxic waste.
Some were meant for infrastructure. Some were meant for protection. Some were meant for defense. Some were meant for repair. Other were meant to digest and absorb foodstuffs, or take in oxygen. Yet others were meant as roads and highways to keep the flow of nutriments and oxygen going to all cells. More others were meant as the motor of said vital flow.
Hence, some were workers, some were soldiers, some were mechanics, some were maintenance technicians, some were harvesters, some were waste managers, some were distributors, some were traffic comptrollers, some were programmers, some were entrepreneurs, some were decision-makers - and so on and so forth, altogether essential for the body-organism to thrive, prosper, adapt, reproduce and, through its progeny, evolve.
Again - all for the common good and perpetuation of all.
Except for the single, malcontent and unhappy cell of this story.
You see - this cell had come to resent rules and regulations. It fell in love with the idea of being able to do what it wanted to do, whenever it wanted to do it, and regulations be damned.
It also rejected the notion of long-term thinking - what it perceived as a slow, inane and petrificating way of looking at the world - in favor of pure short-term thinking.
The here and now - and maybe tomorrow, next week and/or the next three months, but that is it! - is what truly mattered in its life.
In other words: this cell had decided that it was in it for itself - first and foremost.
So this single, malcontent and unhappy cell started multiplying on its own, disregarding any signals it received from the regulators to stop.
But still the malcontent cell kept on growing.
Into two cells. Then four. Then eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four, one hundred and twenty eight, and thus more and more and more.
Soon enough, the one original malcontent and unhappy cell was now a growing crowd of equally-minded rebel cells - in fact, many of them having already become even more self-centered and self-serving than the original one.
Of course, the other neighboring cells came to be disturbed by such outrageous behavior of this crowd of rebel cells - why, these uncout ones ate much more than their fare share of the food available, most of what energy they produced they kept for themselves, their presence displaced or even stiffled other normal-behaving cells and - adding insult to injury - they left a lot of waste around and about them.
So police, ordely, maintenance, repair and decision-maker cells were called in to stop such reckless, utterly selfish nonesense.
But the rebel cells, now so many clumped together in a growing mass, came to be rather crafty and smooth-tongued cells.
Upon being confronted by the aforementioned authorities and their assistants, they pleaded victimhood:
"Growth serves the common good!" They chanted mendaciously. "Do not all tissues grow thus? Does the overall body-organism not grow thus? Growth is prosperity!" They continued, in earnest. "Sure, we use local resources - we have to! But through our growing numbers, how much more proteins, sugars and macromolecules we generate than what we take in." Regaining their composure, they then delivered their ultimate argument: "Give us the proper tools and the means, lend us more energy and foodstuff, let us employ other cells, and you will see how our growth will benefit all those cells in our neighborhood - for indeed, a good portion of all the proteins, sugars and other macromolecules we generate can and will be returned to those cells we will employ which, in turn, will likewise share in the general wealth and well-being of all cells in the end!"
At first unsure, the decision-making cells nonetheless came to be enthralled by such apparently unassailable argument in favor of growth, being lulled by the smooth tongues of the rebel cells.
Hence the police, orderly and repair cells were sent back to their stations, having been instructed henceforth to leave the rebel cells well enough alone.
The decision maker cells likewise instructed maintenance cells to remain available to the rebel cells in order to help them establish whatever infrastructure they required.
Hence, the tumor was granted irrigation with newly formed blood capillaries and vessels, allowing it greater access to food and oxygen - all the better for the common good, the rebel cells still claimed.
And thus supplied, the rebel cells went to work anew - with a vengeance.
As they kept on growing further in numbers, they came to co-opt (sorry: employ) the maintenance and road/highway cells, making them construct/deliver/divert more and more resources - which were in large part used first and foremost by the rebel cells, of course.
In time, some of the rebel cells even got the means to bribe supplier cells in giving them more resources than they needed, or endothelial cells to make cheaper capillaries, or quality control cells to look the other way, or even some decision-making cells to assure their continued support.
Then a momentous time came, when some of the rebel cells began to spread throughout their neighboring tissue - taking more and more place while increasingly displacing normal-behaving cells further.
So decision maker cells were called in again.
"We get little while they keep the most of what they make, in addition to having no other choice but to live in the mounting waste of their wake - waste which makes us sick or even dying!" The outraged normal cells shouted angrily. "Those capillaries and vessels they constructed are badly designed and all leaky!" They continued. "Not only is there less and less for us, and of us, now it has come to the point whereby we can't perform our roles adequately anymore in order to keep our tissue functional and healthy!" They added, thinking that such a potent argument would be quite difficult to counter, let alone dismiss.
But the ever crafty, self-serving rebel cells were more than prepared for such argument: "In order to keep growth going," they offered, "we must expand. Let those of us who grow the most quickly and who are the most sturdy leave this tissue in order to bring our growth-producing propsperity to other tissues and organs. Those others of us who will remain behind will slow down their growth and be more careful about waste, thus nevertheless keeping growth-producing prosperity alive and well here!"
Confused by such double-speak, the normal-behaving cells decided that this all made much sense. Consequently, the decision maker cells consented as well - especially since they were sold to the idea of "growth = prosperity" to begin with.
And so, many cancer cells used the leaky capillaries and vessels they constructed through their employment of connective tissue and endothelial cells in order to
Where the whole cycle was repeated again and again and again.
In between, those rebel cells which initially did slow down their growth and waste production eventually generated more aggressive cells anew - thus further amplifying the destructive cycle of unchecked, unregulated growth.
Leaving all their neighboring normal-behaving cells to gradually break down and die from lack of food, lack of oxygen and toxic waste.
**********
And thus, there eventually came a time when the body-organism came to be sick.
Very, very sick.
Lungs were bleeding, the liver was shuting down, the kidneys were malfunctionning, and a whole slew of other breakdowns and/or malfunctions were ensuing throughout all organs and tissues.
As the body-organism laid in a vegetative state on its death-bed, physician body-organisms considered what options they could enact to heal this dying one.
High dosage chemotherapy was put forth - then dismissed. Although such treatment may kill all the cancer cells, too many of the remaining healthy cells would likewise be killed in the process - thus killing the patient most assuredly.
Radiotherapy as a possibility met the same decisional fate, for essentially the very same reason.
It was finally decided to attempt to render the body-organism better prepared to undergo drastic cancer therapies - if only for a short while.
The physician body-organisms did so by pumping intravenously a glucose-saline solution and by force-feeding through a tube nutritious foodstuff preparations.
It was hoped that enough food and energy would nevertheless reach the healthy cells, consequently making the sick body-organism that bit much stronger to undergo drastic cancer treatment.
Unfortunately, the rebel cells of the now generalized cancer running throughout the dying body-organism had come to be so self-serving, so self-centered and so aggressively greedy, that they managed to hoard - and consume - all of what was being pumped/force-fed.
Hence while they remained well off, all remaining normal-behaving cells died.
Thus the body organism died as well.
"If only that body-organism paid closer attention to its symptoms of illness and sought remedy when there was still much, much time left, instead of letting such cancer grow and fester!" One of the physician body-organism bemoaned upon the very last breath of their patient.
But woe as well was there for the rebel, cancer cells - for when their host body died, all foodstuff, energy and oxygen stopped being supplied even to them, consequently leaving them in turn - and in the last - with naught but bitter-sweet memories of prosperity.
"If only our single, malcontent and unhappy ancestor cell could have forseen such a terrible fate for us all!" Thus wept the dying cancer cells in distraught unisson.
And the darkness of oblivion prevailed forevermore.
Very, very sick.
Lungs were bleeding, the liver was shuting down, the kidneys were malfunctionning, and a whole slew of other breakdowns and/or malfunctions were ensuing throughout all organs and tissues.
As the body-organism laid in a vegetative state on its death-bed, physician body-organisms considered what options they could enact to heal this dying one.
High dosage chemotherapy was put forth - then dismissed. Although such treatment may kill all the cancer cells, too many of the remaining healthy cells would likewise be killed in the process - thus killing the patient most assuredly.
Radiotherapy as a possibility met the same decisional fate, for essentially the very same reason.
It was finally decided to attempt to render the body-organism better prepared to undergo drastic cancer therapies - if only for a short while.
The physician body-organisms did so by pumping intravenously a glucose-saline solution and by force-feeding through a tube nutritious foodstuff preparations.
It was hoped that enough food and energy would nevertheless reach the healthy cells, consequently making the sick body-organism that bit much stronger to undergo drastic cancer treatment.
Unfortunately, the rebel cells of the now generalized cancer running throughout the dying body-organism had come to be so self-serving, so self-centered and so aggressively greedy, that they managed to hoard - and consume - all of what was being pumped/force-fed.
Hence while they remained well off, all remaining normal-behaving cells died.
Thus the body organism died as well.
"If only that body-organism paid closer attention to its symptoms of illness and sought remedy when there was still much, much time left, instead of letting such cancer grow and fester!" One of the physician body-organism bemoaned upon the very last breath of their patient.
But woe as well was there for the rebel, cancer cells - for when their host body died, all foodstuff, energy and oxygen stopped being supplied even to them, consequently leaving them in turn - and in the last - with naught but bitter-sweet memories of prosperity.
"If only our single, malcontent and unhappy ancestor cell could have forseen such a terrible fate for us all!" Thus wept the dying cancer cells in distraught unisson.
And the darkness of oblivion prevailed forevermore.
**********
Selasa, 25 November 2008
glad i don't get paid to blog
i have writer's block these days. i find it increasingly difficult to even attempt my once or twice weekly offerings because i really don't know what to say. i manage though :) now that the euphoria of the november election is over- i think it's pretty safe to say that most americans have gone back to doing what it was that they were doing before the election. nothing has changed. we sit and high five when obama announces his transition team- but the same cabal is in charge in the white house and we are powerless to stop it. and ordinary people have gone back to sucking.
my books on buddhism tell me that i need to accept that the universe is transient and ever changing and that nothing is permanent and all moves whether we want it to or not. to deny that is to suffer. boy, buddha sure wasn't kidding. my book also tells me that everything is illusion and that nothing is what it seems to be because everything is filtered through the unpure mind and unpure senses and unpure universe. i believe that too after having witnessed how folks' perceptions of reality differ as much as witnesses at a crime scene.
and president obama wants to unify people to work together in order to save what's left of the planet. and i think that it is a lofty goal and an admirable one because my books on buddhism tell me that folks should work for the greater good and help all sentient beings on their path to enlightenment. i'll settle for inner peace right now because nothing in the history of humankind says that folks will join together and work for the greater good. there are always groups fighting each other for ultimate power and always the underlings who are trodden down and left to survive as best they can.
so, i don't have any answers and i only have slight hope that we will make it. but my buddhism book also tells me that folks often focus on change as a bad thing and that good things can come out of change- so anything is possible. hence, that spark of hope....
my books on buddhism tell me that i need to accept that the universe is transient and ever changing and that nothing is permanent and all moves whether we want it to or not. to deny that is to suffer. boy, buddha sure wasn't kidding. my book also tells me that everything is illusion and that nothing is what it seems to be because everything is filtered through the unpure mind and unpure senses and unpure universe. i believe that too after having witnessed how folks' perceptions of reality differ as much as witnesses at a crime scene.
and president obama wants to unify people to work together in order to save what's left of the planet. and i think that it is a lofty goal and an admirable one because my books on buddhism tell me that folks should work for the greater good and help all sentient beings on their path to enlightenment. i'll settle for inner peace right now because nothing in the history of humankind says that folks will join together and work for the greater good. there are always groups fighting each other for ultimate power and always the underlings who are trodden down and left to survive as best they can.
so, i don't have any answers and i only have slight hope that we will make it. but my buddhism book also tells me that folks often focus on change as a bad thing and that good things can come out of change- so anything is possible. hence, that spark of hope....
Senin, 24 November 2008
November 25th, 1986...
On November 25, 1986, after a Lebanese newspaper broke the story of arms-for-hostages, Attorney General Edwin Meese revealed that illegal funds had been diverted to the Contras. Reagan downplayed the weapons which were delivered to Iran. He stated that TOW missiles were "hand held" and that they all could be "transported in one cargo plane." Reagan also asserted, "The TOW anti-tank missile is a purely defensive weapon. It is a shoulder-carried weapon. And we don't think that in this defensive thing -- we didn't add to any offensive power on the part of Iran." The TOW missile weighed 56.3 pounds and was four feet long. The complete system required a crew of four people. In addition, TOWs could be used offensively by Iran to attack Iraqi tanks.
It took several days before North's White House office was sealed, so he and his secretary, Fawn Hall, were able to shred damaging papers in this time period.
Reagan attempted to convince the public that his administration was not dealing with Khomeini but with "moderate elements" within the country. Reagan sent both McFarlane and North on a goodwill trip to Teheran to meet with Khomeini and to present him with an autographed Bible and a cake in the shape of a Bible. The Khomeini government refused to allow them to meet with anyone, and they only waited on the Teheran tarmac for several hours before returning to the United States. Because McFarlane's frustration level increased and because he continued to wrestle with the unethical American covert operations, he resigned as Reagan's NSC adviser and was replaced by Navy Admiral John Poindexter.
The next year, a joint Congressional hearing was created to investigate Iran-Contra. The committee granted immunity to North, thus forcing him to testify. North bragged that the United States carried out an illegal covert operation to fund the Contras in Central America. Since the Boland Amendment prohibited the funding of the Contras in their effort to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua, the NSC sought other avenues. The first was to convince Congress to allocate funds for "humanitarian aid." However, this money was used illegally to arm the Contras and was terminated after several months. Therefore, the NSC had to look for other sources of funds.
North testified that he took it upon himself to carry out "Operation Democracy." He boasted that the profits from the illegal arms sales to the Khomeini regime were placed in secret Swiss bank accounts and that dummy CIA fronts such as Lake Resources in Florida. These funds were used to purchase weapons with which to arm the Contras in Central America. This was carried out by North along with Hakim, Secord, and Singlaub.
North skimmed $50,000 from a secret cash account which was set up by the Contras. Secord helped arrange for weapons which were illegally obtained with profits from the sales to Iran and then shipped south to the Contras. Hakim was a military sales agent who worked as a middleman with Secord. Hakim was quoted after President Carter's aborted hostage rescue in Iran in 1979: "He couldn't have been happier when the Carter administration needed." Air Force General John Singlaub, who was president of the World Anti-communist League, became involved in raising funds overseas for the Contras in 1981.
On the domestic front, North solicited donations from various wealthy people. Claiming that communism was entrenched in Nicaragua and that it would move northward, he was able to solicit $80,000 from Adolph Coors. An $80,000 Cessna spotter plane, to be used in flights over Nicaragua, was purchased. North called wealthy widows, promising them photo sessions with Reagan if they made large contributions. One wealthy woman contributed $200,000 and was rewarded with a five minute meeting with Reagan. Billionaire Ross Perot supplied $2.3 million to North in an attempt to liberate Beirut CIA station chief Buckley in Lebanon. The sultan of Brunei contributed $1 million, and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia turned over $32 million.
Minggu, 23 November 2008
No To Hillary Clinton
The topic below was originally posted yesterday on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.
According to recent media accounts, Hillary Clinton will be nominated as Barack Obama's Secretary of State. At one time I admired Hillary Clinton and often told friends I wished she was president instead of her husband. Whereas Bill Clinton was an undisciplined and feckless founding member of the DLC, Hillary Clinton appeared tough minded and principled. As a New Yorker I was thrilled when she became my senator after the 2000 election. I hoped she would be cut from the same cloth as Robert Kennedy: a steadfast advocate for economic and social justice at home and peace and human rights abroad.
Instead, Hillary Clinton opted to position herself as a hawkish/corporatist centrist and didn't even read the ninety page National Intelligence Estimate prior to supporting George W. Bush's folly in Iraq. I won't rehash the entire 2008 presidential primary campaign but Clinton's conduct prior to the Iraq war was the principal reason I didn't support her candidacy this year. Hence, even as I don't question her intellect or ability, I find it difficult to feel any enthusiasm for Clinton as our next Secretary of State.
Indeed, this sentence in Clinton's infamous October 10, 2002 Senate floor speech supporting Bush's war against Saddam Hussein forever damaged her credibility with me:
Another concern I have is that Clinton will staff the State Department with her own cronies. Certainly she would never accept the position without assurances about autonomy to pick her own staff. In fairness, Clinton should not be expected to accept such a post and be gelded like Colin Powell was with people inside the State Department who undermined him at every opportunity. Of course Clinton should be surrounded by personalities she trusts. And yet one can easily envision a soap opera in which the National Security Council contains Obama loyalists while the State Department becomes perceived as a fifth column serving Hillary Clinton. That is a recipe for disaster both at home and abroad.
Oh I can see the logic of it. In terms of raw politics, with one stroke Obama neuters a potential rival power base inside the Democratic party while giving both Bill and Hillary Clinton a stake in his presidency. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton's celebrity can be an enormous asset on the world stage and allow Obama to focus on domestic issues during a time of economic crisis. Her appointment adds to Obama's image as a self-confident post partisan leader who unlike Bush doesn't need to surround himself with rubber stamp cronies. I acknowledge those points. Perhaps it will work out for the best. I hope so but I have my doubts.
Also, even though I voted for Clinton's primary opponent in her 2006 Senate re-election campaign on principle (yes she really did have a primary opponent), New York can't afford to lose her now. Clinton is understandably frustrated by her lack of seniority in the world's most deliberative body. Yet I believe Clinton underestimates just how much clout she truly has. Hillary Clinton emerged from this year's campaign with a distinct political brand as the voice of working people who garnered 18 million votes. It may not be a powerful committee chair but that kind of demonstrated constituency means leverage. Other Senators hope to cut deals with figures possessing that kind of brand to enhance their stature and benefit from political cover.
Now more than ever New York needs that kind of clout. Even though a Democrat will occupy the White House, reliable blue states such as New York will still have to compete for their share of federal aid with traditional battle ground states. True New York's senior Senator Charles Schumer is no shrinking violet but following Wall Street's implosion the Empire State needs all the clout and leverage it can muster.
So as both an American and a New Yorker I hope the media is wrong about Hillary Clinton becoming Secretary of State. Others can serve Obama just as ably but few New Yorkers can accomplish what Hillary Clinton can for our struggling state.
According to recent media accounts, Hillary Clinton will be nominated as Barack Obama's Secretary of State. At one time I admired Hillary Clinton and often told friends I wished she was president instead of her husband. Whereas Bill Clinton was an undisciplined and feckless founding member of the DLC, Hillary Clinton appeared tough minded and principled. As a New Yorker I was thrilled when she became my senator after the 2000 election. I hoped she would be cut from the same cloth as Robert Kennedy: a steadfast advocate for economic and social justice at home and peace and human rights abroad.
Instead, Hillary Clinton opted to position herself as a hawkish/corporatist centrist and didn't even read the ninety page National Intelligence Estimate prior to supporting George W. Bush's folly in Iraq. I won't rehash the entire 2008 presidential primary campaign but Clinton's conduct prior to the Iraq war was the principal reason I didn't support her candidacy this year. Hence, even as I don't question her intellect or ability, I find it difficult to feel any enthusiasm for Clinton as our next Secretary of State.
Indeed, this sentence in Clinton's infamous October 10, 2002 Senate floor speech supporting Bush's war against Saddam Hussein forever damaged her credibility with me:
"He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."There was zero evidence of any relationship between Saddam and Al Quaeda and saying "apparently no evidence" of his involvement in 9/11 suggests some revealation was lurking just around the corner. Other Democrats like Joe Biden also wrongfully enabled Bush's war and apologized for their poor judgment. But Hillary Clinton did more than that. Her speech helped reinforce the Bush/Cheney false narrative about Iraq and 9/11. I for one can neither forgive nor forget. Hillary Clinton's support of Bush/Cheney fear mongering made her unworthy as a presidential candidate in my eyes. For damn sure it makes her unworthy to serve as America's voice to the world.
Another concern I have is that Clinton will staff the State Department with her own cronies. Certainly she would never accept the position without assurances about autonomy to pick her own staff. In fairness, Clinton should not be expected to accept such a post and be gelded like Colin Powell was with people inside the State Department who undermined him at every opportunity. Of course Clinton should be surrounded by personalities she trusts. And yet one can easily envision a soap opera in which the National Security Council contains Obama loyalists while the State Department becomes perceived as a fifth column serving Hillary Clinton. That is a recipe for disaster both at home and abroad.
Oh I can see the logic of it. In terms of raw politics, with one stroke Obama neuters a potential rival power base inside the Democratic party while giving both Bill and Hillary Clinton a stake in his presidency. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton's celebrity can be an enormous asset on the world stage and allow Obama to focus on domestic issues during a time of economic crisis. Her appointment adds to Obama's image as a self-confident post partisan leader who unlike Bush doesn't need to surround himself with rubber stamp cronies. I acknowledge those points. Perhaps it will work out for the best. I hope so but I have my doubts.
Also, even though I voted for Clinton's primary opponent in her 2006 Senate re-election campaign on principle (yes she really did have a primary opponent), New York can't afford to lose her now. Clinton is understandably frustrated by her lack of seniority in the world's most deliberative body. Yet I believe Clinton underestimates just how much clout she truly has. Hillary Clinton emerged from this year's campaign with a distinct political brand as the voice of working people who garnered 18 million votes. It may not be a powerful committee chair but that kind of demonstrated constituency means leverage. Other Senators hope to cut deals with figures possessing that kind of brand to enhance their stature and benefit from political cover.
Now more than ever New York needs that kind of clout. Even though a Democrat will occupy the White House, reliable blue states such as New York will still have to compete for their share of federal aid with traditional battle ground states. True New York's senior Senator Charles Schumer is no shrinking violet but following Wall Street's implosion the Empire State needs all the clout and leverage it can muster.
So as both an American and a New Yorker I hope the media is wrong about Hillary Clinton becoming Secretary of State. Others can serve Obama just as ably but few New Yorkers can accomplish what Hillary Clinton can for our struggling state.
Sabtu, 22 November 2008
Saturday Sonata XVIII: Mongolia
Howdy gang, LT here, with the Saturday Sonata. Let's listen to a little music from Mongolia.First, a strange little video, possibly made by the Office of Great is Tourism For is Mongolia. "Now is the time to make fire!"
Now some music. This is a band that was video'd in Mongolia by YouTube subscriber Nouodia, a 17-year-old from the UK who, apparently, gets to travel to exciting places:
When we were in the South Gobi, we saw a Mongolian music group. After having seen the performance, we decided to try and work towards bringing them over to the UK for a couple of weeks next summer so that their talents and Mongolia are better appreciated. More details about this will come soon.
Give it a minute, it is really electrifying:
And this is very cool:
Artist Name: Börte
Genre: Central Asian Bardic Music, Overtone Singing, World Jazz
Country: Mongolia, Tuva
Artist Bio: A group of five musicians from the country where endless steppes were ruled by Genghis Khan hundreds of years ago have come together to create a totally new kind of music —
an extraordinary mixture of the vocal art of Mongolian herdsmen and traditional Western jazz.
Although Börte bills itself as "modern Mongolian music," the band plays traditional
instruments, including the horse-headed fiddle, and two of the musicians perform overtone, or throat singing, something that is widely associated with Mongolia, and also the Republic of Tuva, which is adjacent to it. In overtone singing, up to three notes can be sung simultaneously. —Courtesy Calabash Music
They have links there to listen to some songs. Highly recommended. And I'm not sure, but this is very likely the same band that did the soundtrack to The Weeping Camel.
Here's a bit more from Börte:
Now is the time to make end of post! Huzzah!
Jumat, 21 November 2008
shifting gears
global climate change is very real and it's here to stay. we talk much about peace in our time and ending the wars we started in the middle east over oil- and i agree that we should. war is one of the biggest polluters on the planet and is never talked about as such. but there will never be peace in our time unless we address the issues that are going to come up as a result of global warming.
i don't know much about the rest of the world's issues with climate change- i do know that oceans are rising and acidifying- and ecosystems from fish, to bees to bats are crashing. i know that china's gobi desert is growing at an alarming rate- swallowing up arable land faster than anyone anticipated and australia is still in a horrible drought. here in north america, canada's ice roads melt earlier than ever and in the american west- there are wildfires all year round now. and folks seem to be oblivious.
our way of life is not sustainable and we have marginal coping skills as a nation- at best. many in this country don't realize what it takes to feed a typical family of four- they just know that they go to the grocery store and buy food and take it home and cook it. or they sit down to take out or go to a chain restaurant. welcome to the new america. around the globe, there have been ongoing food riots that americans know little about due to our corporate owned filtered media. we do recognize that food prices here have seemed to skyrocket along with everything else. well, it is no surprise. there have been wheat and other grain shortages around the globe due to blight and ethanol production and let's face it- foods don't grow the way they are supposed to if the climate isn't right.
there are two basic necessities human beings need to sustain life- water first and then food. global climate change and human pollution and expansion threaten both. the reality is- there are 6 billion people sharing this planet. we have expanded, and polluted ourselves to the real possiblity of extinction within a hundred years. at the very least- billions are going to die. there will not be peace in our time with billions starving or thirsting. and we are not safe from it here. we are in big time denial, however, and prefer to put our heads in the sand and pretend that things will work themselves out. and they won't.
barack obama and the democratic party are not the panacea- they are a step in the right direction but until we, the people, get serious about grasping the serious nature of this problem- we are at risk. america is rich in resources and when other parts of the world start to fail- in this technological age it won't take much for those folks to look to us. we already are not well liked globally- and we are seen as resource hogs. it's a real threat- unlike al quaeda and the other presumed terrorists. those folks have been sharing the same patch of the planet for millenia- and they are already poor. they are not a threat. russia and china- well.......
i don't know much about the rest of the world's issues with climate change- i do know that oceans are rising and acidifying- and ecosystems from fish, to bees to bats are crashing. i know that china's gobi desert is growing at an alarming rate- swallowing up arable land faster than anyone anticipated and australia is still in a horrible drought. here in north america, canada's ice roads melt earlier than ever and in the american west- there are wildfires all year round now. and folks seem to be oblivious.
our way of life is not sustainable and we have marginal coping skills as a nation- at best. many in this country don't realize what it takes to feed a typical family of four- they just know that they go to the grocery store and buy food and take it home and cook it. or they sit down to take out or go to a chain restaurant. welcome to the new america. around the globe, there have been ongoing food riots that americans know little about due to our corporate owned filtered media. we do recognize that food prices here have seemed to skyrocket along with everything else. well, it is no surprise. there have been wheat and other grain shortages around the globe due to blight and ethanol production and let's face it- foods don't grow the way they are supposed to if the climate isn't right.
there are two basic necessities human beings need to sustain life- water first and then food. global climate change and human pollution and expansion threaten both. the reality is- there are 6 billion people sharing this planet. we have expanded, and polluted ourselves to the real possiblity of extinction within a hundred years. at the very least- billions are going to die. there will not be peace in our time with billions starving or thirsting. and we are not safe from it here. we are in big time denial, however, and prefer to put our heads in the sand and pretend that things will work themselves out. and they won't.
barack obama and the democratic party are not the panacea- they are a step in the right direction but until we, the people, get serious about grasping the serious nature of this problem- we are at risk. america is rich in resources and when other parts of the world start to fail- in this technological age it won't take much for those folks to look to us. we already are not well liked globally- and we are seen as resource hogs. it's a real threat- unlike al quaeda and the other presumed terrorists. those folks have been sharing the same patch of the planet for millenia- and they are already poor. they are not a threat. russia and china- well.......
Kamis, 20 November 2008
Rabu, 19 November 2008
The Bush Legacy Equation: Authoritarianism + Corporatocracy = Fascism
Following up from this previous post, here are more disastrous Presidential directives being enacted by outgoing President Bush The Incompetent (emphasis added):
1) The Dept. of Labor proposed a regulation Aug. 30 that changes how workplace safety standards are met. Labor experts contend that the administration, which previously issued only one new workplace safety standard and that under court order, is trying to make it a bureaucratic nightmare for future administrations to make workplace safety rules.
Here’s what it would do:
Currently, if the Occupational Safety and Health Admin. or the Mine Health and Safety Admin. want to introduce a new safety standard on, say, the level of exposure to toxic chemicals, it issues what is called a notice of proposed rule-making. This notice is published in the Federal Register and then debated by labor, business and relevant federal agencies.
The new regulation would add an “advanced notice of proposed rule-making,” meaning OSHA and MSHA would have prove that, say, the said chemical was seriously harming workers.
This would open the door for industry to challenge the validity of the risk assessment and then, if necessary, the actual safety standard that may come from that risk assessment.
“The purpose of this sort of rule is to require agencies to spend more time on a regulation which gives them less of a chance to actually regulate,” said David Michaels, a professor of workplace safety at George Washington University, “You’re adding at least a year, maybe two years, to the process.”
The regulation has not been finalized.
2) The administration proposed a rule that changes the employer-employee relationship laid out in the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act.
Here’s what it would do:
The Family and Medical Leave Act says that employers must give their workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave if they are sick or need to take care of a family member or newborn. The employer’s health-care staff can check the legitimacy of the family or medical leave claim with the employee’s doctor or health-care provider.
The proposed regulation would allow the employer to directly speak with the employee’s doctor or health-care provider. The employer could also ask employees to provide more medical documentation of their conditions.
Why such a rule — which may threaten an employee’s privacy– is needed is unclear. The only study the Labor Dept. has done on the act was in 2000. The department collected comments from employers before issuing the proposed regulation, but a report analyzing the comments was never issued.
The regulation also would gives employees the right to waive their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, making it the first national labor law to be optional. A worker, for instance, cannot waive his right to earn a minimum wage or get paid more for overtime.
The regulation was finalized on Election Day.
3) The Dept. of Health and Human Services proposed a rule Sept. 26 that would expand the reasons that physicians or health care entities could decline to provide any procedure to include moral and religious grounds. The language of the regulation says the department hopes to correct “an attitude toward the health-care profession that health-care professionals and institutions should be required to provide or assist in the provision of medicine or procedures to which they object, or else risk being subjected to discrimination.”
Here’s what it would do:
The rule change seems to apply to abortion. But they are already several rules that say physicians or health-care entities can deny an abortion request. Some women’s health advocates contend that the proposed regulation’s broad language is meant to increase the number of physicians who not only don’t provide abortions but don’t provide contraception.
“Contraception is certainly the target of this rule,” contends Marylin Keefe, director for Reproductive Health at the National Partnership for Women and Families. “The moral and religious objections of health-care workers are now starting to take precedence over patients.”
The regulation is notable for another reason. A rule involving an employee’s religious rights must be referred to the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission, yet the commission was never told of this proposed regulation.
A bureaucratic battled erupted when EEOC’s legal counsel, Reed Russell, wrote a regulation comment (pdf) blasting both the substance of the proposed rule and its disregard for the rule-making process.
The regulation has not been finalized.
4) On July 31, the Justice Dept. proposed a regulation that would allow state and local law enforcement agencies to collect “intelligence” information on individuals and organizations even if the information is unrelated to a criminal matter.
“This is a continuum that started back on 9/11 to reform law enforcement and the intelligence community to focus on the terrorism threat,” said Bush homeland security adviser Kenneth L. Wainstein in a statement.
Critics say it could infringe on civil liberties.
Here’s what it would do:
“It expands local law enforcement’s ability to investigate criminal activity that it deems suspicious,” said Melberth of OMB Watch. “But what’s suspicious to you may not be suspicious to me. They could be investigating community organizations they think are two or three steps away from a terrorist group.”
The regulation has not been finalized.(Read also this, if you will)
All of the above bring me back to the following other previous posts:
U.S. Bailouts = Bush's Final Pillage?
North American Security State: I Told You So ...
Reloaded: Do You Hear The Jackboots Coming To Town?
Oligarchy And The Idiots Who Rule Us
Got Protest? Lose All That You Own - Including Your Rights
Shhhhh ... Don't Speak, Don't Say A Word ...
Marching Straight Towards Authoritarianism
This Is How A "Soft" Dictatorship Works
Gitmo USA
Domestic Spying Abuse: You Were Warned
Can You Hear Jackboots Thundering On The Horizon?
While No One Was Paying Attention ...
Security, Hallowed Be Thy Name And Dominion
On The Final Steps In "Crossing The Rubicon"
More U.S. Secret Prisons And Indefinite Detentions Galore!
The *Real* "Axis Of Evil" Of Our Times
More Case Of Abusive, Paranoid-Driven Security State Domestic Spying
The Authoritarian Security State At Work
The Problems With The FISA Capitulation Bill
Your Privacy - Government Style
Brownshirts 'R US
Domestic Spying: The Ever Convenient Rationale Of The Security State
No One Is Safe: The Real Low Down
Telecom Immunity Capitulation: The Other Problem With This
Welcome To The Security State Of North America
Behold The Wisdom Of SheepIn essence, what Bush is doing in his last days in office is finalize the establishment of tools which allow the government to fully monitor and control the population through what can only be described as an authoritarian security state, while at the same time giving corporations not only unrestrained and unchecked freedoms to do as they will, but furthermore granting them actual powers to infringe upon, intervene into - and consequently, dictate - the private lives of people.
Indeed (emphasis added):
Whenever you apply for a job, you must submit yourself to all sorts of intrusions in your privacy, regardless what kind of job you apply for - from giving urine and/or blood samples, to granting permission for "security checks" on you (including credit reports), to submitting to wide-ranging questionnaires to assess your personality, including your psychological/cognitive/emotional state of being (not counting having to actually go through the ludicrous exercise of submitting yourself to a lie detector).
And when you are employed, you are under constant scrutiny - electronic or otherwise - in order to continually assess your performance during your "day at work". In addition, how many companies/corporations nowadays have "proper employee conduct" codes to which all employees must adhere to - including outside of the work place?
But company/corporate "elites" crave total control over their employees and there are large periods of time in a day, a week, a month and a year, when their employees escape their ever-watching, scrutinizing and controlling gaze: off-work hours, week-ends, holidays and vacation time.
Companies/corporations have kept increasing their requirements of what they consider "appropriate performance" on the part of their employees, while freezing (or reducing) wages at the same time.
In short: they ask you to do more and more and more, while they pay less.
Now imagine a day when company/corporate elites can actually know what you do in your "off-work" time - surfing the internet? Watching TV? Renting/buying movies? Reading books? Going to shows? Cheering your favorite team? Just spending time with your family in the backyard?
Imagine also if your employers became intimately aware of every facet of your private life, including whether you are having an affair (or your partner/spouse does), you or a member of your family has been diagnosed with a grave illness, your sexual practices (with or without your partner/spouse), which political party you adhere to, etc.
What kind of power, then, would your employers hold over you, your job and your career?
As example, how many people have so far been fired for "moral conduct incompatible with moral values/proper employee conduct" of a company/corporation outside of work, based only on rumors? Now imagine what can and will happen when actual facts are known.Here is but one tiny example to support this:
I just read something that has verily shocked and outraged me. Via Raw Story - Workers told to shape up or pay up:
"Looking for new ways to trim the fat and boost workers' health, some employers are starting to make overweight employees pay if they don't slim down. Others, citing growing medical costs tied to obesity, are offering fit workers lucrative incentives that shave thousands of dollars a year off health care premiums."
At the last, the companies and corporations are now flatly coming out, unafraid and unfettered, to proclaim their intent of actually controlling your lives as they see fit.
Not only does this constitutes a serious breach of human rights, such encroachment into our personal, private lives would leave us open to any desire, whim and fancy of the moment from high-minded, arrogant corporate bureaucrats whom, let us not forget, will ever remain watchful of the bottom line first and foremost, rather than your health and/or well being.
What's next? Employees being fined for not eating enough veggies? For eating too much meat? For drinking too much coffee? For listening to "non-approved" kinds of music or artists? For reading "non-approved" books or blogs? For watching "non-approved" TV channels and/or shows? For smoking cigarettes or having a drink, at home?
For dating a "non-approved" other?
For having a "non-approved" number of children?
For having a "non-approved" overall lifestyle?
For holding "non-approved" political views?
For following a "non-approved" religion, or specific denomination?
For belonging to a "non-approved" party?
For (fill in the blanks)?
For non-conforming to every single dictate of your employers?
(...) Via at-Largely: Chicago police stormtroopers swarm a gathering of poetry reading on private property - without warning and without warrants. Now, I am not a "fan" of poetry, but still ... looks like the Powers-That-Be decided that poetry was not for your own good, or something to this effect? Perhaps the quite innocent, legal and constitutional gathering was perceived as an exercise in subversion - perhaps even indulging in reading the Constitution, the most subversive type of literature of all? Or perhaps the nefarious shadow of poetic terrorism is on the rise again? How about the clear and immediate danger to Homeland Security for reading in public? After all, knowledge is a very dangerous thing indeed.
And further down we slide the slippery slope ...Yup.
Incidentally, there is a word for all of this: fascism.
The Bush legacy is nothing but a long litany of gradual destruction of the constitution, civil rights and human rights, all in order to leave way for a fascist state.
What is the price to pay indeed after eight years of Bush ...
(Cross-posted from APOV)
Senin, 17 November 2008
peace- huh!- what is it good for?
absolutely everything. i haven't been writing much lately because i have been doing much thinking. processing- i suppose. the more things change- the more they stay the same. human nature. i have also been reading about chinese buddhism- a book by master hsing yun 'only a great rain'- and i am convinced that the ancients were really on to something there. this planet and this life is filled with chaos and hatred and negativity- and really, it's only going to get worse as more and more folks suffer. we have 6 billion people on a planet that can't sustain that many and we are using up our resources like crazy. we don't have much time as a species.
but we can certainly make this life the best one we can- and i respect the buddhists premise that in seeking dharma towards our enlightenment- we must strive to help all other sentient beings get there too. what a nice idea. the truth is we need each other. the buddhist believe everything is interconnected- and science has pretty much proven that idea over and over- and that one cannot exist without another. john donne said as much when he said 'no man is an island'- and as times become tougher and resources become scarcer- we will need each other as never before.
there is a gap in our skill sets over the last 100 years. we have millions of people in this country who believe that feeding yourself involves driving to the grocery store and buying food to take home and cook. they believe that getting a drink involves turning on your tap or buying water in plastic bottles. our way of life isn't sustainable and the few folks out there who know how to build a cook fire or catch rain for irrigation or which vegetable grows well in which season- well, their numbers are dwindling. family farms are dwindling. it's getting to be very depressing to live right now- here on this planet where everything seems to be going wrong at the same time.
but it doesn't have to be. a big part of what i learned working in human services- teamwork. yep. one person doesn't- and shouldn't- carry the weight for everyone all of the time. while one person rests, another takes up the burden and we all work together. president obama cannot do this alone and he is putting together a great team at the top to help guide america through these tough times. but they can't carry the insurmountable weight themselves. we must look at each other with new eyes. we must see that we are all americans and all fellow inhabitants of planet earth and we must work together to carry the burden. look at what people accomplished by sharing the load- the great pyramids; grains to feed the whole world; the internet- but we must reach down deep inside for our inner strength. we must remain positive and strong- we cannot afford to allow fear and insecurity take hold again as we did collectively after 9/11.
we are made of stronger stuff. we are made of tougher stuff- and quite frankly, there are billions of people on this planet who lived through worse times than we. when you feel sorry for yourself, or get depressed- remember that there is always someone somewhere worse off than you. it helps reset the perspective button.
from my google reader:
please keep stoking the embers of positivity
but we can certainly make this life the best one we can- and i respect the buddhists premise that in seeking dharma towards our enlightenment- we must strive to help all other sentient beings get there too. what a nice idea. the truth is we need each other. the buddhist believe everything is interconnected- and science has pretty much proven that idea over and over- and that one cannot exist without another. john donne said as much when he said 'no man is an island'- and as times become tougher and resources become scarcer- we will need each other as never before.
there is a gap in our skill sets over the last 100 years. we have millions of people in this country who believe that feeding yourself involves driving to the grocery store and buying food to take home and cook. they believe that getting a drink involves turning on your tap or buying water in plastic bottles. our way of life isn't sustainable and the few folks out there who know how to build a cook fire or catch rain for irrigation or which vegetable grows well in which season- well, their numbers are dwindling. family farms are dwindling. it's getting to be very depressing to live right now- here on this planet where everything seems to be going wrong at the same time.
but it doesn't have to be. a big part of what i learned working in human services- teamwork. yep. one person doesn't- and shouldn't- carry the weight for everyone all of the time. while one person rests, another takes up the burden and we all work together. president obama cannot do this alone and he is putting together a great team at the top to help guide america through these tough times. but they can't carry the insurmountable weight themselves. we must look at each other with new eyes. we must see that we are all americans and all fellow inhabitants of planet earth and we must work together to carry the burden. look at what people accomplished by sharing the load- the great pyramids; grains to feed the whole world; the internet- but we must reach down deep inside for our inner strength. we must remain positive and strong- we cannot afford to allow fear and insecurity take hold again as we did collectively after 9/11.
we are made of stronger stuff. we are made of tougher stuff- and quite frankly, there are billions of people on this planet who lived through worse times than we. when you feel sorry for yourself, or get depressed- remember that there is always someone somewhere worse off than you. it helps reset the perspective button.
from my google reader:
please keep stoking the embers of positivity
Minggu, 16 November 2008
Native American Genocide
LT's XVII Sonata inspired this grim look at the ugliest chapter in our country's relatively short history
(Sadly in this span, we, the people of The United States of America, have learned little...)
(Sadly in this span, we, the people of The United States of America, have learned little...)
Where Will Our Children Live...
A lonesome warrior stands in fear of what the future brings,
he will never hear the beating drums or the songs his brothers sing.
Our many nations once stood tall and ranged from shore to shore
but most are gone and few remain and the buffalo roam no more.
We shared our food and our land and gave with open hearts,
We wanted peace and love and hope, but all were torn apart.
All this was taken because we did not know what the white man had in store,
They killed our people and raped our lands and the buffalo roam no more.
But those of us who still remain hold our heads up high, and the spirits of
the elders flow through us as if they never died.
Our dreams will live on forever and our nations will be reborn, our bone and
beads and feathers all will be proudly worn.
If you listen close you will hear the drums and songs upon the winds, and in
the distance you will see....the buffalo roam again.
he will never hear the beating drums or the songs his brothers sing.
Our many nations once stood tall and ranged from shore to shore
but most are gone and few remain and the buffalo roam no more.
We shared our food and our land and gave with open hearts,
We wanted peace and love and hope, but all were torn apart.
All this was taken because we did not know what the white man had in store,
They killed our people and raped our lands and the buffalo roam no more.
But those of us who still remain hold our heads up high, and the spirits of
the elders flow through us as if they never died.
Our dreams will live on forever and our nations will be reborn, our bone and
beads and feathers all will be proudly worn.
If you listen close you will hear the drums and songs upon the winds, and in
the distance you will see....the buffalo roam again.
Submitted by Tommy Flamewalker Manasco
~
"By conservative estimates, the population of the United states prior to European contact was greater than 12 million. Four centuries later, the count was reduced by 95% to 237 thousand." (More...)
~
TRAIL OF DEATH: after years of researching the Wicocomico Nation, it has led me to various other sources of study concerning the brutality that Native Americans suffered at the hands of the English and later the United States.These stories will not be found in our history books and if by some chance one is found in the history books, it will be written so that it would be difficult to realize it was the same story. Our children were brought up on the story of Pocohantas and how understanding the English were.When stories of this nature are read, many people try to make excuses for the brutality that was imposed on the Native Americans. Many readers will mention the atrocities the Native Americans imposed on the English and citizens of the United States.KEEP IN MIND THIS LAND BELONGED TO THE NATIVE AMERICANS; they reacted just as any citizen would in defense of their land and family.When Indians came in contact with the Europeans ( Spanish,French,English) it was a disaster for the Indians in the form of out right slaughter, or through diseases which the Indians were not immune to. I believe that is sufficient enough to make the Indians wary of the Europeans.When the English arrived to settle Jamestown, Chief Powhatan fed and kept the English alive, however after a short time it was evident the intent of the English was to steal the land in any manner possible. (Read more...)
(Map depicting concentration of various tribes throughout the United States)
Sabtu, 15 November 2008
Some Thoughts on Obama by David Rovics
David Rovics is a singer/songwriter and unashamed socialist based in
Portland, Oregon. I'm on his email list. He recently sent the following letter, which Pagan Sphinx's 11/13 post has encouraged me to reprint here:
Friends around the world keep asking me questions. Are you excited? What do you think of Obama? Others are simply congratulating me. And I must say, it was a thrilling moment.
As a teenager, in 1984, I volunteered for the Mondale/Ferraro campaign, mostly pushing bumper stickers. An anti-nuclear group was doing this, in the belief that Mondale would be less likely to cause Armageddon. I grew up in an overwhelmingly white, Republican town. I was a news junky from an early age, though, and politically active in one way or another. Of the Democratic candidates my favorite was Jesse Jackson, but looking around me I reasoned he had a slim chance of getting elected.
As an adult, living in urban areas all over the US, I saw little to dispel this illusion. There were more African-Americans getting elected to political office, but usually we were talking about mayors of majority-Black cities or Congresswomen from hotbeds of progressivism like Berkeley. But here I was, hanging out with my toddler, listening to my favorite local band, the Pagan Jug Band, sitting in a pub in Portland, hearing that Barack Obama has been elected President.
My initial reaction was that of Jesse's. I got a lump in my throat, and tears came to my eyes, thinking about the insanity of all the suffering that has gone down for so many centuries, the homes, dreams, and bodies broken by slavery and racism. And in fact until very recently, on the news broadcasts when they would mention the number of Black people in the Congress, in order to be factually accurate they always had to include the caveat, "since Reconstruction." More than that is rarely said about this ten-year period of Union Army occupation that allowed something approximating democracy, and even serious land redistribution, to exist in the South, before the Union withdrew and the South was plunged into at least a century of Apartheid rule.
Whether South or North, the prisons are filled with mostly dark-skinned people from places where you can graduate from high school without having learned how to read, where you can get asthma from breathing the air, where the police shoot first and ask questions later. They're in prison, but Barack Obama's not, he's on the TV giving a humble victory speech, quoting Lincoln. And this crowd of mostly young white people around me at the pub are all cheering at the TV screen, shouting his name, laughing, crying, and drinking. I'm pretty sure they all voted for him. Or if some of them were slacking too much to get around to it, they would have voted for him.
I had just gone there to hear the music, but it turned into a spontaneous Obama party, at that pub and at pubs and sidewalks and streets in cities all across the US, and apparently in other parts of the world as well. I remember being near the front of a march of tens of thousands of people back in 1985 or so, seeing Jesse Jackson at the front of the march with many of his volunteers lining the marchers, all wearing football-style shirts that read "88" on them, for his next Presidential campaign effort. I remember seeing on the faces and the placards of this mostly white crowd of marchers, an admiration and affection for the man at the front of the march, and I was wishing the whole country could be more like this crowd. And I feel so gratified that all the people talking about the so-called Bradley effect were wrong, that a majority of our eligible voters(not counting those millions of ineligible felons) would really end up voting for Obama.
There was one black-clad young man from Olympia who happened to be at the crowded pub, which was more crowded than I had ever seen it before. He bummed a light from me and started to talk. "This is great, you know, but I just can't help but think, 'meanwhile, in Afghanistan...'"
Every party needs a spoiler, and here he was. Too cynical to be entirely swept up in the moment, he was worried about the possibility that Obama might actually follow through with his campaign promises and send more troops to Afghanistan. And then over the past few days, the news gets more and more grim. Rahm Emanuel, a zealous supporter of Israeli Apartheid for Secretary of State. Larry Summers, Clinton's chief advocate for the World Trade Organization and deregulation of the financial sector, is being suggested as an economic advisor. Joe Biden, who voted for the war in Iraq, is already his VP.
Expand the post +/-
Portland, Oregon. I'm on his email list. He recently sent the following letter, which Pagan Sphinx's 11/13 post has encouraged me to reprint here:
Friends around the world keep asking me questions. Are you excited? What do you think of Obama? Others are simply congratulating me. And I must say, it was a thrilling moment.
As a teenager, in 1984, I volunteered for the Mondale/Ferraro campaign, mostly pushing bumper stickers. An anti-nuclear group was doing this, in the belief that Mondale would be less likely to cause Armageddon. I grew up in an overwhelmingly white, Republican town. I was a news junky from an early age, though, and politically active in one way or another. Of the Democratic candidates my favorite was Jesse Jackson, but looking around me I reasoned he had a slim chance of getting elected.
As an adult, living in urban areas all over the US, I saw little to dispel this illusion. There were more African-Americans getting elected to political office, but usually we were talking about mayors of majority-Black cities or Congresswomen from hotbeds of progressivism like Berkeley. But here I was, hanging out with my toddler, listening to my favorite local band, the Pagan Jug Band, sitting in a pub in Portland, hearing that Barack Obama has been elected President.
My initial reaction was that of Jesse's. I got a lump in my throat, and tears came to my eyes, thinking about the insanity of all the suffering that has gone down for so many centuries, the homes, dreams, and bodies broken by slavery and racism. And in fact until very recently, on the news broadcasts when they would mention the number of Black people in the Congress, in order to be factually accurate they always had to include the caveat, "since Reconstruction." More than that is rarely said about this ten-year period of Union Army occupation that allowed something approximating democracy, and even serious land redistribution, to exist in the South, before the Union withdrew and the South was plunged into at least a century of Apartheid rule.
Whether South or North, the prisons are filled with mostly dark-skinned people from places where you can graduate from high school without having learned how to read, where you can get asthma from breathing the air, where the police shoot first and ask questions later. They're in prison, but Barack Obama's not, he's on the TV giving a humble victory speech, quoting Lincoln. And this crowd of mostly young white people around me at the pub are all cheering at the TV screen, shouting his name, laughing, crying, and drinking. I'm pretty sure they all voted for him. Or if some of them were slacking too much to get around to it, they would have voted for him.
I had just gone there to hear the music, but it turned into a spontaneous Obama party, at that pub and at pubs and sidewalks and streets in cities all across the US, and apparently in other parts of the world as well. I remember being near the front of a march of tens of thousands of people back in 1985 or so, seeing Jesse Jackson at the front of the march with many of his volunteers lining the marchers, all wearing football-style shirts that read "88" on them, for his next Presidential campaign effort. I remember seeing on the faces and the placards of this mostly white crowd of marchers, an admiration and affection for the man at the front of the march, and I was wishing the whole country could be more like this crowd. And I feel so gratified that all the people talking about the so-called Bradley effect were wrong, that a majority of our eligible voters(not counting those millions of ineligible felons) would really end up voting for Obama.
There was one black-clad young man from Olympia who happened to be at the crowded pub, which was more crowded than I had ever seen it before. He bummed a light from me and started to talk. "This is great, you know, but I just can't help but think, 'meanwhile, in Afghanistan...'"
Every party needs a spoiler, and here he was. Too cynical to be entirely swept up in the moment, he was worried about the possibility that Obama might actually follow through with his campaign promises and send more troops to Afghanistan. And then over the past few days, the news gets more and more grim. Rahm Emanuel, a zealous supporter of Israeli Apartheid for Secretary of State. Larry Summers, Clinton's chief advocate for the World Trade Organization and deregulation of the financial sector, is being suggested as an economic advisor. Joe Biden, who voted for the war in Iraq, is already his VP.
Saturday Sonata XVII: Redbone
Howdy gang, LT here, with Saturday Sonata XVII. I heard a Redbone song this morning on the radio, and decided to do a repost, with extras, of something I did at my place about a year ago.
...
You're probably familiar with the band Redbone and the 1974 song "Come and Get Your Love." Big, simple, fun song, and a big hit in the U.S.
All the members of the band, built around brothers Pat and Lolly Vegas, had Native American heritage, and a year before "Come and Get Your Love" hit the charts, they had another hit that reflected that heritage - one that you probably don't remember: "We Were All Wounded at Wounded Knee."
In this 2004 interview Pat Vegas tells how the song was basically banned in the U.S., and how it became a #1 hit in Europe.
More info on Redbone here and here, and and a few albums at iTunes, and they even appear to have their own Web site, believe it or not.
Enjoy.
...
You're probably familiar with the band Redbone and the 1974 song "Come and Get Your Love." Big, simple, fun song, and a big hit in the U.S.
All the members of the band, built around brothers Pat and Lolly Vegas, had Native American heritage, and a year before "Come and Get Your Love" hit the charts, they had another hit that reflected that heritage - one that you probably don't remember: "We Were All Wounded at Wounded Knee."
In this 2004 interview Pat Vegas tells how the song was basically banned in the U.S., and how it became a #1 hit in Europe.
More info on Redbone here and here, and and a few albums at iTunes, and they even appear to have their own Web site, believe it or not.
Enjoy.
Jumat, 14 November 2008
it's getting close to the holidays
ah- the ubiquitous holidays :) part of me wonders how americans will cope without being able to spend their way into believing in christmas. and the other part of me wonders if we haven't already gotten what we wished for. instead of counting down the cmas shopping days left- many folks are counting down the days until january 20th. i know i am. i don't look at obama as the messiah or any other holy icon- but i do look to him to take action. the only action that still president cheney has taken- is to give the go ahead to paulson to continue to loot the us treasury. and paulson has done a fine job.
i don't know if there will ever be peace amongst human beings. i don't even know if there is enough sustainability in this planet for us to ever find out. times are going to be tough around the globe and the golden era of human civilizations is long gone. but i am not afraid. i think that knowing that my fellow americans banded together to repudiate hatred and divisiveness in great numbers gave me an inner peace i haven't felt in a long time. there is obviously much work to continue. millions of red meat eaters are out there- fearfully buying guns and millions of lgbt americans have had their rights stripped away- where they have even gotten them. we have an opportunity to set things right. we are not a center right nation. we are a nation of progressives who have been lied to and allowed ourselves to be manipulated. once the blinders fall off- it's tough to put them back on.
let's grab that opportunity and run with it.
i don't know if there will ever be peace amongst human beings. i don't even know if there is enough sustainability in this planet for us to ever find out. times are going to be tough around the globe and the golden era of human civilizations is long gone. but i am not afraid. i think that knowing that my fellow americans banded together to repudiate hatred and divisiveness in great numbers gave me an inner peace i haven't felt in a long time. there is obviously much work to continue. millions of red meat eaters are out there- fearfully buying guns and millions of lgbt americans have had their rights stripped away- where they have even gotten them. we have an opportunity to set things right. we are not a center right nation. we are a nation of progressives who have been lied to and allowed ourselves to be manipulated. once the blinders fall off- it's tough to put them back on.
let's grab that opportunity and run with it.
Kamis, 13 November 2008
Questions for the Obama Administration
Now that we've managed to elect the better of the two candidates for the office of the presidency I, like many Americans, am beginning to ask the hard questions. Questions that I believe President-elect Obama should be accountable to when he takes office. I don't think anyone expects immediate solutions to every problem we face as a nation and as a planet but I hope that the new president and his cabinet make good on their promises to communicate with the American people and act in our best interest. That includes reaching out to the world community non-violently and restoring our tarnished image overseas. This too is in the best interest of Americans as members of a global society.
The following are a set of questions that I intend to put in letter form and send to Barack Obama and Joe Biden:
Dear President-elect Obama:
With all due respect, I'd like to put forth to you some questions regarding issues that I have been grappling with since your election. I would like to say that I voted for you and have, like so many Americans, put my faith and hope in you to finally provide for our country the leadership it's lacked for the eight years of the Bush/Cheney administration.
If you intend to implement an exit strategy out of Iraq, will you be able to honor the promise you made that such a plan would be done over a sixteen month period? If not, how long do you foresee it taking and what are the specifics of your plan? Further, you made comments during your campaign stating that in terms of Pakistan, you would not rule out attacks to "get" Osama Bin Laden. Is this something that you assume you must do or have you sought the counsel of experts on this issue that include non-militarily aligned and government individuals? Will you use every tool and make every effort you can to avoid military strikes against Pakistan? In regard to Afghanistan you've stated that more troops are needed there.
I don't know enough about the minutia of the many problems of the region but I'm concerned that while we think about potentially pulling our troops out of Iraq, we will send as many troops to Afghanistan. If we are unable to stabilize Afghanistan without more military force, how will we do it? And if we do it, will there be a rational, realistic plan to do the work and leave as soon as possible?
Regarding health care. I was rather disappointed to hear very little of substance about healthcare during your campaign. As you know, we as a nation are experiencing a health care crisis unparalleled by any other major power.
This from your website:
Barack Obama will make health insurance affordable and accessible to all:
The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing healthcare system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan.
Hmmm. The term "builds on the existing healthcare system" sounds not only vague, but somewhat suspicious. Since from my estimation, the so-called healthcare system is a powerful, moneymaking industry with powerful lobbyists in Congress, I don't put much trust in "building on it". This type of talk makes me worried that you will cave in to the healthcare industry; one of the reasons, I believe, we have not been successful at getting a proposal for national health care on the table as even a beginning step. Isn't it about time we challenge that industry by confronting the healthcare issue on a national level for the good of all Americans? I'm not satisfied with your plan. I'm hoping, as you've dared to encourage us to hope, that when the pressing issues of the economy are under control, that you will revisit your concept of what healthcare should look like in the U.S. and begin to draw up a plan that will satisfy the needs of the people instead of the needs of the healthcare industry and the pharmaceutical giants.
And speaking of the economy. I'm currently appalled by how half of the 700 billion dollar bailout money is gone and the economy continues to worsen. Where has the money gone, to whom has it gone and for what reasons, exactly? I know you supported this plan, Mr. Obama, and I hope that when you officially take office on January 20, you will begin to take action to make the financial institutions who received money accountable for their part in the economic demise of our country. And what about Main Street, which was ubiquitously discussed through the part of the presidential campaign when our economy hit rock-bottom? When are the folks on Main Street going to see some relief and how?
And the auto industry is now pandering for money as well. It's a failed industry due to mismanagement, poor planning and short-sightedness. Do we now go and bail an industry that has for decades made a mess of itself and sold countless gas-guzzling SUVs to equally short-sighted, gas-glutton Americans? With the track record the auto industry has, it seems like throwing the people's money at it isn't the solution. In fairness, I realize that you are not yet officially our president and that these issues are needing attention right now. What I'm alluding to is my hope (there's that word again) that once you do become president you will ask the hard questions and take the tough stances that are needed to keep the corporations in check.
Lastly, while I understand this is a very unpopular issue nationally, I'm quite disappointed that both you and Senator Biden are apposed to same-sex marriage. If you hold such a belief because your respective religions dictate that you should, I can respect that. But if what you mean is that you will not lend your support to the legalization of gay marriage, then you are as guilty as the last administration of failing to separate your religious beliefs from what is constitutionally reasonable and sane.
Civil unions, which you say you support, are not the same as marriage; not legally nor symbolically. I urge you to rethink your position and why you take the anti gay marriage stance that you do. It wasn't all that long ago that the idea of black Americans being married was socially unpopular as well. That has changed as should the ban on marriage for GLBT people be changed. It has to begin somewhere and I think the time is now. It should begin with your administration. You represent many things to us and one of them is that you, an African-American have been elected to the highest office of our nation. As an African-American, you should be able to understand the struggle for equal constitutional rights and social acceptance. Your administration has a chance to make history. I hope you take advantage of it.
Sincerely,
The Pagan Sphinx
The following are a set of questions that I intend to put in letter form and send to Barack Obama and Joe Biden:
Dear President-elect Obama:
With all due respect, I'd like to put forth to you some questions regarding issues that I have been grappling with since your election. I would like to say that I voted for you and have, like so many Americans, put my faith and hope in you to finally provide for our country the leadership it's lacked for the eight years of the Bush/Cheney administration.
If you intend to implement an exit strategy out of Iraq, will you be able to honor the promise you made that such a plan would be done over a sixteen month period? If not, how long do you foresee it taking and what are the specifics of your plan? Further, you made comments during your campaign stating that in terms of Pakistan, you would not rule out attacks to "get" Osama Bin Laden. Is this something that you assume you must do or have you sought the counsel of experts on this issue that include non-militarily aligned and government individuals? Will you use every tool and make every effort you can to avoid military strikes against Pakistan? In regard to Afghanistan you've stated that more troops are needed there.
I don't know enough about the minutia of the many problems of the region but I'm concerned that while we think about potentially pulling our troops out of Iraq, we will send as many troops to Afghanistan. If we are unable to stabilize Afghanistan without more military force, how will we do it? And if we do it, will there be a rational, realistic plan to do the work and leave as soon as possible?
Regarding health care. I was rather disappointed to hear very little of substance about healthcare during your campaign. As you know, we as a nation are experiencing a health care crisis unparalleled by any other major power.
This from your website:
Barack Obama will make health insurance affordable and accessible to all:
The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing healthcare system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan.
Hmmm. The term "builds on the existing healthcare system" sounds not only vague, but somewhat suspicious. Since from my estimation, the so-called healthcare system is a powerful, moneymaking industry with powerful lobbyists in Congress, I don't put much trust in "building on it". This type of talk makes me worried that you will cave in to the healthcare industry; one of the reasons, I believe, we have not been successful at getting a proposal for national health care on the table as even a beginning step. Isn't it about time we challenge that industry by confronting the healthcare issue on a national level for the good of all Americans? I'm not satisfied with your plan. I'm hoping, as you've dared to encourage us to hope, that when the pressing issues of the economy are under control, that you will revisit your concept of what healthcare should look like in the U.S. and begin to draw up a plan that will satisfy the needs of the people instead of the needs of the healthcare industry and the pharmaceutical giants.
And speaking of the economy. I'm currently appalled by how half of the 700 billion dollar bailout money is gone and the economy continues to worsen. Where has the money gone, to whom has it gone and for what reasons, exactly? I know you supported this plan, Mr. Obama, and I hope that when you officially take office on January 20, you will begin to take action to make the financial institutions who received money accountable for their part in the economic demise of our country. And what about Main Street, which was ubiquitously discussed through the part of the presidential campaign when our economy hit rock-bottom? When are the folks on Main Street going to see some relief and how?
And the auto industry is now pandering for money as well. It's a failed industry due to mismanagement, poor planning and short-sightedness. Do we now go and bail an industry that has for decades made a mess of itself and sold countless gas-guzzling SUVs to equally short-sighted, gas-glutton Americans? With the track record the auto industry has, it seems like throwing the people's money at it isn't the solution. In fairness, I realize that you are not yet officially our president and that these issues are needing attention right now. What I'm alluding to is my hope (there's that word again) that once you do become president you will ask the hard questions and take the tough stances that are needed to keep the corporations in check.
Lastly, while I understand this is a very unpopular issue nationally, I'm quite disappointed that both you and Senator Biden are apposed to same-sex marriage. If you hold such a belief because your respective religions dictate that you should, I can respect that. But if what you mean is that you will not lend your support to the legalization of gay marriage, then you are as guilty as the last administration of failing to separate your religious beliefs from what is constitutionally reasonable and sane.
Civil unions, which you say you support, are not the same as marriage; not legally nor symbolically. I urge you to rethink your position and why you take the anti gay marriage stance that you do. It wasn't all that long ago that the idea of black Americans being married was socially unpopular as well. That has changed as should the ban on marriage for GLBT people be changed. It has to begin somewhere and I think the time is now. It should begin with your administration. You represent many things to us and one of them is that you, an African-American have been elected to the highest office of our nation. As an African-American, you should be able to understand the struggle for equal constitutional rights and social acceptance. Your administration has a chance to make history. I hope you take advantage of it.
Sincerely,
The Pagan Sphinx
Rabu, 12 November 2008
The (Ugly) Bush Doctrine In Action
Q: What is the name for a policy which constitutes the most efficient means to cause instability in the world, as well as to ensure a continued, as well as increasing, steady stream of devoted and determined recruits into radical terrorist organizations (say, like al Qaeda)?
A: The Bush Doctrine.
A: The Bush Doctrine.
Last month's raid by U.S. special forces within Syria's undisputed, internationally recognized borders was but a small tip of a terribly sizable iceberg.
For perhaps a very first time, such an illegal military activity on the part of the U.S. within the ludicrous, broad context of the Global War on Terror(TM) put a bright, glaring and galling spotlight on the Bush Doctrine in action - especially its inherently criminal, destructively arrogant and short-sighted incompetent nature.
Then again, such a raid was not really surprising. For more than two years now, there has been numerous confirmed reports of instances whereby the U.S.-led N.A.T.O. ISAF in Afghanistan have bombed border villages within Pakistan and despite Pakistan's protestations - again, going against every precept of international laws with regards to the sanctity of borders and the sovereignty of nations.
Similarly, there has been numerous rumors, or at least as-yet-to-be fully confirmed reports, concerning secret U.S. "black ops" being run within Iran's borders - also for the better part of two years now, at least.
Well, it would seem that the complete extent of such Bush Doctrine-justified black ops is finally beginning to emerge - and such truth is every bit as outrageous as it is downright ugly (emphasis added):
(Rogue Nation, anyone?)
Ah yes, that is the Bush Doctrine in action without a shadow of a doubt - including the typical landmarks of incompetence-driven arrogance, delusional (and false) moral high ground, and slavish need for expediency.
In other words - this is the exact, same mode of (non)thinking which ended up justifying renditions, indefinite detentions, torture, military commissions and indiscriminate domestic spying.
Indeed - upon closer reading of the Bush Doctrine, we even find the very same contorted and mendacious "double-speak" used in claiming that torture, renditions and indefinite detentions remained respectful of the Geneva Conventions, except this time around with regards to "respecting international laws" and other such quaint ideals. To whit (emphasis added):
Or: do as we say, not as we do.
Reminds you of many, many other things, no?
But the galling irony, especially in light of such blatant unilateralism, lies with the following "noble" statements of principles in that very same Bush Doctrine (emphasis added):
And to this, one must never fail to remind (lame duck) President George W. Bush of his own words in order to expose his demonstrated shameless hypocrisy in such matters, as in pretty much everything else - to whit:
Coercion.
Shared responsibilities.
One can't help but be reminded again of renditions, indefinite detentions, torture, military commissions, using military as police and indiscriminate domestic spying.
All of which, in turn, brings me back to the Q&A at the top of this post.
So thank you, President Bush, for making our world a definitely more dangerous and unstable one for decades henceforth.
May you and your infamous Doctrine be forever condemned and reviled by the present generation and all those to come thereafter.
(Cross-posted from APOV)
For perhaps a very first time, such an illegal military activity on the part of the U.S. within the ludicrous, broad context of the Global War on Terror(TM) put a bright, glaring and galling spotlight on the Bush Doctrine in action - especially its inherently criminal, destructively arrogant and short-sighted incompetent nature.
Then again, such a raid was not really surprising. For more than two years now, there has been numerous confirmed reports of instances whereby the U.S.-led N.A.T.O. ISAF in Afghanistan have bombed border villages within Pakistan and despite Pakistan's protestations - again, going against every precept of international laws with regards to the sanctity of borders and the sovereignty of nations.
Similarly, there has been numerous rumors, or at least as-yet-to-be fully confirmed reports, concerning secret U.S. "black ops" being run within Iran's borders - also for the better part of two years now, at least.
Well, it would seem that the complete extent of such Bush Doctrine-justified black ops is finally beginning to emerge - and such truth is every bit as outrageous as it is downright ugly (emphasis added):
US military conducts a dozen secret strikes in four years: reportNot the best way to make friends, let alone inspire and spread goodwill, eh?
US special forces have conducted about a dozen secret operations against Al-Qaeda and other Islamic militants in Pakistan, Syria and other countries under broad war-waging authority given them by the administration of President George W. Bush (...).
(Unnamed senior US officials) said the authority was contained in a classified order signed by then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld in early 2004 with the approval of President Bush.
The order gave the military permission to attack Al-Qaeda and other hostile targets anywhere in the world, even in countries not at war with the United States, without any additional approval (...).
Under this authority, a Navy Seal team raided a suspected Islamic militant compound in the Bajaur region of Pakistan in 2006 (...).
Another raid was conducted by US special forces in Syria last October 26 in cooperation with the Central Intelligence Agency (...).
There is no information about the remaining secret military strikes, but officials made clear the list of targets did not include Iran (...) however, US forces had carried out reconnaissance missions in Iran using other classified directives.
About a dozen additional operations have been canceled in the past four years because they were deemed too risky, too diplomatically explosive or relied on insufficient evidence (...).
Before the 2004 order, the Pentagon needed to get approval for missions on a case-by-case basis, which could take days (...) but Rumsfeld was not satisfied with the status-quo and pressed hard for permission to use military power automatically outside the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan (...).
(The) 2004 order identifies 15 to 20 countries, including Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and several other Persian Gulf states, where Al-Qaeda was believed to be operating or had sought sanctuary.
(Rogue Nation, anyone?)
Ah yes, that is the Bush Doctrine in action without a shadow of a doubt - including the typical landmarks of incompetence-driven arrogance, delusional (and false) moral high ground, and slavish need for expediency.
In other words - this is the exact, same mode of (non)thinking which ended up justifying renditions, indefinite detentions, torture, military commissions and indiscriminate domestic spying.
Indeed - upon closer reading of the Bush Doctrine, we even find the very same contorted and mendacious "double-speak" used in claiming that torture, renditions and indefinite detentions remained respectful of the Geneva Conventions, except this time around with regards to "respecting international laws" and other such quaint ideals. To whit (emphasis added):
(...) For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.Translation: we do what we feel needs to be done, and us alone, regardless of the previous thinking about sovereignty and international laws which we still respect. Trust us.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.
(...) The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions.
Or: do as we say, not as we do.
Reminds you of many, many other things, no?
But the galling irony, especially in light of such blatant unilateralism, lies with the following "noble" statements of principles in that very same Bush Doctrine (emphasis added):
No doctrine can anticipate every circumstance in which U.S. action—direct or indirect—is warranted. We have finite political, economic, and military resources to meet our global priorities. The United States will approach each case with these strategic principles in mind:To which one can only reply: Afghanistan? Iraq? Pakistan? Syria? And who else?
- The United States should invest time and resources into building international relationships and institutions that can help manage local crises when they emerge.
- The United States should be realistic about its ability to help those who are unwilling or unready to help themselves. Where and when people are ready to do their part, we will be willing to move decisively.
And to this, one must never fail to remind (lame duck) President George W. Bush of his own words in order to expose his demonstrated shameless hypocrisy in such matters, as in pretty much everything else - to whit:
Justice."We build a world of justice, or we will live in a world of coercion. The magnitude of our shared responsibilities makes our disagreements look so small."President Bush
Berlin, Germany
May 23, 2002
Coercion.
Shared responsibilities.
One can't help but be reminded again of renditions, indefinite detentions, torture, military commissions, using military as police and indiscriminate domestic spying.
All of which, in turn, brings me back to the Q&A at the top of this post.
So thank you, President Bush, for making our world a definitely more dangerous and unstable one for decades henceforth.
May you and your infamous Doctrine be forever condemned and reviled by the present generation and all those to come thereafter.
(Cross-posted from APOV)
Langganan:
Komentar (Atom)
Obama is surrounding himself with folks from Bill Clinton's administration. I remember those eight years well, I was protesting his policies the whole time. Welfare was reformed and social spending was gutted even more. The prisons became even more crowded with nonviolent drug offenders. The sanctions and ongoing bombing campaign in Iraq that happened on Clinton's watch killed hundreds of thousands of children, and his Secretary of State said the price was worth it. NAFTA was passed and then the WTO was formed, all with Clinton's blessings. These trade deals that Clinton and most of his party supported plunged millions of people around the world into poverty and an early death. Yugoslavia and Iraq will glow for thousands of years because of the nuclear waste littering the land that fell during the Clinton years.
Of course, Clinton inherited the mess in Iraq, and Clinton certainly did not invent neoliberal economics, nor did Clinton start the process of the de-industrialization of the US, the growth of Mexican sweatshops, or the support of the death squad regime in Colombia. But he embraced all of that, and much, much more.
On the other hand, in previous generations, things were different. Before the export of America's manufacturing base, before all the free trade agreements, before real wages in the US lost half their value, the US was run by liberals. Liberals like FDR and Nixon. Nixon? Yes, well, I studied economics a little, and social spending in the US actually continued to increase from the time of FDR to the time of Nixon. It was under Nixon that the EPA, the NEA and other such institutions were born. It was after Nixon that the budget-cutting began in earnest. From FDR to Nixon, whether the administration was Democratic or Republican, social spending increased. Since Nixon, under Democratic and Republican administrations, social spending has decreased.
There have, of course, been variations. FDR enthusiastically bombed Japan into the stone age, killing millions of innocents. Eisenhower was a Republican president, he preferred to bomb Koreans and Vietnamese. Johnson bombed them a lot more, killing millions. Nixon did it, too, of course. All along the way, by and large, there was overwhelming bipartisan support for these policies. Not among the population, but among the elite who rule it.
Several days ago I was exchanging email messages about the state of the world with my good friend Terry Flynn, a professor of economics and the social sciences at Western Connecticut State University. In one email he wrote, "a damn interesting time. The hegemon is rocked. I'm sure we're witnessing a re-configuration of the global order on par with the post-WW2 period." I asked what kind of reconfiguration did he see happening, and this was his eloquent reply:
It's a shift from one hegemonic era to another. The U.S. took over from the U.K. after the war. But our time is up. Don't know which country or alliance will dominate in the next cycle. The major contenders are China and India. But Russia is working very hard to leverage its massive geopolitical presence, natural resources, and techno-military culture, despite huge demographic deficits in comparison with the former countries. Russia has Europe by the balls due to, e.g., Germany's utter dependency on Russian natural gas. And it's far superior to India and China in many important ways. It's still a fucking wreck in terms of law and economic and social policies. But this whole transition is probably a 20 year affair. I just think that the catastrophic U.S. response to 9/11 and the current financial crisis push the regime change hard against the U.S.
If Obama wins the election, he might very well be a fine negotiator for the new, diminished role for this country. He can sell it as enlightened internationalism, not the decline of the American Empire. Of course, the patriots here will insist on waving the flag and encouraging the barbarians to bring it on. They won't go down without a fight. However, the U.S. simply can't afford to sustain its customary role. And there's no reason that China will continue to lend money for us to do so.
Anyway, that's a taste of my thinking on this matter. Oh, by the way, I don't for one minute expect that the new regime will be any kinder to the working classes. They'll still be global capitalists with a lust for power. In principle, no better or worse than the present crew. But as our country is diminished we might start talking seriously about peace and environmental degradation, etc. That could be ironic.
The Democrats have gotten more corporate donations than the Republicans in this last election cycle. The corporate elite has mostly decided that the Dems are better for business now. Better to send them in to clean up the mess. Obama is most definitely his own man, and an extremely intelligent, eloquent, youthful, good-looking and well-organized one at that. He has a brilliant background in community organizing and a first-hand familiarity with reality, the realities, for starters, of poverty, racism and US foreign policy -- those realities that, among others, so desperately need to be changed. Not only is he his own man, but he's the man of the people, of so many people, who so enthusiastically have supported his campaign, going door to door as part of his well-oiled campaign machine, giving him hundreds of millions of dollars in small donations, packing stadiums around the country and around the world, and waiting in line for hours to vote for him in the polls.
But he is also the man of the corporations, of the banks, of the insurance industry, who have funded his campaign massively, and are expecting a dividend for their investments. And they're getting it already, in the form of the appointment of those "liberals" (whatever that means) who supported Clinton's wars, sanctions and neoliberal economic reforms.
Obama has promised to raise taxes on the rich back to what they were under Clinton. I haven't carefully studied the numbers, but I believe we are talking about increasing the income tax on anything above $100,000 from 35% to 38%. Nobody is talking about returning it to what it was when the Progressive Income Tax was formed -- 90%. He is talking about taking soldiers out of Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan -- not bringing them all home and cutting military spending by 90%, in line with international norms, and doing away with this rapacious empire. He is talking about the middle class, and sure, he had to do that to get elected, but when does he ever talk about the poor, the imprisoned millions, the thousands of homeless walking cadavers haunting the streets of every major American city? Every politician talks about building schools, but what about free education through graduate school like they have in most European countries?
No, the scope of debate is far more limited than that. It is a scope defined by that increasingly narrow grey area in between "conservative" and "liberal." There are distinctions, some of them important. That 3% tax increase will do good things for many people, I hope. Perhaps we won't start any new wars, I don't know. Perhaps we'll withdraw from Iraq, but I'll bet no reparations for what we've done there will be forthcoming. Perhaps there will be no new wars on our civil liberties in the next few years, but I'll bet the prison population will not get much smaller.
I hope I'm wrong. But if I am to be proven wrong and there are to be serious changes in the welfare of people in the US and around the world, it will only be as a result of a popular uprising of people calling for a real New Deal for the 21st century, an end to the empire, housing, health care and education for all, and so on. Because even if Obama secretly wants all of these things, as so many of us would desperately like to believe, he's going to need plenty of popular pressure to point to if any of these things are going to become reality. If he really is the socialist wealth redistributor his opponents said he is, he's going to need massive popular support just to avoid being impeached for treason by those corporate stooges who dominate both parties in the Congress.
And if, on the other hand, he really believes his own campaign promises of meager tax increases for the rich, raising the salaries of teachers a bit, fighting terrorism, passing more free trade agreements, being Israel's best friend, and so on, then what we have in store is another Democratic administration. Different kind of like Starbucks is different from McDonald's -- they both pay poverty wages and feed you shit, but Starbucks includes health insurance.