Veterans Day was originally the world's response to the horrible mass murder of World War 1. The armistice that ended that awful and pointless conflict was signed on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month ... November 11th. Marked in the US as 'Veterans' Day'.
The Veterans Day does not exist so that we can all cheer on the military as it leads further and further into more and more war. Veterans Day exists as a reminder that if you let the generals make the decisions, then they can kill 60,000 in a day. Just like at the Somme where they kept ordering line after line of troops up towards the machine guns. The British command was full of the philosophical predecessors of Gen. McCrystal who thought that more troops were always the answer. Line after line of them sent towards the machine guns. And not just for a day, but for day after day for an entire summer. This effort moved the German line back a meaningless 7 miles, but never achieved the breakthrough that the generals kept saying was only one more attack away. 432,000 British soldiers were killed or wounded in those months. More troops was not the answer.
Veterans Day is the cry of the world to end this madness.
Common Debate Page 2
Sunday, November 8, 2009
The answer to the question
The title of the AfterDowningStreet article below asks a question. "Who said they'd vote no on a health care bill this bad?" Fifty seven Democrats had made that promise in July. The answer is that two were good to their word. Kucinich and Massa.
The bill passed by 5 votes.
What does this tell you? That these 57 members would have had enormous power if they had stuck together and stuck to their guns.
We've seen the blue dogs play this game. We will likely see the minority Republicans in the Senate do so soon. Sometimes, a minority too small to pass legislation can still have great power just by saying no.
The Democrats desperately needed the votes of these 57 Representatives to pass their 'Bailout under a Blue Cross'. The question is, why didn't these 57 use the power that this position gave them in order to demand a decent bill?
These 57 had a veto power over the whole dang thing. Why didn't they use this power? If even three others had joined Kucinich, then they had the power to kill this bill. Why didn't they use this power?
Its a very old game in Washington. And as such, everyone knows what the next step would be. The Democratic leaders would come to this caucus and said 'what do you want?' If this group had really wanted to get some progressive (ie, decent, moral, caring) features into this bill, they had the power to do so by saying no. Why didn't they?
Instead, they lined up and voted for the big health corporations. All us suckers got was a nice sounding statement from Kucinich. Isn't that all we ever get from the Democrats? Nice words? I liked the words. I framed them and put them up on my little virtual wall here. But nice words is all we got.
The next obvious question to ask is this, "Why do we keep electing Democrats?"
The bill passed by 5 votes.
What does this tell you? That these 57 members would have had enormous power if they had stuck together and stuck to their guns.
We've seen the blue dogs play this game. We will likely see the minority Republicans in the Senate do so soon. Sometimes, a minority too small to pass legislation can still have great power just by saying no.
The Democrats desperately needed the votes of these 57 Representatives to pass their 'Bailout under a Blue Cross'. The question is, why didn't these 57 use the power that this position gave them in order to demand a decent bill?
These 57 had a veto power over the whole dang thing. Why didn't they use this power? If even three others had joined Kucinich, then they had the power to kill this bill. Why didn't they use this power?
Its a very old game in Washington. And as such, everyone knows what the next step would be. The Democratic leaders would come to this caucus and said 'what do you want?' If this group had really wanted to get some progressive (ie, decent, moral, caring) features into this bill, they had the power to do so by saying no. Why didn't they?
Instead, they lined up and voted for the big health corporations. All us suckers got was a nice sounding statement from Kucinich. Isn't that all we ever get from the Democrats? Nice words? I liked the words. I framed them and put them up on my little virtual wall here. But nice words is all we got.
The next obvious question to ask is this, "Why do we keep electing Democrats?"
A Bailout Under a Blue Cross
Who Said They'd Vote No on a Healthcare Bill This Bad in July, And Who Lied from AfterDowningStreet.org
I like Kucinich. I just wish he'd leave that awful party.
The last line is telling. Yet again, the Democrats leave 'in place a Bush Administration policy'. Isn't it obvious that this is the function of today's corporate-owned Democrats? When the Republican brand crashes and burns from giving too much to corporations, the Democrats take power and protect and defend those policies from change.
From war to wall street, from homeland security to health care, from domestic spying to defense budgets, what we've seen repeatedly from the Democrats is that the are protecting Bush policies. And expanding them where possible.
This is what you get when you vote Democrats. I like Kucinich. But he's a black sheep in his party. His party leaders, the ones who are passing this paen to the big health corporations, tried to kick Kucinich out of Congress last year by running a pro-corporation primary challenger against him.
Kucinich: Why I Voted NO
Washington D.C. (November 7, 2009) – After voting against H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement:
“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.
“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.
“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.
“By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress’ blog, Think Progress, states “since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.” Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that “money will start flowing in again” to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.
I like Kucinich. I just wish he'd leave that awful party.
The last line is telling. Yet again, the Democrats leave 'in place a Bush Administration policy'. Isn't it obvious that this is the function of today's corporate-owned Democrats? When the Republican brand crashes and burns from giving too much to corporations, the Democrats take power and protect and defend those policies from change.
From war to wall street, from homeland security to health care, from domestic spying to defense budgets, what we've seen repeatedly from the Democrats is that the are protecting Bush policies. And expanding them where possible.
This is what you get when you vote Democrats. I like Kucinich. But he's a black sheep in his party. His party leaders, the ones who are passing this paen to the big health corporations, tried to kick Kucinich out of Congress last year by running a pro-corporation primary challenger against him.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Civil Resistance
"The function of a civil resistance is to provoke response and we will continue to provoke until they respond or change the law. They are not in control; we are."
-- from the movie "Ghandi"
-- from the movie "Ghandi"
Obama Backs Extending Patriot Act Spy Provisions
Obama Backs Extending Patriot Act Spy Provisions by David Kravetz found at Wired.com
Fascinating that the 'effectiveness' of the authorities is given top priority. The rights and liberties for which our predecessors fought and died, the very things that once made America a special place, these are now only allowed us provided it doesn't conflict with what the authorities view as 'effective'. This is a clear statement of policy from the Obama administration.
Wow, I'm so happy everything is changing under Obama's imperial rule. The only difference is that the pro-Democrat part of the left now openly and clearly supports tyranny.
The Obama administration has told Congress it supports renewing three provisions of the Patriot Act due to expire at year’s end, measures making it easier for the government to spy within the United States.
In a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said the administration might consider “modifications” to the act in order to protect civil liberties.
“The administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities,” Ronald Weich, assistant attorney general, wrote to Leahy, (.pdf) whose committee is expected to consider renewing the three expiring Patriot Act provisions next week. The government disclosed the letter Tuesday.
It should come as no surprise that President Barack Obama supports renewing the provisions, which were part of the Patriot Act approved six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
As an Illinois senator in 2008, he voted to allow the warrantless monitoring of Americans’ electronic communications if they are communicating overseas with somebody the government believes is linked to terrorism. That legislative package, which President George W. Bush signed, also immunized the nation’s telecommunication companies from lawsuits charging them with being complicit with the Bush administration’s warrantless, wiretapping program. That program was also adopted in the wake of Sept. 11.
Fascinating that the 'effectiveness' of the authorities is given top priority. The rights and liberties for which our predecessors fought and died, the very things that once made America a special place, these are now only allowed us provided it doesn't conflict with what the authorities view as 'effective'. This is a clear statement of policy from the Obama administration.
Wow, I'm so happy everything is changing under Obama's imperial rule. The only difference is that the pro-Democrat part of the left now openly and clearly supports tyranny.
Anti-terrorism
In India, in the 1930's, Mahatma Ghandi was building his campaign of non-violent resistance against British colonial rule. The British rulers passed laws to oppose and prevent this. The great British democracy called these "Anti-Terrorism" laws.
When the British government did finally decide to invite peaceful Ghandi to a conference in London to discuss the possible independence of India, first it had to release him from prison.
When the British government did finally decide to invite peaceful Ghandi to a conference in London to discuss the possible independence of India, first it had to release him from prison.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Don't worry, We've got your back!
FEDERAL APPEALS COURT SAYS IT'S OKAY FOR GOVERNMENT TO ILLEGALLY ARREST, TORTURE AND SUBMIT TO RENDITION AN INNOCENT PERSON by Glen Greenwald
BTW, the Obama Administration WON this case. It was Obama's Justice Dept. that was standing before the court and making the case that it was perfectly okay for the US government to illegally arrest, torture, and submit to rendition an innocent person.
Go, Obama, Go. They say Obama taught constitutional law. But did anyone ask which constitution? Or, was the class entitled "101 ways you can shred and ignore the US constitution and get away with it"?
There's the Obama Administration, once again proclaiming to the crooks of the Bush era "Don't worry, we've got your back!"
This is the Obama Administration's idea of 'ending torture'. They are standing before the federal courts defending and protecting the torturers. I guess we should all give thanks they weren't in charge at the time of the Nuremberg trials. The Obama Justice Dept would have been defending Goring.
I don't guess its likely that the Democrats might look at these election results (see below) and maybe get the idea that this is not what the people elected them to go do? Naw, didn't think so.
BTW, the Obama Administration WON this case. It was Obama's Justice Dept. that was standing before the court and making the case that it was perfectly okay for the US government to illegally arrest, torture, and submit to rendition an innocent person.
Go, Obama, Go. They say Obama taught constitutional law. But did anyone ask which constitution? Or, was the class entitled "101 ways you can shred and ignore the US constitution and get away with it"?
There's the Obama Administration, once again proclaiming to the crooks of the Bush era "Don't worry, we've got your back!"
This is the Obama Administration's idea of 'ending torture'. They are standing before the federal courts defending and protecting the torturers. I guess we should all give thanks they weren't in charge at the time of the Nuremberg trials. The Obama Justice Dept would have been defending Goring.
I don't guess its likely that the Democrats might look at these election results (see below) and maybe get the idea that this is not what the people elected them to go do? Naw, didn't think so.
Crashing and Burning
Democrats Crash and Burn by Dave Lindorff via counterpunch.org
The Democrats obviously knew this was coming, as they had their spin machine out in advance with messages like 2009 Elections Don’t Foretell a Thing. But here's Lindorff on the night's results...
Its beyond me how anyone could think that screwing over and ignoring the desires of a vast majority of Americans, and instead just blatantly serving their corporate masters every wish was in any way a viable long term strategy for the Democrats. If there was ever a strategy pre-destined to crash and burn, that was it. When you phrase it as the Democratic strategy of "lets ignore and piss off 70% of the electorate in order to make Wall Street rich(er)", it seems to have a rather obvious flaw. It only works as long as you can keep pulling the same trick of fooling the electorate into believing you are something that you are not. Like any confidence scheme, its bound to collapse sooner or later.
See post below for how to use this to our advantage......
The Democrats obviously knew this was coming, as they had their spin machine out in advance with messages like 2009 Elections Don’t Foretell a Thing. But here's Lindorff on the night's results...
But despite the lackluster candidates in both Virginia and New Jersey, I think it’s safe to say that there was also clear evidence that the losses, and the margins of the losses—huge in Virginia’s case, and significant in normally safely Democratic New Jersey—provide evidence that the Obama presidency, and the prevailing Democratic strategy of minimalist legislative initiatives on health care reform, global warming etc., expanded and unending war in Afghanistan, support for Wall Street and neglect of the one-in-five Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, are a political disaster in the making for Democrats in general and Obama in particular.
Its beyond me how anyone could think that screwing over and ignoring the desires of a vast majority of Americans, and instead just blatantly serving their corporate masters every wish was in any way a viable long term strategy for the Democrats. If there was ever a strategy pre-destined to crash and burn, that was it. When you phrase it as the Democratic strategy of "lets ignore and piss off 70% of the electorate in order to make Wall Street rich(er)", it seems to have a rather obvious flaw. It only works as long as you can keep pulling the same trick of fooling the electorate into believing you are something that you are not. Like any confidence scheme, its bound to collapse sooner or later.
See post below for how to use this to our advantage......
Begin Today
On some recent corporate TV show, a character made the comment that Washington is the 'ultimate you-don't-get-something-for-nothing town'.
How very true.
Yet, for most of my lifetime, the progressives, the left, or whatever you want to call the majority of Americans who are to the left of Obama, have acted like Washington just hands out favors like candy to kids. The left has acted like all they needed to do was to make a little noise, then Washington would come running to them with the goody basket and start handing out treats.
You don't get anything in this country without political power. Period. I'll repeat it just to make sure it gets through. You don't get anything in this country without political power.
The left has consistently conceded political power to others. The left has consistently given its votes away for free to Democrats who don't support any of the views, issues or policies of the left. The hasn't even tried to cut deals to try to get anything concrete in return for those votes. Instead, the left has just lined up and voted for the candidate with a (D) after their name. Then the left sits back and waits for the Democrats to come around with the goody bag.
The really strange part is that even though the goody bag never shows up, the left keeps repeating this behavior election after election. Even children would become skeptical of the Santa Claus myth if there weren't ever any presents. But the left seems to continue to believe the myth that the Democrats are progressives year after year.
The left needs political power. It needs to develop and build political power. The current powerlessness of the left stems directly from its inability or unwillingness to build real political power.
To have political power, that means a group is a 'player' in elections. To be a 'player', you have to have the ability to effect the outcome of the election. If what you are doing has no impact on the winner of the election, you have no political power. And those who trade in political power will ignore you. Just like the left is ignored in Washington today.
But, lets just imagine that the left organized strong, independent campaigns in a selection of the closest House and Senate races in 2010. When those campaigns threaten to pull enough votes away from the Democrats that the Democrats become in danger of losing those elections, that means that progressives are effecting the results of the elections. That means that progressives have political power. That's the day the left becomes a 'player'.
When the Democrats are looking at races across the board that are losing because of strong independent campaigns to the left of them, then the Democrats will come to us and ask 'what do we want?' That's the day we have political power. That's the day we can accomplish at least some of our goals. For instance, if we really want to end these wars, that's the day they will end.
We now know that electing Democrats will not make a difference. We now know that electing Democrats does not lead to 'change'. The wars continue. The domestic spying continues. The torture continues, albeit in a slightly altered form. The wars continue. This is after electing a Democrat President, a decent sized Democrat majority in the House, and a huge Democrat majority in the Senate that has been at times filibuster-proof.
With the Democrats holding all of that power, the left has gotten nothing. Nothing at all. Not one single major leftist issue or goal has even been addressed. There is not even an 'anti-war' voice amongst the Democrat leaders. 'Health care reform' has been revealed as the Democrats putting health insurance company profits ahead of the health of our citizens. So far, after electing all those Democrats, the left has gotten nothing, nada, zilch. The Democrats rarely even bother to make any symbolic gestures to the left.
This is because the left has no political power. This is because the left has abandoned and just plain given away its political power. Yet, it is easy to pick it up again. The majority of Americans hold views to the left of Obama and the Democrats. We are the majority. We need to start acting like it. And most of all, we need to organize.
We have to become both active and independent in politics. Sitting on the political sideline is the one strategy that is sure to continue to keep the left powerless. Backing pro-war, pro-corporate Democrats who don't support our views has been proven to be completely useless.
The 2010 elections are one year away. We need to be organizing strong, independent campaigns to challenge the Democrats. We need to target the Democrats who are in the closest races. Those are the races where we can garner the most political power. A 'safe-states' style of strategy has been proven to be an ineffectual strategy. We have to get into the middle of the closest races, because this is where we'll find political power.
When the Democrats are starting to look at close races in 2010, or at races that appear to be sure losers because of growing independent campaigns, that's when the Democrats will come to us and ask us 'what do you want?' That's the day we have political power. That's the day we start to be able to change the course of this country.
The sorts of grassroots campaigns we need take time to build and develop. The time to begin is now.
And, what if we've can't build all of this in time for 2010? Well, then we've started on our work for 2012. In fact, we need to get into the mode of thinking of ourselves as a political movement that is a force in every election cycle. The work we do now building campaigns for 2010 should roll over easily into 2012.
For 2012, there's a very simple slogan.
PEACE NOW! ... OR NO SECOND TERM!
If we are strongly organized around independent peace candidates, if we are strongly organized around candidates that support "National Health Insurance", then we'll send a shiver of fear up the Democratic spines. And that's the day we start to get what we want.
That's the day we start to build the America that matches our vision of how great this country can really be as a peaceful and free nation.
PEACE NOW! ... OR NO SECOND TERM!
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE NOW! ... OR KISS THAT DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY GOODBYE!
Right now there are millions of disillusioned people out there. People who voted for Obama, but are now disappointed with what he's really turned out to be. These people need to organize. They need to realize that they control the fate of the Democrats. They need to realize that they literally have the Democrats 'by the short hairs', and that its time for them to start demanding what they want.
This is the perfect time to do this. Right now. We need to start organizing. We need to build political power. Organizing disillusioned Democrats into independent campaigns in the closest House and Senate races in 2010 is the way to build that political power.
PEACE NOW! ... NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE NOW! ... OR KISS THAT DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY GOODBYE!
How very true.
Yet, for most of my lifetime, the progressives, the left, or whatever you want to call the majority of Americans who are to the left of Obama, have acted like Washington just hands out favors like candy to kids. The left has acted like all they needed to do was to make a little noise, then Washington would come running to them with the goody basket and start handing out treats.
You don't get anything in this country without political power. Period. I'll repeat it just to make sure it gets through. You don't get anything in this country without political power.
The left has consistently conceded political power to others. The left has consistently given its votes away for free to Democrats who don't support any of the views, issues or policies of the left. The hasn't even tried to cut deals to try to get anything concrete in return for those votes. Instead, the left has just lined up and voted for the candidate with a (D) after their name. Then the left sits back and waits for the Democrats to come around with the goody bag.
The really strange part is that even though the goody bag never shows up, the left keeps repeating this behavior election after election. Even children would become skeptical of the Santa Claus myth if there weren't ever any presents. But the left seems to continue to believe the myth that the Democrats are progressives year after year.
The left needs political power. It needs to develop and build political power. The current powerlessness of the left stems directly from its inability or unwillingness to build real political power.
To have political power, that means a group is a 'player' in elections. To be a 'player', you have to have the ability to effect the outcome of the election. If what you are doing has no impact on the winner of the election, you have no political power. And those who trade in political power will ignore you. Just like the left is ignored in Washington today.
But, lets just imagine that the left organized strong, independent campaigns in a selection of the closest House and Senate races in 2010. When those campaigns threaten to pull enough votes away from the Democrats that the Democrats become in danger of losing those elections, that means that progressives are effecting the results of the elections. That means that progressives have political power. That's the day the left becomes a 'player'.
When the Democrats are looking at races across the board that are losing because of strong independent campaigns to the left of them, then the Democrats will come to us and ask 'what do we want?' That's the day we have political power. That's the day we can accomplish at least some of our goals. For instance, if we really want to end these wars, that's the day they will end.
We now know that electing Democrats will not make a difference. We now know that electing Democrats does not lead to 'change'. The wars continue. The domestic spying continues. The torture continues, albeit in a slightly altered form. The wars continue. This is after electing a Democrat President, a decent sized Democrat majority in the House, and a huge Democrat majority in the Senate that has been at times filibuster-proof.
With the Democrats holding all of that power, the left has gotten nothing. Nothing at all. Not one single major leftist issue or goal has even been addressed. There is not even an 'anti-war' voice amongst the Democrat leaders. 'Health care reform' has been revealed as the Democrats putting health insurance company profits ahead of the health of our citizens. So far, after electing all those Democrats, the left has gotten nothing, nada, zilch. The Democrats rarely even bother to make any symbolic gestures to the left.
This is because the left has no political power. This is because the left has abandoned and just plain given away its political power. Yet, it is easy to pick it up again. The majority of Americans hold views to the left of Obama and the Democrats. We are the majority. We need to start acting like it. And most of all, we need to organize.
We have to become both active and independent in politics. Sitting on the political sideline is the one strategy that is sure to continue to keep the left powerless. Backing pro-war, pro-corporate Democrats who don't support our views has been proven to be completely useless.
The 2010 elections are one year away. We need to be organizing strong, independent campaigns to challenge the Democrats. We need to target the Democrats who are in the closest races. Those are the races where we can garner the most political power. A 'safe-states' style of strategy has been proven to be an ineffectual strategy. We have to get into the middle of the closest races, because this is where we'll find political power.
When the Democrats are starting to look at close races in 2010, or at races that appear to be sure losers because of growing independent campaigns, that's when the Democrats will come to us and ask us 'what do you want?' That's the day we have political power. That's the day we start to be able to change the course of this country.
The sorts of grassroots campaigns we need take time to build and develop. The time to begin is now.
And, what if we've can't build all of this in time for 2010? Well, then we've started on our work for 2012. In fact, we need to get into the mode of thinking of ourselves as a political movement that is a force in every election cycle. The work we do now building campaigns for 2010 should roll over easily into 2012.
For 2012, there's a very simple slogan.
PEACE NOW! ... OR NO SECOND TERM!
If we are strongly organized around independent peace candidates, if we are strongly organized around candidates that support "National Health Insurance", then we'll send a shiver of fear up the Democratic spines. And that's the day we start to get what we want.
That's the day we start to build the America that matches our vision of how great this country can really be as a peaceful and free nation.
PEACE NOW! ... OR NO SECOND TERM!
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE NOW! ... OR KISS THAT DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY GOODBYE!
Right now there are millions of disillusioned people out there. People who voted for Obama, but are now disappointed with what he's really turned out to be. These people need to organize. They need to realize that they control the fate of the Democrats. They need to realize that they literally have the Democrats 'by the short hairs', and that its time for them to start demanding what they want.
This is the perfect time to do this. Right now. We need to start organizing. We need to build political power. Organizing disillusioned Democrats into independent campaigns in the closest House and Senate races in 2010 is the way to build that political power.
PEACE NOW! ... NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE NOW! ... OR KISS THAT DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY GOODBYE!
Monday, November 2, 2009
Israel gets what it wants from Obama
Netanyahu Scores Victory as US Abandons All Settlement Demands from antiwar.com
Back last spring, Obama made a big speech on the Middle East. At the time, many people pointed out that like most Obama speeches, it was long on nice-sounding talk, but very short on specifics. Especially any specifics that might push Israel towards peace.
At the time, Obama's supporters could point to only one area of US foreign policy as a place where the US was not kowtowing to every Israeli whim. That was the supposed pressure that the US was putting on to Israel to freeze and roll-back the settlements.
Of course, that seemed like all talk as well at the time, so a wait-and-see approach appeared wise.
Now we've waited and we've seen. The US now has no objections at all to Israel stealing as much land as they can grab. Add this to the statements in recent weeks completely supporting Israel's war-crimes in Gaza. And of course the constant aid the US has given to an immoral and inhumane policy of keeping Gaza in a state of siege and limiting and controlling all food and medical supplies in the region.
Gee, sounds like George W. Bush's pro-Israeli policy. Or has it gotten even worse? Oh yeah, Obama did give a nice speech. But generally, if there's been any of Obama's oft-promised 'change' in this area, it appears to have been for the worse. But Obama did give a nice speech.
This just in .... Clinton ‘Re-Backtracks’ on Israeli Settlements
So, was SOS Clinton completely clueless that her statements about letting Israel do what it wants with settlements would cause a strong reaction amongst the Arabs? Or, was this just yet another case of a Democrat saying whatever it is they think their audience wants to hear?
Back last spring, Obama made a big speech on the Middle East. At the time, many people pointed out that like most Obama speeches, it was long on nice-sounding talk, but very short on specifics. Especially any specifics that might push Israel towards peace.
At the time, Obama's supporters could point to only one area of US foreign policy as a place where the US was not kowtowing to every Israeli whim. That was the supposed pressure that the US was putting on to Israel to freeze and roll-back the settlements.
Of course, that seemed like all talk as well at the time, so a wait-and-see approach appeared wise.
Now we've waited and we've seen. The US now has no objections at all to Israel stealing as much land as they can grab. Add this to the statements in recent weeks completely supporting Israel's war-crimes in Gaza. And of course the constant aid the US has given to an immoral and inhumane policy of keeping Gaza in a state of siege and limiting and controlling all food and medical supplies in the region.
Gee, sounds like George W. Bush's pro-Israeli policy. Or has it gotten even worse? Oh yeah, Obama did give a nice speech. But generally, if there's been any of Obama's oft-promised 'change' in this area, it appears to have been for the worse. But Obama did give a nice speech.
This just in .... Clinton ‘Re-Backtracks’ on Israeli Settlements
Over the weekend, Secretary Clinton was visiting with top Israeli officials, and publicly praised Israel for its commitment to peace despite its repeated refusals to halt settlement growth, and chastized the Palestinian Authority for holding on to demands that themselves were at the center of the Obama Administration’s position only a few months prior.
Now, following what is being described as a rather awkward meeting with Arab foreign ministers in Morocco, Secretary Clinton insists that the position she took just 24 hours ago isn’t really her position.
Instead, she praised Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for taking steps toward peace and pressed for Israel to “reciprocate,” insisting that the United States still wanted Israel to freeze all settlement construction. At least that’s the position today.
So, was SOS Clinton completely clueless that her statements about letting Israel do what it wants with settlements would cause a strong reaction amongst the Arabs? Or, was this just yet another case of a Democrat saying whatever it is they think their audience wants to hear?
Chicago style Democracy
Afghan Officials Cancel Election, Declare Karzai Winner from Antiwar.com
Well, Obama has successfully brought Chicago's own distinctive style of democracy to the rest of the world.
Sounds a lot like a Chicago mayoral race. Only one candidate, and still laced with allegations of fraud.
Of course, canceling elections that could be embarrassing to the US has become old hat in Iraq.
Iraq Election Body: Finalize Law by Tuesday or Vote May Be Delayed means that the public referendum on whether the Iraqis want the US troops to leave sooner rather than later is about to be postponed yet again. Iraq May Finally Hold SOFA Referendum in January Or maybe not.
Gee, any guesses on how that vote will turn out? Apparently not from Obama and the Pentagon and Maliki, all who seem to be working hard to make sure the vote won't take place until they are completely ready to withdraw. Then I suppose we'll let the Iraqis have a symbolic bit of 'democracy'. At the rate at which Obama is withdrawing our troops from Iraq, look for that little symbolic action to occur in 2036.
Of course, to see the type of 'democracy' that the US has really given Afghanistan, you should read Security By Warlords, The CIA's Afghan Payroll by Gareth Porter.
Well, Obama has successfully brought Chicago's own distinctive style of democracy to the rest of the world.
The US had reportedly expressed concern that not only would the second round of voting be expensive and dangerous, but that it might be marred with just as much fraud as the first round was.
This seems incredible, however, as Karzai got over a million fraudulent votes in the first round and with his name the only one on the ballot there appears to be little need for him to repeat the wholesale manufacture of votes.
Sounds a lot like a Chicago mayoral race. Only one candidate, and still laced with allegations of fraud.
Of course, canceling elections that could be embarrassing to the US has become old hat in Iraq.
Iraq Election Body: Finalize Law by Tuesday or Vote May Be Delayed means that the public referendum on whether the Iraqis want the US troops to leave sooner rather than later is about to be postponed yet again. Iraq May Finally Hold SOFA Referendum in January Or maybe not.
Gee, any guesses on how that vote will turn out? Apparently not from Obama and the Pentagon and Maliki, all who seem to be working hard to make sure the vote won't take place until they are completely ready to withdraw. Then I suppose we'll let the Iraqis have a symbolic bit of 'democracy'. At the rate at which Obama is withdrawing our troops from Iraq, look for that little symbolic action to occur in 2036.
Of course, to see the type of 'democracy' that the US has really given Afghanistan, you should read Security By Warlords, The CIA's Afghan Payroll by Gareth Porter.
Friday, October 23, 2009
At least now we know who's on our side
The antiwar movement retreats by Sharon Smith at Socialist Worker
Well, at least now we can tell the people who really oppose the wars apart from the Democrats who were only faking opposition for political advantage.
Warning, its dangerous to your health to pay too much attention to the positions of Democrats. You can suffer severe whiplash when they suddenly change direction. In this case, as the Democrats shift from campaign rhetoric that sounded vaguely antiwar to policies that escalate and expand the wars, the only way Democrats can even pretend to be in favor of 'peace' is if they espouse George Orwell's famous slogan that "War is Peace."
At what point will the people who vote Democrat because they want peace realize that they don't get peace when they elect Democrats?
So, what's Code Pink doing these days?
A waste of $30,400
Did they expect a different result? And, they spent $30,000 on that? Of course, I'm sure the Democrats loved that these suckers gave them $30,000. The really sad part is that this $30,000 will be used to elect more pro-war Democrats, and probably parts of it will be used to attack and defeat real candidates for peace. Great job Code Pink, you just helped to finance more of the pro-war politicians that we need to be trying to defeat.
BTW, remember back during the election when the Democrats were trying to tell us that it would be better for the left to have Obama as President, because he'd be more open to talk with the left and more receptive to its ideas? Well, here's the reality. If you want to waste $30,000, you can pay to attend an event with the President, and say something to him quickly in the receiving line. He won't have a clue what you are talking about, and there's not a chance this will change policies.
And notice what you do not see with Obama. This President that is willing to constantly meet and talk with Republicans never invites a group like Code Pink into the office to have a discussion on policy. Code Pink has adjusted is goals to suddenly support Obama's war in Afghanistan, and they give $30,000 to the Democrats, and they still can't talk to him beyond a meaningless few seconds at a photo op. What are the odds of a real anti-war group having its voice heard in this Democratic White House?
Well, at least we know by now for sure that the Democrats are not on our side. And if Code Pink is on our side, they have a particularly clueless way of trying to help since what they are doing is financing the pro-war candidates.
As the song lyrics used in the banner say, "Its all too clear we are on our own."
But that's not a bad thing. The biggest weakness of 'the left' in my time has been its constant willingness to be subservient to the Democrats. Its all too clear we are on our own. So, let's start organizing and acting like it. We'll quickly find that we have more power than we think.
Well, at least now we can tell the people who really oppose the wars apart from the Democrats who were only faking opposition for political advantage.
THE U.S. left has failed to effectively oppose the war in Afghanistan from its onset, when the U.S. population overwhelmingly supported the war on the pretext that "we were attacked."
That support has severely eroded, and polls show that a clear majority now wants to end the occupation. Yet many on the left have remained confused for the last eight years--ardently opposing the war in Iraq while remaining silent about the equally immoral war in Afghanistan.
This confusion has apparently been compounded by the election of Barack Obama, who initially opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding, however, he has since embraced the aims of U.S. imperialism with gusto. U.S. troops and, perhaps more importantly, U.S. military bases remain in Iraq with no deadline for complete withdrawal.
Obama authorized a surge of 21,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan soon after taking office and is now pondering whether to send at least 40,000 more. These are no longer George W. Bush's wars. Obama has claimed them for himself. So far, the only consequence of the surge has been the resurgence of the Taliban resistance against U.S. occupation. Even his pledge to close the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay remains unfulfilled.
Warning, its dangerous to your health to pay too much attention to the positions of Democrats. You can suffer severe whiplash when they suddenly change direction. In this case, as the Democrats shift from campaign rhetoric that sounded vaguely antiwar to policies that escalate and expand the wars, the only way Democrats can even pretend to be in favor of 'peace' is if they espouse George Orwell's famous slogan that "War is Peace."
At what point will the people who vote Democrat because they want peace realize that they don't get peace when they elect Democrats?
So, what's Code Pink doing these days?
A waste of $30,400
AT A recent event hosted by the Democratic Party, Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans wasted $30,400 to have a dinner and then a photo-op with President Obama.
Code Pink used this as an opportunity to deliver a petition to the president signed by Afghan women stating that they want a say at the negotiating table and a commitment or time frame for the U.S. to leave Afghanistan.
The reply from Obama, at first, was incredulous stupidity. "What do you mean?" he said. "We have Hillary (Clinton) as my secretary of state."
Did they expect a different result? And, they spent $30,000 on that? Of course, I'm sure the Democrats loved that these suckers gave them $30,000. The really sad part is that this $30,000 will be used to elect more pro-war Democrats, and probably parts of it will be used to attack and defeat real candidates for peace. Great job Code Pink, you just helped to finance more of the pro-war politicians that we need to be trying to defeat.
BTW, remember back during the election when the Democrats were trying to tell us that it would be better for the left to have Obama as President, because he'd be more open to talk with the left and more receptive to its ideas? Well, here's the reality. If you want to waste $30,000, you can pay to attend an event with the President, and say something to him quickly in the receiving line. He won't have a clue what you are talking about, and there's not a chance this will change policies.
And notice what you do not see with Obama. This President that is willing to constantly meet and talk with Republicans never invites a group like Code Pink into the office to have a discussion on policy. Code Pink has adjusted is goals to suddenly support Obama's war in Afghanistan, and they give $30,000 to the Democrats, and they still can't talk to him beyond a meaningless few seconds at a photo op. What are the odds of a real anti-war group having its voice heard in this Democratic White House?
Well, at least we know by now for sure that the Democrats are not on our side. And if Code Pink is on our side, they have a particularly clueless way of trying to help since what they are doing is financing the pro-war candidates.
As the song lyrics used in the banner say, "Its all too clear we are on our own."
But that's not a bad thing. The biggest weakness of 'the left' in my time has been its constant willingness to be subservient to the Democrats. Its all too clear we are on our own. So, let's start organizing and acting like it. We'll quickly find that we have more power than we think.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
How low can we go?
US Vows to Stand By Israel Over Gaza War Crimes from antiwar.com
From the referenced Haaretz story:
The US just vowed to fight the United Nations for daring to issue a report that officially documents well-reported (outside the US corporate media that is) war crimes committed by Israel in its attacks on the civilian population of Gaza.
Read the Goldstone Report, its only 452 pages :), here
Here's a taste of what the US now unreservedly supports, and for which the US now 'vows to fight' the United Nations for daring to report.
So, now the US supports the bombing of relatives gathered for a funeral, and the firing on people who want to aid the wounded, and on innocent civilians trying to move under a white flag? How low can we go? But hey, maybe Obama can give another nice speech to the Arab world and patch everything up.
Note of course that the US and Israel don't contradict any of the facts in the report. Instead, they attack its Jewish author as being an 'anti-Semite', and they attack the UN for ...
Having a public debate on what Israel actually did in Gaza, (Israel acting with full US blessings of course), would be embarrassing. So, instead they attack any messengers who dare to report that message.
In a meeting today with America’s Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, Israeli President Shimon Peres condemned the UN for “spreading lies” in allowing the Goldstone Report’s consideration.
From the referenced Haaretz story:
Rice promised that the United States will continue to stand by Israel as a loyal friend in the fight against the Goldstone report.
The US just vowed to fight the United Nations for daring to issue a report that officially documents well-reported (outside the US corporate media that is) war crimes committed by Israel in its attacks on the civilian population of Gaza.
Read the Goldstone Report, its only 452 pages :), here
Here's a taste of what the US now unreservedly supports, and for which the US now 'vows to fight' the United Nations for daring to report.
The Mission investigated 11 incidents in which serious allegations of direct attacks with lethal outcome were made against civilians. There appears to have been no justifiable military objective pursued in any of them. The first two incidents concern alleged attacks by Israeli armed forces against houses in the al-Samouni neighbourhood of Gaza during the initial phase of the ground invasion. The following group of seven incidents concern the alleged shooting of civilians who were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, waving white flags and, in some of the cases, following an injunction from the Israeli armed forces to do so. In the last of these seven cases, a house was allegedly shelled with white phosphorous, killing five and injuring others. Two further members of the family were allegedly shot by Israeli troops as they tried to evacuate the wounded to a hospital. In the following incident, a mosque was targeted during the early evening prayer, resulting in the death of 15. In many of the incidents, the Israeli armed forces allegedly obstructed emergency medical help to the wounded. A further incident concerns the bombing of a family house, killing 22 family members. In the last of the incidents described, a crowd of family and neighbours at a condolence tent was attacked with flechettes.(I highlighted some of the more outrageous cases just so they don't get lost in all of this text. And this is just one example paragraph I went and found quickly by skimming the report. )
So, now the US supports the bombing of relatives gathered for a funeral, and the firing on people who want to aid the wounded, and on innocent civilians trying to move under a white flag? How low can we go? But hey, maybe Obama can give another nice speech to the Arab world and patch everything up.
Note of course that the US and Israel don't contradict any of the facts in the report. Instead, they attack its Jewish author as being an 'anti-Semite', and they attack the UN for ...
"The United Nations provides a stage for Ahmmadinejad, who threatens to annihilate Israel, and lets him stand judge," continued Peres.
Having a public debate on what Israel actually did in Gaza, (Israel acting with full US blessings of course), would be embarrassing. So, instead they attack any messengers who dare to report that message.
Gonna Party like its 1939
Mending Fences, Biden Assures Poland That U.S. Is Watching Over It from NY Times.
The title of this blog post is a joke. And, I'm guessing many Americans don't know enough history to get the joke. But, in Poland they certainly got it. In searching for something that explained the 'assurances' that Britain and France gave Poland in 1939, I instead found the following article on a Polishnews.com website. And its author discusses Obama' recent decisions about missile bases on Polish territory by discussing the events of 1939 and the Polish point of view towards these events.
Americans may not get the joke, but the Poles most certainly do.
Struggle for the historic truth about September 1939
The title of this blog post is a joke. And, I'm guessing many Americans don't know enough history to get the joke. But, in Poland they certainly got it. In searching for something that explained the 'assurances' that Britain and France gave Poland in 1939, I instead found the following article on a Polishnews.com website. And its author discusses Obama' recent decisions about missile bases on Polish territory by discussing the events of 1939 and the Polish point of view towards these events.
Americans may not get the joke, but the Poles most certainly do.
Struggle for the historic truth about September 1939
As a result of the failure of the international community to assure Poland’s security, the Polish people were subjected to inconceivable suffering with grave implications for many generations to come, the entire world was plunged into the greatest catastrophe ever, and the entire region of Eastern and Central Europe was enslaved for half a century. This tragic history teaches that the voice of Poland must be carefully taken into account while debating any international security arrangements.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
He must be a King!
Classic scene from Monty Python
Two peasants talking as a man in armor 'rides' by.
Modern 21st Century American version:
Two peasants, standing in the mud outside the auction that is foreclosing on their homes. A limo drives by, with a vague glimpse of a man in a suit in the back talking on the phone.
Two peasants talking as a man in armor 'rides' by.
1st Peasant: "He must be a King."
2nd Peasant: "Why?"
1st Peasant: "He doesn't have shit all over him."
Modern 21st Century American version:
Two peasants, standing in the mud outside the auction that is foreclosing on their homes. A limo drives by, with a vague glimpse of a man in a suit in the back talking on the phone.
1st Peasant: "He must be a Senator."
2nd Peasant: "Why"
1st Peasant: "He doesn't have shit all over him."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)