The War Prayer

Samuel Clemons, aka Mark Twain, once wrote a little fictional piece titled The War Prayer. It is set at the time of the beginning of a war. Its the Sunday before the regiments leave the next day. All the volunteers are sitting in the church in their uniforms, and the reverend issues forth a passionate prayer for victory for the faithful.

Mark Twain envisions this response, as the Lord Almighty sends a humble messenger to the church to say the following.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the *whole* of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory--*must* follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
---------------------------------------
Twain apparently dictated it around 1904-05; it was rejected by his publisher, and was found after his death among his unpublished manuscripts.

bits and pieces

During the second World War, the German people were told of the victorious German armies advance on the city of Stalingrad. Then they were told of victories in the fighting in Stalingrad. They were told of nothing but victories until one day they had to be told of the surrender of the encircled German Sixth Army at Stalingrad.

I'm not saying that Afghanistan is Stalingrad. But its a useful reminder that what you hear from the authorities about a war isn't always the whole truth.

One thing though, its probably never a good thing when the rebels of an insurgent war take over the bases of the empire. Generally, guerrillas don't like to mass in the open except when they are attacking. For guerrillas, occupying a fixed known place like a formerly enemy base usually isn't a good idea. One gets the impression in this article that the rebels aren't exactly cowering in a cave afraid of American airpower.

Taliban moves onto abandoned U.S. base

The footage showed armed men walking through the former U.S. base, which was strewn with litter and empty bottles, and sitting atop sandbagged gun positions overlooking the steep hillsides and craggy landscape. Fighters said they recovered fuel and ammunition. But a U.S. spokesman said ammunition had been evacuated and the fuel handed over to local residents.

“We don’t want Americans, we don’t want Germans or any other foreigner. We don’t want foreigners, we want peace. We want Taliban and Islam — we don’t want anything else,” one local resident said on the tape.

Another man identified by Al-Jazeera as a local Taliban commander said the militants intended to use the base for attacks on U.S. forces.

Of course, since this is from the AP, the piece is littered with official quotes and statements that all is well. That this is just a part of a planned change in strategy.

The pullout last week of the remaining 120 U.S. soldiers from the Korengal was part of a strategy announced last year by the top U.S. and NATO commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to abandon small, difficult-to-defend bases in remote, sparsely populated areas and concentrate forces around major population centers.

The Soviets in Afghanistan always had a problem extending their influence beyond the 'major population centers'. For most of this war, the US has pretty much stayed to the cities as well. Its only since Obama's surge that they've been trying to adopt a strategy of pushing out and actually trying to control the country.

I guess this is the end of that strategy.

One interesting question about that quote above is this? Why are those bases difficult to defend? That doesn't sound like a victorious army now does it.

When you are watching scenes of victorious Marines conquering fictional cities, sometimes it helps to pick up on some of the bits and pieces. And its always interesting to see how the propaganda artists announce a sudden defeat after telling everyone constantly of victories.

The Lobby, the Left, and Political Power

One often sees comments about how the 'Israel lobby' runs US foreign policy... at least with regards to Israel. I think its useful to dig a little deeper than that. Not because I doubt the statement, but because thinking and observing the details of 'how' they do this is a useful guide to the left as to how it can gain influence.

The 'lobby' (that's the shorthand I'll use) has political power from two different actions it can take. The first is that it is a reliable supplier of money and some volunteers to its 'friends' in Congress. But, to me its real power stems from its second action, which is the way it comes in hard against anyone it deems an opponent in congress. Get on the lobby's bad side, and a congressperson will find themselves with either a tough primary or general election challenge with the 'lobby' aggressvely financing that campaign and whipping up lots of voluteers and people for that campaign. The latter is used both to remove people who aren't friends, but also to serve as an object lesson for any others who dare to cross them.

So, for a member of Congress, the choice is either to side with the 'lobby' and recieve some support, or to oppose the lobby and face an opponent who is getting massive support.

Meanwhile, there is no active strong political force on the other side. Even though congress votes nearly unamiously for every resolution the lobby puts forward, I can't think of a single case where anyone has paid a political price for voting in favor of Israel. This makes the political calculation pretty much of a no-brainer for any professional politician in congress. Vote with the lobby and get some support and little or no opposition. Vote against the lobby, and you might get a little activist support, but then also face very well financed opposition. Given that political equation, its little wonder that most professional politicians support the lobby.

There are lessons here that go far beyond Israel and the US policy towards that little nation. This is an example of how to both build and weild political power in America today.

In contrast, its obvious that the left has zero political power in America. On Israel, its views aren't even considered in Congress. And on issues like the health care debate, the left didn't even have the political power to get a symbolic hearing on 'single-payer'. No politician in Washington feels the slightest trepidation about stiffing the left on any issue. All of this are signs that the left has zero political power today.

To me, this is quite understandable since in my lifetime the left has practiced two political strategies that have led them to this point. One was a tendenancy to withdraw completely from 'electoral politics'. This of course leaves the left with no friends in politics and no opponents who are wary of the left's political power. Withdrawing from electoral politics clearly and obviously leads to having zero political power.

The other political strategy is one of backing the Democrats at all times. The last election is a classic case of this. Lets look just at the issue of 'health care' as a curent example which is on people's minds. The two leading Democrats both said they favored health care reform that looked a lot like the bill that passed. Hillary had a plan that openly supported 'mandates' forcing people to become customers of the health insurance companies. Since 'mandates' didn't poll well, Obama expressed opposition to this detail, but still supported the same sort of 'reform' that left the health insurance companies in charge of health care. Neither candidate expressed any support for a 'single-payer' sort of solution.

Yet, the voting block of 'leftist' voters in this country strongly supported both Obama for President and the Democrats in Congress. The two presidential candidates from the left who supported other solutions than this pro-health insurance company plan got negligible numbers of votes. 0.68% (according to this wikipedia post .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008)

Today, you can hear many voices from the left complaining about this health care plan, but where were they on election day? Lining up to vote Democrat apparently.

Given those results, its no wonder that the Democrats didn't pay any attention to the left on health care. Those professional politicians were given a choice between supporting lobbyists who promised them lots of financing in future elections versus some leftists who couldn't even muster 1% of the vote.

However, in terms of the views of American citizens, Progressive Review gives these poll results (originally from Yes Magazine) http://prorev.com/obamabehind.htm

* 64% believe the government should provide national health insurance coverage for all Americans, even if it would raise taxes.
* 55% favor one health insurance program covering all Americans, administered by the government, and paid for by taxpayers.

Yet, on election day these majority blocks of American voters directly supported candidates who opposed these views. The eventual political result from that was inevitable. All that's left now is the whining of the people who say this is what they want but who instead voted Democrat.

So, now compare the tactics of the 'lobby' and its resulting political power in Washington with the tactics of the left and its resulting lack of political power. What you see in Washington is no accident. Its just the direct reflection of the amounts of political power that each group has in America today.

The left needs to learn a lesson here. The left needs to adopt political tactics and strategy that lead it towards greater political power. Having the politically suicidal tactics of either withdrawing from politics or of actively supporting those who oppose the left is clearly not working.

So, instead of just complaining about the power of the lobby, watch closely how they have achieved their political power. Most writing doesn't seem to do this, and instead just complains about the lobby as if it was some natural force that's beyond any human intervention. This isn't true. The left can clearly build its political power in the same way.

The one difference is that any leftist effort will need to concentrate more on mobilizing grassroots power and less on money. That's a natural given where the left's strengths lie. Any leftist political effort is going to have to concnetrrate on grassroots power and using that power to defeat well-funded opponents. But that's a detail in tactics, and not a real strategic concern. In terms of strategy, the question is just one of how to use the resources available.

In terms of strategy, the left needs to concentrate on helping its freinds and in opposing its enemies. And especially the left needs to stop supporting its enemies just because there's a (D) after their name.

In terms of Israel, the left needs to start making congress people pay a price for their support of atrocious Israeli actions. The interesting thing is that they don't have to win elections themselves in order to do this. The left simply needs to run independent campaigns that take votes away from the Democrats. Since the left is in a very weak state politically, it probably needs to find just a few campaigns to focus its resources on and build from there. Find Democrats who represent progressive districts but who stiff those voters on Israel, support for the wars, defense budgets, wall street bailouts, health care and other issues. Then run independent (or third party) campaigns that deliberately try to cause the defeat of those Democrats.

Then, once the left has suceeded in retiring some its targets from Congress, go back and make this point to other congresspeople that there is indeed a price to pay for actions like their unquestioning political support for Israel.

If the left can make politicians more afraid of the wrath of the left than of the wrath of the lobby, then this policy (and many others) will start to change.

So, don't just talk about 'the lobby' and how powerful it is. Understand how it became powerful and what to do to try to counter-balance that power.

Or, just remember the old Kennedy family motto .... Don't get mad. Get even.

Its time for the left to start getting even with some Democrats by deliberately causing their defeats.

Have a Nice World War, Folks

Have a Nice World War, Folks By John Pilger via ZNet

Here is news of the Third World War. The United States has invaded Africa. US troops have entered Somalia, extending their war front from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Yemen and now the Horn of Africa. In preparation for an attack on Iran, American missiles have been placed in four Persian Gulf states, and "bunker-buster" bombs are said to be arriving at the US base on the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

In Gaza, the sick and abandoned population, mostly children, is being entombed behind underground American-supplied walls in order to reinforce a criminal siege. In Latin America, the Obama administration has secured seven bases in Colombia, from which to wage a war of attrition against the popular democracies in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay. Meanwhile, the secretary of "defense" Robert Gates complains that "the general [European] public and the political class" are so opposed to war they are an "impediment" to peace. Remember this is the month of the March Hare.

According to an American general, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is not so much a real war as a "war of perception". Thus, the recent "liberation of the city of Marja" from the Taliban's "command and control structure" was pure Hollywood. Marja is not a city; there was no Taliban command and control. The heroic liberators killed the usual civilians, poorest of the poor. Otherwise, it was fake. A war of perception is meant to provide fake news for the folks back home, to make a failed colonial adventure seem worthwhile and patriotic, as if The Hurt Locker were real and parades of flag-wrapped coffins through the Wiltshire town of Wooten Basset were not a cynical propaganda exercise.

Pilger's in fine form in this piece.

Elections are coming. The question is, are most Americans going to vote again to continue to support this war? Maybe in 2008 they had the excuse of being fooled by Obama and the Democrats. But, in 2010, there is no doubt that a vote for either the Democrats are the Republicans is a vote for more war. There are usually other names on the ballot. And if not, you can usually put one there. Or at worst organize a write in campaign.

There's this belief somehow that the American people don't support the slaughter and the detentions and the torture. That belief is bolstered by the great lengths gone to in order to both hide what is going on as well as to cover it with explanations and lies. All of this leads to the belief that the American people wouldn't support these wars deliberately.

But, at some point, the people will have voted in support of these wars too many times for that belief to continue.

The successful capture of a fictional city.

The Siege of the Fictional City of Marja by Gareth Porter via Counterpunch.org

For weeks, the U.S. public followed the biggest offensive of the Afghanistan War against what it was told was a "city of 80,000 people" as well as the logistical hub of the Taliban in that part of Helmand. That idea was a central element in the overall impression built up in February that Marja was a major strategic objective, more important than other district centres in Helmand.

It turns out, however, that the picture of Marja presented by military officials and obediently reported by major news media is one of the clearest and most dramatic pieces of misinformation of the entire war, apparently aimed at hyping the offensive as a historic turning point in the conflict.

Marja is not a city or even a real town, but either a few clusters of farmers' homes or a large agricultural area covering much of the southern Helmand River Valley.

"It's not urban at all," an official of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), who asked not to be identified, admitted on Sunday. He called Marja a "rural community".

"It's a collection of village farms, with typical family compounds," said the official, adding that the homes are reasonably prosperous by Afghan standards.

Hey, if you need a propaganda victory, what's better than making up a fictional city that you can go 'seige' and 'capture'?

So, we are using close to 100,000 troops and billions of our tax payer dollars to make a fictional city safe for 'freedom'. I guess that makes sense to our rulers, since the last thing they want is real 'freedom' anywhere. Notice how quickly they extend things like the Patriot Act. No, its obviously safer to only allow 'freedom' in the fictional cities they create for propaganda victories.

The same story said Marja was "the biggest town under Taliban control" and called it the "linchpin of the militants' logistical and opium-smuggling network". It gave the figure of 125,000 for the population living in "the town and surrounding villages". ABC news followed with a story the next day referring to the "city of Marja" and claiming that the city and the surrounding area "are more heavily populated, urban and dense than other places the Marines have so far been able to clear and hold."

The rest of the news media fell into line with that image of the bustling, urbanised Marja in subsequent stories, often using "town" and "city" interchangeably. Time magazine wrote about the "town of 80,000" Feb. 9, and the Washington Post did the same Feb. 11.

Which only goes to prove that no one at ABC News, Time magazine or the WaPo knows how to use Google Maps or Google Earth. In today's information age, aerial photographs of a region like this are available to anyone who cares to go look.

Which just shows that they don't care. Their job is to spread the propaganda. Five minutes of fact checking by pulling up Google maps isn't part of that job. This article thus gives a nice list of 'news' outlets where propaganda is more important than facts.

Who are you?

Every Violent Act in 2010 Superbowl Ads

A compendium of the violence in the Super Bowl ads. Worth watching. And worth thinking about what this says about America. When corporations want to spend millions to get the attention of American consumers, they obviously feel that violence is the way to do it.

Of course, in the midst of all of this, they had a bunch of old hippies shouting to this same audience.

"Well, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Tell me, who are you? (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
'Cause I really wanna know (Who are you? Who, who, who, who?)
Who the heck are you, are you?"

Who are we? Indeed.

In case there are any guerrilas who haven't heard ....

Planned Afghan assault to send 'strong signal': McChrystal

The US has been loudly announcing an offensive in Afghanistan for a month now. Just in case any guerrillas had missed the message, General McCrystal held a press briefing to make it absolutely clear that we would be attacking ... soon.

"The commander of foreign forces in Afghanistan said Sunday a major offensive will send a "strong signal" and clear insurgents from their southern stronghold, as residents fled ahead of the assault.

A huge force of US Marines leading NATO and Afghan soldiers is expected to launch the offensive -- said by commanders to be the largest assault against Taliban-led militants since the war began -- in Helmand province within days."

Yep, in a guerrilla war, where the biggest problem is that the enemy can just fade away back into the population or the mountains, the thing to do is to loudly announce a major assualt for a month in advance. Yep, that's certain to catch those evil Taliban guerrillas by surprise.

If defeating the enemy is your goal, these announcements are the height of stupidity. So, what this tells us is that defeating the Taliban is not the goal. What then might be the purpose of this horrible operational security?

1. Propaganda for the home front. The military has gotten a lot of front page news trumpeting an offensive that hasn't yet occurred. Easy victories for the media warriors since no one is fighting yet.

2. To convince all the rebels to leave, and thus allow the US and Afghans to seize this province without a fight. Note, in the fine print of these stories, the probably real reason for this offensive is disclosed. Helmand is one of the leading poppy/opium production areas in the country. What this is all about is taking control of what is a undoubtably a very lucrative province from one warlord and giving it to one of Karsai's enemies. Maybe they feel if they loudly announce this invasion in advance, there'll be less resistance and we are likely to lose fewer American soldiers in this noble fight to make sure one warlord controls the opium instead of another.

Of course, what's likely really happening is that the resistance is getting plenty of warning to establish safe houses, caves, supply caches, weapons dumps etc in order to serve a later fight. Most likely we'll soon see video of heroic American troops advancing without opposition to seize some city in this province. Months later, we'll hear how a base just blew up from tunnels that were dug beneath the site back before we ever invaded. Or maybe they just won't tell us that story at all.

Stephen Hawking's Sense of Humor

"Stephen Hawking asks big questions about the universe"

We think we have solved the mystery of creation. Maybe we should patent the universe and charge everyone a royalty for existence.

US to Launch Massive Helmand Offensive ‘Within Days’

US to Launch Massive Helmand Offensive ‘Within Days’

After spending nearly a month threatening such an action, officials say that the US Marines’ invasion of the Marjah region of Afghanistan’s Helmand Province could begin “within days.”

Back in WWI, everyone in Paris knew well in advance when one of the big Allied offensives was going to occur. But the military types couldn't figure out how come the Germans were never surprised. Gee, I wonder how many insurgents this offensive is going to catch unawares after we've been talking about it for a month in advance?

Military success would seem to require that this be kept a secret until the attack is unleashed upon the Taliban. But, propaganda success requires that the attack be loudly trumpeted for as long as possible to tell the people back home how successful we are in Afghanistan. What these announcements tell me is that propaganda success is considered far more important than military success.

But vague pledges of “alternatives” aside, the invasion’s key goal is to prop up Haji Zair, who was appointed as the Marjah governor but hasn’t been able to actually travel there, let alone set up residence.

Gee, we always hear how wonderful things are going for us in Afghanistan. Then you hear a little detail, like this one that says one of our imperial governors hasn't even been able to go into the province he's supposed to govern. To me, that doesn't sound like things are going all that well.

But hey, its nice to know our billions of tax payer dollars are going to help one warlord get control of a key opium producing region. Can't possibly think of a better use of billions of our dollars than that. Not like there's a recession on back at home, or maybe millions of Americans struggling to create health insurance company profits while maybe getting a little health care. Yep, nothing at home we could use that money for instead.

Laws

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow.

— James Madison, Federalist no. 62 [February 27, 1788]

The Myth of Haiti's Lawless Streets

The myth of Haiti's lawless streets by Inigo Gilmore in the Guardian (UK).

As a member of the media covering the tragedy in Haiti, it's with a sense of alarm and astonishment that I've witnessed how some senior aid officials have argued for withholding aid of the utmost urgency because of sensational claims about violence and insecurity, which appear to be based more on fantasy than reality.

From what I've observed, such chilling claims do not match the reality on the ground; and by trumpeting a distorted and sensational picture about the violence, some senior aid officials may be culpable of undermining the very aid effort they are supposed to be promoting. When I traveled into Haiti's disaster zone last week from the Dominican Republic, I did so alone and on a bus, whose passengers were mostly Haitians, including some living in the US. Since then, whether on the road to Port-au-Prince or within the city, I have not witnessed anyone wielding a gun, a machete or a club of any kind. Nor have I witnessed an act of violence. (I have seen one badly wounded man who had been shot in circumstances which were unclear and who was eventually rescued by US soldiers after an American reporter sought help.)

Any violence is localised and sporadic; the situation is desperate yet not dangerous in general. Crucially, it's not a war zone; it's a disaster zone – and there appears to have been little attempt to distinguish carefully between destructive acts of criminality and the behaviour of starving people helping themselves to what they can forage. For Haitians and many of those trying to help them, the overriding sentiment is that a massive catastrophe on this scale shouldn't have to wait for aid because blanket security is the absolute priority.

There's an old saying. If you are a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. At the very least, this is what happens when you put the military in charge of disaster relief. If you are the military, then everything looks like a war zone.

"Haitians here cannot understand why they're not getting help, especially as the way the violence is portrayed is not right. The people are unhappy that there's been no assistance but do you see them rioting in the streets? No.
"People are hungry and needy and yet they're being portrayed as savages. Aid is not getting there quick enough and that's sad because the solution is right there and we have the power to do it."

Keeping us safe from Dork Hunter terrorists.

Children's TV Stars Face Anti-Terror Quiz

Now tell me, do these people look like 'terrorists'?

Really?

"We were out and about doing 'dork hunting' ourselves on the streets of London.

"Jamie and I were kitted out in fake utility belts. We've got hairdryers in our belt, a kids' walkie-talkie, hairbrushes and all that kind of stuff, and we were being followed by a camera crew and a boom mike and we get literally pulled over by four policemen and we were issued with a warning 'under the act of terrorism'."

TV hosts Anna Williamson and Jamie Rickers dressed as they were when police questioned them under anti-terrorism powers (see picture)

Rickers, 32, added: "We were stopped, not arrested, but they had to say 'we are holding you under the Anti-Terrorism Act because you're running around in flak jackets and a utility belt', and I said 'and please put spangly blue hairdryer' and he was, like, 'all right'."

I really hope 'spangly blue hairdryer' made it into the police report. :)

Sometimes words in England and America mean totally different things. So, I'm wondering if 'dork' means the same thing there as here? If so, then I think I see what the problem is. They were probably using their secret 'dork detector', and it led them right to the terror police squad.

Liberal Self-Deception

Coup in Honduras: D by Mark Engler via FPIF.

Generally, this is a pretty good piece. He correctly points out the awful policies that Obama pursued that basically legitimated the right-wing coup in Hondurus.

The Obama administration's true failure was that it bombed the final exam: the scheduled November 29 presidential elections. Shortly after brokering a deal designed to pressure the Honduran Congress to reinstate Zelaya and allow him to serve the end of his term, Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Shannon reversed himself and declared that the United States would recognize the elections even if Zelaya remained out of office. And that is exactly what happened.

We're now left with a new government tarnished by the legacy of the coup and elected amid massive protest and popular abstention. Pro-coup forces continue to perpetuate frightening human rights abuses, including the repression of critical journalists and the abduction of prominent pro-democracy activists. Yet the Obama administration has articulated no plan for exerting its considerable leverage to promote the return of legitimate democracy.

My problem with the piece overall is that the author gives Obama way too much credit for words. He says the Obama administration did fairly well early on, mainly because of its words that criticized the coup. Later on, he says that we shouldn't be too hard on Obama because the words from ex Bush officials were worse.

This is the deception that the liberals try to sell. When you look at actions, when you look at policies, there is very little difference between a Democrat government and a Republican government. The only difference is that the Republicans will crow about how great the coup is, while Obama will just utter some words where he says that coups are awful things. But, while uttering the pretty words, the Obama administration was very helpful to the coup in keeping key aid flowing (despite the words) and in blocking any OAS action on Honduras.

I guess if words are important, then you can say the Democrats are better than the Republicans. But, if you dismiss the words as being the equivalent of a magician's patter or a con man's game, and if you learn to only watch the actions .... then you can see that nothing changes.

A real MLK day

Fortunately, Dr. King told us exactly what a real MLK day would look like. (From his speach at Riverside Church in NYC, 1967 ... http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/MLKapr67.html

"It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." [applause] Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin [applause], we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. [applause]

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. [sustained applause]

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood. "

When we see that, then we'll know its really MLK day.

What's news?

Antiwar.com has this story up on its site.

Green Zone mortared, says eyewitness from Aswat Al-Iraq, an Iraqi newspaper.

Spent some time searching on CNN for coverage of the same story. Can't find any mention at all. Near as I can tell, the last mention of a mortar attack on the Green zone in Baghdad is when a shell landed during VP Biden's visit last year. I guess with his press entourage there, they couldn't ignore that attack. But they most certainly have ignored this latest attack.

Do you think things have calmed down in Iraq? Or is it just that the American corporate news has stopped broadcasting any reports of violence from Iraq? If things have calmed down, as the impression we get from corporate news would have us believe, then why do we still need 130,000 troops there?

Haiti

Of course, what's happened there is horrible.  If there were any people who less needed a disaster, surely it was the poor of Haiti.  Over the weekend, there were of course constant ads on TV from all of the Red Cross' corporate partners asking that I give to the Red Cross.  I'm not comfortable doing that.  After 9-11, the Red Cross raised a ton of money, and gave only a small percentage of that to the victims.  After Katrina, I heard too many stories from people who were in New Orleans giving aid that the Red Cross stayed out in the (white) suburbs and wouldn't enter the city.

But, a dislike of the American Red Cross is no reason not to help. So, here's a list I found of other groups that are doing aid for Haiti in its time of need.  Personally, I like the American Friends Service Committee, but there are lots of other choices here.  Even the Red Cross is on this list if you so choose.

Interaction members respond to the earthquake in Haiti

Anarchist have organized "Mutual Aid Disaster Relief in Haiti"  If this stems out of the Common Ground collective effort in post-Katrina New Orleans, then they probably deserve support.

Also, via CounterPunch, a report from on the scene with regard to what is, and isn't, happening to aid the survivors of this horrible earthquake. The Rescue Operation's Priorities in Haiti by Nelson Valdes.

First, the foreign aid teams "rescued" and took out of the country the non-Haitians, particularly the Europeans, Americans and assorted other tourists. The Voice of America on Jan. 16 reported: "In the last day or so the United States and French governments have started running passenger flights out of the country [Haiti] for evacuees from those countries. People line up and wait for a plane to arrive so they can leave Haiti and leave behind what is a very difficult, traumatic experience for many." [1]

Second, five days have gone by without any real significant distribution of medical supplies, food or water to the neediest people.

The facts indicate clear priorities: the Haitians are not first in line. In fact, the rescuers seem to have a widespread fear of the poor and desperate Haitians. A Scottish reporter said, "aid workers in Haiti today called for more security amid fears of attacks by increasingly desperate earthquake survivors." [2]

Yet, the Haitians have been extraordinarily patient despite the fact that their world has collapsed around them.

Of course, for wealthy western tourists, life continues as usual. After all, one couldn't let a tragic disaster interfere with one's holidays, now could one.

Cruise ships still find a Haitian berth by Robert Booth of the Guardian (UK).

Sixty miles from Haiti's devastated earthquake zone, luxury liners dock at private beaches where passengers enjoy jetski rides, parasailing and rum cocktails delivered to their hammocks.

Also ....
The Militarization of Emergency Aid to Haiti: Is it a Humanitarian Operation or an Invasion? by Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research

“The International Community Must Let President Jean-Bertrand Aristide Return to Haiti” by By Ansel Herz on NarcoNews

Why

Why are there more deaths? (see below) Why does health care reform morph into the health insurance company bailout plan of 2009?

The Democrats like to tout how much Obama got from 'small donors'.  The Center for Responsive Politics (found at www.opensecrets.org ... a must-visit website!), has a study up as to how much came to each of the major candidates in donations of $200 or less.  Obama is between 30% (primary) and 34% (gen. election).  That's better than either Hillary (22%) or McCain (21%).

Of course, the bad news is that corporate money poured by the tractor trailer full into Obama's campaign.  Obama raised a record $745 million.  If I take 32% of that (avg. of 30 and 34), that's $238 million.  That leaves $506 million in 'large contributions'.

That $506 million in 'large' contributions alone would break every previous record in the price of buying the Presidency.  By comparison, the well-financed Bush steam-roller of a campaign in 2004 raised a total of $367 million. So, there was somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 million MORE of big corporate money in Obama's coffers than Bush ever got at his peak.

Wanna know why the great liberal progressive Obama ain't out leading the charge for good health car for all Americans?  Because the 'health' industry gave him $28,000,000 not to do so.  And Obama apparently happily took the money and the deal.

Democrats are a strange lot.  They expect you to believe that this $28 million was given just from the generosity of those involved in the health industry.  And that it has nothing to do with the fact that they got their own private meeting with Obama in the White House to make deals in their favor.  And meanwhile, they keep trying to convince the Democratic wing of the Democratic party that Obama really wants to do better than this, but his hands are tied by that mean old awful Senate with its huge majority of Democrats.

Of course, these are the same Democrats, who while insisting that the Senate and its rules are a huge obstacle to anything a President wants to do, seem to want everyone to forget that they never seemed to filibuster any Bush initiatives.  If a weak minority, with fewer votes than the Democrats nadir during Bush, can stop Obama, perhaps the Democrats could explain why their 45 senators could never even slow down Bush?

The Democrats never seem to run out of excuses of why they are so consistently evil.

If you are looking for reasons beyond excuses, that $28 million speaks volumes.  And that's just into Obama's accounts.  It doesn't include contributions to the national Democratic party proper, or to the state parties, or to candidates (like Sen. Baucus for example), or contributions to 'special' funds like the convention or the inauguration.  So, that's just a fraction that the 'health' industry paid to get this bill that in turn gurantees them billions in profits.

So, if you are running a business, and you think it might be a great idea if you could get a law passed that forces everyone to buy your product, no matter how expensive you make it or no matter how horrible the service you provide as you deny every claim, well, now you've got an idea as to how much that will cost.  Its clearly the best ROI (return on investment) you can get.  Spend maybe $100 million, then make billions in profits.  But the game's only open to those who can bring $50 million to $100 million to the table.  If you want jobs for ordinary Americans, well, tough luck buddy.

Wanna know why Wall Street still gets their bailouts? Wanna know why the wars continue?  Wanna know why the 'health' industry just got richer?  $500 million in 'large' contributions is the answer.  Go read the list of Obama's top contributors in the 2008 campaign.  You definitely won't wonder why Wall Street got its bailouts, and its protection from prosecutions and meaningful reform of regulations and oversight.  Goldman Sachs is number two on the list.  From that, it looks like just under $100 million is the price to buy the right to become the nation's only economic advisers.

Never vote for any candidate that has the money to buy lots of TV ads.  Those candidates are already bought.  Obama bought $420 million in advertising in the 2008 elections.  When you see that kind of money being spent, don't vote for them.  The candidate that will represent your interests is the one who so broke he has to ask for a lift in from the airport.

(all numbers in this post from browsing around the www.opensecrets.org website)

More Deaths

More headlines from antiwar.com ...

NATO Admits US Troops Shot Afghan Protesters
11 Die as US Drones Continue to Target Pakistan
US Army Suicides Hit Grim Record for 2009

Meanwhile, that great liberal comedian, the junior Senator from Minnesota, has his own new joke out ... Sen. Al Franken Expresses Support for Obama's Afghan Troop Increase

If you read the article, the techniques the Democrats use to lie are really amazing. To listen to Franken talk, even in the quotes he made while announcing that he's a willing vote for more war, death and destruction, he says that he doesn't think this is a good idea.

Typical Democrat. Talks against the war. Votes in favor of the war.  Franken just carries it to an extreme by doing both simultaneously.  Who said the man wasn't talented?

Of course, anyone with any sense just watches what they do, and pretty much ignores what they say .... except for its obvious comedy value of course. The key thing to note is this. Even while Democrats talk against the wars, they vote for them.

What voters have to remember later this year is that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for more war. Period. Ignore what they say. If you continue to elect Democrats (or Republicans), the wars will continue .... and escalate ... and expand.

Liberals Kill

The 'liberals' in America seem to regard the anti-war movement as a game. While the opposition is in power, to them it seems as if its a tool to be used to put themselves into power instead. Once in power, war itself seems to become a game for the liberals to play.

Liberals read the polling data and discover that the Iraq war is unpopular. So they criticize it like they are opposed to the war, and they campaign on the promise to end it. But, they also discover that the Afghan war is less unpopular, so even during the last election they campaigned to escalate and expand that war. Its all a game to them. A game to be played to put them into power.

The problem is, their games are killing people. Literally. I go to antiwar.com, and these are the headlines I see.

Afghans: NATO Forces Kill 13 Protesters
US Drone Strike Fires Into Crowd, Kills Another 13 in Afghanistan
2 US Troops, 4 Afghan Troops Killed in Afghanistan

That's just today. If I go back just one day, I find ....
Dozens Killed as N. Yemen Fight Resumes
Six NATO Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan
Over 3,000 Killed as Pakistan Violence Soared in 2009
Pakistani Troops Kill Eight in South Waziristan
Monday: 3 Iraqis Killed, 11 Wounded

None of that is a conclusive list of all the people who've died recently. Its just what I can find in a few minutes of looking through the headlines of antiwar.com.

People are dying. The Democrats are playing games. Its now abundantly clear that the Democrats support these wars. Not only do they support these wars, the Democrats seem to be on a frantic search for places to start new wars. They've already started one new proxy war in Pakistan, the one that the headline above says has already killed as many people as who died on 9-11. Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to constantly be pushing for a war with Iran. And now the Democrats are screaming loudly for a war with Yemen of all places.

In the antiwar movement, we seem to have a lot of people and leaders who support the Democrats. These are the people who are constantly saying that now that the Democrats are in power, we shouldn't protest or even publicly disagree with them. There is this myth that the Democrats aren't as blood-thirsty of warmongers as the Republicans, so now that the Democrats are in power, we should only try to quietly talk with the Democrats to get them to change their policies.

Meanwhile, people are dying. Look back at that list of headlines. People are dying. And that's not even covering the wounded. The people who aren't mentioned in these headlines because instead of dying they are simply lying in a hospital bed screaming in pain because some part of their body has been blown to bits as a part of these wars.

Its high time that those of us who oppose these wars stand up and make sure that they end. In the US, that must include political action to try to change the actions of our government. People are dying. This is not the time to be playing little games with actions or events that have no chance of changing policy. I hear there's an anti-war protest scheduled for March. That's good. Its nice to see the corpse of the American anti-war movement showing any signs of life. But, yet another meaningless protest where a permitted march route goes through an empty city on a Saturday is not going to change anything.

To achieve change, we have to change the actions of our government. The American people attempted to do this by electing first a Democrat majority in 2006, then increasing those majorities and elected a Democrat President in 2008. In response we've seen no withdraw or change in Iraq, an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, the expansion of the war into Pakistan, threats to expand the war to Iran, and now threats to expand the war into Yemen.

Electing Democrats was not the answer. But, that does not mean that elections are useless. What we now need to do is to defeat the Democrats. Let the Democrats know that they won those past elections by lying to get antiwar votes, and that now the retribution is coming.

What we need to do is to run independent, pro-peace campaigns in all the CLOSEST House and Senate races. As the Democrats struggle to hold on to their majorities, let them see an independent pro-peace (and pro-single-payer) candidate in every race taking away from them the votes they need to win. Lets make it perfectly clear that the true progressives of this country, who've been providing the Democrats with the votes they need to win, are tired of being lied to and are mad as all heck about what President Obama and the Democrats have done in this last year.

If we march through empty streets, they won't pay attention. If we threaten their hold on power, they will pay attention. We need to put the Democrats into a political position where they know for certain that the only way they can gain an hold power is by ending these wars. We do that by deliberately targeting Democrats by defeat by running our own candidates in all the CLOSEST races.

Here's a target list in the House. Find a close race near you and start organizing. Don't wait on organizations and leaders to do it for you. They are all bought off or were only pretending to oppose these wars to elect Democrats. Organize yourselves. Find a target from this list close to you and go after them.

Remember, people are dying every day. Its up to us to try to do something to end this.

Reverend Billy

Sitting here watching Reverend Billy from Free Speech TV.

Great show. What a character. This show was a mix two different events up in NYC. One was coverage of a Critical Mass bike ride. The other was a protest against someone who's trying to turn the Union Square pavilion into an upscale private restaurant.

I haven't watched this show often, but seeing Reverend Billy getting arrested seems to be a regular feature. This time is was for his protest outside the restaurant.

The great part was that whoever was filming this was standing next to someone with a foreign accent who was asking "Why is he being arrested? Is he being arrested just for speaking out? That wouldn't happen in my country?" The person filming then asks "Where are you from?" "Spain" is the reply.

For someone who reads history, that's a striking comment. America was founded as a place of free and progressive thought. As opposed to the conservative monarchies of Spain and the rest of Europe at the time. Look how things have flipped around. A citizen of Spain who's in NYC is watching a protesting Rev. Billy get arrested and he's saying "that wouldn't happen where we come from."

Americans in general like to act as if the USA is the world's greatest democracy and the world's free-est country. Its a standard part of our rap that always seems to end with why we need to invade or bomb yet another country. Yet, a citizen of Spain is filmed standing on our streets saying "that wouldn't happen where I come from." Usually, the first step towards change is admitted there is a problem.

The USA imprisons a higher percentage of people than any other nation in the world. Continuing to maintain its lead in the strategically important 'prison race' over Russia. How important are prisons to the USA? As state governments face tightening budgets, do you ever hear of prison guards being laid off? Usually its just teachers and nurses and social workers.

The USA has massive militarized police forces at the local, state and federal levels.

The USA now spies on its own people, with Bush's originally illegal approvals now approved by Congress, with then Sen. Obama flying back to make sure that the big telecoms got their immunity as a part of the bill.

Any protest seems to be met by huge forces of police in riot gear. While the US praised the Tehran twitters reporting on the protest there, the first reaction of the US police was to arrest people doing the same from outside the G-whatever summit in Pittsburgh.

Is the US really still the world's free-est country?

70% of the American people keep telling pollsters they want the wars to end and the troops to come home. Yet, both parties when in power continue the wars. The will of the people seems to be ignored, when its not being ridiculed, by those in power.

Is the US really still the world's greatest democracy?

The Rev. Billy show is now showing a beautiful singing of the first amendment to the US Constitution. I'm guessing the lady is a member of the "Reverend Billy Choir". But its hard to tell, as all you see on the screen is that she is one of the many protesters sitting with their bikes in the middle of the street surrounded by New York's finest in riot gear. Beautiful bit of film. This is just after Reverend Billy got arrested, again, for 'disturbing the peace' by reciting the words of the first amendment. Yes, that's right. He apparently got arrested for reading the very words that are supposed to guarantee us the right of free speech.

The first step towards change is admitting there's a problem. If we delude ourselves by calling ourselves the world's free-est country when we really aren't, then that's a problem. If we delude ourselves into thinking that we are the world's greatest democracy, when we really aren't, then that's a problem. Its looking at the world realistically and admitting that we are not the world's free-est country and that the are not the world's greatest democracy that will be the first step on the path that would lead us back to being both of those things.

America was founded as the free alternative to the monarchies of Europe. Nowadays, a citizen of Europe stands on American streets watching the police arrest a protester and says "that wouldn't happen where I come from."

PS .... it takes time, but eventually police violence and over-reaction does seem to eventually lead to some protesters walking away with tax dollars. Its, a different Critical Mass ride, but I see this on today's headlines .... Gus Ganley Wins $70,000 Settlement Resulting From August 2007 Critical Mass