"The only reason for time is so everything doesn't happen all at once"-Albert Einstein.
+
"I need a miracle every day"-Grateful Dead
=
"The only reason for time is so all of my miracles don't happen all at once."
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The only reason for time ....
+
=
"The only reason for time is so all of my miracles don't happen all at once."
Thursday, September 16, 2010
What a wonderful bunch of monkeys we are.
From The Infinite Hypocrisy of the West
By Fidel Castro
Of course, not much has changed. This history is in the news because France is deporting hundreds of Gypsies because of their apparent 'criminal nature'.
Fascinating how Hitler's and Goebbel's style of racial hatred still works today. Of course, they can't use Jews as the scapegoats anymore. But there are apparently plenty of other targets out there for whom such racial bigotry is perfectly acceptable.
One of the blessings of largely ignoring the corporate media is that I've heard remarkably little of the apparent debate of a mosque in lower Manhattan. But apparently, this sort of race baiting still works rather well with a decent sized portion of the US public, as long as the targets are 'muslims'.
If you read history, you know what a frightfully short journey it was from the age of enlightenment and reason at the end of the 19th century, to Auschwitz. And what powers that journey is this mental virus of hatred that somehow convinces some people that its perfectly fine if others are robbed, tortured and killed. Its this same racial hatred that we see today towards Gypsies and Muslims that drives that journey to a hell of war crimes and atrocities.
Of course, the truly bizarre part is that this is done in the name of Jesus Christ, who got himself hung on a cross because he got too loud about telling people not to do exactly this.
By Fidel Castro
Although several articles on this subject were published before and after September 1st, 2010, on that day the Mexican daily La Jornada published one of great impact entitled El holocausto gitano: ayer y hoy (The gypsies’ holocaust: yesterday and today) which reminds us of a truly tragic history. Without adding or deleting a single word from the information contained in the article, I will quote some lines referring to some events that are really touching. Neither the West nor -most of all- its colossal media apparatus have said a single word about them.--------------------
“1496: boom of humanist thinking. The Rom peoples (gypsies) from Germany are declared traitors to the Christian nations, spies paid by the Turkish, carriers of the plague, witches and warlocks, bandits and children kidnappers.
“1710: century of Enlightenment and rationale. An edict ordered that adult gypsies from Prague be hanged without any previous trial. Young persons and women were mutilated. In Bohemia their left ear were cut off; in Moravia, their right ear.
“1899: climax of modernity and progress. The police of Bavaria founded the Special Section for Gypsies’ Affairs. In 1929, the section was promoted to the category of National Central section and was moved to Munich. In 1937 it was based in Berlin. Four years later, half a million gypsies died in the concentration camps of Central and Eastern Europe.”
“In her PhD’s thesis, Eva Justin (assistant of Dr. Robert Ritter of the Racial Research Section of the Ministry of Health of Germany), asserted that gypsies’ blood was extremely harmful to the purity of the German race. Someone called Dr. Portschy sent a memorandum to Hitler suggesting that gypsies should be submitted to forced labor and mass sterilization because they jeopardized the pure blood of the German peasantry.
“The gypsies, who were labeled as inveterate criminals, started to be arrested en masse, and as from 1938 they were put into special blocks at the Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Gusen, Dautmergen, Natzweiler and Flossenburg camps.
“In a concentration camp he owned in Ravensbruck, Heinrich Himmler, chief of the Gestapo (SS), created a space to sacrifice gypsy women who were submitted to medical experiments. One hundred and twenty zingari girls were sterilized. Gypsy women married to non-gypsy men were sterilized at the Dusseldorf-Lierenfeld hospital.
“Thousands of gypsies were deported from Belgium, the Netherlands and France to the Polish concentration camp of Auschwitz. In his memoirs, Rudolf Hoess (commander of Auschwitz) wrote that among the gypsies deported there were old people almost one hundred years of age, pregnant women and a large number of children.
“At the ghetto of Lodz (Poland) […] none of the 5 000 gypsies survived.”
“In Yugoslavia, gypsies and Jews were equally killed in the forest of Jajnice. Farmers still remember the cries of the gypsy children who were taken to the places of execution.”
“At the extermination camps, only the love of gypsies for music was at times a source of comfort. In Auschwitz, starving and infested with lice, they gathered together to play music and encouraged children to dance. But the courage of gypsy guerrillas who fought alongside the Polish resistance in the region of Nieswiez was also legendary.”
Music was the factor that kept them together and helped them to survive, just as much as religion was for Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Of course, not much has changed. This history is in the news because France is deporting hundreds of Gypsies because of their apparent 'criminal nature'.
Fascinating how Hitler's and Goebbel's style of racial hatred still works today. Of course, they can't use Jews as the scapegoats anymore. But there are apparently plenty of other targets out there for whom such racial bigotry is perfectly acceptable.
One of the blessings of largely ignoring the corporate media is that I've heard remarkably little of the apparent debate of a mosque in lower Manhattan. But apparently, this sort of race baiting still works rather well with a decent sized portion of the US public, as long as the targets are 'muslims'.
If you read history, you know what a frightfully short journey it was from the age of enlightenment and reason at the end of the 19th century, to Auschwitz. And what powers that journey is this mental virus of hatred that somehow convinces some people that its perfectly fine if others are robbed, tortured and killed. Its this same racial hatred that we see today towards Gypsies and Muslims that drives that journey to a hell of war crimes and atrocities.
Of course, the truly bizarre part is that this is done in the name of Jesus Christ, who got himself hung on a cross because he got too loud about telling people not to do exactly this.
Does 40% equal 'withdrawal'?
Lets take a total look at numbers in Iraq.
FAS has a document that estimates that there are 95,000 contractors in Iraq as of March 2010. And the high point of US troop totals was about 150,000. So, to use nice round numbers, lets say there were 250,000 guys and gals with guns in Iraq.
Obama has withdrawn 100,000, bringing the US official 'non-combat' troop total down to the 50,000 or so troops that the Democrats have been promising to keep in Iraq ever since gaining power in Congress in 2007.
Which means, the total number of people toting guns around Iraq for 'our side' has gone from 250,000 to 150,000. Overall numbers are down 40%. Doesn't sound like much of a 'withdrawal' when you look at it that way. 'Drawdown' might work for how to describe this. But to call it a 'withdrawal', which usually means 'leaving', well, Orwell would be proud of the Democrats for that one.
Oh, and that assumes that the number of contractors stays level, which probably won't be the case since that same google search found other papers which talk about the thousands of tasks that have been identified for handover to 'civilians'. So, that 40% withdrawal that it looks like was done in the numbers above probably isn't as big as it looks either.
Unfortunately, as many men have found out the hard way, 40% doesn't equal total withdrawal. But there have been armies of cigarette smokers and heroin addicts who've prayed to God that they could have ended their withdrawals at 40% and claimed victory.
And, if you voted Democrat because you wanted peace, then you were just totally hosed. Because most of those troops that were 'withdrawn' from Iraq have gone to Afghanistan. Voting for Obama didn't lead to peace. It led to an Iraq that's still broken, but which got a new coat of whitewash for Obama's photo-op. And it led to a bigger and bigger war in Afghanistan, which, oh by the way, has been escalated into a proxy war in Pakistan as well.
Well, Obama can say he delivered 'change'. It was just change in the wrong direction. When Obama said 'change', apparently he meant more and more and more war. Bush's never ending war has now become Obama's never ending war.
From Merriam-Webster:
FAS has a document that estimates that there are 95,000 contractors in Iraq as of March 2010. And the high point of US troop totals was about 150,000. So, to use nice round numbers, lets say there were 250,000 guys and gals with guns in Iraq.
Obama has withdrawn 100,000, bringing the US official 'non-combat' troop total down to the 50,000 or so troops that the Democrats have been promising to keep in Iraq ever since gaining power in Congress in 2007.
Which means, the total number of people toting guns around Iraq for 'our side' has gone from 250,000 to 150,000. Overall numbers are down 40%. Doesn't sound like much of a 'withdrawal' when you look at it that way. 'Drawdown' might work for how to describe this. But to call it a 'withdrawal', which usually means 'leaving', well, Orwell would be proud of the Democrats for that one.
Oh, and that assumes that the number of contractors stays level, which probably won't be the case since that same google search found other papers which talk about the thousands of tasks that have been identified for handover to 'civilians'. So, that 40% withdrawal that it looks like was done in the numbers above probably isn't as big as it looks either.
Unfortunately, as many men have found out the hard way, 40% doesn't equal total withdrawal. But there have been armies of cigarette smokers and heroin addicts who've prayed to God that they could have ended their withdrawals at 40% and claimed victory.
And, if you voted Democrat because you wanted peace, then you were just totally hosed. Because most of those troops that were 'withdrawn' from Iraq have gone to Afghanistan. Voting for Obama didn't lead to peace. It led to an Iraq that's still broken, but which got a new coat of whitewash for Obama's photo-op. And it led to a bigger and bigger war in Afghanistan, which, oh by the way, has been escalated into a proxy war in Pakistan as well.
Well, Obama can say he delivered 'change'. It was just change in the wrong direction. When Obama said 'change', apparently he meant more and more and more war. Bush's never ending war has now become Obama's never ending war.
From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of WITHDRAWAL
1
a : the act of taking back or away something that has been granted or possessed b : removal from a place of deposit or investment c (1) : the discontinuance of administration or use of a drug (2) : the syndrome of often painful physical and psychological symptoms that follows discontinuance of an addicting drug (a heroin addict going through withdrawal)
2
a : retreat or retirement especially into a more secluded or less exposed place or position b : an operation by which a military force disengages from the enemy c (1) : social or emotional detachment (2) : a pathological retreat from objective reality (as in some schizophrenic states)
3
: retraction, revocation
4
a : the act of drawing someone or something back from or out of a place or position b : coitus interruptus
Private Armies
Blackwater's Black Ops by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation.
There was always a dark side to the US government contracting out its military and intel operations to private companies. And that was that in the process we were creating private armies.
Its one thing for a nation to spend money on its own armed forces. I think that the US way overspends, and has been hurting its economy by doing so. But, at least when the nation spends money on its own armed forces, those forces stay under control of the nation. At least in the theory they teach in civics books, that military is answerable to civilian authorities. Which in turn is supposedly elected in free and fair democratic elections. The basic democratic ideal of a free nation is that the people control the military.
But when such money is "Outsourced" to private firms like Blackwater (who's pr people have renamed as "Xe", apparently trying to hide under an obscure name), the people end up having no control over the armed force that's created with their money.
Here's how it works. The US pays out our tax money to purchase Blackwater's services. Blackwater then uses this money to recruit people and buy equipment. Blackwater uses this money to train its people. Then, hopefully they go do the task, like protecting State Dept personnel, that they were contracted to do.
Except, when the contract's up, those trained people and equipment don't go away. Now there's a private army in existence. And since the US has been contracting out 'intel' ops to Blackwater, now there's essentially a private CIA in existence. All paid for by the hard earned tax dollars of working Americans.
So, now when local citizens around the world try to exercise their rights as free people to organize against a chemical and biotech corporation's assaults on their society, they are now facing this private CIA and this private army that was paid by US tax dollars.
Gee thanks.
And, while the Democrats will try to use their usual spin of blaming this all on Bush and the Republicans, not a single thing has changed when Obama and the Democrats got to power. If anything, its gotten worse as Obama wants his dog-and-pony show fake withdrawal from Iraq. And he's getting it by dumping more and more of the violent dirty work on 'contractors'. While troop numbers decrease in Iraq, contractor numbers stay even or keep climbing.
The bad news about mercenaries is that they don't just disappear when the contract's up. What we've done is create armies of mercenary soldiers and spies who will now be turned loose on anyone who dares to challenge anyone with the millions of dollars needed to pay their fees. And, it won't be the local activists who have the millions of dollars.
Interesting. They aren't as expensive as I thought.
This is one thing any activist has to realize. These sorts of expenditures are a tiny blip in a budget like Monsanto's. Or, that would be a tiny blip in say a political campaign that has hundreds of millions or tens of millions to spend. Not much we can do about it, except be aware that its very cheap for someone to pay to infiltrate our groups.
The key somehow is to build such groups such that they can't be disrupted by such infiltration. Somehow, we got to know that we can be spied on. We've got to to know that people can come in and disrupt us. But we've still got to be able to carry on and be effective despite that.
Its not impossible. It helps not to be reliant on 'leaders', as leaders can always be bought or diverted. Its vital to have a group of committed grassroots activists who believe in what they are doing. Then they have to keep that focus despite any attempts to disrupt the group, or to turn members of the group on each other. Its not easy. But it can be done.
There was always a dark side to the US government contracting out its military and intel operations to private companies. And that was that in the process we were creating private armies.
Its one thing for a nation to spend money on its own armed forces. I think that the US way overspends, and has been hurting its economy by doing so. But, at least when the nation spends money on its own armed forces, those forces stay under control of the nation. At least in the theory they teach in civics books, that military is answerable to civilian authorities. Which in turn is supposedly elected in free and fair democratic elections. The basic democratic ideal of a free nation is that the people control the military.
But when such money is "Outsourced" to private firms like Blackwater (who's pr people have renamed as "Xe", apparently trying to hide under an obscure name), the people end up having no control over the armed force that's created with their money.
Here's how it works. The US pays out our tax money to purchase Blackwater's services. Blackwater then uses this money to recruit people and buy equipment. Blackwater uses this money to train its people. Then, hopefully they go do the task, like protecting State Dept personnel, that they were contracted to do.
Except, when the contract's up, those trained people and equipment don't go away. Now there's a private army in existence. And since the US has been contracting out 'intel' ops to Blackwater, now there's essentially a private CIA in existence. All paid for by the hard earned tax dollars of working Americans.
Over the past several years, entities closely linked to the private security firm Blackwater have provided intelligence, training and security services to US and foreign governments as well as several multinational corporations, including Monsanto, Chevron, the Walt Disney Company, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and banking giants Deutsche Bank and Barclays, according to documents obtained by The Nation. Blackwater's work for corporations and government agencies was contracted using two companies owned by Blackwater's owner and founder, Erik Prince: Total Intelligence Solutions and the Terrorism Research Center (TRC). Prince is listed as the chairman of both companies in internal company documents, which show how the web of companies functions as a highly coordinated operation. Officials from Total Intelligence, TRC and Blackwater (which now calls itself Xe Services) did not respond to numerous requests for comment for this article.
One of the most incendiary details in the documents is that Blackwater, through Total Intelligence, sought to become the "intel arm" of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm.
So, now when local citizens around the world try to exercise their rights as free people to organize against a chemical and biotech corporation's assaults on their society, they are now facing this private CIA and this private army that was paid by US tax dollars.
Gee thanks.
And, while the Democrats will try to use their usual spin of blaming this all on Bush and the Republicans, not a single thing has changed when Obama and the Democrats got to power. If anything, its gotten worse as Obama wants his dog-and-pony show fake withdrawal from Iraq. And he's getting it by dumping more and more of the violent dirty work on 'contractors'. While troop numbers decrease in Iraq, contractor numbers stay even or keep climbing.
The bad news about mercenaries is that they don't just disappear when the contract's up. What we've done is create armies of mercenary soldiers and spies who will now be turned loose on anyone who dares to challenge anyone with the millions of dollars needed to pay their fees. And, it won't be the local activists who have the millions of dollars.
After the meeting in Zurich, Black sent an e-mail to other Blackwater executives, including to Prince and Prado at their Blackwater e-mail addresses. Black wrote that Wilson "understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit basis protecting the Monsanto [brand] name.... Ahead of the curve info and insight/heads up is what he is looking for." Black added that Total Intelligence "would develop into acting as intel arm of Monsanto." Black also noted that Monsanto was concerned about animal rights activists and that they discussed how Blackwater "could have our person(s) actually join [activist] group(s) legally." Black wrote that initial payments to Total Intelligence would be paid out of Monsanto's "generous protection budget" but would eventually become a line item in the company's annual budget. He estimated the potential payments to Total Intelligence at between $100,000 and $500,000. According to documents, Monsanto paid Total Intelligence $127,000 in 2008 and $105,000 in 2009.
Interesting. They aren't as expensive as I thought.
This is one thing any activist has to realize. These sorts of expenditures are a tiny blip in a budget like Monsanto's. Or, that would be a tiny blip in say a political campaign that has hundreds of millions or tens of millions to spend. Not much we can do about it, except be aware that its very cheap for someone to pay to infiltrate our groups.
The key somehow is to build such groups such that they can't be disrupted by such infiltration. Somehow, we got to know that we can be spied on. We've got to to know that people can come in and disrupt us. But we've still got to be able to carry on and be effective despite that.
Its not impossible. It helps not to be reliant on 'leaders', as leaders can always be bought or diverted. Its vital to have a group of committed grassroots activists who believe in what they are doing. Then they have to keep that focus despite any attempts to disrupt the group, or to turn members of the group on each other. Its not easy. But it can be done.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
We are the majority!
The right-wingers and the corporate media go to great efforts to try to convince the left that we are a weak and powerless minority. But, anyone who pays attention knows that right-wing policies are only supported by about 20-25% of the population. There's the core of Limbaugh listeners and Palin partisans, but they aren't anywhere near a majority.
What's the majority in America? That's why I wanted to bring back this data published in Yes! Magazine in August 2008.
The majority of Americans are far to the left of the pro-war, pro-corporate, conservative Democratic Party. Far to the left. And, after accomplishing only a few of these tasks that a great majority of Americans supported in 2008, the Democrats are now scratching their heads wondering why their popularity is dropping and why they might lose these midterm elections. Read these poll numbers, and you'll understand why Obama's pro-war, pro-wall street policies are not popular.
from http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/purple-america/our-own-agenda-economy#economy
67% Favor public works projects to create jobs.
55% Favor expanding unemployment benefits.
73% Say corporations don’t pay a fair share of taxes.
76% Support tax cuts for lower- and middle-income people.
71% Say unions help their members; 53% say unions help the economy in general.
80% Support increasing the federal minimum wage.
59% Favor guaranteeing two weeks or more of paid vacation.
75% Want to limit rate increases on adjustable-rate mortgages.
64% Are not confident that life for our children’s generation will be better than it has been for us.
65% Believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry or form civil unions.
70% Support restoring habeas corpus rights for detainees at Guantanamo.
58% Believe a court warrant should be required to listen to the telephone calls of people in the U.S.
59% Would like the next president to do more to protect civil liberties.
68% Believe the president should not act alone to fight terrorism without the checks and balances of the courts or Congress.
79% Favor mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions.
76% Believe that oil is running out
and a major effort is needed to replace it.
90% Favor higher auto fuel efficiency standards.
75% Favor clean electricity, even with higher rates.
72% Support more funding for mass transit.
73% Believe our health care system is in crisis or has “major problems.”
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.
69% Believe the government should make it easier to buy prescription drugs from other countries.
81% Oppose torture and support following the Geneva Conventions.
76% Say the U.S. should not play the role of global police.
79% Say the U.N. should be strengthened.
73% Favor abolishing nuclear weapons, with verification. 80% favor banning weapons in space.
85% Say that the U.S. should not initiate military action without support from allies.
63% Want U.S. forces home from Iraq within a year.
47% Favor using diplomacy with Iran. 7% favor military action.
57% Say going to war in Iraq was the wrong decision.
67% Believe we should use diplomatic and economic means to fight terrorism, rather than the military.
86% Say big companies have too much power.
74% Favor voluntary public financing of campaigns.
66% Believe intentional acts are likely to cause significant voting machines errors.
80% Say ex-felons should have their voting rights restored.
65% Believe attacking social problems is a better cure for crime than more law enforcement.
87% Support rehabilitation rather than a “punishment-only” system.
81% Say job training is “very important” for reintegrating people leaving prison. 79% say drug treatment is very important.
56% Believe NAFTA should be renegotiated.
64% Believe that on the whole, immigration is good for the country.
80% Favor allowing undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. to stay and apply for citizenship if they have a job and pay back taxes.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Some things never change ....
May 1, 2003
Yep, he really said that as a part of this speech."In the images of celebrating Iraqis we have also seen the ageless appeal of human freedom. Decades of lies and intimidation could not make the Iraqi people love their oppressors or desire their own enslavement."
Well, at least he has enough sense not to commandeer an aircraft carrier and stand in front of a giant banner.This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq's cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began.
Sept 5, 2010
Yeah, we turned over security. The Iraqi Army can't defend one of its headquaters in the middle of Baghdad without calling on the US army. Two, count em' two terrorists apparently got inside, and the Iraqi Army couldn't deal with it without calling in 'suprressive fire', and 'support from helicopters, drones and explosive experts'. That's not really the fault of the Iraqi Army. They were originally designed as a force that couldn't operate without US support.American officials say that U.S. troops helped repel a complex attack by a group of heavily armed militants against a Baghdad military headquarters.
The fighting comes five days after the U.S. said it formally ended combat operations in Iraq.
A U.S. military spokesman said the Americans helped provide suppressive fire Sunday while Iraqi Army soldiers located two terrorists who had entered the compound.
Twelve people were killed in the attack. None of them were Americans. Lt. Col. Eric Bloom also said the Iraqi military asked for support from helicopters, drones and explosives experts.
Oh, and if you thought that electing the Democrats would get us out of Iraq anytime soon ....
The United States likely will need to keep thousands of troops in Iraq beyond 2011 to keep a lid on sectarian tensions and to bolster Baghdad's fledgling military, experts and former officers say.
American officials privately acknowledge that the US military presence in Iraq will almost certainly be extended, even though a security agreement in force requires all US forces to depart by the end of 2011.
So tell me, exactly which names on an American ballot do oppose the war? An American voter gets a 'choice' between a pro-war Republican who openly says these wars are fantastic, and a pro-war Democrat who says these wars are awful, but still continues the wars on the same path as the Republicans.
Here was a statement from Bush on how he saw the future of the Iraq War.
"
"My commanders tell me that as Iraqi forces become more capable, the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change... We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys. As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists."
Now, for all the hot air from Obama and the Democrats about how they oppose these wars, does it really sound like anything has changed with their election? Aren't Obama and the Democrats still running Bush's plan to the end? And remember, for all their talk about ending the Iraq war, all they really did was to send the troops over to Afghanistan.
Turns out they promised a change we could not believe in.
So, what's next. Electing Republicans won't stop these wars. And obviously, neither will electing Democrats
Thursday, August 26, 2010
USA as Exporter of Terrorism
One of the documents Wikileaks has released is a report from a CIA internal think tank. Its titled "A Red Cell Memorandum". Fascinating because it openly speaks of the US as an exporter of terrorism. Now, from Vietnam to Central America to the Middle East, this is probably not a big surprise. But its so 180 degrees different from the propaganda line that most Americans see and hear that everyone should read this report. If you believe in America as a free society of free individuals, with a government that represents those free individuals, then its your duty as a citizen to know what your government is doing.
Of course, since its a CIA report, its not talking about the CIA having Saddam Hussein killing people in Baghdad back in his mis-spent youth. Nor is it talking about killer drones firing missiles. Nor any of those mysterious bombs going off in Iran these days. What its referring to is the history of groups like Zionists or the IRA using Americans in their operations.
And of course, since its the CIA, they view the biggest threat as American Freedoms. There's a whole section on this titled ....
Mostly, this just reveals the strange mindset within the CIA. You see this when the report moves on to the repercussions of the US being perceived as an exporter of terrorism.
Note the part about how the US is a "recent victim of high profile terrorism originating abroad." What's their idea of 'recent'? This report is 'recent', dated Feb 2010. But 9-11 is nine years ago now. 9-11 is two wars ago. Gawd knows how many drone strikes ago.
But, if anytime one gets a glimpse inside the US military or intel organizations, one sees that propaganda about 9-11 is still very prevalent. Our soldiers and operatives are hyped up to go kill the enemy by constant reminders of 9-11. Its a standard part of the propaganda that gets the US to be going abroad to kill and maim those who don't submit to corporate rule. So, its interesting the way it pops up here.
The CIA views 9-11 as a recent attack that is still getting the US sympathy from abroad. Pretty much everyone else views that as something a long time ago, and that US actions since, mainly in starting two wars, have long since removed any sympathy the US gets from the rest of the world. What shows up in this report is the CIA mindset where they believe their own propaganda. And yes, we pay many millions of dollars to have our own propaganda given backed to us as top secret intelligence. And its the end of democracy as we know it if any of this is made public.
The report discusses the impacts of the US being perceived as an exporter of terrorism by talking about how other countries might expect policies like rendition to go both ways. Of course, in a peaceful and just world, just that would happen.
Of course, one reason the report veers in this direction is probably the innate fear that most employees of the CIA have of someday being held accountable in a non-US court.
Interestingly, the report then sites as an example the case in Italy where ....
Of course, the CIA thinks that kidnapping someone off the streets of Italy and sending them to be tortured in Italy is just an example of fine and upstanding international behavior. The notion that Italy might actually try to enforce there local laws against kidnapping is only viewed as 'obstructing US efforts'.
Of course, a group that came from overseas and started kidnapping American citizens off the streets to be taken away to be tortured in some terrorist cell's dungeons would be a great outrage.
What the CIA is really afraid of is a world where it has to obey the law.
Contrary to common belief, the American export of terrorism or terrorists is not a recent phenomenon, nor has it been associated only with Islamic radicals or people of Middle Eastern, African or South Asian ethnic origin. This dynamic belies the American belief that our free, open and integrated multicultural society lessens the allure of radicalism and terrorism for US citizens.
Of course, since its a CIA report, its not talking about the CIA having Saddam Hussein killing people in Baghdad back in his mis-spent youth. Nor is it talking about killer drones firing missiles. Nor any of those mysterious bombs going off in Iran these days. What its referring to is the history of groups like Zionists or the IRA using Americans in their operations.
And of course, since its the CIA, they view the biggest threat as American Freedoms. There's a whole section on this titled ....
American Freedoms Facilitate Terrorist Recruitment and Operations
Mostly, this just reveals the strange mindset within the CIA. You see this when the report moves on to the repercussions of the US being perceived as an exporter of terrorism.
Impact on Foreign Relations if US Seen as “Exporter of Terrorism” (S//NF)
If the US were seen as an exporter of terrorism, foreign partners may be less willing to cooperate with the United States on extrajudicial activities, including detention, transfer, and interrogation of suspects in third party countries. As a recent victim of high-profile terrorism originating from abroad, the US Government has had significant leverage to press foreign regimes to acquiesce to requests for extraditing terrorist suspects from their soil. However, if the US were seen as an “exporter of terrorism,” foreign governments could request a reciprocal arrangement that would impact US sovereignty.
Note the part about how the US is a "recent victim of high profile terrorism originating abroad." What's their idea of 'recent'? This report is 'recent', dated Feb 2010. But 9-11 is nine years ago now. 9-11 is two wars ago. Gawd knows how many drone strikes ago.
But, if anytime one gets a glimpse inside the US military or intel organizations, one sees that propaganda about 9-11 is still very prevalent. Our soldiers and operatives are hyped up to go kill the enemy by constant reminders of 9-11. Its a standard part of the propaganda that gets the US to be going abroad to kill and maim those who don't submit to corporate rule. So, its interesting the way it pops up here.
The CIA views 9-11 as a recent attack that is still getting the US sympathy from abroad. Pretty much everyone else views that as something a long time ago, and that US actions since, mainly in starting two wars, have long since removed any sympathy the US gets from the rest of the world. What shows up in this report is the CIA mindset where they believe their own propaganda. And yes, we pay many millions of dollars to have our own propaganda given backed to us as top secret intelligence. And its the end of democracy as we know it if any of this is made public.
The report discusses the impacts of the US being perceived as an exporter of terrorism by talking about how other countries might expect policies like rendition to go both ways. Of course, in a peaceful and just world, just that would happen.
Of course, one reason the report veers in this direction is probably the innate fear that most employees of the CIA have of someday being held accountable in a non-US court.
Interestingly, the report then sites as an example the case in Italy where ....
If foreign regimes believe the US position on rendition is too one-sided, favoring the US, but not them, they could obstruct US efforts to detain terrorism suspects. For example, in 2005 Italy issued criminal arrest warrants for US agents involved in the abduction of an Egyptian cleric and his rendition to Egypt. The proliferation of such cases would not only challenge US bilateral relations with other countries but also damage global counter-terrorism efforts.
Of course, the CIA thinks that kidnapping someone off the streets of Italy and sending them to be tortured in Italy is just an example of fine and upstanding international behavior. The notion that Italy might actually try to enforce there local laws against kidnapping is only viewed as 'obstructing US efforts'.
Of course, a group that came from overseas and started kidnapping American citizens off the streets to be taken away to be tortured in some terrorist cell's dungeons would be a great outrage.
What the CIA is really afraid of is a world where it has to obey the law.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Quick buck artists
What you get when you let Wall Street and the advertising industry run the country for half a century.Manufacturing takes long term investment with an intention of long term building. This is what happens when the quick-buck artists are giving the combination to the vault.
Wonder if its possible for all of us to earn a living working as a greeter at Walmart and playing online poker? If we ain't making anything any more, that's about what's left.
Or maybe hustling each other with new financial scams? This seems to be the new version of the American dream.
Monday, July 5, 2010
A Rose by any other name?
You can tell a lot by the names the Congress puts on bills. Oh, nothing substantial about the bill. But you can tell which way they want to spin the bill. Usually the stuff they want to trumpet is in a bill named something like "The Prosperity For All By Inventing the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread Act".
Late Thursday night, the House of Representatives passed the bill that sends another $30 billion off to kill people by fighting a useless war on the other side of the world. Lets see what they called this bill......
(the text is copied from the Clerk of the House website listing the proceedings of July 1st. ... its their 'fine print'.)
And oh, by the way, just in case you want to participate in a democracy, the first step of which is knowing how your Representative voted, the Democratic leadership made this a confusing tangle of five different votes that tries to let a lot of Democrats lie and say they opposed this war when it was the Democrat in the White House who was asking for the funding and the Democrats in the Congress making sure he got it.
What's interesting is how ashamed all the Democrats are as to what they've just done. They try to hide it wherever possible. Which tells us all that they know what we know ... that we the citizens of this country want these wars to end!
If you want to try to untangle just how your Democrat helped let this pass, here's a list of the votes.
First was a very important vote on a new 'rule' that let them do the very strange procedure of splitting the approval of this bill into separate votes. 38 Democrats voted against this rule, notably Mr. Kucinich. It only passed by 5 votes. If it had failed, the whole war funding effort would have fallen apart. It passed entirely on Democratic votes.
The links should work to take you to the records of who voted which way on each vote. That's the main reason I copied the text straight from the House Clerk's website. So, sorry for Congress' fine print, but the links work to show you who did what.
If that vote had failed, the remainder could not have occurred. A very important vote where almost every Democrat lined up with Pelosi and Obey and made sure the war funding would pass.
Then ...
Then, the four votes in succession. First, although the house record works hard to hide which vote was which, this first was on the teacher funding and disaster relief.
Next came a vote to defund the war, which lost miserably with only 22 Democrats supporting.
Next was a vote on limiting war funding based on a promise to withdraw. Again, it lost miserably, with only 93 Democrats voting no. This is likely the fake vote that the faux-progressive Democrats representing anti-war districts will use to try to say that they didn't approve of sending these billions off for more war, death and destruction.
The last was a vote on an amendment to require the President to present to Congress both a National Intelligence Estimate and a withdrawal plan to get more money. 153 Democrats voted in favor of this.
For most votes, the process is to vote on amendments to the bill as the body works out the exact text of the bill. Then to have a final vote on passage. Notice how they flipped it over this time. To call this 'weird' is to insult the weird.
One thing to remember is that everyone knows the count on these votes before they are ever held. Thus, you can't always read a lot into a particular vote. The key vote was on the rule, which was very close. Notice how the Democrats lined up with their leadership to let all that followed occur.
Then, on the two votes the faux-progressive Democrats will use to try to claim that they oppose this war, everyone knew that there were plenty of votes to pass the money without any inconvenient things like intelligence or plans attached. So, for many, those were 'safe' votes where they could pretend to be against the war.
But, never forget that these same Democrats have their fingerprints all over the original 'rule' vote that allowed all of this to happen. That passed by 5 votes, so only a very small handful of Democrats could have blocked war funding right then and there. All who voted Yes on that resolution supported the war.
Late Thursday night, the House of Representatives passed the bill that sends another $30 billion off to kill people by fighting a useless war on the other side of the world. Lets see what they called this bill......
(the text is copied from the Clerk of the House website listing the proceedings of July 1st. ... its their 'fine print'.)
.... its the "and for other purposes" that a) got almost all the money. and b) which is going to cause people to die and be maimed from now until Oct when the war funding for next year kicks in.
- H.R. 4899:
- making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes
And oh, by the way, just in case you want to participate in a democracy, the first step of which is knowing how your Representative voted, the Democratic leadership made this a confusing tangle of five different votes that tries to let a lot of Democrats lie and say they opposed this war when it was the Democrat in the White House who was asking for the funding and the Democrats in the Congress making sure he got it.
What's interesting is how ashamed all the Democrats are as to what they've just done. They try to hide it wherever possible. Which tells us all that they know what we know ... that we the citizens of this country want these wars to end!
If you want to try to untangle just how your Democrat helped let this pass, here's a list of the votes.
First was a very important vote on a new 'rule' that let them do the very strange procedure of splitting the approval of this bill into separate votes. 38 Democrats voted against this rule, notably Mr. Kucinich. It only passed by 5 votes. If it had failed, the whole war funding effort would have fallen apart. It passed entirely on Democratic votes.
The links should work to take you to the records of who voted which way on each vote. That's the main reason I copied the text straight from the House Clerk's website. So, sorry for Congress' fine print, but the links work to show you who did what.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 215 - 210 (Roll no. 428).
If that vote had failed, the remainder could not have occurred. A very important vote where almost every Democrat lined up with Pelosi and Obey and made sure the war funding would pass.
Then ...
ORDER OF PROCEDURE - Mr. Obey moved to concur in the Senate amendment to the text to H.R. 4899 with amendments. Pursuant to the provisions of H.Res. 1500, the motion to concur in the Senate amendment with amendments shall be divided into each of its 5 portions. The first portion is considered as adopted pursuant to H.Res. 1500. The Chair shall put the question on adoption of each of portions 2 through 5 separately in their turn.
Then, the four votes in succession. First, although the house record works hard to hide which vote was which, this first was on the teacher funding and disaster relief.
- 10:33 P.M. -
- On motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the second portion of the divided question [amendment 2]. Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 239 - 182, 1 Present (Roll no. 430).
Next came a vote to defund the war, which lost miserably with only 22 Democrats supporting.
- 10:41 P.M. -
- On motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the third portion of divided question [amendment 3] Failed by recorded vote: 25 - 376, 22 Present (Roll no. 431).
Next was a vote on limiting war funding based on a promise to withdraw. Again, it lost miserably, with only 93 Democrats voting no. This is likely the fake vote that the faux-progressive Democrats representing anti-war districts will use to try to say that they didn't approve of sending these billions off for more war, death and destruction.
- 10:47 P.M. -
- On motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the fourth portion of the divided question (amendment 4) Failed by recorded vote: 100 - 321 (Roll no. 432).
The last was a vote on an amendment to require the President to present to Congress both a National Intelligence Estimate and a withdrawal plan to get more money. 153 Democrats voted in favor of this.
- 10:54 P.M. -
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. On motion that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the text with the fifth portion of the divided question (amendment 5) Failed by recorded vote: 162 - 260 (Roll no. 433).
For most votes, the process is to vote on amendments to the bill as the body works out the exact text of the bill. Then to have a final vote on passage. Notice how they flipped it over this time. To call this 'weird' is to insult the weird.
One thing to remember is that everyone knows the count on these votes before they are ever held. Thus, you can't always read a lot into a particular vote. The key vote was on the rule, which was very close. Notice how the Democrats lined up with their leadership to let all that followed occur.
Then, on the two votes the faux-progressive Democrats will use to try to claim that they oppose this war, everyone knew that there were plenty of votes to pass the money without any inconvenient things like intelligence or plans attached. So, for many, those were 'safe' votes where they could pretend to be against the war.
But, never forget that these same Democrats have their fingerprints all over the original 'rule' vote that allowed all of this to happen. That passed by 5 votes, so only a very small handful of Democrats could have blocked war funding right then and there. All who voted Yes on that resolution supported the war.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Independence Day
The name of the holiday is "Independence Day"
Its not, "the Fourth of July". Yet, that's what's blasted at each of us out of the corporate media boxes. Everything says 'Fourth of July". You very rarely see "Independence Day."
Is there something that they want us to forget?
How would Bill O'Reily and friends react if someone tried to take the "Christ" out of "Christmas" by just calling the holiday "the Twenty-Fifth of December"?
This holiday celebrates all that was and is great about America. It celebrates that once in this land there were people willing to stand up to governments, armies and corporations and declare their INDEPENDENCE! It celebrates that they were willing to fight for years to win it.
And it should serve as a reminder that we are a free people in a free land.
Why do they want us to forget this?
Call the holiday by its proper name .... "INDEPENDENCE DAY!"
Its not, "the Fourth of July". Yet, that's what's blasted at each of us out of the corporate media boxes. Everything says 'Fourth of July". You very rarely see "Independence Day."
Is there something that they want us to forget?
How would Bill O'Reily and friends react if someone tried to take the "Christ" out of "Christmas" by just calling the holiday "the Twenty-Fifth of December"?
This holiday celebrates all that was and is great about America. It celebrates that once in this land there were people willing to stand up to governments, armies and corporations and declare their INDEPENDENCE! It celebrates that they were willing to fight for years to win it.
And it should serve as a reminder that we are a free people in a free land.
Why do they want us to forget this?
Call the holiday by its proper name .... "INDEPENDENCE DAY!"
Thursday, July 1, 2010
War Funding Vote today.
What really should be happening is that we should be gathered around the Capital in our millions, demanding that these billions be spent instead on unemployment benefits and economic stimulus that would benefit American citizens.
But since we're not that smart or that active, we should at least be bombarding every Congresspersons office with our phone calls and emails. Here's a link to a site begging 21 so-called 'progressive' Congresspeople to actually vote like they talk. And contact your own Representative. The Capital Hill switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.
And, don't be fooled by the Democrats' trickery with fake votes and half votes and the like. Just wait until the dust is settled, then look to see if the war is funded or not funded. If at the end of the day the war is funded, then you know the Democrats support this war (again). That will be the clear sign that this is the Democrat's war and that a vote this fall for the Democrats is a vote for more and more and more war.
You've seen the Collateral Murder video (if not, scroll down to embedded player below). Today you get to find out if the Democratic majority in the House spends more of your money to keep that happening again and again. Or if they stand and say no more by stopping the money that pays for the war.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Corruption
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, who overturned an offshore-drilling moratorium imposed by the Obama administration in the wake of the Gulf-spill crisis, owned stock in a drilling corporation that was, in the company's own words, "suffer[ing]" because of the ban.
C'mon man. You got to be kidding me.
Should be interesting to watch. Does this crooked ban that's endangering American security and safety get overturned? Does the judge get any sort of penalty for his conflict of interest in this case? Wouldn't bet in favor of either one in today's corrupt America. Instead, this just sounds like business as usual.
Surely the name of the judge should have raised a few eyebrows during his confirmation?
The Images Israel Didn’t Want Seen: Video and Photographs from the Gaza-Bound Aid Flotilla
The Images Israel Didn’t Want Seen: Video and Photographs from the Gaza-Bound Aid Flotilla from Democracy Now!
15 minutes of video shot from onboard the Gaza Flotilla ships and smuggled somehow past the Israelis who've confiscated the film from all the other cameras you see in the video. Follow the link above to more, including a 5 min version of this footage, images taken from the ships, and interviews with the people who took this images and video.
15 minutes of video shot from onboard the Gaza Flotilla ships and smuggled somehow past the Israelis who've confiscated the film from all the other cameras you see in the video. Follow the link above to more, including a 5 min version of this footage, images taken from the ships, and interviews with the people who took this images and video.
More random West
Regarding the intellectual defects of Du Bois' noble endeavor: First, he assumes that highbrow culture is inherently humanizing, and that exposure and immersion in great works produce good people. Yet, we have little reason to believe that people who delight in the works of geniuses like Mozart and Beethoven or Goethe or Wordsworth are any more or less humane than those who dance in the barnyards to the banjo plucking of nameless rural folk in Tennessee.
Well, this writer started off dancing to banjo picking in Tennessee. And in fact, when I lived back east, my favorite way to spend a weekend was to go back up to the mountains and find a bluegrass festival. And I did it not only for the fine music, which was very fine indeed, especially if one accepts American improvisational concepts that come from jazz and blues as being as fine an art form as the prepared playing of the classics by an orchestra.
But mostly, I went for the people. Go to a bluegrass festival, especially the ones the hippy kids hang out at, and you are likely to meet the kindest, gentlest and most peaceful people you'll ever meet. You could pick a random spot to plop a tent down for the weekend, and almost always be camping near kind people who would become great friends before the weekend was done.
If the people dancing to banjo plucking at these music festivals ran the world, we'd have no wars, and we'd all live in a much kinder and just world.
Is Advice From the IMF Better Than Advice From a Drunk on the Street?
Is Advice From the IMF Better Than Advice From a Drunk on the Street? by Dean Baker.
If a track record of accurate predictions is a guide to the usefulness of a writer, then Dean Baker is one of the more useful economists around. He was predicting the collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting economic problems while the CNN and CNBC cheerleaders were telling us all how wonderful the economy was.
Oh, and while the IMF wasn't predicting this either ...
And as to the question Mr. Baker poses today, I think I'd gladly prefer the advice of a drunk off the street. After all, the drunk off the street is far more likely to be aware of the problems that us non-bankers might be experiencing, while the IMF is certain to be pushing whatever the bankers want today.
Yep, the drunk on the street is definitely going to have better ideas than that.
Oh, and for those who don't know what the kids in the street of Toronto are protesting, this is it. They are protesting these austerity measures. They are the ones trying to convince the world that these 'austerity' measures are a very bad idea for most of us.
If a track record of accurate predictions is a guide to the usefulness of a writer, then Dean Baker is one of the more useful economists around. He was predicting the collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting economic problems while the CNN and CNBC cheerleaders were telling us all how wonderful the economy was.
Oh, and while the IMF wasn't predicting this either ...
Where was the IMF when the housing bubble in the United States and elsewhere was inflating to ever more dangerous levels? Was it frantically yelling at governments to rein in the bubbles before they burst with disastrous consequences? After all, what could possibly have been more important than warning of the dangers of these bubbles?
It was easy to both recognize the housing bubbles and that their collapse would have devastating consequences for the economy. Economies don’t adjust easily to a loss of wealth that in some cases exceeded 50 percent of GDP.
Real economists know this, but apparently the folks at the IMF did not, or if they did, they didn’t think it was worth saying anything. One will look in vain through IMF publications during the buildup of the housing bubble for serious warnings of the potential dangers.
And as to the question Mr. Baker poses today, I think I'd gladly prefer the advice of a drunk off the street. After all, the drunk off the street is far more likely to be aware of the problems that us non-bankers might be experiencing, while the IMF is certain to be pushing whatever the bankers want today.
The impact of most of its proposals will be to reduce the benefits received by ordinary workers. The proposed changes in labor market regulations will likely also weaken workers’ bargaining power, leading to cuts in wages. Furthermore, the reduction in demand caused by the turn to austerity will leave millions more out of work, both depriving these workers of income and further weakening the bargaining power of those who still have jobs.
Yep, the drunk on the street is definitely going to have better ideas than that.
Oh, and for those who don't know what the kids in the street of Toronto are protesting, this is it. They are protesting these austerity measures. They are the ones trying to convince the world that these 'austerity' measures are a very bad idea for most of us.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Honduras, One year after the coup
Honduras, After Democracy by Bill Quigley.
Since what's been going on in Honduras after the coup is largely blacked out in America, this is a useful article to read.
I do think Mr. Quigley goes too lightly on Obama when he says ....
From the American left, there seems to be a fundamental unwillingness to accept Obama's real role in the coup. There is not some mysterious 'leadership vacuum' that's mysteriously allowed right-wingers to control US foreign policy. The very best you can say about Obama is that he's deliberately created this 'vaccum' because he wants right-wing policies in effect. But even that is letting Obama off lightly, because in my opinion he's supported and backed this coup from the beginning. There's only one statement from his administration right after the coup to the contrary. And by now, surely everyone is learning not to trust what Obama says.
First, the left apparently was never willing to acknowledge that Obama has constantly attacked Chavez just like the rest of right-wing rhetoric. A quick google search found this item from Talk Left. This is an Obama quote from 2008.
Note carefully also the way Obama characterized Bush's 'failure' south of the border. This was a constant Obama campaign theme, and it essentially said that the growing signs of independent democracies in South America was a sign of a foreign policy failure by Bush. And the unspoken part of this is that he's saying in 2008 that he'll fix Bush's 'failures' in South America. Presumably by trying to roll back this democracy movement that we see in places like Venezuela and Bolivia.
Then, in Obama's first year, a democratically elected President who's somewhat allied with Chavez gets overthrown in a coup. Yet, the lefties in the US still have such blinders on about who Obama is and what he's really doing that they write these bizarre theories about mysterious "leadership vacuums" that somehow let the American right wing mysteriously do exactly what Obama was saying that he'd do before the election. The left seems incapable of realizing that this was really Obama's policy.
The first step towards solving a problem is to correctly understand the problem. The fact that the left in this country can not see that it was Obama who approved and staged the coup against Honduras' democratically elected President is quite worrying. Because it means there's no solution to this anytime soon when people go to such great lengths to see mysterious vacuums instead of the real problems.
I hope the people of Honduras aren't waiting for help from us. Because even the people who should be their supporters in America have such blinders on concerning Obama that they simply can't see that its their great progressive leader who is the problem.
The American left could maybe ask Honduras' deposed president what he thinks.
See Also: Democracy Now! segment One Year After Coup, Honduras Repression Continues
Since what's been going on in Honduras after the coup is largely blacked out in America, this is a useful article to read.
I do think Mr. Quigley goes too lightly on Obama when he says ....
A leadership vacuum in the Obama Administration regarding Honduras has led to extreme right-wing ideologues directing US policy there. These people are hell bent on stopping the growing populist movements throughout Latin America from gaining more influence and power. Some, such as Otto Reich and Roger Noriega, have moved from positions in the State Department and United Nations into private lobbying firms or conservative think tanks. Others, such as Robert Carmona-Borjas, who was granted asylum in the US after his involvement in the attempted coup against Hugo Chavez, are working for so-called NGOs that use vague missions such as “anti-corruption” to mask the foreign policy work they do.
From the American left, there seems to be a fundamental unwillingness to accept Obama's real role in the coup. There is not some mysterious 'leadership vacuum' that's mysteriously allowed right-wingers to control US foreign policy. The very best you can say about Obama is that he's deliberately created this 'vaccum' because he wants right-wing policies in effect. But even that is letting Obama off lightly, because in my opinion he's supported and backed this coup from the beginning. There's only one statement from his administration right after the coup to the contrary. And by now, surely everyone is learning not to trust what Obama says.
First, the left apparently was never willing to acknowledge that Obama has constantly attacked Chavez just like the rest of right-wing rhetoric. A quick google search found this item from Talk Left. This is an Obama quote from 2008.
[D]emagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum [of a failed US Latin America policy.] His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past.
Note carefully also the way Obama characterized Bush's 'failure' south of the border. This was a constant Obama campaign theme, and it essentially said that the growing signs of independent democracies in South America was a sign of a foreign policy failure by Bush. And the unspoken part of this is that he's saying in 2008 that he'll fix Bush's 'failures' in South America. Presumably by trying to roll back this democracy movement that we see in places like Venezuela and Bolivia.
Then, in Obama's first year, a democratically elected President who's somewhat allied with Chavez gets overthrown in a coup. Yet, the lefties in the US still have such blinders on about who Obama is and what he's really doing that they write these bizarre theories about mysterious "leadership vacuums" that somehow let the American right wing mysteriously do exactly what Obama was saying that he'd do before the election. The left seems incapable of realizing that this was really Obama's policy.
The first step towards solving a problem is to correctly understand the problem. The fact that the left in this country can not see that it was Obama who approved and staged the coup against Honduras' democratically elected President is quite worrying. Because it means there's no solution to this anytime soon when people go to such great lengths to see mysterious vacuums instead of the real problems.
I hope the people of Honduras aren't waiting for help from us. Because even the people who should be their supporters in America have such blinders on concerning Obama that they simply can't see that its their great progressive leader who is the problem.
The American left could maybe ask Honduras' deposed president what he thinks.
"What we suspected at the beginning has now been confirmed. The United States was behind the coup."
See Also: Democracy Now! segment One Year After Coup, Honduras Repression Continues
Pragmatic pragmatism
"Prophetic pragmatism worships at no ideological alters. It condemns oppression anywhere and everywhere, be it the brutal butchery of Third World dictators, the regimentation and repressions of peoples in the Soviet Union, or the racism, patriarchy, homophobia and economic injustice of the First World capitalist nations.
In this way, the precious ideals of individuality and democracy of prophetic pragmatism oppose all those power structures that lack public accountability, be they headed by military generals, bureaucratic party bosses, or corporate tycoons.
Nor is prophetic pragmatism confined to any preordained historical agent, such as the working class, black people, or women. Rather, it invites all people of goodwill, both here and abroad to fight for an Emersonian culture of creative democracy in which the plight of the wretched of the earth is alleviated."
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Kinsey for Senate
In Colorado, we are lucky to have a voice for peace and real change on the ballot for US Senator ... Bob Kinsey.
This is Bob speaking at the Hands Across the Sands event in Denver on June 26.
If you live in Colorado, support Bob. Visit his website at kinseyforsenate.org
If you don't live in Colorado, find out who's on your ballot. Since we will only win with grassroots power, you can't wait until election day. You have to get involved now if you want real change.
This is Bob speaking at the Hands Across the Sands event in Denver on June 26.
If you live in Colorado, support Bob. Visit his website at kinseyforsenate.org
If you don't live in Colorado, find out who's on your ballot. Since we will only win with grassroots power, you can't wait until election day. You have to get involved now if you want real change.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Get Involved!
This is from a local Denver Green Party effort. The local Green Party is doing a cable access TV show, and a few weeks ago picked the Gaza Flotilla attack as the topic.
Its a fascinating discussion, well worth listening too.
Don't laugh too much at the editing ... this was my first try at that. :)
If you're reading this in Denver, come get involved. If you are reading this somewhere else, then look around, the same might be happening near you. Or if not, you can start it. The technology to do make a video is within everyone's grasp.
In Denver, we are fortunate to have Denver Open Media, as a collective to purchase some good gear and provide some nice studio space. But, even without that, a video can be made these days with home video gear and editing on a home computer.
Its a fascinating discussion, well worth listening too.
Don't laugh too much at the editing ... this was my first try at that. :)
If you're reading this in Denver, come get involved. If you are reading this somewhere else, then look around, the same might be happening near you. Or if not, you can start it. The technology to do make a video is within everyone's grasp.
In Denver, we are fortunate to have Denver Open Media, as a collective to purchase some good gear and provide some nice studio space. But, even without that, a video can be made these days with home video gear and editing on a home computer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)