The compromise to which I am referring is the one made by Senators Warner, Graham, and McCain to the change of language in Common Article III of the Geneva Convention requested by GWB. Combine that with the recently passed additions to the Patriot Act, and our president seems to be holding all the cards. It wasn't much of a compromise, was it?
This issue is very clear cut. And the "compromise" more closely resembled the self-serving, ass-saving, slimy political maneuvering we have come to expect from our representatives. So why are there so many who can't see it? Don't get it? Won't get it? Why is this even an issue when as recently as two weeks ago, Americans could lay their heads on their pillows at night without giving it much of a thought? Because Constitutional freedoms have never been brought into question to this extent before, that's why.
Even when McCarthy was looking under the bed for communists, the Constitution and the Geneva Convention were left intact. Our historically shared and common belief in the limits of governmental power was, we thought, so tightly woven into the fabric of America, into being American, that it would hold forever like medieval chainmail.
Two hundred plus years beyond 1789 and we as a nation have forgotten that the thread of freedom was spun of delicate silk. It must be handled properly and periodically checked for moths. I think around 1980 we threw that silk in the back of the closet believing it would be just fine in there with the other consumer goods we just had to have and then grew bored with, discarded, and haven't looked at since.
Under the cover of closet darkness, Bush got his way with the extended Patriot Act and the rewritten Common Article III of the Geneva Convention, and thereby, he assumed total control over the rights of individuals. He not only broke the silken thread of freedom, he stuffed it in his pocket and walked away virtually unchallenged with the whole cloth. Now, you, or I, can be picked out of a crowd, labeled an enemy combatant, and waterboarded. One, two, three.
But like couch potatos who desperately needed to get out of the recliner long ago and hold a garage sale, I guess Americans grew so comfortable, complacent, and trusting that the closet was a safe place for what we hold dear that after years of protected freedoms, there are those among us who refuse to believe that the game has changed. This is, indeed, a sad day for America because there will be no hue and cry until a wealthy WASP or a popular middle-class citizen is plucked off the street for simply engaging in routine politics.
If we as a nation learned anything from watching Katrina victims sift through the remnants of their lives, it should be this: If you value grandma's silken cloak of freedom, you'd better keep it on your person when the storms come because once they have passed, you can't expect to find it still safe in the back of the closet.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
An Open Letter about Torture to Senators Graham, McCain, and Warner
Dear Senators Graham, McCain, and Warner:
I know you are busy whipping up a compromise to change Common Article III of the Geneva Convention, which may help avert our commander-in-chief from being viewed by the world as a war criminal. I hope during your busy day you, or one of your staff members, will have the chance to read the letter I sent to each of you this morning regarding the moral ambiguity involved in enacting such a change.
As I have great doubts that my letter, which came from my soul and the souls of many other Americans, will ever make it out of the bottom the your mailbag, I am posting it here. I think clothing and ideas aired in the light of day tend to smell better after some time in the sun.
Please excuse the lack of the "Sincerely yours," etc. Your comment forms aren't set up for formality.
Dear Senator
I am from Ohio and you are not one of my two Senators. Technically. However, in the spirit of representative government as intended by our forefathers, you are my Senator. Each of the one hundred members of the body of the Senate is my Senator. You speak for me, Jane Q. Public, when I am unable to speak for myself, or when I am unable to reach power with truth.
Rewriting Common Article III of the Geneva Convention to allow loopholes for the continuation of the practice of torture, to be carried out in the names of all Americans, is morally repugnant. No acceptable compromise exists to moral repugnance. First-degree murder is morally repugnant. Is there a compromise for it? Knocking down an old lady and stealing her handbag is morally repugnant. Is there a compromise for that?
Americans are waiting, suffering and waiting long, too long, for members of our national leadership to do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do. It is morally reprehensible and hypocritical for our leaders to tie themselves to fundamental Christian values for political purposes while engaging in self-serving and morally reprehensible acts or allowing them to be done in America’s name.
Common Article III, as a law against torture, already exists and has stood, uncompromised, since 1949 as a stone in the foundation of America’s moral face to the world. It is a stone that should not be rolled away or have its integrity compromised, even if that means leaving government wrong-doers exposed. Compromising the Geneva Convention depletes us as a nation. It suggests to the world that we, as a people, are morally feeble and accept and expect rogue-state behavior from our leaders.
I know you are busy whipping up a compromise to change Common Article III of the Geneva Convention, which may help avert our commander-in-chief from being viewed by the world as a war criminal. I hope during your busy day you, or one of your staff members, will have the chance to read the letter I sent to each of you this morning regarding the moral ambiguity involved in enacting such a change.
As I have great doubts that my letter, which came from my soul and the souls of many other Americans, will ever make it out of the bottom the your mailbag, I am posting it here. I think clothing and ideas aired in the light of day tend to smell better after some time in the sun.
Please excuse the lack of the "Sincerely yours," etc. Your comment forms aren't set up for formality.
Dear Senator
I am from Ohio and you are not one of my two Senators. Technically. However, in the spirit of representative government as intended by our forefathers, you are my Senator. Each of the one hundred members of the body of the Senate is my Senator. You speak for me, Jane Q. Public, when I am unable to speak for myself, or when I am unable to reach power with truth.
Rewriting Common Article III of the Geneva Convention to allow loopholes for the continuation of the practice of torture, to be carried out in the names of all Americans, is morally repugnant. No acceptable compromise exists to moral repugnance. First-degree murder is morally repugnant. Is there a compromise for it? Knocking down an old lady and stealing her handbag is morally repugnant. Is there a compromise for that?
Americans are waiting, suffering and waiting long, too long, for members of our national leadership to do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do. It is morally reprehensible and hypocritical for our leaders to tie themselves to fundamental Christian values for political purposes while engaging in self-serving and morally reprehensible acts or allowing them to be done in America’s name.
Common Article III, as a law against torture, already exists and has stood, uncompromised, since 1949 as a stone in the foundation of America’s moral face to the world. It is a stone that should not be rolled away or have its integrity compromised, even if that means leaving government wrong-doers exposed. Compromising the Geneva Convention depletes us as a nation. It suggests to the world that we, as a people, are morally feeble and accept and expect rogue-state behavior from our leaders.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
George W. Bush - The Thorn in the Nation's Rose Garden
President Bush, whom I believe bears all the traits of a total madman, threw a monumental temper tantrum yesterday in the White House Rose Garden, in front of the press and in front of America. His histrionics, unbearable to watch, demonstrated the same foot-stomping, hair-pulling sense of disbelief at being challenged that one might witness in the behavior of Saddam Hussein at his trial. And for the same reason. Each man has a tit, as grandma used to say, caught up tightly in a ringer.
As was the man he loves to hate, George W. Bush fears being accused of war crimes by virture, or the lack thereof, of his ordering or allowing the torture of enemy combatants, which is against Article III of the Geneva Convention. And some of those torturees, who have now been transferred from camps in Europe to Gitmo, are about to be interviewed by the Red Cross. Uh oh.
So, with a predictability we have come to expect from this administration when they haven't played by the rules, which is always, Bush now wants Congress to turn back the clock and make what he did yesterday legal today, which is the hallmark, if you will, of this administration's style of governance. Except that the word "hallmark" is often associated with something positive and this is nothing to be proud of. I call it the Wimpy strategy of governance, named after the character Wimpy on the Popeye cartoons. "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." Let me have what I want today, and I'll twist someone's arm to compensate for it later.
In six long, seemingly endless years, George Bush has broken every principle on which America was founded, short of being caught in a ski mask with his hand in a teller drawer at Bank One. Given his bratty tirade yesterday, I'm expecting that to be next. His tantrum has presented Americans with the most important choice they have had to make since deciding to break away from England. And breaking the will of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove may prove to be as lengthy and as difficult.
The matter of Article III could be settled rather quickly and to the better nature of mankind, but it would require America's possessing a Congress that contained men and women as thoughtful and honorable as those of the Continental Congress. Thus far, the current American Congress, with the notable exception of a few--too few, has proven to have all the honor of Benedict Arnold and all the teeth of the president's lap dogs Barney and Beatrice.
Amidst the throes of Bush's Rose Garden tirade, David Gregory was effectively shushed when trying to get a straight answer to the $64,000 question in which he drew a parallel between America's torture of others and others' inevitable turn to torture us back. In essence Gregory was asking: If America allows its government to rewrite the Geneva Convention just to save the president's proverbial ass, how long, then, until another country does the same and redefines what they're allowed to do to us? I say, if military recruitment has been flailing of late, ditching Article III ought to finish it off.
http://www.aclu.org/natsec/gen/26714leg20060911.html
Gregory never got his straight answer. Instead, short of writhing on the ground, Bush snarlingly threatened the press, the Congress, and the American people by stating that if Article III was not amended to his liking, the whole program would stop. What program? What do we Americans call this program we're paying for? This administration has not been forthcoming about anything they do in the name of decent taxpaying Americans. Ever. So I say, go ahead. Stop the damned program. Maybe that will give us some breathing room to find out just what, roughly, this "program" has consisted of. Shouldn't we at least know since we will share the blame when our peerless leader gets caught at that teller drawer?
Awhile ago, when Americans failed to leave the mall and take to the streets to challenge the extended Patriot Act, we had already given our government the power to label any American an enemy combatant if it doesn't like what it hears or what it sees out of us. So this is maybe another good reason we should know more details of this damnable program--before one day they decide to use it on American citizens. Oh! Forgive my fuzzy memory. They already have.
Just where, exactly, is the line in the sand that Americans will not cross to be kept safe? Or is there one? I certainly hope, beyond all hope, that the line is here and the line is now. Torture by Americans is unacceptable. Torture of Americans is unacceptable. Rewriting the Geneva Convention to assuage the despot-in-chief's fears of legal repercussions against him and his minions is unacceptable. Congressional failure to stop this president from overturning the oaken table upon which rests the humanitarian foundations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is utterly unacceptable and opens the door even wider for the ultimate demise of a democratic America.
Just in case you've forgotten: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So when the torturers come for you or me, or for your loved one or mine, as they eventually will, we won't find ourselves sitting in a rose garden on a sunny day. And there will be no press to hear our tantrum of protest and no Bill of Rights, Constitution, or Geneva Convention on which to base it.
Today. Right now. It's time for Americans to decide what they believe is humane and moral. It's time for both red and blue Americans to decide if the laws of humanity have meaning in their lives. And if they do, then it's time for Americans to let the lawmakers, whose salaries come from their pockets, to know it, too.
As with the Patriot Act, you can skip all the worry about Geneva Article III. But you fail to act at your own future peril.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
As was the man he loves to hate, George W. Bush fears being accused of war crimes by virture, or the lack thereof, of his ordering or allowing the torture of enemy combatants, which is against Article III of the Geneva Convention. And some of those torturees, who have now been transferred from camps in Europe to Gitmo, are about to be interviewed by the Red Cross. Uh oh.
So, with a predictability we have come to expect from this administration when they haven't played by the rules, which is always, Bush now wants Congress to turn back the clock and make what he did yesterday legal today, which is the hallmark, if you will, of this administration's style of governance. Except that the word "hallmark" is often associated with something positive and this is nothing to be proud of. I call it the Wimpy strategy of governance, named after the character Wimpy on the Popeye cartoons. "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." Let me have what I want today, and I'll twist someone's arm to compensate for it later.
In six long, seemingly endless years, George Bush has broken every principle on which America was founded, short of being caught in a ski mask with his hand in a teller drawer at Bank One. Given his bratty tirade yesterday, I'm expecting that to be next. His tantrum has presented Americans with the most important choice they have had to make since deciding to break away from England. And breaking the will of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove may prove to be as lengthy and as difficult.
The matter of Article III could be settled rather quickly and to the better nature of mankind, but it would require America's possessing a Congress that contained men and women as thoughtful and honorable as those of the Continental Congress. Thus far, the current American Congress, with the notable exception of a few--too few, has proven to have all the honor of Benedict Arnold and all the teeth of the president's lap dogs Barney and Beatrice.
Amidst the throes of Bush's Rose Garden tirade, David Gregory was effectively shushed when trying to get a straight answer to the $64,000 question in which he drew a parallel between America's torture of others and others' inevitable turn to torture us back. In essence Gregory was asking: If America allows its government to rewrite the Geneva Convention just to save the president's proverbial ass, how long, then, until another country does the same and redefines what they're allowed to do to us? I say, if military recruitment has been flailing of late, ditching Article III ought to finish it off.
http://www.aclu.org/natsec/gen/26714leg20060911.html
Gregory never got his straight answer. Instead, short of writhing on the ground, Bush snarlingly threatened the press, the Congress, and the American people by stating that if Article III was not amended to his liking, the whole program would stop. What program? What do we Americans call this program we're paying for? This administration has not been forthcoming about anything they do in the name of decent taxpaying Americans. Ever. So I say, go ahead. Stop the damned program. Maybe that will give us some breathing room to find out just what, roughly, this "program" has consisted of. Shouldn't we at least know since we will share the blame when our peerless leader gets caught at that teller drawer?
Awhile ago, when Americans failed to leave the mall and take to the streets to challenge the extended Patriot Act, we had already given our government the power to label any American an enemy combatant if it doesn't like what it hears or what it sees out of us. So this is maybe another good reason we should know more details of this damnable program--before one day they decide to use it on American citizens. Oh! Forgive my fuzzy memory. They already have.
Just where, exactly, is the line in the sand that Americans will not cross to be kept safe? Or is there one? I certainly hope, beyond all hope, that the line is here and the line is now. Torture by Americans is unacceptable. Torture of Americans is unacceptable. Rewriting the Geneva Convention to assuage the despot-in-chief's fears of legal repercussions against him and his minions is unacceptable. Congressional failure to stop this president from overturning the oaken table upon which rests the humanitarian foundations of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is utterly unacceptable and opens the door even wider for the ultimate demise of a democratic America.
Just in case you've forgotten: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So when the torturers come for you or me, or for your loved one or mine, as they eventually will, we won't find ourselves sitting in a rose garden on a sunny day. And there will be no press to hear our tantrum of protest and no Bill of Rights, Constitution, or Geneva Convention on which to base it.
Today. Right now. It's time for Americans to decide what they believe is humane and moral. It's time for both red and blue Americans to decide if the laws of humanity have meaning in their lives. And if they do, then it's time for Americans to let the lawmakers, whose salaries come from their pockets, to know it, too.
As with the Patriot Act, you can skip all the worry about Geneva Article III. But you fail to act at your own future peril.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Of Planned Invasions and Stolen Elections
Twice within 48 hours, and from two separate soldiers stationed at bases on opposite sides of the country, I have heard the news that we are likely to invade Iran--in the very, very near future. Like, this Fall. Like, after the election, of course. (No sense in needlessly riling up the masses in November.)
Do these soldiers know what they are talking about? I can't guarantee it, but I do know enough about how slowly the military moves and how much advance prep they require for action to think that perhaps these guys may have a clue the rest of us don't.
Soldier One, a close family friend, relays to his mother that he will be begin a new deployment in early October. His mother asks, "Back to Iraq?" Soldier One responds, "No. They are talking about another country."
Soldier Two, spent the night in my home, a childhood friend of my son's. He tells me in the course of a conversation on how he's doing these days that he will be deployed again soon." I ask, "Back to Iraq?" Soldier Two responds, "No, probably Iran." He's special forces. Do you think he knows what he's talking about?
I can't guarantee that either is privvy to the last word in America's military strategy. But, based on Donald Rumsfeld's recent speech to the American Legion, I'd say Donald might be a little fuzzy on the details himself. It isn't what Rumsfeld says that matters anyway. It's all about what he and his cohorts do based on what they believe. It's also about what they're thinking of doing, and you don't honestly believe they're going to let the public in on that until they find a way to sell it or scare us into it, do you?
Bush and Co. dazzle us with terminology like Islamofascism, which according to Middle-East experts is a non-word and not remotely synonomous with the word terrorism. What are we being set up for this time? The idea, the likelihood of movement against Iran very soon is definitely on the lips of those who will be most affected. Why? Two soldiers who don't know one another and stationed on opposite sides of the country. Iran? They've gotten that idea from somebody in command.
So, assuming these soldiers are in the know, what does this say about the upcoming election? To me it smacks of cocksuredness on the part of the current Commander in Chief that today's status quo in Congress will still be the status quo in January. It would indicate that he see the November election as not even a speedbump in the road to achieving his goals. But are his goals Americans' goals?
April 6 of this year was the last time the U.S. House of Representatives took any action in committee on H.R. 550--a measure which, if made into law, would require a paper trail for electronic voting machines thus making all votes independently verifiable. I know this because I checked on our Reps progress on this matter. So, until pressured by citizens to enact some safeguards, once again the upcoming electronic election will be brought to you by that bastion of corporate Republicanism, the Diebold Corporation. I'm not feeling very comfortable about the health of our democracy right now. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/40755/
To date, it has been very well documented what the Bush neo-conservatives who control the Republican party believe, and if you are fool enough to think it's Christian, think again. They have demonstrated their beliefs by their actions or non-actions over and over. Remember Katrina?
Now their message to the world from America, from you and me, is Our neo-conservatist fascists can kick the asses of your brand of fascists. Well, that strategy has not worked out so well in Iraq, has it? So don't expect to hear me defend the war. It's not the war on terror. It's just a war, begun by a class of people who had something to gain and access to plenty of cannon fodder. Some of that fodder I happen to personally know and love. Now it appears they arrogantly may be thinking of starting another war because, if the 2004 election is any indication, they clearly don't fear any stupid citizens getting in their way. http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm
So, what do you believe, reader? I believe first and foremost in the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. I believe citizens have a non-negotiable responsibility to find out what their candidates and leaders believe in before choosing to support them. I believe that "one citizen equals one" vote should be set like stone in the mortar of our forefathers' sacrifices and never subject to the interpretation of an individual, a government, or a political party.
When our votes stop counting, then this country stops being Ameria. I think it is way, way past time for all Americans who love this nation to come together as patriots on this one issue and demand of our representatives that they take immediate action on H.R. 550. Time is running out, and I don't think we'll find any democracy for ourselves on the road to Iran.
Do these soldiers know what they are talking about? I can't guarantee it, but I do know enough about how slowly the military moves and how much advance prep they require for action to think that perhaps these guys may have a clue the rest of us don't.
Soldier One, a close family friend, relays to his mother that he will be begin a new deployment in early October. His mother asks, "Back to Iraq?" Soldier One responds, "No. They are talking about another country."
Soldier Two, spent the night in my home, a childhood friend of my son's. He tells me in the course of a conversation on how he's doing these days that he will be deployed again soon." I ask, "Back to Iraq?" Soldier Two responds, "No, probably Iran." He's special forces. Do you think he knows what he's talking about?
I can't guarantee that either is privvy to the last word in America's military strategy. But, based on Donald Rumsfeld's recent speech to the American Legion, I'd say Donald might be a little fuzzy on the details himself. It isn't what Rumsfeld says that matters anyway. It's all about what he and his cohorts do based on what they believe. It's also about what they're thinking of doing, and you don't honestly believe they're going to let the public in on that until they find a way to sell it or scare us into it, do you?
Bush and Co. dazzle us with terminology like Islamofascism, which according to Middle-East experts is a non-word and not remotely synonomous with the word terrorism. What are we being set up for this time? The idea, the likelihood of movement against Iran very soon is definitely on the lips of those who will be most affected. Why? Two soldiers who don't know one another and stationed on opposite sides of the country. Iran? They've gotten that idea from somebody in command.
So, assuming these soldiers are in the know, what does this say about the upcoming election? To me it smacks of cocksuredness on the part of the current Commander in Chief that today's status quo in Congress will still be the status quo in January. It would indicate that he see the November election as not even a speedbump in the road to achieving his goals. But are his goals Americans' goals?
April 6 of this year was the last time the U.S. House of Representatives took any action in committee on H.R. 550--a measure which, if made into law, would require a paper trail for electronic voting machines thus making all votes independently verifiable. I know this because I checked on our Reps progress on this matter. So, until pressured by citizens to enact some safeguards, once again the upcoming electronic election will be brought to you by that bastion of corporate Republicanism, the Diebold Corporation. I'm not feeling very comfortable about the health of our democracy right now. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/40755/
To date, it has been very well documented what the Bush neo-conservatives who control the Republican party believe, and if you are fool enough to think it's Christian, think again. They have demonstrated their beliefs by their actions or non-actions over and over. Remember Katrina?
Now their message to the world from America, from you and me, is Our neo-conservatist fascists can kick the asses of your brand of fascists. Well, that strategy has not worked out so well in Iraq, has it? So don't expect to hear me defend the war. It's not the war on terror. It's just a war, begun by a class of people who had something to gain and access to plenty of cannon fodder. Some of that fodder I happen to personally know and love. Now it appears they arrogantly may be thinking of starting another war because, if the 2004 election is any indication, they clearly don't fear any stupid citizens getting in their way. http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm
So, what do you believe, reader? I believe first and foremost in the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. I believe citizens have a non-negotiable responsibility to find out what their candidates and leaders believe in before choosing to support them. I believe that "one citizen equals one" vote should be set like stone in the mortar of our forefathers' sacrifices and never subject to the interpretation of an individual, a government, or a political party.
When our votes stop counting, then this country stops being Ameria. I think it is way, way past time for all Americans who love this nation to come together as patriots on this one issue and demand of our representatives that they take immediate action on H.R. 550. Time is running out, and I don't think we'll find any democracy for ourselves on the road to Iran.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Mom, What's A Neo-Con?
On a warm spring day when I was in the fifth grade, my mother took my friend Karen, my little brother, and me to a local park to play on the swings. It's a day I have never forgotten in almost 40 years because that was the day I showed my mother my middle finger and ask her what it meant.
Everyone on the playground at school had been flashing middle fingers for quite some time and Karen and I, who also attended Sunday school together, were clueless. We had discussed this frequently, decided it couldn't be too bad if other kids were doing it right out in the open on the playground, and we agreed this was as good an opportunity as any to ask someone who could fill us in.
This was the 60's in middle America, and I'll never forget my mother's reaction when I held up that middle finger and said, "Mom, what does this mean?" My mother dove for my hand, and it's lucky I still have that finger. "Don't ever, ever do that again!!!" she said. Her eyes were black, and when she let go, I backed up so fast I almost fell.
Now, if curiosity killed the cat, it also about got me killed that day because I couldn't let it go. I couldn't leave the park without finding out what I was missing, so I let the dust settle a moment and then blundered forward again, "Some of the kids say it means something called 'fuck'." Uh, oh. Black eyes again! "[Insert my full name here]!!!
You knew when your mom used your full name, the shit was about to get deep. "Well, if it does (she knew it did), don't you ever, ever use that word!!" Okay, I either wasn't the brightest bulb or I was the most stubborn. "But why? What does it mean?" She never did explain except to say, "Something very, very bad!"
Skip ahead to 2006. I've been a grown-up for what seems like forever. I've used the F*** word more than I care to admit. Now I know what it means and I have the children to prove it. But even adults can run across words and phrases with which they have been previously unfamiliar. Neo-conservative is just one such word.
I didn't know what it meant when I took about two looks and listens at George W. Bush prior to the 2000 election and I fled the Republican party on instinct alone. I didn't know what it meant as I followed the brouhaha over the results of that election. I still didn't know what the word meant as I watched planes slam into buildings or as I questioned what invading the country of Iraq had to do with any of it.
I didn't know what it meant as I watched a rerun of the 2000 election in 2004. I didn't know what it meant as I began to pay closer and closer attention to the homeland politics and foreign policy of the Bush administration, none of which made any sense or seemed in any way based on the values upon which Americans had built a solid and independent nation.
So I started to ask questions. I asked my mom, but for once she didn't know either. So, I started to dig around a little to see if I could determine the meaning of the word neo-conservative. I have liked what I've found about as much as mom liked my middle finger.
Here is the web address for a three-part BBC series I watched that documents the roots of the neo-conservative movement (and interestingly, also the modern fundamentalist Islam movement), and that documents how neo-conservatives have been lurking around the White House for quite a few years. You, no doubt, will recognize some names.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
A new world order, you say? Here are some prominent participants in helping to bring it all about. You may recognize some more names.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservatives/list
Just how far are the neo-cons willing to go to bring about this "new world order"? Well now, that's debatable dependent upon how willing you are to listen open-mindedly to conspiracy theories and decide what you believe is true and what is not. But, you have to admit, these have never been your father's Republicans. So, here's a few sites to get you started:
http://www.911revisited.com/video.html
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?rurl=wc3cl.hs.gamigo.de&oid=e0ab8319e2989360&
http://www.infowars.com/sept11_archive.htm
I don't intend for this blog entry to be a clearinghouse for all websites related to neo-conservatism conspiracies. If you're reading this, you have a computer. So, send me some sites. But one final thing I found, and I sacrificed the six hours it took me to read it, may have helped me answer the burning question I could not escape. Why? What is the point to all this? Is there a point? One document always leads to another and one night I surfed right into this rocky shore:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm#PREFACE
Forty years ago, when life was simple and life was sweet, I never could have imagined I would grow up to witness the things I am witnessing in America today. Any search of the daily news leads me to believe that there is definitely a destructive agenda unfolding here and, apparently, at whatever cost to lives and nations is required to achieve it. Anything eminating from the Bush White House always dovetails so nicely into just about any conspiracy theory that is floating out there in cyberspace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ensmPJm5B5A
I have come to believe that America is not the victim of an incompetent "frat" boy who grew up to erringly become president. Rather I have come to believe that America is slowly being strangled to death by a group of elitist social philosophers whose social beliefs attract the greedy, the paranoid, the militant--and who believe they have a way to control all of society, indeed the world, and any end justifies the means.
I started this piece talking about my mother and giving an example of the affect she had on my learning to discern right from wrong. God love her. She's in her 80's now and still reads avidly and keeps up on politics and policy. We discuss the news and history and the conspiracy theories. And, unlike her unwillingness years ago to explain the meaning of the F*** word to a child, as an adult I have shared with her the definition of neo-con. Her response was both interesting and surprising.
She said neo-cons are something very, very bad, and unless Americans stop separating the forest from the trees, we may be fucked.
Everyone on the playground at school had been flashing middle fingers for quite some time and Karen and I, who also attended Sunday school together, were clueless. We had discussed this frequently, decided it couldn't be too bad if other kids were doing it right out in the open on the playground, and we agreed this was as good an opportunity as any to ask someone who could fill us in.
This was the 60's in middle America, and I'll never forget my mother's reaction when I held up that middle finger and said, "Mom, what does this mean?" My mother dove for my hand, and it's lucky I still have that finger. "Don't ever, ever do that again!!!" she said. Her eyes were black, and when she let go, I backed up so fast I almost fell.
Now, if curiosity killed the cat, it also about got me killed that day because I couldn't let it go. I couldn't leave the park without finding out what I was missing, so I let the dust settle a moment and then blundered forward again, "Some of the kids say it means something called 'fuck'." Uh, oh. Black eyes again! "[Insert my full name here]!!!
You knew when your mom used your full name, the shit was about to get deep. "Well, if it does (she knew it did), don't you ever, ever use that word!!" Okay, I either wasn't the brightest bulb or I was the most stubborn. "But why? What does it mean?" She never did explain except to say, "Something very, very bad!"
Skip ahead to 2006. I've been a grown-up for what seems like forever. I've used the F*** word more than I care to admit. Now I know what it means and I have the children to prove it. But even adults can run across words and phrases with which they have been previously unfamiliar. Neo-conservative is just one such word.
I didn't know what it meant when I took about two looks and listens at George W. Bush prior to the 2000 election and I fled the Republican party on instinct alone. I didn't know what it meant as I followed the brouhaha over the results of that election. I still didn't know what the word meant as I watched planes slam into buildings or as I questioned what invading the country of Iraq had to do with any of it.
I didn't know what it meant as I watched a rerun of the 2000 election in 2004. I didn't know what it meant as I began to pay closer and closer attention to the homeland politics and foreign policy of the Bush administration, none of which made any sense or seemed in any way based on the values upon which Americans had built a solid and independent nation.
So I started to ask questions. I asked my mom, but for once she didn't know either. So, I started to dig around a little to see if I could determine the meaning of the word neo-conservative. I have liked what I've found about as much as mom liked my middle finger.
Here is the web address for a three-part BBC series I watched that documents the roots of the neo-conservative movement (and interestingly, also the modern fundamentalist Islam movement), and that documents how neo-conservatives have been lurking around the White House for quite a few years. You, no doubt, will recognize some names.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm
A new world order, you say? Here are some prominent participants in helping to bring it all about. You may recognize some more names.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservatives/list
Just how far are the neo-cons willing to go to bring about this "new world order"? Well now, that's debatable dependent upon how willing you are to listen open-mindedly to conspiracy theories and decide what you believe is true and what is not. But, you have to admit, these have never been your father's Republicans. So, here's a few sites to get you started:
http://www.911revisited.com/video.html
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?rurl=wc3cl.hs.gamigo.de&oid=e0ab8319e2989360&
http://www.infowars.com/sept11_archive.htm
I don't intend for this blog entry to be a clearinghouse for all websites related to neo-conservatism conspiracies. If you're reading this, you have a computer. So, send me some sites. But one final thing I found, and I sacrificed the six hours it took me to read it, may have helped me answer the burning question I could not escape. Why? What is the point to all this? Is there a point? One document always leads to another and one night I surfed right into this rocky shore:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm#PREFACE
Forty years ago, when life was simple and life was sweet, I never could have imagined I would grow up to witness the things I am witnessing in America today. Any search of the daily news leads me to believe that there is definitely a destructive agenda unfolding here and, apparently, at whatever cost to lives and nations is required to achieve it. Anything eminating from the Bush White House always dovetails so nicely into just about any conspiracy theory that is floating out there in cyberspace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ensmPJm5B5A
I have come to believe that America is not the victim of an incompetent "frat" boy who grew up to erringly become president. Rather I have come to believe that America is slowly being strangled to death by a group of elitist social philosophers whose social beliefs attract the greedy, the paranoid, the militant--and who believe they have a way to control all of society, indeed the world, and any end justifies the means.
I started this piece talking about my mother and giving an example of the affect she had on my learning to discern right from wrong. God love her. She's in her 80's now and still reads avidly and keeps up on politics and policy. We discuss the news and history and the conspiracy theories. And, unlike her unwillingness years ago to explain the meaning of the F*** word to a child, as an adult I have shared with her the definition of neo-con. Her response was both interesting and surprising.
She said neo-cons are something very, very bad, and unless Americans stop separating the forest from the trees, we may be fucked.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Public Education is Being Murdered
This is cross-posted as a diary on http://www.mydd.com
I have been laid off for two years as a public school teacher. NCLB has hit public school districts very hard financially. The poorer the district, the harder they've been hit. Hence they've had to toss teachers and programs until they are down to the "core" subjects.
Districts with a higher percentage of minority and/or poverty students were struggling to begin with in trying to overcome the environmental challenges to learning their students showed up to school with daily. That programs like business ed, art, music, and technical education should have to be tossed is not only leaving behind the students in white suburban schools, but again hitting the poorer districts the hardest. NCLB has resulted in a back-door form of socio-economic discrimination.
The NCLB mandate was unfunded and, I believe, that was no accident. In Ohio, a leading contributor to our political candidates also just happens to own a large number of charter schools.
The Bush administration does not believe in the value of public education or perhaps in any education for the public at all. It makes folks so much easier to lead off a cliff if they are ignorant. So, for now, a rich white man will make some money off his charter schools until their negative reputations finally reach the masses, which is finally beginning to happen.
It would behoove the NEA and the AFT to call for a nation-wide teachers' strike in September. I'll bet nothing would get NCLB repealed faster than a lot of parents who don't know what to do with their children seven days a week taking it out on their state and Congressional representatives.
There is not that wide a slice out of the whole societal pie who feel the calling to spend 185 days a year with 30 of their neighbors' children, and to do it for 30 years. I think it would work!
I have been laid off for two years as a public school teacher. NCLB has hit public school districts very hard financially. The poorer the district, the harder they've been hit. Hence they've had to toss teachers and programs until they are down to the "core" subjects.
Districts with a higher percentage of minority and/or poverty students were struggling to begin with in trying to overcome the environmental challenges to learning their students showed up to school with daily. That programs like business ed, art, music, and technical education should have to be tossed is not only leaving behind the students in white suburban schools, but again hitting the poorer districts the hardest. NCLB has resulted in a back-door form of socio-economic discrimination.
The NCLB mandate was unfunded and, I believe, that was no accident. In Ohio, a leading contributor to our political candidates also just happens to own a large number of charter schools.
The Bush administration does not believe in the value of public education or perhaps in any education for the public at all. It makes folks so much easier to lead off a cliff if they are ignorant. So, for now, a rich white man will make some money off his charter schools until their negative reputations finally reach the masses, which is finally beginning to happen.
It would behoove the NEA and the AFT to call for a nation-wide teachers' strike in September. I'll bet nothing would get NCLB repealed faster than a lot of parents who don't know what to do with their children seven days a week taking it out on their state and Congressional representatives.
There is not that wide a slice out of the whole societal pie who feel the calling to spend 185 days a year with 30 of their neighbors' children, and to do it for 30 years. I think it would work!
Thursday, July 27, 2006
America's Leaders Care Little for Whom the Bell Tolls
In 1775, the church bells rang from the steeple at the Old North Church in Boston to let residents know that British regulars were on the way. The bells rang again in 1776 in celebration of the Declaration of Independence.
In 1811 the New Madrid Fault zone in the middle of the country shook the ground so far eastward that it caused the bells in Boston to ring on their own. And when our founding fathers start rolling in their graves in utter despair at the mess that’s being made of their creation, no doubt, the ground will shake and the bells will ring on their own once again.
The founding fathers, in birthing this nation, wrestled with conscience and argued among themselves to hammer out agreements of civilized governing principle. They wrote and rewrote their fingers to the bone to get those agreements down on paper. They risked being hanged for treason for their efforts. And with little money they found a way to stand as one and fight to win a war against the strongest army and biggest navy on earth. They did this not only to extricate themselves from a monarchy but to go above and beyond that Herculean effort to create a government unlike anything the world had known before. They chose to live free or die trying. They sacrificed. Americans sacrificed.
Americans have never stopped wrestling with conscience, and they have never stopped sacrificing. Americans have been asked to sacrifice personal property, jobs, health, their very lives and the lives of their beloved through the years to keep America free and strong. American history bears witness to Americans always stepping up to the plate when need be to preserve the union and the principles on which it was founded.
America doesn't always get it right, but it has always lived free or died trying. America's leaders don't always get it right either, but because America's governmental doctrines were alive among its people through the shared memory of sacrifice, if the leaders got it wrong or their reach exceeded their grasp, course corrections were usually made. At least they were possible.
Today, it is unconscionable that in 5 1/2 short years, roughly one-half the time it took to officially birth this nation, 230 years of sacrifice is headed down the drain. It is unconscionable that we should find ourselves about to hold unverifiable electronic elections in November. It is unconscionable that representatives chosen to serve in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives find so little to respect in America or her people that they would hijack entire districts through systematic gerrymandering to ensure their job security while denying it to their constituents.
It is unconscionable that we find ourselves squeezed so tightly in the grasp of consumerism and credit lending that we have created huge money and then given it a stranglehold on our representation and our ideals, our past sacrifices devoured by big eaters swallowing them in big bites. It is unconscionable that public lands and ports and debt are all for sale to the highest global bidder.
It unconscionable that greed is the watchword of the new millennium and the greed masters have bestowed favors on their own kind while slapping each others' backs, entertained, as the lions corner the common man. It is unconscionable that our leaders pick and choose which laws to enforce and then look the other way while corporations again become major trusts and jobs scramble over the border as illegal immigrants scramble in.
It is unconscionable that we would by proxy give our president and our vice-president carte blanche to make us one of the most despised nations in the world when Americans have fought and died for over 200 years to create peace and seek friendship among nations. And it is unconscionable that these same two leaders would sell our collective souls to the devil of tyranny in the name of Jesus in order to monitor everything we say and do and call it Homeland Security.
It is unconscionable that America is now poised to become a mere footnote in history--an experiment that didn't work, a commodity that was bartered, sold, frittered away in fear. Our forefathers risked everything to conceive a nation born of liberty and the inalienable rights of its citizens. It is inconceivable that now we would kick it all to the curb like a rump-sprung sofa.
If our forefathers do stir from their eternal slumber and cause the East Coast to rumble and church bells to ring in Boston, this time it won't be the work of the New Madrid Fault. It will be our own fault.
In 1811 the New Madrid Fault zone in the middle of the country shook the ground so far eastward that it caused the bells in Boston to ring on their own. And when our founding fathers start rolling in their graves in utter despair at the mess that’s being made of their creation, no doubt, the ground will shake and the bells will ring on their own once again.
The founding fathers, in birthing this nation, wrestled with conscience and argued among themselves to hammer out agreements of civilized governing principle. They wrote and rewrote their fingers to the bone to get those agreements down on paper. They risked being hanged for treason for their efforts. And with little money they found a way to stand as one and fight to win a war against the strongest army and biggest navy on earth. They did this not only to extricate themselves from a monarchy but to go above and beyond that Herculean effort to create a government unlike anything the world had known before. They chose to live free or die trying. They sacrificed. Americans sacrificed.
Americans have never stopped wrestling with conscience, and they have never stopped sacrificing. Americans have been asked to sacrifice personal property, jobs, health, their very lives and the lives of their beloved through the years to keep America free and strong. American history bears witness to Americans always stepping up to the plate when need be to preserve the union and the principles on which it was founded.
America doesn't always get it right, but it has always lived free or died trying. America's leaders don't always get it right either, but because America's governmental doctrines were alive among its people through the shared memory of sacrifice, if the leaders got it wrong or their reach exceeded their grasp, course corrections were usually made. At least they were possible.
Today, it is unconscionable that in 5 1/2 short years, roughly one-half the time it took to officially birth this nation, 230 years of sacrifice is headed down the drain. It is unconscionable that we should find ourselves about to hold unverifiable electronic elections in November. It is unconscionable that representatives chosen to serve in the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives find so little to respect in America or her people that they would hijack entire districts through systematic gerrymandering to ensure their job security while denying it to their constituents.
It is unconscionable that we find ourselves squeezed so tightly in the grasp of consumerism and credit lending that we have created huge money and then given it a stranglehold on our representation and our ideals, our past sacrifices devoured by big eaters swallowing them in big bites. It is unconscionable that public lands and ports and debt are all for sale to the highest global bidder.
It unconscionable that greed is the watchword of the new millennium and the greed masters have bestowed favors on their own kind while slapping each others' backs, entertained, as the lions corner the common man. It is unconscionable that our leaders pick and choose which laws to enforce and then look the other way while corporations again become major trusts and jobs scramble over the border as illegal immigrants scramble in.
It is unconscionable that we would by proxy give our president and our vice-president carte blanche to make us one of the most despised nations in the world when Americans have fought and died for over 200 years to create peace and seek friendship among nations. And it is unconscionable that these same two leaders would sell our collective souls to the devil of tyranny in the name of Jesus in order to monitor everything we say and do and call it Homeland Security.
It is unconscionable that America is now poised to become a mere footnote in history--an experiment that didn't work, a commodity that was bartered, sold, frittered away in fear. Our forefathers risked everything to conceive a nation born of liberty and the inalienable rights of its citizens. It is inconceivable that now we would kick it all to the curb like a rump-sprung sofa.
If our forefathers do stir from their eternal slumber and cause the East Coast to rumble and church bells to ring in Boston, this time it won't be the work of the New Madrid Fault. It will be our own fault.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Electronic Voting Must Be More than Smoke and Mirrors
In a democracy, voting is a sacred right and responsibility of its citizens. Making sure votes are tallied accurately and honestly is a sacred trust charged to the government. Requiring citizens to cast ballots electronically without the accountability of a paper trail is a breach of that trust. It is not a democratic election if the results cannot be independently and tangibly verified.
Paperless electronic voting, as it currently exists, is vulnerable to fraud. This is as unacceptable to democratic citizens as the idea of no receipts at the ATM is to bank customers. Right now is the time for our representatives to involve themselves in fixing this new system by insuring that it becomes one of tamperproof integrity.
If our representatives wish us to believe that they, too, hold sacred a fair and honest democratic voting process, they need to co-sponsor H.R. 550--the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act. Contact your representative's office and urge him or her to do so
http://www.house.gov/
Paperless electronic voting, as it currently exists, is vulnerable to fraud. This is as unacceptable to democratic citizens as the idea of no receipts at the ATM is to bank customers. Right now is the time for our representatives to involve themselves in fixing this new system by insuring that it becomes one of tamperproof integrity.
If our representatives wish us to believe that they, too, hold sacred a fair and honest democratic voting process, they need to co-sponsor H.R. 550--the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act. Contact your representative's office and urge him or her to do so
http://www.house.gov/
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Are These Truths Still Self-Evident?
When in the Course of human events . . .The founders of this nation valued the concepts of freedom, equality, and representative government so much that they gave of their pens and their lives to give these concepts a permanent home in the hearts and minds of the people of the original thirteen colonies.
Did they conceptualize in 1776 that the united States of America would become 50 states, eventually cover a vast amount of North America, and its citizenry be comprised of a complexity of religions, creeds, and races? It could be that they did. Or that they hoped, because they certainly authored some Divinely-inspired documents which, if followed, leave no doubt as to their intentions for the 
nation's future.
all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accumstomed. . .
While the founding fathers could not have conceived of penicillin, moon landings, or weblogs, they did not have to because they could conceive of the nature of man and his tendency to become complacent during good times and accepting during bad. They also understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and in anticipation of the pains required to throw off the mantle of British tyranny, they crafted the Constitution. Three branches of government checking on and balancing out one another. No power grabs allowed.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . .This 4th of July, 2006, is the 230th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. This year while we boat and camp and picnic with friends and family, we should be stopping to wonder if the democratic truths we once held dear are still self-evident. Or have we grown accepting of imitation democracy? What or who are our constitutionally- provided representatives representing? Where is the tipping point that denotes the end of democracy and the beginning of something that loops us back to 1776?
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Americans might not agree on the fine points, but when we decline to agree on the major ones, it is doubtful we will long continue to be the united States of America. Newly realized truths will become self-evident, and we will wish we had stuck to the plan.
Have a Safe Holiday!
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Enough Offense to Go Around
Recently the New York Times released a story in which they disclosed a bank records surveillance program the government was using to track the movement of funds going to terrorist groups. Immediately following, Vice President Dick Cheney stood before a Republican fund-raising luncheon in Chicago and stated he was offended by the actions of the NY Times.
I watched the clip of Cheney delivering these statements, and I'm positive my level of offense was higher on the meter than his. To begin with, unless you were hiding in a hole after 9/11 and not watching any news at all, you would know that pundits were freely discussing the ability of the United States to follow the money--of anyone, not only jihadists. Secondly, even drug dealers with only eighth grade educations know that the government can follow the money. That is why they generally don't sashay into the bank with a deposit slip and a fistful of it. Do not have your best garage sale ever and then walk into the bank to deposit $10,000 or more. You'll trip every trigger in the system. It's always been that way. So Mr. Cheney can stop pouting. I think that cat was already out of the bag.
Mr. Cheney also stood before his fellow diners and informed them that the release by the NY Times of this information would make it more difficult to "prevent future attacks against the American people." Maybe the NY Times is not the problem here. When this administration took office in 2001, White House insiders like Richard Clarke tried like hell to make Bush et. al. aware that an attack was imminent. Poor Mr. Clarke even cancelled the vacations of his staff to work the situation. He was eventually told to shut up and go away. I once heard poor Richard state that Mr. Bush told him he did not want to hear one more word about it. Apparently, Mr. Clarke and others complied and the Able Danger case was born.
I have taught enough public school to know all the blame games. There are many variations. As I watched Mr. Cheney make his statements on the news, I had his version pegged immediately. I'm sure it would never occur to him that the news media is watching him because of the way he is watching them, and us. Other than those who attend Republican fund-raising luncheons, where Cheney took occasion to raise this issue as his fellow Republicans sipped their Kool Aid and looked on, no one trusts the two cowboys who hold the highest office in the land. It's like Brokeback Mountain without the sex.
Sorry, Mr. Cheney. You can't start a war based on skewed intelligence where thousands of your countrymen's children will be killed or maimed, you can't give your old employer billions in no-bid contracts while your countrymen have watched their jobs disappear and their worlds collapse, you can't consistently let your reach exceed your lawful grasp and expect anyone except your fellow neo-conservatives to care if you're offended. Talk to the hand.
There's more than enough offense to go around.
I watched the clip of Cheney delivering these statements, and I'm positive my level of offense was higher on the meter than his. To begin with, unless you were hiding in a hole after 9/11 and not watching any news at all, you would know that pundits were freely discussing the ability of the United States to follow the money--of anyone, not only jihadists. Secondly, even drug dealers with only eighth grade educations know that the government can follow the money. That is why they generally don't sashay into the bank with a deposit slip and a fistful of it. Do not have your best garage sale ever and then walk into the bank to deposit $10,000 or more. You'll trip every trigger in the system. It's always been that way. So Mr. Cheney can stop pouting. I think that cat was already out of the bag.
Mr. Cheney also stood before his fellow diners and informed them that the release by the NY Times of this information would make it more difficult to "prevent future attacks against the American people." Maybe the NY Times is not the problem here. When this administration took office in 2001, White House insiders like Richard Clarke tried like hell to make Bush et. al. aware that an attack was imminent. Poor Mr. Clarke even cancelled the vacations of his staff to work the situation. He was eventually told to shut up and go away. I once heard poor Richard state that Mr. Bush told him he did not want to hear one more word about it. Apparently, Mr. Clarke and others complied and the Able Danger case was born.
I have taught enough public school to know all the blame games. There are many variations. As I watched Mr. Cheney make his statements on the news, I had his version pegged immediately. I'm sure it would never occur to him that the news media is watching him because of the way he is watching them, and us. Other than those who attend Republican fund-raising luncheons, where Cheney took occasion to raise this issue as his fellow Republicans sipped their Kool Aid and looked on, no one trusts the two cowboys who hold the highest office in the land. It's like Brokeback Mountain without the sex.
Sorry, Mr. Cheney. You can't start a war based on skewed intelligence where thousands of your countrymen's children will be killed or maimed, you can't give your old employer billions in no-bid contracts while your countrymen have watched their jobs disappear and their worlds collapse, you can't consistently let your reach exceed your lawful grasp and expect anyone except your fellow neo-conservatives to care if you're offended. Talk to the hand.
There's more than enough offense to go around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)