From Haaretz July 11, 20010
Lieberman's settlement bars Russian-Israeli families from buying homes
Settlers in Nokdim, home to Russian-born FM, fear new residents not classified as Jewish by halakhic law could corrupt local morals.
By Chaim Levinson
The Nokdim secretariat ruled two weeks ago to bar non-Jewish Russian-Israelis from buying homes in the small Bethlehem-area settlement where Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman makes his home. The decision came after a frenzied debate between residents over whether the entry of individuals not considered Jewish by religious law would lead to "assimilation" or improper behavior on the part of veteran residents and their children.
The current fracas was sparked after a number of families of Russian origin applied to be accepted in the community. In each of the families, at least one member is not Jewish according to halakha, or religious law. Nokdim is a mixed community of religious and secular Israelis, both native and Russian-speaking, in the Gush Etzion settlement bloc southeast of Jerusalem.
The West Bank settlement of Nokdim
After several residents expressed opposition to admitting the families, the settlement's absorption committee decided to bring up the issue at a secretariat meeting. Two weeks ago the panel decided the families' applications would be rejected.
Nokdim's secretary, Yossi Heiman, told Haaretz: "If there were an easy solution to this issue, we wouldn't have to hold hearings on it. There are many considerations both ways; there are also strong arguments in favor of accepting these families. But, ultimately, the majority decided they were opposed to such a high number of these families coming in and changing the community's demographics.
"The biggest problem is that if you accept 10 families in which the mother isn't Jewish, then soon there will be 30 children, and tomorrow your son could fall in love with the good-looking girl next door. It's a real problem," Heiman said.
"It's difficult enough with the dozens of terrorists who enter each morning," added Nokdim resident Amit Gruen, in apparent reference to Palestinians employed in home construction in the settlement.
"We have to separate ourselves from the gentiles in commerce and everything else - particularly when it comes to living with them. It could lead to assimilation or idol worship; it opens the door to all kinds of trouble. They might lead us into committing offenses that Jews normally don't do, like idolatry and incest and all kinds of other perversions. That's why we have no place for them here," he said.
"In principle, the fact that they serve in the army is a problem. They must not serve in the army - the fact that the state brought them over doesn't mean a thing. Just as it brought them over, it can send them back to their own countries," Gruen said.
Gil Gan-Mor, an attorney heading the branch on housing rights at the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, said any decision not to accept a family as residents in a community on the basis of race, religion or sex is illegal discrimination.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
My comments on "Non-violence as a principle" debate from Mondoweiss
ENOUGH OF THIS GHANDI STUFF ALREADY
A few days ago Phil Weiss' Mondoweiss blog had a gigantic post from a Matt Taylor who had made a running critique of several previous posts on the topic. It was sort of a meta-rebuttal in defense of his idea of prinicpled non-violence. In my view his whole world view and,much worse, his views on specifc actions, is at best idiot nonsense. At worst (and he can get worser and worser) he's giving aid and comfort to oppressors (his remarks on the Mavi Mamara massacre are the worst).
There were (and they are still coming) scores of comments on this subject. Some of them were good, some bad, some incoherent and some were very good. I don't envy Phil or Adam having to monitor the reader's comments section. It must be really tedious.
Whatever...here are my few postings. It should be easy to pick up the context of what I am replying (or ranting) to. Also I have edited them a bit to correct grammar and to make some points a bit clearer.
first post
Richard Congress July 6, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Matthew Taylor’s posting/ running argument for his brand of nonviolence against activists who disagree with him, and who also happen to live in the real world, are really, really awful.
He is putting forth a holier than thou bunch of mystical drivel that is a CANCER on oppressed peoples’ struggles for liberation.
Do I sound too harsh? Am I too dismissive of the, to paraphrase, the years of alleged scholarship on Ghandi and nonviolence? No not at all.
Why do I say it is a cancer? Because it is a utopian, debilitating doctrine that always gives the benefit of the doubt to the oppressors and denigrates those who fight back for their rights. Usurpers always like to state that they are defending law and order and that any insurgency is illegitimate unless it is properly “peaceful.”
How many times have we heard pro-zionist defenders of Israeli state terrorism ask in dismay, “where is the Palestinian Ghandi?” They are violence-baiting any opposition to Israeli violence.if a real Ghandi presented himself to the IDF they would promptly shoot him in the head.
It looks like the pacifists in our movement are acting like a fifth column. (is this too incendiary? I’m very, very pissed off and have had it with haughty lectures from “principled pacifists.”)
The criticisms of the passengers on the Mavi Marmara who were under murderous armed attack by a remorseless IDF commando unit are nauseating. Taylor would have them wearing saffron robes and chanting OMMMM, or something. The use of Hindu religious jargon to criticize the vetting of the passengers is more evidence of the fantasy-land nature of this kind of church dogma style pacifism.
There has never been a successful major social change or victory of the downtrodden scored via any so-called principled philosophy of non-violence. Not in India where there was an armed movement. Fear of mass violence always plays a role in an usurper yeilding formal power in the face of the mass opposition of an invaded populace. Besides,look at India now, in spite of formal independence, and the high-tech enrichment of a modest to small sized sector of the population, it’s a disaster of poverty and theft of land from destitute peasants. (see Ahrundati Roy’s article “talking with the comrades” about the armed resistance of these peasants–resistance which is the only thing keeping them from losing everything.)
The civil rights movement in the US used very practical tactics of mass mobilizations and passive resistance. This fitted both the goal and political environment. The goal was not socialist revolution to turn society upside down. It was to eradicate Jim Crow, to win formal democratic equal rights. that goal was won, by and large. Of course any democratic right has to be constantly defended as we have seen with the Nixon Southern Strategy beginning in 1968 in which these gains have been chipped away, along with other things like labor rights, and checks on corporate power.
A big factor in the civil right struggle was the popularity of Malcom X and the later ghetto rebellions. These were not planned acts of violence; they were uprisings provoked by police sadism and wanton brutality. They played a constructive role in gaining social programs. The government had to respond in some way, and not with just more force. Some valuable social programs to help the destitute and open up opportunities for jobs and education were instituted. Now many of then have been taken back or downsized. It just shows that it's a constant struggle in this economic and political system.
Taylor should look up the history of the Deacons for Defense in the south. They stopped KKK raids into black neighborhoods by showing up with shotguns and rifles to protect civil rights leaders who were threatened with attacks by the Klan on their homes.
The Deacons were not the only such group during that period. They also played a constructive role in the movement. I doubt that anyone in their neighborhood berated them for not understanding Hindu teachings on nonviolence.
Finally, there is the issue of winning over the Israeli people…I suppose by not scaring them too much. I’m not going to say much about that. It’s just another example of the oh so moralistic pacifists catering to the oppressor. And yes, most of the Israeli Jews are the oppressors. Can they be persuaded? Don’t count on it. And don’t base all of your plans for the Palestinian struggle for their rights on pleasing the colonizers.
second post
Richard Congress July 7, 2010 at 7:07 am
Non-Violence as a principle is a metaphysical, philosophically idealist (idealist in the sense of non-materialist) form of religious belief. It begins from unprovable (or untestable in the real world) dogmas and then filters what ever happens in the world through this lens..it dismisses anything that doesn’t support its unprovable first principles. That is to say it’s a scam, like all religions and many secular ideologies.
Was Ghandi a Ghandist? Marx, irritated at the antics of some of his followers, said “I am not a Marxist.” The tactics, strategies, end goals, etc. have to be evaluated in this world and this life. Pacifism can’t do this because it is other worldly and takes as good coin the unprovable (or propositions that cannot be empirically tested). It’s like a biologist arguing with a creationist.
third post
Richard Congress July 8, 2010 at 9:29 am
“The entire world, especially Europe and Russia, must give Israelis and the Jewish people some sort of of ultimate, clear, final, and comprehensive apology for centuries of persecution, and some kind of collective assurance of ‘Never again’”! [Matthew Taylor]
There have been apologies ad infinitum for the Holocaust for decades. Misplaced reparations from Germany to Israel in the billions, on and on. It’s been converted into a world wide cult of philo-semitism.
And the Zionists will never be satisfied. They love everyone cringing and apologizing forever. They love it. And there will be no end of disgusting schmucks like Dershowitz, Netanyahu, Schumer, Weisel etc. demanding more apologies. It gives them permanent moral superiority and a cover for Israel to commit any crime it can get away with. The Holocaust is three generations in the past, but it STILL serves a useful purpose to justify Israeli ethnic cleansing.
Neither the Palestinian people, nor the Arabs (and Turks) as a whole own the Jews any apology for the atrocities of the Europeans.
Where did the Jews expelled from Spain go to? They went to the protection of the Ottoman Empire.
Enough already with this harping on the world’s guilt for the Holocaust! Other people have suffered ethnic/racial/religious oppression and campaigns of extermination.
Apologists for Zionism’s reactionary, and intrinsic impulse towards expulsion and (if they can get away with it) extermination of Palestinians will never stop invoking the Holocaust. Waving the bloody shirt of victimization has been their trump card in trying to silence any criticism of Israel.
Those Jews who belong to a synagogue or other Jewish organizations have been brain washed with the story of the history of the world centering around Jewish victimhood. And they have been taught a contempt for any other people who also claim to have been oppressed, and they have been taught paranoia and racist hatred against Islam and all Arabs. They have to unlearn this poisonous propaganda.
When I had to got to temple in the 1950s (after my bar-mitzvah I was free) there was none of this going on. When I returned to the same temple (in Indianapolis) twenty years later for one of my nephew’s bar-mitzvah I was stunned to see a big “Holocaust Resource Center” had been built on and that the whole synagogue and service had been radicalized with crude, full-throated Israeli nationalism.
FORGET ABOUT APOLOGIES. TIME TO DEMAND THAT ORGANIZED JEWRY RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS.
A few days ago Phil Weiss' Mondoweiss blog had a gigantic post from a Matt Taylor who had made a running critique of several previous posts on the topic. It was sort of a meta-rebuttal in defense of his idea of prinicpled non-violence. In my view his whole world view and,much worse, his views on specifc actions, is at best idiot nonsense. At worst (and he can get worser and worser) he's giving aid and comfort to oppressors (his remarks on the Mavi Mamara massacre are the worst).
There were (and they are still coming) scores of comments on this subject. Some of them were good, some bad, some incoherent and some were very good. I don't envy Phil or Adam having to monitor the reader's comments section. It must be really tedious.
Whatever...here are my few postings. It should be easy to pick up the context of what I am replying (or ranting) to. Also I have edited them a bit to correct grammar and to make some points a bit clearer.
first post
Richard Congress July 6, 2010 at 9:01 pm
Matthew Taylor’s posting/ running argument for his brand of nonviolence against activists who disagree with him, and who also happen to live in the real world, are really, really awful.
He is putting forth a holier than thou bunch of mystical drivel that is a CANCER on oppressed peoples’ struggles for liberation.
Do I sound too harsh? Am I too dismissive of the, to paraphrase, the years of alleged scholarship on Ghandi and nonviolence? No not at all.
Why do I say it is a cancer? Because it is a utopian, debilitating doctrine that always gives the benefit of the doubt to the oppressors and denigrates those who fight back for their rights. Usurpers always like to state that they are defending law and order and that any insurgency is illegitimate unless it is properly “peaceful.”
How many times have we heard pro-zionist defenders of Israeli state terrorism ask in dismay, “where is the Palestinian Ghandi?” They are violence-baiting any opposition to Israeli violence.if a real Ghandi presented himself to the IDF they would promptly shoot him in the head.
It looks like the pacifists in our movement are acting like a fifth column. (is this too incendiary? I’m very, very pissed off and have had it with haughty lectures from “principled pacifists.”)
The criticisms of the passengers on the Mavi Marmara who were under murderous armed attack by a remorseless IDF commando unit are nauseating. Taylor would have them wearing saffron robes and chanting OMMMM, or something. The use of Hindu religious jargon to criticize the vetting of the passengers is more evidence of the fantasy-land nature of this kind of church dogma style pacifism.
There has never been a successful major social change or victory of the downtrodden scored via any so-called principled philosophy of non-violence. Not in India where there was an armed movement. Fear of mass violence always plays a role in an usurper yeilding formal power in the face of the mass opposition of an invaded populace. Besides,look at India now, in spite of formal independence, and the high-tech enrichment of a modest to small sized sector of the population, it’s a disaster of poverty and theft of land from destitute peasants. (see Ahrundati Roy’s article “talking with the comrades” about the armed resistance of these peasants–resistance which is the only thing keeping them from losing everything.)
The civil rights movement in the US used very practical tactics of mass mobilizations and passive resistance. This fitted both the goal and political environment. The goal was not socialist revolution to turn society upside down. It was to eradicate Jim Crow, to win formal democratic equal rights. that goal was won, by and large. Of course any democratic right has to be constantly defended as we have seen with the Nixon Southern Strategy beginning in 1968 in which these gains have been chipped away, along with other things like labor rights, and checks on corporate power.
A big factor in the civil right struggle was the popularity of Malcom X and the later ghetto rebellions. These were not planned acts of violence; they were uprisings provoked by police sadism and wanton brutality. They played a constructive role in gaining social programs. The government had to respond in some way, and not with just more force. Some valuable social programs to help the destitute and open up opportunities for jobs and education were instituted. Now many of then have been taken back or downsized. It just shows that it's a constant struggle in this economic and political system.
Taylor should look up the history of the Deacons for Defense in the south. They stopped KKK raids into black neighborhoods by showing up with shotguns and rifles to protect civil rights leaders who were threatened with attacks by the Klan on their homes.
The Deacons were not the only such group during that period. They also played a constructive role in the movement. I doubt that anyone in their neighborhood berated them for not understanding Hindu teachings on nonviolence.
Finally, there is the issue of winning over the Israeli people…I suppose by not scaring them too much. I’m not going to say much about that. It’s just another example of the oh so moralistic pacifists catering to the oppressor. And yes, most of the Israeli Jews are the oppressors. Can they be persuaded? Don’t count on it. And don’t base all of your plans for the Palestinian struggle for their rights on pleasing the colonizers.
second post
Richard Congress July 7, 2010 at 7:07 am
Non-Violence as a principle is a metaphysical, philosophically idealist (idealist in the sense of non-materialist) form of religious belief. It begins from unprovable (or untestable in the real world) dogmas and then filters what ever happens in the world through this lens..it dismisses anything that doesn’t support its unprovable first principles. That is to say it’s a scam, like all religions and many secular ideologies.
Was Ghandi a Ghandist? Marx, irritated at the antics of some of his followers, said “I am not a Marxist.” The tactics, strategies, end goals, etc. have to be evaluated in this world and this life. Pacifism can’t do this because it is other worldly and takes as good coin the unprovable (or propositions that cannot be empirically tested). It’s like a biologist arguing with a creationist.
third post
Richard Congress July 8, 2010 at 9:29 am
“The entire world, especially Europe and Russia, must give Israelis and the Jewish people some sort of of ultimate, clear, final, and comprehensive apology for centuries of persecution, and some kind of collective assurance of ‘Never again’”! [Matthew Taylor]
There have been apologies ad infinitum for the Holocaust for decades. Misplaced reparations from Germany to Israel in the billions, on and on. It’s been converted into a world wide cult of philo-semitism.
And the Zionists will never be satisfied. They love everyone cringing and apologizing forever. They love it. And there will be no end of disgusting schmucks like Dershowitz, Netanyahu, Schumer, Weisel etc. demanding more apologies. It gives them permanent moral superiority and a cover for Israel to commit any crime it can get away with. The Holocaust is three generations in the past, but it STILL serves a useful purpose to justify Israeli ethnic cleansing.
Neither the Palestinian people, nor the Arabs (and Turks) as a whole own the Jews any apology for the atrocities of the Europeans.
Where did the Jews expelled from Spain go to? They went to the protection of the Ottoman Empire.
Enough already with this harping on the world’s guilt for the Holocaust! Other people have suffered ethnic/racial/religious oppression and campaigns of extermination.
Apologists for Zionism’s reactionary, and intrinsic impulse towards expulsion and (if they can get away with it) extermination of Palestinians will never stop invoking the Holocaust. Waving the bloody shirt of victimization has been their trump card in trying to silence any criticism of Israel.
Those Jews who belong to a synagogue or other Jewish organizations have been brain washed with the story of the history of the world centering around Jewish victimhood. And they have been taught a contempt for any other people who also claim to have been oppressed, and they have been taught paranoia and racist hatred against Islam and all Arabs. They have to unlearn this poisonous propaganda.
When I had to got to temple in the 1950s (after my bar-mitzvah I was free) there was none of this going on. When I returned to the same temple (in Indianapolis) twenty years later for one of my nephew’s bar-mitzvah I was stunned to see a big “Holocaust Resource Center” had been built on and that the whole synagogue and service had been radicalized with crude, full-throated Israeli nationalism.
FORGET ABOUT APOLOGIES. TIME TO DEMAND THAT ORGANIZED JEWRY RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
From The Onion
From the Onion
News
U.S. Flag Recalled After Causing 143 Million Deaths
April 13, 2010 | ISSUE 46•26 ISSUE 46•15
Flags affected by the recall range from halftime-show extravaganza models to the smallest lapel pins
WASHINGTON—Citing a series of fatal malfunctions dating back to 1777, flag manufacturer Annin & Company announced Monday that it would be recalling all makes and models of its popular American flag from both foreign and domestic markets.
Representatives from the nation's leading flag producer claimed that as many as 143 million deaths in the past two centuries can be attributed directly to the faulty U.S. models, which have been utilized extensively since the 18th century in sectors as diverse as government, the military, and public education.
"It has come to our attention that, due to the inherent risks and hazards it poses, the American flag is simply unfit for general use," said Annin & Company president Ronald Burman, who confirmed that the number of flag-related deaths had noticeably spiked since 2003. "I would like to strongly urge all U.S. citizens: If you have an American flag hanging in your home or place of business, please discontinue using it immediately."
Enlarge Image
Added Burman, "The last thing we would want is for more innocent men and women around the world to die because of our product."
Millions of U.S. flag–related injuries and fatalities have been reported over a 230-year period in locations as far flung as Europe, Cuba, Korea, Gettysburg, PA, the Philippines, and Iraq. In addition, the company found that U.S. flag exports to Vietnam during the late 1960s and early 1970s resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, a clear sign that there was something seriously wrong with its product.
Despite fears about the flag's safety—especially when improperly used or manipulated in ways not originally intended—sales continued unabated over the years, potentially putting billions of unsuspecting people in danger.
"At first, we wanted one of our flags in every home in America," Burman said. "Unfortunately, the practical applications of this product are far outnumbered by the risks it presents. Millions have died needlessly, and when you ask people why, they point to the flag."
Enlarge ImageUnfortunate casualties of Old Glory’s near-continuous 230-year use.
Added Burman, "Frankly, we should have pulled it off the market decades ago."
Studies conducted by the Annin & Company research and development department revealed that faulty U.S. flags have caused more than just injuries and deaths. During the mid-1950s, the flags were found to have the bizarre side effect of causing fear, paranoia, and hysterical behavior among millions of Americans. This was dismissed as an isolated event until September 2001, when similar symptoms reemerged on a massive scale.
As hazardous as the flags may be on their own, Annin & Company officials claimed the products become even more dangerous when used in conjunction with other common household items.
"When combined with alcohol, excessive patriotism, grief, or well-intentioned but ultimately misguided ideals, U.S. flags transform into ticking time bombs, just waiting to go off," Burman said.
Manufacturers are addressing the flag's unsafe and potentially lethal alignment of stars and stripes by designing a revised model that they hope will cut down on deaths in the United States and overseas, where experts say the flag is nearly 1,000 times as deadly.
In the meantime, Annin & Company is advising all Americans to either ship their flags back to the manufacturer or, if no time permits, dispose of them in an efficient manner.
"I understand that people might be reluctant to stop using a product they have found to be reliable over the years," Burman told reporters. "But I can't in good conscience allow them to use something I know to be dangerous. We'll try to make adjustments soon and come up with something that benefits everybody rather than hurting them."
Added Burman, "In the interim, I would recommend that all Americans switch to the Canadian flag, which seems to be working just fine."
More News
News
U.S. Flag Recalled After Causing 143 Million Deaths
April 13, 2010 | ISSUE 46•26 ISSUE 46•15
Flags affected by the recall range from halftime-show extravaganza models to the smallest lapel pins
WASHINGTON—Citing a series of fatal malfunctions dating back to 1777, flag manufacturer Annin & Company announced Monday that it would be recalling all makes and models of its popular American flag from both foreign and domestic markets.
Representatives from the nation's leading flag producer claimed that as many as 143 million deaths in the past two centuries can be attributed directly to the faulty U.S. models, which have been utilized extensively since the 18th century in sectors as diverse as government, the military, and public education.
"It has come to our attention that, due to the inherent risks and hazards it poses, the American flag is simply unfit for general use," said Annin & Company president Ronald Burman, who confirmed that the number of flag-related deaths had noticeably spiked since 2003. "I would like to strongly urge all U.S. citizens: If you have an American flag hanging in your home or place of business, please discontinue using it immediately."
Enlarge Image
Added Burman, "The last thing we would want is for more innocent men and women around the world to die because of our product."
Millions of U.S. flag–related injuries and fatalities have been reported over a 230-year period in locations as far flung as Europe, Cuba, Korea, Gettysburg, PA, the Philippines, and Iraq. In addition, the company found that U.S. flag exports to Vietnam during the late 1960s and early 1970s resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, a clear sign that there was something seriously wrong with its product.
Despite fears about the flag's safety—especially when improperly used or manipulated in ways not originally intended—sales continued unabated over the years, potentially putting billions of unsuspecting people in danger.
"At first, we wanted one of our flags in every home in America," Burman said. "Unfortunately, the practical applications of this product are far outnumbered by the risks it presents. Millions have died needlessly, and when you ask people why, they point to the flag."
Enlarge ImageUnfortunate casualties of Old Glory’s near-continuous 230-year use.
Added Burman, "Frankly, we should have pulled it off the market decades ago."
Studies conducted by the Annin & Company research and development department revealed that faulty U.S. flags have caused more than just injuries and deaths. During the mid-1950s, the flags were found to have the bizarre side effect of causing fear, paranoia, and hysterical behavior among millions of Americans. This was dismissed as an isolated event until September 2001, when similar symptoms reemerged on a massive scale.
As hazardous as the flags may be on their own, Annin & Company officials claimed the products become even more dangerous when used in conjunction with other common household items.
"When combined with alcohol, excessive patriotism, grief, or well-intentioned but ultimately misguided ideals, U.S. flags transform into ticking time bombs, just waiting to go off," Burman said.
Manufacturers are addressing the flag's unsafe and potentially lethal alignment of stars and stripes by designing a revised model that they hope will cut down on deaths in the United States and overseas, where experts say the flag is nearly 1,000 times as deadly.
In the meantime, Annin & Company is advising all Americans to either ship their flags back to the manufacturer or, if no time permits, dispose of them in an efficient manner.
"I understand that people might be reluctant to stop using a product they have found to be reliable over the years," Burman told reporters. "But I can't in good conscience allow them to use something I know to be dangerous. We'll try to make adjustments soon and come up with something that benefits everybody rather than hurting them."
Added Burman, "In the interim, I would recommend that all Americans switch to the Canadian flag, which seems to be working just fine."
More News
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi on the media's boot licking of the rich and powerful
Posted: June 28, 2010 4:45 P.M. EDT | By Matt Taibbi
Lara Logan, You Suck
Countess/WireImage
Lara Logan, come on down! You're the next guest on Hysterical Backstabbing Jealous Hackfest 2010!
I thought I'd seen everything when I read David Brooks saying out loud in a New York Times column that reporters should sit on damaging comments to save their sources from their own idiocy. But now we get CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan slamming our own Michael Hastings on CNN's "Reliable Sources" program, agreeing that theRolling Stone reporter violated an "unspoken agreement" that journalists are not supposed to "embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter."
Anyone who wants to know why network television news hasn't mattered since the seventies just needs to check out this appearance by Logan. Here's CBS's chief foreign correspondent saying out loud on TV that when the man running a war that's killing thousands of young men and women every year steps on his own dick in front of a journalist, that journalist is supposed to eat the story so as not to embarrass the flag. And the part that really gets me is Logan bitching about how Hastings was dishonest to use human warmth and charm to build up enough of a rapport with his sources that they felt comfortable running their mouths off in front of him. According to Logan, that's sneaky — and journalists aren't supposed to be sneaky:
"What I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he's laid out there what his game is… That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don't — I don't go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life."
When I first heard her say that, I thought to myself, "That has to be a joke. It's sarcasm, right?" But then I went back and replayed the clip – no sarcasm! She meant it! If I'm hearing Logan correctly, what Hastings is supposed to have done in that situation is interrupt these drunken assholes and say, "Excuse me, fellas, I know we're all having fun and all, but you're saying things that may not be in your best interest! As a reporter, it is my duty to inform you that you may end up looking like insubordinate douche bags in front of two million Rolling Stone readers if you don't shut your mouths this very instant!" I mean, where did Logan go to journalism school – the Burson-Marsteller agency?
But Logan goes even further that that. See, according to Logan, not only are reporters not supposed to disclose their agendas to sources at all times, but in the case of covering the military, one isn't even supposed to have an agenda that might upset the brass! Why? Because there is an "element of trust" that you're supposed to have when you hang around the likes of a McChrystal. You cover a war commander, he's got to be able to trust that you're not going to embarrass him. Otherwise, how can he possibly feel confident that the right message will get out?
True, the Pentagon does have perhaps the single largest public relations apparatus on earth – spending $4.7 billion on P.R. in 2009 alone and employing 27,000 people, a staff nearly as large as the 30,000-person State Department – but is that really enough to ensure positive coverage in a society with armed with a constitutionally-guaranteed free press?
And true, most of the major TV outlets are completely in the bag for the Pentagon, with two of them (NBC/GE and Logan's own CBS, until recently owned by Westinghouse, one of the world's largest nuclear weapons manufacturers) having operated for years as leaders in both the broadcast media and weapons-making businesses.
But is that enough to guarantee a level playing field? Can a general really feel safe that Americans will get the right message when the only tools he has at his disposal are a $5 billion P.R. budget and the near-total acquiescence of all the major media companies, some of whom happen to be the Pentagon's biggest contractors?
Does the fact that the country is basically barred from seeing dead bodies on TV, or the fact that an embedded reporter in a war zone literally cannot take a shit without a military attaché at his side (I'm not joking: while embedded at Camp Liberty in Iraq, I had to be escorted from my bunk to the latrine) really provide the working general with the security and peace of mind he needs to do his job effectively?
Apparently not, according to Lara Logan. Apparently in addition to all of this, reporters must also help out these poor public relations underdogs in the Pentagon by adhering to an "unspoken agreement" not to embarrass the brass, should they tilt back a few and jam their feet into their own mouths in front of a reporter holding a microphone in front of their faces.
Then there's the part that made me really furious: Logan hinting that Hastings lied about the damaging material being on the record:
"Michael Hastings, if you believe him, says that there were no ground rules laid out. And, I mean, that just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me… I mean, I know these people. They never let their guard down like that. To me, something doesn't add up here. I just — I don't believe it."
I think the real meaning of that above quote is made clear in conjunction with this one: "There are very good beat reporters who have been covering these wars for years, year after year. Michael Hastings appeared in Baghdad fairly late on the scene, and he was there for a significant period of time. He has his credentials, but he's not the only one. There are a lot of very good reporters out there. And to be fair to the military, if they believe that a piece is balanced, they will let you back."
Let me just say one thing quickly: I don't know Michael Hastings. I've never met him and he's not a friend of mine. If he cut me off in a line in an airport, I'd probably claw his eyes out like I would with anyone else. And if you think I'm being loyal to him because he works for Rolling Stone, well – let's just say my co-workers at the Stone would laugh pretty hard at that idea.
But when I read this diatribe from Logan, I felt like I'd known Hastings my whole life. Because brother, I have been there, when some would-be "reputable" journalist who's just been severely ass-whipped by a relative no-name freelancer on an enormous story fights back by going on television and, without any evidence at all, accusing the guy who beat him of cheating. That's happened to me so often, I've come to expect it. If there's a lower form of life on the planet earth than a "reputable" journalist protecting his territory, I haven't seen it.
As to this whole "unspoken agreement" business: the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering! Jesus, is this concept that fucking hard? On the campaign trail, I watch reporters nod solemnly as they hear about the hundreds of millions of dollars candidates X and Y and Z collect from the likes of Citigroup and Raytheon and Archer Daniels Midland, and it blows my mind that they never seem to connect the dots and grasp where all that money is going. The answer, you idiots, is that it's buying advertising! People like George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and General McChrystal for that matter, they can afford to buy their own P.R. — and they do, in ways both honest and dishonest, visible and invisible.
They don't need your help, and you're giving it to them anyway, because you just want to be part of the club so so badly. Disgustingly, that's really what it comes down to. Most of these reporters just want to be inside the ropeline so badly, they want to be able to say they had that beer with Hillary Clinton in a bowling alley in Scranton or whatever, that it colors their whole worldview. God forbid some important person think you're not playing for the right team!
Meanwhile, the people who don't have the resources to find out the truth and get it out in front of the public's eyes, your readers/viewers, you're supposed to be working for them — and they're not getting your help. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? Is it worth all the bloodshed and the hatred? Who are the people running this thing, what is their agenda, and is that agenda the same thing we voted for? By the severely unlikely virtue of a drunken accident we get a tiny glimpse of an answer to some of these vital questions, but instead of cheering this as a great break for our profession, a waytago moment, one so-called reputable journalist after another lines up to protest the leak and attack the reporter for doing his job. God, do you all suck!
Lara Logan, You Suck
Countess/WireImage
Lara Logan, come on down! You're the next guest on Hysterical Backstabbing Jealous Hackfest 2010!
I thought I'd seen everything when I read David Brooks saying out loud in a New York Times column that reporters should sit on damaging comments to save their sources from their own idiocy. But now we get CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan slamming our own Michael Hastings on CNN's "Reliable Sources" program, agreeing that theRolling Stone reporter violated an "unspoken agreement" that journalists are not supposed to "embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter."
Anyone who wants to know why network television news hasn't mattered since the seventies just needs to check out this appearance by Logan. Here's CBS's chief foreign correspondent saying out loud on TV that when the man running a war that's killing thousands of young men and women every year steps on his own dick in front of a journalist, that journalist is supposed to eat the story so as not to embarrass the flag. And the part that really gets me is Logan bitching about how Hastings was dishonest to use human warmth and charm to build up enough of a rapport with his sources that they felt comfortable running their mouths off in front of him. According to Logan, that's sneaky — and journalists aren't supposed to be sneaky:
"What I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he's laid out there what his game is… That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don't — I don't go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life."
When I first heard her say that, I thought to myself, "That has to be a joke. It's sarcasm, right?" But then I went back and replayed the clip – no sarcasm! She meant it! If I'm hearing Logan correctly, what Hastings is supposed to have done in that situation is interrupt these drunken assholes and say, "Excuse me, fellas, I know we're all having fun and all, but you're saying things that may not be in your best interest! As a reporter, it is my duty to inform you that you may end up looking like insubordinate douche bags in front of two million Rolling Stone readers if you don't shut your mouths this very instant!" I mean, where did Logan go to journalism school – the Burson-Marsteller agency?
But Logan goes even further that that. See, according to Logan, not only are reporters not supposed to disclose their agendas to sources at all times, but in the case of covering the military, one isn't even supposed to have an agenda that might upset the brass! Why? Because there is an "element of trust" that you're supposed to have when you hang around the likes of a McChrystal. You cover a war commander, he's got to be able to trust that you're not going to embarrass him. Otherwise, how can he possibly feel confident that the right message will get out?
True, the Pentagon does have perhaps the single largest public relations apparatus on earth – spending $4.7 billion on P.R. in 2009 alone and employing 27,000 people, a staff nearly as large as the 30,000-person State Department – but is that really enough to ensure positive coverage in a society with armed with a constitutionally-guaranteed free press?
And true, most of the major TV outlets are completely in the bag for the Pentagon, with two of them (NBC/GE and Logan's own CBS, until recently owned by Westinghouse, one of the world's largest nuclear weapons manufacturers) having operated for years as leaders in both the broadcast media and weapons-making businesses.
But is that enough to guarantee a level playing field? Can a general really feel safe that Americans will get the right message when the only tools he has at his disposal are a $5 billion P.R. budget and the near-total acquiescence of all the major media companies, some of whom happen to be the Pentagon's biggest contractors?
Does the fact that the country is basically barred from seeing dead bodies on TV, or the fact that an embedded reporter in a war zone literally cannot take a shit without a military attaché at his side (I'm not joking: while embedded at Camp Liberty in Iraq, I had to be escorted from my bunk to the latrine) really provide the working general with the security and peace of mind he needs to do his job effectively?
Apparently not, according to Lara Logan. Apparently in addition to all of this, reporters must also help out these poor public relations underdogs in the Pentagon by adhering to an "unspoken agreement" not to embarrass the brass, should they tilt back a few and jam their feet into their own mouths in front of a reporter holding a microphone in front of their faces.
Then there's the part that made me really furious: Logan hinting that Hastings lied about the damaging material being on the record:
"Michael Hastings, if you believe him, says that there were no ground rules laid out. And, I mean, that just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me… I mean, I know these people. They never let their guard down like that. To me, something doesn't add up here. I just — I don't believe it."
I think the real meaning of that above quote is made clear in conjunction with this one: "There are very good beat reporters who have been covering these wars for years, year after year. Michael Hastings appeared in Baghdad fairly late on the scene, and he was there for a significant period of time. He has his credentials, but he's not the only one. There are a lot of very good reporters out there. And to be fair to the military, if they believe that a piece is balanced, they will let you back."
Let me just say one thing quickly: I don't know Michael Hastings. I've never met him and he's not a friend of mine. If he cut me off in a line in an airport, I'd probably claw his eyes out like I would with anyone else. And if you think I'm being loyal to him because he works for Rolling Stone, well – let's just say my co-workers at the Stone would laugh pretty hard at that idea.
But when I read this diatribe from Logan, I felt like I'd known Hastings my whole life. Because brother, I have been there, when some would-be "reputable" journalist who's just been severely ass-whipped by a relative no-name freelancer on an enormous story fights back by going on television and, without any evidence at all, accusing the guy who beat him of cheating. That's happened to me so often, I've come to expect it. If there's a lower form of life on the planet earth than a "reputable" journalist protecting his territory, I haven't seen it.
As to this whole "unspoken agreement" business: the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering! Jesus, is this concept that fucking hard? On the campaign trail, I watch reporters nod solemnly as they hear about the hundreds of millions of dollars candidates X and Y and Z collect from the likes of Citigroup and Raytheon and Archer Daniels Midland, and it blows my mind that they never seem to connect the dots and grasp where all that money is going. The answer, you idiots, is that it's buying advertising! People like George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, and General McChrystal for that matter, they can afford to buy their own P.R. — and they do, in ways both honest and dishonest, visible and invisible.
They don't need your help, and you're giving it to them anyway, because you just want to be part of the club so so badly. Disgustingly, that's really what it comes down to. Most of these reporters just want to be inside the ropeline so badly, they want to be able to say they had that beer with Hillary Clinton in a bowling alley in Scranton or whatever, that it colors their whole worldview. God forbid some important person think you're not playing for the right team!
Meanwhile, the people who don't have the resources to find out the truth and get it out in front of the public's eyes, your readers/viewers, you're supposed to be working for them — and they're not getting your help. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? Is it worth all the bloodshed and the hatred? Who are the people running this thing, what is their agenda, and is that agenda the same thing we voted for? By the severely unlikely virtue of a drunken accident we get a tiny glimpse of an answer to some of these vital questions, but instead of cheering this as a great break for our profession, a waytago moment, one so-called reputable journalist after another lines up to protest the leak and attack the reporter for doing his job. God, do you all suck!
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Jimmy Carter can now be indicted for "providing services to a terrorist organization"
The Supreme Court recently ruled to criminalize speech that it says will aid or provide advice in any way to a so called terrorist organization. Even if the a person or group is trying to convince a "terrorist" group to not engage in terrorism or violence and join peaceful negotiations as a way to reach its goals.
As described in the NYT citation below, the U.S. Justice Department should indict President Jimmy Carter. While Attorney General Holder is at it he could find out which U.S. diplomats have held "back channel" meetings with Hamas, or the Kurds, or the Talliban to see if they should be indicted for trying to get them to negotiate with someone (Israel, the US, Karzi, the Iraqi prime minister... anyone, whoever). Actually Holder could indict Obama and Hillary too if they had told a diplomat to have such a meeting or had guilty knowledge of one.
excerpt from the New York Times:
GAZA
Jimmy Carter said on Tuesday that he urged Hamas leaders during a high-profile meeting here to take steps necessary to become accepted by the leading Western nations. Mr. Carter is the most prominent American figure to have met with the Hamas government that took over Gaza two years ago, after the Palestinian Authority forces were routed in a brief but bloody factional war. Hamas welcomed Mr. Carter’s visit as a significant step in its quest for international legitimacy.
d
Ismail Haniya, the leader of the Hamas government in Gaza, and Mr. Carter held a joint press conference where an American flag was displayed alongside a Palestinian national flag behind the speakers on the podium. There were no green Hamas flags in sight.
It was Mr. Haniya’s most public appearance since Israel ended its devastating three-week military campaign against Hamas in Gaza in January, which Israel said was intended to halt rocket fire by Gaza militants against southern Israel.
Striking a conciliatory tone, Mr. Haniya said Hamas would favor the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and with full sovereignty, adding, “We are pushing for the realization of this Palestinian national dream.”
Mr. Haniya also said that Mr. Carter’s visit to Gaza was particularly important coming after two years of economic “siege” and after the “Israeli aggression.” He noted that it followed the change in the American administration and President Barack Obama’s address in Cairo, in which Mr. Haniya said he heard a “different language.”
Both Israel and Hamas declared separate, informal cease-fires after last winter’s war, but Israel continues to impose a punishing economic blockade that allows in only basic provisions for the 1.5 million residents of the isolated coastal strip.
Israel, the United States and the European Union classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. They have set three conditions for dealing with Hamas, saying it must renounce all violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist and accept all previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Hamas has so far refused to comply.
Hamas leaders have said they will never recognize Israel, and will only offer a long-term truce, not a full fledged peace treaty, in return for a Palestinian state.
Mr. Carter emphasized that he was in Gaza as a private citizen, not as a representative of his government. But he said he would write a report on his visit to the region for the Obama administration on his return.
In a three-hour meeting with Hamas government officials and senior representatives of the group, Mr. Carter told the group to find a mechanism that would allow it to meet the conditions set by international players, according to Ahmed Yousef, the Hamas deputy foreign minister who attended the meeting.
In a brief interview before the meeting, Mr. Carter said that in order to break the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, “first of all Hamas has to be accepted by the international community as a legitimate player in the future, and that is what I am trying to do today.”....Yo Jimmy! Go directly to jail.
As described in the NYT citation below, the U.S. Justice Department should indict President Jimmy Carter. While Attorney General Holder is at it he could find out which U.S. diplomats have held "back channel" meetings with Hamas, or the Kurds, or the Talliban to see if they should be indicted for trying to get them to negotiate with someone (Israel, the US, Karzi, the Iraqi prime minister... anyone, whoever). Actually Holder could indict Obama and Hillary too if they had told a diplomat to have such a meeting or had guilty knowledge of one.
excerpt from the New York Times:
GAZA
Jimmy Carter said on Tuesday that he urged Hamas leaders during a high-profile meeting here to take steps necessary to become accepted by the leading Western nations. Mr. Carter is the most prominent American figure to have met with the Hamas government that took over Gaza two years ago, after the Palestinian Authority forces were routed in a brief but bloody factional war. Hamas welcomed Mr. Carter’s visit as a significant step in its quest for international legitimacy.
d
Ismail Haniya, the leader of the Hamas government in Gaza, and Mr. Carter held a joint press conference where an American flag was displayed alongside a Palestinian national flag behind the speakers on the podium. There were no green Hamas flags in sight.
It was Mr. Haniya’s most public appearance since Israel ended its devastating three-week military campaign against Hamas in Gaza in January, which Israel said was intended to halt rocket fire by Gaza militants against southern Israel.
Striking a conciliatory tone, Mr. Haniya said Hamas would favor the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and with full sovereignty, adding, “We are pushing for the realization of this Palestinian national dream.”
Mr. Haniya also said that Mr. Carter’s visit to Gaza was particularly important coming after two years of economic “siege” and after the “Israeli aggression.” He noted that it followed the change in the American administration and President Barack Obama’s address in Cairo, in which Mr. Haniya said he heard a “different language.”
Both Israel and Hamas declared separate, informal cease-fires after last winter’s war, but Israel continues to impose a punishing economic blockade that allows in only basic provisions for the 1.5 million residents of the isolated coastal strip.
Israel, the United States and the European Union classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. They have set three conditions for dealing with Hamas, saying it must renounce all violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist and accept all previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Hamas has so far refused to comply.
Hamas leaders have said they will never recognize Israel, and will only offer a long-term truce, not a full fledged peace treaty, in return for a Palestinian state.
Mr. Carter emphasized that he was in Gaza as a private citizen, not as a representative of his government. But he said he would write a report on his visit to the region for the Obama administration on his return.
In a three-hour meeting with Hamas government officials and senior representatives of the group, Mr. Carter told the group to find a mechanism that would allow it to meet the conditions set by international players, according to Ahmed Yousef, the Hamas deputy foreign minister who attended the meeting.
In a brief interview before the meeting, Mr. Carter said that in order to break the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, “first of all Hamas has to be accepted by the international community as a legitimate player in the future, and that is what I am trying to do today.”....Yo Jimmy! Go directly to jail.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
IS FASCISM IN THE CARDS FOR THE USA?
The tea party, Christian nut-cases, anti-immigrant xenophobes, militias and Ayn Rand worshipers aren't worth worrying about. The “war on terror” is turning the USA into a centralized corporate run police state.
by R. Congress
Gore Vidal on The National Security State:
“...fifty years ago, Harry Truman replaced the old republic with a national-security state whose sole purpose is to wage perpetual wars, hot, cold, and tepid. Exact date of replacement? February 27, 1947. Place: The White House Cabinet Room. Cast: Truman, Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson, a handful of congressional leaders. Republican senator Arthur Vandenberg told Truman that he could have his militarized economy only IF he first "scared the hell out of the American people" that the Russians were coming. Truman obliged. The perpetual war began. Representative government of, by, and for the people is now a faded memory. Only corporate America enjoys representation by the Congress and presidents that it pays for in an arrangement where no one is entirely accountable because those who have bought the government also own the media. Now, with the revolt of the Praetorian Guard at the Pentagon, we are entering a new and dangerous phase. Although we regularly stigmatize other societies as rogue states, we ourselves have become the largest rogue state of all. We honor no treaties. We spurn international courts. We strike unilaterally wherever we choose. We give orders to the United Nations but do not pay our dues...we bomb, invade, subvert other states. Although We the People of the United States are the sole source of legitimate authority in this land, we are no longer represented in Congress Assembled. Our Congress has been hijacked by corporate America and its enforcer, the imperial military machine..."
Gore Vidal: Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 2002 (Thunder Mouth/Nation Books)
Is the threat of a fascist America coming from the Tea Party and it's ilk? Is rightist revolution from below on the agenda? Or is the impulse to end democracy in the U.S. Coming from a different direction? Actually “creeping fascism” has been happening for a while and it's not just the military/industrial types and the neo-cons pushing us toward dictatorship. Zionist schmucks like Charles Schumer and Jerry Nadler are in the vanguard of the stampede of Democratic Party “liberals” (Pelosi, Boxer, Feingold et al) to destroy democratic rights for the good of the empire (and Israel too).
There was a brief blip of pro-bill of rights legislation and an effort by some to shore up democratic rights in the immediate post-Watergate and post-Vietnam war period. But as a rule, both parties have supported the gradual chipping away at democracy that went along with the evolution of our National Security State.
The Obama administration has embraced the damage done to the Constitution by the Patriot Act and the out of control use of “state secrecy” and “terrorism” to spy on everyone. The abomination of the “enemy combatant” status, created by the Bush Justice Department, which allows the government to imprison anyone it wants for as long as it wants with no due process still stands. Guantanamo is still open. Secret CIA prisons are still operating. Rendition and torture still go on. Now, via predator drones, the CIA and military can routinely assassinate who ever they want, when and where ever they choose. The recent Supreme Court ruling that will criminalize even speaking about so called “terrorists” groups is another nail in the coffin.
The USA has always been a predatory imperialist power. Even in the days of the “old republic” that Gore Vidal is nostalgic about, the United States was ripping off land from the Indian Nations, filching half of Mexico and with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 declaring South America to be its (not Europe's) sphere of influence. Now American imperialism is in decline and is desperately retooling it's organs of state control both internally and externally .
In an earlier post I described the uproar from the “grass roots” tea party people as the death agony of a dying demographic. These people are older, white, middle-income and deeply racist. They are losers, on the way out. They have no potential to sweep the nation like Hitler's brown shirts. Conditions here are also not the same as those that bred the “classical fascism” of the 1930s.
True, the German bankers and industrialists opted to support the Nazis once they were in power. But social conflict and economic disaster was more severe by a whole order of magnitude and the Nazis had already gained a lot of support in a more homogeneous country than ours. A bunch of obese suburbanites yammering about the evils of big government are not going to lead a seizure of state power. Real fascists like big government. They want to use it to mold all of society in their image.
Besides, our state has already been seized by corporate America. The repressive apparatus of social control is coming more to the fore as U.S. foreign adventures fall to pieces and other developed countries see that the USA is in economic, military and political decline and flex their muscles.
Too much internal dissent is also seen as a security threat by our corporate/military/security state. The questioning of Israel's treatment of Palestinians and dissent in general that is growing among the American population is putting Zionist apologists very ill at ease. AIPAC, J Street (a liberal leech on the ass of Abe Foxman) and the politicians they lead around by the nose are quite happy to equate criticism of Israel with overt, prosecutable support of an open-ended list of designated terrorist organizations. It's a short reach from that position to paint critics of the Afghan and Iraqi (and Pakistan, and Yemen etc.) wars as aiding terrorism. Is this over reacting? We'll see.
by R. Congress
Gore Vidal on The National Security State:
“...fifty years ago, Harry Truman replaced the old republic with a national-security state whose sole purpose is to wage perpetual wars, hot, cold, and tepid. Exact date of replacement? February 27, 1947. Place: The White House Cabinet Room. Cast: Truman, Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson, a handful of congressional leaders. Republican senator Arthur Vandenberg told Truman that he could have his militarized economy only IF he first "scared the hell out of the American people" that the Russians were coming. Truman obliged. The perpetual war began. Representative government of, by, and for the people is now a faded memory. Only corporate America enjoys representation by the Congress and presidents that it pays for in an arrangement where no one is entirely accountable because those who have bought the government also own the media. Now, with the revolt of the Praetorian Guard at the Pentagon, we are entering a new and dangerous phase. Although we regularly stigmatize other societies as rogue states, we ourselves have become the largest rogue state of all. We honor no treaties. We spurn international courts. We strike unilaterally wherever we choose. We give orders to the United Nations but do not pay our dues...we bomb, invade, subvert other states. Although We the People of the United States are the sole source of legitimate authority in this land, we are no longer represented in Congress Assembled. Our Congress has been hijacked by corporate America and its enforcer, the imperial military machine..."
Gore Vidal: Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 2002 (Thunder Mouth/Nation Books)
Is the threat of a fascist America coming from the Tea Party and it's ilk? Is rightist revolution from below on the agenda? Or is the impulse to end democracy in the U.S. Coming from a different direction? Actually “creeping fascism” has been happening for a while and it's not just the military/industrial types and the neo-cons pushing us toward dictatorship. Zionist schmucks like Charles Schumer and Jerry Nadler are in the vanguard of the stampede of Democratic Party “liberals” (Pelosi, Boxer, Feingold et al) to destroy democratic rights for the good of the empire (and Israel too).
There was a brief blip of pro-bill of rights legislation and an effort by some to shore up democratic rights in the immediate post-Watergate and post-Vietnam war period. But as a rule, both parties have supported the gradual chipping away at democracy that went along with the evolution of our National Security State.
The Obama administration has embraced the damage done to the Constitution by the Patriot Act and the out of control use of “state secrecy” and “terrorism” to spy on everyone. The abomination of the “enemy combatant” status, created by the Bush Justice Department, which allows the government to imprison anyone it wants for as long as it wants with no due process still stands. Guantanamo is still open. Secret CIA prisons are still operating. Rendition and torture still go on. Now, via predator drones, the CIA and military can routinely assassinate who ever they want, when and where ever they choose. The recent Supreme Court ruling that will criminalize even speaking about so called “terrorists” groups is another nail in the coffin.
The USA has always been a predatory imperialist power. Even in the days of the “old republic” that Gore Vidal is nostalgic about, the United States was ripping off land from the Indian Nations, filching half of Mexico and with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 declaring South America to be its (not Europe's) sphere of influence. Now American imperialism is in decline and is desperately retooling it's organs of state control both internally and externally .
In an earlier post I described the uproar from the “grass roots” tea party people as the death agony of a dying demographic. These people are older, white, middle-income and deeply racist. They are losers, on the way out. They have no potential to sweep the nation like Hitler's brown shirts. Conditions here are also not the same as those that bred the “classical fascism” of the 1930s.
True, the German bankers and industrialists opted to support the Nazis once they were in power. But social conflict and economic disaster was more severe by a whole order of magnitude and the Nazis had already gained a lot of support in a more homogeneous country than ours. A bunch of obese suburbanites yammering about the evils of big government are not going to lead a seizure of state power. Real fascists like big government. They want to use it to mold all of society in their image.
Besides, our state has already been seized by corporate America. The repressive apparatus of social control is coming more to the fore as U.S. foreign adventures fall to pieces and other developed countries see that the USA is in economic, military and political decline and flex their muscles.
Too much internal dissent is also seen as a security threat by our corporate/military/security state. The questioning of Israel's treatment of Palestinians and dissent in general that is growing among the American population is putting Zionist apologists very ill at ease. AIPAC, J Street (a liberal leech on the ass of Abe Foxman) and the politicians they lead around by the nose are quite happy to equate criticism of Israel with overt, prosecutable support of an open-ended list of designated terrorist organizations. It's a short reach from that position to paint critics of the Afghan and Iraqi (and Pakistan, and Yemen etc.) wars as aiding terrorism. Is this over reacting? We'll see.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
It's Time to Call Out the "PEPs"
Too many supporters of Palestinian rights give a pass to the "Progressive Except for Palestine" liberal Dems. It's time to expose their racist hypocrisy.
U.S. Support for Israel Mirrors 80s Support for El Salvador Junta
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-zunes/us-support-for-israel-mir_b_614329.html?view=print
It's like the 1980s all over again.
During that decade, the Reagan administration -- with the support of Congress -- sent billions of dollars worth of unconditional military and other support to the right-wing junta in El Salvador, just as the Obama administration is today with the right-wing government in Israel.
When Salvadoran forces massacred 700 civilians in El Mozote, congressional leaders defended the killings, saying that the U.S-backed operation was "fighting terrorists." Similarly, when Israel massacred over 700 civilians in the Gaza Strip early last year, congressional leaders defended the killings for the same reason.
When Amnesty International and other groups investigated the El Mozote killings and found that it was indeed a massacre targeted at civilians by the Salvadoran army, members of Congress denounced these reputable human rights organizations as "biased." There was a similar reaction when Amnesty and other groups documented similar Israeli war crimes, with Congressional leaders accusing them of "bias."
Even when the Salvadoran junta murdered international humanitarian aid workers, the right-wing government's supporters in Washington insisted that the victims were actually allied with terrorists and that they somehow provoked their own deaths. We're now hearing the same rationalization regarding the attack on the humanitarian aid flotilla in the eastern Mediterranean.
The difference is that, back in the 1980s, members of Congress and the administration who were responsible for such policies were targeted with frequent protests, including sit-ins at congressional offices and other kinds of nonviolent direct action. Unlike supporters of El Salvador's former right-wing government, however, today's congressional supporters of Israel's right-wing government seem to be getting a free ride.
Senators Barbara Boxer, Ron Wyden, Russ Feingold, Barbara Mikulski, and Carl Levin -- who led the attack against Justice Goldstone and others who documented Israeli war crimes -- are still supported by many so-called "progressives" who apparently believe that, despite these senators' attacks on basic human rights, they should still get their vote, campaign contributions, and other support. For example, here in California, Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans and singer/songwriter Bonnie Raitt, who were active in opposition to U.S. policy in Central America during the 1980s, are major contributors to Boxer's re-election campaign. The willingness to challenge such right-wing congressional militarists has substantially diminished.
The problem is less a matter of the power of AIPAC and the "pro-Israel lobby" as it is the failure of those on the left to demand a change in Obama administration policy. Progressives must recognize that the lives of Arab civilians are as important as the lives of Central American civilians; that it is just as inexcusable for the United States to support a government that kills passengers and crew on a humanitarian flotilla in international waters as it is to kill nuns, agronomists and other civilians working in the Salvadoran countryside; and that, when it comes to international humanitarian law, the differences between the policies of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama are not as great as we would like to think.
U.S. Support for Israel Mirrors 80s Support for El Salvador Junta
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-zunes/us-support-for-israel-mir_b_614329.html?view=print
It's like the 1980s all over again.
During that decade, the Reagan administration -- with the support of Congress -- sent billions of dollars worth of unconditional military and other support to the right-wing junta in El Salvador, just as the Obama administration is today with the right-wing government in Israel.
When Salvadoran forces massacred 700 civilians in El Mozote, congressional leaders defended the killings, saying that the U.S-backed operation was "fighting terrorists." Similarly, when Israel massacred over 700 civilians in the Gaza Strip early last year, congressional leaders defended the killings for the same reason.
When Amnesty International and other groups investigated the El Mozote killings and found that it was indeed a massacre targeted at civilians by the Salvadoran army, members of Congress denounced these reputable human rights organizations as "biased." There was a similar reaction when Amnesty and other groups documented similar Israeli war crimes, with Congressional leaders accusing them of "bias."
Even when the Salvadoran junta murdered international humanitarian aid workers, the right-wing government's supporters in Washington insisted that the victims were actually allied with terrorists and that they somehow provoked their own deaths. We're now hearing the same rationalization regarding the attack on the humanitarian aid flotilla in the eastern Mediterranean.
The difference is that, back in the 1980s, members of Congress and the administration who were responsible for such policies were targeted with frequent protests, including sit-ins at congressional offices and other kinds of nonviolent direct action. Unlike supporters of El Salvador's former right-wing government, however, today's congressional supporters of Israel's right-wing government seem to be getting a free ride.
Senators Barbara Boxer, Ron Wyden, Russ Feingold, Barbara Mikulski, and Carl Levin -- who led the attack against Justice Goldstone and others who documented Israeli war crimes -- are still supported by many so-called "progressives" who apparently believe that, despite these senators' attacks on basic human rights, they should still get their vote, campaign contributions, and other support. For example, here in California, Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans and singer/songwriter Bonnie Raitt, who were active in opposition to U.S. policy in Central America during the 1980s, are major contributors to Boxer's re-election campaign. The willingness to challenge such right-wing congressional militarists has substantially diminished.
The problem is less a matter of the power of AIPAC and the "pro-Israel lobby" as it is the failure of those on the left to demand a change in Obama administration policy. Progressives must recognize that the lives of Arab civilians are as important as the lives of Central American civilians; that it is just as inexcusable for the United States to support a government that kills passengers and crew on a humanitarian flotilla in international waters as it is to kill nuns, agronomists and other civilians working in the Salvadoran countryside; and that, when it comes to international humanitarian law, the differences between the policies of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama are not as great as we would like to think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)