In The Beginning Was The Word?
by Frank Scott
Some argue that humans are no better than all other species, as evidenced by our murderous behavior. Nevertheless, language especially separates us from the assortment of grunting, singing and yelping animal life which we domesticate, eat, worship or cage. It has evolved over eons and assumes a top position in the hierarchy of human achievements. But when we attach more significance to words and pay less attention to the actions they represent, we abuse the notion of humanity as a higher form of animal life.
True to our western dualism , we use ancient written scriptures as guides to preaching morality , or as rationalizations for practicing immorality . We do the same with constitutions which establish the legality of our state structures. Too often we honor words to interpret what we do as being godly and lawful, while practicing deeds which are in total contradiction to the legal systems and moral codes they symbolize. The examples are too numerous for a short essay, but this concerns our language of bigotry, or what has become labeled as hate speech.
Racial slurs made by a media personality recently opened the floodgates of criticism, as well as arguments in defense of such talk as free speech. While many justifiably challenged any supposed right to slur human beings with such gross disrespect, they often missed the fact that it goes on all the time and is a money maker in the radio universe. Much of the tasteless and irreverent shock jock talk is heard by listeners as honest response to a kind of speech regulation which is often hypocritical . Rather than changing hateful realities at the core of our culture, it simply makes them less overt in speech, while convincing regulators of their own moral righteousness. This is progress in the way that addressing someone by a publicly accepted title can somehow blur the fact that he is in prison, or living in poverty, or otherwise being treated as a second class citizen.
One of the forward steps taken as a result of the civil rights movement of the sixties was when whites stopped addressing grown black men as “boy”. This disrespectful conduct was finally changed , but while this was a big move in personal healing , it didn’t change much of what actually went on in the material world. No longer addressing a man as though he were a boy did not mean that his status , in theory, made him an equal to all other men, in practice.
Using politically correct verbal forms to address people, while practicing socially incorrect behavior in the treatment of those same people , exemplifies what a holy book or constitution is often used for: the justification or rationalization of human indignity , with a legalistic or holy veneer that does nothing to stop physical inhumanity, but only uses words to make it sound less inhumane.
People who would never say the “n” word or the “f” word in public but call people niggers or faggots in private, are part of the problem . But those who would never use such language at any time are not part of the solution, as long as their language sensitivity does little or nothing to change the social realities which treat so many people as less than human. Support for correct social speech, joined with maintenance of incorrect social practice, equals hypocrisy, not democracy.
We should never use language that is insulting or disrespectful to any people , but polite habits of speech mean very little when society treats so many with a disrespect that amounts to murderous disregard. When we consign children to underfunded, physically run down schools that can’t possibly provide the education supposedly guaranteed them by our written laws, addressing them with verbal respectability masks a cruel and material disrespect. Using nasty terms like ho or bitch when addressing women is degrading , but calling someone Miss or Mrs. while forcing her to work at below minimum wages and raise children in a home with broken windows and no heat , is hardly a sign of a healthy respect for women.
While our consciousness of how hurtful talk can be has led to some progress, it has also helped create a kind of language police force armed with hate laws and moral righteousness. At the same time we have a material police force armed with the older laws and weapons which are too often used to pump bullets into an unarmed and innocent man because he looked suspiciously, criminally black. Neither such a man, nor his family or his community, are protected from ignorant bigotry by respectfully referring to him, with politically correct language, as a dead African American.
An old childhood adage retaliated to name calling by chanting ; sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never harm me. Of course derogatory names can cause deep personal pain, as can heartbreaking relationships, loneliness and depression . But physical pain hurts far more , and when we over stress the correction of language to free it of derogatory words, we sometimes forget the social pain we allow in everyday performance of even more derogatory deeds.
We don't need politically correct speech as much as we need a political actuality that fits the words we use to profess it. Our credit culture ultimately demands material actions to back up any immaterial credit language; landlords and banks will not accept endless promises to pay the rent or mortgage . Social relations amount to a verbal bill that needs to be paid in something more than additional promissory verbiage. While we act to enforce rules of decent speech, we would do well to remember another old adage; actions speak louder than words. It’s time to put those words into action.
Copyright (c) 2007 by Frank Scott. All rights reserved.
This text may be used and shared in accordance with the
fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be
archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that
the author is notified and no fee is charged for access.
Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on
other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the author
frank scott
email: frank@marin.cc.ca.us
Friday, April 20, 2007
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Mind Management is not Democracy by Frank Scott
When British marines were captured by the Iranians, we were told they were in Iraqi waters, as though that was completely natural. Several thousand miles from their own country, sailing an area subject to border dispute, their captain having told British TV that they might be picking up intelligence about Iran; nothing unusual there. Especially for an arrogant former imperial power reduced to snuggling up to the USA and acting as its junior partner in arousing hatred for the western world .
Photos that showed them smiling and looking healthy, and messages they sent apologizing for being in Iranian territory were treated with suspicion. They were released after a posturing show in the diplomatic theater, where such performances make TV wrestling look honest.
Upon returning to their homeland, they were immediately transformed into a group of sobbing sufferers who claimed they were forced to smile and confess under threat of death. One of them sold her sad story for big bucks and a mini-scandal erupted after which it was ruled that none should profit from stories of their dreadful treatment at the hands of their sadistic captors. These demons seemed to have force fed some of them so they would appear heavier than they were before their capture. What monstrous fiends.
Those who have tortured and abused their own prisoners registered indignation at the treatment of these captives. And they did so without blushing, or even laughing once the cameras and mikes were turned off. This is life in the civilized west, where news is reported without bias, and truth and justice reign supreme. Sure.
The man depicted as an anti-Semitic genocidal demon was shown smiling and making jokes as his nation freed military personnel captured in their waters. The imperially self-chosen world featured the dreadful toady, Blair, making threats he couldn't possibly carry out without his U.S. bodyguards, and the even more dreadful Bush making macho noises in the background. This pair would give a bad name to cross dressing female impersonators, but they play the roles of tough hombres in the movie we are shown that supposedly represents reality.
Have any of the thousands of prisoners taken in the frantic war on terror, all found guilty without trial and very often with no evidence, ever been spoken to or photographed with the American or British leaders? Even when found innocent and set free, has there been any public gesture towards them by any leader? Yet the release of military prisoners, accompanied by handshakes and jokes from the president of the invaded country, is treated as an outrage by him, not them.
Is it any wonder that we are among the most ignorant people in the universe? When we have media presenting fairy tales as reality, and when our political leadership lives in a nightmarish dream world of demented lunacy?
A presidential candidate was photographed walking through a Baghdad market, with a small army protecting him, claiming that things were going smoothly and safely there. And he was a veteran of actual combat in Viet Nam. Well, he did his killing by bombing from the sky, so the dead bodies and rubble on the ground probably never came to his attention . This experience, and his years in a military prison along with more years in the U.S. senate, may have helped cloud his vision so as not to notice troops and helicopters creating his benign tourist pleasure. This is a candidate for the nation’s highest office. And why not? Given the murderous ding bats who run it now, he might offer an improvement.
None of this is really funny, and in fact it’s really tragic. We must deal with a reality in which we directly, if often unconsciously contribute to the ever more miserable lives of millions of people. How long can we assume that those who willingly sacrifice themselves in suicide bombings in other places, will refrain from doing so here? The tragic attack of 911 may have been beyond anyone’s imagination, save for those who performed it and the dunderheads who let it happen, and we might assume that no such airline hijacking will happen again. But a suicide driver in a car filled with explosives could inflict tremendous death and damage here, and the longer we are governed by forces operating in our name but out of our control, the more likely it is that lack of control will come home to us with a devastating vengeance.
As long as we allow rich and powerful minorities to control our media, our government, and our minds, we face a future that may rival the dreadful experience of millions the world over who suffer because we lack majority rule and tolerate minority domination.
We have called ourselves a democratic nation for much of our history, but that democracy was founded and flourished in great part by stealing the nation from its original inhabitants and building its economy with slave labor from Africa , and cheap labor from Europe, Asia and Latin America. The prosperity and abundant lifestyles enjoyed by millions here have been achieved by directly and indirectly adding to the misery and suffering experienced by hundreds of millions elsewhere. If we don’t create political and economic democracy soon, we can expect greater and more rapid environmental destruction, especially of our social organization.
Democracy is not something given to us by a benign outside force, material or spiritual. It must be created by the people, as it has been in much poorer nations, by populations with far less material wealth and creature comforts than we enjoy . How have they been able to bring about profound social change, while we still work for minimal and too often cosmetic appearances of change that only maintain the status quo?
We have no excuse. If we continue to accept this twisted farce and call it democracy, we will surely get the future it promises.
And predicting that such a future will not be pleasant is an understatement.
Copyright (c) 2007 by Frank Scott. All rights reserved.
This text may be used and shared in accordance with the
fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be
archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that
the author is notified and no fee is charged for access.
Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on
other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the author
frank scott
email: frank@marin.cc.ca.us
Photos that showed them smiling and looking healthy, and messages they sent apologizing for being in Iranian territory were treated with suspicion. They were released after a posturing show in the diplomatic theater, where such performances make TV wrestling look honest.
Upon returning to their homeland, they were immediately transformed into a group of sobbing sufferers who claimed they were forced to smile and confess under threat of death. One of them sold her sad story for big bucks and a mini-scandal erupted after which it was ruled that none should profit from stories of their dreadful treatment at the hands of their sadistic captors. These demons seemed to have force fed some of them so they would appear heavier than they were before their capture. What monstrous fiends.
Those who have tortured and abused their own prisoners registered indignation at the treatment of these captives. And they did so without blushing, or even laughing once the cameras and mikes were turned off. This is life in the civilized west, where news is reported without bias, and truth and justice reign supreme. Sure.
The man depicted as an anti-Semitic genocidal demon was shown smiling and making jokes as his nation freed military personnel captured in their waters. The imperially self-chosen world featured the dreadful toady, Blair, making threats he couldn't possibly carry out without his U.S. bodyguards, and the even more dreadful Bush making macho noises in the background. This pair would give a bad name to cross dressing female impersonators, but they play the roles of tough hombres in the movie we are shown that supposedly represents reality.
Have any of the thousands of prisoners taken in the frantic war on terror, all found guilty without trial and very often with no evidence, ever been spoken to or photographed with the American or British leaders? Even when found innocent and set free, has there been any public gesture towards them by any leader? Yet the release of military prisoners, accompanied by handshakes and jokes from the president of the invaded country, is treated as an outrage by him, not them.
Is it any wonder that we are among the most ignorant people in the universe? When we have media presenting fairy tales as reality, and when our political leadership lives in a nightmarish dream world of demented lunacy?
A presidential candidate was photographed walking through a Baghdad market, with a small army protecting him, claiming that things were going smoothly and safely there. And he was a veteran of actual combat in Viet Nam. Well, he did his killing by bombing from the sky, so the dead bodies and rubble on the ground probably never came to his attention . This experience, and his years in a military prison along with more years in the U.S. senate, may have helped cloud his vision so as not to notice troops and helicopters creating his benign tourist pleasure. This is a candidate for the nation’s highest office. And why not? Given the murderous ding bats who run it now, he might offer an improvement.
None of this is really funny, and in fact it’s really tragic. We must deal with a reality in which we directly, if often unconsciously contribute to the ever more miserable lives of millions of people. How long can we assume that those who willingly sacrifice themselves in suicide bombings in other places, will refrain from doing so here? The tragic attack of 911 may have been beyond anyone’s imagination, save for those who performed it and the dunderheads who let it happen, and we might assume that no such airline hijacking will happen again. But a suicide driver in a car filled with explosives could inflict tremendous death and damage here, and the longer we are governed by forces operating in our name but out of our control, the more likely it is that lack of control will come home to us with a devastating vengeance.
As long as we allow rich and powerful minorities to control our media, our government, and our minds, we face a future that may rival the dreadful experience of millions the world over who suffer because we lack majority rule and tolerate minority domination.
We have called ourselves a democratic nation for much of our history, but that democracy was founded and flourished in great part by stealing the nation from its original inhabitants and building its economy with slave labor from Africa , and cheap labor from Europe, Asia and Latin America. The prosperity and abundant lifestyles enjoyed by millions here have been achieved by directly and indirectly adding to the misery and suffering experienced by hundreds of millions elsewhere. If we don’t create political and economic democracy soon, we can expect greater and more rapid environmental destruction, especially of our social organization.
Democracy is not something given to us by a benign outside force, material or spiritual. It must be created by the people, as it has been in much poorer nations, by populations with far less material wealth and creature comforts than we enjoy . How have they been able to bring about profound social change, while we still work for minimal and too often cosmetic appearances of change that only maintain the status quo?
We have no excuse. If we continue to accept this twisted farce and call it democracy, we will surely get the future it promises.
And predicting that such a future will not be pleasant is an understatement.
Copyright (c) 2007 by Frank Scott. All rights reserved.
This text may be used and shared in accordance with the
fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be
archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that
the author is notified and no fee is charged for access.
Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on
other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the author
frank scott
email: frank@marin.cc.ca.us
Friday, April 6, 2007
Election Season: Let's Hear It For "Vanity" Candidates
In 1980 Barry Commoner became the Rodney Dangerfield of American politics. Running for president on a platform of public control of energy, an end to nuclear development, conversion to solar energy and conservation, large cutbacks in military spending, termination of support for repressive regimes, guaranteed full employment, stable prices for economic necessities, and citizen control of large corporations, he got no respect at all. At a campaign stop a questioner actually asked him if he was "a serious candidate or if he was just running on the issues." Commoner let the question hang in the air a few extra moments to highlight the absurdity of presidential campaigns as issueless publicity contests.
Things had not changed much nearly a quarter century later when Ted Koppel virtually ordered Dennis Kucinich out of the 2004 race on the grounds that he lacked sufficient financial clout to buy his way to the top of the pack. Koppel's views mirrored those of his paymasters: if you can't prostitute yourself to the private owners of the economy, you have no business seeking higher office. In the optic of the capitalist media, "vanity" candidates like Commoner and Kucinich only exist to "lend a little color to the campaign," not to transform American politics into substantive democracy. It is quite beside the point that a long list of so-called vanity candidates has advanced programs which promised to go a long way towards solving our problems, in contrast to the elected candidates, who have demonstrated their political superiority by ushering the human race to the brink of extinction.
As scapegoats for the consequences of our unconfronted problems progressive candidates appear to be ideal. They have no power and lack the resources to defend themselves against the onslaught of demonization launched by the well-off. Incredibly enough, the Democrats are STILL blaming Ralph Nader for their troubles, though their wholesale capitulation to reactionary policies dates back far beyond when Nader first appeared on the scene. Yes, Nader is responsible for the national security state, not Harry Truman who instituted it. Nader is responsible for the Patriot Act, not the Democrats who voted for it. Nader is responsible for Abu Ghraib, not the Democrats who refused to impeach Bush over it, or even make a campaign issue out of it. Nader is to blame for wars in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq, not the Democrats who swear eternal loyalty to a racist Jewish state.
Just how has democratic sentiment fared in recent years, given this assumption that only "serious candidates" have a claim on the electorate? Ronald Reagan won the 1980 elections with an underwhelming 26.6% of the potential vote, a figure based on all those who might have registered and voted, as well as those who actually did. Just four percent of voters supported Reagan out of ideological conviction, i.e., because they thought he was "a real conservative." On the other hand, support for social programs was overwhelming, especially for Social Security and Medicare, with large majorities opposing benefit cuts for the elderly, poor, handicapped, as well as in federal aid to education and in general health programs. In addition, the general public strongly favored environmental protection and regulations to protect the health and safety of consumers and workers. No matter. The mass media shamelessly pronounced the Reagan triumph a landslide victory for conservatism and the death of the New Deal.
Four years later fully half the electorate (the poorer half) saw no advantage in choosing between Reagan and Walter Mondale, while those that did turn out had the unenviable task of determining which candidate represented the greater threat to their well being, a quadrennial challenge demanding almost impossibly fine distinctions. The "issues" were whether President Reagan could operate without a Teleprompter or if Mondale was too dull to attract support. The strategy was to canvass voter prejudices and craft the catchy sound bites and bumper sticker slogans that would harvest the most votes. As usual, electable candidates were defined as viable, not compromised. One could almost hear Orwell wincing in his grave.
In 1988 Jesse Jackson developed a democratic coalition spanning the entire society - farmers, unionists, feminists, Hispanics, students, environmentalists, and 95% of blacks. Huge crowds turned out to hear him denounce wage-slashing, pension-busting, job-exporting capital for its complete lack of social conscience. They roared delighted approval when he waxed indignant at "American multinationals firing free labor at home to hire repressed labor abroad." Allegedly unwilling to support a black candidate, laid off auto workers flocked to Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, awarding him front-runner status with 55% of the Michigan primary vote. Pundits yawned and Israel-first fanatics finished him off: photos of Jackson with Yasir Arafat circulated widely in the press; old charges of anti-Semitism were endlessly rehashed; a panicked Democratic Party hierarchy launched an Anybody-But-Jackson campaign. The threat of popular rule dethroning "democracy" was no more.
Jackson, though running within an officially sanctioned party, had been treated as a vanity candidate. His broad-based coalition was dismissed for allegedly being composed of "special interests," in contrast to the microscopic minority that owned the private economy and controlled the political system, which supposedly represented the general interest. Even Orwell could have been forgiven for throwing in the towel at this point.
In 1992 Ross Perot split the reactionary vote - without, let us note, being charged with egomania and other allegedly Naderesque defects - which delivered Bill Clinton to the White House. Clinton carried on the Reagan "revolution," slashing social programs, eliminating welfare, dismantling the post-WWII capital-labor accord, embracing NAFTA while gutting the side agreements protecting workers and the environment that he had promised to enforce, funneling taxes towards police, prisons, and war, strangling civil liberties with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and intervening militarily in Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Yugoslavia, and Iraq. Democrats, who have raised political obtuseness to an art form, now regard this period as The Good Old Days.
In 2000 half the electorate sat the contest out again, as per tradition in a country without a labor party or socialist voice in the mass media, and voters suffered the equivalent of a nervous breakdown attempting to discern a vote-worthy difference between capitalist extremists Al Gore and George W. Bush. No issues resonated with any large body of voters, and, in fact, they were unable to even perceive the candidates' stances due to all the campaign hoopla. One clear perception did emerge, however: over 60% of regular voters found American politics "generally pretty disgusting." It's hard to quarrel with that.
Four years later conditions for a lopsided Democratic victory were ideal: George W. Bush had bogged the country down in a criminal and hopeless war, his tax cuts for the rich had exacerbated widespread and growing economic insecurities, and the U.S. future appeared relentlessly bleak. But John Kerry rose to the challenge, ignoring overwhelming anti-war sentiment within his party in favor of pathetic slogans about Bush having "outsourced" the job of mass murder from Afghanistan to Iraq. As though slaughtering Afghans were nobler than slaughtering Iraqis. Bush remained for a second term and Kerry faded into the political obscurity he so richly deserves.
No doubt Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to overturn this dismal pattern and deliver peace and justice for all. But it seems a safer bet to raise a cheer for vanity candidates instead, the last best hope for democracy amidst a crumbling empire.
Things had not changed much nearly a quarter century later when Ted Koppel virtually ordered Dennis Kucinich out of the 2004 race on the grounds that he lacked sufficient financial clout to buy his way to the top of the pack. Koppel's views mirrored those of his paymasters: if you can't prostitute yourself to the private owners of the economy, you have no business seeking higher office. In the optic of the capitalist media, "vanity" candidates like Commoner and Kucinich only exist to "lend a little color to the campaign," not to transform American politics into substantive democracy. It is quite beside the point that a long list of so-called vanity candidates has advanced programs which promised to go a long way towards solving our problems, in contrast to the elected candidates, who have demonstrated their political superiority by ushering the human race to the brink of extinction.
As scapegoats for the consequences of our unconfronted problems progressive candidates appear to be ideal. They have no power and lack the resources to defend themselves against the onslaught of demonization launched by the well-off. Incredibly enough, the Democrats are STILL blaming Ralph Nader for their troubles, though their wholesale capitulation to reactionary policies dates back far beyond when Nader first appeared on the scene. Yes, Nader is responsible for the national security state, not Harry Truman who instituted it. Nader is responsible for the Patriot Act, not the Democrats who voted for it. Nader is responsible for Abu Ghraib, not the Democrats who refused to impeach Bush over it, or even make a campaign issue out of it. Nader is to blame for wars in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq, not the Democrats who swear eternal loyalty to a racist Jewish state.
Just how has democratic sentiment fared in recent years, given this assumption that only "serious candidates" have a claim on the electorate? Ronald Reagan won the 1980 elections with an underwhelming 26.6% of the potential vote, a figure based on all those who might have registered and voted, as well as those who actually did. Just four percent of voters supported Reagan out of ideological conviction, i.e., because they thought he was "a real conservative." On the other hand, support for social programs was overwhelming, especially for Social Security and Medicare, with large majorities opposing benefit cuts for the elderly, poor, handicapped, as well as in federal aid to education and in general health programs. In addition, the general public strongly favored environmental protection and regulations to protect the health and safety of consumers and workers. No matter. The mass media shamelessly pronounced the Reagan triumph a landslide victory for conservatism and the death of the New Deal.
Four years later fully half the electorate (the poorer half) saw no advantage in choosing between Reagan and Walter Mondale, while those that did turn out had the unenviable task of determining which candidate represented the greater threat to their well being, a quadrennial challenge demanding almost impossibly fine distinctions. The "issues" were whether President Reagan could operate without a Teleprompter or if Mondale was too dull to attract support. The strategy was to canvass voter prejudices and craft the catchy sound bites and bumper sticker slogans that would harvest the most votes. As usual, electable candidates were defined as viable, not compromised. One could almost hear Orwell wincing in his grave.
In 1988 Jesse Jackson developed a democratic coalition spanning the entire society - farmers, unionists, feminists, Hispanics, students, environmentalists, and 95% of blacks. Huge crowds turned out to hear him denounce wage-slashing, pension-busting, job-exporting capital for its complete lack of social conscience. They roared delighted approval when he waxed indignant at "American multinationals firing free labor at home to hire repressed labor abroad." Allegedly unwilling to support a black candidate, laid off auto workers flocked to Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, awarding him front-runner status with 55% of the Michigan primary vote. Pundits yawned and Israel-first fanatics finished him off: photos of Jackson with Yasir Arafat circulated widely in the press; old charges of anti-Semitism were endlessly rehashed; a panicked Democratic Party hierarchy launched an Anybody-But-Jackson campaign. The threat of popular rule dethroning "democracy" was no more.
Jackson, though running within an officially sanctioned party, had been treated as a vanity candidate. His broad-based coalition was dismissed for allegedly being composed of "special interests," in contrast to the microscopic minority that owned the private economy and controlled the political system, which supposedly represented the general interest. Even Orwell could have been forgiven for throwing in the towel at this point.
In 1992 Ross Perot split the reactionary vote - without, let us note, being charged with egomania and other allegedly Naderesque defects - which delivered Bill Clinton to the White House. Clinton carried on the Reagan "revolution," slashing social programs, eliminating welfare, dismantling the post-WWII capital-labor accord, embracing NAFTA while gutting the side agreements protecting workers and the environment that he had promised to enforce, funneling taxes towards police, prisons, and war, strangling civil liberties with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and intervening militarily in Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Yugoslavia, and Iraq. Democrats, who have raised political obtuseness to an art form, now regard this period as The Good Old Days.
In 2000 half the electorate sat the contest out again, as per tradition in a country without a labor party or socialist voice in the mass media, and voters suffered the equivalent of a nervous breakdown attempting to discern a vote-worthy difference between capitalist extremists Al Gore and George W. Bush. No issues resonated with any large body of voters, and, in fact, they were unable to even perceive the candidates' stances due to all the campaign hoopla. One clear perception did emerge, however: over 60% of regular voters found American politics "generally pretty disgusting." It's hard to quarrel with that.
Four years later conditions for a lopsided Democratic victory were ideal: George W. Bush had bogged the country down in a criminal and hopeless war, his tax cuts for the rich had exacerbated widespread and growing economic insecurities, and the U.S. future appeared relentlessly bleak. But John Kerry rose to the challenge, ignoring overwhelming anti-war sentiment within his party in favor of pathetic slogans about Bush having "outsourced" the job of mass murder from Afghanistan to Iraq. As though slaughtering Afghans were nobler than slaughtering Iraqis. Bush remained for a second term and Kerry faded into the political obscurity he so richly deserves.
No doubt Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to overturn this dismal pattern and deliver peace and justice for all. But it seems a safer bet to raise a cheer for vanity candidates instead, the last best hope for democracy amidst a crumbling empire.
Dollar Democracy
Dollar Democracy
by Frank Scott
The two best financed presidential candidates of the democratic wing of our ruling party have been battling over money, and support from two of America’s most important minority groups: Blacks and Jews. Those reduced to desperation by a regime which may be the worst in American history are excited by this advertised-as-charismatic pair.
Having treated the constitution as if it were a non-binding resolution, while further blemishing an already badly pockmarked American image , the regime seems anxious to be replaced. As it happens, its term will conveniently be up just as a new regime takes over. So the race for the real stuff of our democracy has been under way since long before any vote will be electronically distorted, stolen, miscounted or even cast.
The advertised-as-dynamic duo have already raised fifty million dollars between them, and we’re still a year and a half from any vote.
Our elections usually find the black vote being turned out in support of candidates financed by Jewish money, so it may not be long before the said-to-be-exciting pair form a ticket. They've both pledged allegiance to Israel before Jewish groups, while joining in a lusty chorus of We Shall Overcome before black groups. Along with Israel’s supporters in and out of government, many old civil rights figures have been swept up in this campaign circus, supporting one of the two front running money gatherers, or hedging their bets and hoping to be power brokers at some later date. They can see being courted for endorsements as great progress between the ugly racist past and the cosmetically improved racial present . Especially for themselves, since most of them have achieved political and financial success far beyond most Americans, let alone most black Americans. But as long as the said-to-be-progressive dollar dynamos occasionally quote Martin Luther King or murmur something about the plight of New Orleans survivors , those expressions of alleged race consciousness seem enough to get the old guard to smile with favor on them, separately or together.
The senator from New York is regarded as a soul sister by many women, especially if their souls were shaped by the Motown experience they had while at college. She is the wife of a former tenant at the white house who was called our first black president, in a hysteric burst of euphoric praise from an otherwise sensible person, over some appointments of upper class blacks to his administration . He later opened an office in the gentrified and newly whitened atmosphere of 125th street in New York. This gives the couple resonance among middle and upper income blacks for whom affirmative action has meant more money, better neighborhoods and being labeled African Americans more often than black. Blacks live in the projects, ghettos and prisons of America; African Americans are more suburban, go to college and may aspire to positions in government and industry, mostly token but occasionally very well paying.
The senator from Illinois is truly African American in that his father is an African, and his mother is a white American, and they have money . This helps to not only make his looks but his upper class speech patterns more palatable to whites . Especially dunderheads who still think an articulate black must be alien to the race. While women generally consider the New Yorker one of their own, even if her financial class is beyond theirs, many black Americans seem not yet convinced that the Illinois senator is necessarily one of them. In fact, his economic background is so far above that of the average white American that it is the stuff of comedy for him, or for that matter her , to be treated as a voice of and for the great majority, though this is the usual situation with political leadership in America. Neither of them live near, dine among, or consort with - except for photo ops during campaigns - most of the people who are passionately supporting them as if they were winners on American Idol. Well, maybe not that passionately.
Another former senator advertised as the populist in this mix has also raised millions of dollars. And he may gain support from gays, having been called the “f” word by a political anorexic with a warped sense of humor. Not the often used if unspeakable in public four letter one, but the often used though equally unspeakable in public six letter one. The gay vote is far less numerically important than the black vote, but gays can produce dollars on a per capita basis that rivals the Jewish bloc. And genuine sympathy for his cancer stricken wife may help create more support for his presidential bankbook. The issue free battle over how many dollars you can get to buy votes isn't over yet. He’s got quite a few , but the duo have far more. Isn't democracy wonderful?
There are several other job seekers collecting funds which will be wasted between now and November 2008, but the lowest on the dollar gathering chart may be the only one who actually represents a majority of american working people, no matter which identity group or ethnic minority they have been herded into believing is their essence as human beings.
Dennis Kucinich attempts speaking truth to power, but power will do its best, and sadly succeed with the consent of its powerless, to muffle his message. It is relatively simple: get out of Iraq, create a peaceful world and a nation within it that provides health care for all its people without the use of private insurance. These and other planks in his platform will remain unknown to most citizens, and the advertised-to-themselves as liberal and progressive sector will support him only in small numbers. This is because of their habitual practice of crackpot realism which says: for the good of the nation, don't vote for what you supposedly stand for, and in fact vote against it.
Since the a combination of nonvoters and those who do select from their master’s choices will have little to do with actually picking the next representative of great wealth, corporate capital and Israel in the white house, Americans may soon notice that and react in healthy anger by acting in their own best collective interests. But that can only happen once there is rejection of minority democracy by dollars, and a demand for majority democracy by votes.
In the short term, we should expect the worst. But in the long term, we should hope - and work for - the best.
by Frank Scott
The two best financed presidential candidates of the democratic wing of our ruling party have been battling over money, and support from two of America’s most important minority groups: Blacks and Jews. Those reduced to desperation by a regime which may be the worst in American history are excited by this advertised-as-charismatic pair.
Having treated the constitution as if it were a non-binding resolution, while further blemishing an already badly pockmarked American image , the regime seems anxious to be replaced. As it happens, its term will conveniently be up just as a new regime takes over. So the race for the real stuff of our democracy has been under way since long before any vote will be electronically distorted, stolen, miscounted or even cast.
The advertised-as-dynamic duo have already raised fifty million dollars between them, and we’re still a year and a half from any vote.
Our elections usually find the black vote being turned out in support of candidates financed by Jewish money, so it may not be long before the said-to-be-exciting pair form a ticket. They've both pledged allegiance to Israel before Jewish groups, while joining in a lusty chorus of We Shall Overcome before black groups. Along with Israel’s supporters in and out of government, many old civil rights figures have been swept up in this campaign circus, supporting one of the two front running money gatherers, or hedging their bets and hoping to be power brokers at some later date. They can see being courted for endorsements as great progress between the ugly racist past and the cosmetically improved racial present . Especially for themselves, since most of them have achieved political and financial success far beyond most Americans, let alone most black Americans. But as long as the said-to-be-progressive dollar dynamos occasionally quote Martin Luther King or murmur something about the plight of New Orleans survivors , those expressions of alleged race consciousness seem enough to get the old guard to smile with favor on them, separately or together.
The senator from New York is regarded as a soul sister by many women, especially if their souls were shaped by the Motown experience they had while at college. She is the wife of a former tenant at the white house who was called our first black president, in a hysteric burst of euphoric praise from an otherwise sensible person, over some appointments of upper class blacks to his administration . He later opened an office in the gentrified and newly whitened atmosphere of 125th street in New York. This gives the couple resonance among middle and upper income blacks for whom affirmative action has meant more money, better neighborhoods and being labeled African Americans more often than black. Blacks live in the projects, ghettos and prisons of America; African Americans are more suburban, go to college and may aspire to positions in government and industry, mostly token but occasionally very well paying.
The senator from Illinois is truly African American in that his father is an African, and his mother is a white American, and they have money . This helps to not only make his looks but his upper class speech patterns more palatable to whites . Especially dunderheads who still think an articulate black must be alien to the race. While women generally consider the New Yorker one of their own, even if her financial class is beyond theirs, many black Americans seem not yet convinced that the Illinois senator is necessarily one of them. In fact, his economic background is so far above that of the average white American that it is the stuff of comedy for him, or for that matter her , to be treated as a voice of and for the great majority, though this is the usual situation with political leadership in America. Neither of them live near, dine among, or consort with - except for photo ops during campaigns - most of the people who are passionately supporting them as if they were winners on American Idol. Well, maybe not that passionately.
Another former senator advertised as the populist in this mix has also raised millions of dollars. And he may gain support from gays, having been called the “f” word by a political anorexic with a warped sense of humor. Not the often used if unspeakable in public four letter one, but the often used though equally unspeakable in public six letter one. The gay vote is far less numerically important than the black vote, but gays can produce dollars on a per capita basis that rivals the Jewish bloc. And genuine sympathy for his cancer stricken wife may help create more support for his presidential bankbook. The issue free battle over how many dollars you can get to buy votes isn't over yet. He’s got quite a few , but the duo have far more. Isn't democracy wonderful?
There are several other job seekers collecting funds which will be wasted between now and November 2008, but the lowest on the dollar gathering chart may be the only one who actually represents a majority of american working people, no matter which identity group or ethnic minority they have been herded into believing is their essence as human beings.
Dennis Kucinich attempts speaking truth to power, but power will do its best, and sadly succeed with the consent of its powerless, to muffle his message. It is relatively simple: get out of Iraq, create a peaceful world and a nation within it that provides health care for all its people without the use of private insurance. These and other planks in his platform will remain unknown to most citizens, and the advertised-to-themselves as liberal and progressive sector will support him only in small numbers. This is because of their habitual practice of crackpot realism which says: for the good of the nation, don't vote for what you supposedly stand for, and in fact vote against it.
Since the a combination of nonvoters and those who do select from their master’s choices will have little to do with actually picking the next representative of great wealth, corporate capital and Israel in the white house, Americans may soon notice that and react in healthy anger by acting in their own best collective interests. But that can only happen once there is rejection of minority democracy by dollars, and a demand for majority democracy by votes.
In the short term, we should expect the worst. But in the long term, we should hope - and work for - the best.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Democrats Demand Complete Withdrawal Fro Iran!
Democrats demand complete withdrawal from Iran by 2025!
by Frank Scott
Showing a boldness and determination that made many political observers gasp, the Democrats demanded that Bush evacuate the troops from Iran by the year 2025. “We hold the president fully responsible for leading us to believe the threat posed by Iran, so even though he will have long been out of office and the war directed exclusively by other members of the Wimpocrat bipartisan group, we will keep his feet to the fire even when he's gone.” Assured by the this new show of courage and hard work by the representative from San Fran Telavivsco, the party was able to raise seventeen billion dollars for its next campaign: making Israel the fifty first state.
Meanwhile, the race for democracy’s real meaning reached a fever pitch in the campaign for the campaign to be in the campaign for president in 2008. The leading dollar hunter-gatherers were recently stunned by a dramatic announcement of critical family illness, leading all to desperately seek personal tragedies that might help their financial procurement.
In retaliation for the emotional announcement that Edwards would continue campaigning even with his wife diagnosed with cancer, Hillary Clinton said she will continue her run for president, despite her marital problems concerning her husband’s sexual addiction. “This great country, not to leave Israel out, needs my leadership far too much for me to allow my husband’s terminal psychological condition to stop my campaign.”
The Obama campaign immediately called a press conference at which the charismatic, dynamic, articulate and least fearful to white people candidate expressed his continued run for president, despite his own terminal condition. “My serious case of terminal CLAD ( content lacking addictive disorder ) will not stop my run for the presidency, nor will it stop my vaguely hopeful speeches which strike stylish emotional tones while staying free of substantial content. .And despite the horrors of CLAD, i pledge my continued and dedicated support for Israel”.
Motivated by all these fighting words, the Biden camp announced that he would no longer conduct gas attacks on his own people by speaking publicly. He vowed to remain mute for the rest of the campaign, using sign language to communicate with the masses. Biden vowed that would not stop him from clearly articulating, in a clear , articulate and non-redundant fashion , unlike the other white candidates but very much like Baraka, who , he signed, was the cleanest of all the black candidates .
Dennis Kucinich continued his unrealistic and hopelessly under financed campaign by insisting that troops must be evacuated from Iraq now, and that our health care should not be put in the hands of private insurers but be covered by a national single payer program. Party leadership and major pundits agreed that he was not a serious candidate, since he insisted on issues of substance , had no charisma and was not fervent enough in his support for Israel. But his supporters claim he is more firmly connected to the establishment than many seem to understand, pointing out that he and Bill Gates gets use the same barber.
President Bush said he would no longer follow the advice given him by the brilliant ( according to democrats ) strategist, Karl Rove. “I will continue listening to god, since she has never lied to me, but i will be very careful about listening to Rove since he forced me into Iraq. Really, i wanted to attack Iran, which, with the help of god, congress and the Israeli lobby , i plan to do, soon.” Congress and the Israeli lobby promised the president support in this policy. God has not been heard from. For years now. Apparently, god is no April Fool.
by Frank Scott
Showing a boldness and determination that made many political observers gasp, the Democrats demanded that Bush evacuate the troops from Iran by the year 2025. “We hold the president fully responsible for leading us to believe the threat posed by Iran, so even though he will have long been out of office and the war directed exclusively by other members of the Wimpocrat bipartisan group, we will keep his feet to the fire even when he's gone.” Assured by the this new show of courage and hard work by the representative from San Fran Telavivsco, the party was able to raise seventeen billion dollars for its next campaign: making Israel the fifty first state.
Meanwhile, the race for democracy’s real meaning reached a fever pitch in the campaign for the campaign to be in the campaign for president in 2008. The leading dollar hunter-gatherers were recently stunned by a dramatic announcement of critical family illness, leading all to desperately seek personal tragedies that might help their financial procurement.
In retaliation for the emotional announcement that Edwards would continue campaigning even with his wife diagnosed with cancer, Hillary Clinton said she will continue her run for president, despite her marital problems concerning her husband’s sexual addiction. “This great country, not to leave Israel out, needs my leadership far too much for me to allow my husband’s terminal psychological condition to stop my campaign.”
The Obama campaign immediately called a press conference at which the charismatic, dynamic, articulate and least fearful to white people candidate expressed his continued run for president, despite his own terminal condition. “My serious case of terminal CLAD ( content lacking addictive disorder ) will not stop my run for the presidency, nor will it stop my vaguely hopeful speeches which strike stylish emotional tones while staying free of substantial content. .And despite the horrors of CLAD, i pledge my continued and dedicated support for Israel”.
Motivated by all these fighting words, the Biden camp announced that he would no longer conduct gas attacks on his own people by speaking publicly. He vowed to remain mute for the rest of the campaign, using sign language to communicate with the masses. Biden vowed that would not stop him from clearly articulating, in a clear , articulate and non-redundant fashion , unlike the other white candidates but very much like Baraka, who , he signed, was the cleanest of all the black candidates .
Dennis Kucinich continued his unrealistic and hopelessly under financed campaign by insisting that troops must be evacuated from Iraq now, and that our health care should not be put in the hands of private insurers but be covered by a national single payer program. Party leadership and major pundits agreed that he was not a serious candidate, since he insisted on issues of substance , had no charisma and was not fervent enough in his support for Israel. But his supporters claim he is more firmly connected to the establishment than many seem to understand, pointing out that he and Bill Gates gets use the same barber.
President Bush said he would no longer follow the advice given him by the brilliant ( according to democrats ) strategist, Karl Rove. “I will continue listening to god, since she has never lied to me, but i will be very careful about listening to Rove since he forced me into Iraq. Really, i wanted to attack Iran, which, with the help of god, congress and the Israeli lobby , i plan to do, soon.” Congress and the Israeli lobby promised the president support in this policy. God has not been heard from. For years now. Apparently, god is no April Fool.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Honeybees Of The World, Unite?
Honeybees Of The World, Unite?
by frank scott
The stock market makes corrections which never really get rid of its mistakes, and always performs to enrich a few at the expense of many. It operates as a subsidiary of a larger system which works in exactly the same way. From Wall Street to Main Street in the USA , and from the more developed nations to the less developed states of the world, this system has never been as threatening to the future of the race as it is at present.
The climate change debate between 90 percent of the science community which views it as at least partly a creation of human activity, and the 10% who blame everything on god or other invisible scapegoats, fails to name a cause other than “us”. Even in that overwhelming majority, while there is mention of over production, greed, selfishness, rapacious use of resources and other euphemisms for capitalism, seldom is heard that identifying word. But whether we use the label or not, it is becoming clear that the pressures on nature, in all its forms, are pressing upon what nature, through humanity, creates as organizing principles that are the foundation of the global economy. These are placing all elements of survival under dangerously heavier burdens .
The stress factor in human life may be approaching that of the Honeybee, which seems to be vanishing at alarming rates and for some of the same reasons that people feel pressured. An economic crime against nature is creating massive strains on all environments, and on all creatures great and small which depend on those environments. Commonly dubbed a globalization that is spreading wealth and democracy wherever it goes, the blight on natural and social environments is nothing but old fashioned capitalism .
The Honeybees are placed under perverse burdens by the economics of agriculture, which have been breeding them in special forms so as to assist in creating larger crops of food products to sell at markets. Under the domain of capital, the word product is far more important than the modifier, food. Whether it is food, clothing, shelter, medical care, consumer conceits or manipulated fancies , under the rules of capital accumulation it is the product and its sale that looms largest. That is the antihuman nature of a system that effects private profits by causing social loss .
Market capitalism demands subjects trained to think of their individual responsibility for survival, and to see social groups isolated in ethnic, racial or religious categories. Balkanized groups adhering to the special identity they are socialized to accept are fine, as long as they are in competition for what are deemed scarce resources . But they must never see themselves as part of a social organism that might function best for them if they cooperated, in politically and economically democratic ways . Rather, the isolated shopper is deemed the operative mechanism, in order to buy all the things necessary to make it a successful individual, even though that designation is denied most members of an alienated, anti-social planet of consumers.
Isolating people guarantees that even if a level of material comfort is achieved, the individual will remain anxiously stressed enough to warrant the marketing of therapies and drugs to substitute for the peace of mind that might be available in a less alienating environment. We thus have millions with physical security who still seek a psychological commodity labeled personal self esteem. They have to purchase lessons, therapies, exercises and other psycho-religious products to feel genuine, primarily because they are denied membership in a social union of citizens that might create a less stressful and more balanced reality.
Material security esteem looms much larger than psycho-self esteem In the real world, but billions fail to achieve the first, so that millions can fail to enjoy the second. Global research done by the U.N. reveals the same results as national research done by the USA : The gap between the richest and poorest human beings is wider than ever, and the number of people reduced to poverty is increasing. Worldwide, billions live below the poverty line, while in the richest nation in the world, millions are consigned to physical destitution in a society that spends billions of dollars on its pets. This is not the result of a demon power ruling a nation, a corporation or an NGO. It is due to the proper functioning of a system which works best when it enriches some people, at the expense of most people.
Propaganda has made it seem that producing products for sale in a market in order to accrue private profit is the most natural way to organize an economic system. And it is as natural as a mother charging her infant five dollars a meal for breast feeding. Making such perverse anti-socialism seem natural was easier to get away with in the past, but evidence is mounting that the world is under enormous pressure and facing dangerous survival problems for humanity . Not an individual, identity group, national, religious or ethnic subdivision is threatened, but the race itself. The Honeybee may be helpless under the domain of capital economics, but if the people remain so they may well go the way of the Honeybee.
It would be simplistic to claim that all of our problems are caused by capitalist economics. The truth is that only most of our problems are caused by capitalism. The sooner we stop looking for demons , angels, heroes and villains as the reasons for war, hunger and depression, or peace, a full belly and happiness, the sooner we may enlarge our focus to the organizing principles of our political economics. As long as we entrust the production of food, clothing and health care, or toys, stereos and skis, to simply creating a full bank account for one stockholder, the sooner we will end the hideous reality of empty stomachs for thousands of human beings. In a world where some overeat until they are forced to diet, while others starve until they are forced to die, it isn't because of the universe, nor is it any individual leader. It is the minority created , majority sustained system of capitalism that must be changed, in order for humanity to have a hopeful future . That majority needs to act in its own interests, which calls for far more change than some individual at the top. It is revolution from the bottom, where most of us really live, that is necessary. Now, more than ever.
by frank scott
The stock market makes corrections which never really get rid of its mistakes, and always performs to enrich a few at the expense of many. It operates as a subsidiary of a larger system which works in exactly the same way. From Wall Street to Main Street in the USA , and from the more developed nations to the less developed states of the world, this system has never been as threatening to the future of the race as it is at present.
The climate change debate between 90 percent of the science community which views it as at least partly a creation of human activity, and the 10% who blame everything on god or other invisible scapegoats, fails to name a cause other than “us”. Even in that overwhelming majority, while there is mention of over production, greed, selfishness, rapacious use of resources and other euphemisms for capitalism, seldom is heard that identifying word. But whether we use the label or not, it is becoming clear that the pressures on nature, in all its forms, are pressing upon what nature, through humanity, creates as organizing principles that are the foundation of the global economy. These are placing all elements of survival under dangerously heavier burdens .
The stress factor in human life may be approaching that of the Honeybee, which seems to be vanishing at alarming rates and for some of the same reasons that people feel pressured. An economic crime against nature is creating massive strains on all environments, and on all creatures great and small which depend on those environments. Commonly dubbed a globalization that is spreading wealth and democracy wherever it goes, the blight on natural and social environments is nothing but old fashioned capitalism .
The Honeybees are placed under perverse burdens by the economics of agriculture, which have been breeding them in special forms so as to assist in creating larger crops of food products to sell at markets. Under the domain of capital, the word product is far more important than the modifier, food. Whether it is food, clothing, shelter, medical care, consumer conceits or manipulated fancies , under the rules of capital accumulation it is the product and its sale that looms largest. That is the antihuman nature of a system that effects private profits by causing social loss .
Market capitalism demands subjects trained to think of their individual responsibility for survival, and to see social groups isolated in ethnic, racial or religious categories. Balkanized groups adhering to the special identity they are socialized to accept are fine, as long as they are in competition for what are deemed scarce resources . But they must never see themselves as part of a social organism that might function best for them if they cooperated, in politically and economically democratic ways . Rather, the isolated shopper is deemed the operative mechanism, in order to buy all the things necessary to make it a successful individual, even though that designation is denied most members of an alienated, anti-social planet of consumers.
Isolating people guarantees that even if a level of material comfort is achieved, the individual will remain anxiously stressed enough to warrant the marketing of therapies and drugs to substitute for the peace of mind that might be available in a less alienating environment. We thus have millions with physical security who still seek a psychological commodity labeled personal self esteem. They have to purchase lessons, therapies, exercises and other psycho-religious products to feel genuine, primarily because they are denied membership in a social union of citizens that might create a less stressful and more balanced reality.
Material security esteem looms much larger than psycho-self esteem In the real world, but billions fail to achieve the first, so that millions can fail to enjoy the second. Global research done by the U.N. reveals the same results as national research done by the USA : The gap between the richest and poorest human beings is wider than ever, and the number of people reduced to poverty is increasing. Worldwide, billions live below the poverty line, while in the richest nation in the world, millions are consigned to physical destitution in a society that spends billions of dollars on its pets. This is not the result of a demon power ruling a nation, a corporation or an NGO. It is due to the proper functioning of a system which works best when it enriches some people, at the expense of most people.
Propaganda has made it seem that producing products for sale in a market in order to accrue private profit is the most natural way to organize an economic system. And it is as natural as a mother charging her infant five dollars a meal for breast feeding. Making such perverse anti-socialism seem natural was easier to get away with in the past, but evidence is mounting that the world is under enormous pressure and facing dangerous survival problems for humanity . Not an individual, identity group, national, religious or ethnic subdivision is threatened, but the race itself. The Honeybee may be helpless under the domain of capital economics, but if the people remain so they may well go the way of the Honeybee.
It would be simplistic to claim that all of our problems are caused by capitalist economics. The truth is that only most of our problems are caused by capitalism. The sooner we stop looking for demons , angels, heroes and villains as the reasons for war, hunger and depression, or peace, a full belly and happiness, the sooner we may enlarge our focus to the organizing principles of our political economics. As long as we entrust the production of food, clothing and health care, or toys, stereos and skis, to simply creating a full bank account for one stockholder, the sooner we will end the hideous reality of empty stomachs for thousands of human beings. In a world where some overeat until they are forced to diet, while others starve until they are forced to die, it isn't because of the universe, nor is it any individual leader. It is the minority created , majority sustained system of capitalism that must be changed, in order for humanity to have a hopeful future . That majority needs to act in its own interests, which calls for far more change than some individual at the top. It is revolution from the bottom, where most of us really live, that is necessary. Now, more than ever.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Obama On His Knees Before AIPAC
Lest there be any doubt that Illinois Senator Barack Obama is in the attack Iran camp, his worshipful stance at the AIPAC policy forum days ago should dispel any doubts that he favors Jewish supremacy first, last, and always. On that occasion he said that "peace through security is the only way for Israel," with security being the usual euphemism for Jewish domination. Obama made sure to mention that he had visited Israel and seen the damage done by Katyusha rockets fired by Hizbollah, which he regards as an independent evil force, as opposed to Israel, which only reluctantly employs force and always in self-defense. Naturally, he made no mention of Israel's cluster bombs leveling Lebanon, among other war crimes. After all, only Jewish lives are precious.
"It is important to remember," said Obama, invoking a common strain of political mythology, "that Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon only to have Iran supply Hezbollah with thousands of rockets." In point of fact, Israel was forced out of Lebanon by Hizbollah, which enjoys overwhelming support among the Lebanese people for this fact alone. The lamentable state of physical security for Israelis has everything to do with the aggressive actions of the U.S. and Israel and nothing to do with Hizbollah.
But in Obama's view Arabs and Muslims are the sole problem in the region. "Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real." We instantly know that Arabs and Muslims are the source of the "violence," not the vast destruction wrought by Israel's war crimes and other violations of international law. "Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision." Unfortunately, the United States' efforts to "help Israel achieve peace" do not appear promising, consisting, as they do, of decades of support for colonization of Arab land, a never-ending avalanche of lethal weaponry, billions of dollars in aid, and diplomatic support for any and all crimes Israel sees fit to commit. This is the path to peace?
"That effort (to achieve peace)," says Obama, "begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point." First of all, Lebanon has been a democracy for some time and the Palestinians have elected leaders repeatedly. Furthermore, it remains a bit of a mystery what sort of "security" can reasonably be expected from a state that refuses to abide by international law and continually colonizes Arab lands based on Biblical injunctions. No doubt this is an anti-Semitic observation, but using a Bronze Age real estate guide to conduct international affairs in the 21st Century doesn't seem the most prudent course of action.
Only canned laughter could redeem Obama's assertion that we need to "rally the world to our values and vision." The Illinois Senator fears that the Iraq occupation will prevent people from seeing our essential goodness. How ungrateful can people get? Of course, it wouldn't do to mention that the Iraq invasion was instigated by neo-con (read Jewish supremacist) advisers in accordance with plans laid out when they worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Not to mention that we are moving dangerously close to human extinction based precisely on having rallied the world to "our values and vision." Since WWII what nation has had a greater impact in shaping world events than the United States?
Nevertheless, the problem in Iraq, says Obama, is not U.S. war crimes and the contempt for international law upon which they are based, but "someone else's civil war." The obvious fact that the "civil war" is a product of the U.S. invasion itself, which has united Iraqis against Washington and its collaborators, is too subtle a point for Obama's discriminating eye to discern. Thank God, he's a lot smarter than the "dummy" Bush.
Obama favors not an end to the Iraq war, but a "phased redeployment" of U.S. troops, a policy geared towards helping a mythical independent Iraqi government "slow the bloodshed and promote stability." In short, with hundreds of thousands dead, Obama wants our victims to bleed slower and refrain from attacking us as we rape and dismember their land. The audacity of hope indeed. With hopes like Obama's, who needs despair?
But Obama is at his worst in his views on Iran and the Holocaust. This is what he told AIPAC: "Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers."
Why is it wrong to question atrocity numbers and whether or not gas chambers existed in WWII? It is no simple matter to arrive at accurate figures for atrocities during periods of mass upheaval, so the questioning of statistics is perfectly legitimate. And if the lack of forensic evidence for the existence of gas chambers arouses skepticism, what's wrong with that? Well, of course, we all know the answer to that. Those in charge of the purity of our morals insist that one must be a Hitler worshiper to think like this. But this is no answer.
Actually, Prime Minister Ahmadinejad claimed that the orthdox version of the Holocaust was a myth, and called the Teheran Conference to investigate what really happened. Western states could have done the same, but slavish devotion to Israel and heresy trials against those who have the audacity to hope that their doubts about gas chambers and atrocity numbers can be given a fair hearing, have made this impossible. How is that Ahmadinejad's fault?
Although Ahmadinejad did not in fact call for "wiping Israel off the map," Obama claims he did: "In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done."
What became of Palestine in 1948? Was it not quite literally "wiped off the map?" And what happened to the Iraqi state of 2003? Was it legally disposed of? According to Barack Obama, now genuflecting at every AIPAC orthodoxy, it was.
Michael Smith
"It is important to remember," said Obama, invoking a common strain of political mythology, "that Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon only to have Iran supply Hezbollah with thousands of rockets." In point of fact, Israel was forced out of Lebanon by Hizbollah, which enjoys overwhelming support among the Lebanese people for this fact alone. The lamentable state of physical security for Israelis has everything to do with the aggressive actions of the U.S. and Israel and nothing to do with Hizbollah.
But in Obama's view Arabs and Muslims are the sole problem in the region. "Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real." We instantly know that Arabs and Muslims are the source of the "violence," not the vast destruction wrought by Israel's war crimes and other violations of international law. "Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision." Unfortunately, the United States' efforts to "help Israel achieve peace" do not appear promising, consisting, as they do, of decades of support for colonization of Arab land, a never-ending avalanche of lethal weaponry, billions of dollars in aid, and diplomatic support for any and all crimes Israel sees fit to commit. This is the path to peace?
"That effort (to achieve peace)," says Obama, "begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point." First of all, Lebanon has been a democracy for some time and the Palestinians have elected leaders repeatedly. Furthermore, it remains a bit of a mystery what sort of "security" can reasonably be expected from a state that refuses to abide by international law and continually colonizes Arab lands based on Biblical injunctions. No doubt this is an anti-Semitic observation, but using a Bronze Age real estate guide to conduct international affairs in the 21st Century doesn't seem the most prudent course of action.
Only canned laughter could redeem Obama's assertion that we need to "rally the world to our values and vision." The Illinois Senator fears that the Iraq occupation will prevent people from seeing our essential goodness. How ungrateful can people get? Of course, it wouldn't do to mention that the Iraq invasion was instigated by neo-con (read Jewish supremacist) advisers in accordance with plans laid out when they worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Not to mention that we are moving dangerously close to human extinction based precisely on having rallied the world to "our values and vision." Since WWII what nation has had a greater impact in shaping world events than the United States?
Nevertheless, the problem in Iraq, says Obama, is not U.S. war crimes and the contempt for international law upon which they are based, but "someone else's civil war." The obvious fact that the "civil war" is a product of the U.S. invasion itself, which has united Iraqis against Washington and its collaborators, is too subtle a point for Obama's discriminating eye to discern. Thank God, he's a lot smarter than the "dummy" Bush.
Obama favors not an end to the Iraq war, but a "phased redeployment" of U.S. troops, a policy geared towards helping a mythical independent Iraqi government "slow the bloodshed and promote stability." In short, with hundreds of thousands dead, Obama wants our victims to bleed slower and refrain from attacking us as we rape and dismember their land. The audacity of hope indeed. With hopes like Obama's, who needs despair?
But Obama is at his worst in his views on Iran and the Holocaust. This is what he told AIPAC: "Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers."
Why is it wrong to question atrocity numbers and whether or not gas chambers existed in WWII? It is no simple matter to arrive at accurate figures for atrocities during periods of mass upheaval, so the questioning of statistics is perfectly legitimate. And if the lack of forensic evidence for the existence of gas chambers arouses skepticism, what's wrong with that? Well, of course, we all know the answer to that. Those in charge of the purity of our morals insist that one must be a Hitler worshiper to think like this. But this is no answer.
Actually, Prime Minister Ahmadinejad claimed that the orthdox version of the Holocaust was a myth, and called the Teheran Conference to investigate what really happened. Western states could have done the same, but slavish devotion to Israel and heresy trials against those who have the audacity to hope that their doubts about gas chambers and atrocity numbers can be given a fair hearing, have made this impossible. How is that Ahmadinejad's fault?
Although Ahmadinejad did not in fact call for "wiping Israel off the map," Obama claims he did: "In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done."
What became of Palestine in 1948? Was it not quite literally "wiped off the map?" And what happened to the Iraqi state of 2003? Was it legally disposed of? According to Barack Obama, now genuflecting at every AIPAC orthodoxy, it was.
Michael Smith
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)