[Editor's note: This was in response to "Mourning in America: When Will We Ever Learn?" Reprinted below.]
I am in 100% agreement.
Firearms regulations have been diluted, neutered, and defeated through the efforts of a small group of politically well-financed and well-organized fanatics that believe that an amendment allowing them to keep and bear arms is there to allow them to oppose the will of the government by force if they think it’s necessary. They’ll use hunting as a crutch to win a few more votes, but we all know that fully automatic rifles with clips that hold dozens of rounds of armor piercing ammunition are not hunting weapons. Neither of the two pistols the shooter in New Town had on him were hunting weapons. Those pistols were not target pistols either. All three weapons had no other purpose than what they were used for, killing human beings, and they were obtained legally. Is there anything else we need to know about them?
I will no longer vote for or donate to any politician or political organization that allows the NRA to influence them.
Michael Caine
JAZZMAN CHRONICLES. DISSEMINATE FREELY.
MOURNING IN AMERICA: WHEN WILL WE EVER LEARN?
By Jack Random
How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind.
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.
Bob Dylan, Blowin’ in The Wind
I am a writer. It is who I am. Writing is what I do that gives my life fundamental meaning. Of course there is family and there are friends for whom I am eternally grateful to be able to share my thoughts and feelings, but writing is how I connect to the world and the worldwide web is my forum.
As the nation mourns the horrific actions of a deranged young man in a rural town in Connecticut, my eyes turn inward. I wonder what my life would be like if I were unable to formulate words or if no one wished to read or hear them. I don’t for a moment believe that I would resort to violence but I am also acutely aware of the frailty and unpredictability of human nature.
I know that words can convey only a small fraction of the depth of sorrow that the loss of a child visits to the soul. I know that the cry for vengeance after such an act is also a part of human nature and I know that it is in vain.
Who among us can say what vile acts we are capable of if the entire world seems to turn against us or, perhaps worse, turns its back as if we did not exist?
I am reminded of a moment of clarity in Michael Moore’s documentary film Bowling for Columbine, a poignant account of America’s first mass murder at a public school. Some had decided that a certain kind of music was at least partially to blame for the unthinkable actions of two young men and Marilyn Manson was at the top of the list. Moore asked Manson what he would say to the kids who perpetrated the crime. His reply was more revealing than dozens of media experts attempting to explain the event:
“I wouldn’t say a single word to them. I would listen to what they have to say and that’s what no one did.”
No one can say that a failure to listen was a cause of the massacre at Columbine or Newtown, Connecticut. No one knows or will ever know but we do know this: Every educator, every administrator, instructional aide, nurse, counselor and school psychologist can identify children who desperately need help and do not receive it.
Politicians like to say “you can’t throw money at a problem” just before they lower the hammer for another round of budget cuts at the public schools. Maybe so but you can be sure that an absence of funding for essential resources does a great deal of harm.
Every school district and every school should have mental health professionals available to troubled students whenever and wherever they are needed. Simply stated, there is no money for services the politicians consider unessential.
We hear it every time there is a shooting at a school and everyone agrees but when the story fades and the schools face another round of budget cuts, as they inevitably will, the mental health counselors are the first to fall.
Words fail and mental health services are not enough. No matter what services we provide, no matter what precautions we take, no matter how many security measures we install at our houses of education, there will always be individuals who pose a threat not only to themselves but to others, not only to friends and family members but to innocent children.
Some say it is our culture of violence. I don’t buy it. In a civilized society, human nature trumps cultural influence. We are no more violent than our European, Asian, Middle Eastern, African or South American brethren. We are a compassionate people. We care deeply and we mourn for our fallen children.
We all know the numbers. We are among the world’s leaders in peacetime firearms casualties (4th behind South Africa, Colombia and Thailand according to NationMaster.com). We lead the world in gun ownership and availability and we have the weakest gun control laws in the industrialized world. Only in America can any random Jack walk into a gun show and walk out with the equivalent of an AK-47.
In our hearts, if we are honest, we know the reason behind the numbers. Like Bill Clinton said in reference to balancing the budget, it’s the math. It’s the laws of probability. The more guns we produce, the more assault weapons we make available, the more they will fall into the wrong hands.
This is not conjecture. This is not speculation. This is simple math. Like rats breeding in a confined space, our behavior and its consequences are eminently predictable. If there is a gun in your house, you and your loved ones are more likely to fall victim to gun violence. If we make it easier for deranged individuals to get their hands on assault weapons and rapid-fire clips, we guarantee that more innocent people will die.
In our hearts we know, yet we let it go on as if change in America is impossible. It is possible. We are a democracy and the voice of the people will ultimately be heard over the roar of the National Rifle Association (NRA).
One of the unintended consequences of the Supreme Court’s unconscionable Citizens United decision (legalizing unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns) is that organizations like the NRA are no longer major players. No politician must pander to the NRA any longer. For every dollar in NRA blood money there are at least a thousand from the elite international corporations. The gun industry can no longer dictate legislation in Washington.
That is not a good reason for long-due change but it is a political reality.
We are a nation in mourning. We cannot stop the tears with our collective sorrow. We can ease the suffering of the afflicted families only by small measures. We cannot prevent future tragedies from befalling others but this time we can at least take action that will mitigate the harm. This time we can begin to control our deadly weapons and have complete certainty that lives will be spared.
To paraphrase Pete Seeger’s anti-war ballad:
Where have all the flowers gone?
Gone to graveyards everyone.
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn?
To those who say they need their guns for target practice, I say the vicarious pleasures of a million target shooters is not worth the life of one child.
To those who say possession of firearms, from semi-automatic pistols to military quality assault rifles, is your god given right, I say our children have a god given right to live long and fruitful lives.
To those who hide behind the second amendment right to bear arms, I say you should be ashamed. Who appointed you the guardians of our democracy? I say: As long as we have the ballot box, we have no need for a self-anointed revolutionary militia. If ever we did, it would not be you.
Lay down your arms for the public good. Lay down your ammunition for the students of Columbine, for the people of Aurora, for the citizens of Tucson and Oak Creek, and for the children of Newtown.
It is time we answered the question “When will we ever learn?” emphatically: Now!
Jazz.
JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE BEEN POSTED ON NUMEROUS CITES OF THE WORLDWIDE WEB, INCLUDING THE ALBION MONITOR, BELLACIAO, BUZZLE, COUNTERPUNCH, DISSIDENT VOICE, THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS, GLOBAL FREE PRESS AND PACIFIC FREE PRESS. SEE WWW.JAZZMANCHRONICLES.BLOGSPOT.COM.
Showing posts with label Dear Jack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dear Jack. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Saturday, June 02, 2012
OBAMA'S BETRAYAL OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
Re: Myth of Equality
By Beverly Rice
"We can make the case that this administration has held back the wave of rightwing oppression that his opponents would surely pursue . . ."
It would be a weak case. The Obama administration has racheted up the civil rights and Constitution trashing of the Bush/Cheney years.
-Obama signed off on the NDAA legislation that allow the president to order the indefinite detention of anyone he/she feels like messing with - regardless of probable cause. The administration pressed Congress to include US citizens in the mix of those who could be detained. The law contains broad language regarding who can be a potential target. Section 1031 defines a potential target as a person who is either a member of, or substantially supported, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” This also includes “any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.” The law doesn’t define what “associated forces” are, or what “engaging in hostilities” against the US means. And because the definition of a “terrorist” shifts according to political necessity, all of us – all over the world – are potential targets and eventual victims - including dissenters at home such as Occupy Wall Streeters, environmental and animal rights advocates.
-Obama signed off on the The “Trespass Bill” in March 2012. This law makes peaceable protest anywhere in the US a possible federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Anyone can be charged with a federal felony for trespassing on property that is under Secret Service protection, even if the supposed person is not aware that the area is under such protection. One can also be charged if he/she impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of govt business or official functions.” This law effectively criminalizes any form of protest.
-More March Madness ensued with Obama's signing of the Natl Defense Resource Preparedness Act. This order allows the executive branch to take control of all food, energy, health and transportation resources in the service of “national defense,” even in times of declared peace. This order updates the previous one signed by Bill Clinton.
-Patriot Act? Obama voted for 2005 Patriot Act and its renewal. Media headlines touted stand against Act despite his vote for it.
-Obama vowed in 2008 to vote against FISA bill amendment giving immunity to telcom corp that cooperate w/Bush admin warrantless surveillance program. He then voted for bill in July of that year.
- Obama admin claims right to execute US citizens w/o charge or due process.
- Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any of his predecessors.
- Obama told DOJ attorneys in 2009 to argue before San Fran Fed Dist Judge Walker that he should toss out the Shubert v Bush suit brought by Electronic Frontier Foundation. Suit challenges secret state driftnet surveillance of Americans’ electronic communications. April 2009: DOJ argued for dismissal of Jewel v NSA civil suit brought by ATT customers to stop company’s ongoing collaboration w/govt’s illegal surveillance. DOJ says if suit proceeds it would require govt disclosure of privileged state secrets. Arguing under Patriot Act that state immune from suit under the Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act.
- In April, the Supreme Court ruled that jails can perform strip searches on new inmates regardless of the gravity of their alleged offenses. Obama DOJ lawyers spoke and filed briefs IN FAVOR of blanket strip searches. Instead of using arguments with regard to smuggling of contraband such as drugs and weapons, the admin's lawyer used hypothetical political protesters as the bad guys of his argument. Sounds like someone is more concerned with deterring political dissent as opposed to deterring more weed getting into jails. The hard core activist may be brave enough to not give a damn, but most would be protesters might think twice about risking a full body cavity strip search along with whatever other Gtimo-like actions the Gestapo guard feels like doing.
With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans? Obama isn't holding back right wing wave of oppression; he's throwing the sheeple into the waves and laughing as they drown in the River of Denial.
Beverly Rice
[Editor's Note: This was in response to "The Myth of Equal Rights" by Jack Random, posted on Counterpunch, Dissident Voice and Pacific Free Press.]
By Beverly Rice
"We can make the case that this administration has held back the wave of rightwing oppression that his opponents would surely pursue . . ."
It would be a weak case. The Obama administration has racheted up the civil rights and Constitution trashing of the Bush/Cheney years.
-Obama signed off on the NDAA legislation that allow the president to order the indefinite detention of anyone he/she feels like messing with - regardless of probable cause. The administration pressed Congress to include US citizens in the mix of those who could be detained. The law contains broad language regarding who can be a potential target. Section 1031 defines a potential target as a person who is either a member of, or substantially supported, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” This also includes “any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.” The law doesn’t define what “associated forces” are, or what “engaging in hostilities” against the US means. And because the definition of a “terrorist” shifts according to political necessity, all of us – all over the world – are potential targets and eventual victims - including dissenters at home such as Occupy Wall Streeters, environmental and animal rights advocates.
-Obama signed off on the The “Trespass Bill” in March 2012. This law makes peaceable protest anywhere in the US a possible federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Anyone can be charged with a federal felony for trespassing on property that is under Secret Service protection, even if the supposed person is not aware that the area is under such protection. One can also be charged if he/she impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of govt business or official functions.” This law effectively criminalizes any form of protest.
-More March Madness ensued with Obama's signing of the Natl Defense Resource Preparedness Act. This order allows the executive branch to take control of all food, energy, health and transportation resources in the service of “national defense,” even in times of declared peace. This order updates the previous one signed by Bill Clinton.
-Patriot Act? Obama voted for 2005 Patriot Act and its renewal. Media headlines touted stand against Act despite his vote for it.
-Obama vowed in 2008 to vote against FISA bill amendment giving immunity to telcom corp that cooperate w/Bush admin warrantless surveillance program. He then voted for bill in July of that year.
- Obama admin claims right to execute US citizens w/o charge or due process.
- Obama has prosecuted more whistleblowers than any of his predecessors.
- Obama told DOJ attorneys in 2009 to argue before San Fran Fed Dist Judge Walker that he should toss out the Shubert v Bush suit brought by Electronic Frontier Foundation. Suit challenges secret state driftnet surveillance of Americans’ electronic communications. April 2009: DOJ argued for dismissal of Jewel v NSA civil suit brought by ATT customers to stop company’s ongoing collaboration w/govt’s illegal surveillance. DOJ says if suit proceeds it would require govt disclosure of privileged state secrets. Arguing under Patriot Act that state immune from suit under the Wiretap Act and Stored Communications Act.
- In April, the Supreme Court ruled that jails can perform strip searches on new inmates regardless of the gravity of their alleged offenses. Obama DOJ lawyers spoke and filed briefs IN FAVOR of blanket strip searches. Instead of using arguments with regard to smuggling of contraband such as drugs and weapons, the admin's lawyer used hypothetical political protesters as the bad guys of his argument. Sounds like someone is more concerned with deterring political dissent as opposed to deterring more weed getting into jails. The hard core activist may be brave enough to not give a damn, but most would be protesters might think twice about risking a full body cavity strip search along with whatever other Gtimo-like actions the Gestapo guard feels like doing.
With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans? Obama isn't holding back right wing wave of oppression; he's throwing the sheeple into the waves and laughing as they drown in the River of Denial.
Beverly Rice
[Editor's Note: This was in response to "The Myth of Equal Rights" by Jack Random, posted on Counterpunch, Dissident Voice and Pacific Free Press.]
Monday, December 19, 2011
The Coming Explosion & Omission in Osawatomie
Regarding Omission in Osawatomie (a Jazzman Chronicle reprinted below):
I completely agree with your thesis. There was a great poet by the name of Langston Hughes with whom Barack Obama would be well served to heed in his neglect of the rhetoric he used to obtain the office of the POTUS. In the final stanza of the poem, it reflects the inevitable outcome of the body politic. There will be an uprising at some point; an explosion!
Wakiza L. McQueen
HARLEM by Langston Hughes
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
or fester like a sore—
and then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over—
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
December 14, 2011
A Line Obama Will Not Cross
Omission in Osawatomie
by JACK RANDOM
Like the sirens to Odysseus, President Obama’s address at Osawatomie, Kansas, was pleasing to the progressive ear but if you allow its seductive tone to capture you, it could well prove fatal to the cause.
We have heard this song before. It takes us back to the soaring oratory that uplifted the masses and propelled a one-term senator to the presidency. Then as now, the president correctly and brilliantly deconstructs the problem: The middle class is under siege, hemorrhaging skilled and unskilled jobs to cheap labor markets overseas, resulting in depressed wages and declining benefits, depleted retirement funds, union busting and unregulated industries.
But, then as now, his solutions fail to approach the heart of the matter. Proclaiming a new world economy based on innovation, he advocates government funding for research and education, science and engineering, progressive taxation, regulation, consumer protection and a commitment to building and rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure.
These are all worthy ideas that the president strings together with a rising intonation in order to avoid the obvious, central and core solution. Consequently, he builds to a dull crescendo, sounding a sour chord and all too familiar refrain: Technology and innovation will save us.
The president prides himself on his knowledge of history, so much so that he summoned the memory of Theodore Roosevelt in this address. Unfortunately, history does not uphold his case. Technology and innovation have never sustained the middle class. They have created fortunes and whole industries but how it affects the working people depends entirely on where the industries are located and how the workers are paid.
Take a good look at the major innovations of the Free Trade era: The personal computer, the laptop and the smart phone are all made in China and serviced in India. Solar technology created advanced solar collectors and panels, creating a thriving industry in China. Hybrid vehicles may be assembled in America but by-and-large they are constructed in foreign nations where the cost of labor trumps all other concerns. Even our bridges are made in China.
Within the parameters of a global Free Trade economy, there is no innovation that can revive American industry. The idea that innovation and education are going to create jobs for 300 million Americans is a pipe dream, a fantasy and, in this case, an excuse not to address the heart of the matter.
The obvious answer and the one that perpetually evades the president and the majority of his party is Fair Trade. American workers can compete and win on a fair playing field but no one can compete with dirt-cheap labor. The masterminds behind the new global economy have built corporate profits by exploiting the cheapest possible labor overseas and simultaneously undermining labor in our own country.
What is Fair Trade?
It is built on the conviction that all nations that engage our nation in trade should uphold the rights of labor, including the right to organize, and pay their workers living wages.
How would Fair Trade be implemented?
The most direct route would be to reserve preferred trade status to nations that protect the rights of labor, provide basic health and retirement benefits, and pay living wages to their workforce. All other nations would be subject to a tariff proportionate to the cost of compliance.
The message to China, India and all other nations that now benefit from the imbalance of trade would be clear: Pay your workers at home or pay to protect our workers at the border.
Human rights and the critical issue of carbon emissions also come into the equation but if the goal is rebuilding American industry, then the heart of the matter is labor.
Why is Fair Trade off the table?
There was a time when simply raising the cry of “Protectionism” could defeat any such proposal but after decades of job exportation, Americans are losing their fear of words. Protecting our workers in the current environment is a moral imperative.
Accordingly, Fair Trade is alive and well in the United States Congress. Even Republicans in the House and Senate are afraid to go on record in opposition. The Trade Reform Accountability Development and Employment Act proposed by Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Representative Michael Michaud of Maine would fundamentally reshape America’s trade policy, bringing labor to the forefront.
Unfortunately, the silence of the White House enables congressional leadership to keep the measure from coming to the floor for a vote. President Obama presses forward on Free Trade deals with Korea, Columbia and Panama, ensuring the exportation of jobs to even more nations.
Even progressive economists are reluctant to address trade policy, preferring to attack trade imbalance through so-called currency manipulation. The idea is if our trading partners increased the value of their currency it would be more expensive to buy their goods and less expensive for them to buy ours. If the revaluation were large enough and sustained, it would certainly have an effect.
The problem with the currency approach is that it allows the tenets of Free Trade to stand. It does not end the anti-labor measures enforced by austerity regimes under the dictates of the International Monetary Fund. That is why even the prototypical corporate candidate, Republican Mitt Romney, feels free to advocate punitive actions against China based on the charge of currency manipulation. It leaves workers out on the lurch and the rights of labor out of the picture. Moreover, all nations manipulate currency. That is the primary function of the Federal Reserve.
Of course, if we were to insist that other nations respect the rights of labor we would have to do a better job of protecting our own workers. We could no longer allow individual states to effectively crush unions with so-called Right to Work laws. We could no longer allow legislative attacks on collective bargaining without paying a price.
It is as if the entire liberal establishment, from the politicians to the intellectuals to the media, signed on to Bill Clinton’s Free Trade mandate back in the eighties and have adhered to that agreement ever since.
It was a deal with the devil, a betrayal of every working man and woman not only in America but throughout the world, and it demands to be revisited now.
In 2008 candidate Barack Obama said, “I voted against CAFTA, never supported NAFTA, and will not support NAFTA–style trade agreements in the future. While NAFTA gave broad rights to investors, it paid only lip service to the rights of labor and the importance of environmental protection.”
Where is that candidate now? He disappeared upon taking the oath of office.
In retrospect, it seems amply clear that candidate Obama made a deal with Wall Street, his leading campaign contributors, before he embarked on his road to the White House. Fair Trade was off limits. It was the one territory he could not visit. It was the one line he could not cross.
An original sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act (an affirmation of the right to organize and establish a union by majority vote) had President Obama remembered his labor roots in his address at Osawatomie, had he raised the banner of Fair Trade to initiate his campaign for a second term, then that address might have stood alongside Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism or Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal inaugural address.
As it stands, it is the perfect symbol of his presidency to date: A promise unfulfilled.
If we were to initiate the age of Fair Trade it would fundamentally change the debate and ultimately alter the structure of the global economy. The world would face a choice. The European people would insist that their governments follow our lead. China and India would fight back but they are as dependent on us as we are on them. A bargain would be struck and a transition would be negotiated.
America would win back her industries and the middle class would re-emerge at the heart of the global economy.
It will happen in any case. It is inevitable. To continue on the path we are on will lead only to massive civil unrest and the result will be the same. By initiating Fair Trade now we could avoid much of that inevitable pain and disruption.
If only we had a leader with the courage to break his pact with Wall Street in order to keep his promise to the American people.
[Article posted by Pacific Free Press, CounterPunch and Dissident Voice.]
Jack Random is the author of Jazzman Chronicles (Crow Dog Press) and Ghost Dance Insurrection (Dry Bones Press.)
I completely agree with your thesis. There was a great poet by the name of Langston Hughes with whom Barack Obama would be well served to heed in his neglect of the rhetoric he used to obtain the office of the POTUS. In the final stanza of the poem, it reflects the inevitable outcome of the body politic. There will be an uprising at some point; an explosion!
Wakiza L. McQueen
HARLEM by Langston Hughes
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
or fester like a sore—
and then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over—
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
December 14, 2011
A Line Obama Will Not Cross
Omission in Osawatomie
by JACK RANDOM
Like the sirens to Odysseus, President Obama’s address at Osawatomie, Kansas, was pleasing to the progressive ear but if you allow its seductive tone to capture you, it could well prove fatal to the cause.
We have heard this song before. It takes us back to the soaring oratory that uplifted the masses and propelled a one-term senator to the presidency. Then as now, the president correctly and brilliantly deconstructs the problem: The middle class is under siege, hemorrhaging skilled and unskilled jobs to cheap labor markets overseas, resulting in depressed wages and declining benefits, depleted retirement funds, union busting and unregulated industries.
But, then as now, his solutions fail to approach the heart of the matter. Proclaiming a new world economy based on innovation, he advocates government funding for research and education, science and engineering, progressive taxation, regulation, consumer protection and a commitment to building and rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure.
These are all worthy ideas that the president strings together with a rising intonation in order to avoid the obvious, central and core solution. Consequently, he builds to a dull crescendo, sounding a sour chord and all too familiar refrain: Technology and innovation will save us.
The president prides himself on his knowledge of history, so much so that he summoned the memory of Theodore Roosevelt in this address. Unfortunately, history does not uphold his case. Technology and innovation have never sustained the middle class. They have created fortunes and whole industries but how it affects the working people depends entirely on where the industries are located and how the workers are paid.
Take a good look at the major innovations of the Free Trade era: The personal computer, the laptop and the smart phone are all made in China and serviced in India. Solar technology created advanced solar collectors and panels, creating a thriving industry in China. Hybrid vehicles may be assembled in America but by-and-large they are constructed in foreign nations where the cost of labor trumps all other concerns. Even our bridges are made in China.
Within the parameters of a global Free Trade economy, there is no innovation that can revive American industry. The idea that innovation and education are going to create jobs for 300 million Americans is a pipe dream, a fantasy and, in this case, an excuse not to address the heart of the matter.
The obvious answer and the one that perpetually evades the president and the majority of his party is Fair Trade. American workers can compete and win on a fair playing field but no one can compete with dirt-cheap labor. The masterminds behind the new global economy have built corporate profits by exploiting the cheapest possible labor overseas and simultaneously undermining labor in our own country.
What is Fair Trade?
It is built on the conviction that all nations that engage our nation in trade should uphold the rights of labor, including the right to organize, and pay their workers living wages.
How would Fair Trade be implemented?
The most direct route would be to reserve preferred trade status to nations that protect the rights of labor, provide basic health and retirement benefits, and pay living wages to their workforce. All other nations would be subject to a tariff proportionate to the cost of compliance.
The message to China, India and all other nations that now benefit from the imbalance of trade would be clear: Pay your workers at home or pay to protect our workers at the border.
Human rights and the critical issue of carbon emissions also come into the equation but if the goal is rebuilding American industry, then the heart of the matter is labor.
Why is Fair Trade off the table?
There was a time when simply raising the cry of “Protectionism” could defeat any such proposal but after decades of job exportation, Americans are losing their fear of words. Protecting our workers in the current environment is a moral imperative.
Accordingly, Fair Trade is alive and well in the United States Congress. Even Republicans in the House and Senate are afraid to go on record in opposition. The Trade Reform Accountability Development and Employment Act proposed by Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Representative Michael Michaud of Maine would fundamentally reshape America’s trade policy, bringing labor to the forefront.
Unfortunately, the silence of the White House enables congressional leadership to keep the measure from coming to the floor for a vote. President Obama presses forward on Free Trade deals with Korea, Columbia and Panama, ensuring the exportation of jobs to even more nations.
Even progressive economists are reluctant to address trade policy, preferring to attack trade imbalance through so-called currency manipulation. The idea is if our trading partners increased the value of their currency it would be more expensive to buy their goods and less expensive for them to buy ours. If the revaluation were large enough and sustained, it would certainly have an effect.
The problem with the currency approach is that it allows the tenets of Free Trade to stand. It does not end the anti-labor measures enforced by austerity regimes under the dictates of the International Monetary Fund. That is why even the prototypical corporate candidate, Republican Mitt Romney, feels free to advocate punitive actions against China based on the charge of currency manipulation. It leaves workers out on the lurch and the rights of labor out of the picture. Moreover, all nations manipulate currency. That is the primary function of the Federal Reserve.
Of course, if we were to insist that other nations respect the rights of labor we would have to do a better job of protecting our own workers. We could no longer allow individual states to effectively crush unions with so-called Right to Work laws. We could no longer allow legislative attacks on collective bargaining without paying a price.
It is as if the entire liberal establishment, from the politicians to the intellectuals to the media, signed on to Bill Clinton’s Free Trade mandate back in the eighties and have adhered to that agreement ever since.
It was a deal with the devil, a betrayal of every working man and woman not only in America but throughout the world, and it demands to be revisited now.
In 2008 candidate Barack Obama said, “I voted against CAFTA, never supported NAFTA, and will not support NAFTA–style trade agreements in the future. While NAFTA gave broad rights to investors, it paid only lip service to the rights of labor and the importance of environmental protection.”
Where is that candidate now? He disappeared upon taking the oath of office.
In retrospect, it seems amply clear that candidate Obama made a deal with Wall Street, his leading campaign contributors, before he embarked on his road to the White House. Fair Trade was off limits. It was the one territory he could not visit. It was the one line he could not cross.
An original sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act (an affirmation of the right to organize and establish a union by majority vote) had President Obama remembered his labor roots in his address at Osawatomie, had he raised the banner of Fair Trade to initiate his campaign for a second term, then that address might have stood alongside Teddy Roosevelt’s New Nationalism or Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal inaugural address.
As it stands, it is the perfect symbol of his presidency to date: A promise unfulfilled.
If we were to initiate the age of Fair Trade it would fundamentally change the debate and ultimately alter the structure of the global economy. The world would face a choice. The European people would insist that their governments follow our lead. China and India would fight back but they are as dependent on us as we are on them. A bargain would be struck and a transition would be negotiated.
America would win back her industries and the middle class would re-emerge at the heart of the global economy.
It will happen in any case. It is inevitable. To continue on the path we are on will lead only to massive civil unrest and the result will be the same. By initiating Fair Trade now we could avoid much of that inevitable pain and disruption.
If only we had a leader with the courage to break his pact with Wall Street in order to keep his promise to the American people.
[Article posted by Pacific Free Press, CounterPunch and Dissident Voice.]
Jack Random is the author of Jazzman Chronicles (Crow Dog Press) and Ghost Dance Insurrection (Dry Bones Press.)
Monday, January 03, 2011
Realist Re: The Clinton Pivot
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 08:41:20 -0800
From: writerealist@earthlink.net
I have to begin with praise for this article, for it is the best rebuttal to those who defend Obama's sorry performance that I have yet seen. I do not, however, place all of the blame for his disaster upon him.
As the nominal leader of his party, Obama certainly deserves denunciation. But there was another -Harry Reid- who could have done much to alter the present outcome of the 111th Congress. Many times he telegraphed the strategy of the Democratic caucus, as if to provide early warning to their opponents on how to prepare a counterattack. He also didn't enforce party discipline as well as the Republicans did, or the Blue Dogs like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln couldn't have held so much control in their corporatist hands. I'm glad we don't have Sharron Angle to deal with, but I sure wish Reid had gone down to defeat. I feel he should be challenged for the Majority Leader spot in the 112th Congress.
In contrast, Nancy Pelosi -who received far more abuse from the right-wingers than Reid did- managed to keep a fractious House under control and produced 400 bills that never saw the light of the Senatorial day. She is the exception to the inept Democratic leadership of the 111th Congress period. Had Obama and Reid done their jobs, life would be so much better in America today.
In your comment thread on Dissident Voice, you are attacked for promoting Hillary as being no different from Bill. Frankly, I have to agree, but not for the reasons presented. I expect that Hillary -having served as a corporate lawyer as Bill did not- is even more in tune with the corporatist coup going on today. She shares its roots in her own life, only becoming liberalized in college. I believe that she would have been worse than Bill or Obama. Her Senate record supporting the Iraq War when her constituents opposed it is alone a sufficient difference to promote in your defense. It certainly convinced me that she was not the horse to back in the race.
Moving back to Obama, once he had defeated Hillary for the nomination, his dramatic rightward shift should have been a siren in the night for Democrats. As your Dissident Voice commenter Max Shields said on December 14th, 2010 at 5:16pm, "I could not bare (sic) to vote for the man; he was just far too transparent." I have to agree with this assessment (I could not bring myself to vote for him either), and yet too many Democrats did not seem to notice.
The simple conclusion is that collectively we were fooled. The next issue we face is how to avoid being fooled again.
As I see it, somehow we have to convince the Democratic Party leadership that Obama cannot run again in 2012. One would think that the midterm avalanche would awaken them, but I see no sign of any awareness. I don't see that we are going to have much time to alter the nation's course if the next election goes corporatist. 2012 could be our last chance. So we have to make the best of what we have and look ahead to plan what to do, and to stop looking back for things to happen that might never have happened anyway. It's down to our own welfare. We have to look out for ourselves now. If somehow we win, then we can take care of our friends. we can help no one if we don't help ourselves. and the first thing we need to do is change the Democratic Party if we can. Otherwise, we might as well get used to corporate rule.
Realist
http://blogcritics.org/writers/realist
PS: Best wishes to Joe Speer for a speedy recovery.
From: writerealist@earthlink.net
I have to begin with praise for this article, for it is the best rebuttal to those who defend Obama's sorry performance that I have yet seen. I do not, however, place all of the blame for his disaster upon him.
As the nominal leader of his party, Obama certainly deserves denunciation. But there was another -Harry Reid- who could have done much to alter the present outcome of the 111th Congress. Many times he telegraphed the strategy of the Democratic caucus, as if to provide early warning to their opponents on how to prepare a counterattack. He also didn't enforce party discipline as well as the Republicans did, or the Blue Dogs like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln couldn't have held so much control in their corporatist hands. I'm glad we don't have Sharron Angle to deal with, but I sure wish Reid had gone down to defeat. I feel he should be challenged for the Majority Leader spot in the 112th Congress.
In contrast, Nancy Pelosi -who received far more abuse from the right-wingers than Reid did- managed to keep a fractious House under control and produced 400 bills that never saw the light of the Senatorial day. She is the exception to the inept Democratic leadership of the 111th Congress period. Had Obama and Reid done their jobs, life would be so much better in America today.
In your comment thread on Dissident Voice, you are attacked for promoting Hillary as being no different from Bill. Frankly, I have to agree, but not for the reasons presented. I expect that Hillary -having served as a corporate lawyer as Bill did not- is even more in tune with the corporatist coup going on today. She shares its roots in her own life, only becoming liberalized in college. I believe that she would have been worse than Bill or Obama. Her Senate record supporting the Iraq War when her constituents opposed it is alone a sufficient difference to promote in your defense. It certainly convinced me that she was not the horse to back in the race.
Moving back to Obama, once he had defeated Hillary for the nomination, his dramatic rightward shift should have been a siren in the night for Democrats. As your Dissident Voice commenter Max Shields said on December 14th, 2010 at 5:16pm, "I could not bare (sic) to vote for the man; he was just far too transparent." I have to agree with this assessment (I could not bring myself to vote for him either), and yet too many Democrats did not seem to notice.
The simple conclusion is that collectively we were fooled. The next issue we face is how to avoid being fooled again.
As I see it, somehow we have to convince the Democratic Party leadership that Obama cannot run again in 2012. One would think that the midterm avalanche would awaken them, but I see no sign of any awareness. I don't see that we are going to have much time to alter the nation's course if the next election goes corporatist. 2012 could be our last chance. So we have to make the best of what we have and look ahead to plan what to do, and to stop looking back for things to happen that might never have happened anyway. It's down to our own welfare. We have to look out for ourselves now. If somehow we win, then we can take care of our friends. we can help no one if we don't help ourselves. and the first thing we need to do is change the Democratic Party if we can. Otherwise, we might as well get used to corporate rule.
Realist
http://blogcritics.org/writers/realist
PS: Best wishes to Joe Speer for a speedy recovery.
Reader response: The Clinton Pivot
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 09:03:23 -0600
Subject: Thanks for "The Clinton Pivot: Obama Sells the Farm" and...
...what can we do to get out of the mess we are in now? Population in 1910 was 1.9 billion people on earth and now it is around 7 billion in 2011. Which resources will we run out of first which will cause the civilizations currently existing to implode? Help!!! Is anyone listening, that is, enough of us to affect the change we need or are people going willingly to their death, not having heard of Alan Harrington's "The Immortalist" and Robert Heinlein's Methuselah's Children ideas. Oh well, where is the nearest cave. This summer I will gather wood for the winter...just in case.
KHB, Platteville area, WI, USA
Subject: Thanks for "The Clinton Pivot: Obama Sells the Farm" and...
...what can we do to get out of the mess we are in now? Population in 1910 was 1.9 billion people on earth and now it is around 7 billion in 2011. Which resources will we run out of first which will cause the civilizations currently existing to implode? Help!!! Is anyone listening, that is, enough of us to affect the change we need or are people going willingly to their death, not having heard of Alan Harrington's "The Immortalist" and Robert Heinlein's Methuselah's Children ideas. Oh well, where is the nearest cave. This summer I will gather wood for the winter...just in case.
KHB, Platteville area, WI, USA
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
RE: Blame the Teachers
Sad but so true! I see this played out on a weekly basis when I teach chess at Dr. George Washington Carver Elementary School. They are centrally located in the notorious San Francisco neighborhood called Bayview Hunter’s Point. I have been teaching chess there for over nine years, and each year the struggle continues for the dedicated Teachers and staff that are committed to these wonderful children who are directly impacted by poverty, gang violence, and drugs in the community. The neighborhoods are blighted, and the threat of gentrification and closing down the school is always looming large. The Principal and I, Mrs. Emily Wade-Thompson, have become good friends over the years. She is an amazing African-American woman who runs her school like an African Village, instilling pride in her students by teaching them their history and heritage. The students are called “Achievers”, and taught a list of core values based on the Swahili language, for example Umoja, which means Unity in the community. Her plight, and that of her fellow educators, and those of each and every “Achiever” around this country is given nothing but lip service and chicanery by our elected officials, corporations, and parents, whom all want to blame the teachers. It takes a village to raise a child.
Wakiza McQueen
[Note: "Blame the Teacher Syndrome: A Misguided Education Policy" by Jack Random posted on Dissident Voice, March 15, 2010.]
Wakiza McQueen
[Note: "Blame the Teacher Syndrome: A Misguided Education Policy" by Jack Random posted on Dissident Voice, March 15, 2010.]
Monday, August 06, 2007
RE: Bush the Irrelevant and Other Concerns
Dear Mr. Random:
I read your worthy article, "Bush the Irrelevant: Alone in His Tower" (Dissident Voice, July 28th, 2007) so I am writing to you. A few comments:
"... if it were in the father's power to disown the presidency of the son, he would do so for the son has shamed the family and laid waste to the Bush legacy just as he has shamed the nation and its legacy in the world..."
---> And yet George Sr., apparently some of the others in the Bush family, and some of their business acquaintances have made a LOT more money thanks to his son's administration. If the son messed up such that they lost that money... ooh, THEN you'd probably see some criticism of Dubya that hurt!
And another, longer one:Like you, I despise this administration, but for another reason as well - a reason that you apparently are ignorant of. (I state this because you wrote, "... No, the Al Qaeda terrorists that killed Americans on 9/11 are still in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan - our sometime ally."). Actually, it's HIGHLY doubtful that it was "Al Qaeda terrorists" behind those attacks. In actuality, the Bush administration higher-ups (Cheney is a very probable suspect), in collusion with top brass at the Pentagon, and probably certain elements of the Israeli government, were almost certainly behind the attacks of 9/11. Also, bin Laden is reportedly long dead.
I recommend you read David Ray Griffin's books, which are well-reasoned and encompass much of what happened without overwhelming the reader with details. A very good 'first step' is "The New Pearl Harbor - Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Updated Edition with a new afterword)"; 2004- Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1-56656-552-9. It's calm, logical & doesn't exaggerate.
Also, his follow-up book, "The 9/ 11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions", "... provides excellent analysis of the commission's report, clearly demonstrating that the commission's account of 9/11 was written to clear the Pentagon, White House and Justice Department of any wrongdoing." (quoted from: www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project)Oh, and www.cooperativeresearch.org (the very worthy site just above) likely has the most complete, fact-based 9/11 Timeline available anywhere. See: www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project. Other interesting reads:
"9/11 Synthetic Terror - MADE IN USA" , by Webster G.Tarpley;
"Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil ", by Catherine Austin Fitts (Foreword), Michael C. Ruppert; www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071204_final_fraud.shtml. www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=336.
"The Final Fraud: 9/11 Commission closes its doors to the public; Cover-Up Complete" By Michael KaneWe must not forgot that horrific day. I now firmly believe that the attacks were at least somewhat orchestrated by the higher-ups in this Machiavellian administration, together with some in the Pentagon. Of course, not everyone in the administration nor in the Pentagon would have been involved. It appears that the prime suspects are:
* "Tricky Dick" Cheney, the incredibly greedy actual "President";
* Rumsfeld (who predicted the 3rd plane (missile?) attack on the Pentagon - remarkable clairvoyance from a guy who's been quite lacking in foresight when it comes to Iraq, etc.);
* Paul Wolfowitz (a true 'chicken hawk', warmonger, and seeming Israel-firster (Zionist), who is now - guess what? -back at AEI ...
* George H.W. Bush, who reportedly had a late-night discussion with Cheney in the White House on 9/10/2001; Just a coincidence??
* Air Force Generals Richard Myers & Ralph Eberhart; and probably others.
BTW, a hypothesis about 'Dubya' (in Tarpley's book, pp. 273-5): George W. Bush was almost certainly not involved in the planning, but may have avoided being assassinated {on the morning of 9/11, by some 'reporters' sent to 'interview' him} by acquiescing to the plot. Likely he was told what the planners felt he needed to know, and as a result he didn't look surprised in the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida when he was told of the second plane hitting the WTC by WH Chief of Staff Card, and didn't panic at all (indeed, he hardly reacted at all, and even dawdled around, having a good chat with the people in attendance - after finishing reading about the pet goat!).
**On another front, some foreign nations' spy networks were possibly involved, to some extent. For instance, Israel's Mossad is highly suspect, Pakistan's Intelligence service is possible, and perhaps the UK's intelligence service was involved as well. Other countries - Russia, France, Germany, etc. - which attempted to warn us that something was up are seemingly innocent of involvement.
Well, I hope this email is informative for you. Please be careful out there... another 'false flag' terrorist attack (maybe for this summer) has been warned aboutby at least three well-known Americans. All the best...I'm fortunate that I now live abroad...
Peace & Justice, Ray Hrycko
I read your worthy article, "Bush the Irrelevant: Alone in His Tower" (Dissident Voice, July 28th, 2007) so I am writing to you. A few comments:
"... if it were in the father's power to disown the presidency of the son, he would do so for the son has shamed the family and laid waste to the Bush legacy just as he has shamed the nation and its legacy in the world..."
---> And yet George Sr., apparently some of the others in the Bush family, and some of their business acquaintances have made a LOT more money thanks to his son's administration. If the son messed up such that they lost that money... ooh, THEN you'd probably see some criticism of Dubya that hurt!
And another, longer one:Like you, I despise this administration, but for another reason as well - a reason that you apparently are ignorant of. (I state this because you wrote, "... No, the Al Qaeda terrorists that killed Americans on 9/11 are still in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan - our sometime ally."). Actually, it's HIGHLY doubtful that it was "Al Qaeda terrorists" behind those attacks. In actuality, the Bush administration higher-ups (Cheney is a very probable suspect), in collusion with top brass at the Pentagon, and probably certain elements of the Israeli government, were almost certainly behind the attacks of 9/11. Also, bin Laden is reportedly long dead.
I recommend you read David Ray Griffin's books, which are well-reasoned and encompass much of what happened without overwhelming the reader with details. A very good 'first step' is "The New Pearl Harbor - Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Updated Edition with a new afterword)"; 2004- Olive Branch Press. ISBN 1-56656-552-9. It's calm, logical & doesn't exaggerate.
Also, his follow-up book, "The 9/ 11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions", "... provides excellent analysis of the commission's report, clearly demonstrating that the commission's account of 9/11 was written to clear the Pentagon, White House and Justice Department of any wrongdoing." (quoted from: www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project)Oh, and www.cooperativeresearch.org (the very worthy site just above) likely has the most complete, fact-based 9/11 Timeline available anywhere. See: www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project. Other interesting reads:
"9/11 Synthetic Terror - MADE IN USA" , by Webster G.Tarpley;
"Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil ", by Catherine Austin Fitts (Foreword), Michael C. Ruppert; www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071204_final_fraud.shtml. www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=336.
"The Final Fraud: 9/11 Commission closes its doors to the public; Cover-Up Complete" By Michael KaneWe must not forgot that horrific day. I now firmly believe that the attacks were at least somewhat orchestrated by the higher-ups in this Machiavellian administration, together with some in the Pentagon. Of course, not everyone in the administration nor in the Pentagon would have been involved. It appears that the prime suspects are:
* "Tricky Dick" Cheney, the incredibly greedy actual "President";
* Rumsfeld (who predicted the 3rd plane (missile?) attack on the Pentagon - remarkable clairvoyance from a guy who's been quite lacking in foresight when it comes to Iraq, etc.);
* Paul Wolfowitz (a true 'chicken hawk', warmonger, and seeming Israel-firster (Zionist), who is now - guess what? -back at AEI ...
* George H.W. Bush, who reportedly had a late-night discussion with Cheney in the White House on 9/10/2001; Just a coincidence??
* Air Force Generals Richard Myers & Ralph Eberhart; and probably others.
BTW, a hypothesis about 'Dubya' (in Tarpley's book, pp. 273-5): George W. Bush was almost certainly not involved in the planning, but may have avoided being assassinated {on the morning of 9/11, by some 'reporters' sent to 'interview' him} by acquiescing to the plot. Likely he was told what the planners felt he needed to know, and as a result he didn't look surprised in the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida when he was told of the second plane hitting the WTC by WH Chief of Staff Card, and didn't panic at all (indeed, he hardly reacted at all, and even dawdled around, having a good chat with the people in attendance - after finishing reading about the pet goat!).
**On another front, some foreign nations' spy networks were possibly involved, to some extent. For instance, Israel's Mossad is highly suspect, Pakistan's Intelligence service is possible, and perhaps the UK's intelligence service was involved as well. Other countries - Russia, France, Germany, etc. - which attempted to warn us that something was up are seemingly innocent of involvement.
Well, I hope this email is informative for you. Please be careful out there... another 'false flag' terrorist attack (maybe for this summer) has been warned aboutby at least three well-known Americans. All the best...I'm fortunate that I now live abroad...
Peace & Justice, Ray Hrycko
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Response to "The Imperial President"
I read with some amusement your recent bit in Dissident Voice … “Imperial President and the NSA Spying Scandal” … and just ‘had to’ respond.
The gradual erosion of the protections of constitutionalism, the alleged ‘rule of law,’ beginning, I would aver, with the collapse of the Articles of Confederation, is part and parcel of the history of the country. The so-called “Civil” War saw the beginnings of the corporate ownership of government and the beat continues on. To ascribe the recent imbroglio to the current presidency is something like being angry with the taste of apples when the tree was planted long ago – did the planter know what was to come of his ‘unintended’ consequences – or was he malicious in his intent even then? Did the man who created the shovel know to what purpose his tool would be put? Have all presidents, believing in their own self-righteousness not felt constrained by any and all limitations? This one may seem blatant, but look at his predecessors, all. The problem isn’t so much the USE of the NSA as it is the EXISTENCE of the NSA. Is it the tool, or the use of the tool with unintended consequences that matters? The idea of corporations may not in itself be bad … but they too tend to grow more and more prominent over time … and to suffer from fewer and fewer limitations.
I do not wish to defend Bush the ‘man’ – he has not the depth, breadth nor scope to be president of the local Rotary, much less of theUnited States. (In fact it may be easier to elect an idiot at the presidential level than in the local Rotary – they at least know something of their members.) I do intend to ask how such a ‘man,’ with all of his limitations, could become president in the first place? How is it that trusting such a ‘man’ with tools such as the NSA came about in the first place? Are we not, in the final analysis, complicit as Eichmann was complicit in the holocaust? Are we not all sinners by omission in the same way the so-called victims of 9-11 were victims of the US imperial hegemony? Are we not, as Ward Churchill suggested, all a bunch of ‘little Eichmann’s”?
Oh yes, there is an evil in the land – and it is NOT al Queda – it is greed, and ‘going along’ so that we can continue to do better, even the poor, than the rest of the world. There is, I suspect, as much of Bush in you as there is of you in Bush – in all of us – a persistent little selfish nastiness. That nastiness was the sown seed that spawned the NSA and the ability to spy on our own citizens. That nastiness has allowed each of us to buy into the idea that ‘our way of life’ is the one needing to be preserved … and that nastiness is at least as Random as Bush.
Randall H Gaylor, MLS
The gradual erosion of the protections of constitutionalism, the alleged ‘rule of law,’ beginning, I would aver, with the collapse of the Articles of Confederation, is part and parcel of the history of the country. The so-called “Civil” War saw the beginnings of the corporate ownership of government and the beat continues on. To ascribe the recent imbroglio to the current presidency is something like being angry with the taste of apples when the tree was planted long ago – did the planter know what was to come of his ‘unintended’ consequences – or was he malicious in his intent even then? Did the man who created the shovel know to what purpose his tool would be put? Have all presidents, believing in their own self-righteousness not felt constrained by any and all limitations? This one may seem blatant, but look at his predecessors, all. The problem isn’t so much the USE of the NSA as it is the EXISTENCE of the NSA. Is it the tool, or the use of the tool with unintended consequences that matters? The idea of corporations may not in itself be bad … but they too tend to grow more and more prominent over time … and to suffer from fewer and fewer limitations.
I do not wish to defend Bush the ‘man’ – he has not the depth, breadth nor scope to be president of the local Rotary, much less of theUnited States. (In fact it may be easier to elect an idiot at the presidential level than in the local Rotary – they at least know something of their members.) I do intend to ask how such a ‘man,’ with all of his limitations, could become president in the first place? How is it that trusting such a ‘man’ with tools such as the NSA came about in the first place? Are we not, in the final analysis, complicit as Eichmann was complicit in the holocaust? Are we not all sinners by omission in the same way the so-called victims of 9-11 were victims of the US imperial hegemony? Are we not, as Ward Churchill suggested, all a bunch of ‘little Eichmann’s”?
Oh yes, there is an evil in the land – and it is NOT al Queda – it is greed, and ‘going along’ so that we can continue to do better, even the poor, than the rest of the world. There is, I suspect, as much of Bush in you as there is of you in Bush – in all of us – a persistent little selfish nastiness. That nastiness was the sown seed that spawned the NSA and the ability to spy on our own citizens. That nastiness has allowed each of us to buy into the idea that ‘our way of life’ is the one needing to be preserved … and that nastiness is at least as Random as Bush.
Randall H Gaylor, MLS
Saturday, September 24, 2005
JAKE'S WORD: The Lessons of Katrina
Excerpt from THE LESSONS OF KATRINA By Jack Random (see Buzzle.com: Government & Politics):
"On September 22, 2005, with Hurricane Rita bearing down on the coasts of Texas and southwest Louisiana, President Bush addressed a gathering of journalists to defend the war in Iraq. What was disturbing was not only that the facts on the ground did not support his optimism but that the president considered it an appropriate time to lecture the media on foreign policy."
Response by Jake Berry: Once again. Yes, all thru. Have you heard about the destruction of evidence by the Pentagon concerning Mohammad Atta and the existence of an Al-Queda cell in the U.S. in the years 2000, 2001, and 2004? They knew they were here. They knew they intended terrorism, and shortly before the actual attacks, even the President himself knew what they were planning on doing. They did nothing to stop it. Instead they destroyed the evidence. In short - global corporations are VERY close to amassing an aggregation of capitalist empires worldwide. They may have already accomplished it. If this is true, then the governments of the world are irrelevant. Where does that leave us? Can we take government back and extract it from the hands of the global capitalists or must we resort to direct revolt against the corporations?
Random response: I am an advocate of peaceful revolution. Yes, we revolt against international conglomerate corporations by refusing to buy their goods and their stocks. We revolt by refusing to vote for any candidate who accepts their campaign contributions. Buy local. Buy informed. Buy progressive. Buy antiwar. Vote with your conscience and with your checkbook. Change is possible. Jazz.
JAKE BERRY IS THE AUTHOR OF BRAMBU DREZI & OTHER NOTED WORKS. See City Lights Books.
"On September 22, 2005, with Hurricane Rita bearing down on the coasts of Texas and southwest Louisiana, President Bush addressed a gathering of journalists to defend the war in Iraq. What was disturbing was not only that the facts on the ground did not support his optimism but that the president considered it an appropriate time to lecture the media on foreign policy."
Response by Jake Berry: Once again. Yes, all thru. Have you heard about the destruction of evidence by the Pentagon concerning Mohammad Atta and the existence of an Al-Queda cell in the U.S. in the years 2000, 2001, and 2004? They knew they were here. They knew they intended terrorism, and shortly before the actual attacks, even the President himself knew what they were planning on doing. They did nothing to stop it. Instead they destroyed the evidence. In short - global corporations are VERY close to amassing an aggregation of capitalist empires worldwide. They may have already accomplished it. If this is true, then the governments of the world are irrelevant. Where does that leave us? Can we take government back and extract it from the hands of the global capitalists or must we resort to direct revolt against the corporations?
Random response: I am an advocate of peaceful revolution. Yes, we revolt against international conglomerate corporations by refusing to buy their goods and their stocks. We revolt by refusing to vote for any candidate who accepts their campaign contributions. Buy local. Buy informed. Buy progressive. Buy antiwar. Vote with your conscience and with your checkbook. Change is possible. Jazz.
JAKE BERRY IS THE AUTHOR OF BRAMBU DREZI & OTHER NOTED WORKS. See City Lights Books.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Jake's Word
JAKE BERRY’S COMMENTS REGARDING THE NEW DEMOCRATS
[Note: These thoughts were offered in response to “Clinton’s Revenge & The New Democrats.” Noting that the Democratic response to the Katrina crisis has been less than inspired the commentary calls for independents to rally and organize an electoral alternative.]
My thoughts exactly! Eloquently stated. And we do desperately need an outsider. But who? Who can stand up to corporate media scrutiny that will inflate every mistake? You were divorced from your first spouse? Why? Does that demonstrate faulty judgment? You took illegal drugs? Did they destroy your ability to make sound judgments now? You take prescription drugs now? Why? What is wrong with your body or mind? Will you be incapable of withstanding the stresses of office.
It will require a real populist - a devout one - with no allegiance to either party, or any major sources of funding. He or she will have to be someone we've never heard of, but with conviction and charisma, and most of all, a coherent, rational vision for the nation based on constitutional principals. He or she would also need the ability to adapt quickly, to admit mistakes quickly, and change course to what works. In other words, a chief executive with enough intelligence to grasp issues quickly and penetrate to the heart of those issues and make decisions based on a deep and broad knowledge of American and world history, on the origins and development of constitutional law and a passionate devotion to the Bill of Rights. Such a candidate could speak directly and plainly to the populace and back his arguments with history and precedent of what works and what has failed and what is most likely to work in the present system of information nuclei and corporate greed. Step on the big guy who is destroying competition and help the little guy who expands and increases competition and innovation.
And finally, we have to have an end to this political and media propaganda of America as the last remaining super power. How about no more superpowers? How about making the idea of a superpower anathema? Replace it with mutual cooperation among nations to resolve global problems. And leave national problems (like tyrants of economically destroyed third world countries) to be taken care of by the citizens of the nation. Tyrants can be contained by the global community and undermined from within by the local community, and the ultimate result of all tyranny - either cease tyranny and join the world or die in your hole.
Where is the individual who has the courage to embrace these positions and the populist appeal to draw the millions to the cause? I don't see anyone like that in the Senate or House - Robert Byrd is too old and Ted Kennedy is too stigmatized.
Ultimately the solution lies with the middle class. Will it feel the threat to its own survival acutely enough to move beyond Washington theatrics? Or will it be satisfied with new gadgets and other forms of escapism until it vanishes into a kind of third world groveling for crumbs as if they were jewels? The greed of the last thirty years, the pandering of Clinton to the right wing, and the managerial catastrophe of neo-conservative idealism have all dealt a severe blow, as you say, the worst since the great depression. And a global war would not save us now, it would sink us.
Always before, just when it seemed too late, the breaks went in our favor or the popular discontent grew so loud that things changed just enough to keep us moving forward. We're close now. About two years - four at the most. If we don't get one of those breaks soon, America will begin a descent from which it will not return. Consider England 100 years ago. Now they are (the government I mean) tagging along in hopes some American glory will rub off on them and allow them the illusion that they are still one of the great world powers. Another four years, without a break in the favor of democracy and America will be irrelevant to democracy. And I mean a real break. Not Kerry or Clinton or some other mask.
Thanks for your provocation and compassion. Keep it coming.
Jake Berry
Author of Brambu Drezi
[Postscript: Here is a beginning list of possible candidates. Note: If you're not against the war and occupation, if you're not for bringing the troops home in short order, you're not a candidate. In fact, I believe we should start a unity party for all candidates against the war. In the lost language of irony, it should be called The War Party.
For Congress: Amy Goodman, Arianna Huffington, Medea Benjamin, Norman Soloman, Robert Fisk, Robert Scheer, Cindy Sheehan, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Danny Glover. For Senate/Governor: Christianne Amanpour, Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, Ray Nagin, Warren Beaty, Robert Redford. For President: Jesse Ventura, Colin Powell, Robert Kennedy Jr.]
[Note: These thoughts were offered in response to “Clinton’s Revenge & The New Democrats.” Noting that the Democratic response to the Katrina crisis has been less than inspired the commentary calls for independents to rally and organize an electoral alternative.]
My thoughts exactly! Eloquently stated. And we do desperately need an outsider. But who? Who can stand up to corporate media scrutiny that will inflate every mistake? You were divorced from your first spouse? Why? Does that demonstrate faulty judgment? You took illegal drugs? Did they destroy your ability to make sound judgments now? You take prescription drugs now? Why? What is wrong with your body or mind? Will you be incapable of withstanding the stresses of office.
It will require a real populist - a devout one - with no allegiance to either party, or any major sources of funding. He or she will have to be someone we've never heard of, but with conviction and charisma, and most of all, a coherent, rational vision for the nation based on constitutional principals. He or she would also need the ability to adapt quickly, to admit mistakes quickly, and change course to what works. In other words, a chief executive with enough intelligence to grasp issues quickly and penetrate to the heart of those issues and make decisions based on a deep and broad knowledge of American and world history, on the origins and development of constitutional law and a passionate devotion to the Bill of Rights. Such a candidate could speak directly and plainly to the populace and back his arguments with history and precedent of what works and what has failed and what is most likely to work in the present system of information nuclei and corporate greed. Step on the big guy who is destroying competition and help the little guy who expands and increases competition and innovation.
And finally, we have to have an end to this political and media propaganda of America as the last remaining super power. How about no more superpowers? How about making the idea of a superpower anathema? Replace it with mutual cooperation among nations to resolve global problems. And leave national problems (like tyrants of economically destroyed third world countries) to be taken care of by the citizens of the nation. Tyrants can be contained by the global community and undermined from within by the local community, and the ultimate result of all tyranny - either cease tyranny and join the world or die in your hole.
Where is the individual who has the courage to embrace these positions and the populist appeal to draw the millions to the cause? I don't see anyone like that in the Senate or House - Robert Byrd is too old and Ted Kennedy is too stigmatized.
Ultimately the solution lies with the middle class. Will it feel the threat to its own survival acutely enough to move beyond Washington theatrics? Or will it be satisfied with new gadgets and other forms of escapism until it vanishes into a kind of third world groveling for crumbs as if they were jewels? The greed of the last thirty years, the pandering of Clinton to the right wing, and the managerial catastrophe of neo-conservative idealism have all dealt a severe blow, as you say, the worst since the great depression. And a global war would not save us now, it would sink us.
Always before, just when it seemed too late, the breaks went in our favor or the popular discontent grew so loud that things changed just enough to keep us moving forward. We're close now. About two years - four at the most. If we don't get one of those breaks soon, America will begin a descent from which it will not return. Consider England 100 years ago. Now they are (the government I mean) tagging along in hopes some American glory will rub off on them and allow them the illusion that they are still one of the great world powers. Another four years, without a break in the favor of democracy and America will be irrelevant to democracy. And I mean a real break. Not Kerry or Clinton or some other mask.
Thanks for your provocation and compassion. Keep it coming.
Jake Berry
Author of Brambu Drezi
[Postscript: Here is a beginning list of possible candidates. Note: If you're not against the war and occupation, if you're not for bringing the troops home in short order, you're not a candidate. In fact, I believe we should start a unity party for all candidates against the war. In the lost language of irony, it should be called The War Party.
For Congress: Amy Goodman, Arianna Huffington, Medea Benjamin, Norman Soloman, Robert Fisk, Robert Scheer, Cindy Sheehan, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Danny Glover. For Senate/Governor: Christianne Amanpour, Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, Ray Nagin, Warren Beaty, Robert Redford. For President: Jesse Ventura, Colin Powell, Robert Kennedy Jr.]
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
The Chavez Exchange, Final Entry
(3rd & final entry in an exchange regarding Hugo Chavez & The Slug)
Good points, Jack. You can't necessarily be guilty by association. However, there is a disconnect here between what Chavez says about America -- "the most savage empire that has ever existed" and praise for Castro and Mao. It doesn't compute. Chavez sinks waist-deep in a bed of hypocritical quicksand. While America did get in bed with unsavory characters, no American President ever held their society up as a model we should follow. Not so Chavez with Cuba or Maoist China. It's clear he believes Cuba is a great society and model for the Latin American world. The fact that Fidel has never been elected by the Cuban people to do anything is a non-issue for Chavez. That's deeply troubling.
I'm also reading troubling stories about new legislation that prohibits "insulting a government official". Who is going to decide what is criticism and what is an insult? That's censorship, and it's a law that can be used to intimidate anyone who writes something Chavez doesn't like. There is also evidence Cuban intelligence officers are now working in the country, helping identify potential enemies of Chavez. He also seems to have complete autonomy to spend the country's oil wealth (or give it away) as he sees fit, without so much as a vote in parliament. Others have pointed to Chavez savaging of property rights. Such a move would trigger a revolt in our democracy. If land reform was necessary, it seems to me Chavez could have chosen a path that respected the rights of existing owners. The Brazilian President has commented privately that Chavez is an "unconscious authoritarian" -- I think that's probably a good way to define him, but it's also ominous.
Hitler analogies are vastly overused, and I wouldn't presume to compare Chavez to Hitler, but the conditions of a very popular President who turned a country around at the expense of their civil liberties has happened before.
The country has had a majority of poor -- long neglected. Chavez is the first President to put their interests first. If I were living in the barrios, I wouldn't care either if free speech and property rights were trampled on -- in the short run. In the long run, I might want to be one of those property owners myself. I'd wake up someday with an authoritarian government I might be sick of, but no way to get rid of.
As you say, we'll see. If Chavez busied himself running his country without trying to ruin mine, I wouldn't be so militant in pointing out his obvious flaws. America is not Chavez enemy, but he has made it clear that he is ours, and that means I'm going to watch every move he makes.
Brook
[Editor’s Note: This was posted to complete an exchange regarding Hugo Chavez and Pat Robertson’s call for his assassination. The writer’s point of view is his own. For those who require refutation, see the original commentary on Dissident Voice 8/27/05 or a new article posted on Common Dreams 8/29/05, “Hugo Chavez: A Walk in the Footsteps of Arbenz & Allende” by Dr. Rosa Maria Pegueros: www.commondreams.org. Viva Chavez!]
Good points, Jack. You can't necessarily be guilty by association. However, there is a disconnect here between what Chavez says about America -- "the most savage empire that has ever existed" and praise for Castro and Mao. It doesn't compute. Chavez sinks waist-deep in a bed of hypocritical quicksand. While America did get in bed with unsavory characters, no American President ever held their society up as a model we should follow. Not so Chavez with Cuba or Maoist China. It's clear he believes Cuba is a great society and model for the Latin American world. The fact that Fidel has never been elected by the Cuban people to do anything is a non-issue for Chavez. That's deeply troubling.
I'm also reading troubling stories about new legislation that prohibits "insulting a government official". Who is going to decide what is criticism and what is an insult? That's censorship, and it's a law that can be used to intimidate anyone who writes something Chavez doesn't like. There is also evidence Cuban intelligence officers are now working in the country, helping identify potential enemies of Chavez. He also seems to have complete autonomy to spend the country's oil wealth (or give it away) as he sees fit, without so much as a vote in parliament. Others have pointed to Chavez savaging of property rights. Such a move would trigger a revolt in our democracy. If land reform was necessary, it seems to me Chavez could have chosen a path that respected the rights of existing owners. The Brazilian President has commented privately that Chavez is an "unconscious authoritarian" -- I think that's probably a good way to define him, but it's also ominous.
Hitler analogies are vastly overused, and I wouldn't presume to compare Chavez to Hitler, but the conditions of a very popular President who turned a country around at the expense of their civil liberties has happened before.
The country has had a majority of poor -- long neglected. Chavez is the first President to put their interests first. If I were living in the barrios, I wouldn't care either if free speech and property rights were trampled on -- in the short run. In the long run, I might want to be one of those property owners myself. I'd wake up someday with an authoritarian government I might be sick of, but no way to get rid of.
As you say, we'll see. If Chavez busied himself running his country without trying to ruin mine, I wouldn't be so militant in pointing out his obvious flaws. America is not Chavez enemy, but he has made it clear that he is ours, and that means I'm going to watch every move he makes.
Brook
[Editor’s Note: This was posted to complete an exchange regarding Hugo Chavez and Pat Robertson’s call for his assassination. The writer’s point of view is his own. For those who require refutation, see the original commentary on Dissident Voice 8/27/05 or a new article posted on Common Dreams 8/29/05, “Hugo Chavez: A Walk in the Footsteps of Arbenz & Allende” by Dr. Rosa Maria Pegueros: www.commondreams.org. Viva Chavez!]
Monday, August 29, 2005
The Chavez Exchange, Continued
(A Response to a Commentary posted on Dissident Voice 8/27/05)
Jack,
You didn't keep up with the news during Chavez recent visit to China. His praise of Mao was well documented. Here's a link to the news report that many services picked up.
http://dailynews.muzi.com/ll/english/1342232.shtml
This statement, coupled with Chavez recent "revolutionary democracy" Cuban rant, should worry every Venezuelan citizen. Mao was one of the worst leaders of the 20th Century responsible for the deaths of millions of his own people from starvation and the brutal occupation and rape of Tibet -- a peaceful Buddhist country -- still illegally occupied today, while the world turns a blind eye. Chavez is running around the world talking about things he doesn't even know about.
What it demonstrates is that Chavez favors his ideology above democracy and civil liberties. When you're fawning over authoritarian dictators and never utter a single word of criticism or call for greater civil liberties in their nations what other conclusion can you come to? He's also now jumping in bed with Iran, which is not only brutally repressive, they are viciously anti-socialist. They rounded all the socialist/Marxists up and shot them after their revolution.
Look, the bottom line here is that it doesn't matter what we do, until we achieve a sustainable birth rate on this planet, we're always going to have desperately poor people. This is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. Yemen, the poorest Arab nation has an average 6 children per household. Latin American birth rates are not far behind. These are people who can't even feed one child having 6 or 7. Unless your economy is growing at greater than 10% a year, there's no way you'll ever keep up. While the Chinese model is certainly Draconian, it's estimated their one-child policy has reduced their population by 250 million people in the past 15 years. That's a staggering statistic. This is where I'm placing my emphasis. I want social justice too, but we need to talk about social responsibility at the same time. Otherwise, we're whistling in the wind.
Brook
RANDOM RESPONSE:
I concede the point. According to Reuters (a very reputable source), Chavez “declared himself to have been a Maoist from the time he was a child.”
I confess I find that declaration troubling. I can only surmise that Chavez either does not believe the history of brutal repression under Mao or he has distinguished between the words of Mao (quite pleasing) and his actions (quite disturbing).
Nevertheless, sympathy for Mao on the matter of socialism does not support the notion that Chavez is anti-democratic. Do not confuse economic and political theories. Chavez is, after all, an avowed Bolivarian – and that is definitive democracy.
On this matter, I must offer something of a retraction: I am to some extent a defender of socialism in that I believe that economies function best when a balance is struck between the dynamics of capitalism and the ideals of socialism. As an objective observer, you will concede that the American system is such a hybrid. Unbridled American capitalism led to repeated collapse until FDR struck a balance with the New Deal. That balance has been under constant attack since the Reagan administration – including the policy initiative of Bill Clinton.
While it appears we have wandered from the topic at hand, your attacks on Hugo Chavez do not support the conclusion that he favors an ideology “above democracy and civil liberties.” (If he moves against either, I will be among the first to challenge him.) Your case is built on guilt by association. If you apply the same logic to American foreign policy, your attack would be vicious indeed. What you do not discuss is the overwhelming support of the Venezuelan people for their elected leader and his determined efforts to lift the masses from dire poverty in an oil-rich nation.
Time and an unbiased reading of history will reveal who is right and who is wrong. For now, I will remain a defender of Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian revolution.
The key to understanding American engagement in Latin America and throughout the world is that it is guided not by an ideology of freedom, justice or democracy, but by an overriding economics of exploitation.
I have enjoyed this exchange but I think it is time to post it and move on. There is a war going on. If you would like the final word, I will post that as well (within the bounds of decency).
I agree with your bottom line concern about a sustainable birthrate. Perhaps we have found common ground.
Peace,
Random
P.S. I would welcome your opinion on the war.
Jack,
You didn't keep up with the news during Chavez recent visit to China. His praise of Mao was well documented. Here's a link to the news report that many services picked up.
http://dailynews.muzi.com/ll/english/1342232.shtml
This statement, coupled with Chavez recent "revolutionary democracy" Cuban rant, should worry every Venezuelan citizen. Mao was one of the worst leaders of the 20th Century responsible for the deaths of millions of his own people from starvation and the brutal occupation and rape of Tibet -- a peaceful Buddhist country -- still illegally occupied today, while the world turns a blind eye. Chavez is running around the world talking about things he doesn't even know about.
What it demonstrates is that Chavez favors his ideology above democracy and civil liberties. When you're fawning over authoritarian dictators and never utter a single word of criticism or call for greater civil liberties in their nations what other conclusion can you come to? He's also now jumping in bed with Iran, which is not only brutally repressive, they are viciously anti-socialist. They rounded all the socialist/Marxists up and shot them after their revolution.
Look, the bottom line here is that it doesn't matter what we do, until we achieve a sustainable birth rate on this planet, we're always going to have desperately poor people. This is the elephant in the room nobody wants to talk about. Yemen, the poorest Arab nation has an average 6 children per household. Latin American birth rates are not far behind. These are people who can't even feed one child having 6 or 7. Unless your economy is growing at greater than 10% a year, there's no way you'll ever keep up. While the Chinese model is certainly Draconian, it's estimated their one-child policy has reduced their population by 250 million people in the past 15 years. That's a staggering statistic. This is where I'm placing my emphasis. I want social justice too, but we need to talk about social responsibility at the same time. Otherwise, we're whistling in the wind.
Brook
RANDOM RESPONSE:
I concede the point. According to Reuters (a very reputable source), Chavez “declared himself to have been a Maoist from the time he was a child.”
I confess I find that declaration troubling. I can only surmise that Chavez either does not believe the history of brutal repression under Mao or he has distinguished between the words of Mao (quite pleasing) and his actions (quite disturbing).
Nevertheless, sympathy for Mao on the matter of socialism does not support the notion that Chavez is anti-democratic. Do not confuse economic and political theories. Chavez is, after all, an avowed Bolivarian – and that is definitive democracy.
On this matter, I must offer something of a retraction: I am to some extent a defender of socialism in that I believe that economies function best when a balance is struck between the dynamics of capitalism and the ideals of socialism. As an objective observer, you will concede that the American system is such a hybrid. Unbridled American capitalism led to repeated collapse until FDR struck a balance with the New Deal. That balance has been under constant attack since the Reagan administration – including the policy initiative of Bill Clinton.
While it appears we have wandered from the topic at hand, your attacks on Hugo Chavez do not support the conclusion that he favors an ideology “above democracy and civil liberties.” (If he moves against either, I will be among the first to challenge him.) Your case is built on guilt by association. If you apply the same logic to American foreign policy, your attack would be vicious indeed. What you do not discuss is the overwhelming support of the Venezuelan people for their elected leader and his determined efforts to lift the masses from dire poverty in an oil-rich nation.
Time and an unbiased reading of history will reveal who is right and who is wrong. For now, I will remain a defender of Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian revolution.
The key to understanding American engagement in Latin America and throughout the world is that it is guided not by an ideology of freedom, justice or democracy, but by an overriding economics of exploitation.
I have enjoyed this exchange but I think it is time to post it and move on. There is a war going on. If you would like the final word, I will post that as well (within the bounds of decency).
I agree with your bottom line concern about a sustainable birthrate. Perhaps we have found common ground.
Peace,
Random
P.S. I would welcome your opinion on the war.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Response to Chavez & The Slug
("Hugo Chavez & the American Slug," Dissident Voice 8/27/05)
C'mon Jack, your facts about Hugo Chavez were far too biased to be taken seriously.
I condemn Pat Roberts[on’s] comments, but I am equally offended by Chavez DAILY insults, taunts, and offensive comments about America. This man runs around the world inciting hatred towards us, and he is a head of state -- not a private citizen. A recent sampling of his rants:
"America is the most savage empire that has ever existed"
"We have to destroy American imperialism, before it destroys the world"
These aren't the words of a mild-mannered, peace-lover, Jack. He also called Cuba a "revolutionary democracy", which makes a mockery of Constitutional democracy everywhere. Fidel Castro has one of the worst human rights records in the Western Hemisphere the past 50 years. Hugo Chavez values his ideology above his democratic principles. His allegiance to Castro proves that.
Chavez WANTS confrontation with the US, because it increases his status as a bold, "anti-imperialist" whatever that means. Bush's relative silence towards Chavez is the correct path. He is taking Venezuela down the well-worn, Bolshevik Revolutionary path to destruction. We don't have to do anything to Chavez. He's self-destructing just fine on his own.
Meanwhile, China, India, and a host of other nations aren't sitting around whining about the evils of free trade. They're building strong, robust economies and growing huge middle classes. Hmmmm... maybe there's a lesson there -- if Chavez was smart enough to see it.
Brook D.
RANDOM RESPONSE:
So, you’re a globalist. Let me guess: Brookings Institute.
I wish to thank you for taking the time to convey your thoughts. Here are a few of mine.
I have grown weary of the game of rhetorical opposites. You go to war in the name of peace. You oppress classes and whole societies in the name of justice. You inflict mass poverty in the name of global prosperity and you commit genocide in the name of God.
One of us is badly misinformed.
First, it is Pat Robertson (not Kansas Senator Pat Roberts) who called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Let us assume that was a typographical error.
Second, Chavez joins a distinguished list of dissident leaders opposing American imperialism, including Nelson Mandela, Arundhati Roy, Jimmy Carter, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.
Third, outside of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, no one has greater cause to oppose the actions of the American government than Hugo Chavez does. In the context of two American sponsored coups – political and military – his rhetoric is a model of moderation.
Fourth, while Castro’s Cuba is certainly not a democracy, he has at least provided for the education and health care of his people. One hopes that true democracy will come to Cuba (one hopes the same for America – witness Ohio 2004 and Florida 2000) but it will not come at the barrel of an American gun. It will come when Cubans are convinced that democracies like Haiti and Venezuela can thrive without the interference of powerful foreign governments and their corporate proxies.
I have denounced Castro’s crackdown on Cuban dissidents but to compare him with Pinochet, Somoza, Noriega, Duarte and Borja of El Salvador, and Rios Montt of Guatemala, is nothing short of absurd. Given that all of these strongmen were once allied with their American masters, one could reasonably place Nixon and Reagan on the short list of human rights violators – unless the citizens of other nations are discounted.
You suggest that Chavez wants a confrontation with the US; I suggest he has no choice. If you do not accept that the American government twice sponsored and coordinated coups against Chavez, your naivety is almost charming.
Finally, your offering of China and India as the models for third world economic growth is equally revealing. China and Japan hold the markers on America’s unfathomable debt, but that does not translate to a burgeoning, western-style middle class. The last I checked, you rose above poverty in China with an income of one hundred American dollars per year – not exactly the kind of income that buys Nike footwear.
The story is similar in India: An economy built on cheap labor (the prescription of the global “free” economy) simply cannot build a consumer society. It is a snake swallowing its own tail. A consumer society by definition must offer greater than living wages but when wages rise, the foundation of the economy crumbles.
Peace,
Random
C'mon Jack, your facts about Hugo Chavez were far too biased to be taken seriously.
I condemn Pat Roberts[on’s] comments, but I am equally offended by Chavez DAILY insults, taunts, and offensive comments about America. This man runs around the world inciting hatred towards us, and he is a head of state -- not a private citizen. A recent sampling of his rants:
"America is the most savage empire that has ever existed"
"We have to destroy American imperialism, before it destroys the world"
These aren't the words of a mild-mannered, peace-lover, Jack. He also called Cuba a "revolutionary democracy", which makes a mockery of Constitutional democracy everywhere. Fidel Castro has one of the worst human rights records in the Western Hemisphere the past 50 years. Hugo Chavez values his ideology above his democratic principles. His allegiance to Castro proves that.
Chavez WANTS confrontation with the US, because it increases his status as a bold, "anti-imperialist" whatever that means. Bush's relative silence towards Chavez is the correct path. He is taking Venezuela down the well-worn, Bolshevik Revolutionary path to destruction. We don't have to do anything to Chavez. He's self-destructing just fine on his own.
Meanwhile, China, India, and a host of other nations aren't sitting around whining about the evils of free trade. They're building strong, robust economies and growing huge middle classes. Hmmmm... maybe there's a lesson there -- if Chavez was smart enough to see it.
Brook D.
RANDOM RESPONSE:
So, you’re a globalist. Let me guess: Brookings Institute.
I wish to thank you for taking the time to convey your thoughts. Here are a few of mine.
I have grown weary of the game of rhetorical opposites. You go to war in the name of peace. You oppress classes and whole societies in the name of justice. You inflict mass poverty in the name of global prosperity and you commit genocide in the name of God.
One of us is badly misinformed.
First, it is Pat Robertson (not Kansas Senator Pat Roberts) who called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Let us assume that was a typographical error.
Second, Chavez joins a distinguished list of dissident leaders opposing American imperialism, including Nelson Mandela, Arundhati Roy, Jimmy Carter, Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.
Third, outside of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, no one has greater cause to oppose the actions of the American government than Hugo Chavez does. In the context of two American sponsored coups – political and military – his rhetoric is a model of moderation.
Fourth, while Castro’s Cuba is certainly not a democracy, he has at least provided for the education and health care of his people. One hopes that true democracy will come to Cuba (one hopes the same for America – witness Ohio 2004 and Florida 2000) but it will not come at the barrel of an American gun. It will come when Cubans are convinced that democracies like Haiti and Venezuela can thrive without the interference of powerful foreign governments and their corporate proxies.
I have denounced Castro’s crackdown on Cuban dissidents but to compare him with Pinochet, Somoza, Noriega, Duarte and Borja of El Salvador, and Rios Montt of Guatemala, is nothing short of absurd. Given that all of these strongmen were once allied with their American masters, one could reasonably place Nixon and Reagan on the short list of human rights violators – unless the citizens of other nations are discounted.
You suggest that Chavez wants a confrontation with the US; I suggest he has no choice. If you do not accept that the American government twice sponsored and coordinated coups against Chavez, your naivety is almost charming.
Finally, your offering of China and India as the models for third world economic growth is equally revealing. China and Japan hold the markers on America’s unfathomable debt, but that does not translate to a burgeoning, western-style middle class. The last I checked, you rose above poverty in China with an income of one hundred American dollars per year – not exactly the kind of income that buys Nike footwear.
The story is similar in India: An economy built on cheap labor (the prescription of the global “free” economy) simply cannot build a consumer society. It is a snake swallowing its own tail. A consumer society by definition must offer greater than living wages but when wages rise, the foundation of the economy crumbles.
Peace,
Random
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
CounterPunch Response: Miller Time
[Note: This is a response to "Miller Time/Pull the Threads" as posted by CounterPunch 7/15/05]
Read your Miller Time ...
I have a feeling that the right is making us go in circles. Too much time is being spent in opposing their lies, which is making us look partisan.
We should shift the focus on to Judith Miller, as in my opinion that is where the real truth lies. Rove seems to be a distraction and is rightly taking the flak at present because nothing really may be proven against him.
If we shift the focus to "Special Plan Office" in the White House operating under the VeePee and the disinformation they generated with "General Judith Miller" etc., in the lead-up to the Iraq fiasco, we will be getting closer to where all this should be leading.
It looks like Libby and Miller had a conversation, which is the root of this. My feeling is that subsequently Miller told Novak about Valerie [Plame] but in the context of being Wilson's wife in the CIA, who so called "engineered" the trip, rather than being a covert agent. Again my gut says both Novak and Rove were ignorant of the covert status, otherwise Novak would not have gone public. Rove is highly disciplined in what he does, thus exposing a covert agent does not really fit into being his modus operandi.
The problem is that Miller has taken on a so-called martyr role and the liberal media has rolled over in her favor. They have to get out of this and realize how she is taking us all for a ride to hide her own "false journalism" and "march beats to war".
I think Miller is the key and the prosecuter "is telling us so" based on whatever he has said or done till now. Cooper/Rove is not in the same category as Miller/VeePee/Rumsfeld in lead up to war. That is the story Americans need to know, and then we can talk treason of the highest order!!!!
-- Allwar Isbad
Read your Miller Time ...
I have a feeling that the right is making us go in circles. Too much time is being spent in opposing their lies, which is making us look partisan.
We should shift the focus on to Judith Miller, as in my opinion that is where the real truth lies. Rove seems to be a distraction and is rightly taking the flak at present because nothing really may be proven against him.
If we shift the focus to "Special Plan Office" in the White House operating under the VeePee and the disinformation they generated with "General Judith Miller" etc., in the lead-up to the Iraq fiasco, we will be getting closer to where all this should be leading.
It looks like Libby and Miller had a conversation, which is the root of this. My feeling is that subsequently Miller told Novak about Valerie [Plame] but in the context of being Wilson's wife in the CIA, who so called "engineered" the trip, rather than being a covert agent. Again my gut says both Novak and Rove were ignorant of the covert status, otherwise Novak would not have gone public. Rove is highly disciplined in what he does, thus exposing a covert agent does not really fit into being his modus operandi.
The problem is that Miller has taken on a so-called martyr role and the liberal media has rolled over in her favor. They have to get out of this and realize how she is taking us all for a ride to hide her own "false journalism" and "march beats to war".
I think Miller is the key and the prosecuter "is telling us so" based on whatever he has said or done till now. Cooper/Rove is not in the same category as Miller/VeePee/Rumsfeld in lead up to war. That is the story Americans need to know, and then we can talk treason of the highest order!!!!
-- Allwar Isbad
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Response from The UK
[Note: This was a response to "London & Madrid: Days of Sorrow & Refection" as published on Buzzle.com.]
Thank you
I was born and raised in London; all of my family still live there, and I just a few miles away. Of course it is difficult not to get caught up in the outrage, the sorrow, and the accompanying rhetoric and tub-thumping. Of course we must not bow to terrorism, and of course we never will.
But we must not forget that these events are the fruit of a poisoned tree which we have allowed to be planted.
Sadly we in the UK, as in the US, have elected a leader for whom the concept of Crusade is as fresh and as meaningful as that of Jihad is for those who have perpetrated these acts.
It is a mentality which is self perpetuating; it justifies any act, any intervention, any interference we may wish to perpetrate in the name of righteousness and in pursuit of our own interests. It denies utterly our long history of colonial abuse, political betrayal and bloody-minded double -dealing. It then demonizes those on whom we inflict our will, and denies any justice there might be in their viewpoint or their actions or re-actions.
My viewpoint is not one of Marxist self-abuse, it is simply that I lack the nationalist penchant for ignoring any truth [that] does not sit well with our benevolent self-image.
You have spoken a truth which is unfashionable, even unpalatable, but which must find a way through the propaganda if we are ever to bring these horrors to an end for all concerned.
This was the first of your articles I have read, but I will be seeking out others, and sending this one to my friends, whether they want it or not.
best regards
Neal Dowsett
Thank you
I was born and raised in London; all of my family still live there, and I just a few miles away. Of course it is difficult not to get caught up in the outrage, the sorrow, and the accompanying rhetoric and tub-thumping. Of course we must not bow to terrorism, and of course we never will.
But we must not forget that these events are the fruit of a poisoned tree which we have allowed to be planted.
Sadly we in the UK, as in the US, have elected a leader for whom the concept of Crusade is as fresh and as meaningful as that of Jihad is for those who have perpetrated these acts.
It is a mentality which is self perpetuating; it justifies any act, any intervention, any interference we may wish to perpetrate in the name of righteousness and in pursuit of our own interests. It denies utterly our long history of colonial abuse, political betrayal and bloody-minded double -dealing. It then demonizes those on whom we inflict our will, and denies any justice there might be in their viewpoint or their actions or re-actions.
My viewpoint is not one of Marxist self-abuse, it is simply that I lack the nationalist penchant for ignoring any truth [that] does not sit well with our benevolent self-image.
You have spoken a truth which is unfashionable, even unpalatable, but which must find a way through the propaganda if we are ever to bring these horrors to an end for all concerned.
This was the first of your articles I have read, but I will be seeking out others, and sending this one to my friends, whether they want it or not.
best regards
Neal Dowsett
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Obiter Dictum (Ward Churchill)
By Chris Mansel
[Editor's Note: Ward Churchill & The Threshold of Influence is posted on the Albion Monitor. See http://www.albionmonitor.com.]
Of Ward Churchill Jack Random writes, "I would dearly love to say that Ward Churchill is not important, that it is the principle of free speech, the essence of a democratic society, and the foundation of academic excellence, that is at stake here, but I simply do not believe it. Ward Churchill is important. His is a singular and distinct voice in American society and, if it is lost, we are all impoverished. His crime is not that he misspoke or that he spoke out of turn, too loudly and too proudly, but that he dared to say what many thought. Moreover, the sentence he committed to paper on September 12, 2001, would never have garnered any significant attention had not the writer crossed a threshold of influence." How right he is. When a man or woman in this country is afraid to stand up and say what he or she feels, state their opinion then all is lost. Democracy will cease to exist, another form of government will evolve, and many in the opposition will die. If you think that sounds just a bit absurd then read the history of Guatemala, Serbia, Poland, just to name a few.
Ward Churchill may have chosen too strong a representation in using the word, Eichmann, but in all sincerity, he was right to a degree. Many of those who work in the technology and money markets are contributing to acts of terrorism whether they know it or not. They do compete to find brand new ways of inciting terror and launder money. If a bank is discovered to be washing money for a drug cartel they don’t arrest everyone who works for the bank, they arrest the higher ups in the company and hold them accountable. Can you imagine the man who mops and buffs the floor being in on the crime with the president and board of the bank? No, you cannot but you might easily make the case that a few mid-level positions in the bank were either asked or told to look the other way. It is doubtful that their names will appear in the indictments. Are they just as guilty? Yes.
The events of September 11 were horrific and stirred a nation into two separate directions. The first was anger and an insistence to attack those who would attack us but the second was much more disturbing. Few elected officials called for caution and in this tense restraint of panic sweeping changes were made under the nose of those that serve in Washington by bills such as the Patriot Act. To use the events of the worst attack ever on this country to push your agenda is just as bad or worse than the attacks. Politicians for years have rushed to have their photos taken at the scene of a fire, at the slaughter of innocent civilians and the events of September 11. It’s despicable and it reeks of a total uncaring and self-preservation that says everything about the sincerity and dignity of that official. Most of the contents in the Patriot Act sought new restrictions over domestic surveillance. Let the shoplifter keep their prize and punish the employee for letting him get away.
In an essay entitled, True History, Jack Random writes, "The greatness of our country and the greatest hope is that there are those who have broken free from the bindings of our indoctrination and declared themselves free. These individuals have discovered the greater truth that where one falsehood lies it is often accompanied by many others. They have uncovered the lies of manifest destiny and equal opportunity. They uncovered the lies of blind justice and the moral imperative to war. They have uncovered the lies of American sovereignty, American democracy, American superiority, and they have discovered the underlying truth: We are a nation born of great ideals yet we have failed to live up to them." Failure to live up to those ideals can be the conclusion of a great noble idea. To protect the people of the United States should not come at the price of liberty and freedom. If it does then we’re facing the wrong end of the barrel of the gun.
- Chris Mansel
SEE http://themanselreport.blogspot.com/
[Editor's Note: Ward Churchill & The Threshold of Influence is posted on the Albion Monitor. See http://www.albionmonitor.com.]
Of Ward Churchill Jack Random writes, "I would dearly love to say that Ward Churchill is not important, that it is the principle of free speech, the essence of a democratic society, and the foundation of academic excellence, that is at stake here, but I simply do not believe it. Ward Churchill is important. His is a singular and distinct voice in American society and, if it is lost, we are all impoverished. His crime is not that he misspoke or that he spoke out of turn, too loudly and too proudly, but that he dared to say what many thought. Moreover, the sentence he committed to paper on September 12, 2001, would never have garnered any significant attention had not the writer crossed a threshold of influence." How right he is. When a man or woman in this country is afraid to stand up and say what he or she feels, state their opinion then all is lost. Democracy will cease to exist, another form of government will evolve, and many in the opposition will die. If you think that sounds just a bit absurd then read the history of Guatemala, Serbia, Poland, just to name a few.
Ward Churchill may have chosen too strong a representation in using the word, Eichmann, but in all sincerity, he was right to a degree. Many of those who work in the technology and money markets are contributing to acts of terrorism whether they know it or not. They do compete to find brand new ways of inciting terror and launder money. If a bank is discovered to be washing money for a drug cartel they don’t arrest everyone who works for the bank, they arrest the higher ups in the company and hold them accountable. Can you imagine the man who mops and buffs the floor being in on the crime with the president and board of the bank? No, you cannot but you might easily make the case that a few mid-level positions in the bank were either asked or told to look the other way. It is doubtful that their names will appear in the indictments. Are they just as guilty? Yes.
The events of September 11 were horrific and stirred a nation into two separate directions. The first was anger and an insistence to attack those who would attack us but the second was much more disturbing. Few elected officials called for caution and in this tense restraint of panic sweeping changes were made under the nose of those that serve in Washington by bills such as the Patriot Act. To use the events of the worst attack ever on this country to push your agenda is just as bad or worse than the attacks. Politicians for years have rushed to have their photos taken at the scene of a fire, at the slaughter of innocent civilians and the events of September 11. It’s despicable and it reeks of a total uncaring and self-preservation that says everything about the sincerity and dignity of that official. Most of the contents in the Patriot Act sought new restrictions over domestic surveillance. Let the shoplifter keep their prize and punish the employee for letting him get away.
In an essay entitled, True History, Jack Random writes, "The greatness of our country and the greatest hope is that there are those who have broken free from the bindings of our indoctrination and declared themselves free. These individuals have discovered the greater truth that where one falsehood lies it is often accompanied by many others. They have uncovered the lies of manifest destiny and equal opportunity. They uncovered the lies of blind justice and the moral imperative to war. They have uncovered the lies of American sovereignty, American democracy, American superiority, and they have discovered the underlying truth: We are a nation born of great ideals yet we have failed to live up to them." Failure to live up to those ideals can be the conclusion of a great noble idea. To protect the people of the United States should not come at the price of liberty and freedom. If it does then we’re facing the wrong end of the barrel of the gun.
- Chris Mansel
SEE http://themanselreport.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
A BLACK HILLS FOOTNOTE
Hey Jack Random,
Reading your post "The Wounds from Wounded Knee" (http://www.counterpunch.org/random02262005.html), I thought you might like to know a small footnote in the Paha Sapa/Black Hills story. Once upon a university...
Back in 1988-89 i was t.a.-ing a big intro. anthropology class at Tufts (near Boston), and the department received a letter out of the blue. Eventually they handed it to me: introducing Phil Stevens, nuclear engineer and Indian Chief, ready to make a presentation on the pending Bradley Bill (U.S. Senate) and the Black Hills mineral rights. No fee, and he would pay for his own plane fare and room at the Marriott. Interested?
At the same time it happened that I was advising an undergrad anthro. student at Harvard: Judy Rabinowitz, daughter of a progressive judge and with Native American heritage herself. Judy, check out this letter, who is this guy in the fancy dance outfit? She sent me to the Harvard American Indian Law Students Association, in the person of Steve Emery. Steve said, yeah we know the guy, he's a shill trying to sell out the sacred lands, but go ahead and invite him, then say there will also be a student presentation, and our group will invite a speaker from the other side, Mr. Gerald Clifford of the Oglala-Lakhota Black Hills Steering Committee. But hey, it's gonna cost something to fly Gerald here, how can we raise the money? I suggested a benefit concert, and Steve said he could sing and play Hokha Wichasha (Lakhota music), let's try. So we rented a church hall in Harvard Square for 80 bucks and I postered all around, advertising Steve paired with Nurudafina, a good friend of mine who plays and teaches Afrocuban rumba in the Boston area. Sliding scale. About 10 paying customers showed up, and we ended the evening dancing in a circle with Gerald. (I have a tape, and man, Steve can sing, and talk too.) When everyone left, the hat contained about 80 bucks; I gave the whole thing to Steve (and defaulted on the church--they didn't fuss too much). Steve suggested we should keep a video record of the forum the next day, and one of the non-paying customers promised to bring a video camera. I borrowed another handycam from a classmate just in case.
Three nights later at Tufts, the department had reserved the main hall in the diplomacy school, and when our team arrived, there in the front row sat Dr. Jean Mayer (college president, Republican, now late) and some "cigar store" stereotype in red makeup and the full Hollywood regalia. I introduced Stevens to the audience (mostly comprising the students in that intro. class), then announced a cultural presentation before the Chief's special talk and slide show.
Steve took the stage with a big drum in hand.
"Before we begin, everyone stand for the Lakhota National Anthem..."
Wow, with the first notes everybody's hair was already on end.
He followed right up with a welcome song to Gerald, but before handing over the stage, said he had a short folk story: about the Duck People. One day, the Fox came by and told them he had a new drum to play, but in order to dance to it you have to close your eyes. So they did, but as each dancing Duck Person passed the Fox, he'd grab it by the neck and stuff it into his gunny sack. Then the next one and the next one until... as Steve illustrated Fox's actions, each time he'd swing his big right arm a little closer to Stevens' delicately coiffed head. ...until a little Baby Duck disobeyed the rules and opened up his eyes. Hey everyone, the Fox is killing all of us! So they chased the fox away. Don't dance with your eyes closed.
Then Gerald Clifford gave a basic intro to law and politics on the res, and described how Stevens was not the first outsider to tell different stories depending on who was listening, or to throw around lots of cash to rig the votes and sell off resources like uranium.
Lastly Stevens got up, his voice not so firm as before, and ran through a slick slide show: self-promotion, Stars & Stripes, nukes for energy independence from those Arab Sheikhs, blah blah blah, but his heart wasn't in it for sure.
With the last slide, questions please? The hall erupted in recriminations, accusations, and order rapidly broke down, class dismissed. One student (fellow Italo-American, sad to say) stands up and calls me a damn commie. I reply that at least I'm no Bluecoat like Stevens. Mayer hustles Stevens out of the room. The End (almost). Not bad educational value for one evening, total cost 80 bucks, not a dime from the university. Some nice term papers came out of it too, if I remember.
Epilogue: theory meets praxis. One of the two videos (not mine) came out pretty good and Steve arranged for it to be seen in Rosebud and elsewhere back home. Stevens' cover is thereby blown and his anti-Bradley operation fades away. Probably more to that part of the story, but anyway there was feedback/blowback/other unintended consequences from the p.r. job. Not that anyone had been dancing with their eyes closed...
Next spring, Steve Emery graduated and drove his van back west. I heard from him indirectly once or twice before disappearing into my dissertation (on Southern Nigerian languages). Years later while browsing in a 1960's photo book about Lakhota culture, Steve's Picture jumps off the page: a skinny teenager, caption: "well known, up and coming singer" or words to that effect. No kidding.
Just a small footnote in a very long story.
Best regards,
Victor Manfredi
Reading your post "The Wounds from Wounded Knee" (http://www.counterpunch.org/random02262005.html), I thought you might like to know a small footnote in the Paha Sapa/Black Hills story. Once upon a university...
Back in 1988-89 i was t.a.-ing a big intro. anthropology class at Tufts (near Boston), and the department received a letter out of the blue. Eventually they handed it to me: introducing Phil Stevens, nuclear engineer and Indian Chief, ready to make a presentation on the pending Bradley Bill (U.S. Senate) and the Black Hills mineral rights. No fee, and he would pay for his own plane fare and room at the Marriott. Interested?
At the same time it happened that I was advising an undergrad anthro. student at Harvard: Judy Rabinowitz, daughter of a progressive judge and with Native American heritage herself. Judy, check out this letter, who is this guy in the fancy dance outfit? She sent me to the Harvard American Indian Law Students Association, in the person of Steve Emery. Steve said, yeah we know the guy, he's a shill trying to sell out the sacred lands, but go ahead and invite him, then say there will also be a student presentation, and our group will invite a speaker from the other side, Mr. Gerald Clifford of the Oglala-Lakhota Black Hills Steering Committee. But hey, it's gonna cost something to fly Gerald here, how can we raise the money? I suggested a benefit concert, and Steve said he could sing and play Hokha Wichasha (Lakhota music), let's try. So we rented a church hall in Harvard Square for 80 bucks and I postered all around, advertising Steve paired with Nurudafina, a good friend of mine who plays and teaches Afrocuban rumba in the Boston area. Sliding scale. About 10 paying customers showed up, and we ended the evening dancing in a circle with Gerald. (I have a tape, and man, Steve can sing, and talk too.) When everyone left, the hat contained about 80 bucks; I gave the whole thing to Steve (and defaulted on the church--they didn't fuss too much). Steve suggested we should keep a video record of the forum the next day, and one of the non-paying customers promised to bring a video camera. I borrowed another handycam from a classmate just in case.
Three nights later at Tufts, the department had reserved the main hall in the diplomacy school, and when our team arrived, there in the front row sat Dr. Jean Mayer (college president, Republican, now late) and some "cigar store" stereotype in red makeup and the full Hollywood regalia. I introduced Stevens to the audience (mostly comprising the students in that intro. class), then announced a cultural presentation before the Chief's special talk and slide show.
Steve took the stage with a big drum in hand.
"Before we begin, everyone stand for the Lakhota National Anthem..."
Wow, with the first notes everybody's hair was already on end.
He followed right up with a welcome song to Gerald, but before handing over the stage, said he had a short folk story: about the Duck People. One day, the Fox came by and told them he had a new drum to play, but in order to dance to it you have to close your eyes. So they did, but as each dancing Duck Person passed the Fox, he'd grab it by the neck and stuff it into his gunny sack. Then the next one and the next one until... as Steve illustrated Fox's actions, each time he'd swing his big right arm a little closer to Stevens' delicately coiffed head. ...until a little Baby Duck disobeyed the rules and opened up his eyes. Hey everyone, the Fox is killing all of us! So they chased the fox away. Don't dance with your eyes closed.
Then Gerald Clifford gave a basic intro to law and politics on the res, and described how Stevens was not the first outsider to tell different stories depending on who was listening, or to throw around lots of cash to rig the votes and sell off resources like uranium.
Lastly Stevens got up, his voice not so firm as before, and ran through a slick slide show: self-promotion, Stars & Stripes, nukes for energy independence from those Arab Sheikhs, blah blah blah, but his heart wasn't in it for sure.
With the last slide, questions please? The hall erupted in recriminations, accusations, and order rapidly broke down, class dismissed. One student (fellow Italo-American, sad to say) stands up and calls me a damn commie. I reply that at least I'm no Bluecoat like Stevens. Mayer hustles Stevens out of the room. The End (almost). Not bad educational value for one evening, total cost 80 bucks, not a dime from the university. Some nice term papers came out of it too, if I remember.
Epilogue: theory meets praxis. One of the two videos (not mine) came out pretty good and Steve arranged for it to be seen in Rosebud and elsewhere back home. Stevens' cover is thereby blown and his anti-Bradley operation fades away. Probably more to that part of the story, but anyway there was feedback/blowback/other unintended consequences from the p.r. job. Not that anyone had been dancing with their eyes closed...
Next spring, Steve Emery graduated and drove his van back west. I heard from him indirectly once or twice before disappearing into my dissertation (on Southern Nigerian languages). Years later while browsing in a 1960's photo book about Lakhota culture, Steve's Picture jumps off the page: a skinny teenager, caption: "well known, up and coming singer" or words to that effect. No kidding.
Just a small footnote in a very long story.
Best regards,
Victor Manfredi
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Re: Wounded Knee
Sir,
I read with interest your article posted in Counterpunch, as well as your exchange with Mr. Brook. Mr. Brook sounds a little like the type of person who sits in the audience of a daytime TV talk show and becomes foam-at-the-mouth angry at whatever topic is under discussion.
This is our land. Period. Far as I know there's no statute of limitations on genocide. Like you, I wonder when a crime is no longer a crime. I sometimes make the analogy of a car thief giving a stolen car to his son. Does that make it no longer stolen ? Should the victim then cease legal address because the original malefactor is no longer in posession of the stolen property ?
I entertain no serious belief that the non-Indians are gonna pack their bags and head back to Europe-Asia-wherever, but I certainly do support our people in their struggles everywhere. I take so much pride in my race that I refuse to cite statistics of victimhood, it makes me feel helpless.
With that said, I resent people making " Get over it" statements. Mr. Brook has no sympathy for my people, that's fine. I haven't asked for it and don't expect it. But it's very annoying to hear the horrors of colonialism reduced to "Get over it".
Regards,
Joe Osorio
Quechan
Oakland
[Editor's Note: The CounterPunch article was posted 2/26/05; the exchange with Mr. Brook is posted below.]
I read with interest your article posted in Counterpunch, as well as your exchange with Mr. Brook. Mr. Brook sounds a little like the type of person who sits in the audience of a daytime TV talk show and becomes foam-at-the-mouth angry at whatever topic is under discussion.
This is our land. Period. Far as I know there's no statute of limitations on genocide. Like you, I wonder when a crime is no longer a crime. I sometimes make the analogy of a car thief giving a stolen car to his son. Does that make it no longer stolen ? Should the victim then cease legal address because the original malefactor is no longer in posession of the stolen property ?
I entertain no serious belief that the non-Indians are gonna pack their bags and head back to Europe-Asia-wherever, but I certainly do support our people in their struggles everywhere. I take so much pride in my race that I refuse to cite statistics of victimhood, it makes me feel helpless.
With that said, I resent people making " Get over it" statements. Mr. Brook has no sympathy for my people, that's fine. I haven't asked for it and don't expect it. But it's very annoying to hear the horrors of colonialism reduced to "Get over it".
Regards,
Joe Osorio
Quechan
Oakland
[Editor's Note: The CounterPunch article was posted 2/26/05; the exchange with Mr. Brook is posted below.]
Saturday, February 26, 2005
RE: THE WOUNDS OF WOUNDED KNEE
A FRANK INTERCHANGE: GREG BROOK VS. JACK RANDOM
[Editor’s Note: A reader’s response to the commentary “The Wounds of Wounded Knee” posted on CounterPunch 2/26/05 triggered the following interchange.]
GREG BROOK 2/26/05 at 10:16 am:
Subject: Wake up
Your essay about Wounded Knee was another example of self-imposed guilt that no rational person would take part in. What's done is done. Native Americans do not have any sort of "birth right" to the Americas simply because their ancestors lived there, just like you don't have any sort of birth right to Europe or wherever your ancestors were from. The land belongs to the people who were born to it. People have been living on American soil for generations and had nothing to do with its stealing. Telling them that it is isn't really their land is like telling the Palestinians that none of Palestine is really their land because it used to belong to the Jews about 2,000 years ago, or telling all of the Hispanic Cubans to get lost because [they’re] on conquered land, or the Mexican Hispanics or any other of a hundred displaced and reconquered peoples/terroritories. Native Americans aren't still stewing over Wounded Knee, so speak for yourself and stop pretending like you speak for them, because no one is owed an apology for something that wasn't done to them, wasn't done by anyone living today, and to state the opposite is pure arrogance. Grow up.
RANDOM RESPONSE 2/26/05 at 12:05 pm:
In all sincerity, the quickest way to short circuit reasoned discourse is to punctuate your argument with personal insult. You are clearly a rationale person with a distinct point of view so please take it as a constructive criticism: Your case would be more persuasive without the last two words.
That said, I would offer the following points of contention:
> However I might feel personally, I do realize that giving the nation back to the Indians is not on the table. Does it follow that the indigenous peoples have forfeited equal justice under the law? Given the terms of the Fort Laramie Treaty, that is precisely what is at stake in the land of the Lakota. Moreover, the mismanagement of BIA funds is the finding of a court of law, the resolution of which is pending the government's refusal to comply with a court order.
> There is a world of difference between ancestors who left the land of their birth and those who were dispossessed.
> You must have miswrote when you stated: "The land belongs to the people who were born to it." As Crazy Horse said, "My land is where my people lay buried." I couldn't agree more.
> I'm not asking for guilt, only for justice and the nation's misdeeds (genocide) are a part of the equation.
> Where do you draw the line of accountability? A hundred years? Fifty years? Twenty years? It seems an arbitrary delineation.
> Are you sure about your history? Were not the Palestinians there as well?
> Did I give the impression that I was speaking for anyone but myself? I am not.
> Apologies are neither called for nor particularly important: It is a matter of justice.
> Arrogance? I'm afraid I don't see it.
I do wish to thank you for taking the time to to set down your thoughts and forward them. Despite our disagreement, I appreciate the interchange.
Peace,
Random
P.S. With your permission, I may wish to post this exchange on my site.
GREG BROOK 2/26/05 at 1:01 pm:
"There is a world of difference between ancestors who left the land of their birth and those who were dispossessed."
Right, and that's unfortunate, however you seem to be missing the word of critical importance here: ANCESTORS. It doesn't matter where your ANCESTORS were displaced from, since that has no bearing on who you are or where you grew up. My ancestors were forced to flee Ireland because of British oppression and apathy towards the potato famine, which is arguably equal to being dispossessed, yet I don't rant on about how the British owe me reparations, nor has the Irish government ever done the same, nor do I hold some insane belief that I own a little crop of land in some corner of Ireland.
You must have miswrote when you stated: "The land belongs to the people who were born to it." As Crazy Horse said, "My land is where my people lay buried." I couldn't agree more."
Our ancestors are buried in Africa from generally 10 - 20 thousand years ago, does that give us a right to African land. Tell me, when was the last time you brushed up on your Zulu? No one has a right to claim that because their ancestors are buried in a certain land that it is theirs. You offer no reasonable argument, you simply say it is.
"I'm not asking for guilt, only for justice and the nation's misdeeds (genocide) are a part of the equation."
I take it you are one of the cult followers of the belief that the Native American people were purposely "massacred". Indeed, there were many massacres. However, if you truly believe that 15 million (Yes the actual number of Native Americans living in North America was 15 million not 10 million, you should conduct better research) Native Americans were exterminated by lethal force, then you must not have gone to college. Disease wiped them out. Yes, their land was robbed, congratulations on knowing something so fundamental about American history that it would qualify you for a second grader's student of the month award (indeed the other 99% of America is ignorant of this because they teach us in school that Native Americans left on a flying saucer). The only argument you can put up that they were "genocided" as it were, is the [fictitious] rant forwarded by Ward Churchill about American soldiers purposely giving infected blankets to Native Americans, which has been discounted by credited sources across the academic board.
"Where do you draw the line of accountability? A hundred years? Fifty years? Twenty years? It seems an arbitrary delineation."
I found this question particularly odd. Aren't you supposed to be the one who answers this? What is your proposal? That every civilization [in] history suddenly be held to account for the mistakes of its ancestors? That Italy step up for the misdeeds of the Roman Empire? That Turkey step up for the Hittites? How about Mongolia [paying] reparations for Ghengis Khan's rampages? Japan for Korean and Chinese colonization? England for half the planet? While we're at it, let's loot the Vatican's banks because those sons-of-bitches launched the crusades and set up the Inquisition.
To answer your question though, in order to be rational, you HAVE to draw the line somewhere, and I personally say 80 years seems an appropriate time. I don't care how arbitrary that number is, you HAVE to set some number or you can't just start randomly deciding who deserves this and who deserves that. I personally supported reparations to the Japanese-Americans wrongfully interred in camps during WWII because when they were paid many of them were still alive and their children certainly were (and of course that was a monetary transaction and they weren't asking for half the West Coast).
"Are you sure about your history? Were not the Palestinians there as well?"
Yes, there were no Palestinians. Everyone living in Israel was either a Pagan Roman or a Jewish Israelite. In 33 AD the Jews were finally massacred and the temple destroyed, and in the years afterward Semitic Animists began to drift in in nomadic tribes until the coming of Islam centuries later. So yes, the Jews were there first.
RANDOM RESPONSE 2/26/05 at 2:23 pm:
There is a concept in rhetoric known as bird walking. Your argument runs all over the map and each step takes you further from the point.
What is your point? That Native Americans do not deserve reparations but interned Japanese Americans and Holocaust victims do? That indigenous peoples do not deserve equal justice under the law because the original crimes predate an arbitrary line of delineation? How about the crimes of the last eighty years? That Native American genocide was an accidental manifestation of European destiny (and not official US policy for some forty years: "Nits make fleas.") and therefore all crimes must be deleted from the national conscience?
No mention of John Graham, Leonard Peltier, [the Fort Laramie Treaty], BIA mismanagement (very deliberate), or Wounded Knee? Apparently, your pool of knowledge is limited after all. By the way, even a second grade teacher knows that early estimates of native populations vary widely. My source is Native American History (Ballantine Books 1996) by that famous radical Judith Nies. What's yours?
As a conservative once said to me, "You have acquitted yourself well." I say the same to you. You rant with the best of them.
Meantime, permission to post your comments? Yes? No?
Peace,
Random
GREG BROOK 2/26/05 at 3:25 pm:
Post away, since you didn't actually answer any of my points. Regarding the mismanagement of Native American funds, I have no interest in that and if it is true then yes, they deserve reparations, but only for that, because that has happened recently in history according to you, and is still happening. Perhaps you should answer my question if you want to continue pretending that you are the one who isn't drawing an arbitrary line in the middle of history: how far back is too far? When do we stop going back into history trying to "make right" the wrongs of the past? If you're going back a full two and a half to four centuries, then should we also set right all of the other wrongs committed by all the peoples all across the world in that time span? Should we go even further? Should the Church take financial responsibility for the crusades? Should all of the countries of North/South America pay reparations to their respective Indigenous populations, and Australia? Should all of the whites be forced to leave Africa? Where do you personally draw the line, because you have obviously drawn it somewhere, and why?
RANDOM'S LAST COMMENT: Justice has no bounds. Estimates of BIA mismanagement include 5.8 billion in uncollected funds from oil and gas extraction since 1979. The BIA admits 1.97 billion in “unreconciled transactions.” Meantime, free Leonard Peltier, give the Black Hills back to the Lakota and we’ll call it a good beginning. Let the reader decide.
[Editor’s Note: A reader’s response to the commentary “The Wounds of Wounded Knee” posted on CounterPunch 2/26/05 triggered the following interchange.]
GREG BROOK 2/26/05 at 10:16 am:
Subject: Wake up
Your essay about Wounded Knee was another example of self-imposed guilt that no rational person would take part in. What's done is done. Native Americans do not have any sort of "birth right" to the Americas simply because their ancestors lived there, just like you don't have any sort of birth right to Europe or wherever your ancestors were from. The land belongs to the people who were born to it. People have been living on American soil for generations and had nothing to do with its stealing. Telling them that it is isn't really their land is like telling the Palestinians that none of Palestine is really their land because it used to belong to the Jews about 2,000 years ago, or telling all of the Hispanic Cubans to get lost because [they’re] on conquered land, or the Mexican Hispanics or any other of a hundred displaced and reconquered peoples/terroritories. Native Americans aren't still stewing over Wounded Knee, so speak for yourself and stop pretending like you speak for them, because no one is owed an apology for something that wasn't done to them, wasn't done by anyone living today, and to state the opposite is pure arrogance. Grow up.
RANDOM RESPONSE 2/26/05 at 12:05 pm:
In all sincerity, the quickest way to short circuit reasoned discourse is to punctuate your argument with personal insult. You are clearly a rationale person with a distinct point of view so please take it as a constructive criticism: Your case would be more persuasive without the last two words.
That said, I would offer the following points of contention:
> However I might feel personally, I do realize that giving the nation back to the Indians is not on the table. Does it follow that the indigenous peoples have forfeited equal justice under the law? Given the terms of the Fort Laramie Treaty, that is precisely what is at stake in the land of the Lakota. Moreover, the mismanagement of BIA funds is the finding of a court of law, the resolution of which is pending the government's refusal to comply with a court order.
> There is a world of difference between ancestors who left the land of their birth and those who were dispossessed.
> You must have miswrote when you stated: "The land belongs to the people who were born to it." As Crazy Horse said, "My land is where my people lay buried." I couldn't agree more.
> I'm not asking for guilt, only for justice and the nation's misdeeds (genocide) are a part of the equation.
> Where do you draw the line of accountability? A hundred years? Fifty years? Twenty years? It seems an arbitrary delineation.
> Are you sure about your history? Were not the Palestinians there as well?
> Did I give the impression that I was speaking for anyone but myself? I am not.
> Apologies are neither called for nor particularly important: It is a matter of justice.
> Arrogance? I'm afraid I don't see it.
I do wish to thank you for taking the time to to set down your thoughts and forward them. Despite our disagreement, I appreciate the interchange.
Peace,
Random
P.S. With your permission, I may wish to post this exchange on my site.
GREG BROOK 2/26/05 at 1:01 pm:
"There is a world of difference between ancestors who left the land of their birth and those who were dispossessed."
Right, and that's unfortunate, however you seem to be missing the word of critical importance here: ANCESTORS. It doesn't matter where your ANCESTORS were displaced from, since that has no bearing on who you are or where you grew up. My ancestors were forced to flee Ireland because of British oppression and apathy towards the potato famine, which is arguably equal to being dispossessed, yet I don't rant on about how the British owe me reparations, nor has the Irish government ever done the same, nor do I hold some insane belief that I own a little crop of land in some corner of Ireland.
You must have miswrote when you stated: "The land belongs to the people who were born to it." As Crazy Horse said, "My land is where my people lay buried." I couldn't agree more."
Our ancestors are buried in Africa from generally 10 - 20 thousand years ago, does that give us a right to African land. Tell me, when was the last time you brushed up on your Zulu? No one has a right to claim that because their ancestors are buried in a certain land that it is theirs. You offer no reasonable argument, you simply say it is.
"I'm not asking for guilt, only for justice and the nation's misdeeds (genocide) are a part of the equation."
I take it you are one of the cult followers of the belief that the Native American people were purposely "massacred". Indeed, there were many massacres. However, if you truly believe that 15 million (Yes the actual number of Native Americans living in North America was 15 million not 10 million, you should conduct better research) Native Americans were exterminated by lethal force, then you must not have gone to college. Disease wiped them out. Yes, their land was robbed, congratulations on knowing something so fundamental about American history that it would qualify you for a second grader's student of the month award (indeed the other 99% of America is ignorant of this because they teach us in school that Native Americans left on a flying saucer). The only argument you can put up that they were "genocided" as it were, is the [fictitious] rant forwarded by Ward Churchill about American soldiers purposely giving infected blankets to Native Americans, which has been discounted by credited sources across the academic board.
"Where do you draw the line of accountability? A hundred years? Fifty years? Twenty years? It seems an arbitrary delineation."
I found this question particularly odd. Aren't you supposed to be the one who answers this? What is your proposal? That every civilization [in] history suddenly be held to account for the mistakes of its ancestors? That Italy step up for the misdeeds of the Roman Empire? That Turkey step up for the Hittites? How about Mongolia [paying] reparations for Ghengis Khan's rampages? Japan for Korean and Chinese colonization? England for half the planet? While we're at it, let's loot the Vatican's banks because those sons-of-bitches launched the crusades and set up the Inquisition.
To answer your question though, in order to be rational, you HAVE to draw the line somewhere, and I personally say 80 years seems an appropriate time. I don't care how arbitrary that number is, you HAVE to set some number or you can't just start randomly deciding who deserves this and who deserves that. I personally supported reparations to the Japanese-Americans wrongfully interred in camps during WWII because when they were paid many of them were still alive and their children certainly were (and of course that was a monetary transaction and they weren't asking for half the West Coast).
"Are you sure about your history? Were not the Palestinians there as well?"
Yes, there were no Palestinians. Everyone living in Israel was either a Pagan Roman or a Jewish Israelite. In 33 AD the Jews were finally massacred and the temple destroyed, and in the years afterward Semitic Animists began to drift in in nomadic tribes until the coming of Islam centuries later. So yes, the Jews were there first.
RANDOM RESPONSE 2/26/05 at 2:23 pm:
There is a concept in rhetoric known as bird walking. Your argument runs all over the map and each step takes you further from the point.
What is your point? That Native Americans do not deserve reparations but interned Japanese Americans and Holocaust victims do? That indigenous peoples do not deserve equal justice under the law because the original crimes predate an arbitrary line of delineation? How about the crimes of the last eighty years? That Native American genocide was an accidental manifestation of European destiny (and not official US policy for some forty years: "Nits make fleas.") and therefore all crimes must be deleted from the national conscience?
No mention of John Graham, Leonard Peltier, [the Fort Laramie Treaty], BIA mismanagement (very deliberate), or Wounded Knee? Apparently, your pool of knowledge is limited after all. By the way, even a second grade teacher knows that early estimates of native populations vary widely. My source is Native American History (Ballantine Books 1996) by that famous radical Judith Nies. What's yours?
As a conservative once said to me, "You have acquitted yourself well." I say the same to you. You rant with the best of them.
Meantime, permission to post your comments? Yes? No?
Peace,
Random
GREG BROOK 2/26/05 at 3:25 pm:
Post away, since you didn't actually answer any of my points. Regarding the mismanagement of Native American funds, I have no interest in that and if it is true then yes, they deserve reparations, but only for that, because that has happened recently in history according to you, and is still happening. Perhaps you should answer my question if you want to continue pretending that you are the one who isn't drawing an arbitrary line in the middle of history: how far back is too far? When do we stop going back into history trying to "make right" the wrongs of the past? If you're going back a full two and a half to four centuries, then should we also set right all of the other wrongs committed by all the peoples all across the world in that time span? Should we go even further? Should the Church take financial responsibility for the crusades? Should all of the countries of North/South America pay reparations to their respective Indigenous populations, and Australia? Should all of the whites be forced to leave Africa? Where do you personally draw the line, because you have obviously drawn it somewhere, and why?
RANDOM'S LAST COMMENT: Justice has no bounds. Estimates of BIA mismanagement include 5.8 billion in uncollected funds from oil and gas extraction since 1979. The BIA admits 1.97 billion in “unreconciled transactions.” Meantime, free Leonard Peltier, give the Black Hills back to the Lakota and we’ll call it a good beginning. Let the reader decide.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
INFANT NATION & INFANT PEOPLE
In Response to the essay: Infant Nation
By Thomas Miller
“From an historical perspective it is undeniable: In the great expanse of recorded time, America is but an infant nation. Given this simple and unquestionable observation our behavior in the world suddenly comes into focus. As an infant nation our behavior is as predictable as the salivation of Pavlov’s dogs.”
From the essay, Infant Nation, The Jazzman Chronicles, Vol. II: The War Chronicles.
I strongly believe the human race is intrinsically lazy, greedy, and shortsighted: The characteristics I fight more consciously everyday.
At the beginning of recorded time on earth, we needed to have these attributes to survive: Survival of the fittest.
Our leaders want us to believe we have evolved to a more humane level but it is not true. Even though we are loving beings at heart these fact still hold true.
Understanding our complex world is a difficult task. It is easy to believe what the machine is selling.
Now that the media is controlled by the same machine, the wealthy elite, it is even harder to find truth.
I am sorry; I do not think Americans are ready to see the truth. The majority is not personally suffering enough.
By Thomas Miller
“From an historical perspective it is undeniable: In the great expanse of recorded time, America is but an infant nation. Given this simple and unquestionable observation our behavior in the world suddenly comes into focus. As an infant nation our behavior is as predictable as the salivation of Pavlov’s dogs.”
From the essay, Infant Nation, The Jazzman Chronicles, Vol. II: The War Chronicles.
I strongly believe the human race is intrinsically lazy, greedy, and shortsighted: The characteristics I fight more consciously everyday.
At the beginning of recorded time on earth, we needed to have these attributes to survive: Survival of the fittest.
Our leaders want us to believe we have evolved to a more humane level but it is not true. Even though we are loving beings at heart these fact still hold true.
Understanding our complex world is a difficult task. It is easy to believe what the machine is selling.
Now that the media is controlled by the same machine, the wealthy elite, it is even harder to find truth.
I am sorry; I do not think Americans are ready to see the truth. The majority is not personally suffering enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)