THE REMARKABLE CONSISTENCY OF MR. BUSH
By Jack Random
“A president has to wait for all the facts before jumping to a conclusion.”
-- GW Bush on the campaign trail, October 2004.
Have we forgotten March 21, 2003, the day of Shock and Awe, so soon? Have we forgotten the pleadings of United Nations inspectors Hans Blix and Mahamed ElBaradei for the Security Council and the Bush administration to wait for the facts before we jump to the conclusion that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction? Have we forgotten that they were right, that the administration was wrong, and that Iraq did not in fact possess weapons of mass destruction?
The president lambastes his opponent for not waiting until after the election to level the charge of executive malfeasance in the loss of mass quantities of conventional explosives. It has been a year and a half since the invasion of Iraq. There is no question but that the administration was officially warned about the Al Qa Qaa facility well in advance of the war. We can assume, then, that the administration has had plenty of time to determine the facts and come to a reasoned conclusion. That they have either not done so or have chosen to bury the facts until after November 2, is all the revelation we require. The administration ought to know where the explosives went yet it appears they do not. The commander-in-chief ought to have gone to great lengths to secure the facility yet clearly did not.
That the president has been less than forthcoming with the American people is nothing new. His entire presidency has been based on the policies of exploitation under the cover of deceptive propaganda, with the all-too-eager cooperation of a corporate media. Questioning the president’s competence in his handling of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is also nothing new. It has never been a challenge to the courage or competence of our troops on the ground.
When we failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, it was the commander’s call. When we failed to take out Abu Musab Zarqawi in northern Iraq before the war, it was the commander’s decision. Finally, when we opted to guard the Oil Ministry before turning our attention to massive caches of explosives, it is the commander’s responsibility.
These are by no means the central issues of this election.
The president has taken the nation to war based on a package of lies and deceptions that millions of Americans still believe: that Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Qaeda and the attack on this nation; and that Iraq possessed massive stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. From all accounts, we know that the deception was planned and deliberate.
As a result, over 1,100 American soldiers and 100,000 Iraqis are dead.
On the central questions, the facts are in and they allow only one conclusion: The reign of George W. Bush must end.
Jazz.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
THE CURSE IS LIFTED
A DAY WITHOUT POLITICS
For one glorious day, there is no politics. The Boston Red Sox have lifted the curse of the great Bambino. For the first time in eighty-six years, the little guys have risen to the top of the heap, the working stiffs have grabbed the glory, the sun has set on the eastern skyline and the world is somehow a better place.
Since the end of the First World War, when Woodrow Wilson was president and Ernest Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms, never has there been a more hopeless cause than that of the lowly Red Sox. Never has there been a more poignant display of the unbeatable human spirit than that of the Red Sox fan and their annual fall epitaph, “Wait ‘til next year.”
All hail the Boston Red Sox: A lone Indian and eight cowboys on the field of dreams that never die.
All hail the Red Sox nation. You have given every underdog, every lonesome sailor, every soul who has loved and lost, every forlorn soldier, every unemployed factory worker, every down-on-his-luck gambler, and every down-to-his-last-buck stranger fresh new hope for a better day.
Our sincere condolences to the Saint Louis Cardinals: You played the game honorably and well, but this one belongs to the kids from Fenway.
Here’s to the Babe and all the players who toiled beneath his enormous shadow. Here’s to the end of the curse.
Next year may it be the hapless Cubbies and the year after my beloved Giants.
Jazz.
For one glorious day, there is no politics. The Boston Red Sox have lifted the curse of the great Bambino. For the first time in eighty-six years, the little guys have risen to the top of the heap, the working stiffs have grabbed the glory, the sun has set on the eastern skyline and the world is somehow a better place.
Since the end of the First World War, when Woodrow Wilson was president and Ernest Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms, never has there been a more hopeless cause than that of the lowly Red Sox. Never has there been a more poignant display of the unbeatable human spirit than that of the Red Sox fan and their annual fall epitaph, “Wait ‘til next year.”
All hail the Boston Red Sox: A lone Indian and eight cowboys on the field of dreams that never die.
All hail the Red Sox nation. You have given every underdog, every lonesome sailor, every soul who has loved and lost, every forlorn soldier, every unemployed factory worker, every down-on-his-luck gambler, and every down-to-his-last-buck stranger fresh new hope for a better day.
Our sincere condolences to the Saint Louis Cardinals: You played the game honorably and well, but this one belongs to the kids from Fenway.
Here’s to the Babe and all the players who toiled beneath his enormous shadow. Here’s to the end of the curse.
Next year may it be the hapless Cubbies and the year after my beloved Giants.
Jazz.
CRIMES AGAINST DEMOCRACY
DISENFRANCHISEMENT, FRAUD & THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE
By Jack Random
Ann Coulter, the blonde bombshell of rightwing ideologues, famously accused liberal Democrats of treason for not adhering to her narrowly defined vision of America’s role in the world. Where does Ann Coulter stand on the stealing of a presidential election? Where does she stand on disenfranchisement, voter fraud and intimidation? Indeed, where does Ann stand on the issue of democracy in America?
Seven days before the election, horror stories of electoral fraud have become a daily revelation, surpassed only by the daily accounts of horrors in Iraq. An election official in Ohio decides to enforce an obscure law requiring registration forms to be submitted on paper of a specified weight. Voters improperly disenfranchised in Florida 2000 have still not had their voting rights restored by a foot-dragging Governor Jeb Bush. Early voting offered in some states is unavailable in districts with a high proportion of black voters. Thugs disguised as law enforcement officers patrol polling places to discourage certain types of voters. In Nevada, officials destroy the application forms of newly registered Democrats.
The perpetrators of these despicable acts are guilty of crimes against democracy yet it is unlikely that any will face the consequence of a well-earned prison sentence. We proclaim ourselves the world’s champion of democracy yet we regard the blatant and willful betrayal of democracy at home as harmless shenanigans. Is it any wonder the world regards us as both hypocritical and arrogant?
If you believe in democracy as I do, with the unbridled passion of Jefferson, Franklin and Paine, then her deliberate betrayal, regardless of party loyalty, is comparable to providing state secrets to a sworn enemy. That such acts are not only tolerated but often glorified (as was the case with former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris) is symptomatic of a dangerous and profound sickness in American politics.
The solution to the problem of rampant election fraud is simple: Put the offenders in jail. Let Martha Stewart go free and Katherine Harris discover the virtues of a federal penitentiary. Let a hundred or a thousand petty drug abusers walk out and let those who destroyed registration forms in Nevada walk in through the iron gates of restitution.
The truth is that neither of the major parties is committed to the virtues of democracy. The Republicans are fond of pointing out that we are not literally a democracy (odd that we should want to bestow on other nations a system we do not employ), neglecting to note that a republic is nothing more nor less than a representative democracy. For their part, the Democrats failed to stand up for democracy in Florida 2000 by refusing to demand a full recount (as required by Florida law) and by refusing to even raise the question of disenfranchisement in deference to expediency. The Democrats lost the White House by their betrayal of democracy.
The fact is: A nation that still embraces the absurdly archaic and blatantly anti-democratic system of the Electoral College can never claim to be democracy’s champion.
The believers in democracy are rightfully appalled by the disenfranchisement of any citizen, yet the Electoral College effectively disenfranchises the vast majority of Americans in every presidential election. New Yorkers and Californians are disenfranchised. Since the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, the entire south outside of Florida is essentially disenfranchised. A voter from Alabama, Wyoming, Washington or Texas can vote for the Virgin Mary with a clear conscience, assured that it will have no impact. The only votes that matter in a modern presidential election are those in a handful of battleground states.
If this is democratic, then Ann Coulter is a compassionate conservative and GW Bush is a competent chief executive.
That the Electoral College is anti-democratic is so obvious and clear it needs no further elaboration. The 2000 election was the third occasion where a president was selected with fewer votes than his primary opponent. No other democracy in the world would accept such a record of failure.
The proposition is simple: If we believe in democracy then we can no longer support a system that tolerates, sanctions and embraces crimes against democracy.
It is long past time to abandon a system that elevates the abstraction of a state over the simple and fundamental premise of democracy: One person, one vote.
Jazz.
By Jack Random
Ann Coulter, the blonde bombshell of rightwing ideologues, famously accused liberal Democrats of treason for not adhering to her narrowly defined vision of America’s role in the world. Where does Ann Coulter stand on the stealing of a presidential election? Where does she stand on disenfranchisement, voter fraud and intimidation? Indeed, where does Ann stand on the issue of democracy in America?
Seven days before the election, horror stories of electoral fraud have become a daily revelation, surpassed only by the daily accounts of horrors in Iraq. An election official in Ohio decides to enforce an obscure law requiring registration forms to be submitted on paper of a specified weight. Voters improperly disenfranchised in Florida 2000 have still not had their voting rights restored by a foot-dragging Governor Jeb Bush. Early voting offered in some states is unavailable in districts with a high proportion of black voters. Thugs disguised as law enforcement officers patrol polling places to discourage certain types of voters. In Nevada, officials destroy the application forms of newly registered Democrats.
The perpetrators of these despicable acts are guilty of crimes against democracy yet it is unlikely that any will face the consequence of a well-earned prison sentence. We proclaim ourselves the world’s champion of democracy yet we regard the blatant and willful betrayal of democracy at home as harmless shenanigans. Is it any wonder the world regards us as both hypocritical and arrogant?
If you believe in democracy as I do, with the unbridled passion of Jefferson, Franklin and Paine, then her deliberate betrayal, regardless of party loyalty, is comparable to providing state secrets to a sworn enemy. That such acts are not only tolerated but often glorified (as was the case with former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris) is symptomatic of a dangerous and profound sickness in American politics.
The solution to the problem of rampant election fraud is simple: Put the offenders in jail. Let Martha Stewart go free and Katherine Harris discover the virtues of a federal penitentiary. Let a hundred or a thousand petty drug abusers walk out and let those who destroyed registration forms in Nevada walk in through the iron gates of restitution.
The truth is that neither of the major parties is committed to the virtues of democracy. The Republicans are fond of pointing out that we are not literally a democracy (odd that we should want to bestow on other nations a system we do not employ), neglecting to note that a republic is nothing more nor less than a representative democracy. For their part, the Democrats failed to stand up for democracy in Florida 2000 by refusing to demand a full recount (as required by Florida law) and by refusing to even raise the question of disenfranchisement in deference to expediency. The Democrats lost the White House by their betrayal of democracy.
The fact is: A nation that still embraces the absurdly archaic and blatantly anti-democratic system of the Electoral College can never claim to be democracy’s champion.
The believers in democracy are rightfully appalled by the disenfranchisement of any citizen, yet the Electoral College effectively disenfranchises the vast majority of Americans in every presidential election. New Yorkers and Californians are disenfranchised. Since the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, the entire south outside of Florida is essentially disenfranchised. A voter from Alabama, Wyoming, Washington or Texas can vote for the Virgin Mary with a clear conscience, assured that it will have no impact. The only votes that matter in a modern presidential election are those in a handful of battleground states.
If this is democratic, then Ann Coulter is a compassionate conservative and GW Bush is a competent chief executive.
That the Electoral College is anti-democratic is so obvious and clear it needs no further elaboration. The 2000 election was the third occasion where a president was selected with fewer votes than his primary opponent. No other democracy in the world would accept such a record of failure.
The proposition is simple: If we believe in democracy then we can no longer support a system that tolerates, sanctions and embraces crimes against democracy.
It is long past time to abandon a system that elevates the abstraction of a state over the simple and fundamental premise of democracy: One person, one vote.
Jazz.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
THE NADER QUESTION
JAZZMAN CHRONICLES: DISSEMINATE FREELY.
A RESPONSE TO A LETTER FROM MINNESOTA
By Jack Random
As a voice for independence from political parties and an advocate for third parties as a means to that end, it was an agonizing decision to dedicate whatever small measure of influence I could muster toward replacing George W. Bush with the Democrat John Kerry. It would perhaps have been less agonizing had the Democrats found the courage to nominate a candidate with a strong antiwar position, but I have grown accustomed to disappointment in both sides of the mainstream political aisle.
The unwavering gravitation of the Democrats to the muddled middle ground has forced the Republicans to the far right so that the progressive left is no longer represented in what passes for fair and balanced political discourse.
To those who would question Nader’s integrity, sanity or character, save your breath. Do not give the words you will have to swallow in the next campaign. Nader is right: The politics of pragmatism is the foremost enemy in the battle for independence.
On the other hand, when Ralph Nader decries such luminaries as Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn as “liberal intelligentsia” and laments that they have lost their nerve, he is no longer fighting the good fight. He is no longer fearlessly striking out at the powers of corporate corruption. He is attacking the heart and soul of the progressive movement. He is further alienating those who were honestly torn by this critical dilemma.
It is one thing to disagree on the relative harm of GW Bush; it is another to accuse those who have arrived at a contrasting view of spinelessness.
On substance, Ralph Nader is right on every major issue and most especially on the matter of extracting ourselves from the disaster in Iraq, but he is wrong when he suggests that we have not pushed Kerry toward a more progressive stance, most especially on the war. That we have not done so in the name of Ralph Nader does not render our efforts meaningless. In fact, I believe we have had some effect.
I would also note that my perception of the role of a third party movement differs from Nader’s in one important respect. He appears to believe that the goal is to apply pressure to the lesser of two evils (i.e., the Democrats). This is also the politics of pragmatism. I believe that the only goal worth pursuing is the defeat of the two-party system.
The real question at this time and place in history is this: Who has done more to forward the cause of independence in this election: Ralph Nader, standing strong on principle and sacrificing much of the dedicated support he once enjoyed, or those of us who have compromised by acknowledging that there are times when our own cause must yield to a greater cause – in this case, the cause of peace?
It is not an easy question. It is a question that each and every one of us should ask and answer conscientiously. It is a question that has the power to divide. Bear in mind that we have not asked the gay and lesbian community to stand down because the issue of gay marriage can only feed the religious right and therefore help George Bush. We have not asked abortion rights to take a holiday. In fact, we have not asked any group or individual to sacrifice their cause for political expedience, nor should we, except for the candidacy of Ralph Nader.
I will never side with those who claim that Nader betrayed the cause or the greater good. It is rarely that simple and the electoral dilemma of this election is no exception. When all is said, Ralph Nader’s legacy will place him alongside Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez as a champion of the common people. His virtue has always been that he never regarded the working people as somehow inferior or less deserving of American justice and prosperity as the members of the elite.
In the waning days of this campaign, let there be peace within the progressive ranks. Let there be no more recriminations between Nader and those who stand with him on all matters but one. Let us look beyond Election Day and recognize that our cause and movement begins anew on November 3.
We stand together against the war, against corporate corruption and against the inherently corrupt two-party system. We stand for the rights of workers both here and abroad. We stand for living wages. We stand for civil liberties. We stand for universal health care. We stand for real equality and a woman’s right to choose. We stand for reparations for the American Indian and all oppressed minority communities. We stand for debt forgiveness of third world nations and an end to the global dominance schemes of the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank. We stand for the right of all the world’s inhabitants to be free of industrial contamination. We stand with the world against the war machine.
Let us not forget that when we supported Ralph Nader in the year 2000, we also supported Winona LaDuke. We stand with LaDuke today.
Jazz.
A RESPONSE TO A LETTER FROM MINNESOTA
By Jack Random
As a voice for independence from political parties and an advocate for third parties as a means to that end, it was an agonizing decision to dedicate whatever small measure of influence I could muster toward replacing George W. Bush with the Democrat John Kerry. It would perhaps have been less agonizing had the Democrats found the courage to nominate a candidate with a strong antiwar position, but I have grown accustomed to disappointment in both sides of the mainstream political aisle.
The unwavering gravitation of the Democrats to the muddled middle ground has forced the Republicans to the far right so that the progressive left is no longer represented in what passes for fair and balanced political discourse.
To those who would question Nader’s integrity, sanity or character, save your breath. Do not give the words you will have to swallow in the next campaign. Nader is right: The politics of pragmatism is the foremost enemy in the battle for independence.
On the other hand, when Ralph Nader decries such luminaries as Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn as “liberal intelligentsia” and laments that they have lost their nerve, he is no longer fighting the good fight. He is no longer fearlessly striking out at the powers of corporate corruption. He is attacking the heart and soul of the progressive movement. He is further alienating those who were honestly torn by this critical dilemma.
It is one thing to disagree on the relative harm of GW Bush; it is another to accuse those who have arrived at a contrasting view of spinelessness.
On substance, Ralph Nader is right on every major issue and most especially on the matter of extracting ourselves from the disaster in Iraq, but he is wrong when he suggests that we have not pushed Kerry toward a more progressive stance, most especially on the war. That we have not done so in the name of Ralph Nader does not render our efforts meaningless. In fact, I believe we have had some effect.
I would also note that my perception of the role of a third party movement differs from Nader’s in one important respect. He appears to believe that the goal is to apply pressure to the lesser of two evils (i.e., the Democrats). This is also the politics of pragmatism. I believe that the only goal worth pursuing is the defeat of the two-party system.
The real question at this time and place in history is this: Who has done more to forward the cause of independence in this election: Ralph Nader, standing strong on principle and sacrificing much of the dedicated support he once enjoyed, or those of us who have compromised by acknowledging that there are times when our own cause must yield to a greater cause – in this case, the cause of peace?
It is not an easy question. It is a question that each and every one of us should ask and answer conscientiously. It is a question that has the power to divide. Bear in mind that we have not asked the gay and lesbian community to stand down because the issue of gay marriage can only feed the religious right and therefore help George Bush. We have not asked abortion rights to take a holiday. In fact, we have not asked any group or individual to sacrifice their cause for political expedience, nor should we, except for the candidacy of Ralph Nader.
I will never side with those who claim that Nader betrayed the cause or the greater good. It is rarely that simple and the electoral dilemma of this election is no exception. When all is said, Ralph Nader’s legacy will place him alongside Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez as a champion of the common people. His virtue has always been that he never regarded the working people as somehow inferior or less deserving of American justice and prosperity as the members of the elite.
In the waning days of this campaign, let there be peace within the progressive ranks. Let there be no more recriminations between Nader and those who stand with him on all matters but one. Let us look beyond Election Day and recognize that our cause and movement begins anew on November 3.
We stand together against the war, against corporate corruption and against the inherently corrupt two-party system. We stand for the rights of workers both here and abroad. We stand for living wages. We stand for civil liberties. We stand for universal health care. We stand for real equality and a woman’s right to choose. We stand for reparations for the American Indian and all oppressed minority communities. We stand for debt forgiveness of third world nations and an end to the global dominance schemes of the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank. We stand for the right of all the world’s inhabitants to be free of industrial contamination. We stand with the world against the war machine.
Let us not forget that when we supported Ralph Nader in the year 2000, we also supported Winona LaDuke. We stand with LaDuke today.
Jazz.
Monday, October 25, 2004
ZARQAWI: MYTH OR SUPERMAN?
THE OCTOBER SURPISE?
By Jack Random
We have heard the name Abu Musab Zarqawi all too often in recent weeks. We have heard it in connection with suicide bombings, beheadings and, just today, with the massacre of some 48 new Iraqi Army recruits near the Iranian border. In a recent New Jersey appearance, the president expounded on the subject in a manner reminiscent of his Saddam tirades. It seemed an odd choice for the president since Zarqawi was one the keynotes of Colin Powell’s now notoriously discredited United Nations presentation to justify the war in Iraq.
As I wrote at the time: “Of all the half truths and misleading statements uttered by our Secretary of State, the most insidious was the assertion that an Al Qaeda training camp was operative in northern Iraq. The question immediately arose: If we knew of an active Al Qaeda camp in Iraq, in a region controlled by the Kurds under American and British protection, why then had we not eliminated it? The obvious answer is that it was more important to fabricate an Iraqi Gulf of Tonkin (the lie that committed us to the Vietnam War) than to eliminate a direct terrorist threat.” (Jazzman Chronicles, Volume II: The War Chronicles, Crow Dog Press 2004)
Although the claim that it was an Al Qaeda camp was pointedly false, the president’s audience should be curious to learn that the Pentagon drew up plans to wipe out the Ansar al-Islam camp and the mastermind Zarqawi on no less than three separate occasions (June 2002, October 2002, January 2003). On each occasion, the White House refused to grant approval. Why? The only reason given was offered in a report by NBC on March 2, 2004: “the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.”
So why are we hearing so much about Zarqawi now? Is he in fact the be-all and end-all of the Iraqi resistance? Not according to Iraqi-born terrorism expert Mustafa Alani: “Everybody blames Zarqawi but I think it’s a series of assumptions. It’s of great publicity value to say he is trying to stir a civil war. With all the attacks they blame him for, he’s either superman or a myth.” (LA Times, March 7, 2004)
The question remains: Why? The administration is clearly promoting Zarqawi as the new face of our enemy. He is in the process of supplanting Saddam Hussein just as Saddam supplanted Osama bin Laden. Why?
Could it be that the administration’s plans for capturing the illusive Osama before Election Day have run into a few unexpected obstacles? Could it be that General Musharef of Pakistan is not in position to deliver the goods? Is the White House feeling the need for an alternative October surprise?
If so, so be it.
Let us then be prepared to tell the sordid tale of Abu Musab Zarqawi. It is the story of a terrorist who owes his life to the politics of Karl Rove and the overriding need of the White House to justify an unlawful, immoral and unjustifiable war.
Let us ask the hard question: If what the administration claims is true – that Zarqawi is responsible for countless suicide bombings, beheadings and massacres – then how many lives were lost because the president needed to protect his blatantly fictitious rationale for war?
If this is, in fact, what the administration intends, frankly, we expected better. Frankly, we expected a manacled Osama to be paraded down the aisle at the Republican National Convention, bent to his knees center stage, and forced to recite “God Bless America” with an electric prod to his private parts. Frankly, knowing the extremes to which operatives will resort in times of desperation, we expected that which must not be mentioned.
As Ali said to Frazier in the Thrilla from Manila: “Is that all you’ve got?”
Jazz.
By Jack Random
We have heard the name Abu Musab Zarqawi all too often in recent weeks. We have heard it in connection with suicide bombings, beheadings and, just today, with the massacre of some 48 new Iraqi Army recruits near the Iranian border. In a recent New Jersey appearance, the president expounded on the subject in a manner reminiscent of his Saddam tirades. It seemed an odd choice for the president since Zarqawi was one the keynotes of Colin Powell’s now notoriously discredited United Nations presentation to justify the war in Iraq.
As I wrote at the time: “Of all the half truths and misleading statements uttered by our Secretary of State, the most insidious was the assertion that an Al Qaeda training camp was operative in northern Iraq. The question immediately arose: If we knew of an active Al Qaeda camp in Iraq, in a region controlled by the Kurds under American and British protection, why then had we not eliminated it? The obvious answer is that it was more important to fabricate an Iraqi Gulf of Tonkin (the lie that committed us to the Vietnam War) than to eliminate a direct terrorist threat.” (Jazzman Chronicles, Volume II: The War Chronicles, Crow Dog Press 2004)
Although the claim that it was an Al Qaeda camp was pointedly false, the president’s audience should be curious to learn that the Pentagon drew up plans to wipe out the Ansar al-Islam camp and the mastermind Zarqawi on no less than three separate occasions (June 2002, October 2002, January 2003). On each occasion, the White House refused to grant approval. Why? The only reason given was offered in a report by NBC on March 2, 2004: “the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.”
So why are we hearing so much about Zarqawi now? Is he in fact the be-all and end-all of the Iraqi resistance? Not according to Iraqi-born terrorism expert Mustafa Alani: “Everybody blames Zarqawi but I think it’s a series of assumptions. It’s of great publicity value to say he is trying to stir a civil war. With all the attacks they blame him for, he’s either superman or a myth.” (LA Times, March 7, 2004)
The question remains: Why? The administration is clearly promoting Zarqawi as the new face of our enemy. He is in the process of supplanting Saddam Hussein just as Saddam supplanted Osama bin Laden. Why?
Could it be that the administration’s plans for capturing the illusive Osama before Election Day have run into a few unexpected obstacles? Could it be that General Musharef of Pakistan is not in position to deliver the goods? Is the White House feeling the need for an alternative October surprise?
If so, so be it.
Let us then be prepared to tell the sordid tale of Abu Musab Zarqawi. It is the story of a terrorist who owes his life to the politics of Karl Rove and the overriding need of the White House to justify an unlawful, immoral and unjustifiable war.
Let us ask the hard question: If what the administration claims is true – that Zarqawi is responsible for countless suicide bombings, beheadings and massacres – then how many lives were lost because the president needed to protect his blatantly fictitious rationale for war?
If this is, in fact, what the administration intends, frankly, we expected better. Frankly, we expected a manacled Osama to be paraded down the aisle at the Republican National Convention, bent to his knees center stage, and forced to recite “God Bless America” with an electric prod to his private parts. Frankly, knowing the extremes to which operatives will resort in times of desperation, we expected that which must not be mentioned.
As Ali said to Frazier in the Thrilla from Manila: “Is that all you’ve got?”
Jazz.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
RANDOM JACK KEROUAC
By Jack Random
On October 21, 1969, the summer of love was over. Woodstock was history. Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were dead. Within a year, Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin were dead. A year later, Jim Morrison joined them. Chicago was the city of political corruption and police brutality. Boston was the home of racial strife. Painted faces of compassion walked the Avenue in Berkeley and the Haight in San Francisco. Student protestors had been beaten and gassed but they had not yet been shot dead by the guns of the National Guard. That was yet to come.
On October 21, 1969, the Jack of Hearts lay down and never rose again. The poetry of Zen, the bodhisattva of word jazz, the beat of the beats, the soul of a bum, the thumb of an endless highway, died in his sleep with $91 in his account, not a nickel in his pocket, and a belly full of Johnny Walker Red.
Jack Kerouac was a soldier in the army of social consciousness, a tireless fighter for truth, justice and the most illusive little gee god of all: enlightenment.
On the Road is his legacy, his guidebook for survival in an age of perpetual flux. Mexico City Blues is a prayer to the silent desert moon. And Dharma Bums is his epitaph.
All writers – especially the spoken word kind – are preachers, prophets and diviners of the human soul. The Jack of Kerouac was one of the finest of our times and, who knows, but of all times. He died at 49. He died before I even knew my name.
He understood that death was only a punctuation mark. He lived and wrote like a madman on a runaway train. He knew where he was headed.
He never wanted to be a legend. But, let’s face it, he could use the publicity.
Tip one to Jack tonight and toss a thought around.
Gather in comfortable places. Plot and commiserate.
That’s what Jack would have done.
Jazz.
On October 21, 1969, the summer of love was over. Woodstock was history. Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were dead. Within a year, Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin were dead. A year later, Jim Morrison joined them. Chicago was the city of political corruption and police brutality. Boston was the home of racial strife. Painted faces of compassion walked the Avenue in Berkeley and the Haight in San Francisco. Student protestors had been beaten and gassed but they had not yet been shot dead by the guns of the National Guard. That was yet to come.
On October 21, 1969, the Jack of Hearts lay down and never rose again. The poetry of Zen, the bodhisattva of word jazz, the beat of the beats, the soul of a bum, the thumb of an endless highway, died in his sleep with $91 in his account, not a nickel in his pocket, and a belly full of Johnny Walker Red.
Jack Kerouac was a soldier in the army of social consciousness, a tireless fighter for truth, justice and the most illusive little gee god of all: enlightenment.
On the Road is his legacy, his guidebook for survival in an age of perpetual flux. Mexico City Blues is a prayer to the silent desert moon. And Dharma Bums is his epitaph.
All writers – especially the spoken word kind – are preachers, prophets and diviners of the human soul. The Jack of Kerouac was one of the finest of our times and, who knows, but of all times. He died at 49. He died before I even knew my name.
He understood that death was only a punctuation mark. He lived and wrote like a madman on a runaway train. He knew where he was headed.
He never wanted to be a legend. But, let’s face it, he could use the publicity.
Tip one to Jack tonight and toss a thought around.
Gather in comfortable places. Plot and commiserate.
That’s what Jack would have done.
Jazz.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
THE POLITICS OF FEAR
THE MENDACITY OF KARL ROVE
By Jack Random
As the president decries the politics of fear and Orwell turns over in his grave once more, the vice president emerges from his bunker to warn the good citizens of this land that a nuclear terrorist attack looms if the senator from Massachusetts replaces his master in the oval office.
Time is running out, Mr. President. You are losing this election and, barring the unspeakable, you will lose decisively. The people have deciphered the code. You are not only a liar and a hypocrite, you have a marked tendency to proclaim the exact opposite of the truth, as if saying so repeatedly and with vigor, the people will surely accept your pronouncements as reality.
But the people have eyes and ears and cerebrums of their own. Even a biased mainstream media cannot hide an avalanche of compelling evidence forever. You claim your opponent will say anything to suit the occasion, but it was you who lied at every corner and every turn to justify a war that was neither necessary nor righteous. Over and again, you spoke of a grave and gathering threat, and then you swore you never said the words. From your mouth, we heard dire accounts of mushroom clouds, weapons of mass destruction, phantom connections to Al Qaeda, and complicity in the 911 attacks on this nation, and then you fought every step of the way to prevent the truth from emerging. It was you who twisted and distorted honest intelligence and then allowed the Director of Central Intelligence to fall on his sword for your crimes of deception.
Yes, Mr. President, we are sick to death of the politics of fear. We have lived with the politics of fear for over three years. We have taken it in with our morning coffee. We have tucked it into our beds at night. We have calmed our children after nightmares. We have held our breath for the first news of the day and we have watched our soldiers come home in coffins. We are tired of living with the politics of fear and you, Mr. President, are its champion. Karl Rove, the only adviser outside the ideologues of war you listen to, is the author. It worked its charm like a mass mesmerization during the campaign of 2002, when a crumbling economy and tax breaks for the rich were not enough to prevent a Republican takeover. But even a master can play the same tune too long and yours, Mr. President, has fallen to the level of elevator music.
If ever a president deserved to be discredited, it is you. You were placed on a pedestal and you have fallen of your own accord. When you speak of your accomplishments, you seem to forget that we live in the world you only speak of. When you say your tax cuts really favor the middle class, we do not believe you. When you claim your gift to the drug companies is actually a benefit to our seniors, we do not believe you. When you proclaim that our schools are improved with your policies of “test every child and bury the failures,” we do not believe you.
When you say, however, that there will be no draft under your administration, finally we believe you for your administration will effectively end on November 2nd.
Jazz.
By Jack Random
As the president decries the politics of fear and Orwell turns over in his grave once more, the vice president emerges from his bunker to warn the good citizens of this land that a nuclear terrorist attack looms if the senator from Massachusetts replaces his master in the oval office.
Time is running out, Mr. President. You are losing this election and, barring the unspeakable, you will lose decisively. The people have deciphered the code. You are not only a liar and a hypocrite, you have a marked tendency to proclaim the exact opposite of the truth, as if saying so repeatedly and with vigor, the people will surely accept your pronouncements as reality.
But the people have eyes and ears and cerebrums of their own. Even a biased mainstream media cannot hide an avalanche of compelling evidence forever. You claim your opponent will say anything to suit the occasion, but it was you who lied at every corner and every turn to justify a war that was neither necessary nor righteous. Over and again, you spoke of a grave and gathering threat, and then you swore you never said the words. From your mouth, we heard dire accounts of mushroom clouds, weapons of mass destruction, phantom connections to Al Qaeda, and complicity in the 911 attacks on this nation, and then you fought every step of the way to prevent the truth from emerging. It was you who twisted and distorted honest intelligence and then allowed the Director of Central Intelligence to fall on his sword for your crimes of deception.
Yes, Mr. President, we are sick to death of the politics of fear. We have lived with the politics of fear for over three years. We have taken it in with our morning coffee. We have tucked it into our beds at night. We have calmed our children after nightmares. We have held our breath for the first news of the day and we have watched our soldiers come home in coffins. We are tired of living with the politics of fear and you, Mr. President, are its champion. Karl Rove, the only adviser outside the ideologues of war you listen to, is the author. It worked its charm like a mass mesmerization during the campaign of 2002, when a crumbling economy and tax breaks for the rich were not enough to prevent a Republican takeover. But even a master can play the same tune too long and yours, Mr. President, has fallen to the level of elevator music.
If ever a president deserved to be discredited, it is you. You were placed on a pedestal and you have fallen of your own accord. When you speak of your accomplishments, you seem to forget that we live in the world you only speak of. When you say your tax cuts really favor the middle class, we do not believe you. When you claim your gift to the drug companies is actually a benefit to our seniors, we do not believe you. When you proclaim that our schools are improved with your policies of “test every child and bury the failures,” we do not believe you.
When you say, however, that there will be no draft under your administration, finally we believe you for your administration will effectively end on November 2nd.
Jazz.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
THE JACKSON 17
REFLECTIONS ON BABLYON
By Jack Random
When a platoon of soldiers out of Jackson, Mississippi, the 343rd Quartermaster Company, refused to carry out an order to transport contaminated fuel along a dangerous corridor north of Baghdad, it was not an act of courage or conscientious objection. It was an act military prudence in keeping with every soldier’s first obligation to his fellows and himself: survival.
As much as we would like to embrace their cause, we can only offer our sympathy and support. This act of defiance does nothing to indict the war; it indicts the incompetence of those charged with carrying it out. It does not instruct us to ask: Why are we in Iraq? It rather instructs us to ask: Where has all the money gone if not to protect the troops? We have spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $130 billion and committed $70 billion more, yet our soldiers remain ill-equipped and we are further from victory now than we were on the day of Shock and Awe.
Realistically, what is victory in Iraq? What does it look like? What does it smell like? If we ram through a sham of an election (as we did in Afghanistan), if we crown a CIA strongman and convene a parliament without authority, will it be settled then? If we establish permanent military bases from Mosul to Basra, will the Arab world ever accept such an outcome?
Truth to power: As long as the rivers run and the skies are blue-gray, there can be no victory in Iraq. It will never happen – neither in our lifetimes nor in the life spans of our children and grandchildren. A commitment to victory in Iraq is a promise of never ending war. If the president wishes to make a promise he can keep, let him speak no more of an all volunteer army or the politics of fear; let him deliver a promise of eternal war, a war for all ages, and a trail of destruction unprecedented in world history.
As the president babbles on about staying the course and fighting terrorists abroad so that we do not have to fight them here, we should reflect that only Israel and America could have transformed Islamic fundamentalist terrorists into freedom fighters – just as we did with the same terrorists in Afghanistan when they opposed the Soviet invaders. As the president panders to voters in Columbus, Ohio, and Pensacola, Florida, he would do well to reflect that the only city that matters in this election is the ancient city of Babylon.
The Jackson 17 has handed Senator Kerry the issue he wanted: the war is poorly planned and poorly administered. Those of us who have opposed the war since its inception must go a step further. We must call on all foreign fighters in that war torn land to lay down their arms as a matter of conscience. This is a war that should never have been launched for a cause that is unworthy of dying and killing. If we crush the resistance, it will only be born again. If we level the land with a torrent of bombs, as we did in Viet Nam, everyone loses.
If we would have an end to the rumors of military conscription, let us assert the right of every individual to conscientiously object. If we would have an end to the very concept of war as the ultimate arbiter of international conflict, the solution must begin with individual choice. There will always be sufficient volunteers to fight in the defense of our nation. The combined volunteer forces of all nations may be called upon to stop genocide or fight back fascist imperialism. Even today, a volunteer army would be wholly adequate to fight the real war on terrorism. The only wars that require conscripts and mercenaries are those of the immoral, illegal and unjustified kind.
Our troops in Iraq by-and-large did not sign on to this duty. None should be held a moment longer than their initial commitments. The “back door draft” policies of the military are nothing more than an attempt to compensate for inadequate forces. That there are so few volunteers for this debacle should inform us all as to the morality of the war. That being the case, every soldier must confront a classic moral dilemma: whether to refuse a sworn duty or cooperate in an immoral endeavor. For those who choose, as a matter of conscience, to refuse, it becomes our duty to aid and comfort them.
Jazz.
By Jack Random
When a platoon of soldiers out of Jackson, Mississippi, the 343rd Quartermaster Company, refused to carry out an order to transport contaminated fuel along a dangerous corridor north of Baghdad, it was not an act of courage or conscientious objection. It was an act military prudence in keeping with every soldier’s first obligation to his fellows and himself: survival.
As much as we would like to embrace their cause, we can only offer our sympathy and support. This act of defiance does nothing to indict the war; it indicts the incompetence of those charged with carrying it out. It does not instruct us to ask: Why are we in Iraq? It rather instructs us to ask: Where has all the money gone if not to protect the troops? We have spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $130 billion and committed $70 billion more, yet our soldiers remain ill-equipped and we are further from victory now than we were on the day of Shock and Awe.
Realistically, what is victory in Iraq? What does it look like? What does it smell like? If we ram through a sham of an election (as we did in Afghanistan), if we crown a CIA strongman and convene a parliament without authority, will it be settled then? If we establish permanent military bases from Mosul to Basra, will the Arab world ever accept such an outcome?
Truth to power: As long as the rivers run and the skies are blue-gray, there can be no victory in Iraq. It will never happen – neither in our lifetimes nor in the life spans of our children and grandchildren. A commitment to victory in Iraq is a promise of never ending war. If the president wishes to make a promise he can keep, let him speak no more of an all volunteer army or the politics of fear; let him deliver a promise of eternal war, a war for all ages, and a trail of destruction unprecedented in world history.
As the president babbles on about staying the course and fighting terrorists abroad so that we do not have to fight them here, we should reflect that only Israel and America could have transformed Islamic fundamentalist terrorists into freedom fighters – just as we did with the same terrorists in Afghanistan when they opposed the Soviet invaders. As the president panders to voters in Columbus, Ohio, and Pensacola, Florida, he would do well to reflect that the only city that matters in this election is the ancient city of Babylon.
The Jackson 17 has handed Senator Kerry the issue he wanted: the war is poorly planned and poorly administered. Those of us who have opposed the war since its inception must go a step further. We must call on all foreign fighters in that war torn land to lay down their arms as a matter of conscience. This is a war that should never have been launched for a cause that is unworthy of dying and killing. If we crush the resistance, it will only be born again. If we level the land with a torrent of bombs, as we did in Viet Nam, everyone loses.
If we would have an end to the rumors of military conscription, let us assert the right of every individual to conscientiously object. If we would have an end to the very concept of war as the ultimate arbiter of international conflict, the solution must begin with individual choice. There will always be sufficient volunteers to fight in the defense of our nation. The combined volunteer forces of all nations may be called upon to stop genocide or fight back fascist imperialism. Even today, a volunteer army would be wholly adequate to fight the real war on terrorism. The only wars that require conscripts and mercenaries are those of the immoral, illegal and unjustified kind.
Our troops in Iraq by-and-large did not sign on to this duty. None should be held a moment longer than their initial commitments. The “back door draft” policies of the military are nothing more than an attempt to compensate for inadequate forces. That there are so few volunteers for this debacle should inform us all as to the morality of the war. That being the case, every soldier must confront a classic moral dilemma: whether to refuse a sworn duty or cooperate in an immoral endeavor. For those who choose, as a matter of conscience, to refuse, it becomes our duty to aid and comfort them.
Jazz.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
THE POLITICS OF POETRY
NASHVILLE LOSES A LEGACY
By Jack Random
It is often said but rarely taken to heart: Everything is politics. Buying groceries at the neighborhood market is politics. Taking in a film at the multiplex is politics. Hurricanes and tornadoes are politics. Choosing to watch Fox News or Link TV is politics. Supporting your local theater is politics. Driving a Humvee or a hybrid is politics. Obsessing on Laci, Kobe or The Survivors is politics. Reading Arundhati Roy, Michael Mann or Stephen King is politics. And yes, poetry is politics as well.
The Beatlicks, patron saints of the Nashville poetry society, have recently announced their departure from the dense forests of Tennessee to the arid expanses of New Mexico, “leaving the green and wet and moving to the brown and dry.”
I first met Pamela Hirst and Joe Speer when the wZ (AKA, Jim Wisniewski) and I crashed the Nashville poetry scene with a wild, futuristic version of GB Shaw’s Joan of Ark. We were without doubt the fringe radicals of what seemed a tightly knit community, greeted with gaping mouths and only slightly muffled derision, but we were welcomed with open arms by Nashville’s King and Queen of the spoken word. To paraphrase the words of Richard Blane, it was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
We are all intellectually aware of the interconnectedness of all things. We accept that a tragic event in September 2001 altered our vision of the world but we rather doubt that a fluttering butterfly in Kuala Lumpur can change the course of history in Tallahassee or Nova Scotia. Nevertheless, the power of the word, written or spoken, is surely underrated. The power of poetry is that it speaks both to the mind and to the heart. The most poignant and powerful message against the war that is now spreading its dark wings over much of the world was delivered by Lawrence Ferlinghetti (Speak Out) in verse.
Come November 2nd, if the pundits are wrong and Tennessee breaks from the column of red states, it may well be the legacy of two Nashville poets. Transformation is a strange and fundamentally unpredictable phenomenon, springing from the convergence of seemingly unrelated, random events. The word reaches out to a handful of malleable souls, who in turn reach out to a handful of others and so on until a trickle becomes a stream, becomes a river, becomes a tidal wave of change.
Those of us who have lived in the south are acutely aware that some of the most enlightened minds and most powerful voices for change reside there. Among them were Joe Speer and Pamela Hirst. In this season of electoral politics, we reflect on the living legacy of two individuals who have dedicated their lives to their chosen art form. We sense that they have left an indelible impression on the Nashville skyline.
What Nashville has lost, New Mexico has gained. With the power of the internet, perhaps it no longer matters where one resides – except for the electoral college. We wish them many more years of fruitful creative endeavor.
The legacy lives on.
Jazz.
Beatlicks leaving, but not without a legacy
By K. DANIELLE EDWARDS, The Tennessean (October 2004)
When you think about celebrated institutions coming to an end, you might think about the destruction of historic buildings. Or the closing of that community bakery after generations of decadent aromas wafting through the neighborhood.
Seldom do you think of the everyday people who help bring a little sunshine into the life of the community. Joe Speer and Pamela Hirst, aka The Beatlicks, are an institution in Nashville poetry circles. This week they are leaving Nashville for Speer's native New Mexico.
''I'll be leaving the green and wet and moving to the brown and dry,'' Speer says with a laugh. ''We've been phasing out of the Nashville scene for the past few years anyway because we've been traveling, and Pamela decided a few months ago that we needed a change.''
Speer moved here from New Mexico in 1988 to stay with his brother and mother, who was ill with cancer. After his mother died, Speer met Hirst, who offered him a ''new connection'' and a new reason to stay.
''The first place I knew about (doing poetry) was Windows on the Cumberland in the late '80s,'' Speer says. ''There weren't that many venues, and we thought it was important to have at least one venue so poets could get together at least once a month.''
The Beatlicks had open-mike poetry nights at Douglas Corner Cafe, Woodstock Cafe, Bookstar, Asylum, Bean Central and other venues.
Through connections in other cities, they helped bring a new form of poetic recitation to Nashville: the poetry slam, a verbal duel of verse and emotion.
''We brought the slam concept below the Mason-Dixon line in 1990. The first slam was at Douglas Corner,'' Speer says.
The Beatlicks also produced a regular show on Nashville's Community Access Television. Speer's proudest moment was performing at the now-defunct Summer Lights Festival.
''It wasn't like some little dingy club or a small room in the back of the bookstore. It felt like we were big time,'' he says.
Speer thinks poetry will always be an underground fixture. ''I don't see it as being a mainstream thing. There's always poetry there, but it always has a back seat. We're always in the balcony.
''Mostly I see it as an event that is hosted by people who love poetry. They do it not for the money or for the recognition, but because they have to do it. People need a place to share their works. I see it continuing as a little stream. It's an ancient and beloved art.''
Speer and Hirst, both in the their mid-50s, are looking forward to the tranquility of the more subdued New Mexico scene, which has pockets of poetic movement.
To keep up with The Beatlicks in New Mexico, visit www.beatlick.com.
By Jack Random
It is often said but rarely taken to heart: Everything is politics. Buying groceries at the neighborhood market is politics. Taking in a film at the multiplex is politics. Hurricanes and tornadoes are politics. Choosing to watch Fox News or Link TV is politics. Supporting your local theater is politics. Driving a Humvee or a hybrid is politics. Obsessing on Laci, Kobe or The Survivors is politics. Reading Arundhati Roy, Michael Mann or Stephen King is politics. And yes, poetry is politics as well.
The Beatlicks, patron saints of the Nashville poetry society, have recently announced their departure from the dense forests of Tennessee to the arid expanses of New Mexico, “leaving the green and wet and moving to the brown and dry.”
I first met Pamela Hirst and Joe Speer when the wZ (AKA, Jim Wisniewski) and I crashed the Nashville poetry scene with a wild, futuristic version of GB Shaw’s Joan of Ark. We were without doubt the fringe radicals of what seemed a tightly knit community, greeted with gaping mouths and only slightly muffled derision, but we were welcomed with open arms by Nashville’s King and Queen of the spoken word. To paraphrase the words of Richard Blane, it was the beginning of a beautiful relationship.
We are all intellectually aware of the interconnectedness of all things. We accept that a tragic event in September 2001 altered our vision of the world but we rather doubt that a fluttering butterfly in Kuala Lumpur can change the course of history in Tallahassee or Nova Scotia. Nevertheless, the power of the word, written or spoken, is surely underrated. The power of poetry is that it speaks both to the mind and to the heart. The most poignant and powerful message against the war that is now spreading its dark wings over much of the world was delivered by Lawrence Ferlinghetti (Speak Out) in verse.
Come November 2nd, if the pundits are wrong and Tennessee breaks from the column of red states, it may well be the legacy of two Nashville poets. Transformation is a strange and fundamentally unpredictable phenomenon, springing from the convergence of seemingly unrelated, random events. The word reaches out to a handful of malleable souls, who in turn reach out to a handful of others and so on until a trickle becomes a stream, becomes a river, becomes a tidal wave of change.
Those of us who have lived in the south are acutely aware that some of the most enlightened minds and most powerful voices for change reside there. Among them were Joe Speer and Pamela Hirst. In this season of electoral politics, we reflect on the living legacy of two individuals who have dedicated their lives to their chosen art form. We sense that they have left an indelible impression on the Nashville skyline.
What Nashville has lost, New Mexico has gained. With the power of the internet, perhaps it no longer matters where one resides – except for the electoral college. We wish them many more years of fruitful creative endeavor.
The legacy lives on.
Jazz.
Beatlicks leaving, but not without a legacy
By K. DANIELLE EDWARDS, The Tennessean (October 2004)
When you think about celebrated institutions coming to an end, you might think about the destruction of historic buildings. Or the closing of that community bakery after generations of decadent aromas wafting through the neighborhood.
Seldom do you think of the everyday people who help bring a little sunshine into the life of the community. Joe Speer and Pamela Hirst, aka The Beatlicks, are an institution in Nashville poetry circles. This week they are leaving Nashville for Speer's native New Mexico.
''I'll be leaving the green and wet and moving to the brown and dry,'' Speer says with a laugh. ''We've been phasing out of the Nashville scene for the past few years anyway because we've been traveling, and Pamela decided a few months ago that we needed a change.''
Speer moved here from New Mexico in 1988 to stay with his brother and mother, who was ill with cancer. After his mother died, Speer met Hirst, who offered him a ''new connection'' and a new reason to stay.
''The first place I knew about (doing poetry) was Windows on the Cumberland in the late '80s,'' Speer says. ''There weren't that many venues, and we thought it was important to have at least one venue so poets could get together at least once a month.''
The Beatlicks had open-mike poetry nights at Douglas Corner Cafe, Woodstock Cafe, Bookstar, Asylum, Bean Central and other venues.
Through connections in other cities, they helped bring a new form of poetic recitation to Nashville: the poetry slam, a verbal duel of verse and emotion.
''We brought the slam concept below the Mason-Dixon line in 1990. The first slam was at Douglas Corner,'' Speer says.
The Beatlicks also produced a regular show on Nashville's Community Access Television. Speer's proudest moment was performing at the now-defunct Summer Lights Festival.
''It wasn't like some little dingy club or a small room in the back of the bookstore. It felt like we were big time,'' he says.
Speer thinks poetry will always be an underground fixture. ''I don't see it as being a mainstream thing. There's always poetry there, but it always has a back seat. We're always in the balcony.
''Mostly I see it as an event that is hosted by people who love poetry. They do it not for the money or for the recognition, but because they have to do it. People need a place to share their works. I see it continuing as a little stream. It's an ancient and beloved art.''
Speer and Hirst, both in the their mid-50s, are looking forward to the tranquility of the more subdued New Mexico scene, which has pockets of poetic movement.
To keep up with The Beatlicks in New Mexico, visit www.beatlick.com.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA
PART ONE: MEDIA REFORM
By Jack Random
Even as the White House still claims to be the world’s champion for democracy, as rumors turn to accusations of voter fraud in Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, as Sinclair Broadcasting orders up a round of blatant rightwing propaganda for a handful of swing states on the eve of an election: Who among us does not wonder what peculiar brand of democracy this administration advocates?
The answer is clear: Karl Rove and his black ops boys like a fixed game. For all bluster, the election in Afghanistan is the very definition of a fix. There was only one candidate on the ballot of national renown. There were no presidential debates. There was no airing of the opposition’s point of view. The message to one of the poorest nations on earth was clear: If you fail to elect the chosen one, assistance is in peril. Similarly, if an election takes place in Iraq, it will allow only one result.
Meantime, in America, given the spectacle of virtually uncontested disenfranchisement (the Justice Department is too busy infiltrating activist organizations), biased polling techniques, and voting systems without accountability, we are left with the impression that only a Kerry landslide could prevent a Bush win in a “tight election.”
So in the last phase of the election cycle, as the media fixate on non-issues like the sanctity of Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation, as we await the surprises that will be fabricated if they do not naturally occur, it is an appropriate time to reflect on the state of democracy in America.
Our reflection begins in Italy where Silvio Berlusconi, one of the president’s silent partners in the war on Iraq, not only holds the highest office in the land but also owns all of its major media outlets. If anyone believes that democracy can exist without a free and unfettered press, he is not beholden to the Bill of Rights. We have seen our media’s performance in a time of war, its embedded journalists and talking heads transformed before our eyes into a White House cheerleading squad. We have seen the credibility of once proud reporters and analysts shattered like the hope of Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Let us finally put to rest the tired rightwing charge of a liberal media bias. The ladies and gentlemen of broadcast news answer only to one master: corporate ownership.
The media are no longer in the business of selling content and integrity. They are in the business of advertising and the products they sell are General Electric, Halliburton, Coca Cola, Exxon-Mobil, Boeing, Merck Pharmaceuticals, and, most importantly, American foreign policy as the enforcer of global economic dominance.
Whatever happened to the fourth estate? Gone in a wave of corporate buyouts and media consolidation. Whatever happened to the sacred duty of the press to inform and enlighten the electorate? Gone with the political agendas of Chief Executive Officers and Boards of Directors in place of journalistic integrity. Gone with every investment in the partisan political game.
The founders thought so highly of a free press that they made it the first amendment to the constitution. Succeeding generations have endured the scourge of yellow journalism and fought back all attempts to compromise the constitutional privilege of the press (a privilege that applies equally to Seymour Hirsch and Robert Novak). Now, this generation confronts the greatest betrayal of all: Ownership by the same corporate entities that the media must hold accountable.
Just as democracy is the ideological foundation of the republic, media reform is the essential first step toward renewing democracy in America.
Reform must begin with a rollback in the wave of media consolidation. Just as the current Securities and Exchange Commission never saw a merger it did not like, the Federal Communications Commission never saw a consolidation it did not embrace. They have pushed the envelope to such an extent that no more than seven corporations claim a majority share of today’s television market. They have allowed companies like Clear Channel and Sinclair Broadcasting to dominate news and entertainment in thousands of communities. They have redefined their regulatory role away from protecting the public interest and toward protecting the free market dreams of international conglomerates.
Senator Kerry speaks of rolling back the president’s tax cuts for the elite; should he be elected, he should also roll back media consolidation by firing FCC Chair Michael Powell and replacing him with a public servant.
That accomplished, it is time for Congress to get back in the act, beginning with the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Adopted in 1949, it required stations to provide balanced coverage of controversial issues. The doctrine was in place for three decades until the Reagan administration refused to enforce it. A 1987 court decision held that the doctrine was unenforceable unless mandated by Congress. Twice Congress passed legislation to that purpose and twice it was vetoed by Republican administrations. Curiously, if there were in fact a liberal media bias it would have served Republican interests to enforce fairness. Curiously, neither Reagan nor Bush considered it so.
Given the attempt by Sinclair Broadcasting to use the public airwaves to tilt an election, there is a clear and imposing reason to reinstate the doctrine now. If Sinclair wants to offer thirty minutes of Swift Boat allegations, then let them also provide thirty minutes to Michael Moore. While it is too much to expect of the partisans currently in Congress, I would advocate an expansion of the policy. We are all citizens of this great nation and we are the stronger when all our voices are heard, including those of Mary Cheney, Medea Benjamin, Howard Zinn and Ralph Nader. The muddled voices in the mainstream of political thought are all too often indistinguishable. Let us hear from the rest of America as well.
These measures would move us forward in reestablishing the fourth estate but they do not go far enough for, as long as powerful interests are in play, there will be those who navigate around required mandates – like the Fox program that features a token “liberal” offering up marshmallows for his conservative partner to smash. The media is unlike any other corporate entity. It is the only private interest singled out by our founders for protection. Therefore, ownership of media should be confined to individuals, companies or corporations whose sole interest is the media itself. If the multinational conglomerates that currently own our media were forced to choose between the media and their other concerns, is there any doubt where their loyalties would fall?
This kind of media reform would be branded radical by the corrupted politicians, television personalities, and newsprint editorialists who profit from the current system but it is nothing more than the most basic common sense. Even so, it does not go far enough. Those who are in the business of the media, in respect for the special and powerful role they play in the nation’s democratic institutions, should be banned from political contributions. Let them contribute to journalism and private causes and let the people decide who will represent them in Washington.
It will of course be cold day in hell before such proposals rise to a sufficient level of public interest. We are trapped in a classic Catch 22. It would require a free and open media to raise the issue of media reform. Barring that, it would require a maverick like Senator John McCain attempted to do for campaign finance reform. As McCain found out, progress can be made but it is a long process.
As all Americans must surely realize, democracy is a process as well. It is a process that has been neglected for a very long time. Media reform is only a part of that process. If we are to renew democracy in America, we must also address the right to vote and the scourge of disenfranchisement, corporate corrupt of the political process, gerrymandering, political access to independents and third parties, voting methodology and accountability, the antiquated electoral college and the separation of church and state.
Sadly, the state of our democracy is imperiled. If we do not begin soon to address the many problems and barriers that stand between the people and their government, democracy may be lost to future generations.
Jazz.
By Jack Random
Even as the White House still claims to be the world’s champion for democracy, as rumors turn to accusations of voter fraud in Nevada, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, as Sinclair Broadcasting orders up a round of blatant rightwing propaganda for a handful of swing states on the eve of an election: Who among us does not wonder what peculiar brand of democracy this administration advocates?
The answer is clear: Karl Rove and his black ops boys like a fixed game. For all bluster, the election in Afghanistan is the very definition of a fix. There was only one candidate on the ballot of national renown. There were no presidential debates. There was no airing of the opposition’s point of view. The message to one of the poorest nations on earth was clear: If you fail to elect the chosen one, assistance is in peril. Similarly, if an election takes place in Iraq, it will allow only one result.
Meantime, in America, given the spectacle of virtually uncontested disenfranchisement (the Justice Department is too busy infiltrating activist organizations), biased polling techniques, and voting systems without accountability, we are left with the impression that only a Kerry landslide could prevent a Bush win in a “tight election.”
So in the last phase of the election cycle, as the media fixate on non-issues like the sanctity of Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation, as we await the surprises that will be fabricated if they do not naturally occur, it is an appropriate time to reflect on the state of democracy in America.
Our reflection begins in Italy where Silvio Berlusconi, one of the president’s silent partners in the war on Iraq, not only holds the highest office in the land but also owns all of its major media outlets. If anyone believes that democracy can exist without a free and unfettered press, he is not beholden to the Bill of Rights. We have seen our media’s performance in a time of war, its embedded journalists and talking heads transformed before our eyes into a White House cheerleading squad. We have seen the credibility of once proud reporters and analysts shattered like the hope of Iraqi and Afghan civilians. Let us finally put to rest the tired rightwing charge of a liberal media bias. The ladies and gentlemen of broadcast news answer only to one master: corporate ownership.
The media are no longer in the business of selling content and integrity. They are in the business of advertising and the products they sell are General Electric, Halliburton, Coca Cola, Exxon-Mobil, Boeing, Merck Pharmaceuticals, and, most importantly, American foreign policy as the enforcer of global economic dominance.
Whatever happened to the fourth estate? Gone in a wave of corporate buyouts and media consolidation. Whatever happened to the sacred duty of the press to inform and enlighten the electorate? Gone with the political agendas of Chief Executive Officers and Boards of Directors in place of journalistic integrity. Gone with every investment in the partisan political game.
The founders thought so highly of a free press that they made it the first amendment to the constitution. Succeeding generations have endured the scourge of yellow journalism and fought back all attempts to compromise the constitutional privilege of the press (a privilege that applies equally to Seymour Hirsch and Robert Novak). Now, this generation confronts the greatest betrayal of all: Ownership by the same corporate entities that the media must hold accountable.
Just as democracy is the ideological foundation of the republic, media reform is the essential first step toward renewing democracy in America.
Reform must begin with a rollback in the wave of media consolidation. Just as the current Securities and Exchange Commission never saw a merger it did not like, the Federal Communications Commission never saw a consolidation it did not embrace. They have pushed the envelope to such an extent that no more than seven corporations claim a majority share of today’s television market. They have allowed companies like Clear Channel and Sinclair Broadcasting to dominate news and entertainment in thousands of communities. They have redefined their regulatory role away from protecting the public interest and toward protecting the free market dreams of international conglomerates.
Senator Kerry speaks of rolling back the president’s tax cuts for the elite; should he be elected, he should also roll back media consolidation by firing FCC Chair Michael Powell and replacing him with a public servant.
That accomplished, it is time for Congress to get back in the act, beginning with the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Adopted in 1949, it required stations to provide balanced coverage of controversial issues. The doctrine was in place for three decades until the Reagan administration refused to enforce it. A 1987 court decision held that the doctrine was unenforceable unless mandated by Congress. Twice Congress passed legislation to that purpose and twice it was vetoed by Republican administrations. Curiously, if there were in fact a liberal media bias it would have served Republican interests to enforce fairness. Curiously, neither Reagan nor Bush considered it so.
Given the attempt by Sinclair Broadcasting to use the public airwaves to tilt an election, there is a clear and imposing reason to reinstate the doctrine now. If Sinclair wants to offer thirty minutes of Swift Boat allegations, then let them also provide thirty minutes to Michael Moore. While it is too much to expect of the partisans currently in Congress, I would advocate an expansion of the policy. We are all citizens of this great nation and we are the stronger when all our voices are heard, including those of Mary Cheney, Medea Benjamin, Howard Zinn and Ralph Nader. The muddled voices in the mainstream of political thought are all too often indistinguishable. Let us hear from the rest of America as well.
These measures would move us forward in reestablishing the fourth estate but they do not go far enough for, as long as powerful interests are in play, there will be those who navigate around required mandates – like the Fox program that features a token “liberal” offering up marshmallows for his conservative partner to smash. The media is unlike any other corporate entity. It is the only private interest singled out by our founders for protection. Therefore, ownership of media should be confined to individuals, companies or corporations whose sole interest is the media itself. If the multinational conglomerates that currently own our media were forced to choose between the media and their other concerns, is there any doubt where their loyalties would fall?
This kind of media reform would be branded radical by the corrupted politicians, television personalities, and newsprint editorialists who profit from the current system but it is nothing more than the most basic common sense. Even so, it does not go far enough. Those who are in the business of the media, in respect for the special and powerful role they play in the nation’s democratic institutions, should be banned from political contributions. Let them contribute to journalism and private causes and let the people decide who will represent them in Washington.
It will of course be cold day in hell before such proposals rise to a sufficient level of public interest. We are trapped in a classic Catch 22. It would require a free and open media to raise the issue of media reform. Barring that, it would require a maverick like Senator John McCain attempted to do for campaign finance reform. As McCain found out, progress can be made but it is a long process.
As all Americans must surely realize, democracy is a process as well. It is a process that has been neglected for a very long time. Media reform is only a part of that process. If we are to renew democracy in America, we must also address the right to vote and the scourge of disenfranchisement, corporate corrupt of the political process, gerrymandering, political access to independents and third parties, voting methodology and accountability, the antiquated electoral college and the separation of church and state.
Sadly, the state of our democracy is imperiled. If we do not begin soon to address the many problems and barriers that stand between the people and their government, democracy may be lost to future generations.
Jazz.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
PISTOL FULL OF BLANKS
KERRY SWEEPS BUSH
By Jack Random
Like a gunslinger with a pistol full of blanks, the president took the stage for the last debate with all of the swagger but none of the ammunition.
There is one critical problem with the president’s proposals on health care, education, deficit spending, unemployment, bipartisanship, immigration, job exportation, the price of gas and living wages: he is the president. He has had four years to implement his policies and he has spent it all playing the same tired tune: tax relief favoring the ultra-wealthy elite. He has spent it all distracted by an unnecessary, counter productive and illegal war.
George W. Bush has plundered the treasury yet asks us to believe his opponent is a reckless spender. He has lost more jobs than any president since the Great Depression yet asks us to believe his opponent is clueless. He broke his promise to fund his education initiative, Every Other Child Left Behind, yet asks us to believe that his opponent lacks integrity. He has done more to divide the nation than any president since Richard Nixon yet he promised to be a “uniter, not a divider.”
Herbert Hoover, for all his foibles, confronted economic circumstance well beyond his control. Richard Nixon, for all his duplicity, deceit and darker motives, inherited a war not of his making. George W. Bush used a terrorist attack to implement a policy of first strike and global dominance. He chose a war completely unrelated to the crime. He chose an economic policy that promoted tax cuts as the solution to every problem. He is the creator of his own failures and he bears responsibility for his legacy.
Four years into his administration, the president still blames Bill Clinton for a feckless economy. Three years after 911 he still blames terrorists for joblessness. The fact is the president is very good at finding excuses but very bad at changing course.
Once again, the Senator from Massachusetts rose to the challenge. If he looks like a president, walks like a president and talks like a president, the chances are he is a president. He has stood to every attack, every slander, and every twisted distortion of his record. He has cast aside every demeaning label and held his ground: a mountain against an anthill. To the president’s platitudes and denigrations, the Senator has answered with reasoned statesmanship.
To the empty charge of Liberalism: It is ironic that the great disappointment of the true left is that John Kerry, like Bill Clinton before him, is at best middle of the road. This candidate is not the fiercely antiwar and social liberal of ten or twenty years ago. Many of us lament the Senator’s evolution but we cannot challenge his integrity on this ground. The transformation has been gradual and measured. He is what he says he is: a man whose beliefs mirror those of most Americans: Pro choice, pro middle class, neither pro nor anti war, strong on defense, sensible on economics, pro environment, pro health care and pro education.
For all this measured moderation, Kerry strikes a distinct contrast with the tough-talking incumbent. Who is this little big man (suddenly magnified by a curious director’s choice) with his finger in the dike as it swells with looming catastrophe, pretending that everything is fine, pretending that the worst crisis this nation faces is the prospect of a liberal president? He reaches out to the Christian conservative right and lets go of the middle ground.
This nation is not facing a crisis in traditional marriage. We are not facing crises of over-taxation, abortion or prayer. We are facing crises in education, health care, jobs and runaway deficits. We are not facing a crisis of liberal ideology; we are facing a crisis in credibility and confidence. We are facing a war that never should have happened.
George W. Bush is the president. He is the captain of a sinking ship, the general of a disastrous battle, and the shadow of a true leader. Neither commander nor statesman, he is a pretender to the throne.
We have seen the president stripped of his castle walls, standing naked and alone, without his counselors and advisers, with nothing more than his mother wit, and we have found him lacking.
By a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court, he was given a chance that few politicians are ever afforded. He has squandered that opportunity. If ever a man did not deserve a second chance, it is the man who did not deserve the first.
Are we better off than we were four years ago? Let every man and woman who can honestly answer “yes” vote for the incumbent president. Let the rest of us elect a new president. If these debates are a reflection of the election to come, Kerry wins in a landslide.
Jazz.
By Jack Random
Like a gunslinger with a pistol full of blanks, the president took the stage for the last debate with all of the swagger but none of the ammunition.
There is one critical problem with the president’s proposals on health care, education, deficit spending, unemployment, bipartisanship, immigration, job exportation, the price of gas and living wages: he is the president. He has had four years to implement his policies and he has spent it all playing the same tired tune: tax relief favoring the ultra-wealthy elite. He has spent it all distracted by an unnecessary, counter productive and illegal war.
George W. Bush has plundered the treasury yet asks us to believe his opponent is a reckless spender. He has lost more jobs than any president since the Great Depression yet asks us to believe his opponent is clueless. He broke his promise to fund his education initiative, Every Other Child Left Behind, yet asks us to believe that his opponent lacks integrity. He has done more to divide the nation than any president since Richard Nixon yet he promised to be a “uniter, not a divider.”
Herbert Hoover, for all his foibles, confronted economic circumstance well beyond his control. Richard Nixon, for all his duplicity, deceit and darker motives, inherited a war not of his making. George W. Bush used a terrorist attack to implement a policy of first strike and global dominance. He chose a war completely unrelated to the crime. He chose an economic policy that promoted tax cuts as the solution to every problem. He is the creator of his own failures and he bears responsibility for his legacy.
Four years into his administration, the president still blames Bill Clinton for a feckless economy. Three years after 911 he still blames terrorists for joblessness. The fact is the president is very good at finding excuses but very bad at changing course.
Once again, the Senator from Massachusetts rose to the challenge. If he looks like a president, walks like a president and talks like a president, the chances are he is a president. He has stood to every attack, every slander, and every twisted distortion of his record. He has cast aside every demeaning label and held his ground: a mountain against an anthill. To the president’s platitudes and denigrations, the Senator has answered with reasoned statesmanship.
To the empty charge of Liberalism: It is ironic that the great disappointment of the true left is that John Kerry, like Bill Clinton before him, is at best middle of the road. This candidate is not the fiercely antiwar and social liberal of ten or twenty years ago. Many of us lament the Senator’s evolution but we cannot challenge his integrity on this ground. The transformation has been gradual and measured. He is what he says he is: a man whose beliefs mirror those of most Americans: Pro choice, pro middle class, neither pro nor anti war, strong on defense, sensible on economics, pro environment, pro health care and pro education.
For all this measured moderation, Kerry strikes a distinct contrast with the tough-talking incumbent. Who is this little big man (suddenly magnified by a curious director’s choice) with his finger in the dike as it swells with looming catastrophe, pretending that everything is fine, pretending that the worst crisis this nation faces is the prospect of a liberal president? He reaches out to the Christian conservative right and lets go of the middle ground.
This nation is not facing a crisis in traditional marriage. We are not facing crises of over-taxation, abortion or prayer. We are facing crises in education, health care, jobs and runaway deficits. We are not facing a crisis of liberal ideology; we are facing a crisis in credibility and confidence. We are facing a war that never should have happened.
George W. Bush is the president. He is the captain of a sinking ship, the general of a disastrous battle, and the shadow of a true leader. Neither commander nor statesman, he is a pretender to the throne.
We have seen the president stripped of his castle walls, standing naked and alone, without his counselors and advisers, with nothing more than his mother wit, and we have found him lacking.
By a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court, he was given a chance that few politicians are ever afforded. He has squandered that opportunity. If ever a man did not deserve a second chance, it is the man who did not deserve the first.
Are we better off than we were four years ago? Let every man and woman who can honestly answer “yes” vote for the incumbent president. Let the rest of us elect a new president. If these debates are a reflection of the election to come, Kerry wins in a landslide.
Jazz.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
WAITING FOR THE WORM
KERRY OUTPOINTS BUSH
By Jack Random
The peevish monarch, hunched over the podium, mugs and grimaces through a 90-minute debate, his mind as vacuous as the promises of his administration, and the media pundits pull their punches, waiting for a definitive verdict, waiting for the executioner’s call, waiting for the worm to turn as it inevitably does.
The prince of darkness (also known as the vice president) emerges from his bunker, hunched shoulders, head cocked and eyes fixed to his writhing hands, torturing facts and statistics like an Enron accountant, demanding the respect of his upstart opponent and, receiving none, strikes out like the rabid hound he has become. The pundits declare a draw. The people, however, are awakened to the hand behind our posturing president. Like Gloucester of Shakespearean infamy, the vice president would have it all: phantom connections between Saddam and Osama, weapons of mass destruction, the crusade for democracy and forty years of war.
In round two of the presidential debates, the pundits find consensus as quickly as swift boats in the Mekong Delta: the president was not nearly as vacuous as in round one. Gone are the incessant mugging, the smirks and grimaces. Curbed are the meaningless slogans and platitudes. The president managed to speak in phrases and sentences without stammering and stumbling like a punch-drunk prizefighter. The non-sequiturs are still there but they are not nearly as prominent. The president wins accolades for demonstrating that he is not as shallow and dimwitted as he appeared.
The tortured analysis reveals a media bias and obscures the reality of the event. The media need a close contest to maintain interest. The pundits were overjoyed that the president did not fall flat on his face and would have declared his success even if he had. To use the fight analogy, round one in Miami was a technical knockout. The president was battered to a pulp and failed to answer the bell for the last thirty minutes. Round two was a lesson in the art of boxing. Like Sugar Ray Robinson versus Barney Ross or Ali versus Tex Cobb, Senator Kerry answered his opponent’s jabs with a barrage of counterpunches. The president’s victory was that he remained standing to the final bell.
Those who listen to the pundits to guide their thinking may conclude that the president stood his ground. Those who watched the event, however, must surely arrive at the conclusion that our president is not in command. A vote for Bush is a vote for the neoconservative worms that have poisoned our government with the doctrines of preemptive war and military conquest. A vote for Bush is a vote for the policies of smoke and mirrors (platitudes and flag decals) to obscure favoritism to the corporate elite.
When this president declares, with a wink and a nod, that there will be no military draft under his leadership, remember that he promised not to engage in “nation building.” We now know that his administration was already planning the invasion of Iraq. Unless the president is planning to deploy tactical nukes (is that what he meant by technological advances?), there are not enough soldiers to pursue his objectives. There are not enough troops even to maintain the occupation of Iraq. Mark it, post and save: If the president is reelected, they will find an occasion, real or contrived, to reinstitute the draft. If the president is to be believed, why have they quietly set the wheels in motion? Why is every eighteen year old required to register? Why are they setting up the local draft boards?
As Senator Kerry repeatedly pointed out, what this administration says and what it does are distinctly different packages. They promised to fully fund special education and immediately slashed funding without so much as an apology to the Democrats who signed on to No Child Left Behind. They promised meaningful health care reform and delivered a gift to the pharmaceutical companies. In the wake of Enron, they promised corporate accountability and settled for a change in accounting procedures. In the wake of the West Coast energy crisis, they promised reform but continued to push for the very policy that enabled their corporate allies to game the system: deregulation. They promised jobs and delivered them to China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia. They cut off unemployment benefits to compel skilled workers to accept jobs in the service industry. They promised to honor the Geneva Conventions and delivered Abu Ghraib. They promised to fight for worldwide democracy and sponsored coups in Haiti and Venezuela. They promised war as a last resort and delivered it as an appetizer.
No amount of punditry and spin can obscure the simple truth: The president is a shallow man with a weak grip on reality and his finger on the trigger of nuclear catastrophe. For all his shortcomings, in terms of knowledge and substance, John Kerry is everything the president is not. Moreover, he is not responsible for the disaster in Iraq. Short of immediate withdrawal, Kerry presents the best opportunity to the end the nightmare. He can do what the president absolutely cannot. He can go to the international community with a fresh slate. He can cut to the chase: How do we defuse a time bomb that could envelop much of the world?
For those of us who have opposed this misbegotten war from its inception, regardless of the outcome, there will be no rest after November 2nd. Until the troops come home and the Bush Doctrine is forever buried in the sands of ancient Mesopotamia, the cause is not won. The removal of George the younger from his throne, however, is a giant leap forward.
The election is not decided but we can be sure it will not turn on the content of the president’s character. He may have curbed his stammer but he has hardly revived his presidency. The election will not be won by pundits and crooked pollsters but there may yet be an October surprise. The operatives who orchestrated the timing and circumstance of Saddam’s emergence from a concrete coffin would not hesitate to do the same with Osama bin Laden. It falls to every independent analyst, commentator and web logger to make sure that, if it happens, it does not take the electorate by surprise. For now, there is hope. The worm is turning.
Stay the cause. Stay the motion.
Jazz.
THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (VOLUMES I-II) ARE AVAILABLE AT CITY LIGHTS SF.
By Jack Random
The peevish monarch, hunched over the podium, mugs and grimaces through a 90-minute debate, his mind as vacuous as the promises of his administration, and the media pundits pull their punches, waiting for a definitive verdict, waiting for the executioner’s call, waiting for the worm to turn as it inevitably does.
The prince of darkness (also known as the vice president) emerges from his bunker, hunched shoulders, head cocked and eyes fixed to his writhing hands, torturing facts and statistics like an Enron accountant, demanding the respect of his upstart opponent and, receiving none, strikes out like the rabid hound he has become. The pundits declare a draw. The people, however, are awakened to the hand behind our posturing president. Like Gloucester of Shakespearean infamy, the vice president would have it all: phantom connections between Saddam and Osama, weapons of mass destruction, the crusade for democracy and forty years of war.
In round two of the presidential debates, the pundits find consensus as quickly as swift boats in the Mekong Delta: the president was not nearly as vacuous as in round one. Gone are the incessant mugging, the smirks and grimaces. Curbed are the meaningless slogans and platitudes. The president managed to speak in phrases and sentences without stammering and stumbling like a punch-drunk prizefighter. The non-sequiturs are still there but they are not nearly as prominent. The president wins accolades for demonstrating that he is not as shallow and dimwitted as he appeared.
The tortured analysis reveals a media bias and obscures the reality of the event. The media need a close contest to maintain interest. The pundits were overjoyed that the president did not fall flat on his face and would have declared his success even if he had. To use the fight analogy, round one in Miami was a technical knockout. The president was battered to a pulp and failed to answer the bell for the last thirty minutes. Round two was a lesson in the art of boxing. Like Sugar Ray Robinson versus Barney Ross or Ali versus Tex Cobb, Senator Kerry answered his opponent’s jabs with a barrage of counterpunches. The president’s victory was that he remained standing to the final bell.
Those who listen to the pundits to guide their thinking may conclude that the president stood his ground. Those who watched the event, however, must surely arrive at the conclusion that our president is not in command. A vote for Bush is a vote for the neoconservative worms that have poisoned our government with the doctrines of preemptive war and military conquest. A vote for Bush is a vote for the policies of smoke and mirrors (platitudes and flag decals) to obscure favoritism to the corporate elite.
When this president declares, with a wink and a nod, that there will be no military draft under his leadership, remember that he promised not to engage in “nation building.” We now know that his administration was already planning the invasion of Iraq. Unless the president is planning to deploy tactical nukes (is that what he meant by technological advances?), there are not enough soldiers to pursue his objectives. There are not enough troops even to maintain the occupation of Iraq. Mark it, post and save: If the president is reelected, they will find an occasion, real or contrived, to reinstitute the draft. If the president is to be believed, why have they quietly set the wheels in motion? Why is every eighteen year old required to register? Why are they setting up the local draft boards?
As Senator Kerry repeatedly pointed out, what this administration says and what it does are distinctly different packages. They promised to fully fund special education and immediately slashed funding without so much as an apology to the Democrats who signed on to No Child Left Behind. They promised meaningful health care reform and delivered a gift to the pharmaceutical companies. In the wake of Enron, they promised corporate accountability and settled for a change in accounting procedures. In the wake of the West Coast energy crisis, they promised reform but continued to push for the very policy that enabled their corporate allies to game the system: deregulation. They promised jobs and delivered them to China, India, Indonesia and Malaysia. They cut off unemployment benefits to compel skilled workers to accept jobs in the service industry. They promised to honor the Geneva Conventions and delivered Abu Ghraib. They promised to fight for worldwide democracy and sponsored coups in Haiti and Venezuela. They promised war as a last resort and delivered it as an appetizer.
No amount of punditry and spin can obscure the simple truth: The president is a shallow man with a weak grip on reality and his finger on the trigger of nuclear catastrophe. For all his shortcomings, in terms of knowledge and substance, John Kerry is everything the president is not. Moreover, he is not responsible for the disaster in Iraq. Short of immediate withdrawal, Kerry presents the best opportunity to the end the nightmare. He can do what the president absolutely cannot. He can go to the international community with a fresh slate. He can cut to the chase: How do we defuse a time bomb that could envelop much of the world?
For those of us who have opposed this misbegotten war from its inception, regardless of the outcome, there will be no rest after November 2nd. Until the troops come home and the Bush Doctrine is forever buried in the sands of ancient Mesopotamia, the cause is not won. The removal of George the younger from his throne, however, is a giant leap forward.
The election is not decided but we can be sure it will not turn on the content of the president’s character. He may have curbed his stammer but he has hardly revived his presidency. The election will not be won by pundits and crooked pollsters but there may yet be an October surprise. The operatives who orchestrated the timing and circumstance of Saddam’s emergence from a concrete coffin would not hesitate to do the same with Osama bin Laden. It falls to every independent analyst, commentator and web logger to make sure that, if it happens, it does not take the electorate by surprise. For now, there is hope. The worm is turning.
Stay the cause. Stay the motion.
Jazz.
THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (VOLUMES I-II) ARE AVAILABLE AT CITY LIGHTS SF.
Friday, October 01, 2004
KERRY WHIPS BUSH
FROM THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES: DISSEMINATE FREELY.
AN ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE DEFERED
By Jack Random
Our president’s task was simple: Slogans and platitudes bereft of substance. Know your strong suit and stick to it like a horse fly to fresh manure. Do not fall for the traps of policy and facts. You are a man of faith. What is the price of freedom and democracy? Stand strong and resolute in the face of adversity. Facts are irrelevant. Policies are the stuff of dreamers and bureaucrats. Never yield. Never give an inch.
“I’m George W and you know where I stand.”
How do we respond to such blatant irrationality? In kind? With inferences to nose candy, binge drinking, spiritual duality, father envy, intellectual poverty? No. We allow the president his territory and we press on with our own in the hope that our fellow citizens will choose a leader rather than a horseshoe partner at a Texas barbecue. The stakes are too high to be seduced by the charms of the Marlboro man.
Senator John Kerry stood to the challenge of truth versus the power of government propaganda. He claimed the high ground on Iraq, the draft, Iran, North Korea and the war against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Any objective observer will conclude that John Kerry defeated George W like the Yankees defeated Toronto in the race for the pennant. The voice of an elder against the voice of an adolescent, the mind of reason against the posturing of a pretender, and the appeal of wisdom against the platitudes of empty minds. Let me go out on a limb: John Kerry defeated George W. Bush in the greatest triumph of discourse since Carter versus Ford. The defeat was so resounding it deserves the careful study of finer minds. In the meantime, it deserves acknowledgement.
This election is a referendum on the most inane and counter-productive foreign policy arguably in American history. The facts cry out to be recognized above the din of sloganeers, pundits, spin artists, demagogues and cheerleaders. Consider the facts:
When the president was “elected” in 2000, his lack of foreign policy knowledge and experience was discounted because his advisers were keenly experienced and wise to the ways of the world. Four years later it is time to judge them by their deeds, not by their resumes. Under the guidance of his council of wise men and Condoleezza Rice, George W responded to a massive terrorist attack by invading Afghanistan for harboring Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Tossing aside the Taliban’s offer to hand over the terrorists to a third nation or international tribunal, we invaded that country with a promise to Afghanis not to forget them as we had in the wake of the Soviet invasion. In less than a year, we did exactly that, leaving the job undone, bin Laden still free, Al Qaeda intact and a nation in tatters with a token government confined to its capital.
We announced to the world an Axis of Evil, declaring ideological war on Iran, Iraq and North Korea. We then invaded Iraq and expected neighboring Iran to remain neutral, even cooperative. We announced our intention to develop tactical (i.e., deployable) nuclear weapons and then demanded that North Korea disarm.
Forced to sacrifice the initial rationale for war (proving that even ideology must sometimes yield to an overwhelming body of evidence), we claimed the moral high ground of a crusade for democracy; we then overthrew an elected government in Haiti and attempted to overthrow another in Venezuela. Further compromising our call to democracy, we have championed our alliances with such democratic dignitaries as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.
Pressed by an unruly Congress, we went to the United Nations and promised that passage of resolution 1441 would not authorize invasion. We promptly invaded and claimed that it did. Is it any wonder that the United Nations does not want to hear any more American resolutions? Never has American credibility been squandered so swiftly and so decisively.
The president promised Congress that war would be a last resort but the plans were already laid and the invasion was launched without provocation. He claimed that a vote for authorization was not a vote for war. In his campaign for re-election, he claims the opposite. Is it any wonder he is no longer believed in the halls of Congress? His brand of winner-take-all politics hardly inspires the bipartisan unification he promised in his last election.
In no uncertain terms, the president insulted our European allies, making France the butt of every other joke, yet he claims to be pressing for international cooperation in Iraq. Never mind that France was substantively right on every issue, it is like asking the tail to wag the dog. As Cyrano de Bergerac said, “Thank you, I thank you, no thank you.”
The question is not: where has the president bungled? The question is: where has he succeeded?
America is at a turning point in history. Confronted with the monumental task of combating international terrorism, our foreign policy has been hijacked by ideologues and political operatives and the result is predictably disastrous. There comes a time in every nation when the facts demand a change in course. Constancy is not in itself a virtue. Never have there been more constant leaders than Stalin and Hitler. George W is neither Stalin nor Hitler; he is a simple man who should never have become president. He has trusted the foreign policy of this powerful nation to the hands of those who should have known better. They have failed.
The operatives are now in charge of the game. It is their job to convince us that what we know we do not know, that war is the way to peace, and that the disaster in Iraq is under control.
Our job is to stand for truth. Our job is to stand with John Kerry.
Jazz.
AN ORWELLIAN NIGHTMARE DEFERED
By Jack Random
Our president’s task was simple: Slogans and platitudes bereft of substance. Know your strong suit and stick to it like a horse fly to fresh manure. Do not fall for the traps of policy and facts. You are a man of faith. What is the price of freedom and democracy? Stand strong and resolute in the face of adversity. Facts are irrelevant. Policies are the stuff of dreamers and bureaucrats. Never yield. Never give an inch.
“I’m George W and you know where I stand.”
How do we respond to such blatant irrationality? In kind? With inferences to nose candy, binge drinking, spiritual duality, father envy, intellectual poverty? No. We allow the president his territory and we press on with our own in the hope that our fellow citizens will choose a leader rather than a horseshoe partner at a Texas barbecue. The stakes are too high to be seduced by the charms of the Marlboro man.
Senator John Kerry stood to the challenge of truth versus the power of government propaganda. He claimed the high ground on Iraq, the draft, Iran, North Korea and the war against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Any objective observer will conclude that John Kerry defeated George W like the Yankees defeated Toronto in the race for the pennant. The voice of an elder against the voice of an adolescent, the mind of reason against the posturing of a pretender, and the appeal of wisdom against the platitudes of empty minds. Let me go out on a limb: John Kerry defeated George W. Bush in the greatest triumph of discourse since Carter versus Ford. The defeat was so resounding it deserves the careful study of finer minds. In the meantime, it deserves acknowledgement.
This election is a referendum on the most inane and counter-productive foreign policy arguably in American history. The facts cry out to be recognized above the din of sloganeers, pundits, spin artists, demagogues and cheerleaders. Consider the facts:
When the president was “elected” in 2000, his lack of foreign policy knowledge and experience was discounted because his advisers were keenly experienced and wise to the ways of the world. Four years later it is time to judge them by their deeds, not by their resumes. Under the guidance of his council of wise men and Condoleezza Rice, George W responded to a massive terrorist attack by invading Afghanistan for harboring Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Tossing aside the Taliban’s offer to hand over the terrorists to a third nation or international tribunal, we invaded that country with a promise to Afghanis not to forget them as we had in the wake of the Soviet invasion. In less than a year, we did exactly that, leaving the job undone, bin Laden still free, Al Qaeda intact and a nation in tatters with a token government confined to its capital.
We announced to the world an Axis of Evil, declaring ideological war on Iran, Iraq and North Korea. We then invaded Iraq and expected neighboring Iran to remain neutral, even cooperative. We announced our intention to develop tactical (i.e., deployable) nuclear weapons and then demanded that North Korea disarm.
Forced to sacrifice the initial rationale for war (proving that even ideology must sometimes yield to an overwhelming body of evidence), we claimed the moral high ground of a crusade for democracy; we then overthrew an elected government in Haiti and attempted to overthrow another in Venezuela. Further compromising our call to democracy, we have championed our alliances with such democratic dignitaries as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.
Pressed by an unruly Congress, we went to the United Nations and promised that passage of resolution 1441 would not authorize invasion. We promptly invaded and claimed that it did. Is it any wonder that the United Nations does not want to hear any more American resolutions? Never has American credibility been squandered so swiftly and so decisively.
The president promised Congress that war would be a last resort but the plans were already laid and the invasion was launched without provocation. He claimed that a vote for authorization was not a vote for war. In his campaign for re-election, he claims the opposite. Is it any wonder he is no longer believed in the halls of Congress? His brand of winner-take-all politics hardly inspires the bipartisan unification he promised in his last election.
In no uncertain terms, the president insulted our European allies, making France the butt of every other joke, yet he claims to be pressing for international cooperation in Iraq. Never mind that France was substantively right on every issue, it is like asking the tail to wag the dog. As Cyrano de Bergerac said, “Thank you, I thank you, no thank you.”
The question is not: where has the president bungled? The question is: where has he succeeded?
America is at a turning point in history. Confronted with the monumental task of combating international terrorism, our foreign policy has been hijacked by ideologues and political operatives and the result is predictably disastrous. There comes a time in every nation when the facts demand a change in course. Constancy is not in itself a virtue. Never have there been more constant leaders than Stalin and Hitler. George W is neither Stalin nor Hitler; he is a simple man who should never have become president. He has trusted the foreign policy of this powerful nation to the hands of those who should have known better. They have failed.
The operatives are now in charge of the game. It is their job to convince us that what we know we do not know, that war is the way to peace, and that the disaster in Iraq is under control.
Our job is to stand for truth. Our job is to stand with John Kerry.
Jazz.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
My Comrades: A Poem by Joe Speer
....
this one teaches
that one lives with his mother and cat
another pencraft master takes drugs,
non prescription
and cleans house
as his wife earns a living
this graduate of writer’s cramp
sleeps on couches,
drinking beer
and making his spiel
In 1469 Sir Thomas Malory wrote
Le Morte d’Arthur
while in prison
a French ambassador paid Cervantes
a visit in 1616
he expressed surprise to find
the author of Don Quixote
“a gentleman, a soldier,
and so poor”
the ambassador suggested
such a man be subsidized
in 1849 Dostoevsky was arrested
charged with having a
secret printing press
in 1851
Herman Melville’s Moby Dick
was worth more melted down
as lamp oil
than for any literary
commercial clout
in 1871 Thomas Hardy
published his first novel
at his own expense
in 1898 Emile Zola was
prosecuted by the government
found guilty of libeling the army
friends smuggled him to England
in 1913 Marcel Proust
published Swann’s Way
at his own expense
censorship and allegations
about his doubtful patriotism
forced D. H. Lawrence into expatriation
William Faulkner smuggled rum
on a speedboat in a Louisiana bayou
until his sound became a fury
this inkslinger used to print
on duplicating machines
another transcriber
hangs out in the public library
an annotator announces a rescript
of a recently discovered
Shakespeare play
another comes from a rich family,
like Henry James
and does not touch
“the skin of the working people”
my comrades are everywhere
next time the phone rings
it will be a poet
we are saving the world
one poem at a time
Beatlick Joe Speer
this one teaches
that one lives with his mother and cat
another pencraft master takes drugs,
non prescription
and cleans house
as his wife earns a living
this graduate of writer’s cramp
sleeps on couches,
drinking beer
and making his spiel
In 1469 Sir Thomas Malory wrote
Le Morte d’Arthur
while in prison
a French ambassador paid Cervantes
a visit in 1616
he expressed surprise to find
the author of Don Quixote
“a gentleman, a soldier,
and so poor”
the ambassador suggested
such a man be subsidized
in 1849 Dostoevsky was arrested
charged with having a
secret printing press
in 1851
Herman Melville’s Moby Dick
was worth more melted down
as lamp oil
than for any literary
commercial clout
in 1871 Thomas Hardy
published his first novel
at his own expense
in 1898 Emile Zola was
prosecuted by the government
found guilty of libeling the army
friends smuggled him to England
in 1913 Marcel Proust
published Swann’s Way
at his own expense
censorship and allegations
about his doubtful patriotism
forced D. H. Lawrence into expatriation
William Faulkner smuggled rum
on a speedboat in a Louisiana bayou
until his sound became a fury
this inkslinger used to print
on duplicating machines
another transcriber
hangs out in the public library
an annotator announces a rescript
of a recently discovered
Shakespeare play
another comes from a rich family,
like Henry James
and does not touch
“the skin of the working people”
my comrades are everywhere
next time the phone rings
it will be a poet
we are saving the world
one poem at a time
Beatlick Joe Speer
Monday, September 27, 2004
FLIP FLOPPING AWAY
By Mike Caine
“Faced with the absence of WMDs in Iraq [President Bush] once said, ‘We have found the weapons of mass destruction.’ Faced with a Presidential Daily Brief titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US,’ he and his spokespersons called it ‘historical.’ In his universe, faithfulness to delusion is ‘consistency.’”
Jonathan Schell, The Nation.
What bothers “conservative” Republicans so much about politicians changing their minds? Others use the term “flip flop” but the Republicans revile “flip floppers” almost as much as “Liberal Democrats.” For some reason it seems every opponent a conservative Republican has is a “Liberal Democrat and a flip flopper.” The implication is that changing your mind about an issue is always wrong, not that the stand on the issue is wrong but the act of change itself.
The proponents of the Bush administration wrap themselves in a cloak of patriotism, peak out from underneath only long enough to point a finger at any who have changed their opinion, say the words “flip flop,” and snap back under cover. Supplanting reason and discarding facts, the mere accusation reveals the accused as a weak leader with poorly held convictions. What those convictions might be is not nearly as important as how firmly they are held. The president no longer has to justify his actions or beliefs because he is consistent. His opponent is evil because he has flip-flopped. How can killing thousands of innocents in Iraq be wrong when the president was consistent? The deficit? No problem. Keep cutting those taxes. War? No problem with consistency there. To the president’s supporters consistency is leadership and their man will never alter his course.
Of course, it is not lost on the president’s operatives that their campaign is designed to change people’s minds. Those swing voters persuaded by Republican ads are flip floppers. Shouldn’t that make them Liberal Democrats?
It seems to me that the Founding Fathers thought changing minds is what debate is supposed to do. Why else would our Congress be designed for debate? Why have a debate if the opponents cannot be swayed? The Republicans pretend that “flip flopping” is one of the great character flaws yet they have repeatedly held over debates on the floor of Congress to coerce a few more flip-flops.
I keep hearing that the president “makes a decision and sticks to it.” What happens when realizes one of his policies is wrong? Is he bound to the code of consistency regardless the consequences?
Oh, I’m sorry. I forgot that when God is on your side you are never wrong. Everything is black and white, red and blue, good and evil…
“Faced with the absence of WMDs in Iraq [President Bush] once said, ‘We have found the weapons of mass destruction.’ Faced with a Presidential Daily Brief titled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US,’ he and his spokespersons called it ‘historical.’ In his universe, faithfulness to delusion is ‘consistency.’”
Jonathan Schell, The Nation.
What bothers “conservative” Republicans so much about politicians changing their minds? Others use the term “flip flop” but the Republicans revile “flip floppers” almost as much as “Liberal Democrats.” For some reason it seems every opponent a conservative Republican has is a “Liberal Democrat and a flip flopper.” The implication is that changing your mind about an issue is always wrong, not that the stand on the issue is wrong but the act of change itself.
The proponents of the Bush administration wrap themselves in a cloak of patriotism, peak out from underneath only long enough to point a finger at any who have changed their opinion, say the words “flip flop,” and snap back under cover. Supplanting reason and discarding facts, the mere accusation reveals the accused as a weak leader with poorly held convictions. What those convictions might be is not nearly as important as how firmly they are held. The president no longer has to justify his actions or beliefs because he is consistent. His opponent is evil because he has flip-flopped. How can killing thousands of innocents in Iraq be wrong when the president was consistent? The deficit? No problem. Keep cutting those taxes. War? No problem with consistency there. To the president’s supporters consistency is leadership and their man will never alter his course.
Of course, it is not lost on the president’s operatives that their campaign is designed to change people’s minds. Those swing voters persuaded by Republican ads are flip floppers. Shouldn’t that make them Liberal Democrats?
It seems to me that the Founding Fathers thought changing minds is what debate is supposed to do. Why else would our Congress be designed for debate? Why have a debate if the opponents cannot be swayed? The Republicans pretend that “flip flopping” is one of the great character flaws yet they have repeatedly held over debates on the floor of Congress to coerce a few more flip-flops.
I keep hearing that the president “makes a decision and sticks to it.” What happens when realizes one of his policies is wrong? Is he bound to the code of consistency regardless the consequences?
Oh, I’m sorry. I forgot that when God is on your side you are never wrong. Everything is black and white, red and blue, good and evil…
Sunday, September 19, 2004
A BALLOT IN BLOOD
FROM THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES: DISSEMINATE FREELY.
SIX WEEKS TO ELECTION DAY
By Jack Random
“Every American needs to believe this: that if we fail here in this environment, the next battlefield will be in the streets of America.” Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez.
Six weeks before the presidential election, the only doubt that remains about the failure of the war in Iraq resides on Pennsylvania Avenue in the nation’s capital. The reality of failure in Iraq, the keystone of the neo-conservative Bush Doctrine on foreign policy, has settled in the gut of every military analyst in the world yet it remains an enigma to the American electorate. Where are the embedded reporters now to record the carnage and indiscriminate destruction, to document the failure of the war they so enthusiastically promoted?
The dark secret that is apparently kept from our president’s ears and closely guarded by a corporate media is this: The continued occupation of Iraq can only continue to drain our resources as it continues to claim the lives of men, women and children, soldiers and civilians, who did nothing to deserve the fate of a violent and premature death. We will not succeed in securing America’s oil supply. We will not succeed in installing a puppet government. We will only succeed in uniting our enemies. Is this what the president meant by “catastrophic success”?
Six weeks before the election, we are confronted with the political reality that the president still leads in most of the wildly fluctuating polls and that our collective fate is not in our own hands. It is rather in the hands of a complicit media, a media that have failed every test of social responsibility in this chain of historical events, and in the hands of those hopelessly uninformed swing voters in the battleground states of Missouri, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, New Mexico, et al. As a citizen of an uncontested state, my vote will have no impact. As a voice without access to the critical voters, I have no say.
Why should we press on? We press on because we believe in democracy and in a democracy, the people must be engaged. We press on because we would not forgive ourselves if we did not. We press on because we made a vow during the Vietnam era that we would never be complacent if our leaders ever again took us to war for false and immoral reasons. We will continue to speak out because there is no viable option. We will continue to assert truth to power before and after the election because some things must not be left unsaid.
Our government, having lost every stated rationale for war, would have us now believe that they cleverly lured our enemies onto the battlefield of Iraq. How clever is it to lure your enemies into their own back yard? How clever is it to commit our soldiers to a country surrounded by enemies, where even our “friends” oppose us, where our troops are overextended and the supply of insurgents is endless? Such an assertion would be laughable if it were not so tragic.
But we have rid the world of Saddam Hussein and that alone makes the war worthwhile. What was Saddam Hussein on the eve of invasion besides a ruthless dictator? He was a toothless tiger who posed no threat even to his closest neighbors. He was defeated in war and utterly disarmed. No nation on earth was more effectively or publicly contained that Saddam’s Iraq. If dictatorship alone is just grounds for military invasion, then we had better be prepared to go to war not only with Syria, Iran and North Korea, but also Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, China and a baker’s dozen of African nations. Is this what the president has in mind? Then let him say so openly and allow the people to vote on a future of endless war.
Thanks to our government’s disastrous policies, Iran and North Korea are now openly defiant, Turkey is threatening to withdraw cooperation, Vladimir Putin has all but rescinded democracy in Russia, and any chance of a true international alliance has blown away with the latest hurricane winds.
We are nearing the end of a long and bitter fight to alter the nation’s course by electing a new president. The media complain that this election is characterized by dirty politics and partisan attacks. From my perspective, given the circumstance and the stakes, this has been the most tepid political campaign imaginable.
This administration is one of the most destructive and ineffective governments in our history. It has impoverished the already poor, diminished the middle class, and enriched the already rich by engineering the greatest turnaround (from surplus to deficit) of the nation’s fortune ever. It has neglected the basic needs of the people, dismantled the social safety net, and stripped away all government oversight to protect the profits of corporations. As if his domestic failure was not enough (or perhaps because it was not enough), the president has committed this nation to a disastrous war and that is the bottom line. You do not rehire a CEO when he has bankrupted the company and you do not retain a Commander-in-Chief when he has led you into an ambush.
I for one will not allow this election to pass without stating what I believe is the plain and honest truth: There is innocent blood on the president’s hands. In the end, it does not matter why. The president has thrust the nation to the precipice of endless war.
Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez (who resigned after the Abu Ghraib disgrace) was right for all the wrong reasons. We have failed in Iraq and the next battlefield is on the streets of America. It is not, however, a battle against terrorists. It is a battle for the heart and soul of American democracy. We have it in our power to end the reign of George the Terrible. If we do not stop him now, the blood will be on our hands as well.
Jazz.
SIX WEEKS TO ELECTION DAY
By Jack Random
“Every American needs to believe this: that if we fail here in this environment, the next battlefield will be in the streets of America.” Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez.
Six weeks before the presidential election, the only doubt that remains about the failure of the war in Iraq resides on Pennsylvania Avenue in the nation’s capital. The reality of failure in Iraq, the keystone of the neo-conservative Bush Doctrine on foreign policy, has settled in the gut of every military analyst in the world yet it remains an enigma to the American electorate. Where are the embedded reporters now to record the carnage and indiscriminate destruction, to document the failure of the war they so enthusiastically promoted?
The dark secret that is apparently kept from our president’s ears and closely guarded by a corporate media is this: The continued occupation of Iraq can only continue to drain our resources as it continues to claim the lives of men, women and children, soldiers and civilians, who did nothing to deserve the fate of a violent and premature death. We will not succeed in securing America’s oil supply. We will not succeed in installing a puppet government. We will only succeed in uniting our enemies. Is this what the president meant by “catastrophic success”?
Six weeks before the election, we are confronted with the political reality that the president still leads in most of the wildly fluctuating polls and that our collective fate is not in our own hands. It is rather in the hands of a complicit media, a media that have failed every test of social responsibility in this chain of historical events, and in the hands of those hopelessly uninformed swing voters in the battleground states of Missouri, Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, New Mexico, et al. As a citizen of an uncontested state, my vote will have no impact. As a voice without access to the critical voters, I have no say.
Why should we press on? We press on because we believe in democracy and in a democracy, the people must be engaged. We press on because we would not forgive ourselves if we did not. We press on because we made a vow during the Vietnam era that we would never be complacent if our leaders ever again took us to war for false and immoral reasons. We will continue to speak out because there is no viable option. We will continue to assert truth to power before and after the election because some things must not be left unsaid.
Our government, having lost every stated rationale for war, would have us now believe that they cleverly lured our enemies onto the battlefield of Iraq. How clever is it to lure your enemies into their own back yard? How clever is it to commit our soldiers to a country surrounded by enemies, where even our “friends” oppose us, where our troops are overextended and the supply of insurgents is endless? Such an assertion would be laughable if it were not so tragic.
But we have rid the world of Saddam Hussein and that alone makes the war worthwhile. What was Saddam Hussein on the eve of invasion besides a ruthless dictator? He was a toothless tiger who posed no threat even to his closest neighbors. He was defeated in war and utterly disarmed. No nation on earth was more effectively or publicly contained that Saddam’s Iraq. If dictatorship alone is just grounds for military invasion, then we had better be prepared to go to war not only with Syria, Iran and North Korea, but also Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, China and a baker’s dozen of African nations. Is this what the president has in mind? Then let him say so openly and allow the people to vote on a future of endless war.
Thanks to our government’s disastrous policies, Iran and North Korea are now openly defiant, Turkey is threatening to withdraw cooperation, Vladimir Putin has all but rescinded democracy in Russia, and any chance of a true international alliance has blown away with the latest hurricane winds.
We are nearing the end of a long and bitter fight to alter the nation’s course by electing a new president. The media complain that this election is characterized by dirty politics and partisan attacks. From my perspective, given the circumstance and the stakes, this has been the most tepid political campaign imaginable.
This administration is one of the most destructive and ineffective governments in our history. It has impoverished the already poor, diminished the middle class, and enriched the already rich by engineering the greatest turnaround (from surplus to deficit) of the nation’s fortune ever. It has neglected the basic needs of the people, dismantled the social safety net, and stripped away all government oversight to protect the profits of corporations. As if his domestic failure was not enough (or perhaps because it was not enough), the president has committed this nation to a disastrous war and that is the bottom line. You do not rehire a CEO when he has bankrupted the company and you do not retain a Commander-in-Chief when he has led you into an ambush.
I for one will not allow this election to pass without stating what I believe is the plain and honest truth: There is innocent blood on the president’s hands. In the end, it does not matter why. The president has thrust the nation to the precipice of endless war.
Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez (who resigned after the Abu Ghraib disgrace) was right for all the wrong reasons. We have failed in Iraq and the next battlefield is on the streets of America. It is not, however, a battle against terrorists. It is a battle for the heart and soul of American democracy. We have it in our power to end the reign of George the Terrible. If we do not stop him now, the blood will be on our hands as well.
Jazz.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
ABSOLUTION
FROM THE WAR CHRONICLES: DISSEMINATE FREELY.
By Jack Random
To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
The Judges of Nuremberg.
America clings to the belief that she is absolved from all sin, all crimes against humanity, all acts of unconscionable violence and equally unconscionable indifference by the simple recycling of leadership every four to eight years. We are not to be held accountable for our past behavior because the names of those who reside on Pennsylvania Avenue have changed.
It is of no consequence that the leading players in the current White House are the same individuals who committed those crimes under previous administrations. The fact is, regardless the changing cast, American foreign policy since World War II is a continuous line of intervention, self-serving unilateralism, and utter defiance of international law and universal principles of equity and human decency.
The world community has long understood and detested American foreign policy. The people of the world have long understood that a changing of the White House guard does not produce a change in America’s behavior in the world. It is only a matter of degree. Ronald Reagan and the elder Bush were the hammers of foreign policy. Presidents Carter and Clinton may have provided a brief respite in the brutal prosecution of American policy but they did not (perhaps could not) change the path that would inevitably lead to the critical impasse we now face.
What is now happening in the world is the realization that its people can no longer endure. The problem is not that the world fails to see the Bush vision. The problem arises from the fact that they see it all too clearly.
The entire world was listening in hushed silence when our vice president declared “forty years of war” in the wake of September 11. They understood what Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld meant when they suggested that the tragedy of that momentous event could be seen as an opportunity to resume the war on Iraq. They understood that those in charge of the Bush administration’s foreign policy were cold warriors longing to return to the games of international warfare, subterfuge, corruption and intrigue.
Blessings on Jacques Chirac, for though the French had undeniable interests in the region, France stood to gain immeasurably more by caving to American interests in open defiance of her own people. If we believe in democracy then France and Germany were the world’s champions in the United Nations effort to prevent the war. You cannot in good faith advocate democracy while dragging your people into war against their will. Trying to achieve democracy through invasion is like trying to achieve tolerance through intimidation. It is a fallacy and a lie. You cannot champion democracy while lying to your people to win their approval.
If you still do not believe your government lied to you, then read its own statements in the weeks and months following September 11, 2001. There was and is no connection between the events of that horrific day and the regime in Baghdad. The alleged meeting between Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda agents never happened. There was no Iraqi connected Al Qaeda training camp at a specified location in northern Iraq. That Iraq openly supports the cause of occupied Palestine is unquestioned and that is the only connection to “terrorists” this White House has documented.
The administration had to resort to fabrication and falsehood because it failed utterly and completely to make its case for war. What they failed to achieve through diplomacy, however, they attempted to achieve through bribery and intimidation. Against this background of failure and disgrace, America saw fit to demand that the United Nations fall into line or withdraw from international relevance. Nothing could be further from the truth. If, under these circumstances, the United Nations had yielded to American demands it would then have proclaimed its own irrelevance. Like the United States Congress, it would have abdicated its right and lawful duty in world affairs.
If we but examine the American case for war without passion or patriotism we will arrive at the same conclusion the rest of the world already recognizes. America repeatedly noted that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds (“his own people”) decades before but considered it irrelevant that America knowingly and deliberately allowed corporations to provide chemical precursors and biological elements to Iraq with the clear intent of employing them as weapons.
America condemned Iraqi use of chemical weapons – as it did publicly in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq war – but it is not to be acknowledged that America protected Iraq from the sanctions of the United Nations. Saddam Hussein was America’s man in the Gulf region and Donald Rumsfeld was on the scene to seal the deal with a handshake.
America claimed that Saddam Hussein openly defied the United Nations for twelve years, yet for eight of those years a successful inspection regime disarmed massive quantities of chemical and biological weapons and dismantled the Iraqi nuclear program. More arms were destroyed in this period than during Gulf War I or the subsequent bombings and no lives were lost in so doing. In the second Gulf War, countless lives were saved by those years of “doing nothing,” of defiance and UN failure to act.
We should not forget that the American government (whose president was in political trouble) in fact orchestrated the discontinuance of the inspection process. The ensuing four years of inactivity were in large part the legacy of Ken Starr and a right wing conspiracy – although the president can hardly be absolved.
America claimed that the United Nations did nothing for twelve years yet the UN sanctions – which the US alone continued to support and prosecute – resulted in over a million Iraqi deaths. All the while America fought against the Food for Oil program and all proposals to restructure the sanctions so that they targeted weaponry instead of food and medicine.
America claimed (rightly) that Saddam Hussein was guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity yet America alone refuses to sanction the International Court of Justice. The truth is: America would stand trial as Saddam’s accomplice.
As we stood on the precipice of war, the advocates of the Bush Doctrine argued that we had to go to war because our troops were in place and they could not wait much longer. If ever there was a reason for justifiable war this did not rise beyond the level of contempt. It seems to me our soldiers could have learned to persevere in the deserts of Kuwait and Bahrain in the hope that war could be averted but we had beat the drums of war so long and so loudly (they argued with the curious passion of a child that has lost his favorite toy) that we could not fail to act now! What would become of our prestige, our credibility, and our weight on the world stage?
One thing we can readily agree on without trepidation is that neither the cost of maintaining our troops nor the collective credibility of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice was worth the blood of a single American soldier – no less thousands of innocent civilians. Let them eat diplomatic crow and let our soldiers be spared.
Recall: in a last ditch effort to justify the irrational and reclaim their self-proclaimed prominence in international affairs, the warmongers threw up their hands and demanded: What would you have us do? Nothing? Would you allow Saddam Hussein to go about his business? Surely, if he was not developing weapons before the threat of war, he will do so now!
There are in fact many things that could have been done to further contain and disarm this monster of our own creation though doing nothing would have been preferable to the path of destruction we have pursued.
As former Senator Gary Hart suggested, we could have expanded the No Fly Zone to include all of Iraq and continuously monitored his activities. We could have increased the number of inspectors and provided them with all the equipment and intelligence they needed – as required by Resolution 1441. We could have maintained a force in the region while withdrawing most of our troops so that cooperation could be measured without the threat of an imminent attack. We could have restructured the sanctions so that the Iraqi people were no longer denied essential commodities – drinkable water, food, and medicines – while the Iraqi government was denied the materials of war. As an assurance of good will, America could have pledged, in the event of war and occupation, that the United Nations would assume control of Iraqi oil. Finally, we could have sanctioned the International Court of Justice and submitted our case against Saddam Hussein.
All these actions could and should have been taken with United Nations approval and support. The UN behaved admirably in this crisis. They stood the high ground between the world’s superpower and the world’s people. Under the constant pressure of American demands, the United Nations alone was positioned to make an informed judgment as to what should happen next. The United Nations alone had the authority to act where no nation has attacked another. If the time for war with Iraq had come, the United Nations would have known it and acted responsibly.
If the time for war did not come then we should all have been eternally grateful for the crisis would have been defused, diplomacy would have won the day, Iraq would have been disarmed peacefully, and the world would not have been hurling toward four decades of unending war and violence under the banners of freedom and security.
Jazz.
By Jack Random
To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
The Judges of Nuremberg.
America clings to the belief that she is absolved from all sin, all crimes against humanity, all acts of unconscionable violence and equally unconscionable indifference by the simple recycling of leadership every four to eight years. We are not to be held accountable for our past behavior because the names of those who reside on Pennsylvania Avenue have changed.
It is of no consequence that the leading players in the current White House are the same individuals who committed those crimes under previous administrations. The fact is, regardless the changing cast, American foreign policy since World War II is a continuous line of intervention, self-serving unilateralism, and utter defiance of international law and universal principles of equity and human decency.
The world community has long understood and detested American foreign policy. The people of the world have long understood that a changing of the White House guard does not produce a change in America’s behavior in the world. It is only a matter of degree. Ronald Reagan and the elder Bush were the hammers of foreign policy. Presidents Carter and Clinton may have provided a brief respite in the brutal prosecution of American policy but they did not (perhaps could not) change the path that would inevitably lead to the critical impasse we now face.
What is now happening in the world is the realization that its people can no longer endure. The problem is not that the world fails to see the Bush vision. The problem arises from the fact that they see it all too clearly.
The entire world was listening in hushed silence when our vice president declared “forty years of war” in the wake of September 11. They understood what Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld meant when they suggested that the tragedy of that momentous event could be seen as an opportunity to resume the war on Iraq. They understood that those in charge of the Bush administration’s foreign policy were cold warriors longing to return to the games of international warfare, subterfuge, corruption and intrigue.
Blessings on Jacques Chirac, for though the French had undeniable interests in the region, France stood to gain immeasurably more by caving to American interests in open defiance of her own people. If we believe in democracy then France and Germany were the world’s champions in the United Nations effort to prevent the war. You cannot in good faith advocate democracy while dragging your people into war against their will. Trying to achieve democracy through invasion is like trying to achieve tolerance through intimidation. It is a fallacy and a lie. You cannot champion democracy while lying to your people to win their approval.
If you still do not believe your government lied to you, then read its own statements in the weeks and months following September 11, 2001. There was and is no connection between the events of that horrific day and the regime in Baghdad. The alleged meeting between Iraqi officials and Al Qaeda agents never happened. There was no Iraqi connected Al Qaeda training camp at a specified location in northern Iraq. That Iraq openly supports the cause of occupied Palestine is unquestioned and that is the only connection to “terrorists” this White House has documented.
The administration had to resort to fabrication and falsehood because it failed utterly and completely to make its case for war. What they failed to achieve through diplomacy, however, they attempted to achieve through bribery and intimidation. Against this background of failure and disgrace, America saw fit to demand that the United Nations fall into line or withdraw from international relevance. Nothing could be further from the truth. If, under these circumstances, the United Nations had yielded to American demands it would then have proclaimed its own irrelevance. Like the United States Congress, it would have abdicated its right and lawful duty in world affairs.
If we but examine the American case for war without passion or patriotism we will arrive at the same conclusion the rest of the world already recognizes. America repeatedly noted that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds (“his own people”) decades before but considered it irrelevant that America knowingly and deliberately allowed corporations to provide chemical precursors and biological elements to Iraq with the clear intent of employing them as weapons.
America condemned Iraqi use of chemical weapons – as it did publicly in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq war – but it is not to be acknowledged that America protected Iraq from the sanctions of the United Nations. Saddam Hussein was America’s man in the Gulf region and Donald Rumsfeld was on the scene to seal the deal with a handshake.
America claimed that Saddam Hussein openly defied the United Nations for twelve years, yet for eight of those years a successful inspection regime disarmed massive quantities of chemical and biological weapons and dismantled the Iraqi nuclear program. More arms were destroyed in this period than during Gulf War I or the subsequent bombings and no lives were lost in so doing. In the second Gulf War, countless lives were saved by those years of “doing nothing,” of defiance and UN failure to act.
We should not forget that the American government (whose president was in political trouble) in fact orchestrated the discontinuance of the inspection process. The ensuing four years of inactivity were in large part the legacy of Ken Starr and a right wing conspiracy – although the president can hardly be absolved.
America claimed that the United Nations did nothing for twelve years yet the UN sanctions – which the US alone continued to support and prosecute – resulted in over a million Iraqi deaths. All the while America fought against the Food for Oil program and all proposals to restructure the sanctions so that they targeted weaponry instead of food and medicine.
America claimed (rightly) that Saddam Hussein was guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity yet America alone refuses to sanction the International Court of Justice. The truth is: America would stand trial as Saddam’s accomplice.
As we stood on the precipice of war, the advocates of the Bush Doctrine argued that we had to go to war because our troops were in place and they could not wait much longer. If ever there was a reason for justifiable war this did not rise beyond the level of contempt. It seems to me our soldiers could have learned to persevere in the deserts of Kuwait and Bahrain in the hope that war could be averted but we had beat the drums of war so long and so loudly (they argued with the curious passion of a child that has lost his favorite toy) that we could not fail to act now! What would become of our prestige, our credibility, and our weight on the world stage?
One thing we can readily agree on without trepidation is that neither the cost of maintaining our troops nor the collective credibility of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice was worth the blood of a single American soldier – no less thousands of innocent civilians. Let them eat diplomatic crow and let our soldiers be spared.
Recall: in a last ditch effort to justify the irrational and reclaim their self-proclaimed prominence in international affairs, the warmongers threw up their hands and demanded: What would you have us do? Nothing? Would you allow Saddam Hussein to go about his business? Surely, if he was not developing weapons before the threat of war, he will do so now!
There are in fact many things that could have been done to further contain and disarm this monster of our own creation though doing nothing would have been preferable to the path of destruction we have pursued.
As former Senator Gary Hart suggested, we could have expanded the No Fly Zone to include all of Iraq and continuously monitored his activities. We could have increased the number of inspectors and provided them with all the equipment and intelligence they needed – as required by Resolution 1441. We could have maintained a force in the region while withdrawing most of our troops so that cooperation could be measured without the threat of an imminent attack. We could have restructured the sanctions so that the Iraqi people were no longer denied essential commodities – drinkable water, food, and medicines – while the Iraqi government was denied the materials of war. As an assurance of good will, America could have pledged, in the event of war and occupation, that the United Nations would assume control of Iraqi oil. Finally, we could have sanctioned the International Court of Justice and submitted our case against Saddam Hussein.
All these actions could and should have been taken with United Nations approval and support. The UN behaved admirably in this crisis. They stood the high ground between the world’s superpower and the world’s people. Under the constant pressure of American demands, the United Nations alone was positioned to make an informed judgment as to what should happen next. The United Nations alone had the authority to act where no nation has attacked another. If the time for war with Iraq had come, the United Nations would have known it and acted responsibly.
If the time for war did not come then we should all have been eternally grateful for the crisis would have been defused, diplomacy would have won the day, Iraq would have been disarmed peacefully, and the world would not have been hurling toward four decades of unending war and violence under the banners of freedom and security.
Jazz.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
INFANT NATION
FROM THE WAR CHRONICLES. DISSEMINATE FREELY.
By Jack Random
What could be more pathetic than the incessant lament of privileged white men condemning preferential treatment on the basis of race, if not the lament of successful black men and women who appear to have severed themselves from their cultural and ancestral roots?
It is symptomatic of a greater problem shared by all of America and consistently exploited by its congressional, judicial and executive leadership: Americans have pathologically short memories.
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.
Consider the psychological profile of an infant: An infant knows only the moment. Yesterday is ancient history. An infant remembers only the blow that struck, never the blow that preceded it. An infant believes that the universe revolves around her and only her. An infant’s emotions run no deeper than unconditional love and uncompromised rage. When an infant is harmed he strikes back. He is incapable of understanding the complexities of circumstance. To the infant there is no history. There is only now. The infant seeks immediate gratification and blind vengeance. There can be no middle ground. The infant believes that the soft stroke of the moment is eternal love and a terse rebuke cannot be differentiated from utter hatred. The infant relies on simple labels in place of a reasoned response to interpret events. In the voice of her parents “bad” becomes a moral imperative.
I submit that we are an infant nation. We believe what we are told. We rely on push button logic in place of reason. Our leaders create and offer labels that become the triggers to a guttural response. In the McCarthy era, those labels related to the Cold War enemy: communist, socialist, Marxist, red. In the era of mass media we are given a broader array of push button triggers: radical, liberal, Hollywood left, conspiracy theorist, tree hugger, anarchist, actor, extremist. The purpose of these labels is to short circuit the logical process and supplant it with a conditioned reaction based on raw emotion. Thus, when the environmentalist is called a tree hugger, the conditioned response labels her un-American. When the activist is called an extremist, he is labeled unpatriotic.
Our leaders rely on the assumption that Americans have short memories and, to a large extent, the assumption is correct. On the matter of Vietnam, Americans tend to consider it ancient history though the world will tell us it was only yesterday. When we consider it at all, we lament that our soldiers were not well received or that we lost the war. Any reasoned analysis of that tragic, misbegotten war must conclude that the patriots were those who fought against an unjust war. It was the massive protests of the left – not the passive submission of a silent majority – that shortened the war and saved countless American and Vietnamese lives. Yet our leaders would have us believe that protest in a time of war is unpatriotic. Nothing could be more infantile.
Though history tells us that our leaders have habitually misled us when war or military action was involved, we continue to believe that they tell us only the truth. When our president proclaims that he has proof positive of the cause for war yet refuses to reveal it, we are expected to accede. We are expected to go along. We are told that our forces fight only for democracy when, in fact, our government has always preferred to support military dictatorships and right wing despotism. Yet we are expected to accede. We are told that we have always fought for peace though we have planted the seeds of war, creating circles of violence all over the world, with the intent of overthrowing and replacing the governments of sovereign nations. There is no corner of the planet where American interests have not attempted to exploit internal conflict.
I submit we are an infant nation. Once a year we are pledged to remember our soldiers who have died in war but we have never acknowledged the dead of our adversaries: four million Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians, four to five thousand Afghanis, one million Iraqis, uncounted thousands of Nicaraguans, Argentineans, Salvadorans, Columbians, Panamanians, Indonesians, on and on. We have given a solemn oath never to forget the three thousand Americans who died in a horribly misguided act of terror yet we are blind to the horrors we have wrought in nations less powerful than our own. We cry out for vengeance yet we fail to see that we are creating an endless cycle of violence that was, in fact, instigated by our own intervention in foreign affairs.
Does it matter that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attack? If this is about creating a model of democracy for the region, let us not forget that we have already conquered, occupied and promptly forgotten a nation in the region. If we wish to create a model of democracy let us do so in Afghanistan. Let us rebuild a country we have devastated. If this is about weapons of mass destruction, let us first look to our own stockpiles. Let us next look to North Korea and Pakistan. Without oil in the equation it defies reason to attack a nation already defeated in war.
But we are an infant nation. We cannot be expected to find the path of peace. It is difficult to make peace. It requires true compassion built on a foundation of knowledge, tolerance and understanding. It requires digging deeper than hatred and characterizing those who oppose us as evil beings devoted to evil deeds. It is much easier to cry vengeance, to paint everything in black and white, to raise the flag and set the blinders: God, country, rock and roll! It is much easier to make war – unless you are chosen to fight it. It is a crime against humanity that those who must fight and die in war are those least capable of understanding why: the poor, disadvantaged and poorly educated.
I submit we are an infant nation and infants never see the faults of their parents. George W. Bush is the perfect president for this endless “war” on terror. He has little knowledge of world history. He has little understanding of world dynamics. He is incapable of compassion because he clearly believes his own platitudes. He believes that Osama bin Laden and his followers were born hating America. He believes in the Holy War. He believes in the Crusades. He believes that “evil doers” hate us because we are free, because we have McDonalds and Sunday football and wealthy oil companies that hand deliver the American dream to the sons of CIA directors. He does not know what his father did in the Middle East when he was in charge of intelligence. He does not know what his father bargained to make his son Commander In Chief.
I submit we are an infant nation led by an infant king. Jeb had the brains but W had the attributes that counted. He does not ask questions. He does not need nor can he profit from lengthy explanations. He is a “bottom line man.” He was never trained to think for himself. He had no interest in history or international affairs. Point him the way, tell him what to say, watch him swagger, wink and stammer. George W is the man of the hour. George W is the answer to the question: Why didn’t anyone notice when Ronald Reagan’s mind slipped away? The answer: He was not necessary to the policy-making government.
I submit we are an infant nation and nothing is more dangerous than a child who believes he can bend the world to its knees.
I submit we are an infant nation but we are showing signs of growing up. There are times when even a child can rise to the occasion. We are no longer so easily fooled. We are slowly finding the courage and independence required to question our elders, to question the policies of our government. Even now, only two years after the tragedy of September 11, many of us have found our voices. We demand a concrete reason before we destroy another country in the name of democracy. We question the validity of a policy of preemptive strike. We question the doctrine of perpetual world supremacy. We question the motives of a government dominated by oil interests. We question the need for innocent civilian deaths. We question the need for sending our soldiers to war – perhaps to die in combat, perhaps to die from chemical, biological or plutonium poisoning. We wonder why we have lost the trail of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. We wonder why we no longer seem to care.
It may well be that we as a people are growing up faster than our leaders thought possible. In the Enron scandal, the energy crisis, the election frauds, the tax relief scam, the deregulation schemes and so many other disturbing events, we have peeked behind the curtain that hides the real workings of our government. The more you say it is not about oil, the more we are certain it is.
It is the enduring shame of our government that a popular uprising of unprecedented proportions could not stop the relentless march to war but it will be our shame if we do not stop the march to empire. They lied to justify this war just as they lied to justify Vietnam. If the people do not heed the lesson, they will surely lie again. Ultimately, our leaders must have our consent to continue on the path of destruction.
There will likely be an election between Iraq and the next invasion. If we fail to defeat this president, we will have sanctioned the Bush push to empire. Only a small child could believe that this cause is truly righteous. Let us not be fooled again. Let 2004 be the year America grew up.
Jazz.
By Jack Random
What could be more pathetic than the incessant lament of privileged white men condemning preferential treatment on the basis of race, if not the lament of successful black men and women who appear to have severed themselves from their cultural and ancestral roots?
It is symptomatic of a greater problem shared by all of America and consistently exploited by its congressional, judicial and executive leadership: Americans have pathologically short memories.
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.
Consider the psychological profile of an infant: An infant knows only the moment. Yesterday is ancient history. An infant remembers only the blow that struck, never the blow that preceded it. An infant believes that the universe revolves around her and only her. An infant’s emotions run no deeper than unconditional love and uncompromised rage. When an infant is harmed he strikes back. He is incapable of understanding the complexities of circumstance. To the infant there is no history. There is only now. The infant seeks immediate gratification and blind vengeance. There can be no middle ground. The infant believes that the soft stroke of the moment is eternal love and a terse rebuke cannot be differentiated from utter hatred. The infant relies on simple labels in place of a reasoned response to interpret events. In the voice of her parents “bad” becomes a moral imperative.
I submit that we are an infant nation. We believe what we are told. We rely on push button logic in place of reason. Our leaders create and offer labels that become the triggers to a guttural response. In the McCarthy era, those labels related to the Cold War enemy: communist, socialist, Marxist, red. In the era of mass media we are given a broader array of push button triggers: radical, liberal, Hollywood left, conspiracy theorist, tree hugger, anarchist, actor, extremist. The purpose of these labels is to short circuit the logical process and supplant it with a conditioned reaction based on raw emotion. Thus, when the environmentalist is called a tree hugger, the conditioned response labels her un-American. When the activist is called an extremist, he is labeled unpatriotic.
Our leaders rely on the assumption that Americans have short memories and, to a large extent, the assumption is correct. On the matter of Vietnam, Americans tend to consider it ancient history though the world will tell us it was only yesterday. When we consider it at all, we lament that our soldiers were not well received or that we lost the war. Any reasoned analysis of that tragic, misbegotten war must conclude that the patriots were those who fought against an unjust war. It was the massive protests of the left – not the passive submission of a silent majority – that shortened the war and saved countless American and Vietnamese lives. Yet our leaders would have us believe that protest in a time of war is unpatriotic. Nothing could be more infantile.
Though history tells us that our leaders have habitually misled us when war or military action was involved, we continue to believe that they tell us only the truth. When our president proclaims that he has proof positive of the cause for war yet refuses to reveal it, we are expected to accede. We are expected to go along. We are told that our forces fight only for democracy when, in fact, our government has always preferred to support military dictatorships and right wing despotism. Yet we are expected to accede. We are told that we have always fought for peace though we have planted the seeds of war, creating circles of violence all over the world, with the intent of overthrowing and replacing the governments of sovereign nations. There is no corner of the planet where American interests have not attempted to exploit internal conflict.
I submit we are an infant nation. Once a year we are pledged to remember our soldiers who have died in war but we have never acknowledged the dead of our adversaries: four million Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians, four to five thousand Afghanis, one million Iraqis, uncounted thousands of Nicaraguans, Argentineans, Salvadorans, Columbians, Panamanians, Indonesians, on and on. We have given a solemn oath never to forget the three thousand Americans who died in a horribly misguided act of terror yet we are blind to the horrors we have wrought in nations less powerful than our own. We cry out for vengeance yet we fail to see that we are creating an endless cycle of violence that was, in fact, instigated by our own intervention in foreign affairs.
Does it matter that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attack? If this is about creating a model of democracy for the region, let us not forget that we have already conquered, occupied and promptly forgotten a nation in the region. If we wish to create a model of democracy let us do so in Afghanistan. Let us rebuild a country we have devastated. If this is about weapons of mass destruction, let us first look to our own stockpiles. Let us next look to North Korea and Pakistan. Without oil in the equation it defies reason to attack a nation already defeated in war.
But we are an infant nation. We cannot be expected to find the path of peace. It is difficult to make peace. It requires true compassion built on a foundation of knowledge, tolerance and understanding. It requires digging deeper than hatred and characterizing those who oppose us as evil beings devoted to evil deeds. It is much easier to cry vengeance, to paint everything in black and white, to raise the flag and set the blinders: God, country, rock and roll! It is much easier to make war – unless you are chosen to fight it. It is a crime against humanity that those who must fight and die in war are those least capable of understanding why: the poor, disadvantaged and poorly educated.
I submit we are an infant nation and infants never see the faults of their parents. George W. Bush is the perfect president for this endless “war” on terror. He has little knowledge of world history. He has little understanding of world dynamics. He is incapable of compassion because he clearly believes his own platitudes. He believes that Osama bin Laden and his followers were born hating America. He believes in the Holy War. He believes in the Crusades. He believes that “evil doers” hate us because we are free, because we have McDonalds and Sunday football and wealthy oil companies that hand deliver the American dream to the sons of CIA directors. He does not know what his father did in the Middle East when he was in charge of intelligence. He does not know what his father bargained to make his son Commander In Chief.
I submit we are an infant nation led by an infant king. Jeb had the brains but W had the attributes that counted. He does not ask questions. He does not need nor can he profit from lengthy explanations. He is a “bottom line man.” He was never trained to think for himself. He had no interest in history or international affairs. Point him the way, tell him what to say, watch him swagger, wink and stammer. George W is the man of the hour. George W is the answer to the question: Why didn’t anyone notice when Ronald Reagan’s mind slipped away? The answer: He was not necessary to the policy-making government.
I submit we are an infant nation and nothing is more dangerous than a child who believes he can bend the world to its knees.
I submit we are an infant nation but we are showing signs of growing up. There are times when even a child can rise to the occasion. We are no longer so easily fooled. We are slowly finding the courage and independence required to question our elders, to question the policies of our government. Even now, only two years after the tragedy of September 11, many of us have found our voices. We demand a concrete reason before we destroy another country in the name of democracy. We question the validity of a policy of preemptive strike. We question the doctrine of perpetual world supremacy. We question the motives of a government dominated by oil interests. We question the need for innocent civilian deaths. We question the need for sending our soldiers to war – perhaps to die in combat, perhaps to die from chemical, biological or plutonium poisoning. We wonder why we have lost the trail of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. We wonder why we no longer seem to care.
It may well be that we as a people are growing up faster than our leaders thought possible. In the Enron scandal, the energy crisis, the election frauds, the tax relief scam, the deregulation schemes and so many other disturbing events, we have peeked behind the curtain that hides the real workings of our government. The more you say it is not about oil, the more we are certain it is.
It is the enduring shame of our government that a popular uprising of unprecedented proportions could not stop the relentless march to war but it will be our shame if we do not stop the march to empire. They lied to justify this war just as they lied to justify Vietnam. If the people do not heed the lesson, they will surely lie again. Ultimately, our leaders must have our consent to continue on the path of destruction.
There will likely be an election between Iraq and the next invasion. If we fail to defeat this president, we will have sanctioned the Bush push to empire. Only a small child could believe that this cause is truly righteous. Let us not be fooled again. Let 2004 be the year America grew up.
Jazz.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
COLD WAR RESURRECTION
FROM THE WAR CHRONICLES. DISSEMINATE FREELY.
By Jack Random
In the weeks preceding our preemptive strike on Iraq, our president begrudgingly appealed to the United Nations, inspectors reentered Iraq and they were greeted by a great deal of cooperation. In the days before the invasion, Iraqi officials were destroying the Al Sammoud missiles (marginally in violation of the 1991 disarmament accords). The destruction of the missiles (perhaps their only line of defense against the forces amassed on their borders) was not enough to ward off the attack. With the benefit of hindsight, there was nothing the Iraqis could have done. The entire process was a façade, a war dance, and a prelude to the inevitable.
We now know the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. We know the war was not related to Al Qaeda or the war against terrorism. We know it was not in retaliation for the attack of September 11, 2001. Well into the occupation, as our president has supplanted Ariel Sharon as the most despised leader in the Arab-Islamic world, we are left wondering why. Through the process of elimination, there are two interrelated reasons: First, the importance of oil to an oil president. Second, a vision of the world by so-called “neo-conservatives.”
Let us understand what this vision really is. It is a vision of endless war. It is the vision of a nation so obsessed that the preparations for the next war are in place before the first missile is fired. As vice president Dick Cheney said in the wake of September 11, it is a commitment to forty years of war – a prediction that deliberately and cynically parallels the duration of the Cold War.
To appreciate the scope and horror of this vision, we must revisit the four decades between the end of World War II and the fall of the Soviet empire for these Bush visionaries are the philosophical descendents of the Cold Warriors.
At the onset, understand that the Cold War was never cold. It cost the lives of over 100,000 American soldiers and literally millions of the indigenous peoples of Asia (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines), Latin America (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, Columbia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Argentina, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic), Africa (Zaire, Libya, Angola), the Middle East (Lebanon, Iran, Iraq) and elsewhere. The American Cold Warriors recruited, trained, armed and financed the terrorists that now plague much of the world.
The Cold War is a legacy of death, destruction and oppression in the name of freedom. Its culmination was Vietnam, a nation upon which we unleashed a destructive force unrivaled in world history. Yet the Vietnamese did not surrender. They are arguably the bravest people known to humanity, having survived the successive invasions of foreign powers and the most awesome military force on earth.
The great lesson of Vietnam was not only that we were wrong, that we sacrificed millions of lives for an abstraction (Communism and the Domino Theory), but that we could not conquer a people without winning their hearts and minds. We were not the liberators we were supposed to be. We were conquerors. As Daniel Ellsberg put it, we were not on the wrong side; we were the wrong side.
How strange it was, then, after the conclusion of the first Gulf War, for an American president to proclaim that “the specter of Vietnam” had been “lifted forever.” It was clear the American government had not learned the lesson of Vietnam. Perhaps these right wing ideologues secretly lament that we did not drop the big one on Saigon. Perhaps they believe their own propaganda: that the Cold War led to the collapse of Communism.
When the Soviet Union fell it was, above all, a lesson in economics. A state sponsored economy, under an oppressive and corrupt government, was not strong enough to support a system that dedicated more than half of its wealth to military spending. We are now in a position to learn whether or not a free market economy, under an increasingly oppressive and corrupt government, is capable of supporting a similar imbalance between domestic and military spending.
There was a time when our economy was predominantly industrial. Much of that industry – manufacturing, oil and steel – could be directed to the war effort. War was therefore considered a boon to the economy. The new economy, however, is increasingly based on technology. While technology can and does serve the military, its greater application is in the service and information fields. Only a fraction of the new economy benefits from perpetual war and many of them reside in the government, counseling our oil wealthy president. The economy as a whole will suffer from a prolonged economic slump and an alienated world market. In the new economic world order, peace and good will are our best allies.
The Cold Warriors of the Bush administration yearn for war at all costs to the general populace. Having disproved the Domino Theory, they wish to test a new theory of free-market dominance and an American controlled New World Order, but if they are wrong, it may well result in economic collapse.
The Cold Warriors desire an enemy that will rival the propaganda value of the Communist beast. In the war on terror, they will be the ones to determine who is a terrorist and who is not. It is already clear they have decided that Palestinians are terrorists. They are lining up potential enemies throughout the Arab world. Who will be next? Syria? Iran? Libya? Or will we shift hemispheres and resume our Latin American operations? Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba?
It is not for those who oppose the war machine to defend those nations destined for invasion or subversion (though many are worthy of defense) any more than it is incumbent on the proponents of war to defend such allies as Pakistan, Israel, Columbia or Saudi Arabia. It is rather for us all to recognize that the vision the Bush administration is offering is a nightmare of unending destruction.
The Iraqi invasion was not a battle of virtue or principle. It was a prelude to decades of war. It was not a war for democracy. It was a war for dominance. In the vernacular, it is a war America can never win for we lost the battle for hearts and minds at its inception. America has neither the right nor the means to control the resources of the planet. America cannot and should not impose its will on the peoples of the world for the people will never submit.
We must finally come to terms with the fact that we are but one nation and that our wisdom is no greater and our god is no greater than that of any other nation. Though we have come to possess power and wealth beyond the world’s imagining, our greatest strength has always been our virtue.
As a nation, we have never had to face the full consequences of our actions. As a people, we have been protected by our government and its propaganda machine. To this day, there are those who believe that a crazed gunman killed our most promising president. To this day, there are those who believe that the Vietnam War, the bombing of Cambodia, and the invasions of Cuba, Panama and tiny Grenada were justified. To this day, there are those who refuse to believe that America sponsored and trained terrorists in the Middle East, Latin America and throughout the world. To this day, there are those who believe that the genocide on our own soil was the manifestation of a Christian god.
Unless we finally come to terms with the crimes of our past we cannot begin to understand the dangers we now confront. We are a nation that desires empire. Those who have studied history already know how it ends. This is the vision of the Cold Warriors as it was the vision of the ancient warriors of Rome. This is their collective promise to the world: An endless cycle of violence, where every act of terror is answered by another, where every voice of dissent is considered treason and every nation that opposes is considered an enemy. Is it any wonder the world has risen against us?
Wake up, America. Wake up before these lords of war and avarice steal our nation’s soul. We are still a free nation of proud and virtuous citizens. Now, at the time of greatest need, let us rally that pride and steady our resolve to change the course of history. Americans have no desire to control or dominate the world. Let us elect new leaders who share our vision, who will bury the doctrines of first strike and world dominance, and who regard our fellow beings in this world with respect and tolerance.
Jazz.
By Jack Random
In the weeks preceding our preemptive strike on Iraq, our president begrudgingly appealed to the United Nations, inspectors reentered Iraq and they were greeted by a great deal of cooperation. In the days before the invasion, Iraqi officials were destroying the Al Sammoud missiles (marginally in violation of the 1991 disarmament accords). The destruction of the missiles (perhaps their only line of defense against the forces amassed on their borders) was not enough to ward off the attack. With the benefit of hindsight, there was nothing the Iraqis could have done. The entire process was a façade, a war dance, and a prelude to the inevitable.
We now know the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. We know the war was not related to Al Qaeda or the war against terrorism. We know it was not in retaliation for the attack of September 11, 2001. Well into the occupation, as our president has supplanted Ariel Sharon as the most despised leader in the Arab-Islamic world, we are left wondering why. Through the process of elimination, there are two interrelated reasons: First, the importance of oil to an oil president. Second, a vision of the world by so-called “neo-conservatives.”
Let us understand what this vision really is. It is a vision of endless war. It is the vision of a nation so obsessed that the preparations for the next war are in place before the first missile is fired. As vice president Dick Cheney said in the wake of September 11, it is a commitment to forty years of war – a prediction that deliberately and cynically parallels the duration of the Cold War.
To appreciate the scope and horror of this vision, we must revisit the four decades between the end of World War II and the fall of the Soviet empire for these Bush visionaries are the philosophical descendents of the Cold Warriors.
At the onset, understand that the Cold War was never cold. It cost the lives of over 100,000 American soldiers and literally millions of the indigenous peoples of Asia (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines), Latin America (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, Columbia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Argentina, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic), Africa (Zaire, Libya, Angola), the Middle East (Lebanon, Iran, Iraq) and elsewhere. The American Cold Warriors recruited, trained, armed and financed the terrorists that now plague much of the world.
The Cold War is a legacy of death, destruction and oppression in the name of freedom. Its culmination was Vietnam, a nation upon which we unleashed a destructive force unrivaled in world history. Yet the Vietnamese did not surrender. They are arguably the bravest people known to humanity, having survived the successive invasions of foreign powers and the most awesome military force on earth.
The great lesson of Vietnam was not only that we were wrong, that we sacrificed millions of lives for an abstraction (Communism and the Domino Theory), but that we could not conquer a people without winning their hearts and minds. We were not the liberators we were supposed to be. We were conquerors. As Daniel Ellsberg put it, we were not on the wrong side; we were the wrong side.
How strange it was, then, after the conclusion of the first Gulf War, for an American president to proclaim that “the specter of Vietnam” had been “lifted forever.” It was clear the American government had not learned the lesson of Vietnam. Perhaps these right wing ideologues secretly lament that we did not drop the big one on Saigon. Perhaps they believe their own propaganda: that the Cold War led to the collapse of Communism.
When the Soviet Union fell it was, above all, a lesson in economics. A state sponsored economy, under an oppressive and corrupt government, was not strong enough to support a system that dedicated more than half of its wealth to military spending. We are now in a position to learn whether or not a free market economy, under an increasingly oppressive and corrupt government, is capable of supporting a similar imbalance between domestic and military spending.
There was a time when our economy was predominantly industrial. Much of that industry – manufacturing, oil and steel – could be directed to the war effort. War was therefore considered a boon to the economy. The new economy, however, is increasingly based on technology. While technology can and does serve the military, its greater application is in the service and information fields. Only a fraction of the new economy benefits from perpetual war and many of them reside in the government, counseling our oil wealthy president. The economy as a whole will suffer from a prolonged economic slump and an alienated world market. In the new economic world order, peace and good will are our best allies.
The Cold Warriors of the Bush administration yearn for war at all costs to the general populace. Having disproved the Domino Theory, they wish to test a new theory of free-market dominance and an American controlled New World Order, but if they are wrong, it may well result in economic collapse.
The Cold Warriors desire an enemy that will rival the propaganda value of the Communist beast. In the war on terror, they will be the ones to determine who is a terrorist and who is not. It is already clear they have decided that Palestinians are terrorists. They are lining up potential enemies throughout the Arab world. Who will be next? Syria? Iran? Libya? Or will we shift hemispheres and resume our Latin American operations? Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba?
It is not for those who oppose the war machine to defend those nations destined for invasion or subversion (though many are worthy of defense) any more than it is incumbent on the proponents of war to defend such allies as Pakistan, Israel, Columbia or Saudi Arabia. It is rather for us all to recognize that the vision the Bush administration is offering is a nightmare of unending destruction.
The Iraqi invasion was not a battle of virtue or principle. It was a prelude to decades of war. It was not a war for democracy. It was a war for dominance. In the vernacular, it is a war America can never win for we lost the battle for hearts and minds at its inception. America has neither the right nor the means to control the resources of the planet. America cannot and should not impose its will on the peoples of the world for the people will never submit.
We must finally come to terms with the fact that we are but one nation and that our wisdom is no greater and our god is no greater than that of any other nation. Though we have come to possess power and wealth beyond the world’s imagining, our greatest strength has always been our virtue.
As a nation, we have never had to face the full consequences of our actions. As a people, we have been protected by our government and its propaganda machine. To this day, there are those who believe that a crazed gunman killed our most promising president. To this day, there are those who believe that the Vietnam War, the bombing of Cambodia, and the invasions of Cuba, Panama and tiny Grenada were justified. To this day, there are those who refuse to believe that America sponsored and trained terrorists in the Middle East, Latin America and throughout the world. To this day, there are those who believe that the genocide on our own soil was the manifestation of a Christian god.
Unless we finally come to terms with the crimes of our past we cannot begin to understand the dangers we now confront. We are a nation that desires empire. Those who have studied history already know how it ends. This is the vision of the Cold Warriors as it was the vision of the ancient warriors of Rome. This is their collective promise to the world: An endless cycle of violence, where every act of terror is answered by another, where every voice of dissent is considered treason and every nation that opposes is considered an enemy. Is it any wonder the world has risen against us?
Wake up, America. Wake up before these lords of war and avarice steal our nation’s soul. We are still a free nation of proud and virtuous citizens. Now, at the time of greatest need, let us rally that pride and steady our resolve to change the course of history. Americans have no desire to control or dominate the world. Let us elect new leaders who share our vision, who will bury the doctrines of first strike and world dominance, and who regard our fellow beings in this world with respect and tolerance.
Jazz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)