A REASONED ALTERNATIVE
By Jack Random
The extreme right wing of the Republican Party has been able to capture power, implementing policies of corporate cronyism, unlimited tax cuts for the corporate elite, privatization of social institutions, subversion of environmental protection and civil liberties, deliberate neglect of the social safety net, and the unbridled use of military force in place of diplomacy, largely because they have formed a solid base among the evangelical right and the single-issue advocates of the second amendment (the right to bear arms).
While it would appear irrational to reduce the complex questions of our times to a single, red-button issue, the fact is we all have them. In the recent election, for millions of Americans, the war in Iraq was just such an issue. For me, the sovereignty rights of American Indians come very close. For dedicated environmentalists, the Arctic Wildlife Reserve or the Kyoto Accords may be a deciding issue.
We should not be so quick to deride as simplistic those whose hot-button issues are abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, school prayer or stem cell research. We may and often do vehemently object to their positions on these issues but we should not discount the conviction with which they are held.
The progressive response to these issues has generally been to sidestep them, to point out that they are wedge issues, designed to polarize the electorate and distract us from the “real” issues that more directly affect our lives. Democrats seem to feel that it is sufficient to use key words (faith, values, God) but, in the end, the faithful are not converted and the amber waves are a sea of red.
There is another way.
It is frequently observed that, despite all the electoral rhetoric, little seems to change on the wedge issues regardless of which party controls the government. During eight years of Democratic governance, the most that could be accomplished on gun control was the feckless Brady Bill, an assault weapons ban easily circumvented by weapons peddlers. The most direct result of the Brady Bill was a dramatic rise in the sale of the banned weapons before the ban took effect.
On the issue of abortion rights, it is richly ironic that abortions went down every year of the Clinton administration, a pattern that was reversed under his Republican successor. After two full years of a Republican dominated government, the only significant legislation was a ban on late-term abortions, a law that is controversial only because of its legal vagueness and its refusal to exempt cases of incest, rape and the imperiled safety of the mother.
It is time to begin engaging the wedge issues, beginning with abortion.
The question of terminology on the issue of abortion rights is more than rhetorical or academic. If you are pro-life, then you must be pro-environment and antiwar. If you are pro-life, you must be opposed to weapon systems and unbridled military spending. If you are pro-life, you must advocate strict gun control. If you are pro-life, you must oppose capital punishment. If you are pro-life, the life of the mother must give you pause and it is an extraordinary stretch not to support stem cell research, which holds the promise of life for millions.
If you are all of these, then you may well call yourself “pro-life” but if your position on life issues is less clear, then you are anti-abortion.
It does not follow, however, that those on the opposing side are pro-abortion. When the question of abortion presents itself in the life of a woman or a girl, it is invariably tragic. It is a world of sorrow and despair, which can only be compounded, sorrow upon sorrow, when the choice is denied. This is not an abstraction. Women have lived in a world without legal choice. The horrors of that world are why so many women are determined that we should never return.
Who is more pro-abortion: Those who would offer education, condoms and unhindered access to the care of health professionals or those who pretend that abstinence is the only choice? Why is it so important to define life at conception when stem cell research offers such promise? Because an open and honest education, along with the availability of the morning after pill, could reduce mid and late term abortions to a bare minimum.
Where would the Republicans be then?
It is, of course, not within our power to ban abortion or stem cell research. We can only make it more difficult and costly. The world will carry on with promising research regardless of American participation. If we were to ban stem cell research in America, our best researchers would migrate to other nations. If we ban abortion, we would return to the days of illicit abortions for the poor and Canadian abortions for the better off.
On the issue of gay marriage, in an apparent last-minute change of heart, the president assumed the position of his Democratic rival: that same-sex couples should be accorded all the legal rights and protections as heterosexual couples. Where does that leave the Constitutional Amendment: In the land of smoke and mirrors.
To turn the issue on its head, why is it so important to the gay community to embrace the concept of marriage? As a secular progressive, I am uncertain that I support the concept of heterosexual marriage. Should a couple be compelled by social pressures to enter a union that binds them to a legal code of conduct and accountability? Of course, people should be able to marry if they choose, but as a social institution, I am ambivalent at best.
It should be sufficient that any two people (or three or four…) should be able to enter any sort of legal arrangement they find to their liking. No coupling should be denied any rights or privileges accorded other arrangements. In fact, society-at-large should have absolutely nothing to say about the matter as long as it does not, in a real and tangible way, do harm to any individual. It is beyond me why this battle must be fought on the grounds of an antiquated religious institution.
It is time to get smart.
We should realize that, outside of the radical fringe, the wedge issues are raised only at election time. It is the Republican interest to maintain these issues rather than to affect real change, yet the progressive response of evasion, obfuscation and patronization has been ineffectual at best.
There is another way.
The progressive response to the wedge issues should be this: While we respectfully and deeply disagree, we are willing to fight it out on the public forum. Moreover, though both parties in this great cultural divide may disagree, we all believe in democracy. Let the battle be waged on the public airwaves, let both sides be heard, and let the people decide.
It is time to give direct democracy a chance. It is the rightful role of leadership in a democracy to inform and persuade the people as to the righteousness of their cause. Let us have our day and let the chips fall where they may.
Within the confines of a judiciary charged with protecting the fundamental rights of all our citizens, let the people decide by national referendum. Let it be clear that no referendum can overrule the constitution, yet there are many issues that can be settled:
Whether an assault weapons ban and compulsory registration (in a time of terrorism) should be extended to gun shows,
Whether a mother’s safety, rape and incest, should be considered in the availability of legal abortion,
Whether stem cell research should enjoy the unrestricted funding of our government,
Whether the unions of gay and lesbian couples should be afforded equal protection under the law.
I believe that the people will stand strong for the common sense protection and civil liberties of all Americans. Even if they do not, I would consider the mandate of the people a stronger basis for social change than the manipulations of cynical politicians. Moreover, the wedge issues would be effectively disempowered in the process of electing our national leaders.
Jazz.
JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). HE IS A REGULAR CONTRIBUTOR ON BUZZLE.COM.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
THE FIX
DEMOCRACY BETRAYED
By Jack Random
In the wake of the 2004 presidential election, the bold defenders of the Electoral College cannot suddenly fall back on the popular vote to assert the validity of the result.
The Electoral College is an affront to every individual, red-blue or gray, who believes in the principles of democracy but this election was fought in the battleground states because both sides agreed to play by the rules of the game.
On May 4, 1970, the counterculture of the late sixties was forced underground and the mass protest movement was effectively assassinated when four students at Kent State University in Ohio were gunned down by the National Guard. Ten days later, two more were gunned down at Jackson State in Mississippi. The administration of Richard Nixon (the man who so inspired Governor Schwarzenegger) had served notice: There is a price to pay for exercising your freedom of speech and that price may be your life. It was an act of terror and a betrayal of fundamental liberty so brazen it deserves no other title than treasonous.
Thirty-four years later, in the critical state of Ohio, the state that decided the presidential election, something stinks to high Heaven and the cry of treason is on the breath of every true believer, red-blue or gray.
Voting machines unaccountably cast thousands of votes for the president where no votes existed. In key counties, election monitors from the press were barred from observing the proceedings (allegedly the result of a government issued terror alert), while boxes of mail-in ballots went uncounted or simply disappeared. In precincts with registered voters in the hundreds, thousands of votes were recorded. In nearly all cases, the “error rate” decidedly favored the president. As any beginning student of statistics knows, “error” that consistently favors one result over another is not error at all: It is known as bias and, in the case of electoral politics, it is known as the fix.
CNN’s exit polls showed John Kerry winning Ohio by 53 to 47 percent among women and 51 to 49 percent among men. Unless there was an extraordinary turnout among the gender-neutral, something was rotten on Election Day.
Contrary to the cursory explanations given by the exit pollsters, random sampling is not guesswork. It is the foundation of the scientific method and its track record is rock solid. If the numbers were off by such an astounding margin, it cannot be rationalized by random error.
In the name of democracy, we must demand to see the raw data, the methodology and techniques for sampling. There can be no defense of shielding this information from objective review that is not corrupt to the core. It is in the compelling interest of every American to know beyond all doubt that our democracy is in working order. At the very least, we can be certain that a great many operatives were engaged in a conscious effort to defraud this election. We must demand an investigation that will uncover the offenders. We must demand that they be prosecuted and sentenced to the full extent of democracy’s righteous wrath.
John Kerry was wrong to concede the election before every vote was counted and every vote was accounted for. Once again, the Democratic Party was complicit in the betrayal of democracy. Once again, we must ask: What are you afraid of? Were the Democrats also guilty of conspiracy to defraud an election?
If the price of defending democracy is the appearance of a poor loser, the choice should be clear to any individual of conscience.
Once again, we may never actually know who won this election but we do know who lost: We, the people, lost. When the Parties are at play, the people lose every time and that is a result we can all mourn as one.
Jazz.
By Jack Random
In the wake of the 2004 presidential election, the bold defenders of the Electoral College cannot suddenly fall back on the popular vote to assert the validity of the result.
The Electoral College is an affront to every individual, red-blue or gray, who believes in the principles of democracy but this election was fought in the battleground states because both sides agreed to play by the rules of the game.
On May 4, 1970, the counterculture of the late sixties was forced underground and the mass protest movement was effectively assassinated when four students at Kent State University in Ohio were gunned down by the National Guard. Ten days later, two more were gunned down at Jackson State in Mississippi. The administration of Richard Nixon (the man who so inspired Governor Schwarzenegger) had served notice: There is a price to pay for exercising your freedom of speech and that price may be your life. It was an act of terror and a betrayal of fundamental liberty so brazen it deserves no other title than treasonous.
Thirty-four years later, in the critical state of Ohio, the state that decided the presidential election, something stinks to high Heaven and the cry of treason is on the breath of every true believer, red-blue or gray.
Voting machines unaccountably cast thousands of votes for the president where no votes existed. In key counties, election monitors from the press were barred from observing the proceedings (allegedly the result of a government issued terror alert), while boxes of mail-in ballots went uncounted or simply disappeared. In precincts with registered voters in the hundreds, thousands of votes were recorded. In nearly all cases, the “error rate” decidedly favored the president. As any beginning student of statistics knows, “error” that consistently favors one result over another is not error at all: It is known as bias and, in the case of electoral politics, it is known as the fix.
CNN’s exit polls showed John Kerry winning Ohio by 53 to 47 percent among women and 51 to 49 percent among men. Unless there was an extraordinary turnout among the gender-neutral, something was rotten on Election Day.
Contrary to the cursory explanations given by the exit pollsters, random sampling is not guesswork. It is the foundation of the scientific method and its track record is rock solid. If the numbers were off by such an astounding margin, it cannot be rationalized by random error.
In the name of democracy, we must demand to see the raw data, the methodology and techniques for sampling. There can be no defense of shielding this information from objective review that is not corrupt to the core. It is in the compelling interest of every American to know beyond all doubt that our democracy is in working order. At the very least, we can be certain that a great many operatives were engaged in a conscious effort to defraud this election. We must demand an investigation that will uncover the offenders. We must demand that they be prosecuted and sentenced to the full extent of democracy’s righteous wrath.
John Kerry was wrong to concede the election before every vote was counted and every vote was accounted for. Once again, the Democratic Party was complicit in the betrayal of democracy. Once again, we must ask: What are you afraid of? Were the Democrats also guilty of conspiracy to defraud an election?
If the price of defending democracy is the appearance of a poor loser, the choice should be clear to any individual of conscience.
Once again, we may never actually know who won this election but we do know who lost: We, the people, lost. When the Parties are at play, the people lose every time and that is a result we can all mourn as one.
Jazz.
Monday, November 08, 2004
THE BUSH BLUES
AND HOW TO GET OVER IT
By Michael D. Caine
George Bush has squeaked out the most narrow of victories by using the same tactics that the Nazi’s and Communists built their power with: the big lie and pounding propaganda. The Neo Conservatives will try to solidify their control with ruthless extension of the same tactics. There is no logic in his position but Bush is claiming a mandate. Why are the media not scoffing at that attempt? It’s not an unusual position for a re-elected President but in light the narrowness of the two victories that have brought him to power and sustained him there, it is mere hubris to make the claim of mandate, but hubris is Bush’s most important trait. The truth is he and the neo-conservatives are trying to do what Hitler did, magnify their power using the media lens to make his victory appear like a landslide. Now he will hide the truth by simply ignoring and omitting it and fill in the empty spaces in the history of this election with spin.
We have watched G.W. and his puppet masters do the unthinkable but we can’t take only negative lessons from this defeat. We have learned the strength of our opposition. The Republican Party had more volunteers, they were devoted to G.W., and what they perceive him as representing. His supporters believe in him like they believe in God. I had a boss that invited everyone into his office each morning to pray. In the middle of one of those prayers he looked up at a picture of Bush and with tears in his eyes said, “I love that man.” He is not alone.
We just saw our candidate get defeated by a team that is that devoted to their President. Give it to G.W., he never wavered from the ideas that got him elected the first time, and what he said and did immediately after 9/11 blocked the sunlight from exposing the dark side of his policies. When he and his followers are attacked, they respond with force. Forget the Gospels, they believe in the Old Testament stuff. “Eye for Eye” is the operative text. His followers fundamentally understand Bush and his actions feed into their beliefs. The linkage to the economy of any of his policies is beyond them. They are the faithful.
We lost because we didn’t have faith in our candidate; we were joined primarily in our opposition to the other candidate. We for the most part disagreed with our candidate’s stand on the war and the single most important issue in the campaign, as it turns out, was the war on terror and the two were allowed to be inextricably linked when in fact they are not. Kerry couldn’t explain what he would have done differently than Bush because in the beginning he voted for the President’s ability to wage the war. Ours was a candidate that came to fame fighting against a war he fought bravely in and to many that makes him a walking contradiction. His policies on this war could barely be distinguished from those of his opponent, and they differed only long after the fact. Kerry did, in fact, support the President’s ability to wage the war and pledged to support it’s continuation if he were elected because… well who knows?
We lost because we got out politicked. We couldn’t muster a single issue that rose to the importance of National Security and we offered up a candidate that had, in the final analysis, no credibility concerning that issue. We offered a candidate that stole his version of that issue from Howard Dean and then lost the election because he couldn’t run with it. We offered up a candidate that single mothers couldn’t vote for because they were afraid of new 9/11’s even though there has been only one of those and it’s been three years since it happened. We should have known this election was over when a week from the election the polls started showing those single mothers breaking for G.W.
We lost because we couldn’t see the forest for the trees even though the thing that hung us together was the forest. Blame Kerry if you want, and he should take a lion’s share of the blame for a strategy that emphasized his weaknesses, but we didn’t do what it took to get a real candidate onto the ticket. Why was that? That’s not Kerry’s fault. We have to start finding candidates that articulate our issues and have the backbone to stand up for them. The conservative issues are not winning the elections. Kerry led the polls on every issue except leadership in national security, but lost the election. We are losing these elections mainly because our spokesmen are inarticulate on the issues that are most important to us. That is what must change.
The Internet is turning out to be the best tool to get people together on the issues. We should stop worrying about what party someone with good ideas is a member of and ask only for the ability to articulate those ideas, and start supporting those candidates. Let’s just find the right people and support them because they are the right people. We need to get on the Internet and spread the word about these candidates. I’m not against the two party system so much as I am against excluding ideas before they are tested by argument. How can I find a serious liberal candidate for a real office? Where are the people that have better ideas? How do we find them? Where is the place to look for them? The Democratic Party may still be the best place to find viable candidates for liberals, but it is looking more and more like a conservative think tank. We need to change it or treat it as such, letting it split the conservative vote with the Republicans. If the two party system excludes debate on important issues and only elects conservative candidates, it must be destroyed. If Democrats can’t find electable candidates it is because they are too entrenched in a party that is out of touch with the electorate and incapable of finding it’s own base.
Progressives need to find the candidates that can stand at a podium and express ideas so right and powerful that they give the electorate Goosebumps. Our schools cannot turn out the scholars and skilled work force that a successful twenty first century economy will demand and will leave our children in the third world if it’s not rejuvenated. Our health care system is the best in the world for the rich and third world for the 35% who don’t have health insurance. It’s obvious that in the next 20 to 50 years our economy will be surpassed by the Chinese and Indians and the geo-political effects will be that we will no longer be able wield the economic club with impunity to effect policy, and our military will no longer be unchallenged. Manifest destiny is apt to be our downfall if we can’t find the leaders to adjust our current policies. We need to be seeking our allies in the next fight whether it’s economic, scientific, or military. We need to be finding common ground with others not excluding them, persuading not bullying and we should be learning from others not dictating to them. History doesn’t justify our greatness, as the conservatives want us to believe, it simply points the way to the future. Greatness is in the eye of the beholder not in our own. We need to find the leaders that can take us into the future with joy and grace; otherwise, the rightwing, neo-conservative warlords will drag us all there, screaming and yelling.
Contact: mikecaine@comcast.net
By Michael D. Caine
George Bush has squeaked out the most narrow of victories by using the same tactics that the Nazi’s and Communists built their power with: the big lie and pounding propaganda. The Neo Conservatives will try to solidify their control with ruthless extension of the same tactics. There is no logic in his position but Bush is claiming a mandate. Why are the media not scoffing at that attempt? It’s not an unusual position for a re-elected President but in light the narrowness of the two victories that have brought him to power and sustained him there, it is mere hubris to make the claim of mandate, but hubris is Bush’s most important trait. The truth is he and the neo-conservatives are trying to do what Hitler did, magnify their power using the media lens to make his victory appear like a landslide. Now he will hide the truth by simply ignoring and omitting it and fill in the empty spaces in the history of this election with spin.
We have watched G.W. and his puppet masters do the unthinkable but we can’t take only negative lessons from this defeat. We have learned the strength of our opposition. The Republican Party had more volunteers, they were devoted to G.W., and what they perceive him as representing. His supporters believe in him like they believe in God. I had a boss that invited everyone into his office each morning to pray. In the middle of one of those prayers he looked up at a picture of Bush and with tears in his eyes said, “I love that man.” He is not alone.
We just saw our candidate get defeated by a team that is that devoted to their President. Give it to G.W., he never wavered from the ideas that got him elected the first time, and what he said and did immediately after 9/11 blocked the sunlight from exposing the dark side of his policies. When he and his followers are attacked, they respond with force. Forget the Gospels, they believe in the Old Testament stuff. “Eye for Eye” is the operative text. His followers fundamentally understand Bush and his actions feed into their beliefs. The linkage to the economy of any of his policies is beyond them. They are the faithful.
We lost because we didn’t have faith in our candidate; we were joined primarily in our opposition to the other candidate. We for the most part disagreed with our candidate’s stand on the war and the single most important issue in the campaign, as it turns out, was the war on terror and the two were allowed to be inextricably linked when in fact they are not. Kerry couldn’t explain what he would have done differently than Bush because in the beginning he voted for the President’s ability to wage the war. Ours was a candidate that came to fame fighting against a war he fought bravely in and to many that makes him a walking contradiction. His policies on this war could barely be distinguished from those of his opponent, and they differed only long after the fact. Kerry did, in fact, support the President’s ability to wage the war and pledged to support it’s continuation if he were elected because… well who knows?
We lost because we got out politicked. We couldn’t muster a single issue that rose to the importance of National Security and we offered up a candidate that had, in the final analysis, no credibility concerning that issue. We offered a candidate that stole his version of that issue from Howard Dean and then lost the election because he couldn’t run with it. We offered up a candidate that single mothers couldn’t vote for because they were afraid of new 9/11’s even though there has been only one of those and it’s been three years since it happened. We should have known this election was over when a week from the election the polls started showing those single mothers breaking for G.W.
We lost because we couldn’t see the forest for the trees even though the thing that hung us together was the forest. Blame Kerry if you want, and he should take a lion’s share of the blame for a strategy that emphasized his weaknesses, but we didn’t do what it took to get a real candidate onto the ticket. Why was that? That’s not Kerry’s fault. We have to start finding candidates that articulate our issues and have the backbone to stand up for them. The conservative issues are not winning the elections. Kerry led the polls on every issue except leadership in national security, but lost the election. We are losing these elections mainly because our spokesmen are inarticulate on the issues that are most important to us. That is what must change.
The Internet is turning out to be the best tool to get people together on the issues. We should stop worrying about what party someone with good ideas is a member of and ask only for the ability to articulate those ideas, and start supporting those candidates. Let’s just find the right people and support them because they are the right people. We need to get on the Internet and spread the word about these candidates. I’m not against the two party system so much as I am against excluding ideas before they are tested by argument. How can I find a serious liberal candidate for a real office? Where are the people that have better ideas? How do we find them? Where is the place to look for them? The Democratic Party may still be the best place to find viable candidates for liberals, but it is looking more and more like a conservative think tank. We need to change it or treat it as such, letting it split the conservative vote with the Republicans. If the two party system excludes debate on important issues and only elects conservative candidates, it must be destroyed. If Democrats can’t find electable candidates it is because they are too entrenched in a party that is out of touch with the electorate and incapable of finding it’s own base.
Progressives need to find the candidates that can stand at a podium and express ideas so right and powerful that they give the electorate Goosebumps. Our schools cannot turn out the scholars and skilled work force that a successful twenty first century economy will demand and will leave our children in the third world if it’s not rejuvenated. Our health care system is the best in the world for the rich and third world for the 35% who don’t have health insurance. It’s obvious that in the next 20 to 50 years our economy will be surpassed by the Chinese and Indians and the geo-political effects will be that we will no longer be able wield the economic club with impunity to effect policy, and our military will no longer be unchallenged. Manifest destiny is apt to be our downfall if we can’t find the leaders to adjust our current policies. We need to be seeking our allies in the next fight whether it’s economic, scientific, or military. We need to be finding common ground with others not excluding them, persuading not bullying and we should be learning from others not dictating to them. History doesn’t justify our greatness, as the conservatives want us to believe, it simply points the way to the future. Greatness is in the eye of the beholder not in our own. We need to find the leaders that can take us into the future with joy and grace; otherwise, the rightwing, neo-conservative warlords will drag us all there, screaming and yelling.
Contact: mikecaine@comcast.net
Sunday, November 07, 2004
QUEST FOR HOPE, SEARCH FOR BLAME
By Jack Random
As the grim reality of the 2004 election settles in, we are torn between seeking blame and finding new direction, all in a desperate quest for that most illusive human treasure: hope.
The search for blame is a ritual of healing. In many ways, it is a useful endeavor for it may enable us to reconcile our understanding of reality with a completely incompatible result. In other ways, it is a harmful practice for it tends to divide us at a time when we need unity more than ever. The Democrats, having lost their favorite scapegoat in Ralph Nader, have begun pointing the finger of liability at gay rights and pro-choice activists. Having already turned their backs on the antiwar movement, they will resume the rightward migration that Bill Clinton championed.
The new reality is this: We can have no reasonable expectation that our dissent, however vocal and massive, will have any real impact on our elected leaders. For the next four years, the administration can claim, with documented validity, that a silent majority supports their cause regardless of the lies and deceptions, regardless of world opinion, regardless the mounting debt, and regardless the rising tide of blood for oil.
The stark, horrifying reality is this: Our collective voice of opposition to war, occupation and empire on the streets of America’s cities may actually produce the opposite effect in America’s heartland. It is no longer the Bush war; it is America’s war and the threat of terrorist attacks on this nation’s soil has grown exponentially.
Why then should we continue the struggle?
The answer must come from within.
In the days following the reelection of GW Bush, I have heard powerful and insightful voices from within the antiwar movement appeal to the esoteric. They speak of the Mayan calendar, the Hopi elders and the native prophecies that we are on the eve of an evolution in human consciousness. Inevitably, these prophecies hold that it must get worse before the dawn of a new enlightenment.
While I value these voices greatly, they do not speak to me. They appeal to our faith in summoning forces beyond our control. While I respect the sentiment and honor the faith, I cannot substantially differentiate the appeal from that of the fundamentalist right that effectively elected a war president.
I require more earthly objectives. From my perspective, we must march on if only to inform the world that we are still a deeply divided nation. We must speak out to proclaim that we are not complicit in the crimes of our government.
In accepting our electoral defeat, we must also accept that we can no longer pander to the right. We cannot convert the faith-based supporters of GW Bush. We can only strengthen our own base and appeal to the one demographic that voted strongly against the war and its faith-based master: the youth vote. If we can keep these voters as they mature and win the emerging youth, there is constructive hope for real change.
The most predictable outcome of this election is that the Democratic Party will move to the right. In the aftermath of defeat, it was revealed that former president Bill Clinton (fast becoming the Democratic version of Karl Rove) advised John Kerry to come out against gay marriage. To his credit, Kerry refused. He had already moved to the middle ground on virtually every issue. As a candidate, he was in fact inflicted with the disease of his supporters: We saw a darkness so profound that we were willing to do almost anything, to say almost anything, to advocate positions against our interest and convictions, in order to defeat this president. When he spoke of winning the war, we whispered to our friends on the left: Don’t worry; he doesn’t mean it. The stain of core compromise does not belong to John Kerry alone; it belongs to most of us.
Mark it: The Democrats are serving notice to every oppressed community, every dissident, every progressive, every antiwar activist and everyone else not substantially represented in red America, that they are poised and ready to throw us overboard if we prove a political liability. Get out your life jackets, folks, the boat is listing and the Democrats are planning our funerals.
The only recourse we will have in 2008 will be the one we rejected in 2004: the Independence Movement. Having been removed from the table of mainstream politics, our only forum will be the underground and the streets of America.
If we need a reminder of why we are fighting, ten thousand troops have surrounded the city of Fallujah in preparation for a full-scale assault. The election over, political restraint has been removed and the fear of horrific images on American television has subsided. We are called upon to bear witness and plead for the lives of countless Iraqis whose only crime is to resist foreign occupation. We are called upon to plead for our soldiers as well, as they carry out the orders that will alter their vision of the world forever.
When we consider the plight of Fallujah, our electoral pain becomes sufferable. We have no choice. We must continue the relentless march with uncompromised conviction. We must rally to the cry of Independence and demand that the rule of two parties controlled by the same interests must finally be defeated.
In the end, we are the hope of America and we must never give in.
No retreat, no surrender.
Jazz.
[Note: Originally posted on Buzzle.com 11/7/04]
As the grim reality of the 2004 election settles in, we are torn between seeking blame and finding new direction, all in a desperate quest for that most illusive human treasure: hope.
The search for blame is a ritual of healing. In many ways, it is a useful endeavor for it may enable us to reconcile our understanding of reality with a completely incompatible result. In other ways, it is a harmful practice for it tends to divide us at a time when we need unity more than ever. The Democrats, having lost their favorite scapegoat in Ralph Nader, have begun pointing the finger of liability at gay rights and pro-choice activists. Having already turned their backs on the antiwar movement, they will resume the rightward migration that Bill Clinton championed.
The new reality is this: We can have no reasonable expectation that our dissent, however vocal and massive, will have any real impact on our elected leaders. For the next four years, the administration can claim, with documented validity, that a silent majority supports their cause regardless of the lies and deceptions, regardless of world opinion, regardless the mounting debt, and regardless the rising tide of blood for oil.
The stark, horrifying reality is this: Our collective voice of opposition to war, occupation and empire on the streets of America’s cities may actually produce the opposite effect in America’s heartland. It is no longer the Bush war; it is America’s war and the threat of terrorist attacks on this nation’s soil has grown exponentially.
Why then should we continue the struggle?
The answer must come from within.
In the days following the reelection of GW Bush, I have heard powerful and insightful voices from within the antiwar movement appeal to the esoteric. They speak of the Mayan calendar, the Hopi elders and the native prophecies that we are on the eve of an evolution in human consciousness. Inevitably, these prophecies hold that it must get worse before the dawn of a new enlightenment.
While I value these voices greatly, they do not speak to me. They appeal to our faith in summoning forces beyond our control. While I respect the sentiment and honor the faith, I cannot substantially differentiate the appeal from that of the fundamentalist right that effectively elected a war president.
I require more earthly objectives. From my perspective, we must march on if only to inform the world that we are still a deeply divided nation. We must speak out to proclaim that we are not complicit in the crimes of our government.
In accepting our electoral defeat, we must also accept that we can no longer pander to the right. We cannot convert the faith-based supporters of GW Bush. We can only strengthen our own base and appeal to the one demographic that voted strongly against the war and its faith-based master: the youth vote. If we can keep these voters as they mature and win the emerging youth, there is constructive hope for real change.
The most predictable outcome of this election is that the Democratic Party will move to the right. In the aftermath of defeat, it was revealed that former president Bill Clinton (fast becoming the Democratic version of Karl Rove) advised John Kerry to come out against gay marriage. To his credit, Kerry refused. He had already moved to the middle ground on virtually every issue. As a candidate, he was in fact inflicted with the disease of his supporters: We saw a darkness so profound that we were willing to do almost anything, to say almost anything, to advocate positions against our interest and convictions, in order to defeat this president. When he spoke of winning the war, we whispered to our friends on the left: Don’t worry; he doesn’t mean it. The stain of core compromise does not belong to John Kerry alone; it belongs to most of us.
Mark it: The Democrats are serving notice to every oppressed community, every dissident, every progressive, every antiwar activist and everyone else not substantially represented in red America, that they are poised and ready to throw us overboard if we prove a political liability. Get out your life jackets, folks, the boat is listing and the Democrats are planning our funerals.
The only recourse we will have in 2008 will be the one we rejected in 2004: the Independence Movement. Having been removed from the table of mainstream politics, our only forum will be the underground and the streets of America.
If we need a reminder of why we are fighting, ten thousand troops have surrounded the city of Fallujah in preparation for a full-scale assault. The election over, political restraint has been removed and the fear of horrific images on American television has subsided. We are called upon to bear witness and plead for the lives of countless Iraqis whose only crime is to resist foreign occupation. We are called upon to plead for our soldiers as well, as they carry out the orders that will alter their vision of the world forever.
When we consider the plight of Fallujah, our electoral pain becomes sufferable. We have no choice. We must continue the relentless march with uncompromised conviction. We must rally to the cry of Independence and demand that the rule of two parties controlled by the same interests must finally be defeated.
In the end, we are the hope of America and we must never give in.
No retreat, no surrender.
Jazz.
[Note: Originally posted on Buzzle.com 11/7/04]
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
CONFESSIONS OF A KERRY ADVOCATE
A CALL TO ACTION
By Jack Random
The election is over. The ballots have been cast and the people have rendered a decision. Coming on the heels of the millennial election, it remains to be seen if that decision will be honored or if it will once again be thrown into the court of political operatives and the absurdly anti-democratic Electoral College.
In any event, win, lose or draw, the election is over and the first chapter of the latest incarnation of the antiwar movement has reached its final punctuation. Let there be no ambiguity: the cause is neither won nor lost. The occupation of Iraq has not ended. Afghanistan remains a dysfunctional nation. We have not reached the summer of peace, love and understanding; we have only survived the winter of our discontent.
Those who would stand down now never belonged in the army of resisters that marched in the streets throughout much of the world. We began this journey knowing that it would be long and trying. We appealed to the courage that is born of conviction. We renew that appeal today. We are fighting a war, not the manner of its conduct. Those who believe that a Democrat in the White House guarantees a real change in foreign policy have not studied their history. It was a Democrat that invented the Gulf of Tonkin incident to transform a disturbing conflict in Southeast Asia into a devastating war, costing the lives of millions, including 58,000 American soldiers. It was a Democrat that established the policy of regime change in Iraq and enforced the most punitive illegal sanctions the world has ever known.
It was never about John Kerry; it was always about Bush.
The time has now arrived for all individuals of conscience to come home. The time has come to claim the alliances that were born in the antiwar movement. Independents, Greens, Libertarians and the ideologues of the left have found common cause. The time has come for disenchanted party loyalists to stand with those who have stood against the tide of war from day one. The time has come to lift the veil of compromise, to break the vow of silence, to clear the filth from our faces and the stench from our souls.
Never again.
Never again will we be compelled to choose between a butcher and a bagman. Never again will we throw our support to a party on the take, collecting contributions from the same corporate entities that demand global dominance, that strip the world of its resources, that bankrupt all nations that fall for their flimflam game, and that demand blood for oil, truth, justice and democracy be damned!
Never again.
Never again will we be lulled into passivity by the empty promise of a Democratic administration. The time to acknowledge the sorry truth has arrived. The prosperity of the nineties was in some measure built on the bubble of fraudulent accounting. The legacy of Bill Clinton, welfare reform and free trade, more resembles the wish list of Newt Gingrich than that of Franklin Roosevelt. The time for reckoning has come. The Clinton administration reigned over the deadliest and most abused sanctions in history and, when challenged to rationalize the death of a half million Iraqi children, replied: We think it is worth the price. The liberation of Kosovo (wag the dog) was a disaster founded on lies and deception. The Clinton foreign policy was no more and no less than a warm up for the Bush Doctrine and its ensuing invasions. Moreover, in a perfect symbol of promise betrayed, Clinton kowtowed to the FBI, leaving Leonard Peltier to rot in a federal penitentiary.
My vote for president of the United States in the year 2004 did not go to Democrat John Kerry. My vote was a vote of conscience for a political prisoner, the victim of a federal government terrorist operation in Pine Ridge, North Dakota, for a martyr of the sacred ground of Wounded Knee. Until Leonard Peltier is free, we are all prisoners of conscience. Until Peltier is allowed to walk through the iron gates of oppression, American justice is a hollow promise and American democracy a shattered dream.
If I seem bitter, it is because I am. Among the many crimes of George W. Bush, with his mandate from God, his unabashed patronage of the elite, his salivation over the prospect of unending war, his exploitation of the blood of the innocent dead, his development of tactical nuclear weapons, his resurrection of Star Wars, was the compromise of the soul he compelled.
Never again.
When an individual buries the truth too long, when he betrays that part of himself that touches the core of his being, it is not easily explained away. It is not easily forgotten nor should it be. It must give rise to a healthy rage. It must be unleashed in a storm of retribution.
We have dealt with the devil but we have not sacrificed our souls and we will never deal again.
The time for the truth has come.
Against our better judgment, against all that we believe and hold dear, we have given our all to make John Kerry president. If he should win the election, he will hold no marker greater than that of the antiwar movement. We showed him the way, stiffened his spine, and all but guided him to the White House door, but it was never about Kerry. It was always about Bush. John Kerry was not the candidate of the antiwar movement. Having voted for the abdication of war powers and the Patriot Act, he was in fact the antithesis of an antiwar candidate. Howard Dean might have championed the cause but he dropped the banner at shock and awe, long before the infamous scream. Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton never approached the viability of Ralph Nader and Nader never approached the threshold of faith. The stakes were far too high for yet another symbolic march of protest so we swallowed our pride, compromised our convictions, and took a temporary vow of pragmatism for peace. There were many, many occasions when the candidate pushed us to the edge of open rebellion (or worse yet, passive resolve) but we held strong.
If I sound ungracious, let me be clear: I would like nothing more than to eat my own words in this regard. If John Kerry becomes president and demonstrates the courage to withdraw from Iraq and redirect our foreign policy within a reasonable timeframe, he will have earned the support we have given him. If he does not, he will have earned our righteous scorn.
The one thing we can be sure of is that the next president will not answer to the people without the voice of a million protesters in the streets of America. We owe him that much and, more importantly, we owe it to ourselves.
The time to prepare for the 2008 election is now. We desperately need new candidates at all levels of government. We need organizations in all states. We need to unify disparate camps under the banner of Independence. We cannot afford to wait.
The time has come to renew the pledge of the independence movement for only when we have broken free of two parties controlled by the same corporate interests will we be given a true choice of leadership. It is a scandal surpassing the election fraud of 2000 that the party of opposition could not give the people a clear referendum on the war in Iraq in the year 2004.
Never again.
The most important demonstration against the war and, more importantly, against the war machine, is not in our past but in our immediate future. The call has gone out to every man, woman and child of conscience to stand up and be counted on Inauguration Day. No matter who is in the Oval Office at the end of the Inaugural Parade, January 20, 2005 must go down as the day we shook the earth to her core.
Jazz.
By Jack Random
The election is over. The ballots have been cast and the people have rendered a decision. Coming on the heels of the millennial election, it remains to be seen if that decision will be honored or if it will once again be thrown into the court of political operatives and the absurdly anti-democratic Electoral College.
In any event, win, lose or draw, the election is over and the first chapter of the latest incarnation of the antiwar movement has reached its final punctuation. Let there be no ambiguity: the cause is neither won nor lost. The occupation of Iraq has not ended. Afghanistan remains a dysfunctional nation. We have not reached the summer of peace, love and understanding; we have only survived the winter of our discontent.
Those who would stand down now never belonged in the army of resisters that marched in the streets throughout much of the world. We began this journey knowing that it would be long and trying. We appealed to the courage that is born of conviction. We renew that appeal today. We are fighting a war, not the manner of its conduct. Those who believe that a Democrat in the White House guarantees a real change in foreign policy have not studied their history. It was a Democrat that invented the Gulf of Tonkin incident to transform a disturbing conflict in Southeast Asia into a devastating war, costing the lives of millions, including 58,000 American soldiers. It was a Democrat that established the policy of regime change in Iraq and enforced the most punitive illegal sanctions the world has ever known.
It was never about John Kerry; it was always about Bush.
The time has now arrived for all individuals of conscience to come home. The time has come to claim the alliances that were born in the antiwar movement. Independents, Greens, Libertarians and the ideologues of the left have found common cause. The time has come for disenchanted party loyalists to stand with those who have stood against the tide of war from day one. The time has come to lift the veil of compromise, to break the vow of silence, to clear the filth from our faces and the stench from our souls.
Never again.
Never again will we be compelled to choose between a butcher and a bagman. Never again will we throw our support to a party on the take, collecting contributions from the same corporate entities that demand global dominance, that strip the world of its resources, that bankrupt all nations that fall for their flimflam game, and that demand blood for oil, truth, justice and democracy be damned!
Never again.
Never again will we be lulled into passivity by the empty promise of a Democratic administration. The time to acknowledge the sorry truth has arrived. The prosperity of the nineties was in some measure built on the bubble of fraudulent accounting. The legacy of Bill Clinton, welfare reform and free trade, more resembles the wish list of Newt Gingrich than that of Franklin Roosevelt. The time for reckoning has come. The Clinton administration reigned over the deadliest and most abused sanctions in history and, when challenged to rationalize the death of a half million Iraqi children, replied: We think it is worth the price. The liberation of Kosovo (wag the dog) was a disaster founded on lies and deception. The Clinton foreign policy was no more and no less than a warm up for the Bush Doctrine and its ensuing invasions. Moreover, in a perfect symbol of promise betrayed, Clinton kowtowed to the FBI, leaving Leonard Peltier to rot in a federal penitentiary.
My vote for president of the United States in the year 2004 did not go to Democrat John Kerry. My vote was a vote of conscience for a political prisoner, the victim of a federal government terrorist operation in Pine Ridge, North Dakota, for a martyr of the sacred ground of Wounded Knee. Until Leonard Peltier is free, we are all prisoners of conscience. Until Peltier is allowed to walk through the iron gates of oppression, American justice is a hollow promise and American democracy a shattered dream.
If I seem bitter, it is because I am. Among the many crimes of George W. Bush, with his mandate from God, his unabashed patronage of the elite, his salivation over the prospect of unending war, his exploitation of the blood of the innocent dead, his development of tactical nuclear weapons, his resurrection of Star Wars, was the compromise of the soul he compelled.
Never again.
When an individual buries the truth too long, when he betrays that part of himself that touches the core of his being, it is not easily explained away. It is not easily forgotten nor should it be. It must give rise to a healthy rage. It must be unleashed in a storm of retribution.
We have dealt with the devil but we have not sacrificed our souls and we will never deal again.
The time for the truth has come.
Against our better judgment, against all that we believe and hold dear, we have given our all to make John Kerry president. If he should win the election, he will hold no marker greater than that of the antiwar movement. We showed him the way, stiffened his spine, and all but guided him to the White House door, but it was never about Kerry. It was always about Bush. John Kerry was not the candidate of the antiwar movement. Having voted for the abdication of war powers and the Patriot Act, he was in fact the antithesis of an antiwar candidate. Howard Dean might have championed the cause but he dropped the banner at shock and awe, long before the infamous scream. Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton never approached the viability of Ralph Nader and Nader never approached the threshold of faith. The stakes were far too high for yet another symbolic march of protest so we swallowed our pride, compromised our convictions, and took a temporary vow of pragmatism for peace. There were many, many occasions when the candidate pushed us to the edge of open rebellion (or worse yet, passive resolve) but we held strong.
If I sound ungracious, let me be clear: I would like nothing more than to eat my own words in this regard. If John Kerry becomes president and demonstrates the courage to withdraw from Iraq and redirect our foreign policy within a reasonable timeframe, he will have earned the support we have given him. If he does not, he will have earned our righteous scorn.
The one thing we can be sure of is that the next president will not answer to the people without the voice of a million protesters in the streets of America. We owe him that much and, more importantly, we owe it to ourselves.
The time to prepare for the 2008 election is now. We desperately need new candidates at all levels of government. We need organizations in all states. We need to unify disparate camps under the banner of Independence. We cannot afford to wait.
The time has come to renew the pledge of the independence movement for only when we have broken free of two parties controlled by the same corporate interests will we be given a true choice of leadership. It is a scandal surpassing the election fraud of 2000 that the party of opposition could not give the people a clear referendum on the war in Iraq in the year 2004.
Never again.
The most important demonstration against the war and, more importantly, against the war machine, is not in our past but in our immediate future. The call has gone out to every man, woman and child of conscience to stand up and be counted on Inauguration Day. No matter who is in the Oval Office at the end of the Inaugural Parade, January 20, 2005 must go down as the day we shook the earth to her core.
Jazz.
Monday, November 01, 2004
NOT IN THE NAME OF JESUS
By Jack Random
If the Christian version of the word is truth, then Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and George W. Bush will have some explaining to do. I do not know what force of spirit guides the thoughts and actions of these men but they do no honor to the philosophy and character of the man known as Jesus Christ.
Jesus was not a writer or, if he was, his written word did not survive the ensuing ages. What we know of Jesus we learn from the accounts of others.
When Jesus walked the earth, he was a voice of enlightenment. In the tradition of Confucius, the Tao and the Zen masters of the Orient, he preached a morality of tolerance, understanding, peace, love and equality, reserving his wrath for the money changers, an oppressive government bent on world domination, and the priesthood that supported both.
From The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine:
“That such a person as Jesus Christ existed and that he was crucified…are historical relations strictly within the limits of probability. He preached most excellent morality and the equality of man; but he preached also against the corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of priesthood.
“The accusation which those priests brought against him was that of sedition and conspiracy against the Roman government…and it is not improbable that the Roman government might have some secret apprehensions of the effects of his doctrine, as well as the Jewish priests; neither is it improbable that Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans. Between the two, however, this virtuous reformer and revolutionist lost his life.”
In his time and place, Jesus was a dissident whose greatest crime was that he crossed the threshold of influence. His voice was being heard and the powers of the day would not allow his ideas to grow to fruition. He died not so much for our sins as for standing up against the established order.
If the spirit lives on and Jesus is walking the earth today, then I believe he has walked with me. He was on the streets of San Francisco when ten million people worldwide stood up in opposition to war. He was with a young Palestinian girl walking to school when she was gunned down by an Israeli commander. He was in the rubble of a Fallujah wedding party when American bombs were used to punish a city of resistance. He was in a crowd of some twenty civilians (who may or may not have been insurgents), walking calmly down a cobblestone lane when they were wiped from existence in the flash of an American missile.
The rightwing religious zealots (like the littlest Baldwin at the Republican National Convention), who claim to be following Jesus as they lend their support to the Bush Doctrine of eternal war, ought to have acquired a greater appreciation for the character of the man, himself. If you want to spread the scourge of war to the four corners of the planet, do not do so in the name of Jesus.
If Jesus could be seen and heard today, his sadness would be pervasive. He would sigh from the depths of his soul and say, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Churches no more belong in politics than bankers belong in churches.
Jazz.
If the Christian version of the word is truth, then Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and George W. Bush will have some explaining to do. I do not know what force of spirit guides the thoughts and actions of these men but they do no honor to the philosophy and character of the man known as Jesus Christ.
Jesus was not a writer or, if he was, his written word did not survive the ensuing ages. What we know of Jesus we learn from the accounts of others.
When Jesus walked the earth, he was a voice of enlightenment. In the tradition of Confucius, the Tao and the Zen masters of the Orient, he preached a morality of tolerance, understanding, peace, love and equality, reserving his wrath for the money changers, an oppressive government bent on world domination, and the priesthood that supported both.
From The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine:
“That such a person as Jesus Christ existed and that he was crucified…are historical relations strictly within the limits of probability. He preached most excellent morality and the equality of man; but he preached also against the corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of priesthood.
“The accusation which those priests brought against him was that of sedition and conspiracy against the Roman government…and it is not improbable that the Roman government might have some secret apprehensions of the effects of his doctrine, as well as the Jewish priests; neither is it improbable that Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans. Between the two, however, this virtuous reformer and revolutionist lost his life.”
In his time and place, Jesus was a dissident whose greatest crime was that he crossed the threshold of influence. His voice was being heard and the powers of the day would not allow his ideas to grow to fruition. He died not so much for our sins as for standing up against the established order.
If the spirit lives on and Jesus is walking the earth today, then I believe he has walked with me. He was on the streets of San Francisco when ten million people worldwide stood up in opposition to war. He was with a young Palestinian girl walking to school when she was gunned down by an Israeli commander. He was in the rubble of a Fallujah wedding party when American bombs were used to punish a city of resistance. He was in a crowd of some twenty civilians (who may or may not have been insurgents), walking calmly down a cobblestone lane when they were wiped from existence in the flash of an American missile.
The rightwing religious zealots (like the littlest Baldwin at the Republican National Convention), who claim to be following Jesus as they lend their support to the Bush Doctrine of eternal war, ought to have acquired a greater appreciation for the character of the man, himself. If you want to spread the scourge of war to the four corners of the planet, do not do so in the name of Jesus.
If Jesus could be seen and heard today, his sadness would be pervasive. He would sigh from the depths of his soul and say, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.”
Churches no more belong in politics than bankers belong in churches.
Jazz.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
THE WAR PRESIDENT
AN ELECTION EVE REVISION
By Jack Random
It is the season when all promises and all actions must be taken with a great deal of cynicism. Having waited four years for an economic recovery to register beyond corporate profits, the president is searching for answers to joblessness and the loss of living wages. Having failed to slow the rising trade deficit or reduce the national debt, he renews his call for permanent tax cuts. Having failed to deliver a prescription drug benefit to seniors, he pushes through a Medicare reform bill written by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Having failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he no longer believes the question is relevant. It is sufficient that Saddam Hussein had the intention to develop such weapons. It is sufficient that Saddam committed crimes against humanity. It is sufficient that Saddam was a very bad man.
Given the president’s enormous insight and incomparable certitude, he is confident he did the right thing. He is confident that American soldiers are not dying in a mistaken war. He is so confident that he swears, knowing what we know now, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, he would still go to war.
“I’m a war president,” he intoned with a smirk.
Finally, we found an issue upon which we could take the president at his word. If by some miracle of incredulity, you were not frightened before, now is the time. Until now, the president has been constrained by the prospect of a coming election. If he were to be reelected, the true war-seeking nature of this administration would be unleashed upon the world.
As the Bush Doctrine clearly dictates, the warlords of this White House do not require an imminent threat. They do not require international alliances or the blessings of international law. They proclaim the right to strike any nation at any time in order to advance their cause of global supremacy. They speak glowingly of democracy but their actions belie their words. Democracy notwithstanding, they are content with controlling the world’s resources.
Much of the debate in civil society has been directed at the wars already begun. Considerably less has been devoted to the wars that will follow if the policy of global dominance is allowed to grow and flourish. The possibilities are as varied as moves on a chessboard but the signs are all around us and they are neither disguised nor hidden. The warlords are so arrogant that they promote their dark vision openly and without shame. They boldly state their plans for remaking the world but their portraits lack depth; they are not drawn in flesh and blood detail. It is time to take them at their word and follow the lines of their intentions to real world consequences.
Immediately upon election to a second term, the Bush team will confront a monumental problem. Plainly stated, there are not enough soldiers to pursue their objectives. They cannot continue to abuse the guard and reserves as they have. They will press for international support but it is a hopeless cause. They will expand the use of mercenary forces but it will not be enough. Mark it: They will find an occasion, real or fabricated, to renew military conscription. It will not be the first time the president has betrayed his word and he will no longer face the judgment of the electorate. To those who remained unconvinced: What in the president’s record suggests that we should believe him on the critical question of the draft? He has practiced a policy of deception on every issue from nation building and the war on terror to prescription drugs and the tenor of his tax cuts.
Mark it, post and save: If the president is reelected, there will be a military draft.
Young Americans, many of whom are woefully unprepared to make such judgments, will be compelled to choose between military service and civil disobedience. The antiwar movement will grow tenfold and the guard and reserves will come home to fight the battle on America’s streets. The machinery created by the Patriot Act will be brought to bear on our own citizens. More divided than ever, America will be at war from within.
Undaunted and eager to secure his legacy, the president will be in search of war. The search will begin where the staff has already been planted: The Middle East. Those of us who have listened carefully have come to realize that when he speaks of terrorist ties in Iraq he is no longer merely summoning Al Qaeda; he is speaking of Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations known for their efforts to free Palestine from Israeli occupation. By redefining the enemy to include such organizations, the war on terrorism will be expanded to engage the entire Arab and Islamic worlds, beginning with Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Palestine. Every nation in the region would be compelled to take sides: Us or them?
In this manner, the misbegotten policies of one president could easily evolve into a war of centuries, a battle of civilizations, and a march of death and destruction that would surpass anything the world has yet known. We cannot know what this president intends but the ends of warfare are often unpredictable and this administration, despite its vaunted brainpower, has displayed a startling lack of foresight.
The Middle East scenario is the most dangerous we will face. At its worst, it is Armageddon. At best, it is a horrifying waste of human life, a waste that would be inconceivable if not for the liquid treasure beneath the sands of Arabia. It is a scenario that engages the second of the president’s infamous Axis of Evil.
The third member of the exclusive club is North Korea, a nuclear threat that has grown seven fold in response to the Bush doctrine of war. Of course, it would be sheer madness to attack a power whose immediate response would bring death to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Seoul but the Bush doctrinaires have a high tolerance for the deaths of dark skinned foreigners – especially when it supports their vision of unconscionably evil enemies.
It should not go unnoticed that the administration has pushed the development of a new class of tactical nuclear weapons. This alone is evidence that the madness of King George has taken hold and its names are Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle. Given the “bunker busting” bombs we have already demonstrated, it is unlikely that the tactical nuke is for this purpose. It is more likely that they are designed for a preemptive strike that would decimate all nuclear facilities in a target nation before that nation could strike back. While such a strike could be applied to North Korea, it could also apply to Pakistan – especially in the event of another military coup. Since the destruction would be somewhat contained, our leaders could claim humanitarian motives but the nuclear nightmare would be upon us and the world would shudder in horror.
As terrifying as these scenarios may be, we cannot leave the future wars in faraway lands. Latin America has long been the favorite playground of American warlords. When presidential adviser Condoleezza Rice prematurely expressed satisfaction at the news of a coup in Venezuela, she not only signaled American approval but probable American involvement. The admission was particularly revealing because Hugo Chavez was a lawfully elected president. Support for a military takeover exposed the lie of our support for democracy. It is also revealing that Venezuela has the richest oil reserves in the hemisphere.
All of Latin America is suffering under the failed policies of the US dominated World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Electorates have increasingly turned to progressive, anti-American parties. The people have begun to suspect that the WTO-IMF policies have not failed at all. Rather, they have enabled international corporations, America’s partners in global dominance, to take control of their natural resources. Poverty is good business except that it has a tendency to breed discontent. Discontent has a tendency to breed organized opposition and organized opposition has a tendency to be labeled “terrorism.”
America has a rich tradition of intervention in Latin America with only minimal cover. In Chile, 9-11 has a dual meaning: It was also the day the CIA overthrew Salvador Allende and supplanted him with the monstrous dictator, Augusto Pinochet. Throughout the region, the people are well acquainted with American foreign policy. Under prior administrations, the excuse was always the drug war or the Cold War. Now, it is the war on terror.
If the administration engages in Latin America, it will hope to draw Fidel Castro into the conflict. If it succeeds, the administration will achieve the one goal it cherishes even more than the overthrow of Hugo Chavez: Regime change in Cuba.
These are but a handful of the possibilities awaiting a second term of the Bush administration. Potential conflicts are as easy to foresee as geological surveys allow. Wherever oil is in the equation (Nigeria, Somalia), intervention is an excuse away. No longer will such scenarios belong in the realm of screenwriters and novelists. They will no longer be remote and many of them will most assuredly become stark realities.
We cannot afford to test the hypotheses. We cannot afford to gamble the lives of so many soldiers and innocent bystanders. The world cannot afford four more years of a war president in the White House. For though we are shocked by the losses already sustained, they are but minor compared to the profound horror the future may reveal.
The lords of war and avarice will go to the ends of the world to maintain their hold on the reigns of power. If we fail to deny them, we will become the generation that lives forever in infamy and shame. Often has it been foretold but never with more urgency: We hold the future in our hands.
For all the derision heaped upon him in a campaign of partisan politics, Howard Dean was right: As long as we live in a democracy, we have the power. It is time we used it.
On Election Day 2004, the right and privilege of voting carries with it a heavy burden of responsibility. When you close the curtain, you will be alone with your conscience. Let your conscience cast your vote.
Jazz.
THE FINAL ESSAY OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES, VOLUME II: THE WAR CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS 2004), ORIGINAL VERSION PUBLISHED BY THE ALBION MONITOR 2/24/04.
By Jack Random
It is the season when all promises and all actions must be taken with a great deal of cynicism. Having waited four years for an economic recovery to register beyond corporate profits, the president is searching for answers to joblessness and the loss of living wages. Having failed to slow the rising trade deficit or reduce the national debt, he renews his call for permanent tax cuts. Having failed to deliver a prescription drug benefit to seniors, he pushes through a Medicare reform bill written by the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Having failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he no longer believes the question is relevant. It is sufficient that Saddam Hussein had the intention to develop such weapons. It is sufficient that Saddam committed crimes against humanity. It is sufficient that Saddam was a very bad man.
Given the president’s enormous insight and incomparable certitude, he is confident he did the right thing. He is confident that American soldiers are not dying in a mistaken war. He is so confident that he swears, knowing what we know now, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, he would still go to war.
“I’m a war president,” he intoned with a smirk.
Finally, we found an issue upon which we could take the president at his word. If by some miracle of incredulity, you were not frightened before, now is the time. Until now, the president has been constrained by the prospect of a coming election. If he were to be reelected, the true war-seeking nature of this administration would be unleashed upon the world.
As the Bush Doctrine clearly dictates, the warlords of this White House do not require an imminent threat. They do not require international alliances or the blessings of international law. They proclaim the right to strike any nation at any time in order to advance their cause of global supremacy. They speak glowingly of democracy but their actions belie their words. Democracy notwithstanding, they are content with controlling the world’s resources.
Much of the debate in civil society has been directed at the wars already begun. Considerably less has been devoted to the wars that will follow if the policy of global dominance is allowed to grow and flourish. The possibilities are as varied as moves on a chessboard but the signs are all around us and they are neither disguised nor hidden. The warlords are so arrogant that they promote their dark vision openly and without shame. They boldly state their plans for remaking the world but their portraits lack depth; they are not drawn in flesh and blood detail. It is time to take them at their word and follow the lines of their intentions to real world consequences.
Immediately upon election to a second term, the Bush team will confront a monumental problem. Plainly stated, there are not enough soldiers to pursue their objectives. They cannot continue to abuse the guard and reserves as they have. They will press for international support but it is a hopeless cause. They will expand the use of mercenary forces but it will not be enough. Mark it: They will find an occasion, real or fabricated, to renew military conscription. It will not be the first time the president has betrayed his word and he will no longer face the judgment of the electorate. To those who remained unconvinced: What in the president’s record suggests that we should believe him on the critical question of the draft? He has practiced a policy of deception on every issue from nation building and the war on terror to prescription drugs and the tenor of his tax cuts.
Mark it, post and save: If the president is reelected, there will be a military draft.
Young Americans, many of whom are woefully unprepared to make such judgments, will be compelled to choose between military service and civil disobedience. The antiwar movement will grow tenfold and the guard and reserves will come home to fight the battle on America’s streets. The machinery created by the Patriot Act will be brought to bear on our own citizens. More divided than ever, America will be at war from within.
Undaunted and eager to secure his legacy, the president will be in search of war. The search will begin where the staff has already been planted: The Middle East. Those of us who have listened carefully have come to realize that when he speaks of terrorist ties in Iraq he is no longer merely summoning Al Qaeda; he is speaking of Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations known for their efforts to free Palestine from Israeli occupation. By redefining the enemy to include such organizations, the war on terrorism will be expanded to engage the entire Arab and Islamic worlds, beginning with Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Palestine. Every nation in the region would be compelled to take sides: Us or them?
In this manner, the misbegotten policies of one president could easily evolve into a war of centuries, a battle of civilizations, and a march of death and destruction that would surpass anything the world has yet known. We cannot know what this president intends but the ends of warfare are often unpredictable and this administration, despite its vaunted brainpower, has displayed a startling lack of foresight.
The Middle East scenario is the most dangerous we will face. At its worst, it is Armageddon. At best, it is a horrifying waste of human life, a waste that would be inconceivable if not for the liquid treasure beneath the sands of Arabia. It is a scenario that engages the second of the president’s infamous Axis of Evil.
The third member of the exclusive club is North Korea, a nuclear threat that has grown seven fold in response to the Bush doctrine of war. Of course, it would be sheer madness to attack a power whose immediate response would bring death to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Seoul but the Bush doctrinaires have a high tolerance for the deaths of dark skinned foreigners – especially when it supports their vision of unconscionably evil enemies.
It should not go unnoticed that the administration has pushed the development of a new class of tactical nuclear weapons. This alone is evidence that the madness of King George has taken hold and its names are Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Perle. Given the “bunker busting” bombs we have already demonstrated, it is unlikely that the tactical nuke is for this purpose. It is more likely that they are designed for a preemptive strike that would decimate all nuclear facilities in a target nation before that nation could strike back. While such a strike could be applied to North Korea, it could also apply to Pakistan – especially in the event of another military coup. Since the destruction would be somewhat contained, our leaders could claim humanitarian motives but the nuclear nightmare would be upon us and the world would shudder in horror.
As terrifying as these scenarios may be, we cannot leave the future wars in faraway lands. Latin America has long been the favorite playground of American warlords. When presidential adviser Condoleezza Rice prematurely expressed satisfaction at the news of a coup in Venezuela, she not only signaled American approval but probable American involvement. The admission was particularly revealing because Hugo Chavez was a lawfully elected president. Support for a military takeover exposed the lie of our support for democracy. It is also revealing that Venezuela has the richest oil reserves in the hemisphere.
All of Latin America is suffering under the failed policies of the US dominated World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Electorates have increasingly turned to progressive, anti-American parties. The people have begun to suspect that the WTO-IMF policies have not failed at all. Rather, they have enabled international corporations, America’s partners in global dominance, to take control of their natural resources. Poverty is good business except that it has a tendency to breed discontent. Discontent has a tendency to breed organized opposition and organized opposition has a tendency to be labeled “terrorism.”
America has a rich tradition of intervention in Latin America with only minimal cover. In Chile, 9-11 has a dual meaning: It was also the day the CIA overthrew Salvador Allende and supplanted him with the monstrous dictator, Augusto Pinochet. Throughout the region, the people are well acquainted with American foreign policy. Under prior administrations, the excuse was always the drug war or the Cold War. Now, it is the war on terror.
If the administration engages in Latin America, it will hope to draw Fidel Castro into the conflict. If it succeeds, the administration will achieve the one goal it cherishes even more than the overthrow of Hugo Chavez: Regime change in Cuba.
These are but a handful of the possibilities awaiting a second term of the Bush administration. Potential conflicts are as easy to foresee as geological surveys allow. Wherever oil is in the equation (Nigeria, Somalia), intervention is an excuse away. No longer will such scenarios belong in the realm of screenwriters and novelists. They will no longer be remote and many of them will most assuredly become stark realities.
We cannot afford to test the hypotheses. We cannot afford to gamble the lives of so many soldiers and innocent bystanders. The world cannot afford four more years of a war president in the White House. For though we are shocked by the losses already sustained, they are but minor compared to the profound horror the future may reveal.
The lords of war and avarice will go to the ends of the world to maintain their hold on the reigns of power. If we fail to deny them, we will become the generation that lives forever in infamy and shame. Often has it been foretold but never with more urgency: We hold the future in our hands.
For all the derision heaped upon him in a campaign of partisan politics, Howard Dean was right: As long as we live in a democracy, we have the power. It is time we used it.
On Election Day 2004, the right and privilege of voting carries with it a heavy burden of responsibility. When you close the curtain, you will be alone with your conscience. Let your conscience cast your vote.
Jazz.
THE FINAL ESSAY OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES, VOLUME II: THE WAR CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS 2004), ORIGINAL VERSION PUBLISHED BY THE ALBION MONITOR 2/24/04.
Friday, October 29, 2004
OSAMA SURPRISE
ALIVE & WELL
By Jack Random
The October surprise has finally arrived and the real surprise is that it was delivered by Al Jazeera.
Four days before the election, America’s most despised appears on every television screen in the nation to deliver his pre-election message: He holds American leadership accountable for crimes against the Islamic world with specific reference to Israel, Lebanon, Beirut, and the Palestinian occupation. His issue is with the foreign policy of our nation and his alliance is with Palestine.
Lacking the reluctance to pronounce a clear winner after the massacre in Miami (the first presidential debate), media pundits were quick to declare that the appearance of Osama is a decisive blow to the Kerry campaign. It is of little consequence that the conclusion defies logic and assumes a guttural response of the electorate, rallying without reason to the support of the sitting president. It also assumes the political naivety of Osama.
Is there any compelling reason to believe that Osama prefers one candidate or the other? If we believe that Osama desires Jihad, the president has delivered it with his policies of war and his indifference to the plight of the Palestinians. If we assume that Osama desires survival, why replace the president who has turned his attention elsewhere? If we assume that Osama wanted a massive recruiting drive, what could have been better than Abu Ghraib and the atrocities of Iraq?
As Americans, we owe it to our democracy not to be swayed by the last minute machinations of the enemy.
Would Osama be alive and free if we had pursued him with American Special Forces in Tora Bora? We do not know.
Would Al Qaeda be operative and apparently flourishing if we had stayed the course in our pursuit of the real terrorists? Again, we do not know.
We do know, however, that by every objective measure, this is a failed presidency. It has failed the poor and infirm with blatant neglect. It has failed the middle class with false promises. It has failed even the elite by handing them a weak and unstable economy. It has failed the world with its arrogant isolationism. Most importantly, it has failed our soldiers with an unnecessary war.
Indeed, when all accounts are settled, honest historians will record the anomaly of George W. Bush as one of the worst presidencies in the annals of the Republic.
What will they write of us if we grant him a second term?
Vote your conscience.
Jazz.
By Jack Random
The October surprise has finally arrived and the real surprise is that it was delivered by Al Jazeera.
Four days before the election, America’s most despised appears on every television screen in the nation to deliver his pre-election message: He holds American leadership accountable for crimes against the Islamic world with specific reference to Israel, Lebanon, Beirut, and the Palestinian occupation. His issue is with the foreign policy of our nation and his alliance is with Palestine.
Lacking the reluctance to pronounce a clear winner after the massacre in Miami (the first presidential debate), media pundits were quick to declare that the appearance of Osama is a decisive blow to the Kerry campaign. It is of little consequence that the conclusion defies logic and assumes a guttural response of the electorate, rallying without reason to the support of the sitting president. It also assumes the political naivety of Osama.
Is there any compelling reason to believe that Osama prefers one candidate or the other? If we believe that Osama desires Jihad, the president has delivered it with his policies of war and his indifference to the plight of the Palestinians. If we assume that Osama desires survival, why replace the president who has turned his attention elsewhere? If we assume that Osama wanted a massive recruiting drive, what could have been better than Abu Ghraib and the atrocities of Iraq?
As Americans, we owe it to our democracy not to be swayed by the last minute machinations of the enemy.
Would Osama be alive and free if we had pursued him with American Special Forces in Tora Bora? We do not know.
Would Al Qaeda be operative and apparently flourishing if we had stayed the course in our pursuit of the real terrorists? Again, we do not know.
We do know, however, that by every objective measure, this is a failed presidency. It has failed the poor and infirm with blatant neglect. It has failed the middle class with false promises. It has failed even the elite by handing them a weak and unstable economy. It has failed the world with its arrogant isolationism. Most importantly, it has failed our soldiers with an unnecessary war.
Indeed, when all accounts are settled, honest historians will record the anomaly of George W. Bush as one of the worst presidencies in the annals of the Republic.
What will they write of us if we grant him a second term?
Vote your conscience.
Jazz.
WAITING FOR THE FACTS
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)