I've already expressed what I think about the whole Wikileaks issue when the War in Afghanistan leaks were made public. However, I feel with the advent of the last information load exposed regarding the diplomatic wires, there has been a much more intensive and larger attack by certain "experts," politicians, and media figures on the principle of free speech. This, obviously, is no secret; everybody in the media has been discussing this for weeks.
It is quite apparent that those who are on the side against Wikileaks don't take the principle of free speech seriously, or at least don't understand why we have free speech and just what it is supposed to protect; indeed, what Joe Lieberman either doesn't understand, or more likely does understand but doesn't care because he is Joe Lieberman, is the concept that free speech is specifically existing to protect speech that unpopular or disliked. And when we take on the issue of Wikileaks, which has a lot of support, it isn't even a clear-cut issue of unpopularity since the public is divided on the issue; there isn't a universal dislike for Wikileaks unlike, say, the pedophilia handbook of which the author was arrested recently for, or Holocaust denial. Even in such cases, free speech should be protected, because no matter how vile, disgusting, distasteful, or disturbing it is, this is exactly what free speech is supposed to protect.
So it is clear that we are seeing an attack on free speech, led by the likes of Senator Lieberman and Mike Huckabee, who has done a lot to persecute Wikileaks. The laws on such matters on clear, as Wikileaks is a publisher and Julian Assange considers himself a journalist, there should be no reason why they should be charged with any crime, especially when we are seeing such establishment publications such as the New York Times and the Washington Post publishing the same material and are surely not going to be charged anything. And that's not even just because they are establishment, its because the laws are clear: you cannot charge a publisher or journalist for publishing leaked classified information, you can only charge the leaker, whom allegedly in this case is PFC Bradley Manning.
This is the same classic story of hypocrisy in politics we've come to know and hate, over and over again: Praise the Constitution and free speech when it is convenient and it is supportive of whatever point of view you are endorsing, and ignore or even slam the constitution when it is actually doing its job and becoming a pain in your neck. To call Wikileaks a terrorist organization is ridiculous on so many levels and shows this hypocrisy so clearly, since such calls are coming fro so-called constitutional conservatives. It is disgusting, to say the least, and it is even more disgusting that our President and our Attorney General are supporting this type of behavior. It has been clear for a while now, anyhow, that President Obama is deeply bothered by whistle-blowers due to his actions in the past couple years. Let's all hope that this isn't the start of a Woodrow Wilson-like persecution of free speech.
However, thus far, things are not going so well and we may as well be heading in that direction. The new attack of free speech by the world's political and economic elites reach almost a fever pitch just a couple weeks ago at the United Nations climate gathering in Cancun, Mexico, where several environmental activists were denied participation and subsequently silenced for involvement in peaceful protests and/or promoting worthy, but unpopular amongst elite, causes. Legitimate activists who were allowed to participate in such events in the past, and in some cases earlier in even the same event, were being denied access for giving voice to legitimate and relevant causes such as indigenous peoples' rights. However, officially they were being denied access for almost no legitimate reason whatsoever. All of this silencing and persecution, all of these attacks on free speech, all so certain political, economic, and corporate elites could discuss matters by themselves without any "distractions" from real people with real concerns; so they can construct whatever exploitative model they want in order to move forward with their profit margins and economic power.
There is, undoubtedly, a war with free speech happening as we speak. However, the main problem with this war is that only those against free speech are fighting in it; similar to the current class war in which only the rich are fighting it. This war may have huge negative implications for the general public. This country was founded upon the principle of free speech, it is the pillar on which the people of America stand above the rest of the world in the realm of freedom and opportunity, and if it gets slipped out from under us, we will collapse. Not the elite, not corporations or the political establishments, but us, the people, will collapse. All to the benefit of those who are fighting this war right now. It is time to stand up for Wikileaks, for all activists all around the world, for everybody; it is time to stand up and fight back.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
What is fiscal conservatism?
We've been hearing a lot of the deficit lately. It is what the tea partiers are apparently fussing about (though I don't believe that it was ever about that for a second, to be clear). Yes, there has been a great call for "fiscal conservatism." A call for "free" market principles. A call for a capitalist rebirth. But I question the wisdom of this call.
It may seem ridiculous to question the notion of fiscal conservatism at a time like this. It may be deemed inappropriate to question the push for austerity measures, here and in Europe, to tear down huge deficits. In fact, it probably seems outlandish to many to suggest that we should not focusing on the monstrous debt. But I am, and just because there is a popular wave that will most likely ride the Republicans to numerous and significant victories today and tonight, doesn't mean it's right and it's good. Just because it is now conventional wisdom, doesn't mean it's genuine wisdom. It doesn't mean history supports it; it doesn't mean the facts support it.
By the Ronald Reagan left office, this nation had hundreds of billions of dollars of a deficit. Chump change compared to the debt mounted by his vice president's son's presidency, but let's think about it. Reagan was apparently the champion of neoconservatism, the champion of the "free" market and "free" trade; Reagan was the champion of fiscal conservatism in the eyes of many today. if this is so, why and how did he wrack up such a huge deficit? And to be clear, it was huge at the time. No matter what conservative bloggers say, Reagan did NOT tackle the deficit during his term, not only the way he should've, but in the way that was expected by other fiscal conservatives. No sir, he left that monster for Clinton to deal with.
So, let's get this straight. The messiah of fiscal conservatism left a huge deficit for a liberal democrat to deal with. And on top of that, that liberal democrat turned that deficit into a surplus. Does this not raise any eyebrows, if not questions? Questions like: why are we voting in the republicans this midterm?
Now, we have to objective here. Reagan was not some sort of small government tea partier. His rhetoric was, but that's where it ended. Reagan expanded the government in huge ways, more so than anyone else had prior. The difference is that Reagan was so blatantly pro-corporatism and so anti-working class. Reagan was also hugely protectionist when it came to trade; just ask the Japanese automakers. But the thing is, the tea partiers today look up to him as the republican Christ (because we all know Jesus was a socialist), so how can we expect them to do anything differently? Their rhetoric is the same. And not only is it the same as Reagan's, but also the same as Bush when he first got elected. This may not be anything new.
However, if it is something new, if the tea party backed candidates are going to sincerely push further than Reagan and live up to the fiscal conservative rhetoric, we need to be worried.
If you want to peak into a country in which there are completely pure "free" market, "free" trade, and fiscal conservative (neo-liberal) principles, you don't need to look any further than Haiti. Or Jamaica. Or Bolivia. Or a whole slew of other third world countries in which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are involved in. The "free" market principles conservatives pride themselves so much on are predominant in these countries, and they are possibly the biggest factor of what keeps them in the third world; tax cuts for the wealthy, completely open "free" trade, very little (if at all) government services and welfare programs, massive privatizations, suppression of unions, zero labor laws, etc. Yes, Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere, is a conservative's dream. This why I put the word "free" in "free" market and "free" trade in quotations: in countries that follow such principles, there is no freedom.
And that is no mistake. The founders of such economic principles, such as David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus, amongst others, were very adamant to point out that there is no freedom for the majority of people in this type of system, only the freedom to either work, starve, rot in jail, or die. Freedom is only reserved for the rich. And indeed, that is one thing that they were right about. How can we reconcile this system with democracy? How can we reconcile this system with the ideas found in our Constitution?
We can't.
Thankfully, we've never really had a pure capitalist system, at least not in our modern era, the era in which we progressed to become a huge global economic and military superpower. We've been nothing less than a state-capitalist society. The amount of state intervention in the economy is huge, and largely unknown to the general public; everything from the subsidizing of agriculture to ensure that our potatoes are sold at the cheap in foreign markets to the entirety of our high-tech industry is on the account of the state. Indeed, for those who are pushing for zero government economic intervention, those who consider any government intervention to be evil socialism, just take at your computer, your internet, your cell phone. Take a look at all the different materials that make up our cars and planes. These are the products of government investment. These are all made by our government, paid for by our tax dollars. All of the the high tech industry is from the state sector. How is that socialism working out for you?
Yes, it is impossible to reconcile this current state capitalist system with democracy as well, but not to the extent that it would be irreconcilable if we had a pure capitalist system. We need to be realistic, we need to be genuine in our understanding. When many third world countries get in a disastrous economic crisis, the IMF comes in and implements the neo-liberal policies which our tea partiers are pushing today, in the midst of our economic crisis. These countries are failed states because of this. The people of the countries live in abject poverty, oppressive poverty; conditions we couldn't even imagine. Fiscal conservatism, as we know it today, keeps third world countries in the third world. It creates an environment in which corporations are allowed to exploit and essentially buy up the country.
When you hear conservatives discussing privatization of social security in our country, this is exactly the type of thing we are talking about. Corporations are for-profit institutions. How would life be if the institutions that directly ran our nation were for-profit? We need something, some institution to protect us, the people, from corporations. That is government. I am an anarchist through and through, I don't believe in the legitimacy of government along with any social hierarchy, but we have to be realistic here. We all know government cannot ever be truly for and by the people. But we know that, at least, they have to be somewhat accountable to the people in a democracy. We know that government can not to be blatantly for profit in a democracy. So the choice has to be made; corporation or government? For-profit or elected public officials?
Yes, we all want neither. But unfortunately, they both have power. It is matter of which do we not want the most to have a position of authority in our lives. Think about places like Haiti, where corporations run the country. Then think about 1990's. Make the distinction. Realize what terms like fiscal conservatism and socialism stand for in this society. This is the decision we have to make today, and unfortunately we are moving in the wrong direction.
It may seem ridiculous to question the notion of fiscal conservatism at a time like this. It may be deemed inappropriate to question the push for austerity measures, here and in Europe, to tear down huge deficits. In fact, it probably seems outlandish to many to suggest that we should not focusing on the monstrous debt. But I am, and just because there is a popular wave that will most likely ride the Republicans to numerous and significant victories today and tonight, doesn't mean it's right and it's good. Just because it is now conventional wisdom, doesn't mean it's genuine wisdom. It doesn't mean history supports it; it doesn't mean the facts support it.
By the Ronald Reagan left office, this nation had hundreds of billions of dollars of a deficit. Chump change compared to the debt mounted by his vice president's son's presidency, but let's think about it. Reagan was apparently the champion of neoconservatism, the champion of the "free" market and "free" trade; Reagan was the champion of fiscal conservatism in the eyes of many today. if this is so, why and how did he wrack up such a huge deficit? And to be clear, it was huge at the time. No matter what conservative bloggers say, Reagan did NOT tackle the deficit during his term, not only the way he should've, but in the way that was expected by other fiscal conservatives. No sir, he left that monster for Clinton to deal with.
So, let's get this straight. The messiah of fiscal conservatism left a huge deficit for a liberal democrat to deal with. And on top of that, that liberal democrat turned that deficit into a surplus. Does this not raise any eyebrows, if not questions? Questions like: why are we voting in the republicans this midterm?
Now, we have to objective here. Reagan was not some sort of small government tea partier. His rhetoric was, but that's where it ended. Reagan expanded the government in huge ways, more so than anyone else had prior. The difference is that Reagan was so blatantly pro-corporatism and so anti-working class. Reagan was also hugely protectionist when it came to trade; just ask the Japanese automakers. But the thing is, the tea partiers today look up to him as the republican Christ (because we all know Jesus was a socialist), so how can we expect them to do anything differently? Their rhetoric is the same. And not only is it the same as Reagan's, but also the same as Bush when he first got elected. This may not be anything new.
However, if it is something new, if the tea party backed candidates are going to sincerely push further than Reagan and live up to the fiscal conservative rhetoric, we need to be worried.
If you want to peak into a country in which there are completely pure "free" market, "free" trade, and fiscal conservative (neo-liberal) principles, you don't need to look any further than Haiti. Or Jamaica. Or Bolivia. Or a whole slew of other third world countries in which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are involved in. The "free" market principles conservatives pride themselves so much on are predominant in these countries, and they are possibly the biggest factor of what keeps them in the third world; tax cuts for the wealthy, completely open "free" trade, very little (if at all) government services and welfare programs, massive privatizations, suppression of unions, zero labor laws, etc. Yes, Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere, is a conservative's dream. This why I put the word "free" in "free" market and "free" trade in quotations: in countries that follow such principles, there is no freedom.
And that is no mistake. The founders of such economic principles, such as David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus, amongst others, were very adamant to point out that there is no freedom for the majority of people in this type of system, only the freedom to either work, starve, rot in jail, or die. Freedom is only reserved for the rich. And indeed, that is one thing that they were right about. How can we reconcile this system with democracy? How can we reconcile this system with the ideas found in our Constitution?
We can't.
Thankfully, we've never really had a pure capitalist system, at least not in our modern era, the era in which we progressed to become a huge global economic and military superpower. We've been nothing less than a state-capitalist society. The amount of state intervention in the economy is huge, and largely unknown to the general public; everything from the subsidizing of agriculture to ensure that our potatoes are sold at the cheap in foreign markets to the entirety of our high-tech industry is on the account of the state. Indeed, for those who are pushing for zero government economic intervention, those who consider any government intervention to be evil socialism, just take at your computer, your internet, your cell phone. Take a look at all the different materials that make up our cars and planes. These are the products of government investment. These are all made by our government, paid for by our tax dollars. All of the the high tech industry is from the state sector. How is that socialism working out for you?
Yes, it is impossible to reconcile this current state capitalist system with democracy as well, but not to the extent that it would be irreconcilable if we had a pure capitalist system. We need to be realistic, we need to be genuine in our understanding. When many third world countries get in a disastrous economic crisis, the IMF comes in and implements the neo-liberal policies which our tea partiers are pushing today, in the midst of our economic crisis. These countries are failed states because of this. The people of the countries live in abject poverty, oppressive poverty; conditions we couldn't even imagine. Fiscal conservatism, as we know it today, keeps third world countries in the third world. It creates an environment in which corporations are allowed to exploit and essentially buy up the country.
When you hear conservatives discussing privatization of social security in our country, this is exactly the type of thing we are talking about. Corporations are for-profit institutions. How would life be if the institutions that directly ran our nation were for-profit? We need something, some institution to protect us, the people, from corporations. That is government. I am an anarchist through and through, I don't believe in the legitimacy of government along with any social hierarchy, but we have to be realistic here. We all know government cannot ever be truly for and by the people. But we know that, at least, they have to be somewhat accountable to the people in a democracy. We know that government can not to be blatantly for profit in a democracy. So the choice has to be made; corporation or government? For-profit or elected public officials?
Yes, we all want neither. But unfortunately, they both have power. It is matter of which do we not want the most to have a position of authority in our lives. Think about places like Haiti, where corporations run the country. Then think about 1990's. Make the distinction. Realize what terms like fiscal conservatism and socialism stand for in this society. This is the decision we have to make today, and unfortunately we are moving in the wrong direction.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
War vs. Democracy
Perhaps the most significant revelation in the new leaked documents on the war in Iraq by Wikileaks is the realization that after the controversies regarding Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and torture, the war was not cleaned up like it was perceived to be after Petraeus took over. Torture was still widespread, though if not carried out directly by our troops on the ground, then indirectly by allied Iraqi forces; the question boils down to whether letting torture take place by turning a blind eye to it, when you have the power prevent it and clearly know that is taking place, is the same as carrying out the torture directly. I think we all know the answer to that, and it is disturbing.
Possibly more significant is the revealed death count of 109,032, with over 60% of those being civilian casualties. And that count is only the deaths that our troops were involved with or came across; I fear that the number is definitely far more when factoring in sectarian violence that our soldiers did not directly encounter, as they obviously can't be everywhere at once. But make no mistake, those casualties are should weigh on our conscience, as well; if we had not come into Iraq, or at least had been better prepared and had realistic expectations, then this country would not become unstable and would not have transformed into a breeding ground for sectarian violence. Iraq would not have broken out into civil war without our invasion.
No, this war has not been a "clean" war. There is no such thing. War is legalized murder of civilians, of children, of mothers. Although these leaks did not break any ground or give us any grand revelations that we perhaps could not have already assumed (as many of us did), they do shine some light and give some clarity to the conflict, as did Wikileaks' Afghan leak. The public needs this clarity, apparently. If we knew the truth, I'm sure none of us would support war. The truth is just so obvious in all cases of war, we all know what war is, but there is this sentiment in America, cleverly crafted by a relentless propaganda campaign by our government and those propaganda machines who support it, that war is different when we wage it. A war for freedom, for peace. But it never is. We all know the truth about war, the horrors are right in front of us to see, but we are completely blind. We should be saying "Never again;" instead we are talking about bombing Iran and taunting North Korea and Venezuela. Do we learn nothing?
The American people need to wake up. We are the only people who can stop these atrocities, and you can bet there will be many and always will be many if we don't. We are amongst the most powerful people in the world. We literally have the power to make or break it. In many countries, people get killed or imprisoned by their government for even suggesting to raise the minimum wage from 30 cents a day to a dollar a day; our freedoms are a true blessing, and also a great source of power to change the status quo. But we never use it. It is true that our voice is relatively small compared to the voice of the corporate world, but our voice is relatively huge compared to the voices of all other peoples of this world. And we are in a position to change things: so many conflicts and so much of the injustice in this world stems from our government. From supporting brutal puppet regimes to crippling any nation who does not subordinate to our interests, indeed you can trace back too many atrocities back to our government. And the very sad fact is that our government claims to represent us and our interests.
Let's show them that we are not going to accept this. This is a democracy, and we need to not only expand our democratic rights domestically, but we need to start being more democratic in our foreign affairs. Whether or not we invade a country should not be up a bunch of corporate sponsored jokers. Whether or not we back a military coup in a country to overthrow a democratically elected leader should not be up to the CIA. These decisions should be up to us: after all, the actions are done in our name.
I think my fellow Americans also need to realize that this culture of secrecy in our foreign affairs is not always ethical or even productive. Yes, journalists should not leak information that they know could possibly negatively impact national security, but we have learned over a very long period time, over and over again, that our intelligence agencies are very likely to classify things for the reason of covering up something embarrassing, something criminal, or most often, something embarrassingly criminal. They are not be trusted at their word, we really have no good reason to. They haven't provided us with a good reason to.
The intelligence agencies have been exposed repeatedly for hiding things from us, the American people, for the sole reason of keeping us uninformed, thus crippling our decision making process. If the American people were informed about the facts leading up to the Iraq war, would we have supported it? Hell no. It wouldn't have even been an issue. I believe, as strong as propaganda is, the facts, if known, will always prevail. That notion may be naive, but we have never had an opportunity to explore it. They have always intentionally kept us in the dark for unsavory reasons.
It has become very obvious that the war making bodies of our government, the intelligence agencies and presidency, view the American public as the enemy. The secrecy and the propaganda seem very much like Reagan's actions in Nicaragua, when the US took over the Nicaraguan airwaves and aired pro-Contra propaganda endlessly and kept Nicaraguan people in the dark as to the reality of the war, which was US state-sponsored terrorism. This should tell us two very important things: the immoral and unethical nature of our policy makers, particularly ones involved with foreign policy, and just how powerful our voice is.
If the CIA is so afraid of our voice as to intentionally mislead us and keep us in the dark in order to work, that should tell us that we are a force to be reckoned with, a force that can transform the staus quo.
That is, if we are to be awakened.
Demand the truth. Demand peace.
There is no such thing as a "clean" war.
Side Note: I had made a post about the Iranian Hikers in September, and I just wanted to say that my views on the topic have changed due to new information leaked in the Wikileaks documents regarding the fact the the Hikers were actually in Iraq and captured by Iranian forces in Iraq; that changes things greatly.
Possibly more significant is the revealed death count of 109,032, with over 60% of those being civilian casualties. And that count is only the deaths that our troops were involved with or came across; I fear that the number is definitely far more when factoring in sectarian violence that our soldiers did not directly encounter, as they obviously can't be everywhere at once. But make no mistake, those casualties are should weigh on our conscience, as well; if we had not come into Iraq, or at least had been better prepared and had realistic expectations, then this country would not become unstable and would not have transformed into a breeding ground for sectarian violence. Iraq would not have broken out into civil war without our invasion.
No, this war has not been a "clean" war. There is no such thing. War is legalized murder of civilians, of children, of mothers. Although these leaks did not break any ground or give us any grand revelations that we perhaps could not have already assumed (as many of us did), they do shine some light and give some clarity to the conflict, as did Wikileaks' Afghan leak. The public needs this clarity, apparently. If we knew the truth, I'm sure none of us would support war. The truth is just so obvious in all cases of war, we all know what war is, but there is this sentiment in America, cleverly crafted by a relentless propaganda campaign by our government and those propaganda machines who support it, that war is different when we wage it. A war for freedom, for peace. But it never is. We all know the truth about war, the horrors are right in front of us to see, but we are completely blind. We should be saying "Never again;" instead we are talking about bombing Iran and taunting North Korea and Venezuela. Do we learn nothing?
The American people need to wake up. We are the only people who can stop these atrocities, and you can bet there will be many and always will be many if we don't. We are amongst the most powerful people in the world. We literally have the power to make or break it. In many countries, people get killed or imprisoned by their government for even suggesting to raise the minimum wage from 30 cents a day to a dollar a day; our freedoms are a true blessing, and also a great source of power to change the status quo. But we never use it. It is true that our voice is relatively small compared to the voice of the corporate world, but our voice is relatively huge compared to the voices of all other peoples of this world. And we are in a position to change things: so many conflicts and so much of the injustice in this world stems from our government. From supporting brutal puppet regimes to crippling any nation who does not subordinate to our interests, indeed you can trace back too many atrocities back to our government. And the very sad fact is that our government claims to represent us and our interests.
Let's show them that we are not going to accept this. This is a democracy, and we need to not only expand our democratic rights domestically, but we need to start being more democratic in our foreign affairs. Whether or not we invade a country should not be up a bunch of corporate sponsored jokers. Whether or not we back a military coup in a country to overthrow a democratically elected leader should not be up to the CIA. These decisions should be up to us: after all, the actions are done in our name.
I think my fellow Americans also need to realize that this culture of secrecy in our foreign affairs is not always ethical or even productive. Yes, journalists should not leak information that they know could possibly negatively impact national security, but we have learned over a very long period time, over and over again, that our intelligence agencies are very likely to classify things for the reason of covering up something embarrassing, something criminal, or most often, something embarrassingly criminal. They are not be trusted at their word, we really have no good reason to. They haven't provided us with a good reason to.
The intelligence agencies have been exposed repeatedly for hiding things from us, the American people, for the sole reason of keeping us uninformed, thus crippling our decision making process. If the American people were informed about the facts leading up to the Iraq war, would we have supported it? Hell no. It wouldn't have even been an issue. I believe, as strong as propaganda is, the facts, if known, will always prevail. That notion may be naive, but we have never had an opportunity to explore it. They have always intentionally kept us in the dark for unsavory reasons.
It has become very obvious that the war making bodies of our government, the intelligence agencies and presidency, view the American public as the enemy. The secrecy and the propaganda seem very much like Reagan's actions in Nicaragua, when the US took over the Nicaraguan airwaves and aired pro-Contra propaganda endlessly and kept Nicaraguan people in the dark as to the reality of the war, which was US state-sponsored terrorism. This should tell us two very important things: the immoral and unethical nature of our policy makers, particularly ones involved with foreign policy, and just how powerful our voice is.
If the CIA is so afraid of our voice as to intentionally mislead us and keep us in the dark in order to work, that should tell us that we are a force to be reckoned with, a force that can transform the staus quo.
That is, if we are to be awakened.
Demand the truth. Demand peace.
There is no such thing as a "clean" war.
Side Note: I had made a post about the Iranian Hikers in September, and I just wanted to say that my views on the topic have changed due to new information leaked in the Wikileaks documents regarding the fact the the Hikers were actually in Iraq and captured by Iranian forces in Iraq; that changes things greatly.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Juan Williams Controversy
So Juan Williams, an NPR analyst and Fox News contributor, was fired from NPR for making this comment about Muslims:
"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
First and foremost, I don't believe he should have been fired; so he said something stupid. Everyone does. Obviously NPR was looking for an opportunity to fire Juan, probably due to his affiliation with Fox News. However, the people who are coming to his defense, particularly the ones at Fox News, are arguing on this point. Earlier today, Megyn Kelly was discussing the matter and had on someone or another from CAIR, an Muslim American rights advocacy group that called on NPR to address the problem and to take action against Juan Williams, and instead of arguing the sensible points she decided to try win the battle by trying to lower everyone's IQ a few notches.
Her argument mostly consisted of the fact that most of Americans feel the same way about Muslims and that Juan Williams was just being honest. Her point was that Williams is not a bigot, he was just being honest. I know this doesn't bother the type of viewers who watch Fox, but just it bothers me. I am, maybe foolishly, under the impression that if you honestly think a bigoted thought than it is still a bigoted thought. And that is true no matter how many Americans think the same way, it shouldn't matter either way. I mean for God's sake, at one point in this country, the majority believe that blacks were inferior to whites. The majority can be wrong, and is wrong often. I'm not saying that Juan Williams or the majority of Americans are bigots, but to stereotype all Muslims who dress in "Muslim garb" to be terrorists is, at the very least, discriminatory; undoubtedly. the majority of Muslims, including the majority who dress in religious clothing, are not terrorists.
Megyn Kelly's other point against the CAIR spokesman was some rhetoric about the freedom of speech. Yes, Williams has freedom of speech protected by the first amendment, but doesn't CAIR have freedom of speech as well? Don't they have the freedom to respond to call for action? In fact, as a Muslim American civil rights advocacy group, they wouldn't be doing their duty if they did not respond. However harmless Juan's remarks seemed, they were essentially promoting the use of racial and religious profiling by law enforcement, particularly at airports. Racial and religious profiling are blatant violations of civil rights.
Kelly's argument regarding first amendment rights reminds me of Dr. Laura's claim that her freedom of speech was being attacked when she got fired for saying the N-word like ten times; regardless of CAIR's own freedom of speech to respond, the fact is, people in the media have a right to free speech, but they don't necessarily have a right to free speech on TV or radio; it's not the government who's censoring them, it's always their own network due to pressures from advertisers, and they have the right. No matter how unfair it seems.
Of course, for viewers, CAIR's spokesman was hardly able to make any of these points effectively because of Kelly's tendency for interruptions and incessant ridiculing. Not that I think most Fox viewers would be listening for his points, anyhow.
Was firing Juan Williams unjustified? Hell yes. But not for any other reason than the fact that we all say stupid things sometimes. It is sad that the corporate media has been acting in such a way lately: we've had too many media personalities get fired recently for saying things that are deemed unacceptable. Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez's comments were stupid, yes. Some of the others, however, were making legitimate and thoughtful political statements and their firings did not even warrant more than a couple words by today's major news organizations.
For the record, I do think Juan Williams is probably the most even headed guy there at Fox News (along with Shepard Smith).
"I mean, look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country, but when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they're identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."
First and foremost, I don't believe he should have been fired; so he said something stupid. Everyone does. Obviously NPR was looking for an opportunity to fire Juan, probably due to his affiliation with Fox News. However, the people who are coming to his defense, particularly the ones at Fox News, are arguing on this point. Earlier today, Megyn Kelly was discussing the matter and had on someone or another from CAIR, an Muslim American rights advocacy group that called on NPR to address the problem and to take action against Juan Williams, and instead of arguing the sensible points she decided to try win the battle by trying to lower everyone's IQ a few notches.
Her argument mostly consisted of the fact that most of Americans feel the same way about Muslims and that Juan Williams was just being honest. Her point was that Williams is not a bigot, he was just being honest. I know this doesn't bother the type of viewers who watch Fox, but just it bothers me. I am, maybe foolishly, under the impression that if you honestly think a bigoted thought than it is still a bigoted thought. And that is true no matter how many Americans think the same way, it shouldn't matter either way. I mean for God's sake, at one point in this country, the majority believe that blacks were inferior to whites. The majority can be wrong, and is wrong often. I'm not saying that Juan Williams or the majority of Americans are bigots, but to stereotype all Muslims who dress in "Muslim garb" to be terrorists is, at the very least, discriminatory; undoubtedly. the majority of Muslims, including the majority who dress in religious clothing, are not terrorists.
Megyn Kelly's other point against the CAIR spokesman was some rhetoric about the freedom of speech. Yes, Williams has freedom of speech protected by the first amendment, but doesn't CAIR have freedom of speech as well? Don't they have the freedom to respond to call for action? In fact, as a Muslim American civil rights advocacy group, they wouldn't be doing their duty if they did not respond. However harmless Juan's remarks seemed, they were essentially promoting the use of racial and religious profiling by law enforcement, particularly at airports. Racial and religious profiling are blatant violations of civil rights.
Kelly's argument regarding first amendment rights reminds me of Dr. Laura's claim that her freedom of speech was being attacked when she got fired for saying the N-word like ten times; regardless of CAIR's own freedom of speech to respond, the fact is, people in the media have a right to free speech, but they don't necessarily have a right to free speech on TV or radio; it's not the government who's censoring them, it's always their own network due to pressures from advertisers, and they have the right. No matter how unfair it seems.
Of course, for viewers, CAIR's spokesman was hardly able to make any of these points effectively because of Kelly's tendency for interruptions and incessant ridiculing. Not that I think most Fox viewers would be listening for his points, anyhow.
Was firing Juan Williams unjustified? Hell yes. But not for any other reason than the fact that we all say stupid things sometimes. It is sad that the corporate media has been acting in such a way lately: we've had too many media personalities get fired recently for saying things that are deemed unacceptable. Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez's comments were stupid, yes. Some of the others, however, were making legitimate and thoughtful political statements and their firings did not even warrant more than a couple words by today's major news organizations.
For the record, I do think Juan Williams is probably the most even headed guy there at Fox News (along with Shepard Smith).
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Thoughts on the "Ground Zero Mosque" "debate"
Not in a long time has the social climate in the United States climaxed into something so disgusting and embarrassing; it is impossible to turn on the news on the TV and not see images of people holding up anti-Muslim signs, or turn on the radio and hear the bantering of Islamophobes.
Sure, stereotyping of Muslims and general Islamophobia is nothing new, but never has it been flaunted so openly and with so much rage, especially by our public officials and mainstream public and cultural leaders: people with positions of responsibility. Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Harry Reid, Rick Lazio, and more have all been willing to throw a whole population of Muslim American under the bridge, whether it's for votes in the upcoming elections or some other unworthy cause. In some cases, some of these individuals may appear to actually believe what they are saying; indeed a rarity for the class of people who I am referring to. And this seems to be one of the only cases I wish that they didn't.
The whole issue really boils down to a basic question: Should we, as a society, have to be sensitive to the feelings of the ignorant whenever we make decisions?
Because the only reason why this is even an issue is because of the ignorant, and frankly bigoted, perception of many that all Muslims are anti-American terrorists, and more importantly, that Islam is a religion that has terrorism, violence, and anti-American sentiment at its core; that the hijackers who brought down the twin towers were following exactly what Islam teaches, and thus having a Islamic community center or house of worship near ground zero is like having a Nazi memorial center near Auschwitz.
Indeed, without these perceptions, this would not even be an issue. And these perceptions are, without doubt, based on ignorance and escalated by propaganda. Nevermind all the communities of peaceful American Muslims citizens in this country, or even those who serve in our military. Nevermind that there are just as many, if not more, promotions and depictions of violence (and misogyny) in the Bible, which is the religious text of choice of the majority of those who hold the perception that Islam is a religion of violence, as there is in the Koran. These are factors and facts that do not matter and are not exposed; thus someone like Pamela Geller can say such things as the type of Islam the 9/11 terrorists practiced is "pure Islam" without any resistance.
To be fair, there are, in the press, some defense of Muslim Americans. But not of Islam. It seems that questioning the validity of statements such as the one Pamela Geller made are excluded in the narrow spectrum of mainstream American discourse. Indeed, if it is acceptable to assume that Islam is a religion of terrorism and violence, then the same has to be said of mostly of all of the world's religions, with Christianity not only included but separated apart from the others as one of the biggest offenders. That is, if we are to be honest and truly contemplative.
The "Ground Zero Mosque" is not like Nazi Memorial near a concentration camp; in fact, if we want to make analogies and comparisons to Nazi Germany, than the more sensible comparisons would be between the propaganda against Muslims and Islam we are hearing now by the likes of Fox News gang and the propaganda and indoctrination that was being heard in Germany regarding the Jews right before the holocaust. That is a real comparison, and it is frightening.
It is telling that there are protests now, not only against the "Ground Zero Mosque", but against many mosques in many completely unrelated communities. It shows that this has nothing to do with historical landmarks or controversial Imams: it has to do with hate and fear, and of course, ignorance.
So the questions stands: Should we have to be sensitive to the ignorant?
Sure, stereotyping of Muslims and general Islamophobia is nothing new, but never has it been flaunted so openly and with so much rage, especially by our public officials and mainstream public and cultural leaders: people with positions of responsibility. Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Harry Reid, Rick Lazio, and more have all been willing to throw a whole population of Muslim American under the bridge, whether it's for votes in the upcoming elections or some other unworthy cause. In some cases, some of these individuals may appear to actually believe what they are saying; indeed a rarity for the class of people who I am referring to. And this seems to be one of the only cases I wish that they didn't.
The whole issue really boils down to a basic question: Should we, as a society, have to be sensitive to the feelings of the ignorant whenever we make decisions?
Because the only reason why this is even an issue is because of the ignorant, and frankly bigoted, perception of many that all Muslims are anti-American terrorists, and more importantly, that Islam is a religion that has terrorism, violence, and anti-American sentiment at its core; that the hijackers who brought down the twin towers were following exactly what Islam teaches, and thus having a Islamic community center or house of worship near ground zero is like having a Nazi memorial center near Auschwitz.
Indeed, without these perceptions, this would not even be an issue. And these perceptions are, without doubt, based on ignorance and escalated by propaganda. Nevermind all the communities of peaceful American Muslims citizens in this country, or even those who serve in our military. Nevermind that there are just as many, if not more, promotions and depictions of violence (and misogyny) in the Bible, which is the religious text of choice of the majority of those who hold the perception that Islam is a religion of violence, as there is in the Koran. These are factors and facts that do not matter and are not exposed; thus someone like Pamela Geller can say such things as the type of Islam the 9/11 terrorists practiced is "pure Islam" without any resistance.
To be fair, there are, in the press, some defense of Muslim Americans. But not of Islam. It seems that questioning the validity of statements such as the one Pamela Geller made are excluded in the narrow spectrum of mainstream American discourse. Indeed, if it is acceptable to assume that Islam is a religion of terrorism and violence, then the same has to be said of mostly of all of the world's religions, with Christianity not only included but separated apart from the others as one of the biggest offenders. That is, if we are to be honest and truly contemplative.
The "Ground Zero Mosque" is not like Nazi Memorial near a concentration camp; in fact, if we want to make analogies and comparisons to Nazi Germany, than the more sensible comparisons would be between the propaganda against Muslims and Islam we are hearing now by the likes of Fox News gang and the propaganda and indoctrination that was being heard in Germany regarding the Jews right before the holocaust. That is a real comparison, and it is frightening.
It is telling that there are protests now, not only against the "Ground Zero Mosque", but against many mosques in many completely unrelated communities. It shows that this has nothing to do with historical landmarks or controversial Imams: it has to do with hate and fear, and of course, ignorance.
So the questions stands: Should we have to be sensitive to the ignorant?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)