Foreign Policy magazine's new feature, "The Ultimate Ally" by Michael Oren, is a hardly slick, and hardly new, piece of propaganda aimed at prolonging the US's blindly dangerous support of the state of Israel. Not the least bit surprising since Oren is Israel's ambassador to the US, but still, it is particularly offensive to those who have the courage to question this dangerous relationship between the USA and Israel, especially when considering the context of recent events in the Middle East.
The Arab world is in the middle of a great wave of change fueled by popular uprising in opposition to the authoritarian, in most cases, American-backed, regimes. It will not be long before Israel can no longer hold on to its claim of being the only democracy in the Middle East. In the eyes of the honest, this claim has never been substantiated in any case when taking into account of Israel's current Apartheid-like policies toward its Arab citizens and its obvious record of human rights violations in the occupied territories. Regardless, its obvious why Israeli government is in a state of complete and utter refusal to launch a new round of peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The wave of popular movement has made its way into the Palestinian territories, and with the recent unification of Hamas and Fatah, Obama's recent articulation of support for a resolution based upon the pre-1967 borders, and an upcoming UN general assembly vote for Palestinian statehood (backed by nearly all members of the international community except for the US), the Palestinian cause seems to be stronger than ever today. That is Israel's ultimate fear of course: a negotiating partner in a position of strength.
Not just because Israel is afraid of not having an upper hand in the negotiations particularly, but because any negotiations that would happen now are bound to actually bear some sort of fruit in general. It is against Israeli interest to end this conflict, plain and simple; any resolution is a bad resolution for the Israeli state and that is precisely why the conflict continues today. The continuation of the conflict allows an undefined amount of land grabbing for Israel, thus it is in the ultimate interest of the expansionists in Israel to block any peace process from ever resolving. With the continuation of the conflict, water resources, East Jerusalem, and much more are up for grabs and annexation for the Israeli government and elite, as well as a vast cheap, exploitable and indeed already greatly exploited, Palestinian labor force which is the fuel of Israeli prosperity.
The facts have always been clear in this conflict, and although much of the press has always made an effort to fog it all up with its claims that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex issue, the facts convey that this is and has always been a very simple problem with a very simple solution. Israel took and occupied land illegally and it must give it back. Israel expelled, whether directly or indirectly, many people illegally and it must allow them to return.
And let's not ever forget that this is not merely an Israeli occupation of the West bank and Gaza Strip, but a US-Israel occupation considering that the US has blocked all efforts towards peace and has funded Israeli expansion and atrocities since '67 and beyond. It was encouraging to hear Obama clearly articulate a policy in favor of pre-1967 borders, however, it is more disheartening that he expressed, not too long after that, to an AIPAC audience that the US will never support a UN resolution creating Palestinian statehood. Why Obama would make such a policy is clearly political, but he must know he is playing domestic politics at the expense of the suffering.
All the same sentiment goes for the US's current attitude towards the unification of Hamas and Fatah, which is obviously progress but cannot be admitted as such; indeed it is interesting enough that Israel's old excuse for not participating in previous peace talks was that they claimed it was impossible to make peace when the negotiation partner was so divided, and now that they aren't the excuse is that it is impossible because the negotiation partner is united. Obviously they are backed into a corner, and considering that, who can blame them for being so rejectionist...right? uhhh...
Still, times are changing, and that is why Micheal Oren's propaganda piece is particularly offensive, as it is insulting to any one's intellect who has been keeping informed with recent developments in the Middle East. Now's not the time to be beating that dead horse; for the propagandist its time to find a new horse to kill.
On a side note, when looking at the comments on Oren's piece, it seems that the Israel supporters who call anyone who criticizes Israel state policies anti-Semitic (which is a ridiculous claim obviously, but has been very effective at silencing dissent in this country) are just as quick to make sweeping negative generalizations about the Arab peoples. On that website, anyhow.
Below are some stats for all of you, just a taste of how many people have died in the overall Arab-Israeli conflict. Most of these are complete estimates because many Arab governments used to or still don't separate civilian casualties from combatant casualties, and because organizations such as the Palestinian Authority don't have adequate resources to count all casualties. Also, missing are the overall casualties of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon besides the two wars. Indeed, the Israeli death toll is far less than the Arab toll, which begs the question of who's a threat to who, especially when you consider how many of these conflicts came about. But that's not the point, because every Israeli human life is just as important as every Arab life and we should be very worried about this situation: people are dying. It's unacceptable, and especially for us here in the USA, we are not immune from blame since our tax dollars contribute to these deaths.
Casualties since 1987 in Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
Palestinian: 7,978 (including 1,620 minors)
Israeli: 1,503 (including 142 minors)
2006 Lebanese War:
Foreign Civilians: 51
Lebanese Civilians: 1,191
Lebanese military: 46
Israeli Civilians: 43
Israeli Military: 117
Amal Movement: 17
Hizbollah: up to 700
Lebanese Communist Party: 12
PFLP-GC: 2
United Nations Civilians: 1
United Nations Military: 4
Casualties of 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon:
Lebanese: 17,825
Syrian: 1,200
PLO: 1,500
Israeli: 368
Casualties of 1973 Israeli raid on Lebanon:
Palestinian and Lebanese: up to 100
Israeli: 2
Casualties of 1973 Yom Kippur War:
Egyptian: 8,000-15,000
Syria: 3,000-3,500
Israeli: 2,520-2,800
Casualties of 1967 Six Day War:
Egyptian: 9,800-15,000
Jordanian: 700-6,000
Syrian: 1,000
Israelis: 776-983
Casualties of 1948 War:
Arab: 8,000-15,000
Israeli: 6,373
Monday, May 23, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Thoughts on the death of Osama Bin Laden
After reading reader-responses to a recent article in the New York Times reporting on Omar Bin Laden's (Osama's fourth son) condemnation of the US Government obviously for the assassination of his father, I was compelled to write my thoughts regarding this matter.
It should be noted that, as background information, Omar Bin Laden was not a terrorist like his father as he consistently publicly rejected his father's use of violence against innocent civilians. Omar Bin Laden's condemnation of the US Government, and specifically of US President Barack Obama, was based upon the lack of a due process for his father. In this sense, it seems that Mr. Bin laden has been consistent in his views; he was against the violence of his father and he is against the violence perpetrated by the US Government. Indeed, I happen to somewhat agree with his sentiment, to an extent; or rather, I would if I was positive that this was purely a targeted assassination. On the contrary, it seems that Osama Bin Laden's death was the result of an unpredictable-by-nature military operation, of which the main goal was to capture Bin Laden. That military raids are unpredictable by nature, of course, does not excuse anything, and in general the pretenses for the whole War on Terror is obviously deeply and fundamentally flawed in not only its means, but furthermore, its objectives.
However, the fact that killing an unarmed criminal, no matter who it is, was ever sanctioned as a possibility in the first place (i.e. "Dead or Alive") is disturbing. This must be stressed: No matter who the criminal is. Not because I believe that Osama Bin Laden deserves anything but a violent death in the same fashion he perpetrated on so many innocents, but because it sets a precedent. An extremely frightening precedent; that whoever is popularly believed to be a criminal or whoever is labeled as such by the government, without due process of law, can be assassinated. If such a practice continues to expand, you can say goodbye to free speech rights, and I don't believe I really have to tell you why; all you have to do is think about the nature of the state and it becomes clear.
Of course, this violation of human rights is not a new avenue for our government as the Terrorist Watchlist has been around for quite awhile: a list created by the executive branch of people they deem to be national security threats, which can be added to without any sort of proof of an individual's guilt, and gives the government the right to apprehend anyone on the list in whichever way they see fit. It's basically a way to bypass due process so the government can really just take out anyone they want to. We've already seen some of the blaring disgraces, as Nelson Mandela was only recently taken off the list; Mandela, a man of peace and justice who brought equality to South Africa was deemed to our government as a threat. Thus it is obvious that the list has been every bit about politics and power as about national security since the beginning. Did our government not take Sadam Hussein off the list in the 80's when he became an ally (you know, when he was committing the worst of his atrocities, all paid for by our tax payer dollars), and put him back on when he (politically) defied the US? Can it get anymore obvious?
We gave a trial to Milosevic. We gave one to Sadam Hussien. Trials were held for Nazi war criminals in Nuremburg, who committed atrocities far more immense in scale and inhumanity than anything Bin Laden could ever dream of. Yes, Bin Laden's death may have not been meant to be a targeted killing, but what about all those who are blown to pieces by our unmanned Drones flying over Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen? Right after the US's triumph over Osama Bin Laden, I heard on the news that US Drones were bombing locations in Yemen, apparently looking to kill a certain radical cleric, who also happens to be a US citizen. Now you can't say that those operations weren't meant to be targeted assassinations.
However, there is a certain confusion to all of this: apparently we are supposed to be considering this a war. But at the same time President Obama has conveyed his view that alleged terrorists should be tried in civilian courts. The fact is, this isn't a war, whether you call it such or not, and treating it like one will only end in failure of reaching any sort of peace. In any case, I never saw Congress ever declare this war. It would make more sense to view Al Qaeda as an international criminal organization, but even that falls short of the big picture, as we are dealing with something much bigger. You could say the enemy is the ideology, but even that is misleading, because the ideology of the Islamist terrorists is the result of ours and Britain's foreign policy in the region since the end World War I. The absolutely obvious only way to end the violence carried out by terrorists is by us ending our foreign policy of exploitation and conquest.
But that's neither here nor there as the issue at hand is urgent enough; the precedent of unproven condemnations of guilt is turning this country's founding principles upon its head. A free society needs due process, its the only way justice can ever be legitimate. I have no sympathies for Osama Bin Laden and I hope he rots in hell, but tomorrow it may not be Osama Bin Laden who is being killed by our government. It may not be a murderer at all. Rather, it may just be a hero.
It should be noted that, as background information, Omar Bin Laden was not a terrorist like his father as he consistently publicly rejected his father's use of violence against innocent civilians. Omar Bin Laden's condemnation of the US Government, and specifically of US President Barack Obama, was based upon the lack of a due process for his father. In this sense, it seems that Mr. Bin laden has been consistent in his views; he was against the violence of his father and he is against the violence perpetrated by the US Government. Indeed, I happen to somewhat agree with his sentiment, to an extent; or rather, I would if I was positive that this was purely a targeted assassination. On the contrary, it seems that Osama Bin Laden's death was the result of an unpredictable-by-nature military operation, of which the main goal was to capture Bin Laden. That military raids are unpredictable by nature, of course, does not excuse anything, and in general the pretenses for the whole War on Terror is obviously deeply and fundamentally flawed in not only its means, but furthermore, its objectives.
However, the fact that killing an unarmed criminal, no matter who it is, was ever sanctioned as a possibility in the first place (i.e. "Dead or Alive") is disturbing. This must be stressed: No matter who the criminal is. Not because I believe that Osama Bin Laden deserves anything but a violent death in the same fashion he perpetrated on so many innocents, but because it sets a precedent. An extremely frightening precedent; that whoever is popularly believed to be a criminal or whoever is labeled as such by the government, without due process of law, can be assassinated. If such a practice continues to expand, you can say goodbye to free speech rights, and I don't believe I really have to tell you why; all you have to do is think about the nature of the state and it becomes clear.
Of course, this violation of human rights is not a new avenue for our government as the Terrorist Watchlist has been around for quite awhile: a list created by the executive branch of people they deem to be national security threats, which can be added to without any sort of proof of an individual's guilt, and gives the government the right to apprehend anyone on the list in whichever way they see fit. It's basically a way to bypass due process so the government can really just take out anyone they want to. We've already seen some of the blaring disgraces, as Nelson Mandela was only recently taken off the list; Mandela, a man of peace and justice who brought equality to South Africa was deemed to our government as a threat. Thus it is obvious that the list has been every bit about politics and power as about national security since the beginning. Did our government not take Sadam Hussein off the list in the 80's when he became an ally (you know, when he was committing the worst of his atrocities, all paid for by our tax payer dollars), and put him back on when he (politically) defied the US? Can it get anymore obvious?
We gave a trial to Milosevic. We gave one to Sadam Hussien. Trials were held for Nazi war criminals in Nuremburg, who committed atrocities far more immense in scale and inhumanity than anything Bin Laden could ever dream of. Yes, Bin Laden's death may have not been meant to be a targeted killing, but what about all those who are blown to pieces by our unmanned Drones flying over Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen? Right after the US's triumph over Osama Bin Laden, I heard on the news that US Drones were bombing locations in Yemen, apparently looking to kill a certain radical cleric, who also happens to be a US citizen. Now you can't say that those operations weren't meant to be targeted assassinations.
However, there is a certain confusion to all of this: apparently we are supposed to be considering this a war. But at the same time President Obama has conveyed his view that alleged terrorists should be tried in civilian courts. The fact is, this isn't a war, whether you call it such or not, and treating it like one will only end in failure of reaching any sort of peace. In any case, I never saw Congress ever declare this war. It would make more sense to view Al Qaeda as an international criminal organization, but even that falls short of the big picture, as we are dealing with something much bigger. You could say the enemy is the ideology, but even that is misleading, because the ideology of the Islamist terrorists is the result of ours and Britain's foreign policy in the region since the end World War I. The absolutely obvious only way to end the violence carried out by terrorists is by us ending our foreign policy of exploitation and conquest.
But that's neither here nor there as the issue at hand is urgent enough; the precedent of unproven condemnations of guilt is turning this country's founding principles upon its head. A free society needs due process, its the only way justice can ever be legitimate. I have no sympathies for Osama Bin Laden and I hope he rots in hell, but tomorrow it may not be Osama Bin Laden who is being killed by our government. It may not be a murderer at all. Rather, it may just be a hero.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Revolutions at home and abroad.
We have hit a sort of critical mass regarding the status quo in recent weeks; the obvious ones are the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt which are direct attacks on the former regional status quo, enforced by the USA and its junior partner, Europe (and particularly France in the case of Tunisia). Indeed, the unrest has been spreading and people are inspired and frustrated, and it is a beautiful sight.
There is nothing more beautiful than to see the downtrodden and oppressed declare victory over tyranny. Unfortunately for us here in the US, we are on the wrong side of history, no matter which way you try to view it. Mubarak was part of vast system of subservience (or, as it is known in American discourse, "stability") in the Middle East, indeed he was one of our pillars. He supported him throughout all of his atrocities, and do not be fooled, there were many. We have supported the atrocities of Ben Ali all the same, though Tunisia was never as much of a priority. Indeed, it can be seen, without much effort at all, that these revolutions are, at heart, direct attacks against our foreign policy. This should come to no surprise to anyone who knows anything of our foreign policy in the Middle East, which is a policy that depends on the oppression of native peoples of resource (oil) rich countries; it is a policy that has supported repressive and violent regimes for the reason that they are just that, because one needs a brutal dictator to suppress and incapacitate its people if the exploitation of resources and labor is to be handled without issue. Democracy would ultimately mean that all of the vast benefits of the vast resources and strategic advantages of these countries would justly go to the people: Nationalizations of oil companies. Precedence of of the natives over foreign investors. Labor rights. These are things that run directly contrary with US interests, thus democracy runs contrary to US interests.
Of course, it easy to support Democracy in countries that are already enemies. Yes, the people of Iran and Libya have suffered far more than enough and deserve to be free and deserve to be supported in their noble endeavors. However, so do the people of Bahrain, Yemen, and Jordon, and whilst our State Department makes condemning statements aimed at Ghaddafi, and it should, they are much less clear on their position regarding the suffering people of Bahrain. Let's be absolutely clear: the people in Bahrain and Yemen are just as oppressed, if not more, as the people in Iran. And the same went for Egypt. The hesitance of our government to make statements calling for democracy in Jordon, Bahrain, Yemen and previously in Egypt from the get-go I'm sure send a very clear signal to the protesters in each and every one of these countries. They send the signal that Obama is not any different from Bush on the foreign policy front. They send the signal that he is part of the enemy. And he is. But it isn't too late to change, it's never too late to stop perpetrating oppression and violence against innocent peoples. If for no other reason than to save one more life, one more family. Where in the hell is the hope and change?
Obama has shown his true colors regarding the Middle East in the last few weeks; first by not immediately calling for the ouster of Mubarak, and just recently by vetoing the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. The latter is especially ridiculous, since it is official US policy to oppose settlement building in the Palestinian territories. But apparently it is not real US policy. As if the hypocrisy is not frustrating enough, the excuse given by Obama's UN ambassador Susan Rice was colossally stupid, saying that first the Security Council is not the right forum for this issue(just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard) and that this resolution would block future peace talks(there is absolutely no evidence for this statement). The resolution was vetoed, and obviously the US was the only member to vote against the resolution (14-1). This vote illustrated not only the hypocrisy of US policy regarding Israel but also the utter isolation of the US and Israel against the entire world on this issue and that Israel can no longer try to argue that a moratorium of settlements is an illegitimate precondition to peace talks. Of course, the following day there was a proclaimed "Day of Rage" in the West Bank, just another one of many protests in the Middle East by those sick of the satus quo. And just another instance where we were on the wrong side of history, very deliberately.
The instability is not just evident abroad however, as recent events in Wisconsin of have shown. And once again, Obama has not come out strongly for the people. Not in Bahrain, not in Wisconsin. And it doesn't even make any sense whatsoever, considering unions are really the last stronghold of the Democratic Party, the last advantage in terms of campaign finance over the Republicans. So, politically, Obama's passivity seems completely ridiculous, especially when you take into account that this attack on labor is really a political assault on the Democratic Party as a whole by Republicans. I never thought I would see the day that a Democrat President would be completely passive whilst there are threats to collective bargaining rights. It is more than disheartening, it is frustrating. You don't want to stand up for the workers in Egypt? What about in Wisconsin for God's sake? Is there anyone you will stand up for besides Wall Street CEO's?
We are not only seeing Obama's true colors. We are also seeing the left finally fight back against the anti-labor right wing and showing the tea baggers that the real salt of the Earth are not Reaganites. Finally we are seeing those who are fed up with the economic policies of the last 30 years, the policies of Reagan. The anti-working class policies. So where are you Obama? Where's this hope and change? It's certainly not in the Middle East, and apparently not in the picket lines in Wisconsin.
We are seeing revolutions abroad, and it is beautiful. Perhaps what we are seeing in Wisconsin is the start of a new revolution, a revolution of the workers who are sick of being screwed. A revolution pushing back against the economic policy trend and the corporatism of the last 30 years. Obama, I'm really beginning to question what your real intentions are, whether the weak, hole-filled reforms you've put forth are really just compromises or are they what you really believe. Whether you have been trying to be careful politically or just not really all that much of a reformer.
Now the world is changing, from the state workers in Wisconsin to the students in Cairo. You promised change, but you haven't delivered. Let's just hope you can keep up with what changes we've been making.
There is nothing more beautiful than to see the downtrodden and oppressed declare victory over tyranny. Unfortunately for us here in the US, we are on the wrong side of history, no matter which way you try to view it. Mubarak was part of vast system of subservience (or, as it is known in American discourse, "stability") in the Middle East, indeed he was one of our pillars. He supported him throughout all of his atrocities, and do not be fooled, there were many. We have supported the atrocities of Ben Ali all the same, though Tunisia was never as much of a priority. Indeed, it can be seen, without much effort at all, that these revolutions are, at heart, direct attacks against our foreign policy. This should come to no surprise to anyone who knows anything of our foreign policy in the Middle East, which is a policy that depends on the oppression of native peoples of resource (oil) rich countries; it is a policy that has supported repressive and violent regimes for the reason that they are just that, because one needs a brutal dictator to suppress and incapacitate its people if the exploitation of resources and labor is to be handled without issue. Democracy would ultimately mean that all of the vast benefits of the vast resources and strategic advantages of these countries would justly go to the people: Nationalizations of oil companies. Precedence of of the natives over foreign investors. Labor rights. These are things that run directly contrary with US interests, thus democracy runs contrary to US interests.
Of course, it easy to support Democracy in countries that are already enemies. Yes, the people of Iran and Libya have suffered far more than enough and deserve to be free and deserve to be supported in their noble endeavors. However, so do the people of Bahrain, Yemen, and Jordon, and whilst our State Department makes condemning statements aimed at Ghaddafi, and it should, they are much less clear on their position regarding the suffering people of Bahrain. Let's be absolutely clear: the people in Bahrain and Yemen are just as oppressed, if not more, as the people in Iran. And the same went for Egypt. The hesitance of our government to make statements calling for democracy in Jordon, Bahrain, Yemen and previously in Egypt from the get-go I'm sure send a very clear signal to the protesters in each and every one of these countries. They send the signal that Obama is not any different from Bush on the foreign policy front. They send the signal that he is part of the enemy. And he is. But it isn't too late to change, it's never too late to stop perpetrating oppression and violence against innocent peoples. If for no other reason than to save one more life, one more family. Where in the hell is the hope and change?
Obama has shown his true colors regarding the Middle East in the last few weeks; first by not immediately calling for the ouster of Mubarak, and just recently by vetoing the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. The latter is especially ridiculous, since it is official US policy to oppose settlement building in the Palestinian territories. But apparently it is not real US policy. As if the hypocrisy is not frustrating enough, the excuse given by Obama's UN ambassador Susan Rice was colossally stupid, saying that first the Security Council is not the right forum for this issue(just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard) and that this resolution would block future peace talks(there is absolutely no evidence for this statement). The resolution was vetoed, and obviously the US was the only member to vote against the resolution (14-1). This vote illustrated not only the hypocrisy of US policy regarding Israel but also the utter isolation of the US and Israel against the entire world on this issue and that Israel can no longer try to argue that a moratorium of settlements is an illegitimate precondition to peace talks. Of course, the following day there was a proclaimed "Day of Rage" in the West Bank, just another one of many protests in the Middle East by those sick of the satus quo. And just another instance where we were on the wrong side of history, very deliberately.
The instability is not just evident abroad however, as recent events in Wisconsin of have shown. And once again, Obama has not come out strongly for the people. Not in Bahrain, not in Wisconsin. And it doesn't even make any sense whatsoever, considering unions are really the last stronghold of the Democratic Party, the last advantage in terms of campaign finance over the Republicans. So, politically, Obama's passivity seems completely ridiculous, especially when you take into account that this attack on labor is really a political assault on the Democratic Party as a whole by Republicans. I never thought I would see the day that a Democrat President would be completely passive whilst there are threats to collective bargaining rights. It is more than disheartening, it is frustrating. You don't want to stand up for the workers in Egypt? What about in Wisconsin for God's sake? Is there anyone you will stand up for besides Wall Street CEO's?
We are not only seeing Obama's true colors. We are also seeing the left finally fight back against the anti-labor right wing and showing the tea baggers that the real salt of the Earth are not Reaganites. Finally we are seeing those who are fed up with the economic policies of the last 30 years, the policies of Reagan. The anti-working class policies. So where are you Obama? Where's this hope and change? It's certainly not in the Middle East, and apparently not in the picket lines in Wisconsin.
We are seeing revolutions abroad, and it is beautiful. Perhaps what we are seeing in Wisconsin is the start of a new revolution, a revolution of the workers who are sick of being screwed. A revolution pushing back against the economic policy trend and the corporatism of the last 30 years. Obama, I'm really beginning to question what your real intentions are, whether the weak, hole-filled reforms you've put forth are really just compromises or are they what you really believe. Whether you have been trying to be careful politically or just not really all that much of a reformer.
Now the world is changing, from the state workers in Wisconsin to the students in Cairo. You promised change, but you haven't delivered. Let's just hope you can keep up with what changes we've been making.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Free Speech Under Fire
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.
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, 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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)