The Godfather passed away last night as most of us slept. James Brown was 73 years old and still out performing, knocking crowds on their asses, injecting much-needed soul into a jaded American public. It is weird to me because I found out yesterday that one of my uncles was recently hospitalized with pneumonia and I was telling a friend about it last night when I discovered Brown was also in the hospital with it. Every musician playing and performing right now owes a debt of gratitude to this man, and I hope the younger generations realize where their hip-hop and R & B music came from.
RIP Brother James...
Monday, December 25, 2006
Sunday, December 24, 2006
the way of the dinosaur
It looks as if all the neo-conservatives (which is a chic way of saying "fascist" in the 21st century) have all tucked their tails between their collective legs and gone into hiding. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6189793.stm)
After seeing their grand plans for the Middle East and the world crumble before their eyes, they've begun to try and distance themselves from the Bush regime by saying that their strategy was good, but that the "execution" of their strategy was faulty. This is a not-so veiled way of blaming the fiasco of Iraq directly on the military personnel who have been sent to do their dirty work, and the mainstream media and its pundits have let the fascists get away with blaming the troops. Where is the outrage?
Bill Kristol, arch neo-con and former spokesman of the fascist cause in the media, was recently on the Jon Stewart show blaming the US troops for failing to "execute" their wars properly, and Stewart failed to challenge him on it (though Stewart did give him a little hell). Richard Perle and others have also sought to lay blame for the United States' impending defeat in Iraq on the soldiers themselves, yet none of the people dealing with these guys is pointing out that they are basically blaming the soldiers for messing up.
Meanwhile, the PNAC has faded into obscurity and its members are hoping to slink away from the scene of the crime unnoticed and unchallenged. It's up to concerned Americans who want to make sure fascism is dead to pursue and hound these vagabonds until they are held to account for all the evil their policies unleashed upon millions of people since the Bush regime took over. If we could only get rid of those weak-kneed Democrats like Pelosi and Reid...
After seeing their grand plans for the Middle East and the world crumble before their eyes, they've begun to try and distance themselves from the Bush regime by saying that their strategy was good, but that the "execution" of their strategy was faulty. This is a not-so veiled way of blaming the fiasco of Iraq directly on the military personnel who have been sent to do their dirty work, and the mainstream media and its pundits have let the fascists get away with blaming the troops. Where is the outrage?
Bill Kristol, arch neo-con and former spokesman of the fascist cause in the media, was recently on the Jon Stewart show blaming the US troops for failing to "execute" their wars properly, and Stewart failed to challenge him on it (though Stewart did give him a little hell). Richard Perle and others have also sought to lay blame for the United States' impending defeat in Iraq on the soldiers themselves, yet none of the people dealing with these guys is pointing out that they are basically blaming the soldiers for messing up.
Meanwhile, the PNAC has faded into obscurity and its members are hoping to slink away from the scene of the crime unnoticed and unchallenged. It's up to concerned Americans who want to make sure fascism is dead to pursue and hound these vagabonds until they are held to account for all the evil their policies unleashed upon millions of people since the Bush regime took over. If we could only get rid of those weak-kneed Democrats like Pelosi and Reid...
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
killing machines
The impending defeat of the mighty juggernaut known as the US armed forces should be a cause of consternation for American military strategists and theorists. Since losing wars in Korea in the 50s, Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, the US military has pretty much confined its overseas adventures to small, defenseless nations with no chance of combatting history's most vaunted killing machine on the ground (Grenada immediately comes to mind), or nations that have armies which are degraded to the point in which they are "armies" in name only (Iraq).
But like a stubborn mule, the US (and its Western allies) is obstinate in its refusal to recognize that the many smaller nations who can't hope to compete with the US head-to-head are relying heavily on subterfuge, sabotage, guerilla strikes, IED's and suicide missions to defeat their enemies; their tactics have proven effective in past wars (Vietnam, Korea) and in the current fiasco in Iraq. But it's the widespread use of suicide missions specifically that pulverizes the very bedrock philosophy of Western-style warfare, and it is apparent Western minds are at a loss for answers to their dilemma.
The use of suicide attacks against enemies contradicts and circumnavigates the basic premise behind Western warfare: kill without being killed. Modern technology has made warfare very sanitary, so much so that one need not even see the victim on the other end of the devastation. Laser-guided munitions, air strikes from radar-proof fighter planes, intercontinental ballistic weaponry, etc., have all served to depersonalize warfare, making the violence and bloodshed less traumatic than it was back in the days of hand-to-hand, hack-and-slash battles. But what to do about an enemy intent on killing you and themselves in the process? Western strategists seem befuddled, confused, and on the brink of realizing the fatal limitations of superior military technology.
One of the first tastes of suicide attacks visited upon Westerners came by way of the Far East (Japan), as kamikaze fighters dove straight into US ships in the Pacific, sacrificing themselves in order to inflict maximal damage to the defenders. The Tamil Tigers took suicide attacks to a more personal level by strapping on and detonating bombs in order to kill their enemies. More recently, Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghanis have utilized this tactic to deadly effect in striking back at invading Western forces. The results of these suicide attacks are clear for the whole world to see, and the fact that they are almost impossible to stop makes the idea more appealing to the world's poor and defenseless, as witnessed by its continual widespread use among those who have not the resources to muster large, technologically-advanced armies.
Western countries have been losing wars against what appear to be much weaker opponents for the past four decades because of tactics which go against the Western concept of warfare. While I do not wish for my country to be defeated, I do wish that the inefficacy of superior weapons and munitions will discourage the careless use of violence in the future world of peace we all hope to see.
But like a stubborn mule, the US (and its Western allies) is obstinate in its refusal to recognize that the many smaller nations who can't hope to compete with the US head-to-head are relying heavily on subterfuge, sabotage, guerilla strikes, IED's and suicide missions to defeat their enemies; their tactics have proven effective in past wars (Vietnam, Korea) and in the current fiasco in Iraq. But it's the widespread use of suicide missions specifically that pulverizes the very bedrock philosophy of Western-style warfare, and it is apparent Western minds are at a loss for answers to their dilemma.
The use of suicide attacks against enemies contradicts and circumnavigates the basic premise behind Western warfare: kill without being killed. Modern technology has made warfare very sanitary, so much so that one need not even see the victim on the other end of the devastation. Laser-guided munitions, air strikes from radar-proof fighter planes, intercontinental ballistic weaponry, etc., have all served to depersonalize warfare, making the violence and bloodshed less traumatic than it was back in the days of hand-to-hand, hack-and-slash battles. But what to do about an enemy intent on killing you and themselves in the process? Western strategists seem befuddled, confused, and on the brink of realizing the fatal limitations of superior military technology.
One of the first tastes of suicide attacks visited upon Westerners came by way of the Far East (Japan), as kamikaze fighters dove straight into US ships in the Pacific, sacrificing themselves in order to inflict maximal damage to the defenders. The Tamil Tigers took suicide attacks to a more personal level by strapping on and detonating bombs in order to kill their enemies. More recently, Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghanis have utilized this tactic to deadly effect in striking back at invading Western forces. The results of these suicide attacks are clear for the whole world to see, and the fact that they are almost impossible to stop makes the idea more appealing to the world's poor and defenseless, as witnessed by its continual widespread use among those who have not the resources to muster large, technologically-advanced armies.
Western countries have been losing wars against what appear to be much weaker opponents for the past four decades because of tactics which go against the Western concept of warfare. While I do not wish for my country to be defeated, I do wish that the inefficacy of superior weapons and munitions will discourage the careless use of violence in the future world of peace we all hope to see.
Friday, December 8, 2006
the snowball effect
(This is a comment I posted on frontpagemag.com recently. I mentioned the "Loose Change" video while commenting there recently and, lo and behold, they post an article talking about it. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25902) This was my response to this article.
Wow. I'm surprised the comment section on this topic is so small (this article should've been the headliner for the weekend, David & Co.)! Hopefully everyone will eventually stray to this article at some point over the weekend and decide to make remarks concerning a topic all Americans should care about.
I discovered "Loose Change" after my band member brought it to me and told me I needed to see it. Since he's never been that particularly interested in politics (only playing the strings off his guitar!), I was a little surprised when I saw it was about 9/11 and the questions about it that are still lingering unanswered in the minds of many Americans. After watching the video, we launched into a discussion of politics (something I love to do), and I got to lay some of my thoughts about it on him and he laid some on me. I asked him where he came across the video, and he told me it was given to him by someone at the barbershop (which has always been a great meeting ground for black men to discuss the issues). To me, it was cool that he received the video in this fashion because it shows that some concrete organizing is being done at the grassroots level to get some new information directly to the people without having it sanitized and filtered through the of the sieve corporate-dominated media.
As I pondered it further, I realized that the dissemination of the questions raised by the video is self-perpetuating and may not require that much direct organizing at all; if you see it, you're going to tell everyone else you know about it until they see it for themselves. After watching it, you will be surprised (and for me, frightened) at how easy it was for you to accept a 9/11explanation that your eyes and mind told you, at the time of the events (over five years ago), were at least suspicious.
There are many people in America who will remember feeling that "something just isn't adding up" feeling as the events progressed in the days after the incidents on that September morning. We all can remember where we were and what we were doing when we first heard about what happened. Many people will remember how the Bush regime began implementing their PNAC plans with a wreckless abandon that suggested 9/11 opened a magical door for them (the PNAC actually suggests that it would take a catastrophic event on the scale of Pearl Harbor to catalyze these plans). For these guys, 9/11 was always a "convenient tragedy".
Now, the thought that our own government would do something this evil to it own people is a thought that many people will feel uncomfortable with, and will probably dismiss serious consideration outright. It is uncomfortable for me, and I'm one who seriously believes the Bush gang of thuggish brutes would definitely harm the US public to implement their plans to cement world domination through military intimidation and force (accepting no rivals). In spite of the discomfort, you will realize that the questions raised by the video are ones that haven't been answered (and need to be).
The Bush gang has gone after its stated goals and they have unfortunately succeeded in many of these goals (invading and controlling Iraq was a biggy). If they weren't directly involved in orchestrating 9/11, they sure didn't mind the blank check we all gave them afterwards.
I don't care if you're right-wing, left-wing, up or down, you don't want to think to that your elected government feels you should be satisfied with their weak official story. I read through the Popular Mechanics website that was supposed to debunk 9/11 myths, and I realized that each "fact" (read: "truth") they presented raised even deeper questions than the initial "claim" (read: "lie") did. Two I can instantly recall are the inquiry regarding the presence of airplane debris in front of the Pentagon and the "pancake" theory supposedly explaining the collapse of the towers. After view"Loose Change", you will find that the PM article simply wasn't thorough enough, it was unconvincing, and it really came across as very partisan. The others links to "debunking" sites are pretty much the same.
It will hurt nothing to make sure we are being told the truth. If enough people demand answers, the government (which is, remember, supposed to be in the service of its people) will eventually have to respond. In spite of our many partisan political differences, we should all demand better answers than we have been given until we are all completely satisfied that we know what really happened. Let me encourage everyone who views the movie to pass it along to someone else.
Wow. I'm surprised the comment section on this topic is so small (this article should've been the headliner for the weekend, David & Co.)! Hopefully everyone will eventually stray to this article at some point over the weekend and decide to make remarks concerning a topic all Americans should care about.
I discovered "Loose Change" after my band member brought it to me and told me I needed to see it. Since he's never been that particularly interested in politics (only playing the strings off his guitar!), I was a little surprised when I saw it was about 9/11 and the questions about it that are still lingering unanswered in the minds of many Americans. After watching the video, we launched into a discussion of politics (something I love to do), and I got to lay some of my thoughts about it on him and he laid some on me. I asked him where he came across the video, and he told me it was given to him by someone at the barbershop (which has always been a great meeting ground for black men to discuss the issues). To me, it was cool that he received the video in this fashion because it shows that some concrete organizing is being done at the grassroots level to get some new information directly to the people without having it sanitized and filtered through the of the sieve corporate-dominated media.
As I pondered it further, I realized that the dissemination of the questions raised by the video is self-perpetuating and may not require that much direct organizing at all; if you see it, you're going to tell everyone else you know about it until they see it for themselves. After watching it, you will be surprised (and for me, frightened) at how easy it was for you to accept a 9/11explanation that your eyes and mind told you, at the time of the events (over five years ago), were at least suspicious.
There are many people in America who will remember feeling that "something just isn't adding up" feeling as the events progressed in the days after the incidents on that September morning. We all can remember where we were and what we were doing when we first heard about what happened. Many people will remember how the Bush regime began implementing their PNAC plans with a wreckless abandon that suggested 9/11 opened a magical door for them (the PNAC actually suggests that it would take a catastrophic event on the scale of Pearl Harbor to catalyze these plans). For these guys, 9/11 was always a "convenient tragedy".
Now, the thought that our own government would do something this evil to it own people is a thought that many people will feel uncomfortable with, and will probably dismiss serious consideration outright. It is uncomfortable for me, and I'm one who seriously believes the Bush gang of thuggish brutes would definitely harm the US public to implement their plans to cement world domination through military intimidation and force (accepting no rivals). In spite of the discomfort, you will realize that the questions raised by the video are ones that haven't been answered (and need to be).
The Bush gang has gone after its stated goals and they have unfortunately succeeded in many of these goals (invading and controlling Iraq was a biggy). If they weren't directly involved in orchestrating 9/11, they sure didn't mind the blank check we all gave them afterwards.
I don't care if you're right-wing, left-wing, up or down, you don't want to think to that your elected government feels you should be satisfied with their weak official story. I read through the Popular Mechanics website that was supposed to debunk 9/11 myths, and I realized that each "fact" (read: "truth") they presented raised even deeper questions than the initial "claim" (read: "lie") did. Two I can instantly recall are the inquiry regarding the presence of airplane debris in front of the Pentagon and the "pancake" theory supposedly explaining the collapse of the towers. After view"Loose Change", you will find that the PM article simply wasn't thorough enough, it was unconvincing, and it really came across as very partisan. The others links to "debunking" sites are pretty much the same.
It will hurt nothing to make sure we are being told the truth. If enough people demand answers, the government (which is, remember, supposed to be in the service of its people) will eventually have to respond. In spite of our many partisan political differences, we should all demand better answers than we have been given until we are all completely satisfied that we know what really happened. Let me encourage everyone who views the movie to pass it along to someone else.
Sunday, December 3, 2006
(oblongata 2)
(LSD is a psychoactive drug developed by the military to compel someone to tell the truth whether they want to or not. It was to be used to facillitate interrogations of prisoners. LSD, of course, went on to become a recreational drug that produced euphoric hallucinations in its users, and its initial purpose was pretty much lost. Instead of creating a new substance for the weak-willed to abuse and escape reality, the truth serum the military was looking for had been available for centuries: alcohol. Since a drunken stupor tends to releave most people of their stubborn inhibitions, some will "spill the beans" readily when intoxicated, and will tell you everything you need to know. I'm not advocating we physically force others to become intoxicated to get good info out of them, but pay very, very close attention to people who are intoxicated. Take a little time to probe them, ask some engaging questions to get the ball rolling, and you'll usually gleen more information than you thought was available).
Monday, November 27, 2006
controlled demolition (9/11 revisited)
I recently had the opportunity of viewing a disturbing documentary questioning the official government story of 9/11. The video is called "Loose Change" (check out the website at http://loosechange911.com/), and it basically consists of replayings of actual news footage and reporting on the day of the attacks (maybe I should put "attacks" in quotations from now on?), along with commentary by scientists, engineers, intellectuals, and many others who say things couldn't have possibly occurred the way they seemed to have happened that fateful September morning.
Like many others, I remember scratching my head after viewing the videos of the actual collapse of the Twin Towers; something about the collapses seemed a bit too tidy considering the circumstances leading up to it. Although these feelings of suspicion about the collapses was probably fleeting when you take into account the shock value of the attacks, the feelings of something being "not quite right" lingered amongst many Americans (including myself). The new 9/11 truth movement is based entirely on highlighting the impossibilities abundant in the 9/11 story, and strongly suggests that everything is not quite as it may seem.
After viewing the video of the WTC collapses (hundreds of times) and comparative video of other controlled demolitions (in which buildings are deliberately imploded), it is most startling that the American public accepted the government's tale that super-heated kerosene from the airplanes melted the steel-reinforced structure of the WTC, causing the collapse. The video "Loose Change" presents seemingly irrefutable evidence that the impact of two 757's caused the collapse of two buildings built to withstand the impact of multiple airliners.
9/11 was a disturbing and traumatic event for the American public, and I feel it caused many of us to look past the big elephant in the room (that the buildings were brought down with explosives). Many people can't stomach and "conspiracy theories", but this hardly qualifies as a conspiracy when the evidence is so obvious and plain to see. Many questions still need to be answered by the Bush regime, starting with why they didn't evenwant to investigate the events surrounding 9/11 at first (one of the biggest and life-changing events in the life span of most Americans' lives up to this point).
I encourage everyone to look at the video (which can be viewed online as well) with an open mind and weigh the information without a jaundiced eye towards political affiliation. The documentary doesn't dwell too much on who is responsible if al-Qaida isn't, but after viewing the documentary's information on the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, it's not hard to draw the obvious conclusions. I'll get to the neo-cons in future postings...
Like many others, I remember scratching my head after viewing the videos of the actual collapse of the Twin Towers; something about the collapses seemed a bit too tidy considering the circumstances leading up to it. Although these feelings of suspicion about the collapses was probably fleeting when you take into account the shock value of the attacks, the feelings of something being "not quite right" lingered amongst many Americans (including myself). The new 9/11 truth movement is based entirely on highlighting the impossibilities abundant in the 9/11 story, and strongly suggests that everything is not quite as it may seem.
After viewing the video of the WTC collapses (hundreds of times) and comparative video of other controlled demolitions (in which buildings are deliberately imploded), it is most startling that the American public accepted the government's tale that super-heated kerosene from the airplanes melted the steel-reinforced structure of the WTC, causing the collapse. The video "Loose Change" presents seemingly irrefutable evidence that the impact of two 757's caused the collapse of two buildings built to withstand the impact of multiple airliners.
9/11 was a disturbing and traumatic event for the American public, and I feel it caused many of us to look past the big elephant in the room (that the buildings were brought down with explosives). Many people can't stomach and "conspiracy theories", but this hardly qualifies as a conspiracy when the evidence is so obvious and plain to see. Many questions still need to be answered by the Bush regime, starting with why they didn't evenwant to investigate the events surrounding 9/11 at first (one of the biggest and life-changing events in the life span of most Americans' lives up to this point).
I encourage everyone to look at the video (which can be viewed online as well) with an open mind and weigh the information without a jaundiced eye towards political affiliation. The documentary doesn't dwell too much on who is responsible if al-Qaida isn't, but after viewing the documentary's information on the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, it's not hard to draw the obvious conclusions. I'll get to the neo-cons in future postings...
Saturday, November 25, 2006
(oblongata 1)
(There's always a special tranquility aroused by the act of sharing a meal with family and friends. Breaking bread or sharing a drink with others has always served as a way to reconnect, reinforce bonds, and express the wish for the general well-being of the other eaters. By eating the foods others have prepared, we essentially consume a part of the essence of that preparer, learning more about them than the mere spolen word can express. Bush should sit down with Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, share a meal, and talk about their disagreements in a human-like way...)
Thursday, November 23, 2006
the n-word and michael richards
Every Black person living in these United States has probably had the misfortune of being called "nigger" by someone else in a malicious fashion. It is a word that is used as a term of endearment for some, a biting racial epithet for others, but it is always bound to arouse some sort of emotional response, be it positive or negative. This, of course, largely depends on the identity of the one using the word. Former Kramer star Michael Richards recently launched into an angry, n-word-laced tirade after being heckled at a Los Angeles comedy club, and as of yet, I have seen very little understanding and acceptance of his "apology" coming from the African-American community, and there is a very good reason why.
If you are an African-American with any white acquaintances, you've most likely been in a situation in which those white friends feel you are comfortable enough with them that they can let the n-word fly. If it is not used as a blunt instrument to bludgeon someone verbally and the white person is accepted as a member of the group, it is often times excused by Black people and seen as a term of endearment (even though I am personally against its used by anyone in any contextual setting). Richards' rant, however, was of the angry, hurting kind that we usually associate with the use of the word, and the room for forgiveness in the Black community is rightfully absent.
Richards has to realize that his tantrum has seriously maimed an already floundering career as a stand-up comic? Heckling comes with the territory, and a comedian hoping to make a career doing stand-up must have the quick wit to ward off hecklers and turn their attacks against them in a way that is both entertaining and intelligent. Richards would do well to review some performances of the legendary Richard Pryor and see how he deftly handled annoying interlopers.
The Michael Richards case has definitely proven that racism is harmful to both recipient and giver alike, and that words, even when carelessly used, can still inflame simmering emotions. May he never grace the stage again (although he probably gained the admiration of those who think being PC is a problem)!
If you are an African-American with any white acquaintances, you've most likely been in a situation in which those white friends feel you are comfortable enough with them that they can let the n-word fly. If it is not used as a blunt instrument to bludgeon someone verbally and the white person is accepted as a member of the group, it is often times excused by Black people and seen as a term of endearment (even though I am personally against its used by anyone in any contextual setting). Richards' rant, however, was of the angry, hurting kind that we usually associate with the use of the word, and the room for forgiveness in the Black community is rightfully absent.
Richards has to realize that his tantrum has seriously maimed an already floundering career as a stand-up comic? Heckling comes with the territory, and a comedian hoping to make a career doing stand-up must have the quick wit to ward off hecklers and turn their attacks against them in a way that is both entertaining and intelligent. Richards would do well to review some performances of the legendary Richard Pryor and see how he deftly handled annoying interlopers.
The Michael Richards case has definitely proven that racism is harmful to both recipient and giver alike, and that words, even when carelessly used, can still inflame simmering emotions. May he never grace the stage again (although he probably gained the admiration of those who think being PC is a problem)!
Friday, November 17, 2006
suited and booted (conscription post-Vietnam)
Harlem representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) plans to reintroduce legislation backing the reinstatement of the military to fight the "war on terror" (http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementonDraft02142006.html), and already you can hear the screams of disgust coming from the right-wing of the political spectrum.
The Bush regime has consistently painted their "war on terror" in religious language, as an epic battle between the forces of good and evil (read, "Christianity vs. Islam") that must be fought and won to insure the security of future generations of Americans and other Westerners. Bush was universally chastised early on for referring to their upcoming war as a "crusade", and calling it "Operation Infinite Justice" (terms which lent credence to the Islamic world's view that the West was intent on intensifying the Crusades of the past). Dick Cheney, the undisputed Lord of Evil, suggests this new Cold War is bound to last decades, and anything less than complete public support would lead to the eventual establishment of a new Islamic caliphate and the forced conversion of all Westerners to Islam. Yet all of this lofty-sounding rhetoric vanishes if it is suggested that every citizen participate in their war with rifle in hand, facing the enemy on their territory.
The wealthy and powerful aren't particularly fond of getting their hands bloody personally, but are very fond of ordering the less wealthy and powerful to do so. Bush, Cheney, and countless other cheerleaders for unending war have better things to do when they had the opportunity to participate in the Vietnam conflict. The Vietnam fiasco showed the powerful rulers of America that once the public turns against the prosecution of a war, the war itself will end. Reinstating the draft would seriously erode the dwindling support the Bush regime has for their war, and Rangel's measure will be fought against tooth and nail.
For now, sit back and enjoy the right-wingers excuses for shirking the sacrifices they wish upon others; the back-pedalling is quite hilarious.
The Bush regime has consistently painted their "war on terror" in religious language, as an epic battle between the forces of good and evil (read, "Christianity vs. Islam") that must be fought and won to insure the security of future generations of Americans and other Westerners. Bush was universally chastised early on for referring to their upcoming war as a "crusade", and calling it "Operation Infinite Justice" (terms which lent credence to the Islamic world's view that the West was intent on intensifying the Crusades of the past). Dick Cheney, the undisputed Lord of Evil, suggests this new Cold War is bound to last decades, and anything less than complete public support would lead to the eventual establishment of a new Islamic caliphate and the forced conversion of all Westerners to Islam. Yet all of this lofty-sounding rhetoric vanishes if it is suggested that every citizen participate in their war with rifle in hand, facing the enemy on their territory.
The wealthy and powerful aren't particularly fond of getting their hands bloody personally, but are very fond of ordering the less wealthy and powerful to do so. Bush, Cheney, and countless other cheerleaders for unending war have better things to do when they had the opportunity to participate in the Vietnam conflict. The Vietnam fiasco showed the powerful rulers of America that once the public turns against the prosecution of a war, the war itself will end. Reinstating the draft would seriously erode the dwindling support the Bush regime has for their war, and Rangel's measure will be fought against tooth and nail.
For now, sit back and enjoy the right-wingers excuses for shirking the sacrifices they wish upon others; the back-pedalling is quite hilarious.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
tip of the iceberg (Iraq withdrawal and justice)
Being against the occupation of Iraq has become fashionable amongst Washington insiders nowadays. Centrist and conservative Democrats who once jumped on the pre-emptive bandwagon by voting to give Bush authority to wage war are now removing their proverbial feet from their mouths since it is politically expedient to do so at this time. Republicans, after losing their grip on power in the Congress during the recent elections, are also backpedaling and criticizing the execution of the war (not the moral justification for it though); again, political expediency is changing minds (not hearts, I'd wager).
The Democrats are ambiguous on how they plan to do anything different in Iraq, and most favor some sort of phased withdrawal or redeployment. The general consensus seems to be "We're there, and we musn't look back and criticize the decision to invade, we must move forward", meaning the Bush regime is apparently going to be given a pass for the illegal invasion and wanton murder of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. The Bush regime is apparently going to get away with squandered billions of tax dollars for an unnecessary confrontation and the universal sullying of the United States already suspect reputation around the globe. Nancy Pelosi, the soon-to-be House speaker, has already dismissed questions about possible impeachment, so we can assume that holding the Bush regime accountable for their many other misdeeds are also off the table.
This is pure bullshit. The Democratic Party is so maddeningly timid and worried about the prevailing political winds that they continually shirk their responsibilities when faced with blatant unconstitutional behavior by the executive branch (not all Democrats, I might add; the progressive wing of the Party seems more than willing to do the right thing, but they don't hold any leadership positions yet. Check out http://bernie.house.gov/website/leavesite.asp?url=http://cpc.lee.house.gov/ for more details). The only withdrawal strategies I've heard thus far usually include some thought about Iraqis "taking responsibility for their own security", the Iraqis "standing up" and the US "standing down", and other such paternalistic, racist crap (from both Democrats and Republicans) you wouldn't even say to most little children. The leaders of the US consistently fail to address the most fundamental and important aspect of any withdrawal from Iraq: Justice.
If the United States were ruled by honorable men and women, their train of thought on the matter would be totally different from what we are seeing at the moment. I'd like to enumerate several strategies of withdrawal the US could take if it were interested in justice. First, according to any reading of international law, this invasion was an act of unadulterated aggression, and would've been roundly condemned as such by the UN if perpetrated by a country of less stature. To make amends for undercutting and undermining the authority of the UN, members of the Bush regime should be required to stand, one by one, before the UN General Assembly and publicly apologize on record for their criminal behavior. This would not only be a first for a belligerent superpower, but it would serve as an example to the rest of the world's nations that the US intends to act within and respect the framework of international standards in the future. Also, the public shaming of the arrogant Bush regime would be good for the souls of great and small alike (not to mention hilarious!).
Secondly, the US should remove all military personnel, business contractors, mercenaries, and military installations from Iraqi soil. This would prove to the world that the US is not there specifically for the purpose of securing access to oil reserves, and would take away the bottomless cash well that military contractors have been sipping from since the invasion started.
Third, the tax cuts the Bush regime granted to wealthy Americans should be abolished and the money used to pay reparations to the people of Iraq. You don't storm in someone's home, kill the innocent, destroy the infrastructure, and leave without any restitution! That's pure nonsense! Where are the justice-minded politicians who are even suggesting reparations? Not in this galaxy. Tax incentives and giveaways to multinational corporations profitting off of Iraqi misery (Halliburton, Bechtel, military equipment and armament manufacturers, mercenary outfits like Blackwater, etc.) should be repealed and added to the pot for the reparations payments. Iraqi-based companies (or the government itself) should receive some of this money to repair the severe infrastructure damage done by incessant bombing campaigns, with Americans helping only when requested. No American friends of Bush should profit off of this obscene crime, and withdrawing with justice would require these steps.
Lastly, every member of the Bush regime (including those who have resigned) and the neconservative fascists responsible for laying the ideological groundwork for the invasion should be dragged before the International Criminal Court and tried like the criminals they are. Rumsfeld is already facing litigation (in Germany) brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (www.ccr-ny.org) and other human rights groups for his complicity in the Abu Ghraib torture chambers and the operation of the not-so-secret gulag dotted throughout Europe and the Middle East. The victims of these crimes deserve justice, and pulling out of Iraq without prosecuting the people behind it would permanently damage any notion of international standards of justice.
Withdrawing the troops is only the tip of the iceberg. Without justice, there will never exist even a remote possibility of lasting peace in Iraq or any other nation in the world.
The Democrats are ambiguous on how they plan to do anything different in Iraq, and most favor some sort of phased withdrawal or redeployment. The general consensus seems to be "We're there, and we musn't look back and criticize the decision to invade, we must move forward", meaning the Bush regime is apparently going to be given a pass for the illegal invasion and wanton murder of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. The Bush regime is apparently going to get away with squandered billions of tax dollars for an unnecessary confrontation and the universal sullying of the United States already suspect reputation around the globe. Nancy Pelosi, the soon-to-be House speaker, has already dismissed questions about possible impeachment, so we can assume that holding the Bush regime accountable for their many other misdeeds are also off the table.
This is pure bullshit. The Democratic Party is so maddeningly timid and worried about the prevailing political winds that they continually shirk their responsibilities when faced with blatant unconstitutional behavior by the executive branch (not all Democrats, I might add; the progressive wing of the Party seems more than willing to do the right thing, but they don't hold any leadership positions yet. Check out http://bernie.house.gov/website/leavesite.asp?url=http://cpc.lee.house.gov/ for more details). The only withdrawal strategies I've heard thus far usually include some thought about Iraqis "taking responsibility for their own security", the Iraqis "standing up" and the US "standing down", and other such paternalistic, racist crap (from both Democrats and Republicans) you wouldn't even say to most little children. The leaders of the US consistently fail to address the most fundamental and important aspect of any withdrawal from Iraq: Justice.
If the United States were ruled by honorable men and women, their train of thought on the matter would be totally different from what we are seeing at the moment. I'd like to enumerate several strategies of withdrawal the US could take if it were interested in justice. First, according to any reading of international law, this invasion was an act of unadulterated aggression, and would've been roundly condemned as such by the UN if perpetrated by a country of less stature. To make amends for undercutting and undermining the authority of the UN, members of the Bush regime should be required to stand, one by one, before the UN General Assembly and publicly apologize on record for their criminal behavior. This would not only be a first for a belligerent superpower, but it would serve as an example to the rest of the world's nations that the US intends to act within and respect the framework of international standards in the future. Also, the public shaming of the arrogant Bush regime would be good for the souls of great and small alike (not to mention hilarious!).
Secondly, the US should remove all military personnel, business contractors, mercenaries, and military installations from Iraqi soil. This would prove to the world that the US is not there specifically for the purpose of securing access to oil reserves, and would take away the bottomless cash well that military contractors have been sipping from since the invasion started.
Third, the tax cuts the Bush regime granted to wealthy Americans should be abolished and the money used to pay reparations to the people of Iraq. You don't storm in someone's home, kill the innocent, destroy the infrastructure, and leave without any restitution! That's pure nonsense! Where are the justice-minded politicians who are even suggesting reparations? Not in this galaxy. Tax incentives and giveaways to multinational corporations profitting off of Iraqi misery (Halliburton, Bechtel, military equipment and armament manufacturers, mercenary outfits like Blackwater, etc.) should be repealed and added to the pot for the reparations payments. Iraqi-based companies (or the government itself) should receive some of this money to repair the severe infrastructure damage done by incessant bombing campaigns, with Americans helping only when requested. No American friends of Bush should profit off of this obscene crime, and withdrawing with justice would require these steps.
Lastly, every member of the Bush regime (including those who have resigned) and the neconservative fascists responsible for laying the ideological groundwork for the invasion should be dragged before the International Criminal Court and tried like the criminals they are. Rumsfeld is already facing litigation (in Germany) brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights (www.ccr-ny.org) and other human rights groups for his complicity in the Abu Ghraib torture chambers and the operation of the not-so-secret gulag dotted throughout Europe and the Middle East. The victims of these crimes deserve justice, and pulling out of Iraq without prosecuting the people behind it would permanently damage any notion of international standards of justice.
Withdrawing the troops is only the tip of the iceberg. Without justice, there will never exist even a remote possibility of lasting peace in Iraq or any other nation in the world.
Monday, November 13, 2006
the corpse daughters
In January of 2006, one of the most heinous crimes the mind can conjure actually happened in my home town: A father fatally stabbed his twin daughters to death while playing a game of hide-and-seek (even typing that sentence is enough to send waves of disgust through ones body). Incidences of infanticide occur periodically, but all don't attract the national attention this one has from the media (I guess the other situations might not have "ratings-friendly" stories, so they stayed strictly local). What made this particular case interesting to mainstream Americans was the fact that the crime was committed by an 45-year old white bank executive living in an affluent part of town.
The father (Charlottean David Crespi) readily confessed to his guilt, and the media (and society for that matter) immediately began concocting excuses for his behavior. Scanning the television and newspaper stories in the early days of the crime, you could almost hear the media screaming "There must have been something wrong mentally for this guy to do something this diabolical!" Anyone who has lived in these United States as an African-American for even a decade could've predicted this response when you take into account the identity of the perpetrator. Before I go further, let me state that I believe depression is a real, tangible, destructive mental disorder requiring treatment and care, so I aim not to minimize its reality by referring to it as an "excuse". The point of emphasis I want to make is that depression is considered a legitimate and honest alibi for the commission of a crime, but that mostly depends on the identity of the perpetrator.
Mr. Crespi may well be depressed and it may have contributed to spurring his bout of homicidal mania, but because he is a rich, all-American white man working in an executive position, his declarations of depression are greeted with understanding, empathy, and even sympathy. How many Black or Latino men and women are basically given the benefit of the doubt if they committed similar crimes? This has been tried with Black or Latino defendants and has been generally met with doubt by prosecutors and juries. In fact, there is a Black man named Guy LeGrande scheduled to be executed in North Carolina for the 1996 murder of a Stanly county woman, and despite his clinically-diagnosed psychotic disorder and off-the-wall behavior in court (he represented himself during the trial wearing a Superman t-shirt), the jury summarily sentenced him to death anyway. For some reason, pleading insanity doesn't work very well if you're not rich, white, and not expected to act in a criminal manner. There have been protests staged to hopefully stop Legrande's execution (which is still scheduled to take place December 1), but Crespi never needed an organized movement to help spare his life. Hell, he even appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show today (from prison, of course) to assist Oprah in her discussion of depression and how it affects the suburban home. Go figure!
Black people in the United States know and have always known that the justice system is biased against them; such is the legacy of slavery, white supremacy, Jim Crow justice, and racial disharmony in this country. Black skin immediately evokes prejudgments of guilt, while white skin usually evokes the benefit of the doubt, and for many of us, this mental process happens before we can consciously stop it. The ever-present tendency to see Black or Latino men as automatically guilty in the US justice system is as strong as ever, and it has been adversely affecting the quality of life for both communities for far too long. It also says more about mainstream America than mainstream America would like said, but...
Let us consider the possibility of mental illness equally among defendants. The presence of psychosis in people of color is real, but its presence is almost never considered or taken into account in the real courts of jurisprudence and the courts of public opinion. Let's not allow notions and beliefs of white supremacy and Black/Lation inferiority cloud what would seem obvious for white defendants.
The father (Charlottean David Crespi) readily confessed to his guilt, and the media (and society for that matter) immediately began concocting excuses for his behavior. Scanning the television and newspaper stories in the early days of the crime, you could almost hear the media screaming "There must have been something wrong mentally for this guy to do something this diabolical!" Anyone who has lived in these United States as an African-American for even a decade could've predicted this response when you take into account the identity of the perpetrator. Before I go further, let me state that I believe depression is a real, tangible, destructive mental disorder requiring treatment and care, so I aim not to minimize its reality by referring to it as an "excuse". The point of emphasis I want to make is that depression is considered a legitimate and honest alibi for the commission of a crime, but that mostly depends on the identity of the perpetrator.
Mr. Crespi may well be depressed and it may have contributed to spurring his bout of homicidal mania, but because he is a rich, all-American white man working in an executive position, his declarations of depression are greeted with understanding, empathy, and even sympathy. How many Black or Latino men and women are basically given the benefit of the doubt if they committed similar crimes? This has been tried with Black or Latino defendants and has been generally met with doubt by prosecutors and juries. In fact, there is a Black man named Guy LeGrande scheduled to be executed in North Carolina for the 1996 murder of a Stanly county woman, and despite his clinically-diagnosed psychotic disorder and off-the-wall behavior in court (he represented himself during the trial wearing a Superman t-shirt), the jury summarily sentenced him to death anyway. For some reason, pleading insanity doesn't work very well if you're not rich, white, and not expected to act in a criminal manner. There have been protests staged to hopefully stop Legrande's execution (which is still scheduled to take place December 1), but Crespi never needed an organized movement to help spare his life. Hell, he even appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show today (from prison, of course) to assist Oprah in her discussion of depression and how it affects the suburban home. Go figure!
Black people in the United States know and have always known that the justice system is biased against them; such is the legacy of slavery, white supremacy, Jim Crow justice, and racial disharmony in this country. Black skin immediately evokes prejudgments of guilt, while white skin usually evokes the benefit of the doubt, and for many of us, this mental process happens before we can consciously stop it. The ever-present tendency to see Black or Latino men as automatically guilty in the US justice system is as strong as ever, and it has been adversely affecting the quality of life for both communities for far too long. It also says more about mainstream America than mainstream America would like said, but...
Let us consider the possibility of mental illness equally among defendants. The presence of psychosis in people of color is real, but its presence is almost never considered or taken into account in the real courts of jurisprudence and the courts of public opinion. Let's not allow notions and beliefs of white supremacy and Black/Lation inferiority cloud what would seem obvious for white defendants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
