One of the most powerful sets of memories from my childhood is of the 1982 Falklands’ War between Britain and Argentina. I was 9 years old, and at the time I was living on a Royal Air Force station in Germany. I vividly recall the anti-aircraft missile detachment from the base heading to the South Atlantic in a blaze of patriotic glory.
Each night, the television news would show Royal Marines and paratroopers confidently drilling on the decks of converted ocean liners, Harrier jump jets leaping from their ramps, the mighty Royal Navy corkscrewing through the southern ocean, and reporters talking in hushed tones about special forces strikes and long range bombing runs.
Then as the Task Force anchored in San Carlos Water and the liberation of the Falklands got under way, things suddenly became very real. I remember seeing HMS Antelope exploding like Krakatoa as an Argentine missile hit home; HMS Sheffield and the Atlantic Conveyor turning into floating funeral pyres; and horribly burnt teenagers staggering to shore from the Sir Galahad. I recall learning of the heroic yet senseless death of Colonel “H” Jones of 2 Para, sliced in half by an Argentine machine gun. I remember the bagpiper from the Scots Guards, playing Flowers of the Forest for the fallen after one vicious battle. Most of all, I remember the wrenching and stately sound of Elgar’s Nimrod being played over our dead as their flag draped coffins were borne off the transports by white gloved airmen in full dress uniform.
The liberation of the Falkland Islands was the reward; the corpses and the maimed were the price Britain paid. That balance sheet was presented in public and voters were able to weigh that particular profit and loss statement when the next election came around. That option is currently being denied the American people.
Since the days of Bush I, it has been Defense Department policy to refuse to release pictures of returning coffins or allow media coverage of the repatriation of remains from a war zone. Recently, freedom-of-information requests led to the release of a series of photos of the coffins of the hundreds of dead from the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Defense Department is putting its foot down and will block the citizen’s legal right to know about those who are dying in our name in all future cases.
It is one of the marks of a democracy that a nation makes a full accounting of those who are killed or crippled on its behalf. Lincoln’s Gettysburg address was in essence a eulogy for all who had died to that point in the Civil War, and every town in America has a cannon or two and a statue of a Civil War soldier to honor their sacrifice. The war memorial tradition on both sides of the Atlantic offers public tribute to those who fell in defense of freedom, and eternal flames over the graves of the unknown mark the hundreds of thousands blown to smithereens by industrial warfare. Our recent forebears were trusted with information that showed the cost of military action (casualty lists, and indeed pictures of returning coffins.) If the cause was just, it was reasoned, there was no need to deny the human price our societies were paying.
Contrast this with the historical actions of totalitarian states. Germany in World War Two and the Soviets in Afghanistan both sought to obscure and ignore casualty figures, as they would have been at odds with the rosy propaganda being pumped out over the conduct of their wars.
George W. Bush has insisted that our cause is just, that he considers protests and opinion polls to be no reflection of a nation’s feelings, and that he has no plans to “cut and run” from Iraq. Negative public opinion is dismissed as flack from the liberal chattering classes. If he is so confident of his cause, why then is he so reluctant to allow media images of the price of war? Why, if they “hate us for our freedoms”, is he so terrified of the First Amendment?
The official explanation for the policy is that the government has no desire to allow public intrusion on private grief, and that those who have died would be stripped of their dignity by showing them in the press or on television. Bush himself torpedoed that concept with one of his first campaign commercials. He figuratively draped himself in the flag he defended from the comfort of Texas during Vietnam while images of the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were used to advocate four more years. Is it a question of scale? Is a photo of one coffin or a hundred coffins more sacred than real-time images of thousands dying? Is there more dignity in a commercial that serves as your job application than in a news report, Mr. Bush?
All this talk of privacy and dignity is a red herring. The decision not to show the coffins is purely political. LBJ was rent asunder by nightly images of Vietnam dead because the public weighed the equation of death versus cause, and found the cause wanting. Given the non-existent WMDs, the increase in Middle Eastern instability, and the distraction from the War on Terror the fighting in Iraq has thrown up, Bush is making the calculation that showing the human cost of his misguided policies would only weaken his re-election chances. He is obscuring and obfuscating the facts in order to keep his job. There was another Republican president of recent memory who used the same approach with the electorate: Richard Nixon.
Regardless of your opinion about Iraq your government should treat you like an adult. You should be allowed to weigh the balance and decide if the profit and loss statement you are being offered is a true accounting, or more akin to something presented by Mr. Bush’s friends at Enron.
Ask yourself this question; are you ashamed of those young troops on whose behalf we fly flags from our cars and tie yellow ribbons around lampposts? If you aren’t, call your representative and demand a lifting of the pathetic ban of images of coffins returning to the USA. Let’s instead demand a heroes’ welcome for each of them and grieve for their sacrifice as a nation.
Monday, April 26, 2004
Monday, April 19, 2004
McDubya's Navy?
Someone needs to take that copy of Titanic out of the Oval Office DVD player. Admittedly, when he paged Don Rumsfeld to “come over and watch Tit Antics!” President Bush thought he was in for a night of breast-related porn. As the titles faded and the doomed ocean liner came into view, however, he yelped ‘Big boat!’ and his fate was sealed.
It seems every time the President feels the need to get all steely-eyed about national security, he starts humming, ‘My Heart Will Go On’ and casts around for a big ship to stand on or next to.
He famously thrust about his ‘Padding Accomplished’ crotch on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln with all the subtlety of Janet Jackson at half time. He expounded his ‘tax cuts for CEOs’ plan at shipyards all along the Gulf Coast. Most recently he used a Coast Guard cutter as a backdrop for a manly squinting session in Charleston, SC. He has been known to wear a life ring in cabinet sessions.
He is on dangerous ground here. The Dems have a long history of competent and even daring seamanship. FDR calmly steered the presidential yacht, JFK skippered PT-109, Jimmy Carter was a Navy nuclear engineer, and Bill Clinton’s name will forever be associated with seamen [sic]. Now we have John Kerry, who like the character Martin Sheen (another fictional president) played in Apocalypse Now, spent the Vietnam War up the Mekong in a fast attack boat.
When it comes to hanging around ships, President Bush is less like the rugged little Leo DiCaprio and more akin to the iceberg. In May 2003 Bush told those aboard the Lincoln that the war was as good as over; nine months later hundreds have died and thousands more have been wounded in this accomplished mission, and no end appears in sight. If I were one of those Coasties down in South Carolina I would be very worried that the next palmetto palm I see will be on the shore at Um Qasar, Iraq.
As much as I am loath to help the President with his image, I do have three suggestions for the White House spin machine to assist with Mr. Bush’s nautical chops, if he is going to insist on acting like an old salt. (I might as well get on Karl Rove’s good side lest Bush wins.)
Flood Texas: Although Texas has an extensive coastline, the President’s ranch at Crawford is most definitely landlocked. Given that he spends more time on vacation than any other human being alive, he could capitalize on his twin passions (siestas and pretending to be a sailor) by digging a big trench inland from Galveston and inundating the Lone Star State right up to the gates of his holiday home. Just think how happy Bush would be if real battleships sat moored among the oil wells. Although flooding Texas might result in a waterlogged Molly Ivins, I am sure we can agree that the Atlantis-like disappearance of Houston would be no bad thing.
Johnny Depp it up: last summer’s huge hit at the multiplexes was Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Johnny Depp garnered both critical and audience acclaim as the drunk and eccentric Captain Jack Sparrow. The President could gain instant popularity if he simply began impersonating Keith Richard after an accident in the Disney wardrobe department. If only he could keep from falling over when practicing deep sweeping bows, he’d be all set.
Really join the Navy: Nothing would wow the voters more, and chase away those pesky AWOL accusations, than if the Commander-in-Chief actually saw combat. If Mr. Bush enlisted in the Navy and put himself in harm’s way he would do his manly standing a world of good. Also, he could have a whale of a time on board an aircraft carrier. Just imagine him wearing one of those brightly colored sweaters, peeing off the fantail, and feverishly licking cruise missiles. Besides, even with ship-board email and sat phones, it would be a lot easier to dodge questions about missing WMDs in the middle of the Pacific.
With the help of these tips we could be enjoying maritime-themed presidential high jinks all the way until November. However, while he passes his time standing in the bow shouting “I’m king of the world!” he needs to remember the old British army jibe about Navy types:
“Some people float in magnificent boats, and some people work for a living.”
It seems every time the President feels the need to get all steely-eyed about national security, he starts humming, ‘My Heart Will Go On’ and casts around for a big ship to stand on or next to.
He famously thrust about his ‘Padding Accomplished’ crotch on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln with all the subtlety of Janet Jackson at half time. He expounded his ‘tax cuts for CEOs’ plan at shipyards all along the Gulf Coast. Most recently he used a Coast Guard cutter as a backdrop for a manly squinting session in Charleston, SC. He has been known to wear a life ring in cabinet sessions.
He is on dangerous ground here. The Dems have a long history of competent and even daring seamanship. FDR calmly steered the presidential yacht, JFK skippered PT-109, Jimmy Carter was a Navy nuclear engineer, and Bill Clinton’s name will forever be associated with seamen [sic]. Now we have John Kerry, who like the character Martin Sheen (another fictional president) played in Apocalypse Now, spent the Vietnam War up the Mekong in a fast attack boat.
When it comes to hanging around ships, President Bush is less like the rugged little Leo DiCaprio and more akin to the iceberg. In May 2003 Bush told those aboard the Lincoln that the war was as good as over; nine months later hundreds have died and thousands more have been wounded in this accomplished mission, and no end appears in sight. If I were one of those Coasties down in South Carolina I would be very worried that the next palmetto palm I see will be on the shore at Um Qasar, Iraq.
As much as I am loath to help the President with his image, I do have three suggestions for the White House spin machine to assist with Mr. Bush’s nautical chops, if he is going to insist on acting like an old salt. (I might as well get on Karl Rove’s good side lest Bush wins.)
Flood Texas: Although Texas has an extensive coastline, the President’s ranch at Crawford is most definitely landlocked. Given that he spends more time on vacation than any other human being alive, he could capitalize on his twin passions (siestas and pretending to be a sailor) by digging a big trench inland from Galveston and inundating the Lone Star State right up to the gates of his holiday home. Just think how happy Bush would be if real battleships sat moored among the oil wells. Although flooding Texas might result in a waterlogged Molly Ivins, I am sure we can agree that the Atlantis-like disappearance of Houston would be no bad thing.
Johnny Depp it up: last summer’s huge hit at the multiplexes was Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Johnny Depp garnered both critical and audience acclaim as the drunk and eccentric Captain Jack Sparrow. The President could gain instant popularity if he simply began impersonating Keith Richard after an accident in the Disney wardrobe department. If only he could keep from falling over when practicing deep sweeping bows, he’d be all set.
Really join the Navy: Nothing would wow the voters more, and chase away those pesky AWOL accusations, than if the Commander-in-Chief actually saw combat. If Mr. Bush enlisted in the Navy and put himself in harm’s way he would do his manly standing a world of good. Also, he could have a whale of a time on board an aircraft carrier. Just imagine him wearing one of those brightly colored sweaters, peeing off the fantail, and feverishly licking cruise missiles. Besides, even with ship-board email and sat phones, it would be a lot easier to dodge questions about missing WMDs in the middle of the Pacific.
With the help of these tips we could be enjoying maritime-themed presidential high jinks all the way until November. However, while he passes his time standing in the bow shouting “I’m king of the world!” he needs to remember the old British army jibe about Navy types:
“Some people float in magnificent boats, and some people work for a living.”
Do These Racers Need a Spoiler?
Ralph’s in the race. Just over a month ago, Citizen Nader has ignored the pleas of many to stay out of the contest for the presidency and has plunged in at a prudent speed with the relevant safety precautions. He’s attacking both Republicans and Democrats with all guns blazing (although it took him a while to remove the trigger locks) and is demanding access to the debates, preferably via a well-lit entrance with a regularly maintained handrail. Ignoring the tactic for getting him out by telling him that the White House is riddled with asbestos, the Democrats are screaming “Spoiler!” Rumor even has it that the DNC is planning to run commercials that claim the elderly consumer advocate dodged the draft during the Spanish-American War.
I'm a little exasperated at Nader. His absence from the national debate for the past four years smacks of fair-weather friendship, and I wonder what change to the politics as usual system he hopes to affect in just nine months of campaigning. He has done amazing things and staked out wonderful positions throughout his career but I think he would be a much more viable and supportable candidate if he had dedicated any energy to campaigning for social and environmental justice in recent years, when there weren't votes at stake. Yet I think it’s rich in a democracy for anyone to describe a presidential candidate as a spoiler.
The folks who are telling us that a Nader run will only result in Bush returning to Pennsylvania Avenue are the ones who thought that Joe Lieberman and his supposedly centrist drivel would make for a dandy commander-in-chief. The newly minted GOP supporters of the democratic process who welcomed Ralph into the race are the same Limbaughnistas who considered Ross Perot the antichrist.
The Democrats blame Nader for Al Gore’s defeat in 2000. Because as we all know, those 250,000 registered Florida Democrats who defected to Bush had nothing to do with the loss. The Republicans were the same way with Perot in 1992; the abysmal economy under George Sr. didn’t scupper his chances, it was the flipchart loving jughead from Texarkana.
The dirty truth of politics is that despite the bleating whenever one enters the race, third party candidates are invaluable to the major parties. Rather than consider how certain policy positions might have caused a supporter to stay home or vote for other mega-franchise (like those Florida Democrats) they can instead browbeat the hippies or the militia nuts for not knowing what’s best for them.
Congress can pass as many variants on campaign reform it wants; as long as there is a duopoly the disparate voices of America will be drowned out by the bullhorn of big money. Third parties have traditionally offered a voice to the marginalized. The big boys have always feared that as more voters considered themselves shut out, the American love of the rebel would help these parties become a force to be reckoned with. This is why each election we are faced with the ridiculous spectacle of millionaires, senators, governors, and even presidents casting themselves as “the common man” while their colossal establishment machines stomp all over the fringe candidates.
However, I said above that I am exasperated with Nader. How does that gel with my support for broadening the political process? It comes down to the eternal dichotomy between principle and reality.
As evil genius P.J. O’Rourke pointed out in his book “The Enemies List,” people vote based on materialism rather than philosophy. After all, you can’t pay your rent by invoking the first amendment (although you may be able to avoid it by exercising the second.) The Christian Right, the slash-and-burn-and-drill crowd, and Tom Selleck all realized this and so have spent the past fifteen years seizing control of the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt (both of whom would be considered liberal nut-jobs today.) Now if the Republican Party’s approach to taxation appeals, you have to buy their take on morality. Why the progressives have not teamed up with the “Old Democrats” to mount a similar campaign within the Democratic Party is beyond me. Perhaps after the trouncing of Lieberman and the astonishing performance by Howard Dean, that time has come.
The reason I’m frustrated with Nader is that rather than encourage his base to hold the Democrats to account from within he is again attempting to overturn 200 years of two-party rule within 9 months. I am afraid that Ralphie is going to squander a great chance and set back progressive causes by antagonizing his wavering support base.
Still, its his right to be in the race, however misguided he might seem. For those of you who are wasting your time being mad, just don’t vote for Nader and instead direct your energy at the enemy that really matters; turncoats in your own party.
The Wisdom Weasel yearns for the day when he is the fourth party candidate. Email him: wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
I'm a little exasperated at Nader. His absence from the national debate for the past four years smacks of fair-weather friendship, and I wonder what change to the politics as usual system he hopes to affect in just nine months of campaigning. He has done amazing things and staked out wonderful positions throughout his career but I think he would be a much more viable and supportable candidate if he had dedicated any energy to campaigning for social and environmental justice in recent years, when there weren't votes at stake. Yet I think it’s rich in a democracy for anyone to describe a presidential candidate as a spoiler.
The folks who are telling us that a Nader run will only result in Bush returning to Pennsylvania Avenue are the ones who thought that Joe Lieberman and his supposedly centrist drivel would make for a dandy commander-in-chief. The newly minted GOP supporters of the democratic process who welcomed Ralph into the race are the same Limbaughnistas who considered Ross Perot the antichrist.
The Democrats blame Nader for Al Gore’s defeat in 2000. Because as we all know, those 250,000 registered Florida Democrats who defected to Bush had nothing to do with the loss. The Republicans were the same way with Perot in 1992; the abysmal economy under George Sr. didn’t scupper his chances, it was the flipchart loving jughead from Texarkana.
The dirty truth of politics is that despite the bleating whenever one enters the race, third party candidates are invaluable to the major parties. Rather than consider how certain policy positions might have caused a supporter to stay home or vote for other mega-franchise (like those Florida Democrats) they can instead browbeat the hippies or the militia nuts for not knowing what’s best for them.
Congress can pass as many variants on campaign reform it wants; as long as there is a duopoly the disparate voices of America will be drowned out by the bullhorn of big money. Third parties have traditionally offered a voice to the marginalized. The big boys have always feared that as more voters considered themselves shut out, the American love of the rebel would help these parties become a force to be reckoned with. This is why each election we are faced with the ridiculous spectacle of millionaires, senators, governors, and even presidents casting themselves as “the common man” while their colossal establishment machines stomp all over the fringe candidates.
However, I said above that I am exasperated with Nader. How does that gel with my support for broadening the political process? It comes down to the eternal dichotomy between principle and reality.
As evil genius P.J. O’Rourke pointed out in his book “The Enemies List,” people vote based on materialism rather than philosophy. After all, you can’t pay your rent by invoking the first amendment (although you may be able to avoid it by exercising the second.) The Christian Right, the slash-and-burn-and-drill crowd, and Tom Selleck all realized this and so have spent the past fifteen years seizing control of the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt (both of whom would be considered liberal nut-jobs today.) Now if the Republican Party’s approach to taxation appeals, you have to buy their take on morality. Why the progressives have not teamed up with the “Old Democrats” to mount a similar campaign within the Democratic Party is beyond me. Perhaps after the trouncing of Lieberman and the astonishing performance by Howard Dean, that time has come.
The reason I’m frustrated with Nader is that rather than encourage his base to hold the Democrats to account from within he is again attempting to overturn 200 years of two-party rule within 9 months. I am afraid that Ralphie is going to squander a great chance and set back progressive causes by antagonizing his wavering support base.
Still, its his right to be in the race, however misguided he might seem. For those of you who are wasting your time being mad, just don’t vote for Nader and instead direct your energy at the enemy that really matters; turncoats in your own party.
The Wisdom Weasel yearns for the day when he is the fourth party candidate. Email him: wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
G.I. Greens
I've always wondered why one of the nicknames for an American soldier is "doughboy." Looking at recent military budgets, I'm beginning to understand why. Its not that the average soldier is rolling around in cash however but rather that US military spending as a percentage of GDP is more akin to that of North Korea than a democratic nation.
I can hear the knees jerking now: But we're at war! Don't you know that we are fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan, Iraq, and globably against terrorism?
I'll agree that parts of the US security services are stretched in different ways than in the past. Bear this in mind, however;back in the nineties, the readiness standard for the US military was that it had to be able to fight two wars (Iraq & North Korea for example) at the same time. Going back a decade, the military was able to stand eyeball to eyeball with the Soviet Union and still put out bush fires in Grenada and Panama. Even further in the past, the military was engaged in the glaring contest with the commies and a shooting war in Vietnam. And while the military budget has always been a significant chunk of change, it was nowhere near the bloated drain on public services it is now.
We were promised a "government of CEOs" by the Bush campaign in 2000, but I think most who bought that premise expected a bunch of Chainsaw Al Dunlaps, not Ken Lays. For all their supposed business acumen, the Bush administration are running the government more like a kleptocratic privatized former state industry in Tajikistan than the mythical lean, mean American corporation. Their military spending is a case in point.
Terrorists fly planes into buildings; the Bushies push ahead with missile defense (which might become accidentally precient if we keep pissing off the rest of the world at the current rate). Feyhadeen with AK-47's shoot at convoys; the Bushies insist on super-stealthy B-2 bombers, designed to penetrate sophisticated Soviet air defenses. Human beings kill themselves and those around them by driving Nissan pick ups full of fertilizer into buildings; the Bushies urge "mini-nukes."
Call me an idiot savant, but it seems that our enemies are fighting one kind of war against us while we prepare to tackle some kind of uber-Bond villain.
The great tragedy of all of this is that faced with a new warfare paradigm we are throwing good money after bad on weapons systems and equipment designed to fight a cold war that ended in 1991. Thinking smarter, or even just thinking, could see a lessening of the onerous defense budget burden AND simultaneously fighting the terrorist threat more effectively. Why invest in yet another multi-billion dollar carrier battle group when our enemy's navy consists of skiffs packed with semtex? Skiffs that have proven deadly when matched against one of our most spohisticated destroyers?
Here's the deal; we need less heavy armor, fewer heavy bombers, fewer ships, and way fewer nuclear weapons and more special forces, more peacemaking and -keeping training, more Coastguard patrols of our vunerable terminals and harbors, more police work, and more spending on human intelligence. Prevention and surgical interventions are not as "sexy" as a full on Ride of the Valkeries blaring smart bombing invasion but they are much more effective.
Currently, the conventional military approach favored by the Bushies is like an elephant trying to stamp on a mouse. I much prefer our odds of success if we change the match up to a cat fighting a mouse.
Then again, these changes would have a detrimental impact on the bottom line of defense contractors; you don't think that this is having an effect on our "government by CEOs" do you?
email me: wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
I can hear the knees jerking now: But we're at war! Don't you know that we are fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan, Iraq, and globably against terrorism?
I'll agree that parts of the US security services are stretched in different ways than in the past. Bear this in mind, however;back in the nineties, the readiness standard for the US military was that it had to be able to fight two wars (Iraq & North Korea for example) at the same time. Going back a decade, the military was able to stand eyeball to eyeball with the Soviet Union and still put out bush fires in Grenada and Panama. Even further in the past, the military was engaged in the glaring contest with the commies and a shooting war in Vietnam. And while the military budget has always been a significant chunk of change, it was nowhere near the bloated drain on public services it is now.
We were promised a "government of CEOs" by the Bush campaign in 2000, but I think most who bought that premise expected a bunch of Chainsaw Al Dunlaps, not Ken Lays. For all their supposed business acumen, the Bush administration are running the government more like a kleptocratic privatized former state industry in Tajikistan than the mythical lean, mean American corporation. Their military spending is a case in point.
Terrorists fly planes into buildings; the Bushies push ahead with missile defense (which might become accidentally precient if we keep pissing off the rest of the world at the current rate). Feyhadeen with AK-47's shoot at convoys; the Bushies insist on super-stealthy B-2 bombers, designed to penetrate sophisticated Soviet air defenses. Human beings kill themselves and those around them by driving Nissan pick ups full of fertilizer into buildings; the Bushies urge "mini-nukes."
Call me an idiot savant, but it seems that our enemies are fighting one kind of war against us while we prepare to tackle some kind of uber-Bond villain.
The great tragedy of all of this is that faced with a new warfare paradigm we are throwing good money after bad on weapons systems and equipment designed to fight a cold war that ended in 1991. Thinking smarter, or even just thinking, could see a lessening of the onerous defense budget burden AND simultaneously fighting the terrorist threat more effectively. Why invest in yet another multi-billion dollar carrier battle group when our enemy's navy consists of skiffs packed with semtex? Skiffs that have proven deadly when matched against one of our most spohisticated destroyers?
Here's the deal; we need less heavy armor, fewer heavy bombers, fewer ships, and way fewer nuclear weapons and more special forces, more peacemaking and -keeping training, more Coastguard patrols of our vunerable terminals and harbors, more police work, and more spending on human intelligence. Prevention and surgical interventions are not as "sexy" as a full on Ride of the Valkeries blaring smart bombing invasion but they are much more effective.
Currently, the conventional military approach favored by the Bushies is like an elephant trying to stamp on a mouse. I much prefer our odds of success if we change the match up to a cat fighting a mouse.
Then again, these changes would have a detrimental impact on the bottom line of defense contractors; you don't think that this is having an effect on our "government by CEOs" do you?
email me: wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Can A Hamas Sandwich Ever be Kosher?
Most of the world's attention today has been focused on Condi Rice's Mendacity Roadshow over at the 9/11 Commission in Washington DC or the sad spectacle of US Marines fighting Iraqis a year after the "Mission Accomplished" banner was unfurled. However, interesting utterances have been coming out of the small melba toast sized patch of scorched earth known as Palestine that might indicate an opportunity for the Palestinians and Israelis to once again begin the tentative move towards a lasting peace.
Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have issued proposals to the terrorist group Hamas, suggesting that for a renunciation of violence inside Israel against civillians (and a suspension of coniving and hostility towards Arafat's Fatah movement) the militant group might be able to join a power-sharing government.
The reaction from Tel Aviv and Washington DC have been predictable. The Israelis (understandably for once) have pointed out that they aren't very keen on the idea considering that the proposal still sanctions attacks on their army and their apocalyptic fundamentalist squatters sitting on stolen land in Gaza and the West Bank. Besides (still understandable given the Sharon government but much more despicable) the Israelis feel that any unification of the Palestinians can only lessen their chances to keep the holy land's original inhabitants poor and subjugated.
The opposition to this idea by the American government comes from the current dead-or-alive, hang 'em high, cheesy western lunacy that seems to pervade Uncle Sam's foreign policy these days. Aside from a blind championing of Israel (the cowboys) over the Palestinians (the indians) that seems to be unconciously based on the USA's own treatment of indigineous people, the same gunfight at the OK corral military solution imposed on a political problem that informs the whole "War on Terror®" is the only response they have to a complex issue.
"We condemn the Palestinian Authority for cutting deals with terrorists." Will no doubt be the sound bite out of the White House.
Maybe then, Mr. Bush might want to reconsider his close relationship with Tony Blair, if this behavior is beyond the pale. After all, Blair (and his pedecessorJohn Major) brokered a deal with not one but two terrorist infrastructures (the IRA and the UFF) in Ulster; bringing them in from the ambush towards the ballot box.
How about he talk to his dad about the Reagan and Bush I adminsitration's championing of the atrocity loving, drug dealing Contras? Or the atrocity loving, drug dealing, jihadist mujahadeen in Afghanistan? About how keen these previous American leaders were to advocate amnestys and places in civil government for these former militants?
Terrorism is not a military issue; it is political and criminal. Without a defense budget or a huge standing army, the terrorist uses dogma and ideology to maintain his organization and to commit his murders and maimings. We use the language of the crime scene to report on his actions; and yet the metaphors of war, not policing, to describe our reactions. Except when we take them prisoner; then they are no longer a military enemy, deserving of Geneva Convention protections, but rather "enemy combatants" condemned to endless detention without representation or trial. In Britain, despite the fact that infantry was deployed throughout Ulster, IRA men were treated as common criminals if caught, and troops and police were even prosecuted for excessive force on occasion.
Perhaps it is easier to use the war language when you are fighting people who happen to have brown skin. Innocent civillian western victims are all huge individual losses. The civillian victims of our retalitory violence in the Third World are not, apparently. Despite the fact that terrorist training camps took up very little real estate in Afghanistan, we bombed, strafed, and shelled vast swaths of the country. We are up to our nipples in shit over in Iraq, fighting a war that allegedly ended eleven months ago, condeming thousands of Iraqis to miserable deaths in the name of their own liberation, and crippling, blinding, and killing the bewildered troops of the coalition (not just Americans: by digging past the insular US media you'll learn that British, Italian, and Spanish troops have died or been wounded. No doubt more from other nations have too, but google seems eurocentric.)
The PA-Hamas deal is indeed flawed, but not beyond repair. It is a real chance to bring the men of violence to the table (much like in Ulster) and legitimize the power of democratic ideals to change the middle east. It might even serve to weaken Al Qadea by offering an organic, home grown alternative to bin Laden's nihilism rather than an imposed western model. Dismising it out of hand with macho posturings about "fights to the death" will only worsen the problems facing Israel, Europe, and the United States. Encouraging Hamas and its ilk to lay down the AK-47 and embrace Robert's Rules of Order can only make us safer.
Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have issued proposals to the terrorist group Hamas, suggesting that for a renunciation of violence inside Israel against civillians (and a suspension of coniving and hostility towards Arafat's Fatah movement) the militant group might be able to join a power-sharing government.
The reaction from Tel Aviv and Washington DC have been predictable. The Israelis (understandably for once) have pointed out that they aren't very keen on the idea considering that the proposal still sanctions attacks on their army and their apocalyptic fundamentalist squatters sitting on stolen land in Gaza and the West Bank. Besides (still understandable given the Sharon government but much more despicable) the Israelis feel that any unification of the Palestinians can only lessen their chances to keep the holy land's original inhabitants poor and subjugated.
The opposition to this idea by the American government comes from the current dead-or-alive, hang 'em high, cheesy western lunacy that seems to pervade Uncle Sam's foreign policy these days. Aside from a blind championing of Israel (the cowboys) over the Palestinians (the indians) that seems to be unconciously based on the USA's own treatment of indigineous people, the same gunfight at the OK corral military solution imposed on a political problem that informs the whole "War on Terror®" is the only response they have to a complex issue.
"We condemn the Palestinian Authority for cutting deals with terrorists." Will no doubt be the sound bite out of the White House.
Maybe then, Mr. Bush might want to reconsider his close relationship with Tony Blair, if this behavior is beyond the pale. After all, Blair (and his pedecessorJohn Major) brokered a deal with not one but two terrorist infrastructures (the IRA and the UFF) in Ulster; bringing them in from the ambush towards the ballot box.
How about he talk to his dad about the Reagan and Bush I adminsitration's championing of the atrocity loving, drug dealing Contras? Or the atrocity loving, drug dealing, jihadist mujahadeen in Afghanistan? About how keen these previous American leaders were to advocate amnestys and places in civil government for these former militants?
Terrorism is not a military issue; it is political and criminal. Without a defense budget or a huge standing army, the terrorist uses dogma and ideology to maintain his organization and to commit his murders and maimings. We use the language of the crime scene to report on his actions; and yet the metaphors of war, not policing, to describe our reactions. Except when we take them prisoner; then they are no longer a military enemy, deserving of Geneva Convention protections, but rather "enemy combatants" condemned to endless detention without representation or trial. In Britain, despite the fact that infantry was deployed throughout Ulster, IRA men were treated as common criminals if caught, and troops and police were even prosecuted for excessive force on occasion.
Perhaps it is easier to use the war language when you are fighting people who happen to have brown skin. Innocent civillian western victims are all huge individual losses. The civillian victims of our retalitory violence in the Third World are not, apparently. Despite the fact that terrorist training camps took up very little real estate in Afghanistan, we bombed, strafed, and shelled vast swaths of the country. We are up to our nipples in shit over in Iraq, fighting a war that allegedly ended eleven months ago, condeming thousands of Iraqis to miserable deaths in the name of their own liberation, and crippling, blinding, and killing the bewildered troops of the coalition (not just Americans: by digging past the insular US media you'll learn that British, Italian, and Spanish troops have died or been wounded. No doubt more from other nations have too, but google seems eurocentric.)
The PA-Hamas deal is indeed flawed, but not beyond repair. It is a real chance to bring the men of violence to the table (much like in Ulster) and legitimize the power of democratic ideals to change the middle east. It might even serve to weaken Al Qadea by offering an organic, home grown alternative to bin Laden's nihilism rather than an imposed western model. Dismising it out of hand with macho posturings about "fights to the death" will only worsen the problems facing Israel, Europe, and the United States. Encouraging Hamas and its ilk to lay down the AK-47 and embrace Robert's Rules of Order can only make us safer.
Sunday, April 04, 2004
Time for self belief.
The missus and I were at a wedding of a pair of close friends this weekend. It was a wonderful affair and I was able to catch up with some old friends and meet some cool new people. The tenor of the group was decidedly liberal (most were graduates of the College of the Atlantic, an environmental and human ecology school on the coast of Maine) and many folks there are active in some way in efforts to make the world (or our interactions with it) more benign. This was a collection of intelligent, interested, and motivated people. The men wore their beards with conviction, and the women wafted an aroma of cruelty-free beauty products. With my George Orwell haircut and geography teacher duds, I did not externally resemble these later-day flower children and back-to-the-landers, but my values were the same. This made it very easy to talk politics. With each conversation I had with any of my fellow guests, everything was going swimmingly until the November election was mentioned.
Without fail, my conversation partner would say; "I am afraid about the presidential election."
We are eight months out from polling day. John Kerry has survived a potentially bruising primary season and is breaking Democratic fundraising records. The Democrats are united and energized like never before. We have a sitting president who couldn't win without cheating the last time around, ensuring that this will be the most scrutinized election in history. Bush seems to have joined "The Scandal of the Month" club, and rather than using the presidential bully pulpit to set the agenda is having to run damage control on his National Guard service, Richard Clark's testimony to the 9/11 commission, Condi Rice being coerced into testifing this week to said commission, Enron, the economy, the war in Iraq, WMDs, Haliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root, VP Cheney duck hunting with Supreme Court Justice Scalia, lies about medicare, bungled campaign ads about 9/11, and the refusual of NATO to go into Iraq under US supervision to name but a few. Supposed spoiler Ralph Nader is having a hard time getting traction. Even Republicans in Congress are having a hard time dealing with the administration, hinting at splits within the usually lock-step, goose-step GOP.
And yet, lefties of all stripes are quivering in their birkenstocks, expressing doubt that Bush can be swept from office, and ignoring the wise words of Yoda. "There is no cannot, young Skywellstone, only will not." I'm no Tony Robbins by any stretch of the immagination, but I think that there are more than a few hints that 2004 might, just might, be as big a year for progressives and pinkos as 1932.
Why 1932? Because that was the year Franklin Delano Roosevelt was first elected. And as the great man himself said in his inaugral address, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."
So bear that in mind as the election approaches, and talk to friends, aquaintances, and even political opponents with optimism and self-belief. If floating voters are to be convinced that Kerry can win, we need to believe it too, with all our hearts. If the unthinkable does happen, the pain of being wrong will be no worse if it comes unexpectedly in November than if we half-expect it beforehand. Be a happy warrior and you'll be surprised how infectious it can be.
Besides, nothing unerves a conservative more than an up-beat, confident, and dynamic opponent, and there are few things more gratifying than a freaked out Republican.
wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
Without fail, my conversation partner would say; "I am afraid about the presidential election."
We are eight months out from polling day. John Kerry has survived a potentially bruising primary season and is breaking Democratic fundraising records. The Democrats are united and energized like never before. We have a sitting president who couldn't win without cheating the last time around, ensuring that this will be the most scrutinized election in history. Bush seems to have joined "The Scandal of the Month" club, and rather than using the presidential bully pulpit to set the agenda is having to run damage control on his National Guard service, Richard Clark's testimony to the 9/11 commission, Condi Rice being coerced into testifing this week to said commission, Enron, the economy, the war in Iraq, WMDs, Haliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root, VP Cheney duck hunting with Supreme Court Justice Scalia, lies about medicare, bungled campaign ads about 9/11, and the refusual of NATO to go into Iraq under US supervision to name but a few. Supposed spoiler Ralph Nader is having a hard time getting traction. Even Republicans in Congress are having a hard time dealing with the administration, hinting at splits within the usually lock-step, goose-step GOP.
And yet, lefties of all stripes are quivering in their birkenstocks, expressing doubt that Bush can be swept from office, and ignoring the wise words of Yoda. "There is no cannot, young Skywellstone, only will not." I'm no Tony Robbins by any stretch of the immagination, but I think that there are more than a few hints that 2004 might, just might, be as big a year for progressives and pinkos as 1932.
Why 1932? Because that was the year Franklin Delano Roosevelt was first elected. And as the great man himself said in his inaugral address, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."
So bear that in mind as the election approaches, and talk to friends, aquaintances, and even political opponents with optimism and self-belief. If floating voters are to be convinced that Kerry can win, we need to believe it too, with all our hearts. If the unthinkable does happen, the pain of being wrong will be no worse if it comes unexpectedly in November than if we half-expect it beforehand. Be a happy warrior and you'll be surprised how infectious it can be.
Besides, nothing unerves a conservative more than an up-beat, confident, and dynamic opponent, and there are few things more gratifying than a freaked out Republican.
wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
Friday, April 02, 2004
Air America.
Three posts in and you early adopters must be wondering if I have developed a Mel Gibson obsession. Fear not, the title of this post refers not to Air America, the Gibson/Robert Downey Jr. romp about lovable CIA drug runners and their narco-wacky antics in Laos (I bet the Cali Cartel wish they had the Company's agent) but rather to a splendid new addition to America's cluttered FM/AM bandwiths. (You can learn more and hear live streams here: airamericaradio.com
Air America is the new liberal talk radio network that has been launched to take back the night (and hopefully the day) from the microphone hoodlums on the right. It hopes to challenge the imposed monopoly of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and the bizzare pentacostal minister on one of my local stations who threatens hell and damnation to those unsaved folks who vote Democrat and refuse to speak in tongues or take the rapture seriously. I wish I had sound on this blog; I promise you this man is a prime example of the separation of church and brain. Anyway, Al Franken is heading up a roster of hosts who seek to lay to rest the lie that we pinkos are po-faced puritans (Bill Clinton??? A prude??? with no sense of humor (how do they explain the Marx brothers?) and a grip on the mainstream media. So far the network is off to a humble start, broadcasting to only three cities, although this is hardly surprising when one considers that most of the public airwaves in America are in the grip of three conservative radio companies whose idea of mature political discourse is steamrolling Dixie Chicks CDs.
The fact that Air America is having a tricky time getting to a town near you should finally lay to rest the lie about "liberal media bias." Here in Maine, there was a liberal media bias when I worked in broadcasting; namely me. Believe me, I cut a lonely figure at radio gatherings with my "Reagan for Shah" button and unbleached cotton shirt, surrounded by dumpy middle aged men named Rockin' Roger or similar wearing Transitions lenses, sateen concert jackets, spray on hair, and Lee Greenwood tour t-shirts. The bias in the media (be it radio, TV, or print) is towards sensationalism; if it bleeds, it leads. True political discourse is on life-support and if the right gets its way, the machines will be unplugged in the name of "cost savings."
Despite the right dominating talk radio akin to a mobster playing with loaded dice in Atlantic City there is something you can do personally to redress the balance; call your local big box radio station and ask them to level the playing field. Then ask your friends to do the same. Then do the same to the station's advertisers. Much like an AT-AT in Star Wars, there is a weak spot in the underbelly of the Republican elephant; money. As much as they love the sound of Limbaugh or Coulter spewing their toxic bile (after all, it means more sales of acid reflux medication at premium prices, boosting their drug company stocks) they love the ring of the cash register more. Therefore, if you let them know that you'll probably buy your new car from the dealer who underwrites Franken rather than the one who shells out for Mike Gallagher you'll be speaking to them in the only language they understand.
If that doesn't appeal; bitch and moan loudly about how divisive, untruthful, and misleading right wing radio is, even about the points that occasionally make sense. They have been casting us in black and white for far too long while we womble around parsing shades of gray. If they want an unfair fight, lets give it to them! Argue with any right wingers you come across in public places like bars and family gatherings; don't try to reason with them, try to win the crowd. Write to the paper bemoaning the stances of syndicated columnists. Bird-dog politicians. Laugh derisively in public at readers of the Boston Herald. While it might seem unsporting to approach things this way, remember that your opponent will not think twice about punching you in the groin while you lace up your gloves. Marquis of Queensbury be damned, this is ultimate fighting, and you need to be like Gracie.
So for everytime you caught a soundbite from Rush Limbaugh that made you go "whaaa?", put aside the fact that he was probably gooned on oxycontin when he said it and instead recall what bold faced distortion of his made you choke on your tofu. Now simply reverse the argument, however illogical it might become, and use it to bash a conservative today. Over time, you can begin to add real fact and substance to your spiked club of a position, but for now concentrate on mastering hitting people on the head with it.
Here's to Air America, and for every small victory for the left; such as Jim Hightower's book on the New York Times bestseller list*, Bush staffers quitting and "telling all", and the adminstration being too incompetent to frame the debate. Come out swinging, and don't forget to keep kicking once you get them down. Fighting Republicans is like fighting zombies; there can be no such thing as an honorable tie.
contact me: wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
*If the conservatives hate the New York Times so much, why do they keep putting "NY Times Best Seller" on their book jackets? Besides, politics is no reason to hate the NY Times; their unreasoning sycophancy towards Steinbrenner and the frigging Yankees is, however.
Air America is the new liberal talk radio network that has been launched to take back the night (and hopefully the day) from the microphone hoodlums on the right. It hopes to challenge the imposed monopoly of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and the bizzare pentacostal minister on one of my local stations who threatens hell and damnation to those unsaved folks who vote Democrat and refuse to speak in tongues or take the rapture seriously. I wish I had sound on this blog; I promise you this man is a prime example of the separation of church and brain. Anyway, Al Franken is heading up a roster of hosts who seek to lay to rest the lie that we pinkos are po-faced puritans (Bill Clinton??? A prude??? with no sense of humor (how do they explain the Marx brothers?) and a grip on the mainstream media. So far the network is off to a humble start, broadcasting to only three cities, although this is hardly surprising when one considers that most of the public airwaves in America are in the grip of three conservative radio companies whose idea of mature political discourse is steamrolling Dixie Chicks CDs.
The fact that Air America is having a tricky time getting to a town near you should finally lay to rest the lie about "liberal media bias." Here in Maine, there was a liberal media bias when I worked in broadcasting; namely me. Believe me, I cut a lonely figure at radio gatherings with my "Reagan for Shah" button and unbleached cotton shirt, surrounded by dumpy middle aged men named Rockin' Roger or similar wearing Transitions lenses, sateen concert jackets, spray on hair, and Lee Greenwood tour t-shirts. The bias in the media (be it radio, TV, or print) is towards sensationalism; if it bleeds, it leads. True political discourse is on life-support and if the right gets its way, the machines will be unplugged in the name of "cost savings."
Despite the right dominating talk radio akin to a mobster playing with loaded dice in Atlantic City there is something you can do personally to redress the balance; call your local big box radio station and ask them to level the playing field. Then ask your friends to do the same. Then do the same to the station's advertisers. Much like an AT-AT in Star Wars, there is a weak spot in the underbelly of the Republican elephant; money. As much as they love the sound of Limbaugh or Coulter spewing their toxic bile (after all, it means more sales of acid reflux medication at premium prices, boosting their drug company stocks) they love the ring of the cash register more. Therefore, if you let them know that you'll probably buy your new car from the dealer who underwrites Franken rather than the one who shells out for Mike Gallagher you'll be speaking to them in the only language they understand.
If that doesn't appeal; bitch and moan loudly about how divisive, untruthful, and misleading right wing radio is, even about the points that occasionally make sense. They have been casting us in black and white for far too long while we womble around parsing shades of gray. If they want an unfair fight, lets give it to them! Argue with any right wingers you come across in public places like bars and family gatherings; don't try to reason with them, try to win the crowd. Write to the paper bemoaning the stances of syndicated columnists. Bird-dog politicians. Laugh derisively in public at readers of the Boston Herald. While it might seem unsporting to approach things this way, remember that your opponent will not think twice about punching you in the groin while you lace up your gloves. Marquis of Queensbury be damned, this is ultimate fighting, and you need to be like Gracie.
So for everytime you caught a soundbite from Rush Limbaugh that made you go "whaaa?", put aside the fact that he was probably gooned on oxycontin when he said it and instead recall what bold faced distortion of his made you choke on your tofu. Now simply reverse the argument, however illogical it might become, and use it to bash a conservative today. Over time, you can begin to add real fact and substance to your spiked club of a position, but for now concentrate on mastering hitting people on the head with it.
Here's to Air America, and for every small victory for the left; such as Jim Hightower's book on the New York Times bestseller list*, Bush staffers quitting and "telling all", and the adminstration being too incompetent to frame the debate. Come out swinging, and don't forget to keep kicking once you get them down. Fighting Republicans is like fighting zombies; there can be no such thing as an honorable tie.
contact me: wisdomweasel@hotmail.com
*If the conservatives hate the New York Times so much, why do they keep putting "NY Times Best Seller" on their book jackets? Besides, politics is no reason to hate the NY Times; their unreasoning sycophancy towards Steinbrenner and the frigging Yankees is, however.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
