i will listen to every mumia recording on prison radio
i will spend more on the poor than i do on pizza
i will dream of assaulting yet another american president
i will blog at every turn
i will read both because i want to and because i feel that i have to
i will buy too many jazz cd's, as others laugh at me for not having an ipod
i will become a married man, but unlike jon kabat, i will not alter my name.
neither you or i will find the perfect bass player
i will work because i know of no other way to support myself
i will sing viva viagra at least 10 times to the class i work with
i will curse mcas and sat, but continue to teach them both
i will continue to think that taking a crap is an underrated activity
to kind of quote woody, i will continue to be an atheist, but to him i will always be the loyal opposition
i will sing in the shower, and hit the note at least half the time
i will spend more time complaining about shaving than i will actually spend shaving
i will go to two movies, and wonder why i went to one of them. the other will impact me greatly
i will sometimes drink alcohol that i can't stand, and then wonder why i drank it
i will find myself at a party or two, saying things that must be coming from another person
i will curse columbus day, the 4th, thanksgiving, and the rest, but end up acknowledging my fair share of holidays
someone will tell me to go back to school, or ask me what i do, or will wonder why i'm not a teacher yet. i will once again resist the urge to kill this person
i will either gain or lose a few pounds
there will be a new singing sensation, who sounds just like the old singing sensations
for now, let there be peace in the hood, as well as inside of the hat and gloves
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
yesterday, we were without power for over 4 hours. today, we got a call saying we would be without power for an additional two hours. tixon attempted to get compensation but was turned down by three different customer service reps. it should be noted that the phone and gas companies had compensated in the past. well, at least no one has bombed our electrical grid. that's the first thing that happened in iraq, serbia, and elsewhere; our military bombs the grid and throws the bombed population into darkness. hospitals are then forced to use back up generators. this is currently happening in gaza, where one of the three back up generators has already failed. now, i was without power for 4 hours and i was ready to pull my hair out! candles and flash lights became dirty words, and i felt miserably deprived. for billions of people, it is a lucky day if they have electricity for four hours. gaza currently is going on about 6 hours a day. millions have no electricity at all. as we celebrate yet again. i, for one, don't celebrate that my electric company is the only show in town. whatever happened to competition? come on, you capitalists, i thought you believed in consumer choice and a marketplace of goods and services! remember the jokes about people waiting in line at the mcdonald's in russia? remember lenny's line about the guy in russia who got into an argument with the phone company? well, with one electric company in all of jp, i'm that schmuck with two cans and a string yelling into the receiver. i'm sorry, mr. bruce, but capitalism certainly doesn't cook for me. with the lights out, i can't even see what i'm cooking! yes, it's the age of monopoly capitalism, where choice is a thing of the past, unless by choice you mean the manner you wish to be fucked by the corporations. for you have the choice to silently accept, or to complain, and then be forced to accept against your will, unless you are willing to live by candle light. as i said, it could be worse. i could be living under the bombs. instead, my tax dollars pay for the bombs that others are forced to live under. aren't i the fortunate one?
happy new year
happy new year
well, i guess there are worse things for a student to experience than college debt
Targeting Islamic University
Where's the Academic Outrage Over the Bombing of a University in Gaza?
By NEVE GORDON and JEFF HALPER
Not one of the nearly 450 presidents of American colleges and universities who prominently denounced an effort by British academics to boycott Israeli universities in September 2007 have raised their voice in opposition to Israel’s bombardment of the Islamic University of Gaza earlier this week. Lee C. Bollinger, president of Columbia University, who organized the petition, has been silent, as have his co-signatories from Princeton, Northwestern, and Cornell Universities, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Most others who signed similar petitions, like the 11,000 professors from nearly 1,000 universities around the world, have also refrained from expressing their outrage at Israel’s attack on the leading university in Gaza. The artfully named Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, which organized the latter appeal, has said nothing about the assault.
While the extent of the damage to the Islamic University, which was hit in six separate airstrikes, is still unknown, recent reports indicate that at least two major buildings were targeted, a science laboratory and the Ladies’ Building, where female students attended classes. There were no casualties, as the university was evacuated when the Israeli assault began on Saturday.
Virtually all the commentators agree that the Islamic University was attacked, in part, because it is a cultural symbol of Hamas, the ruling party in the elected Palestinian government, which Israel has targeted in its continuing attacks in Gaza. Mysteriously, hardly any of the news coverage has emphasized the educational significance of the university, which far exceeds its cultural or political symbolism.
Established in 1978 by the founder of Hamas — with the approval of Israeli authorities — the Islamic University is the first and most important institution of higher education in Gaza, serving more than 20,000 students, 60 percent of whom are women. It comprises 10 faculties — education, religion, art, commerce, Shariah law, science, engineering, information technology, medicine, and nursing — and awards a variety of bachelor’s and master’s degrees. Taking into account that Palestinian universities have been regionalized because Palestinian students from Gaza are barred by Israel from studying either in the West Bank or abroad, the educational significance of the Islamic University becomes even more apparent.
Those restrictions became international news last summer when Israel refused to grant exit permits to seven carefully vetted students from Gaza who had been awarded Fulbright fellowships by the State Department to study in the United States. After top State Department officials intervened, the students’ scholarships were restored — though Israel allowed only four of the seven to leave, even after appeals by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “It is a welcome victory — for the students,” opined The New York Times, and “for Israel, which should want to see more of Gaza’s young people follow a path of hope and education rather than hopelessness and martyrdom; and for the United States, whose image in the Middle East badly needs burnishing.”
Notwithstanding the importance of the Islamic University, Israel has tried to justify the bombing. An army spokeswoman told The Chronicle that the targeted buildings were used as “a research and development center for Hamas weapons, including Qassam rockets. … One of the structures struck housed explosives laboratories that were an inseparable part of Hamas’s research-and-development program, as well as places that served as storage facilities for the organization. The development of these weapons took place under the auspices of senior lecturers who are activists in Hamas.”
Islamic University officials deny the Israeli allegations. Yet even if there is some merit in them, it is common knowledge that practically all major American and Israeli universities are engaged in research and development of military applications and receive money from the Pentagon and defense corporations. Weapon development and even manufacturing have, unfortunately, become major projects at universities worldwide — a fact that does not justify bombing them.
By launching an attack on Gaza, the Israeli government has once again chosen to adopt strategies of violence that are tragically akin to the ones deployed by Hamas — only the Israeli tactics are much more lethal. How should academics respond to this assault on an institution of higher education? Regardless of one’s stand on the proposed boycott of Israeli universities, anyone so concerned about academic freedom as to put one’s name on a petition should be no less outraged when Israel bombs a Palestinian university. The question, then, is whether the university presidents and professors who signed the various petitions denouncing efforts to boycott Israel will speak out against the destruction of the Islamic University.
Neve Gordon is chair of the department of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and author of Israel’s Occupation (University of California Press, 2008).
Jeff Halper Jeff Halper is the Director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and author of An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel (Pluto Press, 2008). He can be reached at jeff@icahd.org.
remember, israel is only targeting hamas. of course, they do this by bombing a university. what if a country had the capability to bomb the united states, and decided to bomb american universities. what would we say if their defense was that they were actually targeting the u.s military? as this article states, many american universities have been involved in military research and weapons development. chomsky often points out the extent to which mit was involved in such research, and michael parenti has pointed out that napalm was invented in harvard. who among us supports the bombing of mit and harvard, despite the obvious crimes committed at these, and hundreds of other institutions. in short, the use of a powerful military to bomb densely populated civilian areas is a de facto war crime, whatever the stated aims and rationale given by those dropping the bombs.
Where's the Academic Outrage Over the Bombing of a University in Gaza?
By NEVE GORDON and JEFF HALPER
Not one of the nearly 450 presidents of American colleges and universities who prominently denounced an effort by British academics to boycott Israeli universities in September 2007 have raised their voice in opposition to Israel’s bombardment of the Islamic University of Gaza earlier this week. Lee C. Bollinger, president of Columbia University, who organized the petition, has been silent, as have his co-signatories from Princeton, Northwestern, and Cornell Universities, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Most others who signed similar petitions, like the 11,000 professors from nearly 1,000 universities around the world, have also refrained from expressing their outrage at Israel’s attack on the leading university in Gaza. The artfully named Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, which organized the latter appeal, has said nothing about the assault.
While the extent of the damage to the Islamic University, which was hit in six separate airstrikes, is still unknown, recent reports indicate that at least two major buildings were targeted, a science laboratory and the Ladies’ Building, where female students attended classes. There were no casualties, as the university was evacuated when the Israeli assault began on Saturday.
Virtually all the commentators agree that the Islamic University was attacked, in part, because it is a cultural symbol of Hamas, the ruling party in the elected Palestinian government, which Israel has targeted in its continuing attacks in Gaza. Mysteriously, hardly any of the news coverage has emphasized the educational significance of the university, which far exceeds its cultural or political symbolism.
Established in 1978 by the founder of Hamas — with the approval of Israeli authorities — the Islamic University is the first and most important institution of higher education in Gaza, serving more than 20,000 students, 60 percent of whom are women. It comprises 10 faculties — education, religion, art, commerce, Shariah law, science, engineering, information technology, medicine, and nursing — and awards a variety of bachelor’s and master’s degrees. Taking into account that Palestinian universities have been regionalized because Palestinian students from Gaza are barred by Israel from studying either in the West Bank or abroad, the educational significance of the Islamic University becomes even more apparent.
Those restrictions became international news last summer when Israel refused to grant exit permits to seven carefully vetted students from Gaza who had been awarded Fulbright fellowships by the State Department to study in the United States. After top State Department officials intervened, the students’ scholarships were restored — though Israel allowed only four of the seven to leave, even after appeals by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “It is a welcome victory — for the students,” opined The New York Times, and “for Israel, which should want to see more of Gaza’s young people follow a path of hope and education rather than hopelessness and martyrdom; and for the United States, whose image in the Middle East badly needs burnishing.”
Notwithstanding the importance of the Islamic University, Israel has tried to justify the bombing. An army spokeswoman told The Chronicle that the targeted buildings were used as “a research and development center for Hamas weapons, including Qassam rockets. … One of the structures struck housed explosives laboratories that were an inseparable part of Hamas’s research-and-development program, as well as places that served as storage facilities for the organization. The development of these weapons took place under the auspices of senior lecturers who are activists in Hamas.”
Islamic University officials deny the Israeli allegations. Yet even if there is some merit in them, it is common knowledge that practically all major American and Israeli universities are engaged in research and development of military applications and receive money from the Pentagon and defense corporations. Weapon development and even manufacturing have, unfortunately, become major projects at universities worldwide — a fact that does not justify bombing them.
By launching an attack on Gaza, the Israeli government has once again chosen to adopt strategies of violence that are tragically akin to the ones deployed by Hamas — only the Israeli tactics are much more lethal. How should academics respond to this assault on an institution of higher education? Regardless of one’s stand on the proposed boycott of Israeli universities, anyone so concerned about academic freedom as to put one’s name on a petition should be no less outraged when Israel bombs a Palestinian university. The question, then, is whether the university presidents and professors who signed the various petitions denouncing efforts to boycott Israel will speak out against the destruction of the Islamic University.
Neve Gordon is chair of the department of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and author of Israel’s Occupation (University of California Press, 2008).
Jeff Halper Jeff Halper is the Director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and author of An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel (Pluto Press, 2008). He can be reached at jeff@icahd.org.
remember, israel is only targeting hamas. of course, they do this by bombing a university. what if a country had the capability to bomb the united states, and decided to bomb american universities. what would we say if their defense was that they were actually targeting the u.s military? as this article states, many american universities have been involved in military research and weapons development. chomsky often points out the extent to which mit was involved in such research, and michael parenti has pointed out that napalm was invented in harvard. who among us supports the bombing of mit and harvard, despite the obvious crimes committed at these, and hundreds of other institutions. in short, the use of a powerful military to bomb densely populated civilian areas is a de facto war crime, whatever the stated aims and rationale given by those dropping the bombs.
read this, and recall that sign i saw yesterday..."hamas targets civilians. israel targets civilians."
Shortages Put Gaza's Hospitals on the Brink of Collapse
• Three operations-a-time in overstretched theatres • Call for Israel to let in most serious cases for treatment
by Rory McCarthy and Hazem Balousha
JERUSALEM and GAZA CITY - Emergency medical supplies were being flown to the Middle East yesterday to help Gaza's overstretched hospitals, where doctors say they are still struggling to cope with hundreds of injured patients.
An injured boy is treated at the Shifa hospital in Gaza City. (Photograph: Khalil Hamra/AP)Doctors at the Shifa hospital, a 585-bed complex which is the largest in Gaza, said they had treated patients on the floor and conducted operations with as many as three different patients and a dozen doctors crowded into each operating theater.
All 25 intensive care beds were full, said Dr Hussain Ashaur, the hospital director, and there were still another 87 patients in a critical condition waiting to enter intensive care.
He said there were severe shortages of medical supplies, including gauze, sterilization fluids and anesthetics. In total 135 types of medical supplies were needed and 94 separate medicines. Sheets and cloth for intensive care beds were in such short supply that they were being washed three times a day.
Doctors said they were overwhelmed on Saturday, with the first rush of large numbers of injured patients, although pressure had eased slightly on Monday and yesterday. Still, the hospital was in a fragile state, Ashaur said. "We're close to collapsing if this situation continues. We have shortages of everything," he said.
The hospital was running on generators yesterday after a break in the electricity supply, and already one of its three generators had broken down and could not be repaired because of a lack of spare parts.
The International Committee of the Red Cross was to fly in 11 tonnes of supplies to Tel Aviv, which it hoped would then be allowed into Gaza. A Red Cross surgical team is on standby to fly in as well, as soon as it receives permission from the Israeli authorities.
The World Health Organization is to fly 50 surgical kits from Norway to Israel, with enough supplies to treat 5,000 wounded people. Another nine basic health kits, enough for three months' treatment of 90,000 people with common illnesses, is also to be sent.
However, for several months Israel has allowed only limited supplies of humanitarian goods into Gaza and no other imports or exports. That has left Gaza's health system in a state of crisis, according to Physicians for Human Rights, an Israeli group.
It said even before Israel's latest bombing campaign began on Saturday that the Gazan health system was "operating under severe shortages and limitations". As well as shortages of medical equipment and trained personnel, there were shortages of medicine and a broader lack of knowledge and training in dealing with complex diseases and injuries.
Israel allowed around 100 trucks of humanitarian supplies into Gaza yesterday, a much higher number than usual but still a long way below the numbers passing through before the economic blockade was imposed last year.
Physicians for Human Rights said it knew of six patients in intensive care at the Shifa hospital who needed treatment outside Gaza but were too weak to travel the seven hours by road to Cairo.
The group said hospitals in Israel, as in the past, were ready to take the patients but the only crossing they would use out of Gaza, at Erez, had been closed since Friday. The group, together with other Israeli human rights groups, sent a letter to the Israeli defense ministry asking that patients be allowed out.
In the Shifa hospital yesterday doctors described working 20-hour days just to keep up with the flood of patients. "We thought we were in a critical situation in the past, but when we saw this we realised what had gone before was nothing," said Dr Nabil Shawa, head of orthopedics.
"We're not prepared for this number of casualties. There were so many people I couldn't move freely from one room to the next. Besides, I have my family, and my children were at school and I was trying to reach them to know that they were safe. You can just imagine the effort, the worry. We're exhausted."
Oxfam called for an immediate ceasefire to allow in sufficient humanitarian supplies. "What is needed is an immediate ceasefire to end the terrible levels of human suffering in Gaza," said Jeremy Hobbs, director of Oxfam International.
• Three operations-a-time in overstretched theatres • Call for Israel to let in most serious cases for treatment
by Rory McCarthy and Hazem Balousha
JERUSALEM and GAZA CITY - Emergency medical supplies were being flown to the Middle East yesterday to help Gaza's overstretched hospitals, where doctors say they are still struggling to cope with hundreds of injured patients.
An injured boy is treated at the Shifa hospital in Gaza City. (Photograph: Khalil Hamra/AP)Doctors at the Shifa hospital, a 585-bed complex which is the largest in Gaza, said they had treated patients on the floor and conducted operations with as many as three different patients and a dozen doctors crowded into each operating theater.
All 25 intensive care beds were full, said Dr Hussain Ashaur, the hospital director, and there were still another 87 patients in a critical condition waiting to enter intensive care.
He said there were severe shortages of medical supplies, including gauze, sterilization fluids and anesthetics. In total 135 types of medical supplies were needed and 94 separate medicines. Sheets and cloth for intensive care beds were in such short supply that they were being washed three times a day.
Doctors said they were overwhelmed on Saturday, with the first rush of large numbers of injured patients, although pressure had eased slightly on Monday and yesterday. Still, the hospital was in a fragile state, Ashaur said. "We're close to collapsing if this situation continues. We have shortages of everything," he said.
The hospital was running on generators yesterday after a break in the electricity supply, and already one of its three generators had broken down and could not be repaired because of a lack of spare parts.
The International Committee of the Red Cross was to fly in 11 tonnes of supplies to Tel Aviv, which it hoped would then be allowed into Gaza. A Red Cross surgical team is on standby to fly in as well, as soon as it receives permission from the Israeli authorities.
The World Health Organization is to fly 50 surgical kits from Norway to Israel, with enough supplies to treat 5,000 wounded people. Another nine basic health kits, enough for three months' treatment of 90,000 people with common illnesses, is also to be sent.
However, for several months Israel has allowed only limited supplies of humanitarian goods into Gaza and no other imports or exports. That has left Gaza's health system in a state of crisis, according to Physicians for Human Rights, an Israeli group.
It said even before Israel's latest bombing campaign began on Saturday that the Gazan health system was "operating under severe shortages and limitations". As well as shortages of medical equipment and trained personnel, there were shortages of medicine and a broader lack of knowledge and training in dealing with complex diseases and injuries.
Israel allowed around 100 trucks of humanitarian supplies into Gaza yesterday, a much higher number than usual but still a long way below the numbers passing through before the economic blockade was imposed last year.
Physicians for Human Rights said it knew of six patients in intensive care at the Shifa hospital who needed treatment outside Gaza but were too weak to travel the seven hours by road to Cairo.
The group said hospitals in Israel, as in the past, were ready to take the patients but the only crossing they would use out of Gaza, at Erez, had been closed since Friday. The group, together with other Israeli human rights groups, sent a letter to the Israeli defense ministry asking that patients be allowed out.
In the Shifa hospital yesterday doctors described working 20-hour days just to keep up with the flood of patients. "We thought we were in a critical situation in the past, but when we saw this we realised what had gone before was nothing," said Dr Nabil Shawa, head of orthopedics.
"We're not prepared for this number of casualties. There were so many people I couldn't move freely from one room to the next. Besides, I have my family, and my children were at school and I was trying to reach them to know that they were safe. You can just imagine the effort, the worry. We're exhausted."
Oxfam called for an immediate ceasefire to allow in sufficient humanitarian supplies. "What is needed is an immediate ceasefire to end the terrible levels of human suffering in Gaza," said Jeremy Hobbs, director of Oxfam International.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
freddie hubbard, rip
the great freddie hubbard, one of the better trumpeters of the 1960's, has died. he was 70 years old. for the first few years of his career, there were few better. his playing on "blues and the abstract truth," "roll call," "outward bound," "ole," and "ready for freddie," among others, stand with the great recorded trumpet efforts. as time went by, he wasn't quite able to equal these earlier performances, but he remained a powerful player for muct of his life. we lost another giant, and it doesn't seem that the jazz world is replacing the heavyweights of yesteryear. in any case, thank you freddie, for those must have recordings of the early 60's, and for a lifetime of dedication to the great artform known as jazz.
israel has killed 364 and hamas has killed 4. this is a ratio of around 90 to 1. even bush himself must be jealous. went to another rally today. this time, the crowd was evenly split, with israeli supporters on one side and gaza supporters on the other. at one point, i lost it, and challenged a guy to cross the street so i could "kick his fucking ass!" yes, not a revolutionary sentiment, but one that i felt strongly at that moment. one guy had a sign that read "hamas = nazism" funny, but i wasn't aware of the concentration camps run by hamas. as i stated earlier, hamas has killed 4 people so far. now, i'm not a big numbers guy, but that means they have killed 1 person for every 2.75 million killed in the holocaust. (if we use the accepted numbers of 6 million jews killed and 5 million non-jews. and this number doesn't include the 20 plus million killed in russia by german forces, and others killed in poland, france, britain, and elsewhere.) rather, it is israel that bombs densely populated areas. it is israel that possesses a strong military. it is israel that forces millions of people to live in ghetto like conditions. it is israel that places sanctions on gaza. it is israel that doesn't allow the media, human rights activists, and aid organizations to have access to gaza. now, perhaps we bring up the holocaust too much, but i'm not the one who mentioned it; this idiot with the sign did. personally, i am deeply offended by the comparison. this militaristic supporter of the brutal state of israel does a disservice to the millions of jews who died in the holocaust by making such a comparison. he and his ilk should be ashamed of themselves for standing on the side of state terrorism and unmitigated militarism. and while i might not be the guy to do it, someone should kick their ass. and one more thing; i'm not a big fan of hamas trying to hit israel with rockets, but let us remember that they make their own rockets. the rockets don't go very far, and have so far been able to kill only a couple of people. on the other hand, israel uses state of the art weaponry supplied by the united states which can kill untold numbers of people.
another sign read "hamas targets civilians. israel targets hamas." so why have a documented 64 women and children, as well as an untold number of civilian men, been killed so far in gaza? why have university students been killed? why have school students been killed? why has a family of 7, including 5 sisters, been killed? why has a mosque been bombed? why has a university been bombed? why are gazans without electricity? the fact is, hamas arose because of how israel has treated the palestinian people. let us not confuse cause and effect, and then use the effect to then justify further brutality from the israeli military, which is the source of the strife to begin with.
and of course, iraq goes on and on. and no one talks about it anymore. reporters have stopped talking about it. you know, it is no little thing to go in and destroy a society. you think it would be news.
and what of the big o? he has had little to say about the crisis in gaza, reminding us that we only have one president at a time. well, that didn't stop him from condemning the attacks in mumbai, which brutal as they were, were surely not as devastating as what israel is doing to the people of gaza. this didn't stop him from pontificating endlessly about his so called plans for the economy. of course there is only one president at a time, but big o, are you not still a human being capable of compassion and decency? as it turns out, the small o seems to be speaking through david axelrod, who made a statement in sympathy with israel. hey axelrod, i thought there was only one president at a time? i guess everytime obama doesn't want to comment on something, he throws that line in, but when he does want to say something, he speaks his mind. what a bunch of shit.
2009 will soon be on the scene. millions of nimrods will descend on boston. very few will take a minute to think about iraq, or gaza, or the injustice of the cuban embargo, or mumia, or anything else of import. they will blow horns, and get drunk. the money they will collectively spend could have done some good. they will mainly be well fed white people, with a few people of color thrown in to cater to our democratic illusions. quite a few will wave little american flags. some fuckheads may even chant "usa, usa" as several assholes did at an irish bar i was sadly sitting in a few years back. my guess is those idiots are just as dumb now as they were then. each drink they buy will cost more than half of humanity makes in a day. millions of americans will spend more on new years related travelling and vacations than many will make in a year. they will count down the new year, and then watch a fire works show that sounds quite a bit like the bombs that our government drops on millions of others, who will have little, if anything, to celerate come tommorow.
fuck you america.
israel has killed 364 and hamas has killed 4. this is a ratio of around 90 to 1. even bush himself must be jealous. went to another rally today. this time, the crowd was evenly split, with israeli supporters on one side and gaza supporters on the other. at one point, i lost it, and challenged a guy to cross the street so i could "kick his fucking ass!" yes, not a revolutionary sentiment, but one that i felt strongly at that moment. one guy had a sign that read "hamas = nazism" funny, but i wasn't aware of the concentration camps run by hamas. as i stated earlier, hamas has killed 4 people so far. now, i'm not a big numbers guy, but that means they have killed 1 person for every 2.75 million killed in the holocaust. (if we use the accepted numbers of 6 million jews killed and 5 million non-jews. and this number doesn't include the 20 plus million killed in russia by german forces, and others killed in poland, france, britain, and elsewhere.) rather, it is israel that bombs densely populated areas. it is israel that possesses a strong military. it is israel that forces millions of people to live in ghetto like conditions. it is israel that places sanctions on gaza. it is israel that doesn't allow the media, human rights activists, and aid organizations to have access to gaza. now, perhaps we bring up the holocaust too much, but i'm not the one who mentioned it; this idiot with the sign did. personally, i am deeply offended by the comparison. this militaristic supporter of the brutal state of israel does a disservice to the millions of jews who died in the holocaust by making such a comparison. he and his ilk should be ashamed of themselves for standing on the side of state terrorism and unmitigated militarism. and while i might not be the guy to do it, someone should kick their ass. and one more thing; i'm not a big fan of hamas trying to hit israel with rockets, but let us remember that they make their own rockets. the rockets don't go very far, and have so far been able to kill only a couple of people. on the other hand, israel uses state of the art weaponry supplied by the united states which can kill untold numbers of people.
another sign read "hamas targets civilians. israel targets hamas." so why have a documented 64 women and children, as well as an untold number of civilian men, been killed so far in gaza? why have university students been killed? why have school students been killed? why has a family of 7, including 5 sisters, been killed? why has a mosque been bombed? why has a university been bombed? why are gazans without electricity? the fact is, hamas arose because of how israel has treated the palestinian people. let us not confuse cause and effect, and then use the effect to then justify further brutality from the israeli military, which is the source of the strife to begin with.
and of course, iraq goes on and on. and no one talks about it anymore. reporters have stopped talking about it. you know, it is no little thing to go in and destroy a society. you think it would be news.
and what of the big o? he has had little to say about the crisis in gaza, reminding us that we only have one president at a time. well, that didn't stop him from condemning the attacks in mumbai, which brutal as they were, were surely not as devastating as what israel is doing to the people of gaza. this didn't stop him from pontificating endlessly about his so called plans for the economy. of course there is only one president at a time, but big o, are you not still a human being capable of compassion and decency? as it turns out, the small o seems to be speaking through david axelrod, who made a statement in sympathy with israel. hey axelrod, i thought there was only one president at a time? i guess everytime obama doesn't want to comment on something, he throws that line in, but when he does want to say something, he speaks his mind. what a bunch of shit.
2009 will soon be on the scene. millions of nimrods will descend on boston. very few will take a minute to think about iraq, or gaza, or the injustice of the cuban embargo, or mumia, or anything else of import. they will blow horns, and get drunk. the money they will collectively spend could have done some good. they will mainly be well fed white people, with a few people of color thrown in to cater to our democratic illusions. quite a few will wave little american flags. some fuckheads may even chant "usa, usa" as several assholes did at an irish bar i was sadly sitting in a few years back. my guess is those idiots are just as dumb now as they were then. each drink they buy will cost more than half of humanity makes in a day. millions of americans will spend more on new years related travelling and vacations than many will make in a year. they will count down the new year, and then watch a fire works show that sounds quite a bit like the bombs that our government drops on millions of others, who will have little, if anything, to celerate come tommorow.
fuck you america.
mellish is proud that he voted for cynthia mckinney
Cynthia McKinney Relief Boat Hit by Israeli Ship
by Craig Schneider
A boat carrying international activists, including former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and medical supplies to the embattled Gaza Strip sailed back into a Lebanese port on Tuesday after being turned back and damaged by the Israeli navy, organizers of the trip said.
Lebanese fishermen cheer as the vessel SS Dignity arrives at Tyre, Lebanon, on Tuesday after being turned back and damaged by the Israeli navy, according to organizers of the trip. (Mohammed Zaatari / AP)The crowds on the docks in the Lebanese port city of Tyre were jubilant and cheering as they welcomed the vessel.
The boat, which set off from Cyprus Monday wanted to make a statement and deliver medical supplies to embattled Gaza. The trip's organizers said the boat was clearly in international waters, 90 miles off the coast of Gaza, at the time of its close encounter with the Israeli navy.
"Our boat was rammed three times, twice in the front and one on the side," McKinney told CNN Tuesday morning. "Our mission was a peaceful mission. Our mission was thwarted by the aggressiveness of the Israeli military."
Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, denied there had been any shooting although the two ships had made "physical contact."
Palmor said there was no response to a radio warning to the Dignity, and the vessel then tried to out-maneuver the Israeli patrol boat, leading to the collision.
Cyprus state radio said the Cypriot government would seek explanations from Israel over the incident.
McKinney called on President-elect Obama to address the Gaza crisis, saying the weapons being used by Israel were supplied by the United States.
McKinney denied that the incident was an accident. "What the Israelis are saying is outright disinformation," she said. "What happened to us last night was a direct threat to our mission, but not our cause."
Palmor called those allegations "absurd."
"There is no intention on the part of the Israeli navy to ram anybody," Palmor said.
In a press release, the Free Gaza movement stated, "Contrary to international maritime law, the Israelis are actively preventing the Dignity from approaching Gaza or finding safe haven in either Egypt or Lebanon. Instead, the Israeli navy is demanding that the Dignity return to Cyprus - despite the fact that the ship does not carry enough fuel to do so."
McKinney is a high-profile member of a boatload of activists that set sail Monday from Cyprus to deliver medicine to war-torn Gaza.
McKinney, who ran as the Green Party candidate for president, sees the voyage as a humanitarian mission, said her father, former Georgia state Rep. Billy McKinney.
"Her mother did not want her to go," he said, referring to concerns at home for her safety. "But I think that certain people have missions in life and you can't deter them."
The activists, organized by the Free Gaza Group, said their 66-foot yacht called "SS Dignity" would defy an Israeli blockade of Gaza and ferry 16 activists and three tons of Cypriot-donated supplies. The supplies are intended to help treat the wounded from Israeli bombings against targets in Gaza, in retaliation for rocket fire aimed at civilians in southern Israeli towns.
Israel's aerial bombardment of the Gaza Strip continued for a third day on Monday. By Monday, the death toll rose to 364, with some 1,400 reported wounded, according to Palestinian medical officials.
McKinney had sent an e-mail days ago to friends and supporters saying she intended to go to Gaza, said Hugh Esco, a Decatur resident who ran her presidential campaign Web site.
"She has stood with people all over this planet against oppression," said Esco.
McKinney said she will petition President-elect Barack Obama to speak out against the attacks on Gaza.
The Free Gaza group has made five deliveries of aid by boat to Gaza since August, defying a blockade imposed by Israel when Hamas won control of the territory in June 2007. Organizers say they are aware they may be stopped this time.
"I don't know if she'll get off the boat," her father said. "I hope she gets back safely."
by Craig Schneider
A boat carrying international activists, including former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and medical supplies to the embattled Gaza Strip sailed back into a Lebanese port on Tuesday after being turned back and damaged by the Israeli navy, organizers of the trip said.
Lebanese fishermen cheer as the vessel SS Dignity arrives at Tyre, Lebanon, on Tuesday after being turned back and damaged by the Israeli navy, according to organizers of the trip. (Mohammed Zaatari / AP)The crowds on the docks in the Lebanese port city of Tyre were jubilant and cheering as they welcomed the vessel.
The boat, which set off from Cyprus Monday wanted to make a statement and deliver medical supplies to embattled Gaza. The trip's organizers said the boat was clearly in international waters, 90 miles off the coast of Gaza, at the time of its close encounter with the Israeli navy.
"Our boat was rammed three times, twice in the front and one on the side," McKinney told CNN Tuesday morning. "Our mission was a peaceful mission. Our mission was thwarted by the aggressiveness of the Israeli military."
Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry, denied there had been any shooting although the two ships had made "physical contact."
Palmor said there was no response to a radio warning to the Dignity, and the vessel then tried to out-maneuver the Israeli patrol boat, leading to the collision.
Cyprus state radio said the Cypriot government would seek explanations from Israel over the incident.
McKinney called on President-elect Obama to address the Gaza crisis, saying the weapons being used by Israel were supplied by the United States.
McKinney denied that the incident was an accident. "What the Israelis are saying is outright disinformation," she said. "What happened to us last night was a direct threat to our mission, but not our cause."
Palmor called those allegations "absurd."
"There is no intention on the part of the Israeli navy to ram anybody," Palmor said.
In a press release, the Free Gaza movement stated, "Contrary to international maritime law, the Israelis are actively preventing the Dignity from approaching Gaza or finding safe haven in either Egypt or Lebanon. Instead, the Israeli navy is demanding that the Dignity return to Cyprus - despite the fact that the ship does not carry enough fuel to do so."
McKinney is a high-profile member of a boatload of activists that set sail Monday from Cyprus to deliver medicine to war-torn Gaza.
McKinney, who ran as the Green Party candidate for president, sees the voyage as a humanitarian mission, said her father, former Georgia state Rep. Billy McKinney.
"Her mother did not want her to go," he said, referring to concerns at home for her safety. "But I think that certain people have missions in life and you can't deter them."
The activists, organized by the Free Gaza Group, said their 66-foot yacht called "SS Dignity" would defy an Israeli blockade of Gaza and ferry 16 activists and three tons of Cypriot-donated supplies. The supplies are intended to help treat the wounded from Israeli bombings against targets in Gaza, in retaliation for rocket fire aimed at civilians in southern Israeli towns.
Israel's aerial bombardment of the Gaza Strip continued for a third day on Monday. By Monday, the death toll rose to 364, with some 1,400 reported wounded, according to Palestinian medical officials.
McKinney had sent an e-mail days ago to friends and supporters saying she intended to go to Gaza, said Hugh Esco, a Decatur resident who ran her presidential campaign Web site.
"She has stood with people all over this planet against oppression," said Esco.
McKinney said she will petition President-elect Barack Obama to speak out against the attacks on Gaza.
The Free Gaza group has made five deliveries of aid by boat to Gaza since August, defying a blockade imposed by Israel when Hamas won control of the territory in June 2007. Organizers say they are aware they may be stopped this time.
"I don't know if she'll get off the boat," her father said. "I hope she gets back safely."
yesterday leads to today
this from the the "founding father" of the modern israeli state.
David Ben-Gurion sez: “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
Ben-Gurion also sez: “What is necessary is cruel and strong reactions. We need precision in time, place, and casualties. If we know the family, we must strike mercilessly, women and children included. Otherwise, the reaction is inefficient. At the place of action, there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent.”
as bad as the recent attacks are against the people of gaza, the crimes of israel are nothing new. here are some statements which go back to the initial crime of the israeli state, namely, the way in which it was created.
"palestine belongs to the arabs in the same sense that england belongs to the english or france to the french. what is going on in palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. if the jews must look to the palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter under the shadow of the british gun. a religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. they can settle in palestine only by the goodwill of the arabs. as it is, they are co-sharers with the british in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. i am not defending the arab excesses. i wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard an an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. but according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."
mahatma gandhi, 1938
"i should much rather see reasonable agreement with the arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a jewish state. apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of judaism resists the idea of a jewish state, with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal of power, no matter how modest. i am afraid of the inner damage judaism will sustain."
einstein
eric fromm, noted jewish writer and thinker..."in general international law, the principle holds true that no citizen loses his property or the rights of citizenship; and the citizenship right is de facto a right to which the arabs in israel have much more legitimacy than the jews. just because the arabs fled? since when is that punishable by confiscation of property, and by being barred from returning to the land on which a people's forefathers have lived for generations? thus, the claim of the jews to the land of israel cannot be a realistic claim. if all nations would suddenly claim territory in which their forefathers lived two thousand years ago, this world would be a madhouse. i believe that, politically speaking, there is only one solution for israel, namely, the unilateral acknowledgement of the obligation of the state towards the arabs. not to use it as a bargaining point, but to acknowledge the complete moral obligation of the israeli state to its former inhabitants."
martin buber, noted philosopher..."only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred. it is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. only then will the young and old in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable arab refugees in whose towns we have settled jews who were brought from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards, and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the "people of the book" and the "light of the nations."
so, there you have it; words spoken not by some "islamic extremists" that in our western arrogance we can write off, but rather, words from some of our most respected thinkers, most of them jewish.
as yet again, reality tells its tale, and is listened to by few without power, and acted on by no one with power.
David Ben-Gurion sez: “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
Ben-Gurion also sez: “What is necessary is cruel and strong reactions. We need precision in time, place, and casualties. If we know the family, we must strike mercilessly, women and children included. Otherwise, the reaction is inefficient. At the place of action, there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent.”
as bad as the recent attacks are against the people of gaza, the crimes of israel are nothing new. here are some statements which go back to the initial crime of the israeli state, namely, the way in which it was created.
"palestine belongs to the arabs in the same sense that england belongs to the english or france to the french. what is going on in palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. if the jews must look to the palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter under the shadow of the british gun. a religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. they can settle in palestine only by the goodwill of the arabs. as it is, they are co-sharers with the british in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. i am not defending the arab excesses. i wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard an an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. but according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."
mahatma gandhi, 1938
"i should much rather see reasonable agreement with the arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a jewish state. apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of judaism resists the idea of a jewish state, with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal of power, no matter how modest. i am afraid of the inner damage judaism will sustain."
einstein
eric fromm, noted jewish writer and thinker..."in general international law, the principle holds true that no citizen loses his property or the rights of citizenship; and the citizenship right is de facto a right to which the arabs in israel have much more legitimacy than the jews. just because the arabs fled? since when is that punishable by confiscation of property, and by being barred from returning to the land on which a people's forefathers have lived for generations? thus, the claim of the jews to the land of israel cannot be a realistic claim. if all nations would suddenly claim territory in which their forefathers lived two thousand years ago, this world would be a madhouse. i believe that, politically speaking, there is only one solution for israel, namely, the unilateral acknowledgement of the obligation of the state towards the arabs. not to use it as a bargaining point, but to acknowledge the complete moral obligation of the israeli state to its former inhabitants."
martin buber, noted philosopher..."only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred. it is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. only then will the young and old in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable arab refugees in whose towns we have settled jews who were brought from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards, and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the "people of the book" and the "light of the nations."
so, there you have it; words spoken not by some "islamic extremists" that in our western arrogance we can write off, but rather, words from some of our most respected thinkers, most of them jewish.
as yet again, reality tells its tale, and is listened to by few without power, and acted on by no one with power.
Monday, December 29, 2008
an eye for an eye makes me wonder like stevie
A Hundred Eyes for an Eye
by Norman Solomon
Israelis and Arabs "feel that only force can assure justice," I. F. Stone noted soon after the Six Day War in 1967. And he wrote: "A certain moral imbecility marks all ethnocentric movements. The Others are always either less than human, and thus their interests may be ignored, or more than human and therefore so dangerous that it is right to destroy them."
The closing days of 2008 have heightened the Israeli government's stature as a mighty practitioner of the moral imbecility that Stone described.
Israel's airstrikes "have killed at least 270 people so far, injured more than 1,000, many of them seriously, and many remain buried under the rubble so the death toll will likely rise," Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies pointed out on Sunday, two days into Israel's attack. "This catastrophic impact was known and inevitable, and far outweighs any claim of self-defense or protection of Israeli civilians." She mentioned that "the one Israeli killed by a Palestinian rocket attack on Saturday after the Israeli assault began was the first such casualty in more than a year."
Even if you set aside the magnitude of Israel's violations of the Geneva conventions and the long terrible history of its methodical collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, consider the vastly disproportionate carnage in the conflict.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," Gandhi said.
What about a hundred eyes for an eye?
It makes some of the world ill with rage. And it turns much of the United States numb with silence. Routinely, the politicians and pundits of Washington can't summon minimal decency in themselves or each other on the subject of Israel and Palestinians.
While officialdom inside the Beltway seems frozen in fear of risking "anti-Semitism" charges by actually standing up for the human rights of Palestinian people, some progress at the grassroots has been noticeable. It includes the growth of groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace, Tikkun, and The Shalom Center, where activists have worked to refute the false claims that American Jews are united behind Israeli policies.
At the epicenters of the conflict -- where the belief that "only force can assure justice" seems to be even stronger than when I. F. Stone wrote about it 41 years ago -- the conclusion has been drawn and redrawn so many times that deadly repetition has become paralytic. While some Palestinian "militants" have terrorized and murdered, the Israeli government has terrorized and murdered on a much bigger scale, using a vast arsenal largely financed by U.S. taxpayers.
From afar, in the United States, it's too easy to shake our heads at the lethal loss of moral vision. Don't they know that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"? But the cycle of violence is extremely asymmetrical -- while the U.S. government provides Israel with billions of dollars and invaluable "diplomatic" support.
What's going on in Gaza right now is not just an eye for an eye. It's a hundred eyes for an eye. And the current slaughter is not only an ongoing Israeli war crime. It has an accomplice named Uncle Sam.
Norman Solomon is a journalist, historian, and progressive activist. His book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. His most recent book is "Made Love, Got War." He is a national co-chair of the Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign.
by Norman Solomon
Israelis and Arabs "feel that only force can assure justice," I. F. Stone noted soon after the Six Day War in 1967. And he wrote: "A certain moral imbecility marks all ethnocentric movements. The Others are always either less than human, and thus their interests may be ignored, or more than human and therefore so dangerous that it is right to destroy them."
The closing days of 2008 have heightened the Israeli government's stature as a mighty practitioner of the moral imbecility that Stone described.
Israel's airstrikes "have killed at least 270 people so far, injured more than 1,000, many of them seriously, and many remain buried under the rubble so the death toll will likely rise," Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies pointed out on Sunday, two days into Israel's attack. "This catastrophic impact was known and inevitable, and far outweighs any claim of self-defense or protection of Israeli civilians." She mentioned that "the one Israeli killed by a Palestinian rocket attack on Saturday after the Israeli assault began was the first such casualty in more than a year."
Even if you set aside the magnitude of Israel's violations of the Geneva conventions and the long terrible history of its methodical collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, consider the vastly disproportionate carnage in the conflict.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," Gandhi said.
What about a hundred eyes for an eye?
It makes some of the world ill with rage. And it turns much of the United States numb with silence. Routinely, the politicians and pundits of Washington can't summon minimal decency in themselves or each other on the subject of Israel and Palestinians.
While officialdom inside the Beltway seems frozen in fear of risking "anti-Semitism" charges by actually standing up for the human rights of Palestinian people, some progress at the grassroots has been noticeable. It includes the growth of groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace, Tikkun, and The Shalom Center, where activists have worked to refute the false claims that American Jews are united behind Israeli policies.
At the epicenters of the conflict -- where the belief that "only force can assure justice" seems to be even stronger than when I. F. Stone wrote about it 41 years ago -- the conclusion has been drawn and redrawn so many times that deadly repetition has become paralytic. While some Palestinian "militants" have terrorized and murdered, the Israeli government has terrorized and murdered on a much bigger scale, using a vast arsenal largely financed by U.S. taxpayers.
From afar, in the United States, it's too easy to shake our heads at the lethal loss of moral vision. Don't they know that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"? But the cycle of violence is extremely asymmetrical -- while the U.S. government provides Israel with billions of dollars and invaluable "diplomatic" support.
What's going on in Gaza right now is not just an eye for an eye. It's a hundred eyes for an eye. And the current slaughter is not only an ongoing Israeli war crime. It has an accomplice named Uncle Sam.
Norman Solomon is a journalist, historian, and progressive activist. His book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. His most recent book is "Made Love, Got War." He is a national co-chair of the Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign.
a sign of the times
and that sign read "end us-israeli state terrorism in gaza." i held it at yet another small emergency gathering of progressives. we apparently believe that by holding signs on busy street corners, that we will soon overthrow the goverment. but then, what else are we to do? i suppose one could fight back, but that would mean fighting, and i haven't won a fight since bush the elder was in office, and that was against a 4 foot girl in middle school. so, i hold signs. cars race by. a few people honk their horns, an act even more pathetic than holding the sign in the first place. one guy honked, and then gave me the middle finger. a woman yelled something at the top of lungs that sounded like something out of a nature show. on the flip wilson side, at least i expressed my disgust with the us-israel assault on the people of gaza. every bomb that is dropped on gaza is a bomb that was produced by the united states. it is like giving a gun to a person with a record of criminality; of course they will use the gun to commit more criminal acts. therefore, both the governments of israel and america are currently guilty of war crimes in gaza.
also on the positive side, i ran into someone i went to high school with. it was exciting to see her, and to know that she was raising her voice against what is happening to the people of gaza. this person was always smart and ready with an opinion, and that certainly hasn't changed. usually, i see the same old guys that i always see at protest actions, so it was cool that something different happened this time.
this is taken from today's boston globe...
"in gaza yesterday, officials said medical services, stretched to the breaking point after 18 months of israeli sanctions, were on the verge of collapse as they struggled to care for the more than 600 wounded in the past two days."
there is something key in that line..."18 months of israeli sanctions." why is the state of israel sanctioning the poor and deprived people of gaza? the 1.5 million gazans need more medicine, not less. such sanctions are war crimes just as the current bombings are. they tell us that this israeli assault is "retaliation" for hamas firing rockets into israel. if this is so, then why has israel been sanctioning gaza for the last 18 months? it seems to me that the rockets are more of a retaliation (whether we agree with them or not) and israeli's attacks, which include sanctions, expulsion of human rights activists, and war, are more of an offensive.
also from the globe...
"at shifa hospital in gaza city, women wailed as they searched for relatives among bodies that lay strewn on the hospital floor. one doctor said that given the dearth of facilities, not much could be done for the seriously wounded, and that it was "better to be brought in dead."
i would like to point out that israel started bombing at the exact time that children were being let out of school. they claim that they were targeting hamas and policemen, and blamed hamas for civilian deaths because they put their buildings in "civilian areas." but aren't all buildings in civilian areas? should they put them in places where only zebras and monkeys can get to them? of course police stations are going to be in civilian areas! look around you; where are all the police stations, fire departments, and even army career centers? they are all in civilian areas. a few months ago, i went to a roller skating rink to celebrate my girlfriend's nephew's birthday; on the street there was a police station. does that mean, if a country were bombing us, that me, and everyone else who was at the skating rink, should be killed? and if we were, should i believe that the blame lied with the boston police department for putting their station in a "civilian area?" of course not. rather, the blame lies with the people doing the bombing. i would think this was common sense, but as twain once said "common sense is very uncommon."
as citizens and residents of the united states we have a lot to be angry and ashamed about. we need to start with acknowledging the role that the u.s plays in the world. sometimes, when i close my eyes, i imagine what it would be like to have a government that would represent all the people of the world. we would need to revolutionize our thinking, we would need to alter our ways of interacting, change our culture, our values, and so much else. every once in a while, i pull out a william blum book called "freeing the world to death." on the back of it, blum imagines that he is president, and makes a speech that he believes could end terrorism and help to lead to a more peaceful world. i leave you with that speech.
"if i were the president, i could stop terrorist attacks against the united states in a few days. permanently. i would first apologize, very publicly and very sincerely, to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of american imperialism. then i would announce to every corner of the world that america's global military interventions have come to an end. i would then inform israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but, oddly enough, a foreign country. then i would reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many american bombings, invasions, and sanctions. there would be more than enough money. one year's military budget in the united states is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since jesus christ was born. that's one year.
that's what i'd do on my first three days in the white house. on the fourth day, i'd be assassinated."
also on the positive side, i ran into someone i went to high school with. it was exciting to see her, and to know that she was raising her voice against what is happening to the people of gaza. this person was always smart and ready with an opinion, and that certainly hasn't changed. usually, i see the same old guys that i always see at protest actions, so it was cool that something different happened this time.
this is taken from today's boston globe...
"in gaza yesterday, officials said medical services, stretched to the breaking point after 18 months of israeli sanctions, were on the verge of collapse as they struggled to care for the more than 600 wounded in the past two days."
there is something key in that line..."18 months of israeli sanctions." why is the state of israel sanctioning the poor and deprived people of gaza? the 1.5 million gazans need more medicine, not less. such sanctions are war crimes just as the current bombings are. they tell us that this israeli assault is "retaliation" for hamas firing rockets into israel. if this is so, then why has israel been sanctioning gaza for the last 18 months? it seems to me that the rockets are more of a retaliation (whether we agree with them or not) and israeli's attacks, which include sanctions, expulsion of human rights activists, and war, are more of an offensive.
also from the globe...
"at shifa hospital in gaza city, women wailed as they searched for relatives among bodies that lay strewn on the hospital floor. one doctor said that given the dearth of facilities, not much could be done for the seriously wounded, and that it was "better to be brought in dead."
i would like to point out that israel started bombing at the exact time that children were being let out of school. they claim that they were targeting hamas and policemen, and blamed hamas for civilian deaths because they put their buildings in "civilian areas." but aren't all buildings in civilian areas? should they put them in places where only zebras and monkeys can get to them? of course police stations are going to be in civilian areas! look around you; where are all the police stations, fire departments, and even army career centers? they are all in civilian areas. a few months ago, i went to a roller skating rink to celebrate my girlfriend's nephew's birthday; on the street there was a police station. does that mean, if a country were bombing us, that me, and everyone else who was at the skating rink, should be killed? and if we were, should i believe that the blame lied with the boston police department for putting their station in a "civilian area?" of course not. rather, the blame lies with the people doing the bombing. i would think this was common sense, but as twain once said "common sense is very uncommon."
as citizens and residents of the united states we have a lot to be angry and ashamed about. we need to start with acknowledging the role that the u.s plays in the world. sometimes, when i close my eyes, i imagine what it would be like to have a government that would represent all the people of the world. we would need to revolutionize our thinking, we would need to alter our ways of interacting, change our culture, our values, and so much else. every once in a while, i pull out a william blum book called "freeing the world to death." on the back of it, blum imagines that he is president, and makes a speech that he believes could end terrorism and help to lead to a more peaceful world. i leave you with that speech.
"if i were the president, i could stop terrorist attacks against the united states in a few days. permanently. i would first apologize, very publicly and very sincerely, to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of american imperialism. then i would announce to every corner of the world that america's global military interventions have come to an end. i would then inform israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but, oddly enough, a foreign country. then i would reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many american bombings, invasions, and sanctions. there would be more than enough money. one year's military budget in the united states is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since jesus christ was born. that's one year.
that's what i'd do on my first three days in the white house. on the fourth day, i'd be assassinated."
Sunday, December 28, 2008
if only the commencement speech at my graduation had been like this
My Speech to the Graduates
by Woody Allen
First published in the New York Times in 1979
More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
I speak, by the way, not with any sense of futility, but with a panicky conviction of the absolute meaninglessness of existence which could easily be misinterpreted as pessimism.
It is not. It is merely a healthy concern for the predicament of modern man. (Modern man is here defined as any person born after Nietzsche's edict that "God is dead," but before the hit recording "I Wanna Hold Your Hand.") This "predicament" can be stated one of two ways, though certain linguistic philosophers prefer to reduce it to a mathematical equation where it can be easily solved and even carried around in the wallet.
Put in its simplest form, the problem is: How is it possible to find meaning in a finite world given my waist and shirt size?
This is a very difficult question when we realize that science has failed us. True, it has conquered many diseases, broken the genetic code, and even placed human beings on the Moon, and yet when a man of eighty is in a room with two eighteen-year-old cocktail waitresses nothing happens. Because the real problems never change.
After all, can the human soul be glimpsed through a microscope? Maybe--but you'd definitely need one of those very good ones with two eyepieces. We know that the most advanced computer in the world does not have a brain as sophisticated as that of an ant. True, we could say that of any of our relatives but we only have to put up with them at weddings or special occasions.
Science is something we depend on all the time. If I develop a pain in the chest I must take an X-ray. But what if the radiation from the X-ray causes me deeper problems? Before I know it, I'm going in for surgery. Naturally, while they're giving me oxygen an intern decides to light up a cigarette. The next thing you know I'm rocketing over the World Trade Center in bed clothes. Is this science?
True, science has taught us how to pasteurize cheese. And true, this can be fun in mixed company--but what of the H-bomb? Have you ever seen what happens when one of those things falls off a desk accidentally?
And where is science when one ponders the eternal riddles? How did the cosmos originate? How long has it been around? Did matter begin with an explosion or by the word of God?
And if by the latter, could He not have begun it just two weeks earlier to take advantage of some of the warmer weather? Exactly what do we mean when we say, man is mortal? Obviously it's not a compliment.
Religion too has unfortunately let us down. Miguel de Unamuno writes blithely of the "eternal persistence of consciousness," but this is no easy feat. Particularly when reading Thackeray. I often think how comforting life must have been for early man because he believed in a powerful, benevolent Creator who looked after all things. Imagine his disappointment when he saw his wife putting on weight.
Contemporary man, of course, has no such peace of mind. He finds himself in the midst of a crisis of faith. He is what we fashionably call "alienated." He has seen the ravages of war, he has known natural catastrophes, he has been to singles bars.
My good friend Jacques Monod spoke often of the randomness of the cosmos. He believed everything in existence occurred by pure chance with the possible exception of his breakfast, which he felt certain was made by his housekeeper.
Naturally belief in a divine intelligence inspires tranquility. But this does not free us from our human responsibilities. Am I my brother's keeper? Yes. Interestingly, in my case I share that honor with the Prospect Park Zoo.
Feeling godless then, what we have done is made technology God. And yet can technology really be the answer when a brand new Buick, driven by my close associate, Nat Zipsky, winds up in the window of Chicken Delight causing hundreds of customers to scatter?
My toaster has never once worked properly in four years. I follow the instructions and push two slices of bread down in the slots and seconds later they rifle upward. Once they broke the nose of a woman I loved very dearly. Are we counting on nuts and bolts and electricity to solve our problems?
Yes, the telephone is a good thing--and the refrigerator--and the air conditioner. But not every air conditioner. Not my sister Henny's, for instance. Hers makes a loud noise and still doesn't cool. When the man comes over to fix it, it gets worse. Either that or he tells her she needs a new one. When she complains, he says not to bother him. This man is truly alienated. Not only is he alienated but he can't stop smiling.
The trouble is, our leaders have not adequately prepared us for a mechanized society. Unfortunately our politicians are either incompetent or corrupt. Sometimes both on the same day. The Government is unresponsive to the needs of the little man. Under five-seven, it is impossible to get your Congressman on the phone. I am not denying that democracy is still the finest form of government. In a democracy at least, civil liberties are upheld. No citizen can be wantonly tortured, imprisoned, or made to sit through certain Broadway shows.
And yet this is a far cry from what goes on in the Soviet Union. Under their form of totalitarianism, a person merely caught whistling is sentenced to thirty years in a labor camp. If, after fifteen years, he still will not stop whistling, they shoot him.
Along with this brutal fascism we find its handmaiden, terrorism. At no other time in history has man been so afraid to cut into his veal chop for fear that it will explode. Violence breeds more violence and it is predicted that by 1990 kidnapping will be the dominant mode of social interaction.
Overpopulation will exacerbate problems to the breaking point. Figures tell us there are already more people on earth than we need to move even the heaviest piano. If we do not call a halt to breeding, by the year 2000 there will be no room to serve dinner unless one is willing to set the table on the heads of strangers. Then they must not move for an hour while we eat. Of course energy will be in short supply and each car owner will be allowed only enough gasoline to back up a few inches.
Instead of facing these challenges we turn instead to distractions like drugs and sex. We live in far too permissive a society. Never before has pornography been this rampant. And those films are lit so badly!
We are a people who lack defined goals. We have never leaned to love. We lack leaders and coherent programs. We have no spiritual center. We are adrift alone in the cosmos wreaking monstrous violence on one another out of frustration and pain. Fortunately, we have not lost our sense of proportion.
Summing up, it is clear the future holds great opportunities. It also holds pitfalls. The trick will be to avoid the pitfalls, seize the opportunities, and get back home by six o'clock.
by Woody Allen
First published in the New York Times in 1979
More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
I speak, by the way, not with any sense of futility, but with a panicky conviction of the absolute meaninglessness of existence which could easily be misinterpreted as pessimism.
It is not. It is merely a healthy concern for the predicament of modern man. (Modern man is here defined as any person born after Nietzsche's edict that "God is dead," but before the hit recording "I Wanna Hold Your Hand.") This "predicament" can be stated one of two ways, though certain linguistic philosophers prefer to reduce it to a mathematical equation where it can be easily solved and even carried around in the wallet.
Put in its simplest form, the problem is: How is it possible to find meaning in a finite world given my waist and shirt size?
This is a very difficult question when we realize that science has failed us. True, it has conquered many diseases, broken the genetic code, and even placed human beings on the Moon, and yet when a man of eighty is in a room with two eighteen-year-old cocktail waitresses nothing happens. Because the real problems never change.
After all, can the human soul be glimpsed through a microscope? Maybe--but you'd definitely need one of those very good ones with two eyepieces. We know that the most advanced computer in the world does not have a brain as sophisticated as that of an ant. True, we could say that of any of our relatives but we only have to put up with them at weddings or special occasions.
Science is something we depend on all the time. If I develop a pain in the chest I must take an X-ray. But what if the radiation from the X-ray causes me deeper problems? Before I know it, I'm going in for surgery. Naturally, while they're giving me oxygen an intern decides to light up a cigarette. The next thing you know I'm rocketing over the World Trade Center in bed clothes. Is this science?
True, science has taught us how to pasteurize cheese. And true, this can be fun in mixed company--but what of the H-bomb? Have you ever seen what happens when one of those things falls off a desk accidentally?
And where is science when one ponders the eternal riddles? How did the cosmos originate? How long has it been around? Did matter begin with an explosion or by the word of God?
And if by the latter, could He not have begun it just two weeks earlier to take advantage of some of the warmer weather? Exactly what do we mean when we say, man is mortal? Obviously it's not a compliment.
Religion too has unfortunately let us down. Miguel de Unamuno writes blithely of the "eternal persistence of consciousness," but this is no easy feat. Particularly when reading Thackeray. I often think how comforting life must have been for early man because he believed in a powerful, benevolent Creator who looked after all things. Imagine his disappointment when he saw his wife putting on weight.
Contemporary man, of course, has no such peace of mind. He finds himself in the midst of a crisis of faith. He is what we fashionably call "alienated." He has seen the ravages of war, he has known natural catastrophes, he has been to singles bars.
My good friend Jacques Monod spoke often of the randomness of the cosmos. He believed everything in existence occurred by pure chance with the possible exception of his breakfast, which he felt certain was made by his housekeeper.
Naturally belief in a divine intelligence inspires tranquility. But this does not free us from our human responsibilities. Am I my brother's keeper? Yes. Interestingly, in my case I share that honor with the Prospect Park Zoo.
Feeling godless then, what we have done is made technology God. And yet can technology really be the answer when a brand new Buick, driven by my close associate, Nat Zipsky, winds up in the window of Chicken Delight causing hundreds of customers to scatter?
My toaster has never once worked properly in four years. I follow the instructions and push two slices of bread down in the slots and seconds later they rifle upward. Once they broke the nose of a woman I loved very dearly. Are we counting on nuts and bolts and electricity to solve our problems?
Yes, the telephone is a good thing--and the refrigerator--and the air conditioner. But not every air conditioner. Not my sister Henny's, for instance. Hers makes a loud noise and still doesn't cool. When the man comes over to fix it, it gets worse. Either that or he tells her she needs a new one. When she complains, he says not to bother him. This man is truly alienated. Not only is he alienated but he can't stop smiling.
The trouble is, our leaders have not adequately prepared us for a mechanized society. Unfortunately our politicians are either incompetent or corrupt. Sometimes both on the same day. The Government is unresponsive to the needs of the little man. Under five-seven, it is impossible to get your Congressman on the phone. I am not denying that democracy is still the finest form of government. In a democracy at least, civil liberties are upheld. No citizen can be wantonly tortured, imprisoned, or made to sit through certain Broadway shows.
And yet this is a far cry from what goes on in the Soviet Union. Under their form of totalitarianism, a person merely caught whistling is sentenced to thirty years in a labor camp. If, after fifteen years, he still will not stop whistling, they shoot him.
Along with this brutal fascism we find its handmaiden, terrorism. At no other time in history has man been so afraid to cut into his veal chop for fear that it will explode. Violence breeds more violence and it is predicted that by 1990 kidnapping will be the dominant mode of social interaction.
Overpopulation will exacerbate problems to the breaking point. Figures tell us there are already more people on earth than we need to move even the heaviest piano. If we do not call a halt to breeding, by the year 2000 there will be no room to serve dinner unless one is willing to set the table on the heads of strangers. Then they must not move for an hour while we eat. Of course energy will be in short supply and each car owner will be allowed only enough gasoline to back up a few inches.
Instead of facing these challenges we turn instead to distractions like drugs and sex. We live in far too permissive a society. Never before has pornography been this rampant. And those films are lit so badly!
We are a people who lack defined goals. We have never leaned to love. We lack leaders and coherent programs. We have no spiritual center. We are adrift alone in the cosmos wreaking monstrous violence on one another out of frustration and pain. Fortunately, we have not lost our sense of proportion.
Summing up, it is clear the future holds great opportunities. It also holds pitfalls. The trick will be to avoid the pitfalls, seize the opportunities, and get back home by six o'clock.
peace on eartha
eartha kitt is remembered, if at all, as an eccentric stage performer who had a hit with "santa baby." but kitt, as her star was rising, did something much greater than sing songs and act in plays. in 1968, kitt was invited to the white house by the first lady, lady bird johnson (what the hell kind of name is lady bird? what is this, a disney movie?) for what was supposed to be an apolitical gala. kitt however, had other ideas. the sultry songstress (flowery, but true, no?) confronted lady bird, and spoke words of profound truth. i leave you with those words, as well as commentary on the passing of eartha kitt. eartha kitt, while dead at 81, left us an example of standing up for the truth that lives on.
"You send the best of this country off to be shot and maimed," the singer told the First Lady and the 50 other women at the luncheon. "They rebel in the street. They don't want to go to school because they're going to be snatched off from their mothers to be shot in Vietnam."
The First Lady reportedly burst into tears.
The president was furious.
Kitt was blacklisted. She was investigated by the FBI and CIA, and ended up on the "Enemies List" of Johnson's successor, Richard Nixon.
Kitt spent the next decade performing mostly in Europe until, in 1978 -- after a triumphal return to Broadway to perform in the musical "Timbuktu!" -- she was invited back to the White House by Jimmy Carter.
Years later, Kitt would recall her White House visit in an interview with Esquire magazine, saying "The thing that hurts, that became anger, was when I realized that if you tell the truth -- in a country that says you're entitled to tell the truth -- you get your face slapped and you get put out of work."
It was a painful lesson.
But we remember Kitt today as one of those remarkable Americans who was patriotic enough to speak truth to power. And she spoke in such a remarkable voice that it will linger far longer in our memory than those of the foolish politicians and misguided media moguls who were wrong about Vietnam -- and wrong about Eartha Kitt.
"You send the best of this country off to be shot and maimed," the singer told the First Lady and the 50 other women at the luncheon. "They rebel in the street. They don't want to go to school because they're going to be snatched off from their mothers to be shot in Vietnam."
The First Lady reportedly burst into tears.
The president was furious.
Kitt was blacklisted. She was investigated by the FBI and CIA, and ended up on the "Enemies List" of Johnson's successor, Richard Nixon.
Kitt spent the next decade performing mostly in Europe until, in 1978 -- after a triumphal return to Broadway to perform in the musical "Timbuktu!" -- she was invited back to the White House by Jimmy Carter.
Years later, Kitt would recall her White House visit in an interview with Esquire magazine, saying "The thing that hurts, that became anger, was when I realized that if you tell the truth -- in a country that says you're entitled to tell the truth -- you get your face slapped and you get put out of work."
It was a painful lesson.
But we remember Kitt today as one of those remarkable Americans who was patriotic enough to speak truth to power. And she spoke in such a remarkable voice that it will linger far longer in our memory than those of the foolish politicians and misguided media moguls who were wrong about Vietnam -- and wrong about Eartha Kitt.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
today's war crime
By Dr. EYAD AL SERRAJ
The bombing went on for about 10 minutes. It was like an earthquake on top of your head. The windows were shaking and squeaking. My 10-year-old was terrified, he was jumping from one place to another trying to hide. I held him tight to my chest and tried to give him some security and reassure him. My 12-year-old was panicking and began laughing hysterically, it's not normal. I held her hand and calmed her and told her she would be safe. My wife was panicking. She was running around the apartment looking for somewhere to hide.
We live on the ground floor so we headed to the basement.
Not very far from our home is the headquarters of the police and there was a massive bomb. The chief of police was killed. Two streets away there was another bomb and more people were killed. The office of the president is about one kilometre from our house and it was also bombed.
We went downstairs to the basement and tried to hide ourselves from the shelling. The child of one of our relatives, who lives in our building, finally came home from school. We hadn't been able to find her. All the phone connections were jammed. She came home and she was in a very serious state of shock. She was pale and trembling and she was describing dead bodies in the streets. On her way home she passed Hamas people in uniform and they were dead.
I had been very apprehensive when I woke up this morning. I had some bread, some cheese and a glass of tea. Like all the people in Gaza I felt that something was going on and something very serious. When Israel allowed the delivery of food and fuel [when it ended the blockade of Gaza yesterday] I said to myself and my friends that Israel is really planning a massive strike. They don't want to be blamed for starving the people.
I was sitting in the living room with my family trying to figure out what to do today for lunch, it's our main meal. What to cook and how to cook, whether we have enough to eat. There was no rice so I wanted to have lentil soup and my wife said "No, there's no lentils in the market." I said "What else can we do?" She said "I bought some cans of food." We were discussing this when suddenly the whole thing erupted. Suddenly there was a big explosion.
Right now I feel very anxious about what's going to happen. I'm worried about how many more people are going to die.
Dr Eyad Al Serraj is a practising psychologist in Gaza City.
i got this off counterpunch. in a decent country with a decent media, this message would have been broadcast on network tv, and in the major papers. this man's story, along with his counterparts in iraq and afghanistan, should be well known to us. the fact that they are not says all that needs to be said about american culture.
The bombing went on for about 10 minutes. It was like an earthquake on top of your head. The windows were shaking and squeaking. My 10-year-old was terrified, he was jumping from one place to another trying to hide. I held him tight to my chest and tried to give him some security and reassure him. My 12-year-old was panicking and began laughing hysterically, it's not normal. I held her hand and calmed her and told her she would be safe. My wife was panicking. She was running around the apartment looking for somewhere to hide.
We live on the ground floor so we headed to the basement.
Not very far from our home is the headquarters of the police and there was a massive bomb. The chief of police was killed. Two streets away there was another bomb and more people were killed. The office of the president is about one kilometre from our house and it was also bombed.
We went downstairs to the basement and tried to hide ourselves from the shelling. The child of one of our relatives, who lives in our building, finally came home from school. We hadn't been able to find her. All the phone connections were jammed. She came home and she was in a very serious state of shock. She was pale and trembling and she was describing dead bodies in the streets. On her way home she passed Hamas people in uniform and they were dead.
I had been very apprehensive when I woke up this morning. I had some bread, some cheese and a glass of tea. Like all the people in Gaza I felt that something was going on and something very serious. When Israel allowed the delivery of food and fuel [when it ended the blockade of Gaza yesterday] I said to myself and my friends that Israel is really planning a massive strike. They don't want to be blamed for starving the people.
I was sitting in the living room with my family trying to figure out what to do today for lunch, it's our main meal. What to cook and how to cook, whether we have enough to eat. There was no rice so I wanted to have lentil soup and my wife said "No, there's no lentils in the market." I said "What else can we do?" She said "I bought some cans of food." We were discussing this when suddenly the whole thing erupted. Suddenly there was a big explosion.
Right now I feel very anxious about what's going to happen. I'm worried about how many more people are going to die.
Dr Eyad Al Serraj is a practising psychologist in Gaza City.
i got this off counterpunch. in a decent country with a decent media, this message would have been broadcast on network tv, and in the major papers. this man's story, along with his counterparts in iraq and afghanistan, should be well known to us. the fact that they are not says all that needs to be said about american culture.
stripping the gaza strip
israel attacked gaza today, killing upwards of 200 people. they do this with weapons purchased from the u.s. the american response to this carnage? government officials urged hamas to not fire rockets into israel! how long will the people of the world allow this one sided carnage to continue? we can not excuse the murder of palestinians by pointing out the horrors of early 20th century european anti-semitism. such responses are nonsense. israel collectively punishes masses of people in the occupied territories, and also discriminates against the arab minority within its borders. this current bombing attack is yet another heinous war crime which will likely be excused by the mainstream media and our corporate politicians as a regrettable but justified response to the "brutality" of hamas. the fact is, the brutal actor in this struggle is the state of israel, a country with a powerful military, nuclear weapons, and carte blanche from the united states to do whatever it sees fit. for the moment, it sees fit to commit war crimes against the people of gaza by dropping bombs, by refusing entry to human rights activists like richard falk, and by denying food and medicine to the impoverished gazan people. the political power structure in israel and their lackeys in the states would have you believe that such utterances are proof of my being a self hating jew. they call opposition to their policies anti-semitic propaganda, or one sided, but they always fail to deal with the arguments, which are richly documented and impossible to refute. the fact is, israel is currently practicing state terrorism, which is much more deadly than anything hamas can do. it is israel and its leaders that share the lion share of the blame for what is currently happening. israel's military and political leaders should be arrested and tried for war crimes for what they are doing to the people of gaza.
as we watch basketball games and go to parties and exchange christmas gifts and read books and listen to our ipods. perhaps we think if we do this long enough, that reality, and all of its horrors, will simply go away. unfortunately, that hasn't worked yet.
so yes, another war crime is upon us. as usual, the propaganda machine will state that it is the people being killed who are really at fault. the people committing acts of terror will defend their actions by saying that they are fighting terror. more muslims and arabs will be killed and terrorized, as the western media continues to pound into our heads that it is the muslims who are the terrorists. israeli bombs will kill hundreds, while hamas rockets kill a few, but they will tell us that hamas is the aggressor. they will tell us that america wants peace in the middle east, as we fund israel, and bomb iraq. scholars will debate if there is something inherently brutal and violent in the religion of islam, as murderers who consider themselves christians and jews will not see their religions analyzed in such a manner.
welcome to the terrordome, where we all have a front row seat, and beer is only $8 bucks a glass.
as we watch basketball games and go to parties and exchange christmas gifts and read books and listen to our ipods. perhaps we think if we do this long enough, that reality, and all of its horrors, will simply go away. unfortunately, that hasn't worked yet.
so yes, another war crime is upon us. as usual, the propaganda machine will state that it is the people being killed who are really at fault. the people committing acts of terror will defend their actions by saying that they are fighting terror. more muslims and arabs will be killed and terrorized, as the western media continues to pound into our heads that it is the muslims who are the terrorists. israeli bombs will kill hundreds, while hamas rockets kill a few, but they will tell us that hamas is the aggressor. they will tell us that america wants peace in the middle east, as we fund israel, and bomb iraq. scholars will debate if there is something inherently brutal and violent in the religion of islam, as murderers who consider themselves christians and jews will not see their religions analyzed in such a manner.
welcome to the terrordome, where we all have a front row seat, and beer is only $8 bucks a glass.
new post
it seems that i have heard more about composting in the last two weeks than i heard about it in my entire life.
lately, a governor has been trying to sell a senator's seat. my question is, why isn't he trying to sell the rest of his furniture? maybe he's keeping it for himself. perhaps it's an upgrade over his own furniture. so, i gather that obama gave his furniture to blagojevich, but if so, couldn't he have given it to someone with an easier name to pronounce? i just don't get it; if he sells the seat, how is he supposed to reach the table?
i recently saw dennis miller say he supports john mccain for president because "he spent 5 years in a vietnamese hell hole." ok, but if this is the case, why hasn't he supported other prisoners of war for president? what has miller done for the hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans, several of which were likely pow's? all of a sudden, being a former prisoner elevates one to being deserving of attaining the presidency? if that is the case, why doesn't miller endorse geronimo pratt for president? and what of people whose imprisonment is ongoing? what of mumia and peltier? come on dennis, you know that would make a great ticket! and since miller is so opposed to torture and imprisonment, why doesn't he endorse men who were brutalized at abu ghraib for president? what of the hundreds who have been held for years at the hell hole known as guatanamo bay? shouldn't they too have our support in their efforts to attain the highest office in the land? and what of the thousands of men that we tortured and imprisoned in vietnam? what of the men we threw off of helicopters? well, i suppose he can't endorse them, because they are dead and they weren't born in the united states, but couldn't miller at least advocate for reparations to their families, and an official apology from our government? and dennis, how were the vietnamese able to capture mccain? did they break into his american house and kidnap him, as our military forces often do? did the vietnamese bomb american cities, as we bombed their cities? dennis, do you not know that mccain was bombing a nation that had never done a thing to him? do you not know that mccain enlisted to do such things? would you feel sympathy if we captured a pilot who was bombing american cities, and held him as a prisoner? if that is so, why didn't you endorse mcveigh for president? let's say we captured this man who was killing americans by dropping bombs on them. let's say we held him for 5 years in a "hell hole." after his release, would he be qualified to be president? ironically, millions of our felons can't even vote, much less become president. these felons have served in hell holes, many for decades, and yet, i can't recall dennis saying they should even be granted the right to vote, much less get his support for the presidency. and what of the thousands who were falsely accused of being felons, and then lost their right to vote? i can't recall a word from dennis on this. in short, dennis miller is a stupid fucking asshole.
so, from now on, the litmus test for political relevancy is if a person has suffered a great deprivation in their lifetime. hey, this may not be so bad, as it would eliminate the bushes and all the others of our political and economic elite from attaining political power. we could then have a new government. it would be one run by african villagers and campesinos from latin america and the indigenous and welfare mothers and those who live in affordable housing and the homeless. yes, dennis miller has started a chain reaction with his line of reasoning. now, all we need to do is follow his logic, and the revolution will have been won.
lately, a governor has been trying to sell a senator's seat. my question is, why isn't he trying to sell the rest of his furniture? maybe he's keeping it for himself. perhaps it's an upgrade over his own furniture. so, i gather that obama gave his furniture to blagojevich, but if so, couldn't he have given it to someone with an easier name to pronounce? i just don't get it; if he sells the seat, how is he supposed to reach the table?
i recently saw dennis miller say he supports john mccain for president because "he spent 5 years in a vietnamese hell hole." ok, but if this is the case, why hasn't he supported other prisoners of war for president? what has miller done for the hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans, several of which were likely pow's? all of a sudden, being a former prisoner elevates one to being deserving of attaining the presidency? if that is the case, why doesn't miller endorse geronimo pratt for president? and what of people whose imprisonment is ongoing? what of mumia and peltier? come on dennis, you know that would make a great ticket! and since miller is so opposed to torture and imprisonment, why doesn't he endorse men who were brutalized at abu ghraib for president? what of the hundreds who have been held for years at the hell hole known as guatanamo bay? shouldn't they too have our support in their efforts to attain the highest office in the land? and what of the thousands of men that we tortured and imprisoned in vietnam? what of the men we threw off of helicopters? well, i suppose he can't endorse them, because they are dead and they weren't born in the united states, but couldn't miller at least advocate for reparations to their families, and an official apology from our government? and dennis, how were the vietnamese able to capture mccain? did they break into his american house and kidnap him, as our military forces often do? did the vietnamese bomb american cities, as we bombed their cities? dennis, do you not know that mccain was bombing a nation that had never done a thing to him? do you not know that mccain enlisted to do such things? would you feel sympathy if we captured a pilot who was bombing american cities, and held him as a prisoner? if that is so, why didn't you endorse mcveigh for president? let's say we captured this man who was killing americans by dropping bombs on them. let's say we held him for 5 years in a "hell hole." after his release, would he be qualified to be president? ironically, millions of our felons can't even vote, much less become president. these felons have served in hell holes, many for decades, and yet, i can't recall dennis saying they should even be granted the right to vote, much less get his support for the presidency. and what of the thousands who were falsely accused of being felons, and then lost their right to vote? i can't recall a word from dennis on this. in short, dennis miller is a stupid fucking asshole.
so, from now on, the litmus test for political relevancy is if a person has suffered a great deprivation in their lifetime. hey, this may not be so bad, as it would eliminate the bushes and all the others of our political and economic elite from attaining political power. we could then have a new government. it would be one run by african villagers and campesinos from latin america and the indigenous and welfare mothers and those who live in affordable housing and the homeless. yes, dennis miller has started a chain reaction with his line of reasoning. now, all we need to do is follow his logic, and the revolution will have been won.
Friday, December 26, 2008
viva pinter
harold pinter died a few days ago. one of the best modern dramatists, he was also a political radical who didn't fear letting his thoughts be known. here is an excerpt from a speech he gave in 2005.
"Art, Truth and Politics"
Noble Lecture by Harold Pinter
December 7, 2005:
... The United States no longer... sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant.
It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.
What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days - conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead?
Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally - a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture.
What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.
The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.
How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand?
More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.
Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks.
Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you're making a sincere speech on television.
The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.
I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.
The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right.
The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it.
Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force - yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish.
I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man.
'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'
and a final word from pinter
On the United States
"The crimes of the US throughout the world have been systematic, constant, clinical, remorseless, and fully documented but nobody talks about them"
"Art, Truth and Politics"
Noble Lecture by Harold Pinter
December 7, 2005:
... The United States no longer... sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant.
It also has its own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and supine Great Britain.
What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days - conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead?
Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the 'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'. Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the media say about them? They pop up occasionally - a small item on page six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from which indeed they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anesthetic. Just a tube stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is torture.
What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this? Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing. Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us or against us. So Blair shuts up.
The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people.
We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.
How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand?
More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.
Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks.
Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when you're making a sincere speech on television.
The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way. The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.
I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.
The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right.
The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it.
Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force - yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish.
I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the following short address which he can make on television to the nation. I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere, often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously attractive, a man's man.
'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'
and a final word from pinter
On the United States
"The crimes of the US throughout the world have been systematic, constant, clinical, remorseless, and fully documented but nobody talks about them"
Thursday, December 25, 2008
bank shot
a recent report documents that 116 banks have admittedly received 188 billion dollars so far as part of the bailout plan. shockingly, or not so shockingly, if you dig what american capitalism is all about, not one spokesperson would detail how the money they received had been spent. all of them said they were choosing not to disclose the information. one guy even said that he didn't want it disclosed that he didn't want to disclose the information!
now, isn't this the irony of ironies? if you go to a bank to ask for a loan, you need to make a credible presentation, which includes full disclosure of your income and future economic prospects. they, on the other hand, when they spend our money, need to document nothing. however, we have do some information on the subject of ceo pay and bailout figures for various banks. in 2007, the average paid to each of the 116 banks' top executives was 2.6 million in salary, benefits, and bonuses. lloyd blankfein, president and ceo of goldman sachs, took home nearly 54 million in compensation last year. the company's top five executives received a total of 242 million. this from a company that received 10 billion dollars in taxpayer money on october 28th. john thain, ceo of merrill lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with 83 million in earnings last year. thain was the former ceo of goldman sachs. thain took over merrill lynch in december of 2007, and made the amount of money he did even though the company lost 7.8 billion dollars in 2007. he was given a 15 million dollar signing bonus, and an additional 68 million in stock options. now, if the company lost close to 8 billion last year, we can assume that thousands lost their jobs, that interest rates went down, that less loans were given to people who requested them, and other things that negatively impacted masses of people. but, thain still made his 83 million. some crisis for him. merrill lynch also received 10 billion in taxpayers money. goldman sachs' tab for leased cars and drivers ran as high as $233,000 per executive. jp morgan chase chairman james dimon ran up a $211,182 private jet travel tab last year when his family lived in chicago and he was commuting to new york. the company got 25 billion in bailout funds.
it seems safe to say that this bailout money will further aid these ceo's and major stokeholders to live lives of shameless excess, as the majority of people struggle to get by. if we were concerned about the economy, we would directly aid the people who most need it. this would be done by funding organizations that actively work to support the poor. it would mean putting our tax dollars into public works in order to create jobs and to improve the conditions of our communities. it would mean creating a progressive tax structure and beginning the process of appropriating wealth from the super rich and redistributing that wealth amongst the masses of people. it would be done by drastically cutting the military budget and ending our wars in iraq and afghanistan. it will not be done by throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at the financial institutions who were instrumental in creating the crisis we are supposedly trying to solve. but, of course, they don't want to solve the real economic crisis, which is caused by endemic and systemic poverty. rather, they want to further their goal of corporate domination, which is led by the financial and oil sectors of the economy. that is why they fight these wars. that is why they throw money at banks while people lose their homes, while children die of hunger, and while millions of us go without health care. yes, they practice a particular kind of economics.
and it ain't mine or yours.
now, isn't this the irony of ironies? if you go to a bank to ask for a loan, you need to make a credible presentation, which includes full disclosure of your income and future economic prospects. they, on the other hand, when they spend our money, need to document nothing. however, we have do some information on the subject of ceo pay and bailout figures for various banks. in 2007, the average paid to each of the 116 banks' top executives was 2.6 million in salary, benefits, and bonuses. lloyd blankfein, president and ceo of goldman sachs, took home nearly 54 million in compensation last year. the company's top five executives received a total of 242 million. this from a company that received 10 billion dollars in taxpayer money on october 28th. john thain, ceo of merrill lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with 83 million in earnings last year. thain was the former ceo of goldman sachs. thain took over merrill lynch in december of 2007, and made the amount of money he did even though the company lost 7.8 billion dollars in 2007. he was given a 15 million dollar signing bonus, and an additional 68 million in stock options. now, if the company lost close to 8 billion last year, we can assume that thousands lost their jobs, that interest rates went down, that less loans were given to people who requested them, and other things that negatively impacted masses of people. but, thain still made his 83 million. some crisis for him. merrill lynch also received 10 billion in taxpayers money. goldman sachs' tab for leased cars and drivers ran as high as $233,000 per executive. jp morgan chase chairman james dimon ran up a $211,182 private jet travel tab last year when his family lived in chicago and he was commuting to new york. the company got 25 billion in bailout funds.
it seems safe to say that this bailout money will further aid these ceo's and major stokeholders to live lives of shameless excess, as the majority of people struggle to get by. if we were concerned about the economy, we would directly aid the people who most need it. this would be done by funding organizations that actively work to support the poor. it would mean putting our tax dollars into public works in order to create jobs and to improve the conditions of our communities. it would mean creating a progressive tax structure and beginning the process of appropriating wealth from the super rich and redistributing that wealth amongst the masses of people. it would be done by drastically cutting the military budget and ending our wars in iraq and afghanistan. it will not be done by throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at the financial institutions who were instrumental in creating the crisis we are supposedly trying to solve. but, of course, they don't want to solve the real economic crisis, which is caused by endemic and systemic poverty. rather, they want to further their goal of corporate domination, which is led by the financial and oil sectors of the economy. that is why they fight these wars. that is why they throw money at banks while people lose their homes, while children die of hunger, and while millions of us go without health care. yes, they practice a particular kind of economics.
and it ain't mine or yours.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
welcome to america, where the real criminals set the fake criminals up to spend the rest of their lives in jail
Government Accused of Entrapment in Fort Dix Terror Case
A federal jury in New Jersey has convicted five Muslim immigrants of conspiracy to kill US military personnel. Prosecutors claimed the men were plotting to kill US soldiers at Fort Dix or another military base. Defense attorneys argued the men were entrapped by a pair of paid government informants. Faten Shnewer, the mother of one of the men, Mohamad Shnewer, talked to reporters after the verdict and said her son was set up. The five Muslim men were arrested in May 2007 after two of the men tried to buy automatic weapons from an FBI informant. The same informant had helped scout out military installations for attack, offered to introduce the men to an arms dealer and gave them a list of weapons he could procure, including machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. The five men face life in prison.
A federal jury in New Jersey has convicted five Muslim immigrants of conspiracy to kill US military personnel. Prosecutors claimed the men were plotting to kill US soldiers at Fort Dix or another military base. Defense attorneys argued the men were entrapped by a pair of paid government informants. Faten Shnewer, the mother of one of the men, Mohamad Shnewer, talked to reporters after the verdict and said her son was set up. The five Muslim men were arrested in May 2007 after two of the men tried to buy automatic weapons from an FBI informant. The same informant had helped scout out military installations for attack, offered to introduce the men to an arms dealer and gave them a list of weapons he could procure, including machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades. The five men face life in prison.
the evo of a new day
Mission Accomplished: How Bolivia Defeated Illiteracy
December 23, 2008 By Supriyo Chatterjee
Supriyo Chatterjee's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
The government of Evo Morales has achieved in three years what the regimes of the past two centuries could not: freeing Bolivia from the shame of illiteracy. With this, the second poorest nation in Latin America after Haiti becomes only the third in the continent to achieve full literacy, after Cuba in 1961 and Venezuela in 2005.
A formidable social mobilisation allied to pedagogical and material help from Cuba and Venezuela meant that 819,417 people (99.5% of the illiterate population) became literate through 28,424 centres in the nine provinces of the country and with the help of 130 Cuban advisors and 47 from Venezuela.
Cuba donated 30,000 television sets and the same number of videos, sets of 17 cassettes and manuals for facilitators and 1.2 million primers. Cuba and Venezuela also donated 8,350 solar panels since many of the marginalised people lived in areas lacking electricity.
Bolivians themselves contributed 46,457 facilitators and 4,810 supervisors. They used the Cuban audio-visual ‘Yes, I can' method. The literacy campaign had a distinctly "woman's face" as 85% of the illiterate population was female. The programme, carried out by the National Alphabetisation Programme of Bolivia, cost $36.7 million.
Harder to quantify are the hours of arduous work put in by the Bolivian volunteers and that of their Cuban and Venezuelan colleagues who worked for two years away from their countries and families often in remote areas and in a harsh, cold climate to which they were not used. A Cuban volunteer put it as a "difficult but beautiful experience".
Literacy classes were organised in all sorts of locations. In Quila, in the department of Chuquisaca, where the remains of pre-historic remains have been found, it was the museum set up by the local community. Classes were organised in old-age homes and in one location at least prostitutes were taught in a public plaza. The Opposition-controlled districts were distinctly unhelpful. Even on the day the country celebrated the historic achievement, the Right dismissed it as mere propaganda.
The alphabetisation programme was chalked out in a meeting between President-elect Morales and Fidel Castro on December 29, 2005. Within two months, by the middle of February 2006, the first Cuban advisors had arrived in Bolivia and the programme was flagged off from Camiri in the Santa Cruz department on March 1. By June, the department of Cochabamba had its first student passing out.
The Cuban pedagogical method was tweaked in the Venezuela campaign and in Bolivia it was adapted to meet the local language requirements. In the end, only 24,000 of the about 200,000 Quechua speakers and 30,000 of the about 300,000 of the Aymara speakers chose to learn in their own language, the rest opting for Spanish. Campaigners think this has to do with the shame that was distilled about these languages in the past and it is something they want to deal with in the next phase of the programme.
The post-literacy programme from February 2009 has as its motto, ‘Yes, I can keep going' and intends to teach primary level Spanish, mathematics, geography, history and science to the newly-literate population. There are more ambitious allied aims of extending learning to school-leaving level and increasing the knowledge and technical skills of the population. The new Bolivian constitution, which is to be put to vote in 2009, will ensure free education for all till the pre-university level.
Nobody was ignorant till they learnt to read and write, Morales told the ceremony to mark this historic day at Cochabamba on December 20, reaffirming that illiteracy had persisted so long because colonialism did not want a literate population, specially the native Indians. The Paraguan President, Fernando Lugo, present at the ceremony and whose country has a large Indian population, many of them illiterate, said it was a matter of pride that the dominant interests in this part of Latin America had been defeated.
The literacy programme is sure to extend to Paraguay and will inspire the indigenous populations of Ecuador and Peru to demand the same. The Cuban pedagogical methods are being used in other countries like Argentina but shamefully the bulk of Latin America's remaining illiterates, about 20 million of them, are in Brazil, the continent's economic power house.
More Latin America reports at Meeting Point
December 23, 2008 By Supriyo Chatterjee
Supriyo Chatterjee's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
The government of Evo Morales has achieved in three years what the regimes of the past two centuries could not: freeing Bolivia from the shame of illiteracy. With this, the second poorest nation in Latin America after Haiti becomes only the third in the continent to achieve full literacy, after Cuba in 1961 and Venezuela in 2005.
A formidable social mobilisation allied to pedagogical and material help from Cuba and Venezuela meant that 819,417 people (99.5% of the illiterate population) became literate through 28,424 centres in the nine provinces of the country and with the help of 130 Cuban advisors and 47 from Venezuela.
Cuba donated 30,000 television sets and the same number of videos, sets of 17 cassettes and manuals for facilitators and 1.2 million primers. Cuba and Venezuela also donated 8,350 solar panels since many of the marginalised people lived in areas lacking electricity.
Bolivians themselves contributed 46,457 facilitators and 4,810 supervisors. They used the Cuban audio-visual ‘Yes, I can' method. The literacy campaign had a distinctly "woman's face" as 85% of the illiterate population was female. The programme, carried out by the National Alphabetisation Programme of Bolivia, cost $36.7 million.
Harder to quantify are the hours of arduous work put in by the Bolivian volunteers and that of their Cuban and Venezuelan colleagues who worked for two years away from their countries and families often in remote areas and in a harsh, cold climate to which they were not used. A Cuban volunteer put it as a "difficult but beautiful experience".
Literacy classes were organised in all sorts of locations. In Quila, in the department of Chuquisaca, where the remains of pre-historic remains have been found, it was the museum set up by the local community. Classes were organised in old-age homes and in one location at least prostitutes were taught in a public plaza. The Opposition-controlled districts were distinctly unhelpful. Even on the day the country celebrated the historic achievement, the Right dismissed it as mere propaganda.
The alphabetisation programme was chalked out in a meeting between President-elect Morales and Fidel Castro on December 29, 2005. Within two months, by the middle of February 2006, the first Cuban advisors had arrived in Bolivia and the programme was flagged off from Camiri in the Santa Cruz department on March 1. By June, the department of Cochabamba had its first student passing out.
The Cuban pedagogical method was tweaked in the Venezuela campaign and in Bolivia it was adapted to meet the local language requirements. In the end, only 24,000 of the about 200,000 Quechua speakers and 30,000 of the about 300,000 of the Aymara speakers chose to learn in their own language, the rest opting for Spanish. Campaigners think this has to do with the shame that was distilled about these languages in the past and it is something they want to deal with in the next phase of the programme.
The post-literacy programme from February 2009 has as its motto, ‘Yes, I can keep going' and intends to teach primary level Spanish, mathematics, geography, history and science to the newly-literate population. There are more ambitious allied aims of extending learning to school-leaving level and increasing the knowledge and technical skills of the population. The new Bolivian constitution, which is to be put to vote in 2009, will ensure free education for all till the pre-university level.
Nobody was ignorant till they learnt to read and write, Morales told the ceremony to mark this historic day at Cochabamba on December 20, reaffirming that illiteracy had persisted so long because colonialism did not want a literate population, specially the native Indians. The Paraguan President, Fernando Lugo, present at the ceremony and whose country has a large Indian population, many of them illiterate, said it was a matter of pride that the dominant interests in this part of Latin America had been defeated.
The literacy programme is sure to extend to Paraguay and will inspire the indigenous populations of Ecuador and Peru to demand the same. The Cuban pedagogical methods are being used in other countries like Argentina but shamefully the bulk of Latin America's remaining illiterates, about 20 million of them, are in Brazil, the continent's economic power house.
More Latin America reports at Meeting Point
Monday, December 22, 2008
wow
five men have been convicted for conspiracy in their supposed attempts to kill american soldiers at fort dix, new jersey. i repeat, they have been convicted for conspiring to kill. but, who will convict the soldiers who actually have killed? and who will convict, or even charge, the american leaders who started the wars that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands? when you attempt to be even moderately honest, it is a stunning bit of hypocrisy that we are convicting men who we claim to have conspired to murder soldiers while we put medals on soldiers who have actually killed people. the convicted men are all muslim; is there not, within our largely bombastic, jingoistic, ignorant populace, just a few of us who sympathize with their frustration and feelings of hatred toward the u.s war machine? are not our soldiers making the lives of iraqis and afghanis a living hell? would we think much of a german court, or a chilean court, or any other court that represented a militaristic state, finding guilty a group of men who were attempting to combat the forces of that state, by any means necessary? yes, of course, we would prefer to write letters to the editor, and march down the street beating on plastic containers. we would rather blog, and take out radical titles from the local library. yes, we may prefer to do these things, but is this the limit of resistance? if so, it is no wonder that those of us who are "resisting" are getting our asses kicked.
my point is this; no one among us should join the service. there is no draft. you don't have to go. we all know that we are bombing countries left and right. anyone who joins now doesn't have the excuse that they are trying to "make some money for college" or "learn a trade." selling drugs and pimping women can make you a pretty penny too. that doesn't make them right. so, after knowing that the u.s is a war making country, you still enlist, then i believe that you are fair game. i will not support you, whatever that means. i can not oppose a war and support the troops that fight it. i don't get all teary eyed about veterans who wanted to kill everyone in the middle east after 9/11 only to find out, after blowing several iraqis up, that "they are human too." i don't want more body armor for our troops. fuck em. if they want to go invade someone else's country, and bomb them, then i want the other guy to be able to hit back. i'm not gonna get pissed about how some soldier got robbed of a couple of grand for college. of course the army lies! they are killing people and telling us that they are bringing peace and freedom! and you are still gonna believe what they say?
again, think about it; we are gonna throw guys in jail for conspiring to kill soldiers, while the soldiers who have killed people, and the political leaders who instigated the wars those soldiers prosecuted, are walking around free. and this is not even commented on. there is no sense of irony, no acknowledgement of the profound hypocrisy that is at the center of this narrative.
well, the truth, ignored and unacknowledged, is still the truth.
my point is this; no one among us should join the service. there is no draft. you don't have to go. we all know that we are bombing countries left and right. anyone who joins now doesn't have the excuse that they are trying to "make some money for college" or "learn a trade." selling drugs and pimping women can make you a pretty penny too. that doesn't make them right. so, after knowing that the u.s is a war making country, you still enlist, then i believe that you are fair game. i will not support you, whatever that means. i can not oppose a war and support the troops that fight it. i don't get all teary eyed about veterans who wanted to kill everyone in the middle east after 9/11 only to find out, after blowing several iraqis up, that "they are human too." i don't want more body armor for our troops. fuck em. if they want to go invade someone else's country, and bomb them, then i want the other guy to be able to hit back. i'm not gonna get pissed about how some soldier got robbed of a couple of grand for college. of course the army lies! they are killing people and telling us that they are bringing peace and freedom! and you are still gonna believe what they say?
again, think about it; we are gonna throw guys in jail for conspiring to kill soldiers, while the soldiers who have killed people, and the political leaders who instigated the wars those soldiers prosecuted, are walking around free. and this is not even commented on. there is no sense of irony, no acknowledgement of the profound hypocrisy that is at the center of this narrative.
well, the truth, ignored and unacknowledged, is still the truth.
more abu for you
Crimes of State
{col. writ. 1/2/08} (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
A president is charged with violating the law and constitution of
his country.
He is charged with opening the money pits of the nation to his cronies.
He is charged with approving the torturing of people in the name of
a 'war on terror', listening to the phone calls of countless citizens
and unleashing his hordes of malevolent minions against critics,
journalists and opponents of his virtually imperial rule.
Am I describing a recent novel? For surely -- surely -- this
can't be a real president, in a real country, facing real charges.
And yet, it is.
But not here.
It's in Peru, where Alberto K. Fujimori (once affectionately
nicknamed 'El Chino' for his Asian features) faces a slew of criminal
charges stemming from his years in power as president.
The former president faces charges from his 10 - year reign over
Peru's version of a "dirty war" against virtually all opponents of the
State. From armed combat against Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) and
the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (known as the Tupamaros), to
massacres of students and leftists by secret government death squads,
the former president left behind him a legacy of blood.
In the twenty years of this long internal war, some 70,000 people
lost their lives, according to the findings of a Peruvian government
commission in 2003.
If convicted for his role in the carnage, Fujimori, now 69, faces 30
years in prison.
Why is this surprising?
Because, here, in the US, we see so much government immunity that
the very notion of trying our presidents for war crimes, violations of
international law, or even violations of the Constitution, seems the
stuff of fiction.
The closest we have come, was at the resignation of Richard M. Nixon
from the presidency, after impeachment was imminent. Not to worry. His
successor, President Gerald R. Ford, granted him a pardon -- /before he
was even charged!/ And his crimes, which culminated in the Watergate
scandal, are all but forgotten.
I saw a foreign news broadcast today (from China) which reported
that a million people -- /1 million people/ -- had died in Iraq since
the US invasion and occupation. /A million people/.
And yet, no crime. No impeachments. Indeed, there isn't even serious
rap about either possibility. At the very hour of victory, when a
so-called 'democratic' majority was granted majority power by an
energized, and angry electorate, House Speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi
(D.Ca.) announced, "Impeachment is off the table." And so it has remained.
Immunity.
What can the world's sole remaining superpower learn from a
relatively small, relatively poor, predominantly Indian nation on Latin
America's west coast?
Apparently, not a damned thing.
--(c) '08 maj
{col. writ. 1/2/08} (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
A president is charged with violating the law and constitution of
his country.
He is charged with opening the money pits of the nation to his cronies.
He is charged with approving the torturing of people in the name of
a 'war on terror', listening to the phone calls of countless citizens
and unleashing his hordes of malevolent minions against critics,
journalists and opponents of his virtually imperial rule.
Am I describing a recent novel? For surely -- surely -- this
can't be a real president, in a real country, facing real charges.
And yet, it is.
But not here.
It's in Peru, where Alberto K. Fujimori (once affectionately
nicknamed 'El Chino' for his Asian features) faces a slew of criminal
charges stemming from his years in power as president.
The former president faces charges from his 10 - year reign over
Peru's version of a "dirty war" against virtually all opponents of the
State. From armed combat against Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) and
the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (known as the Tupamaros), to
massacres of students and leftists by secret government death squads,
the former president left behind him a legacy of blood.
In the twenty years of this long internal war, some 70,000 people
lost their lives, according to the findings of a Peruvian government
commission in 2003.
If convicted for his role in the carnage, Fujimori, now 69, faces 30
years in prison.
Why is this surprising?
Because, here, in the US, we see so much government immunity that
the very notion of trying our presidents for war crimes, violations of
international law, or even violations of the Constitution, seems the
stuff of fiction.
The closest we have come, was at the resignation of Richard M. Nixon
from the presidency, after impeachment was imminent. Not to worry. His
successor, President Gerald R. Ford, granted him a pardon -- /before he
was even charged!/ And his crimes, which culminated in the Watergate
scandal, are all but forgotten.
I saw a foreign news broadcast today (from China) which reported
that a million people -- /1 million people/ -- had died in Iraq since
the US invasion and occupation. /A million people/.
And yet, no crime. No impeachments. Indeed, there isn't even serious
rap about either possibility. At the very hour of victory, when a
so-called 'democratic' majority was granted majority power by an
energized, and angry electorate, House Speaker, Rep. Nancy Pelosi
(D.Ca.) announced, "Impeachment is off the table." And so it has remained.
Immunity.
What can the world's sole remaining superpower learn from a
relatively small, relatively poor, predominantly Indian nation on Latin
America's west coast?
Apparently, not a damned thing.
--(c) '08 maj
can you imagine such a speech today from an american president?
"every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. this world in arms is not spending money alone. it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. the cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. it is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000. it is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. it is some 50 miles of concrete highway. we pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. we pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. this, i repeat, is the way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. this is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
eisenhower, 1953.
this from a man, who unlike obama, bush, clinton, bush the elder, reagan, and the others, actually experienced war first hand. mind you, eisenhower was a 1950's republican, and yet, we don't hear our presidents speak in such a way today. my point is not to glorify eisenhower; his presidency saw the cia overthrow leaders in iran and guatemala, and he gave the go ahead for the bay of pigs fiasco/war crime in cuba. he did little to advance the cause of equal rights for black americans. he stood by quietly as mccarthy and others of his kind destroyed careers. and yet, who can imagine a leader today say that a life of war and militarism "is not a way of life at all, in any true sense." it seems safe to say that the members of both parties, with the exception of several progressive congress members, and a few senators, most of whom are democrat, are to the right of eisenhower. this is mind boggling, but true. compare these sentiments with an opposition to war based on the fact that saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, or that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. there is no humanity in such an opposition. there is no decency to it; for what if he did have weapons of mass destruction? should we then use the crime of war to respond to that possession? this is an anti-war sentiment that is not anti-war. it doesn't acknowledge the horror that is war, and therefore, the person who makes such an "anti-war" argument will have no problem backing different wars with supposedly better reasons for being waged, as obama does with afghanistan. what eisenhower's statement does is acknowledge the essential crime that is war and the preparation for war in an industrialized, militarized state. such language has largely ceased to exist in major political party discourse, with the exception of minor party members within the major parties. because this is so, the sentiments can be ignored or mocked, as they are when kucinich makes them.
i ask you to read this message from eisenhower again and once more try to imagine a modern american president saying something like it. and i'll leave you with a couple of quotes from jfk that are along similar lines.
"those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
"war will cease when the conscientious objector is admired to the extent that the warrior is today."
think of that last line; can you even imagine an american president today acknowledging co's, much less hoping that they will one day be praised as heros? think of the modern political rhetoric and discourse. again, i am not trying to romanticize our past presidents; they too, committed profound crimes. but just think of our decline in this regard.
it is stunning.
eisenhower, 1953.
this from a man, who unlike obama, bush, clinton, bush the elder, reagan, and the others, actually experienced war first hand. mind you, eisenhower was a 1950's republican, and yet, we don't hear our presidents speak in such a way today. my point is not to glorify eisenhower; his presidency saw the cia overthrow leaders in iran and guatemala, and he gave the go ahead for the bay of pigs fiasco/war crime in cuba. he did little to advance the cause of equal rights for black americans. he stood by quietly as mccarthy and others of his kind destroyed careers. and yet, who can imagine a leader today say that a life of war and militarism "is not a way of life at all, in any true sense." it seems safe to say that the members of both parties, with the exception of several progressive congress members, and a few senators, most of whom are democrat, are to the right of eisenhower. this is mind boggling, but true. compare these sentiments with an opposition to war based on the fact that saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, or that iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. there is no humanity in such an opposition. there is no decency to it; for what if he did have weapons of mass destruction? should we then use the crime of war to respond to that possession? this is an anti-war sentiment that is not anti-war. it doesn't acknowledge the horror that is war, and therefore, the person who makes such an "anti-war" argument will have no problem backing different wars with supposedly better reasons for being waged, as obama does with afghanistan. what eisenhower's statement does is acknowledge the essential crime that is war and the preparation for war in an industrialized, militarized state. such language has largely ceased to exist in major political party discourse, with the exception of minor party members within the major parties. because this is so, the sentiments can be ignored or mocked, as they are when kucinich makes them.
i ask you to read this message from eisenhower again and once more try to imagine a modern american president saying something like it. and i'll leave you with a couple of quotes from jfk that are along similar lines.
"those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
"war will cease when the conscientious objector is admired to the extent that the warrior is today."
think of that last line; can you even imagine an american president today acknowledging co's, much less hoping that they will one day be praised as heros? think of the modern political rhetoric and discourse. again, i am not trying to romanticize our past presidents; they too, committed profound crimes. but just think of our decline in this regard.
it is stunning.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
mumia
The War Against Ourselves
[col. writ. 12/1/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal
We often think, when we dare to do so, of the Iraq War as a war over there, against 'those' people - folks other than Us.
Depending on our political perspective, it is either a good war, or an evil war. But, no matter our political, ideological perspective, time will determine whether it isn't a war against us all, as well.
That's because for those tens of thousands who survive, who are neither killed nor maimed, they will return to the U.S., with their minds twisted by an orgy of violence that will not easily be left 'over there.'
It is worthless to listen to any major political figures who speak of this war, for they are speaking with flowery words about unreality, with buzz phrases like, 'support our troops', 'they're fighting for our freedoms', and other such nonsense.
Several recent books, written not by brass but by low level non commissioned officers, tells a story that will never make it to CNN, to the networks, or to the daily press.
That's because these reports, written by line soldiers, are striking in their absence of political jargon, and the illusions usually presented as war reporting.
Do you remember reports about the notorious Iraqi house raids, ostensibly as searches for weapons? Paul Rieckhoff, a platoon leader of National Guardsmen describes how he and his men broke down doors, tied up all the men, and ransacked people's homes. Of these raids, Rieckhoff wrote, in his book, Chasing Ghosts: Failures and Facades in Iraq: A Soldier's Perspective (NAL Caliber: 2007) these "were nasty business. Anybody who enjoyed them was sick. Sometimes I felt like I was a member of the Brown shirts in Nazi Germany."
Rieckhoff writes about men in his platoon stealing money from these Iraqi families, something he describes as not uncommon.
In the corporate media's reflexive war promotion, and its overt message of 'support the troops', who knows what they are supporting?
These books, written from the soldier's viewpoint, tell of the gratuitous killing of unarmed civilians, both by high level bombings, artillery, and ground level shootings. Men, women, and children are shot with an abandon that would make a terrorist blush. One Texan, Marine lance corporal Jeffrey Carazales said, "Do you think people at home are going to see this -- all these women and children we're killing? F - -k no. Back home they're glorifying this mo ----f----r, I guarantee you."*
No politician, right or left, will describe them as modern day Nazis, riding roughshod over the Iraqi people, and indeed, creating a resistance that didn't exist at the time of the US invasion.
That's how far politics is from the truth, a truth dripping out from soldiers, who are unafraid of self-description.
In the years to come, when people trickle home, they will carry these nightmares into their work lives, and also into their personal lives.
They will be cops, prison guards, politicians, merchants, teachers, and journalists.
Within them will be these silent demons who will not rest in Iraq.
American society was deeply impacted by the return of Vietnam veterans, and not for the better.
We have yet to see the ripples from the war wash against the shores of this land.
We will find that the blood of war, and the perversities of occupation will splash against us all.
--(c) '07 maj
[col. writ. 12/1/07] (c) '07 Mumia Abu-Jamal
We often think, when we dare to do so, of the Iraq War as a war over there, against 'those' people - folks other than Us.
Depending on our political perspective, it is either a good war, or an evil war. But, no matter our political, ideological perspective, time will determine whether it isn't a war against us all, as well.
That's because for those tens of thousands who survive, who are neither killed nor maimed, they will return to the U.S., with their minds twisted by an orgy of violence that will not easily be left 'over there.'
It is worthless to listen to any major political figures who speak of this war, for they are speaking with flowery words about unreality, with buzz phrases like, 'support our troops', 'they're fighting for our freedoms', and other such nonsense.
Several recent books, written not by brass but by low level non commissioned officers, tells a story that will never make it to CNN, to the networks, or to the daily press.
That's because these reports, written by line soldiers, are striking in their absence of political jargon, and the illusions usually presented as war reporting.
Do you remember reports about the notorious Iraqi house raids, ostensibly as searches for weapons? Paul Rieckhoff, a platoon leader of National Guardsmen describes how he and his men broke down doors, tied up all the men, and ransacked people's homes. Of these raids, Rieckhoff wrote, in his book, Chasing Ghosts: Failures and Facades in Iraq: A Soldier's Perspective (NAL Caliber: 2007) these "were nasty business. Anybody who enjoyed them was sick. Sometimes I felt like I was a member of the Brown shirts in Nazi Germany."
Rieckhoff writes about men in his platoon stealing money from these Iraqi families, something he describes as not uncommon.
In the corporate media's reflexive war promotion, and its overt message of 'support the troops', who knows what they are supporting?
These books, written from the soldier's viewpoint, tell of the gratuitous killing of unarmed civilians, both by high level bombings, artillery, and ground level shootings. Men, women, and children are shot with an abandon that would make a terrorist blush. One Texan, Marine lance corporal Jeffrey Carazales said, "Do you think people at home are going to see this -- all these women and children we're killing? F - -k no. Back home they're glorifying this mo ----f----r, I guarantee you."*
No politician, right or left, will describe them as modern day Nazis, riding roughshod over the Iraqi people, and indeed, creating a resistance that didn't exist at the time of the US invasion.
That's how far politics is from the truth, a truth dripping out from soldiers, who are unafraid of self-description.
In the years to come, when people trickle home, they will carry these nightmares into their work lives, and also into their personal lives.
They will be cops, prison guards, politicians, merchants, teachers, and journalists.
Within them will be these silent demons who will not rest in Iraq.
American society was deeply impacted by the return of Vietnam veterans, and not for the better.
We have yet to see the ripples from the war wash against the shores of this land.
We will find that the blood of war, and the perversities of occupation will splash against us all.
--(c) '07 maj
i give this song high marx
Whatever it is, I'm against it
I don’t know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I’m against it
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it
Your proposition may be good,
but let’s have one thing understood:
Whatever it is, I’m against it
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it
I’m opposed to it
On general principles, I’m opposed to it
groucho
I don’t know what they have to say,
it makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I’m against it
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it
Your proposition may be good,
but let’s have one thing understood:
Whatever it is, I’m against it
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it
I’m opposed to it
On general principles, I’m opposed to it
groucho
were you aware of this?
Awareness is overrated
By Mickey Z.
Online Journal Contributing Writer
“Analysis brings no curative powers in its train; it merely makes us conscious of the existence of an evil, which, oddly enough, is consciousness.” --Henry Miller
Everywhere I hear about the need to raise "awareness." So much so, that awareness and consciousness appear to have become the goals: ends in and of themselves. If only we were conscious of “what's going in Darfur” or aware of how “prevalent cancer has become” or whatever else we need to recognize, it seems most folks would be mighty satisfied.
My question: When exactly does all this goddamned awareness translate into productive action and tangible change?
“I expected to die,” Black Panther Huey Newton said back in the day. “At no time before the trial did I expect to escape with my life. Yet being executed in the gas chamber did not necessarily mean defeat. It could be one more step to bring the community to a higher level of consciousness.”
Was Huey right? Would his death have done anything more than create another T-shirt icon, another excuse for Sean Penn to take out a full-page ad in The New York Times? Che Guevara, Ken Saro Wiwa, Fred Hampton, Rachel Corrie, Sacco and Vanzetti, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Leonard Peltier, Aung San Suu Kyi, Mumia abu-Jamal, Tookie Williams, Brad Will -- the list grows and grows . . . as does the homicidal/suicidal human culture that we cannot or will not change. We’ve raised our consciousness to such a high level that we proudly own hybrids and use only recycled toilet paper. But what are the results?
We’re aware of global warming and its causes, factory farms, war crimes, environmental degradation, political corruption, fixed elections, the health care crisis . . . blah, blah, blah. We know about it. We talk about it. We write about it. We complain about it. We hold meetings, talks, seminars, and classes about it. We march about it. We make signs about it. Nothing changes.
Lesson #1: Awareness is overrated.
Lesson #2: The current patterns of dissent in America are long overdue for re-evaluation and overhaul. The powers that be have long ago figured out how to either marginalize or co-opt dissent. Until our tactics evolve, we are accomplices to the perpetual global crime we call civilization.
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at www.mickeyz.net.
By Mickey Z.
Online Journal Contributing Writer
“Analysis brings no curative powers in its train; it merely makes us conscious of the existence of an evil, which, oddly enough, is consciousness.” --Henry Miller
Everywhere I hear about the need to raise "awareness." So much so, that awareness and consciousness appear to have become the goals: ends in and of themselves. If only we were conscious of “what's going in Darfur” or aware of how “prevalent cancer has become” or whatever else we need to recognize, it seems most folks would be mighty satisfied.
My question: When exactly does all this goddamned awareness translate into productive action and tangible change?
“I expected to die,” Black Panther Huey Newton said back in the day. “At no time before the trial did I expect to escape with my life. Yet being executed in the gas chamber did not necessarily mean defeat. It could be one more step to bring the community to a higher level of consciousness.”
Was Huey right? Would his death have done anything more than create another T-shirt icon, another excuse for Sean Penn to take out a full-page ad in The New York Times? Che Guevara, Ken Saro Wiwa, Fred Hampton, Rachel Corrie, Sacco and Vanzetti, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Leonard Peltier, Aung San Suu Kyi, Mumia abu-Jamal, Tookie Williams, Brad Will -- the list grows and grows . . . as does the homicidal/suicidal human culture that we cannot or will not change. We’ve raised our consciousness to such a high level that we proudly own hybrids and use only recycled toilet paper. But what are the results?
We’re aware of global warming and its causes, factory farms, war crimes, environmental degradation, political corruption, fixed elections, the health care crisis . . . blah, blah, blah. We know about it. We talk about it. We write about it. We complain about it. We hold meetings, talks, seminars, and classes about it. We march about it. We make signs about it. Nothing changes.
Lesson #1: Awareness is overrated.
Lesson #2: The current patterns of dissent in America are long overdue for re-evaluation and overhaul. The powers that be have long ago figured out how to either marginalize or co-opt dissent. Until our tactics evolve, we are accomplices to the perpetual global crime we call civilization.
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at www.mickeyz.net.
omg
the following quote from a "sacred" text should give us all pause the next time we hear someone pontificating about the superiority of the "judeo-christian" heritage. sorry guys, but it's high time we stopped blaming everything on islam and started sticking it to all the major western faiths. but yeah, that's right; we know a lot of people who practice those faiths. well, in that case, perhaps this passage can serve as a reminder to them that the bible is filled with violence and murder. it ain't all "turn the other cheek" folks.
“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.”
(Deuteronomy 7:1-220:10-17)
“When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves.”
(Deuteronomy 7:1-220:10-17)
Saturday, December 20, 2008
stuff
the u.s may put 30,000 more troops in afghanistan by next year. yeah, this is change, and you better believe it.
as far as iraq goes, the military, unless they are directly challenged, will continue their policies of war. the idea of withdrawing troops is a dream. instead, we will likely change what the troops are called. while they are now described as combat troops, in the future, they will be referred to as support troops. either way, they ain't going nowhere. if obama was serious about ending the war in iraq, he would have to confront the military industrial complex. this would mean selecting cabinet members who have a history of bravely combating the forces of imperial conflict. it would also mean describing to the american people the realities of war. but, every move obama has made so far is in the opposite direction. obviously he is well aware of the fate of jfk, who, it seems, was attempting to withdraw american troops from south vietnam at the time of his murder. kennedy was faced with a military that was strongly opposed to any such move. the fact is that the military does not like to be told what to do. it is a bastion of the ultra right wing, and a cash cow for the multinational corporations, who reap billions in defense contracts. these forces don't cave easily. so, the question is, is obama of a mind to have it out with them? and, if he is, what evidence is there to support such a view? his naming gates as his secretary of defense? his blind support for our destruction of afghanistan? his funding in the senate for every war appropriations bill that came to a vote? his advocacy of strikes on pakistan, which have led to the deaths of hundreds? yes, the man made an anti-war speech in 2002, but that was before the war began, and before he was in the senate. within that speech, he informed us that he is "not against wars, but only dumb wars." so, what's a "smart war?" the gulf war? our destruction of yugoslavia? the bombing of panama? it is not this particular war that is the problem; rather, it is our use of destructive violence against the people of the world, which includes, but is not limited to, this war. it is not a matter of being an absolute pacifist; the issue is to recognize how the united states has historically used its military to further its own imperial and territorial agenda. it has nothing to do with whether a war is "smart" or "dumb." what does that even mean? does it matter to the hundreds of thousands that our bombs kill if our leaders have "intelligent" reasons for dropping those bombs? and while there may be times when a great evil needs to be opposed, why should we assume that such an evil is another country, and not the leadership and the political and economic structures of power within our own nation? if the germans had succeeded in overthrowing stalin's government, would that have been a victory for humanity, considering the scope of stalin's crimes? if a state is prosecuting a war of aggression, how can that be excused by citing the crimes of the country being attacked? at nuremberg, it was stated that a "war of aggression is the ultimate crime." there you go; the ultimate crime! what else do you need to know? a war of aggression is a very specific kind of war, by the way. it doesn't apply to a civil war, or to a revolutionary war. a war of aggression is the act of one sovereign state attacking another sovereign state without cause. countries have the right to defend themselves, just as people do, but wars of aggression are offensive wars, and that, no country has a right to do. this is why they spend so much time trying to explain them as wars of defense, or humanitarian interventions. this is why the media spins fabrications about supposed dictators who threaten us at every turn. hopefully, obama can begin to move away from such nonsense, but sadly, i remain skeptical, because i am aware of how power operates within our society. and furthermore, i am by no means certain that obama wants to move away from a militarist society. in fact, his words suggest that he is quite comfortable with various manifestations of american militarism. in truth, it is hard to imagine that he could have become president in this day and age if he wasn't comfortable with such militarism.
a 40 billion budget crisis in california? isn't warren buffet worth 500 billion? since he's such a "humanitarian," why doesn't he just unload a mere 8 percent of his wealth in order to help the people of our most populous state? better yet, why don't we have an economic and political structure that appropriates such wealth from the rich in order to ensure that the masses can work and live without fear of hardship? we have the wealth. through progressive taxation, wealth appropriation, and drastic cuts in the military and intelligence sectors, we could begin to address these issues. instead, we put our financial woes on the backs of workers through layoffs and cuts in valuable social services. and what is this furlough shit? are you serious? if somebody wants to choose to work less, than that's great, but to impose, at the state level, a reduction in the work week, is a crime against the worker. is the terminator also going to force landlords to charge 10% less for rent? is he going to force the supermarkets to charge 10% less for food? if not, than what right does he have to take 10% of the income away from the average state worker? he is essentially putting a gun to the head of the worker and demanding 10% of his pay. this is a crime when done by the mob or other street criminals, but supposedly legitimate when done by political leaders. hopefully, resistance will occur, though many of my cracker brethren will likely continue to put the blame on those being victimized by an economy that is driven by forces beyond their control. i am saddened by this vulgar state of affairs, but not surprised by it. this is what happens when you spend a trillion dollars on war while allowing grave economic injustices to persist. this is what occurs when 700 billion dollars are thrown at corporations while the state sector is purposefully starved of funds. it, and many other things, are the natural and logical result of a sick society.
at least i can still blog.
yes, but who is reading?
as far as iraq goes, the military, unless they are directly challenged, will continue their policies of war. the idea of withdrawing troops is a dream. instead, we will likely change what the troops are called. while they are now described as combat troops, in the future, they will be referred to as support troops. either way, they ain't going nowhere. if obama was serious about ending the war in iraq, he would have to confront the military industrial complex. this would mean selecting cabinet members who have a history of bravely combating the forces of imperial conflict. it would also mean describing to the american people the realities of war. but, every move obama has made so far is in the opposite direction. obviously he is well aware of the fate of jfk, who, it seems, was attempting to withdraw american troops from south vietnam at the time of his murder. kennedy was faced with a military that was strongly opposed to any such move. the fact is that the military does not like to be told what to do. it is a bastion of the ultra right wing, and a cash cow for the multinational corporations, who reap billions in defense contracts. these forces don't cave easily. so, the question is, is obama of a mind to have it out with them? and, if he is, what evidence is there to support such a view? his naming gates as his secretary of defense? his blind support for our destruction of afghanistan? his funding in the senate for every war appropriations bill that came to a vote? his advocacy of strikes on pakistan, which have led to the deaths of hundreds? yes, the man made an anti-war speech in 2002, but that was before the war began, and before he was in the senate. within that speech, he informed us that he is "not against wars, but only dumb wars." so, what's a "smart war?" the gulf war? our destruction of yugoslavia? the bombing of panama? it is not this particular war that is the problem; rather, it is our use of destructive violence against the people of the world, which includes, but is not limited to, this war. it is not a matter of being an absolute pacifist; the issue is to recognize how the united states has historically used its military to further its own imperial and territorial agenda. it has nothing to do with whether a war is "smart" or "dumb." what does that even mean? does it matter to the hundreds of thousands that our bombs kill if our leaders have "intelligent" reasons for dropping those bombs? and while there may be times when a great evil needs to be opposed, why should we assume that such an evil is another country, and not the leadership and the political and economic structures of power within our own nation? if the germans had succeeded in overthrowing stalin's government, would that have been a victory for humanity, considering the scope of stalin's crimes? if a state is prosecuting a war of aggression, how can that be excused by citing the crimes of the country being attacked? at nuremberg, it was stated that a "war of aggression is the ultimate crime." there you go; the ultimate crime! what else do you need to know? a war of aggression is a very specific kind of war, by the way. it doesn't apply to a civil war, or to a revolutionary war. a war of aggression is the act of one sovereign state attacking another sovereign state without cause. countries have the right to defend themselves, just as people do, but wars of aggression are offensive wars, and that, no country has a right to do. this is why they spend so much time trying to explain them as wars of defense, or humanitarian interventions. this is why the media spins fabrications about supposed dictators who threaten us at every turn. hopefully, obama can begin to move away from such nonsense, but sadly, i remain skeptical, because i am aware of how power operates within our society. and furthermore, i am by no means certain that obama wants to move away from a militarist society. in fact, his words suggest that he is quite comfortable with various manifestations of american militarism. in truth, it is hard to imagine that he could have become president in this day and age if he wasn't comfortable with such militarism.
a 40 billion budget crisis in california? isn't warren buffet worth 500 billion? since he's such a "humanitarian," why doesn't he just unload a mere 8 percent of his wealth in order to help the people of our most populous state? better yet, why don't we have an economic and political structure that appropriates such wealth from the rich in order to ensure that the masses can work and live without fear of hardship? we have the wealth. through progressive taxation, wealth appropriation, and drastic cuts in the military and intelligence sectors, we could begin to address these issues. instead, we put our financial woes on the backs of workers through layoffs and cuts in valuable social services. and what is this furlough shit? are you serious? if somebody wants to choose to work less, than that's great, but to impose, at the state level, a reduction in the work week, is a crime against the worker. is the terminator also going to force landlords to charge 10% less for rent? is he going to force the supermarkets to charge 10% less for food? if not, than what right does he have to take 10% of the income away from the average state worker? he is essentially putting a gun to the head of the worker and demanding 10% of his pay. this is a crime when done by the mob or other street criminals, but supposedly legitimate when done by political leaders. hopefully, resistance will occur, though many of my cracker brethren will likely continue to put the blame on those being victimized by an economy that is driven by forces beyond their control. i am saddened by this vulgar state of affairs, but not surprised by it. this is what happens when you spend a trillion dollars on war while allowing grave economic injustices to persist. this is what occurs when 700 billion dollars are thrown at corporations while the state sector is purposefully starved of funds. it, and many other things, are the natural and logical result of a sick society.
at least i can still blog.
yes, but who is reading?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
