we at bhs care about the environment. today, some of our teachers elected to turn the lights off. i'm sure the earth felt the profound power of our action. speakers came and said many good things. they can't really be faulted for anything. for, you see, we are all doing our part. of course, no one mentioned how bad war is for the environment, or civilization, or big public schools, for that matter. no one really did anything. yes, some students "got involved." yes, some cards were signed. i suppose some people "learned." but, in the end, it felt fake, unreal, happily superficial. for, how can we care about the environment and bomb afghanistan? surely, there were many fascists who cared about the "earth," but today, we don't remember these heroes of yesteryear. will anyone remember us? and, if they do, what will they think of us?
today was low impact day, but what about monday? activism isn't a holiday, despite what our well fed "progressives" may think.
so, the speakers make speeches. young, well off white kids get to care. they will learn what we choose to teach them, which is quite little. a few of them will get it, eventually, but the rest will go merrily along, thinking that while we may have our problems, if we just sign enough cards and call enough congressmen, things will swing back our way. they will tinker at the edges. i recall a guy i knew who considered himself a radical leftist, and he proved it to me by saying that he had worked on the john kerry campaign. these "committed" kids will bemoan corporate abuses, but will never learn to question the legitimacy of the corporate state. they will sing the praises of obama and other democratic duds, either not knowing or not caring about the actual policies of the politicians they admire. of course, these same students and their mediocre mentors will rail against the republicans for instituting the same policies. a teacher i work with, quite intelligent, and certainly, not a bad person, will soon show the class "an inconvenient truth." meanwhile, "as the world burns" will go unread, as will gore's actual environmental record when he had a chance to do something. just ask the indigenous people of columbia just what al gore thinks about "our mother." but, of course, our determined, dedicated environmentalist, who bikes to work, wears new balance, is a vegan, and probably wipes her ass with old college textbooks, will not mention the indigenous of columbia. for, we need good guys. we need to believe that change is possible.
yes, change may be possible, but not without a fight. and change is not possible if it is to come from the very same men who helped to create the problems.
turning the lights off won't do it.
it's as if your house was flooding, and your main concern was to make sure that your kitchen sink isn't dripping water.
we are fucked.
simple as that.
but, there ain't a high school in america that will swing with that message.
there's no money in it. no grants. no articles in the local paper. it doesn't make us feel good.
in the end, that's all we really care about...ourselves.
and, that's why we are fucked.
america, turn off the lights.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Super Rich are Laughing
The US as Failed State
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The US has every characteristic of a failed state.
The US government’s current operating budget is dependent on foreign financing and money creation.
Too politically weak to be able to advance its interests through diplomacy, the US relies on terrorism and military aggression.
Costs are out of control, and priorities are skewed in the interest of rich organized interest groups at the expense of the vast majority of citizens. For example, war at all cost, which enriches the armaments industry, the officer corps and the financial firms that handle the war’s financing, takes precedence over the needs of American citizens. There is no money to provide the uninsured with health care, but Pentagon officials have told the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in the House that every gallon of gasoline delivered to US troops in Afghanistan costs American taxpayers $400.
“It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome,” said Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the subcommittee.
According to reports, the US Marines in Afghanistan use 800,000 gallons of gasoline per day. At $400 per gallon, that comes to a $320,000,000 daily fuel bill for the Marines alone. Only a country totally out of control would squander resources in this way.
While the US government squanders $400 per gallon of gasoline in order to kill women and children in Afghanistan, many millions of Americans have lost their jobs and their homes and are experiencing the kind of misery that is the daily life of poor third world peoples. Americans are living in their cars and in public parks. America’s cities, towns, and states are suffering from the costs of economic dislocations and the reduction in tax revenues from the economy’s decline. Yet, Obama has sent more troops to Afghanistan, a country half way around the world that is not a threat to America.
It costs $750,000 per year for each soldier we have in Afghanistan. The soldiers, who are at risk of life and limb, are paid a pittance, but all of the privatized services to the military are rolling in excess profits. One of the great frauds perpetuated on the American people was the privatization of services that the US military traditionally performed for itself. “Our” elected leaders could not resist any opportunity to create at taxpayers’ expense private wealth that could be recycled to politicians in campaign contributions.
Republicans and Democrats on the take from the private insurance companies maintain that the US cannot afford to provide Americans with health care and that cuts must be made even in Social Security and Medicare. So how can the US afford bankrupting wars, much less totally pointless wars that serve no American interest?
The enormous scale of foreign borrowing and money creation necessary to finance Washington’s wars are sending the dollar to historic lows. The dollar has even experienced large declines relative to currencies of third world countries such as Botswana and Brazil. The decline in the dollar’s value reduces the purchasing power of Americans’ already declining incomes.
Despite the lowest level of housing starts in 64 years, the US housing market is flooded with unsold homes, and financial institutions have a huge and rising inventory of foreclosed homes not yet on the market.
Industrial production has collapsed to the level of 1999, wiping out a decade of growth in industrial output.
The enormous bank reserves created by the Federal Reserve are not finding their way into the economy. Instead, the banks are hoarding the reserves as insurance against the fraudulent derivatives that they purchased from the gangster Wall Street investment banks.
The regulatory agencies have been corrupted by private interests. Frontline reports that Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Larry Summers blocked Brooksley Born, the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating derivatives. President Obama rewarded Larry Summers for his idiocy by appointing him Director of the National Economic Council. What this means is that profits for Wall Street will continue to be leeched from the diminishing blood supply of the American economy.
An unmistakable sign of third world despotism is a police force that sees the pubic as the enemy. Thanks to the federal government, our local police forces are now militarized and imbued with hostile attitudes toward the public. SWAT teams have proliferated, and even small towns now have police forces with the firepower of US Special Forces. Summons are increasingly delivered by SWAT teams that tyrannize citizens with broken down doors, a $400 or $500 repair born by the tyrannized resident. Recently a mayor and his family were the recipients of incompetence by the town’s local SWAT team, which mistakenly wrecked the mayor’s home, terrorized his family, and killed the family’s two friendly Labrador dogs.
If a town’s mayor can be treated in this way, what do you think is the fate of the poor white or black? Or the idealistic student who protests his government’s inhumanity?
In any failed state, the greatest threat to the population comes from the government and the police. That is certainly the situation today in the USA. Americans have no greater enemy than their own government. Washington is controlled by interest groups that enrich themselves at the expense of the American people.
The one percent that comprise the superrich are laughing as they say, “let them eat cake.”
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
The US as Failed State
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The US has every characteristic of a failed state.
The US government’s current operating budget is dependent on foreign financing and money creation.
Too politically weak to be able to advance its interests through diplomacy, the US relies on terrorism and military aggression.
Costs are out of control, and priorities are skewed in the interest of rich organized interest groups at the expense of the vast majority of citizens. For example, war at all cost, which enriches the armaments industry, the officer corps and the financial firms that handle the war’s financing, takes precedence over the needs of American citizens. There is no money to provide the uninsured with health care, but Pentagon officials have told the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in the House that every gallon of gasoline delivered to US troops in Afghanistan costs American taxpayers $400.
“It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome,” said Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the subcommittee.
According to reports, the US Marines in Afghanistan use 800,000 gallons of gasoline per day. At $400 per gallon, that comes to a $320,000,000 daily fuel bill for the Marines alone. Only a country totally out of control would squander resources in this way.
While the US government squanders $400 per gallon of gasoline in order to kill women and children in Afghanistan, many millions of Americans have lost their jobs and their homes and are experiencing the kind of misery that is the daily life of poor third world peoples. Americans are living in their cars and in public parks. America’s cities, towns, and states are suffering from the costs of economic dislocations and the reduction in tax revenues from the economy’s decline. Yet, Obama has sent more troops to Afghanistan, a country half way around the world that is not a threat to America.
It costs $750,000 per year for each soldier we have in Afghanistan. The soldiers, who are at risk of life and limb, are paid a pittance, but all of the privatized services to the military are rolling in excess profits. One of the great frauds perpetuated on the American people was the privatization of services that the US military traditionally performed for itself. “Our” elected leaders could not resist any opportunity to create at taxpayers’ expense private wealth that could be recycled to politicians in campaign contributions.
Republicans and Democrats on the take from the private insurance companies maintain that the US cannot afford to provide Americans with health care and that cuts must be made even in Social Security and Medicare. So how can the US afford bankrupting wars, much less totally pointless wars that serve no American interest?
The enormous scale of foreign borrowing and money creation necessary to finance Washington’s wars are sending the dollar to historic lows. The dollar has even experienced large declines relative to currencies of third world countries such as Botswana and Brazil. The decline in the dollar’s value reduces the purchasing power of Americans’ already declining incomes.
Despite the lowest level of housing starts in 64 years, the US housing market is flooded with unsold homes, and financial institutions have a huge and rising inventory of foreclosed homes not yet on the market.
Industrial production has collapsed to the level of 1999, wiping out a decade of growth in industrial output.
The enormous bank reserves created by the Federal Reserve are not finding their way into the economy. Instead, the banks are hoarding the reserves as insurance against the fraudulent derivatives that they purchased from the gangster Wall Street investment banks.
The regulatory agencies have been corrupted by private interests. Frontline reports that Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Larry Summers blocked Brooksley Born, the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating derivatives. President Obama rewarded Larry Summers for his idiocy by appointing him Director of the National Economic Council. What this means is that profits for Wall Street will continue to be leeched from the diminishing blood supply of the American economy.
An unmistakable sign of third world despotism is a police force that sees the pubic as the enemy. Thanks to the federal government, our local police forces are now militarized and imbued with hostile attitudes toward the public. SWAT teams have proliferated, and even small towns now have police forces with the firepower of US Special Forces. Summons are increasingly delivered by SWAT teams that tyrannize citizens with broken down doors, a $400 or $500 repair born by the tyrannized resident. Recently a mayor and his family were the recipients of incompetence by the town’s local SWAT team, which mistakenly wrecked the mayor’s home, terrorized his family, and killed the family’s two friendly Labrador dogs.
If a town’s mayor can be treated in this way, what do you think is the fate of the poor white or black? Or the idealistic student who protests his government’s inhumanity?
In any failed state, the greatest threat to the population comes from the government and the police. That is certainly the situation today in the USA. Americans have no greater enemy than their own government. Washington is controlled by interest groups that enrich themselves at the expense of the American people.
The one percent that comprise the superrich are laughing as they say, “let them eat cake.”
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Thursday, October 22, 2009
moore lies
double m, michael moore, has done it again. the big man plays fast and loose with the truth. that we know. but, the details demand repeating.
moore recently appeared on the jimmy kimmel show. on the show, he was asked about a meeting he had recently had with chavez at the un. it seems that chavez and moore had met for three hours, but moore asked that no photos be taken, as the meeting "would make him look bad." (contrast this with oliver stone, who just filmed a movie on chavez.) however, a few shots were snapped, so the meeting became public. in the photos, the two men are dressed in suits, and are sitting at a dinner table. but, facts have never meant a great deal to moore, so he went on to tell a tall tale. in his words, he heard a racket in a hotel room a floor below him. this "racket" was taking place at 2 in the morning, so us clever viewers of kimmel were sure to get the drift of what chavez was supposedly doing. incredulously, moore then proceeds to go down to inspect. he knocks on the door, and a hulking man answers. the man then lets him in! my, it's getting quite easy to intrude on presidents in the middle of the night. perhaps, i'll drop by on the big o in the wee small hours, for a little late night snack. in any case, moore then noticed a couple of bottles of tequila. likely this was the only latino liquor that moore could think of. supposedly, chavez then invited moore to sit by his bed, and the two began to chat. amazingly, chavez then asked moore to help him with his upcoming un speech! chavez, mind you, is a noted public speaker who often doesn't even read written speeches. rather, he improvises, going where his heart and head tell him to. it is beyond belief that chavez would have been unprepared for such a speech, or that he would have turned to moore for help, especially considering he had no clue in this tale that he was going to be meeting moore.
the next day, moore was watching tv, when he caught a glimpse of chavez speaking at the un. incredibly, chavez was using the very same words moore had supposedly written for him the night before!
wow...in this story, moore riffs on common latino stereotypes. here, chavez is a party animal. here, chavez is a heavy drinker. here, chavez is sex crazed. here, chavez is a believer in the "manana is good enough for me philosophy," in that he has not prepared for a vital talk just hours away, preferring to get his groove on instead.
also, moore has once again managed to stroke his own ego. this time, he is writing speeches for leaders. also, in this tale, moore gets to flex his patriotic credentials, for supposedly, moore told chavez to apologize for calling bush the devil. apparently, it's ok for moore to mercilessly mock bush in film, as moore is a blue eyed, white skinned north american. i guess chavez doesn't have the same freedom to speak the truth, at least in moore's eyes.
so, moore is doing many things at once here...demonizing and mocking an "enemy" of the u.s., overrating his own importance, and stereotyping latinos.
sounds like a true progressive.
white american style.
and to think that chavez is actually attacking capitalism, as opposed to talking about attacking capitalism.
for, you see, there is no money in the actual attacking. and the other side has guns and tanks and bombs they aren't afraid to use. so, better to appear on late night tv, and make movies, and grow fat, literally and figuratively, from the profits, and most importantly, to mock the men who are actually challenging american capitalism.
that will ensure more moore on late night tv, and mainstream theater screenings, and favorable reviews.
if moore is a progressive, it may be time to regress.
moore recently appeared on the jimmy kimmel show. on the show, he was asked about a meeting he had recently had with chavez at the un. it seems that chavez and moore had met for three hours, but moore asked that no photos be taken, as the meeting "would make him look bad." (contrast this with oliver stone, who just filmed a movie on chavez.) however, a few shots were snapped, so the meeting became public. in the photos, the two men are dressed in suits, and are sitting at a dinner table. but, facts have never meant a great deal to moore, so he went on to tell a tall tale. in his words, he heard a racket in a hotel room a floor below him. this "racket" was taking place at 2 in the morning, so us clever viewers of kimmel were sure to get the drift of what chavez was supposedly doing. incredulously, moore then proceeds to go down to inspect. he knocks on the door, and a hulking man answers. the man then lets him in! my, it's getting quite easy to intrude on presidents in the middle of the night. perhaps, i'll drop by on the big o in the wee small hours, for a little late night snack. in any case, moore then noticed a couple of bottles of tequila. likely this was the only latino liquor that moore could think of. supposedly, chavez then invited moore to sit by his bed, and the two began to chat. amazingly, chavez then asked moore to help him with his upcoming un speech! chavez, mind you, is a noted public speaker who often doesn't even read written speeches. rather, he improvises, going where his heart and head tell him to. it is beyond belief that chavez would have been unprepared for such a speech, or that he would have turned to moore for help, especially considering he had no clue in this tale that he was going to be meeting moore.
the next day, moore was watching tv, when he caught a glimpse of chavez speaking at the un. incredibly, chavez was using the very same words moore had supposedly written for him the night before!
wow...in this story, moore riffs on common latino stereotypes. here, chavez is a party animal. here, chavez is a heavy drinker. here, chavez is sex crazed. here, chavez is a believer in the "manana is good enough for me philosophy," in that he has not prepared for a vital talk just hours away, preferring to get his groove on instead.
also, moore has once again managed to stroke his own ego. this time, he is writing speeches for leaders. also, in this tale, moore gets to flex his patriotic credentials, for supposedly, moore told chavez to apologize for calling bush the devil. apparently, it's ok for moore to mercilessly mock bush in film, as moore is a blue eyed, white skinned north american. i guess chavez doesn't have the same freedom to speak the truth, at least in moore's eyes.
so, moore is doing many things at once here...demonizing and mocking an "enemy" of the u.s., overrating his own importance, and stereotyping latinos.
sounds like a true progressive.
white american style.
and to think that chavez is actually attacking capitalism, as opposed to talking about attacking capitalism.
for, you see, there is no money in the actual attacking. and the other side has guns and tanks and bombs they aren't afraid to use. so, better to appear on late night tv, and make movies, and grow fat, literally and figuratively, from the profits, and most importantly, to mock the men who are actually challenging american capitalism.
that will ensure more moore on late night tv, and mainstream theater screenings, and favorable reviews.
if moore is a progressive, it may be time to regress.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
and the saddest thing of all was that we cared about the wrong things
a student shows up 20 minutes late. you would think the class was being bombed. what will the future generations say, if there are future generations? they will say that while the bombs were falling, while the food was being poisoned, while poverty was rampant, while various bigotries battered our brutalized earth, we cared about people being on time.
and on time for what? if they were on time, what would they learn? it brings to mind the line in sleeper..."prepare subject for a thorough brainwash." just what is our educational establishment in place for? if there was real learning going on, perhaps one could justify caring about students being on time. but, of course, true learning is done by choice. when you want to learn something, you take time to learn it. this truth explains why things are learned in the first place.
if i may reach for a comparison, it is like comparing rape with consensual sex. one is forced upon you, the other is a choice freely made. that is why 1984 reads better when you read it on your own, as opposed to it being on your school's summer reading list.
forced learning is an oxymoron. and, just what is it that this culture has to teach us? in five years at "one of the best public schools in the country," i have yet to see a student with a william blum book, or a barry harris cd. there is much to learn, and one will never learn it in the educational establishments created by the culture that is killing truth.
so, the student was 20 minutes late? perhaps he got some extra sleep, an activity much more important than sitting in a banal classroom. maybe the young man was eating, another activity more essential than taking notes on a plethora of information that will be forgotten as soon as the next quiz is completed.
eating, sleeping, sitting in a classroom.
the animals, which we once were, and still are, suicidal tendencies aside, can all figure out which choices to make.
sadly, our society can't.
and the future generations?
they will surely say that the saddest thing was, they cared about the wrong things.
and on time for what? if they were on time, what would they learn? it brings to mind the line in sleeper..."prepare subject for a thorough brainwash." just what is our educational establishment in place for? if there was real learning going on, perhaps one could justify caring about students being on time. but, of course, true learning is done by choice. when you want to learn something, you take time to learn it. this truth explains why things are learned in the first place.
if i may reach for a comparison, it is like comparing rape with consensual sex. one is forced upon you, the other is a choice freely made. that is why 1984 reads better when you read it on your own, as opposed to it being on your school's summer reading list.
forced learning is an oxymoron. and, just what is it that this culture has to teach us? in five years at "one of the best public schools in the country," i have yet to see a student with a william blum book, or a barry harris cd. there is much to learn, and one will never learn it in the educational establishments created by the culture that is killing truth.
so, the student was 20 minutes late? perhaps he got some extra sleep, an activity much more important than sitting in a banal classroom. maybe the young man was eating, another activity more essential than taking notes on a plethora of information that will be forgotten as soon as the next quiz is completed.
eating, sleeping, sitting in a classroom.
the animals, which we once were, and still are, suicidal tendencies aside, can all figure out which choices to make.
sadly, our society can't.
and the future generations?
they will surely say that the saddest thing was, they cared about the wrong things.
Monday, October 12, 2009
gays in the military?
will obama end "don't ask, don't tell?" well, maybe he will, and maybe he won't. but, if you want gay people in the military, that means you want people in the military, and people in the military is the problem. will it help bombed villagers in afghanistan to know that those who killed them are gay? "hey, i don't mind being blown up, as long as i'm being murdered by a homosexual!"
it brings to mind my old gag about a tribute at umass given years ago to black korean war veterans. supposedly, these guys were forgotten heroes. i joked at the time that the tribute could have been titled "we kill people too."
the problem isn't who is in the military, the problem is the military itself. so, if "don't ask, don't tell" is ended someday, then what? what of the wars themselves? when will they be ended? a true progressive movement would be doing what it could to end the wars, and to expose the military as a violent, sexist, racist, homophobic institution. in short, it is the last place a decent gay person, or straight person, should be in.
a progressive moment challenges power. it doesn't try to find its place within existing power structures. the military is the dominant mode of power in american life. to ask for equality within it is to accept its power. it legitimizes it, acknowledges it as decent, as something worthy of belonging to.
but, as groucho once said "i don't want to be a part of any group that would have me as a member."
not all things are worth joining. sometimes, there are things that trump equal rights. do we want equal rights to commit evil acts? is there a movement that says both men and women should have an equal right to abuse their children, rape their servants, beat their dogs? the problem is the abuse, not the gender of who is doing the abusing. similarly, the problem with the military is that it is used to kill people, not whether the person bombing brown people is allowed to openly express their sexuality as they do so.
some may want gays in the military. i want all people out of the military. i want equal rights for gay civilians, but as far as i'm concerned, once you join the service, i'm rooting for the road team.
have these avid would be abolishers of "don't ask, don't tell" stopped to think of how many gay people have been killed in war? if more gays serve in combat, they will surely kill thousands of fellow gays around the world.
well, i suppose they won't ask them their sexual preferences before they bomb the shit out of them.
it brings to mind my old gag about a tribute at umass given years ago to black korean war veterans. supposedly, these guys were forgotten heroes. i joked at the time that the tribute could have been titled "we kill people too."
the problem isn't who is in the military, the problem is the military itself. so, if "don't ask, don't tell" is ended someday, then what? what of the wars themselves? when will they be ended? a true progressive movement would be doing what it could to end the wars, and to expose the military as a violent, sexist, racist, homophobic institution. in short, it is the last place a decent gay person, or straight person, should be in.
a progressive moment challenges power. it doesn't try to find its place within existing power structures. the military is the dominant mode of power in american life. to ask for equality within it is to accept its power. it legitimizes it, acknowledges it as decent, as something worthy of belonging to.
but, as groucho once said "i don't want to be a part of any group that would have me as a member."
not all things are worth joining. sometimes, there are things that trump equal rights. do we want equal rights to commit evil acts? is there a movement that says both men and women should have an equal right to abuse their children, rape their servants, beat their dogs? the problem is the abuse, not the gender of who is doing the abusing. similarly, the problem with the military is that it is used to kill people, not whether the person bombing brown people is allowed to openly express their sexuality as they do so.
some may want gays in the military. i want all people out of the military. i want equal rights for gay civilians, but as far as i'm concerned, once you join the service, i'm rooting for the road team.
have these avid would be abolishers of "don't ask, don't tell" stopped to think of how many gay people have been killed in war? if more gays serve in combat, they will surely kill thousands of fellow gays around the world.
well, i suppose they won't ask them their sexual preferences before they bomb the shit out of them.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
War and Peace
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
I suppose we should not begrudge Barack Obama his Nobel Peace Prize, though it represents a radical break in tradition, since he's only had slightly less than nine months to discharge his imperial duties, most concretely through the agency of high explosives in the Hindu Kush whereas laureates like Henry Kissinger had been diligently slaughtering people across the world for years.
Woodrow Wilson, the liberal imperialist with whom Obama bears some marked affinities, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919, having brought America into the carnage of the First World War. The peace laureate president who preceded him was Teddy Roosevelt, who got the prize in 1906 as reward for sponsorship of the Spanish-American war and ardent bloodletting in the Philippines. Senator George Hoar’s famous denunciation of Roosevelt on the floor of the US Senate in May of 1902 was probably what alerted the Nobel Committee to Roosevelt’s eligibility for the Peace Prize:
“You have sacrificed nearly ten thousand American lives—the flower of our youth. You have devastated provinces. You have slain uncounted thousands of the people you desire to benefit. You have established reconcentration camps. Your generals are coming home from their harvest bringing sheaves with them, in the shape of other thousands of sick and wounded and insane to drag out miserable lives, wrecked in body and mind. You make the American flag in the eyes of a numerous people the emblem of sacrilege in Christian churches, and of the burning of human dwellings, and of the horror of the water torture. ”
TR was given the peace prize not long after he’d displayed his boundless compassion for humanity by sponsoring an exhibition of Filipino “monkey men” in the 1904 St Louis World Fair as “the missing link” in the evolution of Man from ape to Aryan, and thus in sore need of assimilation, forcible if necessary, to the American way. On receipt of the prize, Roosevelt promptly dispatched the Great White Fleet (sixteen U.S. Navy ships of the Atlantic Fleet including four battleships) on a worldwide tour to display Uncle Sam’s imperial credentials, anticipating by scarce more than a century, Obama’s award, as he prepares to impose Pax Americana on the Hindukush and portions of Pakistan.
People marvel at the idiocy of these Nobel awards, but there’s method in the madness, since in the end they train people to accept without demur or protest absurdity as part and parcel of the human condition, which they should accept as representing the considered opinion of rational men, albeit Norwegian. It’s a twist on the Alger myth, inspiring to youth: you too can get to murder Filipinos, or Palestinians, or Vietnamese or Afghans and still win a Peace Prize. That’s the audacity of hope at full stretch.
It’s dawning even on those predisposed to like the guy that when it comes to burning issues the first black president of the United States truly hates to come down on one side or the other. He dreads making powerful people mad. He won’t stand up for his own people when they’re being savaged by the nutball right, edges them out, then has his press secretary claim that they jumped of their own accord. This may impress the peaceniks of Oslo, but from the American perspective he's looking like a wimp.
Obama’s Afghan policy evolved on the campaign trail last year as a one-liner designed to deflect charges that he was a peacenik on Iraq. Not so, he cried. The Global War on Terror was being fought in the wrong place. His pledge was to hunt down and “kill” Osama bin Laden.
Once ensconced in the Oval Office Obama, invoking “bipartiship”, instantly nailed a white flag to the mast by keeping on Robert Gates, Bush’s secretary of defense.
He formed a foreign policy team mostly composed of Clinton-era neo-liberal hawks, headed by Hilary Clinton and Richard Holbrook. His next step was to eject the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, and install Gen. Stanley McChrystal, best known for running the assassination wing of the military's joint special-operations command. (JSOC). Then he ordered 17,000 new US troops to be deployed to Afghanistan.
It was a fine exhibition of Obama’s eerie skill - also demonstrated in the politicking over health reform - in foreclosing his own range of choices and allowing opponents to coalesce and seize the initiative. If, on his second day in office he’d announced a full and complete review of US aims in Afghanistan, with no option left off the table he’d have had some purchase on the situation. But the months drifted by and finally the worsening situation forced a review of Afghan policy, precisely when Obama’s poll numbers were dropping, the war lobby heartened and the liberals already dejected by Obama’s surrender to Goldman Sachs and Wall Street and disastrous efforts in the health fight.
At this point fate handed Obama a golden opportunity. With astounding insolence Gen. McChrystal began to conduct a public lobbying campaign for his appeal for 40,000 more troops. His rationale for new troops ended up in the hands of Bob Woodward of the Washington Post.
Harry Truman was an indifferent president who needlessly dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, designed to intimidate Stalin. He launched the cold war arms race in 1948. Yet Americans venerate him for two things: the sign on his desk saying the buck stops here, and his dramatic firing of war hero Gen. Douglas MacArthur, for insubordination in challenging Truman’s overall direction of the war in Korea (not to mention Truman's fears of likely MacArthur excess in administering plans being carefully evolved in Truman’s high command to deploy and use nuclear weapons on the Koran peninsula.)
Truman didn’t allow MacArthur time to stage a grandiose resignation. In April, 1951, he fired him on late night radio, announcing that "With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the U.S. Government and of the U.N. in matters pertaining to his official duties. In view of the specific responsibilities imposed upon me by the Constitution of the U.S. …I have decided that I must make a change in command in the Far East. I have, therefore, relieved General MacArthur of his command.”
It’s clear that McChrystal stepped over the line conclusively in his speech in London at the Institute for Strategic Studies where he contemptuously dismissed the “small footprint” counter-terrorism strategy proposed by Vice President Joe Biden and Senator John Kerry, saying that it would lead to Afghanistan becoming Chaos-istan. Obama’s National Security Advisor, Gen Jim Jones declared that it would have been better that McChrystal’s criticisms had come up through the Army’s chain of command. That was the moment Obama could have fired McChrystal for MacArthur’s offense – insubordination and defiance of civilian control of military policy.
McChrystal is no war hero, like McArthur. People crave some evidence that Obama has steel in his soul. High risk, maybe, but potentially a huge coup for Obama at a fraught political moment, also a brisk exit from the humiliation of the failed booster trip to Copenhagen to win the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. Obama did nothing, except further irk his liberal base by saying withdrawal isn’t an option. Pundits solemnly explained that given Democrats’ distaste for the war in Afghanistan – backed by strong popular hostility, Obama might have to go to Republicans to get the votes for the necessary appropriations of money.
It’s all much too late for any sensible policy review. There have been two moments in the last 40 years when life might have improved for ordinary Afghans, particularly women. The first came with the the reforming left regime of the late 1970s, destroyed by the warlords with US backing. The second arrived with the US eviction of the Taliban in 2001-2, which was welcomed by many Afghans. But at this stage in the game, simply by definition, no American intervention overseas can be anything other than a ghastly disaster, usually bloodstained. Allready the US had too many chits out to the warlords of the Northern Alliance. The US “nation building” apparat is irreversibly corrupt – with a network of $250,000 a year consultancies, insider contracts, and beyond that a de facto stake in the drug industry now supply most of the West’s heroin and opium.
There’s no possible light at the end of any tunnel. The robot war via Predator missiles and other instruments in the arsenal infuriates all Afghans, as wedding parties are blown to bits every weekend. With more troops and mercenaries now in Afghanistan than during the Russian military presence at its peak, there’s zero chance for America playing a long-term constructive role in Afghanistan. The US presence is just a recruiting poster for the Taliban.
But Obama has now surrounded himself with just the same breed of intellectuals who persuaded Lyndon Johnson to destroy his presidency by escalating the war. They’re easily as mad as the bible thumper I heard last week on my truck radio as I drove over the Tehachapi pass on route 58, between Barstow and Bakersfield. Harold Camping, president of Family Stations Ministry, was patiently explaining that God’s plan was to end the world by flooding on May 21, 2011, thus trumping the end of the Mayan calendar, December 21, 2012. In the Biblical perspective 5/21/2011 is the end of the world. The elect will be saved, the rest will perish, not even given brief probation like the inhabitants of Nineveh. Camping's voice was calm and seemingly rational , no doubt like those of the men and women briefing Obama. A doubter called in, emphasizing that he was a 100 per cent believer in the veracity of each line in the Bible, but how to explain verse 4 of the ninetieth psalm? “For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night”? Why had the divine author permitted himself the ambiguity of simile? Camping plunged confidently into biblical numerology: God revealed to Noah in the year 4990 BC that there would be yet 7 days until the flood of waters would be upon the earth. Substitute 1000 years for each one of those 7 days, and we get 7000 years. And when we project 7000 years into the future from 4990 BC, we find that it falls on the year 2011 AD. 4990 + 2011 = 7001. He counseled us to remember, when counting from an Old Testament date to a New Testament date, always to subtract one year because there is no year zero, resulting in: 4990 + 2011 – 1 = 7000 years exactly.
But May 21? On May 21, 1988, God finished using the churches and congregations of the world. The Spirit of God left all churches and Satan entered into the churches to rule at that point in time. The Bible decrees that this period of judgment upon the churches wil last for 23 years. A full 23 years (8400 days exactly) would be from May 21, 1988 until May 21, 2011. Camping took pains to remind his vast world audience that this information was discovered in the Bible completely apart from the information regarding the 7000 years from the flood.
At this point the geological contours of the Tehachapi pass interrupted the radio signal and soon I was descending into the inferno of sunset over Bakersfield. Is Campoing madder than the augurers who have been counseling Obama on his Afghan policy? Is his devoted audience more gullible than the President?
Last week Obama invited Republicans as well as Democrats to the White House for further review of the options. Obama has let events overtake him, exactly as he allowed the health policy debate to spin out of his control in the summer and early fall. He'll shoot for some sort of lethal semi-compromise on reinforcements, thus feeding the right and angering his liberal supporters. A year from now he’ll be paying the penalty in the mid-term elections, just as Clinton did.
Anthropology at War
Don’t miss the marvelous new edition of our Subscriber-Only Newsletter. David Price, an anthropologist and season contributor to CounterPunch excavates a story of particular relevance right now: the way the Pentagon is recruiting PhDs to fight its counter-insurgency campaigns: today Afghanistan, tomorrow the world. Price writes:
“While political science was the academic discipline, which the wars of the twentieth century drew upon, the asymmetrical wars of the twenty-first century now look toward anthropology with hopes of finding models of culture, or data on specific cultures, to be conquered or to be used in counterinsurgency operations. ..
“The counterinsurgency program generating the greatest friction among anthropologists is the Human Terrain Systems (HTS) – a program with over 400 employees, originally operating through private contractors and now in the process of being taken over by the U.S. Army. Human Terrain embeds anthropologists with military units to ease the occupation and conquest of Iraqi and Afghanis – with plans to extend these operations in Africa through expanding units with AFRICOM. Some HTS social scientists are armed, others choose not to. In the last two years, three HTS social scientists have been killed in the course of their work, and HTS member Don Ayala recently pled guilty in U.S. District Court to killing the Afghan (whom Ayala shot in the head-execution style while the victim was detained with his hands cuffed behind him) who had attacked THS social scientist Paula Loyd…
“Supporters of HTS claim the program uses embedded social scientists to help reduce “kinetic engagements,” or unnecessary violent contacts with the populations they encounter. The idea is to use these social scientists to interact with members of the community, creating liaison relationships between occupiers and occupied, as well as using HTS’s social scientists’ cultural knowledge to reduce misunderstandings that can lead to unnecessarily violent interactions.”
HTS has been selling itself to the public through remarkably well-organized domestic propaganda campaigns that have seen dozens of uncritical articles on HTS , with personality profiles on HTS’s personnel appearing in American newspapers, The New Yorker, Harpers, Elle, More, etc.) In his essay, exclusive to the newsletter, Price lays out the full, ugly story of these recipes for “better killing”.
Also in the newsletter: Mark Grueter reports from Sulaimani, Iraqi Kurdistan, on a multi-million dollar campus designed to sell the American way of life. Welcome to the American University of Iraq. “Move your ass and your brains will follow”: Joe Paff remembers an astounding mobilization in San Francisco, 1967-1973 and the lessons it holds for left organizers today.
Subscribe today!
Alexander Cockburn can be reached at alexandercockburn@asis.com
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
I suppose we should not begrudge Barack Obama his Nobel Peace Prize, though it represents a radical break in tradition, since he's only had slightly less than nine months to discharge his imperial duties, most concretely through the agency of high explosives in the Hindu Kush whereas laureates like Henry Kissinger had been diligently slaughtering people across the world for years.
Woodrow Wilson, the liberal imperialist with whom Obama bears some marked affinities, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919, having brought America into the carnage of the First World War. The peace laureate president who preceded him was Teddy Roosevelt, who got the prize in 1906 as reward for sponsorship of the Spanish-American war and ardent bloodletting in the Philippines. Senator George Hoar’s famous denunciation of Roosevelt on the floor of the US Senate in May of 1902 was probably what alerted the Nobel Committee to Roosevelt’s eligibility for the Peace Prize:
“You have sacrificed nearly ten thousand American lives—the flower of our youth. You have devastated provinces. You have slain uncounted thousands of the people you desire to benefit. You have established reconcentration camps. Your generals are coming home from their harvest bringing sheaves with them, in the shape of other thousands of sick and wounded and insane to drag out miserable lives, wrecked in body and mind. You make the American flag in the eyes of a numerous people the emblem of sacrilege in Christian churches, and of the burning of human dwellings, and of the horror of the water torture. ”
TR was given the peace prize not long after he’d displayed his boundless compassion for humanity by sponsoring an exhibition of Filipino “monkey men” in the 1904 St Louis World Fair as “the missing link” in the evolution of Man from ape to Aryan, and thus in sore need of assimilation, forcible if necessary, to the American way. On receipt of the prize, Roosevelt promptly dispatched the Great White Fleet (sixteen U.S. Navy ships of the Atlantic Fleet including four battleships) on a worldwide tour to display Uncle Sam’s imperial credentials, anticipating by scarce more than a century, Obama’s award, as he prepares to impose Pax Americana on the Hindukush and portions of Pakistan.
People marvel at the idiocy of these Nobel awards, but there’s method in the madness, since in the end they train people to accept without demur or protest absurdity as part and parcel of the human condition, which they should accept as representing the considered opinion of rational men, albeit Norwegian. It’s a twist on the Alger myth, inspiring to youth: you too can get to murder Filipinos, or Palestinians, or Vietnamese or Afghans and still win a Peace Prize. That’s the audacity of hope at full stretch.
It’s dawning even on those predisposed to like the guy that when it comes to burning issues the first black president of the United States truly hates to come down on one side or the other. He dreads making powerful people mad. He won’t stand up for his own people when they’re being savaged by the nutball right, edges them out, then has his press secretary claim that they jumped of their own accord. This may impress the peaceniks of Oslo, but from the American perspective he's looking like a wimp.
Obama’s Afghan policy evolved on the campaign trail last year as a one-liner designed to deflect charges that he was a peacenik on Iraq. Not so, he cried. The Global War on Terror was being fought in the wrong place. His pledge was to hunt down and “kill” Osama bin Laden.
Once ensconced in the Oval Office Obama, invoking “bipartiship”, instantly nailed a white flag to the mast by keeping on Robert Gates, Bush’s secretary of defense.
He formed a foreign policy team mostly composed of Clinton-era neo-liberal hawks, headed by Hilary Clinton and Richard Holbrook. His next step was to eject the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, and install Gen. Stanley McChrystal, best known for running the assassination wing of the military's joint special-operations command. (JSOC). Then he ordered 17,000 new US troops to be deployed to Afghanistan.
It was a fine exhibition of Obama’s eerie skill - also demonstrated in the politicking over health reform - in foreclosing his own range of choices and allowing opponents to coalesce and seize the initiative. If, on his second day in office he’d announced a full and complete review of US aims in Afghanistan, with no option left off the table he’d have had some purchase on the situation. But the months drifted by and finally the worsening situation forced a review of Afghan policy, precisely when Obama’s poll numbers were dropping, the war lobby heartened and the liberals already dejected by Obama’s surrender to Goldman Sachs and Wall Street and disastrous efforts in the health fight.
At this point fate handed Obama a golden opportunity. With astounding insolence Gen. McChrystal began to conduct a public lobbying campaign for his appeal for 40,000 more troops. His rationale for new troops ended up in the hands of Bob Woodward of the Washington Post.
Harry Truman was an indifferent president who needlessly dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, designed to intimidate Stalin. He launched the cold war arms race in 1948. Yet Americans venerate him for two things: the sign on his desk saying the buck stops here, and his dramatic firing of war hero Gen. Douglas MacArthur, for insubordination in challenging Truman’s overall direction of the war in Korea (not to mention Truman's fears of likely MacArthur excess in administering plans being carefully evolved in Truman’s high command to deploy and use nuclear weapons on the Koran peninsula.)
Truman didn’t allow MacArthur time to stage a grandiose resignation. In April, 1951, he fired him on late night radio, announcing that "With deep regret I have concluded that General of the Army Douglas MacArthur is unable to give his wholehearted support to the policies of the U.S. Government and of the U.N. in matters pertaining to his official duties. In view of the specific responsibilities imposed upon me by the Constitution of the U.S. …I have decided that I must make a change in command in the Far East. I have, therefore, relieved General MacArthur of his command.”
It’s clear that McChrystal stepped over the line conclusively in his speech in London at the Institute for Strategic Studies where he contemptuously dismissed the “small footprint” counter-terrorism strategy proposed by Vice President Joe Biden and Senator John Kerry, saying that it would lead to Afghanistan becoming Chaos-istan. Obama’s National Security Advisor, Gen Jim Jones declared that it would have been better that McChrystal’s criticisms had come up through the Army’s chain of command. That was the moment Obama could have fired McChrystal for MacArthur’s offense – insubordination and defiance of civilian control of military policy.
McChrystal is no war hero, like McArthur. People crave some evidence that Obama has steel in his soul. High risk, maybe, but potentially a huge coup for Obama at a fraught political moment, also a brisk exit from the humiliation of the failed booster trip to Copenhagen to win the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. Obama did nothing, except further irk his liberal base by saying withdrawal isn’t an option. Pundits solemnly explained that given Democrats’ distaste for the war in Afghanistan – backed by strong popular hostility, Obama might have to go to Republicans to get the votes for the necessary appropriations of money.
It’s all much too late for any sensible policy review. There have been two moments in the last 40 years when life might have improved for ordinary Afghans, particularly women. The first came with the the reforming left regime of the late 1970s, destroyed by the warlords with US backing. The second arrived with the US eviction of the Taliban in 2001-2, which was welcomed by many Afghans. But at this stage in the game, simply by definition, no American intervention overseas can be anything other than a ghastly disaster, usually bloodstained. Allready the US had too many chits out to the warlords of the Northern Alliance. The US “nation building” apparat is irreversibly corrupt – with a network of $250,000 a year consultancies, insider contracts, and beyond that a de facto stake in the drug industry now supply most of the West’s heroin and opium.
There’s no possible light at the end of any tunnel. The robot war via Predator missiles and other instruments in the arsenal infuriates all Afghans, as wedding parties are blown to bits every weekend. With more troops and mercenaries now in Afghanistan than during the Russian military presence at its peak, there’s zero chance for America playing a long-term constructive role in Afghanistan. The US presence is just a recruiting poster for the Taliban.
But Obama has now surrounded himself with just the same breed of intellectuals who persuaded Lyndon Johnson to destroy his presidency by escalating the war. They’re easily as mad as the bible thumper I heard last week on my truck radio as I drove over the Tehachapi pass on route 58, between Barstow and Bakersfield. Harold Camping, president of Family Stations Ministry, was patiently explaining that God’s plan was to end the world by flooding on May 21, 2011, thus trumping the end of the Mayan calendar, December 21, 2012. In the Biblical perspective 5/21/2011 is the end of the world. The elect will be saved, the rest will perish, not even given brief probation like the inhabitants of Nineveh. Camping's voice was calm and seemingly rational , no doubt like those of the men and women briefing Obama. A doubter called in, emphasizing that he was a 100 per cent believer in the veracity of each line in the Bible, but how to explain verse 4 of the ninetieth psalm? “For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night”? Why had the divine author permitted himself the ambiguity of simile? Camping plunged confidently into biblical numerology: God revealed to Noah in the year 4990 BC that there would be yet 7 days until the flood of waters would be upon the earth. Substitute 1000 years for each one of those 7 days, and we get 7000 years. And when we project 7000 years into the future from 4990 BC, we find that it falls on the year 2011 AD. 4990 + 2011 = 7001. He counseled us to remember, when counting from an Old Testament date to a New Testament date, always to subtract one year because there is no year zero, resulting in: 4990 + 2011 – 1 = 7000 years exactly.
But May 21? On May 21, 1988, God finished using the churches and congregations of the world. The Spirit of God left all churches and Satan entered into the churches to rule at that point in time. The Bible decrees that this period of judgment upon the churches wil last for 23 years. A full 23 years (8400 days exactly) would be from May 21, 1988 until May 21, 2011. Camping took pains to remind his vast world audience that this information was discovered in the Bible completely apart from the information regarding the 7000 years from the flood.
At this point the geological contours of the Tehachapi pass interrupted the radio signal and soon I was descending into the inferno of sunset over Bakersfield. Is Campoing madder than the augurers who have been counseling Obama on his Afghan policy? Is his devoted audience more gullible than the President?
Last week Obama invited Republicans as well as Democrats to the White House for further review of the options. Obama has let events overtake him, exactly as he allowed the health policy debate to spin out of his control in the summer and early fall. He'll shoot for some sort of lethal semi-compromise on reinforcements, thus feeding the right and angering his liberal supporters. A year from now he’ll be paying the penalty in the mid-term elections, just as Clinton did.
Anthropology at War
Don’t miss the marvelous new edition of our Subscriber-Only Newsletter. David Price, an anthropologist and season contributor to CounterPunch excavates a story of particular relevance right now: the way the Pentagon is recruiting PhDs to fight its counter-insurgency campaigns: today Afghanistan, tomorrow the world. Price writes:
“While political science was the academic discipline, which the wars of the twentieth century drew upon, the asymmetrical wars of the twenty-first century now look toward anthropology with hopes of finding models of culture, or data on specific cultures, to be conquered or to be used in counterinsurgency operations. ..
“The counterinsurgency program generating the greatest friction among anthropologists is the Human Terrain Systems (HTS) – a program with over 400 employees, originally operating through private contractors and now in the process of being taken over by the U.S. Army. Human Terrain embeds anthropologists with military units to ease the occupation and conquest of Iraqi and Afghanis – with plans to extend these operations in Africa through expanding units with AFRICOM. Some HTS social scientists are armed, others choose not to. In the last two years, three HTS social scientists have been killed in the course of their work, and HTS member Don Ayala recently pled guilty in U.S. District Court to killing the Afghan (whom Ayala shot in the head-execution style while the victim was detained with his hands cuffed behind him) who had attacked THS social scientist Paula Loyd…
“Supporters of HTS claim the program uses embedded social scientists to help reduce “kinetic engagements,” or unnecessary violent contacts with the populations they encounter. The idea is to use these social scientists to interact with members of the community, creating liaison relationships between occupiers and occupied, as well as using HTS’s social scientists’ cultural knowledge to reduce misunderstandings that can lead to unnecessarily violent interactions.”
HTS has been selling itself to the public through remarkably well-organized domestic propaganda campaigns that have seen dozens of uncritical articles on HTS , with personality profiles on HTS’s personnel appearing in American newspapers, The New Yorker, Harpers, Elle, More, etc.) In his essay, exclusive to the newsletter, Price lays out the full, ugly story of these recipes for “better killing”.
Also in the newsletter: Mark Grueter reports from Sulaimani, Iraqi Kurdistan, on a multi-million dollar campus designed to sell the American way of life. Welcome to the American University of Iraq. “Move your ass and your brains will follow”: Joe Paff remembers an astounding mobilization in San Francisco, 1967-1973 and the lessons it holds for left organizers today.
Subscribe today!
Alexander Cockburn can be reached at alexandercockburn@asis.com
peace prize?
while the bombs fall on afghanistan? while the drones fly over pakistan? while billions in military aid is given to israel? while iran is threatened? while a 600 billion dollar military budget is passed in the democratically controlled senate? while obama ponders a 40,000 troop increase in afghanistan? while the destruction of iraq continues?
of course, there should be no surprise. the nobel committee almost gave the 1938 prize to hitler. according to tariq ali, it was between hitler and gandhi, and since they couldn't choose between those too, they gave it to a group that helped refugees. but, other war criminals have won the reward, including the fellow i like to refer to as the "jewish nazi," henry kissinger. if you think that a strong nickname, ask the millions buried in the lands of vietnam, laos, cambodia, chile, indonesia, argentina, and elsewhere.
teddy roosevelt once won a nobel as well. he who took cuba from spain so he could keep it for himself. it would take 60 years, and a cat named castro, to change that ugly piece of peace. it was teddy the bear who devastated the philippines, killing hundreds of thousands of filipinos, who were guilty of wanting to be in charge of their own country. they say it was vietnam before vietnam. in short, teddy was a brutal bastard. and, the winner of a peace prize.
good old woodrow wilson also won a peace prize. of course, he also invaded haiti and the dominican republic, bombed mexico, got the u.s. involved in the mass slaughter known as ww1, and was a rabid white supremacist. our involvement in the first world war got around 300,000 u.s. soldiers killed. who knows how many people our soldiers killed. it seems this bloody resume was a perfect record for a prize. for, you see, woody was a key player in the creation of the league of nations. which begs the question, did the league of nations save a single life? a young ho chi minh once tried to talk to woody at the league. needless to say, he never was granted any time.
so, we have soaring rhetoric on one hand, and bloody deeds on the other. the nobel people seem to prize the rhetoric, as they ignore the butal deeds of those they honor.
so, congrats, mr o'bomber.
but as they say, consider the source.
of course, there should be no surprise. the nobel committee almost gave the 1938 prize to hitler. according to tariq ali, it was between hitler and gandhi, and since they couldn't choose between those too, they gave it to a group that helped refugees. but, other war criminals have won the reward, including the fellow i like to refer to as the "jewish nazi," henry kissinger. if you think that a strong nickname, ask the millions buried in the lands of vietnam, laos, cambodia, chile, indonesia, argentina, and elsewhere.
teddy roosevelt once won a nobel as well. he who took cuba from spain so he could keep it for himself. it would take 60 years, and a cat named castro, to change that ugly piece of peace. it was teddy the bear who devastated the philippines, killing hundreds of thousands of filipinos, who were guilty of wanting to be in charge of their own country. they say it was vietnam before vietnam. in short, teddy was a brutal bastard. and, the winner of a peace prize.
good old woodrow wilson also won a peace prize. of course, he also invaded haiti and the dominican republic, bombed mexico, got the u.s. involved in the mass slaughter known as ww1, and was a rabid white supremacist. our involvement in the first world war got around 300,000 u.s. soldiers killed. who knows how many people our soldiers killed. it seems this bloody resume was a perfect record for a prize. for, you see, woody was a key player in the creation of the league of nations. which begs the question, did the league of nations save a single life? a young ho chi minh once tried to talk to woody at the league. needless to say, he never was granted any time.
so, we have soaring rhetoric on one hand, and bloody deeds on the other. the nobel people seem to prize the rhetoric, as they ignore the butal deeds of those they honor.
so, congrats, mr o'bomber.
but as they say, consider the source.
awarding of peace prize to obama a piece of shit
War and Peace Prizes
by Howard Zinn
I was dismayed when I heard Barack Obama was given the Nobel peace prize. A shock, really, to think that a president carrying on two wars would be given a peace prize. Until I recalled that Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Henry Kissinger had all received Nobel peace prizes. The Nobel committee is famous for its superficial estimates, won over by rhetoric and by empty gestures, and ignoring blatant violations of world peace.
Yes, Wilson gets credit for the League of Nations – that ineffectual body which did nothing to prevent war. But he had bombarded the Mexican coast, sent troops to occupy Haiti and the Dominican Republic and brought the US into the slaughterhouse of Europe in the first World War, surely among stupid and deadly wars at the top of the list.
Sure, Theodore Roosevelt brokered a peace between Japan and Russia. But he was a lover of war, who participated in the US conquest of Cuba, pretending to liberate it from Spain while fastening US chains on that tiny island. And as president he presided over the bloody war to subjugate the Filipinos, even congratulating a US general who had just massacred 600 helpless villagers in the Phillipines. The Committee did not give the Nobel prize to Mark Twain, who denounced Roosevelt and criticised the war, nor to William James, leader of the anti-imperialist league.
Oh yes, the committee saw fit to give a peace prize to Henry Kissinger, because he signed the final peace agreement ending the war in Vietnam, of which he had been one of the architects. Kissinger, who obsequiously went along with Nixon's expansion of the war, with the bombing of peasant villages in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Kissinger, who matches the definition of a war criminal very accurately, is given a peace prize!
People should be given a peace prize not on the basis of promises they have made – as with Obama, an eloquent maker of promises – but on the basis of actual accomplishments towards ending war, and Obama has continued deadly, inhuman military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Nobel peace committee should retire, and turn over its huge funds to some international peace organization which is not awed by stardom and rhetoric, and which has some understanding of history.
© 2009 Guardian News and Media Limited
by Howard Zinn
I was dismayed when I heard Barack Obama was given the Nobel peace prize. A shock, really, to think that a president carrying on two wars would be given a peace prize. Until I recalled that Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Henry Kissinger had all received Nobel peace prizes. The Nobel committee is famous for its superficial estimates, won over by rhetoric and by empty gestures, and ignoring blatant violations of world peace.
Yes, Wilson gets credit for the League of Nations – that ineffectual body which did nothing to prevent war. But he had bombarded the Mexican coast, sent troops to occupy Haiti and the Dominican Republic and brought the US into the slaughterhouse of Europe in the first World War, surely among stupid and deadly wars at the top of the list.
Sure, Theodore Roosevelt brokered a peace between Japan and Russia. But he was a lover of war, who participated in the US conquest of Cuba, pretending to liberate it from Spain while fastening US chains on that tiny island. And as president he presided over the bloody war to subjugate the Filipinos, even congratulating a US general who had just massacred 600 helpless villagers in the Phillipines. The Committee did not give the Nobel prize to Mark Twain, who denounced Roosevelt and criticised the war, nor to William James, leader of the anti-imperialist league.
Oh yes, the committee saw fit to give a peace prize to Henry Kissinger, because he signed the final peace agreement ending the war in Vietnam, of which he had been one of the architects. Kissinger, who obsequiously went along with Nixon's expansion of the war, with the bombing of peasant villages in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Kissinger, who matches the definition of a war criminal very accurately, is given a peace prize!
People should be given a peace prize not on the basis of promises they have made – as with Obama, an eloquent maker of promises – but on the basis of actual accomplishments towards ending war, and Obama has continued deadly, inhuman military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Nobel peace committee should retire, and turn over its huge funds to some international peace organization which is not awed by stardom and rhetoric, and which has some understanding of history.
© 2009 Guardian News and Media Limited
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Hidden Side of Mexico's Drug War
An interview with ERPI guerrilla leader Comandante Ramiro
October 2009 By John Gibler
printer friendly version Gibler's ZSpace page
Ramiro of the ERPI—photo by John Gibler
They came shooting. Three military Humvees raced up the sole dirt road that leads to Puerto Las Ollas with soldiers firing mounted machine guns into the dirt paths and lean-to houses. Helicopters crested the mountain ridge that borders the tiny village. Soldiers leaned out of the side, firing. It was mid-morning June 9 and no one expected it. "I was fixing a tin roof when they arrived shooting," says a 19-year-old who was there that day. The young man watched from a rooftop as soldiers ran through the village, apprehending women and children. He managed to escape into the steep mountainside. "You see soldiers beating 13-year-olds and it makes you rage," he said.
One of the boys, Omar, tells how he was beaten, tortured, and interrogated for hours that day, with the soldiers asking about the guerrillas. "They asked for Ramiro, but I didn't say anything. It went on for about five hours. They stepped on my bare feet with their boots and boxed my ears with their open palms. They said that if I told anyone about it they would kill me," says Omar. He was able to escape later that night.
Most of the men in the village had been working in the cornfields when they heard the gunfire. They ran for cover in the forest. One man, César Acosta Ávila, who suffers from the aftereffects of a severe head injury, could not run. When the soldiers grabbed him, they beat him, threatened to rape and kill him before jabbing sewing needles under his fingernails and demanding information about the guerrillas.
Alejandro, in his late 20s, also ran into the mountains that first day where he hid with other villagers for four days without eating. "How can one trust such a government," he asks. "Here you live in fear. You see a soldier and run to the hills." He tells how he returned to his house to find his few possessions and clothes all on the floor, dirty and broken. "Imagine if the government arrived to support agricultural production instead of repressing," he says. "But...the criminals are part of the government itself. What is happening is that the government is forcing the poor to take other measures, even though they don't want to."
The soldiers camped out in the village and the following day between 500 and 600 more arrived, setting up camps in Puerto Las Ollas and two nearby villages, Las Palancas and El Jilguero. There they continued to harass, beat, and interrogate those who had been unable to escape, mainly women and children. The soldiers entered their homes—made of wood walls, dirt floors, and tin roofs—breaking and stealing their possessions. They set fire to the only modes of transportation: two dirt bikes and an all-terrain four-wheeler.
The army remained in the villages until June 13, when a "civilian observation mission" composed of various human rights organizations arrived to document abuses. Amnesty International released an "urgent action" on June 25 based on the mission's findings documenting cases of torture.
Drug War or Counterinsurgency?
Puerto Las Ollas is a tiny village of some 50 subsistence farmers poised on the dense green mountain ridges of the Sierra Madre in Guerrero State. Much of the region, known as the Tierra Caliente, provides cover for marijuana and poppy fields for Mexico's powerful drug trafficking cartels. The region is also home to some of Mexico's most marginalized rural communities, among whom rag-and-bone guerrilla fighters have lived and organized uninterrupted for over 40 years. Guerrilla groups were a part of the Mexican political scene throughout the 20th century. More than 20 distinct groups rose up in cities and rural areas during the 1960s and 1970s, targeting the military and police, kidnapping wealthy Mexicans to fund their cause, and in some cases setting bombs off in empty buildings. The government responded with "white brigades" (paramilitary death squads) tasked with executing guerrillas outside the law. During this time more than 400 people were "disappeared," most of them in the state of Guerrero.
The most well-known guerrilla army, the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN-Zapatista Army of National Liberation), grabbed world attention when they rose up in arms on January 1, 1994. The Zapatistas have since launched several national political initiatives while continuing to build autonomy in their recuperated territory in Mexico's southernmost state of Chiapas.
Most of the recent headlines have focused on the intense bloodshed between warring drug cartels, the army, and various state and federal police forces, in which over 13,000 people have been slain since President Felipe Calderón ordered the army into the streets in December 2006. The Washington Post's July 9, 2009 headline "Mexico Accused of Torture in Drug War" prompted an immediate call for inquiries from the U.S. government. Rights groups also called on the United States to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid to Mexico, funds that form part of the $1.4 billion aid package known as the Merida Initiative.
The Post story only mentions in passing, however, the existence of an armed guerrilla group in the region, the Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo Insurgente (ERPI-Insurgent People's Revolutionary Army). The ERPI traces its roots back to the teacher-turned-guerrilla-leader Lucio Cabañas and is perhaps the armed movement that publicly elaborates a political position most closely resembling that of the Zapatistas. The ERPI's core concept, poder popular (popular power or peoples' power), is very similar to the Zapatistas' struggle to build autonomy and their core concepts like mandar obedeciendo (lead by obeying).
"The Mountainside Is Different"
After some 18 hours of driving from Mexico City and another few hours walking through the forest in the Guerrero mountains, I came to the hillside where the ERPI column was fanned out with machetes cutting weeds and brush away from knee-high corn stalks.
ERPI in Guerrero—photo by John Gibler
Dressed in camouflage fatigues, jeans, and T-shirts, they wear military caps and ski masks or bandannas to cover their faces. They use sticks and machetes to clear away the brush, their shiny made-in-China AK-47s slung over their backs, handheld radios, canteens, and hunting knives affixed to their belts or backpack straps. There are no women present in the column, though one of the ERPI's co-founders is a woman, Gloria Arenas Agis.
Comandante Ramiro, a 34-year-old, steps away from the column to give an interview on the open hillside. When addressed as "comandante" he says quietly, "Just Ramiro is fine." He begins by telling his version of what happened when the soldiers stormed the village of Puerto Las Ollas on June 9.
"Once again we have seen the attitude of this bad government. Instead of bringing public works, they come shooting, they come with bullets," Ramiro says. "Only this time the people didn't just take it. Many ran to the mountainside and were pursued. The villagers did not shoot; their children were all there. But the mountainside is different. The soldiers pursued people out into the mountainside and this time we had it out. It was no big deal," he says of the ERPI's shootout with soldiers.
The Mexican Army acknowledged that one soldier was wounded during the operations, but Ramiro thinks that several were killed."We responded in a firm, appropriate manner," he says, "just enough so that they would stop pursuing people out into the mountainside. It was self-defense. It was the first day. They were trying to surround the mountainside. There was another clash and we contained them. Another column of soldiers tried to come up from the other side and we also stopped them. They didn't follow those fleeing anymore or anyone else."
"I Wasn't Born A Guerrilla"
Ramiro joined the guerrillas 20 years ago when the survivors of Lucio Cabañas's Partido de los Pobres (PDLP-Party of the Poor) still clung to the edges of remote villages. In 1974, the Mexican Army dispatched over 70,000 soldiers who killed Cabañas and many of his fighters—but many more escaped and fled to Mexico City to hide. In the 1980s, these survivors returned to Guerrero to rebuild their troops.
At the age of 14, Ramiro began participating in protests and marches and formed a part of the PDLP's social support network, often carrying tortillas into the mountains to the guerrilla column. A military spy observed Ramiro's movements and tipped off the army, leading soldiers to his village where they detained and tortured him. "I was going on 15 when the soldiers grabbed me and tortured me," he says. "They interrogated me about the armed groups, about who were the local leaders. They accused me of being a member of the command structure—despite my young age—saying that I was training the compañeros."
After being tortured by the army, Ramiro decided to join the PDLP guerrilla column full time. It was around 1989. The PDLP subsequently joined forces with the urban guerrilla Unión del Pueblo (Peoples Union) and later became the Ejército Popular Revolucionario (EPR-Popular Revolutionary Army), which appeared during the first anniversary of the massacre at Aguas Blancas on June 28, 1996. The EPR would later split, with the Guerrero columns forming the ERPI. The pattern is well established in deep, rural Mexico. For decades, state repression of social activism has led Mexicans to take up arms and go underground. Lucio Cabañas, an elementary school teacher, took to the mountains and formed the PDLP after state police attempted to shoot him while he spoke at a teachers rally in Atoyac de Alvarez in 1967. Cabañas escaped, whisked away by fellow teachers and his student's parents, but the police killed five teachers and bystanders that day.
Gloria Arenas went underground and began the clandestine organizing that would lead her to co-found the ERPI (along with her husband Jacobo Silva Nogales) after the Veracruz state police kidnapped her, held her incommunicado, and threatened to kill her for her nonviolent activism with the indigenous land rights organization TINAM.
"I was not born a guerrilla fighter," Ramiro says. "I was not born with a gun in my hand. It was repression, injustice, and poverty that forced us to this. It is not just to have a good time that I am going to grab a gun and head into the bush. Here one sleeps on the ground in the rain, without eating, weary, but always with the idea that one day things will be better for everyone."He was present when the army surrounded the tiny schoolhouse in El Charco, near Ayutla de los Libres, Guerrero in the pre-dawn hours of June 7, 1998.Ramiro and other guerrillas were able to shoot their way through the army siege, but soldiers killed 11 combatants and local villagers, executing several after they had surrendered and lay face down on the basketball court, giving each a shot in the back of the head. Ramiro was one of the organizers and leaders of the ERPI's September 22, 1999 ambush of an army convoy in response to the massacre. Mexico's Department of Defense said that two soldiers were injured, though witnesses said several were killed.
In October 1999, Mexican authorities captured and tortured Silva and Arenas. They were then charged with both fabricated crimes and with rebellion. Over the past ten years Silva and Arenas have taken their case to the courts and won several appeals, getting most of the charges dropped—except rebellion, to which they pled guilty. When, on the first day of their trial, the presiding judge asked Jacobo Silva his profession, he responded: "Guerrillero."
In 2001, Ramiro was captured at a military roadblock in Riva Palacios, Michoacán. He says that both soldiers and civilians linked to drug trafficking participated in his capture and the subsequent torture sessions, during which he repeatedly lost consciousness. "When I was caught, I was cruelly tortured. But once I was taken to jail in Coyuca de Catalán, besides the bad aspects, there was a nice upside," he says. "Nice because we started organizing among the prisoners." Prison life in Guerrero, he says, is one of constant torture, beatings, and drugs sold by prison guards. "With all that I saw there in prison, I asked myself: This is the reformation of which the government speaks? Drugs in the jails. Beatings. Humiliations. That is not how to reform someone, that is how to make him or her more rebellious.... We told the prisoners that they need work, they need recreation as well, without that you'll go crazy, which is what the government wants. The government brings drugs into the prisons because that is what they want. Leave all that, we have to demand work, demand nutritious food. And that is how we began to organize."
Despite his experiences organizing, however, early on he decided to break out of prison or die trying. When he was transferred to a state prison in Acapulco, he was beaten and tortured while in transit. In Acapulco, he continued organizing not only for work and better conditions, but also to dig a tunnel under the prison walls into a nearby neighborhood. He and 14 other prisoners escaped on November 28, 2002 in broad daylight. The Guerrero state government accused them of being drug traffickers and said that among the 14 other escapees were several Colombian capos. Ramiro, however, says that the Colombians were not capos, but borregos ("goats")—slang for those charged with traveling with the drugs on boats. "They were poor people," he says. "I saw how they lived, what they ate, how they dressed. We were together after all, and not because we wanted to be."
Ramiro accuses the government of protecting and even collaborating with paramilitary drug gangs and traffickers in the region. "When I was captured, several civilians were there: Abel Montúfar, a well-known hired killer in the Tierra Caliente and the brother of Erik Montúfar [a Guerrero state police official] was there and apparently in charge. That family [the Montúfars] has been both feared and hated in Tierra Caliente because they have the support of the state," Ramiro says. "Erik Montúfar is deeply embedded in state power and thus they let them go."
Ramiro says that "Chapo" Guzman's Sinaloa Cartel and the government work together to both eliminate the competition (such as the dreaded Zetas of the Gulf Cartel) and carry out counterinsurgency operations against the guerrillas. "Here El Chapo Guzman's cartel is working for the state and vice versa."
The ERPI, according to Ramiro, is trying to fight drugs at the grassroots. "We have been helping to combat alcoholism and drug addiction," he says. "Before we came to this region, there was a lot of alcoholism and drug use. We have been talking with people, holding assemblies and explaining the damaging effects. Often internal conflicts in communities are due to alcohol and drugs. So we have been helping to reduce drug and alcohol use. But we do not impose this. It is something agreed upon and arrived at via consensus in assemblies. People vote in favor of this. We let the dealers know, first in a very calm way, that from then on they cannot sell drugs in those communities because that was the people's decision. If they continue, they will be sanctioned by the column."
In this sense, the ERPI has taken a similar path as the EZLN. The Zapatistas successfully banned all forms of alcohol and drugs from their communities. Indeed, during the recent years of spectacular drug violence plaguing the country perhaps the only corner of Mexican territory to be completely immune—the only place where not a single drug execution has occurred—is Zapatista rebel territory in Chiapas.
What does Ramiro say to the critics of armed movements today, those who accuse them of glorifying violence or even of being murderers? "How are we going to confront the army, with flowers? No," he says. "In clashes some soldiers fell. If they accuse me of that, I accept. But if an armed movement exists, it is because the conditions for it also exist: poverty, injustice, and repression. That is why guerrillas arise. It is not something we do for fun."
Z
John Gibler is a Global Exchange human rights fellow in Mexico. His writing and photographs has appeared in Z, In These Times, Left Turn, the Indypendent, and New Politics. His 2009 book is Mexico Unconquered: Chronicles of Power and Revolt.
An interview with ERPI guerrilla leader Comandante Ramiro
October 2009 By John Gibler
printer friendly version Gibler's ZSpace page
Ramiro of the ERPI—photo by John Gibler
They came shooting. Three military Humvees raced up the sole dirt road that leads to Puerto Las Ollas with soldiers firing mounted machine guns into the dirt paths and lean-to houses. Helicopters crested the mountain ridge that borders the tiny village. Soldiers leaned out of the side, firing. It was mid-morning June 9 and no one expected it. "I was fixing a tin roof when they arrived shooting," says a 19-year-old who was there that day. The young man watched from a rooftop as soldiers ran through the village, apprehending women and children. He managed to escape into the steep mountainside. "You see soldiers beating 13-year-olds and it makes you rage," he said.
One of the boys, Omar, tells how he was beaten, tortured, and interrogated for hours that day, with the soldiers asking about the guerrillas. "They asked for Ramiro, but I didn't say anything. It went on for about five hours. They stepped on my bare feet with their boots and boxed my ears with their open palms. They said that if I told anyone about it they would kill me," says Omar. He was able to escape later that night.
Most of the men in the village had been working in the cornfields when they heard the gunfire. They ran for cover in the forest. One man, César Acosta Ávila, who suffers from the aftereffects of a severe head injury, could not run. When the soldiers grabbed him, they beat him, threatened to rape and kill him before jabbing sewing needles under his fingernails and demanding information about the guerrillas.
Alejandro, in his late 20s, also ran into the mountains that first day where he hid with other villagers for four days without eating. "How can one trust such a government," he asks. "Here you live in fear. You see a soldier and run to the hills." He tells how he returned to his house to find his few possessions and clothes all on the floor, dirty and broken. "Imagine if the government arrived to support agricultural production instead of repressing," he says. "But...the criminals are part of the government itself. What is happening is that the government is forcing the poor to take other measures, even though they don't want to."
The soldiers camped out in the village and the following day between 500 and 600 more arrived, setting up camps in Puerto Las Ollas and two nearby villages, Las Palancas and El Jilguero. There they continued to harass, beat, and interrogate those who had been unable to escape, mainly women and children. The soldiers entered their homes—made of wood walls, dirt floors, and tin roofs—breaking and stealing their possessions. They set fire to the only modes of transportation: two dirt bikes and an all-terrain four-wheeler.
The army remained in the villages until June 13, when a "civilian observation mission" composed of various human rights organizations arrived to document abuses. Amnesty International released an "urgent action" on June 25 based on the mission's findings documenting cases of torture.
Drug War or Counterinsurgency?
Puerto Las Ollas is a tiny village of some 50 subsistence farmers poised on the dense green mountain ridges of the Sierra Madre in Guerrero State. Much of the region, known as the Tierra Caliente, provides cover for marijuana and poppy fields for Mexico's powerful drug trafficking cartels. The region is also home to some of Mexico's most marginalized rural communities, among whom rag-and-bone guerrilla fighters have lived and organized uninterrupted for over 40 years. Guerrilla groups were a part of the Mexican political scene throughout the 20th century. More than 20 distinct groups rose up in cities and rural areas during the 1960s and 1970s, targeting the military and police, kidnapping wealthy Mexicans to fund their cause, and in some cases setting bombs off in empty buildings. The government responded with "white brigades" (paramilitary death squads) tasked with executing guerrillas outside the law. During this time more than 400 people were "disappeared," most of them in the state of Guerrero.
The most well-known guerrilla army, the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN-Zapatista Army of National Liberation), grabbed world attention when they rose up in arms on January 1, 1994. The Zapatistas have since launched several national political initiatives while continuing to build autonomy in their recuperated territory in Mexico's southernmost state of Chiapas.
Most of the recent headlines have focused on the intense bloodshed between warring drug cartels, the army, and various state and federal police forces, in which over 13,000 people have been slain since President Felipe Calderón ordered the army into the streets in December 2006. The Washington Post's July 9, 2009 headline "Mexico Accused of Torture in Drug War" prompted an immediate call for inquiries from the U.S. government. Rights groups also called on the United States to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid to Mexico, funds that form part of the $1.4 billion aid package known as the Merida Initiative.
The Post story only mentions in passing, however, the existence of an armed guerrilla group in the region, the Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo Insurgente (ERPI-Insurgent People's Revolutionary Army). The ERPI traces its roots back to the teacher-turned-guerrilla-leader Lucio Cabañas and is perhaps the armed movement that publicly elaborates a political position most closely resembling that of the Zapatistas. The ERPI's core concept, poder popular (popular power or peoples' power), is very similar to the Zapatistas' struggle to build autonomy and their core concepts like mandar obedeciendo (lead by obeying).
"The Mountainside Is Different"
After some 18 hours of driving from Mexico City and another few hours walking through the forest in the Guerrero mountains, I came to the hillside where the ERPI column was fanned out with machetes cutting weeds and brush away from knee-high corn stalks.
ERPI in Guerrero—photo by John Gibler
Dressed in camouflage fatigues, jeans, and T-shirts, they wear military caps and ski masks or bandannas to cover their faces. They use sticks and machetes to clear away the brush, their shiny made-in-China AK-47s slung over their backs, handheld radios, canteens, and hunting knives affixed to their belts or backpack straps. There are no women present in the column, though one of the ERPI's co-founders is a woman, Gloria Arenas Agis.
Comandante Ramiro, a 34-year-old, steps away from the column to give an interview on the open hillside. When addressed as "comandante" he says quietly, "Just Ramiro is fine." He begins by telling his version of what happened when the soldiers stormed the village of Puerto Las Ollas on June 9.
"Once again we have seen the attitude of this bad government. Instead of bringing public works, they come shooting, they come with bullets," Ramiro says. "Only this time the people didn't just take it. Many ran to the mountainside and were pursued. The villagers did not shoot; their children were all there. But the mountainside is different. The soldiers pursued people out into the mountainside and this time we had it out. It was no big deal," he says of the ERPI's shootout with soldiers.
The Mexican Army acknowledged that one soldier was wounded during the operations, but Ramiro thinks that several were killed."We responded in a firm, appropriate manner," he says, "just enough so that they would stop pursuing people out into the mountainside. It was self-defense. It was the first day. They were trying to surround the mountainside. There was another clash and we contained them. Another column of soldiers tried to come up from the other side and we also stopped them. They didn't follow those fleeing anymore or anyone else."
"I Wasn't Born A Guerrilla"
Ramiro joined the guerrillas 20 years ago when the survivors of Lucio Cabañas's Partido de los Pobres (PDLP-Party of the Poor) still clung to the edges of remote villages. In 1974, the Mexican Army dispatched over 70,000 soldiers who killed Cabañas and many of his fighters—but many more escaped and fled to Mexico City to hide. In the 1980s, these survivors returned to Guerrero to rebuild their troops.
At the age of 14, Ramiro began participating in protests and marches and formed a part of the PDLP's social support network, often carrying tortillas into the mountains to the guerrilla column. A military spy observed Ramiro's movements and tipped off the army, leading soldiers to his village where they detained and tortured him. "I was going on 15 when the soldiers grabbed me and tortured me," he says. "They interrogated me about the armed groups, about who were the local leaders. They accused me of being a member of the command structure—despite my young age—saying that I was training the compañeros."
After being tortured by the army, Ramiro decided to join the PDLP guerrilla column full time. It was around 1989. The PDLP subsequently joined forces with the urban guerrilla Unión del Pueblo (Peoples Union) and later became the Ejército Popular Revolucionario (EPR-Popular Revolutionary Army), which appeared during the first anniversary of the massacre at Aguas Blancas on June 28, 1996. The EPR would later split, with the Guerrero columns forming the ERPI. The pattern is well established in deep, rural Mexico. For decades, state repression of social activism has led Mexicans to take up arms and go underground. Lucio Cabañas, an elementary school teacher, took to the mountains and formed the PDLP after state police attempted to shoot him while he spoke at a teachers rally in Atoyac de Alvarez in 1967. Cabañas escaped, whisked away by fellow teachers and his student's parents, but the police killed five teachers and bystanders that day.
Gloria Arenas went underground and began the clandestine organizing that would lead her to co-found the ERPI (along with her husband Jacobo Silva Nogales) after the Veracruz state police kidnapped her, held her incommunicado, and threatened to kill her for her nonviolent activism with the indigenous land rights organization TINAM.
"I was not born a guerrilla fighter," Ramiro says. "I was not born with a gun in my hand. It was repression, injustice, and poverty that forced us to this. It is not just to have a good time that I am going to grab a gun and head into the bush. Here one sleeps on the ground in the rain, without eating, weary, but always with the idea that one day things will be better for everyone."He was present when the army surrounded the tiny schoolhouse in El Charco, near Ayutla de los Libres, Guerrero in the pre-dawn hours of June 7, 1998.Ramiro and other guerrillas were able to shoot their way through the army siege, but soldiers killed 11 combatants and local villagers, executing several after they had surrendered and lay face down on the basketball court, giving each a shot in the back of the head. Ramiro was one of the organizers and leaders of the ERPI's September 22, 1999 ambush of an army convoy in response to the massacre. Mexico's Department of Defense said that two soldiers were injured, though witnesses said several were killed.
In October 1999, Mexican authorities captured and tortured Silva and Arenas. They were then charged with both fabricated crimes and with rebellion. Over the past ten years Silva and Arenas have taken their case to the courts and won several appeals, getting most of the charges dropped—except rebellion, to which they pled guilty. When, on the first day of their trial, the presiding judge asked Jacobo Silva his profession, he responded: "Guerrillero."
In 2001, Ramiro was captured at a military roadblock in Riva Palacios, Michoacán. He says that both soldiers and civilians linked to drug trafficking participated in his capture and the subsequent torture sessions, during which he repeatedly lost consciousness. "When I was caught, I was cruelly tortured. But once I was taken to jail in Coyuca de Catalán, besides the bad aspects, there was a nice upside," he says. "Nice because we started organizing among the prisoners." Prison life in Guerrero, he says, is one of constant torture, beatings, and drugs sold by prison guards. "With all that I saw there in prison, I asked myself: This is the reformation of which the government speaks? Drugs in the jails. Beatings. Humiliations. That is not how to reform someone, that is how to make him or her more rebellious.... We told the prisoners that they need work, they need recreation as well, without that you'll go crazy, which is what the government wants. The government brings drugs into the prisons because that is what they want. Leave all that, we have to demand work, demand nutritious food. And that is how we began to organize."
Despite his experiences organizing, however, early on he decided to break out of prison or die trying. When he was transferred to a state prison in Acapulco, he was beaten and tortured while in transit. In Acapulco, he continued organizing not only for work and better conditions, but also to dig a tunnel under the prison walls into a nearby neighborhood. He and 14 other prisoners escaped on November 28, 2002 in broad daylight. The Guerrero state government accused them of being drug traffickers and said that among the 14 other escapees were several Colombian capos. Ramiro, however, says that the Colombians were not capos, but borregos ("goats")—slang for those charged with traveling with the drugs on boats. "They were poor people," he says. "I saw how they lived, what they ate, how they dressed. We were together after all, and not because we wanted to be."
Ramiro accuses the government of protecting and even collaborating with paramilitary drug gangs and traffickers in the region. "When I was captured, several civilians were there: Abel Montúfar, a well-known hired killer in the Tierra Caliente and the brother of Erik Montúfar [a Guerrero state police official] was there and apparently in charge. That family [the Montúfars] has been both feared and hated in Tierra Caliente because they have the support of the state," Ramiro says. "Erik Montúfar is deeply embedded in state power and thus they let them go."
Ramiro says that "Chapo" Guzman's Sinaloa Cartel and the government work together to both eliminate the competition (such as the dreaded Zetas of the Gulf Cartel) and carry out counterinsurgency operations against the guerrillas. "Here El Chapo Guzman's cartel is working for the state and vice versa."
The ERPI, according to Ramiro, is trying to fight drugs at the grassroots. "We have been helping to combat alcoholism and drug addiction," he says. "Before we came to this region, there was a lot of alcoholism and drug use. We have been talking with people, holding assemblies and explaining the damaging effects. Often internal conflicts in communities are due to alcohol and drugs. So we have been helping to reduce drug and alcohol use. But we do not impose this. It is something agreed upon and arrived at via consensus in assemblies. People vote in favor of this. We let the dealers know, first in a very calm way, that from then on they cannot sell drugs in those communities because that was the people's decision. If they continue, they will be sanctioned by the column."
In this sense, the ERPI has taken a similar path as the EZLN. The Zapatistas successfully banned all forms of alcohol and drugs from their communities. Indeed, during the recent years of spectacular drug violence plaguing the country perhaps the only corner of Mexican territory to be completely immune—the only place where not a single drug execution has occurred—is Zapatista rebel territory in Chiapas.
What does Ramiro say to the critics of armed movements today, those who accuse them of glorifying violence or even of being murderers? "How are we going to confront the army, with flowers? No," he says. "In clashes some soldiers fell. If they accuse me of that, I accept. But if an armed movement exists, it is because the conditions for it also exist: poverty, injustice, and repression. That is why guerrillas arise. It is not something we do for fun."
Z
John Gibler is a Global Exchange human rights fellow in Mexico. His writing and photographs has appeared in Z, In These Times, Left Turn, the Indypendent, and New Politics. His 2009 book is Mexico Unconquered: Chronicles of Power and Revolt.
Nuclear Hypocrisy
U.S. Plan to Develop New Nuclear Weapons is Censored by the American Press
October 07, 2009 By Anthony DiMaggio
Anthony DiMaggio's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
It was one of the New York Times' shining examples of investigative journalism, as it reported last week that the "U.S. is moving forward with reconstituting nuclear weapons, while concurrently attacking Iran for similar behavior." The story raised serious questions about U.S. double standards in dealing with an alleged nuclear threat, while at the same time violating its own obligations - under the Non-Proliferation Treaty - requiring it to dismantle its nuclear stockpile.
We can dream can't we? Although one of the hottest stories of the year was reported by the Inter Press Service last week, the U.S. plan for new nuclear weapons production was completely ignored in the mainstream media. That Obama allocated $55 million for nuclear weapons production runs directly contrary to the myth that the U.S. fulfills its international legal obligations, while punishing "rogue regimes" for violating international law. This story, however, was dead on arrival when it was first reported by the Inter Press Service (IPS) on Wednesday, September 30th.
The IPS report states that "despite the statements by Barack Obama that he wants to see the world reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. Department of Energy continues to push forward on a program called Complex Modernization, which would expand two existing nuclear plants to allow them to produce new plutonium pits and new bomb parts out of enriched uranium for use in a possible new generation of nuclear bombs." The story's timing is particularly ironic considering that the U.S. is openly admitting to reconstituting nuclear weapons, while there is currently no physical evidence that Iran is running a nuclear weapons program.
The combined stories of Iran's "weapons program" and U.S. nuclear reconstitution are one of the most explosive news developments of the year, although one wouldn't know by following the news. The IPS story was picked up by progressive, non-mainstream news sources such as Truthout, CommonDreams, and ZNet, but received no coverage in mainstream sources. The Obama administration's calling out of Iran was covered in 66 news stories, op-eds, and/or editorials from September 30th to October 6th. The New York Times ran 19 pieces, the Washington Post 18, the Houston Chronicle 7, the Washington Times 6, the Boston Globe 6, the Los Angeles Times 5, the Chicago Sun Times 4, and the San Francisco Chronicle one. In contrast, no headlines, op-eds, or editorials in these papers featured the U.S. decision to reconstitute nuclear weapons. There is not a single reference to the Complex Modernization program anywhere in the reporting of these papers, nor is the program mentioned in any of the news programs from ABC News, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News over the last week. References to Iranian "nuclear weapons" appear, in contrast, in nearly four dozen stories in these television outlets.
A brief review of newspaper stories on Iran from the last week demonstrates the extraordinarily propagandistic nature of reporting and commentary on Iran, to the exclusion of criticisms of the U.S.:
- From the Washington Times: "The Coming War with Iran; Real Question is not if, but when," "Righteous Indignation: Countdown to War and Armageddon," and "Big, Ominous Win for Iran; Buying Time for Continue Clandestine Work."
- From the Washington Post: "U.N. Chief Says Iran Must Prove its Sincerity on Nuclear Issue," and "Nuclear Disarmament is an Issue of Morality."
- From the New York Times: "Iran Agrees to Key Concessions on Uranium, but Doubts Linger," "Iran May Have All it Needs for Bomb U.N. Agency Says Functioning Nuke is in Reach," "Challenge for Obama: Holding Iran to its Word," "The Possibility of a Nuclear-Armed Iran Alarms Arabs," and "Answering Iran's Nuclear Challenge."
- From the Los Angeles Times: "Access Delay May Give Iran Time to Obscure Data."
- From the Houston Chronicle: "Iran Will Send its Enriched Uranium to Russia Concession a Win for West - if it's Not Hollow."
It is disturbing that the U.S. plan for nuclear weapons production is completely censored from our discourse. Obama promised to "seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." The Department of Energy's plans clearly violate this promise, and run counter to U.S. obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue U.S. nuclear disarmament, rather than rearmament.
It is no surprise that the U.S. media and political establishment ignored this story. U.S. political and media elites expect Americans to be ignorant regarding official double standards, but this is only possible if media outlets refuse to talk about these double standards. Most Americans, for example, probably don't know much about U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980s, when he was committing the worst of his atrocities against the Iraqi and Iranian people. This ignorance is not surprising, since most media outlets refused to discuss U.S. support for Saddam in the 1980s, or during the run up to the 2003 invasion. Most Americans probably don't know much about how the U.S. increased its support for Saddam during the worst of his atrocities, and how U.S. corporations and government officials provided Hussein with the necessary precursors for developing his infamous weapons of mass destruction. U.S. hypocrisy in regards to Iraqi WMD played out over a period of a few decades, however, so it was easier for officials and journalists to omit discussion of this inconvenient history. In the case of Iran, however, Obama's verbal attacks took place just five days before reporting on the United States' nuclear weapons reconstitution (Obama made his speech criticizing Iran on Friday, September 25th, while the IPS story on U.S. nukes was released on Wednesday, September 30th). Americans may be ignorant of their history, but it's unlikely that they're so ignorant that they'd fail to notice blatant nuclear hypocrisy over the period of a single week. It is not surprising, then, that journalists refuse to publicly embarrass Obama for his militaristic approach to Iran.
Anthony DiMaggio teaches U.S. and Global Politics at Illinois State University. He is the author of Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Examining American News in the "War on Terror" and the forthcoming: When Media Goes to War: Hegemonic Discourse, Public Opinion, and the Limits of Dissent (February 2010). He can be reached at: adimagg@ilstu.edu
U.S. Plan to Develop New Nuclear Weapons is Censored by the American Press
October 07, 2009 By Anthony DiMaggio
Anthony DiMaggio's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
It was one of the New York Times' shining examples of investigative journalism, as it reported last week that the "U.S. is moving forward with reconstituting nuclear weapons, while concurrently attacking Iran for similar behavior." The story raised serious questions about U.S. double standards in dealing with an alleged nuclear threat, while at the same time violating its own obligations - under the Non-Proliferation Treaty - requiring it to dismantle its nuclear stockpile.
We can dream can't we? Although one of the hottest stories of the year was reported by the Inter Press Service last week, the U.S. plan for new nuclear weapons production was completely ignored in the mainstream media. That Obama allocated $55 million for nuclear weapons production runs directly contrary to the myth that the U.S. fulfills its international legal obligations, while punishing "rogue regimes" for violating international law. This story, however, was dead on arrival when it was first reported by the Inter Press Service (IPS) on Wednesday, September 30th.
The IPS report states that "despite the statements by Barack Obama that he wants to see the world reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. Department of Energy continues to push forward on a program called Complex Modernization, which would expand two existing nuclear plants to allow them to produce new plutonium pits and new bomb parts out of enriched uranium for use in a possible new generation of nuclear bombs." The story's timing is particularly ironic considering that the U.S. is openly admitting to reconstituting nuclear weapons, while there is currently no physical evidence that Iran is running a nuclear weapons program.
The combined stories of Iran's "weapons program" and U.S. nuclear reconstitution are one of the most explosive news developments of the year, although one wouldn't know by following the news. The IPS story was picked up by progressive, non-mainstream news sources such as Truthout, CommonDreams, and ZNet, but received no coverage in mainstream sources. The Obama administration's calling out of Iran was covered in 66 news stories, op-eds, and/or editorials from September 30th to October 6th. The New York Times ran 19 pieces, the Washington Post 18, the Houston Chronicle 7, the Washington Times 6, the Boston Globe 6, the Los Angeles Times 5, the Chicago Sun Times 4, and the San Francisco Chronicle one. In contrast, no headlines, op-eds, or editorials in these papers featured the U.S. decision to reconstitute nuclear weapons. There is not a single reference to the Complex Modernization program anywhere in the reporting of these papers, nor is the program mentioned in any of the news programs from ABC News, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News over the last week. References to Iranian "nuclear weapons" appear, in contrast, in nearly four dozen stories in these television outlets.
A brief review of newspaper stories on Iran from the last week demonstrates the extraordinarily propagandistic nature of reporting and commentary on Iran, to the exclusion of criticisms of the U.S.:
- From the Washington Times: "The Coming War with Iran; Real Question is not if, but when," "Righteous Indignation: Countdown to War and Armageddon," and "Big, Ominous Win for Iran; Buying Time for Continue Clandestine Work."
- From the Washington Post: "U.N. Chief Says Iran Must Prove its Sincerity on Nuclear Issue," and "Nuclear Disarmament is an Issue of Morality."
- From the New York Times: "Iran Agrees to Key Concessions on Uranium, but Doubts Linger," "Iran May Have All it Needs for Bomb U.N. Agency Says Functioning Nuke is in Reach," "Challenge for Obama: Holding Iran to its Word," "The Possibility of a Nuclear-Armed Iran Alarms Arabs," and "Answering Iran's Nuclear Challenge."
- From the Los Angeles Times: "Access Delay May Give Iran Time to Obscure Data."
- From the Houston Chronicle: "Iran Will Send its Enriched Uranium to Russia Concession a Win for West - if it's Not Hollow."
It is disturbing that the U.S. plan for nuclear weapons production is completely censored from our discourse. Obama promised to "seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." The Department of Energy's plans clearly violate this promise, and run counter to U.S. obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue U.S. nuclear disarmament, rather than rearmament.
It is no surprise that the U.S. media and political establishment ignored this story. U.S. political and media elites expect Americans to be ignorant regarding official double standards, but this is only possible if media outlets refuse to talk about these double standards. Most Americans, for example, probably don't know much about U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980s, when he was committing the worst of his atrocities against the Iraqi and Iranian people. This ignorance is not surprising, since most media outlets refused to discuss U.S. support for Saddam in the 1980s, or during the run up to the 2003 invasion. Most Americans probably don't know much about how the U.S. increased its support for Saddam during the worst of his atrocities, and how U.S. corporations and government officials provided Hussein with the necessary precursors for developing his infamous weapons of mass destruction. U.S. hypocrisy in regards to Iraqi WMD played out over a period of a few decades, however, so it was easier for officials and journalists to omit discussion of this inconvenient history. In the case of Iran, however, Obama's verbal attacks took place just five days before reporting on the United States' nuclear weapons reconstitution (Obama made his speech criticizing Iran on Friday, September 25th, while the IPS story on U.S. nukes was released on Wednesday, September 30th). Americans may be ignorant of their history, but it's unlikely that they're so ignorant that they'd fail to notice blatant nuclear hypocrisy over the period of a single week. It is not surprising, then, that journalists refuse to publicly embarrass Obama for his militaristic approach to Iran.
Anthony DiMaggio teaches U.S. and Global Politics at Illinois State University. He is the author of Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Examining American News in the "War on Terror" and the forthcoming: When Media Goes to War: Hegemonic Discourse, Public Opinion, and the Limits of Dissent (February 2010). He can be reached at: adimagg@ilstu.edu
Monday, October 5, 2009
mellish strikes
just listened to lucky thompson's lucky strikes album, a classic prestige album from 1964. the man plays beautifully, as he always did. and it got me to thinking...what kind of a society lets a brilliant artist like lucky become homeless? and then i thought, what kind of a society lets anyone become homeless? lucky spent many years a street person in seattle. very few people knew who he was, or what he had been. they had never heard the trio recordings with oscar pettiford, the walkin solo with miles, the sides with milt jackson, the great recordings from paris, the three beauties on prestige.
let it be known that america doesn't care about its great people. it rewards regressives, and punishes progressives. masters are ignored, often even mistreated. many of our musical masters have been black. this has surely increased their chances of remaining obscure and oppressed. their brilliance is largely forgotten, and people are either indifferent or ignorant of their accomplishments.
earlier today, i saw a young guy riding down the street in an suv, blasting the new jay-z song that has obnoxious vocals by alicia "off" keys. the volume was the usual way too loud, and instead of looking at the road, the fuckhead's head was turned to the side, to see what reaction his stupidity was garnering. who has introduced this man to bird and dolphy and trane? if he was introduced to them, would it matter? is it already too late? for it seems the musical and cultural brainwashing is complete, and we are left with the disgusting results. as it is, a cultural heritage has been obliterated. the silence is shocking, but it screams to those of us who have experienced the serenity that only real music can bring.
so, lucky was unlucky. in our nation, in the year of your lord, how could it be any different?
but, perhaps it isn't too late. i still believe, somewhere deep within me, that if people heard that sensual soprano blow such sweet sounds on in a sentimental mood, they would be moved.
it will never happen. i work in a school, and i've seen too many teachers, administrators, parents. most of them know next to nothing, and the few that are hip remain silent, always remembering to do their job and little else. of course, the nazis in the camps did their jobs too.
and now, we are left with the results of a devolved species, unaware of its brilliance and proud of its ignorance and brutality.
there is veterans day, but no lucky thompson day.
and knowing what i know about this pathetic excuse of a nation, i can assure you that there will be many more veterans, but there will never be another lucky thompson.
amerikka, home to the army and the berklee school of music, but never home to eli "lucky" thompson.
let it be known that america doesn't care about its great people. it rewards regressives, and punishes progressives. masters are ignored, often even mistreated. many of our musical masters have been black. this has surely increased their chances of remaining obscure and oppressed. their brilliance is largely forgotten, and people are either indifferent or ignorant of their accomplishments.
earlier today, i saw a young guy riding down the street in an suv, blasting the new jay-z song that has obnoxious vocals by alicia "off" keys. the volume was the usual way too loud, and instead of looking at the road, the fuckhead's head was turned to the side, to see what reaction his stupidity was garnering. who has introduced this man to bird and dolphy and trane? if he was introduced to them, would it matter? is it already too late? for it seems the musical and cultural brainwashing is complete, and we are left with the disgusting results. as it is, a cultural heritage has been obliterated. the silence is shocking, but it screams to those of us who have experienced the serenity that only real music can bring.
so, lucky was unlucky. in our nation, in the year of your lord, how could it be any different?
but, perhaps it isn't too late. i still believe, somewhere deep within me, that if people heard that sensual soprano blow such sweet sounds on in a sentimental mood, they would be moved.
it will never happen. i work in a school, and i've seen too many teachers, administrators, parents. most of them know next to nothing, and the few that are hip remain silent, always remembering to do their job and little else. of course, the nazis in the camps did their jobs too.
and now, we are left with the results of a devolved species, unaware of its brilliance and proud of its ignorance and brutality.
there is veterans day, but no lucky thompson day.
and knowing what i know about this pathetic excuse of a nation, i can assure you that there will be many more veterans, but there will never be another lucky thompson.
amerikka, home to the army and the berklee school of music, but never home to eli "lucky" thompson.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
so, the olympics are not coming to chicago. as the title of my last blog stated, less is more, michael. in order to house the games, the city of chicago would likely have bulldozed a number of houses, functioned as a mini police state, and placed a pretty tax on the people of chicago. they tell us there is no money for impoverished inner city residents. they tell us there is no money for crumbling schools. they tell us there is no money for parks, libraries, recreation centers. they tell us there is no money for adult education, literacy programs. and yet, there was billions available for the olympics. private investors had already pledged over 5 billion dollars to the city of chicago. will they now pledge that money to the hungry and poor people of chicago? the obamas strongly advocated for the games to come to chicago. will they now advocate for the people of chicago? why was it more important to oprah and the obamas to have games played in their city than for houses, libraries, and parks to be built for masses of needy chicago residents? this is a question that can only be answered when one understands the class question. the powerful care for prestige. they want "their city" to be considered world class. they want to show off the city they so love. the masses, on the other hand, want to eat. the masses want a decent place to live. they want safe schools for their children. they want health care.
it would have been a crime for chicago to host the games of 2016. instead, rio will get the games. to no one's surprise that has been paying just a wee bit of attention, the big o's were on the wrong side here. the side of wealth. but hey, they are wealthy. we can't expect them to be against themselves, can we?
but what's our excuse for not being on the right side?
now, let us turn our eyes from these so called leaders, and let us lead ourselves.
as for me, i think a game is coming on.
see you around.
it would have been a crime for chicago to host the games of 2016. instead, rio will get the games. to no one's surprise that has been paying just a wee bit of attention, the big o's were on the wrong side here. the side of wealth. but hey, they are wealthy. we can't expect them to be against themselves, can we?
but what's our excuse for not being on the right side?
now, let us turn our eyes from these so called leaders, and let us lead ourselves.
as for me, i think a game is coming on.
see you around.
Friday, October 2, 2009
less is moore
just saw moore's new flick "capitalism: a love story." of course, there were plenty of laughs and alot of truth in it. his general argument was pretty good, and all in all, it's worth seeing. but. but. but.
how can somebody make a two hour film on american capitalism and not once mention war? why is it that we send our army all over the world? and why is it that our corporations have gone all over the world? no mention of sweatshops, mineshafts, child slavery. our economic system is reliant on the world's resources. therefore, it is reliant on our ability to dominate other nations militarily. to make a film about our economy and not even mention this is criminal. it is an insult to the millions that have been killed all over the world due to american foreign policy.
in fact, american militarism needs to be mentioned on a number of levels. as i just stated, war allows us to steal resources. furthermore, much of our domestic economy is based on war production. no mention of this.
no mention was made of how environmentally destructive american capitalism is. nothing about air pollution, the obesity epidemic (would that have hit too close to home?) the food industry, skyrocketing cancer rates, and a depraved popular culture. the film narrowly focuses on the decline of america's industrial economy. but, what if an industrial economy works? is that sustainable? is building a weapon or car any better if the guy building the weapon or car makes a decent wage? yes, it is sad when people get the shaft, and yes, we want to see people make a living wage, have health insurance, and a decent place to live. but, isn't there more than that? what of the deeper questions?
again, moore displays his usual intellectual dishonesty. he tells us how bad the guys running the economic regulatory agencies are, but he doesn't mention that obama hired all of them. he rants against the 700 billion dollar bailout, but fails to directly mention that obama strongly supported the bailout. this is incredible, as anyone without advanced dementia will surely remember this. but, the facts on obama would fly in the good vs evil, great/bad man theories of history that moore, self proclaimed socialist or not, seems to live by. so, obama was a key figure in the bailout goes unmentioned, but a few words obama spoke in favor of striking factory workers in chicago becomes a central part of the film. it was bank of america that was refusing to pay those workers, the same bank of america that gained 25 billion from the bailout obama supported. if obama was such an advocate of workers, why didn't he go after corporate power before they got the 700 billion? moore does nothing to inform us on this issue. in fact, he presents obama as a messiah like figure, shows women weeping after his victory, and people carrying on as if their favorite football team had just won the superbowl. of course, they were allowed to party, but what a joyful celebration over a capitalist politician ascending to the presidency has to do with socialism is beyond me.
earlier in the film, moore had blamed the reagan era for the beginning of the decline of american capitalism. has moore heard of something known as the great depression? now, i'm no fan of reagan, and he did help to make this country worse, but let's remember that he was the president of the 1980's, not the 1780's. slavery, the mexican american war, the slaughter of the indigenous, the persecution of the wobblies, socialists, anarchists, and the labor movement in general, corporate collusion with nazi germany, the use of strike breakers, pinkerton goons on strikers, none of this was mentioned. moore mentions socialism, but never tells us of our wonderful history of great radicals, and of a once proud american labor movement, crushed by governemt repression. not once did he reference eugene debs, emma goldman, mother jones, malcolm x, or a plethora of others who spoke and acted eloquently and bravely against american capitalism.
so much was left unmentioned. no mention of racism, war, sexism, nationalism, anti-immigrant sentiment. yes, there were plenty of laughs. yes, it was well made. yes, it beats the new tyler perry film.
but, what it could have been.
he has a heart.
if he only had a brain.
then, perhaps he would get over the rainbow.
as it is, michael moore's feet remain firmly on the ground.
how can somebody make a two hour film on american capitalism and not once mention war? why is it that we send our army all over the world? and why is it that our corporations have gone all over the world? no mention of sweatshops, mineshafts, child slavery. our economic system is reliant on the world's resources. therefore, it is reliant on our ability to dominate other nations militarily. to make a film about our economy and not even mention this is criminal. it is an insult to the millions that have been killed all over the world due to american foreign policy.
in fact, american militarism needs to be mentioned on a number of levels. as i just stated, war allows us to steal resources. furthermore, much of our domestic economy is based on war production. no mention of this.
no mention was made of how environmentally destructive american capitalism is. nothing about air pollution, the obesity epidemic (would that have hit too close to home?) the food industry, skyrocketing cancer rates, and a depraved popular culture. the film narrowly focuses on the decline of america's industrial economy. but, what if an industrial economy works? is that sustainable? is building a weapon or car any better if the guy building the weapon or car makes a decent wage? yes, it is sad when people get the shaft, and yes, we want to see people make a living wage, have health insurance, and a decent place to live. but, isn't there more than that? what of the deeper questions?
again, moore displays his usual intellectual dishonesty. he tells us how bad the guys running the economic regulatory agencies are, but he doesn't mention that obama hired all of them. he rants against the 700 billion dollar bailout, but fails to directly mention that obama strongly supported the bailout. this is incredible, as anyone without advanced dementia will surely remember this. but, the facts on obama would fly in the good vs evil, great/bad man theories of history that moore, self proclaimed socialist or not, seems to live by. so, obama was a key figure in the bailout goes unmentioned, but a few words obama spoke in favor of striking factory workers in chicago becomes a central part of the film. it was bank of america that was refusing to pay those workers, the same bank of america that gained 25 billion from the bailout obama supported. if obama was such an advocate of workers, why didn't he go after corporate power before they got the 700 billion? moore does nothing to inform us on this issue. in fact, he presents obama as a messiah like figure, shows women weeping after his victory, and people carrying on as if their favorite football team had just won the superbowl. of course, they were allowed to party, but what a joyful celebration over a capitalist politician ascending to the presidency has to do with socialism is beyond me.
earlier in the film, moore had blamed the reagan era for the beginning of the decline of american capitalism. has moore heard of something known as the great depression? now, i'm no fan of reagan, and he did help to make this country worse, but let's remember that he was the president of the 1980's, not the 1780's. slavery, the mexican american war, the slaughter of the indigenous, the persecution of the wobblies, socialists, anarchists, and the labor movement in general, corporate collusion with nazi germany, the use of strike breakers, pinkerton goons on strikers, none of this was mentioned. moore mentions socialism, but never tells us of our wonderful history of great radicals, and of a once proud american labor movement, crushed by governemt repression. not once did he reference eugene debs, emma goldman, mother jones, malcolm x, or a plethora of others who spoke and acted eloquently and bravely against american capitalism.
so much was left unmentioned. no mention of racism, war, sexism, nationalism, anti-immigrant sentiment. yes, there were plenty of laughs. yes, it was well made. yes, it beats the new tyler perry film.
but, what it could have been.
he has a heart.
if he only had a brain.
then, perhaps he would get over the rainbow.
as it is, michael moore's feet remain firmly on the ground.
debate?
there is a "battle" going on in obama's cabinet over the war in afghanistan. for purposes of brevity, we shall refer to these fuckheads as "warmongers a" and "warmongers b" , or "wa" and "wb" for short.
wa want a troop increase. apparently, not enough people are dying in afghanistan to suit their taste. these cabinet members don't seem to realize that many of our soldiers are only in it for the college benefits. for these fellows, a policy that doesn't work must be extended, so it can not work even more. if only the soviets had sent more troops into the afghan trap, perhaps their people would still have free health care today.
wb don't want to send more troops. rather, they want to send more drones. they too, don't believe enough people are dying in afghanistan. wb would prefer to kill from thousands of feet in the air, leading to massive civilian casualties but little in the way of american deaths.
the "debate," it seems, is between killing from the ground or killing from the air. there is not one cabinet member in this so called debate who is opposed to the senseless destruction of a nation already destroyed. what kind of debate is it when both sides are pro-war? this is not a debate, but a difference of opinion in regards to tactics. it is continuation of a bipartisan foreign policy, which means death to untold numbers from either democratic or republican administrations.
so, who will obama listen to? will he send more troops or more drones? perhaps he will agree with both sides and send both. wouldn't that be fine? for, we don't want to fight this war with one hand tied behind our backs. we don't want to leave our boys out to dry, especially after leaving them out to dry.
oh, i love a good debate.
sadly, they happen so rarely.
wa want a troop increase. apparently, not enough people are dying in afghanistan to suit their taste. these cabinet members don't seem to realize that many of our soldiers are only in it for the college benefits. for these fellows, a policy that doesn't work must be extended, so it can not work even more. if only the soviets had sent more troops into the afghan trap, perhaps their people would still have free health care today.
wb don't want to send more troops. rather, they want to send more drones. they too, don't believe enough people are dying in afghanistan. wb would prefer to kill from thousands of feet in the air, leading to massive civilian casualties but little in the way of american deaths.
the "debate," it seems, is between killing from the ground or killing from the air. there is not one cabinet member in this so called debate who is opposed to the senseless destruction of a nation already destroyed. what kind of debate is it when both sides are pro-war? this is not a debate, but a difference of opinion in regards to tactics. it is continuation of a bipartisan foreign policy, which means death to untold numbers from either democratic or republican administrations.
so, who will obama listen to? will he send more troops or more drones? perhaps he will agree with both sides and send both. wouldn't that be fine? for, we don't want to fight this war with one hand tied behind our backs. we don't want to leave our boys out to dry, especially after leaving them out to dry.
oh, i love a good debate.
sadly, they happen so rarely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
