Home Runs and Hypocrisy: The Shaming of Manny Ramirez
May 10, 2009 By Dave Zirin
Source: The Nation
Dave Zirin's ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
You would think that Manny Ramirez was caught fighting pit bulls alongside Martha Stewart.
ESPN's Bill Simmons says that he is "confronting my worst nightmare." Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports believes that it is time to talk about "lifetime bans." Boston Globe writer Tony Massarotti says, "everyone is guilty until proven innocent."
The sports radio and comment boards have been cesspools of racism. It's always easy to hate, especially someone who plays a game for a living and makes millions of dollars.
All I know is this: thanks to Major League Baseball's hypocritical, idiotic and altogether morally bankrupt steroid policy, the sport will be without one of its premier attractions for fifty games, someone I would pay to watch at batting practice. Yes, Manny Ramirez, the finest right-handed hitter of his generation, has been sent to the showers and forced to surrender $7.7 million in salary after testing positive for what was initially called a "performance-enhancing substance."
The decision ends a stretch where the former World Series MVP was reviving baseball in Los Angeles, leading the Dodgers to a 21-8 start and a record thirteen straight wins at home to open the season. Los Angeles, a town built on artifice and home to hordes of performance-enhanced entertainers, not to mention led by a performance-enhanced governor, now demands purity of its athletes. This is not a column that aims to "defend" Manny Ramirez, but condemn Major League Baseball's steroid idiocy. Besides, the quizzically quirky Ramirez is not at this point defending himself. Ramirez will not appeal the suspension and apologized, issuing a brief statement, which read in part: "I saw a physician for a personal health issue. He gave me a medication, not a steroid, which he thought was okay to give me." But MLB, in a typically classy move, has leaked to the press that Ramirez tested positive for the female fertility drug HCG, or human chorionic gonadotropin. Steroid specialists have fanned out across the airwaves explaining that HCG is used to increase testosterone levels, usually after a heavy steroid cycle.
Former AL MVP, author of Juiced, and admitted steroid user Jose Canseco, who pleaded guilty last November to a misdemeanor of trying to bring HCG across the Mexican border illegally, also weighed in: "It could be that a player used it because he used steroids and went cold-turkey and needed HCG to get his [testoterone] levels back to normal."
The use of a "female fertility drug" also has sports radio hosts in a pubescent tizzy asking if "Manny is a mommy" and ESPN's Jayson Stark making an "octo-mom" joke.
From the juvenile to the pious, President Obama's press flack Robert Gibbs took time out from explaining why torturers are above the law to tell us, "It's a tragedy, it's a shame." There is a tragedy and a shame afoot, but it is not rooted in the choices of one player. It's in a baseball culture that continues to think embarrassing individual players and feeding on the resentment of fans is the best path to cleaning up the sport. Manny has now joined Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and many others as permanently stained with a scarlet S. No Hall of Fame, no old timers' games and a life as a cautionary tale.
Meanwhile we all get taken to the cleaners. We have billionaire owners making scapegoats of millionaire players to soothe our anxieties about the game and our lives. Meanwhile these same owners sit like pashas in a baseball palace that could be called the House That Steroids Built.
The man who wrote Juiced knows when a cycle has run its course. Canseco said that he believes the coverage on steroids in baseball has become "overkill" and the spotlight should now be on MLB and the players association. He called it "a complete conspiracy." He's absolutely correct. Baseball owners love conspiracies. For more than twenty years they have conspired to attain public funds for ballparks. In 2008, they collectively conspired not to sign the best hitter in the game, Barry Bonds. Now they are committed to the project of keeping the focus on the players, and off of themselves. We shouldn't let them. If Manny Ramirez is guilty of anything, it's being caught in between baseball's clubhouse culture and public sanctimony.
During the baseball's Summer of Love in 1998, when Mark McGwire hit 70 home runs and Sammy Sosa smacked 66, the money came pouring in. No one cared that McGwire and Sosa looked like a pair of defensive tackles. Soon publicly funded stadiums were included in budgets for Washington, DC, New York City and Minnesota. The home run became the most marketable baseball item since peanuts and crackerjacks and no one wanted to look behind the curtain. It was sports. It was entertainment. It was an escape. Then came 2001, when Barry Bonds hit 73, and all of a sudden we were supposed to be collectively sick at the thought of a home run. As baseball writer Adrian Burgos (Playing America's Game: Baseball, Latinos, and the Color Line) said, "What continues to fascinate me is how MLB leadership is willing to allow individual players to take the full brunt of the collective failure of leadership. Today, pundits have ranted in at times rabid tones about the players who make millions for their role while those who make the hundred of millions (and even have billion- dollar stadiums constructed for them on the public dole) continue to profit. How many stadiums have been built since then and at what cost? All the wealth that has been accumulated at that level is in my mind just as, if not more, offensive, since the owners act as if they were not enablers and co-dependents as their players shot up, ingested and otherwise partook in performance-enhancing drugs."
We should always remember that former Texas Rangers owner George W. Bush made steroid persecution a recurring theme of his time in office, as long as owners were spared the spotlight. The hypocrisy should shame owners toward contrition--but they will happily crack some golden eggs, as long as it means that the goose that laid them lives. Even though come contract time, it's all about the numbers on your stat page, and not the number of clean tests. As baseball fan and poet Martin Espada told me, "Baseball is the Main Street of sports. (Think Cooperstown.) It's full of history and nostalgia, and paved with the bricks of hypocrisy. Now it's the rhetoric of the 'Drug War,' handed down from the Nixon White House forty years ago to MLB and ESPN today."
He is absolutely correct. We are supposed to tsk-tsk at players who are supposed to "just say no" to their addictions to fitness and monster stats, when their success at the park is our addiction as well. We also have yet to truly take owners to task for their addictions to public money and send them to detox.
[Dave Zirin is the author of "A People's History of Sports in the United States" (The New Press) Receive his column every week by emailing dave@edgeofsports.com. Contact him at edgeofsports@gmail.com.]
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
i have known for years that we are destroying iraq. first it was war, then sanctions, then war again. but the little details can be missed. today, i learned how much worse it has recently gotten for iraqi gays. it seems that a radical shia group has been going around and sewing up gay men's asses and then giving them a liquid which induces shit, which then leads to a slow, agonizing death. as far as i know, this fact went unmentioned during last week's day of silence at my high school, nor have reruns of will and grace or ellen been cut into to tell the viewers of this practice. remember that under saddam, iraq was a relatively secular society where religious extremists were put under wraps. these atrocities against iraqi homosexuals are a post u.s. occupation fact, and hence, we are, to a large extent, responsible for them. we have opened a can of worms, and it seems that it is too late for the worms to return to the can.
as for the issue of gay rights, it now appears to be thoroughly westernized. we celebrate gay marriage and ignore the brutalizations of homosexuals in countries that we have destroyed. it becomes a part of the system, although a contested part. how many are on tv? is this or that celebrity gay? it becomes detached from anti-militarism, separated from anti-racism, removed from issues of life and death. and make no mistake, being gay is still very much an issue of life and death throughout the world, for many of the forces that we support make it so. so, the next time we give ourselves a pat on the back for our comparative cultural tolerance, perhaps we can recall that the forces of murderous homophobia we have unleashed in iraq (and indirectly fund in saudi arabia, egypt, and many other countries) are far more brutal than the relatively secular, and therefore, sexually tolerant society once sustained by saddam.
we just killed over a hundred civilians in afghanistan. now, as far as i'm concerned, they are all civilians, since they live in afghanistan, and we don't, but that's for another day. as it stands, we just blew up a bunch of houses with bombs, supposedly for the purpose of pursuing the "bad guys." obama expressed regret over the killings, but does this absolve him? if a guy kills someone on the street, and then feels bad about it at trial, is he then automatically found not guilty by the jury? hey, this is his war now. he has supported it from the beginning, and has said that we need more troops there. well, this is what troops do...they kill. so obama's words, in the face of his support of the war, are nothing more than a cruel, hypocritical joke. for funding and supporting this war, he should be in the dock with all the murderers of the previous regime.
wars don't become better when waged by democrats, even when the guy doing the waging has an african father. i'm sorry to remind you of that, my gutless, "celebrate diversity" liberal friends, but them's the facts.
as for the issue of gay rights, it now appears to be thoroughly westernized. we celebrate gay marriage and ignore the brutalizations of homosexuals in countries that we have destroyed. it becomes a part of the system, although a contested part. how many are on tv? is this or that celebrity gay? it becomes detached from anti-militarism, separated from anti-racism, removed from issues of life and death. and make no mistake, being gay is still very much an issue of life and death throughout the world, for many of the forces that we support make it so. so, the next time we give ourselves a pat on the back for our comparative cultural tolerance, perhaps we can recall that the forces of murderous homophobia we have unleashed in iraq (and indirectly fund in saudi arabia, egypt, and many other countries) are far more brutal than the relatively secular, and therefore, sexually tolerant society once sustained by saddam.
we just killed over a hundred civilians in afghanistan. now, as far as i'm concerned, they are all civilians, since they live in afghanistan, and we don't, but that's for another day. as it stands, we just blew up a bunch of houses with bombs, supposedly for the purpose of pursuing the "bad guys." obama expressed regret over the killings, but does this absolve him? if a guy kills someone on the street, and then feels bad about it at trial, is he then automatically found not guilty by the jury? hey, this is his war now. he has supported it from the beginning, and has said that we need more troops there. well, this is what troops do...they kill. so obama's words, in the face of his support of the war, are nothing more than a cruel, hypocritical joke. for funding and supporting this war, he should be in the dock with all the murderers of the previous regime.
wars don't become better when waged by democrats, even when the guy doing the waging has an african father. i'm sorry to remind you of that, my gutless, "celebrate diversity" liberal friends, but them's the facts.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
change we can believe in?
US Blocks Cuban Musician from Playing at Pete Seeger Concert
And the prominent Cuban musician Silvio Rodriguez has criticized the Obama administration after the State Department blocked his entry into the United States to perform at Sunday’s ninetieth birthday celebration for Pete Seeger. Rodriguez said, “As a worker for Cuban culture, I still feel as blockaded and discriminated against as I do by other administrations…and I truly hope that changes someday.”
And the prominent Cuban musician Silvio Rodriguez has criticized the Obama administration after the State Department blocked his entry into the United States to perform at Sunday’s ninetieth birthday celebration for Pete Seeger. Rodriguez said, “As a worker for Cuban culture, I still feel as blockaded and discriminated against as I do by other administrations…and I truly hope that changes someday.”
2009 going on 1909
All-White Jury Acquits Teens in Murder of Mexican Immigrant
The Justice Department is investigating whether to prosecute two white Pennsylvania teenagers on civil rights statutes for their role in the fatal beating of Luis Ramirez, a Mexican immigrant in the town of Shenandoah. On Friday, an all-white jury exonerated the two teenagers of the most serious charges in connection with the fatal beating. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund condemned the jury’s finding. Witnesses said six teenagers brutally beat Luis Ramirez last year while yelling racial slurs. When a friend of Ramirez tried to stop the beating, one of the teenagers said, “Tell your Mexican friends to get out of town, or you’ll be laying next to him.”
we steal half their country, blame them for our economy, ruin their economy with nafta, fund their military against the zapatistas, and generally scapegoat them at every turn. now we get to bitch about them further because of the swine flu. a former classmate of mine even said "i wish the flu would have stayed in mexico before it could hurt people." i guess mexicans aren't people. perhaps their skin is a little too dark, and their food a little too spicy.
as far as this verdict goes, it speaks for itself. obama may be the pres, but we are still living in a white house.
The Justice Department is investigating whether to prosecute two white Pennsylvania teenagers on civil rights statutes for their role in the fatal beating of Luis Ramirez, a Mexican immigrant in the town of Shenandoah. On Friday, an all-white jury exonerated the two teenagers of the most serious charges in connection with the fatal beating. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund condemned the jury’s finding. Witnesses said six teenagers brutally beat Luis Ramirez last year while yelling racial slurs. When a friend of Ramirez tried to stop the beating, one of the teenagers said, “Tell your Mexican friends to get out of town, or you’ll be laying next to him.”
we steal half their country, blame them for our economy, ruin their economy with nafta, fund their military against the zapatistas, and generally scapegoat them at every turn. now we get to bitch about them further because of the swine flu. a former classmate of mine even said "i wish the flu would have stayed in mexico before it could hurt people." i guess mexicans aren't people. perhaps their skin is a little too dark, and their food a little too spicy.
as far as this verdict goes, it speaks for itself. obama may be the pres, but we are still living in a white house.
Monday, May 4, 2009
at least the war on the environment is going well
Environment Emerges as a Major Casualty in Gaza
by Erin Cunningham
GAZA CITY - Countless fruit groves across the Gaza Strip are now gone, entire farms bulldozed. The remains of thousands of destroyed homes emit toxic asbestos, while dilapidated infrastructure dumps raw sewage into the Mediterranean Sea. An already deepening environmental crisis in the besieged Gaza Strip has been further compounded by the recent war.
A Palestinian wheels a cart loaded with bottles filled with water from a public tap in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip April 20, 2009. Israelis have access to more than four times more water than do Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the World Bank said in a report on Monday. (REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa)Throughout the three-week Operation Cast Lead, Israel targeted almost every aspect of the coastal territory's infrastructure. Homes, businesses, factories, power grids, sewage systems and water treatment plants were reduced to piles of rubble across the Gaza Strip.
According to a preliminary assessment of environmental and infrastructural damage made by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Israel's assault not only exacerbated Gaza's existing hazards, but created new ones by contaminating both land and urban environments and leaving unprecedented amounts of debris in its wake.
The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) announced last month it would send a team of post-conflict experts to the Gaza Strip in May to follow up on the issues that pose the greatest threats to the Gaza population.
Prior to the war, Gaza's infrastructure languished under three years of sanctions and a further 18 months of a joint Israeli-Egyptian blockade that prohibits the import of all but "essential" goods into the Gaza Strip.
Many areas of Gaza, particularly the sprawling refugee camps, lacked proper sewage systems. Where they did exist, they often ran on generators or rationed electricity. A ban on materials required for their maintenance, including cement, steel and pipes, left them in a state of disrepair.
A report released by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) just ten days before the launch of Operation Cast Lead stated that at least 80 percent of the water supplied in Gaza "does not meet the World Health Organisation standards for drinking.
"Much needed maintenance is impeded by a lack of pipes, spare parts and construction materials. The resulting degradation of the system is posing a major public health hazard," the report reads.
Restrictions on materials and goods left at least 70 percent of Gaza's agricultural land without irrigation, according to the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), while local authorities were being forced to dump approximately 70 million litres of raw sewage into the sea each day. Fuel shortages made garbage collection infrequent at best.
During the assault, Israeli bombs hit the already fragile sewage and water treatment systems, causing drinking water and raw sewage to mix across some of the most populated areas of Gaza.
Tank shells hit the strip's largest wastewater plant in the Sheikh Aljeen area of Gaza City, sending sewage cascading directly into neighbourhoods, farms and into the sea.
Forty percent of the rooftop water tanks in Khan Younis were damaged or destroyed, and four water wells were destroyed completely in Gaza City, Beit Hanoun and Jabaliya, according to the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) cluster group that works under OCHA.
"After the war, the major impact is being felt in the northern areas of Gaza, where most of the water networks were destroyed," says Najla Shawa, WASH's information manager in Gaza. "In Khan Younis as well, only 30 percent of the governorate is being served by a sewage network."
Ten million more litres of raw sewage is now being dumped into the Mediterranean Sea each day than was prior to the war, WASH says, posing a threat to coastal marine life and Gaza's fisheries.
Israeli missiles also targeted factories in urban-residential and rural areas, releasing potentially toxic chemicals into both the air and soil. The piles of rubble that continue to mark Gaza's landscape are said to contain large quantities of asbestos, a carcinogenic mineral fibre used commonly in construction.
"The demolition waste created by the latest hostilities potentially contain hazardous materials such as asbestos," a representative of the UNEP's Post- Conflict and Disaster Management branch told IPS on telephone from Geneva. "High levels of exposure to asbestos have been linked to lung cancer."
Over 20,000 buildings and 5,000 homes were destroyed, according to local authorities. Some 600,000 metric tonnes of rubble has yet to be cleared as a result of the siege, with much of the debris having been bulldozed into the soil by Israeli tanks.
Gaza's soil will also be affected in the long-term by Israel's use of white phosphorus shells throughout the war, says Sameera Rifai, representative of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
"The soil of the agricultural land is now polluted by the weapons the Israelis used, particularly white phosphorus," Rifai told IPS.
White phosphorus, a chemical incendiary agent, can remain unchanged in soil sediments and in the bodies of fish for many years, according to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Samples of Gaza's soil tested positive for white phosphorus in February, according to studies done at Yildiz Technical University in Istanbul, Turkey.
The war weakened even further the capability of municipalities to collect rubbish, says Palestinian environmental activist and researcher for Friends of the Earth Middle East, Basil Yasin. Refuse and solid waste continue to line the streets of Gaza, and the strip's three major dumping sites are at full capacity, the UN reports.
As long as the blockade is in place, however, and Gaza is deprived the proper materials it needs to rebuild, environmentalists are sceptical much can be done to address the strip's increasing environmental problems.
"It is a continuous crisis, not just the one war, that is constantly preventing the Palestinians from developing sustainable projects," Shawa told IPS. "Mainly this includes a lack of access to materials, which prevents the water networks and sewage plants from being constructed."
"In the last two months, just two or three containers of water pipes were allowed into Gaza by the Israelis," she said.
Shawa also says the so-called "buffer zone" Israel has created unilaterally inside Gaza is hindering environmental clean-up and assessment in the post- war period.
"People just cannot access areas in the east and northern parts where most of the sewage plants are located," she says. "Municipal authorities are unable to reach areas to test the water or soil for sewage levels."
The UNEP says environmental stability is crucial to establishing long-term peace in any conflict.
"Significant progress in terms of the environment cannot be made as long as the borders remain closed," says Rifai.
"If we want to develop Gaza and sustain its natural resources, the closure should end and there should be free movement of people and materials," says Rifai. "Otherwise, there is no point."
(This story is part of a series of features on sustainable development by IPS - Inter Press Service, and IFEJ -- the International Federation of Environmental Journalists.)
by Erin Cunningham
GAZA CITY - Countless fruit groves across the Gaza Strip are now gone, entire farms bulldozed. The remains of thousands of destroyed homes emit toxic asbestos, while dilapidated infrastructure dumps raw sewage into the Mediterranean Sea. An already deepening environmental crisis in the besieged Gaza Strip has been further compounded by the recent war.
A Palestinian wheels a cart loaded with bottles filled with water from a public tap in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip April 20, 2009. Israelis have access to more than four times more water than do Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the World Bank said in a report on Monday. (REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa)Throughout the three-week Operation Cast Lead, Israel targeted almost every aspect of the coastal territory's infrastructure. Homes, businesses, factories, power grids, sewage systems and water treatment plants were reduced to piles of rubble across the Gaza Strip.
According to a preliminary assessment of environmental and infrastructural damage made by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Israel's assault not only exacerbated Gaza's existing hazards, but created new ones by contaminating both land and urban environments and leaving unprecedented amounts of debris in its wake.
The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) announced last month it would send a team of post-conflict experts to the Gaza Strip in May to follow up on the issues that pose the greatest threats to the Gaza population.
Prior to the war, Gaza's infrastructure languished under three years of sanctions and a further 18 months of a joint Israeli-Egyptian blockade that prohibits the import of all but "essential" goods into the Gaza Strip.
Many areas of Gaza, particularly the sprawling refugee camps, lacked proper sewage systems. Where they did exist, they often ran on generators or rationed electricity. A ban on materials required for their maintenance, including cement, steel and pipes, left them in a state of disrepair.
A report released by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) just ten days before the launch of Operation Cast Lead stated that at least 80 percent of the water supplied in Gaza "does not meet the World Health Organisation standards for drinking.
"Much needed maintenance is impeded by a lack of pipes, spare parts and construction materials. The resulting degradation of the system is posing a major public health hazard," the report reads.
Restrictions on materials and goods left at least 70 percent of Gaza's agricultural land without irrigation, according to the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), while local authorities were being forced to dump approximately 70 million litres of raw sewage into the sea each day. Fuel shortages made garbage collection infrequent at best.
During the assault, Israeli bombs hit the already fragile sewage and water treatment systems, causing drinking water and raw sewage to mix across some of the most populated areas of Gaza.
Tank shells hit the strip's largest wastewater plant in the Sheikh Aljeen area of Gaza City, sending sewage cascading directly into neighbourhoods, farms and into the sea.
Forty percent of the rooftop water tanks in Khan Younis were damaged or destroyed, and four water wells were destroyed completely in Gaza City, Beit Hanoun and Jabaliya, according to the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) cluster group that works under OCHA.
"After the war, the major impact is being felt in the northern areas of Gaza, where most of the water networks were destroyed," says Najla Shawa, WASH's information manager in Gaza. "In Khan Younis as well, only 30 percent of the governorate is being served by a sewage network."
Ten million more litres of raw sewage is now being dumped into the Mediterranean Sea each day than was prior to the war, WASH says, posing a threat to coastal marine life and Gaza's fisheries.
Israeli missiles also targeted factories in urban-residential and rural areas, releasing potentially toxic chemicals into both the air and soil. The piles of rubble that continue to mark Gaza's landscape are said to contain large quantities of asbestos, a carcinogenic mineral fibre used commonly in construction.
"The demolition waste created by the latest hostilities potentially contain hazardous materials such as asbestos," a representative of the UNEP's Post- Conflict and Disaster Management branch told IPS on telephone from Geneva. "High levels of exposure to asbestos have been linked to lung cancer."
Over 20,000 buildings and 5,000 homes were destroyed, according to local authorities. Some 600,000 metric tonnes of rubble has yet to be cleared as a result of the siege, with much of the debris having been bulldozed into the soil by Israeli tanks.
Gaza's soil will also be affected in the long-term by Israel's use of white phosphorus shells throughout the war, says Sameera Rifai, representative of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
"The soil of the agricultural land is now polluted by the weapons the Israelis used, particularly white phosphorus," Rifai told IPS.
White phosphorus, a chemical incendiary agent, can remain unchanged in soil sediments and in the bodies of fish for many years, according to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Samples of Gaza's soil tested positive for white phosphorus in February, according to studies done at Yildiz Technical University in Istanbul, Turkey.
The war weakened even further the capability of municipalities to collect rubbish, says Palestinian environmental activist and researcher for Friends of the Earth Middle East, Basil Yasin. Refuse and solid waste continue to line the streets of Gaza, and the strip's three major dumping sites are at full capacity, the UN reports.
As long as the blockade is in place, however, and Gaza is deprived the proper materials it needs to rebuild, environmentalists are sceptical much can be done to address the strip's increasing environmental problems.
"It is a continuous crisis, not just the one war, that is constantly preventing the Palestinians from developing sustainable projects," Shawa told IPS. "Mainly this includes a lack of access to materials, which prevents the water networks and sewage plants from being constructed."
"In the last two months, just two or three containers of water pipes were allowed into Gaza by the Israelis," she said.
Shawa also says the so-called "buffer zone" Israel has created unilaterally inside Gaza is hindering environmental clean-up and assessment in the post- war period.
"People just cannot access areas in the east and northern parts where most of the sewage plants are located," she says. "Municipal authorities are unable to reach areas to test the water or soil for sewage levels."
The UNEP says environmental stability is crucial to establishing long-term peace in any conflict.
"Significant progress in terms of the environment cannot be made as long as the borders remain closed," says Rifai.
"If we want to develop Gaza and sustain its natural resources, the closure should end and there should be free movement of people and materials," says Rifai. "Otherwise, there is no point."
(This story is part of a series of features on sustainable development by IPS - Inter Press Service, and IFEJ -- the International Federation of Environmental Journalists.)
if i had a bill for every time i read blum, i'd be a rich manne.
The Anti-Empire Report
May 4th, 2009
by William Blum
www.killinghope.org
Some thoughts about torture. And Mr. Obama.
Okay, at least some things are settled. When George W. Bush said "The United States does not torture", everyone now knows it was crapaganda. And when Barack Obama, a month into his presidency, said "The United States does not torture"1, it likewise had all the credibility of a 19th century treaty between the US government and the American Indians.
When Obama and his followers say, as they do repeatedly, that he has "banned torture", this is a statement they have no right to make. The executive orders concerning torture leave loopholes, such as being applicable only "in any armed conflict"2 What about in a "counter-terrorism" environment? And the new administration has not categorically banned the outsourcing of torture, such as renditions, the sole purpose of which is to kidnap people and send them to a country to be tortured. Moreover, what do we know of all the CIA secret prisons, the gulag extending from Poland to the island of Diego Garcia? How many of them are still open and abusing and torturing prisoners, keeping them in total isolation and in indefinite detention? Total isolation by itself is torture; not knowing when, if ever, you will be released is torture. And the non-secret prisons? Has Guantanamo ended all its forms of torture? There's reason to doubt that.3 And what do we know of what's happening now in Abu Ghraib and Bagram?
And when Obama says "I don't believe that anybody is above the law", and then acts in precisely the opposite fashion, despite overwhelming evidence of criminal torture — such as the recently leaked report of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Bush Justice Department "torture memos" — it's enough to break the heart of any of his fans who possess more than a minimum of intellect and conscience. It should be noted that a Gallup Poll of April 24/25 showed that 66% of Democrats favored an "investigation into harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects". If the word "torture" had been used in the question, the figure would undoubtedly have been higher.
Following the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003, President Bush went on TV to warn the people of Iraq: "War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, I was just following orders."4
"Objectively, the American public is much more responsible for the crimes committed in its name than were the people of Germany for the horrors of the Third Reich. We have far more knowledge, and far greater freedom and opportunity to stop our government's criminal behavior," observed James Brooks in the Online Journal in 2007.
On February 10, the Obama Justice Department used the Bush administration's much-reviled "state secrets" tactic in a move to have a lawsuit dismissed — filed by five detainees against a subsidiary of Boeing aircraft company for arranging rendition flights which led to their torture. "It was as if last month's inauguration had never occurred", observed the New York Times.5
And when Obama says, as he does repeatedly, "We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards", why is it that no one in the media asks him what he thinks of the Nuremberg Tribunal looking backwards in 1946? Or the Church Committee of the US Senate doing the same in 1975 and producing numerous revelations about the criminality of the CIA, FBI, and other government agencies that shocked and opened the eyes of the American people and the world?
We're now told that Obama and his advisers had recently been fiercely debating the question of what to do about the Bush war criminals, with Obama going one way and then another and then back again, both in private and in his public stands. One might say that he was "tortured". But civilized societies do not debate torture. Why didn't the president just do the obvious? The simplest? The right thing? Or at least do what he really believes.
The problem, I'm increasingly afraid, is that the man doesn't really believe strongly in anything, certainly not in controversial areas. He learned a long time ago how to take positions that avoid controversy, how to express opinions without clearly and firmly taking sides, how to talk eloquently without actually saying anything, how to leave his listeners' heads filled with stirring clichés, platitudes, and slogans. And it worked. Oh how it worked! What could happen now, as President of the United States, to induce him to change his style?
The president and the Director of the CIA both insist that no one at the CIA who was relying on the Justice Department's written legal justification of methods of "enhanced interrogation" should be punished. But the first such approval was dated August 1, 2002, while many young men were arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the previous nine months and subjected to "enhanced interrogation". Many were sent to Guantanamo as early as January 2002. And many others were kidnaped and sent to Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and other secret prisons to be tortured beginning in late 2001. So, at least for some months, the torturers were not acting under any formal approval of their methods. But they still will not be punished.
I love that expression "enhanced interrogation". How did our glorious leaders overlook calling the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki "enhanced explosive devices"?
Lord High Dungeon Master Richard Cheney is upset about the recent release of torture memos. He keeps saying that the Obama administration is suppressing documents that show a more positive picture of the effectiveness of interrogation techniques, which he claims produced very valuable information, prevented certain acts of terrorism, and saved American lives. Hmmm, why am I skeptical of this? Oh, I know, because if this is what actually happened and there are documents which genuinely and unambiguously showed such results, the beleaguered Bush administration would have leaked them years ago with great fanfare, and the CIA would not have destroyed numerous videos of the torture sessions.
But in any event, that still wouldn't justify torture. Humankind has aspired for centuries to tame its worst behaviors; ridding itself of the affliction of torture has been high on that list. There is more than one United States law now prohibiting torture, including a 1994 law making it a crime for US citizens to commit torture overseas. This was recently invoked to convict the son of former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor. There is also the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, ratified in 1949, which states in Article 17:
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Thus it was that the United States has not called the prisoners of its War on Terror "prisoners of war". But in 1984, another historic step was taken, by the United Nations, with the drafting of the "Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" (came into force in 1987, ratified by the United States in 1994). Article 2, section 2 of the Convention states:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Such marvelously clear, unequivocal, and principled language, to set a single standard for a world that makes it increasingly difficult for one to feel proud of humanity. We cannot slide back. If today it's deemed acceptable to torture the person who supposedly has the vital "ticking-bomb" information needed to save lives, tomorrow it will be acceptable to torture him to learn the identities of his alleged co-conspirators. Would we allow slavery to resume for just a short while to serve some "national emergency" or some other "higher purpose"?
If you open the window of torture, even just a crack, the cold air of the Dark Ages will fill the whole room.
"I would personally rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life." - Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who lost his job after he publicly condemned the Uzbek regime in 2003 for its systematic use of torture.6
With all the reports concerning torture under the recent Bush administration, some people may be inclined to think that prior to Bush the United States had very little connection to this awful practice. However, in the period of the 1950s through the 1980s, while the CIA did not usually push the button, turn the switch, or pour the water, the Agency ...
encouraged its clients in the Third World to use torture;
provided the host country the names of the people who wound up as torture victims, in places as bad as Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram;
supplied torture equipment;
conducted classes in torture;
distributed torture manuals — how-to books;
was present when torture was taking place, to observe and evaluate how well its students were doing.7
I could really feel sorry for Barack Obama — for his administration is plagued and handicapped by a major recession not of his making — if he had a vision that was thus being thwarted. But he has no vision — not any kind of systemic remaking of the economy, producing a more equitable and more honest society; nor a world at peace, beginning with ending America's perennial wars; no vision of the fantastic things that could be done with the trillions of dollars that would be saved by putting an end to war without end; nor a vision of a world totally rid of torture; nor an America with national health insurance; nor an environment free of capitalist subversion; nor a campaign to control world population ... he just looks for what will offend the fewest people. He's a "whatever works" kind of guy. And he wants to be president. But what we need and crave is a leader of vision.
Another jewel in the crown, Miss Hillary
During the presidential campaign much was made of Obama's stated promises to engage in direct talks with Iran, as opposed to the Bush administration's refusal to speak to the Iranians and threatening to attack them and bomb their nuclear facilities. This was one more example of the much-vaunted "change" that Obama was going to bring. But, in actuality, it wouldn't be much of a change. Mid-level American officials did in fact occasionally meet with Iranian officials, most notably after the September 11 attacks in 2001 and in mid-2003 after the US invasion of Iraq. These meeting were always in secret.8 There were also at least three publicly-announced meetings between the US and Iran in 2007, primarily dealing with the fighting in Iraq. And now that Obama is in power, what do we find? We find his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, testifying April 22 before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and stating:
"We actually believe that by following the diplomatic path we are on [speaking to Iran], we gain credibility and influence with a number of nations who would have to participate in order to make the sanctions regime as tight and as crippling as we would want it to be."
Would it be unfair to say that she's implying that a reason for talks with Iran is that the US could get more international support when it decides to cripple that country? Is crippling a country the United States is at peace with supposed to be part of the "change" in US foreign policy? Is Iran expected to be enthusiastic about such talks? If the talks collapse, will the United States use that as an excuse for bombing Iran? Or will Israel be given the honor?
Later in the hearing, Clinton declared: "We are deploying new approaches to the threat posed by Iran."
I would love to have been a member of the House committee so I could have had the following exchange with the Secretary of State:
Cong. Blum: Do we plan to impose sanctions on France?
Sec. Clinton: I don't understand, Congressman. Why would we impose sanctions on France?
Cong. Blum: Well, if we impose sanctions on Iran on the mere suspicion of them planning to build nuclear weapons, it seems to me we'd want to impose even stricter sanctions on a country which already possesses such weapons.
Sec. Clinton: But France is an ally.
Cong. Blum: So let's make Iran an ally. We can start with ending our many sanctions against them and calling off our Israeli attack dogs.
Sec. Clinton: But Congressman, Iran is a threat. Surely you don't see France as a threat? What reason would France have to use nuclear weapons against the United States?
Cong. Blum: What reason would Iran have to use nuclear weapons against the United States? Other than an irresistible desire for mass national suicide.
If Congressman Blum had pursued this line of questioning, it might well have culminated in some Orwellian remark by dear Hillary, such as the one she treated us to a few days later when speaking to reporters in Iraq. As the Washington Post reported it: "Clinton played down the latest burst of violence, telling reporters she saw 'no sign' it would reignite the sectarian warfare that ravaged the country in recent years. She said that the Iraqi government had 'come a long, long way' and that the bombings were 'a signal that the rejectionists fear Iraq is going in the right direction'."9
So ... the eruption of violence is a sign of success. In October 2003, President George W. Bush, speaking after many resistance attacks in Iraq had occurred, said: "The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react."10
And here is Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking in April 2004 about a rise in insurrection and fighting in Iraq over nearly a two-week period: "'I would characterize what we're seeing right now as a — as more a symptom of the success that we're having here in Iraq,' he said ... explaining that the violence indicated there was something to fight against — American progress in building up Iraq."11
War is Peace ... Freedom is Slavery ... Ignorance is Strength. I distinctly remember when I first read "1984" thinking that it was very well done but of course a great exaggeration, sort of like science fiction.
Clinton was equally profound on May 1, speaking to an assemblage of State Department employees. Discussing Venezuela and Bolivia, she said that the Bush administration "tried to isolate them, tried to support opposition to them, tried to turn them into international pariahs. It didn't work. We are going to see what other approaches might work." Oh ... uh ... how about NOT trying to isolate them, NOT supporting their opposition, NOT trying to turn them into international pariahs? How about the National Endowment for Democracy, the Agency for International Development, and the US Embassy NOT trying to subvert their revolutions? And when she says "It didn't work", one must ask: Work to what end? To return the two countries to their previous condition of client-states? Perhaps like with Nicaragua, about whom the Secretary of State said improving relations was important to counter Iran's growing influence. She noted that "the Iranians are building a huge embassy in Managua. You can only imagine what it's for."12 I can only imagine what Ms. Clinton imagines it's for. What is the new American Embassy in Iraq — the biggest embassy in the entire history of the world, in the entire universe — What is that for? Another example of Obamachange that means no change. What is it with American officials? Why are they so insufferably arrogant and hypocritical?
well, i can answer that last question. it is precisely their arrogant and hypocritical ideology that allows them to be american officials. holders of different viewpoints do not rise within the american political system. they are weeded out, smeared, not funded, mocked by the media, belittled by so called serious commentators, denied time to reach the people, attacked, and some times even killed.
the ball game has been determined. we know the winners and the losers. only the final score remains to be determined.
May 4th, 2009
by William Blum
www.killinghope.org
Some thoughts about torture. And Mr. Obama.
Okay, at least some things are settled. When George W. Bush said "The United States does not torture", everyone now knows it was crapaganda. And when Barack Obama, a month into his presidency, said "The United States does not torture"1, it likewise had all the credibility of a 19th century treaty between the US government and the American Indians.
When Obama and his followers say, as they do repeatedly, that he has "banned torture", this is a statement they have no right to make. The executive orders concerning torture leave loopholes, such as being applicable only "in any armed conflict"2 What about in a "counter-terrorism" environment? And the new administration has not categorically banned the outsourcing of torture, such as renditions, the sole purpose of which is to kidnap people and send them to a country to be tortured. Moreover, what do we know of all the CIA secret prisons, the gulag extending from Poland to the island of Diego Garcia? How many of them are still open and abusing and torturing prisoners, keeping them in total isolation and in indefinite detention? Total isolation by itself is torture; not knowing when, if ever, you will be released is torture. And the non-secret prisons? Has Guantanamo ended all its forms of torture? There's reason to doubt that.3 And what do we know of what's happening now in Abu Ghraib and Bagram?
And when Obama says "I don't believe that anybody is above the law", and then acts in precisely the opposite fashion, despite overwhelming evidence of criminal torture — such as the recently leaked report of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Bush Justice Department "torture memos" — it's enough to break the heart of any of his fans who possess more than a minimum of intellect and conscience. It should be noted that a Gallup Poll of April 24/25 showed that 66% of Democrats favored an "investigation into harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects". If the word "torture" had been used in the question, the figure would undoubtedly have been higher.
Following the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003, President Bush went on TV to warn the people of Iraq: "War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, I was just following orders."4
"Objectively, the American public is much more responsible for the crimes committed in its name than were the people of Germany for the horrors of the Third Reich. We have far more knowledge, and far greater freedom and opportunity to stop our government's criminal behavior," observed James Brooks in the Online Journal in 2007.
On February 10, the Obama Justice Department used the Bush administration's much-reviled "state secrets" tactic in a move to have a lawsuit dismissed — filed by five detainees against a subsidiary of Boeing aircraft company for arranging rendition flights which led to their torture. "It was as if last month's inauguration had never occurred", observed the New York Times.5
And when Obama says, as he does repeatedly, "We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards", why is it that no one in the media asks him what he thinks of the Nuremberg Tribunal looking backwards in 1946? Or the Church Committee of the US Senate doing the same in 1975 and producing numerous revelations about the criminality of the CIA, FBI, and other government agencies that shocked and opened the eyes of the American people and the world?
We're now told that Obama and his advisers had recently been fiercely debating the question of what to do about the Bush war criminals, with Obama going one way and then another and then back again, both in private and in his public stands. One might say that he was "tortured". But civilized societies do not debate torture. Why didn't the president just do the obvious? The simplest? The right thing? Or at least do what he really believes.
The problem, I'm increasingly afraid, is that the man doesn't really believe strongly in anything, certainly not in controversial areas. He learned a long time ago how to take positions that avoid controversy, how to express opinions without clearly and firmly taking sides, how to talk eloquently without actually saying anything, how to leave his listeners' heads filled with stirring clichés, platitudes, and slogans. And it worked. Oh how it worked! What could happen now, as President of the United States, to induce him to change his style?
The president and the Director of the CIA both insist that no one at the CIA who was relying on the Justice Department's written legal justification of methods of "enhanced interrogation" should be punished. But the first such approval was dated August 1, 2002, while many young men were arrested in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the previous nine months and subjected to "enhanced interrogation". Many were sent to Guantanamo as early as January 2002. And many others were kidnaped and sent to Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and other secret prisons to be tortured beginning in late 2001. So, at least for some months, the torturers were not acting under any formal approval of their methods. But they still will not be punished.
I love that expression "enhanced interrogation". How did our glorious leaders overlook calling the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki "enhanced explosive devices"?
Lord High Dungeon Master Richard Cheney is upset about the recent release of torture memos. He keeps saying that the Obama administration is suppressing documents that show a more positive picture of the effectiveness of interrogation techniques, which he claims produced very valuable information, prevented certain acts of terrorism, and saved American lives. Hmmm, why am I skeptical of this? Oh, I know, because if this is what actually happened and there are documents which genuinely and unambiguously showed such results, the beleaguered Bush administration would have leaked them years ago with great fanfare, and the CIA would not have destroyed numerous videos of the torture sessions.
But in any event, that still wouldn't justify torture. Humankind has aspired for centuries to tame its worst behaviors; ridding itself of the affliction of torture has been high on that list. There is more than one United States law now prohibiting torture, including a 1994 law making it a crime for US citizens to commit torture overseas. This was recently invoked to convict the son of former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor. There is also the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, ratified in 1949, which states in Article 17:
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Thus it was that the United States has not called the prisoners of its War on Terror "prisoners of war". But in 1984, another historic step was taken, by the United Nations, with the drafting of the "Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" (came into force in 1987, ratified by the United States in 1994). Article 2, section 2 of the Convention states:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Such marvelously clear, unequivocal, and principled language, to set a single standard for a world that makes it increasingly difficult for one to feel proud of humanity. We cannot slide back. If today it's deemed acceptable to torture the person who supposedly has the vital "ticking-bomb" information needed to save lives, tomorrow it will be acceptable to torture him to learn the identities of his alleged co-conspirators. Would we allow slavery to resume for just a short while to serve some "national emergency" or some other "higher purpose"?
If you open the window of torture, even just a crack, the cold air of the Dark Ages will fill the whole room.
"I would personally rather die than have anyone tortured to save my life." - Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who lost his job after he publicly condemned the Uzbek regime in 2003 for its systematic use of torture.6
With all the reports concerning torture under the recent Bush administration, some people may be inclined to think that prior to Bush the United States had very little connection to this awful practice. However, in the period of the 1950s through the 1980s, while the CIA did not usually push the button, turn the switch, or pour the water, the Agency ...
encouraged its clients in the Third World to use torture;
provided the host country the names of the people who wound up as torture victims, in places as bad as Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram;
supplied torture equipment;
conducted classes in torture;
distributed torture manuals — how-to books;
was present when torture was taking place, to observe and evaluate how well its students were doing.7
I could really feel sorry for Barack Obama — for his administration is plagued and handicapped by a major recession not of his making — if he had a vision that was thus being thwarted. But he has no vision — not any kind of systemic remaking of the economy, producing a more equitable and more honest society; nor a world at peace, beginning with ending America's perennial wars; no vision of the fantastic things that could be done with the trillions of dollars that would be saved by putting an end to war without end; nor a vision of a world totally rid of torture; nor an America with national health insurance; nor an environment free of capitalist subversion; nor a campaign to control world population ... he just looks for what will offend the fewest people. He's a "whatever works" kind of guy. And he wants to be president. But what we need and crave is a leader of vision.
Another jewel in the crown, Miss Hillary
During the presidential campaign much was made of Obama's stated promises to engage in direct talks with Iran, as opposed to the Bush administration's refusal to speak to the Iranians and threatening to attack them and bomb their nuclear facilities. This was one more example of the much-vaunted "change" that Obama was going to bring. But, in actuality, it wouldn't be much of a change. Mid-level American officials did in fact occasionally meet with Iranian officials, most notably after the September 11 attacks in 2001 and in mid-2003 after the US invasion of Iraq. These meeting were always in secret.8 There were also at least three publicly-announced meetings between the US and Iran in 2007, primarily dealing with the fighting in Iraq. And now that Obama is in power, what do we find? We find his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, testifying April 22 before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and stating:
"We actually believe that by following the diplomatic path we are on [speaking to Iran], we gain credibility and influence with a number of nations who would have to participate in order to make the sanctions regime as tight and as crippling as we would want it to be."
Would it be unfair to say that she's implying that a reason for talks with Iran is that the US could get more international support when it decides to cripple that country? Is crippling a country the United States is at peace with supposed to be part of the "change" in US foreign policy? Is Iran expected to be enthusiastic about such talks? If the talks collapse, will the United States use that as an excuse for bombing Iran? Or will Israel be given the honor?
Later in the hearing, Clinton declared: "We are deploying new approaches to the threat posed by Iran."
I would love to have been a member of the House committee so I could have had the following exchange with the Secretary of State:
Cong. Blum: Do we plan to impose sanctions on France?
Sec. Clinton: I don't understand, Congressman. Why would we impose sanctions on France?
Cong. Blum: Well, if we impose sanctions on Iran on the mere suspicion of them planning to build nuclear weapons, it seems to me we'd want to impose even stricter sanctions on a country which already possesses such weapons.
Sec. Clinton: But France is an ally.
Cong. Blum: So let's make Iran an ally. We can start with ending our many sanctions against them and calling off our Israeli attack dogs.
Sec. Clinton: But Congressman, Iran is a threat. Surely you don't see France as a threat? What reason would France have to use nuclear weapons against the United States?
Cong. Blum: What reason would Iran have to use nuclear weapons against the United States? Other than an irresistible desire for mass national suicide.
If Congressman Blum had pursued this line of questioning, it might well have culminated in some Orwellian remark by dear Hillary, such as the one she treated us to a few days later when speaking to reporters in Iraq. As the Washington Post reported it: "Clinton played down the latest burst of violence, telling reporters she saw 'no sign' it would reignite the sectarian warfare that ravaged the country in recent years. She said that the Iraqi government had 'come a long, long way' and that the bombings were 'a signal that the rejectionists fear Iraq is going in the right direction'."9
So ... the eruption of violence is a sign of success. In October 2003, President George W. Bush, speaking after many resistance attacks in Iraq had occurred, said: "The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react."10
And here is Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking in April 2004 about a rise in insurrection and fighting in Iraq over nearly a two-week period: "'I would characterize what we're seeing right now as a — as more a symptom of the success that we're having here in Iraq,' he said ... explaining that the violence indicated there was something to fight against — American progress in building up Iraq."11
War is Peace ... Freedom is Slavery ... Ignorance is Strength. I distinctly remember when I first read "1984" thinking that it was very well done but of course a great exaggeration, sort of like science fiction.
Clinton was equally profound on May 1, speaking to an assemblage of State Department employees. Discussing Venezuela and Bolivia, she said that the Bush administration "tried to isolate them, tried to support opposition to them, tried to turn them into international pariahs. It didn't work. We are going to see what other approaches might work." Oh ... uh ... how about NOT trying to isolate them, NOT supporting their opposition, NOT trying to turn them into international pariahs? How about the National Endowment for Democracy, the Agency for International Development, and the US Embassy NOT trying to subvert their revolutions? And when she says "It didn't work", one must ask: Work to what end? To return the two countries to their previous condition of client-states? Perhaps like with Nicaragua, about whom the Secretary of State said improving relations was important to counter Iran's growing influence. She noted that "the Iranians are building a huge embassy in Managua. You can only imagine what it's for."12 I can only imagine what Ms. Clinton imagines it's for. What is the new American Embassy in Iraq — the biggest embassy in the entire history of the world, in the entire universe — What is that for? Another example of Obamachange that means no change. What is it with American officials? Why are they so insufferably arrogant and hypocritical?
well, i can answer that last question. it is precisely their arrogant and hypocritical ideology that allows them to be american officials. holders of different viewpoints do not rise within the american political system. they are weeded out, smeared, not funded, mocked by the media, belittled by so called serious commentators, denied time to reach the people, attacked, and some times even killed.
the ball game has been determined. we know the winners and the losers. only the final score remains to be determined.
Friday, May 1, 2009
day of silence
today, we at brookline high, observed a day of silence for the gays and lesbians who do not feel comfortable in expressing themselves. little stickers were handed out which indicated if you were a silent or vocal supporter. a silent sticker meant that you would not talk for the day, while a vocal sticker gave you the right to do so. the day before, a number of students and teachers spoke in the auditorium. many were gay, while others were "straight allies." the audience was well behaved, and seemed either supportive or silent.
for sure, that such an event can happen at a public high school says much about the relative tolerance and progressivism at brookline. such an event would have been impossible at my high school. so, i applaud it in that regard. however, i must speak to how i feel such an event symbolizes the limits of liberalism, as i will now do.
first of all, today was may day. was the day acknowledged at brookline high? what do you think? this so called progressive town doesn't even take a second to educate its students about the struggles of working people. who among the sticker wearers has heard of the haymarket affair, the iww, eugene debs, and so many more? the limits of liberalism are found in its inability, and lack of interest, in challenging the fundamentals of political and economic power. therefore, liberals prefer to focus on issues of identity and life style, which are significant, but not as central to the power elite. they don't want wealth redistributed, they don't want wars ended, and they don't want their corporations taken over and run democratically. so, if progressivism doesn't incorporate the redistribution of power as its fundamental goal, it becomes a feel good story, and therefore, not a threat to the powerful.
so, the day of silence is practiced both for gay rights and is also practiced in the silence that surrounds may day. on this day at brookline high, no one informs the students of parsons and the others. the thousands of workers brutalized and murdered by strike breakers are too met with the silence of the ignorant. for to speak of the oppression of the working class would mean to speak of an oppressor class, the ruling class, and that would get too close to the heart of the matter.
furthermore, how many of the liberal students, so concerned with gay rights, shed a tear, never mind recognized a day of silence for, the bombed and brutalized of iraq, gaza, and afghanistan? many of these progressive young students are jewish. are they bothered by the butchery committed with impunity by the state of israel? are palestinian refugees invited to speak in the auditorium about what they have gone through? funny, but all of the compassion felt for homosexuals seems to vanish when the fate of straight and gay iraqis and palestinians is at issue. so, when israel destroyed gaza, the students continued to talk. they didn't mourn, they didn't hand out stickers. in fact, most of them blandly and blindly supported the brutality, and likely would have strongly objected if the school attempted to tell the truth about the matter.
again, we come face to face with the limits of liberalism, and that is essentially that the liberal can not challenge power. he is often better on issues of culture, and on treating people decently. he is more tolerant, more open to diversity. this is a good thing, in that it beats the alternative, and helps to create a more open culture and interactions amongst individuals.
but the bombs keep falling. the children keep dying. the earth continues to be consumed.
and brookline high is silent.
not just today, but everyday, for the limits of liberalism guarantee that this be the case.
happy may day, whether the schools, conservative or liberal, celebrate it or not.
for sure, that such an event can happen at a public high school says much about the relative tolerance and progressivism at brookline. such an event would have been impossible at my high school. so, i applaud it in that regard. however, i must speak to how i feel such an event symbolizes the limits of liberalism, as i will now do.
first of all, today was may day. was the day acknowledged at brookline high? what do you think? this so called progressive town doesn't even take a second to educate its students about the struggles of working people. who among the sticker wearers has heard of the haymarket affair, the iww, eugene debs, and so many more? the limits of liberalism are found in its inability, and lack of interest, in challenging the fundamentals of political and economic power. therefore, liberals prefer to focus on issues of identity and life style, which are significant, but not as central to the power elite. they don't want wealth redistributed, they don't want wars ended, and they don't want their corporations taken over and run democratically. so, if progressivism doesn't incorporate the redistribution of power as its fundamental goal, it becomes a feel good story, and therefore, not a threat to the powerful.
so, the day of silence is practiced both for gay rights and is also practiced in the silence that surrounds may day. on this day at brookline high, no one informs the students of parsons and the others. the thousands of workers brutalized and murdered by strike breakers are too met with the silence of the ignorant. for to speak of the oppression of the working class would mean to speak of an oppressor class, the ruling class, and that would get too close to the heart of the matter.
furthermore, how many of the liberal students, so concerned with gay rights, shed a tear, never mind recognized a day of silence for, the bombed and brutalized of iraq, gaza, and afghanistan? many of these progressive young students are jewish. are they bothered by the butchery committed with impunity by the state of israel? are palestinian refugees invited to speak in the auditorium about what they have gone through? funny, but all of the compassion felt for homosexuals seems to vanish when the fate of straight and gay iraqis and palestinians is at issue. so, when israel destroyed gaza, the students continued to talk. they didn't mourn, they didn't hand out stickers. in fact, most of them blandly and blindly supported the brutality, and likely would have strongly objected if the school attempted to tell the truth about the matter.
again, we come face to face with the limits of liberalism, and that is essentially that the liberal can not challenge power. he is often better on issues of culture, and on treating people decently. he is more tolerant, more open to diversity. this is a good thing, in that it beats the alternative, and helps to create a more open culture and interactions amongst individuals.
but the bombs keep falling. the children keep dying. the earth continues to be consumed.
and brookline high is silent.
not just today, but everyday, for the limits of liberalism guarantee that this be the case.
happy may day, whether the schools, conservative or liberal, celebrate it or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
