Over Six Billion Served
Home To The World's Best Liberal Thought And Humor
|
|
|
Over Six Billion Served
Home To The World's Best Liberal Thought And Humor
|
|
|
|
Please visit our sponsor!
|
In This Edition
Sam Harris with a absolute must read, "Losing Our Spines To Save Our Necks."
Welcome one and all to "Uncle Ernie's Issues & Alibis."
|
 Hypocrisy Democracies By Ernest Stewart The Exodus Song ~ Pat Boone Tin soldiers and Nixon coming, We're finally on our own. This summer I hear the drumming, Four dead in Ohio. Ohio ~~~ Neil Young "I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans." ~~~ 'Reverend' John Hagee Occupied Palestine, called by the Zionazis "Israel," has been in a state of war for 60 years. It didn't have to be this way but that's the way the Zionazi power structure wants it. Their entire economy is based around a constant state of war. Without a constant war, it would fold up like a house of cards in a slight breeze. If peace actually came to "Israel," they wouldn't know what to do or how to act. Most would certainly leave the country and go back to whence they came, ergo the support we give to keep them in a state of perpetual war. As you have no doubt seen, each and every political candidate, no matter what their stripe, shows universal support for their puppet masters in Tel Aviv. Hillary went so far as to pledge the total destruction of anyone who would stand in the way of "Israel's" design for some "lebensraum." If Iran attacked Israel, even if it did so after being attacked by Israel, Hillary said, "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." Do you wonder why Iran wants a bomb? Of course, Barry and Johnny, who are both Israeli 5th columnists, will do the same thing. However, with Smirky way ahead of them, at least they won't have to instigate a new war. They will inherit one in Iran, if they are allowed to take office. Barry, however, favors attacking Pakistan, too and Johnny wants to conquer the world! Therefore, as "Israel" celebrates the 60th anniversary of mass murder and theft, we find those chickens coming home to roost, America in the beginnings of WWIII. As my old mentor Tom Lehrer once said in the song National Brotherhood Week," "Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics And the Catholics hate the Protestants, And the Hindus hate the Moslems, And everybody hates the Jews" and with good reasons too I might add! In Other News And while we're on the subject of anniversaries, May 4th marked the 38th anniversary of the massacre at Kent State. You may recall how the cowards of the Ohio Nation Guard slaughtered a group of defenseless, unarmed students protesting the war. All much to the glee of the "Trick" and Ohio governor Hitler er, Rhodes. The 77 National Guard troops from A Company and Troop G began to advance on the hundreds of protesters with bayonets fixed on their weapons, charging them several times. After the demonstration had all but broken up, they opened fire on everyone on campus. The murdering guardsmen, for the most part, didn't fire on the protestors but at students who were far away walking to class. When the rifle smoked cleared, four lay dead, nine wounded and one paralyzed. No one was ever punished or even tried for this mass murder. The result, however, was that over 4 million students protested and over 900 American colleges and universities closed during the student strikes that followed. Nixon ran off and hid at Camp David while a quarter million protestors descended upon Washington D.C. in a rage. The 82nd Airborne was called but not used. We were, at that moment, just a few missteps away from the anarchy and the second civil war. It's seems a pity, as bringing the war back home to "Foggy Bottom" was exactly what was needed, and still is, for that matter! I'm having a déjà vu all over again! As Neil Young said in "Ohio"... "What if you knew her, And found her dead on the ground? How can you run, when you know?" And Finally There has been a lot said of late, about how the MSM favors this candidate or that candidate over the others. The mainstream media is, of course, for John McCain on the far right and for Barrack Obama on the near right. Ever since Slick Willy set back by eight years, the Crime Family Bush's plans to rule the world, the Clintons have been personae non gratae in their eyes. They do this because in part they fear Slick Willie's revenge but mostly to get Bush's toady McCain under the puppet masters' strings. Have no doubt that all the fascist pundits who have been pitching Obama underhanded softballs will start throwing hardballs at his head as soon as he's the official Demoncratic candidate. They picked Obama to win because they fear their archenemy Hillary could beat Johnny by a margin so big that their electronic voting machine stooges couldn't steal it. If you want to see how this works, consider the candidates 'god' connections. Barry and his "reverend" have been tarred and feathered because Wright had the balls to tell the truth. Everything Fox Spews, the Corporate News Network went on and on about, and will be brought back at a drop of the hat, was the truth and Zeus knows we can't have the truth in politics! What a crazy idea. And for daring to say so, Barry and Jerry caught corporate hell! You may recall... Jerry said: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost." And... "The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism." And... "Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run! We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God." If you deny any of those statements then you are denying the truth! Now let's compare and contrast the statements from the reverend John Hagee one of Johnny's 'god' connections of whom Johnny said... "All I can tell you is I'm very proud to have Pastor Hagee's support." Here's some quotes from Hagee which explain why Johnny is so proud... John said: "God caused Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans because it had a gay pride parade the week before and was filled with sexual sin." And... "Gay marriage will open the door to incest, to polygamy, and every conceivable marriage arrangement demented minds can possibly conceive. If God does not then punish America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah." And... "Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist." Another "sky pilot" who supports McCain and who Johnny and the MSM speak highly of and defend is the "reverend" Rod Parsley. Here are some of Rod's thoughts... Rod said: "Americans must be "Christocrats" And that is not a democracy; that is a theocracy. That means God is in control, and you are not." And... "Only 1 percent of the homosexual population in America will die of old age. The average life expectancy for a homosexual in the United States of America is 43 years of age. A lesbian can only expect to live to be 45 years of age. Homosexuals represent 2 percent of the population, yet today they're carrying 60 percent of the known cases of syphilis." And... "I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore." See what I mean, America? Barry is about to find out what Presidents Carter and Clinton, Vice Presidents Mondale and Gore and Senator Kerry found out about the media. Trouble is, it's "we the people" who will once again suffer for it! ***** Soon media newsrooms will drop the pretense, and start hiring theater directors instead of journalists." ~~~ Arundhati Roy ~~~ This week the cupboard was bare. We have some serious bills coming due next month and in July and we are nowhere near having the money to pay them. HELP! A few weeks ago we were once again forced to go to our readers and ask for money to keep publishing. We are fundamentally unable and philosophically unwilling to devise catchy fundraising tactics. We aren't going to ask you to send $20.08 each or offer new cell phone plans or try to convince you a donation to Issues and Alibis will save the world from the scourge du jour. Everyone associated with this magazine is stubborn and pissed off and determined to continue fighting for the world that we want to leave our children-and they are all our children. We'll keep publishing as long as possible. But, as we've detailed below, we need money to go on. It is the few dollars a week that makes a difference in our survival. Those of you who have responded since we first asked for help have not only been generous but you've also given us encouragement and strengthened our conviction that it is important to continue to speak truth, keep advertising to a bare minimum and provide a forum for other people to speak their truths, too. As more and more leftist publications are forced into oblivion or turned into tools of the power elite, your letters and messages are more important to us than ever. We appreciate the support. We have a single advertiser that covers most of our costs but still leaves us, as of today, with a $4500 bill. In addition, one of the two broken old computers that we use to publish recently all but gave up the ghost and we need to replace it ASAP. With our educational discount, we'll need to raise immediately $2000 for a new machine and software. This old iBook is about to join the old Dell in the trash heap, when it does, we'll be gone! Therefore, our goal is to raise $6500 and any help you can give us toward that goal will be greatly appreciated. As I'm sure you know, 2008 is a pivotal year in this country's history and we can either make things better or make things worse. If things stay the same, we'll still be on the same road to ruin that we are on today. Unlike other magazines and blogs, which raise $50,000 or more every three months, we at Issues and Alibis ask only for funds to cover expenses we can't meet ourselves. In addition, no one in the magazine receives any compensation including yours truly. Everyone here has donated his or her words, art and time to the magazine, won't you please donate something, too! So to contribute to the cause just visit our donations page and follow the instructions there. Thank you! Ernest & Victoria Stewart *****  08-30-1946 ~ 05-01-2008 Now here's Roy...  05-15-1918 ~ 05-08-2008 The world went away! ***** The "W" theatre trailers are up along with the new movie poster and screen shots from the film. They are all available at the all-new "W" movie site: http://wthemovie.com. Both trailers are on site and may be downloaded; the new trailer can be seen with Flash on site. You can download in either PC or Mac formats. I'm in the new trailer as myself but don't blink or you'll miss me! The trailers are also available on YouTube along with a short scene from the film. ******************************************** We get by with a little help from our friends! So please help us if you can...? Donations ******************************************** So how do you like the 2nd coup d'etat so far? And more importantly, what are you planning on doing about it? Until the next time, Peace! (c) 2008 Ernest Stewart a.k.a. Uncle Ernie is an unabashed radical, author, stand-up comic, DJ, actor, political pundit and for the last 7 years managing editor and publisher of Issues & Alibis magazine. In his spare time he is an actor, writer and an associate producer for the new motion picture "W." |
 Losing Our Spines To Save Our Necks By Sam Harris Geert Wilders, conservative Dutch politician and provocateur, has become the latest projectile in the world's most important culture war: the zero-sum conflict between civil society and traditional Islam. Wilders, who lives under perpetual armed guard due to death threats, recently released a 15 minute film entitled Fitna ("strife" in Arabic) over the internet. The film has been deemed offensive because it juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur'an. Given that the perpetrators of such violence regularly cite these same passages as justification for their actions, merely depicting this connection in a film would seem uncontroversial. Controversial or not, one surely would expect politicians and journalists in every free society to strenuously defend Wilders' right to make such a film. But then one would be living on another planet, a planet where people do not happily repudiate their most basic freedoms in the name of "religious sensitivity." Witness the free world's response to Fitna: The Dutch government sought to ban the film outright, and European Union foreign ministers publicly condemned it, as did UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Dutch television refused to air Fitna unedited. When Wilders declared his intention to release the film over the internet, his U.S. web-host, Network Solutions, took his website offline. Into the breach stepped Liveleak, a British video-sharing website, which finally aired the film on March 27th. It received over 3 million views in the first 24 hours. The next day, however, Liveleak removed Fitna from its servers, having been terrorized into self-censorship by threats to its staff. But the film had spread too far on the internet to be suppressed (and Liveleak, after taking further security measures, has since reinstated it on its site as well). Of course, there were immediate calls for a boycott of Dutch products throughout the Muslim world. In response, Dutch corporations placed ads in countries like Indonesia, denouncing the film in self-defense. Several Muslim countries blocked YouTube and other video-sharing sites in an effort to keep Wilders' blasphemy from penetrating the minds of their citizens. There have also been isolated protests and attacks on embassies, and ubiquitous demands for Wilders' murder. In Afghanistan, women in burqas could be seen burning the Dutch flag; the Taliban carried out at least two revenge attacks on Dutch troops, resulting in five Dutch casualties; and security concerns have caused the Netherlands to close its embassy in Kabul. It must be said, however, that nothing has yet occurred to rival the ferocious response to the Danish cartoons. Meanwhile Kurt Westergaard, one of the Danish cartoonists, threatened to sue Wilders for copyright infringement, as Wilders used his drawing of a bomb-laden Muhammad without permission. Westergaard has lived in hiding since 2006 due to death threats of his own, so the Danish Union of Journalists volunteered to file this lawsuit on his behalf. Admittedly, there is something amusing about one hunted man, unable to venture out in public for fear of being killed by religious lunatics, threatening to sue another man in the same predicament over a copyright violation. But it is understandable that Westergaard wouldn't want to be repeatedly hurled at the enemy without his consent. Westergaard is an extraordinarily courageous man whose life has been ruined both by religious fanaticism and the free world's submission to it. In February, the Danish government arrested three Muslims who seemed poised to murder him. Other Danes unfortunate enough to have been born with the name "Kurt Westergaard" have had to take steps to escape being murdered in his place. (Wilder's has since removed the cartoon from the official version of Fitna.) Wilders, like Westergaard and the other Danish cartoonists, has been widely vilified for "seeking to inflame" the Muslim community. Even if this had been his intention, this criticism represents an almost supernatural coincidence of moral blindness and political imprudence. The point is not (and will never be) that some free person spoke, or wrote, or illustrated in such a manner as to inflame the Muslim community. The point is that only the Muslim community is combustible in this way. The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence. There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia." Our capitulations in the face of these threats have had what is often called "a chilling effect" on our exercise of free speech. I have, in my own small way, experienced this chill first hand. First, and most important, my friend and colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali happens to be among the hunted. Because of the failure of Western governments to make it safe for people to speak openly about the problem of Islam, I and others must raise a mountain of private funds to help pay for her round-the-clock protection. The problem is not, as is often alleged, that governments cannot afford to protect every person who speaks out against Muslim intolerance. The problem is that so few people do speak out. If there were ten thousand Ayaan Hirsi Ali's, the risk to each would be radically reduced. As for infringements of my own speech, my first book, The End of Faith, almost did not get published for fear of offending the sensibilities of (probably non-reading) religious fanatics. W.W. Norton, which did publish the book, was widely seen as taking a risk--one probably attenuated by the fact that I am an equal-opportunity offender critical of all religious faith. However, when it came time to make final edits to the galleys of The End of Faith, many of the people I had thanked by name in my acknowledgments (including my agent at the time and my editor at Norton) independently asked to have their names removed from the book. Their concerns were explicitly for their personal safety. Given our shamefully ineffectual response to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, their concerns were perfectly understandable. Nature, arguably the most influential scientific journal on the planet, recently published a lengthy whitewash of Islam (Z. Sardar "Beyond the troubled relationship." Nature 448, 131-133; 2007). The author began, as though atop a minaret, by simply declaring the religion of Islam to be "intrinsically rational." He then went on to argue, amid a highly idiosyncratic reading of history and theology, that this rational religion's current wallowing in the violent depths of unreason can be fully ascribed to the legacy of colonialism. After some negotiation, Nature also agreed to publish a brief response from me. What readers of my letter to the editor could not know, however, was that it was only published after perfectly factual sentences deemed offensive to Islam were expunged. I understood the editors' concerns at the time: not only did they have Britain's suffocating libel laws to worry about, but Muslim physicians and engineers in the UK had just revealed a penchant for suicide bombing. I was grateful that Nature published my letter at all. In a thrillingly ironic turn of events, a shorter version of the very essay you are now reading was originally commissioned by the opinion page of Washington Post and then rejected because it was deemed too critical of Islam. Please note, this essay was destined for the opinion page of the paper, which had solicited my response to the controversy over Wilders' film. The irony of its rejection seemed entirely lost on the Post, which responded to my subsequent expression of amazement by offering to pay me a "kill fee." I declined. I could list other examples of encounters with editors and publishers, as can many writers, all illustrating a single fact: While it remains taboo to criticize religious faith in general, it is considered especially unwise to criticize Islam. Only Muslims hound and hunt and murder their apostates, infidels, and critics in the 21st century. There are, to be sure, reasons why this is so. Some of these reasons have to do with accidents of history and geopolitics, but others can be directly traced to doctrines sanctifying violence which are unique to Islam. A point of comparison: The controversy of over Fitna was immediately followed by ubiquitous media coverage of a scandal involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). In Texas, police raided an FLDS compound and took hundreds of women and underage girls into custody to spare them the continued, sacramental predations of their menfolk. While mainstream Mormonism is now granted the deference accorded to all major religions in the United States, its fundamentalist branch, with its commitment to polygamy, spousal abuse, forced marriage, child brides (and, therefore, child rape) is often portrayed in the press as a depraved cult. But one could easily argue that Islam, considered both in the aggregate and in terms of its most negative instances, is far more despicable than fundamentalist Mormonism. The Muslim world can match the FLDS sin for sin--Muslims commonly practice polygamy, forced-marriage (often between underage girls and older men), and wife-beating--but add to these indiscretions the surpassing evils of honor killing, female "circumcision," widespread support for terrorism, a pornographic fascination with videos showing the butchery of infidels and apostates, a vibrant form of anti-semitism that is explicitly genocidal in its aspirations, and an aptitude for producing children's books and television programs which exalt suicide-bombing and depict Jews as "apes and pigs." Any honest comparison between these two faiths reveals a bizarre double standard in our treatment of religion. We can openly celebrate the marginalization of FLDS men and the rescue of their women and children. But, leaving aside the practical and political impossibility of doing so, could we even allow ourselves to contemplate liberating the women and children of traditional Islam? What about all the civil, freedom-loving, moderate Muslims who are just as appalled by Muslim intolerance as I am? No doubt millions of men and women fit this description, but vocal moderates are very difficult to find. Wherever "moderate Islam" does announce itself, one often discovers frank Islamism lurking just a euphemism or two beneath the surface. The subterfuge is rendered all but invisible to the general public by political correctness, wishful thinking, and "white guilt." This is where we find sinister people successfully posing as "moderates"--people like Tariq Ramadan who, while lionized by liberal Europeans as the epitome of cosmopolitan Islam, cannot bring himself to actually condemn honor killing in round terms (he recommends that the practice be suspended, pending further study). Moderation is also attributed to groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamist public relations firm posing as a civil-rights lobby. Even when one finds a true voice of Muslim moderation, it often seems distinguished by a lack of candor above all things. Take someone like Reza Aslan, author of No God But God: I debated Aslan for Book TV on the general subject of religion and modernity. During the course of our debate, I had a few unkind words to say about the Muslim Brotherhood. While admitting that there is a difference between the Brotherhood and a full-blown jihadist organization like al Qaeda, I said that their ideology was "close enough" to be of concern. Aslan responded with a grandiose, ad hominem attack saying, "that indicates the profound unsophistication that you have about this region. You could not be more wrong" and claiming that I'd taken my view of Islam from "Fox News." Such maneuvers, coming from a polished, Iranian-born scholar of Islam carry the weight of authority, especially in front of an audience of people who are desperate to believe the threat of Islam has been grossly exaggerated. The problem, however, is that the credo of the Muslim Brotherhood actually happens to be "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." The connection between the doctrine of Islam and Islamist violence is simply not open to dispute. It's not that critics of religion like myself speculate that such a connection might exist: the point is that Islamists themselves acknowledge and demonstrate this connection at every opportunity and to deny it is to retreat within a fantasy world of political correctness and religious apology. Many western scholars, like the much admired Karen Armstrong, appear to live in just such a place. All of their talk about how benign Islam "really" is, and about how the problem of fundamentalism exists in all religions, only obfuscates what may be the most pressing issue of our time: Islam, as it is currently understood and practiced by vast numbers of the world's Muslims, is antithetical to civil society. A recent poll showed that thirty-six percent of British Muslims (ages 16-24) believe that a person should be killed for leaving the faith. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should have been brought to justice. And these are British Muslims. Occasionally, however, a lone voice can be heard acknowledging the obvious. Hassan Butt wrote in the Guardian: When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology. It is astounding how infrequently one hears such candor among the public voices of "moderate" Islam. This is what we owe the true moderates of the Muslim world: we must hold their co-religionists to the same standards of civility and reasonableness that we take for granted in all other people. Only our willingness to openly criticize Islam for its all-too-obvious failings can make it safe for Muslim moderates, secularists, apostates--and, indeed, women--to rise up and reform their faith. And if anyone in this debate can be credibly accused of racism, it is the western apologists and "multiculturalists" who deem Arabs and Muslims too immature to shoulder the responsibilities of civil discourse. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali has pointed out, there is a calamitous form of "affirmative action" at work, especially in western Europe, where Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying "respect" to the glaring pathologies in their culture. Hirsi Ali has also observed that there is a quasi-racist double-think on display whenever western powers trumpet that "Islam is peace," all the while taking heroic measures to guard against the next occasion when the barbarians run amok in response to a film, cartoon, opera, novel, beauty pageant--or the mere naming of a teddy bear. Have you seen the Danish cartoons that so roiled the Muslim world? Probably not, as their publication was suppressed by almost every newspaper, magazine, and television station in the United States. Given their volcanic reception--hundreds of thousands of Muslims rioted, hundreds of people were killed--their sheer banality should have rendered these drawings extraordinarily newsworthy. One magazine which did print them, Free Inquiry (for which I am proud to have written), had its stock banned from every Borders and Waldenbooks in the country. These are precisely the sorts of capitulations that we must avoid in the future. The lesson we should draw from the Fitna controversy is that we need more criticism of Islam, not less. Let it come down in such torrents that not even the most deluded Islamist could conceive of containing it. As Ibn Warraq, author of the revelatory Why I Am Not a Muslim, said in response to recent events: It is perverse for the western media to lament the lack of an Islamic reformation and willfully ignore works such as Wilders' film, Fitna. How do they think reformation will come about if not with criticism? There is no such right as 'the right not to be offended; indeed, I am deeply offended by the contents of the Koran, with its overt hatred of Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers, homosexuals but cannot demand its suppression.
It is time we recognized that those who claim the "right not to be offended" have also announced their hatred of civil society.
|
 "...Namely The State Of Israel" By Uri Avnery EVERY TIME I hear the voice of David Ben-Gurion uttering the words "Therefore we are gathered here..." I think of Issar Barsky, a charming youngster, the little brother of a girl-friend of mine. The last time we met was in front of the dining hall of Kibbutz Hulda, on Friday, May 14, 1948. In the coming night my company was to attack al-Qubab, an Arab village on the road to Jerusalem, east of Ramle. We were busy with preparations. I was cleaning my Czech-made rifle, when somebody came and told us that Ben-Gurion was just making a speech about the founding of the state. Frankly, none of us was very interested in speeches by politicians in Tel Aviv. The city seemed so far away. The state, we knew, was here with us. If the Arabs were to win, there would be no state and no us. If we won, there would be a state. We were young and self-confident, and did not doubt for a moment that we would win. But there was one detail that I was really curious about: what was the new state to be called? Judea? Zion? The Jewish State? So I hastened to the dining hall. Ben-Gurion's unmistakable voice was blaring from the radio. When he reached the words "...namely the State of Israel" I had had enough and left. Outside I came across Issar. He was in another company, which was to attack another village that night. I told him about the name of the state and said "take care of yourself!" Some days later he was killed. So I remember him as he was then: a boy of 19, a smiling, tall Sabra full of joie de vivre and innocence. THE CLOSER we come to the grandiose 60th anniversary festivities, the more I am troubled by the question: if Issar were to open his eyes and see us, still a boy of 19, what would he think of the state that was officially established on that day? He would see a state that has developed beyond his wildest dreams. From a small community of 635,000 souls (more than 6000 of whom would die with him in that war) we have grown to more than seven million. The two great miracles we have wrought - the revival of the Hebrew language and the institution of Israeli democracy - continue to be a reality. Our economy is strong and in some fields - such a hi-tech - we are in the world super-league. Issar would be excited and proud. But he would also feel that something had gone wrong in our society. The Kibbutz where we put up our little bivouac tents that day has become an economic enterprise, like any other. The social solidarity, of which we were so proud, has collapsed. Masses of adults and children live below the poverty line, old people, the sick and the unemployed are left to fend for themselves. The gap between rich and poor is one of the widest in the developed world. And our society, that once raised the banner of equality and justice, just clucks its collective tongue and moves on to other matters. Most of all he would be shocked to discover that the brutal war, which killed him and wounded me, together with thousands of others, is still going on at full blast. It determines the entire life of the nation. It fills the first pages of the newspapers and heads the news bulletins. That our army, the army that really was "we," has become something quite different, an army whose main occupation us to oppress another people. THAT NIGHT we indeed attacked al-Qubab. When we entered the village, it was already deserted. I broke into one of the homes. The pot was still warm, food was on the table. On one of the shelves I found some photos: a man who had obviously just combed his hair, a village woman, two small children. I still have them with me. I assume that the village which was attacked by Issar that night presented a similar picture. The villagers - men, women, children - fled at the last moment, leaving their whole life behind them. There is no escape from the historic fact: Israel's Independence Day and the Palestinians' Naqba (Catastrophe) Day are two sides of the same coin. In 60 years we have not succeeded - and actually have not even tried - to untie this knot by creating another reality. And so the war goes on. WITH THE 60th Independence Day approaching, a committee sat down to choose an emblem for the event. The one they came up with looks like something for Coca Cola or the Eurovision song contest. The real emblem of the state is quite different, and no committee of bureaucrats has had to invent it. It is fixed to the ground and can be seen from afar: The Wall. The Separation Wall. Separation between whom, between what? Apparently between Israeli Kfar Sava and neighboring Palestinian Qalqiliyah, between Modi'in Illit and Bil'in. Between the State of Israel (and some more grabbed land) and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. But in reality, between two worlds. In the fevered imagination of those who believe in the "clash of civilizations," whether George Bush or Osama Bin-Laden - the Wall is the border between the two titans of history, Western civilization and Islamic civilization, two mortal enemies fighting a war of Gog and Magog. Our Wall has become the front-line between these two worlds. The wall is not just a structure of concrete and wire. More than anything else, the wall - like every such wall - is an ideological statement, a declaration of intent, a mental reality. The builders declare that they belong, body and soul, to one camp, the Western one, and that on the other side of the wall there begins the opposing world, the enemy, the masses of Arabs and other Muslims. When was that decided? Who made the decision? How? 102 years ago, Theodor Herzl wrote in his ground-breaking oeuvre, Der Judenstaat, which gave birth to the Zionist movement, a sentence fraught with significance: "For Europe we shall constitute there [in Palestine] a sector of the wall against Asia, we shall serve as the vanguard of culture against barbarism." Thus, in 22 German words, the world-view of Zionism, and our place in it, was laid down. And now, after a delay of four generations, the physical wall is following the path of the mental one. The picture is bright and clear: We are essentially a part of Europe (like North America), a part of culture, which is entirely European. On the other side: Asia, a barbaric continent, empty of culture, including the Muslim and Arab world. One can understand Herzl's world view. He was a man of the 19th century, and he wrote his treatise when white Imperialism was at its zenith. He admired it with all his soul. He endeavored (in vain) to arrange a meeting with Cecil Rhodes, the man who symbolized British colonialism. He approached Joseph Chamberlain, the British Colonial Secretary, who offered him Uganda, then a British colony. At the same time, he also admired the German Kaiser and his so well-ordered Reich, which carried out a horrible genocide in South-West Africa in the year of Herzl's death. Herzl's maxim did not remain an abstract thought. The Zionist movement followed it from the first moment on, and the State of Israel continues to do so to this very day. COULD IT have been different? Could we have become a part of the region? Could we have become a kind of cultural Switzerland, an independent island between East and West, bridging and mediating between the two? One month before the outbreak of the 1948 war, seven months before the State of Israel was officially founded, I published a booklet entitled "War or Peace in the Semitic Region." It began with the words: "When our Zionist fathers decided to set up a "safe haven" in Palestine, they had the choice between two paths: "They could appear in West Asia as a European conqueror, who sees himself as a bridgehead of the 'white' race and master of the 'natives', like the Spanish conquistadores and the Anglo-Saxon colonialists in America. Like, in their time, the Crusaders in Palestine. "The other path was to see themselves as an Asian people returning to its homeland - seeing themselves as an heir to the political and cultural tradition of the Semitic region." The history of this country has seen dozens of invasions. They can be divided into two main categories. There were the invaders who came from the West, such as the Philistines, the Greeks, the Romans, the Crusaders, Napoleon and the British. Such an invasion establishes a bridgehead, and its mental outlook is that of a bridgehead. The region beyond is hostile territory, its inhabitants enemies who have to be oppressed or destroyed. In the end, all of these invaders were expelled. And there were the invaders who came from the East, such as the Emorites, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians and the Arabs. They conquered the land and became part of it, influenced its culture and were influenced by it, and in the end struck roots. The ancient Israelites were of the second category. Even if there is some doubt about the Exodus from Egypt as described in the Books of Moses, or the Conquest of Canaan as described in the Book of Joshua, it is reasonable to assume that they were tribes that came in from the desert and infiltrated between the fortified Canaanite towns, which they could not conquer, as indeed described in Judges 1. The Zionists, on the other hand, were of the first category. They brought with them the world-view of a bridgehead, a vanguard of Europe. This world-view gave birth to the Wall as a national symbol. It has to be changed entirely. ONE OF our national peculiarities is a form of discussion where all the participants, whether from the Left or from the Right, use the clinching argument: "If we don't do this and this, the state will cease to exist!" Can one imagine such an argument in France, Britain or the USA? This is a symptom of "Crusader" anxiety. Even though the Crusaders stayed in this country for almost 200 years and produced eight generations of "natives," they were never really sure of their continued existence here. I am not worried about the existence of the State of Israel. It will exist as long as states exist. The question is: What kind of state will it be? A state of permanent war, the terror of its neighbors, where violence pervades all spheres of life, where the rich flourish and the poor live in misery; a state that will be deserted by the best of its children? Or a state that lives in peace with its neighbors, to their mutual benefit; a modern society with equal rights for all its citizens and without poverty; a state that invests its resources in science and culture, industry and the environment; where future generations will want to live; a source of pride for all its citizens?
That can be our objective for the next 60 years. I think this is what Issar would have wanted, too.
|
 Shine On By Victoria Stewart
Come on you painter, you piper, you prisoner, and shine!" ~~~ Roger Waters ~~~
"Why in the world are we here?
"She had an everlasting notion_
The other night I saw interviews with people whose electricity had been shut off; people whose children did their homework in the car in order to have light; people who could not cook or keep milk cold; people who wept in their shame. It was the same shame I have seen on the faces of people who lost their homes and jobs. It is the shame poor people in this country feel every day. The shame of being poor in a rich society. A society that makes poverty not only the fault of the poor but a personal and moral failing as well. That night, as I watched a mother wipe tears off her face and say, "I am just so ashamed," I hated George Bush with a white-hot intensity. I had an instantaneous flash of the millions of shattered lives, the broken bodies, the corpses and poisoned earth, the death and mayhem and destruction this one man has generated and I realized I could devise no system of justice, no method of punishment, no judgment or curse equal to the crimes he has committed. And none of the disciplines I have practiced in my life, not meditation or yoga or poetry, could deliver me from my hatred of this one man. The people I have admired in history, however, even the warrior queens and mystics, did not advocate hatred, nor have the great leaders of our age. And hatred doesn't seem particularly effective in producing change. George Bush, the people who surround him and the people who control him, do not hate. It might seem as if they bear enormous animosity for almost everyone in the world but the truth is infinitely more disturbing. These people (although it comforts me to think they are actually another species and not carriers of the same DNA as the rest of us) are completely indifferent to any and every thing save their own desires. They do not care, do not even think, about the suffering and death they cause. It is beyond the scope of their emotional range. And it is difficult to conceive, much less understand, because such indifference is aberrant and psychopathic behavior. It was George Bernard Shaw, who observed, "The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them; that's the essence of inhumanity." Love is offered as the antidote for hatred. Love and compassion. All the people I admire, living and dead, agree that love is the answer. But I cannot bring myself to love George Bush. I don't like hatred, however. It makes me uncomfortable physically. It distorts my thoughts. It robs me of peace. I understand what Booker T. Washington meant when he said that hatred narrows and degrades the soul. I feel fouled by my own emotions. And so, unable to find even a speck of compassion for this American president but equally unable to continue my bondage to that hatred, I turned, as all the sages advised, to love. Love seems an unlikely component of the political process. Aggressive rhetoric, personal attacks, strategy, manipulation and, of course, lies are what move the wheels of power. And politics is about power. But when I think about the love I know--the fierce, determined love for my children, the soft and comforting love for my family elders and friends, the sweet, piercing love for my husband-and expand the reach of that love into the public arena, I begin to see new possibilities for change. We exhaust ourselves slamming against the walls of indifference. Instead, we must begin to direct that energy toward lifting up the victims of poverty and violence-including ourselves. I don't know exactly how we will do this but we can begin by caring for the children. We can act as if that starving child in Indonesia, the terrified child in Baghdad, the homeless child in Minnesota, is our child. And we must let ourselves be infused with the strength and purpose and generosity of love.
Love, as a friend used to say, is a way of acting as well as a feeling. I cannot love George Bush and all he represents but I can make my opposition an act of love.
|
|
The idea is that we'll all rush out and buy, buy, buy - thus stimulating the economy, creating jobs, and causing bluebirds of happiness to trill with delight. Wal-Mart is ready for you, offering to cash your government checks for free and tempting you with special price promotions. Indeed, every big retailer is running shopper specials in May.
But, wait - most of the stuff sold in those stores isn't made in America. So those sounds of economic stimulation we're hearing - from factory machinery to bluebirds - are coming from China, Singapore, and other low-wage nations where U.S. corporations have moved production. Spending at the Wal-Marts won't create new production or new jobs in your town or mine.
That's why I have a different plan for my $600 check. I'm setting $400 of it aside to spend at farmers markets, artisan shops, and hometown businesses that sell goods produced locally, or at least produced in America. This way, our tax dollars can circulate here at home, genuinely benefiting our grass roots economy.
Then, I'm going to donate the other $200 to public interest groups or progressive candidates who are pushing for real economic reform, not made-in-China consumerism. In particular, my small donations will support those working for a massive public investment in repairing and extending America's deteriorating infrastructure - including water systems, bridges, schools, parks, public transportation, and a state-of-the-art internet system.
Instead of a shopping stimulus, we should be employing millions of Americans at good wages to do the good grassroots work that needs to be done.
|
|
While filming one of our PBS-TV Shows at Disney World in Orlando , Florida , we were invited to tour and subsequently film several shows at the Land Pavilion where they were exhibiting several new methods of growing vegetables - some even suited for the moon! One demonstration was the standard hydroponic method where plants are grown, not in dirt or soil, but in water.
Another method (but this is for another time) was airoponics where the roots hung down in a closed, lightless area where they were sprayed with a fine water spray and the plant top grew up a string in the sunlight - very similar to our SFG vertical method.
But - back at the ranch. At the hydroponic display, they had large shallow pools of water with 4'x8' sheets of Styrofoam floating on the surface. The actual plants were started in little cups filled with a soil mix much like Mel's Mix. Holes were drilled at uniform spacing in the Styrofoam and the cups fit tightly into those holes. When the seeds sprouted the roots grew down right into the water.
Apparently a plant can have two kinds of roots - normal air roots for growing in soil and also water roots. Remember, the SFG book tells you how the roots do not actually grow in the soil particles, but meander their way through the air spaces between those particles. In addition, a plant has the ability to grow a slightly different type of root that will grow in nothing but water. The water roots can take up the oxygen and nutrients in the water solution and, believe it or not, provide the plant with all the energy it needs. Liquid fertilizer was being added to the water which was continuously circulated to keep it fresh and moving. The top of the plant had plenty of room to spread out on the Styrofoam surface just as if it were planted in a garden. If it was a vine crop and hanging support strings were provided, the plant would just climb up the string or could be attached to it very easily by gently twisting it around the string once or twice a week.
I was so amazed and enthralled with this method, that when we came home I decided to see if we could make Square Foot Gardening do the hydroponic thing. After all, the only thing needed is a pool of water which could be provided with our standard 6 inch deep 4 ft by 4 ft box with a plywood bottom and lined with heavy duty six-mil plastic so the box doesn't leak. It would be just like a square 6-inch deep wading pool. The box could sit on the ground in the garden, patio, or even the deck. Or it could be raised up to sit on a tabletop, sawhorses or even on legs made out of wood or stacks of cement blocks. There is no end to the location and setting. And for the surface, I thought, why not cut out twelve inch by twelve inch pieces of half to one inch thick Styrofoam and cut holes at either the one, four, nine, or sixteen spacing, the standard spacing for Square Foot Gardening. After building a sample box, I set it on sawhorses out in the yard to get maximum sunlight. Having it up higher meant no bending over to garden.
 The 4 ft by 4 ft box with a plywood bottom, no holes for drainage, set up on two saw horses. Notice the vertical pipe legs which will become the vertical frame for the vine crops to grow on. Next, I added the plastic liner, filled it with water, let the sun warm the water and then added the Square Foot Styrofoam pieces. It looked great - so far so good!
 Notice the clear plastic has been installed as a lining and the box filled with water. Rather than using thin sheets of 12 inch by 12 inch Styrofoam I started by floating standard commercial seed starter boxes in the water. This worked so well as the plant roots grew down into the water that I later started using the square foot Styrofoam as explained in the above article.
Later, I had obtained some standard small cups at the deli and made sure the cups fit tightly in the holes I cut in the flat Styrofoam 12"x12" squares. Then I planted some seeds and some transplanted seedlings. I planted each square foot with a different crop until the entire 4x4 was filled with a variety of lettuces, beets, Swiss chard, scallions, peppers, radishes, and spinach. I located the other trial hydroponic box in a patio space out in full sun so it made a very interesting addition. As I sat there watching the plants grow, I thought of all the different possibilities. One idea I thought of was to leave one or two of the Styrofoam squares empty and to plant water lilies in that square. They are usually grown in a clay flower pot in soil and then just set down in the water so everything except the leaves are below the water surface. Of course, another idea would be to put in a water fountain that would create a miniature garden landscape. Disney never thought of these things. Their ideas were to try out ways that would be adaptable in many locations around the world and perhaps even in space. Now one problem came to mind. If we had an open-water surface out in the garden, what would be sure to find it? Mosquitoes lay their eggs in water and the nymph grows in that water. Surely mosquitoes would find this pool of water and find it a charming place to lay their eggs (which, by the way, look like little black rafts - the eggs are glued together turned straight up). Once they hatch, the larvae go to the bottom of the water to look for food. As they develop and grow larger they then turn into the next stage of development where they must wiggle to the surface and poke their tubes through the water surface to breathe air. The well-known treatment for standing water is to cover the surface with a very thin film of oil that makes the surface tension so tough that the larvae cannot poke through it; thus they suffocate by not being able to breathe any air. However, there is another unique way to get rid of the mosquito larvae and that is to introduce something that will eat them. That would be - a little drum roll please - FISH. So, I could have cute little tropical fish swimming around beneath my plants, eating all the mosquito larvae and getting large enough to go into my indoor aquarium for the winter. What do you think of that idea? But how would the SFG plants get their nutrients? Fertilizers come in both organic and chemical forms as well as dry powders or liquids and for this operation it was easiest to add a liquid to the 4x4 box of water. This could be done, perhaps, on a weekly basis, but as I experimented more and more I found that unless you were after very vigorous and rapid growth, the plants seemed to do quite well in just plain water. Hence we could have an Organic Hydroponic Garden . Who else on your block could say that? Another idea was to attach a SFG vertical frame and grow vine crops. It was very easy to install the typical SFG vertical frame as described in my book. I made it out of the same electrical metal conduit but instead of driving steel rods into the ground to hold up the pipe legs, I used metal clamps that held the legs tightly to the outside of the box yet in an upright position as seen in the first photo. Or, four legs could even be placed, one in each inside corner of the box resting on the inside bottom. I could envision an entire arbor placed over the hydroponic box and planting vine crops all around the outer 4 sides with shade crops in the interior squares. The next idea would be to take this whole contraption indoors and grow under lights in the basement or on an enclosed porch all winter. If necessary, we could add an aquarium tank water heater because it was obvious the plants would grow quicker and better the warmer the water was up to a point of about 80 ° F. That worked also, so there seemed to be no limit to this idea, only the imagination of the grower. Did we grow more this way than in a conventional SFG outside? No! Could we grow things that we could not grow in a regular SFG? No! Did we have a lot of fun? Yes! In fact, this would make a particularly challenging science project for a student of any age. I hope you'll give it a try and send us pictures and share your experiences. You might ask what made me think of all this hydroponic growing and experimenting I did 20 years ago. I was recently screening all of our original PBS-TV shows in order to reproduce them and issue DVD's of some of the most interesting and still pertinent episodes. There were several trips we made to Florida and Disney World was in several of them. We also did segments on their behind-the-scenes planting, growing and shearing of all their hanging baskets, topiary figures, as well as several parts of the Land pavilion. Another interesting area we filmed was a tour through all the different country's gardens at the Epcot Center . (Watch our catalog page to see when we have those DVDs as products you can order.)
Next question - are we going to design, build and sell a SFG Hydroponic kit with all the parts I mentioned above? Yes, if we get enough interest. Let us know with an e-mail - or just go build one yourself and give it a try. It's a lot of fun. And, don't forget those guppies and swordtails.
|
|
Introduction to How Freeze-Drying Works  "Astronaut ice cream," the classic freeze-dried treat for kids Freeze-drying, or lyophilization, is like "suspended animation" for food. You can store a freeze-dried meal for years and years, and then, when you're finally ready to eat it, you can completely revitalize it with a little hot water. Even after all those years, the taste and texture will be pretty much the same. That's some trick! In this article, we'll explore the basic idea behind freeze-drying, and we'll look at the different steps involved in the process. We'll also see how freeze drying is different from ordinary dehydration, and we'll find out about some of its important applications. Why Freeze-Dry? The basic idea of freeze-drying is to completely remove water from some material, such as food, while leaving the basic structure and composition of the material intact. There are two reasons someone might want to do this with food: . Removing water keeps food from spoiling for a long period of time. Food spoils when microorganisms, such as bacteria, feed on the matter and decompose it. Bacteria may release chemicals that cause disease, or they may just release chemicals that make food taste bad. Additionally, naturally occurring enzymes in food can react with oxygen to cause spoiling and ripening. . . Like people, microorganisms need water to survive, so if you remove water from food, it won't spoil. Enzymes also need water to react with food, so dehydrating food will also stop ripening. . . Freeze-drying significantly reduces the total weight of the food. Most food is largely made up of water (many fruits are more than 80 to 90 percent water, in fact). Removing this water makes the food a lot lighter, which means it's easier to transport. The military and camping supply companies freeze-dry foods to make them easier for one person to carry. NASA has also freeze-dried foods for the cramped quarters onboard spacecraft.
 A freeze-dried meal of spaghetti and meatballs, designed for campers: On the left is the dried version; on the right is the rehydrated version.
 Freeze-dried foods have been a staple onboard many of NASA's space missions.
There are two big problems with this approach. First, it's difficult to remove water completely using evaporation because most of the water isn't directly exposed to air. Generally, dehydrating food in this way only removes 90 to 95 percent of the water, which will certainly slow down bacteria and enzyme activity, but won't stop it completely. Secondly, the heat involved in the evaporation process significantly changes the shape, texture and composition of the material, in the same way that heat in an oven changes food. Heat energy facilitates chemical reactions in the food that change its overall form, taste, smell or appearance. This is the fundamental purpose of cooking. These changes can be good, if they make the food taste better (or taste good in a different way), but if you're drying something so you can revitalize it later, the process compromises quality somewhat. The basic idea of freeze-drying is to "lock in" the composition and structure of the material by drying it without applying the heat necessary for the evaporation process. Instead, the freeze-drying process converts solid water -- ice -- directly into water vapor, skipping the liquid phase entirely. In the next section, we'll find out how freeze-drying machines pull this off. The Low-Tech Version Freeze-drying, as a general concept, has actually been around for centuries. The ancient Incas of Peru used mountain peaks along the Andes as natural food preservers. The extremely cold temperatures and low pressure at those high altitudes prevented food from spoiling in the same basic way as a modern freeze-drying machine and a refrigerator freezer. The Process The fundamental principle in freeze-drying is sublimation, the shift from a solid directly into a gas. Just like evaporation, sublimation occurs when a molecule gains enough energy to break free from the molecules around it. Water will sublime from a solid (ice) to a gas (vapor) when the molecules have enough energy to break free but the conditions aren't right for a liquid to form. There are two major factors that determine what phase (solid, liquid or gas) a substance will take: heat and atmospheric pressure. For a substance to take any particular phase, the temperature and pressure must be within a certain range. Without these conditions, that phase of the substance can't exist. The chart below shows the necessary pressure and temperature values of different phases of water.
 You can see from the chart that water can take a liquid form at sea level (where pressure is equal to 1 atm) if the temperature is in between the sea level freezing point (32 degrees Fahrenheit or 0 degrees Celsius) and the sea level boiling point (212 F or 100 C). But if you increase the temperature above 32 F while keeping the atmospheric pressure below .06 atmospheres (ATM), the water is warm enough to thaw, but there isn't enough pressure for a liquid to form. It becomes a gas. This is exactly what a freeze-drying machine does. A typical machine consists of a freeze-drying chamber with several shelves attached to heating units, a freezing coil connected to a refrigerator compressor, and a vacuum pump.
 A simplified freeze-drying machine
Next, the machine turns on the vacuum pump to force air out of the chamber, lowering the atmospheric pressure below .06 ATM. The heating units apply a small amount of heat to the shelves, causing the ice to change phase. Since the pressure is so low, the ice turns directly into water vapor. The water vapor flows out of the freeze-drying chamber, past the freezing coil. The water vapor condenses onto the freezing coil in solid ice form, in the same way water condenses as frost on a cold day. This continues for many hours (even days) while the material gradually dries out. The process takes so long because overheating the material can significantly change the composition and structure. Additionally, accelerating the sublimation process could produce more water vapor in a period of time then the pumping system can remove from the chamber. This could rehydrate the material somewhat, degrading its quality.
Once the material is dried sufficiently, it's sealed in a moisture-free package, often with an oxygen-absorbing material. As long as the package is secure, the material can sit on a shelf for years and years without degrading, until it's restored to its original form with a bit of water (a very small amount of moisture remains, so the material will eventually spoil). If everything works correctly, the material will go through the entire process almost completely unscathed! |
|
We are humbled by the efforts others have made to get the word out. According to Google, there are now 6,500 postings of the Mayday Alert on the Internet. That's reassuring, since it means that countless Americans are discussing the possibility of military exercises being used as camouflage for "false flag" attacks against them by the Bush administration.
Seattle, the city most affected by the exercise scenario, has been well served by its Seattle Times, which published a much-needed validation of local patriots' concerns with the Mayday article by reporter Haley Edwards, "Federal government's 8-day terror drill to test disaster preparedness" The article presents the case that the US 9/11 and UK 7/7 terror attacks were actually false flag operations disguised as terror drills, and were carried out by the US and UK governments.
At critical junctures in the past, newspapers have shirked their duty to investigate and report stories of vital interest to the public.
In the summer and fall of 2007, Portland's The Oregonian ignored widespread public distress about Noble Resolve and TOPOFF, a pair of terror exercises simulating nuclear attacks on their city. At the time, Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio, refused access to Bush administration martial law plans, was making the sobering comment that maybe the public was right in thinking there was a conspiracy. After public fears grew to a fever pitch, The Oregonian ridiculed its readers for being afraid.
In January 2006, Captain Eric H. May led a widespread Internet public affairs campaigns to alert Houston area oil town Texas City to a false flag nuclear attempt against their BP refinery. At the time nuclear exercises being carried out at Ft. Monroe, Virginia. On February 1, the day after the nuke drills started, a federal nuke team mysteriously appeared outside Texas City. Their appearance was not part of the exercise scenario, and corroborated the allegations made on the Internet. Galveston County Daily News reporter TJ Aulds tried to explain it all away with
"Nuclear attack warning story dismissed" Afterward Aulds and his newspaper refused to discuss or develop the story further.
The perils in the Southeast Texas oil patch may not be over. Alarmingly, this week Houston police gunned down Ronald Vincent Carnaby, a mysterious intelligence operative with connections to the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security. Today we read Internet reports, as yet uncorroborated, at his death may be connected to a pending false flag attempt against the BP refinery in Texas City. Too many Texans, like too many Americans, are living in dread of their government.
A month ago W. Leon Smith, publisher of The Lone Star Iconoclast, called for a Congressional investigation of the substantial evidence -- much of it published in his newspaper -- that repeated Houston-area petrochemicals explosions are not coincidental. They suggested the disturbing possibility that they were caused by the Bush administration and its Big Oil allies to boost the price of petroleum in his editorial "Time to Investigate Houston Is Now"
We emphatically endorse Mr. Smith's message to Congress. Investigating possible executive branch abuses is not optional for American legislators -- it is their constitutionally mandated duty. Reporting the news is not optional for American journalists -- it is an ethical imperative. It is long past time for serious questions to be asked, answered and acted upon.
Dr. James H. Fetzer and Major William B. Fox are former Marine Corps officers. Captain Eric H. May and SFC Donald Buswell are former members of Army intelligence.
|
 The Terror Master Bush Orders Covert 'Surge' Against Iran, with Dem Support By Chris Floyd The world's most dangerous terrorist, who has already slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, has launched yet another campaign of murder and destruction. A few days ago, we wrote that the Bush Administration has systematically removed the last remaining barriers for a military attack on Iran. Now Andrew Cockburn reveals in Counterpunch that George W. Bush has ordered a major escalation of the long-running covert war the United States has already been waging inside Iran itself. With the approval of top Democrats, Bush has ordered vast new support for extremist terrorist groups operating inside Iran, and has okayed the assassination of Iranian officials. Here's Cockburn: Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, "unprecedented in its scope." Bush's secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area - from Lebanon to Afghanistan - but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines - up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups. Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or "army of god," the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan - just across the Afghan border -- whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law's throat. Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran's Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime. MEK, as you'll recall, is the strange quasi-religious, quasi-Marxist cult of Iranian exiles who were cultivated for years by Saddam Hussein, and used by him as vicious enforcers against his internal enemies. They were warmly embraced by the Bushists after the invasion of Iran, and are now serving Bush as they once served Saddam. Bush's directive represents an intensification of the drive for open war with Iran, but it is not a new development; rather, it is a major "surge" in a state terror campaign the Administration has been waging against Iran (among others) for years. As I wrote as along ago as August 2004, the Bushists have openly sought, and received, big budgets and bipartisan support for terrorist groups and extremist militias all over the world. Here's an excerpt from that 2004 report: If you would know the hell that awaits us - and not far off - there's no need to consult ancient prophecies, or the intricate coils of hidden conspiracies, or the tortured arcana of high-credentialed experts. You need only read the public words, sworn before God, of top public officials, the great lords of state, the defenders of civilization, as they explain - clearly, openly, with confidence and pride - their plans to foment terror, rape, war and repression across the face of the earth. Last month, in little-noticed testimony before Congress, the Bush Regime unveiled its plans to raise a host of warlord armies in the most volatile areas in the world, Agence France-Presse reports. Bush wants $500 million in seed money to arm and train non-governmental "local militias" - i.e., bands of lawless freebooters - to serve as Washington's proxy killers in the so-called "arc of crisis" that just happens to stretch across the oil-bearing lands and strategic pipeline routes of Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia and South America. Flanked by a gaggle of military brass, Pentagon deputy honcho Paul Wolfowitz told a rapt panel of Congressional rubber-stamps that Bush wants big bucks to run "counter-insurgency" and "counter-terrorist" operations in "ungoverned areas" of the world - and in the hinterlands of nations providing "sanctuary" for terrorists. Making copious citations from Bush's 2002 "National Security Strategy" of unprovoked aggressive war against "potential" enemies, Howlin' Wolf proposed expanding the definition of "terrorist sanctuary" to any nation that allows clerics and other rabble-rousers to offer even verbal encouragement to America's designated enemies du jour.... There's nothing really new in Bush's murder-by-proxy scheme, of course; America has a long, bipartisan tradition of paying local thugs to do Washington's bloodwork. For example, late last month, Guatemala was forced to pay $420 million in extortion to veterans of the U.S.-backed "paramilitaries" who helped Ronald Reagan's favorite dictator, right-wing Christian coupster Efrain Rios Montt, kill 100,000 innocent people during his reign, the BBC reports. The paramilitaries, whose well-documented war crimes include rape, murder and torture, had threatened to shut down the country if they weren't given some belated booty for their yeoman service in the Reagan-Bush cause. But Wolfowitz did reveal one original twist in Bush's plan: targeting the Homeland itself as a "terrorist sanctuary." In addition to loosing his own personal Janjaweed on global hotspots, Bush is also seeking new powers to prevent anyone he designates a "terrorist" from "abusing the freedom of democratic societies" or "exploiting the technologies of communication" - i.e., defending themselves in court or logging on to the Internet. As AFP notes, Wolfowitz tactfully refrained from detailing just how the Regime intends to curb the dangerous use of American freedom, but he did allow that "difficult decisions" would be required. Wolfowitz himself is gone, but this program has continued to grow over the years. In February 2007, we examined the implications of Sy Hersh's report in the New Yorker about an earlier "surge" in the wide-ranging state terror operation that Cockburn describe: There are really no words to describe how morally depraved and monumentally stupid this policy is. It is of course not all that surprising that it springs from a family whose political fortunes are founded, at least in part, from the financial fortunes it reaped from helping build the Nazi military-industrial complex; a family that continued trading with the Nazis even after Americans were in battle against Hitler's forces. The Bushes and their outriders have always been attuned to the kind of brutal realpolitik that is willing -- at times eager -- to see American blood shed in order to advance their elitist agenda. (Which they have of course internalized as being identical with the "national interest.") But as we've also noted many times, this political "philosophy" is by no means unique to the Bush Family faction. It is resolutely bipartisan, and deeply embedded in the mindset of the American Establishment. The Bushes are nothing but second-rate camp followers, empty shells and non-entities, originating nothing, ignorant and cynical in equal measure, their only unusual trait being how open they are in their scorn for the worthless rabble and the bullshit Constitution that the crypto-Commies like Madison and Jefferson foisted on the proper rulers of the country. Otherwise, they simply regurgitate the unprocessed prejudices, unexamined assumptions and vulgar ambitions of the clique that spawned them. Of course, at times the idiot George W. Bush and the criminally ignorant crew that surrounds him have brought the inherent lawlessness, greed, brutality and incompetence of the American elite to what seem like new heights -- although even the sick-making murder of the Iraq campaign has still not approached the genocidal fury of, say, the bipartisan bombing of Indochina, and the millions of dead that the "best and the brightest" left behind there. Nor have Bush's domestic repression and flagrant abuse of authority -- as bad as they are -- yet approached the toxic and all-pervasive level of the "Red Scares" launched by Democratic icons Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman. (Joe McCarthy merely took the ball that Truman put into play and ran with it.) And sufficient unto the day is the trouble thereof; the crimes of the Bush Administration are not any less heinous -- and the people they have murdered are not any less dead -- just because these crimes are not some aberration of the idiot and his crew but are instead continuations and at times accelerations of long-standing Establishment thinking and policy. But with each passing decade, the technological tools of repression and militarism grow more overpowering and far-reaching. With each passing decade, the pernicious aftereffects and blowback from past depredations build up and compound, breeding new evils. With each passing decade, the societal rot engendered by the rapacity of the elite spreads deeper, eating away at the foundation of the Republic and the fabric of our communities, and weakening or destroying the social and institutional counterbalances to unchecked greed and ambition. Thus in one sense it doesn't matter if the Bush Faction is any more or less criminal and destructive than other administrations. The world in which they are blundering around killing people is far more unstable and dangerous than before, because it is filled with the compounded evil and folly of previous times. But back to the present danger. As Cockburn notes, the Democrats are fully on board with the new state terror campaign, laying out big bucks to grease the killing machine: All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy. He also notes the acceleration toward war now that Bush factotum (and future Caesar?) David Petraeus is now in charge of the region: Though Petraeus is not due to take formal command at Centcom until late summer, there are abundant signs that something may happen before then. A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4. A scheduled meeting in Europe between French diplomats acting as intermediaries for the U.S. and Iranian representatives has been abruptly cancelled in the last two weeks. Petraeus is said to be at work on a master briefing for congress to demonstrate conclusively that the Iranians are the source of our current troubles in Iraq, thanks to their support for the Shia militia currently under attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad. Interestingly, despite the bellicose complaints, Petraeus has made little effort to seal the Iran-Iraq border, and in any case two thirds of U.S. casualties still come from Sunni insurgents. "The Shia account for less than one third," a recently returned member of the command staff in Baghdad familiar with the relevant intelligence told me, "but if you want a war you have to sell it." And as we noted the other day, the hard sell is definitely on now. Many people comfort themselves with the idea that the Bush Regime won't really pull the trigger on Iran; that, somehow, reason and good sense will convince them of the monumental folly of this course. But as we have noted over and over here, the fomenting of constant war, bloodshed, chaos -- and crippling domestic debt -- is not folly to the Bushists and the elite interests they represent. It is pure profit, and the game is always worth the candle -- because they never, ever have to face the consequences of their filthy ambitions. It is always others who pay, in rivers of blood and mountains of treasure.
But by all means, take whatever comfort you can now from hopes that there will be no war on Iran. God knows there will be little comfort to be had afterward.
|
 The Pentagon Vs. America By Scott Ritter I recently heard from an anti-war student I met while I was speaking at a college in northern Vermont. The e-mail included the following query: "I told you about how I wanted to build a career around social activism and making a difference. You told me that one of the most important things was to make myself reputable and give people a reason to listen to you. I think this is some of the best advice I've received. My issue however is that you mentioned joining the military as a way to do this and mentioned how that is how you fell into it. ... We talked extensively about all of our criticisms of the military currently and our foreign policy. ... What I don't understand is, how can you [advise] someone who wants to make a difference with the flawed system, to join that flawed system?" The question is a valid one. Throughout my travels in the United States, where I interact with people from progressive anti-war groups, I am often confronted with the seeming contradiction of my position. I rail against the war in Iraq (and the potential of war with Iran) and yet embrace, at times enthusiastically, the notion of military service. It gets even more difficult to absorb, at least on the surface, when I simultaneously advocate counter-recruitment as well as support for those who seek to join the armed services. The notion that the military and citizens of conscience should be at odds is a critical problem for our nation. That confrontation only exacerbates the problems of the soldier and the citizen, and must be properly understood if it is to be defeated. Let us start by constructing a framework in which my positions can be better assessed. First and foremost, I do not view military service as an obligation of citizenship. I do view military service as an act of good citizenship, but it can under no circumstance be used as a litmus test for patriotism. There are many ways in which one can serve his or her nation; the military is but one. I am a big believer in the all-volunteer military. For one thing, the professional fighting force is far more effective and efficient than any conscript force could ever be. There are those who argue that a draft would level the playing field, spreading the burdens and responsibilities associated with a standing military force more evenly among the population. Those citizens whose lives would be impacted through war (namely those of draft age and their immediate relatives) would presumably be less inclined to support war. Conversely, the argument goes, with an all-volunteer professional force, the burden of sacrifice is limited to that segment of society which is engaged in the fighting, real or potential. Two points emerge: First, the majority of society not immediately impacted by the sacrifices of conflict will remain distant from the reality of war. Second, even when the costs of conflict become discernable to the withdrawn population, the fact that the sacrifice is being absorbed by those who willingly volunteered somehow lessens any moral outcry. I will submit that these are valid observations, and indeed have been borne out in America's response to the Iraq war tragedy. However, simply because something exists doesn't make it right. The collective response to the Iraq war on the part of the American people is not a result of there not being a draft, but rather poor citizenship. An engaged citizenry would not only find sufficient qualified volunteers to fill the ranks of our military, but would also personally identify with all those who served so that the loss of one was felt by all. The fact that many Americans today view the all-volunteer force not so much as an extension of themselves, but more along the lines of a "legion" of professionals removed from society, illustrates the yawning gap that exists between we the people and those we ask to defend us. Narrowing this gap is not something that can be accomplished simply through legislation. Reinstating the draft is illusory in this regard. There is a more fundamental obstacle to the reunion of our society and those who take an oath in the military to uphold and defend the Constitution. Void of this bond, the inherent differences of civilian and military life will serve to drive a wedge between the two, regardless of whether the military force is drafted or volunteer. Lacking a common understanding of the foundational principles upon which the nation was built, a citizenry will grow to view military service as an imposition, as opposed to an obligation. Simply put, one cannot willingly defend that which one does not know and understand. The fundamental ignorance that exists in America today about the Constitution creates the conditions which foster the divide between citizen and soldier that permeates society today. America must take ownership of its military, not simply by footing the bill, but by assuming a moral responsibility for every aspect of military service. The vehicle for doing this has been well established through the Constitution: the legislative branch of government, the Congress, which serves to represent the will of the people. Congress, especially the House of Representatives, was never conceived of as separate and distinct from the people, but rather as one with the people, directly derived from their collective will via the electoral process. Unfortunately today, few Americans identify with Congress. An "us versus them" mentality pervades. This mentality creates the crack in the moral and social contract which exists regarding a citizenry and its military. Congress is responsible for maintaining the military. Congress is the branch of government mandated with the responsibility for declaring war. When the bond is strained between the people and Congress, the bond between citizen and soldier is broken. Congress, left to its own devices, will begin to view the military not as an extension of its constituents, but rather as a commodity to be traded and used in a highly politicized fashion. This is the reality we find ourselves in today (and indeed which has existed for some time). The 2006 midterm elections highlight this reality, where a strong anti-war sentiment upon the part of the voters resulted in a Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Having assumed the mantle of legislative power, however, those who were elected on the coattails of anti-war sentiment were able to shun their anti-war constituents. They did so by taking full advantage of the reality that the anti-war movement was in fact not a movement at all, but rather a concept pushed forward by a disparate mass without much political viability. Where anti-war sentiment did in fact cross over from the ranks of the progressive left and into the mainstream of American society, it was quickly quashed through the dishonest logic that if one truly supported the troops (as most red-blooded Americans swear they do), then one must by extension support the mission. This flawed connectivity empowered Congress to sidestep the issue of withdrawing American forces from Iraq, and enabled it to continue rubber-stamping funding for a war which long ago lost any connection, perceived or otherwise, to the general security of the American people. And so U.S. service members continue to fight and die in Iraq, a conflict which grows more unpopular with the American people each passing day. The question thus emerges: What is the appropriate response on the part of the American citizenry? While we insulate ourselves from political duplicity, the soldiers ultimately pay the price for the cowardice of those whom we elect to represent us in higher office. This seems to be the path taken by most Americans, who have grown numbly indifferent to the incessant stream of disappointment over the continued failure of Congress to truly represent the will of the people. We have therefore built a wall which separates we the people from the one aspect of republican governance which is, by design, supposed to give us voice. In doing so, we likewise create a buffer between citizen and soldier, as those who are constitutionally mandated to fund the care, equipping and utilization of the military now operate in ambiguity created by the vacuum of citizen apathy. Thus liberated from the moral compass provided by the people, Congress has lost its ability to defend its own role in governance, and over time has demeaned its constitutional mandate by transferring powers inherent to the legislative branch to an executive branch which has assumed the role of caretaker of the military. By vesting absolute power in the hands of the executive, Congress has all but assured that America has become a nation no longer governed by the rule of law, but rather the rule of man. This sort of tyranny is what Americans fought a revolution to free themselves from 233 years ago. An executive that operates in accordance with a unitary theory of governance is one that views the capacity to defend the state as being in fact the capacity to defend the realm. As such, one sees a gravitation of emphasis: Rather than focusing on external threats to the collective, the realm becomes obsessed with internal threats to its ability to retain power. The Patriot Act is a clear-cut example of how a unitary executive has undermined and corrupted the legitimate law enforcement mechanisms of the land by vesting the executive with powers normally associated solely with the legislative branch. In this regard, we see the armed forces similarly abused, with the creation of military command structures (namely U.S. Northern Command) which exist not to protect the people, but rather protect the realm from the people. This is not a stated objective, but rather one inferred from the fact that, for the first time since the imposition of posse comitatus in 1876, the United States has positioned its armed forces so that they can participate in normal state law enforcement. In short, instead of serving as a force of protection for the American people from external threats, the military views the American people as the threat, "targets" which need to be investigated as potential threats to the military. An example of just how far off track the executive branch, facilitated by an all too complicit legislative branch, has strayed when it comes to the common defense is the Pentagon's controversial Counterintelligence Field Activity, ostensibly created in a post-9/11 world to "... protect the [Defense] department by supporting the detection and neutralization of foreign espionage." The CFA operates under the umbrella of U.S. Northern Command, created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to ostensibly safeguard the American homeland. A major aspect of the CFA's work is something known as the Joint Protection Enterprise Network, or JPEN. The JPEN network enables the Defense Department to share unverified information with civilian police departments, the FBI and other government agencies such as the National Security Agency (NSA). Originally dubbed Project Protect America, the JPEN system came into being in July 2003 with the full support of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The heart and soul of the JPEN system is the "Threat and Local Observation Notice," or TALON report, the brainchild of then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. In the conduct of its work, the CFA created and distributed thousands of TALON reports via the JPEN system on the activities of private U.S. citizens, with a particular focus of those engaged in anti-war protests. The CFA is slated in the near future to be morphed into a larger Defense Intelligence Agency-run Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence activity. Far from limiting the scope and scale of the activities currently undertaken by the CFA, this new organization will simply increase the level of illegal and unconstitutional activities currently undertaken by the CFA against the American "target." The fact that the U.S. military now views the American citizenry as its target, as opposed to the object of its defense, shows just how broken the circle of trust is between citizen and soldier. Additional TALON reports are being assembled on anyone deemed to be a potential threat to the U.S. military, including all who are involved in "counter-recruitment" activities designed to provide alternatives to military service for today's youths. This myopic approach toward installation and facility security undertaken by the Pentagon is not only intellectually weak but constitutionally prohibited. The legislative branch, operating amid constituent apathy, continues to fail in its mission of upholding the rule of law. In similarly deplorable fashion, the Pentagon has allowed itself to be hijacked by the radical right wing of the Republican Party. The fact that Fox News has become the channel of choice for the U.S. military speaks volumes about the mind-set which has gripped those who lead it. The military has always been a conservative institution. Yet when wearing the uniform of the United States serves more as a front for defending a political ideology (a rabid one at that) rather than upholding and defending the Constitution, the military does itself a disservice. The disconnect between those who serve in the military and those whom they are sworn to protect can be fatal when one realizes the recruiting pool no longer identifies with the military as a legitimate expression of patriotism and citizenship. The scope of this ideological hijacking is broad, yet barely recognized. One can glimpse just how deep and nefarious this ideological shift is when one considers the extent to which evangelical Christians have infiltrated the U.S. Air Force Academy, proselytizing their heavily politicized religion to the future officers and leaders of that service. The past comments of Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a decorated Army Special Operations veteran who described America's post-9/11 "war on terror" as a conflict between "Christian" America and "radical Islam," are widely embraced within the U.S. military. President Bush has echoed Boykin in his speeches and statements, and the military's favorite presidential candidate, Republican Sen. John McCain, has become the embodiment of Boykin's philosophy. The Constitution prohibits the notion that America be defined as a Christian nation. To allow the military, sworn as it is to uphold and defend that document, to posture itself as Christian, becoming in effect the "sword of God," is unthinkable and unforgivable. The implications of such posturing are far-reaching, especially from the military recruitment standpoint. The all-volunteer military succeeds when it attracts to its ranks those who have a sincere desire to serve their nation. It succeeds greatly when those it attracts come from the broadest possible cross section of the American demographic. There has always been an economic aspect to the all-volunteer force; service is not slavery, and the military has always promised the security of a middle-class lifestyle to those who choose to enlist. But military service, properly motivated, has never been solely about the money. It is about defending a greater good, the people of the United States of America and their values and ideals as defined by the Constitution. It has become increasingly difficult to motivate enough of today's youths to serve in the armed services based upon the call of duty alone. One of the primary reasons for this shortfall is the unfortunate perception, not improperly derived, that military service is not in keeping with the concept of "doing the right thing." This perception, born of an unpopular war and the dishonest foreign policies of successive administrations, is further exaggerated by the reality that the military not only operates as a separate and distinct part of American society (this has always been the case) but, due in large part to post-9/11 hysteria, has been positioned to view the American people as a threat. The inherent problems of the military trying to recruit from a population base which is under attack from the military are self-evident. Genuine patriotism was once a viable recruitment pitch. Now, economic incentives, false promises and pseudo-patriotism are used as the bait to lure the youths of today into America's legions. Like the legions of the past, these new warriors march not on behalf of the citizens they are sworn to protect, but rather the emperor who commands them. This may be viewed as an overly harsh statement, but there is no other way to describe the abuses of a unitary executive who positions himself above the Constitution and Congress in a time of war. Having described the current state of the military and military service in this manner, why would I ever encourage a citizen of military age to consider service in the armed forces? First and foremost, one needs to understand that the entire military system has not been corrupted. There are still men and women of honor who serve with dedication and pride. They are, in fact, in the majority. It takes only a few bad apples to spoil the lot, however, and our military today, thanks to a nebulous mission and lower recruiting standards, is full of bad apples. Likewise, to quote a Russian general, "a fish stinks from its head," and nothing smells worse today than the "head" of the United States. Our commander in chief has disgraced the office he was entrusted with, and in doing so has severely damaged the foundation of American civil society as well as the institutions sworn to uphold and defend it. The solution, however, cannot be "cut and run." Simply identifying the problem and pointing a finger at the perpetrators will do nothing to resolve these critical issues. Our military cannot change unless we the people re-establish the link between ourselves and the legislative branch of government and rebuild the bond of trust between citizen and soldier. This cannot happen in stages, but rather must occur simultaneously. While the vast majority of America struggles to regain its moral and ethical compass through the re-establishment of the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution, we need to continue to maintain a military which is capable of defending us.
This requires good people to serve, even if the conditions of their service are not ideal. Do I want to have an intelligent, morally grounded soldier on the front line in Iraq, making the decisions about the use of force in the framework of an illegal and unjust occupation, or do I want to relinquish that job to a former felon lacking even a high school diploma? Do I want the troops of today led by Bible-wielding zealots or Constitution-wielding patriots? While we struggle to re-establish the bond between citizen and soldier, we have an absolute requirement to ensure we continue to field a military composed of citizen soldiers. The only way to prevent our military from becoming the new Roman Legion is to staff it with citizens of principle who reject such an abominable label. We are a nation at war, not just abroad, but with ourselves. Now, more than ever, we need citizens of standing to answer the call to service, not in the name of a criminal president or an illegal war, but rather in defense of the Constitution and all that it stands for, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
|
 Hillary Plays The Crazy Card By Joe Conason In this protracted and often dispiriting prelude to the general election, few remarks have been as poorly chosen as Senator Hillary Clinton's threat to "totally obliterate" Iran. What she obliterated with just those two words were her own boasts of superior diplomatic experience-and she managed at the same time to tar America's international image with all the subtlety of the man she hopes to replace. Context cannot excuse her, even though she uttered that gaffe in response to an intentionally provocative question: What would she do, as president, if the Iranian regime ever strikes Israel with nuclear weapons? First she could have noted that the question's premise is wrong, at least according to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran neither possesses nuclear arms nor is likely to acquire them anytime soon. Then she might have answered as all presidents (or aspiring presidents) should when asked about such hypothetical military scenarios: "Our adversaries know very well that we have the power and the resolve to respond if one of our closest allies is attacked." Alluding to the potential use of justified force is far smarter than blustering about an act of genocidal brutality. So why wasn't that distinction obvious to Mrs. Clinton? There are only two likely reasons, neither of which reflects well on her. It is possible that she believes martial bluster will make her sound more like John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate whose macabre refrain of "bomb, bomb Iran" still echoes around the world. It is also possible that she truly believes threats of genocide are the best deterrent to Iranian misbehavior, as she told George Stephanopoulos last Sunday on ABC's This Week. Instead of clarifying or muting her aggressive blunder, she reiterated it, leaving transcripts that can be stripped of all qualification to make her sound still more bloodthirsty. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. ... I think we have to be very clear about what we would do." Of course, opportunism is the political offense Mrs. Clinton is most often charged with. Should she ever return to the White House, we will probably be more secure and prosperous, if her belligerence toward Iran is mere campaign posturing. On other occasions she has advocated greater engagement with Iran, and that is certainly the view of her wisest advisers, so perhaps this is all wind without substance. But that again raises the question of how far she will go to win, regardless of the damage she inflicts upon herself, her party and even her nation's interests. Her remarks gave Tehran an easy chance to seize the moral initiative, which they instantly exploited by denouncing Mrs. Clinton's comments in a public letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon as "provocative, unwarranted and irresponsible" and a violation of the U.N. Charter. Evidently, the Iranian complaint won at least a modicum of sympathy, because the secretary general's spokesman later said that if Mrs. Clinton "becomes president and she keeps saying that, then we'll have to react." Were we not so inured to the most savage rhetoric by now, it might be considered ironic for a presidential candidate to endorse such a monumental crime against humanity in defense of the Jewish state. Does Mrs. Clinton not understand the difference between the mullahs' regime and the people of Iran? Does her notion of military strategy contemplate the incineration of millions of innocents? And most pertinently, does she think her threats will convince the Iranians to empower the liberal reformers in Tehran rather than the reactionary extremists? The Iran experts chosen by Mrs. Clinton to counsel her campaign think not. Their well-informed and not terribly surprising assessment is that when we talk about wiping out Iran, the mullahs feel a more urgent need for nuclear weapons (and a stronger impulse to drive us out of the region). She has brushed off their analysis, just as she disdains the consensus of economists against the gas-tax holiday advocated by her and Mr. McCain. Voters who might consider supporting her have confronted this Clinton conundrum more than once this year. Does she believe what she is saying, or is she saying what she believes we want to hear?
Which is worse?
|
|
|
 Mickey Mouse Media By Eric Alterman It has become a truth, all but universally acknowledged, that the final Democratic presidential debate, broadcast on the Disney-owned ABC network, was a journalistic disgrace and a political disaster. George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson alternated between the incomprehensibly trivial and the demonstrably false, giving the two-hour session the feel of a two-hour Republican infomercial, but with breaks for genuine corporate sponsors. Stephanopoulos appeared to have allowed himself to be scripted by Sean Hannity, who earlier that day suggested the scurrilous line of inquiry that sought to tie Barack Obama to terrorist acts of the Weather Underground that took place when the candidate was 8 years old. It was hardly an improvement when, after almost an hour of smarmy and substanceless insinuation, the debate finally turned to real issues. Remarkably, the moderators--each of whom enjoys compensation in the millions--chose to berate both candidates for talking too tough to rich folk. "Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?" Stephanopoulos demanded, this time sounding as if he was scripted by anti-tax evangelist Grover Norquist. Gibson, who had embarrassed himself at an earlier debate with the comically misinformed assertion that two University of New Hampshire faculty members could expect to enjoy an income of $200,000, also went to bat for Republican-style voodoo economics, insisting that the candidates pledge not to raise capital gains taxes. According to the most recent Census data, median income for an American family was $58,526. Just 5 percent of families enjoy annual incomes over $191,060. The average salary for a history professor, according to the American Historical Association, is $76,145. Remember, moreover, that this debate was occurring at a moment when, according to the Pew Research Center and the Gallup organization, "fewer Americans now than at any time in the past half century believe they're moving forward in life." It is, they say, the nation's "most downbeat short-term assessment of personal progress in nearly half a century of polling." And no wonder. For working people, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the natio |
