Take it to Karl: "Army Aviator: The Mess You Have Made Will Take Generations to Clean Up
From the mailbag:Karl Rove politicized one of the darkest days in American history, and rather than apologize he says he was 'refering to MoveOn.org' or some other lie, and it makes me sick. These neo-cons are causing American men and women to die daily for a lie, they are running up an Enron style debt and they refuse to take responsibility for their actions. Quote this: Their slow but deadly hemorraging of this country's resources and their naive and boneheaded disaster in Iraq is a much greater threat to our security than al Quada and all the terror organizations anywhere in the world. Combined. The mess you have made will take generations to clean up. "
Monday, June 27, 2005
Saturday, June 25, 2005
The US war with Iran has already begun
Aljazeera.Net - The US war with Iran has already begun
: "
The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself.�But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence gathering phase.The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun.�As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself.�But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.� President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein's dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA's Directorate of Operations.It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq. Perhaps the adage of 'one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist' has finally been embraced by the White House, exposing as utter hypocrisy the entire underlying notions governing the ongoing global war on terror."
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Two Years Before 9/11, Bush was Already Talking About Attacking Iraq
Two Years Before 9/11, Bush was Already Talking About Attacking Iraq: "Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
'He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,' said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. 'It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade�.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. 'Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker.'
That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush's unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters - well before he became president."
'He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,' said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. 'It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade�.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. 'Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker.'
That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush's unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters - well before he became president."
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
the people can be lead into war if they think they are attacked - Herman Goering
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Questionable Quotes (Hermann Goering):
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
"Goering was one of the highest-ranking Nazis who survived to be captured and put on trial for war crimes in the city of Nuremberg by the Allies after the end of World War II.
His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:
"We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
'Why, of course, the people don't want war,' Goering shrugged.
'Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.'
'There is one difference,' I pointed out. 'In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.'
'Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.'"
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
"Goering was one of the highest-ranking Nazis who survived to be captured and put on trial for war crimes in the city of Nuremberg by the Allies after the end of World War II.
His comments were made privately to Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist who was granted free access by the Allies to all the prisoners held in the Nuremberg jail. Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:
"We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
'Why, of course, the people don't want war,' Goering shrugged.
'Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.'
'There is one difference,' I pointed out. 'In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.'
'Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.'"
I Used To Be a Neocon by Drew O'Neill
I Used To Be a Neocon by Drew O'Neill: "This
is a difficult trick that requires the media to be an active participant
in government deception. To imply that they do so knowingly would
be too conspiratorial, and it would be too grand an operation to
be plausible. In truth, the mainstream media does not believe they
are participating in lies.
During the build-up to the war they were being pulled without knowing it,
by the engine of the U. S. government. This swarm of nationalism
begat a pro-American media, a complacent media, a lapdog media and
a corporate media that to this day will not inform the American
public.
When the Bush Administration was found to be creating fake news propaganda
for public consumption the media did not inform the public. When
the Bush administration marched towards pre-emptive war with Iraq
the media was a lapdog instead of a watchdog. When the Bush administration
described the assault on the Iraqi public as Shock and Awe, the
media used that phrase to scroll alongside the words 'War on
Terror' without questioning if the assault on Iraq had anything
to do with terrorism. When the Bush Administration tore into the
U. S. Constitution with the Patriot Act, causing the illegal imprisonment
of American citizens while denying them counsel, the media acted
more like a timid cocker spaniel than an aggressive Doberman pincher,
and failed to defend a sacred American document. When the Downing
Street memo implicated the Bush Administration as being hell bent
on a pre-emptive invasion on Iraq before even going to the UN, the
American media was silent and once again failed to inform the public.
But the tiny wheels still want to call the media liberal. The tiny wheels
still want to say the media is not reporting the good things happening
in Iraq. Most of all the tiny wheels do not know about the big wheel
that is pulling them. But now I do. That is why I am an ex-neocon
and I am in recovery. It is more clear to me now than ever that the
most American thing one can do is speak out against the actions
of their country because it means you love your country.
And in the end it does not matter if we are liberals or conservatives
because all that matters is that we are on the side of the U.S.
Constitution and of international law. Both of which have been thrown into the
toilet by this administration. At least the Quran has company."
is a difficult trick that requires the media to be an active participant
in government deception. To imply that they do so knowingly would
be too conspiratorial, and it would be too grand an operation to
be plausible. In truth, the mainstream media does not believe they
are participating in lies.
During the build-up to the war they were being pulled without knowing it,
by the engine of the U. S. government. This swarm of nationalism
begat a pro-American media, a complacent media, a lapdog media and
a corporate media that to this day will not inform the American
public.
When the Bush Administration was found to be creating fake news propaganda
for public consumption the media did not inform the public. When
the Bush administration marched towards pre-emptive war with Iraq
the media was a lapdog instead of a watchdog. When the Bush administration
described the assault on the Iraqi public as Shock and Awe, the
media used that phrase to scroll alongside the words 'War on
Terror' without questioning if the assault on Iraq had anything
to do with terrorism. When the Bush Administration tore into the
U. S. Constitution with the Patriot Act, causing the illegal imprisonment
of American citizens while denying them counsel, the media acted
more like a timid cocker spaniel than an aggressive Doberman pincher,
and failed to defend a sacred American document. When the Downing
Street memo implicated the Bush Administration as being hell bent
on a pre-emptive invasion on Iraq before even going to the UN, the
American media was silent and once again failed to inform the public.
But the tiny wheels still want to call the media liberal. The tiny wheels
still want to say the media is not reporting the good things happening
in Iraq. Most of all the tiny wheels do not know about the big wheel
that is pulling them. But now I do. That is why I am an ex-neocon
and I am in recovery. It is more clear to me now than ever that the
most American thing one can do is speak out against the actions
of their country because it means you love your country.
And in the end it does not matter if we are liberals or conservatives
because all that matters is that we are on the side of the U.S.
Constitution and of international law. Both of which have been thrown into the
toilet by this administration. At least the Quran has company."
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Startling new underground group spreads lack of panic!
Startling new underground group spreads lack of panic!
Citizens declare themselves "relatively unafraid" of threats of undeclared rationality. People can still go to France, terrorist leader says.
Jon Carroll
Friday, April 8, 2005
The following is the first communique from a group calling itself Unitarian Jihad. It was sent to me at The Chronicle via an anonymous spam remailer. I have no idea whether other news organizations have received this communique, and, if so, why they have not chosen to print it. Perhaps they fear starting a panic. I feel strongly that the truth, no matter how alarming, trivial or disgusting, must always be told. I am pleased to report that the words below are at least not disgusting:
Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States. We are Unitarian Jihad. There is only God, unless there is more than one God. The vote of our God subcommittee is 10-8 in favor of one God, with two abstentions.Brother Flaming Sword of Moderation noted the possibility of there being no God at all, and his objection was noted with love by the secretary.
Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States! Too long has your attention been waylaid by the bright baubles of extremist thought. Too long have fundamentalist yahoos of all religions (except Buddhism -- 14-5 vote, no abstentions, fundamentalism subcommittee) made your head hurt. Too long have you been buffeted by angry people who think that God talks to them. You have a right to your moderation! You have the power to be calm! We will use the IED of truth to explode the SUV of dogmatic expression!
People of the United States, why is everyone yelling at you??? Whatever happened to ... you know, everything? Why is the news dominated by nutballs saying that the Ten Commandments have to be tattooed inside the eyelids of every American, or that Allah has told them to kill Americans in order to rid the world of Satan, or that Yahweh has instructed them to go live wherever they feel like, or that Shiva thinks bombing mosques is a great idea? Sister Immaculate Dagger of Peace notes for the record that we mean no disrespect to Jews, Muslims, Christians or Hindus. Referred back to the committee of the whole for further discussion.
We are Unitarian Jihad. We are everywhere. We have not been born again, nor have we sworn a blood oath. We do not think that God cares what we read, what we eat or whom we sleep with. Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity notes for the record that he does not have a moral code but is nevertheless a good person, and Unexalted Leader Garrote of Forgiveness stipulates that Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity is a good person, and this is to be reflected in the minutes.
Beware! Unless you people shut up and begin acting like grown-ups with brains enough to understand the difference between political belief and personal faith, the Unitarian Jihad will begin a series of terrorist-like actions. We will take over television studios, kidnap so-called commentators and broadcast calm, well-reasoned discussions of the issues of the day. We will not try for "balance" by hiring fruitcakes; we will try for balance by hiring non-ideologues who have carefully thought through the issues.
We are Unitarian Jihad. We will appear in public places and require people to shake hands with each other. (Sister Hand Grenade of Love suggested that we institute a terror regime of mandatory hugging, but her motion was not formally introduced because of lack of a quorum.) We will require all lobbyists, spokesmen and campaign managers to dress like trout in public. Televangelists will be forced to take jobs as Xerox repair specialists. Demagogues of all stripes will be required to read Proust out loud in prisons.
We are Unitarian Jihad, and our motto is: "Sincerity is not enough." We have heard from enough sincere people to last a lifetime already. Just because you believe it's true doesn't make it true. Just because your motives are pure doesn't mean you are not doing harm. Get a dog, or comfort someone in a nursing home, or just feed the birds in the park. Play basketball. Lighten up. The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone.
Brother Gatling Gun of Patience notes that he's pretty sure the world is out to get him because everyone laughs when he says he is a Unitarian. There were murmurs of assent around the room, and someone suggested that we buy some Congress members and really stick it to the Baptists. But this was deemed against Revolutionary Principles, and Brother Gatling Gun of Patience was remanded to the Sunday Flowers and Banners committee.
People of the United States! We are Unitarian Jihad! We can strike without warning. Pockets of reasonableness and harmony will appear as if from nowhere! Nice people will run the government again! There will be coffee and cookies in the Gandhi Room after the revolution.
Citizens declare themselves "relatively unafraid" of threats of undeclared rationality. People can still go to France, terrorist leader says.
Jon Carroll
Friday, April 8, 2005
The following is the first communique from a group calling itself Unitarian Jihad. It was sent to me at The Chronicle via an anonymous spam remailer. I have no idea whether other news organizations have received this communique, and, if so, why they have not chosen to print it. Perhaps they fear starting a panic. I feel strongly that the truth, no matter how alarming, trivial or disgusting, must always be told. I am pleased to report that the words below are at least not disgusting:
Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States. We are Unitarian Jihad. There is only God, unless there is more than one God. The vote of our God subcommittee is 10-8 in favor of one God, with two abstentions.Brother Flaming Sword of Moderation noted the possibility of there being no God at all, and his objection was noted with love by the secretary.
Greetings to the Imprisoned Citizens of the United States! Too long has your attention been waylaid by the bright baubles of extremist thought. Too long have fundamentalist yahoos of all religions (except Buddhism -- 14-5 vote, no abstentions, fundamentalism subcommittee) made your head hurt. Too long have you been buffeted by angry people who think that God talks to them. You have a right to your moderation! You have the power to be calm! We will use the IED of truth to explode the SUV of dogmatic expression!
People of the United States, why is everyone yelling at you??? Whatever happened to ... you know, everything? Why is the news dominated by nutballs saying that the Ten Commandments have to be tattooed inside the eyelids of every American, or that Allah has told them to kill Americans in order to rid the world of Satan, or that Yahweh has instructed them to go live wherever they feel like, or that Shiva thinks bombing mosques is a great idea? Sister Immaculate Dagger of Peace notes for the record that we mean no disrespect to Jews, Muslims, Christians or Hindus. Referred back to the committee of the whole for further discussion.
We are Unitarian Jihad. We are everywhere. We have not been born again, nor have we sworn a blood oath. We do not think that God cares what we read, what we eat or whom we sleep with. Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity notes for the record that he does not have a moral code but is nevertheless a good person, and Unexalted Leader Garrote of Forgiveness stipulates that Brother Neutron Bomb of Serenity is a good person, and this is to be reflected in the minutes.
Beware! Unless you people shut up and begin acting like grown-ups with brains enough to understand the difference between political belief and personal faith, the Unitarian Jihad will begin a series of terrorist-like actions. We will take over television studios, kidnap so-called commentators and broadcast calm, well-reasoned discussions of the issues of the day. We will not try for "balance" by hiring fruitcakes; we will try for balance by hiring non-ideologues who have carefully thought through the issues.
We are Unitarian Jihad. We will appear in public places and require people to shake hands with each other. (Sister Hand Grenade of Love suggested that we institute a terror regime of mandatory hugging, but her motion was not formally introduced because of lack of a quorum.) We will require all lobbyists, spokesmen and campaign managers to dress like trout in public. Televangelists will be forced to take jobs as Xerox repair specialists. Demagogues of all stripes will be required to read Proust out loud in prisons.
We are Unitarian Jihad, and our motto is: "Sincerity is not enough." We have heard from enough sincere people to last a lifetime already. Just because you believe it's true doesn't make it true. Just because your motives are pure doesn't mean you are not doing harm. Get a dog, or comfort someone in a nursing home, or just feed the birds in the park. Play basketball. Lighten up. The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone.
Brother Gatling Gun of Patience notes that he's pretty sure the world is out to get him because everyone laughs when he says he is a Unitarian. There were murmurs of assent around the room, and someone suggested that we buy some Congress members and really stick it to the Baptists. But this was deemed against Revolutionary Principles, and Brother Gatling Gun of Patience was remanded to the Sunday Flowers and Banners committee.
People of the United States! We are Unitarian Jihad! We can strike without warning. Pockets of reasonableness and harmony will appear as if from nowhere! Nice people will run the government again! There will be coffee and cookies in the Gandhi Room after the revolution.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
The president's real goal in Iraq
The president's real goal in Iraq :
"The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the 'American imperialists' that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran."
Read the entire article...
"The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the 'American imperialists' that our enemies always claimed we were.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran."
Read the entire article...
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Monday, November 29, 2004
Mathew Gross: The Politics of Victimization
Mathew Gross: The Politics of Victimization:
"Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”
And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.
They will tell you, every single day.
The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.
As victims we can’t stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can’t seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.
Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won’t; we will never be worthy).
And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.
How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.
First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don’t do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don’t do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don’t resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you’ve learned, and that you aren’t going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it’s better than the abuse."
"Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”
And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.
They will tell you, every single day.
The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.
As victims we can’t stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can’t seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.
Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won’t; we will never be worthy).
And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.
How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.
First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don’t do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don’t do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don’t resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you’ve learned, and that you aren’t going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it’s better than the abuse."
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Friday, November 05, 2004
Quotes from Ben Laden tape
you must admit that Osama bin Laden was far more articulate and direct about the causes of 9/11 than both Kerry and Bush, who call it "terror" and refuse to think about it too much. Like someone else observed, both candidates are asserting "We be tough on terrorism" "I'm tough too, very tough" "terror is evil and I will fight it will he?" "I will fight it harder" as both candidates are desperate not to challenge the comfort of their constituencies with any semblance of thought. God forbid anything that forces self-examination. Because that is exactly what America has done - call it "evil", call it "terrorism", vow to "fight" it (can you really fight an ideology?) and refuse to address any American defects. The "we never do nothing wrong - they are EVIL" rhetorical approach is a wonderful way to avoid addressing real issues. The fact is that America is falling deeper and deeper into an illusionary world, where any show of strength is close enough to actual accomplishment. In truth, far from fighting the ideology created from American imperialism - the ideology that culminated in 9/11 - America has nourished it.
No, no, anything but self-examination. We've branded Osama bin Laden as "evil", so we're not going to listen to him. CNN is going to censor the tape so we don't have to consider any of the more controversial things he said, and in the interests of defending "freedom", U.S. authorities around the Arab world will try to stop his alternate world view being aired at all (al-Jazeera ignored their requests not to air it).
"All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies...And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ... So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." Can anyone deny that Osama bin Laden has been nothing but successful? Al-Qaeda may have been hurt since 9/11 (I personally think they've just become more decentralized), but in the process, America has hurt themselves more. Who is winning in this thoughtless show of "strength"?
Frankly, I am wondering if America is going to strengthen itself into its grave. What Osama bin Laden did on 9/11 was horrific, but was it more horrific than the years and years of the U.S.'s post-WWII interventionist policies? What about their toll, both in civilian lives and in the loss of self-determination, of U.S. foreign policy? Let's think about our world, here. Our world's most powerful nation claims to fight for freedom but suppresses its own citizens' with the Patriot Act and offhand practices like "free speech zones." Our most powerful nation pretends to fight "evil" by killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. So its (new) prime enemy responds to America's brutality with more brutality; America responds in kind. What an uninspiring world this is. Isn't anyone going to do any good? Does such a thing exist? Is there only the pursuit of our own pragmatic interest, the lives of civilians, children be damned? If that's the case, what exactly are the differences between the U.S. and al-Qaeda?
No, no, anything but self-examination. We've branded Osama bin Laden as "evil", so we're not going to listen to him. CNN is going to censor the tape so we don't have to consider any of the more controversial things he said, and in the interests of defending "freedom", U.S. authorities around the Arab world will try to stop his alternate world view being aired at all (al-Jazeera ignored their requests not to air it).
"All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies...And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ... So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." Can anyone deny that Osama bin Laden has been nothing but successful? Al-Qaeda may have been hurt since 9/11 (I personally think they've just become more decentralized), but in the process, America has hurt themselves more. Who is winning in this thoughtless show of "strength"?
Frankly, I am wondering if America is going to strengthen itself into its grave. What Osama bin Laden did on 9/11 was horrific, but was it more horrific than the years and years of the U.S.'s post-WWII interventionist policies? What about their toll, both in civilian lives and in the loss of self-determination, of U.S. foreign policy? Let's think about our world, here. Our world's most powerful nation claims to fight for freedom but suppresses its own citizens' with the Patriot Act and offhand practices like "free speech zones." Our most powerful nation pretends to fight "evil" by killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. So its (new) prime enemy responds to America's brutality with more brutality; America responds in kind. What an uninspiring world this is. Isn't anyone going to do any good? Does such a thing exist? Is there only the pursuit of our own pragmatic interest, the lives of civilians, children be damned? If that's the case, what exactly are the differences between the U.S. and al-Qaeda?
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Are we making more ben Ladins? - M. Kane Jeeves
M. Kane Jeeves: "rage. We know he’s a madman. We are all still outraged about 9/11.
But, if I had to sum up the editorial content of this tape? It boils down to one thing. Actions have consequences. I know it’s an idea that we haven’t heard bandied about for the last four years but, think about it. If bin Laden was inspired by an incident nearly twenty years before 9/11?
Who are we inspiring now in Iraq?
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, conservatively.
What happens if we pull a “Dresden” on Fallujah?
Suppose we are forced to send in more troops because the Iraqi National Guard winds up just not cutting it?
How many more bin Ladens are judging this entire country by this Administration’s Crusade…right now? They’re ten, maybe eleven years old today.
Twenty years from now?
God help us."
But, if I had to sum up the editorial content of this tape? It boils down to one thing. Actions have consequences. I know it’s an idea that we haven’t heard bandied about for the last four years but, think about it. If bin Laden was inspired by an incident nearly twenty years before 9/11?
Who are we inspiring now in Iraq?
100,000 Iraqi civilians dead, conservatively.
What happens if we pull a “Dresden” on Fallujah?
Suppose we are forced to send in more troops because the Iraqi National Guard winds up just not cutting it?
How many more bin Ladens are judging this entire country by this Administration’s Crusade…right now? They’re ten, maybe eleven years old today.
Twenty years from now?
God help us."
Ron Suskind claims we are an empire that creates its own reality
The Smirking Chimp: "The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community.'... I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'
-- Ron Suskind talking to senior Bush advisor, The New York Times Magazine"
-- Ron Suskind talking to senior Bush advisor, The New York Times Magazine"
Saturday, October 23, 2004
State sponsored vrs non-state sponsored Terrorism
The Washington Monthly: "STATE vs. NON-STATE TERRORISM....There's all sorts of interesting stuff in Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer's Washington Post article about the Bush record in the war on terror today, but running through it all is a thread that I've mentioned before: George Bush's outmoded focus on state sponsors of terror (the 'axis of evil') vs. John Kerry's focus on al-Qaeda and other non-state terrorist groups as the real problem of the 21st century.
Again: it's not that they aren't both important. But we're not fighting World War II and we're not fighting the Cold War. Radical Islamic terrorism is a fundamentally different problem than either of these previous enemies, and it's not, at its core, state-centric. This is the key blind spot that prevents Bush from effectively prosecuting the war, and it's the key piece of understanding that suggests Kerry could do better."
Again: it's not that they aren't both important. But we're not fighting World War II and we're not fighting the Cold War. Radical Islamic terrorism is a fundamentally different problem than either of these previous enemies, and it's not, at its core, state-centric. This is the key blind spot that prevents Bush from effectively prosecuting the war, and it's the key piece of understanding that suggests Kerry could do better."
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
WebEdge Blog - Rocky Horror Election Song
WebEdge Blog: "For those of you who recall Rocky Horror Picture show, this is one of the funniest things I've seen during this election cycle. Enjoy!
http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/5809/presidential_horror_show.swf
"
http://i.euniverse.com/funpages/cms_content/5809/presidential_horror_show.swf
"
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
The Smirking Chimp -- Whats the Matter with the Republican Party?
The Smirking Chimp:
"What is the matter with the Republican Party? As one born within a tiny, tree-shaded Republican enclave in Missouri, raised by compassionate family-values-oriented Christian conservatives, and whose entire family remains staunchly, even militantly conservative, I think I have earned the right to ask that question.
So--what the hell is wrong with you guys?
History bumps along from dateline to dateline with no regard for party affiliation. That's why last week during the second presidential debate, when President George Bush slid off his stool, assumed his arms-akimbo 'Super Hero' stance and childishly blurted out, 'You can run, butcha can't hide,' I was jerked into the realization that it's not possible for such a horrid, vacuous little creature to be the cause of the rampant madness zigzagging throughout our society today.
Bush is the effect of it -- the natural result of a cruel, thoughtless and destructive movement within the Republican Party that had lain dormant from its inception, but like Stephen King's evil 'Christine,' shivered into life on November 22, 1963.
Both parties have been running and hiding ever since.
This is not a treatise on the assassination of a popular American President, nor of the massive manipulations of an investigative commission to cover it up. That tragic November day marks the 'bump' in our history that began the evolutionary implosion of the Republican Party into neoconservatism and the sheer, bleak cruelty of a loveless Christianity.
Before that fateful 1963 bump, New York Govenor Nelson Rockefeller was truly the face of a kinder, gentler Republican Party. Rich, philanthrophic, and middle-of-the-road, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America in the 1940's, Rockefeller was responsible for the success of FDR's 'Good Neighbor' policy. During his four terms as governor, Rockefeller began large-scale welfare and drug-rehabilitation programs, reorganized the New York transportation system and built major public works projects.
At the 1964 convention, Rockefeller pleaded with a booing crowd to 'keep the Republican party the party of all the people.' He warned them of the danger of allowing extremists to gain influence, and of the threat they posed, not only to the party but to the entire nation. 'These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror,' he said. 'They have no program for America and the Republican Party.'
Rockefeller sounded the alarm that hateful neoconservatism would only get stronger and more destructive. 'They operate from dark shadows of secrecy,' he said, and his warning that 'extremist groups' would ultimately subvert the values and morality of the Grand Old Party were lost in a wave of jeers -- 'We want Barry! We want Barry!
Rockefeller, in what was considered possibly his finest moment, lost the ideological battle for the Party to Arizona's 'Mr. Conservative,' Barry Goldwater. The miracle it would take for either man to win the presidency didn't happen, of course, but the ideology embraced by the conservative wing of the party would result in a Nixon, a Reagan, and two Bushes -- all swept along under the evangelical influence of a Pat Robertson and the warmongering cabal of New World Order neoconservatives.
"
To read entire article, click on the title.
"What is the matter with the Republican Party? As one born within a tiny, tree-shaded Republican enclave in Missouri, raised by compassionate family-values-oriented Christian conservatives, and whose entire family remains staunchly, even militantly conservative, I think I have earned the right to ask that question.
So--what the hell is wrong with you guys?
History bumps along from dateline to dateline with no regard for party affiliation. That's why last week during the second presidential debate, when President George Bush slid off his stool, assumed his arms-akimbo 'Super Hero' stance and childishly blurted out, 'You can run, butcha can't hide,' I was jerked into the realization that it's not possible for such a horrid, vacuous little creature to be the cause of the rampant madness zigzagging throughout our society today.
Bush is the effect of it -- the natural result of a cruel, thoughtless and destructive movement within the Republican Party that had lain dormant from its inception, but like Stephen King's evil 'Christine,' shivered into life on November 22, 1963.
Both parties have been running and hiding ever since.
This is not a treatise on the assassination of a popular American President, nor of the massive manipulations of an investigative commission to cover it up. That tragic November day marks the 'bump' in our history that began the evolutionary implosion of the Republican Party into neoconservatism and the sheer, bleak cruelty of a loveless Christianity.
Before that fateful 1963 bump, New York Govenor Nelson Rockefeller was truly the face of a kinder, gentler Republican Party. Rich, philanthrophic, and middle-of-the-road, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America in the 1940's, Rockefeller was responsible for the success of FDR's 'Good Neighbor' policy. During his four terms as governor, Rockefeller began large-scale welfare and drug-rehabilitation programs, reorganized the New York transportation system and built major public works projects.
At the 1964 convention, Rockefeller pleaded with a booing crowd to 'keep the Republican party the party of all the people.' He warned them of the danger of allowing extremists to gain influence, and of the threat they posed, not only to the party but to the entire nation. 'These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror,' he said. 'They have no program for America and the Republican Party.'
Rockefeller sounded the alarm that hateful neoconservatism would only get stronger and more destructive. 'They operate from dark shadows of secrecy,' he said, and his warning that 'extremist groups' would ultimately subvert the values and morality of the Grand Old Party were lost in a wave of jeers -- 'We want Barry! We want Barry!
Rockefeller, in what was considered possibly his finest moment, lost the ideological battle for the Party to Arizona's 'Mr. Conservative,' Barry Goldwater. The miracle it would take for either man to win the presidency didn't happen, of course, but the ideology embraced by the conservative wing of the party would result in a Nixon, a Reagan, and two Bushes -- all swept along under the evangelical influence of a Pat Robertson and the warmongering cabal of New World Order neoconservatives.
"
To read entire article, click on the title.
Open Letter to President
Open Letter to President: "
Open Letter to President George W. Bush
October 4, 2004
Dear Mr. President:
As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown.
The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes – primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution – has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. In fact, if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is even worse – well in excess of a half a trillion dollars this year alone. Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals you have suggested for a potential second term – from diverting Social Security contributions into private accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent – only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base."
Click link for more......
Open Letter to President George W. Bush
October 4, 2004
Dear Mr. President:
As professors of economics and business, we are concerned that U.S. economic policy has taken a dangerous turn under your stewardship. Nearly every major economic indicator has deteriorated since you took office in January 2001. Real GDP growth during your term is the lowest of any presidential term in recent memory. Total non-farm employment has contracted and the unemployment rate has increased. Bankruptcies are up sharply, as is our dependence on foreign capital to finance an exploding current account deficit. All three major stock indexes are lower now than at the time of your inauguration. The percentage of Americans in poverty has increased, real median income has declined, and income inequality has grown.
The data make clear that your policy of slashing taxes – primarily for those at the upper reaches of the income distribution – has not worked. The fiscal reversal that has taken place under your leadership is so extreme that it would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. The federal budget surplus of over $200 billion that we enjoyed in the year 2000 has disappeared, and we are now facing a massive annual deficit of over $400 billion. In fact, if transfers from the Social Security trust fund are excluded, the federal deficit is even worse – well in excess of a half a trillion dollars this year alone. Although some members of your administration have suggested that the mountain of new debt accumulated on your watch is mainly the consequence of 9-11 and the war on terror, budget experts know that this is simply false. Your economic policies have played a significant role in driving this fiscal collapse. And the economic proposals you have suggested for a potential second term – from diverting Social Security contributions into private accounts to making the recent tax cuts permanent – only promise to exacerbate the crisis by further narrowing the federal revenue base."
Click link for more......
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Michael Moore.com - Republicans prosecute for giving out underware... sigh...
Michael Moore.com : Mike's Message : Mike's Latest News:
"Filmmaker Michael Moore responded Wednesday to the Michigan Republican Party's request that he be prosecuted for offering underwear and food to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.
'It's ironic that Republicans have no problem with allowing assault weapons out on our streets, yet they don't want to put clean underwear in the hands of our slacker youth,' Moore said in a statement. 'The Republicans seem more interested in locking me up for trying to encourage people to participate in our democracy than locking up Bin Laden for his attacks on our democracy.'
Moore said Republicans missed the 'satire' of his giving underwear and food to get young people to vote."
"Filmmaker Michael Moore responded Wednesday to the Michigan Republican Party's request that he be prosecuted for offering underwear and food to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.
'It's ironic that Republicans have no problem with allowing assault weapons out on our streets, yet they don't want to put clean underwear in the hands of our slacker youth,' Moore said in a statement. 'The Republicans seem more interested in locking me up for trying to encourage people to participate in our democracy than locking up Bin Laden for his attacks on our democracy.'
Moore said Republicans missed the 'satire' of his giving underwear and food to get young people to vote."
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief - American Progress Action Fund
President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief - American Progress Action Fund: "President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief
September 2, 2004, Updated
Download Poster
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: 'I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations.' But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says."
September 2, 2004, Updated
Download Poster
From the beginning, George W. Bush has made his own credibility a central issue. On 10/11/00, then-Gov. Bush said: 'I think credibility is important.It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations.' But President Bush's serial flip-flopping raises serious questions about whether Congress and foreign leaders can rely on what he says."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)