Ric Sternberg Video : Million Musician March for Peace, Part 3

The Million Musician March:
STILL Keeping Austin Weird

By Ric Sternberg / The Rag Blog / May 5, 2009

Part 3 of the 2009 Million Musician March trilogy is now up and running.

[The 2009 Million Musician March for Peace, an Austin tradition, took place on March 21, 2009. Organized by Instruments for Peace and led by Hippie legend Wavy Gravy, over 200 performing musicians and friends paraded through downtown Austin and held musical rallies at City Hall and the State Capitol.]

It consists of an invocation by Wavy Gravy, followed by excerpts from songs by the always amazing Guy Forsythe, Carolyn Wonderland and Shelley King. These are three of the most powerful and soulful voices that this town full of good voices has to offer. Their choices of songs are inspirational – gospel-freedom songs that take me back to my days walking the line with CORE. And they ROCK. Please check them out.

Please check out parts 1 & 2 also. Part 1 has excerpts from the pre-march performances at the Texas Capital building. Part 2 has bits of the march itself, featuring the (all-inclusive) New Orleans style Jericho marching band and rock and roll from folks grouped around Bill Oliver’s mobile shopping cart PA system. Each of the pieces runs close to 10 minutes, which is the YouTube limit. The three together make up one complete 30 minute musical documentary.

See related coverage on The Rag Blog:

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Washington Retraining Programs Unfunded Until July

And it’s reasonable to speculate that this is happening across the country. It says everything about national priorities that we put billions into bailing out financial institutions, some of which are demonstrably corrupt, but those individuals who need funding for retraining in difficult economic times have the privilege of waiting until July to be funded.

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog

Shawn Oglesby, who was laid off recently, has had to put her study plans on hold for now. Photo: Erika Schultz / The Seattle Times.

State-funded college retraining programs run out of money
By Nick Perry / April 5, 2009

At the worst possible time, community colleges across the state are turning away unemployed workers because there’s no money left to retrain them.

With Washington’s unemployment rate hitting 8.4 percent in February, up from 4.7 percent a year earlier, demand for the popular, state-funded worker-retraining program has skyrocketed to the point where it’s gone bust — at least until the next fiscal year, which begins in July.

The program paid up to two years’ worth of tuition, transportation and books for people who had lost jobs and were looking to upgrade their skills or find another line of work.

Take Shawn Oglesby. She spent most of the past decade selling mortgages and other financial products, but was laid off in January because of the economic crisis.

After striking out trying to find another job, she’d hoped to move in a new direction by studying for an associate degree in business, with a certificate in insurance. In normal times, she would have been a perfect candidate for worker-retraining money.

But when she walked into Bellevue Community College (BCC) last week, staff told her there was no money left. If she wanted to study, they told her, she’d have to pay full freight — something she can’t afford on her unemployment checks.

“You’ve heard of the American dream? Well, this is the American drought,” Oglesby said. “With no education, there are no job possibilities. Or very limited possibilities.”

Oglesby said she’s put her study plans on hold for now and is continuing to apply for all sorts of jobs.

BCC, the state’s largest community college, ran out of worker-retraining money three weeks ago, said Darlene Molsen, the college’s director of work-force education. The college is telling students to try again in July.

“It’s a very sad time. A very sad time,” Molsen said. “People are stressed. They are concerned about getting access to unemployment benefits. Their money’s gone, there’s no work, and they need to upgrade their skills for a chance of work.”

It’s the same message at Shoreline Community College, which ran out of worker-retraining money in January. The school managed to patch together federal grants and other funds to help students for a while, but now it has nothing left.

“We have no more resources,” said Berta Lloyd, the college’s dean of work-force education. “All the Puget Sound colleges are out of money. There has just been a crush of students; it’s unbelievable.”

Jim Crabbe, the director of work-force education at the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, said that last year, the state allocated about $29 million to fund 6,200 workers who needed retraining. The money turned out to be not nearly enough.

He said unemployed people should still apply to community colleges anyway, to see if they qualify for other types of federal or state assistance. But the colleges say that whatever program you want to name, it’s likely tapped out.

Molsen said BCC couldn’t have anticipated what has happened. In January through March last year, BCC had 134 people come to its weekly worker-retraining orientation sessions. In the same period this year, 572 people showed up.

Worker-retraining money is supposed to help the unemployed gain new skills — and jobs — in short order. Students wanting to study for four-year bachelor’s degrees don’t qualify. But those wanting to quickly improve their computer skills or get into high-demand fields such as health care often can take advantage. Over the years, the program has helped thousands.

One of those is Sean Mattingly of Renton. He was a captain and mate on a popular summer ferry route out of Seattle. But after the terrorist attacks of 2001, he said, there was a notable drop in business. The summer season got shorter, and he found it more and more difficult to find supplemental boating work the rest of the year. With a young family to provide for, he realized it was time to change careers.

Sean Mattingly; wife Pam; children Kasey, 4, Riley, 2, and Sophie, 1, in their Renton home. Mattingly took advantage of a retraining program and is about to graduate as a nurse. Photo: Jim Bates/The Seattle Times.

So, in 2006, he took advantage of the worker-retraining program and began studying at Seattle Central Community College to become a registered nurse. He will finish the program by the end of the spring quarter.

“It was so huge for me. I wouldn’t have been able to do this without that program in place,” Mattingly said. “I wouldn’t have been able to make such a huge transition. Otherwise, I would have been really stuck in the industry I was in.”

Seattle Central is one college that is not turning away unemployed students. Mary Lockman, Seattle Central’s worker-retraining adviser, said although the retraining money is gone, the college has been doing a “huge patch job” to help needy students by raiding other pots of money, originally intended for such things as administrative support.

“We are grubbing the budget down to the last penny,” Lockman said. “Somebody turned up $1,000 the other day. That can help with one student’s tuition.”

But the college can only afford to help with tuition, not books or transportation. That forced one out-of-work student, Kathleen Bryant, to start walking the nearly three miles home each day because she can’t afford the bus fare.

The good news, Bryant says, is that she gets to study. And she’s lost 12 pounds to boot.

Source / Seattle Times

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Author of ‘Writing Down the Bones’ Visits Austin

Natalie Goldberg and Bookwoman’s Susan Post. Photo: Alice Embree.

Natalie Goldberg Visits Austin
By Alice Embree / The Rag Blog / April 5, 2009

Natalie Goldberg was in Austin on April Fools’ Day promoting her book, Old Friend from Far Away, The Practice of Writing Memoir. She read and took questions at Temple Beth Israel to a crowd of about one hundred. Austin was the last stop on a national tour before she returned to her home in Santa Fe. She extended her Austin stay to see Leonard Cohen the following night and mentioned that he often refers aspiring songwriters to her books. That’s a formidable endorsement from one word wizard to another.

For two decades, Goldberg’s Writing Down the Bones has been part of my life and at the core of writing practice in several of my writing circles. The advice Goldberg imparts to writers is to practice -– to practice through writing prompts and timed exercises — to practice the way she practices Zen Buddhism — to get to a place where the editor steps aside and the writing can emerge. Memoir, she says, is the study of memory. It isn’t boring and linear. It is about taste and smell and sound.

She reminds us of the importance of practice among marathon runners, baseball players, and violinists. It’s about muscle memory. The image in my mind is watching my son’s Pony League baseball team practice catching. The coach had players catch the ball and swoop down to tag out imaginary base-runners. Just as muscle memory is built in baseball practice, writing can become instinctive through practice. Spontaneity can be a learned response.

Bookwoman was selling Goldberg’s books. I got three signed – one for myself and two for members of a current memoir circle. I haven’t made my way through this Old Friend from Far Away yet –- in part because Goldberg urges you to practice, not just read. In many ways her advice is as plain as the back of your hand. But Natalie would have you really look at the back of your hand, the age spots and ragged cuticles, the curve of your index finger, the scar on the ring finger. Get really specific and write for ten minutes.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Canadian Parliament Defies Prime Minister and Votes to Allow US War Resisters to Stay

War resisters spoke in conversation with Andy Barrie, CBC radio host and Vietnam war resister, at a public forum at the University of Toronto on May 21, 2008. Photo: Source.

I’ll have a ‘Draught Dodger!’ Canadian Parliament votes again to let U.S. war resisters stay
By Mike Ferner / April 4, 2009

For the second time in 10 months, Canada’s House of Commons told Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government, including Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney, to stop deporting U.S. soldiers resisting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The vote united the three opposition parties, the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party in a close 129-125 vote.

Last week, the War Resisters Support Campaign rallied for former Army soldier, Kimberly Rivera, the first female U.S. soldier to go to Canada. Nearly 100 people filled the chairs and lined the aisles at the Steelworkers hall in Toronto for Rivera, her husband and three children, the youngest born in Canada six months ago.

The morning after the March 25 rally, Rivera was due to be deported back to the U.S. to face an Army court martial, but Federal Judge James Russell agreed with Rivera’s argument that resisters who speak out against the war publicly in Canada receive harsher sentences, and granted her a temporary stay.

“This was the fifth time that the court ruled that Iraq war resisters face harsher punishment if they’re sent back to the U.S.,” said Michelle Robidoux, spokesperson for the Toronto-based support campaign. “The courts have spoken, Parliament has spoken and Canadians have made their views clear. These conscientious objectors should not be sent back to the United States to face jail time for opposing the Iraq War.”

Several other resisters were at the Steelworkers hall to support Rivera and her family, including Jeremy Hinzman, the first U.S. serviceperson to go to Canada during this war, Phil McDowell and his wife Jamine, Chuck Wylie, Dale Landry, Ryan Johnson and three others who did not want their names mentioned.

At that rally, MP Olivia Chow, NDP Immigration Critic, announced that the following day she would introduce a resolution in the House of Commons restating Parliament’s position from last June. That measure as well as the most recent one, are non-binding resolutions the Harper government does not have to legally obey. However, to give an idea how much public support is behind letting war resisters stay in Canada, campaign organizers feared Chow’s surprise announcement might lose the votes of some Liberal MPs who did not appreciate the NDP grabbing the limelight on the issue.

In a poll conducted last year gained by Angus Reid Strategies, 64% of all Canadians said resisters should be allowed to stay. The poll results were reported in the same issue of the Truro Daily News that carried a story on Dick Cotterill, who enlisted in the Marine Corps, decided he was opposed to the Viet Nam war and went to Nova Scotia in 1972.

Cotterill now owns his own business and has a son in the Canadian Air Force. When asked how he felt about the current generation of young war resisters, he said, “Every soldier has the responsibility to refuse to obey orders that are illegal, unjust and immoral.”

That sentiment was echoed several times at the rally for Rivera last week. Two local clergy members spoke in support, saying resisters have a right to refuse to serve in an illegal war. One even said he welcomed these young men and women and called them, “the kind of people Canada needs.”

The morning after the rally, when Rivera would have been deported, save for Judge Russell’s reprieve, Robidoux let a late-morning breakfast go cold as she furiously called fellow campaigners and texted Members of Parliament on the floor of the House debating Chow’s motion. Not long after the resolution’s introduction, Conservatives moved to end discussion which would effectively kill the measure.

Reading one incoming text message, she exclaimed, “Ha! This is the new Tory line: ‘We don’t need this legislation, Obama will save them (resisters).’”

Commenting on the non-binding nature of the resolution, Robidoux said, “I think we’re going to win or lose the fight in the next six months. Unless there is a change in the government we’ll not win the political solution. We need a change in the regulations. The Conservative government can be pushed on a case-by-case basis, (to let resisters stay) but that’s a real long shot.”

Asked why this issue is so important to Canadians that they would make a significant effort to organize support, Robidoux replied, “The history we had during the Vietnam War is the foundation of today’s War Resisters Support Campaign. People my age had contact with draft resisters. I remember when I was eight years old and there were a few of them living in the house next door. I thought they were cool.”

She described how sheltering resisters during that war became part of the Canadian culture.

“The announcer of the most popular radio program on CBC came here during that war. There’s a well-known beer in British Columbia called ‘Draught Dodger.’ The president of the Steelworkers local here was a resister. Artists, activists, the co-founder of Greenpeace…nobody wants to lose that history and those contributions. It’s more than just being against war. It’s the right to conscience. What’s happened now is that the Tories are sick of that history; they don’t want to hear any more about it.”

A second reason, Robidoux said, is the Iraq War itself.

“It’s simple. It’s wrong. You don’t need a political science degree to understand that. Opposition to it has increased every year.” Illustrating her point, she noted that on February 15, 2003, as part of protests around the globe to oppose the invasion of Iraq, Canadians turned out in massive numbers. “There were 80,000 people in the streets of Toronto, 250,000 in Montreal, many thousands in Quebec…even 7,000 in the little city of Victoria (BC).”

She finally paused and took a deep breath. “Since May of ’08 there’s been no down time. I’m not exaggerating…it’s just running flat out.” After that momentary pause, Robidoux returned to how the current sanctuary movement for resisters came about.

“It’s important Americans learn of our relationship with the U.S. peace movement. If it wasn’t for MFSO (Military Families Speak Out), we probably wouldn’t have gotten off the ground. We met Nancy (Lessin) and Charlie (Richardson) (cofounders of MFSO), at an early demonstration in Washington. I noticed this couple wearing Steelworkers’ jackets and went up to talk with them. We had them come to Toronto in February ’04 to speak and I had seen an article on Jeremy Hinzman, the first U.S. soldier to come to Canada. Nancy and Charlie knew he was staying with some Quakers, so we were able to find him. Then Brandon Hughes came two or three months later via the Quakers, and we decided in May ’04 to launch the War Resisters Support Campaign.”

The wiry 47 year-old refuted the argument that U.S. soldiers are no longer drafted and therefore don’t qualify for sanctuary in Canada.

“There’s the whole ‘compulsion’ argument. You’ve got ‘Stop-Loss’ which the military uses to keep soldiers on active duty, the ‘Individual Ready Reserve’ that reactivates them any time during an eight year period even if they’ve served their four year contract, also the early National Guard call-ups and that’s not even talking about the economy.”

Robidoux said the campaign will now concentrate on getting a “Private Member’s” bill introduced that, if it passes, will have the force of law to stop deportation of resisters. “Of course these Tories could still decide to ignore it, which they have with other legislation that has been passed,” she said ruefully.

Recognizing the substantial number of calls to Canadian officials U.S. peace activists have made to support the resolutions and urge compliance, Robidoux said the most important thing people south of the border can do is “build links with resisters who are here, maybe ‘adopting’ a resister, and helping to build awareness of their situation among Americans and American media. It will be up to us in Canada to win it here among our politicians.”

[Ferner (www.mikeferner.org) is the author of “Inside the Red Zone: A Veteran For Peace Reports from Iraq,” and is president of VFP.]

Source / Information Clearing House

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | 3 Comments

UofM Students: It’s About the First Amendment


Porn Flick Screening at U-Md. Still On, as Is Funding Threat
By Maria Glod / April 5, 2009

Neither side is prepared to lay down its sword.

University of Maryland students — protesting what they see as an intrusion by Big Brother — are planning to defy authority and screen a hard-core porn movie in the name of free speech and academic freedom.

“What we’re upset about is somebody is trying to control what goes on on campus. This is symbolic,” said Liz Ciavolino, a sophomore who is active in the group Feminism Without Borders.

In response, one conservative state legislator revived his threat: If the porn flick is shown on campus, the university might just kiss some state dollars goodbye.

A university spokesman declined to comment last night.

The tale of the scheduled screening of “Pirates II: Stagnetti’s Revenge” has roiled the university’s flagship campus and hit newspapers as far away as Australia.

The movie was initially to be shown in the student union last night. But university officials canceled it after Sen. Andrew P. Harris (R-Baltimore County) introduced a bill to withhold state funding from any public university that allowed the screening of a triple-X film.

The fight might have ended there. But some students, adamant that state lawmakers were practicing censorship, have launched plans to show the 2 1/2 -hour movie on campus tomorrow night, the Baltimore Sun first reported. The Student Power Party, a slate of campus leaders, has reserved a lecture room.

A discussion about free speech will precede the movie.

“It’s not about porn at all,” said Kenton Stalder, a junior helping to arrange the screening. “The content doesn’t matter. It’s the precedent of a legislator pulling funding for an entire university based on an issue of morality.”

Harris, who says that X-rated belly dancers and pirates have no place in a public university, is not backing down, either. He withdrew his initial amendment to withhold funds from the operating budget but said he would consider renewing his protest as lawmakers take up the capital budget in coming weeks.

University officials “should stop any showing of it right now until a clear policy is developed by the university regarding the conditions under which a triple-X-rated, hard-core pornography movie will be shown on campus,” Harris said. He said that policy should consider “the dangers of pornography, the detrimental effect on women and families, and the addictive nature of pornography.”

The movie, produced by Digital Playground, has been marketed to colleges and has been shown at several across the country without major controversy. The Fresno Bee reported that an overflow crowd was turned away for lack of space during a recent screening at the University of California Davis.

Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery), a professor of constitutional law at American University, said he has never watched a porn film. But he said state lawmakers have no place dictating which movies are shown on campus.

“Pornographers and censors thrive on one another,” Raskin said. “I would hope that Sen. Harris would be content with having gotten the pornographers hundreds of thousands of dollars in free publicity for the movie and would leave well enough alone. They could not have paid for the publicity they got on TV and in newspapers.”

[Staff writer John Wagner contributed to this report.]

Source / Washington Post

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

We Suffer Under a Mass National Hallucination

Zombie Apocafest 2008. This is “Best Zombified Building” for
Paul Hetherington’s “Casa Baron.” Photo: Source.

Escape from the Zombie Food Court
By Joe Bageant / April 3, 2009

[Joe Bageant recently spoke at Berea College in Berea, Kentucky, Eastern Kentucky University at Lexington, and the Adler School of Professional Psychology in Chicago, where he was invited to speak on American consciousness and what he dubbed “The American Hologram,” in his book, Deer Hunting With Jesus. Here is a text version of the talks, assembled from his remarks at all three schools.]

I just returned from several months in Central America. And the day I returned I had iguana eggs for breakfast, airline pretzels for lunch and a $7 shot of Jack Daniels for dinner at the Houston Airport, where I spent two hours listening to a Christian religious fanatic tell about Obama running a worldwide child porn ring out of the White House. Entering the country shoeless through airport homeland security, holding up my pants because they don’t let old men wear suspenders through security, well, I knew I was back home in the land of the free.

Anyway, here I am with you good people asking myself the first logical question: What the hell is a redneck writer supposed to say to a prestigious school of psychology? Why of all places am I here? It is intimidating as hell. But as Janna Henning and Sharrod Taylor here have reassured me that all I need to do is talk about is what I write about. And what I write about is Americans, and why we think and behave the way we do. To do that here today I am forced to talk about three things — corporations, television and human spirituality.

No matter how smart we may think we are, the larger world cannot and does not exist for most of us in this room, except through media and maybe through the shallow experience of tourism, or in the minority instance, we may know of it through higher education. The world however, is not a cultural history course, a National Geographic special or recreational destination. It is a real place with many fast developing disasters, economic and ecological collapse being just two. The more aware among us grasp that there is much at stake. Yet, even the most informed and educated Americans have cultural conditioning working against them round the clock.

As psych students, most of you understand that there is no way you can escape being conditioned by your society, one way or another. You are as conditioned as any trained chicken in a carnival. So am I. When we go to the ATM machine and punch the buttons to make cash fall out, we are doing the same thing as the chickens that peck the colored buttons make corn drop from the feeder. You will not do a single thing today, tomorrow or the next day that you have not been generally indoctrinated and deeply conditioned to do — mostly along class lines.

For instance, as university students, you are among the 20% or so of Americans indoctrinated and conditioned to be the administrating and operating class of the American Empire in some form or another. In the business of managing the other 75% in innumerable ways. Psychologists, teachers, lawyers, social workers, doctors, accountants, sociologists, mental health workers, clergy — all are in the business of coordinating and managing the greater mass of working class citizenry by the Empire’s approved methods, and toward the same end: Maximum profitability for a corporate based state.

Yet it all seems so normal. Certainly the psychologists who have prescribed so much Prozac that it now shows up in the piss of penguins, saw what they did as necessary. And the doctors who enable the profitable blackmail practiced by the medical industries see it all as part of the most technologically advanced medical system in the world. And the teacher, who sees no problem with 20% of her fourth graders being on Ritalin, in the name of “appropriate behavior,” is happy to have control of her classroom. None of these feel like dupes or pawns of a corporate state. It seems like just the way things are. Just modern American reality. Which is a corporate generated reality.

Given the financialization of all aspects of our culture and lives, even our so-called leisure time, it is not an exaggeration to say that true democracy is dead and a corporate financial state has now arrived. If you can get your head around that, it’s not hard to see an ever merging global corporate system masquerading electronically and digitally as a nation called the United States. Or Japan for that matter. The corporation now animates us from within our very selves through management of the need hierarchy in goods and information.

As students, even in such an enlightened institution as this one, you are being subjected to at least some of the pedagogy of the corporate management of society for maximum profit. Unarguably your training will help many fellow human beings. But in the larger scheme of things, you are part of an institution, the American Psycho-socio-medical complex, and thus authorized to manage public consciousness, one person at a time. Remember that the entire pedagogy in which you are immersed is itself immersed in a corporate financial state. Even if some of what you do is alternative psychology, that is a reaction to the state, and therefore a result of it. It’s still part of the financialization of consciousness. And, I might add that none you expect to work for nothing.

This financialization of our consciousness under American style capitalism has become all we know. That’s why we fear its loss. Hence the bailouts of the thousands of “zombie banks,” dead but still walking, thanks to the people’s taxpayer offerings to the money god so that banks will not die. We believe that we dare not let corporations die. Corporations feed us. They entertain us. Corporations occupy one full half of our waking hours of our lives, through employment, either directly or indirectly. They heal us when we are sick. So it’s easy to see why the corporations feel like a friendly benevolent entity in the larger American consciousness. Corporations are, of course, deathless and faceless machines, and have no soul or human emotions. That we look to them for so much makes us a corporate cult, and makes corporations a fetish of our culture. Yet to us, they are like the weather just there.

All of us live together in this corporate fetish cult. We agree upon and consent to its reality, just as the Aztecs agreed upon Quetzalcoatl and the lost people of Easter Island agreed that the great stone effigies of their remote island had significance.

We are not unique

Strangely enough, even as a population mass operating under unified corporate management machinery, most Americans believe they are unique individuals, significantly different from every other person around them. More than any other people I have met, Americans fear loss of uniqueness. Yet you and I are not unique in the least. Despite the American yada yada about individualism, you are not special. Nor am I. Just because we come from the manufacturer equipped with individual consciousness, does not make us the center of any unique world, private or public, material, intellectual or spiritual. The fact is, you will seldom if ever make any significant material or lifestyle choices of your own in your entire life. If you don’t buy that house, someone else will. If you don’t marry him, someone else will. If you don’t become a psychologist, lawyer or a clergyman or a telemarketer, someone else will. We are all replaceable parts in the machinery of a capitalist economy. “Oh but we have unique feelings and emotions that are important,” we say. Psychologists specialize in this notion. Yet I venture to say that none of us will ever feel an emotion that someone long dead has not felt, or some as yet unborn person will not feel. We are swimmers in an ancient rushing river of humanity. You, me, the people in my Central American village, the child in Bangladesh, and the millionaire frat boys who run our financial and governmental institutions with such adolescent carelessness. All of our lives will eventually be absorbed without leaving a trace.

Still though, for Western peoples in particular, there is the restless inner cultural need to differentiate our lives from the other swimmers. Most of us, especially as educated people in the Western World, will never beat that one.

Fortunately though, we can meaningfully differentiate our lives (at least in the Western sense) in the way we choose to employ our consciousness. Which is to say, to own our consciousness. If we exercise enough personal courage, we can possess the freedom to discover real meaning and value in our all-too-brief lives. We either wake up to life, or we do not. We are either in charge of our own awareness or we let someone else manage it by default. That we have a choice is damned good news.

The bad news is that we nevertheless remain one of the most controlled peoples on the planet, especially regarding control of our consciousness, public and private. And the control is tightening. I know it doesn’t feel like that to most Americans. But therein rests the proof. Everything feels normal; everybody else around us is doing the same things, so it must be OK. This is a sort of Stockholm Syndrome of the soul, in which the prisoner identifies with the values of his or her captors, which in our case is of course, the American corporate state and its manufactured popular culture.

When we feel that such a life is normal, even desirable, and we act accordingly, we become helpless. Learned helplessness. For instance, most Americans believe there is little they can do in personally dealing with the most important moral and material crises ever faced, both in America and across the planet, beginning with ecocide, war making, and the grotesque deformation of the democratic process we have settled for. Citizenship has been reduced to simple consumer group consciousness. Consequently, even though Americans are only six percent of the planet’s population, we use 36% of the planet’s resources. And we interpret that experience as normal and desirable and as evidence of being the most advanced nation in the world. Despite that our lives have been reduced to a mere marketing demographic.

Let me digress for just a moment, to tell you about how life is outside the marketing demographic. I live much of the year in the Third World country of Belize, Central America, a nation so damned poor that our cash bounces. True, it ain’t Zimbabwe, or the Sudan — there are no dying people in the streets. But food security is easily the biggest problem and growing by the day.

Yet, despite our meager and diminishing resources down there, and much government corruption, people are still citizens, not marketing demographics, not yet anyway. Citizens who struggle toward a just society. They have made more progress than the United States in some respects. For instance, we have: A level of free medical care for the poor, though we lack much equipment and facilities. Maternity pay if either you or your spouse are employed. Retirement on Social Security at age 60. Worker rights, such as mandatory accrued severance pay for workers, even temporary workers. Most Belizeans own their homes outright, and all citizens are entitled to a free piece of land upon which to build one. Employment is scarce, and that has a down side: Many folks waste a lot of valuable time having sex , perhaps because they have too much time on their hands. The Jehovah’s Witnesses missionaries are working hard to fix that problem.

Anyway, American and Canadian tourists drive by in their rented SUVs and you can see by their expressions they are scared as hell of those bare footed black folks in the sand around them. Central America sure as hell ain’t heaven. But lives there are not what we Americans are told about the Third World either. It’s not a flyblown, dangerous place run by murdering drug lords, and full of miserable people. It’s just a whole lot of very poor people trying to get by and make a decent society.

I mention these things because it’s a good example of how North Americans live in a parallel universe in which they are conditioned to see everything in terms of consumer goods and “safety,” as defined by police control. Conditioned to believe they have the best lives on the planet by every measure. So when they see our village and its veneer of “tropical grunge,” they experience fear. Anything outside of the parameters of the cultural hallucination they call “the first world” represents fear and psychological free fall.

Yet, even if we think in that sort of outdated terminology, first, second and Third World, and most Americans do, then America is a second world nation. We have no universal free health care (don’t kid yourself about the plan underway), no guarantee of anything really, except competitive struggle with one another for work and money and career status, if you are one of those conditioned to think of your job and feudal debt enslavement as a “career.” High infant mortality rates, abysmal educational scores, poor diet, no national public transportation system, crumbling infrastructure, a collapsed economy, even by our own definition we are a second world nation.

Learning to love shiny objects

But there is a shiny commercial skin that covers everything American, a thin layer of glossy throwaway technology, that leads the citizenry to believe otherwise. That slick commercial skin, the bright colored signs for Circuit City and The Gap (rest in peace), the clear plastic that covers every product from CDs to pre-cut vegetables, the friendly yellow and red wrapper on the burger inside its bright red paper box, the glossy branding of every item and experience. These things are the supposed tangible evidence that the slick conditioned illusion, the one I call The American Hologram, is indeed real. If it’s bright and shiny and new, it must be better. Right? It’s the complete opposite of tropical grunge.

Last week when I got back to the States I took a shower in an American friend’s new $30,000 gleaming remodeled bathroom. It felt like a surgical operating room experience, compared to wading into the Caribbean surf in the tropical dusk with a bar of soap. Like a parallel universe straight out of The Matrix.

Meat space versus the parallel universe

So how is it that we Americans came to live in such a parallel universe? How is it that we prefer such things as Facebook (don’t get me wrong, I’m on Facebook too), and riding around the suburbs with an iPod plugged into our brain looking for fried chicken in a Styrofoam box? Why prefer these expensive earth destroying things over love and laughter with real people, and making real human music together with other human beings — lifting our voices together, dancing and enjoying the world that was given to us? Absolutely for free.

And the answer is this: We suffer under a mass national hallucination. Americans, regardless of income or social position, now live in a culture entirely perceived inside a self-referential media hologram of a nation and world that does not exist. Our national reality is staged and held together by media, chiefly movie and television images. We live in a “theater state.”

In our theater state, we know the world through media productions which are edited and shaped to instruct us on how to look and behave and view the outside world. As in all staged productions and illusions, everyone we see is an actor. There are the television actors portraying what supposedly represents reality. Non-actors in Congress perform in front of the cameras, as the American empire’s cultural machinery weaves and spins out our cultural mythology.

Cultural myth production is an enormous industry in America. It is very similar to the national projects of pyramid-building in Egypt, or cathedral-building in medieval Europe. And in our obsession with violence and punishment, two characteristics of a consensual police state reality, we are certainly similar to prison camp building in Stalinist Russia. Actually, we’re pretty good in that department too. Consider that one fourth of all the incarcerated people on earth are in U.S. prisons. U.S. citizens imprisoned by their own government.

Good guys and bad guys at the chariot races

In any case, the media culture’s production of martyrs, good guys and bad guys, fallen heroes and concept outlaws, is not just big corporate business. It is the armature of our cultural behavior. It tells us who to fear (Middle Eastern terrorists, Mr. Chavez in Venezuela, and foreign made pharmaceuticals), who to scorn (again the same candidates, along with Brittney Spears for her lousy child rearing skills). Our daily news is the modern version of Roman coliseum shows. Elections are personality combat, chariot races, not examinations of solutions being offered. None are offered.

What are being offered are monkey models. Man as a social animal necessarily mimics the behavior he sees around him, whether it be by real people or moving images of people. This eye-to-brain to mimicry connection does not care. Consequently, we know how to act and what the things around us are because television and media tell us. Television is the software, the operating instructions for our society. Thus, social realism for us is a television commercial for the American lifestyle: what’s new to wear, what to eat, who’s cool (Obama), what and whom to fear (that perennial evil booger, Castro) or who to admire (Bill Gates, pure American genius at work). This societal media software tells us what music our digitized corporate complex is selling, but you never see images of ordinary families sitting around in the evenings making music together, or creating songs of their own based upon their own lives and from their own hearts. Because that music cannot be bought and sold, and is not profitable. I think about that when the children and their parents sing and dance on the sand in front of my shack in Central America. We Americans are not offered that choice.

Managing mythology

So instead of a daily life in the flesh, belly to belly and soul to soul, lived out in the streets, and parks and public places, in love and the workplace, we get 40-inch televisions, YouTube, Cineplexes, and the myths spun out by Hollywood.

Now for a national mythology to work, it has to be accessible to everyone all the time, it has to be all in one bundle. For example, in North Korea, it is wrapped up in a single man, Kim. In America, as we have said, it is the media and Hollywood in particular. Hollywood accommodates Imperial myths, melting pot myths, and hegemonic military masculinity myths, and glamour myths. It articulates our culture’s social imaginary: “the prevailing images a society needs to project about itself in order to maintain certain features of its organization.” And the features of our media mythology are terrifying when you think about them.

As a writer friend says, It is watching “Man on Fire,” with Denzel Washington’s tragic pose and his truthful bullets, and his willingness to saw the fingers off of Mexicans to get the information on time to protect us from The Evil. It is the absorption of that electronic mythology that allowed us to co-sign the torture at Abu Ghraib.

Incidentally, speaking of Abu Ghraib, I am a friend of Ray Hardy, lawyer to Lynndie England, the leash girl of Abu Ghraib. He has copies of thousands of other, far more grisly Abu Ghraib photos. Believe me, they picked the gentlest ones to release. Anyway, when the media and government people in power made that selection, they were managing your consciousness. What you know and don’t know. Keeping you calmer by withholding the truth. Rather like not upsetting little children so they will continue to quietly behave the way you want.

But, like children, the American public got bored with the subject of torture long ago, so we quit seeing the victims. Plenty of new evidence has been coming out for years since Lynndie’s famous pics from Abu Ghraib. But the short American attention span, created by our rapid fire media, says, “Move on to the next hologram please. Whoa! Stop the remote. Nice butt shot of Sarah Palin there!”

The result is that Americans cannot achieve the cathexis we need. Cathexis is the ground zero psychic and emotional attachment to the world that cannot be argued. It is “beyond ideological challenge because it is called into existence affectively.” Americans are conditioned to reject any affective attachment that does not have a happy ending. And in that, we remain mostly a nation of children. We never get to grow up.

So we tell ourselves the Little Golden Book fairy tales — that we are a great and compassionate people, and that we are personally innocent of any of our government’s horrific crimes abroad. Guiltless as individuals. And we do remain innocent, in a sense, as long as we cannot see beyond the media hologram. But it is a terrible kind of self-inflicted innocence that can come to no good. We are a nation latch key kids babysat by an electronic hallucination, the national hologram.

The TV goldfish bowl

You may or may not watch much television, but the average American spends almost one-third of his or her waking life doing so. The neurological implications of this are so profound that they cannot even be comprehended in words, much less described by them. Television constitutes our reality in the same fashion that water constitutes the environment in a goldfish bowl. It’s everywhere and affects everything, even when we are not watching it. Television regulates our national perceptions and our interior ideations of who we Americans are. It schedules our cultural illusions of choice. It pre-selects candidates in our elections. By the way, as much as I like Obama, I fully understand he is there because he was selected by the illusion producing machinery of television, and citizens under its influence. It is hard to underestimate the strength of these illusions.

TV regulates holiday marketing opportunities and the national neurological seasons. It tells us, “It’s Christmas! Time to shop!” Or “it’s election season, time to vote.” Or “it’s football season, let us rally passions and buy beer and cheer.” Or that America’s major deity, “The Economy,” is suffering badly. “Sacred temples on Wall Street make great sickness upon the land!” Or most ominous of all, “It’s time to make war! Again.”

It is fair to say that television and the American culture are the same thing. More than any other factor, it is the glue of society and the mediator of our experience. American culture is stone cold dead without it. If all the TVs in America went black, so would most of America’s collective consciousness and knowledge. Because corporate media have replaced nearly all other previous forms of accumulated knowledge.

Especially the ancient forms, such as contemplation of the natural world, study and care of the soul. And I do not mean soul in the religious sense either. I mean the deeper self, the one you go to sleep with every night.

The media have colonized our inner lives like a virus. The virus is not going away. This commoditization of our human consciousness is probably the most astounding, most chilling accomplishment of American capitalist culture.

Escape from the zombie food court

Capitalist society however, can only survive by defying the laws of thermodynamics, through endlessly expanding growth, buying and using more of everything, every year and forever. Thus the cult of radical consumerism. It has been the deadliest cult of all because, so far, it has always triumphed, and has now spread around the earth and its nations.

Why has it been so viral, so attractive to so many for so long? How did it come to grip the consciousness of so much of mankind, from Beijing to Bangladesh? Thuggish enforcement accounts for part of it, of course. But it has succeeded too because it requires no effort. No critical thinking. Not even literacy. Just passive consumption. That the easy addiction to consumption is probably hard wired into us. Every one of us will go right out this door tonight and continue to play out our lives as contributors to ecocide and global warming, mainly because it’s easier. And besides, we are not offered any other real options, and we don’t know any other way. Nor can we ever know any other way without making a great effort.

How to make that effort? (Assuming you even want to.) As we said, consuming images, goods or buying your identity at Old Navy or a retro clothing shop takes no real effort or thought. Just money. Text messaging your whereabouts at the mall may be a technological wonder, but you’re still absolutely nowhere if you are just one more oral grooved organism in the food court at the mall moving in a swarm toward Quiznos.

So how do you escape the programming of the food court, and, I might include, escape even those parts of this school that may serve more to indoctrinate than enlighten you? All pedagogy, even the best, is nevertheless about control. How does one escape such a total system?

In a word, service. Humble and thoughtful service to the world. It is heartening that we do have concerned Americans studying to alleviate the great suffering of so much of humanity. I have no proof of it, but it seems like earnest idealism is making a comeback since its decline following the optimistic 1960s. People and institutions such as this one are attempting to move American society forward again, heal us of our national sickness to the extent you can, after decades of regression, not to mention repression. Of course, to solve problems you must first identify them.

Let me say here that one of the most profound things I have learned from the Third World, perhaps the only thing I have learned, and as psychologists you’ve surely heard it before, is this: The diagnosis is not the disease. Which is why our prescribed treatment never seems to work in places like Africa. Or even in the Bronx or South Philly.

Even our most well intentioned thinking and study of the afflictions of Africa and Latin America, American inner cities or Appalachia, suffers from hubris, because they are necessarily the products of western propertized and monetized thinking that cause the problem. So now we study our victims with great piety. And supposedly teach them solutions to the problems we continue to cause for them. Western people studying globalization’s horrific effects, or rape in Africa, or world poverty are doing so under the assumption that such things can be dealt with through some social mechanistic means, through analysis and unbiased reason and rational value-free science. Or by a network of officially sanctioned agencies.

For years I have wanted to see the opposite take place. To see well fed, educated Americans learn from the poor of the earth. Do what Gandhi advised, let the poor be the teachers. Go among them with nothing, one set of clothing and no money, keep your mouth shut, and do your best not to affect anything (which is impossible, I know. But you can come, as they say, “close enough for government work.”)

Then just let the world happen to you, like they do in the so-called “passive societies,” instead of trying to happen to it in typical Western fashion. Not trying to “improve” things. Maybe practice milpa agriculture with Mayans on the Guatemalan border, watching corn grow for three months. Fish in a lonely dugout, sun-up to sun-down, in the dying reefs of the Caribbean, with only a meal or two of fish as your reward. Do such things for a month or two.

First you will experience boredom, then comes an internal psychic violence and anger, much like the experience of zazen, or sitting meditation, as the layers of your mind conditioning peel away. Don’t quit, keep at it, endure it, to the end. And when you return you will find that deeply experiencing a non-conditioned reality changes things forever. What you have experienced will animate whatever intellectual life you have developed. Or negate much of it. But in serious, intelligent people, experiencing non-manufactured reality usually gives lifelong meaning and insight to the work. You will have experienced the eternal verities of the world and mankind at ground zero. And you will find that the healthy social structures our well intentioned Western minds seek are already inherent in the psyche of mankind, but imprisoned. And the startling realization that you and I are the unknowing captors.

In conclusion, I would point out that the high technological imprisonment of our consciousness has been fairly recent. There are still those among us who remember when it was not so entrapped. A few of us still know what it was like to experience non-manufactured realities — life outside our mass produced kitsch culture. Particularly some aging Sixties types, who sought to pass through the doors of perception. Many made it through. But in my travels to places such as this one, I also meet a new breed of younger people, who get it completely. I meet them in the more advanced psychological venues such as Adler. And especially in the ecological movement.

They seem to already know what it took me a lifetime to learn: that each of us is but one strand in the vast organic web of flesh and blood chlorophyll. All things and all beings are inextricably connected at the most profound level. Any physicist will confirm this. We are bound by its every wave and particle, all of us — the lonely night clerk at Motel 6 and the leviathans of the deep, the sleeping grandmother in New Haven, Connecticut and the maimed Iraqi child in Kirkuk. It can be understood by anyone though, simply by owning one’s own consciousness. And in doing so we find that ownership and domination are both temporary and meaningless. And that the animating spirit of the earth is real and within us and claimable.

The purpose of life is to know this. Einstein glimpsed it. Lao-Tzu knew it. So did St. Francis. But you and I are not supposed to. It would shatter the revered, digitized, super-sized, utterly meaningless hologram. The one that mesmerizes us, and mediates our every experience, but isolates us from universal humanness and its coursing energies. Such as love. Or mercy. Compassion. Existential pain. Hunger. Or the unmitigated joy of simply being alive one finds in children everywhere, even among the poorest. Most of the human race still lives in that realm.

Blessed is the one who joins them. Because he or she learns that the truth is not relative, and that because the human mind seeks balance, social justice is not only inescapable in the long run, but inevitable. I won’t be around for that, but on a clear day if I squint real hard I can see down that road ahead. And on that road I can see the long chain of decent human beings like yourselves walking toward the light. And for your very presence on this earth and in this room, I am grateful. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart.

Thank you.

Source / JoeBageant.com

Thanks to Diane Stirling-Stevens / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Ground the Drones … Lest You Reap the Whirlwind

The MQ-9 Reaper taxies into Creech Air Force Base, Nev., home to the newly reactivated 432nd Wing. U.S. Air Force photo/Senior Airman Larry E. Reid Jr.
Source: USAF.

Down Where the Predators Live: Getting a Closer Look at the Killer Drones
By Kathy Kelly and Brian Terrell / April 3, 2009

It’s one thing to study online articles describing the MQ-9 Reapers and MQ-1 Predators. It’s quite another to identify these drones as they take off from runways at Nevada’s Creech Air Force base, where our “Ground the Drones…Lest We Reap the Whirlwind” campaign is holding a ten-day vigil.

This morning, during a one hour walk from Cactus Springs, Nevada, where we are housed, to the gates of Creech Air Force base, we saw the Predator and Reaper drones glide into the skies, once every two minutes. We could easily distinguish the Predator from the Reaper, – if the tailfins are up, it’s a Predator, tail fins down, a Reaper.

The MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper drones both function to collect information through surveillance; both can carry weapons. The MQ9 Reaper drone, which the USAF refers to as a “hunter-killer” vehicle, can carry two 500 pound bombs as well as several Hellfire missiles.

Creech Air Force Base is headquarters for coordinating the latest high tech weapons that use unmanned aerial systems (UASs) for surveillance and increasingly lethal attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. The Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, (UAVs), take off from runways in the country of origin, controlled by a pilot, nearby, “on the ground.” But once many of the UAVs are airborne, teams inside trailers at Creech Air Force base and other U. S. sites begin to control them.

We’ve become more skilled in spotting and hearing the vehicles.

But, we want to acknowledge that Creech Air Force base pilots guiding surveillance missions over areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they are ordered to hunt down Taliban fighters, are absorbing and processing information which we wish they could disclose to us. Trainers at the base have arranged for a contractor to hire “extras” to pose as insurgents, walking about the range inside the base, so that pilots training for combat can practice shooting them. This is all done by simulation. Sometimes flares are set up to simulate plumes of smoke representing pretended battle scenes. But when the pilots fly drones over actual land in Pakistan and Afghanistan, they can see faces; they can gain a sense for the terrain and study the infrastructure. A drone’s camera can show them pictures of everyday life in a region most of us never think much about.

We should be thinking about the cares and concerns of people who have been enduring steady attacks, displacement, economic stress, and, amongst the most impoverished, insufficient supplies of food, water and medicine.

The Pentagon stated, today, that the situation in Pakistan is dire. We agree. Pakistanis have faced dire shortages of goods needed to sustain basic human rights. Security issues such as food security, provision of health care, and development of education can’t be addressed by sending more and more troops into a region, or by firing missiles and dropping bombs.

In the past few days, the Taliban have responded to U.S. drone attacks with attacks of their own and with threats of further retaliation which have provoked renewed drone attacks by the United States. Are we to believe that the predictable spiral of violence is the only way forward?

Antagonisms against the US in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq will be reduced when we actively respond to the reality revealed to us by the drones’ own surveillance cameras: severe poverty and a crumbling or nonexistent infrastructure. Human interaction, negotiation, diplomacy and dialogue, not surveillance and bombing by robots, will ensure a more peaceful future at home and abroad.

We can’t see what the drones’ “pilots” can see through the camera-eye of the surveillance vehicle. But, we can see a pattern in the way that the U.S. government sells or markets yet another war strategy in an area of the world where the U.S. wants to dominate other people’s precious resources and control or develop transportation routes. We’ve heard before that the U.S. must go to war to protect human rights of people in the war zone and to enhance security of U.S. people. Certainly, the U.S. is nervous because Pakistan possesses a “nuclear asset,” that is to say, nuclear bombs. But so do other states that have been reckless and dangerous in the conduct of their foreign policy, particularly the United States and Israel.

At the gates of Creech Air Force Base, our signs read: “Ground the Drones…Lest You Reap the Whirlwind,” and “Ending War: Our Collective Responsibility.” Our statement says: “Proponents of the use of UASs insist that there is a great advantage to fighting wars in ‘real-time’ by ‘pilots’ sitting at consoles in offices on air bases far from the dangerous front line of military activity. With less risk to the lives of U.S. soldiers and hence to the popularity and careers of politicians, the deaths of ‘enemy’ noncombatants by the thousands are counted acceptable. The illusion that war can be waged with no domestic cost dehumanizes both us and our enemies. It fosters a callous disregard for human life that can lead to even more recklessness on the part of politicians.”

We hope that U.S. people will take a closer look at our belief that peace will come through generous love and through human interaction, negotiation, dialogue and diplomacy, and not through robots armed with missiles.

[Kathy Kelly is a co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence and the author of Other Lands Have Dreams (published by CounterPunch/AK Press). Her email is kathy@vcnv.org.

Brian Terrell (terrellcpm@yahoo.com) lives and works at the Strangers and Guests Catholic Worker Farm in Maloy, IA.]

Source / CounterPunch

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Jim Hightower : ‘Too Big to Fail’ Is Too Big, Period.

Too big to fail. Photo by Jennifer Szymaszek / AP / Noise Between Stations.

The ‘too big’ claim forms the rationale for the diversion of regular people’s money into rich people’s pockets.

By Jim Hightower / April 4, 2009.

As skiers and backcountry hikers know, a whiteout is a blizzard that’s so intense that those caught in it can’t even see the blizzard.

That’s how I think of the Wall Street bailout now swirling around us. So many trillions of our tax dollars are being blown at the financial giants that we’re blinded by the density of it, unable to see where we are or know what direction we’re headed.

However, one way to get your bearings in this bailout blizzard is to focus on the central point that both the bailors (Washington) and the bailees (Wall Street) keep pounding as an irrefutable truth that everyone simply has to accept — namely, the institutions being rescued are too big to fail.

Even sheep know to flee when coyotes howl in unison — and we commoners need to confront the absurdity of this “too big” claim, which forms the rationale for the entire diversion of regular people’s money into rich people’s pockets.

Wachovia, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG — omigosh, cried the Powers That Be, these behemoths are linked to every other behemoth, so if we don’t stuff them with tax dollars … well, we have no choice, because they’re just too big for the government to let fail.

Point No. 1: They have failed. They are kaput. It costs more to buy a snickerdoodle than to buy a share of Citigroup stock. AIG is 80 percent owned by you and me, the taxpayers. These once-haughty outfits are insolvent — wards of the state.

Point No. 2: If they’re too big, why should we sustain them? Let’s be clear about something the establishment doesn’t want you and me to understand — these giants did not get so big and interconnected because of natural market forces and free-enterprise efficiencies. They amassed power the old-fashioned way: They got the government to give it to them. In the past 20 years or so, they lobbied furiously to get Washington to rig the rules so they could latterly bloat … and float out of control.

A new report by Wallstreetwatch.org reveals that from 1998 to 2008, the finance industry made $1.7 billion in contributions to Washington politicians (55 percent to Repubs, 45 percent to Dems), spent $3.4 billion on lobbyists (3,000 of them on the industry payroll in 2007 alone) and won a dozen key deregulatory victories that led directly to today’s financial meltdown.

Inherent in the industry’s push for unbridled expansion was the unstated goal of guaranteeing that they would get taxpayer bailouts if things went badly. So many investors, businesses, employees and others would be hooked into these multitentacled blobs that government would be compelled to rescue the banks from their own excesses.

Knowing that they could privatize all of the profits from quick-buck schemes and socialize the losses, bankers were unleashed to do their damnedest. Which they did.

What to do now? Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is calling on Congress to create a “super regulator” to control the irrational risks that the too-big boys take. Immodestly, Bernanke suggests that the Fed be this overseer. He is backed up by Timothy Geithner, President Barack Obama’s treasury secretary and point man on rescuing the giants. He has just outlined a new regulatory regime that he suggests we entrust to the Fed.

Bad idea all around. First, the Fed already has far-reaching watchdog authority that it refused to use as today’s crisis built up. We heard no bark and got no bite because, while the Fed has enormous public authority to regulate America’s money supply, interest rates and banks, it is governed by — guess who? — bankers, and it operates essentially as a private banking cartel.

Second, and most important, too big to fail is too big to regulate. And too big to regulate means they are too big to tolerate. Period.

The answer is to split their investment, banking and insurance functions into separate companies and reinvigorate America’s antitrust laws to restore competition in each of the three sectors of finance.

As Newsweek columnist Michael Hirsh put it in an online column in February, “We can’t have a free-market economy dominated by institutions so huge that they don’t have to play by free-market rules.”

Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

[Texan Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker and author of the new book, Swim Against the Current: Even a Dead Fish Can Go With the Flow (Wiley, March 2008). He publishes the monthly Hightower Lowdown, co-edited by Phillip Frazer.]

Source / AlterNet

Thanks to David Hamilton / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

A Cuban Revolutionary and a Cuban Exile Reunite

Coqui Salazar. Photo by Michael D. Nolan / The Rag Blog.

Dos Hermanos – Reunifying Two Cuban Brothers
By Michael D. Nolan / The Rag Blog / April 4, 2009

Toward the end of our week in Havana, Coqui took us on a tour of the mansions of Miramar where wealthy Cubans and North Americans once resided in the opulent days before Castro’s Revolution. Now the stark Russian Embassy tower dominated the main thoroughfare. We stopped for lunch at a small outdoor café.

Coqui brought up the case of “Pedrito,” his half-brother who left the island with his parents in the early 60s shortly after Fidel assumed power. Their father was a prominent doctor in Guantanamo and part of the exodus of middle-class professionals who left their homeland for the United States.

“I must tell you,” Coqui related, “that I always knew that I had a brother over there. I knew he lived at Chicago but he had moved to another city and I moved from Guantanamo to Havana, so we had lost our trails because in those moments it could be very difficult even sending a letter. About twenty years ago someone told me that my dad, Pedro, and stepmother were living at San Francisco.”

Many of Coqui’s touring customers were Californians. Some had offered to look for his missing brother but without success. Challenged by the dramatic nature of the task, I offered to look myself. I felt commissioned by the older brother whose life-long quest had too frequently ended with disappointment. Had he waited until this final encounter of our visit to share this precious information about a 40-year fraternal separation?

It was the spring of 2000. My 21-year-old daughter Rosy and I set out from the San Francisco Airport shortly after midnight. The ease with which we slipped into Fidel’s forbidden paradise amazed us. We switched planes in Mexico City and arrived in Havana in the afternoon. We came loaded with enthusiasm, preparation and gifts – an obscure Nissan car part, a “CARE package” for a Cuban boyfriend, a variety of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals.

Carlos Iglesias, a journalist friend, picked us up at the Havana airport and brought us to our rooftop apartment in the Vedado section of the capital city.

We packed our week with explorations of colonial architecture, strolls along the coastal Malecon, stopping for impromptu displays of music and singing. Already an accomplished drummer, Rosy took a private percussion class. We attended a folkloric dance performance at UNEAC, the National Union of Cuban Writers and Artists located in an old mansion just a block from our residence. After returning to the apartment, we could still hear the music wafting across the tropical air as we looked out across the cityscape, past the downtown hotels to the Caribbean.

We were introduced to Coqui Salazar when looking for a way to get to the beach on the eastern outskirts of the city. He lived just two floors below us with his wife and two children. He owned a car, not a common occurrence in Havana, spoke English quite well and chauffeured tourists around the city for a living. Nicknamed Coqui as an infant for his fuzzy coconut-looking head, his full name was Pedro Enrique Salazar. Now 65, Coqui had a full mane of wavy black hair. As a young man, he fought with Castro in the mountains outside his native Guantanamo.

On a second trip to Playa Santa Maria, the sandy shore just east of Havana, Coqui brought his 10-year-old daughter Salome along. Rosy frolicked in the clear turquoise surf, exclaiming she’d never seen water this color before. Later she and Salome delighted in burying me in the sand as Coqui grinned.

One night, Coqui drove us to his favorite “paladar,” one of the many government-approved 12-seat-limit private restaurants that families have established in their garages or extra rooms. We were escorted past a living room to a tented annex. Rosy and I were the only guests. They lavished us with a variety of savory red and white lobster, more than we could consume at one sitting.

With each new experience, Coqui and I developed a trust and affection for one another that no doubt led him to share the information about his missing brother.

The day after our farewell lunch, I went to Carlos’ office in the Havana Libre Hotel to use his computer. His offices were in the Havana Libre Hotel (the Havana Hilton in pre-revolutionary times.) This time I sent a message to Jon Frappier, a detective friend in California, asking if he would search for a Pedro Salazar, or Pedro Eusebio Salazar, or Peter E. Salazar, living in northern California and born in the late 1950s.

Rosy and I returned to our apartment and packed our bags. Carlos picked us up for a farewell dinner with his family in the Lawton section of Havana and then the trip to the airport.

Several days after our return to San Francisco, Jon came to my house. I cleared the paper clutter on the yellow Formica kitchen table so he could spread out lists generated by his online investigation. Among them was a Pedro E. Salazar, born in 1957, living on 21st Street in San Francisco with a phone number. We both agreed it was good bet.

Jon departed and shortly after, I made the phone call. An older woman answered in Spanish. The mention of “Coqui” brought instant recognition. It was Elvira, Pedro’s 82-year-old mother and Coqui’s stepmother. She told me that Pedro no longer lived in her apartment. He had married and moved across the Bay to Alameda.

Pedro later recalled, “My mom called me that afternoon and said this guy called, just came back from Cuba where he met Coqui and had his phone number. My knees were shaking as I told my wife. I was beside myself.”

If I had the slightest reluctance in making the phone call, it was a concern that the two brothers, for reasons of political differences, were not interested in hearing from one another. My hesitation was momentary, easily overcome by a passion for the pursuit and the commission I had embraced.

Pedro Eusebio Salazar called me later that afternoon. It turned out he had been looking for his older brother for years. Now in his early 40s, Pedro worked as a chef in the University Club on San Francisco’s Nob Hill and lived across the Bay in Alameda. He suggested we meet at his mother’s apartment on Saturday.

Pedro recollected, “I have this memory of my brother standing in the door of my grandmother’s house in Guantanamo, as I sat on the couch. Coqui was dressed in his guerrilla fatigues, silhouetted by the sun, wearing his strap of bullets across his chest. He had been a member of the student movement in Havana working to overthrow the Batista regime.”

It was a bright morning, the day before Easter. I left my home on Bernal Heights, boarded the Mission 14 bus at the bottom of the hill, just nine blocks from my destination. Elvira lived in an apartment house on 21st Street between Mission and Valencia Streets. I had walked by the place many times and attended receptions in the storefront art gallery on the ground floor.

Elvira greeted me at the door of her apartment and ushered me into the living room where a table was set for lunch. The walls of the room were filled with family photographs set in Cuba and the U.S. Pedro, a dark handsome man with a bright smile, emerged from the kitchen where he was preparing our meal. He presented me with a bottle of wine.

Elvira went into her bedroom and came out with a photo of Coqui in Guantanamo in January, 1959 smiling as he stood in front of a jeep with a bandolier across his chest. I showed them my recent photo of Coqui taken during our Miramar lunch.

I gave them Coqui’s phone number at his Vedado apartment and said goodbye. It was the day before Easter. The morning news reported that Attorney-General Janet Reno had just raided the Miami home where Elian Gonzalez lived and rescued him for ultimate delivery to his father in Cuba. I boarded the bus home feeling I had been on a Cuban rescue mission myself.

Pedro called his older brother in Havana that afternoon, so filled with emotion, he couldn’t say very much. Elvira easily fell into reminiscing about her stepson’s youthful exploits. “Coqui, remember when you used to chase after that negrita in Guantanamo?”

Seven months later Pedro was finally able to take time off from work and fly to Cuba to see Coqui. Jon and I met Pedro at the University Club for a “Buen Viaje” toast.

He appeared dizzy with delight at what was about to happen the next day. To calm himself, he asked questions to suggest this was just another plane ride to a tropical resort. “Tell me, is there a place to go jogging there in Havana? I’ll probably need to get out and stretch after the long flight.”

Elvira moved in with Pedro’s wife and daughter for the week so they could all be close to the phone and receive news of the trip. I waited a few days before I called. “He says he’s come home again,” his wife told me. The brothers developed a daily ritual of standing on the balcony of the apartment toasting their reunion with their morning cups of coffee.

“I thought Coqui had stayed in the military,” Pedro discussed his trip to Cuba. “I thought I’d like to meet him once before I die. I remember circling Havana and seeing the lights of the city. Then there was the long wait at customs and big crowds in the airport lobby. I walked out front and then Coqui approached me with his two children. They began calling me ‘Tio’ right away. We hugged.

Coqui wrote to me after the reunion. “Thanks God, I meet you and Rosy, and you know the rest of this story. Meeting him at the airport was really one of the happiest moments I ever had. I kept on saying to myself: I just can’t believe it. You can imagine that the last time I saw Pedro, he was four years old, and at that moment I had in front of me a handsome tall man smiling at me and two of my kids kept on asking: Papa. That’s our uncle? We all gave him a big and close hug and believe me, there was more than one tear that moment. Bye for now and a big hug to you, Coqui.”

[Michael D. Nolan also posted this on his website mikeyno on March 26, 2009.]

Muchas gracias a Alice Embree / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

ART / ‘Man at Work’ Exhibition Has Lessons for Today

At the Grohmann Museum in Milwaukee: Frederick Arthur Bridgman, The Seaweed Gatherers, 1912 / MSOE.

Workers Built the Modern World

[The Eckhart G. Grohmann Collection ‘Man at Work,’ continuing installation of 700 paintings and sculptures spanning 400 years of history. Also, touring exhibition, ‘Cradle of Industry: Works from the Rhineland Industrial Museum,’ January 16 – April 5, 2009. Grohmann Museum, Milwaukee School of Engineering, Milwaukee.]

By Harry Targ / The Rag Blog / April 4, 2009

The Grohmann Museum, a modern building with a cylindrical entrance way reaching up to the fourth floor, is nestled among a variety of interesting and renovated older buildings in downtown Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The museum is a block from an old Blatz Brewery building that looks like it has been converted into high income condominiums.

Inside the Museum is an extraordinary collection of paintings, over 700, covering 400 years of artistry, all about work and workers. An additional visiting exhibit, “Cradle of Industry,” added paintings of German industrialization from the mid-nineteenth century to the 1960s and some recent documentary photos.

The paintings together illustrated the evolution of work, from agriculture, to crafts people (cobblers, blacksmiths, cork makers, glass blowers, and taxidermists), to miners and forgers, bridge builders, and steel makers. Additional paintings presented women picking hops for beer making, a seventeenth century accountant pouring over his books, and a surgeon opening up a patient’s head. Some of the paintings portrayed twentieth century factory work and a few documentary photos showed workers amassing in strikes against their bosses.

The paintings were collected by Dr. Eckhart Grohmann, a local entrepreneur who acquired and expanded a local aluminum casting and engineering company in Milwaukee. Grohmann reported that as a child he visited his grandfather’s marble processing company in Poland where he watched stonecutters and sculptors engaging in their craft. It was there, he reported, that he grew to appreciate hard work not as “an idealized concept but a principle of life.” Grohmann’s goal was to present in these paintings “a clear image of the honor of work.”

Viewing these many images of work, the viewer develops a profound appreciation of the centrality of human labor to the evolution of civilization. The paintings suggested how classical economists like Karl Marx could develop theories based on the idea that the value of all commodities came from the amount of work time that went into their production. In short, labor was the basis of all value.

Unfortunately, while the paintings powerfully underscore the basic Marxian idea about the value of work, contemporary politicians see work and workers as disposable. If they are organized in their work places they are impediments to human progress.

So goes the recent hint by the Obama administration that it will force General Motors and Chrysler into bankruptcy court. The New York Times wrote on April 1 what the consequences of this might be for workers: “In bankruptcy, companies can seek to persuade a judge to set aside labor contracts and terminate pension plans, by making a case that they are too expensive, forcing workers to rely on smaller government-provided retirement checks.”

In addition, Republicans, so-called moderate Democrats, Bank of America, Starbucks, Costco, the Chamber of Commerce and other representatives of big capital are marshaling resources to forestall the Employee Free Choice Act from becoming law. EFCA would make it easier, in the face of company pressures, for workers to form unions. If workers have a realistic chance of voting in unions they will do so. If they do have unions, wages and benefits will rise and workers’ basic quality of life and sense of security will rise. Finally, increasing numbers of workers with jobs at livable wages could stimulate economic growth.

Visiting the Grohmann Museum suggests the profound gap between the history of human civilization, built on the skills and energies of workers, and the way in which the contemporary political economy denigrates, marginalizes, and humiliates workers. Empowering and rewarding the working class must be central to progressive change in the days, weeks, and years ahead.

Harry Targ, who posts to Progressives for Obama, teaches political science. This article also appears on his website, Diary of a Heartland Radical.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Dems Are Complicit If They Don’t Prosecute

Read the Nuremburg Principles !! The Democrats and anyone who is unwilling to condemn and prosecute those responsible for what has happened at US hands are complicit in the crime. Give us justice, you immoral cretins politicians !!

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog


Democrats Duck Bush Torture Probe
By Jason Leopold / April 3, 2009

Despite now overwhelming evidence that ex-President George W. Bush and many top aides engaged in a systematic policy of illegal torture, national Democrats appear to be shying away from their recommendation last year for a special prosecutor to investigate these apparent war crimes.

Last June, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and 55 other congressional Democrats signed a letter to then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey demanding a special prosecutor to investigate the growing body of evidence that Bush administration officials had sanctioned torture, which had been documented by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Not unexpectedly, Mukasey — a staunch defender of Bush’s theories about expansive presidential powers — ignored the letter. Now, however, despite even more evidence of torture and a Democratic administration in place, the calls for a special prosecutor have grown muted.

Aides to several Democratic lawmakers who signed the June 2008 letter told me that the focus has shifted to the economy and that pressure for a special prosecutor to bring criminal charges over the Bush administration’s past actions could become a distraction to that focus.

They added that the most that now can be expected is either a “blue ribbon” investigative panel such as Conyers proposed earlier this year or a similar “truth and reconciliation commission” as advocated by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. Not a single signer of last year’s letter has stepped forward to renew the demand for a special prosecutor to the Obama administration and Attorney General Eric Holder.

The loss of Democratic interest in a special prosecutor suggests that the signers made the recommendation last year knowing that Mukasey would ignore it but thinking that the letter would appease the Democratic “base,” which was calling for accountability on Bush’s war crimes.

This readiness of Democrats to put the pursuit of bipartisanship over the pursuit of justice — after a victorious election – parallels their actions 16 years ago when President Bill Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress swept under the rug investigations of the Reagan-Bush-41 era, such as the Iran-Contra scandal and Iraqgate support for Saddam Hussein. [See Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege.]

However, this time, Bush-43’s apparent violations of international laws prohibiting torture are forcing global demands for action, if the United States fails to live up to its obligations to enforce its own commitment to anti-torture laws and treaties.

Torture is a war crime that carries universal enforcement, which means that prosecutors of other nations can bring charges if the nation directly implicated doesn’t act. In that regard, Spanish investigative judge Baltasar Garzon took the initial steps last week to investigate whether six high-level Bush officials, including key lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee, violated laws against torture.

Torture Results

Also, over the weekend, the Washington Post reported that the waterboarding — or simulated drowning — of “war on terror” suspect Abu Zabaida induced him to provide a host of new leads about al-Qaeda plots, but that his torture-induced claims turned out to be time-consuming dead-ends.

“Not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida’s tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations,” the Post reported.

“Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida — chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates — was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.” [Washington Post, March 29, 2009]

Two weeks ago, other evidence about Bush’s torture policy surfaced when journalist Mark Danner published chilling details from a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross that concluded that the abuse of 14 “high-value” detainees at CIA secret prisons “constituted torture.”

“In addition, many other elements of the ill treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” according to the ICRC report cited by Danner. Since the ICRC’s responsibilities involve ensuring compliance with the Geneva Conventions and supervising the treatment of prisoners of war, the organization’s findings have legal consequence.

The June 2008 letter from Conyers apparently was prompted by the same or similar ICRC findings, citing “several instances of acts of torture against detainees, including soaking a prisoner’s hand in alcohol and lighting it on fire, subjecting a prisoner to sexual abuse and forcing a prisoner to eat a baseball.”

Conyers and the other Democrats told Mukasey then that the ICRC findings alone warranted action but were buttressed by other information that senior Bush administration officials met in the White House to approve the use of waterboarding and other “enhanced techniques” and that “President Bush was aware of, and approved of the meetings taking place.”

The letter added: “This information indicates that the Bush administration may have systematically implemented, from the top down, detainee interrogation policies that constitute torture or otherwise violate the law.

“We believe that these serious and significant revelations warrant an immediate investigation to determine whether actions taken by the President, his Cabinet, and other Administration officials are in violation of the War Crimes Act, the Anti-Torture Act, and other U.S. and international laws.

“Despite the seriousness of the evidence, the Justice Department has brought prosecution against only one civilian for an interrogation-related crime. Given that record, we believe it is necessary to appoint a special counsel in order to ensure that a thorough and impartial investigation occurs.”

Still Waiting

Nearly nine months have passed since Conyers and the other Democratic lawmakers sent the letter to Mukasey. Since then, more evidence has piled up implicating at least a dozen senior Bush administration officials in sanctioning a policy of torture.

For instance, in January, Susan Crawford, the retired judge who heads military commissions at Guantanamo, became the highest ranking U.S. official who said the interrogation of at least one detainee at Guantanamo met the legal definition of torture and as a result she would not allow a war crimes tribunal against him to proceed.

Last week, Vijay Padmanabhan, the State Department’s chief counsel on Guantanamo litigation, told the Associated Press that the Bush administration overreacted after 9/11 and set up a policy of torture at the facility.

“I think Guantanamo was one of the worst overreactions of the Bush administration,” Padmanabhan told the AP. He criticized other “overreactions” such as extraordinary renditions, waterboarding at secret CIA prisons and “other enhanced interrogation techniques that would constitute torture.”

Meanwhile, other Bush administration veterans, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have spoken openly about their support for and approval of waterboarding and other brutal interrogation methods, although they continued to insist that the tactics did not constitute torture.

During a speech at the University of Texas at Austin recently, former Attorney General John Ashcroft said, “there are things that you can call waterboarding that I am thoroughly convinced are not torture. There are things that you can call waterboarding that might be torture. …

“The point that ought to be understood is that throwing a term around recklessly for its emotional content doesn’t really get you anywhere.”

In waterboarding, a person is strapped to a board with his head tilted downward and a cloth covering his face. Water is then poured over the cloth forcing the panicked gag reflex associated with drowning. It has been condemned as torture since the days of the Spanish Inquisition and its use has resulted in past criminal prosecutions under U.S. law.

Before leaving office, Vice President Cheney said he approved waterboarding on at least three “high value” detainees and the “enhanced interrogation” of 33 other prisoners. President Bush made a somewhat vaguer acknowledgement of authorizing these techniques.

Admissions of Crimes

Civil rights groups said Bush and Cheney’s comments amounted to an admission of war crimes. The ACLU called on Attorney General Holder two weeks ago to appoint a special prosecutor to launch a probe into the Bush administration’s torture practices.

“The fact that such crimes have been committed can no longer be doubted or debated, nor can the need for an independent prosecutor be ignored by a new Justice Department committed to restoring the rule of law,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said.

“Given the increasing evidence of deliberate and widespread use of torture and abuse, and that such conduct was the predictable result of policy changes made at the highest levels of government, an independent prosecutor is clearly in the public interest,” Romero said.

Holder has not responded to the ACLU’s request. Over the next several weeks, however, the evidence of torture should continue to mount.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to release a voluminous report on the treatment of alleged terrorist detainees held in U.S. custody and the brutal interrogation techniques they were subjected to, according to Defense Department and intelligence sources.

The declassified version of the report is 200 pages, contains 2,000 footnotes, and will reveal a wealth of new information about the genesis of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, according to these sources. The investigation relied upon the testimony of 70 people, generated 38,000 pages of documents, and took 18 months to complete.

The Justice Department also is expected to release a declassified version of a critical report prepared by its Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigated legal work by former attorneys at the Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the White House on the limits of presidential authority.

The report concluded that three key attorneys — John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury — blurred the lines between an attorney charged with providing independent legal advice to the White House and a policy advocate who was working to advance the administration’s goals, which included a legal justification for torture, said the sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the contents of the report are still classified.

On April 2, the Justice Department also is expected to release three still-classified legal opinions that Bradbury wrote in May 2005, reaffirming Bush’s claimed authority to subject “war on terror” prisoners to harsh interrogations.

[Jason Leopold is an investigative reporter and a two-time winner of the Project Censored award. He is the author of the National Bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir, and he has launched a new online investigative news magazine, The Public Record.]

Source / Dissident Voice

Thanks to Diane Stirling-Stevens / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Blowing It in Afghanistan, Just the Same As in Iraq


Top Ten Ways the US is Turning Afghanistan into Iraq
By Juan Cole / April 3, 2009

1. Exaggerating the threat. An Afghan army foot patrol was attacked by guerrillas in Helmand Province on Wednesday, according to AP. US and Afghan soldiers responded, engaging in a firefight. Then the US military called in an air strike on the Taliban, killing 20 of them. On Tuesday, a similar airstrike had taken out 30 guerrillas.

It is this sort of thing that makes me wonder why the Taliban (or whoever these guys in Helmand were) are considered such a big threat that the full might of NATO is needed to deal with them. They have no air force, no artillery, no tanks. They are just small bands, apparently operating in platoons, who, whenever they mass in large enough numbers to stand and fight, can just be turned into red mist from the air.

2. The US has actually only managed to install a fundamentalist government in Afghanistan, which is rolling back rights of women and prosecuting blasphemy cases. In a play for the Shiite vote (22% or so of the population), President Hamid Karzai put through civilly legislated Shiite personal status law, which affects Shiite women in that country. The wife will need the husband’s permission to go out of the house, and can’t refuse a demand for sex. (Since the 1990s there has been a movement in 50 or more countries to abandon the idea that spouses cannot rape one another, though admittedly this idea is new and was rejected in US law until recently).

No one seems to have noted that the Shiite regime in Baghdad is more or less doing the same thing. In Iraq, the US switched out the secular Baath Party for Shiite fundamentalist parties. Everyone keeps saying the US improved the status of women in both countries. Actually, in Iraq the US invasion set women back about 30 years. In Afghanistan, the socialist government of the 1980s, for all its brutality in other spheres, did implement policies substantially improving women’s rights, including aiming at universal education, making a place for them in the professions, and so forth. There were socialist Afghan women soldiers fighting the Muslim fundamentalist guerrillas that Reagan called “freedom fighters” and to whom he gave billions to turn the country into a conservative theocracy. I can never get American audiences to concede that Afghan women had it way better in the 1980s, and that it has been downhill ever since, mainly because of US favoritism toward patriarchal and anti-progressive forces.

3. The US is building a mass of hardened bases costing over $1 bn. in Afghanistan. That’s about the annual budget of the Afghanistan government.

4. It begins. The US is creating local militias in Wardak called the Afghan Public Protection Force. You wonder how long it will be before the Karzai government is engaged in firefights with them (cf. Fadl in Baghdad earlier this week).

5. Now thousands of private security contractors (i.e. mercenaries) will be hired in Afghanistan. But they won’t be Americans for the most part. Children, can you say “Hessians”?

I don’t understand the concept of paying someone $200,000 a year to guard armed GIs being paid a fraction of that. Wouldn’t it be better to expand the size of the army if you need more troops? Wouldn’t it be more efficient to have one line of command? Aren’t these essentially high-priced MPs?

6. The secretary of defense is predicting that the US military will be in Afghanistan indefinitely and will only achieve limited goals there. (!)

I ask myself, “why?”

7. An attempt by officials in the Obama administration to replace Guantanamo with Bagram in Afghanistan has been shot down by a Federal judge. The government actually argued that the three men (2 Yemenis and a Tunisian) did not have habaeus corpus rights because they are in a war zone.

Why are they in a war zone? Because the US government transported them there!

8. The president is corralling a coalition of the reluctant for troop contributions in Afghanistan.

9. While militaries spend tens of billions on fighting disgruntled Pashtun tribesmen, a fifth of pregnant women or women with newborns are malnourished in Afghanistan. In Iraq, as well, public health crises took a back seat while hundreds of billions were spent on weapons and warfare.

10. A new Friedman unit. It was always the “next six months” that would be “crucial” for Iraq. It is now “this year” that is crucial for Afghanistan. By the math of Friedman units, does this mean the Afghanistan occupation will last twice as long as the Iraq one?

Source / Informed Comment

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments