President Bush, in a flash of brillance and an uncharacteristic show of courage and wit, acknowledged that the Palestinian people do have a right to elect whomever they choose. Up until the election results that surprised his Administration by giving an outright majority to the Hamas representatives, the Bush Administration was touting the "democratic" election in which he considered the Fatah Party, the only group with which the US would deal, the only legitimate candidate party. In other words, "you can have an election, as long as you choose who I want you to choose."
Now, faced with a result that he did not expect, and the handwriting plainly emblazoned on the wall, Bush is struggling to backtrack and rationalize. The Fatah Party at one time called for the destruction of israel, yet evolved to a leadership position that seeks to negotiate a peaceful accommodation and an independent palestinian state. Hamas has done more in recent years to provide social services to Palestinians and openly challenged the corruption in Fatah leadership. Now Hamas must take up the challenge to reconcile its harsh rhetoric with the pragmatic responsibilities of actual governance, if they wish to retain the political gains achievced in this election. To be sure, the process of building trust in the motives of the newly elected Palestinian representation will take effort and time. It is quite possible that the arrogant and caustic rhetoric and pronouncements of the Bush administration helped to tip the balance in favor of Hamas. Bush is seen as synonymous with arrogance and corruption, and his support of Fatah, in word and millions of dollars, may well have driven many Palestinians to give Hamas a chance to change things. The many factors are too complex to separate, but the result is a clear slap in the face of Bush's imperialist policies.
In light of these developments, we can only hope that the flicker of enlightenment will remain in those dim hallways between GWB's ears long enough to recognize that the best thing he can do with his mouth is to close it. Harsh and inflamatory rhetoric, threats of sanctions and denial of aid [money that has been given indiscriminately to Fatah and the PLO] will only make things worse. Why not just give democracy a chance. We all know that with rights come responsibilities; give Hamas leaders a chance to adjust to their newfound rights and responsibilities.
Perhaps, and this is optimistic at best, the Bush Administration will take note and learn from this experience as it relates to Iraq. If the United States is fighting to bring Democracy to the Iraqi people, then the choice of how and by whom they will be governed is THEIR choice, not Bush's choice. Unless this basic tenet of democracy is recognized, then the mission in Iraq must be exposed as a sham. The current approach by the Bush administration leans more toward colonialism than toward establishing a true democratically elected government of, by and for the Iraqi people.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Bush on the Offensive - Stop Spying on my Spying!
Speaking to yet another pre-screened and "safe" audience at Kansas State University, Bush defended his domestic spying program by claiming that he is defending the nation against those "thugs and murderers." He also repeated his assertion that the leak of information about the existence of the program did great harm to "national security." It seems rather clear that we have a definitional problem here. Just who are these "thugs and murderers" that the spying is directed against? And what exactly is "national security" in the mind of our President?
Since the domestic spying program has been gathering information from wiretapping phones, cell phones and electronic communications of all type involving US citizens from all walks of life, must we assume that virtually any person walking down the street is a potential "thug" and that our neighbors are potential "murderers?" Why else would the government need to spy on these everyday people unless they are perceived by the government as being terrorists or of aiding and abetting "the enemy." There must be some consistency, even if foolish, between the parameters of the spying and the threat against which it is directed. If not, then no leap of faith or logic can establish a plausible argument to support the claim that the domestic spying is necessary to protect US citizens from terrorist threats. Unless we buy into the notion that the threat of terror resides primarily among US citizens, and the President needs to protect us from ourselves by suspending basic Constitutional protections against illegal seaerch and seizure, Bush's defense never even gets off the ground. And as a footnote, we should be mindful of recent documented reports that the Domestic spying program was authorized and initiated by Bush BEFORE the Congressional resolution permitting the President to use force in the wake of 9/11. That is the "authorization" that Bush had claimed legitimized his spying program. He now has shifted to the argument that he has "inherent" authority to decide when we are in a "state of war" and also whether to obey or disregard laws enacted by Congress.
"National Security," as used by the President seems to fit more congruently with his own behind than any definition of protections of the American People from some external threat. Bush argues that the leak of information about his spying, an action that has caused a stir on Capitol Hill and calls from around the country for consideration of impeachment, was a mistake and a dangerous threat to national security. Having failed to provide any concrete or credible examples of how public knowledge of the domestic spying has compromised security, it would appear that the only "damage" Bush can identify is the threat of impeachment based upon questionable legality of the domestic spying program he admits to having personally authorized. So it would seem that the notion of "national security," in the President's mind, is limited to covering his own backside and covering up unlawful abuse of his presidential power and office. Such hubris might pass a little easier for most Americans when the impact of Bush Administration abuses of powere are limited to people of other countries that, in our myopia, we can be persuaded to think of as "them." But when the abuse is directed against American citizens, the veritable "us," it is most difficult to overlook or forgive.
Since the domestic spying program has been gathering information from wiretapping phones, cell phones and electronic communications of all type involving US citizens from all walks of life, must we assume that virtually any person walking down the street is a potential "thug" and that our neighbors are potential "murderers?" Why else would the government need to spy on these everyday people unless they are perceived by the government as being terrorists or of aiding and abetting "the enemy." There must be some consistency, even if foolish, between the parameters of the spying and the threat against which it is directed. If not, then no leap of faith or logic can establish a plausible argument to support the claim that the domestic spying is necessary to protect US citizens from terrorist threats. Unless we buy into the notion that the threat of terror resides primarily among US citizens, and the President needs to protect us from ourselves by suspending basic Constitutional protections against illegal seaerch and seizure, Bush's defense never even gets off the ground. And as a footnote, we should be mindful of recent documented reports that the Domestic spying program was authorized and initiated by Bush BEFORE the Congressional resolution permitting the President to use force in the wake of 9/11. That is the "authorization" that Bush had claimed legitimized his spying program. He now has shifted to the argument that he has "inherent" authority to decide when we are in a "state of war" and also whether to obey or disregard laws enacted by Congress.
"National Security," as used by the President seems to fit more congruently with his own behind than any definition of protections of the American People from some external threat. Bush argues that the leak of information about his spying, an action that has caused a stir on Capitol Hill and calls from around the country for consideration of impeachment, was a mistake and a dangerous threat to national security. Having failed to provide any concrete or credible examples of how public knowledge of the domestic spying has compromised security, it would appear that the only "damage" Bush can identify is the threat of impeachment based upon questionable legality of the domestic spying program he admits to having personally authorized. So it would seem that the notion of "national security," in the President's mind, is limited to covering his own backside and covering up unlawful abuse of his presidential power and office. Such hubris might pass a little easier for most Americans when the impact of Bush Administration abuses of powere are limited to people of other countries that, in our myopia, we can be persuaded to think of as "them." But when the abuse is directed against American citizens, the veritable "us," it is most difficult to overlook or forgive.
Coretta Scott King -Remember
The World should pause a moment and note the passing of a truly great woman, great humanitarian and a great statesman. The death of Coretta Scott King marks not only the loss of the spouse and support companion of an important national icon, Martin Luther King, Jr., but of a person whose poise, courage, intellect and compassion contributed to the advancement of the Civil Rights Movement in her own right. Not unlike Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, Coretta Scott King demonstrated strength following the assassination of her husband and exemplified the profound faith in the principles for which her husband's life was sacrificed. She gave us hope that the death of the man would not diminish the vitality of the ideas and principles. We could believe that Martin had shown us the right path, and that Coretta would quietly reassure us in continuing along that path toward freedom and equality. Along with Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King exemplified for us the sheer virtue in accepting and believing in the essential goodness and equality of humanity.
Though there were many in life and especially in government whose arrogance, bigotry, venality and sheer greed for money or power would seek to obscure and bury the principles of freedom and equality, as they had buried Kennedy and King, Coretta Scott King and her determined presence and graceful smile let us know that these men may have power and influence, but they were still wrong. We clung to the belief that the great majority of American people, and people throughout the world, understood on a basic level that humanity and the basic spirit of equality would not be so easily extinguished and would ultimately prevail.
To be sure, the events of the past decade must have been difficult for Mrs. King to bear. It must have been heartrending to see the Voting Rights Act diluted and weakened so as to permit denial of the poor and people of color access to the polls, antidiscrimination laws emasculated by GOP appointed judges hellbent upon denying victims of bigotry and racism access to the courts, and laws enacted to strip citizens of basic civil rights while authorizing the indefinite imprisonment and torture of human beings. In the end, her heart, so full of compassion, simply broke or wore out and she has left us.
Perhaps it is a blessing that Coretta Scott King did not live to see the installation of Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. His addition may well serve to entrench the forces of regression and repression in this country that have fought to resurrect barriers to a free and democratic America that Dr. King showed us how to tear down. We should be thankful for the era that Rev. and Mrs. King helped us build. For in this new "America of the GOP" going forward, people of color and the poor are no longer assured access to the polls or equality of representation, poor people can be stripped of their rights, their possessions and their lives without due process, and women will have the right to control their own bodies and destinies only to the extent that white male controlled legislatures and courts give them permission. Men will be judged, not by the content of their character, but by the size of their wallets and the nature of their high level political connections.
Progress is seldom a steady process, and there will always be points of hiatus and regression. We quite obviously are in a period of major regression. National leaders of today appear to have as little regard for the truth as they do for the rights of American citizens and the Constitution upon which the nation was founded. We are in an era of Orwellian doublespeak. The Patriot Act is perhaps the least patriotic legislation in many decades, the Clean Skies Act gives huge corporations license to befoul the air, and "national security" is used as an excuse to strip away the very security vested in the principles of democracy embedded in the national Constitution. Though our national "leaders" give us no basis or reason for hope, we can still look to the spirit of ancestral guides and elders, including Coretta Scott King, for inspiration and faith that this too shall pass, and we will one day in the future regain our footing and courage and begin anew on the path to true freedom, equality and democracy worthy of a great nation. It is a tenet of my African and native American ancestry that our ancestors live on and guide us as long as there is someone living who remembers them. Let all of us who believe in truth, equality and humanity never forget Coretta Scott King, so long as we shall live. Remember.
Though there were many in life and especially in government whose arrogance, bigotry, venality and sheer greed for money or power would seek to obscure and bury the principles of freedom and equality, as they had buried Kennedy and King, Coretta Scott King and her determined presence and graceful smile let us know that these men may have power and influence, but they were still wrong. We clung to the belief that the great majority of American people, and people throughout the world, understood on a basic level that humanity and the basic spirit of equality would not be so easily extinguished and would ultimately prevail.
To be sure, the events of the past decade must have been difficult for Mrs. King to bear. It must have been heartrending to see the Voting Rights Act diluted and weakened so as to permit denial of the poor and people of color access to the polls, antidiscrimination laws emasculated by GOP appointed judges hellbent upon denying victims of bigotry and racism access to the courts, and laws enacted to strip citizens of basic civil rights while authorizing the indefinite imprisonment and torture of human beings. In the end, her heart, so full of compassion, simply broke or wore out and she has left us.
Perhaps it is a blessing that Coretta Scott King did not live to see the installation of Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. His addition may well serve to entrench the forces of regression and repression in this country that have fought to resurrect barriers to a free and democratic America that Dr. King showed us how to tear down. We should be thankful for the era that Rev. and Mrs. King helped us build. For in this new "America of the GOP" going forward, people of color and the poor are no longer assured access to the polls or equality of representation, poor people can be stripped of their rights, their possessions and their lives without due process, and women will have the right to control their own bodies and destinies only to the extent that white male controlled legislatures and courts give them permission. Men will be judged, not by the content of their character, but by the size of their wallets and the nature of their high level political connections.
Progress is seldom a steady process, and there will always be points of hiatus and regression. We quite obviously are in a period of major regression. National leaders of today appear to have as little regard for the truth as they do for the rights of American citizens and the Constitution upon which the nation was founded. We are in an era of Orwellian doublespeak. The Patriot Act is perhaps the least patriotic legislation in many decades, the Clean Skies Act gives huge corporations license to befoul the air, and "national security" is used as an excuse to strip away the very security vested in the principles of democracy embedded in the national Constitution. Though our national "leaders" give us no basis or reason for hope, we can still look to the spirit of ancestral guides and elders, including Coretta Scott King, for inspiration and faith that this too shall pass, and we will one day in the future regain our footing and courage and begin anew on the path to true freedom, equality and democracy worthy of a great nation. It is a tenet of my African and native American ancestry that our ancestors live on and guide us as long as there is someone living who remembers them. Let all of us who believe in truth, equality and humanity never forget Coretta Scott King, so long as we shall live. Remember.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Homeless Beatings - "Ain't That America?"
In an America where we are being constantly confronted with strident calls for establishment of religion in schools and creation of an American theocracy, a "Christian America," I am reminded of a song by John Mellencamp in which he attempts to shine a light on the inconsistencies between patriotic slogans and unpatriotic behavior.
Perhaps we need to tone down the "holier than thou" rhetoric a bit, at least until we can see some greater congruity between that rhetoric and the general public consciousness. Personally, the notion of a public official dropping a twenty dollar bill in the church collection plate on Sunday, and then going to the office to strip some poor families of food subsistence or minimal health care always struck me as odd and disjointed.
It is this disjointed logic and ethic that permits activities like the cruel and merciless beating of homeless people for sport publicized last week in Florida to go on under our noses. Similar incidents have been reported all over the country, so we cannot just focus on Florida. Where did these teenagers get the idea that attacking and seriously injuring, and in some cases killing, homeless people was "fun" or sport? What is the upbringing and moral fiber instilled by their parents that suggests to these youths that such activities are anything other than premeditated assault and murder?
It would be convenient to label these youths as deranged and mentally disturbed aberrations. But evidence of similar incidents happening in Alaska, San Francisco, Sacramento and elsewhere suggest that these attacks are not psychotic episodes, but rather intentional "pranks" that the youths seem to view little different than throwing toilet paper on a neighbor's tree at Halloween. They comment that they don't believe society cares about or values the homeless, that they are not "real" people or people who matter. So these youths believe that they will continue to get away with such crimes. Authorities are expected to turn a blind eye, and the churchgoing public can continue to proclaim their "Christian" values without worrying that might have to walk by or step around a homeless person on the street.
Perhaps it is time to consider what the actions of our children say about the moral values we LIVE, instead of focusing on the lip service we give to those high minded Christian values. And it is time to look around at what is happening to the poorest and most vulnerable among our society and question whether it is a reflection of America now. Desperate Katrina victims left to fend for survival, homeless people beaten to death under the streetlights of our cities, use of white phosphorus to incinerate women and children in Iraqi towns, millions of Americans without even the most basic access to health care-----"Ain't that America?"
Perhaps we need to tone down the "holier than thou" rhetoric a bit, at least until we can see some greater congruity between that rhetoric and the general public consciousness. Personally, the notion of a public official dropping a twenty dollar bill in the church collection plate on Sunday, and then going to the office to strip some poor families of food subsistence or minimal health care always struck me as odd and disjointed.
It is this disjointed logic and ethic that permits activities like the cruel and merciless beating of homeless people for sport publicized last week in Florida to go on under our noses. Similar incidents have been reported all over the country, so we cannot just focus on Florida. Where did these teenagers get the idea that attacking and seriously injuring, and in some cases killing, homeless people was "fun" or sport? What is the upbringing and moral fiber instilled by their parents that suggests to these youths that such activities are anything other than premeditated assault and murder?
It would be convenient to label these youths as deranged and mentally disturbed aberrations. But evidence of similar incidents happening in Alaska, San Francisco, Sacramento and elsewhere suggest that these attacks are not psychotic episodes, but rather intentional "pranks" that the youths seem to view little different than throwing toilet paper on a neighbor's tree at Halloween. They comment that they don't believe society cares about or values the homeless, that they are not "real" people or people who matter. So these youths believe that they will continue to get away with such crimes. Authorities are expected to turn a blind eye, and the churchgoing public can continue to proclaim their "Christian" values without worrying that might have to walk by or step around a homeless person on the street.
Perhaps it is time to consider what the actions of our children say about the moral values we LIVE, instead of focusing on the lip service we give to those high minded Christian values. And it is time to look around at what is happening to the poorest and most vulnerable among our society and question whether it is a reflection of America now. Desperate Katrina victims left to fend for survival, homeless people beaten to death under the streetlights of our cities, use of white phosphorus to incinerate women and children in Iraqi towns, millions of Americans without even the most basic access to health care-----"Ain't that America?"
Osama Bin Laden Speaks! [Perhaps]
IF the taped message from Osama Bin Laden is genuine, then it may be worth taking the time to consider its impact. Unfortunately, the timing and content of the excerpts that we have heard fall conveniently in line with a PR campaign to boost flagging support for the Bush Administration and to distract from the impending investigation into domestic spying. The "chickens come home to roost" cliche has some applicability here. With the history and number of times that the Bush Administration has falsified and distorted intelligence information, any reports that have not been fully documented and corroborated are suspect. Both the complicity of the media and the duplicity of the Bush Administration are responsible for this loss of confidence. The current report has made public the existence of a new tape, but the announcement comes before any analysis and confirmation of the authenticity of the tape. Reliance upon its reported content, therefore is unwise. But we should examine the release itself.
One publicized excerpt refers to Bin Laden directing comments to the American Public, that polls say want an exit by US troops from Iraq. The alleged statement, if actually made by Bin Laden, would be based upon a factual premise. However, it may also be a Bush public relations stunt to again raise the argument that dissent against keeping troops in Iraq is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." It is unlikely that the sentiment of most intelligent US citizens about troop withdrawal would be significantly affected by a tape from Bin Laden, but the Bush Administration PR efforts tend to play to the less educated public that is swayed more by emotion than logic.
The purported threat to launch further attacks in the US is another example of a red herring. If the US security efforts have been truly useful and practical, as the Bush administration claims, then Al Qaida is unlikely to succeed in any major attack. If the security program has been more PR and "show" than substance to give the public a false sense of security, as many security experts suggest, then we are really no safer now than when the 9/11 attack occurred. The lack of any similar attacks in the US since 9/11 is more likely a function of the sheer difficulty of coordinating and implementing such an attack, than a function of added security measures. With or without the "war on terror" in place, the FBI and local police agencies are doing all they can to prevent attacks. There is no credible evidence that we know of that the extreme measures that are stripping away civil and constitutional rights, like domestic spying, government approved torture of detainees, imprisonment without formal charges, right of confrontation or trial or even the right to counsel, and extraordinary renditions, have succeeded in preventing or thwarting any major terrorist attack. Rather, the "war on terror" has been used largely as a public relations ploy to provide cover for the Bush Administration to expand and enlarge the power and discretion of the President. To maintain this Imperial Presidency strategy, Bush has to keep inventing or attempting to resurrect "enemies" or the public will begin to realize that the campaign is a subterfuge. So, is the Osama Bin Laden tape a valid announcement, or a political stunt set up by the Bush Administration for public relations purposes? And the fact that such questions are so relevant is an indication of the depths to which the Iraq fiasco and the Bush Administration has taken this country and infected its spirit.
One publicized excerpt refers to Bin Laden directing comments to the American Public, that polls say want an exit by US troops from Iraq. The alleged statement, if actually made by Bin Laden, would be based upon a factual premise. However, it may also be a Bush public relations stunt to again raise the argument that dissent against keeping troops in Iraq is "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." It is unlikely that the sentiment of most intelligent US citizens about troop withdrawal would be significantly affected by a tape from Bin Laden, but the Bush Administration PR efforts tend to play to the less educated public that is swayed more by emotion than logic.
The purported threat to launch further attacks in the US is another example of a red herring. If the US security efforts have been truly useful and practical, as the Bush administration claims, then Al Qaida is unlikely to succeed in any major attack. If the security program has been more PR and "show" than substance to give the public a false sense of security, as many security experts suggest, then we are really no safer now than when the 9/11 attack occurred. The lack of any similar attacks in the US since 9/11 is more likely a function of the sheer difficulty of coordinating and implementing such an attack, than a function of added security measures. With or without the "war on terror" in place, the FBI and local police agencies are doing all they can to prevent attacks. There is no credible evidence that we know of that the extreme measures that are stripping away civil and constitutional rights, like domestic spying, government approved torture of detainees, imprisonment without formal charges, right of confrontation or trial or even the right to counsel, and extraordinary renditions, have succeeded in preventing or thwarting any major terrorist attack. Rather, the "war on terror" has been used largely as a public relations ploy to provide cover for the Bush Administration to expand and enlarge the power and discretion of the President. To maintain this Imperial Presidency strategy, Bush has to keep inventing or attempting to resurrect "enemies" or the public will begin to realize that the campaign is a subterfuge. So, is the Osama Bin Laden tape a valid announcement, or a political stunt set up by the Bush Administration for public relations purposes? And the fact that such questions are so relevant is an indication of the depths to which the Iraq fiasco and the Bush Administration has taken this country and infected its spirit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)