At various times as I politically matured, I've been called a seditious traitor by those less class conscious than myself for being a "little-c" communist, particularly for being one who strongly believes the capitalist class will not relinquish control peacefully, and will in fact react violently to any movement or prophet who advocates a redistribution of wealth, from the hands of nebulous investors to those working class grunts responsible for that wealth in the first place.
That redistribution will not be anything other than violent, and as I see it, the existence and level of violence will be decided by the capitalist class itself, and how hard and fast they send out their armed wing known as the police and military. I accept that as my political truth.
In a short-sighted display of liberal delusion, those seeking a just and better society often ignore labor history and have long eskewed violence, better able to be both infiltrated and smashed before their very simple demands are made. Their simple demands? In the words of James Connolly, "our demands are very simple - we only want the earth."
Face it -- if you advocate a just and better society, you WILL be smashed violently, regardless of whether yer weapon is a gun or a pen, a molotov or a megaphone.
So that being said, my ears perked up when Stephen Broden, a GOP candidate for Congress, in my home state no less, adopted AND mainstreamed my belief that the violent overthrow of the government is on the table.
A quick google search defines sedition thusly: "an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government; or conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state."
Let's take another look at what Broden, the GOP's candidate for Tx-30, said again -- "The violent overthrow of the government is on the table."
Now, had a so-called liberal Democrat uttered such a seditious phrase, the reichwing echo chamber would have quickly jumped into action, and succeeded in forcing their resignation and a life-time of political exile. But in this day and age, when up is down and teabaggers are right, GOP candidates for Congress are free to advocate violent overthrow of the American government.
It may seen nutty on the surface, but I embrace this mainstreaming of such a radical idea, especially by agents of the reichwing, because this mainstreaming protects myself and others of my ilk who have long faced political persecution.
Saying thusly, Thomas Jefferson earned his own political exile from the Texas educational system (even as the GOP-packed School Board of Education and the GOP'ers themselves incorporate his message into their "revolutionary" programme) -- "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."
Hell, driving it home, teabagging GOP'ers have taken Jefferson's 1787 quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" as their call to arms in their faux-revolution against the brutal reign of democratically-elected and broadly-supported President Obama.
Now, I'd argue that revolution is indeed as American as apple pie. However, reichwing luminaries like Henry Kissinger and his NeoCon spawn typically only practice that policy abroad, toppling democratically-elected governments and enacting "regime change" so that American corporate interests are preserved, protected, and run supreme. These teabagging fascists have adopted the "regime change starts at home" rhetoric of the Left, and plan on doing violently of democracy stands in the way of their reactionary plans.
The reichwingers should take careful note of their actions and their rhetoric, and pay special mind to another founding father, John Adams, who cautiously, if not prophetically, said: "Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
As for this redneck revolutionary who embraces a healthy dose of misanthropic nihilism, I wouldn't mind seeing this corporatist vision of democracy die a flaming death at its own hand so a new, and better, society can take its place. I suspect, however, that I'm in the distinct minority on this, but I am heartened that some of my fellow travellers as I rage against the system now include some of the most powerful, strongest and well-connected actors on the political stage.
So come on in, compadres, sit down, grab a beer, make yerself at home, and embrace yer violent, revolutionary impulses. Unless, as I suspect, yer faux-outrage is pure bluster, yer anti-government rhetoric dies the instant yer side once again steals power back and you go back to yer unAmerican, anti-democratic thievery in service to the oligarchs who really run this joint. Yeah, you are revolutionary posers who will gleefully lock away me and mine for uttering the same sentence Stephen Broden shouts from the campaign trail.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Purple is revolutionary.....
The tide is turning, and the forces of hate and bigotry that have gripped our nation for decades -- selling us fear and suspicion about our neighbors -- are losing their hold on us dumb hicks thanks to tons of hard work and dedication by the forces of love and tolerance.
In a country where dogs and cats can be married without protest, when those who argue about the sanctity of marriage believe in it so much they divorce and marry multiple times and have multiple mistresses (Newt, I'm speaking to you!), a marriage between two loving gay adults is a revolutionary act.
Much has been said for and against gay marriage. That ain't my focus here, I take a dim view towards that racket run by church and state -- my interest is acceptance, not merely tolerance, of yer fellow man and woman. Who and how they love should be secondary to the fact that, indeed, they DO love. The forces of intolerance preach love, but taints that message with hate towards my friends, my brothers, my co-workers, that loving couple down the street who don't match a narrow definition of who is "real" and "valid".
The time for dividing us on gender issues is past, because it allows the class war to continue unabated -- being a straight ally, and wearing purple are both revolutionary acts, because it tells you I don't give a damn who yer consenting adult partner is, it tells you I don't give a damn who and how you love, but that you love.
And that love drives the right wing -- our common enemy -- nuts. Join me as I join you.
In closing, the prophet-comic Bill Hicks closed his shows with this song by Rage Against the Machine. The lyrics still remain relevant nearly 20 years later. When the reichwingers tell you to hate yer neighbor, yer children, yer brothers and sisters, yer coworkers, or anybody else because of who and how they love, do yer best Zach de la Rocha impression and yell "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Motherfucker!" And then embrace them, shower them with love, and tell them hatred based on who others love is so 20th Century.
In a country where dogs and cats can be married without protest, when those who argue about the sanctity of marriage believe in it so much they divorce and marry multiple times and have multiple mistresses (Newt, I'm speaking to you!), a marriage between two loving gay adults is a revolutionary act.
Much has been said for and against gay marriage. That ain't my focus here, I take a dim view towards that racket run by church and state -- my interest is acceptance, not merely tolerance, of yer fellow man and woman. Who and how they love should be secondary to the fact that, indeed, they DO love. The forces of intolerance preach love, but taints that message with hate towards my friends, my brothers, my co-workers, that loving couple down the street who don't match a narrow definition of who is "real" and "valid".
The time for dividing us on gender issues is past, because it allows the class war to continue unabated -- being a straight ally, and wearing purple are both revolutionary acts, because it tells you I don't give a damn who yer consenting adult partner is, it tells you I don't give a damn who and how you love, but that you love.
And that love drives the right wing -- our common enemy -- nuts. Join me as I join you.
In closing, the prophet-comic Bill Hicks closed his shows with this song by Rage Against the Machine. The lyrics still remain relevant nearly 20 years later. When the reichwingers tell you to hate yer neighbor, yer children, yer brothers and sisters, yer coworkers, or anybody else because of who and how they love, do yer best Zach de la Rocha impression and yell "Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me! Motherfucker!" And then embrace them, shower them with love, and tell them hatred based on who others love is so 20th Century.
Friday, July 23, 2010
The First 16 Words....
Had a brief discussion a short time ago with an associate who likes to feel me out every now and then about hot-button issues like "health care reform" (universal health care now!) and "illegal immigrants" (borders are extensions of gang warfare, large scale, and we're all sons and daughters of immigrants anyway) and gays (I self-identify as a straight ally, and I use the old hack joke that gays should be allowed to marry -- let them be as miserable as everybody else, nyuk nyuk!).
Today, it was the issue of mosque protests, and how we should be worried because the people who flew airplanes into buildings were Muslim, and it's possible that sleeper cells may use mosques to plan future attacks at some point in time. So we need to ban 'em, protest 'em.
No doubt he's getting this message from Fox "News", that TV version of the Weekly World News, which breathlessly tells us that having a mosque built within walking distance of "ground zero" is unAmerican.
UnAmerican? A religious group wants to build a worship and cultural center, and the American response is to hold protests against it?
Now, as a leftist, as a commie, I take a dim view of organised religion. Most days I'm tolerant and accepting of people of faith, whatever faith that is -- if more people lived like Christ, like Buddha, like Mohammad, like any other font of faith, the world would perhaps be a better place. I try to take an ecumenical approach to religion and society, though I'm definitely in the school of "less is better" which in comes to religion in society.
But one of the fabrics of American society, like it or not, is freedom of religion, and it shouldn't take a commie to point that out. It's a constitutionally guaranteed right given to us in the First Amendment that can't be bartered or legislated away.
It doesn't specify which religion, and you'll hear scores of rightwing bible-thumpers arguing we're a Christian nation, but no, Thomas Jefferson advocated the concept of separation of church and state, which protects people like me from people like those religious bigots who decry the Taliban and sharia law but not-so-secretly wish to impose it on America.
And it's that concept that got TJ thrown out of Texas history books this year!
Point being, all these latter-day constitutional fetishists forget the First Amendment, which is rather clear in its message --
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now, look at the placement of that phrase in question -- the first amendment out of the original ten, the first 16 words -- it couldn't be any more clear. The so-called constitutionalists make a mockery of the very document by proclaiming America a "Christian nation" and by saying mosques should be banned.
That's a rather simple conclusion to a complex issue. If the RW are successful in prohibiting the free exercise of a religion in America, the very fabric of our country starts to fray.
Granted, as a commie, any time the fabric of society starts to fray, any time the rightwing gets froggy and starts showing their fascist tendencies, I see it as one more click towards revolution -- be done with the illusion of free society, be done with the empty, hollow rhetoric, and let's get it on. The more groups they piss off, the more groups they alienate, the more chance we'll see another roosting of the proverbial returning chickens.
Today, it was the issue of mosque protests, and how we should be worried because the people who flew airplanes into buildings were Muslim, and it's possible that sleeper cells may use mosques to plan future attacks at some point in time. So we need to ban 'em, protest 'em.
No doubt he's getting this message from Fox "News", that TV version of the Weekly World News, which breathlessly tells us that having a mosque built within walking distance of "ground zero" is unAmerican.
UnAmerican? A religious group wants to build a worship and cultural center, and the American response is to hold protests against it?
Now, as a leftist, as a commie, I take a dim view of organised religion. Most days I'm tolerant and accepting of people of faith, whatever faith that is -- if more people lived like Christ, like Buddha, like Mohammad, like any other font of faith, the world would perhaps be a better place. I try to take an ecumenical approach to religion and society, though I'm definitely in the school of "less is better" which in comes to religion in society.
But one of the fabrics of American society, like it or not, is freedom of religion, and it shouldn't take a commie to point that out. It's a constitutionally guaranteed right given to us in the First Amendment that can't be bartered or legislated away.
It doesn't specify which religion, and you'll hear scores of rightwing bible-thumpers arguing we're a Christian nation, but no, Thomas Jefferson advocated the concept of separation of church and state, which protects people like me from people like those religious bigots who decry the Taliban and sharia law but not-so-secretly wish to impose it on America.
And it's that concept that got TJ thrown out of Texas history books this year!
Point being, all these latter-day constitutional fetishists forget the First Amendment, which is rather clear in its message --
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now, look at the placement of that phrase in question -- the first amendment out of the original ten, the first 16 words -- it couldn't be any more clear. The so-called constitutionalists make a mockery of the very document by proclaiming America a "Christian nation" and by saying mosques should be banned.
That's a rather simple conclusion to a complex issue. If the RW are successful in prohibiting the free exercise of a religion in America, the very fabric of our country starts to fray.
Granted, as a commie, any time the fabric of society starts to fray, any time the rightwing gets froggy and starts showing their fascist tendencies, I see it as one more click towards revolution -- be done with the illusion of free society, be done with the empty, hollow rhetoric, and let's get it on. The more groups they piss off, the more groups they alienate, the more chance we'll see another roosting of the proverbial returning chickens.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Battle of Ardoyne....
Every year, it's the same old story -- "marching season" where the original LOLs, the Loyal Orange Lodges, celebrate the defeat of the Catholic James II by Protestant William of Orange at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.
I think we're all for parades and marches. They're fun, they're a great way for communities to get out and enjoy pomp and circumstance, buy a t-shirt, eat some street food. Who can argue?
The Orange Order argues it's a part of Northern Irish history, it's about culture (their culture), it's a way to celebrate their heritage. All good and fine if you ignore the historical component -- one which exposes the discriminatory nature of the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland.
When these marches occur in Protestant/unionist/loyalist areas, it can be argued it is indeed about community, about celebrating history and heritage. The problem arises when they are forced down Catholic/nationalist/republican neighborhoods, where it is less about community and more about intimidation, less about a celebration of culture and more about a triumphalist display.
To draw the old, tired comparison, having an Orange Order parade forced down Garvaghy Road in Portadown or the Ardoyne is akin to having the Ku Klux Klan march in East Austin, Harlem, Compton, rural Mississippi -- there is only one purpose, and that is to remind "the natives" who is in charge -- lie down, croppy, don't get uppity, know yer place.
Years ago, comrades and I set up a website called "Orange Watch" to track Orange Order activity during marching seasons. The International Orange Watch Committee has since gone defunct, but you can still check out a short overview of Orange Order myths and facts that the IOWC came up with. As we showed, there are literally thousands of marches throughout Northern Ireland during marching season. Only a few are contentious, and those are where they are forced down Catholic/nationalist neighborhoods.
So, this year, as every year, the residents of Ardoyne have once again stood up to the bigoted Orange Order and have resisted their fascist march. Dismissing the riots as "youths vs police" demeans the core issue here, which is a triumphalist march by a bigoted fascist organisation being forced through a nationalist neighborhood, with the full force of the partitionist state siding with the bigots. It's not about culture, unless exclusion and discrimination are part of culture. And if it is, props to the defenders of Ardoyne who, each year, stand up and say "no!"....
You can view pictures of this year's riots in Ardoyne here.
I think we're all for parades and marches. They're fun, they're a great way for communities to get out and enjoy pomp and circumstance, buy a t-shirt, eat some street food. Who can argue?
The Orange Order argues it's a part of Northern Irish history, it's about culture (their culture), it's a way to celebrate their heritage. All good and fine if you ignore the historical component -- one which exposes the discriminatory nature of the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland.
When these marches occur in Protestant/unionist/loyalist areas, it can be argued it is indeed about community, about celebrating history and heritage. The problem arises when they are forced down Catholic/nationalist/republican neighborhoods, where it is less about community and more about intimidation, less about a celebration of culture and more about a triumphalist display.
To draw the old, tired comparison, having an Orange Order parade forced down Garvaghy Road in Portadown or the Ardoyne is akin to having the Ku Klux Klan march in East Austin, Harlem, Compton, rural Mississippi -- there is only one purpose, and that is to remind "the natives" who is in charge -- lie down, croppy, don't get uppity, know yer place.
Years ago, comrades and I set up a website called "Orange Watch" to track Orange Order activity during marching seasons. The International Orange Watch Committee has since gone defunct, but you can still check out a short overview of Orange Order myths and facts that the IOWC came up with. As we showed, there are literally thousands of marches throughout Northern Ireland during marching season. Only a few are contentious, and those are where they are forced down Catholic/nationalist neighborhoods.
So, this year, as every year, the residents of Ardoyne have once again stood up to the bigoted Orange Order and have resisted their fascist march. Dismissing the riots as "youths vs police" demeans the core issue here, which is a triumphalist march by a bigoted fascist organisation being forced through a nationalist neighborhood, with the full force of the partitionist state siding with the bigots. It's not about culture, unless exclusion and discrimination are part of culture. And if it is, props to the defenders of Ardoyne who, each year, stand up and say "no!"....
You can view pictures of this year's riots in Ardoyne here.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
piracy on the high seas
Lemme paint you a picture: a flotilla of ships carrying first aid equipment, building supplies, food and other humanitarian cargo -- to be delivered to a civilian population under siege -- is sailing in international waters when the lead ship is attacked and boarded by gun-wielding pirates. A struggle ensues between the pirates and those on board the ship, resulting in 9 dead passengers, the kidnapping of everyone else on board, and the theft of the cargo and all video and audio recordings of the attack.
If this happened anywhere else in the world, US reaction and condemnation would be swift. And for much of the world, reaction and condemnation HAS been swift.
But in the world of Middle East politics, it's more problematic, more fuzzy, because the pirates were Israeli Defense Force commandos, the hostages were activists seeking to end the inhumane blockade of Gaza, and of course, the civilian population under siege are Palestinians.
Never mind that one of those killed by the IDF commandos was an American (like the others killed, he too was shot multiple times in the head -- summarily executed by the IDF), and the best the Dems can come up with is that the victims of Israel's piracy brought it on themselves.
The GOP's position is not surprising -- this humanitarian mission gave aid and comfort to Hamas, the elected government of Gaza, and as such, those on board are terrorists, and Israel had every right to blow their heads off -- even the American shot and killed.
More disturbing than the massive kidnapping that occurred on the high seas was the theft of video of the attack by the IDF, allowing them to control the message, allowing them to paint the activists as something other than they way. If the attack was legal and above board, why steal all the video? What's to hide?
Never mind the international condemnation of the inhumane blockade that serves as a collective punishment. Never mind the calibre of people aboard the flotilla -- ranging from human rights activists to Nobel peace laureates to former ambassadors and European parliamentarians -- now being accused of supporting terrorism. The rest of the world condemns the actions undertaken by Israel against a Turkish vessel -- Israel's closest Muslim ally -- and our government's knee-jerk reaction is to come to the defense of the indefensible, giving Israel another free pass, a myopic display of foreign policy in the region.
And this is where we get into sticky areas of discourse -- the rightwing fascist teabagger types scream and bellyache about being called "racist" every time they say something racist. They scream and bellyache about being called "sexist" every time they say something sexist. They say pointing out issues of race and sex is just part of honest discourse, and they shouldn't be painted with the broad brush of "racist" or "sexist" if their views offend liberals.
Fair enough. But say one thing about Israel's brutal policies and you are instantly tagged as "anti-Semitic". And that is usually where the discussion ends. Everything else is drowned out, everything else is ignored. Once the charge is leveled, the discussion is over.
That is unfortunate for Israel, and unfortunate for Palestine, and unfortunate for honest discourse in the United States.
In a society where being "politically correct" is a sign of weakness and sure sign of being liberal, it is quite odd to see conservatives and rightwing fascist types embrace the PC notion of shutting down honest discourse by charging "anti-Semitism".
I won't get into the whole Christian Zionist/Apocalypse Movement angle of why Israel receives so much support from Christian fundamentalists. I won't even bring up the fact that a broad segment of Israeli citizens and a broad segment of the Israeli military disagrees with official Israeli policy in Palestine. All that is readily found online -- don't just take my word for it.
And that's just it -- we are being asked to forget what we saw -- a flotilla of human rights activists being attacked by the Israeli military in international waters -- and take the word of the Israeli government that what they did was protect their citizens from a rowdy band of terrorists. The evidence suggests otherwise.
If this happened anywhere else in the world, US reaction and condemnation would be swift. And for much of the world, reaction and condemnation HAS been swift.
But in the world of Middle East politics, it's more problematic, more fuzzy, because the pirates were Israeli Defense Force commandos, the hostages were activists seeking to end the inhumane blockade of Gaza, and of course, the civilian population under siege are Palestinians.
Never mind that one of those killed by the IDF commandos was an American (like the others killed, he too was shot multiple times in the head -- summarily executed by the IDF), and the best the Dems can come up with is that the victims of Israel's piracy brought it on themselves.
The GOP's position is not surprising -- this humanitarian mission gave aid and comfort to Hamas, the elected government of Gaza, and as such, those on board are terrorists, and Israel had every right to blow their heads off -- even the American shot and killed.
More disturbing than the massive kidnapping that occurred on the high seas was the theft of video of the attack by the IDF, allowing them to control the message, allowing them to paint the activists as something other than they way. If the attack was legal and above board, why steal all the video? What's to hide?
Never mind the international condemnation of the inhumane blockade that serves as a collective punishment. Never mind the calibre of people aboard the flotilla -- ranging from human rights activists to Nobel peace laureates to former ambassadors and European parliamentarians -- now being accused of supporting terrorism. The rest of the world condemns the actions undertaken by Israel against a Turkish vessel -- Israel's closest Muslim ally -- and our government's knee-jerk reaction is to come to the defense of the indefensible, giving Israel another free pass, a myopic display of foreign policy in the region.
And this is where we get into sticky areas of discourse -- the rightwing fascist teabagger types scream and bellyache about being called "racist" every time they say something racist. They scream and bellyache about being called "sexist" every time they say something sexist. They say pointing out issues of race and sex is just part of honest discourse, and they shouldn't be painted with the broad brush of "racist" or "sexist" if their views offend liberals.
Fair enough. But say one thing about Israel's brutal policies and you are instantly tagged as "anti-Semitic". And that is usually where the discussion ends. Everything else is drowned out, everything else is ignored. Once the charge is leveled, the discussion is over.
That is unfortunate for Israel, and unfortunate for Palestine, and unfortunate for honest discourse in the United States.
In a society where being "politically correct" is a sign of weakness and sure sign of being liberal, it is quite odd to see conservatives and rightwing fascist types embrace the PC notion of shutting down honest discourse by charging "anti-Semitism".
I won't get into the whole Christian Zionist/Apocalypse Movement angle of why Israel receives so much support from Christian fundamentalists. I won't even bring up the fact that a broad segment of Israeli citizens and a broad segment of the Israeli military disagrees with official Israeli policy in Palestine. All that is readily found online -- don't just take my word for it.
And that's just it -- we are being asked to forget what we saw -- a flotilla of human rights activists being attacked by the Israeli military in international waters -- and take the word of the Israeli government that what they did was protect their citizens from a rowdy band of terrorists. The evidence suggests otherwise.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
21st century nativism, or, Arizona, find yourself another country to be part of....
A lot to be said about SB1070, the anti-minority law passed in Arizona. If it was just a simple matter of a rogue state testing the limits of states rights versus primacy of federal law, it would be a simple matter of striking down the law as unconstitutional and telling Arizona, a la Phil Ochs, that it needed to find itself another country to be part of.
But it's not just about Arizona -- the old spectre of nativism has once again risen its ugly head from restless slumber and has spread across the nation like a cancer. Arizona is not the cause of this, it is (and I hate being cliche, but...) just the symptom.
21st century nativism isn't any nicer, or any less racist, or more refined than 19th century nativism, and the whelps of immigrants long dead should be ashamed at becoming the ugly hateful xenophobes that kept our immigrant ancestors "in their place," forcing assimilation as a "benefit" of living and working at reduced wages than their native-born neighbors, which further bred resentment and division amongst the working class, deflecting attention from what should have been the true target of working class resentment.
I don't really need to spend a lot of time detailing the racist agenda of the authors and supporters of SB1070 -- those racist roots are indisputable. The law was conceived of by far-right organisations, meant to specifically target poor Latinos, the leadership of the Arizona GOP has actively supported -- and been supported by -- openly-racist white separatists and supremacists. This is fact. The evidence is there from multiple sources. And more troubling is that direction and support wasn't just anchored in Arizona, but also in Washington, where the intent is to spread this fascism to other states.
So when you hear xenophobic supporters of the law insist it is not racist, they are either lying or willfully ignorant. They may wax philosophical about the basis of SB1070, they may try to put an intellectual spin on their racism, but there is no way around it -- the law they support was specifically intended to target Arizona's minority community.
The first victims of this law -- even before it officially goes into effect -- have been American-born Hispanics, caught without birth certificates, detained, handcuffed, and arrested for being unable to prove, on the spot, their country of origin. Fellow Americans are being asked for "papers, please" -- that old bogeyman we were warned about when criticising Nazi Germany, Soviet Europe, and Apartheid South Africa -- and true to form, 21st-century nativists in positions of power have now adopted these tactics.
The issue in Arizona isn't about so-called "illegal" immigrants, it goes back to working class resentment towards cheaper labor, and xenophobia, and the old school nativism rearing its ugly head once again is unbecoming the mutts of America, and a betrayal of our roots as a nation, where we welcomed -- with open arms, and frankly with ulterior economic motives -- those coming to America to make a better life. It's the image we've projected as a nation, and we can't credibly turn that back now that we're "all filled up".
My ancestors came from Ireland and Poland. The Irish and Polish experience in America was one of forced and dehumanizing assimilation. But at least outwardly we fit in, so long as we behaved like little croppies and lay down. That experience isn't specific to the Irish and Polish immigrants, of course -- Italians had their own period of forced assimilation, the Chinese brought in to build California had their own period, and so on.
I embrace the promise and privilege of immigration to the United States -- the promise of new-found religious, social and political freedom, the privilege of living in arguably the best (ideally, if not realistically) country in the world.
I also embrace the notion that no person is illegal, and borders are artificial man-made socio-political constructs, nothing more than gang warfare writ large on national scales, with each gang "protecting" their turf. In that context, "legal" immigration is simply a matter of getting permission from a gang to live and work in their territory, on their terms and conditions.
An early exchange I had with someone about SB1070 had the other person mentioning the so-called "social contract" that "we have agreed to." It was argued that we do not get to go to a buffet of laws and cherry-pick which ones we agree to and which ones to ignore -- it is an all-or-nothing deal. Examples of immigrant myths were given -- double-dipping of unemployment insurance and benefiting from infrastructure upkeep, all while being allowed to immigrate illegally.
Now, if you are going to bring up this "social contract" which "we all have agreed to," let's apply it absolutely and universally. Let's not exempt the ruling class and their lapdog allies and target the working class when it is convenient, "buffet style." I never signed or agreed to this social contract, and I don't know anybody else who did. Frankly, if we're living under the provisions of this mythical contract, I want a do-over, because it absolutely is not applied fairly, or absolutely, or universally, and most of the inequitable application is done according to class and race.
America benefits from the presence of immigrants, illegal or otherwise. The work and services they provide (hard work for lower pay, with little to no safeguards), the taxes they pay (sales tax, for instance), the money they pump into local economies (from rent, purchases, etc), would absolutely be missed if they suddenly and magically vanished and we woke up to a whiter shade of America tomorrow.
But this isn't meant as a defense of illegal immigrants. It is an attack on 21st century nativism, born and bred in racist xenophobia. That is more of a threat to America than the spectre of hard-working, law-abiding immigrants. As a nation of immigrants, we are obligated to be better than that, collectively.
The working class -- our class -- must not give aid and comfort to the ruling class, the sole beneficiary of artificial divisions within the working class. Fascism must burn. It must not be given respite in attacks from progressive elements. This IS class warfare, masked in racism. The ruling class really isn't worried about illegal immigration -- their primary concern is fear that the working class -- our class -- will unite against them, rise up against them, and break our chains of wage slavery that keep us in their bondage. THAT is why false divisions are created and fostered, and why we must work hard to break down those walls that divide us.
Is it all bleak? Widespread outrage at this law, within Arizona and from most other states, at least gives us hope that correct-thinking people recognise the futility of an America based on exclusion and discrimination, and hopefully serves as a warning to other 21st century nativists that we are not going to peacefully go back to the America of the 1800s. It remains to be seen if Arizona is really a lost cause, but hopefully it is at least a fire-break against similar cancerous legislation worming its way through other states.
Vigilance!
But it's not just about Arizona -- the old spectre of nativism has once again risen its ugly head from restless slumber and has spread across the nation like a cancer. Arizona is not the cause of this, it is (and I hate being cliche, but...) just the symptom.
21st century nativism isn't any nicer, or any less racist, or more refined than 19th century nativism, and the whelps of immigrants long dead should be ashamed at becoming the ugly hateful xenophobes that kept our immigrant ancestors "in their place," forcing assimilation as a "benefit" of living and working at reduced wages than their native-born neighbors, which further bred resentment and division amongst the working class, deflecting attention from what should have been the true target of working class resentment.
I don't really need to spend a lot of time detailing the racist agenda of the authors and supporters of SB1070 -- those racist roots are indisputable. The law was conceived of by far-right organisations, meant to specifically target poor Latinos, the leadership of the Arizona GOP has actively supported -- and been supported by -- openly-racist white separatists and supremacists. This is fact. The evidence is there from multiple sources. And more troubling is that direction and support wasn't just anchored in Arizona, but also in Washington, where the intent is to spread this fascism to other states.
So when you hear xenophobic supporters of the law insist it is not racist, they are either lying or willfully ignorant. They may wax philosophical about the basis of SB1070, they may try to put an intellectual spin on their racism, but there is no way around it -- the law they support was specifically intended to target Arizona's minority community.
The first victims of this law -- even before it officially goes into effect -- have been American-born Hispanics, caught without birth certificates, detained, handcuffed, and arrested for being unable to prove, on the spot, their country of origin. Fellow Americans are being asked for "papers, please" -- that old bogeyman we were warned about when criticising Nazi Germany, Soviet Europe, and Apartheid South Africa -- and true to form, 21st-century nativists in positions of power have now adopted these tactics.
The issue in Arizona isn't about so-called "illegal" immigrants, it goes back to working class resentment towards cheaper labor, and xenophobia, and the old school nativism rearing its ugly head once again is unbecoming the mutts of America, and a betrayal of our roots as a nation, where we welcomed -- with open arms, and frankly with ulterior economic motives -- those coming to America to make a better life. It's the image we've projected as a nation, and we can't credibly turn that back now that we're "all filled up".
My ancestors came from Ireland and Poland. The Irish and Polish experience in America was one of forced and dehumanizing assimilation. But at least outwardly we fit in, so long as we behaved like little croppies and lay down. That experience isn't specific to the Irish and Polish immigrants, of course -- Italians had their own period of forced assimilation, the Chinese brought in to build California had their own period, and so on.
I embrace the promise and privilege of immigration to the United States -- the promise of new-found religious, social and political freedom, the privilege of living in arguably the best (ideally, if not realistically) country in the world.
I also embrace the notion that no person is illegal, and borders are artificial man-made socio-political constructs, nothing more than gang warfare writ large on national scales, with each gang "protecting" their turf. In that context, "legal" immigration is simply a matter of getting permission from a gang to live and work in their territory, on their terms and conditions.
An early exchange I had with someone about SB1070 had the other person mentioning the so-called "social contract" that "we have agreed to." It was argued that we do not get to go to a buffet of laws and cherry-pick which ones we agree to and which ones to ignore -- it is an all-or-nothing deal. Examples of immigrant myths were given -- double-dipping of unemployment insurance and benefiting from infrastructure upkeep, all while being allowed to immigrate illegally.
Now, if you are going to bring up this "social contract" which "we all have agreed to," let's apply it absolutely and universally. Let's not exempt the ruling class and their lapdog allies and target the working class when it is convenient, "buffet style." I never signed or agreed to this social contract, and I don't know anybody else who did. Frankly, if we're living under the provisions of this mythical contract, I want a do-over, because it absolutely is not applied fairly, or absolutely, or universally, and most of the inequitable application is done according to class and race.
America benefits from the presence of immigrants, illegal or otherwise. The work and services they provide (hard work for lower pay, with little to no safeguards), the taxes they pay (sales tax, for instance), the money they pump into local economies (from rent, purchases, etc), would absolutely be missed if they suddenly and magically vanished and we woke up to a whiter shade of America tomorrow.
But this isn't meant as a defense of illegal immigrants. It is an attack on 21st century nativism, born and bred in racist xenophobia. That is more of a threat to America than the spectre of hard-working, law-abiding immigrants. As a nation of immigrants, we are obligated to be better than that, collectively.
The working class -- our class -- must not give aid and comfort to the ruling class, the sole beneficiary of artificial divisions within the working class. Fascism must burn. It must not be given respite in attacks from progressive elements. This IS class warfare, masked in racism. The ruling class really isn't worried about illegal immigration -- their primary concern is fear that the working class -- our class -- will unite against them, rise up against them, and break our chains of wage slavery that keep us in their bondage. THAT is why false divisions are created and fostered, and why we must work hard to break down those walls that divide us.
Is it all bleak? Widespread outrage at this law, within Arizona and from most other states, at least gives us hope that correct-thinking people recognise the futility of an America based on exclusion and discrimination, and hopefully serves as a warning to other 21st century nativists that we are not going to peacefully go back to the America of the 1800s. It remains to be seen if Arizona is really a lost cause, but hopefully it is at least a fire-break against similar cancerous legislation worming its way through other states.
Vigilance!
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
A Video Interlude: Victor Jara
I hate letting a day go by without at least a simple entry about current events, but so much is happening it's hard to focus on just one item of interest -- I'm working on longer pieces on teabaggers, the war presidency, reclamation of leftist symbols, and other areas of personal interest.
But, in the interest of not letting too much time go between posts, here's another video interlude, this time focusing on one of my personal heroes, Chilean guitarist, singer/songwriter, labor activist, and communist Victor Jara, who was assassinated on 15 September 1973 by the fascist junta -- led by Augusto Pinochet -- that overthrew -- with CIA involvement -- the democratically-elected government of Salvador Allende during the "original" 9/11.
Before Jara was killed, they broke his hands, and mockingly threw his guitar at him and told him to "play now" -- such was the power of his words and his songs and the threat they meant to the fascist regime.
Victor Jara knew then -- as did his killers -- what Woody Guthrie knew years earlier -- "this machine kills fascists."
While many of Jara's songs were about the obvious things like love, he also sang songs of revolution. This song honors Che Guevara, the Argentinean doctor who helped overthrow the fascist and corrupt regime of Fulgencio Batista of Cuba, and who then went on to foment revolutions in Africa and other parts of Latin America:
And, taking the internationalist angle a little bit further, Christy Moore, legendary Irish musician, sings a song about Victor Jara:
But, in the interest of not letting too much time go between posts, here's another video interlude, this time focusing on one of my personal heroes, Chilean guitarist, singer/songwriter, labor activist, and communist Victor Jara, who was assassinated on 15 September 1973 by the fascist junta -- led by Augusto Pinochet -- that overthrew -- with CIA involvement -- the democratically-elected government of Salvador Allende during the "original" 9/11.
Before Jara was killed, they broke his hands, and mockingly threw his guitar at him and told him to "play now" -- such was the power of his words and his songs and the threat they meant to the fascist regime.
Victor Jara knew then -- as did his killers -- what Woody Guthrie knew years earlier -- "this machine kills fascists."
While many of Jara's songs were about the obvious things like love, he also sang songs of revolution. This song honors Che Guevara, the Argentinean doctor who helped overthrow the fascist and corrupt regime of Fulgencio Batista of Cuba, and who then went on to foment revolutions in Africa and other parts of Latin America:
And, taking the internationalist angle a little bit further, Christy Moore, legendary Irish musician, sings a song about Victor Jara:
Sunday, April 18, 2010
The Death of Law and Order....
America prides itself on being a nation of laws. Politicians -- particularly those of the Republican stripe -- say the very fabric of society is endangered if laws are not enforced, and they say no one should be above the law. "Democracy depends on it!" they insist.
But that belief in the religion of law and order is not absolute, as we witnessed during the 8 years of the Bush Regime. CIA agents were outed, American citizens were spied upon by the intelligence community, and prisoners were tortured and killed in CIA-run prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gitmo.
None of this was kept particularly secret -- as each crime was made public, the NeoCons and their proxies came out and insisted "national security" allowed for bending of some laws, and outright suspension of others. In a nod to Nixon (and apparently forgetting how that turned out for him), more than a handful said illegal acts weren't illegal if the President did them.
So, we turn back to the issue of torture, which has crept back into the public in recent weeks.
After denying the practice of torture for years, Dick Cheney took the lead in arguing that torture was in fact legal. And much of the US public ignored the legalities and accepted his statements.
But if torture was legal and protected by executive decision, why order the destruction of interrogation tapes unless even the White House and the CIA realised their actions were illegal? If Porter Goss wants to take the heat for the crime, let him do the time, but don't stop there -- investigate, prosecute, convict and sentence the architects of torture.
Obama takes the myopic position that we need to look forward instead of backward. But this isn't about someone speeding in a school zone, this isn't about someone smoking a bowl on a Friday night, this isn't running out on your tab at the corner bar, this is about torture being committed by the United States of America, and having that torture covered up at the highest levels.
Open investigations now, for the sake of democracy, and prove that Presidents, Vice Presidents, and CIA directors are not above the law. Or let's dispense with enforcement of laws for the rest of us, cuz I'd rather smoke my bowl, pay my sex workers, speed in my car, and download my music, movies and porn without worry.
But that belief in the religion of law and order is not absolute, as we witnessed during the 8 years of the Bush Regime. CIA agents were outed, American citizens were spied upon by the intelligence community, and prisoners were tortured and killed in CIA-run prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gitmo.
None of this was kept particularly secret -- as each crime was made public, the NeoCons and their proxies came out and insisted "national security" allowed for bending of some laws, and outright suspension of others. In a nod to Nixon (and apparently forgetting how that turned out for him), more than a handful said illegal acts weren't illegal if the President did them.
So, we turn back to the issue of torture, which has crept back into the public in recent weeks.
After denying the practice of torture for years, Dick Cheney took the lead in arguing that torture was in fact legal. And much of the US public ignored the legalities and accepted his statements.
But if torture was legal and protected by executive decision, why order the destruction of interrogation tapes unless even the White House and the CIA realised their actions were illegal? If Porter Goss wants to take the heat for the crime, let him do the time, but don't stop there -- investigate, prosecute, convict and sentence the architects of torture.
Obama takes the myopic position that we need to look forward instead of backward. But this isn't about someone speeding in a school zone, this isn't about someone smoking a bowl on a Friday night, this isn't running out on your tab at the corner bar, this is about torture being committed by the United States of America, and having that torture covered up at the highest levels.
Open investigations now, for the sake of democracy, and prove that Presidents, Vice Presidents, and CIA directors are not above the law. Or let's dispense with enforcement of laws for the rest of us, cuz I'd rather smoke my bowl, pay my sex workers, speed in my car, and download my music, movies and porn without worry.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Human Rights Victory
Does one need to be a woman to be a feminist? Does one need to be African-American to be anti-racist? More to the point, does one need to be a member of any particular group to identify with and support that group? Obviously, the answer is no to all three questions, and so it is with my identifying as a straight ally.
I've long had positive relationships with gay and transgendered folks -- I've been in their homes, I've been in their bars, I've hugged and I've kissed gay and transgendered friends in the same way as I'd hug and kiss any other friend or family member.
Much of this stems from being raised to be inclusive and non-judgemental, to be accepting and tolerant of differences, because usually those differences are so minor they are inconsequential.
All that to say that over the years I've become a straight ally, attending gay pride rallies, attending rallies in support of gay marriage and civil unions, and engaging in dialogue with both straight and gay friends and family about what being a straight ally means in general and what we as straight allies can do specifically to help our gay friends and family members achieve social justice through equality.
And it's because of the personal relationships I've had with my gay friends that I am very personally affected by Obama's historic directive to hospitals receiving federal money to allow for the gay partner of gay patients to visit them.
For too long, loving partners of gay patients have been viewed "simply" as friends, and denied visitation rights for their partners who lay sick or dying in hospital beds, like Janice Langbehn, who was denied access by a social worker to be at her partner's bedside as she lay dying from a fatal brain aneurysm.
Obama's directive tells hospitals that those dark days of discrimination are now over. This is humane, this is just, this is inclusive, and it is long overdue. This is not a gay or straight issue, it is simply a human rights issue, and as such, it is a clear human rights victory. It was politically courageous of Obama, and it was a no-brainer.
It is also the mark of a civilised society, and a place we can not walk away from. There is no turning back. And there should be no turning back until the GLBT community has the same rights and privileges as the rest of society.
And it's not just a gay victory -- it's a victory for patient rights in general, because now, we the patients have the right to decide who visits us when we're in the hospital, not politicians or bigoted hospital workers or family members.
And more importantly, this allows patients to decide who can have medical power of attorney to make extremely difficult but important life-saving or end-of-life decisions. Libertarians SHOULD embrace this, because it is about personal choice and personal freedom, and gets the state and corporate interests out of a very personal and often decision-making process.
I've long had positive relationships with gay and transgendered folks -- I've been in their homes, I've been in their bars, I've hugged and I've kissed gay and transgendered friends in the same way as I'd hug and kiss any other friend or family member.
Much of this stems from being raised to be inclusive and non-judgemental, to be accepting and tolerant of differences, because usually those differences are so minor they are inconsequential.
All that to say that over the years I've become a straight ally, attending gay pride rallies, attending rallies in support of gay marriage and civil unions, and engaging in dialogue with both straight and gay friends and family about what being a straight ally means in general and what we as straight allies can do specifically to help our gay friends and family members achieve social justice through equality.
And it's because of the personal relationships I've had with my gay friends that I am very personally affected by Obama's historic directive to hospitals receiving federal money to allow for the gay partner of gay patients to visit them.
For too long, loving partners of gay patients have been viewed "simply" as friends, and denied visitation rights for their partners who lay sick or dying in hospital beds, like Janice Langbehn, who was denied access by a social worker to be at her partner's bedside as she lay dying from a fatal brain aneurysm.
Obama's directive tells hospitals that those dark days of discrimination are now over. This is humane, this is just, this is inclusive, and it is long overdue. This is not a gay or straight issue, it is simply a human rights issue, and as such, it is a clear human rights victory. It was politically courageous of Obama, and it was a no-brainer.
It is also the mark of a civilised society, and a place we can not walk away from. There is no turning back. And there should be no turning back until the GLBT community has the same rights and privileges as the rest of society.
And it's not just a gay victory -- it's a victory for patient rights in general, because now, we the patients have the right to decide who visits us when we're in the hospital, not politicians or bigoted hospital workers or family members.
And more importantly, this allows patients to decide who can have medical power of attorney to make extremely difficult but important life-saving or end-of-life decisions. Libertarians SHOULD embrace this, because it is about personal choice and personal freedom, and gets the state and corporate interests out of a very personal and often decision-making process.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
A video interlude: Woody Guthrie on Cde. Pavlichenko
In lieu of a "real" blog entry today (work has a way with interfering with an in-depth piece I'm wokring on), I'm going to start a weekly (if not more frequent) "video interlude" section here focusing on lefty music and other treasures.... This particular entry has been lifted almost verbatim from a previous FB posting, so apologies to those who cry "rerun!".
So anyhow, appropriately enough, with all the talk of militias and fascists, I bring you the story of Ludmilia Pavlichenko. Credited with killing 309 fascist soldiers (including 36 enemy snipers) during the nazi invasion of Russia (making her the most successful female sniper in history), Miss Pavlichenko was a rare breed of Soviet sniper -- just one of 2000 female snipers, she was also one of only 500 who survived the war.
Wounded in 1942, she was pulled away from the front, and sent to Canada and the US (where she met with FDR in the White House). She was made a Hero of the Soviet Union and trained other Soviet snipers until the war ended.
This here is a song by anti-fascist folk musician Woody Guthrie, who, as the intro below notes, recorded this song in 1946.
And while we're on the subject of Woody Guthrie and killing fascists, here's another song he did, way before Billy Bragg got a hold of it:
So anyhow, appropriately enough, with all the talk of militias and fascists, I bring you the story of Ludmilia Pavlichenko. Credited with killing 309 fascist soldiers (including 36 enemy snipers) during the nazi invasion of Russia (making her the most successful female sniper in history), Miss Pavlichenko was a rare breed of Soviet sniper -- just one of 2000 female snipers, she was also one of only 500 who survived the war.
Wounded in 1942, she was pulled away from the front, and sent to Canada and the US (where she met with FDR in the White House). She was made a Hero of the Soviet Union and trained other Soviet snipers until the war ended.
This here is a song by anti-fascist folk musician Woody Guthrie, who, as the intro below notes, recorded this song in 1946.
And while we're on the subject of Woody Guthrie and killing fascists, here's another song he did, way before Billy Bragg got a hold of it:
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Sedition and other sundries....
First, news that the Teabagger "rally" in Washington DC last November cost taxpayers $13600, for the sound, staging and equipment, thoughtfully paid for out of taxpayer-funded allowances by Michele Bachmann (MN), Tod Akin (MO), Tom Price (GA) and Steve King (IA). This, for a group that is supposedly not aligned with the GOP, and odd for a group railing about taxpayer money being wasted on such idiotic things like health care!
Second, we find that even the nutjob teabaggers have their limits on crazy -- a California teabag group has rescinded an offer to foreign-born birther leader Orly Taitz to speak at their event, after receiving calls from candidates concerned with being too attached to the crazy that is Orly.
Third, it's kind of hard for the Teabaggers to argue that they aren't bigots and racists when one of their leaders is, well, a bigot and a racist. If the label fits, well, you know the rest....
Then, we get into the meat of this post, and an update on Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the birther Army physician facing court martial for refusing to obey orders, stemming from his belief that Obama is not the legitimate President because of his "questionable" birth.
A discussion via facebook comments between a friend of mine and I compared the questions surrounding George W. Bush's military service and the questions surrounding Barrack Obama's place of birth. The thing that struck me is that while the questions surrounding Bush's service were fierce for a short time, they quickly lost steam thanks to the controversy surrounding Rathergate, and the Democratic leadership never really ran with it on their own.
This is not the case with the birther "movement" -- Republican senators and other state elected officials, pandering to the birthers and teabaggers, continue to raise questions about Obama's birth. The media, having taken a look at the controversy, has seemed to accept the legitimacy of Obama's American birth, but that hasn't killed speculation from the RW.
Getting back to Lakin, we find out today that he's getting some support from the GOP establishment. Let's not kid ourselves, this is a military officer, disobeying lawful orders from his commander in chief, getting aid and comfort from the GOP establishment. This is not pro-military, this is not pro-America, this is not pro-democracy. This is enabling far rightwing lunacy and bigotry, and giving it legitimacy by mainstreaming its support.
Which brings me to a great blog entry by Sara Robinson entitled "None Dare Call It Sedition" -- if you have a while to read this piece, I'd suggest you do so, because it pretty much screams out what many of us have thought for a while.
Coming from the Left, and having been called unAmerican, anti-America, anti-democracy, and any other red-baiting slur for 8 years under Bush and Company, having been told to "love it or leave it", having been told to "put America first!" and to be "country before party!" I have to wonder -- had the Left under Bush organised itself half as well as the Teabaggers, had we talked about "defending the constitution from a tyrannical regime" with guns and militias -- how soon would we have been visited by DHS agents and shipped off to Gitmo?
Just a point to ponder, because Ms. Robinson dares call it what it is -- sedition, and these militia folks a walking a mighty fine line, a walk being tolerated much more than the miles-away line the Left walked under Bush.
Second, we find that even the nutjob teabaggers have their limits on crazy -- a California teabag group has rescinded an offer to foreign-born birther leader Orly Taitz to speak at their event, after receiving calls from candidates concerned with being too attached to the crazy that is Orly.
Third, it's kind of hard for the Teabaggers to argue that they aren't bigots and racists when one of their leaders is, well, a bigot and a racist. If the label fits, well, you know the rest....
Then, we get into the meat of this post, and an update on Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, the birther Army physician facing court martial for refusing to obey orders, stemming from his belief that Obama is not the legitimate President because of his "questionable" birth.
A discussion via facebook comments between a friend of mine and I compared the questions surrounding George W. Bush's military service and the questions surrounding Barrack Obama's place of birth. The thing that struck me is that while the questions surrounding Bush's service were fierce for a short time, they quickly lost steam thanks to the controversy surrounding Rathergate, and the Democratic leadership never really ran with it on their own.
This is not the case with the birther "movement" -- Republican senators and other state elected officials, pandering to the birthers and teabaggers, continue to raise questions about Obama's birth. The media, having taken a look at the controversy, has seemed to accept the legitimacy of Obama's American birth, but that hasn't killed speculation from the RW.
Getting back to Lakin, we find out today that he's getting some support from the GOP establishment. Let's not kid ourselves, this is a military officer, disobeying lawful orders from his commander in chief, getting aid and comfort from the GOP establishment. This is not pro-military, this is not pro-America, this is not pro-democracy. This is enabling far rightwing lunacy and bigotry, and giving it legitimacy by mainstreaming its support.
Which brings me to a great blog entry by Sara Robinson entitled "None Dare Call It Sedition" -- if you have a while to read this piece, I'd suggest you do so, because it pretty much screams out what many of us have thought for a while.
Coming from the Left, and having been called unAmerican, anti-America, anti-democracy, and any other red-baiting slur for 8 years under Bush and Company, having been told to "love it or leave it", having been told to "put America first!" and to be "country before party!" I have to wonder -- had the Left under Bush organised itself half as well as the Teabaggers, had we talked about "defending the constitution from a tyrannical regime" with guns and militias -- how soon would we have been visited by DHS agents and shipped off to Gitmo?
Just a point to ponder, because Ms. Robinson dares call it what it is -- sedition, and these militia folks a walking a mighty fine line, a walk being tolerated much more than the miles-away line the Left walked under Bush.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
A militia within the military....
Pardon the lack of focus and rambling nature of this, I'm still getting into the groove of "serious" and "consistent" blogging.
Anyhow, it was an odd and not altogether positive day for the Teabagger "Movement" and the US military.
Early in the morning, we were greeted with the news that the Teabaggers, like a cancerous rot, had spread to the military with the formation of the so-called "Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots" which vows to "stand up on the very soil we defended to preserve common sense conservatism and defend our Constitution that is threatened by a tyrannical government".
Having close ties to the broader Teabagger "Movement," its founder, active duty Marine sergeant Gary Stein, and presumably an expert on constitutional law, has raised the possibility of disobeying orders from his commander in chief.
The article itself is worth a read, as it does call into question the legality of active duty military personnel acting in such an open and partisan manner. More worrisome is the thought that this miniscule group within the military sees itself as a legitimate, autonomous militia.
Later on in the day came word that notorious birther, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of the US Army was under investigation for refusing to follow orders because he doesn't believe Obama is a legitimate President. As the day went on, it was confirmed that he was facing court martial.
Weeks back, I noted that gay soldiers could be booted out of the military for being gay, yet Lt. Col. Lakin could blatantly and publicly refuse orders with seemingly no repercussions. So, I'm heartened -- no small feat for an anti-war/anti-military commie -- that it appears, for the moment, that legitimately bad apples now face the full hammer of military justice.
Then, almost on cue, Stein, apparently sensing the Defense Department's patience was running short, came out with a statement saying his group, doesn't support a military uprising, views President Obama as the legitimate commander-in-chief, and will follow all constitutional orders.
The GOP under Chucklenuts played fast and loose with the Uniform Code of Conduct in using military personnel for partisan purposes. The Teabagger "Movement" is no more than a proxy for the GOP, engaging in a cynical attempt in presenting itself as a so-called grassroots movement.
This military angle is a very slippery slope, and a dangerous elevation of the Teabaggers -- merely a quasi-political group at the movement -- into a quasi-political group with an armed wing, loyal to nothing but a narrow rightwing fascist ideology.
Anyhow, it was an odd and not altogether positive day for the Teabagger "Movement" and the US military.
Early in the morning, we were greeted with the news that the Teabaggers, like a cancerous rot, had spread to the military with the formation of the so-called "Armed Forces Tea Party Patriots" which vows to "stand up on the very soil we defended to preserve common sense conservatism and defend our Constitution that is threatened by a tyrannical government".
Having close ties to the broader Teabagger "Movement," its founder, active duty Marine sergeant Gary Stein, and presumably an expert on constitutional law, has raised the possibility of disobeying orders from his commander in chief.
The article itself is worth a read, as it does call into question the legality of active duty military personnel acting in such an open and partisan manner. More worrisome is the thought that this miniscule group within the military sees itself as a legitimate, autonomous militia.
Later on in the day came word that notorious birther, Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin of the US Army was under investigation for refusing to follow orders because he doesn't believe Obama is a legitimate President. As the day went on, it was confirmed that he was facing court martial.
Weeks back, I noted that gay soldiers could be booted out of the military for being gay, yet Lt. Col. Lakin could blatantly and publicly refuse orders with seemingly no repercussions. So, I'm heartened -- no small feat for an anti-war/anti-military commie -- that it appears, for the moment, that legitimately bad apples now face the full hammer of military justice.
Then, almost on cue, Stein, apparently sensing the Defense Department's patience was running short, came out with a statement saying his group, doesn't support a military uprising, views President Obama as the legitimate commander-in-chief, and will follow all constitutional orders.
The GOP under Chucklenuts played fast and loose with the Uniform Code of Conduct in using military personnel for partisan purposes. The Teabagger "Movement" is no more than a proxy for the GOP, engaging in a cynical attempt in presenting itself as a so-called grassroots movement.
This military angle is a very slippery slope, and a dangerous elevation of the Teabaggers -- merely a quasi-political group at the movement -- into a quasi-political group with an armed wing, loyal to nothing but a narrow rightwing fascist ideology.
Oklahoma Militia?
I've got a strong affinity for Oklahoma. I grew up there, I've got friends and family there, Woody Guthrie is from there, and I've got a lot of good memories attending powwows, the state fair, Middle Earth Daycare in Norman, visits to the family ranch in Woodward.
And as I've told folks before, I believe in two things -- a working class revolution leading to a redistribution of wealth and control of the means of production and distribution by the workers ending in a classless society free from the scourge of capitalism and wages slavery, and the University of Oklahoma football program.
For all the things I love about Oklahoma, there are also some things that drive me crazy about it, least of which are the politicians there that make Texas pols seem half-way sane, which these days is a pretty low bar.
I'll set this bit up first by saying that Texas politicians are known for saying some batshit crazy stuff on a pretty regular basis. The crazy just ain't limited to state legislators or congressional reps either -- Gov. Good Hair himself has stepped into the Teabagger breach and erroneously said that Texas had the right to leave the union if it wants to.
Keep in mind, the GOP not too long ago was all about "American First!" and "Country Before Party!" not too long ago, but now, they have suddenly become anti-federalist and pro-secessionist. We've already fought one war over that issue, and the pro-union side won.
Anyhow, Oklahoma Teabaggers have got Gov. Good Hair beat on the crazy talk. Simply put, Oklahoma conservatives and lawmakers want to form an anti-federal militia to "defend against" federal infringement on state sovereignty.
FDR said famously that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, but the GOP has become master purveyors of fear, and selling it at bargain rates to their easily-led sheep, ever since the attacks on Washington and New York. They offer no real solutions, and they are more than willing to give away liberties for security, and the Bush Years were evidence that they really didn't care about the Constitution. This latter day conversion to Constitution-Fetish is frankly unbecoming to the wingnuts, who at least should be consistent in their crazy. Easier to keep score and keep track, you know....
Leave it to a foreign-born, black muslim socialist (that's tongue in cheek talk for the sarcasm-impaired) to scare angry white males into forming militias to keep the federal bogeymen out of Oklahoma.
A shame it didn't work for the Native Americans. And we saw how it turned out in Waco and Ruby Ridge.
And as I've told folks before, I believe in two things -- a working class revolution leading to a redistribution of wealth and control of the means of production and distribution by the workers ending in a classless society free from the scourge of capitalism and wages slavery, and the University of Oklahoma football program.
For all the things I love about Oklahoma, there are also some things that drive me crazy about it, least of which are the politicians there that make Texas pols seem half-way sane, which these days is a pretty low bar.
I'll set this bit up first by saying that Texas politicians are known for saying some batshit crazy stuff on a pretty regular basis. The crazy just ain't limited to state legislators or congressional reps either -- Gov. Good Hair himself has stepped into the Teabagger breach and erroneously said that Texas had the right to leave the union if it wants to.
Keep in mind, the GOP not too long ago was all about "American First!" and "Country Before Party!" not too long ago, but now, they have suddenly become anti-federalist and pro-secessionist. We've already fought one war over that issue, and the pro-union side won.
Anyhow, Oklahoma Teabaggers have got Gov. Good Hair beat on the crazy talk. Simply put, Oklahoma conservatives and lawmakers want to form an anti-federal militia to "defend against" federal infringement on state sovereignty.
FDR said famously that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, but the GOP has become master purveyors of fear, and selling it at bargain rates to their easily-led sheep, ever since the attacks on Washington and New York. They offer no real solutions, and they are more than willing to give away liberties for security, and the Bush Years were evidence that they really didn't care about the Constitution. This latter day conversion to Constitution-Fetish is frankly unbecoming to the wingnuts, who at least should be consistent in their crazy. Easier to keep score and keep track, you know....
Leave it to a foreign-born, black muslim socialist (that's tongue in cheek talk for the sarcasm-impaired) to scare angry white males into forming militias to keep the federal bogeymen out of Oklahoma.
A shame it didn't work for the Native Americans. And we saw how it turned out in Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Groups call for arrest of Bloody Don....
Not that they have a snowball's chance in hell in succeeding, but a coalition of NGOs have called for the arrest of Bloody Don Blankenship, the politically-connected millionaire CEO of Massey Energy, whose West Virginia mine was the scene of the deaths of 29 miners last week.
As the group argues, and what I've been saying for the better part of a week now, these 29 miners would still be alive but for the willful conduct by Massey and Blankenship, who flouted safety regulations and appealed numerous violation citations.
As the group argues, and what I've been saying for the better part of a week now, these 29 miners would still be alive but for the willful conduct by Massey and Blankenship, who flouted safety regulations and appealed numerous violation citations.
The Ongoing Trials of Henry Kissinger
Close friends and comrades know my deep interest in Latin American revolutions, as well as the CIA's involvement in the various coups and assassinations that have toppled democratically-elected governments throughout the region, resulting in hundreds of thousands of lives lost and destroyed asserting US dominance in the region.
One of the more odious and unapologetic figures who features prominently in the supression of these Latin American liberation movements was Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. His fingerprints have long been on coups and assinations, to the point where Christopher Hitchens, before he went all neocon and batshit, wrote a pretty good book entitled The Trial of Henry Kissinger, which was made into a subsequent documentary which you can watch and/or download from google video. If you have an hour and twenty minutes, there's no better use of your time than watching the video.
If you don't have time, you can read two excerpts from Hitchens' book here and here
All that is a long way around to the point of this posting tonight. Word comes that Kissinger rescinded warnings against Condor assassinations, seen as essentially giving a greenlight to Chile's fascist regime to assassinate former Chilean Defense Minister Orlando Letelier in Washington in 1976.
Why does this matter now? For decades, Kissinger's defenders have said that Harry Shlaudeman, his assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, sent the cables to US ambassadors in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay on his own, countermanding an explicit State Department ban on assassinations by Southern Cone's military regimes as part of Operation Condor.
However, evidence has emerged that Shlaudeman was acting on behalf of Kissinger, at his behest, or, more clearly, under his orders. Washington knew of plans by Operation Condor to assassinate dissidents in their own countries and abroad, the State Department imposed a ban on such assassinations, and Kissinger rescinded that ban, paving the way for the assassination of Letelier by Pinochet's fascist assassins in Washington less than a week later.
Is this the smoking gun that will finally make Kissinger pay for his crimes against humanity? Probably not. Democrats have a weak stomach when it comes to punishing criminals of Kissinger's calibre, and "law and order" "strong on terrorism" Republicans would push back, saying Kissinger should be carved on Mt. Rushmore for his tireless fight against democracy in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, never mind he gave foreign terrorists permission to assassinate a political figure right in the heart of our nation's capitol.
One of the more odious and unapologetic figures who features prominently in the supression of these Latin American liberation movements was Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. His fingerprints have long been on coups and assinations, to the point where Christopher Hitchens, before he went all neocon and batshit, wrote a pretty good book entitled The Trial of Henry Kissinger, which was made into a subsequent documentary which you can watch and/or download from google video. If you have an hour and twenty minutes, there's no better use of your time than watching the video.
If you don't have time, you can read two excerpts from Hitchens' book here and here
All that is a long way around to the point of this posting tonight. Word comes that Kissinger rescinded warnings against Condor assassinations, seen as essentially giving a greenlight to Chile's fascist regime to assassinate former Chilean Defense Minister Orlando Letelier in Washington in 1976.
Why does this matter now? For decades, Kissinger's defenders have said that Harry Shlaudeman, his assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, sent the cables to US ambassadors in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay on his own, countermanding an explicit State Department ban on assassinations by Southern Cone's military regimes as part of Operation Condor.
However, evidence has emerged that Shlaudeman was acting on behalf of Kissinger, at his behest, or, more clearly, under his orders. Washington knew of plans by Operation Condor to assassinate dissidents in their own countries and abroad, the State Department imposed a ban on such assassinations, and Kissinger rescinded that ban, paving the way for the assassination of Letelier by Pinochet's fascist assassins in Washington less than a week later.
Is this the smoking gun that will finally make Kissinger pay for his crimes against humanity? Probably not. Democrats have a weak stomach when it comes to punishing criminals of Kissinger's calibre, and "law and order" "strong on terrorism" Republicans would push back, saying Kissinger should be carved on Mt. Rushmore for his tireless fight against democracy in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, never mind he gave foreign terrorists permission to assassinate a political figure right in the heart of our nation's capitol.
Toxic Tea....
When is a Teabagging Republican not a Teabagging Republican? When he's running for re-election in politically-moderate Massachusetts and knows he can't pander to a miniscule but rabidly-vocal segment of the voting population and hope to get re-elected....
Newly-elected Senator Scott Brown, perhaps better known as the tucked Playgirl model candidate (eh, moderately NSFW), won Ted Kennedy's senate seat thanks in large part to the Dems fielding a weak candidate unworthy of filling such large shoes, but also in part thanks to support from the Teabaggers. And true to form, they saw his victory as a victory of their own, and a portent of things to come.
So, when the Teabaggers, fronted by Teabagging Luminary/Visionary Sarah Palin, decided to hold a "massive rally" in Boston, invited Mr. Brown to attend, he said, um, thanks but no thanks. At a time when the IRS proves more popular than the Teabaggers, even Teabagger-supported politicians know their support is toxic to the majority of correct-thinking voters.
Expect more of the same as GOP politicians jettison the brain-dead, thuggish political neophytes they shamelessly fostered and supported while it was expedient.
Newly-elected Senator Scott Brown, perhaps better known as the tucked Playgirl model candidate (eh, moderately NSFW), won Ted Kennedy's senate seat thanks in large part to the Dems fielding a weak candidate unworthy of filling such large shoes, but also in part thanks to support from the Teabaggers. And true to form, they saw his victory as a victory of their own, and a portent of things to come.
So, when the Teabaggers, fronted by Teabagging Luminary/Visionary Sarah Palin, decided to hold a "massive rally" in Boston, invited Mr. Brown to attend, he said, um, thanks but no thanks. At a time when the IRS proves more popular than the Teabaggers, even Teabagger-supported politicians know their support is toxic to the majority of correct-thinking voters.
Expect more of the same as GOP politicians jettison the brain-dead, thuggish political neophytes they shamelessly fostered and supported while it was expedient.
Massey CEO Blankenship Has Complained About 'Nonsensical' Regulation
Murderous, bloody-handed Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship thinks regulations that could have saved 25 miners were
"difficult to comply with" and "nonsensical."
You know what? Laws governing what I can and can't ingest, smoke, or drink, and laws governing sex (paid or otherwise) are nonsensical and, yes, oftentimes, difficult to comply with. But I don't have millions of dollars in my bank account to circumvent those laws like Bloody Don.
Clearly, being on the wrong side of the class war has its perks and advantages, like being able to kill 25 of your workers through negligence and defiance of safety regulations....
"difficult to comply with" and "nonsensical."
You know what? Laws governing what I can and can't ingest, smoke, or drink, and laws governing sex (paid or otherwise) are nonsensical and, yes, oftentimes, difficult to comply with. But I don't have millions of dollars in my bank account to circumvent those laws like Bloody Don.
Clearly, being on the wrong side of the class war has its perks and advantages, like being able to kill 25 of your workers through negligence and defiance of safety regulations....
Ron Paul: President Obama Is Not A Socialist
Leave it to Texas RW loony Ron Paul to school the GOP's leadership on what Obama is not -- a socialist. Instead, Ron Paul correctly describes Obama as that quintessentially-American political creature, a corporatist, a wily and cunning animal that infests and controls both major political parties, whose only reason for existence is to preserve and protect corporate capitalism at the expense of the working class.
Read the article from Talking Points Memo for the skinny on Ron Paul's remarks to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.
Read the article from Talking Points Memo for the skinny on Ron Paul's remarks to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
