Yesterday was certainly a day for celebration. We repudiated the sickening lies and corruption. Who wouldn't celebrate the implosion of darkness? Yet already the right is on the attack to tell us to stop right where we are. No. This administration and the corrupt absolutely do need to be held to account. They need to be held to account for their fraud and conspiracy otherwise we will not have our country back. Otherwise they or others will try and do it again.
It's not just the Repubs -- I vote Democratic this time because the lock on power absolutely needed to be smashed and there are more folks of integrity in that camp at the moment. Brave people who stood up to the bullies and spoke up about the lies and fraud. People like Conyers and Waxman and Kucinich and Boxer and Watson and Waters and Winograd. That said, there are many Dems deep in the corruption cesspool and they too need to be held to account. It is our duty to shine light into all this darkness.
This is not from revenge, but from a place of standing for what we deserve and from what we know to be true. To change, we need to see the truth. We cannot move forward without the truth. There are far too many corruptions, far too many criminal activities from the top people running the country -- we need to hold the admin accountable so that the American people broadly and deeply know what was actually done to them. So they won't ever be fooled again.
As the abused, we damn well have a right to investigate and a duty to hold the abusers to account. Forgiveness comes, but you cannot completely forgive if you really have no idea what was done to you / the country / the planet -- the harm and the insult and the rape of you.
If you are drugged and raped and aren't aware of what happens to you, you are still raped. When you come to and see the torn panties and the bruises, you better believe you'd want to get the guy who did it to you off the street and to affirm that that is not what you deserve. That would be your duty as a woman. When you press charges, you stand up for all women and say, "No! You cannot violate me. There are consequences for what you did."
I don't doubt that anyone who suggests to a woman in this situation, "Why prosecute? You really don't know exactly what happened, why bother dredging it up?" could expect a swift one in the teeth. It's insulting and demeaning. It suggests that her humanity isn't important enough to stand up for. That she doesn't need to know exactly how she was degraded. That she doesn't need to understand what twisted cogs allowed someone to think that doing that was okay.
Many people in the country have only a vague sense of what has been done to them -- they have the sickening feeling of seeing those torn panties, but aren't really conscious yet of what actually happened. To those who tell us to stop, No! there are the panties, here are the bruises -- we need to know.
We still need to root out the tentacles of the fraud so we really know who is pulling the stings and how and why. It's our duty and it would help us heal these truly great wounds. Not only that, it also would help demonstrate to the world that, beyond the planes, our country has been hijacked these past years and these arrogant raiders do not and never have represented us.
Every human being should feel vindicated today. It was a stand to shred to pieces the darkness we've had shoved down our throats and it's a grand and happy day for the planet that humans in this part of the world have spoken and acted to do so.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Holding to Account
Saturday, August 26, 2006
New 36th CD PDA Chapter
Join Marcy Winograd, Recent Congressional Candidate
Mimi Kennedy, Chair, Progressive Democrats of America
Bill Honigman, So CA Coord., Progressive Democrats of America
& Launch ...
Progressive Democrats of America
**New 36th Congressional District Chapter**
Tuesday, August 29th
6:45 (sharp) - 9:00 PM
Torrance Katy Geissert Civic Center Library
3301 Torrance Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90503
Contact Info: pdlavote@aol.com
Mimi Kennedy, Chair, Progressive Democrats of America
Bill Honigman, So CA Coord., Progressive Democrats of America
& Launch ...
Progressive Democrats of America
**New 36th Congressional District Chapter**
Tuesday, August 29th
6:45 (sharp) - 9:00 PM
Torrance Katy Geissert Civic Center Library
3301 Torrance Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90503
Contact Info: pdlavote@aol.com
THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY
Let us consider the crime of the century. It was responsible for the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people, the loss of hundreds of billions in property, the destabilization of three countries (so far), a national debt of over a trillion dollars, the crumbling of Constitutional rights, an epidemic of terrorism, an environment in which corporations run the world while ordinary people can't afford to fill their gas tanks.
And it's only 2006.
I call that unraveling of society a crime that should go down in history as one of the all time greats. But will it? Apparently not. If the criminals who did all that have their way, it will soon be forgotten.
We know that in 2000 the election was ripped out of the hands of its rightful winner Al Gore, and handed to insurgent George W. Bush. We won't mention the fact that Al Gore won by over half a million popular votes, one of the largest pluralities in American history. Nor will we review the shut-down of voting rights for thousands of African Americans. Forget the mock exercise of counting hanging chads or Tom DeLay and gang breaking in and seizing thousands of ballots.
The consummate moment in this piracy must be awarded to the highest, mightiest and certainly most universally respected body in the land, the United States Supreme Court. The "Renquist Court" as it has come to be known.
Adam Cohen, of the NY Times Editorial Board, attended a law school Supreme Court conference last fall where there was a panel on "The Renquist court" He was surprised. "No one mentioned Bush v Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist's time as chief justice," said he. "And during the Q and A no one asked about it."
When Cohen questioned this "strange omission" a law professor responded, "We were told in advance that Bush v Gore would not be discussed here or at other Rehnquist retrospectives."
Not discussed? The crime of the century would not be discussed? The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to loser George W. Bush will be permitted to sink down the legal world's memory hole?
"The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided," explains Adam Cohen, "and when Justice Antonin Scalia, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, 'Come on, get over it'!"
Get over it? Get over the crime of the century? Tell that to the Iraqi mothers who watched their children blow apart because of Bush's bombings. Tell that to the thousands who lost their homes in the floods of Katrina with no hope of replacement because Bush refuses to give them the federal help he promised. Tell that to the millions of seniors who are watching their Medicare fade away through Bush's corporate friendly healthcare laws. Tell that to the people of Lebanon and Syria and Iran and, yes Israel...all potential victims of the insane Bush/Cheney war first policies.
Get over it! says Supreme Court Justice Scalia. Translation:
'We are the highest court in the land. We can commit the mightiest crimes. We can and will order the biggest cover up. We can render the Constitution obsolete. We can redefine democracy. If we can reverse the results of a past election, we can cancel future elections. Bush-Cheney would love that! And we owe them. They gave the last two of us this job. Now we have a majority! So what do you say, 8 guys and one girl, shall we do it? When Bush-Cheney declare a state of emergency in 2008 shall we top ourselves? After all we'll be at war with at least Iran. Shall we co-operate with the two top guys as we did in 2000? Shall we cancel the election of 2008???'
What do we the people say? Shall we let the 'highest court' get away with eroding our democracy? Shall we continue to be awed by those black robes? Or shall we finally admit that what's under at least five of those robes are hack politicians with their own agenda and too much power?
In the end the people decide. To this person the Impeach Bush movement is looking better and better. I'm Lila Garrett.
And it's only 2006.
I call that unraveling of society a crime that should go down in history as one of the all time greats. But will it? Apparently not. If the criminals who did all that have their way, it will soon be forgotten.
We know that in 2000 the election was ripped out of the hands of its rightful winner Al Gore, and handed to insurgent George W. Bush. We won't mention the fact that Al Gore won by over half a million popular votes, one of the largest pluralities in American history. Nor will we review the shut-down of voting rights for thousands of African Americans. Forget the mock exercise of counting hanging chads or Tom DeLay and gang breaking in and seizing thousands of ballots.
The consummate moment in this piracy must be awarded to the highest, mightiest and certainly most universally respected body in the land, the United States Supreme Court. The "Renquist Court" as it has come to be known.
Adam Cohen, of the NY Times Editorial Board, attended a law school Supreme Court conference last fall where there was a panel on "The Renquist court" He was surprised. "No one mentioned Bush v Gore, the most historic case of William Rehnquist's time as chief justice," said he. "And during the Q and A no one asked about it."
When Cohen questioned this "strange omission" a law professor responded, "We were told in advance that Bush v Gore would not be discussed here or at other Rehnquist retrospectives."
Not discussed? The crime of the century would not be discussed? The ruling that stopped the Florida recount and handed the presidency to loser George W. Bush will be permitted to sink down the legal world's memory hole?
"The Supreme Court has not cited it once since it was decided," explains Adam Cohen, "and when Justice Antonin Scalia, was asked about it at a forum earlier this year, he snapped, 'Come on, get over it'!"
Get over it? Get over the crime of the century? Tell that to the Iraqi mothers who watched their children blow apart because of Bush's bombings. Tell that to the thousands who lost their homes in the floods of Katrina with no hope of replacement because Bush refuses to give them the federal help he promised. Tell that to the millions of seniors who are watching their Medicare fade away through Bush's corporate friendly healthcare laws. Tell that to the people of Lebanon and Syria and Iran and, yes Israel...all potential victims of the insane Bush/Cheney war first policies.
Get over it! says Supreme Court Justice Scalia. Translation:
'We are the highest court in the land. We can commit the mightiest crimes. We can and will order the biggest cover up. We can render the Constitution obsolete. We can redefine democracy. If we can reverse the results of a past election, we can cancel future elections. Bush-Cheney would love that! And we owe them. They gave the last two of us this job. Now we have a majority! So what do you say, 8 guys and one girl, shall we do it? When Bush-Cheney declare a state of emergency in 2008 shall we top ourselves? After all we'll be at war with at least Iran. Shall we co-operate with the two top guys as we did in 2000? Shall we cancel the election of 2008???'
What do we the people say? Shall we let the 'highest court' get away with eroding our democracy? Shall we continue to be awed by those black robes? Or shall we finally admit that what's under at least five of those robes are hack politicians with their own agenda and too much power?
In the end the people decide. To this person the Impeach Bush movement is looking better and better. I'm Lila Garrett.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Amen! Yesterday I just re-read Vince Bugliosi's "The Betrayal of America - How The Supreme Court Undermined The Constitution and Chose Our President" - it lays it out in detail. It truly is the Crime of the Century. The more you know about the details, the more shocking it is, and the more important it is to quash any mention of it.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
The Democrats Must Come Back Home
Democrats at the "top" Must Come Back Home
The first thing Jane Harman said to us when 20 of us met with her in her office last week was how important it was that "we" all work to elect Democrats this November. What I did not hear from her was how she and the Democrats at the top (in Washington D.C.) were planning to help us here at the grassroots. While I understand the rationale used in making its decisions, I believe the "in the beltway Democrats", as influenced by the Democratic Leadership Conference, have not been making the best choices, and here's why.
Ever since the 1980's, the Democratic Party has progressively ignored its base, the very people who have always been their allies: minorities, women, blue-collar people, immigrants, and all other aspiring people who are not part of the ruling elite. These people have been taken for granted - basically ignored. Legislation and government programs to support them has been whittled away or become toothless. The Democratic Party has catered to the "undecided", a mushy, indifferent and mercurial group, most of whom do not want to pay taxes, do not believe in the efficacy of government, and fear people who are "different"- many of these people are white males. This strategy has failed miserably. Yet the in-the-beltway operatives keep following it.
This nation has far more people who register and ally themselves with the core values of the Democratic Party than do the Republicans: equal opportunity, progressive taxation, worker and job protection, regulation of health and safety, civil rights, and so on. With each election, we see fewer and fewer Democrats voting. Why is that? It is because the Party no longer speaks for, and to, them. Washington Democrats are too busy catering to corporate lobbyists, to building a bigger military and world empire, and to ignoring the majority of the people with their needs here at home.
When we worked on the last two presidential campaigns, we received almost no money and logistical help from Washington here at the grassroots. They hounded us for money for TV ads. It was a strictly top-down operation, a complete disconnect between the bubble in Washington D.C., and the people down here on the ground.
We warned the Democratic Washington Party operatives that the new voting machines and other voter suppression schemes could jeopardize the legitimate outcome of the last election. They assured us that money and attorneys were in place to challenge this. When it actually did happen, (esp. in Ohio) John Kerry was persuaded to not contest the election!! The fear was that the nation was not strong enough to endure the heat of exposure of the crimes and sleaziness of our electoral process. The media played a big part in this, and the Democrats, being intimidated, went along with a mainstream media that is nothing more than a corporate mouthpiece for craven, right-wing plutocrats.
Just how much enthusiasm do you think this inspires in the grassroots to work for the National Democratic Party? Less and less as we have seen this past 25 years.
As I see it, the only way to regain faith in the Party is to insist elected representatives return to the traditional Democratic values. Yes, our Party is a big tent for many different views, and that is all well and good. In order to inspire people again, we must have a Party that is unified on basic principles that believe government can be used to do good, and that we live in a country that gives opportunity to everyone who plays by the rules. The Republicans have developed grassroots support and mobilized their base. They did not have to bring in people from other states to get out the vote in tight races the way the Democrats did. Such loyalty, fervor and commitment is lacking with the Democrats. That's because they have lost the infrastructure on the bottom. They have failed us since the 1980's, and they continue to follow the same worn out strategy of a top-down, pundit-driven, big money approach with no strong unifying message to motivate their base. Out of disgust, people just stay home. If the Democrats at the top want to win, they best help us mobilize their base here at the grassroots.
The first thing Jane Harman said to us when 20 of us met with her in her office last week was how important it was that "we" all work to elect Democrats this November. What I did not hear from her was how she and the Democrats at the top (in Washington D.C.) were planning to help us here at the grassroots. While I understand the rationale used in making its decisions, I believe the "in the beltway Democrats", as influenced by the Democratic Leadership Conference, have not been making the best choices, and here's why.
Ever since the 1980's, the Democratic Party has progressively ignored its base, the very people who have always been their allies: minorities, women, blue-collar people, immigrants, and all other aspiring people who are not part of the ruling elite. These people have been taken for granted - basically ignored. Legislation and government programs to support them has been whittled away or become toothless. The Democratic Party has catered to the "undecided", a mushy, indifferent and mercurial group, most of whom do not want to pay taxes, do not believe in the efficacy of government, and fear people who are "different"- many of these people are white males. This strategy has failed miserably. Yet the in-the-beltway operatives keep following it.
This nation has far more people who register and ally themselves with the core values of the Democratic Party than do the Republicans: equal opportunity, progressive taxation, worker and job protection, regulation of health and safety, civil rights, and so on. With each election, we see fewer and fewer Democrats voting. Why is that? It is because the Party no longer speaks for, and to, them. Washington Democrats are too busy catering to corporate lobbyists, to building a bigger military and world empire, and to ignoring the majority of the people with their needs here at home.
When we worked on the last two presidential campaigns, we received almost no money and logistical help from Washington here at the grassroots. They hounded us for money for TV ads. It was a strictly top-down operation, a complete disconnect between the bubble in Washington D.C., and the people down here on the ground.
We warned the Democratic Washington Party operatives that the new voting machines and other voter suppression schemes could jeopardize the legitimate outcome of the last election. They assured us that money and attorneys were in place to challenge this. When it actually did happen, (esp. in Ohio) John Kerry was persuaded to not contest the election!! The fear was that the nation was not strong enough to endure the heat of exposure of the crimes and sleaziness of our electoral process. The media played a big part in this, and the Democrats, being intimidated, went along with a mainstream media that is nothing more than a corporate mouthpiece for craven, right-wing plutocrats.
Just how much enthusiasm do you think this inspires in the grassroots to work for the National Democratic Party? Less and less as we have seen this past 25 years.
As I see it, the only way to regain faith in the Party is to insist elected representatives return to the traditional Democratic values. Yes, our Party is a big tent for many different views, and that is all well and good. In order to inspire people again, we must have a Party that is unified on basic principles that believe government can be used to do good, and that we live in a country that gives opportunity to everyone who plays by the rules. The Republicans have developed grassroots support and mobilized their base. They did not have to bring in people from other states to get out the vote in tight races the way the Democrats did. Such loyalty, fervor and commitment is lacking with the Democrats. That's because they have lost the infrastructure on the bottom. They have failed us since the 1980's, and they continue to follow the same worn out strategy of a top-down, pundit-driven, big money approach with no strong unifying message to motivate their base. Out of disgust, people just stay home. If the Democrats at the top want to win, they best help us mobilize their base here at the grassroots.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Agreed! We are not doing ourselves any favors by going 'Republican Lite'. If there are only slight differences between our positions and Republicans, why vote for a Democrat at all? It's obvious that most people don't know what we stand for as a party, and we need to start making our Democratic values (which you laid out) very clear.
Part of the problem is distortion by the mainstream media, who do not give a fair representation of Democrats, but paint them as out-of touch obstructionists with no ideas, even though we have plenty. If no one hears what they are, what difference does it make?
Friday, August 11, 2006
Operation Preaching to the Choir by Alicia Morgan
When the Presidential Selection of 2000 occurred - when the most completely unsuccessful, incompetent, unfit-for-public-office candidate was handed the Presidency by clearly unconstitutional means - I began to be really afraid. The rules were changing. The processes by which Americans chose their leaders was no longer something you could count on. However, I thought to myself, "How bad can it be? This bumbling idiot, this smirking frat-boy who failed at everything he set his hand to, even when rescued from each disaster by his powerful family - what harm can he do? He'll do his term, the public will see at once what an idiot he is and he'll be out on his ear in '04." I had no idea what was ahead of us.
As he and his handlers (the real perpetrators) rampaged through this country like (dare i say) a mad elephant, I grew more and more concerned. There seemed no way to stop the carnage, both literal and figurative. I started paying close attention, learning as much about what was going on as I could. Leaving politics to the politicians started seeming less like a good idea and more like putting my head in the sand. The more I learned, the more worried I got.
But it was the Debacle of 2004 that galvanized me into doing more than worrying.
When I woke up on November 3rd, my head was spinning. I felt as if reality had been pulled out from underneath me. I began a political blog as a way to deal with the depression and frustration which had settled on me, and started reading, writing and talking politics. It became clear to me that sitting back and hoping for other people to fix things was not going to work.
But what to do?
I felt so helpless, so hopeless, so small. How can one person make any difference? Especially a person who is not rich, influential, high-profile in any way? I am not in a position to run for office. I am not a particularly persuasive speaker. My writing audience is not a large one. I can't even change the opinions of family members - how can I expect to change the minds of millions of Americans or counteract the giant propaganda machine?
The conclusion I have come to is that, however small the action I take, it is worth doing because to not take action is giving active support to those people and positions I wish to fight against. Not only is it worth doing, but imperative, or I will not be able to face myself in the mirror.
It would be great, of course, if we could be guaranteed that by following a certain course of action, we would achieve the desired results. It would be nice to know that if we called Senator X, signed Petition Y and marched at Protest Z, that our troops would come home, that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. would resign en masse, that we'd get universal health care.
The reality is, in spite of our best efforts, we may not be able to achieve these objectives. But it does not mean that we are morally exempt from making our best efforts. If we really believe the way we say we do, then we have no choice but to work for what's right, even if we don't see a sure and smooth path to success. That, to me, is what morality is. So, to say, "I'm not going to do anything because it won't change things, or my vote doesn't count, or the process is corrupt" or any other excuse, is beside the point. We don't do what's right because we'll get what we want. We do what's right because it's right.
So here is what I'm proposing.
I have come to understand that there is a large segment of the population that, because of their emotional need, will follow this administration wherever it goes; that there is nothing awful enough that would change the minds of these people, if they have chosen to believe in these self-appointed authoritarians. If George Bush says black is white (and he does!) then that's what they'll believe. Facts, logic and reality have no place in their worldview. As Richard Pryor once said, "Who are you going to believe - me or your lying eyes?"
But I also understand that this segment is not the majority, and I am not going to attempt to change the minds of these people. The ones I'm concerned with right now are the people like me - the ones who believe in peace, in social justice, in America as it was intended to be, but are not active because they don't understand that it is necessary. I want to 'preach to the choir'.
When I was discussing this with Maryscott O'Connor of My Left Wing, she said, "What you're talking about is evangelizing." And, you know what? - she's right. That's exactly what I'm talking about.
The word 'evangelize' comes from the Greek word ("eu-aggelos") for 'bringing good news' (ε�άγγελος). It is used mainly in the context of Christianity, but it also can means bringing other kinds of 'good news' to people. If we can bring this discussion into the open, with our friends, our family, our co-workers - not the ones who already have their minds made up that whatever George Bush wants to do is just dandy because he's 'keeping us safe', but the ones who are disaffected, who are disgusted with politics and politicians. The ones who think that, since their vote will be stolen anyway, there's no use in voting. The ones who think that things will get better by themselves - that someone else is going to take care of it. These people aren't going to hear the truth from the traditional media, which is all most working people have time to pay attention to these days. So we need to bring the news to them, one person at a time. I carry around whatever book I happen to be reading - John Dean, Greg Palast, Kevin Phillips. When someone asks me what I'm reading, it's an opportunity to start a discussion. Most of the time, I've gotten very positive responses. I've found it to be a way for people who feel like we do to connect, to relate, to realize that they're not alone in feeling this way and that there is a network of people out there working toward the same thing. I can give them suggestions on ways to get active that is within reach, like volunteering on a local level, with whatever they have to offer. Perhaps phone banking for one night for a local candidate whose positions they support, perhaps making a call to a Congressperson about an issue they feel strongly about. Perhaps standing on a corner for an hour on a Friday night with some local peace activists. It's simply about getting involved on some level. Nothing earth-shattering or life-changing; just simple action. Any action at all is preferable to inaction.
There's no doubt that evangelizing is the way the right-wing religious conservatives have been able to solidify their base and bring about political change. Why shouldn't we do the same? We don't have to change our lives - just carry our values around with us and share them if we find an opportunity. Not only that, but it is a way to combat that feeling of helplessness, of paralysis in the face of the daunting task in front of us.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! I hope you'll join me in "Operation Preaching To The Choir".
As he and his handlers (the real perpetrators) rampaged through this country like (dare i say) a mad elephant, I grew more and more concerned. There seemed no way to stop the carnage, both literal and figurative. I started paying close attention, learning as much about what was going on as I could. Leaving politics to the politicians started seeming less like a good idea and more like putting my head in the sand. The more I learned, the more worried I got.
But it was the Debacle of 2004 that galvanized me into doing more than worrying.
When I woke up on November 3rd, my head was spinning. I felt as if reality had been pulled out from underneath me. I began a political blog as a way to deal with the depression and frustration which had settled on me, and started reading, writing and talking politics. It became clear to me that sitting back and hoping for other people to fix things was not going to work.
But what to do?
I felt so helpless, so hopeless, so small. How can one person make any difference? Especially a person who is not rich, influential, high-profile in any way? I am not in a position to run for office. I am not a particularly persuasive speaker. My writing audience is not a large one. I can't even change the opinions of family members - how can I expect to change the minds of millions of Americans or counteract the giant propaganda machine?
The conclusion I have come to is that, however small the action I take, it is worth doing because to not take action is giving active support to those people and positions I wish to fight against. Not only is it worth doing, but imperative, or I will not be able to face myself in the mirror.
It would be great, of course, if we could be guaranteed that by following a certain course of action, we would achieve the desired results. It would be nice to know that if we called Senator X, signed Petition Y and marched at Protest Z, that our troops would come home, that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. would resign en masse, that we'd get universal health care.
The reality is, in spite of our best efforts, we may not be able to achieve these objectives. But it does not mean that we are morally exempt from making our best efforts. If we really believe the way we say we do, then we have no choice but to work for what's right, even if we don't see a sure and smooth path to success. That, to me, is what morality is. So, to say, "I'm not going to do anything because it won't change things, or my vote doesn't count, or the process is corrupt" or any other excuse, is beside the point. We don't do what's right because we'll get what we want. We do what's right because it's right.
So here is what I'm proposing.
I have come to understand that there is a large segment of the population that, because of their emotional need, will follow this administration wherever it goes; that there is nothing awful enough that would change the minds of these people, if they have chosen to believe in these self-appointed authoritarians. If George Bush says black is white (and he does!) then that's what they'll believe. Facts, logic and reality have no place in their worldview. As Richard Pryor once said, "Who are you going to believe - me or your lying eyes?"
But I also understand that this segment is not the majority, and I am not going to attempt to change the minds of these people. The ones I'm concerned with right now are the people like me - the ones who believe in peace, in social justice, in America as it was intended to be, but are not active because they don't understand that it is necessary. I want to 'preach to the choir'.
When I was discussing this with Maryscott O'Connor of My Left Wing, she said, "What you're talking about is evangelizing." And, you know what? - she's right. That's exactly what I'm talking about.
The word 'evangelize' comes from the Greek word ("eu-aggelos") for 'bringing good news' (ε�άγγελος). It is used mainly in the context of Christianity, but it also can means bringing other kinds of 'good news' to people. If we can bring this discussion into the open, with our friends, our family, our co-workers - not the ones who already have their minds made up that whatever George Bush wants to do is just dandy because he's 'keeping us safe', but the ones who are disaffected, who are disgusted with politics and politicians. The ones who think that, since their vote will be stolen anyway, there's no use in voting. The ones who think that things will get better by themselves - that someone else is going to take care of it. These people aren't going to hear the truth from the traditional media, which is all most working people have time to pay attention to these days. So we need to bring the news to them, one person at a time. I carry around whatever book I happen to be reading - John Dean, Greg Palast, Kevin Phillips. When someone asks me what I'm reading, it's an opportunity to start a discussion. Most of the time, I've gotten very positive responses. I've found it to be a way for people who feel like we do to connect, to relate, to realize that they're not alone in feeling this way and that there is a network of people out there working toward the same thing. I can give them suggestions on ways to get active that is within reach, like volunteering on a local level, with whatever they have to offer. Perhaps phone banking for one night for a local candidate whose positions they support, perhaps making a call to a Congressperson about an issue they feel strongly about. Perhaps standing on a corner for an hour on a Friday night with some local peace activists. It's simply about getting involved on some level. Nothing earth-shattering or life-changing; just simple action. Any action at all is preferable to inaction.
There's no doubt that evangelizing is the way the right-wing religious conservatives have been able to solidify their base and bring about political change. Why shouldn't we do the same? We don't have to change our lives - just carry our values around with us and share them if we find an opportunity. Not only that, but it is a way to combat that feeling of helplessness, of paralysis in the face of the daunting task in front of us.
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! I hope you'll join me in "Operation Preaching To The Choir".
Help the Children of Marsh Fork
From Paul & Bonnie Freeman in San Pedro -- A Request to Help Build a New School in West Virginia, where their son Jordan has been assisting a community surrounded by toxic sludge. Jordan and others recently left WV to begin a 45- day walk to Washington DC to gain media attention and raise money for the school. Jordan will be fiming the walk. To learn more, check out the video below:
Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9afd2K6xx_I
Help the Children of Marsh Fork Elementary School - Support the Pennies of Promise Campaign
The children of Marsh Fork Elementary School in Sundial, West Virginia are in danger. A massive coal processing plant and silo stand a stone's throw away from their playground. Nearly 3 billion gallons of toxic sludge sit behind a leaking impoundment dam 400 yards from the school. The kids face constant health threats from the dust and other chemicals put into the air by the processing plant, and those with the authority to fix the situation, agencies like the state and local school boards, the DEP, and the EPA, have remained silent on the matter. Even the governor of West Virginia, Joe Manchin, who has said that his main concern is with the children, has fallen down on his promises.
Members of the Marsh Fork community and concerned citizens across the nation feel that now is the time to take the health and safety of these kids into our own hands. Many have come together to raise awareness and funds for a new school, and with your help, we know that the kids of Marsh Fork can be moved out of harm's way.
On this website you can find the route for Ed's walk -the list of towns where Ed plan's to stop each night. If your town is near a stop, but not on the list, Ed can still come to you if you would like to hear him speak out about Marsh Fork.
Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9afd2K6xx_I
Help the Children of Marsh Fork Elementary School - Support the Pennies of Promise Campaign
The children of Marsh Fork Elementary School in Sundial, West Virginia are in danger. A massive coal processing plant and silo stand a stone's throw away from their playground. Nearly 3 billion gallons of toxic sludge sit behind a leaking impoundment dam 400 yards from the school. The kids face constant health threats from the dust and other chemicals put into the air by the processing plant, and those with the authority to fix the situation, agencies like the state and local school boards, the DEP, and the EPA, have remained silent on the matter. Even the governor of West Virginia, Joe Manchin, who has said that his main concern is with the children, has fallen down on his promises.
Members of the Marsh Fork community and concerned citizens across the nation feel that now is the time to take the health and safety of these kids into our own hands. Many have come together to raise awareness and funds for a new school, and with your help, we know that the kids of Marsh Fork can be moved out of harm's way.
On this website you can find the route for Ed's walk -the list of towns where Ed plan's to stop each night. If your town is near a stop, but not on the list, Ed can still come to you if you would like to hear him speak out about Marsh Fork.
Comments:
Post a Comment
This has larger importance than just the school. This grand dad is capable of being a conduit to our overall energy policy. He is your basic local in WV, former miner etc. but has a strong problem with our current reliance on coal, and has the stuff to connect with the masses who are currently seeing blue, for some strange reason. A compelling guy.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
The Trainwreck that is Joe Lieberman
Without getting grandiose about it, the parallels are obvious. Two longstanding Democratic representatives in Congress representing "blue" constituencies have enabled the Bush administration to advance its dishonest Iraq war effort from its beginning through its repeat calls for exorbitant and wasteful funding, in its spying on Americans, its fear-mongering among the populace, and its metronomic attribution of everything evil in the last five years to "9/11" and "the terrorists".
On the West Coast, in the 36th Congressional District encompassing the Los Angeles County areas of Venice, Mar Vista, Torrance, the beach cities (Hermosa, Manhattan, Redondo), Wilmington, Lomita and San Pedro, Jane Harman has held sway, pleasing her defense industry supporters and enjoying her membership in the "I've Got a Secret Club" (i.e., the House Intelligence Committee). On February 12, 2006, on Meet the Press, Harman betrayed an "asleep at the wheel" approach to NSA spying, noting that she had been repeatedly briefed but found no constitutional problem with it even after the New York Times disclosed its existence the previous December. After Marcy Winograd challenged her comfy Congressional position, however, Harman re-read the Fourth Amendment and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and found our heretofore esteemed president to be "out of control", "lawless", and his policies to be in need of major overhaul, through a piece of legislation called the LISTEN Act, which she co-sponsored with John Conyers. Harman picked her "progressive" credentials out of the recycle bin on other matters as well, in April signing on to the Iraq discharge petition circulated by Dennis Kucinich beginning in December, and reorienting her website to respond to the increasingly progressive makeup of her district, which had, thanks to her friends in California's legislature in 2000, shed some Republican strongholds (e.g., Rolling Hills, Palos Verdes), and picked up Democratic ones (e.g., Mar Vista). Fast forward to primary day June 6 -- easy for me to say! -- and even with Extreme Makeover Jane letting it be known that she is and always(?) was a "progressive", Marcy captured an unheard-of 38% of the primary vote, in just three months of frenetic, vibrant, energetic, hyperkinetic inspiring campaigning.
Poor nutmeg Joe Lieberman. His Democratic opponent, Ned Lamont, has much more of the essential resources at his disposal -- time and money -- than did Marcy. He is a millionaire, he has been on the stump for a long time, he has the blogosphere working overtime for him, and today, he received the extraordinary endorsement of the New York Times. How often has anyone heard of a major newspaper weighing in against the incumbent in a primary?
But there's more: Lieberman has not seen fit to change his position on anything, preferring the argument that he is "principled" and courageous in his steadfast persistent accommodation of the Bush agenda. His Democratic Leadership Council cohorts -- and sadly, some of his Incumbent Club allies, like Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and the less-disappointing marginal Dems, Bill Nelson and Ken Salazar -- decry the Joeponents' alleged call for "ideological purity". But the Lieberman opposition, focused as it is on the Iraq war, goes beyond that to Joe's assistance on the Bush corporate agenda -- an anti-consumer bankruptcy bill, statist Supreme Court nominees, and other corporate welfare items -- and further still.
There are the repugnant optics. In the blogosphere, and for that matter, in a recent New Republic article, we are regularly treated to the iconic visual of a Bush/Lieberman physical embrace, Dubya's lips on Joe's neck. Joe has sallied forth fully into the Bush realm of "yer with us or yer agin us", when, as a veteran in Congress with some MOR cred to "spend", he should have been sensitively and intelligently leading the loyal opposition.
In short, Joe has become a domestic Tony Blair for our Commander in Chief. What has Joe received in return? Perhaps some defense industry (submarine?) pork for Connecticut, and the undying enmity of the progressives in his party. Perhaps he could be forgiven for his sanctimony in dressing down Bill Clinton in 1998 for his self-destructive dalliances and his inept handling of the legal aftermath, since it could be argued that Lieberman's intent was to stop the bleeding short of impeachment. But where is righteous Joe when our hard-workin' wartime president breaks the law and tells us he'd do it again? Why wasn't he by Russ Feingold's side when Feingold called merely for censure for all the damage, not to mention high crimes and misdemeanors, propagated by our White House occupant? Joe's still in denial.
It gets worse still. Joe has proven himself not merely holier than thou, telling us all how to be loyal, he has established an exquisite double standard on fealty. Back in 2000, he selfishly ran both for CT Senator and Vice President with Al Gore, which guaranteed that the Senate would remain controlled by Republicans, since if Gore had won, a Republican CT governor would have chosen Joe's replacement, whereas he could have allowed an unencumbered Democrat to independently win that seat in that event. With the loss -- let's not revisit 2000's Supreme/divine intervention for now -- of the contest, Lieberman returned to a Senate with voting ties to be broken by the Worst Vice President of all time, "five deferments" Dick Cheney. Joe continues that "I'm too good a resource to sacrifice" approach this year, vowing -- as his numbers dip below victory level in primary polls -- to run as an "independent" in the event Lamont defeats him. Lamont, to his credit, has declared himself a Lieberman supporter if Joe wins on August 8.
Finally, with the strong showing by Marcy in June, and an expected stronger showing, and perhaps outright victory, for Lamont in little more than a week, the grassroots, the anti-war sentiment, the little "d" democrats, the true progressives, are demonstrating their power and capacity to organize and electrify the electorate. Marcy won outright in Venice, Mar Vista and came close in other portions of the 36th (e.g., (West LA, Lennox). Those voters were motivated by Marcy's message, and undoubtedly, by deep dissatisfaction with the complacent status quo. In Connecticut, we see much of the same: high anti-Lieberman motivation, perhaps further agitated by Lieberman's mild-mannered contempt for the voters, who, he says, might stay home rather than venture out on a hot summer day. Joe has not yet figured it out -- whereas Harman wisely acknowledged a message received, if not necessarily heeded -- and shows no signs of doing so before he is turned out by his own party. That just shows that he has outlived his usefulness in the deliberative chamber of Congress, and deserves the defenestration so many Connecticut (and other) Democrats are preparing to give him.
On the West Coast, in the 36th Congressional District encompassing the Los Angeles County areas of Venice, Mar Vista, Torrance, the beach cities (Hermosa, Manhattan, Redondo), Wilmington, Lomita and San Pedro, Jane Harman has held sway, pleasing her defense industry supporters and enjoying her membership in the "I've Got a Secret Club" (i.e., the House Intelligence Committee). On February 12, 2006, on Meet the Press, Harman betrayed an "asleep at the wheel" approach to NSA spying, noting that she had been repeatedly briefed but found no constitutional problem with it even after the New York Times disclosed its existence the previous December. After Marcy Winograd challenged her comfy Congressional position, however, Harman re-read the Fourth Amendment and the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and found our heretofore esteemed president to be "out of control", "lawless", and his policies to be in need of major overhaul, through a piece of legislation called the LISTEN Act, which she co-sponsored with John Conyers. Harman picked her "progressive" credentials out of the recycle bin on other matters as well, in April signing on to the Iraq discharge petition circulated by Dennis Kucinich beginning in December, and reorienting her website to respond to the increasingly progressive makeup of her district, which had, thanks to her friends in California's legislature in 2000, shed some Republican strongholds (e.g., Rolling Hills, Palos Verdes), and picked up Democratic ones (e.g., Mar Vista). Fast forward to primary day June 6 -- easy for me to say! -- and even with Extreme Makeover Jane letting it be known that she is and always(?) was a "progressive", Marcy captured an unheard-of 38% of the primary vote, in just three months of frenetic, vibrant, energetic, hyperkinetic inspiring campaigning.
Poor nutmeg Joe Lieberman. His Democratic opponent, Ned Lamont, has much more of the essential resources at his disposal -- time and money -- than did Marcy. He is a millionaire, he has been on the stump for a long time, he has the blogosphere working overtime for him, and today, he received the extraordinary endorsement of the New York Times. How often has anyone heard of a major newspaper weighing in against the incumbent in a primary?
But there's more: Lieberman has not seen fit to change his position on anything, preferring the argument that he is "principled" and courageous in his steadfast persistent accommodation of the Bush agenda. His Democratic Leadership Council cohorts -- and sadly, some of his Incumbent Club allies, like Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and the less-disappointing marginal Dems, Bill Nelson and Ken Salazar -- decry the Joeponents' alleged call for "ideological purity". But the Lieberman opposition, focused as it is on the Iraq war, goes beyond that to Joe's assistance on the Bush corporate agenda -- an anti-consumer bankruptcy bill, statist Supreme Court nominees, and other corporate welfare items -- and further still.
There are the repugnant optics. In the blogosphere, and for that matter, in a recent New Republic article, we are regularly treated to the iconic visual of a Bush/Lieberman physical embrace, Dubya's lips on Joe's neck. Joe has sallied forth fully into the Bush realm of "yer with us or yer agin us", when, as a veteran in Congress with some MOR cred to "spend", he should have been sensitively and intelligently leading the loyal opposition.
In short, Joe has become a domestic Tony Blair for our Commander in Chief. What has Joe received in return? Perhaps some defense industry (submarine?) pork for Connecticut, and the undying enmity of the progressives in his party. Perhaps he could be forgiven for his sanctimony in dressing down Bill Clinton in 1998 for his self-destructive dalliances and his inept handling of the legal aftermath, since it could be argued that Lieberman's intent was to stop the bleeding short of impeachment. But where is righteous Joe when our hard-workin' wartime president breaks the law and tells us he'd do it again? Why wasn't he by Russ Feingold's side when Feingold called merely for censure for all the damage, not to mention high crimes and misdemeanors, propagated by our White House occupant? Joe's still in denial.
It gets worse still. Joe has proven himself not merely holier than thou, telling us all how to be loyal, he has established an exquisite double standard on fealty. Back in 2000, he selfishly ran both for CT Senator and Vice President with Al Gore, which guaranteed that the Senate would remain controlled by Republicans, since if Gore had won, a Republican CT governor would have chosen Joe's replacement, whereas he could have allowed an unencumbered Democrat to independently win that seat in that event. With the loss -- let's not revisit 2000's Supreme/divine intervention for now -- of the contest, Lieberman returned to a Senate with voting ties to be broken by the Worst Vice President of all time, "five deferments" Dick Cheney. Joe continues that "I'm too good a resource to sacrifice" approach this year, vowing -- as his numbers dip below victory level in primary polls -- to run as an "independent" in the event Lamont defeats him. Lamont, to his credit, has declared himself a Lieberman supporter if Joe wins on August 8.
Finally, with the strong showing by Marcy in June, and an expected stronger showing, and perhaps outright victory, for Lamont in little more than a week, the grassroots, the anti-war sentiment, the little "d" democrats, the true progressives, are demonstrating their power and capacity to organize and electrify the electorate. Marcy won outright in Venice, Mar Vista and came close in other portions of the 36th (e.g., (West LA, Lennox). Those voters were motivated by Marcy's message, and undoubtedly, by deep dissatisfaction with the complacent status quo. In Connecticut, we see much of the same: high anti-Lieberman motivation, perhaps further agitated by Lieberman's mild-mannered contempt for the voters, who, he says, might stay home rather than venture out on a hot summer day. Joe has not yet figured it out -- whereas Harman wisely acknowledged a message received, if not necessarily heeded -- and shows no signs of doing so before he is turned out by his own party. That just shows that he has outlived his usefulness in the deliberative chamber of Congress, and deserves the defenestration so many Connecticut (and other) Democrats are preparing to give him.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Absolutely time to replace Joe Lieberman.
I got involved in Marcy Winograd's campaign late, and did a little bit to help given that I didn't have a lot of time. But I did what little I could, and I am proud of that support. It is essential to keep on Jane Harman, no doubt about that, as she will likely slip backward without constantly paying attention to her.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Living in Fear Together, Or Iraq War Redux
Israel and Lebanon are at war again. The world asks themselves haven't they had enough? The slim Israeli justification for launching real war -- the capture of an Israeli soldier -- now looks as convenient as the White House's claims of WMD in Iraq. Tanya Reinhart, leading Israeli scholar and commentator, reports the Israeli army was preparing for an attack months earlier, with the goal of destroying the Hamas infrastructure and its government.
For its part, Hezbollah is the David, benefiting from the absurdity of foisting primitive rock-ets at military Goliath Israel.
"The military arrogance of Israel, the fact that Israel is bombarding a helpless country like Lebanon, destroying its infrastructure, dismantling the state, is making people more and more angry," [said Labib Kamhawi, political scientist in Amman, the Jordanian capital].
"I feel a sense of pride because of this small group of people who are capable of fighting the state of Israel and all its military power," said Fayez Smet, a criminal defense lawyer. "Whether they win or not, they are heroes." (from LA Times A Divide Deepens in Arab World)
As tragic as all the events are, the entire conflict seems to me the last gasp of macho, without real power -- a desperate flailing about. Both groups are without answers. All that remains are habits. The habit of retaliation, the habit of expanding old wounds with fresh gashes, the habit of war.
John Keegan, one of the world's foremost military historians, says in his masterpiece A History of Warfare, To refuse to recognize that politics leading to war are a poisonous intoxication, we do not need to believe, like Margaret Mead, that war is an 'invention'…. All that we need to accept is that, over the course of 4000 years of experiment and repetition, warmaking has become a habit.… Unless we unlearn the habits we have taught ourselves, we shall not survive.
The habit of war prevents both sides from seeing any common ground. Neither can acknowledge that past and present horrors suffered by both sides have given them the common experience of grief, oppression and fear. Recognition that they do have such a fundamental experience in common can lead to sympathy, compassion and eventual trust. These are the conditions that lead to the peace and safety both claim to want. Both groups will wildly flail around until the other recognizes and honors the deeply human desire they share to be safe and free.
The majority of people throughout the region seem as weary of these habits of war as the world is of reading about them. It is the leaders -- without effective answers, feeling impotent to solve the problems, and benefiting from illusions of potency -- who are now resorting to macho indiscriminate demonstrations of power. These displays merely highlight their true impotence -- they don't solve anything and cause more of the grief, oppression and fear they are purportedly trying to end.
"Why should we be the only ones who live in fear?" said Muhammad Abu Oukal, a student at the Islamic University in Gaza City. "With these rockets, the Israelis feel fear, too. We will have to live in peace together, or live in fear together." (from The New York Times Rockets Create a 'Balance of Fear' With Israel, Gaza Residents Say)
I have hope that the truth of this student's last statement is now self evident, that the choice rings clearly inside enough people of the Middle East, indeed inside enough people in the world, that the leaders benefiting from world calamity will find themselves alone, abandoned, defrocked of any illusion that they are making progress.
When enough people see the truth of the manipulation, the flaccid reality of their current leaders, the opening can come to unlearn the habits we have taught ourselves.
For its part, Hezbollah is the David, benefiting from the absurdity of foisting primitive rock-ets at military Goliath Israel.
"The military arrogance of Israel, the fact that Israel is bombarding a helpless country like Lebanon, destroying its infrastructure, dismantling the state, is making people more and more angry," [said Labib Kamhawi, political scientist in Amman, the Jordanian capital].
"I feel a sense of pride because of this small group of people who are capable of fighting the state of Israel and all its military power," said Fayez Smet, a criminal defense lawyer. "Whether they win or not, they are heroes." (from LA Times A Divide Deepens in Arab World)
As tragic as all the events are, the entire conflict seems to me the last gasp of macho, without real power -- a desperate flailing about. Both groups are without answers. All that remains are habits. The habit of retaliation, the habit of expanding old wounds with fresh gashes, the habit of war.
John Keegan, one of the world's foremost military historians, says in his masterpiece A History of Warfare, To refuse to recognize that politics leading to war are a poisonous intoxication, we do not need to believe, like Margaret Mead, that war is an 'invention'…. All that we need to accept is that, over the course of 4000 years of experiment and repetition, warmaking has become a habit.… Unless we unlearn the habits we have taught ourselves, we shall not survive.
The habit of war prevents both sides from seeing any common ground. Neither can acknowledge that past and present horrors suffered by both sides have given them the common experience of grief, oppression and fear. Recognition that they do have such a fundamental experience in common can lead to sympathy, compassion and eventual trust. These are the conditions that lead to the peace and safety both claim to want. Both groups will wildly flail around until the other recognizes and honors the deeply human desire they share to be safe and free.
The majority of people throughout the region seem as weary of these habits of war as the world is of reading about them. It is the leaders -- without effective answers, feeling impotent to solve the problems, and benefiting from illusions of potency -- who are now resorting to macho indiscriminate demonstrations of power. These displays merely highlight their true impotence -- they don't solve anything and cause more of the grief, oppression and fear they are purportedly trying to end.
"Why should we be the only ones who live in fear?" said Muhammad Abu Oukal, a student at the Islamic University in Gaza City. "With these rockets, the Israelis feel fear, too. We will have to live in peace together, or live in fear together." (from The New York Times Rockets Create a 'Balance of Fear' With Israel, Gaza Residents Say)
I have hope that the truth of this student's last statement is now self evident, that the choice rings clearly inside enough people of the Middle East, indeed inside enough people in the world, that the leaders benefiting from world calamity will find themselves alone, abandoned, defrocked of any illusion that they are making progress.
When enough people see the truth of the manipulation, the flaccid reality of their current leaders, the opening can come to unlearn the habits we have taught ourselves.
Comments:
Post a Comment
I'm afraid it will take more than logic to pull us out of this spiral As I speak to people in charge of the South Bay, I find that there remain few who understand who is on which side. This is a problem. There is little logic in the claims for future employment. There is little logic in the approach to educating students. Lets firt review the "instructions for securing your bed," then decide who to believe in the maternity game.
Thanks,
Carl
Restoring Our Lost Dignity
The historic U.S. Supreme Court decision in Hamdan v Rumsfeld set a precedent that could eventually bring down the White House and serve as a legal basis for charges of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" against President Bush and criminal charges against Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld and a phalanx of senior and junior administration officials.
In Hamdan, the Court held that, at a minimum, the prohibitions against torture and degrading treatment guaranteed by Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions covered all detainees in U.S. custody around the world, including members of Al Queda, whom Bush has been treating as beyond the protection of international law.
Whether it is impeachment in the United States, an international court or a war crimes tribunal, for the shameful conduct they have participated in, for the torture, abuse and murder of prisoners in U.S. custody, those in charge of this government should be held accountable.
For too long the American people have ignored the details of such inhumane abuse and torture. For too long the American people have accepted the easy excuses of George Bush that "we don't torture." For too long we have let his lawyers get away with torturing the definition of torture.
In fact, credible evidence from a wide range of sources, including government investigations, as well as over 100,000 government documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from the FBI, and the Departments of Justice, Defense and State, show a systematic pattern of torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. custody around the world. Many of these documents are available in PDF form at the ACLU site.
FBI agents, not just detainees, describe specific instances of physical and psychological abuse, sexual humiliation, "torture techniques," as well as inhuman and degrading conditions of confinement.
A separate report submitted in February 2006 by five experts from the Commission on Human Rights documented similar acts of U.S. torture and abuse. See this PDF at the BBC News site.
For example, Guantanamo detainees have been tied to a leash and led around like dogs, forced to wear women’s undergarments, stripped naked, held in isolation for months on end, subjected to 48 and 54 consecutive days of 18- to 20-hour interrogations, subjected to sleep deprivation, soldiers seeing who could make more detainees urinate or defecate on themselves, being chained hand and foot to the floor for 18 to 24 hours without food or water, subjected to temperatures below freezing and well over 100 degrees, being gagged with duct tape that covered much of their heads, being kept for months on end in isolation in their cell, which was always flooded with light, and of investigators breaking the vertebrae of a Guantanamo detainee (who was later exonerated) by stomping on his back, dropping him on the floor and repeatedly forcing his neck backward, leaving him in a wheelchair.
That is what has been done in our name. That is why the world "hates us," as the President seems to weirdly wrap himself in that expression. That is why this President has violated the Constitution and international law. If, after this coming election, the majority in the House of Representatives holds hearings and eventually votes Articles of Impeachment, if that happens, we will begin the process in this country of restoring for ourselves, and for our place in the world, some measure of our lost dignity.
In Hamdan, the Court held that, at a minimum, the prohibitions against torture and degrading treatment guaranteed by Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions covered all detainees in U.S. custody around the world, including members of Al Queda, whom Bush has been treating as beyond the protection of international law.
Whether it is impeachment in the United States, an international court or a war crimes tribunal, for the shameful conduct they have participated in, for the torture, abuse and murder of prisoners in U.S. custody, those in charge of this government should be held accountable.
For too long the American people have ignored the details of such inhumane abuse and torture. For too long the American people have accepted the easy excuses of George Bush that "we don't torture." For too long we have let his lawyers get away with torturing the definition of torture.
In fact, credible evidence from a wide range of sources, including government investigations, as well as over 100,000 government documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from the FBI, and the Departments of Justice, Defense and State, show a systematic pattern of torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. custody around the world. Many of these documents are available in PDF form at the ACLU site.
FBI agents, not just detainees, describe specific instances of physical and psychological abuse, sexual humiliation, "torture techniques," as well as inhuman and degrading conditions of confinement.
A separate report submitted in February 2006 by five experts from the Commission on Human Rights documented similar acts of U.S. torture and abuse. See this PDF at the BBC News site.
For example, Guantanamo detainees have been tied to a leash and led around like dogs, forced to wear women’s undergarments, stripped naked, held in isolation for months on end, subjected to 48 and 54 consecutive days of 18- to 20-hour interrogations, subjected to sleep deprivation, soldiers seeing who could make more detainees urinate or defecate on themselves, being chained hand and foot to the floor for 18 to 24 hours without food or water, subjected to temperatures below freezing and well over 100 degrees, being gagged with duct tape that covered much of their heads, being kept for months on end in isolation in their cell, which was always flooded with light, and of investigators breaking the vertebrae of a Guantanamo detainee (who was later exonerated) by stomping on his back, dropping him on the floor and repeatedly forcing his neck backward, leaving him in a wheelchair.
That is what has been done in our name. That is why the world "hates us," as the President seems to weirdly wrap himself in that expression. That is why this President has violated the Constitution and international law. If, after this coming election, the majority in the House of Representatives holds hearings and eventually votes Articles of Impeachment, if that happens, we will begin the process in this country of restoring for ourselves, and for our place in the world, some measure of our lost dignity.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Months back I published an article on opednews.com, titled: "A Message to Republicans: Impeaching Bush Will Strengthen America at Home and Thoughout the World."
In that article, I expressed my belief that America's salvation could only be achieved by impeaching George W. Bush to prove to the world that the murderous, war-mongering tactics of the Bush Administration are neither sanctioned nor accepted by the majority of America's people.
Unfortunately, with the current situation in the middle east and the American government's perverse endorsement of Israel's destruction of Palestine and Lebanon, I fear it may be too late to salvage any semblance of world respect.
But, always the optimist, I hold Stephen Rhode's hopeful words to be true, whereby:
"if after this coming election, the majority in the House of Representatives holds hearings and eventually votes Articles of Impeachment, if that happens, we will begin the process in this country of restoring for ourselves, and for our place in the world, some measure of our lost dignity."
If America and Americans are to recover any measure of world respect, there is little time to do so. We must act NOW. We must vote out the war-mongers this coming November. We must pound on the doors of Congress, march through the halls of Congress, and overwhelm the Capital Mall with millions of Americans demanding a change in government, an end to global tryanny, and an end to endless war.
A footnote: This past weekend Nute Gingridge twinkled when talking of World War III. Joe Biden bared his "veneers" and threatened the annihilation of North Korea. Conservatives chastised Bush for insufficient agression toward North Korea and Iran.
Time is running out, folks. Need I say more?!
I made this video to help try and stop Jane Harman and her attack on our Constitution. STOP JANE HARMAN!
I give anyone and everyone permission to share this video with as many people as you can.
Copy and Paste
http://www.uaff.us/stophr1955.wmv
B.A. Brooks
www.uaff.us
