thems' fightin' words...

On today's Huffington Post, one of the online articles discussed Obama's drone strike policies as well as ongoing policies of prisoners held at Guantanamo... 

During the speech, Code Pink's Medea Benjamin heckled the president... which did not sit well with quite a few posters... she was called rude and worse for interrupting the "prez"... with some posters even suggesting she deserved to be housed at "Gitmo" along with those political prisoners swept up in the aftermath of 9-11...

To which I responded...

One of the posters suggested that the president deserves respect... and yes, while true... we should all be allowed to disagree [first amendment rights] without fear of retribution...  

But currently, there are few avenues available for Americans who disagree with policy... The "fourth estate" [firmly under the control of corporations with vested interests in continuing military/war policies] will not dare report on disagreements with the government,.. for fear of losing access to those in power... 

But to Medea Benjamin and others who share her values... It takes tremendous courage to speak out forcefully, especially when it's far easier to march in lockstep which is what most Americans seem to be doing lately...
And while the effort to alter thinking does take a long time, it is possible to change minds...

And while many disagree with Medea Benjamin's tactics, she will at least make people consider the current mindthink, and whether these forever-war policies are really the way to achieve tangible world peace. 

A case in point is the Vietnam War where the American public finally grew weary watching body bags arrive on their nightly news. Succeeding administrations finally realized that showing this carnage would eventually lead to negative numbers... they continued to demonstrate the "shock and awe" bombs that would represent to the public, and to the world, this country's might and power.



 Needless to say... a few posters disagreed with me as well... Can't imagine why...

the politics of racism

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia knows nothing about “racial entitlements.” He is using however, just another catchphrase used by racists to shield them from the rage their words will elicit...

I wandered around the internet looking for answers to the question of “racial entitlements” and stumbled across this missive from blogger Tom Degan (http://tomdegan.blogspot.com/2013/03/racial-entitlements.html)...

“It could only happen in the Washington DC of 2013. At Statuary Hall inside the Capital Building, the president of the United States was dedicating a statue of Rosa Parks, the woman whose refusal to give up her seat to a white man on December 1, 1955 was the spark that ignited the modern-day civil rights movement. Meanwhile, just across town, the United States Supreme Court were debating whether or not to abolish the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the two milestone laws that are forever associated in the minds of most people with that same movement. I’m not kidding you, these two events actually occurred simultaneously. Isn’t life strange?”

Yes, Tom... life can be very strange on occasion, and it brings me back to my question... what exactly are “racial entitlements?” And why should we be concerned about them?

First, a bit of background..

According to the site HighBeam Research (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-320687950.html) the answer to whether or not racial entitlements are still pertinent is a resounding yes when it comes to the question of Section 5 (the portion of the legislation called into question by Antonin Scalia...) Congress can enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under Congress’s 15th Amendment Powers. Specifically, Section 5 halts discrimination at the outset of any voting change made in a state.

 Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy summed up this argument before the Supreme Court... “the challengers seek to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act even though that critical section has protected constitutional guarantees against discrimination in voting where 100 years of prior civil rights laws failed. The Supreme Court got it right four years ago when it upheld the constitutional authority of Congress to reauthorize Section 5 against a similar challenge.”

So what has changed in the ensuing four years? For one thing, the tea party has gained in strength... and with this new power, comes the reality that a great many tea party members seem to be racists, and strongly anti-government in their thinking (and acting). They see no problem with the elimination of Section 5, even though it would make voting problematic for many...

“Racial entitlements” is based on the concept that “present generations owe a ‘debt’ to those who have been disadvantaged by discrimination...” in other words... those individuals (read ‘black’) who have had to deal with laws intentionally barring them from stepping into a voting booth.

And let's face facts... Antonin Scalia has never been forced to deal with people belittling him for the color of his skin, nor has he received an inferior education because much of the school funding in his community was diverted to rich neighborhood schools in another community.

In truth, Antonin Scalia has no knowledge about "racial entitlements" because he's a member of the rich, privileged class and has never been forced to confront racial stereotyping that exists across this country, even today. And sadly, Scalia is also one of the justices who will move to overturn the Voting Rights Act because Alabama (that “great” bastion of racial equality) has suggested that discrimination based on the color of skin is long past, and it's time to move on...

It is a sad day indeed when a bunch of “old white, privileged men” move to dismember a piece of legislation designed to give everyone the opportunity to cast a ballot.

And contrary to Scalia’s remarks, the reality is still very unequal...

money, power & corruption rule the day...

An article in the New York Times regarding America’s CIA underwriting of the Afghanistan regime happened to catch my eye the other day... and as I read the article, I began to realize we’ve gained no knowledge and little wisdom from our experiences of propping up dictatorial leaders.

According to the article, for over a decade the Central Intelligence Agency [aka the CIA] has been dropping off “wads” of cash to President Hamid Karzai’s bagmen every month for the past decade. Problem is... it’s taxpayer funded, and I wonder how many Americans realize just how much we’ve been fortifying Karzai, while at the same time, we’ve watched a decline in our paychecks and personal wealth.

This ‘news’ really shouldn't come as a surprise, as it’s no big secret [at least in government circles...]. The CIA payola has been referred to as ‘ghost money’ meaning... “It came in secret, and it left in secret.”

I had to chuckle as I read a comment by an American official who commented “The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan was the United States.” The enormous influx of cash allowed the CIA unlimited access to Karzai and his inner circle as well as a guarantee of influence in Afghanistan’s government... But there was a problem, and a catch... 

Karzai was [at least for a while] double-dipping, and literally betting on both sides as he was accepting money from the CIA, while at the same time, accepting cash from the Iranians. However, once the Iranians got wind of our monthly payments, they stopped providing him with unlimited funds... sadly for Karzi. 

But now the cat is out of the bag, and Karzai is attempting to backpedal while the CIA is staying mum... Karzai has suggested that this money provides him with the ability to target Al Qaeda and insurgent leaders, but it’s a debatable point as the former Soviet Union leadership attempted to “buy” influence and quell a growing civil war in Afghanistan, only to bankrupt their country in the end.

And when all is said and done, President Karzai is apparently “unable to be bought,” so this episode may end [again] very badly for Americans and American influence in the Middle East... and wouldn’t that be tragic?

In 2014 there will be an additional draw-down of American troops... as President Obama has said “Our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace as Afghan security forces move into the lead. Our mission will change from combat to support. By 2014, this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.” But this doesn’t necessarily mean American troops will leave the country of Afghanistan completely, but rather, that Afghans will take more responsibility... so, the same civil war we’ve managed to smother for a few years will again explode...

And, another interesting note, Karzai’s half brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai [also on the payroll of the CIA] was assassinated in July, 2011 leaving a power vacuum in the southern tier of Afghanistan. While Ahmed Karzai was considered by many to be “a divisive power broker... accused of corruption and [who] alienated the American military, but whose connections and ruthlessness made him a critical force...”

But the question of our involvement remains unanswered... when will this buying of despotic leaders be eliminated... or will this continue to be the CIA’s preferable way of doing business worldwide long into the future?

Wish I had the answers...

America... the new nation of wusses...

According to Bill Maher, America is becoming "a nation of 'dickless' armchair warriors..."  His words, not mine...

He wondered why America spends more on defense than the next 13 countries combined... so I went and looked at the numbers... and [by jove...] he's right...

In 2012, the United States spent a staggering $1,738 trillion on national defense. The next largest defense expenditure came from China at $143 billion, followed by Russia (the former Soviet Union), the UK, France, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Australia and finally Canada weighing in at approximately $25 billion. Compared to the U.S., just a fraction on defense.

My question is... "why"... why so much for defense?

Are we really in such grave danger, or is this mostly manufactured by the "military industrial complex" to keep us in a perpetual state of fear?

Ever read George Orwell's book "1984"?

Whenever I reflect back on the book, I'm reminded of just how easy it is to shift the "bad guys" around so we're always having to look over our shoulder, which seems to be the case these days...

Remember when the "bad guys" were the former Soviet Union. For decades we learned to "duck and cover" in the event of a nuclear explosion just outside our classroom, or around the next block. Truthfully, I don't think we completely understood the ramifications of exactly what would happen in this type of event... after all, we were just kids.

We've now shifted our attention from the former Soviet Union, to the Middle East... and although the weapons aren't nearly as high tech [remember how airplanes on 9-11 were forced down using nothing more dangerous than box cutters?] And if the Middle East wasn't evil enough for America's armchair "dickless wusses," we also have threats coming from North Korea. But unless Kim Jong Un is amazingly stupid, or has an extreme death wish, he would be an utter fool to follow through with any threat against this country. I mean, really... even if he was able to get one warhead into the air, the reality of our nuclear arsenal flattening his country would destroy any hope for a second strike.

So, I think we need to get a grip...

Virginia... no longer for lovers [of democracy]

The republican/tea party in Virginia just moved from their war on women [which lost them a great deal of support in the 2011 general election] to gerrymandering the electoral process, which will ultimately shut the democratic party out of the process of "governing" unless the Virginia governor or federal attorney general decides otherwise.

The latest chapter in the ambush on democracy began as Virginia State Senator Henry Marsh III traveled to DC to watch the inauguration of President Barack Obama, with republicans taking advantage of the 20/19 split to slide this redistricting plan into place.

And, as the dust settles, I wouldn't count on the governor to do the right thing... "Bob" McDonnell told reporters on Tuesday the state Senate's Monday vote wasn't "a good way to do business," but failed to indicate whether he would sign the legislation into law.

As we continue to see these lines drawn in the proverbial sand... the question I would ask my fellow Virginians is... is this really the kind of government Thomas Jefferson envisioned? The type of government where much of the "people's work" is done in the dead of the night, or behind closed doors... out of sight of the "people" these republican/tea party legislators "pretend" to represent...

These are shameful, sad days... which we should all remember well [if we ever have the opportunity to once again cast our ballots].

thank you, barack

I must admit... I had some issues with voting for Barack Obama for a second term.

I wanted to cast my ballot for Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala but as I thought long and hard, realized I might not have the opportunity to once again choose an African American as the president of the United States during my lifetime... and so, once again I chose Barack Obama.

As I listened to Obama giving his acceptance speech, I realized this was the right choice for me. And while I have issues with the way we elect our leaders, I feel comfortable with my choice in this election cycle.

the politics of "big bird"

By now I'm sure most people have heard or read about the dilemna facing PBS following the first debate between President Obama and Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. Romney commented "I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I love Big Bird," he insisted... "I actually like you too (referring to debate moderator Jim Lehrer), but I’m going to stop borrowing money from China to pay for things we don't need."

Here's the problem... we do need PBS... we do need the programs that Romney would eliminate, because they're effective in a variety of ways and ultimately make life bearable for those living below the poverty line. But getting back to Sesame Street... it prepares very young kids with the tools necessary to move into the educational process in a non-threatening manner, by teaching them the rudiments of math, the alphabet, language, and more...

But according to Mitt Romney, we should just trash the Big Bird because we can't continue to borrow from China and Japan to "pay for things we don’t need." So, what would he continue to fund? The military, and those weapons contractors who continue to profit from our overseas incursions.

I wonder... is he speaking for himself, or for the American public?

As the election looms in the not-so-distant future, it will be the undecideds who ultimately make the choice for the presidency, not those of us who've already indicated our choice.

fun with elections 2012

Ok... the gloves are officially off.

It's about time. The last election cycle was, well... so boring... so predictable. Any party that nominates someone so dismally unsuited to the role of president (or vice president) of the United States deserves to lose big time (note to GOP... that's exactly what happened).

This one will prove to be, perhaps even more boring.

But wait... maybe not.

After all, the GOP has been scrambling to purge voter rolls in key states, and Dems have been slow to thwart this move. Meanwhile (back at the ranch), some states have continued to eliminate potential voters, even as federal judges are denying the validity of claims of voter fraud. Even if all these claims are found to be lacking in merit, in the end, the real losers in this maelstrom will be the voters themselves...

Remembering...

On July 3rd, my brother Steve would have been celebrating his 64th birthday.

Problem is, he lost his life during the war in Vietnam.

Around this time of year, I begin thinking about the waste of war... those who came before, and gave up their lives, and those down the road who will go to war never understanding the realities of war... 

I started looking at his record (according to the VirtualWall) and discovered he went to Vietnam the same year I graduated from high school. In truth, I thought it was later than that...  and now I know.

Occasionally I would receive letters from him while he was over there, "defending the nation" against the spread of communism. He spoke not about the angst of war, but rather about the banality of war... the waiting, the weather... never about the whys and where-fors.

For years I railed against the unfairness of the situation. The circumstances of his demise. The reality of our parents flying quickly to San Francisco from the east coast, only to acknowledge the loss of their first born. Never enough time to grieve, only time to plan for a funeral. The loss of a brother that many of my siblings never knew, the loss of an artist, the loss of a child... I could go on.

And by the way, I no longer buy into the necessity of Vietnam foisted upon a naive nation.

After all, communism is merely the flip side of capitalism.

The medals are a reminder that Steve no longer exists, but his name (and many others) will always rest on a memorial in Washington.

changing the world

Once again, the question of constitutionality is the issue...

For those far too young to remember, it's always about civil rights...

During the 1960s, the ugliness around civil rights for blacks in this country reached an all-time high. Civil rights workers coming into the southern states lost their lives... children were murdered and churches were bombed... marchers for racial equality were attacked by white mobs, drenched by fire hoses and attacked by dogs unleashed by those who did not believe anyone should have access to the same rights they enjoyed.

While we've come far, we've not come far enough because "civil rights" are not just about "racial equality."

In 1998, a young man named Matthew Shepard lost his life when he was attacked for being gay. A great many people were shocked and horrified by the brutality of the murder... but for those who face this descrimination, it was not so surprising because, in varying degrees, gays have faced hostility from any number of fronts... The Stonewall Riots in New York began a movement... only to be followed by Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign in California (in the late 1970s), the murder of Harvey Milk and most recently, Prop 8, which was funded in great part by the Roman Catholic Church and Mormons of Utah.

But the question: should gays and lesbians who desire to create a strong committed relationship with another like-minded individual, have the right to do so?

I believe, absolutely!

This debate is not about morality... we may agree to disagree on the topic of morality... rather, this discussion is about civil rights, not the words of the bible.

In September, these arguments will be presented to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals so, as they say "Stay tuned..."

Matthew Shepard photo: Gina van Hoof