There's two good articles on Sen. Obama making the rounds this weekend. There are links below to them on Dissident Voice.
One is from John Pilger. Mr. Pilger is an experienced journalist who always seems to have a true eye for what's going on in the world.
From Kennedy to Obama: Liberalism’s Last Fling, by John Pilger
The other is from Glen Ford.
Barack Obama vs Black Self-Determination, by Glen Ford
Both of these links goes to the www.dissidentvoice.org website. That's a good source of good reading of what's going around on the web.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Day Diplomacy Died
This is a great read!
The Day Diplomacy Died on the Foriegn Policy in Focus website.
-----------------
Of course, being a cynic, I'd suggest that it may have been Barack Obama's retreat from the notion of talking to our enemies that might have been the real death blow. In the last week or so, Mr. Obama has retreated from the idea of talking to either Mr. Castro or Mr. Ahmadinejad. In the case of Mr. Castro, by using the old trick of placing unacceptable pre-conditions on the conversation. This has of course been a favorite tactic of those who want to publicly proclaim a willingness to talk but who actually have no intention of ever talking.
Thus, it was at this point that poor old Diplomacy realized it was doomed no matter whether it was killed publicly by Sen. McCain or quietly behind the scenes by Sen. Obama. Diplomacy then lost its last will to live and slipped quietly into the great beyond.
The Day Diplomacy Died on the Foriegn Policy in Focus website.
"In our special Memorial Day edition, World Beat is publishing an obituary for Diplomacy, which died prematurely last week after an extended illness.
The last seven years or so were difficult ones for Diplomacy. According to press reports, the mainstay of foreign policy began complaining of chest pains and nausea in 2001. In the lead-up to the Iraq War, Diplomacy sustained several shocks to the system, went into intensive care, and very nearly succumbed. But it was last week that its heart and soul finally gave up after a double-barreled assault by President George W. Bush and his presumptive successor John McCain."
...
"The killing blow, however, came from John McCain. The Republican presidential candidate assailed Diplomacy in an effort to get at Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. According to McCain, Obama doesn’t understand the “basic realities of international relations” because he favors sitting down and talking to people like Raul Castro in Cuba and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. McCain’s words, and the possibility that he might bring such an attitude into the White House in 2009, were simply too much for Diplomacy"
-----------------
Of course, being a cynic, I'd suggest that it may have been Barack Obama's retreat from the notion of talking to our enemies that might have been the real death blow. In the last week or so, Mr. Obama has retreated from the idea of talking to either Mr. Castro or Mr. Ahmadinejad. In the case of Mr. Castro, by using the old trick of placing unacceptable pre-conditions on the conversation. This has of course been a favorite tactic of those who want to publicly proclaim a willingness to talk but who actually have no intention of ever talking.
Thus, it was at this point that poor old Diplomacy realized it was doomed no matter whether it was killed publicly by Sen. McCain or quietly behind the scenes by Sen. Obama. Diplomacy then lost its last will to live and slipped quietly into the great beyond.
Said it right .... again
There's an author out there named William Lind. I like reading his views on military policy, even if I don't always agree with his politics. But, I've got to give him kudos because for the second time in the short span for which I've been trying this, I've seen a quote from one of his pieces that says something so well that I've got to pull it out and put it here.
"The “Washington Game” is to create an image with the public that is a direct opposite to what the Senator or Congressman actually does behind closed doors"
and later in the same article ...
"Why do defense companies buy full-page ads in major newspapers? Not because anyone buys a fighter plane based on a newspaper ad, but because the six-figure price for a full page buys the newspaper."
From ... The Ancient History of Military Reform The article is a review of a book by Winslow Wheeler and Lawerence Korb titled "Military Reform: A Reference Handbook" that I suspect I'll have to go read.
Usually, I find Mr. Lind's writings at Defense and the National Interest
You can find Mr. Wheeler's writings at www.counterpunch.org You can search the site for his writings, including an excellent series on the true amounts we are spending on 'defense'. Search
"The “Washington Game” is to create an image with the public that is a direct opposite to what the Senator or Congressman actually does behind closed doors"
and later in the same article ...
"Why do defense companies buy full-page ads in major newspapers? Not because anyone buys a fighter plane based on a newspaper ad, but because the six-figure price for a full page buys the newspaper."
From ... The Ancient History of Military Reform The article is a review of a book by Winslow Wheeler and Lawerence Korb titled "Military Reform: A Reference Handbook" that I suspect I'll have to go read.
Usually, I find Mr. Lind's writings at Defense and the National Interest
You can find Mr. Wheeler's writings at www.counterpunch.org You can search the site for his writings, including an excellent series on the true amounts we are spending on 'defense'. Search
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Don't get whiplash trying to follow him
Every four years, usually a bit earlier in the season than this, we all get to watch the spectacle of watching the Democratic Presidential candidates turn hard to the right. Up till now, they lie to the Democratic base about what a wonderful lefty President they'll be. They do this get the base of the Democratic Party, which is far to the left of the candidates, to give them the nomination.
But, by this time in every cycle, we get to watch the Democratic Presidential candidate, with their nomination secured, turn hard to the right, never to be seen again on the left side of the political spectrum.
Is Obama turning Right?
Its like watching Lucy con Charlie Brown into trying to kick the football. Same result every time.
But, by this time in every cycle, we get to watch the Democratic Presidential candidate, with their nomination secured, turn hard to the right, never to be seen again on the left side of the political spectrum.
Is Obama turning Right?
Its like watching Lucy con Charlie Brown into trying to kick the football. Same result every time.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Memorial Day
The holiday we celebrate as Memorial Day originated in the years immediately following the American Civil War. The American Civil War was a long, bloody and destructive affair. Like most wars it began with dreams of it being a quick and victorious war. Like with most wars, both sides thought they'd quickly vanquish their enemies. But it turned into a long four year struggle, ending with battles in Virginia that approached World War II trench warfare. It ended with waves of soldiers dying attempt to assault entrenchments at Cold Harbor, and with a long siege of the trenches at Petersberg.
After the war, people tried to make sense of the slaughter. In the north, people had to believe it was all worth it. That the ideals for which the north fought the war had been worth all the sons and brothers and fathers who were now missing or crippled. In the south, the myth of the 'Lost Cause' quickly sprang up to give meaning to their own deaths and injuries.
But, another deep feeling in the country in those early Memorial Days had to be a questioning of whether it had all been worth it. A looking at the horrendous cost of war, and questioning as to whether or not there had been another way to resolve the issues without so much death and destruction.
Today, Memorial Day has become simply a second Veterans Day. We are all told to stand and salute the soldiers and sailors and airmen who are in lands far, far away performing the Orwellian phrase of 'defending America'. What we aren't supposed to do at all is to question whether or not it is worth it? Nor even to question whether America is being defended by invading countries on the far side of the world. And certainly not ever to look at the caskets with the flags, which we no longer see, and ask whether or not this was all necessary. Nor to think about how violence always seems to beget more violence, and usually makes the original problems worse.
I can't help but to think that some of the survivors of the American Civil War must have been asking some of the same questions as they decorated the fresh graves on the first 'Decoration Days'.
-------------------
From the Libertarian Right, Sheldon Richman seems to think the holiday needs a different name.
Happy Revisionist History Day
After the war, people tried to make sense of the slaughter. In the north, people had to believe it was all worth it. That the ideals for which the north fought the war had been worth all the sons and brothers and fathers who were now missing or crippled. In the south, the myth of the 'Lost Cause' quickly sprang up to give meaning to their own deaths and injuries.
But, another deep feeling in the country in those early Memorial Days had to be a questioning of whether it had all been worth it. A looking at the horrendous cost of war, and questioning as to whether or not there had been another way to resolve the issues without so much death and destruction.
Today, Memorial Day has become simply a second Veterans Day. We are all told to stand and salute the soldiers and sailors and airmen who are in lands far, far away performing the Orwellian phrase of 'defending America'. What we aren't supposed to do at all is to question whether or not it is worth it? Nor even to question whether America is being defended by invading countries on the far side of the world. And certainly not ever to look at the caskets with the flags, which we no longer see, and ask whether or not this was all necessary. Nor to think about how violence always seems to beget more violence, and usually makes the original problems worse.
I can't help but to think that some of the survivors of the American Civil War must have been asking some of the same questions as they decorated the fresh graves on the first 'Decoration Days'.
-------------------
From the Libertarian Right, Sheldon Richman seems to think the holiday needs a different name.
Happy Revisionist History Day
Saturday, May 24, 2008
For and Opposed to Impeachment
Here are links to two news stories. Both give the views of Presidential candidates on the matter of the impeachment of George W. Bush.
Nader Calls for Bush-Cheney Impeachment
Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable
Lets review a bit.
The Constitution calls for impeachment upon the commission of high crimes or misdemeanors. Back in high school civics, impeachment is listed as one of the key checks and balances between the branches of government. The writers of the Constitution were afraid of a strong powerful President, and impeachment is one of the mechanisms they put into place to attempt to contain that possibility.
There have been two impeachments in my lifetime, so we've seen the flow of events. The first stage is to have a committee of the House of Representatives hold hearings into whether or not there is evidence worthy of a charge of impeachment. If they say yes, then it moves to the full House which must also say yes. Only then does the case move to the US Senate which holds the actual impeachment trial.
Thus, since the process has not yet been begun, the real question before the nation is whether there exists enough evidence or suspicion of the commission of impeachable crimes that its worth holding hearings to further investigate.
To me, the answer is an obvious yes. Entire books have been written giving the reasons. I'll just list two very quickly. Remember, only one should be needed.
-- The Sec. Gen. of the UN, Kofi Annan, has publically said that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of the UN Charter. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US. The US Constitution says that any such ratified treaty becomes the highest law in the land. We have someone who can be considered an expert on the matter saying that the President violated the highest law in the land. And it is not on a casual matter, but over the matter of starting a war which has killed over 4000 Americans and who knows how many other human beings. Why is this not cause enough to hold hearings to investigate. ( Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan )
-- George W. Bush stood up before the nation and publicly announced he'd been regularly violating the law. He announced he'd been violating the FISA act, and that he intended to continue to do so. Again, this is over a very serious matter, the illegal spying on American citizens in violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and federal law. At the time, that statement would seem to be almost certain cause to hold hearings into impeachment. (Instead, the Congress passed a bill granting a retroactive immunity).
Now, lets go to the two candidates:
Impeachment -- Ralph Nader for President
"Volumes can and will be written, about what can go down as the most serious abdication of impeachment responsibilities by a Congress in its history. No other president has committed more systemic, repeated impeachable offenses, with such serious consequences to this country, its people, to Iraq, its people and the security of this nation before, than George W. Bush."
Obama, to the USA Today in the link above
""I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said."
Wow, makes one wonder what Mr. Obama considers to be 'grave, grave breaches' if an illegal war and illegally spying on Americans don't make the list. 4000+ dead Americans and key Constitutional rights shredded, and this isn't grave?
I wanted to be fair and quote from Mr. Obama's campaign website like I did from Mr. Nader's. But, near as I can tell impeachment isn't an issue at all to the Obama campaign. It doesn't seem to be mentioned.
The key thing to know is that for the last two years, the Democrats have basically been propping up George W. Bush in office. There has been clear evidence of a need to investigate possible impeachable offenses, and the Democrats have blocked that from proceeding.
As members of the US Congress, they all took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Including Senator Obama. How you feel they've lived up to that oath should be a very important question in the minds of voters.
Nader Calls for Bush-Cheney Impeachment
Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable
Lets review a bit.
The Constitution calls for impeachment upon the commission of high crimes or misdemeanors. Back in high school civics, impeachment is listed as one of the key checks and balances between the branches of government. The writers of the Constitution were afraid of a strong powerful President, and impeachment is one of the mechanisms they put into place to attempt to contain that possibility.
There have been two impeachments in my lifetime, so we've seen the flow of events. The first stage is to have a committee of the House of Representatives hold hearings into whether or not there is evidence worthy of a charge of impeachment. If they say yes, then it moves to the full House which must also say yes. Only then does the case move to the US Senate which holds the actual impeachment trial.
Thus, since the process has not yet been begun, the real question before the nation is whether there exists enough evidence or suspicion of the commission of impeachable crimes that its worth holding hearings to further investigate.
To me, the answer is an obvious yes. Entire books have been written giving the reasons. I'll just list two very quickly. Remember, only one should be needed.
-- The Sec. Gen. of the UN, Kofi Annan, has publically said that the invasion of Iraq was a violation of the UN Charter. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US. The US Constitution says that any such ratified treaty becomes the highest law in the land. We have someone who can be considered an expert on the matter saying that the President violated the highest law in the land. And it is not on a casual matter, but over the matter of starting a war which has killed over 4000 Americans and who knows how many other human beings. Why is this not cause enough to hold hearings to investigate. ( Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan )
-- George W. Bush stood up before the nation and publicly announced he'd been regularly violating the law. He announced he'd been violating the FISA act, and that he intended to continue to do so. Again, this is over a very serious matter, the illegal spying on American citizens in violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution and federal law. At the time, that statement would seem to be almost certain cause to hold hearings into impeachment. (Instead, the Congress passed a bill granting a retroactive immunity).
Now, lets go to the two candidates:
Impeachment -- Ralph Nader for President
"Volumes can and will be written, about what can go down as the most serious abdication of impeachment responsibilities by a Congress in its history. No other president has committed more systemic, repeated impeachable offenses, with such serious consequences to this country, its people, to Iraq, its people and the security of this nation before, than George W. Bush."
Obama, to the USA Today in the link above
""I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said."
Wow, makes one wonder what Mr. Obama considers to be 'grave, grave breaches' if an illegal war and illegally spying on Americans don't make the list. 4000+ dead Americans and key Constitutional rights shredded, and this isn't grave?
I wanted to be fair and quote from Mr. Obama's campaign website like I did from Mr. Nader's. But, near as I can tell impeachment isn't an issue at all to the Obama campaign. It doesn't seem to be mentioned.
The key thing to know is that for the last two years, the Democrats have basically been propping up George W. Bush in office. There has been clear evidence of a need to investigate possible impeachable offenses, and the Democrats have blocked that from proceeding.
As members of the US Congress, they all took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Including Senator Obama. How you feel they've lived up to that oath should be a very important question in the minds of voters.
Friday, May 23, 2008
The Next War President
Obama promises 'unshakable commitment' to Israel if elected
If you are looking for a change in policies, Obama might not be the answer.
If you are looking for a change in policies, Obama might not be the answer.
Monday, May 19, 2008
War with Iran
Well, for those who think we are heading towards an attack on Iran, here's another milestone. We have now had the obligatory comparision between Iran and Nazi Germany.
Bush's Nazi-Iran analogy
Since WWII was the last 'good war'. Thus, one of the milestones we always pass is that every future war must be equated to the war against the Nazis. Every foreign leader must be demonized as the 'next Hitler'.
Bush's Nazi-Iran analogy
Since WWII was the last 'good war'. Thus, one of the milestones we always pass is that every future war must be equated to the war against the Nazis. Every foreign leader must be demonized as the 'next Hitler'.
US and S.Korea killed a 100,000 people
There is a myth that America is always on the side of the good. That some how America is special. This is often used to justify America taking horrific actions. Since the myth says America is always on the side of the good, then this is used to then try to say that people should not be critical of what America does.
Because of this, it is useful to know the true history. It is useful to know what America has actually been doing. As such, the following is offered.
"Thousands killed by US' Korean Ally"
Actually, the headline from the AP is very misleading. Pretty typical for the AP. When you read the article, you realize we are not talking about a few 'thousands'. The article estimates that we are talking about maybe the murder of a 100,000 people.
"With U.S. military officers sometimes present ... the southern army and police emptied South Korean prisons, lined up detainees and shot them in the head, dumping the bodies into hastily dug trenches. Others were thrown into abandoned mines or into the sea. Women and children were among those killed. Many victims never faced charges or trial."
We are constantly told of the horror of our enemies. We are constantly told that America is the force of good. That the actions we take are to prevent the horror of our enemies. But, stop and think about what we've done along the way ourselves. Its worth remembering the next time you hear our leaders telling us that we have to accept more horror because we are the good guys.
As I type this, the Democracy Now! newswire to the right has a headline about how the US is holding an estimated 27,000 people in overseas secret prisons. And moving them in and out of Iraqi prisons to hide them.
Because of this, it is useful to know the true history. It is useful to know what America has actually been doing. As such, the following is offered.
"Thousands killed by US' Korean Ally"
Actually, the headline from the AP is very misleading. Pretty typical for the AP. When you read the article, you realize we are not talking about a few 'thousands'. The article estimates that we are talking about maybe the murder of a 100,000 people.
"With U.S. military officers sometimes present ... the southern army and police emptied South Korean prisons, lined up detainees and shot them in the head, dumping the bodies into hastily dug trenches. Others were thrown into abandoned mines or into the sea. Women and children were among those killed. Many victims never faced charges or trial."
We are constantly told of the horror of our enemies. We are constantly told that America is the force of good. That the actions we take are to prevent the horror of our enemies. But, stop and think about what we've done along the way ourselves. Its worth remembering the next time you hear our leaders telling us that we have to accept more horror because we are the good guys.
As I type this, the Democracy Now! newswire to the right has a headline about how the US is holding an estimated 27,000 people in overseas secret prisons. And moving them in and out of Iraqi prisons to hide them.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Said it right
"The wanted posters for Osama bin Laden, it seems, are being pasted over with ones for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Always better to go after someone you can bomb than someone you can’t find."
--William Lind, American Conservative mag http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_05_05/cover.html
--William Lind, American Conservative mag http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_05_05/cover.html