I have watched with dismay as the Clinton campaign abandoned all restraint with their sleazy TV ad featuring sleeping children at risk. My dismay increased as it appeared to work: Clinton won both the Ohio and Texas primaries, reportedly on the strength of late-deciding voters who would have been most affected by her attack ad. Now I think it is time to respond—but not by defending the Obama machismo, or by pointing out that Clinton’s claim to be “experienced” has no validity. The response should come by invalidating the entire premise of the political discussion in this country, which, since 9/11, has based itself on the politics of fear.
To put it briefly, Senator Obama should now focus his campaign on the fundamental bankruptcy of this politics of fear and fear mongering. The opening salvo should simply recall Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s famous line when the nation was gripped by fear of the Great Depression:
"…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself…"
This line, and the policies that stemmed from it, succeeded in a way that few could have predicted. FDR was saying—and the rest of the line reinforces this with its description of fear as "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance"—that fear itself cripples any attempt on the part of people and governments to respond to a crisis. He did not maintain that there was no crisis. He simply said, nevermind the fear, nevermind the paralysis, let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work.
This principle—perhaps updated to: "the only thing we have to fear is fear mongering itself"—fits the present situation almost perfectly. To undermine fear and the fear mongers would provide a perfect antidote and alternative not only to a) the Clinton TV commercial and her contention that Obama has no credentials to protect the nation from terrorism; but also to b) the similar attacks already being mounted by Senator McCain, when he says “the Democrats want to surrender in Iraq”; c) the entire 8-year reign of the Bush Administration, which has made fear mongering its central strategy and creed; d) the fear now mounting in the general populace of economic recession, the falling dollar, and the loss of American primacy as a respected world power.
Consider that since 9/11 every level of public discourse has been shaped and whittled down to one fear-mongering principle: terrorists are coming, we must fight them abroad before they get here, every cent invested (almost all militarily) in this fight is worth it, and, in this modern fight to the death, the American people SHOULD be afraid, should be so terrified and terrorized that they will make any sacrifice in blood, treasure, and their civil liberties in order to combat the demons planning to invade and kill us all.
It is a familiar, ancient cry that has worked almost unconditionally. Any opposition to military plans by Congress has been crippled before it could even be mounted. Congress itself has been gripped by fear—the fear of seeming to be “soft on terrorism.” And it has colluded in launching an illegal war against a country that was no threat to us; continued to fund an occupation of that same country for more than five years; spent a billion dollars a day to keep that war going; and allowed the United States to become known worldwide as an empire as aggressive, acquisitive and cruel as Rome or Great Britain. Worse, beginning with the Patriot Act and continuing with secret wiretapping of American citizens, a widespread policy of torture, and even the suspension of the ancient right of habeas corpus, the very liberties Americans are supposed to be defending have been steadily eroded. And through it all, fear has been the engine driving the whole enterprise.
For Barack Obama, all this has so far been portrayed as a weak spot in his resume. It need not be. The simple expedient of turning fear and fear-mongering to his advantage has the potential of reversing the entire campaign dynamic. For he can say, in effect, this is what we mean by CHANGE. We must change the politics of fear and fear-mongering. We must leave the fear mongers behind, and simply confront without fear the challenges and problems we have. Instead of the hyper-vigilance that has for the last eight years been the coin of the realm (and recall that hyper-vigilance is precisely what afflicts and cripples returning Iraq veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome), we need to be vigilant about the threats that are real. In fact, many of these threats have been ignored because of the huge drain in both money and national energies absorbed by the occupation of Iraq. Instead of pursuing Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, we abandoned the chase and invaded Iraq. Instead of shoring up the holes in our national defense against terrorist threats—our ports, our harbors, our infrastructure—we have been diverted by hyped-up orange and red alerts that turn out to be politically motivated. Instead of confronting the real threat posed to the entire world by global warming, we have been deluded into thinking that more spending and more wastage will somehow induce that threat go away. Instead of dealing with the huge losses to our national treasury due to stupendous military spending and equally stupendous borrowing, we have indulged in myopic tax cuts for the wealthy and privatization policies that have resulted in the enrichment of a favored few and the impoverishment of the many. And all this must change. The fear mongers must go.
In short, there is no need for Senator Obama to try to establish “commander-in-chief” or “government experience” credentials in the vain attempt to counter attacks. He need simply remind people what those so-called credentials (Cheney and Rumsfeld had years of experience while Bush has strutted like a wannabe Mussolini) have brought us: an unending war and a nation on the brink of financial ruin. He need simply remind the public of what fear does and what perhaps the greatest president of the last century said in his first inaugural address to a depressed nation in its grip:
"…the only thing we have to fear is fear itself..."
Lawrence DiStasi
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Why oh Why oh Why-oh?
As several news reports and commentaries have now pointed out, the turning point in the Ohio primary, which Hillary Clinton won to revive her campaign, was the sensational “news story” now being called NAFTA-gate. An Obama aide supposedly told a Canadian official at the Chicago embassy not to worry about Obama’s comments about re-negotiating the NAFTA trade treaty, which many Ohioans blame for their economic plight. Obama was just saying that to win an election.
Immediately, Hillary jumped all over this report, lacerating Obama for hypocrisy and double dealing. John McCain jumped in as well, noting that this was anything but “straight talk.” The attacks had their intended effect: late-deciding voters seem to have taken this (along with Clinton’s TV spot evoking the nightmare scenario of little children sleeping while the White House phone rings an emergency that she, but not Obama, would presumably answer) to heart and moved to Clinton in large numbers.
Now we find out, in a way that reminds us more and more of Karl Rove’s dirty tricks, that the whole story of Obama’s campaign aide was not only a classic case of spinning, but an outright fabrication. First, the leak came initially from Ian Brodie, the chief of staff of Canada’s conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, in what appears to be a blatant attempt by conservatives to try to eliminate the contender they fear most. Worse, Brodie was actually commenting about how Hillary Clinton’s campaign, not Obama’s, had issued the statement: “someone from (Hillary) Clinton’s campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry.” (Paul Rogat Loeb, 3/6/08Common Dreams). This comment was then picked up by a Canadian TV reporter in the U.S. and attributed to Obama’s economic advisor, Austin Goolsby, who was supposed to have contacted someone in the Canadian embassy in Chicago to make this reassuring remark. After Obama denied it, the story was made worse by another leak, this time from that same Chicago embassy, supposedly confirming the original story, to wit, that Obama’s campaign statements were more like “political positioning than the clear articulation of policy plans.” Obama seemed to be caught lying.
The truth is that it was the Canadian government that contacted Goolsby, not the reverse. And although Goolsby did meet with Canada’s consul general in Chicago, George Rioux, it wasn’t to assure him about “political posturing” but rather to say that Obama wasn’t talking about eliminating NAFTA entirely, but only making clear that labor and environmental safeguards mattered greatly to him. Which is exactly what Obama claimed in defending himself. As for the memo, even Prime Minister Harper now admits it was inaccurate, and “blatantly unfair” to Senator Obama. Opposition members in the Canadian parliament are expressing even more outrage, accusing the Harper government of interfering in a U.S. election to “help their Republican allies across the border,” and demanding that the Canadian Mounties investigate the leaker of the memo.
Sadly, the damage is already done. Equally sadly, what we have is an Ohio that continues to be the site of election shenanigans. Only this time, the perpetrators are not Karl Rove and his election Kommandos, but the mild-mannered Canadians in league with the ever more crassly Machiavellian Clintons.
The song says, Why oh Why oh Why-oh, Why did I ever leave Ohio…? The real question ought to be: When oh When oh When oh, When will Ohio get it straight-oh?
Lawrence DiStasi
Immediately, Hillary jumped all over this report, lacerating Obama for hypocrisy and double dealing. John McCain jumped in as well, noting that this was anything but “straight talk.” The attacks had their intended effect: late-deciding voters seem to have taken this (along with Clinton’s TV spot evoking the nightmare scenario of little children sleeping while the White House phone rings an emergency that she, but not Obama, would presumably answer) to heart and moved to Clinton in large numbers.
Now we find out, in a way that reminds us more and more of Karl Rove’s dirty tricks, that the whole story of Obama’s campaign aide was not only a classic case of spinning, but an outright fabrication. First, the leak came initially from Ian Brodie, the chief of staff of Canada’s conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, in what appears to be a blatant attempt by conservatives to try to eliminate the contender they fear most. Worse, Brodie was actually commenting about how Hillary Clinton’s campaign, not Obama’s, had issued the statement: “someone from (Hillary) Clinton’s campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry.” (Paul Rogat Loeb, 3/6/08Common Dreams). This comment was then picked up by a Canadian TV reporter in the U.S. and attributed to Obama’s economic advisor, Austin Goolsby, who was supposed to have contacted someone in the Canadian embassy in Chicago to make this reassuring remark. After Obama denied it, the story was made worse by another leak, this time from that same Chicago embassy, supposedly confirming the original story, to wit, that Obama’s campaign statements were more like “political positioning than the clear articulation of policy plans.” Obama seemed to be caught lying.
The truth is that it was the Canadian government that contacted Goolsby, not the reverse. And although Goolsby did meet with Canada’s consul general in Chicago, George Rioux, it wasn’t to assure him about “political posturing” but rather to say that Obama wasn’t talking about eliminating NAFTA entirely, but only making clear that labor and environmental safeguards mattered greatly to him. Which is exactly what Obama claimed in defending himself. As for the memo, even Prime Minister Harper now admits it was inaccurate, and “blatantly unfair” to Senator Obama. Opposition members in the Canadian parliament are expressing even more outrage, accusing the Harper government of interfering in a U.S. election to “help their Republican allies across the border,” and demanding that the Canadian Mounties investigate the leaker of the memo.
Sadly, the damage is already done. Equally sadly, what we have is an Ohio that continues to be the site of election shenanigans. Only this time, the perpetrators are not Karl Rove and his election Kommandos, but the mild-mannered Canadians in league with the ever more crassly Machiavellian Clintons.
The song says, Why oh Why oh Why-oh, Why did I ever leave Ohio…? The real question ought to be: When oh When oh When oh, When will Ohio get it straight-oh?
Lawrence DiStasi
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wikileaks
There’s a great website that all people interested in government illegalities and inconsistencies should know about. It’s called “Wikileaks” and so explosive does it seem to U.S. Government authorities that a judge recently tried to close it down by issuing an injunction order to the service provider which issued the domain name. That means that you can no longer access Wikileaks by going to Wikileaks.org. BUT, you can go to www.wikileaks.de and find the same information. Hurray for unfettered access to the internet and all those who provide it.
To give its flavor, here’s a little item that appeared in one of the documents at Wikileaks, the one containing U.S. Rules of Engagmenet (ROE) for Iraq. The document mentioned that U.S. forces can chase suspect enemies from Iraq into both Syria and Iran. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammed-Ali Hosseini, immediately objected: "Any entrance to the Iranian soil by any U.S. military force to trail suspects would be against international laws and could be legally pursuable," the official IRNA news agency quoted Hosseini as saying.
Of course, the United States does not bother to be restrained much by international law. But it is deeply concerned about its lawlessness being publicly bruited about. It immediately called the leak of its classified document on Wikileaks “irresponsible.”
“While we will not comment on whether this is, in fact, an official document, we do consider the deliberate release of what Wikileaks believes to be a classified document is irresponsible and, if valid, could put U.S. military personnel at risk," said Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, spokesman for the command. (all quotes from article by Bi Mingxin, Feb. 12 Xinhua, as seen on Wikileaks.)
So there you have it. War crimes or invading other countries in contravention of international law are perfectly ok to U.S. officials. But leaking the classified rules (or even documents which someone BELIEVES to be classified) which allow such crimes—that is somehow unfair and irresponsible. Brave New World anyone?
Lawrence DiStasi
To give its flavor, here’s a little item that appeared in one of the documents at Wikileaks, the one containing U.S. Rules of Engagmenet (ROE) for Iraq. The document mentioned that U.S. forces can chase suspect enemies from Iraq into both Syria and Iran. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammed-Ali Hosseini, immediately objected: "Any entrance to the Iranian soil by any U.S. military force to trail suspects would be against international laws and could be legally pursuable," the official IRNA news agency quoted Hosseini as saying.
Of course, the United States does not bother to be restrained much by international law. But it is deeply concerned about its lawlessness being publicly bruited about. It immediately called the leak of its classified document on Wikileaks “irresponsible.”
“While we will not comment on whether this is, in fact, an official document, we do consider the deliberate release of what Wikileaks believes to be a classified document is irresponsible and, if valid, could put U.S. military personnel at risk," said Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, spokesman for the command. (all quotes from article by Bi Mingxin, Feb. 12 Xinhua, as seen on Wikileaks.)
So there you have it. War crimes or invading other countries in contravention of international law are perfectly ok to U.S. officials. But leaking the classified rules (or even documents which someone BELIEVES to be classified) which allow such crimes—that is somehow unfair and irresponsible. Brave New World anyone?
Lawrence DiStasi
Monday, February 25, 2008
On Patriotism
The conservative assault on Barack Obama has already begun. Recently, Michelle Obama, the candidate’s wife, spoke about this being “the first time she has been proud of America.” The Right jumped on this like a rabid dog. “She doesn’t love America!” “She’s another liberal who wants to only knock our country.” And John McCain’s blonde, botoxed wife passionately observed that she, unlike Michelle, has loved America all her life. We were to get the message: John McCain loves America too, in a white way, a respectful way that no black man ever could because like Michelle Obama, we are meant to infer, black Americans have a grudge against America. And every American knows they have a right to that grudge, given the disgusting way they’ve been treated since being enslaved here; which is why they can’t be allowed to say it.
Nor is his wife’s comment the only patriotic deficiency being totted up against Obama. CNN reported on Feb. 24 that “the Ilinois senator does not wear an American flag lapel pin,” and has been observed “failing to put his hand over his heart while singing the national anthem.” Omygod! Not only is this upstart crow an African, he doesn’t conform to the standard of loudly proclaiming his patriotism with flag pins and the childish hand-over-the-heart gesture that has become de rigeur among politicians and other blowhards trying to prove their super-patriotism. And Americans gasp in disbelief. Doesn’t wear a lapel flag! Doesn’t put his hand over his heart! An apostate! A savage! No doubt an atheist who drinks latte as well!
And we have to ask (especially after the latest, a photograph, possibly altered, showing Obama in Africa in white headdress looking like an Arab terrorist) is this country ever going to get over this orgy of jingoistic bullshit? Are Americans ever going to look beneath the puerile gestures and proclamations of undying love for USA! USA! to see that those who indulge in such pathetic gestures are the ones who should be investigated to see what it is, exactly, they are trying to disguise? Could it be, for example, that George W. Bush’s super-patriotic stance is designed to cover the war crimes he’s been committing in our names since he first took office? Could it be that he’s trying to cover the fact that he was AWOL from his reserve air force unit half the time; invaded another country without cause or provocation in violation of international law; approved torture techniques in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions; approved spying on his own countrymen in violation of the Constitution? Could it be that all the fools who wear lapel pins in Congress are covering up their crimes: taking bribes from lobbyists, adding pork to legislation to pay off their bribers; going along with the corporatocracy in funding the most bloated war machine in history not to protect “the American homeland” but to protect the foreign business interests of the oligarchs who control them?
For my money, I applaud Obama for not wearing that stupid lapel pin, for not indulging in that schoolboy hand-over-heart gesture. Perhaps we finally have an adult running for president, a man who would prefer to focus on finally seeing to it that America, in Martin Luther King’s words, finally lives up to its creed: that all men, even those who don’t salute the flag of empire, are created equal. That all women, even those who are un-blonde, deserve a time when they can, at long last, proclaim their pride in an America that has, in recent years, more often made them ashamed. Perhaps that would initiate a patriotism worth the name.
Lawrence DiStasi
Nor is his wife’s comment the only patriotic deficiency being totted up against Obama. CNN reported on Feb. 24 that “the Ilinois senator does not wear an American flag lapel pin,” and has been observed “failing to put his hand over his heart while singing the national anthem.” Omygod! Not only is this upstart crow an African, he doesn’t conform to the standard of loudly proclaiming his patriotism with flag pins and the childish hand-over-the-heart gesture that has become de rigeur among politicians and other blowhards trying to prove their super-patriotism. And Americans gasp in disbelief. Doesn’t wear a lapel flag! Doesn’t put his hand over his heart! An apostate! A savage! No doubt an atheist who drinks latte as well!
And we have to ask (especially after the latest, a photograph, possibly altered, showing Obama in Africa in white headdress looking like an Arab terrorist) is this country ever going to get over this orgy of jingoistic bullshit? Are Americans ever going to look beneath the puerile gestures and proclamations of undying love for USA! USA! to see that those who indulge in such pathetic gestures are the ones who should be investigated to see what it is, exactly, they are trying to disguise? Could it be, for example, that George W. Bush’s super-patriotic stance is designed to cover the war crimes he’s been committing in our names since he first took office? Could it be that he’s trying to cover the fact that he was AWOL from his reserve air force unit half the time; invaded another country without cause or provocation in violation of international law; approved torture techniques in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions; approved spying on his own countrymen in violation of the Constitution? Could it be that all the fools who wear lapel pins in Congress are covering up their crimes: taking bribes from lobbyists, adding pork to legislation to pay off their bribers; going along with the corporatocracy in funding the most bloated war machine in history not to protect “the American homeland” but to protect the foreign business interests of the oligarchs who control them?
For my money, I applaud Obama for not wearing that stupid lapel pin, for not indulging in that schoolboy hand-over-heart gesture. Perhaps we finally have an adult running for president, a man who would prefer to focus on finally seeing to it that America, in Martin Luther King’s words, finally lives up to its creed: that all men, even those who don’t salute the flag of empire, are created equal. That all women, even those who are un-blonde, deserve a time when they can, at long last, proclaim their pride in an America that has, in recent years, more often made them ashamed. Perhaps that would initiate a patriotism worth the name.
Lawrence DiStasi
Saturday, February 16, 2008
It's Gun Control, Stupid
Another week. Another senseless shooting at a college campus. Another young man with a history of mental illness--the kid with the unpronounceable name spent time in a mental institution after high school because he'd become unmanageable--who is able to simply go into a gun shop and buy the most lethal weapons available. No real background check; they only check to see if the person has a criminal record. Steven Kazmierczak didn't. So he was able to buy a glock pistol and a shotgun to add to his previous handgun arsenal.
Then he showed up on campus and started to kill geology students at random.
Now clearly the guy was mentally ill. But I am stunned by the most common comment: we can't stop this type of thing. We're all vulnerable. Some crazy wants to do this, it's impossible to stop.
Well yes. Always assuming that the crazy lives in the United States of America, where morons in the National Rifle Association are able to gut any meaningful gun control laws by appealing to the Constitution's Second Amendment. We have a right to bear arms, they shout. And Charleston Heston takes his stand menacing anyone who tries to take his gun away--from his "cold, dead hand." They'll have to kill me first.
No one wants to kill Moses. No legislator is brave enough to challenge the gun control lobby. So Steven Kazmierczak is able to buy his guns and blast away. After all, it's his second amendment right. Is that so? Does the Constitution give Americans, even crazy ones, the right to shoot randomly, lethally, with the best weaponry available, at perfect strangers? Apparently so. After all, it's in the Constitution (though in fact, the Constitution gives the right to bear arms only to militias).
And Americans say, What can we do? Only a moronic nation would allow this to go on. Only a nation controlled by idiots would defend the right of such people to kill. Only a nation steeped in killing itself would allow its crazies to slaughter innocents and call it freedom. Will such a nation ever wake up? Learn to read its own founding document? The signs are not good.
Lawrence DiStasi
Then he showed up on campus and started to kill geology students at random.
Now clearly the guy was mentally ill. But I am stunned by the most common comment: we can't stop this type of thing. We're all vulnerable. Some crazy wants to do this, it's impossible to stop.
Well yes. Always assuming that the crazy lives in the United States of America, where morons in the National Rifle Association are able to gut any meaningful gun control laws by appealing to the Constitution's Second Amendment. We have a right to bear arms, they shout. And Charleston Heston takes his stand menacing anyone who tries to take his gun away--from his "cold, dead hand." They'll have to kill me first.
No one wants to kill Moses. No legislator is brave enough to challenge the gun control lobby. So Steven Kazmierczak is able to buy his guns and blast away. After all, it's his second amendment right. Is that so? Does the Constitution give Americans, even crazy ones, the right to shoot randomly, lethally, with the best weaponry available, at perfect strangers? Apparently so. After all, it's in the Constitution (though in fact, the Constitution gives the right to bear arms only to militias).
And Americans say, What can we do? Only a moronic nation would allow this to go on. Only a nation controlled by idiots would defend the right of such people to kill. Only a nation steeped in killing itself would allow its crazies to slaughter innocents and call it freedom. Will such a nation ever wake up? Learn to read its own founding document? The signs are not good.
Lawrence DiStasi
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Gaza, The Clintons, Bush Lies
So many outrageous events, so little time to comment on them all.
Begin with the most outrageous, the move by Israel to cut off power to the 1.5 million Palestinians of Gaza, virtually all of them refugees living in squalid camps in the most densely populated piece of real estate in the world. This has meant suffering on an almost unimaginable scale, suffering of a kind that prompted the United Nations Security Council to attempt to pass a resolution condemning Israel for its “collective punishment.” And once again, predictably, the United States has blocked this action in order to protect its client state, Israel, from universal condemnation. This has in turn led the Gaza government, Hamas, or some of its more militant factions, to blow up the wall erected to keep the people of Gaza in a virtual prison, allowing thousands to rush into Egypt to buy desperately needed supplies.
No doubt the prison will soon be closed again, however. And the people of Gaza will be caged like dogs once again, dependent on their Israelis occupiers for scraps of food and fuel which can be squeezed or opened at will, just to see if the torture can get them to finally, and forever repudiate the duly-elected Hamas leaders who have had the temerity to stand up against their oppressors.
And when the imprisonment is complete once again, who among the candidates vying to be the next President will protest this slow strangulation of an entire people? One thing we can be sure of: it won’t be Hillary Clinton. And it is not only that the Senator from New York is so beholden to the powerful pro-Israel forces in her “home” state. No, there is a disquieting pattern beginning to emerge in the Clintonesque behavior of this election season. And that pattern is this: the Clintons—both of them it seems are cut from the same cloth—are willing to do or say just about anything to get elected. If it means sacrificing the Gazans to the local political winds, so be it. If it means playing up the attacks on Barack Obama to force him to “act black”, so be it. What this brings to mind is not just the sense of a Macbethian pair determined to seek and hold power, but the feeling that this couple shares one other trait: both are tone-deaf when it comes to limits, to noblesse, to a sense of rightness or proportion. It is as if despite the Yale Law School polish, both still act as if they are wearing manure-covered shoes. Or perhaps that is being unfair to farmers. It’s more as if neither has ever learned how to hold a fork, or smile naturally, or make a graceful exit. Indeed, the entire notion of grace seems absent from their repertoire. In the arena in which they choose to fight, anything goes: from taking advantage of insider financial knowledge to shtupping the White House intern in the coat room to playing the race card with a fellow Democratic aspirant to the presidency.
I have begun to think this is at the root of the “high negatives” that Hillary has always garnered. People do not like her, we are told, always with the notion that somehow she’s too “mannish,” i.e. aggressive. But it’s not only that. It’s that we sense something both callow and callous about her. One gets the sense that she would stoop to any depth to get the nomination—vote for the Iraq war, kiss the next baby, weep in public, stifle her natural laughter, minimize the importance of Martin Luther King, Jr—all without any sense of having misstepped.
This is not simply a question of breeding, either. George W. Bush has the same aura. Despite the distinguished dynasty from which he derives, the President is a farting, lying, bullying, Uriah Heep of a man, brooking no apparent restraint on his vengeful instincts and lust for power. This was brought out more forcefully than ever with a recent report, “Key False Statements,” from the Center for Public Integrity. That report noted in chapter and verse the astonishing number of outright lies and distortions the Bush Administration advanced in preparing the American public for war with Iraq. No less than 935 false statements about Iraq’s WMDs and its ties to Al Quaeda were listed in the report, starting as early as August 26, 2002 when Vice President Cheney asserted “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” And George W. Bush led the pack as the Liar-in-Chief with no less than 232 false public statements between 2001 and 2003, and an additional 28 false statements about Iraq’s supposed links to Al-Quaeda. And yet, all along there have been pundits like David Brooks of the NY Times extolling our 43rd President for his candor, his straight talk. He might not be a great intellect, these pooh-bahs of public opinion maintained, but he talks from his gut; he tells it to you straight. Straight indeed. The most accomplished liar ever to sit in the White House, a draft-dodger, torturer, election thief, compiler of the greatest deficits in the nation’s history, enabler of genocide, destroyer of republics, our own King George.
What can one conclude? I don’t know. Perhaps only this: Don’t follow leaders. And watch those parking meters.
Lawrence DiStasi
Begin with the most outrageous, the move by Israel to cut off power to the 1.5 million Palestinians of Gaza, virtually all of them refugees living in squalid camps in the most densely populated piece of real estate in the world. This has meant suffering on an almost unimaginable scale, suffering of a kind that prompted the United Nations Security Council to attempt to pass a resolution condemning Israel for its “collective punishment.” And once again, predictably, the United States has blocked this action in order to protect its client state, Israel, from universal condemnation. This has in turn led the Gaza government, Hamas, or some of its more militant factions, to blow up the wall erected to keep the people of Gaza in a virtual prison, allowing thousands to rush into Egypt to buy desperately needed supplies.
No doubt the prison will soon be closed again, however. And the people of Gaza will be caged like dogs once again, dependent on their Israelis occupiers for scraps of food and fuel which can be squeezed or opened at will, just to see if the torture can get them to finally, and forever repudiate the duly-elected Hamas leaders who have had the temerity to stand up against their oppressors.
And when the imprisonment is complete once again, who among the candidates vying to be the next President will protest this slow strangulation of an entire people? One thing we can be sure of: it won’t be Hillary Clinton. And it is not only that the Senator from New York is so beholden to the powerful pro-Israel forces in her “home” state. No, there is a disquieting pattern beginning to emerge in the Clintonesque behavior of this election season. And that pattern is this: the Clintons—both of them it seems are cut from the same cloth—are willing to do or say just about anything to get elected. If it means sacrificing the Gazans to the local political winds, so be it. If it means playing up the attacks on Barack Obama to force him to “act black”, so be it. What this brings to mind is not just the sense of a Macbethian pair determined to seek and hold power, but the feeling that this couple shares one other trait: both are tone-deaf when it comes to limits, to noblesse, to a sense of rightness or proportion. It is as if despite the Yale Law School polish, both still act as if they are wearing manure-covered shoes. Or perhaps that is being unfair to farmers. It’s more as if neither has ever learned how to hold a fork, or smile naturally, or make a graceful exit. Indeed, the entire notion of grace seems absent from their repertoire. In the arena in which they choose to fight, anything goes: from taking advantage of insider financial knowledge to shtupping the White House intern in the coat room to playing the race card with a fellow Democratic aspirant to the presidency.
I have begun to think this is at the root of the “high negatives” that Hillary has always garnered. People do not like her, we are told, always with the notion that somehow she’s too “mannish,” i.e. aggressive. But it’s not only that. It’s that we sense something both callow and callous about her. One gets the sense that she would stoop to any depth to get the nomination—vote for the Iraq war, kiss the next baby, weep in public, stifle her natural laughter, minimize the importance of Martin Luther King, Jr—all without any sense of having misstepped.
This is not simply a question of breeding, either. George W. Bush has the same aura. Despite the distinguished dynasty from which he derives, the President is a farting, lying, bullying, Uriah Heep of a man, brooking no apparent restraint on his vengeful instincts and lust for power. This was brought out more forcefully than ever with a recent report, “Key False Statements,” from the Center for Public Integrity. That report noted in chapter and verse the astonishing number of outright lies and distortions the Bush Administration advanced in preparing the American public for war with Iraq. No less than 935 false statements about Iraq’s WMDs and its ties to Al Quaeda were listed in the report, starting as early as August 26, 2002 when Vice President Cheney asserted “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” And George W. Bush led the pack as the Liar-in-Chief with no less than 232 false public statements between 2001 and 2003, and an additional 28 false statements about Iraq’s supposed links to Al-Quaeda. And yet, all along there have been pundits like David Brooks of the NY Times extolling our 43rd President for his candor, his straight talk. He might not be a great intellect, these pooh-bahs of public opinion maintained, but he talks from his gut; he tells it to you straight. Straight indeed. The most accomplished liar ever to sit in the White House, a draft-dodger, torturer, election thief, compiler of the greatest deficits in the nation’s history, enabler of genocide, destroyer of republics, our own King George.
What can one conclude? I don’t know. Perhaps only this: Don’t follow leaders. And watch those parking meters.
Lawrence DiStasi
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The Necessity of Obama
The squabble that broke out between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton last week over Obama’s appeal to the memory of Martin Luther King, and Hillary’s veiled belittling of King by invoking the greater importance of President Lyndon Johnson, reminded me of the key fact of American life: racism and the many disguises it takes, its long and agonizing history, its continuing ability to corrupt our lives. Though the Clintons have twisted and contorted themselves in defending their camp’s attacks, the basic truth remains: Obama needed to be attacked because of his Iowa victory, and the simplest and most effective way to attack someone in America is to bring up the specter of racial difference.
What this means is that, for all the gains recorded by the civil rights movement and the legal and social constraints imposed on racial discrimination in the United States, racism is alive and well and still capable of sinking anyone or any initiative that threatens the safe distance from “other races” maintained by the majority of Americans. I am not talking only about the South here. Even in a city as diligently integrated as Berkeley California, every resident knows exactly where the racial line stands. East Berkeley, in the hills, is the domain of wealthy whites. West Berkeley, in the flatlands, is the domain of blacks. Everyone knows what the “good” neighborhoods are, where they end, where the “questionable” areas begin. And though whites may live in such questionable areas for reasons of economics or philosophy, most automatically steer clear. It is thus in every city in the United States. Being an American means, literally, knowing where the “good” sections of any city or suburb lie. Though the lines may shift, every American always knows precisely where the current ones are drawn. And if one is not sure, one can always find out from friends, relatives, or real estate agents.
This is what is meant by “white privilege.” White people in America take it for granted that they have the right to live in a “good” neighborhood; indeed, have the obligation not to live in a “bad” neighborhood.
Politics in the last forty or so years has been predicated on this knowledge, on the underlying fears that the system of separation might be breached, and on the appeals to those fears. The entire Republican Party strategy—especially its “southern strategy” whereby it took from the Democratic Party its traditional dominance in the South—has been predicated on coded appeals to racial prejudice and fear. States’ rights, school voucher programs, diatribes against “welfare queens,” jeremiads about urban crime, implementation of “three-strike laws,” all are symbolic appeals to the racist roots of this nation which hold that blackness signals genetic defect, that urban blackness equals crime, that the mixing of races leads to moral decay. All the talk about “strict construction” of the Constitution notwithstanding, the real bedrock behind the conservative movement is its conviction and sly innuendo that “liberal” equals miscegenation.
It is for this reason that Barack Obama, even with his flaws, is necessary as the Democratic nominee for President. It is time for this nation, and particularly its Republican establishment, to be called on its coded racism. It is time for the nation to see just how and why racism persists, and whether the United States of America now has the moral courage to stand up for the equality it proclaims as its central creed. The candidacy of Barack Obama—regardless of his attempt to avoid any appeals to racial argument or sympathy—can and will bring these conflicts and contradictions into the open. It will soon—as soon as the Republicans have a nominee, that is—become apparent how deep and abiding is the fear of a black man in the White house. How deep and abiding is the racial sentiment underlying even “liberal” thought. Indeed, we have already seen this in the Clinton campaign. Imagine what “swift-boating” lies ahead when Republicans get their war machine untracked.
But far from being discouraged by this, by the potential of losing the White House because of its nomination of a black candidate, the Democratic Party should exult in it. If the Democratic Party means anything at all, if America means anything at all, it should, it must take this rare opportunity to directly challenge its own reigning orthodoxy. For at this moment in our history, when the moral face of America has been so bloodied by the Bush Administration’s depradations in the Middle East, by its destruction of constitutional guarantees at home, nothing else will do. Absent some sign of moral courage, America will become what it already has for much of the world: just another empire driven to extremes of cruelty and plunder, corruption and hypocrisy in its waning days.
Lawrence DiStasi
What this means is that, for all the gains recorded by the civil rights movement and the legal and social constraints imposed on racial discrimination in the United States, racism is alive and well and still capable of sinking anyone or any initiative that threatens the safe distance from “other races” maintained by the majority of Americans. I am not talking only about the South here. Even in a city as diligently integrated as Berkeley California, every resident knows exactly where the racial line stands. East Berkeley, in the hills, is the domain of wealthy whites. West Berkeley, in the flatlands, is the domain of blacks. Everyone knows what the “good” neighborhoods are, where they end, where the “questionable” areas begin. And though whites may live in such questionable areas for reasons of economics or philosophy, most automatically steer clear. It is thus in every city in the United States. Being an American means, literally, knowing where the “good” sections of any city or suburb lie. Though the lines may shift, every American always knows precisely where the current ones are drawn. And if one is not sure, one can always find out from friends, relatives, or real estate agents.
This is what is meant by “white privilege.” White people in America take it for granted that they have the right to live in a “good” neighborhood; indeed, have the obligation not to live in a “bad” neighborhood.
Politics in the last forty or so years has been predicated on this knowledge, on the underlying fears that the system of separation might be breached, and on the appeals to those fears. The entire Republican Party strategy—especially its “southern strategy” whereby it took from the Democratic Party its traditional dominance in the South—has been predicated on coded appeals to racial prejudice and fear. States’ rights, school voucher programs, diatribes against “welfare queens,” jeremiads about urban crime, implementation of “three-strike laws,” all are symbolic appeals to the racist roots of this nation which hold that blackness signals genetic defect, that urban blackness equals crime, that the mixing of races leads to moral decay. All the talk about “strict construction” of the Constitution notwithstanding, the real bedrock behind the conservative movement is its conviction and sly innuendo that “liberal” equals miscegenation.
It is for this reason that Barack Obama, even with his flaws, is necessary as the Democratic nominee for President. It is time for this nation, and particularly its Republican establishment, to be called on its coded racism. It is time for the nation to see just how and why racism persists, and whether the United States of America now has the moral courage to stand up for the equality it proclaims as its central creed. The candidacy of Barack Obama—regardless of his attempt to avoid any appeals to racial argument or sympathy—can and will bring these conflicts and contradictions into the open. It will soon—as soon as the Republicans have a nominee, that is—become apparent how deep and abiding is the fear of a black man in the White house. How deep and abiding is the racial sentiment underlying even “liberal” thought. Indeed, we have already seen this in the Clinton campaign. Imagine what “swift-boating” lies ahead when Republicans get their war machine untracked.
But far from being discouraged by this, by the potential of losing the White House because of its nomination of a black candidate, the Democratic Party should exult in it. If the Democratic Party means anything at all, if America means anything at all, it should, it must take this rare opportunity to directly challenge its own reigning orthodoxy. For at this moment in our history, when the moral face of America has been so bloodied by the Bush Administration’s depradations in the Middle East, by its destruction of constitutional guarantees at home, nothing else will do. Absent some sign of moral courage, America will become what it already has for much of the world: just another empire driven to extremes of cruelty and plunder, corruption and hypocrisy in its waning days.
Lawrence DiStasi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)