I remember waking up on the morning of September 11th, 2001. A guy on sports talk radio mentioned something about how a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center and now possibly the Pentagon, also? In those days, I could listen to the radio for an hour without being compelled to actually rise and begin the day but on that day, this news was enough. I went straight to the living room and turned on the tv.
I sat on my couch, my back to my main window, watching the tv and wondering if I would hear bombers or bombs coming down into the San Gabriel Valley from over the tops of our mountains behind me. Unlike others, I believed. I believed everything I saw and like everyone I knew, I was sad, but for different reasons.
I was sad for those who were dying behind the smoke in front of my eyes on my television screen but also for the bad omen this "attack," represented. President Bush had cozened his way into office. This at the very least, (on the back of an antiquated electoral college system,) considering even he agreed he lost the popular vote. I knew this event would grant him license.
I am not a genius for realizing this-I know many understood it immediately, (though we were all kind of silenced in public about it.) But I knew the fear this event would place in the hearts of my countrymen, and men the planet over, would pave the way for an agenda of greed and corruption the likes of which I guessed the world had not before seen.
My thoughts at that time were conjecture. The manifestations of those thoughts today, are fact. (I could enumerate the evidence but in the interest of limiting this entry, I'll trust you either know or can find plenty of evidence at most any news or information outlet.)
All of this brings me to the idea of conspiracy theories related to the events of 9/11 and the obvious question, is a conspiracy theory by definition a falsehood? Noam Chomsky has said the phrase "conspiracy theory," is used most often to discourage institutional analysis. The idea that a thing could be a conspiracy theory is meant to dismiss that thing, render it on some acceptable level impotent.
If you click on the words "Loose Change," at the top of this blog entry, you will be directed to a site where you can view the movie Loose Change.
This movie is a documentary about the mother of all conspiracy theories. (Credit to Mark Morford of the San Francisco Chronicle for bringing it to my attention.) Loose Change has the audacity to more than suggest the crime that was 9/11 was perpetrated by people other than those we were told executed it. And, the movie has merit.
I can't know what theories presented in the movie may or may not be true so personally, i don't see a point in taking a definitive stand on its veracity. Rather, I recognize what is important about the movie. It quite clearly illustrates and points out the fact that our government has become far too secretive, (secrecy being the cornerstone of all tyrrany.)
This movie, and indeed all that we know as "9/11," needs institutional analysis. Not like the Warren Commission wherein the findings remain secret even after they were scheduled to be revealed, (the secrecy being in the "national interest," in the first place.) There can be no national interest in this case greater than our need to know, our need to find a way to trust our government, again.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Totalitarianism in the USA
I’m not sure if the United States’ government is fascist or if the San Diego Padres’ owners and management are fascist or if the World Baseball Classic organizers are fascist but something smelled like stinky fascism last night at the World Baseball Classic championship game.
I left my office and drove down to the game from Pasadena before 2pm, arriving at 4:30pm in the vicinity of Petco Park. (Knowing I had to be at work by 6am the next morning, I was thankful for the 6pm start time.) Because it was the inaugural championship game and because Cuba was playing, I wanted to be there.
I read a biography of Che Guevara about seven or eight years ago, (Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara, by Jorge Castaneda.) That book, more than any other I have read on related topics, gave me a clear understanding of the Cuban revolution as well as the roles played by Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. I came away from that book understanding the basic, corrupt nature of the Bautista regime Castro and Guevara took part in toppling, and the basic ideas around Marxism and guerrilla warfare the Cuban campesinos in the Sierra Maestra espoused in fighting back and taking over their country for the people.
My personal views on the relationship between my country, (the USA,) and Cuba contrast with the views of most of my countrymen. I believe we have been choking that country economically since Castro took over through embargos and what can only be seen as, mean-spirited, un-christian like policies and behavior. (One example of this would be our refusal to sell steel to Cuba. Birmingham, Alabama, [once known as the Pittsburgh of the south because of its steel mills,] could have continued to produce steel and sell it at a profit to Cuba but government policy caused the industry to dry up in that area of our country.)
As I came to understand some of these dynamics between the two countries, it became necessary for me to ask why we would demonize Cuba. The answer could either be the military threat Cuba posed or the ideological threat they represented by choosing a different economic system than the one we chose; capitalism.
Cuba is a small country of limited resources. As a military threat, they can only be so frightening. On the other hand, Cuba played up to the Soviet Union during the cold war in order to gain protection from us, which worked. Since the cold war was real and given the hysteria generated by the likes of Senator McCarthy, as far back as the ‘50s, it is understandable we might consider the tiny island nation more formidable a foe than the reality of it all.
Still, isn’t it just insecurity on our part to paint communism the embodiment of evil? Communism, after all, is merely an economic system. It is not fascism, nor is it totalitarianism.
fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- Function: noun
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ism
Pronunciation: (")tO-"ta-l&-'ter-E-&-"ni-z&m Function: noun
1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority
2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority
I got into the stadium at 4:45pm. I found my way to a place selling “Randy Jones’ pulled pork sandwiches,” and “Little Slugger” hot dogs that made the dodger dog look like a small pup by comparison. Adding a Coke, I found my way to my bleacher (obstructed view) seats. From my spot in right center field I could not see the corners of the outfield. No matter, when I got to those seats at 10 minutes after 5pm, the atmosphere was already electric and I was excited about the baseball game ahead.
I was two bites into my little slugger when two stadium security representatives approached me and my buddy as we ate. The man who spoke informed me he was slightly remiss about having to ask me to either turn my t-shirt inside out or take it off and check it upstairs.
My friend, (a French Canadien from Montreal,) asked the man if he was serious. He was. The security agent demanded an answer of me and I stalled by asking what the consequences of my refusal would be. He said we would need to go up to security to talk about it and if I refused, they would have me arrested.
My t-shirt has a picture of Che Guevara on it. Nothing more than the classic image of him, unshaven, wearing the beret. (Granted it is as famous an image of him as it is because of the remarkable way in which the photographer captured the intensity in Guevara’s eyes.)
I wondered if the security agent, (whom I put in his late 50s to early 60s,) knew Che Guevara was a doctor. He was likely a teenager when Guevara with Castro successfully fomented a revolution among the campesino, peasant farmers and country folk of Cuba. Was this man aware the CIA had gunned an already wounded Guevara down in Bolivia, as he tried again to assist an oppressed people of a corrupt regime to stand up for themselves and fight for their country? Did the security agent know Guevara was from an upper middle class family in Argentina and that he joined these revolutionary movements from pure altruism, (even going to the Congo to lend aid and support after Cuba was finding its way with Castro in charge and his own stint as representative to the United Nations was over?)
al·tru·ism
Pronunciation: 'al-tru-"i-z&m
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
This human animal, afflicted by asthma and having survived the Cuban revolution and his stint in the Congo, took to the mountains of Bolivia, (after traveling in disguise,) to handle a rifle once again in order to help the oppressed peoples, knowing it could, and likely would, die. (“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you, for greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for that of his friends.” John 15:13-14) Che Guevara’s life fits both of the above definitions.
The security agent reiterated that I could simply turn the shirt inside out in order to comply but I refused to do that. It seemed worse to me than removing it, disrespectful.
My thoughts as all this was happening bordered on self-loathing. Too many times I have taken the easy road. Too many times I have chosen convenience over standing up for what I believed in. I thought of Cindy Sheehan and men setting themselves afire in protest of policies and acts they had virtually no power to stop or change. I thought it was time to get arrested. It would have been inconvenient but it would have ended the self-loathing, for a season anyway.
Instead I took off my t-shirt and folded it neatly into a square with Che on the inside, unable to see me cowering in the name of convenience. My friend had been kind enough to drive us down to San Diego. My fiancé and my daughter had graciously allowed me to go, knowing I would be out until midnight. I had just begun dinner and the teams were warming up on the field in front of me. Of course there are many excuses for my behavior just as there are a million excuses for why good people do not know better than to restrict freedom of speech or endorse oppression.
The security agent said the reason for forcing me to remove my t-shirt was because the San Diego Padres were my hosts and they would not tolerate any political statements.
Immediately after I removed my shirt and the security personnel left me to my hot dog, three guys filed into the bleachers dressed as Castro, complete with fake beards and olive drab fatigues. They screeched whistles and hoisted a Cuban flag with the words “Cuba Libre,” written across it. (“Free Cuba.”) They were never accosted by security. Rather, they were given free reign to move front and center to the right centerfield fence and pose for pictures, whistle out to the warming up Cuban players, and suck on their mock Cuban cigars.
I was honestly not sure if these men meant to free Cuba from Castro or from US oppression but it seemed the only political statement being subdued was that which clearly endorsed Castro and what he, and Che Guevara, stand for. This, in the land of the free, where the constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech?
I left my office and drove down to the game from Pasadena before 2pm, arriving at 4:30pm in the vicinity of Petco Park. (Knowing I had to be at work by 6am the next morning, I was thankful for the 6pm start time.) Because it was the inaugural championship game and because Cuba was playing, I wanted to be there.
I read a biography of Che Guevara about seven or eight years ago, (Companero: The Life and Death of Che Guevara, by Jorge Castaneda.) That book, more than any other I have read on related topics, gave me a clear understanding of the Cuban revolution as well as the roles played by Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. I came away from that book understanding the basic, corrupt nature of the Bautista regime Castro and Guevara took part in toppling, and the basic ideas around Marxism and guerrilla warfare the Cuban campesinos in the Sierra Maestra espoused in fighting back and taking over their country for the people.
My personal views on the relationship between my country, (the USA,) and Cuba contrast with the views of most of my countrymen. I believe we have been choking that country economically since Castro took over through embargos and what can only be seen as, mean-spirited, un-christian like policies and behavior. (One example of this would be our refusal to sell steel to Cuba. Birmingham, Alabama, [once known as the Pittsburgh of the south because of its steel mills,] could have continued to produce steel and sell it at a profit to Cuba but government policy caused the industry to dry up in that area of our country.)
As I came to understand some of these dynamics between the two countries, it became necessary for me to ask why we would demonize Cuba. The answer could either be the military threat Cuba posed or the ideological threat they represented by choosing a different economic system than the one we chose; capitalism.
Cuba is a small country of limited resources. As a military threat, they can only be so frightening. On the other hand, Cuba played up to the Soviet Union during the cold war in order to gain protection from us, which worked. Since the cold war was real and given the hysteria generated by the likes of Senator McCarthy, as far back as the ‘50s, it is understandable we might consider the tiny island nation more formidable a foe than the reality of it all.
Still, isn’t it just insecurity on our part to paint communism the embodiment of evil? Communism, after all, is merely an economic system. It is not fascism, nor is it totalitarianism.
fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si- Function: noun
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ism
Pronunciation: (")tO-"ta-l&-'ter-E-&-"ni-z&m Function: noun
1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority
2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority
I got into the stadium at 4:45pm. I found my way to a place selling “Randy Jones’ pulled pork sandwiches,” and “Little Slugger” hot dogs that made the dodger dog look like a small pup by comparison. Adding a Coke, I found my way to my bleacher (obstructed view) seats. From my spot in right center field I could not see the corners of the outfield. No matter, when I got to those seats at 10 minutes after 5pm, the atmosphere was already electric and I was excited about the baseball game ahead.
I was two bites into my little slugger when two stadium security representatives approached me and my buddy as we ate. The man who spoke informed me he was slightly remiss about having to ask me to either turn my t-shirt inside out or take it off and check it upstairs.
My friend, (a French Canadien from Montreal,) asked the man if he was serious. He was. The security agent demanded an answer of me and I stalled by asking what the consequences of my refusal would be. He said we would need to go up to security to talk about it and if I refused, they would have me arrested.
My t-shirt has a picture of Che Guevara on it. Nothing more than the classic image of him, unshaven, wearing the beret. (Granted it is as famous an image of him as it is because of the remarkable way in which the photographer captured the intensity in Guevara’s eyes.)
I wondered if the security agent, (whom I put in his late 50s to early 60s,) knew Che Guevara was a doctor. He was likely a teenager when Guevara with Castro successfully fomented a revolution among the campesino, peasant farmers and country folk of Cuba. Was this man aware the CIA had gunned an already wounded Guevara down in Bolivia, as he tried again to assist an oppressed people of a corrupt regime to stand up for themselves and fight for their country? Did the security agent know Guevara was from an upper middle class family in Argentina and that he joined these revolutionary movements from pure altruism, (even going to the Congo to lend aid and support after Cuba was finding its way with Castro in charge and his own stint as representative to the United Nations was over?)
al·tru·ism
Pronunciation: 'al-tru-"i-z&m
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
This human animal, afflicted by asthma and having survived the Cuban revolution and his stint in the Congo, took to the mountains of Bolivia, (after traveling in disguise,) to handle a rifle once again in order to help the oppressed peoples, knowing it could, and likely would, die. (“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you, for greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for that of his friends.” John 15:13-14) Che Guevara’s life fits both of the above definitions.
The security agent reiterated that I could simply turn the shirt inside out in order to comply but I refused to do that. It seemed worse to me than removing it, disrespectful.
My thoughts as all this was happening bordered on self-loathing. Too many times I have taken the easy road. Too many times I have chosen convenience over standing up for what I believed in. I thought of Cindy Sheehan and men setting themselves afire in protest of policies and acts they had virtually no power to stop or change. I thought it was time to get arrested. It would have been inconvenient but it would have ended the self-loathing, for a season anyway.
Instead I took off my t-shirt and folded it neatly into a square with Che on the inside, unable to see me cowering in the name of convenience. My friend had been kind enough to drive us down to San Diego. My fiancé and my daughter had graciously allowed me to go, knowing I would be out until midnight. I had just begun dinner and the teams were warming up on the field in front of me. Of course there are many excuses for my behavior just as there are a million excuses for why good people do not know better than to restrict freedom of speech or endorse oppression.
The security agent said the reason for forcing me to remove my t-shirt was because the San Diego Padres were my hosts and they would not tolerate any political statements.
Immediately after I removed my shirt and the security personnel left me to my hot dog, three guys filed into the bleachers dressed as Castro, complete with fake beards and olive drab fatigues. They screeched whistles and hoisted a Cuban flag with the words “Cuba Libre,” written across it. (“Free Cuba.”) They were never accosted by security. Rather, they were given free reign to move front and center to the right centerfield fence and pose for pictures, whistle out to the warming up Cuban players, and suck on their mock Cuban cigars.
I was honestly not sure if these men meant to free Cuba from Castro or from US oppression but it seemed the only political statement being subdued was that which clearly endorsed Castro and what he, and Che Guevara, stand for. This, in the land of the free, where the constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech?
Saturday, March 11, 2006
foxes; not so bright
October 02, 2003
A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.
The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.
this study is 2.5 years old but it is still relevant.
how does that old saying go? if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. i can hear malcolm x saying it again today, were he still alive.
if you don't stand for truth in journalism, you'll fall for anything.
if you don't stand for honesty and integrity, you'll fall.
if you don't stand for taking the individual responsibility of being a good citizen and doing at least enough homework to understand what is going on in the political process that affects your friends, family and countrymen, then you'll fall for any old despot that comes along.
if you don't stand for ethical behavior, you'll fall for unethical behavior.
so many have fallen. in fact, based on the last election, it seems a majority of americans have fallen. they've fallen for a fox news network that has cozened them into believing their point of view is viable. and it isn't. just because they say it with a straight face and take themselves seriously does not mean i do, should or would.
it is not that i merely disagree with bill o'reilly or rush limbaugh, as they would have you believe about those opposed to them. it's that i do not take them seriously. i do not consider their perspectives in any way shape or form serious, learned or insightful. instead they are obnoxious, derisive and self-serving.
so how did these guys get on tv or radio? how did chris mathews become the hardball guy? i mean, it's hardball right? we're supposed to take him and his show seriously. it's top echelon political fodder. but, it isn't. i don't watch or listen to the shows of these guys i've mentioned often but when i have, it is not difficult to spot the moments when lies are presented as logic or the truth is relegated to rumor.
i know a lot of people who think the fox news is a viable outlet to get their news, if not "fair and balanced." i can't say that these people are idiots, (though occasionally that impulse may strike me.) rather, they've been lulled into an odd and sinister sense of security. from what i can tell, they tend to think most things are okay in the world around them. from that sense, they have become complacent and shed any sense of personal responsibility for their government. they may bitch and moan about it but by and large, they do not study the facts, (in fact, they may avoid them to avoid confrontation.) they don't try to stay informed nor up to date. critical thinking is a college course, nothing practical.
and this is how we got here. click on the title of this entry above and read the story about the study. deny it if you will. infer some bias if you need to avoid the confrontation w/ yourself. assume the university of maryland or the world public opinion is not to be trusted or part of some out of touch, liberal academia as o'reilly might characterize it in order to dismiss the substance of the message. or, just admit that you haven't necessarily lived up to all of your responsibilities as a citizen of this free country we live in and make some changes in a positive direction so that in the future you will be better informed, you will care a bit more and not choose the path of least resistence as a matter of course, and men of dick cheney's character do not end up in high office.
A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.
The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.
this study is 2.5 years old but it is still relevant.
how does that old saying go? if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. i can hear malcolm x saying it again today, were he still alive.
if you don't stand for truth in journalism, you'll fall for anything.
if you don't stand for honesty and integrity, you'll fall.
if you don't stand for taking the individual responsibility of being a good citizen and doing at least enough homework to understand what is going on in the political process that affects your friends, family and countrymen, then you'll fall for any old despot that comes along.
if you don't stand for ethical behavior, you'll fall for unethical behavior.
so many have fallen. in fact, based on the last election, it seems a majority of americans have fallen. they've fallen for a fox news network that has cozened them into believing their point of view is viable. and it isn't. just because they say it with a straight face and take themselves seriously does not mean i do, should or would.
it is not that i merely disagree with bill o'reilly or rush limbaugh, as they would have you believe about those opposed to them. it's that i do not take them seriously. i do not consider their perspectives in any way shape or form serious, learned or insightful. instead they are obnoxious, derisive and self-serving.
so how did these guys get on tv or radio? how did chris mathews become the hardball guy? i mean, it's hardball right? we're supposed to take him and his show seriously. it's top echelon political fodder. but, it isn't. i don't watch or listen to the shows of these guys i've mentioned often but when i have, it is not difficult to spot the moments when lies are presented as logic or the truth is relegated to rumor.
i know a lot of people who think the fox news is a viable outlet to get their news, if not "fair and balanced." i can't say that these people are idiots, (though occasionally that impulse may strike me.) rather, they've been lulled into an odd and sinister sense of security. from what i can tell, they tend to think most things are okay in the world around them. from that sense, they have become complacent and shed any sense of personal responsibility for their government. they may bitch and moan about it but by and large, they do not study the facts, (in fact, they may avoid them to avoid confrontation.) they don't try to stay informed nor up to date. critical thinking is a college course, nothing practical.
and this is how we got here. click on the title of this entry above and read the story about the study. deny it if you will. infer some bias if you need to avoid the confrontation w/ yourself. assume the university of maryland or the world public opinion is not to be trusted or part of some out of touch, liberal academia as o'reilly might characterize it in order to dismiss the substance of the message. or, just admit that you haven't necessarily lived up to all of your responsibilities as a citizen of this free country we live in and make some changes in a positive direction so that in the future you will be better informed, you will care a bit more and not choose the path of least resistence as a matter of course, and men of dick cheney's character do not end up in high office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
