We the people of these United States face two serious moral crises. One is the atrocious war against Iraq, Afghanistan and anyone else in the way. We've destroyed one nation, killed 4,324 Americans, killed a million plus Iraqis, and destroyed thousands of American families, all to feed the voracious appetite of the Defense complex, ultimately cycling money back to members of The Congress. This whole operation is the most immoral act committed by any civilized nation in centuries. We are told that we have to continue to outspend the rest of the world in military might, fulfilling Karl Marx's prediction that capitalism would implode by spending itself to death.
The right appears to have won this war. In addition to rewriting the history of Vietnam, we are now to believe that we have no choice but to wage eternal war.
The second crisis is our government's unbelievable refusal to provide health care for all citizens. We are the only civilized nation to live in this bizarre reality. Our leaders spew forth the old smelly bromides about socialized medicine, it will bankrupt the country, we can't afford it, or it will be a disaster. 75% plus of the people in this country want universal health care - 75% of Congress members are addicted to lobbyists money. Guess who wins that one?
These two moral issues are intertwined. Stopping the trillions dumped into defense contractors pockets would pay for health care in a minute. A sane, moral military budget would be less than half of current level. The other major source of revenue for health care is to remove government protection of the useless health care insurance industry. They no longer provide anything resembling insurance; it's just a another money fountain for the financial elite and their employees in Washington.
Grace Kelly asked that I remove my criticisms of her Iran/RNC post from the post itself, so in an honest attempt to be the magnanimous one, I will:
It's insulting to the progressive movement and our shared values to imply that there is some kind of rational comparison between what happened at last year's Republican National Convention and the violence and turmoil occurring now in Iran.
The protestors who caused trouble in St. Paul last year were there to cause trouble, not make some kind of larger political point. Those who were there to make a political point were co-opted by the troublemakers. Since the RNC, most of the filed charges have been dropped, and the physical injuries have healed.
Do we even know yet how many have died in Iran because they took to the streets to speak out against their government? How many have been beaten to death by the Basij militia while on their way to the hospital for treatment from other injuries? How many media outlets have had their doors locked by the Iranian police?
The only equivalency between the two events, as far as I'm concerned, is the failure of the traditional media to cover them properly. Last year, The Uptake ate the collective lunch of the Twin Cities' and national media on what was going on outside the XCel center, and now we have newspapers reprinting Twitter messages as news because there's no other way to get information out of Tehran.
But the equivalency stops there.
Are changes needed in our enforcement policies? You bet. Those changes appear to be happening -- mostly out of the public eye, but MPR has done some good reporting on the aftermath and learning experience for both local police and policymakers on the matter. It's getting better.
As Americans, I am of the opinion that we have become more than a little spoiled by the rights we see as ours, with little more than a slap on the wrist and a pat on the head to remind us of the struggles that led to those rights' codification into law.
It would do us well to remember that elsewhere around the world, people are still dying for the rights we hold so dear -- and would be beaten to death on the spot if caught doing some of the things that happened in St. Paul last year.
It would do us well to remember how lucky we are that ours is a nation of laws. It's not perfect, but no political order ever is, and the genius of American law and jurisprudence is its ability to change with the times.
It would do us well to remember the dead and still-struggling around the world without comparing our comfortable lives here to their agony.
Making such a spurious comparison cheapens their sacrifices and makes us as Americans sound like the whiners as which much of the world already sees us.
The non-stop media coverage of the police brutality in Iran stands in stark contrast to the almost total media silence about the police state at the Republican National Convention in St Paul last fall. While it is true that no one directly died from police brutality last fall, that leaves many preemptive arrests, long detainments with no arrests, arrests with no cause, painful punishments applied after securing people, brutal head bashing take downs and extensive use of pepper spray and tear gas on the totally innocent. Note that there is not one report of resisting arrest anywhere and yet police brutality happened! This sums it up best:
As reported by Indymedia, the St. Paul police routinely beat and arrested progressive protesters during the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minnesota when they protested the improprieties of their government, yet these events got little corporate-media coverage and no visible anchor sympathy was shown for the beaten. Instead, Americans who have challenged the policies of the US government have been mocked and overlooked by their own country's media, while those in other nations who challenge the leadership of non US allies like Iran, Argentina and Bolivia get enthusiastic coverage. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Why is corporate-media so willing to provide wall-to-wall coverage of the people's movement in Iran and graphic images of the Iranian government's brutality, but unwilling to cover the progressive anti-war movement in America and the police brutality here?
And why if what some police did was wrong, did the other police cover up for those police? Covering up for crimes - is that normally also considered a crime? Under these types of circumstances, should we trust or respect our police or the upper level security decisions of this country? So is "civil rights" merely a marketing word for us going to war, and not something that we get to have in this country?
Back in 2004, I was on John Kerry's presidential campaign in the Boston (i.e., home state) office. I was a believer. Nevertheless, looking back I can understand why so many Democrats and others weren't exactly enthused by his approach on the stump or the nuances in his platform statements.
All that being said, Sen. Kerry has become a strong leader on foreign affairs in the aftermath of his presidential run -- and he's right. on. the. money on the tumult going on in Iran. He appeared on Hardball on MSNBC with Chris Matthews last night:
We've seen what hard-line rhetoric has gotten us over the last eight years, Chris. It's created an Iran that's more powerful in the region, an Iran that's been more reluctant to engage with the rest of the world. The president has opened up new possibilities. I think even the elections in Lebanon a week ago showed the results that come from a different kind of diplomacy. And we need to let the president pursue that.
MATTHEWS: Do you think we're kidding anyone, though -- don't they know, on the Ahmadinejad side over there, the government side and the ayatollahs' side -- that we're rooting for the opposition? Don't they...
KERRY: They don't have any...
MATTHEWS: Don't they...
KERRY: They don't have any illusions about it, but that's very different from overt activities that they can then turn around. Just the other day, the foreign ministry attacked the United States in trying to allege that it's U.S. meddling that is part of what has created this election uproar. We want the Iranians to carry this. This is an Iranian moment, not an American moment, and we need to have the discipline, the restraint, the maturity to stand back from this as the Iranians proceed.
We, obviously, can express our support for their efforts in personal ways and in other ways. The president has already questioned the election. There's no doubt in anybody's mind about where our sympathies lie. But we need to allow the Iranians to really -- to take a hold of this. And that's part of what's giving it all the extra power that it has on a global basis.
MATTHEWS: Are those people in the streets -- they seem highly educated. They seem sophisticated. Are they on our side or where are they in this fight...
KERRY: I don't think...
MATTHEWS: ...between Iraq -- Iran and us?
KERRY: I don't think anybody can accurately say that. I mean, some are. Some aren't. What they are for is -- is an accountable process in their own country and one that begins to take them in a different direction. I don't think anybody can say with certainty where that is. Most polls have shown that Iranians are overwhelmingly supportive of the nationalistic sort of right that is expressed in their nuclear program.
So how this translates, ultimately, I don't think anybody can say. What is important is that Ahmadinejad and the current regime have really oppressed people in a way that has restrained their ability to live their lives in a way that I think they want to. And I think that's a lot of what is being expressed in the current ferment in the streets in Iran.
Compare Kerry's approach to the mewing coming from the neo-conservative right wing, banging their fists and pushing resolutions and action! on Iran. Simply put, it's good to see that the adults are back in charge in Washington -- now if only the Sunday talk show media could figure out how irrelevant the right wing is to the policy-making process right now, we'd all be a little better off.
Don't forget that if the Senate race does end soon, ya gotz to buy the book (just click on the picture). Winerev, aka Carl Eeman, tracked every facet of this sordid affair in his Daily Kos diaries. Winerev quickly became required daily reading for his complete coverage and fantastic digressions into tenuous metaphor.
Dontcha love it when a conservative who loudly proclaimed that several people should resign because of their philandering ways, gets busted having an affair and refuses to resign? He was actually having the affair when he urged Sen. Larry "widestance" Craig to resign. Hypocrisy much, John Ensign?
In the eyes of the new Israeli government and their US lobbying arm AIPAC the sovereign United States is simply a puppet to carry out their demands. Obama promises a show of backbone in dealing with Iran and the eternal funding for Israeli genocide programs, but the puppet masters are unimpressed.
Netanyahu is scheduled to meet at the White House, Monday, May 18. So far he's promised not to repeat his demeaning lecture to Clinton in 1996. However, NY Times, May14, 2009 reports, "Two weeks ago, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, held a quiet meeting with Mr. Netanyahu in Jerusalem. Israel asked the United States to clarify benchmarks that would demonstrate that its diplomatic campaign was working." Complete article here.
I was under the assumption that Obama was elected by the people of the US, not appointed as a puppet governor for Israel.
Why in hell do we have to demonstrate that US foreign policy is working to the Israeli government?
Israel and AIPAC are dedicated to dragging us into a war with Iran; their US agents include the same fine folks that led us to glory in Iraq. The necons are beating the same drums and feeding the same frenzy that preceded the Iraq fiasco.
A few weeks ago Israel ordered the US to not participate in the World Conference on Humans Rights.
(I happen to believe this is a completely misguided bill. At a time when we should be reaching out and using diplomacy with Iran, we're seriously considering punishing the people and workers of Iran? - promoted by TwoPuttTommy)
A stick in Iran's eye, sabotage Obama foreign policy, state of Minnesota looses up to half a billion dollars. Sounds like a hell of a deal! It is if you're AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) or JCRC (Jewish Community Relations Council). For the rest of us, not so much.
An atrocious bill (SF0131 and HF 0111) Divestment from Iran, is being highballed through the MN legislature. There's no basis for this action other than to poke a stick in the eye of the Iranians while Obama is laboring against all his naysayers to engage Iran on productive diplomacy. Iran is not now nor has it been a threat to the US. Iran has never started a war against anyone. One of the justifications for this bill is that Iran is a terrorist state?
The state has real problems. This isn't one of them. This bill costs the state $2 - 3 million in transfer fees and from $250 - $500 million in lost equity. A high state official described it is fiscally irresponsible.
WAMM had a Press Conference on the steps of the state capitol the other day on not attacking Iran.
KSTP was present, not sure if they had tape in camera, WCCO Radio showed up for a few minutes. No local press coverage.
There was a group of mideast journalists visiting the capitol. They didn't know this was not news so they reported extensively on it (including a slide show):
In a story in the LA Times this morning "Top general may propose pullbacks" Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel report that Petraeus may announce pullbacks from some areas in Iraq, including al Anbar province and a turnover of those ares to Iraqi forces.
I'm somewhat mystified by this process as it appears that, at the White House, they seem to know already, in other words, today, what they are going to report in September, in other words, a month from today. In fact it seems that they began writing their "field report" weeks ago... in the White House.
I'm not sure why exactly, but this somehow reminds me of reports I hear from teachers with experience in the "no child left behind" follies, who have described to me the specter of spending weeks and weeks of classroom time devoted to "teaching to the test" in order to maintain mandated academic ratings and the flow of federal funds. Taking the test is mostly a charade, passing the test, a foregone conclusion, an exercise in making things look good on paper.
In other words, as Junior might say every few seconds, in the case of Iraq they are writing a "report" which will contain recommendations that will allow us to draw conclusions, that were decided on in the White House more than a month ago.
(I'm always a bit wary of organizations whose names follow the model "Concerned {Group of People} {For, Against} {Really important subject matter}" like "Minnesotans Against Terrorism". Vagueness in naming is a great way to conceal really nefarious purposes. - promoted by MNCampaignReport)
I never intended to post anything here about Sunday's Town Hall Forum with Senator Norm Coleman sponsored by the Jewish Community Relations Council, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Israel Program Center, the Sabes Jewish Community Center, the Saint Paul United Jewish Fund and Council and a group calling itself "Minnesotans Against Terrorism" on "The Iran Crisis: How Should the United States Deal with Iran's Nuclear Ambitions and Hostility to the West."
Nope, campaign issues were the farthest thing from any of our minds when a group of us decided to caravan from Eagan and Apple Valley all the way up to St. Louis Park to get front row seats to hear our senator speak. Mostly we were just interested in seeing how Senator Coleman would run a public "town hall" meeting and what he would say about the dangers posed by Iran. I also thought it a perfect opportunity to hand-deliver a copy of the latest memorandum written by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS--http://www.huffingto...) since the start of the Iraq War (and to which I had contributed) entitled "Denouement on Iraq: First Stop the Bleeding" (http://www.commondre...) just before Coleman and other senators were slated to take up the topic. (Unfortunately that effort proved for nought as Coleman voted Bush's way yesterday to "stay the course" despite what he's been saying about their failures.)
Only a week after claiming that there's a secret agreement to partition Iraq, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Crazytown) finally explains what it is we were supposed to understand that she meant:
Some people would prefer to dismiss Iran and Al-Qaida's push to undermine the freely elected Iraqi government, but the threat is very real.
Iran wants to undermine the Iraqi government? That's going to be news to Iran. And the Iraqi government.
That's not to say that Iran might not benefit from a partition in Iraq--primarily if it stabilizes the region. But Iran would benefit even more if the Shi'a, pro-Tehran government in Baghdad could consolidate its power and create a second Shi'a state on the gulf.
At any rate, we'll forgive Bachmann her ignorance here; there's plenty more to come.
