Making the World Unsafe for Democracy
Mr Smorgasboard sent me this. It's written by Tom Engelhardt and definitely worth a read.
www.tomdispatch.com
www.tomdispatch.com
posted by mochi at 6:02 PM
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Video Start Your Day
News Snipet Blog
Stuff That's Going On
American Scene
Michael Bérubé
Center for Citizen Media: Blog
CJR Daily
David Corn
Donkey Rising
Gadflyer Flytrap
In Media Res
Media Nation
New Donkey
Orcinus
The Plank
Political Animal
Real Clear Politics
Romanesko
Street Prophets
Andrew Sullivan
Talking Points Memo
Talking Politics
TPMCafe
Tapped
Matthew Yglesias
Previous Posts
- The hurricane that didn't
- London Calling
- Time for a change
- Winning the war on terror...
- Actors should act
- Freedom and peace don't mix
- Did Rove screw-up?
- Uncle Karl's Kids' Korner
- Verizon Rebates
- Just Testing...
Blogroll
21 Comments:
I like the analogy of our administration as children. In the past I have spat venom at them and shaken my fist and have even been brought to tears, but the fact remains that, this time around anyway, they seem to have been fairly elected by American voters – the democratic process at work. So the question becomes why would Americans choose children to represent and lead them on the world stage?
Think about the events that have led up to and followed every major event in US history. From the revolution, to the civil war, to the civil rights strife (obviously I’m omitting much), they have all been surrounded by a childlike resistance, as though petulance would stop the inevitable. This is the natural fear of the unknown. At its root it is without moral standing; it is not good or evil, it is simply a basic animal emotion. But the thing about growing up – becoming an adult – is that we can learn not to be controlled by our emotions. We stop throwing tantrums, we stop relying so much on others, we become independent. That’s not to say that major personal catastrophes won’t plunge us back for a while into a childlike state – these things also happen naturally. But becoming an adult means a growing ability to empathize, to reason well, and to make sound decisions through experience. What have we as a people learned?
America voted for Bush because we are scared, and we have every right to be scared. The tragedy, however, is not that we fear, but that we let fear cloud our adult minds and we act like children incapable of making the right choice – as though we do not have the benefit of 200 years experience. The fact is the Bush administration is the face of another bout of petulance in a void where great change should be taking place. We can study the loyalists to Britain during the revolution, or slave owners during the civil war, the KKK, or anyone who stood in the way of equal rights for blacks and women, and wonder what they could have been thinking, how they could have stood in the way of something so obvious and inescapable. They stubbornly tried to impede progress because of their fear of change, of the unknown. We are at the same crossroads now.
Everyone, and I sincerely mean everyone, knows why these terrorists are attacking us. It’s our foreign policy – the way we interact with the rest of the world. Of course this is not limited to US foreign policy, most western countries and many in the east act the same way. We are overly aggressive and we are hypocrites. Japan backed down after World War II because the USA annihilated thousands of their civilians with atomic bombs. We have been flexing that muscle at the world ever since. How can we possibly expect countries like North Korea or Pakistan to ignore such a powerful and politically useful tool when we have been arrogantly wielding it for so many decades? How can we expect the downtrodden in the middle east to grow up with democratic ideals when we destroy their homeland, mock their beliefs, and cut their access to the spoils that we were raised with?
There is a saying in Buddhism that only compassion can end suffering. By using war and duplicity we are simply fueling our “enemies’” suffering and it will never end. By using compassion, which grows from understanding and empathy, we can lessen the suffering of those who attack us. They attack us because they suffer and the less they suffer the less they will attack. This is a fact every adult knows true, yet many ignore. They ignore it because their own suffering, in the form of fear, prevents them from seeing clearly, reasoning logically, and acting as an adult.
Once we, not just as Americans but as the civilized world, start acting like adults and taking responsibility for our actions, we will begin to see real change. Until then we are just indefinitely postponing what could be a glorious reality: peace on Earth. Ironically, to say such a thing seems childish to our cynical and jaded ears, but we know in our hearts and our minds (parts we often ignore) it is the only path.
It is no wonder we elected a child to lead us, we are children ourselves. It’s high time we took to heart the advice our parents might have given to us, “if you want to be treated as an adult you must start acting as one”.
That is the best goddamned post I have ever read. It could not be better stated. Thank you.
Part 1 of 2.
Ok, there comes a time in one's life when he has to speak up, albeit quite arrogantly. First, let me qualify my statement to begin with by saying that I am a former ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE. This usually means to most that I know a thing or two about law, so when I run into willfully ignorant people who like to bandy opinions without basis I think that I need to point out corrections--or let those people flounder forever in their ignorance.
I find it interesting that many people that make assertions about LAW know nothing about it. Take for instance Lindsey Graham--his stint as a JAG makes him an authority on international law or for that matter criminal law. Therefore he runs around talking about due process for the terrorists/combatants being held at Guantanamo.
I'm going to explain this once. If you choose to understand it, well and good. If you want to languish in your ignorance, then that is fine too. My job is done.
If you want to apply due process to the prisoners at Guantanamo then you know nothing of law.
1. Due process is only afforded American citizens by the Constitution and is paid for by the United States citizen. I don't know about you, but I don't particularly want my tax dollars going to an ACLU trained lawyer to defend a terrorist trained to kill my child.
2. The Geneva Convention does not cover terrorists or those who do not serve under a national flag. Pure and simple.
So, a terrorist is neither a United States criminal or a soldier. As it would be stated on the Neo-Libs site, "Any dumb fuck should know that"! Geez, Democrat legal counsel to President Clinton, Lanny Davis even knows this! So before you go talking about "due process" (as this article does) go to law school (a good one, mind you, as there are many out there that can't figure this out either!) and then come back and comment. Tom Engelhardt is an ignorant ideologue who cannot think outside of the box (which means that everything he says here is just recycled mantra-not denying ), and I am speaking strictly in a clinical way.
If you want to defend the terrorist at Gitmo, then go do it in front of the parents of the children who were blown up yesterday by one of these wackos!
"Just use your head for once!" -Jack Mercer when talking to his daughter after a demonstration of brainless activity.
________________________________
Also, Smorg, Muslims were attacking the world long before America even existed. Sigh, I just don't understand why you guys insist that all of the problems in the world have been a result of America and its foreign policy. Next we'll be hearing that Cain killed Abel because he was a zionist emperialist with American ties...
I understand where you're coming from, Smorg, but as long as the world has existed not everyone has been "adult". And when there are children about, they need to be corrected by adults. Correction comes in many forms, dependent upon the unruliness of the child. Smorg, I DO wish that everyone could be an adult, but until that happens, we have to live in the real world where there is real evil and real pain.
p.s. Smorg, saying the terrorists are justified in what they do is almost the equivalent of saying that Joseph Edward Duncan was justified in what he did. If that family didn't have such darn cute children...
There is NOTHING that justifies what a terrorist does, Smorg. Nothing.
________________________________
Ok, Shea, blast away, man...ha!
A challenge to all Neo-libs-
One thing I have read more than 1,000 times is "Bush Lied"
So far, I have not found a site that documents this. (Everyone just says it, and makes accusations, but does not show it)
Here's the challenge. Write an article about the specific lies (need documented quotes--not paraphrase, or hearsay,--from reputable sources) and provide specific documented evidence (see criteria above) to support the finding of lies. (First of all, everyone lies--EVERYONE, Clinton, the Pope, everyone, so I am not talking about lies in general, just those related to the Iraq War.
Present it in an honest and forthright manner, and I will post it on my site.
-Jack
Jack, three things:
1. As I understand it, there are many at Gitmo, as at Abu G, who are guilty of nothing. If you believe that a country that abducts innocent people and throws them into a foreign prison without charging them with any crime, with no release date in sight, is the type of country you want to live in, then I feel sorry for you.
2. You say that "Muslims were attacking the world long before America even existed." They same can be said of Christians. If "attacking the world" is your ctiteria for villifying a religion, then you are villifying Christians as well as Muslims.
3. I have many links on my blog which document the many, many, many lies of George Bush and his administration. If you are accusing us of making these statements lightly, you are wrong. And, you can do your own research. I am offended by your "challenge", when you refused to address the one I left for you. If you want me to do the research for you, you can pay me for my time.
Shea,
1. As you understand it. This is unverified, Shea. I am not sure how many "innocents" are in Gitmo. Lets be a little realistic.
2. Talking about contemporary and past Muslim terrorists, Shea. Not Christians.
3. I'll check out your site, Shea. But before you accuse me of not responding to your challenge, I did that shortly after you issued it. Check the post.
Jack, I did read your response - it was anecdotal and subjective, with no reference other than the implied "look it up." All you really did was repeat your claim, which proves nothing.
By the way, you do yourself a disservice when you so frequently remind us of your credentials. Your past achievements do not add any more weight to your opinions. I don't know who you're trying to impress, but quite frankly, if it were me, I would be less inclined to use said credentials to reinforce some of the things you write.
I invoked my credentials because it lets one know that the one speaking usually knows what one is talking about. For example, we consult with lawyers, doctors, scientists (who are credentialed individuals) on matters we are ignorant of ourselves. I invoked my background as a judge to indicate I knew something about law so I could discuss it from a position of knowledge. This is the way the world works, Shea, and it is a shortcoming of the ignorant to belittle those who are educated. I have a friend in Australia who is an "authority" on many topics, but never graduated from high school. He says that he has greater education because he learned it from the world and reading. How many times I have heard that! When one steps into the arena of a topic such as law, then high school education or even reading a text on business law or Roberts Rules of Order is not sufficient to make one an expert in the field. We have a LOT of experts out there that are unable to back up what they say which makes them just so much hot air.
So, no, Shea, I don't do myself a disservice by invoking my credentials. It lets the person know that in order to discuss issues they have to educate themselves to the level of the person they are discussing with--or do you not believe this? The internet has created a world of "learned ignorance", a cesspool of unfounded and recycled opinion. I know exactly what will be posted on the Neo-Libs site in regards to any topic, just like you know exactly what will be posted on the News Snipet site.
So in a real world perspective, Shea, credentials, experience, (dare I say, education?) do matter. I have the job I have right now because of them. You couldn't get my job or do it with your current training, just like I could not do yours.
I know from previous responses from you that you resent it when someone gives their background and uses it from a position of authority. Thats the reason I said for you to blast away, Shea. ha!
However, if these are a criteria for dismissing something someone says, then that person blinds themselves to truth. Its just like saying "Everything Clinton ever said is a lie, because he's Clinton and a lier" (Substitute Bush where applicable).
_______________________________
If you did read my response then why didn't you post your comments telling me it was "anecdotal and subjective"? Geez, Shea, 90% of what is written falls into this catagory no matter who writes it. I didn't see any responses to what I said.
I'm not sure I wrote this in the "challenge" but we had THREE specific groups of students in the college that went not only tuition free, but were paid to go. 1. Veterans. 2. Vocational Rehabilitation students, and 3. Georgia Social Services students. While not everyone qualified for 1 or 3., any economic hardship came under 2. There were other groups that too. I don't know how much plainer it can get.
_________________________________
Ok, finally. The point I made in my previous post was that terrorists do not fall under the Constitution (due process specifically) or the Geneva Convention.
You responded:
1. Guilt of those at Gitmo. Was that the issue?
2. Muslims attacking the world is ok because Christians did it? Shea it IS Muslims who are the terrorists is it not and aren't they doing it in the name of their religion? I can't justify terrorism whether its a Christian or a Muslim. And I will villify any sect who advocates it! (Didn't you see the same dancing in the streets after 9/11?)
Again, I guess I need to clarify myself, Shea. In order to appropriately respond to my comments one would need to demonstrate where terrorists are entitled to due process under the Constitution and are covered by the Geneva Convention. If you can, then I will cease invoking my law background. That was the point I was making, and so far it has not been refuted.
-Jack
I think SheaNC and Jack should meet and have a few drinks...just to see what happens.
As far as the Gitmo stuff, I really don't know what goes on there. No one does, save the few military folks that run the place. That's part of the problem. Personally I enjoyed Engelhardt's article more for the stuff I wrote about in my first post - the child like stuff.
Jack, we all know there's no easy answer. We all know people act like children. That's the point, isn't it? My "call to arms" was simply suggesting we take an introspective look at a global problem. Think about the success Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and others have had using compassion instead of violence and hate. Seriously. As I write the words I picture at least half the world, if they were to read them, rolling their eyes in disgust. But why? That’s the question. I am in NO WAY justifying the acts of violence and hate that have been perpetrated against us. Quite the contrary, I am saying that we need to end it as efficiently and expeditiously as possible. The best way to do that is probably by changing our current mentality of kill or be killed. It’s the same mentality the terrorists have. It’s the way civilizations have been dealing with each other for thousands of years, and we’ve learned through those thousands of years of experience (I was using US history before only as an illustration) that it DOESN’T WORK. Obviously! Why are you so afraid to try turn your enemy into your friend? I would gladly stop my vicious comments about Bush if he made a sincere effort to take this path, but we all know he won’t. That is why he’s the boy president (as were so many before him). We need to be adults and we need to elect adults to lead us when we’re too scared to act as such.
Hi Smorg!
Nice to be talking to you again!
I like Shea. He and I can disagree on just about everything and still talk. This is what makes America great, and what makes a person like Shea a great American.
Can't say I disagree much with anything you say here. I just often wish for a balanced perspective, and offer counterpoint. Bush haters are no better than Clinton haters--they are the same blind ideologues, just from different sides of the coin. When Clinton was in office I defended him when I though his position defensible. The same goes for Bush. We have a load of armchair quarterbacks who go about second-guessing what others do, and have no idea what decisions have to be made on a daily basis. As a former judge (sorry again, Shea!) I know there are bad decisions that I made, but they didn't seem that way at the time. Once made, more often than not, I did not have the power or wherewithal to reverse it.
In the small city I live in, I decided to do a little survey for my readers. While the protestors where outside of the courthouse protesting the Iraq war, I went out and interviewed 100 of them. One of the "qualifying questions" I gave them was if they protested the wars that Clinton was involved in. Many of them said "What wars?", and every one of them said, "No". You see, Smorg, these people weren't anti-war, they were anti-Bush. There's a big difference, and its hypocritical to the core. Bush is no more a child than Clinton was, they just have different interests.
I DO agree with the concept as advanced by Plato, that an empire is in decline when the base in society rise to the top to be its rulers. We see this in politics in general. The key is to recognize it WHEREVER it is, and not when its just in our favored ideological pool.
I don't know if the deranged killers, (which is what radical Islam produces) can be reasoned with or dealt with peaceably. A person who would kill a child is beyond my understanding. A prominent Imam mentioned that radical Islam comprised only about 10% of all Muslims--that's 200 million deranged killers worldwide (almost the population of the United States). I don't know how to turn someone into friend who has been taught as a child to hate the "white devil".
In regards to fear. Smorg, I believe as Patrick Henry, give me liberty or death. I hate the Patriot Act, I hate the new centralized KGB operation that is developing, I hate the increased interferance of government in every aspect of our lives, to limiting personal choices about using cell phones in car, seatbelts, helmet laws, gay marriage bans, and all of that idiocy. I have no fear of terrorists because we have no ability to combat these people except vigilance. Fear did not elect GWB the first time, but may have the second time. I'll grant you that. The government we need is the government that limits itself and empowers individuals. We won't get this from either of the Parties we have in Washington.
Take care, Smorg!
-Jack
You had a martini at lunch didn't you Jack? LOL! Just kidding. Agreed about most points, 'cept perhaps the level to which Clinton was a child compared to Bush.
Clinton obviously has issues, but they're mostly social emotional things that didn't impair his judgment as a leader. His wars, while not the ideal course of action, were not temper tantrum-esque the way the war in Iraq is. There were UN weapons inspectors in there doing their jobs, they said they needed more time and the world agreed, except for the Bush administration. Bush then used the tragedy of 9/11 as a springboard to wage a war that has been more costly in dollars and lives than all of Clinton's wars combined. I think that's a notable difference.
Smorg,
Bill Clinton bombed four countries.
It has often been speculated that in an attempt to avoid impeachment, he bombed Iraq while they were cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors, although he did nothing when Iraq was not cooperating.
When his personal scandals increased in intensity, he bombed a pharmaceutical company in Sudan without consulting a single member of his joint chiefs of staff or the U.N. while he planned the operation.
He also bombed Afghanistan in retaliation against alleged bombing terrorist Osama Bin Ladin, who he later joined forces with, to support the Kosovo Liberation Army.
When the Communist Chinese scandal finally started to peak, he bombed Yugoslavia, using the an alleged Serbian "massacre" that was most likely staged by the KLA (according to European news sources and international Finnish forensic experts).
I could go on...
Clinton's actions are as indefensible as Bush's. Dollars are irrelevent in military action, lives---well, the value of human life cannot be measured in numbers. To me 1=1000, its still as tragic.
It wasn't really my intention to defend Clinton's military actions - although I realize it came off that way. I just didn't want Bush's actions to seem justifiable at all, because I whole-heartedly believe they are not.
I do think human lives lost can be measured. To say they can't is like saying a murderer who killed one person is just as evil as Hitler - or any other mass murderer. But we are getting off topic...
The point of the original article and the comments after, for me, was that we need to seriously rethink how we do things. And by "we" I mean the civilized world, not just the United States. Although if the USA started, many, many countries would follow.
Amen, Smorg!
Okay, I’m back, so I can address a few points before the thread becomes impossibly long.
Regarding listing credentials:
Whatever, Jack. Scroll back up and you’ll see that you SHOUTED your oft-repeated reminder again that you were a judge. Whoop-de-fucking-do. I’ve known judges who could put all their brain cells into a thimble and still have enough room left over for their black and shriveled little hearts, so your former title does not impress me. Just prove yourself with knowledge, rather than proclaiming “I’m Special!”
You then went on to imply that we are "willfully ignorant people who like to bandy opinions without basis.” Lovely. How nice to have earned your respect, your honor. Then you say, “If you want to languish in your ignorance, then that is fine too. My job is done." Well, I hope it is, because that condescending attitude is unnecessary and uncalled-for.
“If you want to defend the terrorist at Gitmo, then go do it in front of the parents of the children who were blown up yesterday by one of these wackos!”
I don’t want to defend terrorists. I want to defend innocent civilians who were wrongly abducted and thrown into a foreign prison.
“1. As you understand it. This is unverified, Shea. I am not sure how many "innocents" are in Gitmo. Lets be a little realistic.”
Okay, here is a small sample of information: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/05/1411248,
http://digg.com/links/Innocent_Zambian_was_held_and_tortured_3_years_in_Guantanamo_Bay
http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/index.php/2004/03/11/guantanamo-brits-innocent-after-all/
http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2003/0326gua.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/americas/03/12/ret.guantanamo.detainees/
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=8741,
There is a lot more if you google it. Not that it matters; you’ll just blame the messenger.
"2. Talking about contemporary and past Muslim terrorists, Shea. Not Christians."
You can’t weasel your way out of this one by changing the subject, your honor. First of all, you made a bigoted, sweeping condemnation of an entire religious population. Not all Muslims are extremist terrorists, but by the same token, there are extremist terrorists who are Christians and your statement could just as easily be applied to Christianity. Your statement was a bigoted slur. See here: http://www.masnet.org/takeaction.asp?id=2594.
"I know from previous responses from you that you resent it when someone gives their background and uses it from a position of authority."
That is yet another insulting lie, Mercer. Last time you tried to put words in my mouth about communism, now you have the audacity to make the claim above. I am getting sick and tired of your insults. Besides the fact that you are wrong, you are ridiculously presumptuous to imagine that you know what I resent and what I don’t. Especially when, ironically, you don’t realize after my repeated attempts to explain to you that what I resent is some self-righteous blowhard telling me what I think.
"Thats the reason I said for you to blast away, Shea. ha!"
You’re sounding more and more like a Usenet troll.
"If you did read my response then why didn't you post your comments... I didn't see any responses to what I said."
What would be the point? I made my statement and you did not prove me wrong.
"I'm not sure I wrote this in the "challenge" but we had THREE specific groups of students in the college that went not only tuition free, but were paid to go. 1. Veterans. 2. Vocational Rehabilitation students, and 3. Georgia Social Services students. While not everyone qualified for 1 or 3., any economic hardship came under 2. There were other groups that too. I don't know how much plainer it can get."
I’ll tell you how much "plainer it can get." You’re flat-out wrong. I have checked with colleges, college counselors, advisors, instructors, for years, and there are no programs for economic hardship that allow an adult who is working full-time to support their family, to return to college for vocational training to improve their earning capacity. None. How “plainer” can it get? (Or, in English, “How much more plain can it get?” your honor).
"2. Muslims attacking the world is ok because Christians did it?"
Again with the twisted revision. I never sad that. You did. Why do you so often try to make your point by lying about what I said?
"Shea it IS Muslims who are the terrorists is it not and aren't they doing it in the name of their religion?"
Just because some Muslims are terrorists doesn’t mean they all are. Consider the Irish terrorists – they blow up innocent people, too, in the name of their religion. Maybe you should be a little more egalitarian and condemn Christians, too.
"Again, I guess I need to clarify myself, Shea. In order to appropriately respond to my comments one would need to demonstrate where terrorists are entitled to due process under the Constitution and are covered by the Geneva Convention. If you can, then I will cease invoking my law background. That was the point I was making, and so far it has not been refuted."
In my response to you, I was addressing the fact that you claim all the detainees in Guantanamo are terrorists, and that all Muslims are terrorists. And I say you are wrong, based on the information I have provided.
One other thing, JM. You often invoke Clinton, implying that we should be directing energy toward his misdeeds. Well, I can't speak for the others, but as I have said before, my main purpose for blogging is to address current issues; the current state of American government, and the actions and effects of the Bush administration. That is why I rarely, if ever, blog about past presidential adsministrations. I infer that your remarks about war protesters are supposed to make me feel as though I am somehow not worthy to comment on current events because I was not blogging about Bosnia. Well, go ask those same 100 protesters if any of them protested any of Reagan or Bush I's covert ops. You could go back through history to find unjust wars to protest, but quite frankly, I am right here, right now, and I am making my statement about the present (give or take a few months), not about the presidency of the last century.
"...[Liberals]--the reason they differ from others is that they are so much more compassionate, aware, concerned, nuanced, sophisticated and -- yes -- just plain smarter." Thomas Sowell
I'm beaten, I surrender.
-Jack
Oh, hell, now I feel guilty. Okay, everyone, I know, I am rude to our guests, I should try to be more patient, lighten up, mellow out, it's only a blog, stop chasing away regular commenters with my bad attitude, and dammit get my feet off the coffee table!
Click here for the "Top Five Gitmo Falsehoods." I should have offered these up in the first place!
Ha! Shea--man, don't feel guilty! I figured that if I tried to add to that string we would be going on forever.
As I told another commenter, I like Shea cause he tells it like it is.
I had read this other link from your other blog and agree with the assertions in #3. It doesn't apply to the terrorists though--the others that are there, I'm not sure why they would be there in the first place unless they were captured engaging in terrorist activities.
On to the next topic!
Regards,
-Jack
Tally Ho!
Jack and Shea, youre like an old married couple.
No offense and just kidding.
Post a Comment
<< Home