connecting*the*dots

Donald Rumsfeld spoke at The American Legion National Convention in Salt Lake City, Utah the other day (full transcript), attempting to solidify the position of this administration’s war on terror; that we are fighting an enemy similar to Adolf Hitler — an Islamofascist.

Analogies to the attitudes years prior to WWII ebbed and flowed with the greatest of ease from Rumsfeld, all pointing to the absolute righteousness of this administration in their self-assigned task to rid the world of the threat of terrorism.

As a resident of New York City on 9/11, I’d be extremely satisfied with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda lying in ruins before treading any deeper in potentially self-polluting waters, but apparently this administration doesn’t care what me and my former neighbors think about the matter at hand:

[…]

Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be accommodated, then the carnage and the destruction of then recent memory of WWI, could be avoided.

It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis — the rise of fascism and Nazism — they were ridiculed, or ignored.

Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated.

[…]

I recount that history because, once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism.

Today, another enemy, a different kind of enemy, has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington D.C., Bali, London, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history’s lessons.

We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

With the growing lethality, and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, someway, vicious extremists can be appeased?

[…]

I have many thoughts on this line of reasoning, but first, take a listen to Keith Olberman’s perspective on the matter:

[…]

That about what Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this:

This is a democracy, still. Sometimes, just barely. And as such, all voices count. Not just his. Had he or his president, perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama bin Laden’s plans 5 years ago; about Saddam Hussein’s weapon’s 4 years ago; about Hurricane Katrina’s impact 1 year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard and accept their omniscience as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact plus ego.

But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris. Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina to flu vaccine shortages to the entire fog of fear that continues to envelop our nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and their cronies have, inadvertently or intentionally, profited or benefited, either personally or politically,

And yet he can stand up in public and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask for the receipt for the Emperor’s New Clothes.

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

[…]

Rumsfeld, in his eagerness to equate this administration’s strategy in Iraq with Winston Churchill’s call to watch Hitler and a Germany on the rise to destructive power once again, misses the mark entirely. But let’s not waste energy with generalizations; instead, let’s speak to historical fact regarding the nation of Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

The facts are that the United States of America financially backed Iraq in the early 1980’s. President Reagan sent this very same Donald Rumsfeld to speak with Saddam Hussein in December of 1983, during the peak of the Iraq-Iran war, to ensure that all was well in the struggle against that decade’s flavor of tyranny.

Only one month prior to the visit, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against both Iranian soldiers and his own people. Even though our intelligence confirmed such actions, nothing was said by Rumsfeld at the time.

Donald Rumsfeld doesn’t have a leg to stand on in a comparison with Winston Churchill. If anything, he is complicit in the build-up of aggression that “islamofascists” have against our nation.

Similarly, America, circa 1980 to 2006, is in no way analogous to a European continent that fell into conflict with a powerful, internal rogue state and their techniques of propaganda, fear mongering, terrorism, territorial occupation and mass executions.

If anything, this speech by Rumsfeld — one that holds both loaded arguments and misconstrued analogies of the highest order — is closer itself to propaganda than “the beacon of light in times of darkness” message that both he and this administration so very wishes to convince us of believing.

Olbermann, who might not speak for political analysts, but does for millions of Americans with quelled voices in this nation, put it best when he directly challenged this administration’s self-righteous claim to ownership of truth, by saying:

“And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a new type of fascism. As he was correct to remind us as how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that, though probably not in the way he thought he meant it. This country faces a new type of fascism, indeed.”

The only problem is that if you’re a student of history, it really isn’t that new.

So much for trying.

Look, I’m not trying to force an opinion on anyone. It’s a well-known fact that in the very least, the Greensboro Police Department did not protect and serve its community on 11/3/79 — specifically, Morningside Homes and numerous other Greensboro residents who collected that morning to protest with the CWP (an organization armed with a location specific, city-sanctioned march permit).

Over the last month or so, conversations around town surrounding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report — with a subsequent recommendation for the city to apologize for its role in the escalation of violence — has numerous residents and/or neighbors of Greensboro heroically trying to sweep that historical fact under the rug.

Completely blind to the negative, residual effects of 11/3/79 on other people within their own community — voices who have been silenced over the years and up through this loud and conflicting debate of privileged people on computers — people valiantly press on:

• meblogin: “How about nobody apologizes and Greensboro continues to be a great place where a horrid event took place?”…
• Dr. Mary Johnson: …”Hey Bubba, let’s you and me take off the albatross, go pay that cover and get some nice Southern iced tea. Not San Francisco, not Boston, not Seattle, not New York City tea. But good old-fashioned Greensboro, North Carolina iced tea. And let’s talk about something else.”
• Jeffrey Sykes: …”I’d dare say you and Andy and Sean and the TRC process have done more to hurt the national image of your city by ripping open a healed wound just to see what would happen.”…

The details behind the 11/3/79 incident were already well documented in literature, long before the initiation of the TRC process or the release of the report and recommendations.

From the May 2001 anthology entitled, Police Brutality:

[…]

Perhaps the worst incident occurred on November 3, 1979, in Greensboro, North Carolina, where five members of the Communist Workers Party were murdered by Klansmen and Nazis during an anti-Klan demonstration.

Not only did the Greensboro police know of the Klan’s plan to attack the demonstration but, just minutes before the confrontation, nearly all on-duty officers were called to the other side of town for a “lunch” break. When the shooting stopped, there was not a cop in sight.

Although the entire episode was caught on videotape, the all-White jury concluded that there was insufficient evidence to convict anyone.

[…]

Sorry folks, but the facts are out there for the world to see and they have been for years. You’d be dumbstruck by the sheer amount of evidence of police wrong-doing you could find in the Chapel Hill library.

Non-privileged folk in our community, such as former residents of Morningside — people who were most affected by the uncontested crossfire of hate on 11/3/79 and similar attitudes of institutional indifference that exists today — have already ingrained the details surrounding the event into their psyche long ago.

And I’d bet that image ain’t too pretty, either.

Examples of outside-the-community crafted literature and mounds of evidence available to the public is simply icing on the cake.

To me, it’s clear that city leadership, as a majority, doesn’t care at all about these ingrained attitudes, so my blunt question for you — my fellow residents and neighbors of Greensboro (online) — is do you give two shits?

Because, while over time this conversational meme may putter out online and people will go back to focusing on their own lives, getting ready for back to school specials and the eventual holiday shopping season, this moment is our opportunity to approach these issues, out in the open, in an honest discussion to bridge even broader issues that currently affect all residents of Greensboro proper.

For if we continue with these attitudes, and life returns to “normal” for the majority of us, the streets of Greensboro — especially the ones less traveled by you or me — will continue to whisper, edify and drift apart.

I hearby declare you… a bunch of dead plants.

————

Ed Cone, News & Record, 10/9/05
Council members speak on Truth and Reconciliation hearings

[…]

Tom Phillips did not consider attending the hearings. “My attending would not matter,” he said. He will read the report. “If we as a council think it is worthwhile, we’ll consider it. If I disagree with the final conclusions, I’ll be called names. They say we’re racists — when are people going to ask black council members why they always vote together?” He said Nelson Johnson’s involvement compromised the project (a danger I pointed to as early as 2003); that he understood that the commission was independent of Johnson; and that he wanted to know where the money Johnson raised for the project had gone.

[…]

To be fair to Tom Phillips, these quotes were from last year, only a handful of months following the city council’s vote to not endorse the investigation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I mean, who was the idiot that placed upstanding, community politicians in a position to stand up and be counted on such an important issue to the community?

Let me step back for a moment…

Who am I to argue with another person’s sense of duty to community? I mean, the 6 of 9 members that voted against endorsing the TRC must have been serving the perspective of their immediate neighbors, right?

You know, I’m betting that Phillips has taken the time since last October to communicate to his constituency the importance of this moment in Greensboro’s continued attempts to heal open wounds and move forward as one community. If not, well, I’m positive that time has provided him with a stronger, more personal perspective on the issues that face this community-at-large.

So let’s fast-forward from 7.5 months ago to yesterday, the day following the culmination of the 2 year-long TRC investigation. Tom Phillips was once again contacted by local media, this time with an opportunity to address the culmination of the commission’s investigation and their final report.

Frank Mickens, WFMY News 2, 5/26/06
City Council Members Respond To Truth And Reconciliation Commission Report

Greensboro, NC — An independent panel says the the city of Greensboro needs to make up for mistakes it made after the Klan-Nazi shootings.

The commission’s report says city police didn’t do its job to protect the five union protesters who were shot and killed by a group of klansmen and Nazis. And it says city eroded race relations and the public trust by establishing curfews in Morningside Homes and distancing itself from what happened.

The commission wants the city to apologize. But council members don’t agree that’s a good idea. Council member Tom Phillips appeared indifferent to the report. Reached by phone he said quote, ” I could care less what they report has to say. At some point I plant to take a look at it.”

[…]

Time can erode the profiled face of a mountain, but not the position of this man.

What a rock.

UPDATE: According to Tom, the context of Tom’s quote wasn’t provided by the WFMY reporter:

Frank Mickens didn’t quite tell the whole story. I was sitting on my balcony looking at the ocean when Frank called on my cell phone (I’m changing my number). I told him I was on vacation and I couldn’t care less…….. I taken my last call from Mr. Mickens

Brush clearing, vacationing politicians everywhere feel you, Tom.

UPDATE II: Fox News reports Toms reaction when asked about a city/GPD apology for not protecting permit holders on 11/3:

Council member Tom Phillips, who said he has read most of the executive summary, said he doesn’t support an apology.

“We’ve got more important things to do,” he said.

UPDATE III: Ed Cone reports that Tom Phillips won’t come to a city council discussion in July regarding the TRC report. Tom’s words:

Ed, I recommended that council members review the recommendations in the report and if they believed that any on them should be adopted, they should bring them up at a council meeting where they can be discussed and voted up or down. I know how this group discussion will turn out and I don’t have the time or desire for another lecture from Goldie Wells. Tom

The TRC report is the culmination of a two-year process, attempting to address the ongoing issues stemming from 11/3/79 — issues that effect this community, both as a whole and especially specific communities divided along lines of class and race. Find tthe time, Tom, and be a good representative of the entire Greensboro community and join the discussion.

UPDATE IV: Tom’s foot-in-mouth syndrome continues:

“It occurs to me that we may not be going back far enough in this whole process of finding the root causes of what happened that day.�

“The reason the CWP was able to establish itself was because they were trying to improve working conditions and pay at local mills. A lot of people were getting very rich off the labor of the poor and there were those who saw that as a real injustice. If those mills had been treating their employees right, then the CWP wouldn’t have formed. Without the CWP, it is very likely that confrontation would never have happened. So if apologies are due, maybe the first ones should come from the mill owners and their descendents. If reparations are due, surely there are some trust funds around that could be tapped for that purpose.�

That last line is a killer of good faith and credibility.

Tom Phillips would never offer a serious analysis of the times — the stage of Greensboro’s labor situation and the workings of the CWP — as that would validate the CWP beyond a group of extremist rebel-rousers. Instead, he offers the analysis as a lede to dig a local, public figure (Ed Cone, related to the ownership of Cone Mills), alluding to Ed’s suggestion of an alterior route of apology to jumpstart the reconciliation process.

Congrats, Tom, you continue to do the city proud.

The first paragraph of the Executive Summary:

The Commission finds that on the morning of Nov. 3, 1979, members of the Klan/Nazi caravan headed for Greensboro with malicious intent. At a minimum, they planned to disrupt the parade and assault the demonstrators (by throwing eggs), violating the marchers constitutional rights to free speech and assembly. Further, we believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that they intended to provoke a violent confrontation and that this was broadly understood among those present in the multiple planning discussions. Those who left their cars to engage in violence did so willingly. More importantly, Klan and Nazi members have admitted since the event that they intentionally came prepared to use deadly force in order to be victorious in any violence that occurred.

[…]

Much more to come, as the final report is to be released next week in the morning.

I’m posting this from the screening of Greensboro’s Child. The Q&A after the 7pm screening was very intense. Not in a bad way either. Each person in the audience had a unique perspective and questions that furthered the conversation.

Come on down tomorrow night, 7pm, The Scene on South Elm, and check it out for yourself.

Q&A video to come soon…

+

=

(inspired by C&L)

My brother’s documentary, Greensboro’s Child, will be screened at The Scene on South Elm, directly following the release of the TRC report on May 25th and again on May 26th. Free copies of the TRC final report will be made available to ticket-holders ($3).

This marks the first time the film will be shown in Greensboro since the film was released in 2002.

For more information and complete show times, please visit the official web site. Link love is appreciated.

< --->
No connection, eh?

Neo-Nazis threaten to massacre Muslims at World Cup

ROME (AFP) - The World Cup in Germany is set to become a battleground between fascists and Muslims, an Italian member of a new European neo-Nazi movement warned.

In a statement published by Italian daily Repubblica, the member of AS Roma’s notorious ultras hooligan group claims neo-Nazis across Europe met in Braunau in Austria to plan attacks against supporters from Islamic countries during the World Cup in Germany from June 9 to July 9.

“We are united. For the first time we are talking and planning together, with the English, the Germans, the Dutch, the Spanish, everyone with the same objective. At the World Cup there will be a massacre,” said the Italian ultra.

“We will all be in Germany and there will be Turks, Algerians and Tunisians. The Turks, we can’t stand them. In our country (Italy) there are not many, but in Germany, there are many of those guys there. They are Islamic terrorists.

“We will attack them. They are all enemies that need to be eliminated, just like the police. If we make the Roman greeting (the fascist salute) they put us in prison. We will be tens of thousands. Nothing but the English are feared.”

With the tone and accent of Daniel Carver on Howard Stern back in the day:

“Wake up, white people!”

(via The Black Iris of Jordan)

What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims
by Suzanne Haneef
Islam And The Muslim World - (pg. 127)

In order to understand what is happening to Muslims, it is necessary to have a look at what is happening to the Muslim world. During the past century-and-a-half, the entire world has gone through tremendous upheavals, particularly in the realm of religion and values. While Europe and America were experiencing a profound loss of belief in religion, due in part to the irreconcilable conflict between science and what was supposed to be the “revealed World” and in part to the changes in people’s values and outlooks as a result of massive changes in technology and patterns of living, the Muslim world too was experiencing a great crisis in the realm of religion and values.

During this period, due to a complex interplay of forces, while the hold of Christianity was weakening in the West, the influence of Islam was also becoming attenuated in the East. As a result, many Muslims so far lost sight of the true reality of their faith that masses of them took the traditions of their societies, some of which were from Islam and others from sources other than Islam, to be Islam itself. Their understanding of Islam as a dynamic, revolutionary system of life shrank until all that remained to them of it was a set of confused, quasi-Islamic traditions, some faded remnants of Islamic values and behavior, and perhaps (but often not even that) praying and fasting in Ramadan, reading the Quran when someone died, and celebrating the Festivals. Others went to the opposite extreme, placing great emphasis on the worship aspects of Islam while ignoring all the rest of its teachings, especially in the area of striving, seeking knowledge, developing resources, political responsibility, cleanliness, etc. Muslim children living in areas outside the Arab world learned from pious but often ignorent teachers to pronounce the words of the Quran without understanding anything of their meaning, much less living by them, while in other places, youngsters grew up still more ignorant of Islam, believing it to be something related to the older generation which one is supposed to respect but which has no relevance or place in contemporary life.

At the same time, the Western influence emerged in the Muslim world and little by little grew stronger and stronger. In the past this trend was fueled by Western imperialism and the presence of Western officials, as well as by Christian missionaries and westernized, often Western-educated, natives who had returned home from a sojourn in Europe or America. Later industrial and commercial interests, finding a ready market for Western goods and expertise in Muslim countries, enthusiastically accelerated the process. Muslims became uneasily conscious of their own material backwardness and lack of modernity in comparison with the West, assisted by contact with Western goods and the lure of its life-styles, conveyed to every part of the globe by Western movies, media and propaganda. The West was seen as a glamorous utopia, and adoption of some of the trappings of its culture was looked upon as the instant way to modernization and progress.

Unfortunately, what was adopted were not the outstanding and excellent aspects of Western culture but only the most superficial and harmful ones, which were simultaneously applauded by many onlookers in the West as obvious signs that the Muslim world was now beginning to wake up and come of age: the old equation of bars, boogie and bikinis with progress and modernity. Under the impact of all this, many Muslims accepted Western society’s dictum that religion, moral values and the pursuit of meaning to be given no serious emphasis or importance in society. Its criteria of being civilized material advancement and the discarding of traditional values were accepted by them as the true measure of greatness of a society without their grasping the essential fact that genuine civilization must rest on a firm base of sound spiritual and moral principles, lacking which material progress simply becomes de-civilizing, de-humanizing and destructive.

Consequently, the present era has seen the emergence of three basic types of Muslims, who have their counterparts in other faiths as well. One is the individual for whom Islam is merely a vague tradition which more often than not he prefers to have nothing to do with, who subscribes himself “Muslim” on his passport simply because he is not a Christian or a Buddhist or anything else. He may either profess some outward tokens of respect for Islam or may reject it totally, but in any case it does not occur to him to guide his life by it or to try to practice it faithfully, and he regards those who do so as backwards and stupid.

This is understandable enough in view of the fact that almost invariably such individuals lack knowledge and understanding of Islam as a total world-view and system of life; moreover, they provide an example of real understanding and commitment to Islam. Such a “Muslim” may never have prayed in his life and may not even know how since he was not taught. For him Islam is simply a relic of ancient history. He may feel an occasional twinge of pride in his Islamic heritage when it is mentioned and may even come to the “defense” of Islam when it is attacked. Or he may think about it once in a while when someone dies (”Where am I going to go when this happens to me? Oh, well, God is merciful”), but he is too preoccupied with his daily activities and with his family and possessions and pleasures to follow up this train of thought. Many social problems and vices have by now crept into the lives of such Muslims, including an increasing incidence of divorce, sexual license, alcoholism, and total loss of values and direction. Basically, they are Muslims-by-name, no different either in their concepts or behavior from people who have no religion and no values, for in fact they hate neither, and they are often very hostile to Islam and to Muslims who adhere to it faithfully.

The second group are the traditional Muslims. They may understand the basic concepts of Islam, may have some degree of Islamic knowledge and may follow the Islamic teachings to some extent, but they do not understand it as a complete and dynamic system for all aspects of the human being’s life, nor do they adhere to its requirements in all aspects of their lives consistently and as a matter of principle and obligation. In their minds, Islam is often intermixed with many pseudo-Islamic practices common to their societies, many of which are completely contrary to the Islamic teachings although they have acquired some sort of an “Islamic” sanction or flavor, and with many westernized ways of thought and behavior as well. They definitely believe in God and Islam, but in a theoretical sort of way which does not carry enough conviction to move them steadily and consistently towards a totally Islamic orientation and way of life. Because they do not conceive of Islam as a complete system for all aspects of life, they are often critical or look down on those who do as having “gone too far” in the matter of religion.

The third group consists of those Muslims who understand the religion they profess as a total system and who have consciously decided to pattern their lives according to it. Their world-view and frame of reference is that of Islam, their obediance, loyalty and devotion are for God alone; their goal is the hereafter: and their community is the community of believers. Many among this group are highly educated individuals who have arrived at such a position as a reflection on what is happening in the world around them. They are a unique group, part of the small yet strong company of true believers in God who have been lining in submission to Him since the first prophet, Adam (peace be on him), walked on earth, in obedience to His guidance.

Without question, to reach such a level of Islamic commitment requires an understanding which, due to very faulty and inadequate approaches to Islamic education even in “Muslim” countries, few are able to attain. Moreover, the appeal of westernization and modernity is so strong that few people in the Muslim world have yet grasped the fact that material advancement is not necessarily the road to either true self-respect or satisfaction, and that it has not brought real happiness and well-being to the peoples of the West, but instead a staggering array of societal and environmental problems because it has been divorced from the spiritual and moral dimensions which are as integral and essential a part of the human being’s nature as is his material aspect.

When we survey the Muslim world today, you see a confused and troubled picture in which political instability plays a major role. In spite of the Islamic requirement of a leader elected from among the people who consults with them in the conduct of affairs, in very few countries of the Muslim world today are the governments elected by the people and responsive to their needs, or capable of providing leadership and stability to their countries: rahter they are, by and large, the rulers and the ruled. And although in most cases the professed Islam and often made a public show of piety, among the rulers of the Muslim world in recent years have been many who were dictators and oppressors of the most vicous sort. They stifled all criticism and dissent in their societies, whether by individuals, groups or the press, by sadistically oppressive means, making ruthless use of highly-trained secret police and intelligence services to supress anyone they considered a threat to their unbridled power; they filled the prisons of their “Muslim” countries to overflowing with tens of thousands of sincere and committed Muslims, many belonging to the intelligensia, who were trying to call for a revival of Islam in their societies or to question the policies or actions of the ruler. Hair-raising nazi-style tortures were applied to countless numbers of them under which many died, and some of the best among them were executed for fabricating “crimes” in order to silence the voice of faith so the ruler might continue unimpeded in his relentless drive for absolute power.

County after country in the Muslim world has seen rulers of this kind during the past half century or more, men who, although often Muslims themselves, hated and feared the very name of Islam because it constituted the only real challenge to their unchecked power and ambition, and who threw all their energies into trying to suppress it by opressing Muslims.

[…]

What the fuck is going on in Sydney? From the AP via Aljazeera:

[…]

On Sunday a mob of 5,000 white men, many of them drunk, attacked men they believed were of Middle Eastern descent in retaliation for the assault a week earlier of two volunteer lifeguards.

Youths of Lebanese descent were alleged to be behind that assault, but police say there was no apparent racial motive. (Full story)

Police arrested 16 rioters and said 31 people were injured, including a man stabbed in the back by an assailant officers said was a man of Arab appearance.

Prime Minister John Howard called the violence “sickening” but denied it was underpinned by a vein of racism running through Australian society.

“I do not accept that there is underlying racism in this country,” he said.

[…]

The rampage will compound shock expressed Monday at Sunday’s rioting, which police said was organized by mobile phone text messages and fanned by Neo Nazi groups.

“What we have seen yesterday is something I thought I would never see in Australia and perhaps we have not seen in Australia in any of our lifetimes. And that is a mass call to violence based on race," Community Relations Commission chairman Stepan Kerkyasharian told Sky News.

[…]

I’ve a few readers down under; Jack are you feeling the vibe down there? How organized are these hate groups?

Why I started my Chomsky indulgence with Understanding Power and not this digestible gem I’ll never know.

Uncle Sam is a brilliant pocket reference of Noam Chomsky’s world view, specifically his unflinching criticism of US foreign policy. His genius with linguistics provides him the means to absolutely tear apart the propaganda surrounding isms, bringing the conversation and arguments back to the table of reality. By comparing declassified government files, public policy and geopolitical events occurring between the early 1940’s to 1992, Chomsky cuts directly through the posturing of the US to frame cause and effect in the struggle for global power.

The man is fearless. He critically deconstructs policy from within the sovereign US to expose the post-WWII new world order policies of US planners — clearly describing how the Third World has been shaped to remain the peasant working class via neo-Nazi techniques of torture and intimidation, satisfying the needs of the US investor class.

His arguments are completely lucid and relevant in today’s world, even though it was published in the early nineties. Want an example? Keep an eye on the US propaganda regarding the “left-wing rhetoric” of Hugo Chavez. The BBC is already picking up the US talking points of Venezuela elections being rigged. Chomsky describes these US tactics in detail.

Chomsky’s take on US indoctrination of its citizens to contributing productively to pure capitalism is classic, as he tackles complicit participants from the mainstream media to academia. Just as stinging is his perspective on the marginalization of 80% of our population, which reminded me a bit of the 5% Nation, but without the optimism.

Here’s a section about the US in a Rent-A-Thug role (remember, this was written during the original Gulf War conflict with George H.W. Bush in charge):

[…]

“In any confrontation, each participant tries to shift the battle to a domain in which it’s most likely to succeed. You want to lead with your strength, play your strong card. The strong card of the United States is force—so if we can establish the principle that force rules the world, that’s a victory for us. If, on the other hand, a conflict is settled through peaceful means, that benefits us less, because our rivals are just as good or better in that domain.

Diplomacy is a particularly unwelcome option, unless it’s pursued under the gun. The US has very little popular support for its goals in the Third World. This isn’t surprising, since it’s trying to impose structures of domination and exploitation. A diplomatic settlement is bound to respond, at least to some degree, to the interests of the other participants in the negotiation, and that’s a problem when your positions aren’t very popular.

As a result, negotiations are something the US commonly tries to avoid. Contrary to much propaganda, that has been true in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Central America for many years.

Against this background, it’s natural that the Bush administration should regard military force as a major policy instrument, preferring it to sanctions and diplomacy (as in the Gulf crisis). But since the US now lacks the economic base to impose “order and stability� in the Third World, it must rely on others to pay for the exercise—a necessary one, it’s widely assumed, since someone must ensure a proper respect for the masters. The flow of profits from Gulf oil production helps, but Japan and German-led continental Europe must also pay their share as the US adopts the “mercenary role,� following the advice of the international business press.

The financial editor of the conservative Chicago Tribune has been stressing these themes with particular clarity (William Neikirk, “We are the World’s Guardian Angelsâ€? 9/9/90) We must be “willing mercenaries,â€? paid for our ample services by our rivals, using our “monopoly powerâ€? in the “security marketâ€? to maintain “our control over the world economic system.â€? We should run a global protection racket, he advises, selling “protectionâ€? to other wealthy powers who will pay us a “war premium.”

This is Chicago, where the words are understood: if someone bothers you, you call on the Mafia to break their bones. And if you fall behind in your premium, your health may suffer too.

To be sure, the use of force to control the Third World is only a last resort. The IMF is a more cost-effective instrument than the Marines and the CIA if it can do the job. But the “iron fist� must be poised in the background, available when needed.

Our rent-a-thug role also causes suffering at home. All of the successful industrial powers have relied on the state to protect and enhance powerful domestic economic interests, to direct public resources to the needs of investors, and so on—one reason why they are successful. Since 1950, the US has pursued these ends largely through the Pentagon System (including NASA and the Department of Energy, which produces nuclear weapons). By now we are locked into these devices for maintaining electronics, computers and high-tech industry generally.

Reaganite military Keynesian excesses added further problems. The transfer of resources to wealthy minorities and other government policies led to a vast wave of financial manipulations and a consumption binge. But there was little in the way of productive investment, and the country was saddled with huge debts: government, corporate, household and the calculable debt of unmet social needs as the society drifts towards a Third World pattern, with islands of great wealth and privilege in a sea of misery and suffering.

When a state is committed to such policies, it must somehow find a way to divert the population, to keep them from seeing what’s happening around them. There are not many ways to do this. The standard ones are to inspire fear of terrible enemies about to overwhelm us, and awe for our grand leaders who rescue us from disaster in the nick of time.

That has been the pattern right through the 1980’s, requiring no little ingenuity as the standard device, the Soviet threat, became harder to take seriously. So the threat to our existence has been Qaddafi and his hordes of international terrorists, Grenada and its ominous air base, Sandinistas marching on Texas, Hispanic narcotraffickers led by the arch-maniac Noriega, and crazed Arabs generally. Most recently it’s Saddam Hussein, after he committed his sole crime—the crime of disobedience—in August 1990. It has become more necessary to recognize what has always been true: that the prime enemy is the Third World, which threatens to get “out of control.�

These are not laws of nature. The processes, and the institutions that engender them, could be changed. But that will require cultural, social and institutional changes of no little movement, including democratic structures that go far beyond periodic selection of representatives of the business world to manage domestic and international affairs.”

[…]

Exactly.

Okay, I’m off to read Cluetrain again. I call this “gray matter iteration.” ;-)

I’ve wanted to put this compilation together for a while now. If you have any favorite moments that you think should be in the Top Ten, let me know. And without further ado…

#10 - Oh, The Hitler Comparisons
Disagree with someone? Think they have an agenda? I know what you’re thinking. They must be a Nazi. Heck, they’re practically acting like Hitler. Um, no… they’re not.
(via Jewish World Review)

#9 - Shrub Speaks To The Iraqi People
Hello, I’m George W. Bush. We’re currently busy tearing out your infrastructure, removing your delicate balance of religious participation in government and replacing your torturous regime… with another torturous regime… led by independent contractors.
(via On Lisa Rein’s Radar)

#8 - Drunken, Belligerent Donald Rumsfeld
What do you do in the middle of a war when you see neighbors acting suspiciously? You challenge them to war! Yee hah! Come and get some! We’ll Shock and Awe you too!
(via On Lisa Rein’s Radar)

#7 - FCC Media Ownership Vote
All we want is one, big, happy family in America. So let’s combine all of those pesky media conglomerates into one so Daddy Warbucks can control our every though with his programming and advertising.
(via On Lisa Rein’s Radar)

#6 - Libby Indictment
Who is this Patrick Fitzgerald shape shifter? Let me try to explain through an analogy… And oh yeah, by the way, this indictment is a good thing for America! Woo hoo! Indictments for all!
(via The Brad Blog)

#5 - Closed Senate… How A Law Is Made
Bill Frist is mad. Harry Reid slapped him and America in the face. Those are some long arms, eh? Jon gets caught in the crossfire.
(via onegoodmove)

#4 - Jon Stewart At The Emmys
Just sit back and enjoy. Classic Stewart.

#3 - Bush vs Bush
Jon manages the coup of all coups—a debate between Governor Bush and President Bush. This exercise  proves that open discourse between politicians can illuminate their differences on key issues. Ugh.
(via On Lisa Rein’s Radar)

#2 - On Jeff Gannon And Bloggers
Just who is that bald guy asking all of those obviously right-wing slanted questions to President Bush? Oh, he’s a right-wing hack/gay web site entrepreneur. And Colbert, I mean, Hitler, exposes the truth behind the blogging revolution.
(via onegoodmove)

#1 - Crossfire Gets Fired
Crossfire was canceled soon after this appearance. Coincidence or…? There has to be a way to get Jon into President Bush’s next cabinet meeting… and if he has any strength left, onto "Survivor."
(via Media Matters for America)

Whomever coined the phrase, “We learn from history’s mistakes” was only partially right — over the past 50 years, America seems to perfect them when given a second chance.

This isn’t new, but it’s worthy of being represented to the blogosphere. DJ Danger Mouse went after the Bush Boys six months ago, framing “The New World Order” in its proper context; money, power and US sponsored terrorism in the Middle East (Iraq vs. Iran). The temerity of an American leader to utter those four words to Congress is beyond frightening, as it sounds like propaganda straight out of Nazi Germany.

You’ll need the On2 Codec to view the QT Movie

(via Guerrilla News Network)

Alright, I forked over another $45 to take up another 15 hours of my time per week by purchasing "Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2003" and have been glued to my Dell for the past two weeks. Talk about addictive. Wow.

The environments in the game are as close to realistic as you can imagine. The waves crash on the shores of Pebble Beach. Trees wave in 25mph winds as mist rolls across the fairway. The surfaces are so life-like, you can feel how the ball lands on the playing surface. Once you get past the beauty of the product, the addictive nature of climbing the professional tour ladder comes into play, earning money from tournaments and adding skills to your game and before you realize it… it’s 3am and your eyes are glued to the flag 300 yards off in the virtual distance.

I originally purchased this to offset the violence of Medal of Honor, as I’d play MOH for a few hours and my brain would spaz out for an hour before I could go to bed. Now I don’t dream of killing Nazis, I just fall asleep to Tiger pumping his damn fist.

Punk.

Every few years or so I get sucked into a new multiplayer networked game and blow a ton of my free time killing things. Well, this year it happens to be Metal of Honor by Electronic Arts. Damn, this thing is addictive. With seven rotating environments and the choice between being an Ally or Nazi in World War II, my post-work | pre-gym/home time has been swallowed up by this classic shoot ‘em up.

And let me tell you, there’s nothing like sniping an English private from 100 yards to bring a smile to my face. Somebody needs to come up with an Irish Republican Army vs. England game. Or a game where the Irish peasants in 1846 strategically supply the English ruling class with rotten potatoes, making them sick and weak so they can be overrun by peasants with rakes and hoes.

I’d be all over those. So it’s not politically correct. I’d buy it. Sue me.