THE RUSSIAN CONNECTION

12 03 2017

It’s the Cold War all over again. Americans left and right are being accused of taking orders and money from, being the tools of, or at least harboring sympathy for, a miraculously resurrected Evil Empire headquartered in Moscow. If the accusers actually controlled the government, no doubt the political show trials would begin. The accusers–elements of our security apparatus, neo-conservatives associated with the infamous “Project for a New American Century,” virtually the entire Democratic Party, and their allies in the mainstream media–are  using the highly manipulable court of public opinion to find anyone who dissents from their doctrine of Russophobia guilty of the treasonous crime of Russophilia, as if it were some even worse perversion of pedophilia. Their aim appears to be to regain control of the government. They consider this a legitimate counter-revolution. Others call it a coup, American style.

“It’s simple,” the Democrats and their allies say. “If we take over again, everything will be fine.”

It’s not simple, and things wouldn’t be fine if the Democrats were running things, but let’s leave “if the Democrats were running things” alone for now. It’s mind-bendingly complicated, because to truly understand what’s going on in America now requires that we be free of the conditioning most Americans accept unquestioningly–and I’m not talking air conditioning, although that is a luxury that most Americans take far too for granted. I’m talking about mind conditioning–the way we subliminally learn to perceive reality by taking cues from our parents and our culture as we grow up.

As we grow up, and all through our lives, we spend a lot of time absorbing stories from movies, television, and books, and all those stories share certain common elements. There’s a hero, who is clearly a hero, at least in the end, and the hero is not you, although of course you identify with her or him. There’s a villain, and the villain’s identity is usually clear from the beginning. The hero and the villain clash, and, although the villain seems to be winning at first, the hero ultimately triumphs, and all the most pivotal moments in that struggle can be captured in an hour, or two, or maybe longer if it’s a TV series. These are the expectations we then project on real-world events.

But real-world events are not the movies, or even a long-running TV series. In real life, it is extremely rare for anyone to be a complete hero or a complete villain. I’m not, and you probably understand that you’re not 100% hero–or villain–either. Even sociopaths and psychopaths occasionally do the right thing. Well-intentioned people do terrible things. Think about it–doesn’t everybody believe their intentions are good? You betcha. What political figures do as a result of their good intentions may look good to millions of people, and simply awful to millions of others, and it can be difficult to determine in the short run just what “the greater good” really is. It can also be glaringly obvious what does or does not constitute “the greater good,” whether there are millions of people who understand what’s really going on, or just a few. Reality is not determined by popular vote. And, of course, political figures also do things for concealed, strategic reasons, and lie to the public about their motivation. As I said, it’s complicated.

So, with that in mind, I want to examine the history of what some are already referring to as “the new Cold War,” and see how the mainstream American story of what’s going on holds up under scrutiny. Read the rest of this entry »





OVERCOMING MONOPOLY POLITICS

9 10 2016

Most Americans treat our country’s two-party political system as if it had been handed down from on high, some kind of eleventh commandment. “Thou shalt only have two political parties, and all others shall be chastised as ‘spoilers’ and cast into outer darkness.”

Not only is this central tenet of American politics not one of The Lord’s commandments, it isn’t even in the US Constitution, which makes no mention of political parties whatsoever. Our current system, which makes it difficult for other political parties than the Republicans and Democrats to get on the ballot and share in the country’s governance, was, over time, tweaked by these two “major parties” to discourage competition,which was already damped down by our “winner take all” electoral system. It’s as if it were the water that we’re fish in, totally taken for granted, just as most people take our lack of a national health system, expensive college education, and lack of paid maternity leave, things which pretty much every other country anywhere near as well-off as ours has, totally for granted, and even dismiss as “unrealistic” the notion that we could have such things in this country.

Let’s use a metaphor to describe our situation. Suppose Ford and General Motors had total control over who could sell cars in America, and used that control to make sure that no foreign car companies were permitted to import their products into the US, and no other domestic car manufacturers could set up business, either. Suppose all that Ford sold was Pintos, which, for the benefit of my younger readers, were notorious for being “unsafe at any speed,” as Ralph Nader pointed out long ago when he was the fair-haired boy of the liberal Democrats. But I digress…suppose all Chevrolet sold was monster SUVs that got about 6 miles per gallon and also had serious safety issues. Suppose Ford and Chevrolet, or the corporations that owned them, controlled the automotive press, and reviews of their products stressed the safety and economy of SUVs and Pintos alike, and routinely trashed foreign cars and Mr. Nader, with his silly vendetta about those cute little Pintos.

2016-election

election 2016–which will you choose?

That’s the American political situation today. Read the rest of this entry »





DILEMMA 2016

5 06 2016

Things are reaching a pitch in the American political arena. Trumpenstein will be the Republican nominee, and, while the last chapters have yet to be written, it is now almost certain, as it really has been all along, that Ms. Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. The next phase of the contest, the Big Face Off Between The Democrat And  The Republican, is about to begin.

In social media, however, the contest between Bernie and Hillary seems far from over. Clinton supporters are upset by the expressed concerns of Sanders supporters and Greens like me, who feel that there is good reason to be wary of a Clinton Presidency. We are told that we are helping Trump get elected, that we are misogynists, that we need to deal with the world-as-it-is and not cling to “the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible,” to steal a phrase from Charles Eisenstein. That’s all well and good, Clinton supporters say, but you must support Hillary or all hell will break loose. A la Margaret Thatcher, There Is No Alternative.tina

In an effort to respond to the many people I know who are telling me to get with the Clinton program, as well as those who seem to think Bernie would have won if only I’d supported him, and those who think I’m crazy, stupid, or sentimental not to back Trumpenstein, I want to examine all three of these candidates, as well as The Green Party’s Jill Stein, (cause, hey, this is a Green Party show/blog!) and talk about how they look from the ol’ Deep Green Perspective.

Let’s go for Trumpenstein first. I’m calling him that not just to make fun of him, but because he, like Dr. Frankenstein’s creation, was, in  a sense, brought to life by people who had their own motives for creating him, and who did not realize that he would get away from them and chart his own course. Trump was born (in the public mind) as a commercial, comedic figure, a Falstaffian man of bluff and bluster who was not afraid to say what he thought and exercise power, a man who drew viewers and made money for the network. When he chose to enter the political arena, he cut a sharp contrast with conventional politicians, who carefully shape what they say in a formal language that is intended to offend no one who might vote for them, but has begun to offend a lot of people for its vacuousness. Read the rest of this entry »





RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS TO IMPOSE SHARIA LAW IN TENNESSEE!

8 11 2014

There’s a lot of wind being blown out there about the “Republican resurgence” in the recent election.  Too bad we can’t turn a few turbines with it!

In my view, it comes down to this:  the Democrats paid the price for the Grand Canyon-sized gap between their populist rhetoric and their corporatist reality.   People didn’t turn out to vote for Democrats because the Democrats haven’t delivered on their promises. The reason they beat the “we’re pro-choice” drum so hard is that, when you come right down to it, that’s one of the few real differences between the two wings of the American Corporate Party, but grabbing people by the short hairs didn’t motivate enough voters to come out and participate in the charade this time.  The average voter turnout in the U.S. was 33.9%.  More than 50% of the voters showed up in only 3 states, and the highest rate rates of participation were in Wisconsin and Maine, where a whopping 56% of the voters cast ballots.  In other words, the GOP’s “mandate” comes from less than a quarter of the electorate.  Just as in the Middle East, a small, radical, committed minority is ramming its agenda down the throats, to be polite, of the rest of us.

This was especially evident here in Tennessee, where voter turnout was only 28.5%, meaning that Governor Haslam’s “landslide” reflected the wishes of about 20% of the potential voters in the state.  The number of voters who chose Lamar Alexander and banned a state income tax was lower, down in the upper teens, and our legislature now has the permission of about 15% of the electorate to regulate abortion out of the realm of possibility in Tennessee, which I am quite sure they will do to the best of their ability, as has happened in several other states.

I want to talk more about the abortion issue, because I think the level of deceit employed around the passage of Issue One was truly appalling.  It was billed as a way to “make abortion safer,” but you couldn’t help but notice that its backers were all the churches who think abortion is as sinful as non-marital sex and that the government should enforce their views on this subject.  For these people, Christianity is more about controlling women’s bodies and behavior than it is about being honest and truthful, even though their ostensible guidebook, The Bible, has a lot of bad things to say about “people who love a lie.”

Well, lies or no lies, we can now expect that our legislature will be emboldened to subject all Tennesseans to the “Christian” version of Shari’a.  I wonder what other precepts of Dominionism they will enact,  Perhaps slavery will be reintroduced?  Will the death penalty be inflicted on those who work on Sundays? No, that’s highly unlikely–it would be bad for business! Read the rest of this entry »





OF CLIFFS AND CEILINGS: A NATIONAL DENIALOGUE

13 01 2013

There’s lots of talk in the Hot Air Media and the Hot Air Congress about “entitlement reform,” which is a code word for “cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well as everything else that’s not defense related” (except veteran’s benefits, which are considered an “entitlement” and are on the table.)

The Evil Republicans are pushing hard to cut spending on these things.  The Brave Democrats are promising to negotiate and find a compromise solution. “But where I live the game they play is compromise solution”–thank you Mick Jagger, that’s one of your best lines. Hey, the Dumbocrats are such great enablers!  Barack O’bumbler!  If he can’t find a way to lose it, nobody can!

The mainstream media seem to have unquestioningly accepted that the best place to prune the U.S. budget is in cutting benefits to the poor and middle class.  This is a complete hoax and flim-flam, and anybody who swallows it should have their stomach pumped.   Read the rest of this entry »





F-BOMBING AMERICAN POLITICS

8 01 2012

Please note:  I’m going to drop a lot of f-bombs in this segment and the next.  In politics, however, the f-word that is not spoken in polite society has nothing to do with plowing or the union of male and female.  In politics, the f-word that should never be uttered is “fascism.”  I’m going to utter it frequently over the next couple of segments, so don’t say I didn’t warn you.

For the first time in a while, I’ve got a “truth in strange places” award to mention,  but first, I want to give a “truth tellers in strange places” award–to Bradley Manning, for showing the world the dirty linen of the American Empire, sowing the seeds of Arab Spring, and spawning the “Occupy” movement here in America, a movement that has only begun to come into its stride.  The mills of the gods grind slow, but exceeding fine, and have only just barely caught the shirt-tails of the elite in their inexorable grasp.  As William Kunstler likes to say, “it’s going to be a great show from the cheap seats.” And here we are, and no wonder the gummint is so mad at the man.

So yes, Bradley Manning gets the “Truth-Tellers in Strange Places” award.  Corporal Manning should be up for a Nobel Peace Prize, but instead, he has spent nearly a year and a half in prison before even having any charges brought against him.  During this time, he has been repeatedly humiliated, kept in solitary confinement, and probably drugged .  Two thoughts come to mind:  one is that if this is what our government will do without the recent detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act, what will it feel emboldened to do with that permission?

The other thought is that the government wants to make damn sure nobody else gets any noble ideas about following the path blazed by Daniel Ellsburg, who became a folk hero for leaking “The Pentagon Papers,” which, like Mr. Manning’s alleged gifts to Wikileaks, gave the lie to America’s loudly proclaimed noble intentions. Sibel Edmonds is another great American whistle blower, but, unlike Ellsberg and Manning’s cases, her revelations were largely ignored by the complacent mass media of the early aughts.  Since then, the internet’s ability to spread a story widely without benefit of the so-called mainstream media has grown exponentially, so that, even though the U.S. can hobble Wikileaks financially, it has been unable to shut it down or stop the truth from being told. For all his campaign promises about hope, change, and openness, Obama has been even harsher than his predecessors when it comes to prosecuting whistle blowers instead of listening to them.

Here’s hoping 2012 is the year when Bradley Manning soon receives the hero’s welcome he deserves.

Our “Truth in Strange Places” award goes to Dr. Ron Paul, who should need no introduction.  No matter what you think of the full spectrum of his politics, no matter whether or not you trust that he has moved beyond the simple-minded racism published in his name twenty years ago, he is the only Presidential candidate who actually challenges the status quo in any way.  His ad asking people to imagine the American response to a Chinese or Russian military base in Texas puts the shoe on the other foot in a way that nobody else in the race had the vision, brains, or nerve to do, and it’s too bad that it, and the warning it carries about blowback from American imperialism, will likely not be appreciated until foreign drones cruise American skies and Americans are “specially rendered” for crimes against the Chinese or Russian state. Paul’s willingness to admit that the “War on Drugs” is an extremely costly failure is another breath of fresh air, but, beyond that, Paul actually turns out to be cut from the same cloth as the rest of the Republican pack, whom he joins in calling for the radical downsizing of the U.S. government and the unleashing of corporate power.

Downsizing and muzzling the U.S. government is not actually an issue between the Dems and Repubs, although both like to pretend it is.  The Democratic leadership, just as much as the Republicans, is committed to serving corporate interests first, and the public second.  That is why nobody central has been prosecuted for the Wall Street meltdown, why banks have gotten trillions in relief while foreclosed homeowners and the unemployed have received only table scraps, why, instead of a genuine overhaul of our so-called health care system, we got a law mandating that we buy health insurance from the companies who have helped make the U.S. health care system the most expensive and dysfunctional in the world, not to mention one of the chief conduits for channeling the wealth of the American middle class into corporate coffers.  Corporatism is the latest evolution of the political “F-word”: fascism.  In a corporatist/ fascist political system, the government exists to serve the needs of corporations, to encourage the people to be submissive, because, “What is good for General Motors” (or any other “too-big-to-fail” corporation) is good for America.”  You know, “the trickle-down theory.”

So, what is the likely choice the Democrats and Republicans will give American voters this year?  In the words of Glenn Greenwald, an Obama supporter will have to think:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

We can choose the lesser of two evils–or refuse to choose evil at all.  That’s why the Green Party runs Presidential candidates, at this point–not because we have any hope of winning, but to give people of conscience a real choice.  I have many friends who tell me it is pragmatic, even principled, to vote for the lesser of two evils.  Maybe it’s right for them.  I just know that I couldn’t look myself in the mirror if I knew I had voluntarily supported evil, lesser or not.

The Clash, “Spanish Bombs

Let’s have an “Alice in Wonderland” moment:

When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master      that’s all.”

Now, let’s jump about a hundred and thirty years closer to the present with this quote from political writer Ron Suskind.  Formerly a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, he is certainly no flaming radical, and unlikely to have made this up:

The aide(probably Karl Rove) said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” 

Am I alone in seeing a parallel between the words of Humpty Dumpty and the words of Karl Rove?

Let’s talk for a while about this business of shrinking the government and letting private industry grow, to which the Dems and Repubs both seem committed. It ties in with the Republican assault on labor unions.  The purpose of unions and the purpose of democratic government are the same—a way for people to join together to deal with something bigger than an individual human, whether the bigger thing is an invasion, a natural disaster, a need to maintain the commons—or a large, possibly multi-national, corporation. Those who call for the shrinking of the state and the destruction of labor unions, but do not at the same time call for diminishing the power of the corporate sector, are not populists, as they like to style themselves. They are fascists.  Fascism always seeks, in the name of the people, to shrink the power of the people and grow the power of the elite.

In the words of FDR,

“The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.”

As I understand Roosevelt’s words, and as I understand what’s going on in America today, we have slid far down the road to fascism.

Another front on which the GOP has pushed inequality has been their sometimes successful attempts to disempower women by limiting their access to health care, contraception, and abortion, even in the context of rape and incest.  I don’t have enough time tonight to give you the nasty details of this, but you can read the whole rap sheet at this link.  This is a rich subject, and I may do a whole story on in next month.

Here’s my take on the contest for the Republican nomination:  The GOP’s kingmakers will never, ever let Ron Paul anywhere near the Presidency, and, indeed, most Republicans are far too hypnotized to ever accept him.  Mitt Romney will likely be the nominee.  Because Romney’s Mormon faith is so distasteful to the party’s evangelical wing, who largely consider Mormonism a pagan religion, Rick Santorum or someone like him will get the VP slot, so as to bring in the faithful, just as Sarah Palin served John McCain in the last round.

This ticket is still extremely problematic.  First of all, Romney carries the baggage of having designed the program Republicans now revile as “Obamacare,” and it will be funny to watch him try and shake that one off.  Second, for all the GOP’s touting of the uber-wealthy as “job creators,” Romney made a whole lot of his uber-wealth in the 80’s running a firm, Bain Capital,  that bought American companies and slimmed or shut them down, or moved them overseas, reaping enormous benefits for CEO’s and investors, and disaster for working Americans.

And Santorum?  Back in the 1930’s, Sinclair Lewis said, ” “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”  Rick Santorum is the guy wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.  In his own words:

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold—Griswold was the contraceptive case—and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you—this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family….. society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

Another example of Rick’s rhetoric:

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this country.  Many of the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s okay. Contraception is okay.’ It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Folks, this kind of talk is straight out of the Nazi playbook.  He wants to put the government in your bedroom to make sure you don’t use birth control or do anything he thinks is kinky, because sex is for reproductive purposes only, dammit.  Why is it so much fun, then?  That’s the Devil tempting you to self -indulgence!

bUT….while Santorum makes pronouncements that warm the hearts of conservative evangelical Christians, he himself is actually a Catholic.  Will evangelicals give it up for a pagan and a papist?  Or dredge up the just-as-batshit-crazy/sexually repressed. but thoroughly Protestant, Michelle Bachman?  Or find some other Stepford wife/husband?

So that’s the choice America faces in 2012–between Obama, a whore for the corporatists, and Romney/Santorum or his equivalent, a corporatist pimp and a narrow-minded, repressed bigot.  Or, there’s kicking over the table, which may become more and more likely as more and more Americans realize, with Tim DeChristopher,

Once I realized that there was no hope in any sort of normal future, there’s no hope for me to have anything my parents or grandparents would have considered a normal future—of a career and a retirement and all that stuff—I realized that I have absolutely nothing to lose by fighting back. Because it was all going to be lost anyway.

But he worked through his despair:

“How the hell could people accept this? This is outrageous.” And I think that’s one of the things that the wilderness does for us, you know, it allows us to live the way we actually want to live for a while. It puts things in the perspective of, “Wait, this isn’t inevitable. It doesn’t actually have to be this way. And this isn’t the way I want to live. It’s not okay.” I think activism at its best is refusing to accept things. Saying that this is unacceptable.

With or without access to the wilderness that healed and nurtured Tim DeChristopher, he is far from the only person coming to the twin realizations that the current situation is totally unacceptable, and he has nothing to lose in opposing the corporatocracy–or creating something different that meets genuine human–and planetary–needs.

You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.





MINIPAX BULLETIN: EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN DEAD! MILLIONS CHEER!

7 05 2011

This just in from MiniPax:  Immanuel Goldstein is dead!  Goldstein was tracked to his lair in Pakistan, where he was living under the alias “Osama Bin Laden,” and died in a firefight with Oceania’s crack special forces troops, who had infiltrated Pakistan without its government’s permission to carry out the raid and assassination.

With Goldstein/Bin Laden gone, who will now be the focus of our “two minute hates”?  It’s a dirty job, as they say, but somebody will have to do it, even if we have to create them out whole cloth.

And now we will never know to what extent the “Osama Bin Laden” we have been encouraged to hate and fear was, like Emmanuel Goldstein, a creation of our own “Ministry of Peace.”  After all, Bin Laden did start out as a hero, even portrayed (in a manner of speaking) as an American in Idrees Shah’s thrilling 1986 novel Kara Kush, which describes how, with American help, the Taliban rallied the people of Afghanistan to push out the Soviet invaders and crush corrupt Afghan warlords.

Times change, don’t they?  Now the US is the invader in Afghanistan, and such corrupt warlords as remain there are our friends and allies in our attempt to crush the Taliban, who have been concealing Osama Bin Laden.  Remember?  The U.S. invaded Afghanistan to find Bin Laden?  Or has that gone down the Ministry of Truth’s memory hole along with so much of the rest of recent history?

So, now that we’ve found, and killed, bin Laden, will Obama wind down the war against Osama?  Or, in true 1984 fashion, will our “war on terror” prove to be an “endless war,” with new attacks and demons arising to replace the enemies we have killed and the acts we have avenged?

With Bin Laden conveniently dead, there are many questions that conveniently will never be answered, especially since U.S. troops had free run of his headquarters and were able to preserve–or destroy–what they found there, as they saw fit.  Likewise, what they found will be released at the discretion of the Ministry of Truth, and so we can only assume that there is much we will never know.

Here’s a few of the things we will probably never know:

Was the “Reichstag Fire” element of the attack on the World Trade Center really a coincidence?  The attacks came at a point when the Bush administration’s incompetence was about to make it the laughingstock of America, and the world.  Suddenly, it was all Americans’ patriotic duty to take the Cheney/Bush junta seriously.  The attack, if Bin Laden had anything to do with it, saved Cheneybush’s ass, ensured the passage of the Patriot Act, and gave us a sinister, dark-skinned, sneaky adversary to unite against.  Did the junta know of the plot and allow it to proceed?  Did they foment it?  Did they carry it out, with no help from the alleged perpetrators at all?  Bin Laden will never tell us.

After we spent all those years looking for him in Afghanistan, what was he doing in Pakistan, in a well-appointed villa, not a cave in the hills, and just a few miles from a major Pakistani military base?   Did they know he was there all along?  After all, “the search for Bin Laden” was a bit of a cash cow for the Pakis, and no doubt they, who know poverty far better than most Americans do so far, wanted to milk that (and their Uncle Sam) for all it was worth.

Was Bin Laden really “killed in a firefight” or was he executed?  (Since writing this, our government has admitted that he was unarmed when he was killed.)  Given the changes and uncertainties of his relationship with the U.S. government, Bin Laden’s side of the story might be quite different from our government’s version.  Making sure he’s dead is a good way to avoid embarrassment.  To bring up another example, the U.S.  invaded Iraq because, Cheneybush said, they had “weapons of mass destruction.”   After all, the U.S. had shipped them over there in the 80’s to help Iraq fight Iran–Saddam and Rumsfeld were buddies, remember?–how were we to know he’d actually used most of them against the Iranians as promised, and then dropped the rest on the Kurds?   Better to take the guy into custody and hang him than to exile or imprison him and give him the chance to write a tell-all memoir.  And since that trial and execution were kinda messy, just make sure Bin Laden is dead from the get-go, OK?

Finally,did this really happen?  There is no independent verification.  The body was “buried at sea.”  A government that has asked us to believe everything from Pat Tillman‘s heroic death at the hands of the Taliban to the guilt of everybody in Guantanamo (not to mention Bradley Manning) without the necessity of a trial, just to cite the most recent, glaring few incidents, going all the way back to the Gulf of Tonkin “attack,” and beyond, now wants us to believe they killed Osama Bin Laden and disposed of  his body, trust them.  Uh-huh.

Bin Laden has been widely reviled as a man with “the blood of thousands of innocents on his hands.”  Those who trumpet this viewpoint generally ignore the fact that the U.S. government, in avenging the deaths of thousands, has caused the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqi civilians and thousands of innocent Afghan citizens.  When will the Navy’s “Seals” drop in on Bush’s Texas compound and Chaney’s undisclosed location and exact frontier justice?  And why have we singled out Bin Laden and Muamar Qadhafi for rough treatment while we ignore the national tragedies taking place in North Korea, Burma, Saudi Arabia, and Central Asia, and encourage the repression of democracy advocates in Bahrain, for just one example?

Emmanuel Goldstein–I mean, Osama Bin Laden, is dead, we are told.  His was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it, and somebody will step–or be forced–into his shoes, one way or another.   How else can we continue to have our beloved two-minute hates?

music:  Bob Dylan, “Masters of War”








%d bloggers like this: