THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW REPUBLICANS…CAN THE GREENS BECOME “THE NEW DEMOCRATS”?

11 09 2016

Today’s date, September 11th, is, to borrow President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s words, “a day that will live in infamy.” On this date in 1973, Salvador Allende, the Bernie Sanders of Chile, salvadorallende_251who, unlike Bernie, had succeeded in become his country’s President, was killed in a military coup that had the full backing of the United States and especially our then-Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. The Chilean military, with the assistance of the United States, didn’t just take out Allende. They jailed, tortured, and murdered thousands of Chileans, and forced tens of thousands more into exile. The US then used Chile as a base for “Operation Condor,” which orchestrated the murder of thousands of mostly non-violent left-wing activists all over South America, most notoriously in Argentina, where “the dirty war” killed at least thirty thousand people. That’s a US government program, directly approved by Henry Kissinger, that targeted people like me and, probably, people like you. So, when I think about Hillary Clinton, who has repeatedly declared her admiration for Henry Kissinger, being President, when I notice the approbation with which her followers greet any mention of her faults or approval of the Green Party, when I read that a Clinton-supporting PAC has budgeted a million dollars to pay Clinton supporters to harass Sanders supporters and Greens on the internet, I start feeling a little nervous, and since today is the anniversary of the Chilean Bernie Sanders being murdered by Hillary Clinton’s inspiration, this becomes a more emotionally charged anniversary than it would be if a protegée of Henry Kissinger were not so likely to be our next President. Donald Trump is dangerous because he doesn’t really seem to have a plan.

readyforoligarchy

Do not think about a Green Party!

Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, is dangerous because she does seem to have a plan–and it’s not one she’s sharing with the general public. With a horde of pundits and bloggers ready and willing to bend the truth to discredit any criticism of her, not to mention discrediting the critics themselves, I start wondering if we have a “Ministry of Truth” in our future.

 

Oh yeah, it’s also the fifteenth anniversary of the day a bunch of Saudis apparently hijacked several US airliners and flew them into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, killing a mere three thousand people. OK, it was three thousand all at once, not one by one, but…. Anyway, because the Saudis did that, the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. If that makes sense to you, then you can accept the World Trade Center story exactly as the mainstream media portray it. It doesn’t make sense to me and I don’t accept the story, but that’s not what I’m here to talk about today. The Allende-Kissinger story is much more apropos. Read the rest of this entry »





STEPS TOWARDS A SANER CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

8 08 2015
She looks like somebody I know....

dead for failing to signal a lane change

I am simply appalled at the level of racial violence in this country, so much of it expressed through police violence on innocent, unsuspecting, unarmed African-Americans. Sandra Bland and Samuel DuBose are just two of the most recent victims of this plague.

But it’s not just racial violence. Police are killing white Americans, too, often under the auspices of “The War on Drugs.” Read the rest of this entry »





THE HIROSHIMA-FERGUSON CONNECTION

14 12 2014

music:  Christy Moore, “Hiroshima Nagasaki Russian Roulette“(lyrics)

From time to time, I find myself telling somebody that the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not necessary, and often as not I am met with the rejoinder that the attacks “saved American lives.”  I’ve been meaning to explore that reasoning for a while, but recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, New York City, and Cleveland and Dayton Ohio, to name just four examples, have brought the subject to the fore, and I think that going into this meme in some depth, and tracing its history both backwards and forwards from 1945, might just raise somebody’s consciousness besides mine–which, as those who know me well will attest, needs all the elevation it can get.

The historical record seems to indicate that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks were, in fact, entirely superfluous.  The Japanese had been begging for peace terms for months.  But let’s assume  that when the United States nuked those two Japanese cities in August of 1945, American lives were saved by sacrificing Japanese lives.  Which Japanese lives were lost?  And which American lives were saved?

The Japanese who died were, by and large, non-combatants–women, children, and older men.  These people may or may not have been supportive of the Japanese war effort.  They were civilians, subjects of a government that had long ago insulated itself from the influence of its citizens’ opinions. By contrast, the Americans whose lives were allegedly spared by the use of atomic weapons were soldiers, individuals who had indicated a willingness to die for their country, if need be.  And, by the way, they were mostly white guys.  The equation that resulted in the only wartime use of atomic weapons was an equation that valued the lives of white warriors over the lives of dark-skinned civilians.  At least 225,000 non-combatants were killed in these attacks, in order to save an estimated 450,000 American lives, the military’s guess at the human cost of invading Japan–a country that was largely out of food, fuel, raw materials, and weapons, and whose government was actively seeking an end to the war.  Smells like U.S. propaganda to me, but there you have it–one Japanese civilian’s life (either sex, any age) was calculated to be worth the lives of two (male, probably white) American soldiers.

This is right in line with the assumptions our culture has been running on right from the start, and right in line with the assumptions it still runs on.  The lives ofunnamed white males are most important, and most worth protecting.  At the time the Constitution was written, “We, The People of the United States,” when it came to voting and running for office, referred to white, male property owners. I have to wonder–when Republicans advocate “returning to the original meaning of the Constitution,” is this what they’re really talking about? Some things have changed since the 1790’s, but white males are still widely considered to have a right to do as we see fit in order to feel safe.  We are more likely to get away with abusing our wives and children.  We can attack uppity people of color and, more often than not, do so with impunity. Let’s not forget that the Second Amendment–the one about militias and the right to keep and bear arms–was included so that those “militias” would be available to put down slave rebellions–i.e., summarily execute African-Americans who objected to being enslaved. Read the rest of this entry »





THE SECOND AMENDMENT

5 07 2014

obama-gun-control(note: this is an expanded version of a post that originally appeared in my “Holsinger for House” blog.)

 

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  I believe the operative phrase here is “a well regulated Militia.”  Allowing any frightened person in the country to carry a concealed weapon is not “a well-regulated Militia.”  It is the very opposite of “a well regulated Militia.”

The framers of the Constitution included this amendment in part because they had lived through the circumstances that sparked the American Revolution, when British troops attempted to seize Colonial weapons caches at Lexington and Concord.  The framers wanted to decentralize the possession of weapons and ammunition in order to avoid a repeat of this situation.  Weapons were intended for use by “a well-regulated militia.”  The other purpose for these “well-regulated militias” was to assure the slaveholding states that they could maintain a local armed force to keep their slaves, i.e., their African-American population, from rebelling.  While this fear is strangely echoed in the subtext of the debate over gun control, for instance in the “stand your ground” laws that have resulted in the deaths of numerous unarmed African-Americans at the hands of trigger-happy whites, the intent of the Second Amendment was clearly to allow individuals to keep and bear arms for legitimate purposes, not to create a nervous and over-armed citizenry that actually detracts from “the security of a free State.” Firearms are basically high-tech rock throwers.  Imagine a large percentage of the population walking around with a half-dozen or more fist-sized rocks in their possession.   Would that be a desirable state of affairs? Read the rest of this entry »





NOW FOR THE GOOD NEWS

10 11 2012

I have a confession to make.  In spite of my profound intellectual and political distaste for Barack Obama, I did, in fact, feel physically relieved to wake up last Wednesday morning and find out he was still President, and that the country had rejected Mitt Romney and all he stood for.

Let me make this absolutely clear:  I am not “glad Obama is President.”  I am reasonably certain that everything Glenn Greenwald says in his “The Obama tradeoff” paragraph is what a lot of well-meaning people in this country think, consciously or unconsciously:

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 a racist religion, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

Please note that climate change and peak resources don’t even enter this equation. But….Obama’s ostensible “liberalness” has sucked so-called “progressive Democrats” into accepting all the short-sighted spending priorities,  infringements on our rights and liberties, and outright war crimes that they protested vigorously when these same moves were attempted by the Cheney administration.  The morally compromised position of having accepted this from a Democrat would have made it awkward for these “liberals” to protest further restrictions coming from a Romney administration, which presumably would have taken an even more bare-knuckles approach to foreign and domestic policy.

Romney was, after all, raised in a homophobic, repressive, misogynistic, anti-small d democratic religion that, until 1978, held as official doctrine that having “black skin and a flat nose” was the “mark of Cain,” and would not allow African-Americans to take part in its ceremonies, let alone become priests. That’s about as gross as racism can get.  Mitt Romney was 31 years old in 1978, a fully responsible adult, and for the first ten years of his adult life, he “approved that message.”  Barack Obama is only the public relations image of a more racially tolerant society, but, in spite of the vast sums of corporate money spent to persuade voters to let an even more voracious fox guard the henhouse, and in spite of a tsunami of laws intended to limit the number of non-rich citizens who could vote,for the most part the spirit of sharing and open-mindedness prevailed over the spirit of narrow-minded selfishness.

And it’s big money’s failure to prevail, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s notorious Citizens’ United decision, that is probably the best news about this election. But there were other bright spots. Read the rest of this entry »





THE STATE BLINKS

9 09 2012

As I reported last month, the 6th Circuit Appeals Court heard the state of Tennessee’s appeal of our case at the end of July, and apparently largely agreed with us, telling the state to go ahead and put our candidates on the ballot while they wrote their final decision.  They didn’t order the state to conduct a lottery to determine ballot placement, but shortly after the court hearing, the state primary gave, uh, “primary facie” evidence of why that might be a good idea, when the first candidate listed  (alphabetically) on the Democrat primary ballot beat out the DP’s anointed candidate by a 2-1 margin and became their official candidate for U.S. Senate, in spite of being a gun-toting racist tea partier who thinks corporate Republican Bob Corker is way too tame.

Well, at least he’s got it right about Corker being a corporate whore–although, as a multi-millionaire, maybe Corker is more of a corporate whore-monger than an actual whore. Read the rest of this entry »








%d bloggers like this: