By William Fisher
It was only fifty-one years ago this week that the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that would forever change life in America. The Court ruled that “separate but equal” schools for white and African-American children were inherently unequal.
On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren looked down from the bench to a hushed and tightly packed courtroom to read the unanimous decision:
“Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities?” he asked.
“We believe that it does,” he answered. “We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
That landmark – and unexpected -- decision triggered years of protest throughout the segregated Southern states of America, and opened the gates to an avalanche of additional civil rights legislation and court decisions that reversed laws and practices in force since the abolition of slavery in the U.S. in 1865.
Paradoxically, the beginnings of the case – known as Brown v. Board of Education – had nothing to do with education. It was about railroad cars.
In 1890, the state of Louisiana passed a statute providing "that all railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this state shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races…”
Homer Plessy, a 30-year old shoemaker, was jailed for sitting in the "White's" car of the East Louisiana Railroad. Plessy was a mix of seven-eighths white and one-eighths black. But Louisiana law still considered him black.
Plessy went to court and argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The judge ruled that Louisiana could regulate railroad companies that only operated within its state. He found Plessy guilty, and the Louisiana Supreme Court agreed.
Plessy then appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1896, the court found Homer Plessy guilty once again. In an 8-1 decision, the judges ruled that the Separate Car Act “does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery...The object of the [Fourteenth Amendment] was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but… it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either."
The lone dissenter was Justice John Harlan. “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law…”, he wrote.
Justice Harlan proved prophetic. But it would take another 64 years before "separate but equal" would be struck down as the law of the land, in a case known as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.
In the city of Topeka, a black third-grader named Linda Brown had to walk a mile through a railroad switchyard to get to her black elementary school, even though a white elementary school was only seven blocks away. Linda's father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the white elementary school, but the principal of the school refused. In the other cases outside Kansas, African American children attended poor facilities without basic school equipment and supplies.
Brown approached the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which had long wanted to challenge segregation in public schools. Other black parents joined Brown and, in 1951, the NAACP requested an injunction to stop segregation in Topeka's public schools.
The head of Brown’s defense team was Thurgood Marshall, the NAACP’s chief lawyer, who was later appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
At the Circuit Court trial, Marshall argued that segregated schools sent the message to black children that they were inferior to whites; therefore, the schools were inherently unequal.
The Board of Education's defense was that, because segregation in Topeka and elsewhere pervaded many other aspects of life, segregated schools simply prepared black children for the segregation they would face during adulthood.
The Court ruled that segregation of white and colored children in public schools indeed had a “detrimental effect on the colored children...A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn.” But Plessy v. Ferguson allowed separate but equal school systems for blacks and whites, and no Supreme Court ruling had yet overturned that decision. Thus the lower court felt "compelled" to rule in favor of the Board of Education.
Brown and the other families appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging school segregation in South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware, as well as in Topeka.
The Supreme Court’s decision was the end of a long road for opponents of ‘separate but equal’ schools. As early as 1849, African American parents had challenged separate schools based solely on race. In Kansas alone there were eleven school integration cases dating from 1881 to 1949.
In 1955, the Court completed its ruling by ordering the states' to desegregate "with all deliberate speed."
But the Brown decision did not immediately end school nor did it deal with segregation in public accommodations, such as restaurants or bathrooms, owned by private parties. This would not be achieved until well into the civil rights movement of Dr. Martin Luther King, and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, led by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
The school desegregation decision generated two decades of fierce resistance, especially in the American south. In Virginia, a U.S. Senator organized a resistance movement that called for the closing of schools rather than desegregating them. Throughout the south, so-called Citizens’ Councils attempted to set up white-only private schools. The Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist organization, terrorized African Americans and those who supported them. Businesses siding with the Supreme Court were boycotted.
In the South, most public schools would not be desegregated until about 1970 under the Nixon administration.
There are many lessons to be learned from Linda Brown’s long march to justice. One is that our system of democracy can be infuriatingly slow and frustrating in righting wrongs. Another is that our independent judiciary is the pivotal actor in this process – even when we hate some of the decisions it makes. The third lesson, sadly, is that the Justices who handed down the Brown v. Board decision would be pilloried today as ‘judicial activists’.
Have we really learned anything?
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Thursday, May 19, 2005
PROGRESSIVE ISLAM: NOT AN OXYMORON
By William Fisher
In the US, many Roman Catholics support a women’s right to choose – but remain Catholics.
In Latin America, many priests practice ‘liberation theology’ – but remain Catholics.
American Episcopalians elect a gay Bishop – but remain Episcopalians.
Adherents of many American Protestant denominations want to impeach judges for their ‘activism’ – but remain Protestants.
And an increasing number of conservative and some Orthodox Jews are exploring possibilities of reconciling their faith with feminism -- and still remain Jewish.
Why then should we find it so surprising that Muslims are engaged in similar kinds of internal struggles with their more conservative brothers and sisters?
For Americans, and many others in the West, the principal reason is their monolithic, homogenous view of Islam. They think all Muslims love death more than life. They think all Muslims routinely abuse and exclude women from virtually everything save childbearing. They think all Muslims mete out barbaric forms of punishment. And, post 9/11, they think all Muslims are terrorists.
The truth is that internal debate about how to interpret the Qur'an has been going on for centuries. But what is also true is that today the debate has risen to a new level, fuelled by the emergence of a small but rapidly growing branch of the faith known as Progressive Islam.
What is Progressive Islam, where is it, what does it believe?
Long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, many Muslim spokesmen realized there was a growing, worldwide network of Muslim terrorists killing in the name of Allah. They also knew that the rights of women and non-Muslims were being routinely denied by Islamic regimes such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
"We have our fanatics just like everyone else", says Prof. Omid Safi, co-chair of the Study of Islam section at the American Academy of Religion, and a professor of philosophy and religion at Colgate University. Safi was one of the co-founders of the Progressive Muslim Union (http://www.pmuna.org), which launched in 2004.
"We have to take a stand against Saudi-infected extremism,” says Safi. Many American Muslim communities, he adds, “are far too uncritical of Salafi and Wahhabi tendencies.”
He and other progressives believe that unless these radical tendencies are defeated, “The humanity of Muslims will be reduced to the caricature of violent zealots painted by fanatics from both inside and outside the Muslim community. It is time to start a-changin’,“ he says, borrowing from the lyrics of a famous Bob Dylan song.
In North America, Progessive Islam a small but growing movement of Islamic scholars and activists whose believers include gays, peace and justice advocates, feminists advocating gender equality and Muslims working to improve Islamic relations with Jews and people of other faiths. Numbers are hard to come by, but they are surely in the millions, particularly if we include the many Muslims who are progressive, but who have never heard of the term “Progressive Islam.”
Progressive Islam is a kind of Islamic humanism. Concrete social action and transformation is the movement’s defining characteristic.
Progressive Muslims oppose racism, Islamophobia, classism, sexism, and homophobia. They see their task as giving voice to the voiceless, power to the powerless, and confronting the ‘powers that be’ who disregard God-given human dignity.
“Justice lies at the heart of Islamic social ethics. Time and again the Qur'an talks about providing for the marginalized members of society: the poor, the orphaned, the downtrodden, the wayfaring, the hungry.” Progressive Muslims believe that it is time to ‘translate’ the social ideals in the Qur'an and Islamic teachings into “a way of action that those committed to social justice today can relate to and understand,” Prof. Safi says.
Progressive Muslims begin with a simple yet radical stance: The Muslim community as a whole cannot achieve justice unless justice is guaranteed for Muslim women. Gender equality is a measuring stick for the broader concerns of social justice and pluralism.
“There can be no progressive interpretation of Islam without gender justice. Gender justice is crucial, indispensable, and essential. In the long run, any progressive Muslim interpretation will be judged based on the amount of change in gender equality it is able to produce in small and large communities,” Prof. Safi says.
Progressive Muslims also stand squarely on the shoulders of many ‘liberation theologians’ who viewed a purely conceptual criticism of theology, devoid of any real commitment to the oppressed, as ‘radically irrelevant’.
At the same time, progressives are equally comfortable with Edward Said’s challenge to Muslims to “speak truth to the powers”. Like Said, they believe that many (though not all) previous generations of ‘liberal’ Muslims were often defined by a purely academic approach that reflected their elite status.
Says Prof. Safi, “Vision and activism are both necessary. Activism without vision is doomed from the start. Vision without activism quickly becomes irrelevant. “
But progressives face a delicate balancing act. They need to defend Islam against virulent stereotypes but also to acknowledge oppressive practices and ideas within Islam.
The movement is profoundly skeptical of nationalism, whether American, Arab, Iranian, or otherwise. They also reject the notion of an ‘American Islam’ to be exported to the world. Their opposition to neo-colonialism is a way to avoid their appropriation by the United States’ administration, which has used the language of reforming Islam to justify its invasion of Muslim countries such as Iraq.
North America is probably the most fertile soil for progressives at the moment. One indication of growing popularity is found at a website called Meetup, which publishes a new list 143 different progressive Muslim meetup groups. The largest are in New York City, Toronto, Washington, DC, and San Francisco. But the movement says it is following, not leading, like-minded adherents worldwide. The socially active communities in Iran, Malaysia, and South Africa, are examples.
In keeping with its views on modernity, the movement is using 21st century technology to cross-pollinate ideas -- for example, using email to seek one another out, read each other’s work, and collaborate with one another’s organizations.
The movement is still embryonic and faces huge challenges from conservative Islam, and conservatives of other religions as well. But for Islam, it holds out the promise of a consequential paradigm shift in the relationship of Muslims to Islam and to modernity.
In the US, many Roman Catholics support a women’s right to choose – but remain Catholics.
In Latin America, many priests practice ‘liberation theology’ – but remain Catholics.
American Episcopalians elect a gay Bishop – but remain Episcopalians.
Adherents of many American Protestant denominations want to impeach judges for their ‘activism’ – but remain Protestants.
And an increasing number of conservative and some Orthodox Jews are exploring possibilities of reconciling their faith with feminism -- and still remain Jewish.
Why then should we find it so surprising that Muslims are engaged in similar kinds of internal struggles with their more conservative brothers and sisters?
For Americans, and many others in the West, the principal reason is their monolithic, homogenous view of Islam. They think all Muslims love death more than life. They think all Muslims routinely abuse and exclude women from virtually everything save childbearing. They think all Muslims mete out barbaric forms of punishment. And, post 9/11, they think all Muslims are terrorists.
The truth is that internal debate about how to interpret the Qur'an has been going on for centuries. But what is also true is that today the debate has risen to a new level, fuelled by the emergence of a small but rapidly growing branch of the faith known as Progressive Islam.
What is Progressive Islam, where is it, what does it believe?
Long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, many Muslim spokesmen realized there was a growing, worldwide network of Muslim terrorists killing in the name of Allah. They also knew that the rights of women and non-Muslims were being routinely denied by Islamic regimes such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
"We have our fanatics just like everyone else", says Prof. Omid Safi, co-chair of the Study of Islam section at the American Academy of Religion, and a professor of philosophy and religion at Colgate University. Safi was one of the co-founders of the Progressive Muslim Union (http://www.pmuna.org), which launched in 2004.
"We have to take a stand against Saudi-infected extremism,” says Safi. Many American Muslim communities, he adds, “are far too uncritical of Salafi and Wahhabi tendencies.”
He and other progressives believe that unless these radical tendencies are defeated, “The humanity of Muslims will be reduced to the caricature of violent zealots painted by fanatics from both inside and outside the Muslim community. It is time to start a-changin’,“ he says, borrowing from the lyrics of a famous Bob Dylan song.
In North America, Progessive Islam a small but growing movement of Islamic scholars and activists whose believers include gays, peace and justice advocates, feminists advocating gender equality and Muslims working to improve Islamic relations with Jews and people of other faiths. Numbers are hard to come by, but they are surely in the millions, particularly if we include the many Muslims who are progressive, but who have never heard of the term “Progressive Islam.”
Progressive Islam is a kind of Islamic humanism. Concrete social action and transformation is the movement’s defining characteristic.
Progressive Muslims oppose racism, Islamophobia, classism, sexism, and homophobia. They see their task as giving voice to the voiceless, power to the powerless, and confronting the ‘powers that be’ who disregard God-given human dignity.
“Justice lies at the heart of Islamic social ethics. Time and again the Qur'an talks about providing for the marginalized members of society: the poor, the orphaned, the downtrodden, the wayfaring, the hungry.” Progressive Muslims believe that it is time to ‘translate’ the social ideals in the Qur'an and Islamic teachings into “a way of action that those committed to social justice today can relate to and understand,” Prof. Safi says.
Progressive Muslims begin with a simple yet radical stance: The Muslim community as a whole cannot achieve justice unless justice is guaranteed for Muslim women. Gender equality is a measuring stick for the broader concerns of social justice and pluralism.
“There can be no progressive interpretation of Islam without gender justice. Gender justice is crucial, indispensable, and essential. In the long run, any progressive Muslim interpretation will be judged based on the amount of change in gender equality it is able to produce in small and large communities,” Prof. Safi says.
Progressive Muslims also stand squarely on the shoulders of many ‘liberation theologians’ who viewed a purely conceptual criticism of theology, devoid of any real commitment to the oppressed, as ‘radically irrelevant’.
At the same time, progressives are equally comfortable with Edward Said’s challenge to Muslims to “speak truth to the powers”. Like Said, they believe that many (though not all) previous generations of ‘liberal’ Muslims were often defined by a purely academic approach that reflected their elite status.
Says Prof. Safi, “Vision and activism are both necessary. Activism without vision is doomed from the start. Vision without activism quickly becomes irrelevant. “
But progressives face a delicate balancing act. They need to defend Islam against virulent stereotypes but also to acknowledge oppressive practices and ideas within Islam.
The movement is profoundly skeptical of nationalism, whether American, Arab, Iranian, or otherwise. They also reject the notion of an ‘American Islam’ to be exported to the world. Their opposition to neo-colonialism is a way to avoid their appropriation by the United States’ administration, which has used the language of reforming Islam to justify its invasion of Muslim countries such as Iraq.
North America is probably the most fertile soil for progressives at the moment. One indication of growing popularity is found at a website called Meetup, which publishes a new list 143 different progressive Muslim meetup groups. The largest are in New York City, Toronto, Washington, DC, and San Francisco. But the movement says it is following, not leading, like-minded adherents worldwide. The socially active communities in Iran, Malaysia, and South Africa, are examples.
In keeping with its views on modernity, the movement is using 21st century technology to cross-pollinate ideas -- for example, using email to seek one another out, read each other’s work, and collaborate with one another’s organizations.
The movement is still embryonic and faces huge challenges from conservative Islam, and conservatives of other religions as well. But for Islam, it holds out the promise of a consequential paradigm shift in the relationship of Muslims to Islam and to modernity.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Musings of an Intellectually Shell-Shocked Kansan
By Jason Miller
willpowerful@hotmail.com.
Catalyst for my Contemplation
Life in Kansas can be as surreal as the landscape of a Salvador Dali painting. Critical thinking is a scarce commodity. "Scopes II" provided me with ample evidence that Kansans are proudly waving the banner of anti-intellectualism. Last week, the 6-4 conservative Christian majority on the Kansas State School Board contrived a 21st Century reenactment of the Monkey Trial of 1925 to "prove" that Evolution is a flawed theory. How did my home state time warp past the Age of Reason?
Farcical would be a generous description "Scopes II". Three moderate school board members and the entire mainstream scientific community boycotted the charade. John Calvert, a conservative Christian who leads the Intelligent Design Network of Kansas, stood in for William Jennings Bryan. Calvert questioned "expert witnesses" in a quest to disprove Evolution. Many of the witnesses, whose purpose was to validate the board's desire to introduce Intelligent Design into the school curriculum, were from the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/). Founded and funded by Christian fundamentalists, the Discovery Institute is a think-tank created to advance the concept of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design essentially says that in merely observing the complexity of the world, one cannot help but conclude that there was an intelligent designer. Evidence, research, and peer review are irrelevant to the purveyors of the ID "theory", a thinly veiled form of Creationism. For more on the hypocrisy of Discovery and their ID "theory", see (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html).
Pedro Irigonegaray, Clarence Darrow's counterpart in "Scopes II", is a Topeka defense attorney who generously donated his time to the support of the Theory of Evolution. He questioned the "experts" with a tenacity that revealed their true agenda. He also exposed the fact that most of them had not even read the science standards proposed to the board. He so effectively embarrassed the opposition that his antagonist, John Calvert, refused to shake hands at the end of the proceedings.
Later this summer, the board will vote on potential changes to the science standards in Kansas Public Schools. Holding the majority, it is a foregone conclusion that the conservative Christians will decide to accept the recommendations of John Calvert and his group. Employing their infinite Biblical wisdom, the board will introduce Intelligent Design into the classroom, de-emphasize Evolution (which has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny since 1859), and introduce its own definition of science. As a parent with a child in a Kansas public school, I simultaneously experienced perplexity, bewilderment, and frustration as this insane scenario came to a close.
Only a Symptom
As I pondered, it dawned on me that "Scopes II" is merely a symptom of a much deeper disease gripping our nation. As Thomas Frank concluded in What's the Matter with Kansas?, American voters have been brain-washed into voting against their own economic interests in an obsessive drive to legislate "Christian values" into our nation. "Scopes II" validates his point. Contemplating the conclusions of Mr. Frank, integrating the observations of others, and infusing my own analysis, I surmised that the root of America's decay is the insatiable lust for power and money by the ruling class. Our republic is crumbling while our standing in the world community has disintegrated to the point that America is the object of global fear and hatred. During the Gilded Age, America experienced a similar period of laissez-faire capitalism, inequitable distribution of wealth, and imperialistic endeavors. However, the government of that era lacked the propaganda machine to sustain the over-indulgence of the elite. Today's government media empire has the capacity to lull our citizenry into surrendering their individual freedoms in exchange for the comfort of the protective bosom of Big Brother.
Will the real George Bush please stand up?
Who is George Bush? Does the "aw shucks, just listen to how I say the word nucular", folksy persona he projects square with the real man? Is our beloved "W" truly a man of the people, as he would like Americans to believe? Old Hickory is probably turning in his grave. Strolling through life with at least $9 million in inherited wealth, our president could not begin to fathom the plight of the working or middle class, let alone the poor. He has failed or underperformed at virtually every endeavor of his life, but that is not a problem. Wealthy friends and family have been there to bail him out nearly every step of the way. His alleged empathy for the plight of the common man is a fraud. With his MBA from Harvard, I am betting that "W" is not nearly as ignorant as he portrays himself to be. He is strong and resolute in his beliefs, but given his power, money, and support network, how difficult is it to be "strong and resolute”? While it was his strength and resolution that captured the hearts and minds of many American voters after 9/11 rattled their psyches, what they failed to realize was that Bush would use those very qualities to advance a cause that under-mined many aspects of their well-being. Middle and working class Americans who support George Bush need to awaken from their intellectual slumber. Jozef Hand-Boniakowski has much more to say about this at (http://www.metaphoria.org/ac4t0505.html).
George Bush exists to advance the interests of the rich and the elite. Early in his reign, the events of 9/11 shattered the security of many Americans. Seizing upon this opportunity, which they may have actually master-minded and perpetrated (http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/articles/47), Bush and his henchmen employed this powerful tool to manipulate many Americans. Preying upon America's deep sense of fear, Karl Rove, the Minister of Truth and a man who could take Joseph Goebbels to school, forged the image of George Bush as God's chosen savior to America and to the "free world". He nurtured the notion that America was under constant threat of attack by a murky enemy called Terrorism. Such an abstract enemy enabled Bush and Rove to keep the American people in a perpetual state of war and insecurity. The new paradigm of the "good" US against the "evil" Terrorists, laid the foundation for Bush's long coveted invasion of Iraq. As the administration rushed the Patriot Act through Congress, few Congressmen had time to even read the legislation before rubber-stamping it for fear of being branded "unpatriotic" by John Ashcroft, America's newly anointed Minister of Love.
Bush’s reign
Over three years have passed since 9/11, yet many Americans still dangle from the marionette strings of The Ministry of Truth. Rove's propagandists and the mainstream media have enabled "W" to propel the United States into an illegal, imperialistic invasion of Iraq to perpetuate corporate and big oil interests. Tax cuts for the wealthy have shifted the tax burden to the middle and working class, whose numbers are dwindling thanks to corporate overseas job outsourcing. Under a crushing national debt of $7.5 trillion, America is now the reigning king of Debtor Nations, a title once arrogantly bestowed upon developing nations. How can we saddle our children and grandchildren with that burden? At the rate America is going, future generations will become the indentured servants of China and Japan. Social welfare benefits for the poor are substantially diminishing. Government-endorsed discrimination against gays is increasing. The line between church and state delineated by our Constitution is disappearing. Chasm is the new word to describe the gap between the rich and the poor. Inconceivably, many Americans still adore "W", somehow managing to disregard a mountain of evidence of his incompetence, disregard for the working class, and deceit. If one whispers a sweet little lie to oneself long enough, one starts to believe it.
Repeat after me: George Bush is a good president and represents my best interests ....George Bush is a good president and represents my best interest....George Bush is a good president and represents my best interest....
Is it working? Have you slapped a “W” sticker on the back of your forty foot SUV yet? You are in BUSH country now, partner. Tell the terrorists to “bring it on”!
Social Security, the Judicial Branch of the government, and the filibuster in the Senate are now targets of the Bush machine. America is on the precipice of unbridled tyranny. As many Americans passively watch, while others actively participate, what is left of our republic is completing its ugly metamorphosis into oligarchy, possibly under the guise of a theocracy since Bush has leveraged so much support from the Religious Right.
Rich Man, Poor Man
While the poor, middle and working class, continue swallowing the fiction of the "American Dream", the rich and elite, whom I will call the Oligarchs, own and manipulate the media machine, which continues to propagate the Horatio Alger myth. What the Ministry of Truth does not tell us is that for every Bill Gates "rags to riches" story, there are millions of Americans who put their hearts and souls into success and stay mired in the quicksand of perpetual poverty. True social mobility is rare in America, and the Oligarchs under Bush aim to make it rarer still. They understand the truth of the maxim that "he who has the gold makes the rules". Oligarchs have most of the gold, and they are strengthening their capacities to make the rules. Media perpetuation of hubris, xenophobia, and homophobia enable the Oligarchs to convince Americans that despite genocidal acts against Native Americans, enslavement of the black race, the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II, imperialistic policies in the Middle East since the end of World War II, and ongoing discrimination against women and minorities, that we are morally superior to the rest of the world. Despite creating 25% of the carbon dioxide responsible for the Greenhouse Effect, denying its existence, and withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty; defying the UN and preparing to send an antagonistic war-monger as our new ambassador; and hoarding 35% of the world's wealth when we represent 4% of the world's population, the Oligarchs somehow convince Americans that we were innocent victims in 9/11. America has infuriated much of the world population for years, and someone finally struck back. Rather than taking the rational steps of changing our narcissistic and imperialistic behavior, and taking reasonable steps to defend ourselves, the Oligarchs continue with imperialistic actions that fan the flames of hostility. Perpetuating this cycle of violence creates America's dependence on the Oligarchs’ cash cows: the military industrial complex and big oil.
They want the whole world in their hands.....
Bush and the Oligarchs will not be satisfied with absolute power in America. Their ambitions extend far beyond our borders. One need look no further than the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/), and its statement of principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) to see that world domination by the American military industrial complex is their ultimate goal. Several of the signers of the statement of principles are now serving in high level positions in the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Americans who support Bush have passively handed the keys of the kingdom to a pack of ravenous Oligarchs bent on world domination. Much to the delight of Bush and company, fear and the media/propaganda machine are not the only factors keeping the working classes from breaking free of their economic and psychological shackles. Ongoing "cultural wars" over issues like abortion distract ordinary Americans from important economic and foreign policy decisions, leaving the Oligarchs to their own devices. Convinced that their choices lie within dichotomous, false constructs, many Americans choose one of the false dichotomies and expend their energy fighting one another rather than aspiring to individual freedom, working to develop their potential as human beings, and allowing others to do the same.
Trap of the false dichotomy
In Bush's America, if you are not for the "war on terrorism", you are not a patriot. In this 1984-like atmosphere, it is no coincidence that a law that gives the federal government unchecked power to violate our civil liberties is called the Patriot Act. In Bush's vision of the "New American Century", whether you are American or not, you are either for or against the United States. There is no room for constructive dissent or challenge to the almighty "W". Bush’s loyal subjects see the world in black and white, and support the illegal war in Iraq because they are terrified of being unpatriotic. Unwittingly, they pledge their allegiance to an ideology that enables the rich to maintain dominion over the poor and middle classes. Perverse use of the concept of "patriotism" ensures a steady supply of tax dollars and warm bodies to feed the war machine.
With numerous states having passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and Bush pushing for an amendment to the US Constitution, gay rights in America are under siege. Under the Oligarchs, you are either "straight" or "gay", and if you are "gay" you are not entitled to Constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties. Hitler had the Jewish people and Pol Pot had intellectuals. In homosexuals, the Oligarchs have found the scapegoat on which a successful tyranny depends. Offering their minions a group to blame for the moral decay of society provides a powerful cause around which the Oligarchs can mobilize their faithful to rally.
For a serious laugh, consider the notion that Americans have a real choice when they go to the polls to elect a president. Dominated by two monolithic parties, both of which are beholden to corporations and wealthy campaign contributors, the political arena allows scant room for meaningful participation by the poor or working class. Despite the superficial differences between the Republican and Democratic parties on some issues, the two parties share the common goal of perpetuating the Oligarchy. While the poor and working class have historically fared better under Democratic rule, there is little evidence that there is an appreciable difference between the two parties. In the end, the Oligarchy still rules, whether they don the guise of an elephant or of a jackass.
Are you a liberal or a conservative? Political pundits, pollsters, and the Oligarchs thrive on people defining themselves as one or the other. Their objective is to pigeonhole people into narrowly defined groups. Having accomplished this, their powerful media machine sows seeds of discord that draw that people into a perpetual ideological battle between fictitious groups. The reality is that no human being fits neatly into either category. People fall on a spectrum somewhere between liberal and conservative. Their views on some issues may tend toward liberal, and move towards conservative on others. Yet the Oligarchs successfully manipulate many Americans to a choose side, and battle it out with the other side, regardless of what their individual views might be if they stepped out of their liberal or conservative “box.” Perpetual bickering amongst the working class gives the Oligarch plenty of cover for their malfeasance..
Secularism versus the Religious Right is King George's favorite aspect of the cultural war. Representing "W" as an Evangelical Christian, the Oligarchs mobilized a coalition of conservative Christians known as the Religious Right, whose leaders are as power hungry as the Oligarchs, and whose followers, fueled by feelings of victimization for their beliefs, vindictively pursue their agenda. Riding the Right to re-election, in spite of the obvious incompetence and criminal nature of his first term, Bush was rewarded with another four years to commit crimes against humanity, and to boost the fortunes of the Oligarchs still further. Employing a classic "divide and conquer" strategy, the Oligarchs promote ideological clashes like “Scopes II”. While their subjects squabble over the validity of Evolution and argue about the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Oligarchy counts the stacks of cash in its counting room.
Freedom and a modicum of justice are within our grasp
I am not despairing. In fact, I am very hopeful for the future. History reveals that the working class is not helpless before the might of the elite. We are not destined to victimization at the hands of the Oligarchy. Mother Jones, Eugene Debs, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the millions who rallied behind them forced the Oligarchy of their time to give the people a degree of human rights, freedoms, and economic justice. Awareness is the first step in the journey toward reform. The human spirit is not easily crushed or caged for prolonged periods, and we have the means at our disposal to challenge those in power.
To begin this renaissance of humanity and reverse the ugly dehumanization of the ruling elite, more Americans need to abandon the Oligarchy-controlled mainstream media and fortify their minds with information from Internet sources, many of which remain uncorrupted by the money of the elite. Activist writing, letters to the editor, and correspondence to elected officials are powerful means to inform and persuade others, and to hold public officials accountable.
To counter their “divide and conquer” strategy, we need to join groups and organizations like the ACLU, the People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, and the NAACP. These groups champion human rights and challenge the tyranny perpetrated by the Oligarchy. The working class needs to wage a powerful campaign to re-unionize America, where union membership has dwindled to a pitiful 9% of the workforce. Impossible as it may sound, groups as deeply divided as secularists and members of the Religious Right need to find enough common ground to unite in opposition to the Oligarchs.
Protests, boycotts, marches, and civil disobedience have been effective means of diminishing the power of the Oligarchy in the past, and can be again. Corruption, greed, and malfeasance are rampant in the American government, and we need to use virtually all peaceable means at our disposal to curtail the power of the Oligarchy.
Richard Nixon, one of the most corrupt Oligarchs in the history of the United States, lost his tenacious grip on power through impeachment. American citizens deserve better than they are getting, and the members of Congress who have not sold out to the Oligarchy need to seriously consider impeachment proceedings against George Bush. How long do we abide an incompetent, avaricious war criminal? The buck stopped on Harry Truman’s desk, but not on Bush’s. The money spigot for his military industrial complex is wide open as the flow of tax dollars to the poor is reduced to a trickle. It is unconscionable that a man with his arrogance, disregard for human rights, inability to tell the truth, and lack of capacity to negotiate or tolerate dissent remains in office. How long will it be before enough Americans wake up and we impeach George W. Bush?
Just for the record: According to Finley Peter Dunne, the purpose of journalism is “to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable.” As usual, I hope this piece leaves the afflicted comforted and the comfortable afflicted.
willpowerful@hotmail.com.
Catalyst for my Contemplation
Life in Kansas can be as surreal as the landscape of a Salvador Dali painting. Critical thinking is a scarce commodity. "Scopes II" provided me with ample evidence that Kansans are proudly waving the banner of anti-intellectualism. Last week, the 6-4 conservative Christian majority on the Kansas State School Board contrived a 21st Century reenactment of the Monkey Trial of 1925 to "prove" that Evolution is a flawed theory. How did my home state time warp past the Age of Reason?
Farcical would be a generous description "Scopes II". Three moderate school board members and the entire mainstream scientific community boycotted the charade. John Calvert, a conservative Christian who leads the Intelligent Design Network of Kansas, stood in for William Jennings Bryan. Calvert questioned "expert witnesses" in a quest to disprove Evolution. Many of the witnesses, whose purpose was to validate the board's desire to introduce Intelligent Design into the school curriculum, were from the Discovery Institute (http://www.discovery.org/). Founded and funded by Christian fundamentalists, the Discovery Institute is a think-tank created to advance the concept of Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design essentially says that in merely observing the complexity of the world, one cannot help but conclude that there was an intelligent designer. Evidence, research, and peer review are irrelevant to the purveyors of the ID "theory", a thinly veiled form of Creationism. For more on the hypocrisy of Discovery and their ID "theory", see (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html).
Pedro Irigonegaray, Clarence Darrow's counterpart in "Scopes II", is a Topeka defense attorney who generously donated his time to the support of the Theory of Evolution. He questioned the "experts" with a tenacity that revealed their true agenda. He also exposed the fact that most of them had not even read the science standards proposed to the board. He so effectively embarrassed the opposition that his antagonist, John Calvert, refused to shake hands at the end of the proceedings.
Later this summer, the board will vote on potential changes to the science standards in Kansas Public Schools. Holding the majority, it is a foregone conclusion that the conservative Christians will decide to accept the recommendations of John Calvert and his group. Employing their infinite Biblical wisdom, the board will introduce Intelligent Design into the classroom, de-emphasize Evolution (which has withstood rigorous scientific scrutiny since 1859), and introduce its own definition of science. As a parent with a child in a Kansas public school, I simultaneously experienced perplexity, bewilderment, and frustration as this insane scenario came to a close.
Only a Symptom
As I pondered, it dawned on me that "Scopes II" is merely a symptom of a much deeper disease gripping our nation. As Thomas Frank concluded in What's the Matter with Kansas?, American voters have been brain-washed into voting against their own economic interests in an obsessive drive to legislate "Christian values" into our nation. "Scopes II" validates his point. Contemplating the conclusions of Mr. Frank, integrating the observations of others, and infusing my own analysis, I surmised that the root of America's decay is the insatiable lust for power and money by the ruling class. Our republic is crumbling while our standing in the world community has disintegrated to the point that America is the object of global fear and hatred. During the Gilded Age, America experienced a similar period of laissez-faire capitalism, inequitable distribution of wealth, and imperialistic endeavors. However, the government of that era lacked the propaganda machine to sustain the over-indulgence of the elite. Today's government media empire has the capacity to lull our citizenry into surrendering their individual freedoms in exchange for the comfort of the protective bosom of Big Brother.
Will the real George Bush please stand up?
Who is George Bush? Does the "aw shucks, just listen to how I say the word nucular", folksy persona he projects square with the real man? Is our beloved "W" truly a man of the people, as he would like Americans to believe? Old Hickory is probably turning in his grave. Strolling through life with at least $9 million in inherited wealth, our president could not begin to fathom the plight of the working or middle class, let alone the poor. He has failed or underperformed at virtually every endeavor of his life, but that is not a problem. Wealthy friends and family have been there to bail him out nearly every step of the way. His alleged empathy for the plight of the common man is a fraud. With his MBA from Harvard, I am betting that "W" is not nearly as ignorant as he portrays himself to be. He is strong and resolute in his beliefs, but given his power, money, and support network, how difficult is it to be "strong and resolute”? While it was his strength and resolution that captured the hearts and minds of many American voters after 9/11 rattled their psyches, what they failed to realize was that Bush would use those very qualities to advance a cause that under-mined many aspects of their well-being. Middle and working class Americans who support George Bush need to awaken from their intellectual slumber. Jozef Hand-Boniakowski has much more to say about this at (http://www.metaphoria.org/ac4t0505.html).
George Bush exists to advance the interests of the rich and the elite. Early in his reign, the events of 9/11 shattered the security of many Americans. Seizing upon this opportunity, which they may have actually master-minded and perpetrated (http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/articles/47), Bush and his henchmen employed this powerful tool to manipulate many Americans. Preying upon America's deep sense of fear, Karl Rove, the Minister of Truth and a man who could take Joseph Goebbels to school, forged the image of George Bush as God's chosen savior to America and to the "free world". He nurtured the notion that America was under constant threat of attack by a murky enemy called Terrorism. Such an abstract enemy enabled Bush and Rove to keep the American people in a perpetual state of war and insecurity. The new paradigm of the "good" US against the "evil" Terrorists, laid the foundation for Bush's long coveted invasion of Iraq. As the administration rushed the Patriot Act through Congress, few Congressmen had time to even read the legislation before rubber-stamping it for fear of being branded "unpatriotic" by John Ashcroft, America's newly anointed Minister of Love.
Bush’s reign
Over three years have passed since 9/11, yet many Americans still dangle from the marionette strings of The Ministry of Truth. Rove's propagandists and the mainstream media have enabled "W" to propel the United States into an illegal, imperialistic invasion of Iraq to perpetuate corporate and big oil interests. Tax cuts for the wealthy have shifted the tax burden to the middle and working class, whose numbers are dwindling thanks to corporate overseas job outsourcing. Under a crushing national debt of $7.5 trillion, America is now the reigning king of Debtor Nations, a title once arrogantly bestowed upon developing nations. How can we saddle our children and grandchildren with that burden? At the rate America is going, future generations will become the indentured servants of China and Japan. Social welfare benefits for the poor are substantially diminishing. Government-endorsed discrimination against gays is increasing. The line between church and state delineated by our Constitution is disappearing. Chasm is the new word to describe the gap between the rich and the poor. Inconceivably, many Americans still adore "W", somehow managing to disregard a mountain of evidence of his incompetence, disregard for the working class, and deceit. If one whispers a sweet little lie to oneself long enough, one starts to believe it.
Repeat after me: George Bush is a good president and represents my best interests ....George Bush is a good president and represents my best interest....George Bush is a good president and represents my best interest....
Is it working? Have you slapped a “W” sticker on the back of your forty foot SUV yet? You are in BUSH country now, partner. Tell the terrorists to “bring it on”!
Social Security, the Judicial Branch of the government, and the filibuster in the Senate are now targets of the Bush machine. America is on the precipice of unbridled tyranny. As many Americans passively watch, while others actively participate, what is left of our republic is completing its ugly metamorphosis into oligarchy, possibly under the guise of a theocracy since Bush has leveraged so much support from the Religious Right.
Rich Man, Poor Man
While the poor, middle and working class, continue swallowing the fiction of the "American Dream", the rich and elite, whom I will call the Oligarchs, own and manipulate the media machine, which continues to propagate the Horatio Alger myth. What the Ministry of Truth does not tell us is that for every Bill Gates "rags to riches" story, there are millions of Americans who put their hearts and souls into success and stay mired in the quicksand of perpetual poverty. True social mobility is rare in America, and the Oligarchs under Bush aim to make it rarer still. They understand the truth of the maxim that "he who has the gold makes the rules". Oligarchs have most of the gold, and they are strengthening their capacities to make the rules. Media perpetuation of hubris, xenophobia, and homophobia enable the Oligarchs to convince Americans that despite genocidal acts against Native Americans, enslavement of the black race, the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II, imperialistic policies in the Middle East since the end of World War II, and ongoing discrimination against women and minorities, that we are morally superior to the rest of the world. Despite creating 25% of the carbon dioxide responsible for the Greenhouse Effect, denying its existence, and withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty; defying the UN and preparing to send an antagonistic war-monger as our new ambassador; and hoarding 35% of the world's wealth when we represent 4% of the world's population, the Oligarchs somehow convince Americans that we were innocent victims in 9/11. America has infuriated much of the world population for years, and someone finally struck back. Rather than taking the rational steps of changing our narcissistic and imperialistic behavior, and taking reasonable steps to defend ourselves, the Oligarchs continue with imperialistic actions that fan the flames of hostility. Perpetuating this cycle of violence creates America's dependence on the Oligarchs’ cash cows: the military industrial complex and big oil.
They want the whole world in their hands.....
Bush and the Oligarchs will not be satisfied with absolute power in America. Their ambitions extend far beyond our borders. One need look no further than the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/), and its statement of principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) to see that world domination by the American military industrial complex is their ultimate goal. Several of the signers of the statement of principles are now serving in high level positions in the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Americans who support Bush have passively handed the keys of the kingdom to a pack of ravenous Oligarchs bent on world domination. Much to the delight of Bush and company, fear and the media/propaganda machine are not the only factors keeping the working classes from breaking free of their economic and psychological shackles. Ongoing "cultural wars" over issues like abortion distract ordinary Americans from important economic and foreign policy decisions, leaving the Oligarchs to their own devices. Convinced that their choices lie within dichotomous, false constructs, many Americans choose one of the false dichotomies and expend their energy fighting one another rather than aspiring to individual freedom, working to develop their potential as human beings, and allowing others to do the same.
Trap of the false dichotomy
In Bush's America, if you are not for the "war on terrorism", you are not a patriot. In this 1984-like atmosphere, it is no coincidence that a law that gives the federal government unchecked power to violate our civil liberties is called the Patriot Act. In Bush's vision of the "New American Century", whether you are American or not, you are either for or against the United States. There is no room for constructive dissent or challenge to the almighty "W". Bush’s loyal subjects see the world in black and white, and support the illegal war in Iraq because they are terrified of being unpatriotic. Unwittingly, they pledge their allegiance to an ideology that enables the rich to maintain dominion over the poor and middle classes. Perverse use of the concept of "patriotism" ensures a steady supply of tax dollars and warm bodies to feed the war machine.
With numerous states having passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and Bush pushing for an amendment to the US Constitution, gay rights in America are under siege. Under the Oligarchs, you are either "straight" or "gay", and if you are "gay" you are not entitled to Constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties. Hitler had the Jewish people and Pol Pot had intellectuals. In homosexuals, the Oligarchs have found the scapegoat on which a successful tyranny depends. Offering their minions a group to blame for the moral decay of society provides a powerful cause around which the Oligarchs can mobilize their faithful to rally.
For a serious laugh, consider the notion that Americans have a real choice when they go to the polls to elect a president. Dominated by two monolithic parties, both of which are beholden to corporations and wealthy campaign contributors, the political arena allows scant room for meaningful participation by the poor or working class. Despite the superficial differences between the Republican and Democratic parties on some issues, the two parties share the common goal of perpetuating the Oligarchy. While the poor and working class have historically fared better under Democratic rule, there is little evidence that there is an appreciable difference between the two parties. In the end, the Oligarchy still rules, whether they don the guise of an elephant or of a jackass.
Are you a liberal or a conservative? Political pundits, pollsters, and the Oligarchs thrive on people defining themselves as one or the other. Their objective is to pigeonhole people into narrowly defined groups. Having accomplished this, their powerful media machine sows seeds of discord that draw that people into a perpetual ideological battle between fictitious groups. The reality is that no human being fits neatly into either category. People fall on a spectrum somewhere between liberal and conservative. Their views on some issues may tend toward liberal, and move towards conservative on others. Yet the Oligarchs successfully manipulate many Americans to a choose side, and battle it out with the other side, regardless of what their individual views might be if they stepped out of their liberal or conservative “box.” Perpetual bickering amongst the working class gives the Oligarch plenty of cover for their malfeasance..
Secularism versus the Religious Right is King George's favorite aspect of the cultural war. Representing "W" as an Evangelical Christian, the Oligarchs mobilized a coalition of conservative Christians known as the Religious Right, whose leaders are as power hungry as the Oligarchs, and whose followers, fueled by feelings of victimization for their beliefs, vindictively pursue their agenda. Riding the Right to re-election, in spite of the obvious incompetence and criminal nature of his first term, Bush was rewarded with another four years to commit crimes against humanity, and to boost the fortunes of the Oligarchs still further. Employing a classic "divide and conquer" strategy, the Oligarchs promote ideological clashes like “Scopes II”. While their subjects squabble over the validity of Evolution and argue about the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Oligarchy counts the stacks of cash in its counting room.
Freedom and a modicum of justice are within our grasp
I am not despairing. In fact, I am very hopeful for the future. History reveals that the working class is not helpless before the might of the elite. We are not destined to victimization at the hands of the Oligarchy. Mother Jones, Eugene Debs, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the millions who rallied behind them forced the Oligarchy of their time to give the people a degree of human rights, freedoms, and economic justice. Awareness is the first step in the journey toward reform. The human spirit is not easily crushed or caged for prolonged periods, and we have the means at our disposal to challenge those in power.
To begin this renaissance of humanity and reverse the ugly dehumanization of the ruling elite, more Americans need to abandon the Oligarchy-controlled mainstream media and fortify their minds with information from Internet sources, many of which remain uncorrupted by the money of the elite. Activist writing, letters to the editor, and correspondence to elected officials are powerful means to inform and persuade others, and to hold public officials accountable.
To counter their “divide and conquer” strategy, we need to join groups and organizations like the ACLU, the People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, and the NAACP. These groups champion human rights and challenge the tyranny perpetrated by the Oligarchy. The working class needs to wage a powerful campaign to re-unionize America, where union membership has dwindled to a pitiful 9% of the workforce. Impossible as it may sound, groups as deeply divided as secularists and members of the Religious Right need to find enough common ground to unite in opposition to the Oligarchs.
Protests, boycotts, marches, and civil disobedience have been effective means of diminishing the power of the Oligarchy in the past, and can be again. Corruption, greed, and malfeasance are rampant in the American government, and we need to use virtually all peaceable means at our disposal to curtail the power of the Oligarchy.
Richard Nixon, one of the most corrupt Oligarchs in the history of the United States, lost his tenacious grip on power through impeachment. American citizens deserve better than they are getting, and the members of Congress who have not sold out to the Oligarchy need to seriously consider impeachment proceedings against George Bush. How long do we abide an incompetent, avaricious war criminal? The buck stopped on Harry Truman’s desk, but not on Bush’s. The money spigot for his military industrial complex is wide open as the flow of tax dollars to the poor is reduced to a trickle. It is unconscionable that a man with his arrogance, disregard for human rights, inability to tell the truth, and lack of capacity to negotiate or tolerate dissent remains in office. How long will it be before enough Americans wake up and we impeach George W. Bush?
Just for the record: According to Finley Peter Dunne, the purpose of journalism is “to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable.” As usual, I hope this piece leaves the afflicted comforted and the comfortable afflicted.
IRAQ: REAL NEWS FROM THE BATTLEFIELD
By William Fisher
I long ago stopped believing anything our government told us about Iraq. Now, like millions of other Americans, I have stopped believing what our mainstream media tells us about Iraq. What has become a substitute for a credible and holistic picture of what is really happening in this tortured country is a pair of bookends: at one end, endless images of car bombs exploding, with commentary from journalists who are mostly unable to leave their Baghdad hotels; at the other end, the feelgood press releases from the White House and the Pentagon.
So now I get my news from a few knowledgeable Iraqi and other bloggers and from the emails I receive from trusted friends who work there.
Below is the email I received this week (names and locations have been deleted to protect their safety):
This new government has proven nothing thus far except its own incompetence. From my exile in (Iraqi city deleted), a distant but well-connected vantage point, two things about this government are noteworthy.
First it is unable to control security. The bickering and backstabbing that went
into cabinet selection gave new life to the insurgency, demoralizing the
population at large and the security forces in particular. Al-Jaafari, the Prime Minister and the head of the more moderate portion of the Sistani group, promoted for Defense Minister Sunni politicians and former military people who had legitimacy amongst large sections of the Sunni Arab population.
All his nominations were vetoed by the more hard-line Shiites of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The real power in Iraq right now lies with Abdel Aziz Al-Hakim, the turbaned head of SCIRI and Sistani.
Some Iraqis disagree with me. They would say that SCIRI's power derives from Iran, and it is that country that is really controlling (or not controlling) the country.
But the important final question is, if the security forces fight, who are they fighting for? A united Iraq, or a derivative of Iran? This is an important point, and it could be one reason that Iraqi forces' performance has deteriorated in recent weeks.
Second, if you cannot keep the country safe, you may as well have a witch-hunt. With Ahmed Chalabi in the lead, that oh so honest and pure politician from Nasariya, the new government has decided to prevent all former ministers from traveling pending investigations into corruption.
All of us know who was corrupt in Allawi's government -Transport, Defense, Electricity, Interior and others.
But this new government is determined to intimidate and harass all who were associated with Allawi. For example, on Wednesday, eight armored vehicles filled with armed police officers drove up to the home of a former minister (name withheld), with the intent of making an arrest.
The former minister told them emphatically, "get out, you will have to kill me to take me from my home". They backed down, the former minister made some phone calls and the episode ended.
The allegation was that the former minister did not properly nominate ministry staff for international delegations. The allegation could very well be true, but what is all the fuss? I have met the former minister several times and doubt that this person would be capable of deliberate malicious intent, but as a bureaucrat with little experience, I do not doubt that things could have gone awry.
The Baathist purge office has been reactivated, again under the guidance of
Chalabi, and this cannot accomplish anything except make the insurgency worse. The average Iraqi does not care about mid-level Baathists, they care about peace, and if peace is contingent upon keeping or hiring a few Baathists with ties to Saddam, that is an acceptable contingency.
The two elements to the witch-hunt, the first against Allawi and the second against Baathists, make for palatable unease on the street (we have to remember that in general people liked Allawi, but they could not vote for him over
Sistani). Combine the witch-hunt with suicide bombers and the optimism of
the last months is gone.
I am now at my most pessimistic. Never did I think it would get this bad.
Below is yet another desperate email message (in broken English) from one of the NGOs we work with. (Name withheld) was suppose to meet with us yesterday, but there was a bomb in his neighborhood, yet again at a recruitment center, the day before.
hi (recipient withheld).
I want to inform you that an distortion and pumb explosion happent in Hawija today cause to kill many young men from my region and my village and some of them were from my cosion that was made by terrors and I was closer from the event. I want to say you that I am so sad for 100 young men from hawija city whom came to produce themself to thier country by our device. Finally, all (Arabain, Kurdish, Turkmen amd other) cry for this work and declare our sadness in this dark day. our greeting for (name withheld) and other staff in your org.
accept my regards
(name withheld)
Boss of (organization deleted)
I receive these types of messages every two or three days. By now one would think that I could read them with dispassion, that I would not react with tears in my eyes. I cannot. You can read about this bomb in Hawija on CNN, but read these few humble sentences, understand it, and weep.
And yet, we keep going. This week I had my teams from (locations deleted) come for a work planning session. Their commitment to improving the lives of Iraqis is beyond my expectations. We will involve 500 farmers in maize wok this summer and several hundred in Najaf and Diwaniyah in rice. And that is just the start. We have plans for livestock, tomato, cucumber, apples, dates, extension, integrated pest management, and tractor repair (I hope to sign a $9 million contract with the local distributor of (manufacturer’s name deleted) this week). My guys are thrilled that we have plenty of resources for them to use to do just about anything that helps agriculture. Their smiles and optimism in the face of undeniable risks is almost incomprehensible to me, and it helps to restore somewhat my faith in the future of Iraq.
If we could get the politicians to be as committed to development and progress as my guys the country would be in much better shape. But alas, we have Chalabi, the crook, and Al-Jaafari, the weak, a recipe for nothing good.
It would be a good idea to remember this message next time Mssrs. Bush and Rumsfeld tell us how we’re winning this war.
I long ago stopped believing anything our government told us about Iraq. Now, like millions of other Americans, I have stopped believing what our mainstream media tells us about Iraq. What has become a substitute for a credible and holistic picture of what is really happening in this tortured country is a pair of bookends: at one end, endless images of car bombs exploding, with commentary from journalists who are mostly unable to leave their Baghdad hotels; at the other end, the feelgood press releases from the White House and the Pentagon.
So now I get my news from a few knowledgeable Iraqi and other bloggers and from the emails I receive from trusted friends who work there.
Below is the email I received this week (names and locations have been deleted to protect their safety):
This new government has proven nothing thus far except its own incompetence. From my exile in (Iraqi city deleted), a distant but well-connected vantage point, two things about this government are noteworthy.
First it is unable to control security. The bickering and backstabbing that went
into cabinet selection gave new life to the insurgency, demoralizing the
population at large and the security forces in particular. Al-Jaafari, the Prime Minister and the head of the more moderate portion of the Sistani group, promoted for Defense Minister Sunni politicians and former military people who had legitimacy amongst large sections of the Sunni Arab population.
All his nominations were vetoed by the more hard-line Shiites of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The real power in Iraq right now lies with Abdel Aziz Al-Hakim, the turbaned head of SCIRI and Sistani.
Some Iraqis disagree with me. They would say that SCIRI's power derives from Iran, and it is that country that is really controlling (or not controlling) the country.
But the important final question is, if the security forces fight, who are they fighting for? A united Iraq, or a derivative of Iran? This is an important point, and it could be one reason that Iraqi forces' performance has deteriorated in recent weeks.
Second, if you cannot keep the country safe, you may as well have a witch-hunt. With Ahmed Chalabi in the lead, that oh so honest and pure politician from Nasariya, the new government has decided to prevent all former ministers from traveling pending investigations into corruption.
All of us know who was corrupt in Allawi's government -Transport, Defense, Electricity, Interior and others.
But this new government is determined to intimidate and harass all who were associated with Allawi. For example, on Wednesday, eight armored vehicles filled with armed police officers drove up to the home of a former minister (name withheld), with the intent of making an arrest.
The former minister told them emphatically, "get out, you will have to kill me to take me from my home". They backed down, the former minister made some phone calls and the episode ended.
The allegation was that the former minister did not properly nominate ministry staff for international delegations. The allegation could very well be true, but what is all the fuss? I have met the former minister several times and doubt that this person would be capable of deliberate malicious intent, but as a bureaucrat with little experience, I do not doubt that things could have gone awry.
The Baathist purge office has been reactivated, again under the guidance of
Chalabi, and this cannot accomplish anything except make the insurgency worse. The average Iraqi does not care about mid-level Baathists, they care about peace, and if peace is contingent upon keeping or hiring a few Baathists with ties to Saddam, that is an acceptable contingency.
The two elements to the witch-hunt, the first against Allawi and the second against Baathists, make for palatable unease on the street (we have to remember that in general people liked Allawi, but they could not vote for him over
Sistani). Combine the witch-hunt with suicide bombers and the optimism of
the last months is gone.
I am now at my most pessimistic. Never did I think it would get this bad.
Below is yet another desperate email message (in broken English) from one of the NGOs we work with. (Name withheld) was suppose to meet with us yesterday, but there was a bomb in his neighborhood, yet again at a recruitment center, the day before.
hi (recipient withheld).
I want to inform you that an distortion and pumb explosion happent in Hawija today cause to kill many young men from my region and my village and some of them were from my cosion that was made by terrors and I was closer from the event. I want to say you that I am so sad for 100 young men from hawija city whom came to produce themself to thier country by our device. Finally, all (Arabain, Kurdish, Turkmen amd other) cry for this work and declare our sadness in this dark day. our greeting for (name withheld) and other staff in your org.
accept my regards
(name withheld)
Boss of (organization deleted)
I receive these types of messages every two or three days. By now one would think that I could read them with dispassion, that I would not react with tears in my eyes. I cannot. You can read about this bomb in Hawija on CNN, but read these few humble sentences, understand it, and weep.
And yet, we keep going. This week I had my teams from (locations deleted) come for a work planning session. Their commitment to improving the lives of Iraqis is beyond my expectations. We will involve 500 farmers in maize wok this summer and several hundred in Najaf and Diwaniyah in rice. And that is just the start. We have plans for livestock, tomato, cucumber, apples, dates, extension, integrated pest management, and tractor repair (I hope to sign a $9 million contract with the local distributor of (manufacturer’s name deleted) this week). My guys are thrilled that we have plenty of resources for them to use to do just about anything that helps agriculture. Their smiles and optimism in the face of undeniable risks is almost incomprehensible to me, and it helps to restore somewhat my faith in the future of Iraq.
If we could get the politicians to be as committed to development and progress as my guys the country would be in much better shape. But alas, we have Chalabi, the crook, and Al-Jaafari, the weak, a recipe for nothing good.
It would be a good idea to remember this message next time Mssrs. Bush and Rumsfeld tell us how we’re winning this war.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
COMMUNICATING WITH THE CAIRO STREET
By William Fisher
Is the US Government’s Alhurra satellite television channel winning hearts and minds on the ‘Arab Street’?
Alhurra is one of the premiere tools of public diplomacy for America in the Middle East. Launched a little over a year ago at a startup cost of $62 million, the station has consistently run a distant third to Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, though polls commissioned by Alhurra indicate much higher viewership numbers and credibility ratings than those reported in independent surveys conducted by academics and Arab research organizations.
Last month, TBS, a Cairo-based research firm covering satellite television in the Arab and Islamic Worlds, sent a journalist, my friend Summer Said, out into the Cairo streets for a week to find out who’s watching, who’s not, and why. Egypt is the Arab world's most populous country and, according to a 2004 Zogby International poll, has one of the most anti-American publics in the Arab world, with unfavorable views of America calculated at 98 percent.
So what Cairenes think is critical.
This is some of what Ms. Said learned in her admittedly unscientific research:
Students said:
“I cannot stand watching it because it is boring and lifeless and you feel it is a bad imitation of the CNN or BBC. If I were in the shoes of the US administration I would shut this thing down before it becomes a scandal.”
“The channel is not as bad as I and my friends expected at the beginning. Just forget the fact that it is funded by the US and it will be fine. I'm only interested in shows about body fitness and health so I watch Alhurra because they air some good shows in that area. These programs are in Arabic so I do not have to read subtitles while following the show.”
“I checked it out twice and it was so boring. I do not have much time to waste so I watch good channels like Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya.”
“I do not watch it and I do not recommend people to watch it. It is a station that was created by the US to brainwash the Arabs and convince them of the evil plans of the US. For me watching Alhurra is like watching an Israeli channel.”
“I do not have a subscription to Discovery Channel to watch good documentaries so I'm glad that there is an Arabic channel like Alhurra that is giving me that chance everyday. I guess your interests affect how you view this channel.”
“I do watch Alhurra, but I do that with suspicions. I feel that the US is trying to brainwash the Arabs so I often compare their news reporting to the other reporting by channels like BBC, Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya. But I have to admit that most of the time, their reporting is professional and they do not fabricate stories. But I only watch Alhurra just to see if they do mistakes or not, just out of curiosity.”
“What I like about Alhurra is that every day they have different programs than the day before. One day they have a cooking show, and on another they air a documentary or a cinema show. My favorite show is a travel program called Luxury Travel that takes you on a tour through a country or a city and gives you all the information about it.”
Professional people – teachers, accountants, engineers, dentists, doctors, journalists – said:
“I did not think I would be watching Alhurra until one day when I was checking what was on TV and saw them interviewing some high profile Egyptians. The program was Sa'a Hurra (Free Hour), a live show that once hosted Ayman Nour, the chairman of (Egyptian opposition) Al Ghad Party. At least you would not find a similar show on the state-owned TV that is being watched by millions of people.”
“It is unbelievable that this channel is American. It cannot be compared even to the worst American channels that I receive. I cannot see how come the US does not even care to please the Arabs with something professional. Do they think we can be pleased by anything? It is a kind of insult to us.”
“I wonder how come the US is financing this channel and still the services it offers are not that great. Sometimes I feel that the announcers are not professional at all and they speak classical Arabic with difficulty. I also feel that their news bulletins are filtered so that they would not offend the Arab viewers. And if you forget about the news you feel that their other programs are boring and they are of no interest to you. I do not know why it is still operating till now.”
“Alhurra is a nice break from Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya and what they air everyday. Its news bulletins are not perfect but they also cover great parts of the world. It also gives you one hour of news if you have time to sit and watch and a 10-minute news if you are just interested in headlines. I think people at Alhurra are doing well for a channel that just kicked off last year.”
“It has good shows, decent news coverage, and quite professional stuff. We criticize the channel just because it is funded by the US and also because we are used to criticizing everything that is different from what we have.”
“Why would I watch something that everyone says is bad? It reminds me of our local channels. It has unqualified announcers, boring programs, and bad news coverage.”
“I think it is a good channel but the criticism it got before its launch put off so many people. I think they have some good talk shows and their news services are quite balanced. This channel has its strength and it could become more important in the future if the US gave more attention to the staff and the quality of the programs aired.”
“If we compare Alhurra with Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, or CNN, Alhurra will lose but sometimes you want some change and you want to check out something different. I think the channel's performance is getting better…”
Office workers said:
“I do not watch Alhurra at the moment because I think they still need more time to become professional. They also have to come up with new ideas and interesting shows because no one will watch the channel unless it gives them something exceptional and this has not happened so far.”
“Alhurra has good debate shows but I think that the channel has failed in its main mission, which is "beautifying America's ugly face" in the eyes millions of Arabs and Muslims. The way I perceive the US is still the same and has not changed at all. I think that the American administration was stupid to launch this channel because they thought it will make us love them.”
Business people said:
“News programs concentrate on Israeli and American statements, especially those by George W. Bush. They choose stuff that justifies the war on Iraq and the violations against the Iraqis and Palestinians. I have been following the other non-political shows and they are all silly and lifeless or rather boring and ridiculous. The US had better save its money and shut down the whole station.”
“I like the talk shows on Alhurra. They are not too long, interesting, discuss hot topics and feature people that are not the mouthpieces of the Arab governments.”
So is this US effort winning hearts and minds? For some of these Cairenes, arguably never. They view the channel with hostility and suspicion. Others are watching as a once-in-a-while alternative to the better-known channels. Still others are viewing programs that may improve their culinary skills or improve their holiday planning – but not for news or public affairs, which they feel is American propaganda.
None of this will come as much of a surprise to the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the effort. But it’s information that’s important as Karen Hughes, the president’s longtime friend and confidante, prepares to take over all America’s public diplomacy efforts.
Is the US Government’s Alhurra satellite television channel winning hearts and minds on the ‘Arab Street’?
Alhurra is one of the premiere tools of public diplomacy for America in the Middle East. Launched a little over a year ago at a startup cost of $62 million, the station has consistently run a distant third to Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, though polls commissioned by Alhurra indicate much higher viewership numbers and credibility ratings than those reported in independent surveys conducted by academics and Arab research organizations.
Last month, TBS, a Cairo-based research firm covering satellite television in the Arab and Islamic Worlds, sent a journalist, my friend Summer Said, out into the Cairo streets for a week to find out who’s watching, who’s not, and why. Egypt is the Arab world's most populous country and, according to a 2004 Zogby International poll, has one of the most anti-American publics in the Arab world, with unfavorable views of America calculated at 98 percent.
So what Cairenes think is critical.
This is some of what Ms. Said learned in her admittedly unscientific research:
Students said:
“I cannot stand watching it because it is boring and lifeless and you feel it is a bad imitation of the CNN or BBC. If I were in the shoes of the US administration I would shut this thing down before it becomes a scandal.”
“The channel is not as bad as I and my friends expected at the beginning. Just forget the fact that it is funded by the US and it will be fine. I'm only interested in shows about body fitness and health so I watch Alhurra because they air some good shows in that area. These programs are in Arabic so I do not have to read subtitles while following the show.”
“I checked it out twice and it was so boring. I do not have much time to waste so I watch good channels like Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya.”
“I do not watch it and I do not recommend people to watch it. It is a station that was created by the US to brainwash the Arabs and convince them of the evil plans of the US. For me watching Alhurra is like watching an Israeli channel.”
“I do not have a subscription to Discovery Channel to watch good documentaries so I'm glad that there is an Arabic channel like Alhurra that is giving me that chance everyday. I guess your interests affect how you view this channel.”
“I do watch Alhurra, but I do that with suspicions. I feel that the US is trying to brainwash the Arabs so I often compare their news reporting to the other reporting by channels like BBC, Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya. But I have to admit that most of the time, their reporting is professional and they do not fabricate stories. But I only watch Alhurra just to see if they do mistakes or not, just out of curiosity.”
“What I like about Alhurra is that every day they have different programs than the day before. One day they have a cooking show, and on another they air a documentary or a cinema show. My favorite show is a travel program called Luxury Travel that takes you on a tour through a country or a city and gives you all the information about it.”
Professional people – teachers, accountants, engineers, dentists, doctors, journalists – said:
“I did not think I would be watching Alhurra until one day when I was checking what was on TV and saw them interviewing some high profile Egyptians. The program was Sa'a Hurra (Free Hour), a live show that once hosted Ayman Nour, the chairman of (Egyptian opposition) Al Ghad Party. At least you would not find a similar show on the state-owned TV that is being watched by millions of people.”
“It is unbelievable that this channel is American. It cannot be compared even to the worst American channels that I receive. I cannot see how come the US does not even care to please the Arabs with something professional. Do they think we can be pleased by anything? It is a kind of insult to us.”
“I wonder how come the US is financing this channel and still the services it offers are not that great. Sometimes I feel that the announcers are not professional at all and they speak classical Arabic with difficulty. I also feel that their news bulletins are filtered so that they would not offend the Arab viewers. And if you forget about the news you feel that their other programs are boring and they are of no interest to you. I do not know why it is still operating till now.”
“Alhurra is a nice break from Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya and what they air everyday. Its news bulletins are not perfect but they also cover great parts of the world. It also gives you one hour of news if you have time to sit and watch and a 10-minute news if you are just interested in headlines. I think people at Alhurra are doing well for a channel that just kicked off last year.”
“It has good shows, decent news coverage, and quite professional stuff. We criticize the channel just because it is funded by the US and also because we are used to criticizing everything that is different from what we have.”
“Why would I watch something that everyone says is bad? It reminds me of our local channels. It has unqualified announcers, boring programs, and bad news coverage.”
“I think it is a good channel but the criticism it got before its launch put off so many people. I think they have some good talk shows and their news services are quite balanced. This channel has its strength and it could become more important in the future if the US gave more attention to the staff and the quality of the programs aired.”
“If we compare Alhurra with Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, or CNN, Alhurra will lose but sometimes you want some change and you want to check out something different. I think the channel's performance is getting better…”
Office workers said:
“I do not watch Alhurra at the moment because I think they still need more time to become professional. They also have to come up with new ideas and interesting shows because no one will watch the channel unless it gives them something exceptional and this has not happened so far.”
“Alhurra has good debate shows but I think that the channel has failed in its main mission, which is "beautifying America's ugly face" in the eyes millions of Arabs and Muslims. The way I perceive the US is still the same and has not changed at all. I think that the American administration was stupid to launch this channel because they thought it will make us love them.”
Business people said:
“News programs concentrate on Israeli and American statements, especially those by George W. Bush. They choose stuff that justifies the war on Iraq and the violations against the Iraqis and Palestinians. I have been following the other non-political shows and they are all silly and lifeless or rather boring and ridiculous. The US had better save its money and shut down the whole station.”
“I like the talk shows on Alhurra. They are not too long, interesting, discuss hot topics and feature people that are not the mouthpieces of the Arab governments.”
So is this US effort winning hearts and minds? For some of these Cairenes, arguably never. They view the channel with hostility and suspicion. Others are watching as a once-in-a-while alternative to the better-known channels. Still others are viewing programs that may improve their culinary skills or improve their holiday planning – but not for news or public affairs, which they feel is American propaganda.
None of this will come as much of a surprise to the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the effort. But it’s information that’s important as Karen Hughes, the president’s longtime friend and confidante, prepares to take over all America’s public diplomacy efforts.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
WHISTLEBLOWER’s CAREER OVER
By William Fisher
"I realize this is the end of my Air Force career."
With these words, a chaplain at the Air Force Academy, for the first time, went public about a "systemic and pervasive" problem of religious proselytizing at the academy by evangelical Christians.
Capt. MeLinda Morton, 48, told The New York Times that a religious tolerance
program she helped create to deal with the problem was watered down after it was shown to officers, including the major general who is the Air Force's chief
chaplain.
Captain Morton said she had decided to step forward without the required authorization from the public affairs office because: "It's the Constitution, not just a nice rule we can follow or not follow. We all raised our hands and said we'd follow it, and that includes the First Amendment, that includes not using your power to advance your religious agenda."
Ironically, she told her story as an Air Force task force arrived at the academy in Colorado Springs to investigate accusations that officers, staff members and senior cadets inappropriately used their positions to push their evangelical Christian beliefs on Air Force cadets.
The academy began developing the tolerance program, called “Respecting the
Spiritual Values of all People”, or R.S.V.P., in response to a survey it took
last year. The survey found that more than half of the cadets said they had
heard derogatory religious comments or jokes at the academy.
Maj. Gen. Charles C. Baldwin, the chief of chaplains for the entire Air Force,
screened the R.S.V.P. program in October. Afterward he asked Chaplain Morton, "Why is it that the Christians never win?" in response to some of the
program's dramatizations of interactions between cadets of different religions.
She said: "It was obvious to us that he had missed the point of the entire
presentation here. It wasn't about winning or losing, some kind of cosmic
battle, it was about helping our folks at the Air Force Academy understand the
wonders of the whole range of religious experiences."
General Baldwin acknowledged making that comment and said he had objected because too many scenes in the original program had portrayed Christians at fault for excessive efforts at evangelizing.
"In every scenario, where cadet met cadet in the hall," he said, "every time it
was the Christian who had to apologize and say, 'I'm sorry, I wasn't sensitive
to your needs.' I said, that's not balanced, and the Christians will turn you
off if every time they were the ones who made the mistake."
General Baldwin said he asked that the Air Force cut out segments in the program on non-Christian religions like Buddhism, Judaism and Native American spirituality, as well as a clip from "Schindler's List," the 1993 movie on the Holocaust.
However, Captain Morton it was "patently untrue" that all the segments portrayed Christians in error. She says that in most cases there was no religious identifier at all. "And I've got the film to prove it."
There are two important issues at play here. One is the proper constitutional boundary between church and state. The second is the fate of people who come forward to report wrongdoing – whistleblowers.
There are tens of millions of people in our country who demonstrably do not believe in any separation of church and state. These are same the people who corrupted their tsunami relief effort by handing out copies of the King James version of the Bible and religious tracts to victims, along with food, water and medicine. Who ranted in front of a Florida hospice as Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed. Who were cheerleaders as our Congress stepped in to interfere with that case, and as our President hurried back from Texas to sign a law that could have been a scene from ‘The Crucible’. Who are now so busy attacking our judges for ‘judicial activism’. Who would make ‘Trashing the Constitution’ the latest reality show.
And, as for whistleblowers, we shouldn’t be surprised that Chaplain Morton sees the end of her career in the Air Force. While we have laws that are supposed to protect whistleblowers from retaliation, they haven’t been doing all that well lately.
Hundreds of Federal employees have come forward to report waste, fraud, and abuse. Private sector employees have blown the whistle on the Halliburton Corporation and numerous other defense contractors. Public servants working for US security agencies have recently formed their own organization to protect whistleblowers in the FBI, the CIA, and the many other agencies dealing with intelligence and counter-terrorism. And it was members of the armed forces who revealed our treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan.
Many of these people have been subjected to retaliation: they have been fired, demoted, ostracized, transferred to other locations. The documents they need to prove their cases have been classified, thus transforming them into ‘state secrets’.
One of the best known of these whistleblowers is Sibel Edmonds, who reported wrongdoing by other employees at the FBI, and was fired for her trouble, despite a government report that confirmed the reason for her termination. When she tried to sue the agency, they classified the documents she needed, and her case was thrown out by the courts (now she’s going to ask the Supreme Court to hear it).
Chaplain Morton is but the latest in a long string of people who summon the courage to speak out – and are rewarded by losing their careers. And if the evangelical right wing of Christianity continues to blindly support the governmental power structure, she won’t be the last.
"I realize this is the end of my Air Force career."
With these words, a chaplain at the Air Force Academy, for the first time, went public about a "systemic and pervasive" problem of religious proselytizing at the academy by evangelical Christians.
Capt. MeLinda Morton, 48, told The New York Times that a religious tolerance
program she helped create to deal with the problem was watered down after it was shown to officers, including the major general who is the Air Force's chief
chaplain.
Captain Morton said she had decided to step forward without the required authorization from the public affairs office because: "It's the Constitution, not just a nice rule we can follow or not follow. We all raised our hands and said we'd follow it, and that includes the First Amendment, that includes not using your power to advance your religious agenda."
Ironically, she told her story as an Air Force task force arrived at the academy in Colorado Springs to investigate accusations that officers, staff members and senior cadets inappropriately used their positions to push their evangelical Christian beliefs on Air Force cadets.
The academy began developing the tolerance program, called “Respecting the
Spiritual Values of all People”, or R.S.V.P., in response to a survey it took
last year. The survey found that more than half of the cadets said they had
heard derogatory religious comments or jokes at the academy.
Maj. Gen. Charles C. Baldwin, the chief of chaplains for the entire Air Force,
screened the R.S.V.P. program in October. Afterward he asked Chaplain Morton, "Why is it that the Christians never win?" in response to some of the
program's dramatizations of interactions between cadets of different religions.
She said: "It was obvious to us that he had missed the point of the entire
presentation here. It wasn't about winning or losing, some kind of cosmic
battle, it was about helping our folks at the Air Force Academy understand the
wonders of the whole range of religious experiences."
General Baldwin acknowledged making that comment and said he had objected because too many scenes in the original program had portrayed Christians at fault for excessive efforts at evangelizing.
"In every scenario, where cadet met cadet in the hall," he said, "every time it
was the Christian who had to apologize and say, 'I'm sorry, I wasn't sensitive
to your needs.' I said, that's not balanced, and the Christians will turn you
off if every time they were the ones who made the mistake."
General Baldwin said he asked that the Air Force cut out segments in the program on non-Christian religions like Buddhism, Judaism and Native American spirituality, as well as a clip from "Schindler's List," the 1993 movie on the Holocaust.
However, Captain Morton it was "patently untrue" that all the segments portrayed Christians in error. She says that in most cases there was no religious identifier at all. "And I've got the film to prove it."
There are two important issues at play here. One is the proper constitutional boundary between church and state. The second is the fate of people who come forward to report wrongdoing – whistleblowers.
There are tens of millions of people in our country who demonstrably do not believe in any separation of church and state. These are same the people who corrupted their tsunami relief effort by handing out copies of the King James version of the Bible and religious tracts to victims, along with food, water and medicine. Who ranted in front of a Florida hospice as Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was removed. Who were cheerleaders as our Congress stepped in to interfere with that case, and as our President hurried back from Texas to sign a law that could have been a scene from ‘The Crucible’. Who are now so busy attacking our judges for ‘judicial activism’. Who would make ‘Trashing the Constitution’ the latest reality show.
And, as for whistleblowers, we shouldn’t be surprised that Chaplain Morton sees the end of her career in the Air Force. While we have laws that are supposed to protect whistleblowers from retaliation, they haven’t been doing all that well lately.
Hundreds of Federal employees have come forward to report waste, fraud, and abuse. Private sector employees have blown the whistle on the Halliburton Corporation and numerous other defense contractors. Public servants working for US security agencies have recently formed their own organization to protect whistleblowers in the FBI, the CIA, and the many other agencies dealing with intelligence and counter-terrorism. And it was members of the armed forces who revealed our treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan.
Many of these people have been subjected to retaliation: they have been fired, demoted, ostracized, transferred to other locations. The documents they need to prove their cases have been classified, thus transforming them into ‘state secrets’.
One of the best known of these whistleblowers is Sibel Edmonds, who reported wrongdoing by other employees at the FBI, and was fired for her trouble, despite a government report that confirmed the reason for her termination. When she tried to sue the agency, they classified the documents she needed, and her case was thrown out by the courts (now she’s going to ask the Supreme Court to hear it).
Chaplain Morton is but the latest in a long string of people who summon the courage to speak out – and are rewarded by losing their careers. And if the evangelical right wing of Christianity continues to blindly support the governmental power structure, she won’t be the last.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Egypt Could Inspire Wider Arab Reforms
By Rami G. Khouri
Editor-at-Large, The Daily Star, Beirut
Keep your eye on Egypt, which is stirring politically after a generation of political dormancy. The implications for the entire Arab world could be significant, because Egypt's political and cultural life has always set an example for others in the region.
In the past several months, various sectors of Egyptian society have engaged in more public forms of political protest and activism, reflecting a significant revival of the country's traditional role as a fountainhead of Arab civil society and political culture.
The signs are important and still developing. The kefaya (“enough”) movement launched last year has organised modest, peaceful street demonstrations of hundreds of people demanding that President Hosni Mubarak not run for a fifth term this autumn, arguing that his four terms and 24 years in office are “enough”. The movement also wants to block the possible presidential succession of his son Gamal, who has assumed a pivotal political post in the ruling National Democratic Party. Kefaya's demands include ending the emergency laws that govern the country since 1981, and holding a real presidential election contested among multiple candidates who all enjoy equal access to the media and public campaigning opportunities.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the banned party that probably has the widest support at the grassroots level, has started holding peaceful protests, also demanding democratic reforms and an end to the emergency laws. Protesters in the last few weeks have included thousands of students at several universities and smaller street demonstrations that resulted in the security forces arresting hundreds of people in towns like Mansura, Zagazig and Fayyum. The government said 400 members of the Muslim Brotherhood had been arrested, while the party itself charged that over 1,500 were detained, including some of its leaders.
More significant has been the new assertiveness of some members of the Egyptian judiciary, long respected for its independence and professionalism in the Arab world, though in recent decades the judiciary has fallen under the nearly total control of the executive branch and the security services. In Alexandria last month, 1,200 judges issued a public demand for judicial independence, and coupled this with a threat that they will not certify the presidential election in autumn if their demands are not met. They want total oversight of the electoral process, independent of executive branch influence, so that they can restore the integrity of both the electoral process and of their own branch of government.
These are profoundly important developments, together signifying a new dynamism and political energy in a country that has been perplexingly dormant and acquiescent in recent decades. The president has already responded in part by promising a multi-candidate presidential election this year. Opposition groups, however, decry the conditions placed on other candidates as unfair, charging that Mubarak will predictably win because his most credible opponents will not be allowed to run, and those who do challenge him will not have an equal playing field in the campaign.
The wider implications of the current dynamism of those who challenge the prevailing order is that Egyptians seem unwilling to put up with the existing political power structure for much longer, as is the case in other parts of the Arab world. Some will claim that such stirrings for democratic reforms reflect the impact of the American-led drive for freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East. Perhaps, but probably not, given the widespread opposition to American foreign policy in the Middle East throughout this region.
Having experienced the street sentiments of demonstrators or talked with leading activists in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Bahrain and others, I would suggest that the most useful place to look for the inspirations that drive Arab democracy activists these days is not the speeches of President George W. Bush, but rather the protest movements among American civil rights activists in the period 1956-1964.
The emotional and political sentiments that drive Arabs today to confront their autocratic rulers, security services, or foreign occupiers are almost identical with the instinct for political liberty and human dignity that inspired the civil rights movement in the United States two generations ago. The Arab world is into its second generation of autocratic rule, security-dominated state structures, and frozen political development. Most Arab citizens have had enough of their own dehumanisation and marginalisation, whether by their own rulers or by foreign powers. More and more Arabs today are politically challenging and physically confronting the powers that subjugate them, because they refuse to remain humiliated and degraded by the state of helplessness and powerlessness to which they have been relegated by their rulers and occupiers.
The same human demand for dignity and self-assertion that prompted young African-Americans to stand firm and hold their ground in the face of the police dogs and fire hoses in Birmingham, Alabama, and other places in 1962, is manifesting itself among various Arab citizens who demand to be treated like human beings by their own power elites. This spirit for freedom and dignity has been most evident to date in Palestine and Lebanon, both of which have struggled for their sovereignty and freedom, the former from Israeli occupation, the latter from Syrian domination. Segments of Egyptian society are now stirring to liberate the country from the grip of its own ruling power elite.
Like the civil rights movement in the United States five decades ago, the indigenous movement for Arab freedom, dignity and democracy will move ahead on the strength of incremental successes in many local battles for justice, coupled with a sensible, sustained resort to the rule of law as the guarantor of individual rights and communal security and stability alike. Breakthroughs in Egypt will prove to be compelling for the entire Arab world, and they appear to be nearing.
Editor-at-Large, The Daily Star, Beirut
Keep your eye on Egypt, which is stirring politically after a generation of political dormancy. The implications for the entire Arab world could be significant, because Egypt's political and cultural life has always set an example for others in the region.
In the past several months, various sectors of Egyptian society have engaged in more public forms of political protest and activism, reflecting a significant revival of the country's traditional role as a fountainhead of Arab civil society and political culture.
The signs are important and still developing. The kefaya (“enough”) movement launched last year has organised modest, peaceful street demonstrations of hundreds of people demanding that President Hosni Mubarak not run for a fifth term this autumn, arguing that his four terms and 24 years in office are “enough”. The movement also wants to block the possible presidential succession of his son Gamal, who has assumed a pivotal political post in the ruling National Democratic Party. Kefaya's demands include ending the emergency laws that govern the country since 1981, and holding a real presidential election contested among multiple candidates who all enjoy equal access to the media and public campaigning opportunities.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the banned party that probably has the widest support at the grassroots level, has started holding peaceful protests, also demanding democratic reforms and an end to the emergency laws. Protesters in the last few weeks have included thousands of students at several universities and smaller street demonstrations that resulted in the security forces arresting hundreds of people in towns like Mansura, Zagazig and Fayyum. The government said 400 members of the Muslim Brotherhood had been arrested, while the party itself charged that over 1,500 were detained, including some of its leaders.
More significant has been the new assertiveness of some members of the Egyptian judiciary, long respected for its independence and professionalism in the Arab world, though in recent decades the judiciary has fallen under the nearly total control of the executive branch and the security services. In Alexandria last month, 1,200 judges issued a public demand for judicial independence, and coupled this with a threat that they will not certify the presidential election in autumn if their demands are not met. They want total oversight of the electoral process, independent of executive branch influence, so that they can restore the integrity of both the electoral process and of their own branch of government.
These are profoundly important developments, together signifying a new dynamism and political energy in a country that has been perplexingly dormant and acquiescent in recent decades. The president has already responded in part by promising a multi-candidate presidential election this year. Opposition groups, however, decry the conditions placed on other candidates as unfair, charging that Mubarak will predictably win because his most credible opponents will not be allowed to run, and those who do challenge him will not have an equal playing field in the campaign.
The wider implications of the current dynamism of those who challenge the prevailing order is that Egyptians seem unwilling to put up with the existing political power structure for much longer, as is the case in other parts of the Arab world. Some will claim that such stirrings for democratic reforms reflect the impact of the American-led drive for freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East. Perhaps, but probably not, given the widespread opposition to American foreign policy in the Middle East throughout this region.
Having experienced the street sentiments of demonstrators or talked with leading activists in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Bahrain and others, I would suggest that the most useful place to look for the inspirations that drive Arab democracy activists these days is not the speeches of President George W. Bush, but rather the protest movements among American civil rights activists in the period 1956-1964.
The emotional and political sentiments that drive Arabs today to confront their autocratic rulers, security services, or foreign occupiers are almost identical with the instinct for political liberty and human dignity that inspired the civil rights movement in the United States two generations ago. The Arab world is into its second generation of autocratic rule, security-dominated state structures, and frozen political development. Most Arab citizens have had enough of their own dehumanisation and marginalisation, whether by their own rulers or by foreign powers. More and more Arabs today are politically challenging and physically confronting the powers that subjugate them, because they refuse to remain humiliated and degraded by the state of helplessness and powerlessness to which they have been relegated by their rulers and occupiers.
The same human demand for dignity and self-assertion that prompted young African-Americans to stand firm and hold their ground in the face of the police dogs and fire hoses in Birmingham, Alabama, and other places in 1962, is manifesting itself among various Arab citizens who demand to be treated like human beings by their own power elites. This spirit for freedom and dignity has been most evident to date in Palestine and Lebanon, both of which have struggled for their sovereignty and freedom, the former from Israeli occupation, the latter from Syrian domination. Segments of Egyptian society are now stirring to liberate the country from the grip of its own ruling power elite.
Like the civil rights movement in the United States five decades ago, the indigenous movement for Arab freedom, dignity and democracy will move ahead on the strength of incremental successes in many local battles for justice, coupled with a sensible, sustained resort to the rule of law as the guarantor of individual rights and communal security and stability alike. Breakthroughs in Egypt will prove to be compelling for the entire Arab world, and they appear to be nearing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
