07 August 2010

Marc Estrin : Awesome Days of Awe


The space between the pillars:
Awesome days of awe


By Marc Estrin / The Rag Blog / August 7, 2010

August 6th: Hiroshima. August 9th: Nagasaki. Three days in between.

The days between close-set giant pillars take on special significance. Whatever the current behavior of the state of Israel, most Jews know such spaces well.

The 10 days between Rosh Hashanah, the beginning of the year, and Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, are not actually holidays, but mark a special period of time -- what are called the Days of Awe. They are a kind of spring cleaning in fall, a purification of one's world and soul so that on Yom Kippur the Jew can faced the Eternal with all worldly issues in place. And what is the main strategy for this cleaning? It may surprise you. Asking and giving forgiveness.

The tradition of the shtetels -- those small eastern European Jewish communities depicted in Fiddler on the Roof -- was that in the 10 days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur people would ask forgiveness of everyone they had wronged that year. All the little, and sometimes the big, wrongs that had been done in the community were brought out into the open, confessed, made good if possible, and forgiven. The entire community felt cleansed and pure.

Perhaps not everyone was that honest. Like folks everywhere, not all Jews had the courage to beg someone's pardon or, when they themselves were asked, to give pardon with a full heart. But they found it a lot easier to do than we would today. While we have much more information now than they did, we don't know as well how to say "I'm sorry."

But in those simple villages, to avoid a world full of hate, people often took the 10 days and went knocking on the doors of any estranged friends, and cleared their personal paths, and those of the community. The world was cleansed for Yom Kippur -- the "Day of Atonement."

And on that day the naked human being was scheduled to go mano a mano, godwrestling with the Eternal. Tradition has it that on Rosh Hashanah, God inscribed your name in either the Book of Life or the Book of Death. That's why the concern for measuring up. But the verdict on Rosh Hashanah was not final. You had the 10 days in between, and especially Yom Kippur, to change the Judgment. But at the end of Yom Kippur, the Books were closed.

And so it is understandable that Yom Kippur be a full day of prayer without food. Five separate services take place during 25 hours -- like Muslim practice -- but with little or no pause between them. The idea of the fast is this: when the human body has paused from its natural acts of life, and history has suspended its normal ups and downs, the spirit can be utterly reborn. We don't really do fasts in America. We're better at pig-outs.

And sin -- or evil, for that matter -- is not a very popular concept in the contemporary American heartmind. Yet some concept of estrangement from the Truth has been common to most religious world views. The acknowledgment of sin is a crucial part of the Yom Kippur service.

"The Cloud Over The Culture" is the punning title of an extraordinary article by Paul Boyer (1985) which appeared on the fortieth anniversary of dropping the bombs. In it, he asserts, as do I, that although "Hiroshima" and "Nagasaki" are such familiar words -- banal even -- the United States "has yet to assimilate fully what those words represent in its political, cultural or moral history."

He quotes the American Catholic Bishops' 1983 Statement on Nuclear War:

After the passage of nearly four decades and a concomitant growth in our understanding of the ever-growing horror of nuclear war, we must shape the climate of opinion which will make it possible for our country to express profound sorrow over the atomic bombing in 1945. Without that sorrow, there is no possibility of finding a way to repudiate future use of nuclear weapons. [My emphasis.]
Sorrow. Remorse. It sounds Days of Awe-like. How very, very strange it is that we -- as a nation -- have never done that. Not once, in now 65 years. Not even the teensiest bit. Un-Amerkin.

We have consistently refused -- and still, even now, refuse -- an absolute and explicit "no first use" nuclear weapons policy. One of the physicists who worked on the Manhattan Project observed that
If the memory of things is to deter, where is that memory? Hiroshima has been taken out of the American conscience, eviscerated, extirpated.
1945 seems so long ago. We were a nation in genuine and legitimate relief from a dreadful war. But what tenacity there is in the myth of American innocence, the belief that we are somehow set apart from the world, our motives higher, our methods purer.

It is this constant myth that prevents us from having any national Days of Awe, that keeps us from expressing sorrow over the event. And, as the Catholic Bishops so insightfully express, without that sorrow, we cannot go on, we cannot build a world safe -- from ourselves.


New national holydays

Let me therefore beat the drum for some pre-Labor Day labor. Down with innocence! Up with memory, confession, sorrow, apology, healing!

I hereby propose a new national holiday, modeled on the Days of Awe, but occurring in August, between Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Like the Days of Awe, they would be bounded by two momentous events, would celebrate those events with appropriate ritual, and would feature redemptive tasks to be done in between.

"It could never happen," you say, "too serious. It runs against the American grain to do that kind of self-criticism."

Maybe, maybe not. We have our solemn holidays, in places still solemnly kept. And besides, we may be growing up as a nation. Engaged in five current wars, with Iran coming up, the peach fuzz is off our cheeks. Obama's fairytales notwithstanding, we know we're not in Kansas anymore.

The vast majority of people realize we can't go on as we are -- exporting jobs, exploiting foreign workers, making wars, eviscerating and polluting the planet. "Change" has become the buzzword to win elections.

The Christians have taught the world to acknowledge a December season of Peace. Is it too much to imagine that churches and synagogues, national organizations and neighborhood groups, schools and universities, could slowly grow a late summer holiday to express the profound sorrow the Catholic Bishops recommend -- a mindful holiday to witness and grieve, to assimilate a painful part of the past, to dissipate the cloud over the culture, to ask and give forgiveness, to sing in chorus "Hiroshima, Nakasaki. Never Again," and to be able to go on, safer from ourselves?

The religious historian Mircea Eliade has made a distinction between sacred and profane time. In sacred time, historical events gradually come to partake of the permanence of myth, while in profane time they gradually lose their grip on people and become merely material for historians and the technicians at Disney World.

I am calling for a holiday that would change Hiroshima and Nagasaki into universal myths, deeply grounded in sacred time, permanent stop signs on the road to destruction. Four new holydays, making things whole, healing.

Here's how it might go. On August 5th, supper is a Japanese meal, which Americans would learn to make as beautifully as we do a turkey dinner. The event would have a ritual component like a Seder, in which symbolic foods are eaten, and history is thoughtfully reviewed. Each family, each congregation, each school would develop its own texts until some key themes and treatments became solidified.

The morning and afternoon of the 6th -- Hiroshima Day -- would be a time for fasting, or some special breakfast, with a ritual observance at 8:15 AM. During the 6th, 7th and 8th -- our three days of awe and repentance -- individuals would consciously perform expiatory tasks, personal and interpersonal, as in the Jewish Days of Awe, but also social, holding teach-ins, attending peace events. If a weekend fell between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there would be special services at churches, synagogues, mosques. Morning and afternoon of the 9th is again a special time of fasting. 11:02 is observed, and everyone gears up for a big celebration in the evening, at which international foods of all kinds would be prepared -- a huge community festival.

What I'm describing is a full-blown, big holiday. Things don't begin that way, of course. We might just start by thinking about it for a few years, by recognizing that in fact something important did occur on these days. Then, who knows what would grow -- in individual hearts, in individual families, in individual congregations and institutions. Were something like this to get underway, in 10 years we'd have Good Housekeeping printing August peace recipes.

We postmoderns like to play with history. Now we can play in its real mudbath, and actually get dirty -- a death-defying vital alternative to psychic numbing.

Would the New Days of Awe change anything? I can't imagine otherwise. The power of confession has been known to the Catholic Church for centuries. If anything has sustained the even older Jewish community, it has been the inspiration of the High Holy Days. The Muslims make pilgrimage to Mecca.

This stuff has both a track record and the power of newness-at-large. Like an exotic virus spreading in a vulnerable population, the power of guilt could quite transform postmodern American culture. Revelation through genuine memory, then Teshuvah, turning and Tikkun, healing.

Or shall we just go on making wars?

[Marc Estrin is a writer and activist, living in Burlington, Vermont. His novels, Insect Dreams, The Half Life of Gregor Samsa, The Education of Arnold Hitler, Golem Song, and The Lamentations of Julius Marantz have won critical acclaim. His memoir, Rehearsing With Gods: Photographs and Essays on the Bread & Puppet Theater (with Ron Simon, photographer) won a 2004 theater book of the year award. He is currently working on a novel about the dead Tchaikovsky.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

05 August 2010

Ted McLaughlin : Access to Water Is a Human Right


Clean water should be a human right,
Not a capitalist commodity


By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / August 5, 2010

A vote took place in the United Nations a few days ago that could eventually have far-reaching effects on everyone on this planet. The vote was on a resolution, introduced by the Bolivian representative to the U.N., that extended basic human rights. The resolution officially made access to clean water and sanitation a basic fundamental human right.

This just makes sense. After all, water is not a luxury but an absolute necessity for human life. Humans cannot live with water. This puts water in a special category with food and shelter. These items are more important than any other resources because they are a must for sustaining human life. So how could anyone oppose this resolution?

Actually there were no votes against the resolution. It was approved 122 to 0. One might think that was a unanimous victory for human rights, but that would not be completely true. Although no nation voted against the resolution, about 40 nations abstained from voting on the resolution. And, interestingly enough, most of those nations abstaining are the very countries that preach the loudest about human rights.

Among the nations refusing to vote for access to clean water and sanitation as a basic human right were the United States, Canada, Australia, and many European countries -- the so-called industrialized and "civilized" first-world nations. Why would they not vote for the right of every human to have access to clean water?

That's simple. Voting for access to clean water as a fundamental human right would expose their own hypocrisy. You see, these countries don't see water as something everyone should have a right to. They see water as simply another commodity to be bought and sold, and those who cannot afford to buy it have no right to it. This may sound harsh, but it is true.

The United States has never recognized the right of humans to have access to water. In this country, we give lip service to providing access to clean water for everyone, but the fact is that access is granted only to those who are willing and able to pay for that access. If you don't think this is true, just try not paying your water bill for a while. You will find your water cut off. Your access to water will be denied by the very government that proudly claims to provide that access.

I have always thought this was wrong. No one should be denied access to clean water just because they cannot afford to buy it. No one should be reduced to having to steal this basic resource just to sustain their lives. Clean water should be provided by the government (as it is in most places in the United States), but it should not be sold -- it should be paid for through taxes and provided free of charge to all citizens.

Now I know that some of you are thinking that if water is provided for free then some people will waste this precious resource. That is true -- some people will waste the water, and there should be a punishment (probably monetary) for that. Anyone who uses more than a reasonable amount of this precious resource should be fined severely, but no one should be completely denied access to a reasonable amount of water (and that reasonable amount can be determined by the community-at-large).

Frankly, much water is already being wasted. Here in Texas we know that our water resources will not meet our future and growing demand. And yet we continue to waste water. In fact, many communities actually encourage that waste. As example, does it really make sense to keep planting and watering lawns (a requirement in many communities and subdivisions) in a state where water becomes more scarce every year?

And the waste is even more egregious in the richer communities, where one family lives on a large estate and to water many acres of lawns will use more water than that necessary to sustain hundreds of families with clean water. But Americans are in love with their lawns and, even in a state with scarce water resources, are currently unwilling to give them up and stop wasting that valuable resource -- and the future be damned.

But such wasteful use of water may not be possible in the future. Especially in light of global climate change (and that change is happening whether you believe it is caused by humans or not), water is becoming scarcer all over the world. There are those who believe (including myself) that future wars will be fought over water rather than oil or other capitalist commodities.

The resolution introduced by Bolivia and passed by 122 nations was nothing less than a gauntlet being thrown down. The developing nations and their allies are telling the industrialized world that water is not a commodity to be sold only to those who can afford it. It is a scarce resource that must be shared by all of humanity.

Like it or not, the industrialized world must reconsider and change it's wasteful use of this scarce resource, and they must no longer view it as a commodity to make the rich even richer -- a commodity that can be denied to the poor. The industrialized world, especially the United States, loves to preach equality and human rights. It is now time for them to start practicing what they preach. The future of humanity demands it.

[Rag Blog contributor Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

04 August 2010

Thomas McKelvey Cleaver : 'Crossing the Rubicon' at the Gulf of Tonkin

E. J. Fitzgerald's painting (1980) illustrates the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. U.S. Navy Historical Center / Wikimedia Commons.

Crossing the Rubicon:
The Tonkin Gulf Incident

It's an event I can never forget, because I was there, a young sailor working in the operations office of the Admiral in charge of the two destroyers.
By Thomas McKelvey Cleaver / The Rag Blog / August 4, 2010

Today, August 4, is the 46th anniversary of the attacks on four North Vietnamese ports by the U.S. Navy, ordered by President Lyndon Johnson in response to reported attacks during the two days previous by "North Vietnamese torpedo boats" against two American destroyers cruising in "international waters," the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy.

It became the causus belli for direct American military involvement in the Vietnam War, known forever after as the "Tonkin Gulf Incident."

It's an event I can never forget, because I was there, a young sailor working in the operations office of the Admiral in charge of the two destroyers. The Seventh Fleet Patrol Force operated extensive reconnaissance networks, from off Vladivostok and the Soviet Far East in the Sea of Japan, down the coast of China to Taiwan and on down to the South China Sea. The initial story, that the two destroyers had been patrolling in the Gulf of Tonkin, in international waters, immediately set off alarm bells to me.

That was because I knew, having worked to set up the briefing for the Admiral the week before, that these two destroyers were operating in support of something known as a "34-Alpha" operation, and that they were very close to Hon Me Island, a piece of real estate in the middle of the Gulf of Tonkin internationally recognized as being part of North Vietnam. My doubts grew more when I got mail from home the following week, with newspaper clippings on the event. Not one of the maps published in the newspapers showed Hon Me Island as even existing.

A month later, we were in Subic Bay, the Philippines, and I was on liberty in Olongapo. I walked into a bar and there sitting at the bar was a sailor I had met a year previously, when he and I went through fire fighting training in San Diego while awaiting transportation to Japan to join our units.

The last time I had seen him, he was a Fire Control Technician 3rd Class, a petty officer. Now he wore Seaman's stripes on his sleeve. We talked, and things finally got around to how he'd "lost his crow." He told me he'd been court-martialed. That didn't surprise me, it happened all the time, if a Captain was upset about some kid coming back off liberty late and wanted to make an example of him. "What for?" I asked. "Disobedience of a direct order," he replied. That wasn't some late-liberty offense.

"What was the order?"

"Open fire."

And then he told me the story.

He was crew aboard the USS Maddox. During the second night, when the two destroyers were reported under attack by several torpedo boats, he was in charge of the fire control tower, responsible for operating the main armament of six five-inch cannons. When ordered to "open fire," he refused and told his captain that the only target out there was the other destroyer, the Turner Joy. The order was repeated and he refused again. It was repeated a third time and he refused again.

A Chief Petty Officer was sent to arrest him. By the time he was brought to the bridge, the event was over, with the captain of the Turner Joy having established by radio that the torpedo boats had "disappeared." Still, my friend had refused the order, and was given a general court-martial, where he lost his rank. I'll never forget the last thing he said: "That whole story is bullshit. Nothing happened out there."

A year later I was out of the Navy and people would ask me why I was opposed to the war, and I would tell them that story. They'd say "where's your proof?" and I would have to admit it was somewhere in some sub-basement of the Pentagon, wrapped in a Top Secret clearance. And so not many believed me, it was just too much to take in, that the war was started on such a lie.

Yet, over the years, the story did come out in bits and pieces.

In 1966, an officer I knew who had been part of the Admiral's staff gave an interview to a newspaper in New York, where he told of how he had interviewed the Chief Sonarman on the Maddox, and that he'd been told there were never any sounds of torpedo boats in the water -- a distinctive sound that is unmistakable for anything else.

In 1968, Professor Peter Dale Scott of UC Berkeley interviewed the former Assistant Gunnery Officer of the USS Turner Joy, who related how he had convinced his captain not to open fire that night, because the only target out there was the USS Maddox.

One can only imagine how history would read, had one of those two men been less conscientious in doing his job and had opened fire as ordered. As my friend had told me, "We were so close I'd have blown them out of the water with the first salvo."

I remember in 1970, when Sixty Minutes ran the first story that told the truth about Tonkin Gulf, revealing that "34-Alpha" operations were code for South Vietnamese commando raids on targets in North Vietnam. The report went on to say that the available evidence looked like the two ships had been where they were to support the raid.

I sat down at my typewriter that night, and wrote the program, telling them what I knew. A week later, Joe Werschba, one of the legendary "Murrow's Boys" at CBS, called me and told me they had proof my letter was accurate, because he had shown it to a senator in Washington on the Armed Services Committee who confirmed the main points.

And then in 1971 -- 39 years ago last month -- came the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and the true story of Tonkin Gulf was out there in all its detail. Several people I knew apologized to me for having doubted me over the years. I didn't have any trouble with their doubt. I had wanted to doubt what I knew myself, because the implications were enormous:

My government lied and millions of people died.

I date my personal political "revolution" to this day, 46 years ago. The day I found that the country I had grown up believing in, that 10 generations of my ancestors had fought and died for at times and in places that made us who we were, that that country didn't exist.

America has a long history of being lied into wars.

The War of 1812 was far less about "freedom of the seas" and far more about an attempt to grab Canada.

In 1846, Abraham Lincoln stood up in the House of Representatives and demanded that President Polk "point on a map" to the spot where American blood was shed on American soil -- Polk couldn't do it because Taylor's cavalrymen weren't in Texas -- which wasn't part of American territory to begin with -- they were in territory recognized as part of Mexico, and America was off on its first grand imperial adventure, "liberating" half the territory of Mexico.

In 1876, President Grant decided it was easier to declare war on the Sioux under the pretext they were "killing whites" than to enforce a treaty and expel the thieving miners from the Black Hills of South Dakota.

In 1898, an accidental explosion on a poorly-maintained American ship was taken by William Randolph Hearst and turned into "a splendid little war" that expanded the empire by taking the Philippines and eventually involving us in our first genocidal Asian war, the Philippine Insurrection, which resulted in the deaths of 20 percent of the population of the country over five years, including the near-total annihilation of the population of Panay Island, an event celebrated by the commander of the troops responsible for killing 40,000 Filipinos as "leaving the island a howling wilderness," which prompted Mark Twain to write the famous "War Prayer" in response to the news.

It took a lot for me to finally understand there is a difference between loving one's country and supporting the government. It's not surprising at all that most of my fellow citizens can't bring themselves to see the lies and do something about them.

[Thomas McKelvey Cleaver is an accidental native Texan, produced screenwriter, and journalist who is frequently accused by his fellow lefties of not being left enough. Being shallow enough to have written successful horror movies and articles about Second World War aviation, he won't argue the point. But he does take pride that he personally raised $350,000 for Obama in 2008 and has been an activist on anti-war, political reform, and environmental issues for almost 50 years. It should count for something.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Jay D. Jurie : The 'New Zeal' of Right Wing Propagandist Trevor Loudon

Trevor Loudon. Image from USA Survival News.

New Zealand's Trevor Loudon and the
Right-wing propaganda machine


By Jay D. Jurie / The Rag Blog / August 4, 2010

Until I came across the KeyWiki site I didn't know I had my very own "Wiki" page. When I went to "my" page I discovered it focused exclusively on the political side of my life.

KeyWiki describes itself as
...a bipartisan knowledge base focusing primarily on corruption and the covert side of politics in the United States and globally. While particular interest is taken in the left, KeyWiki serves to expose covert politics on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
Accompanying this description was a photo of the Statue of Liberty.

Wondering who might be responsible for all this, the KeyWiki "team" identified only one individual, named Trevor Loudon, while "members of the KeyWiki team will be added below shortly."

As it turns out, Trevor Loudon is a resident of Christchurch, New Zealand. Since New Zealand has a multiparty parliament it is a little odd that he describes his site as "bipartisan." His description makes it clear he is focusing on the U.S., so perhaps he means "bipartisan" in the U.S. context. If that's the case, then his "knowledge base" is virtually nonexistent when it comes to exposing "covert politics" on the right.

For example, a search on his site for David Horowitz -- one of the few members of the New Left who became an outspoken conservative -- produced information only about his incarnation on the left several decades ago. There were no pages or listings for well-known figures on the right such as Bay Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Nikki Haley, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly, though there are links on the companion KeyWiki.org site to blogs operated by Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin.

Statue of Liberty photo by David Prior / KeyWiki.

Thinking maybe these were insufficiently "covert," I tried several others, including Bo Gritz, Eric Rudolph, and Randall Terry, turning up nothing. I thought he might have entries for well-known white supremacists David Duke or Tom Metzger, or for well known anti-Semites or Holocaust deniers such as Don Black or Willis Carto, but again, nothing. There wasn't even a listing for the Ku Klux Klan.

There is no information on right-wing elected officials such as Michelle Bachmann, John Cornyn, Ron Paul, or Joe "You lie!" Wilson. Loudon maintains a separate blog called New Zeal ("promoting liberty in New Zealand and beyond") on which he re-posted a Washington Times op-ed piece by former Representative and nativist Tom Tancredo (R-CO), in which Tancredo wrote: "Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al-Qaeda," to which Loudon approvingly appended "well said."

There are a lot of items about individuals and groups on the left, including denunciatory articles about legislators Neil Abercrombie and Dennis Kucinich, and negatively-framed information about Alan Grayson and Bernie Sanders, among others.

There's a list of "key organizations" that includes the Apollo Alliance, the Center for American Progress, Committees of Correspondence, Democratic Socialists of America, Institute for Policy Studies, and the New Party. Several other organizations and publications also rate considerable attention, including the Communist Party USA, In These Times, the Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS), the New American Movement (NAM), and The Rag Blog.

A September 2008 blog article ("therealbarackobama") by Brenda J. Elliott was entitled "Has Trevor Loudon found the Ayers-Dohrn-Obama 'smoking gun'?" According to Elliott, MDS was behind the creation of Progressives for Obama. Carl Davidson of Progressives for Obama responded that MDS "had nothing to do" with it, "nor did any one of the other alphabet soup of left groups you list." Elliott further asserted "MDS is the brains behind the SDS brawn."

America's Survival Inc. president and Accuracy in Media blogger Cliff Kincaid and Loudon co-authored a 32-page article entitled "From Arms to Education to Political Power: Return of the SDS and the Weather Underground" to further smoke out MDS. Loudon and Kincaid found that under the auspices of MDS, the new SDS, the Center for American Progress and pro-Barack Obama elements were ominously coalescing:
Key to this overall effort is the MDS, which unites Rudd, Ayers, Dohrn and other members of the SDS and Weather Underground from many different socialist and communist organizations.
These assertions are certain to generate some laughter among those actually familiar with the organizations in question.

Former Obama administration "green jobs" director Van Jones was among those singled out by Loudon for special attention. Kincaid has used a Loudon link about Jones on his blog. Glenn Beck has given Loudon a shout-out for "exposing" Jones and Joel Rogers of the New Party. Another shout-out comes from Andrew Breitbart, who conjured up the recent brouhaha over Shirley Sherrod.

Loudon has expended considerable energy making a case that Obama boyhood mentor Frank Marshall Davis was a secret Communist. According to Loudon, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan "doesn't lean left. She leans socialist-communitistic (sic) first."

In fact, Loudon's preoccupation with individuals with links, no matter how obscure, to (real or perceived) socialist or communist organizations puts him at the center of a revival of the redbaiting tactics of former Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Among the reasons I apparently rate my own KeyWiki page is I once signed a petition in support of academic freedom for, in Loudon's word, "terrorist" Bill Ayers. Loudon's definition of terrorism seems highly selective, or he must look across the Pacific to find it.

Nowhere does he mention the deadly French intelligence services bombing of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in the Auckland harbor, or refer to that as a terrorist act. Nor does Loudon have anything to say about an incident in which New Zealand police pointed automatic weapons at the passengers of a Maori-operated school bus.

The Rag Blog's Jay D. Jurie: Sufficiently 'covert'? Image from Jay's KeyWiki page, in a photo lifted from Next Left Notes.

My page shows me as a signer of a statement several decades ago that advocated closer working relations between NAM and the Socialist Party USA. I owe Loudon a debt of gratitude for this, as I had forgotten all about it. After being reminded of this, my regret is that those closer working relations never materialized.

Virtually all "Rag Bloggers," including Marion Delgado, have some listing on KeyWiki. Thorne Dreyer and David Hamilton are among those who have interested Loudon most. In fact, simply writing for The Rag Blog or signing the Progressives for Obama petition appears to be enough to rate your own KeyWiki page. And Loudon seems to consider The Rag Blog a virtual mouthpiece for his theoretical MDS/Progressives for Obama nexus.

[It should be pointed out that The Rag Blog is an independent progressive newsweekly, published by the non-profit New Journalism Project, and has no affiliation with any political group or party.]

Still left unanswered is the question about why Loudon hasn't exposed covert politics on the right?

Since KeyWiki has only been in existence since April, perhaps he's just been preoccupied with filling in the left-wing side.

A larger question is why has a New Zealander like Loudon created a Wiki site primarily concerned with the U.S.? Answers to these two questions seem to overlap. In several of his writings Loudon makes it clear he is a committed "Americanphile." He apparently sees New Zealand as a satellite for what he believes, but the U.S. is the mother ship.

What are those beliefs? Several on-line sources identify Loudon as a member of the "Zenith Applied Philosophy" or ZAP cult, based upon an admixture of Scientology, Eastern mysticism, and John Birch-style laissez-faire capitalism. Loudon's admiration for the U.S. and its traditions is apparently limited to that which conforms to his laissez-faire outlook. He has taken it upon himself to help chart the rightful course for the U.S.

Whereas its site claims "KeyWiki isn't a part of any political party and we don't support candidates," Loudon is a former vice-president of New Zealand's ACT (Association of Consumers and Taxpayers) Party. ACT appears to be more or less the equivalent of the U.S. Libertarian Party. According to its website, ACT espouses "free market classical liberalism" and "...seek[s] to rebuild diplomatic and political relationships with Australia and the United States." ACT also seeks to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States.

All of the above makes it patently obvious that Loudon is engaged in the "covert politics on the right of the political spectrum." Rather than engage in honest pursuit of knowledge or debate, his modus operandi is duplicity. While KeyWiki masquerades as objective or balanced its real purpose is to conceal the advancement of a right-wing agenda.

In the deceitful pursuit of this purpose Loudon is not alone, as the shameful Breitbart attack on Shirley Sherrod makes evident. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson recently wrote of "a cynical right-wing propaganda machine."

Trevor Loudon has not only helped fuel this machine with half-truths, distortions, and fabrications, but is one of its drivers.

[Jay D. Jurie is a proud Rag Blogger who teaches public administration and urban planning and lives near Orlando, Florida.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Jim Turpin : Cutting Through the 'Fog of War'

Fog of war. Image from Thomas Paine's Corner.

Rules of engagement:
U.S. brutality in the combat zones
The chain of command gave orders to fire indiscriminately at civilians even when soldiers made efforts to refuse such orders.
By Jim Turpin / The Rag Blog / August 4, 2010

The “fog of war” is defined as the ambiguity of situational awareness by participants in military operations. This term is attributed to Prussian military analyst Carl von Clauswitz who stated:
The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently -- like the effect of a fog or moonshine -- gives to things exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance. (Clauswitz, On War, Book 2, Chapter 2, Paragraph 24)
U.S. combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan are approaching the 10-year mark and recent release of classified documents through WikiLeaks has used a floodlight to cut through the “fog of war” and expose the brutality imposed on civilian populations in both of these conflicts.

A recent article in The Nation discusses three soldiers from Bravo Company 2-16 and their deployment in Baghdad in July 2007 and their statements regarding putting up a “wall of steel” or responding to threats with a barrage of fire -- even if it put civilians at risk

Three soldiers from this company (McCord, Stieber and Corcoles) report such incidents as:
Corcoles describes the first IED death his unit suffered. "We did a mission that night till like midnight, and we were actually just sitting down... I hadn't even got three or four drags off my cigarette and an IED went off... We watched the Humvee burn, but we didn't realize [someone] was still in it."
The IED attacks left the soldiers angry and scared. McCord recalls one mission to impose curfews. Earlier that day, a popular soldier had died in an IED attack, and the troops took it out on the Iraqis. "There were a lot of people who got beat up that night," he says bluntly.

This anger was turned into policy by the chain of command. "We had just lost three guys to an IED when the battalion commander came out to the COP (Combat Outpost)," says McCord. He went on to explain that the commander gave orders to shoot indiscriminately after IED attacks. "He said, 'Fuck it, this is what I want... anytime someone in your line gets hit by an IED.. .you kill every motherfucker in the street," McCord testifies.

"When one [IED] went off, you were supposed to open fire on anybody," says Stieber. "At first I would just fire into a field. Then I wouldn't fire at all." He describes an IED that went off near a crowd of teenagers. "I said I wouldn't fire," even though "other people were firing," he recalls.

Like Stieber, Corcoles describes incidents in which he purposely aimed his gun away from people. "You don't even know if somebody's shooting at you," he says. "It's just insanity to just start shooting people." Stieber pointed out that in incidents like these, it was very rare for U.S. military vehicles to stop to help the wounded or assess how many people had been injured or killed.

Stieber was intimidated and reprimanded by his command for refusing orders to shoot. "One time when I didn't fire, people in my truck were yelling at me for the rest of the mission. When we got back, one or two leaders got up in my face and kept yelling at me and stuff," he says. The command eventually stopped sending him on missions as a gunner, and Stieber says he "faced a lot of criticism for it."

Corcoles saw this too. "One night our truck got hit by an IED and Josh didn't fire, and another soldier didn't fire," he says. "And they were getting yelled at: 'Why aren't you firing?' And they said, 'There's nobody to fire at.'"

Clearly, there is no ambiguity in this scenario. The chain of command gave orders to fire indiscriminately at civilians even when soldiers made efforts to refuse such orders. This is most likely a very commonly occurring situation in both theaters of conflict for our soldiers.

Anger and frustration remain for soldiers in the field with June 2010 being the highest casualty rate since the beginning of the Afghanistan conflict for coalition forces with July being on track to possibly exceed this number when count is completed.

This begs the question of why do we continue to put our soldiers in impossible scenarios with large civilian populations that result in deaths and injuries to the very people we are “liberating”?

The “rules of engagement” or basically when to pull the trigger is a delicate balance for any soldier in any combat situation. The present U.S. counterinsurgency (known as “COIN”) presents great difficulties for soldiers in the field. COIN is predicated on “winning hearts and minds” of the civilian population and this is not typically achieved through indiscriminate weapons fire or drone missile strikes on unarmed civilians.

General Petraeus was recently discussed in a Salon article as reviewing the “rules of engagement”:
Petraeus also has to appear to stay the course in terms of counterinsurgency (COIN) fundamentals, such as making extensive efforts not to kill innocent people. The tricky part is that the main argument against McChrystal’s rules of engagement is not that they are too bureaucratic; it's that they are overreaching and potentially dangerous.
So, the maddening choice by soldiers of firing or not firing on civilian populations always remains. It seems the easy choice is simply not to have combat operations in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

The recent Wikileaks release of over 90,000 classified documents details Afghan corruption, the use of Stinger surface-to-air missiles by the Taliban, U.S. assassination teams, and large numbers of civilian deaths.

But a more chilling Wikileaks release in April 2010 is of an Apache helicopter video clip from July 2007 of 30mm cannon fire cutting down two Reuters reporters and killing 10 civilians. For those that have seen this video, its’ horror and nonchalance are breathtaking. It is impossible to describe and requires that you grit your teeth to watch. It is worth noting that the same company (Bravo 2-16) that was described earlier was also involved in this operation. So death occurred from above and below simultaneously for the civilian populations in this area.

Other than “rules of engagement” and other military protocols, what environmental factors drive this brutal behavior towards civilians in war zones? Which is the “chicken” and which is the “egg”?

Why is indiscriminate fire on civilians so prevalent in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The answer lies in the repeated deployment of U.S. military personnel to both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The continuous exposure to combat trauma has led to dramatic increases in the number of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) cases. Since October 2001, with almost 1.8 million U.S. service personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the VA has predicted 10-18% have PTSD, or 324,000 individuals.

Even this number may be considered low, with a recent American Journal of Public Health article showing a tripled risk of PTSD for New Jersey based National Guardsmen with repeat deployments.

In past U. S. wars, PTSD was called “soldiers heart” during the Civil War, in WW I it was named “shell shock” and by WW II, “combat fatigue” or “exhaustion." It is only on recent years that PTSD in combat zones has been fully understood and recognized by both the military and psychiatric experts.

Diagnostic symptoms of PTSD include the following: re-experiencing the original trauma(s) through flashbacks or nightmares, avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma (certain thoughts or feelings associated with an event), and increased arousal such as difficulty falling or staying asleep, or problems with anger, concentration, or hypervigilance. (American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV [DSM- IV] 1994).

The symptoms of avoidance, anger, and hypervigilance are all a psychological witches’ brew in combat situations and ensure brutality towards civilian populations.

Another outcome has been suicides which are tracking at the highest point in the U.S. Army since the 1970’s. Thirty-two soldiers took their own lives In June 2010, the most Army suicides in a single month since the Vietnam era. Eleven of the soldiers were not on active duty. Of the 21 who were, seven were serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.

In my recent volunteer work at Under the Hood Café and Outreach Center at Ft. Hood in Killeen, Texas, I have had the opportunity to speak to many active duty soldiers and veterans of both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Under the Hood is a non-military environment for active duty and veterans to speak out on the effects of war and offers referral to legal and psychological services for all who come through the door, including those active duty soldiers who are war resisters and have refused to re-deploy to Afghanistan.

Their stories are similar to the ones above and detail heart rending experiences of personal trauma, loss, and pain in their own way much like the testimonies at Winter Soldier.

The original Winter Soldier was testimony organized in 1971 by Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) as a challenge to the morality and conduct of the Vietnam War, with the goal of publicly exposing war crimes and atrocities by the United States Armed Forces.

On the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion in March 2008, the Iraq Vets Against the War resurrected Winter Soldier as a forum where more than 200 U.S. military veterans and active duty soldiers as well as Iraqi and Afghani citizens gave testimony on the conflicts in both countries.

"I remember one woman walking by," said Jason Washburn, a corporal in the U.S. Marines who served three tours in Iraq. "She was carrying a huge bag, and she looked like she was heading toward us, so we lit her up with the Mark 19, which is an automatic grenade launcher, and when the dust settled, we realized that the bag was full of groceries. She had been trying to bring us food and we blew her to pieces."

Washburn testified on a panel that discussed the rules of engagement in Iraq, and how lax they were, even to the point of being virtually non-existent.

"During the course of my three tours, the rules of engagement changed a lot," Washburn's testimony continues. "The higher the threat the more viciously we were permitted and expected to respond." (9/20/2008 -- Asian Times, Book Review (Dahr Jamail): Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan by Aaron Glantz)

Whether U.S. brutality against civilians in war zones occurred in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, the common themes remain the same: soldiers repeatedly deployed to war zones with heavy civilian populations with no enforced “rules of engagement” resulting in war crimes.

A quote attributed to Joan Baez seems most appropriate:
If it’s natural to kill, why do men have to go into training to learn to do it?
[Jim Turpin is a native Austinite and member of CodePink Austin. He also volunteers for the GI coffeehouse Under the Hood Cafe at Ft. Hood in Killeen, Texas.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

03 August 2010

Harvey Wasserman : Pete Seeger Sings for Solartopia!



Pete Seeger sings for Solartopia!

By Harvey Wasserman / The Rag Blog / August 3, 2010

See Video and Lyrics to 'God's Counting on Me,' Pete Seeger's song about the BP oil spill, Below.
"We've got a country full of ambitious people," Pete Seeger tells us. Solar energy is "something direct," a way to "pay our bills, not tomorrow, but today."

By "bills" Pete doesn't just mean the ones from the electric company. He's talking about the Big Bill, the one from Mother Nature.

At age 91, Pete is American folk activism's truest bard. It's no accident that Pete's new CD is Tomorrow's Children and that his new music video is for Solartopia!, a holistic, socially just, post-corporate vision of a green-powered Earth.

Solartopia, he says, "is the wonderful, positive way of approaching the problem" of a polluted planet. "Don't just say ‘don't, don't, don't.' Say ‘DO! DO! DO!'"

This spring, while finishing up Tomorrow's Children, he joined singer-songwriters Dar Williams and David Bernz in a Beacon studio filled with singing schoolkids, organized by local music educator Dan Einbender, who co-produced the album.

Pete's hometown, up the Hudson from Manhattan, is home to the Clearwater, the legendary sloop Pete has helped keep afloat to fight the pollution that's killing the great river -- and our planet. That includes fierce opposition to the Indian Point nuclear plant, a few miles down the river, now in a life-or-death legal battle over the hot water outtakes that kill millions of aquatic organisms every year.

Along with Solartopia!, Pete, David and the kids put some finishing touches on Turn! Turn! Turn!, one of Pete's great anthems. With its Biblical overtones, it still resonates with the aura of a generational hymn. The Byrds took it electric in the 1960s, but it lives on as a clarion call for a species on the brink.

Pete wrote Solartopia! in his solarized hand-built home, surrounded by woods, overlooking the river. Below the house, his battery-powered pickup quietly recharged from the panels on the rooftop.

With great optimism, I asked if he could possibly put this vision of a green-powered Earth to music. Without so much as a blink, he whipped out that magnificent banjo. In a matter of minutes -- forever golden in my soul -- he had the song.

Then singer-songwriter David Bernz, who co-produced Pete's previous Grammy-winning CD, wrote the verses. With award-winning filmmaker Dan Keller shooting in High-Def, and a dozen of Einbender's kids in joyous chorus, the video was born.

Pete's presence in the movement for a green-powered Earth has been as essential as it was in the days of Civil Rights (when he wrote We Shall Overcome ) and Vietnam.

In June, 1978, Pete came to Seabrook with Arlo Guthrie and Jackson Browne. To avoid potential mayhem involving thousands of peaceful marchers versus a wacky out-of-control New Hampshire governor named Meldrim Thomson, a deal was cut. Attorney-General Tom Rath agreed to stand by quietly while the Clamshell Alliance would enjoy a peaceful weekend on the construction site -- as long as we left on Sunday afternoon.

But who would show up? When Pete said he'd come with Arlo and Jackson, we had an event for the ages. It was America's biggest anti-nuclear gathering until the melt-down at Three Mile Island nine months later.

That was 30 years ago -- already a good four decades into Pete's career of activism and social change. Since then he's sung at countless concerts, benefits, marches, and gatherings aimed at shutting the nuclear industry and other polluters while bringing on a green-powered Earth.

For his 90th birthday party, last year, he packed Madison Square Garden with activists and fans, including Bruce Springsteen and a stage full of luminaries. The proceeds, of course, would go to support the Clearwater.

To have Pete now singing for a green-powered Earth, putting our movement once again to music, is enough to give us all hope in yet another "hopeless" movement against yet another "unbeatable" problem... until we dance again in Solartopia.

"Wind power, solar power," Pete says. "this is the most exciting time in the world to be living….There has never been such an exciting time."

[Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth is at solartopia.org as is Pete's new video. The song is on Pete's new CD, Tomorrow's Children.]
'God's Counting on Me':
Pete Seeger sings about the BP oil spill


On July 23th 2010 Pete Seeger performed live at a Gulf Coast Oil Spill fundraiser at The City Winery in New York City. There he unveiled to the public his new protest song about the BP oil spill entitled "God's Counting on Me, God's Counting on You." Backing up Pete's singing and banjo picking is the singer/songwriter James Maddock on acoustic guitar. All proceeds of this concert went to the Gulf Restoration Project. The show was produced and hosted by Richard Barone. The video was edited and mixed by Matthew Billy



(Pete Seeger on banjo; James Maddock on guitar.)

Lyrics:

When we look and we can see things are not what they should be
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
When we look and see things that should not be
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Hopin' we'll all pull through, Hoping we'll all pull through,
Hopin' we'll all pull through
Me and you.

It's time to turn things around, trickle up not trickle down
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
It's time to turn things around, trickle up not trickle down
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Hopin' we'll all pull through, Hoping we'll all pull through,
Hopin' we'll all pull through
Me and you.

And when drill, baby, drill turns to spill, baby, spill
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Yes when drill, baby, drill turns to spill, baby, spill
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Hopin' we'll all pull through, Hoping we'll all pull through,
Hopin' we'll all pull through
Me and you.

Don't give up don't give in, workin' together we all can win
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Don't give up don't give in, workin' together we all can win
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Hopin' we'll all pull through, Hoping we'll all pull through,
Hopin' we'll all pull through
Me and you.

There's big problems to be solved, let's get everyone involved
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
There's big problems to be solved, let's get everyone involved
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Hopin' we'll all pull through, Hoping we'll all pull through,
Hopin' we'll all pull through
Me and you.

When we sing with younger folks, we can never give up hope
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
When we sing with younger folks, we can never give up hope
God's counting on me, God's counting on you
Hopin' we'll all pull through, Hoping we'll all pull through,
Hopin' we'll all pull through
Me and you.

Source / CommonDreams
The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Ed Felien : The Holy War that We Can't Win


The Afghan jihad:
A war that we can't win


By Ed Felien / The Rag Blog / August 3, 2010

How can war be holy?

What righteous god would welcome the massacre of innocents?

And, yet, the origins and history of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have their roots in war. The Old Testament and Talmud are catalogs of epic battles. Jesus, who brought the new commandment, Love thy neighbor, also told his followers, "Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was reckoned with transgressors.'" (Luke: 22, 36-37)

Muhammad, not just a prophet and the founder of Islam, was a remarkable general. His continued battles with rival tribes eventually led to a consolidation of most of the Arabian Peninsula into an Islamic confederation during his lifetime. Much of the fire and intensity of the Qur'an is because Muhammad is encouraging his early Muslim supporters to fight to defend the faith.

Combining religious zeal with a sword is a lethal mixture, and, although there are many progressive developments that flow from early Islam: a more enlightened view of women; a rejection of feudal autocracy and privilege; and the development of a uniform code of justice; still, one of the dominant themes of the Qur'an is its effectiveness as a manual of war: "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them. Take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." (Qur'an: 9, 5)

The community of the faithful in Islam is called the ummah. The community spread from the Arabian Peninsula in the Seventh Century to as far east as China and Indonesia and as far west as North and South America. There are now between one and two billion Muslims worldwide, 21% of the world's people. But, just as Italians feel a sense of ownership of the Roman Catholic Church, Arabs have a similar proprietary reaction to Islam. The major shrines are in Arabia or the Middle East. Devout Muslims are supposed to visit Mecca once in their lifetime. The Qur'an is written in Arabic, the language of Saudi Arabia.

The particular brand of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia is Wahabbi. This ultra-conservative variant was developed at the end of the eighteenth century as a reaction against the dominance of the Turkish Empire and its more liberal brand of Sufi Islam. Local tribesmen were more likely to fight against Turkish occupation if they felt it was blasphemous, thus skirting the prohibition in the Qur'an of Muslims fighting Muslims.

When the British joined the local rebels (most notably with Lawrence of Arabia), that sealed the fate of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. When oil was found in Arabia, Western countries found a good reason to continue support for the Saud family and all the other petty warlords they had made heads of state in the countries they had drawn on the map of the Middle East.

All this seemed like it would continue forever. The oil companies allowed the Arab countries to become rich, as long as the oil companies became richer. The conservative orthodoxy of Wahabbi Islam allowed the Saud family to rule with autocratic simplicity. They controlled their people and that allowed the British (and soon American interests) to get the oil and make everybody happy.

These fairy tale kingdoms continued in the Middle East until the Iranians threw America's Shah off the Peacock Throne in February of 1979. Unhappy at losing our perch in the Middle East, President Carter grew jealous of Soviet influence in Afghanistan. He reportedly gave over a billion dollars to the Pakistan ISI (a CIA equivalent) to support a religious group that was fighting to throw out the Soviets. So, the truth of the matter is that the U. S. was the original funder for al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden and the holy war or jihad against Western influences in the ummah.

When Osama bin Laden declared a fatwah against the U. S. and Western influences in the Middle East in 1998, he listed three examples of how the U. S. has attempted to destroy Muslim interests:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
Second, bin Laden opposed the sanctions and then the war against the people of Iraq, and, third, he opposed the state of Israel and supported a Palestinian state.

But the principal focus of jihad today is the war in Afghanistan. This holy war to throw out the infidel has strong support among Afghan locals. They've been doing it for at least a thousand years. And it can draw on the support of millions of Muslims worldwide who see an attack on the ummah as an attack on Islam.

The most explosive ingredient in this already deadly Afghan stew is the influence of Pakistan. The ISI has supported the Taliban and al Qaeda with war materiel for decades. The Taliban are happy to please their benefactors with attempts to blow up the Indian Embassy in Kabul.

The only thing about Pakistan that you can count on is that they hate India and they want Kashmir. All alliances, agreements, treaties, etc. are just temporary steps to facilitate those two objectives. The recent release of military documents by WikiLeaks shows the duplicitous game ISI has been playing with the U. S. and the Taliban. They have no hesitation to sell out one side or the other in the pursuit of their own objectives.

A further complication in the Afghan jihad is the Pashtun influence. The Pashtun are an ethnic group that date back at least to the 8th Century and the introduction of Islam in the area. Currently, they make up about 40% of the population of Afghanistan and 15% of the population of Pakistan. For many years it was the goal of tribal leaders to secede and form their own Pashtunistan. There is no question that tribal and Pashtun loyalties are stronger than national loyalties, and they have no respect for the Afghan/Pakistan international border.

So, what do we have?

We have a holy war waged against the U. S. by millions of Muslims that has as its principal focus a narco-terrorist state that produces 92% of the world's opium made up mainly of a population that has no interest in being Westernized and resents our invasion. It's a war that can't be won, and it is bleeding us dry in terms of the lives of our best soldiers and our national treasury. And, it's a holy war that we began 30 years ago.

Isn't it time to declare our prayers have been answered and get out?

[Ed Felien is publisher and editor of Southside Pride, a South Minneapolis monthly.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Mariann G. Wizard : Poet/Political Prisoner Marilyn Buck Dies in New York

UPDATED Wednesday, Aug. 4 at 9:03 a.m. (CST)

Marilyn Buck was released from prison July 15, 2010.

Recently released from Texas prison:
Cancer takes poet Marilyn Buck


By Mariann G. Wizard / The Rag Blog / August 3, 2010

AUSTIN -- Friends of long-time political prisoner, former Austinite, and acclaimed poet Marilyn Buck, 62, were saddened by news of her death at the home of her attorney Soffiyah Elija, early Tuesday, August 3.

Buck was released from the federal prison medical center in Carswell, Texas, July 15, 2010, and was paroled to New York City.

Buck served 25 years of an 80-year prison sentence for politically motivated crimes undertaken in opposition to racial injustice and U.S. imperialism. As a prisoner, Marilyn, while moderating her ideas about methods, continued to stand tall for her beliefs.

A selfless advocate for others, especially in the arena of prison medical care, Marilyn was diagnosed late last year with a uterine sarcoma, a rare and aggressive cancer, too late for treatment to save her life.

While attending the University of Texas at Austin, Buck became involved in the civil rights and anti-war movements, and worked with SDS and the underground newspaper, The Rag. In the following years she became increasingly committed to and active in support of the black liberation struggle in this country.

Buck is survived by three brothers; several cousins; her long-time counselor, Jill Soffiyah Elijah; and loving friends worldwide. Her parents, Dr. and Mrs. Louis Buck, who both pre-deceased her, were leading civil rights activists in Austin in the early 1960s.

According to sources close to Marilyn's family, there will not be a funeral, but memorial gatherings will be scheduled in the future in New York City, in California's Bay Area, and in Texas. Funds raised for her hoped-for transition to the free world that had not been dispersed at the time of her death will be used according to her wishes to assist other aging prisoners.

The size of the U.S. prison population guarantees that increasing numbers of those released after lengthy sentences will lack savings, health insurance, or the network of friends from all walks of life that sustained Marilyn -- and benefited from her generous, principled spirit -- throughout her years behind bars.

Marilyn Buck was the recipient of funds raised at a June 25 community support event and benefit in Austin hosted by eight local groups, including NOKOA the observer and The Rag Blog, and supported by many businesses, artists, poets, and compassionate individuals.

Youth Emergency Service, Inc., fiscal sponsor for the event, will continue to accept tax deductible contributions through PayPal at its website, or by check or money order, made out to YES, Inc., at PO Box 13549, Austin, TX 78711.

CORRECTION: The Rag Blog was originally informed that Marilyn Buck died in a New York hospital. Now we have learned that Marilyn in fact died surrounded by friends at the Brooklyn home of her attorney and long-time close friend, Soffiyah Elijah, where she was living after being paroled to New York City. Linda Evans announced the following through Freedom Archives:
Our dear comrade Marilyn Buck made her transition today [August 2] at 1 pm est peacefully and surrounded by friends at home in Brooklyn. Details of memorials and where to send cards and donations will follow soon.
Also see:The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

02 August 2010

Tom Hayden : Despite WikiLeaks, Congress Votes War Bucks

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Image from The First Post.

Despite WikiLeaks revelations,
Congress votes for war funding

By Tom Hayden / The Rag Blog / August 2, 2010

Never was the case so weak for throwing another $33 billion into the Afghanistan sinkhole, but that's what a defensive U.S. Congress did anyway on Tuesday evening, July 27. The vote was 308-114, with Republicans supplying most of the pro-war votes.

Washington-based peace groups, after weeks of e-mailing messages to Congress, put the best face possible on the vote, claiming a "significant" gain of 14 additional antiwar votes over the 100 cast for a similar amendment by Representative Barbara Lee two weeks ago.

(The new Democratic votes were cast by Corrine Brown, Kathy Castor, John Conyers, Rosa Delauro, Lloyd Doggett, Anna Eshoo, Chaka Fattah, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Hank Johnson, Marcy Kaptur, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, Gregory Meeks, James Moran, Christopher Murphy, Carol Shea-Porter, Mike Thompson, Lynn Woolsey and David Wu; while five Republicans joined the opposition: Paul Broun, Vernon Ehlers, Jeff Flake, Phil Gingrey, and John Linder.)

Those casting pro-war votes from safe liberal districts included Lois Capps, James Clyburn, Susan Davis, John Hall, Patrick Kennedy, Nita Lowey, Lucille Roybal-Allard, John Sarbanes, and Joe Sestak. Significantly, Speaker Nancy Pelosi abstained from voting, which meant retreating from the chance to draw an antiwar line more firmly.

The highest measure of House opposition remains the 162 votes, including Pelosi's, cast in the House recently for Representative Jim McGovern's amendment requiring an exit strategy including a withdrawal timeline. Only 18 senators voted for an identical amendment by Senator Russ Feingold earlier this spring. The dissenting numbers have almost doubled since last year.

In the moments after Tuesday's vote, a representative of Barbara Lee's office said new antiwar measures may be put forward around the defense appropriations bill later in this session. No concrete plan yet exists.

Those Congressional anti-war votes are in part due to years of grassroots work and mobilization, according to Rusti Eisenberg of the legislative committee of United for Peace and Justice. Is the glass half-full or half-empty?, she asks.

What is clear is that there was never a better time to stop or delay this war. The political climate around Afghanistan turned extremely sour in the days leading up to Tuesday's vote. The Washington establishment was shaken by the spilling of 91,000 classified documents by the independent muckrakers at WikiLeaks.org. The raw documents revealed a much grimmer situation in Afghanistan than portrayed by the White House and the Pentagon with its information-war strategy.

As millions read the WikiLeaks revelations in The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel, a nervous White House pressed for an immediate House vote. "We don't know how to react. This obviously puts Congress and the public in a bad mood," lamented one White House official.

The president could have declared that the newly released materials only add to a growing consensus that the war is unwinnable. Instead he sent his spokesperson Robert Gibbs out to discredit the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, who is fast becoming a hero in the global info-wars.

Gibbs was offended by a German interview with the elusive Assange, in which he said "I enjoy crushing bastards," a sentiment that will do him no harm with Assange's readers and collaborators.

The Pentagon also is seeking to muzzle and imprison the American Private First Class Bradley Manning, 22, charged with downloading the documents and sending them to Assange. Manning, who is known by his hacker name Bradass87, copied the secret information on a CD labeled "Lady Gaga" while pretending to hum along to her music.

"I want people to see the truth, the non-PR version," said Manning. While downloading the materials, he had discovered "awful things that belong in the public domain and not on some server stored in a darkroom in Washington, DC... I just couldn't let these things stay inside of the system and inside of my head."

Manning calls his action "open diplomacy... It's beautiful and horrifying. It belongs in the public domain."

WikiLeaks founder Assange announced Monday that he has another 15,000 documents ready to release.

For now, funding for the escalation has been salvaged by the House vote. But the full impact of the documents remains to be seen. If the Pentagon finds a way to shut down WikiLeaks, it is likely that a huge media and public protest will follow. Going forward with upbeat messages about the war becomes hazardous for Obama too, especially with the release of more documents threatened. Pressures thus will increase here and across the NATO alliance to begin reducing the military presence.

On the very day the disclosures were splashed across front pages, American officials were quarreling with Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai over whether 52 civilians were killed by Western rockets in Helmand Province, a scene of the current offensive. And, according to official sources interviewed by Dexter Filkins of The New York Times, Karzai is "pressing to strike his own deal with the Taliban and the country's archrival, Pakistan, the Taliban's longtime supporter."

Instead of bending to these apparent realities, Obama instead seems intent on doubling-down with the military offensive in Kandahar and his secret attacks in Pakistan.

No one in the government has found a way to stop him, despite 73 percent of Democrats and a majority of independents opposing his Afghanistan policy. By voting for war funding without conditions, Congress has yielded its checks and balances function, and now is being usurped and outperformed in its oversight responsibilities by the twentysomething geeks of WikiLeaks.

[Tom Hayden is a former California state senator and leader of Sixties peace, justice, and environmental movements. He currently teaches at Pitzer College in Los Angeles. His books include The Port Huron Statement, Street Wars and The Zapatista Reader.]

Thanks to Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Marc Estrin : The F-35 and the NIMBYS of Death

F-35 helmet: "Cool" lid for flying our "national treasure."

NIMBYS of Death


By Marc Estrin / The Rag Blog / August 2, 2010

BURLINGTON, Vermont -- This week the Secretary of the Air Force selected the Vermont National Air Guard as one of the top two contenders for housing "a national treasure," the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Our liberal congressional delegation is jumping with joy, with Sen. Leahy enjoying the "cream rising to the top," Sen. Sanders basking in the "great national respect and admiration," and Rep. Welch crowing about "400 full-time and 700 part-time employees, military and civilian, [who] receive about $53 million annually in pay and contribute about $2 million each year in fire and rescue services from their airport base.

Wowie zowie -- sounds pretty good.

There have, of course, been some grumblers, the most cited being those airport neighbors complaining about a drop in property values and lives made noisome by unbearable decibels. While the militarized world at large understands and sympathizes with their issues and hopes to "work with them," their concerns shrink, and are dismissed in the face of the larger issues of jobs and "national security." They are labled NIMBYs -- Not In My Backyarders. "What you're doing is OK -- just go do it elsewhere."

But what is it it the F-35s are doing, beyond being national treasures and making a hell of a noise? What is it that is OK, as long as it's elsewhere? There are those of us mean enough to point to its main task -- mass murder. That's why we don't want F-35s based in Burlington -- or anywhere else.

Burlington, Vermont -- bobo paradise, the People's Republic of, -- does love its sleek if noisy aircraft. For several years, we enthusiastically hosted an airshow put on by the Navy's Flight Demonstration Squadron, the Blue Angels.

Although very few of us support mass murder, I had an interesting conversation recently with an intelligent woman, highly critical of the war, who was all excited about this air show.
“I know I shouldn’t really love it -- but it’s so exciting. Those planes are so beautiful, the pilots’ skill is so impressive. It triggers off some visceral reaction...”

“Would you be excited to see someone beheaded, or perhaps burned at the stake?” I asked.

“No!” she averred, “But nobody gets killed at the air show.”
What was amazing to me was the screeching to a halt of thought. No, short of a crash, these planes would not kill anyone at the air show. But they are the meanest and most vicious of killing machines, designed to bring fiery death to any persons or structures in their cross-hairs.

They are “smart," these machines, and their pilots are smart, well-trained, and their bombs are “smart," and we never intentionally kill innocent civilians. Yet somehow, there is always “collateral damage." No one gets killed at the air show. Only everywhere else such machines perform.

At the time of the show, and in the face of F-35-like protests, a local columnist wrote a piece in the Burlington Free Press entitled “Cause It’s Cool, Let Airshow Roar”: “C’mon guys,“ he wrote,
all you waterfront zealots, anti-war movers and shakers, environmental sorts. Can’t you just get off your high horses for a day, stop being so stuffy, and, like, just have some fun watching the boys play with their toys? ‘Cause it’s cool, man. Don’t get your undies in a knot. Hey, even the Make-A-Wish Foundation loves it. [The foundation will receive a charitable donation from the proceeds.] Are you against dying kids? Meanies.
He advised the peace-freaks to just “close their eyes and imagine that the jets torching along at 500 mph are on a peace mission promoting sustainable global tranquility.”

But these jets, and worse, the F-35, will not be promoting global tranquility. They are promoting defense profits, over-the-top military macho, and by implication approving the world-wide death and suffering it creates. They are promoting killing kids who have no Make-A-Wish foundation, and whose only wish is that the wars around them would end. And not least, they are enticing our own children to graduate from violent video games to doing the real thing when they grow up.

I know -- all those Burlingtonians who are thinking such thoughts are just elitist prigs with twisted undies. Why can’t we just be cool, instead of raining on the party? Besides, think of the jobs.

[Marc Estrin is a writer and activist, living in Burlington, Vermont. His novels, Insect Dreams, The Half Life of Gregor Samsa, The Education of Arnold Hitler, Golem Song, and The Lamentations of Julius Marantz have won critical acclaim. His memoir, Rehearsing With Gods: Photographs and Essays on the Bread & Puppet Theater (with Ron Simon, photographer) won a 2004 theater book of the year award. He is currently working on a novel about the dead Tchaikovsky.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Harry Targ : Higher Education Headed in Wrong Direction

Editorial cartoon by Mark Weber / iHaveNet.

21st Century higher education:
An institution in crisis

By Harry Targ / The Rag Blog / August 1, 2010

The modern university

At my home university, only Coca-Cola products can be distributed on campus as a result of contractual agreements. Agriculture specialists train military personnel to teach agribusiness to farmers in Afghanistan. Students struggle against university contractors who have purchase agreements with companies such as Nike, which produce t-shirts and hats with university logos made with sweatshop labor. Research and teaching programs are established to highlight the significance of unregulated markets, electoral democracy, religions, and other ideas celebrated in the United States.

The president of the university, the director of athletic programs, and some athletic coaches earn 10 times more than experienced clerical staff and seven or eight times more than new assistant professors. In addition to corporate style salary differentials, members of the administrative staff, like those in corporations, work on logos, “branding,” and lobbying state and national legislators. Human relations bureaucracies, again like those in corporations, make personnel decisions that bear on substantive policy; in this case relating to education.


Shifting finances, academic workers,

And access to higher education

The enduring economic crisis has begun to open up debate on the direction of modern higher education. For example, The Delta Project supported by the Lumina Foundation for Education has recently issued a report, "Trends in College Spending: 1998-2008: Where does the money come from? Where does it go? What does it buy?" that deserves study and reflection. Inside Higher Education (July 9, 2010) summarized some of the project’s major findings:
  • Between 1998 and 2008 public research universities (such as Big Ten institutions) increased rates of expenditure on top administrators, lawyers, and accountants twice that of spending on faculty and instructional materials.
  • Students at what the Project calls, “Public Research Universities” are now subsidized over three times as much per student as those attending community colleges.
  • Resources channeled to instructional purposes have modestly declined while slight increases in moneys find their way to computers, libraries, and administrative expenses.
The 51 page Delta Project report concluded that if the trends identified between 1998 and 2008 (with data that does not include the 2008-2010 recession) continue significant aspects of higher education in the United States will decline, particularly in comparison with other developed countries. The trends increasingly affect access to higher education, job security among educators, and the quality of education. In the project’s words:
Revenue shortfalls in both public and private institutions have become the occasion, once again, for steep increases in student tuition, cutbacks in enrollments, and reductions in course offerings. Employee furloughs are becoming common, along with layoffs and program closures.
Higher education administrators and government officials, the report asserts, have adopted “the dominant model to manage revenue shortfalls,” including tuition increases, expanding class size, and reducing staff and faculty wages and benefits.

And changes in institutions of higher education, as in virtually all institutions, involve questions of class and inequality.
Turning this trajectory around will require huge attention to the deep issues of educational inequality, and the leaky pipeline that persistently disadvantages first-generation and low-income students.

Some proposals for change


In a recent essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus make a series of proposals to address some of the crises of higher education today. They begin by noting that tuition for public and private colleges has doubled compared with a generation ago. Rising educational costs require parents to commit large financial outlays, second only to house mortgages, to their children’s education. Alternatively students have to take out loans that will burden them for their entire lives.

Among the proposals these authors make are the following:
  • Institute free higher education for all who seek it.
  • Maintain course requirements that lead to knowledge in history, the arts, sciences, and reasoned discourse.
  • Provide secure full-time teaching jobs for every classroom. Eliminate the system of staffing classrooms with graduate students and temporary adjuncts who receive one-sixth the pay of the regular faculty.
  • Pay presidents and other administrators salaries commensurate with public employees, not CEOs of Wall Street banks and corporations.
I would add that the connections between systems of higher education and sports, the military, and the corporate sector must be examined as well.

While our wealthiest and most powerful institutions -- corporations and banks, the military, and the health care system -- have come under some scrutiny in the new century, until recently higher education has remained hidden behind a wall of mystery even though everyone pays lip service to it as the hope for the future.

With enduring economic stagnation coupled with rising gaps in the distribution of income and wealth, education is offered as an escape route from poverty. We need to broaden public discussion about our assumptions concerning higher education, assessing its costs, accessibility, educational quality, and workplace security.

[Harry Tarq is a professor in American Studies who lives in West Lafayette, Indiana. He blogs at Diary of a Heartland Radical.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.