Blue Collar Politics

At 5:30 AM this morning, my wife and I sat and watched the final half hour of a film we had rented, Eugene Jarecki's Why We Fight. If you've not seen it, you really should. If you have viewed it, you'll never forget how the Bush Administration, through deception and control of the US media, took a retired NYC Police Sargent (Viet-vet) who lost his son in the Towers on 9/11, and led him on a multi year journey from big Iraq War booster to where he's become a depressed and disillusioned questioner of "America" and our goals. The man had been so strong in his backing of Bush's Baghdad Blunder that he petitioned the powers-that-be to have his son's name stenciled onto one of the bombs dropped in our Shock and Awe production of war crime horror. Today, he puffs up with rage while tearing up when he watches Bush's later admission that "We have no evidence Saddam was connected to 9/11." In today's What Is the Latest Thing to Be Discouraged About? The Rise of Pessimism - New York Times , Adam Cohen relates how recent American disappointments have caused a "Rise of Pessimism". Mr. Cohen ends with:

Part of Mr. Bush’s legacy may well be that he robbed America of its optimism — a force that Franklin Delano Roosevelt and other presidents, like Ronald Reagan, used to rally the country when it was deeply challenged. The next generation of leaders will have to resell discouraged Americans on the very idea of optimism, and convince them again that their goal should not be to live with their ailments, but to cure them.

While the loss of optimism is important, the loss of faith, not religious faith, but faith in "America", is the most serious problem facing our country's future. Losing optimism is worrisome. Growing skepticism can be fatal to a representative democracy on the brink of becoming a dictatorship, a theocracy or some weird Super-Sized combo of them both. At the end of Why We Fight, I told Barb how the Bush years had altered my feelings. 27 years ago, I voluntarily dropped a rock solid deferment, as I thought it was time I "did my duty." That sounds so corny that through the years, when asked "why", I've tried out a dozen different rationals for putting my ass in front of bullets. "Wanted to learn about war", "Wanted to see for myself if the 'protesters' or the 'patriots' were right.", or that "I wanted to 'find' myself." But those were dodges, meant to get me away from the sicky-sweet, Norman Rockwell type that would actually feel they had a "duty" to risk all for an ideal. So, I was stupid, corny, ill informed, but, in my slothful ignorance, trying to do the right thing. Today, I'd laugh at anyone using the term "ideal" in conjunction with ANYTHING that is in ANYWAY connected with authority figures, be they US President or the local school crossing guard. If I were 22 today, I'd be marching in protests and, if a draft were coming, my ass would be sitting on a plane out of here. Today, if one of my kids mentioned joining the military, in any job/title that held any possibility of having them face combat, I might be found holding that child in a basement room/prison until the war ends. If a nuclear weapon exploded on American soil, it would take an awful lot of evidence to get me to believe that whatever country our President blames might, in fact, be the country behind the bombing. And don't think I'm exaggerating. Look into your own soul. If next month, a passenger plane flying from London to NYC, blows up, would you quickly agree if the Bushies told you it was al Qaeda. How about if they said it was Iran. Or the local Democrat running for an important House seat? Or, take this one step further. After all the lies and self-serving media stories you've been fed since 9/11, have you not, at least once, thought "I hope they don't commit some horror before the election" . . . and realized it was NOT Osama you were referring to as "they?" This is what the current crop of neo-con war criminals have left America as their legacy. Skepticism AND pessimism. May God forgive them. =====

[BREAK] As anyone with even the most rudimentary acquaintance with the word "fascism" can tell you, having a column on the use of the word that does NOT contain any mention of government bowing to corporate interests is akin to writing a piece on the Pope and failing to mention the Catholic Church! But the Repugnants are hoping that, as they did with Saddam and 9/11, they can cojoin Islam and Fascist and their supplicants in the mainstream media will help keep the citizens ignorant of the true facts. It worked with Bush's Baghdad Blunder in 2003, so why not now? That's why even Rumsfeld is throwing the F word at Liberals, claiming they aid the Fascists. Of course, should one give the subject a little thought, a malodorous fascist scent can be discerned in our "War on Terror." Corporate power, corrupt contracting, a growing disparity between classes, Patriot Act outrages, "Total Information Awareness", torture and war crimes are all reminiscent of what we heard of the fascist regimes in WWII. But, they sure don't want you going there!!! ===== [/BREAK]

Republicans Target 'Islamic Fascism' - Los Angeles Times Republicans Target 'Islamic Fascism' By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer 4:23 AM PDT, August 30, 2006 WASHINGTON -- President Bush in recent days has recast the global war on terror into a "war against Islamic fascism." Fascism, in fact, seems to be the new buzz word for Republicans in an election season dominated by an unpopular war in Iraq. Bush used the term earlier this month in talking about the arrest of suspected terrorists in Britain, and spoke of "Islamic fascists" in a later speech in Green Bay, Wis. Spokesman Tony Snow has used variations on the phrase at White House press briefings. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., in a tough re-election fight, drew parallels on Monday between World War II and the current war against "Islamic fascism," saying they both require fighting a common foe in multiple countries. It's a phrase Santorum has been using for months. And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday took it a step further in a speech to an American Legion convention in Salt Lake City, accusing critics of the administration's Iraq and anti-terrorism policies of trying to appease "a new type of fascism." White House aides and outside Republican strategists said the new description is an attempt to more clearly identify the ideology that motivates many organized terrorist groups, representing a shift in emphasis from the general to the specific. More Here

[BREAK] Barb and I watched Keith Olbermann deliver this chilling piece. For those of you who read beyond the mainstream media, he adds nothing truly new. But he used prose that strikes a group of chords that could lead to a truly patriotic harmony. And his passionate but reasoned delivery emphasizes how close we are to it being TOO LATE to stop the true fascist juggernaut that is mightily churning through the homes in America, while the right-wing noise machine is kept at a volume that deafens many to the Repugnant juggernaut's explosive razing of all that's good about our country while it raises the country's once minor faults to where it is all that others, even in many country's that once were considered friends, can now see. If the American people don't forcibly take back the juggernaut's controls, either in the upcoming elections, or, assuming that the "fix" is in, by taking to the streets in protest, within but months we'll be at war with Iraq/Islam and the blood of our kids, their kids and kids unconnected to any of the machinations will forever stain the pages of our history. But not for long. Because, even with a school system in which students hear nothing of true history, civics or even get to use the critical thought process produced by a reading of simple geography, the history texts that are now available at the college level will be so sanitized that future generations in Amerika will be reading of the commie ideas of George Washington (democracy), Thomas Jefferson (public schooling, democracy), Abraham Lincoln (strong unions), Theodore Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman (health care), Franklin D. Roosevelt (EVERYTHING!), Dwight D. Eisenhower (Corporatocracy warnings), John F. Kennedy (Peace Corps), Lyndon B. Johnson (Civil Rights), Richard M. Nixon (EPA) and Jimmy Carter (human rights and honest government), while being treated to stories of the heroism, intellect and military mastery of the Bush/Cheney (AWOL/Draft Dodgers, war crimes, Patriot Act horrors, Katrina, 9/11) dynasty. Wake up, sheeple!!! (And pass the link below on to every Republican in your address book . . . AFTER you pass it to everyone else!) ===== [/BREAK]

Crooks and Liars � Keith Olbermann Delivers One Hell Of a Commentary on Rumsfeld - - - SNIP The confusion we — as its citizens - must now address, is stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note - with hope in your heart - that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light… and we can, too. The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this Administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought. And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a "new type of fascism." As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that — though probably not in the way he thought he meant it. - - - End of SNIPPET

[BREAK] For many people, being a "witness to history" is a goal. Being present when important events go down, events that shape the future and will be recorded in our texts/videos, is an exciting thing. Well citizens of River City, I'm here to tell you that, as the Chinese say, you live in interesting times. You are "witnesses to history . . . being revised." The Disney/ABC 9/11 movie is just one of many recent attempts to rewrite our past in order to shape thought in the future. (And Disney claims it avoids partisan outlooks???) As FAIR points out, it ain't just a slowly dying broadcast TV Network that is putting it's integrity in jeopardy in order to shape a national debate. The once prestigious NY Times recently gave us a half-hearted apology for allowing Mata Hari Miller (Judy) to manipulate their readers into supporting a push to war. But, as luck would have it, most readers of the Times are also familiar with other sources of news, and had realized that, based on the length the lie kept running, the front page placement of many chapters of the lie AND the financial costs and human anguish caused by the lie, the Times/Judy needed to give a much more sincere, open and moving apology. As luck would have it, once again,the NY Times saw that we are in an astrological period wherein the planet Reality is being rocked by the exaggerated "spinning" of its moon, Corporatocracy. In Astrology, they refer to the phenomenon as "The Spin." In this scenario, Corporatocracy will allow "The Spin" to take reality wherever Corporatocracy wishes. Hence, while the paper must apologize if it led folks to believe Saddam HAD WMD, it doesn't need to give any "Sorry's" to the unwashed masses if the people can be made to believe we only said:

"The possibility that Saddam Hussein might develop "weapons of mass destruction" and pass them to terrorists was the prime reason Mr. Bush gave in 2003 for ordering the invasion of Iraq."

You see, when referring to the reasons we attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq, putting in cavernous wide caveats like "possibility" and that Saddam might "develop" WMD's and might "pass them to terrorists" can make folk forget Judy's "THEY HAVE NUKES, BUBONIC PLAGUE and KLINGON LIGHT SABERS THAT BEHEAD ANY CHRISTIANS (INCLUDING CUTE WHITE CHRISTIAN BABIES) WITHOUT ANYBODY HOLDING THEM!" (A bit of poetic license, that. But, with the fear running around the town square back then, [and continuing through today]it could be said to be an accurate representation of Judy's stories effect.) So, the Times need not apologize IF the reasons Bush gave for an illegal war were factual. And, if we get to rewrite the reasons 3 years later, why wouldn't they now be reasons we could defend? And, with Bush well into "attack Iran" mode, we just have to grant him some credibility in his last push to war, even if that leaves poor reality-based History raped, bleeding and gasping with last breath in the alley of fraud. So, now we can wait for the anniversary of that September day in 2001 that Hitler attacked America, Liberals lined the streets cheering the terrorists in the planes and watching entranced as their fellow Americans jumped from the upper floors of the Twin Towers. The same times that GW Bush saved the US Constitution by protecting it with the Patriot Act and TIA program, and finally gave the tools (cattle prods, iron ladies, water-boarding kits, etc.) to our Justice system that it had long needed, and that we found, in recently discovered diaries, our founding fathers had originally written into the Constitution . . . but was deleted by a nefarious and (you guessed it) stinkin' LIBERAL printer! What's that? Oh, I see. Sorry 'bout that, Chief. My mistake!
That movie doesn't come out until September 2007! [/BREAK]

[BREAK] IF you think you're reading too much in the blogosphere about the "Path To 9/11", you're not paying attention. Remember, Bush has suddenly requested a live 15-20 minute interruption of the film's final hour (Eastern Time) to give a speech to the nation. The Repugnants are really scared . . . scared that voters will come out against them in numbers that may be hard to overcome just by corrupting the ballot count in certain areas. Well, if you don't realize how your neighbor can still be swayed by irrational fear, Karl Rove does. So, they have a movie that blames Dems come out, sans commercials, just prior to primaries across the nation and weeks before a big election. Blaming Dems for letting attacks take place (during Bush's presidency?) helps make that neighbor fill a Republican ballot. He'd rather live under a trult fascist regime, rather than chance death defending the Constitution under a Democrat who seems to be in the party at fault for the 9/11 ataacks. Sounds crazy, I know. But with the country divided, just a few confused voters can bring the Repugs close enough to steal another election. Remember, the Dems need a real landslide if they want to be sure of winning; the Repugs are well satisfied with a fairly close [but easily turned] loss. Which brings us to how that same fear can lead to the granting of powers, powers that make the Constitution moot, to someone who promises to keep the bogeyman out of your closet. Let's hope we're rid of our own bogeyman, and get back our country, real soon!! As this writer for the UK Independant reports, we started on a fear/revenge road to America's ruin just a week after 9/11. His whole piece, portions of which I cut into the "Continue reading" part of this entry (below), is well worth a read. While it points to the mess we Americans have managed to make of the planet in the last 6 years, his final paragraph highlights what, to me, is the hope and dream of every patriotic American - to be rid of a President who puts the Constitution in the drawer while he allows America's power to be misused around the globe and her troops to be abused in order to maintain corporate profits of his buds!

- - - - - - - - SNIP Were the Democrats to gain control of the House of Representatives and/or the Senate in the November mid-term elections (not very likely but certainly possible), that would at least restore the separation of powers, allowing a Democratic legislative branch to check and balance the Republican executive. Unless and until that happens, the Bush administration is likely to go on using the images and memories of September 11 to reinforce and justify the enormous boost of power it received on September 18. What further discord this turbocharged presidency may engineer here and in the larger world between now and January 2009 is the stuff of international bad dreams. - - - - - - - - End of SNIPPET

Of course, it's rather bittersweet, reading what you've known to be sad but true
. . . and then finding that only the foreign mainstream media publishes/gets it!

===== [/BREAK]

[BREAK] Glenn Greenwald gives a brief analysis that, I believe, grants the answer to the cry of "HOW!" that may be uttered by all of us Liberal/Progressives/Democrats on the morning after the Presidential election in '08, if not asked after an earlier election, just a few weeks from now. Of course, I'm one of those who believes the fix may be in already, with tamper-easy voting machines on the march into precincts/districts/parishes near you. But, I also held the hope that were enough voters to decide that our Constitution, Bill of Rights and the epiphany in human affairs that was the idea of America held a place of importance in their souls that the sheer number of "NO!" voters to the current regime of Repugnants that hold our ideals hostage, that "fixing" the election through those machines would be too daunting a task. The problem with that prayer is that in order for the people to come out in large numbers you need to give them an alternative to vote for. Instead, we give them the psychotic high school bully [Repugnants] or their meek, weak sycophants who stands by, not quite cheering the carnage, but obsequiously holding the bully's coat and books as the bully does the damage. Senator Russ Feingold tried to get other Senators, hopefully a large group with a good showing by fellow Democratic Senators, to agree just walk away when the bully looked for his coat holder (by simply agreeing to a statement saying nobody is above the law in these United States, but found the coat holders weren't up to such a blatant provocation to the bellowing bully. So, we're left with a choice of voting for the bully King of the prom, or voting for his cheering section, and hoping that they'll get a backbone and change the status quo. You can bet the ranch that, in almost every case, nobody gets out of bed early, or wastes precious time from a busy day, to help empower the bully's weak buds. [/BREAK]

[BREAK] We finally know where River has been. Now, the more important questions are "Where are you? What are you doing?" I run a dinky little mailing list/service that pushes out news stories, articles and links to blog posts daily, for a bunch of activists, reporters, friends and relatives. (Okay, my wife gets hit with the full 50 to 75+ news articles I forward a day, while my daughter, whose boss believes she should read at home, can only suffer through a minimal list of about a dozen or so of the most important pieces.) I'd venture that everyone on the list is a Liberal, although some might seek the camouflage of the "Progressive" labeling. They all view the Bush admin as an enemy of all that was once good about America, and see through the Bushie use of fear as a political power enhancer.
They were well read, including reports in the international media.
Therefore, they were all against our attacking, invading and occupying Iraq. They are all good people, who work hard to leave the planet/country in as good a shape, if not better, than when they began helping to steer the ship of state. So, being that they are good people, I will unfairly use them as a sample for all the good people who complain about Bush, who think the Iraq war is farce - bloody, death dealing farce, but farce all the same - and who worry that future generations - including their own kids - will be deprived of the experience of knowing one lives in one of the most wonderful countries on the planet. While I fear this may look as a way of saying "I'm better than you", I mean nothing of the sort. For I believe that until I find a way to be part of something that stops our collective fall into a well of self-defeating insanity, I'm as much, if not more, guilty as anyone. If you've fought in an illegal war, as I have, you have a greater duty to prevent future illegal wars by your country. If you have children, your duty geometrically increases. If you possess any informational tools, such as my single typing finger or you have access to the much more powerful bullhorn of the Town Crier, mainstream media, and you waste such power in other, less worthy pursuits, guilt has to be your burden. (Not meaning to single out NOW, but this arrived in my mailbox, just as I finished reading the new Baghdad Burning entry. If, when studying the rise of . . . here it comes! . . . Hitler, we discovered that a major organization of opposition to Hitler's policies was sending out drivel like this instead of spending EVERY moment battling for the rights it stands for, we would be shaking our heads and wondering where the sanity of that group had gone. Come on, admit it! "LOVE YOUR BODY DAY!" It sounds like something from a Foley email that Hastert thought was just cute and friendly.) Here are some conclusions, based on my small sampling of good, compassionate people: Many "good people" avoid demonstrations/protests. for what I'm sure they view as legitimate reasons. Some have shared their reasons with me. Kids; fear of being seen by someone from work and, the number 1 reason, the organizers support other causes with which I disagree. The most recent protest I attended, a couple of weeks ago, was called for by The World Can't Wait. I was the ONLY member from my mailing list to attend.

Seems that:

• 1) it was held during working hours (though it continued until well after business hours.)
• 2) The organizers had some connection to either socialist or communist organizations.

# 2 was, by far, the most common excuse for avoiding the protest. Ironically, many of these folk would cheer those who battled against McCarthy, and would likely idolize those who provided help to the unfortunate souls who were blacklisted during the 50's. But to march in protest with folks who might have been on that list, or whose parents were on it, well, that would be just too much. On April 29, 2006 of this year there was a larger demonstration. Again, I was alone of my sample. (I should mention that my wife, on my right and holding the Military Families banner) also marches. I somehow think of her as someone more than a member of my sample.) Again, I found none of my associates there.

By August 16, 2005, attendance at protests were at a low. But a few of my list members did attend the candlelight marches in their neighborhoods.
Earlier on, there was more of a showing at marches. At the Republican Convention in NYC, the crowd was huge. And more than few of my mailing list members were there on August 29, 2001.

Barb and I at the Repugnant National Convention demonstration.
Of course, what should have been the most important demonstration of American sentiment of all, the February 15, 2003 (photo below) pre-attack march, was attended by the largest number of my sample. And, of course, it was when many of us discovered that the media had gone from biased propagandists to full out sycophantic whores for the Bush administration. Suddenly, a demonstration that could paralyze NYC on a weekend day was only attended by "thousands" of protesters, according to the NY Times. We, who were there, knew that the Times must have only counted people on one of the alternate/overflow avenues . . . and they must have only counted the "thousands" of crowd control cops there. But, the Times either wouldn't report, or couldn't conceive, that even after all of its front page lies about Iraq, and the barge loads of BS Judy Miller was transcribing Karl Rove's take on Ahmad Chalabi's fantasies, people, MILES AND MILES OF INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, still believed we had no business attacking Iraq.

February 15, 2003. A month prior to our illegal attack on Iraq. Why do I bore/chastise you with all of this? Quite simply, I'm looking for a way to do more to stop our country's decline into history's Hell. More Here [/BREAK]