As you read this post keep in mind the illegal actions the FBI took under cover of the Patriot Act!!
The New Enabling Act (Our Patriot Act?)
John Steinberg - Raw Story Columnist
Published: Wednesday September 27, 2006
I cannot view the current debate about the Bush Administration’s latest attempt to remove all checks on its power without thinking about how my German and Austrian grandparents must have watched with disbelief as Europe sank into the madness of fascism. I think about how unprecedented those changes were, and how difficult it must have been to believe that things could really become as bad as they did. My grandparents had once been as comfortably integrated into their communities as I am in mine. In the end their assimilation mattered not at all; they fled, leaving behind family, friends, property and possessions. Unlike millions of others, they were fortunate to escape with their lives.
At the time, perhaps, it was difficult to recognize the exact moment when the die was cast – when the malignancy gained sufficient momentum to make what followed inevitable. But in hindsight, the Enabling Act, passed by the German legislature in 1933, might well have been the point of no return.
Hitler was elected Chancellor (a point conveniently forgotten by many) in January 1933 on a platform of anti-communist propaganda. In February, the Reichstag, the equivalent of our Capitol, was destroyed by arsonists, who may or may not have been affiliated with the Nazis. Appropriately cowed by these and other intimidations, the German parliament passed the Enabling Act that March.
The Enabling Act, officially known as the “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and Realm,” was short and simple. Its operative provisions were as follows:
Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich….(my emphasis)
Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.
Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette….
That, seasoned with only a soupçon of legalistic detail, was it. What it meant was that the executive was empowered by the legislature to decide what the law was. He was empowered to ignore the constitution. Neither the courts nor the legislature would have means to check executive power.
When the world saw the logical conclusion of that social experiment, it promised, “never again.”
Never again.
That promise has usually been understood to refer to the Holocaust. To that extent, the tragedies of Darfur and Bosnia and Rwanda stand as silent refutation, differing in scale but not culpability. But there was another implicit promise of lessons learned: Never again would the people of a powerful Western democracy descend into the madness of unrestrained dictatorship.
That second promise was largely implicit, because it seemed superfluous. After the obscenity of WWII, the idea that it could be broken by the United States or its allies was unthinkable. And that promise, at least, was largely kept.
Until now.
Forget, for the moment, that the proposed “compromise” torture legislation effectively abrogates the Geneva Conventions. Forget that it effectively licenses torture in the name of every American. Focus instead on the fact that it “vests in the administration the singularly most tyrannical power that exists – namely, the power unilaterally to decree someone guilty of a crime and to condemn the accused to eternal imprisonment without having even to charge him with a crime, let alone defend the validity of those accusations.” Focus on this language from the proposed law:
…(N)o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, … including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.
No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
The language of the new Enabling Act is a bit more baroque than that used seventy years ago. And, to be sure, it is not as far-reaching as that of its predecessor. But make no mistake: Just as the 1933 Enabling Act created the context for dictatorship, so does this one. The German legislature told the executive that it had the power to make law and ignore the constitution. If Congress passes this bill, the American legislature will second the motion.
It is just one bill, you may object; it only applies to terrorists, you may say; we are not Nazi Germany, you may insist. And yet. The forthcoming FISA bill extends Enabling Act thinking to additional unreviewable executive powers. The slippery slope has been well-oiled. The Niemöller (never again) poem stands waiting.
It is probably unrealistic to expect bright lines to be obvious at the moment they are crossed. But they don’t get much brighter than this: Congressional leaders have agreed to suspend habeus corpus, grant the President of the United States the power to torture, and allow the executive branch to operate beyond judicial review. The Administration will be free to dispense with the pretense that Abu Ghraib was a rogue operation of unsupervised underlings. Like a black hole, an Administration exercising unprecedented power accretes still more, with the blessings of those who cede it. We are on our way back to the nightmare that Nietzsche foresaw (but did not advocate) in which all is permitted.
President Bush, in yet another dog whistle callout to his faithful, has claimed that the disaster of Iraq will eventually be seen as “just a comma,” a reference to a sermon urging that followers not “put a period where God puts a comma.” The first Enabling Act was one such comma. There can be little doubt as to the kind of sentence Bush wants to write.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Allegory of the Cave
(from the REPUBLIC by Plato)
This allegory is a must read for those who seek to understand how we as a general populace can gain control of a sane and just society....
Elementary levels of education occur, of course, more or less automatically in all human communities--by the learning of language and certain basic skills, for example. Plato takes that for granted. In his philosophy he is concerned with the more advanced forms of learning. In his famous "Allegory of the Cave" from Book VII of the Republic he depicts the broad stages of education through which a human being can pass. He depicts education in such a way that its stages can be seen as a process of human emancipation and self-realization. Socrates (here clearly the mouthpiece for Plato's own thoughts) lays out the Allegory of the Cave by reporting a conversation that he had had with one of Plato's brothers a few days earlier:
“Compare," I said, "the absence of education to the following scene. Imagine people who live in a big cave with an entrance that is open to the light. A number of people have been there since an early age, and they are chained in such a way that they can look only in one direction. Light comes from a fire that burns some way behind and above them. Between the fire and the prisoners is a raised footpath with a low wall--of the sort puppet players put up between themselves and their audience."
"I am imagining it," he said.
"Imagine further a number of men carrying along the wall all sorts of vessels that are raised above it, and figures of men and animals that are made of stone or wood or other materials. Some of the men who carry these things are talking, and others are silent."
"Strange figures, and strange prisoners!" he said.
"The prisoners are like us," I replied. "But now tell me, do you think that it would have been possible for these prisoners to see themselves, or to see each other? To see anything except the shadows cast on the wall of the cave by the fire?"
"Not if they hadn't moved their heads since their childhood."
"And wouldn't that also hold for the objects that were carried in front of the fire?"
"Naturally."
"And if they could talk to each other, and give names to what they saw, wouldn't they think they were naming real objects, instead of mere shadows?"
"Of course."
"And if the cave had an echo coming from the wall in front of the prisoners--don't you think that they would assume that it is the shadows that are talking?"
"They surely would," he said.
"Prisoners like that would believe that the mere shadows of things are real things, wouldn't they?"
"How could they not?"
"But now what would happen if these prisoners were liberated and thus relieved of their delusion? Take any one of them who is released from his chains and suddenly forced to stand up, turn his head, walk around, and look up at the fire. Clearly he will be in pain doing all this, and he will be unable to see clearly those things the shadows of which he saw earlier--because he will be blinded by the brightness of the light. What do you think he will say if he is told that what he had seen before was a mere illusion? And that what he was seeing now was real, and that his vision was now more truthful? And if someone pointed to the things being passed along the wall one by one, and asked him what they were, don't you think the ex-prisoner would be at a loss, and that he would believe that what he had seen before was more real than the things now pointed out to him?"
"A lot more real."
"And if he were made to look directly at the light, wouldn't he feel such great pain that he would turn back to those things which he could perceive clearly, and believe they were clearer than the new things that are shown to him?"
"No doubt he would."
"And if, furthermore, somebody dragged him by force up the rough and steep path to the entrance of the cave, and if that person didn't let go of him until he had dragged him out into the light of the sun, wouldn't the liberated prisoner be upset and quite angry? And after coming out into the light, wouldn't his eyes be so filled by the rays of the sun that he couldn't possibly perceive all of the things that we know to be real?"
"No doubt. For a while he wouldn't be able to see anything."
"He would have to get used to the light before he could perceive what exists outside the cave. At first it would be easier for him to see mere shadows, then the reflections of people or other objects in water, and only in the end the things themselves. Later he could go on and look at the things in the sky and the sky itself. And first he would see more easily the light of the stars and the moon by night, and then the sun by day in its full brightness."
"Naturally."
"So the last thing he would see is the sun as it is in itself--the real thing in its proper setting?"
"Necessarily."
"Eventually he would come to the conclusion that it is the sun that produces the seasons and the years, and that it is the guardian of all things in the realm of the visible, and that in some way it is also the cause of all the things that he and his fellow prisoners had seen down in the cave."
"That's what he would conclude in the end."
"And after all that? Don't you think he would consider himself lucky on account of the changes, and that he would feel pity for his former fellow prisoners?"
"Certainly."
"And if there had been honors and prizes among the prisoners which they awarded to the person who was fastest at recognizing shadows as they passed by, and best at remembering the sequence in which they were usually carried past the fire, and therefore was the most capable of predicting which one would come next--do you think the liberated prisoner would want to win those prizes, and that he would be envious of those who were honored in this way, and therefore had authority among the other prisoners? Or would he share the attitude of Homer and greatly desire to 'be on the earth, the slave of another man, a man without land,' and suffer anything rather than share the same opinions and live the same life as these people in the cave?"
"I think he would prefer any kind of misery rather than live the life of the cave."
"And if an ex-prisoner were to go down again and take his old place, wouldn't the sudden change from sunlight to darkness prevent him from seeing anything?"
"Quite."
"And if he had to compete once more with these cave dwellers in judging the shadows while his vision was still dim, wouldn't he be laughed at by everyone else, and wouldn't they maintain that he had ruined his eyesight outside the cave, and that the enterprise of getting outside was therefore a waste of time? And if they had a chance to grab and kill the man who tried to liberate them and lead them out of the cave, wouldn't they do just that?"
In this allegory education is measured in terms of the sorts of things that people are able to perceive. At an early stage people will not see anything except shadows, and shadows for them will be reality. At the end of the educational process people will not only be able to see the things that cause the shadows (the puppets or statues) and the original models of these things (people and things outside the cave), but also the sun that makes all seeing possible. They will realize that shadows are less real than what they are shadows of, and that the puppets and statues in turn are less real than the originals outside the cave. People who have managed to leave the cave will have a comprehensive view of reality, and they will see how every kind of thing is related to every other kind.
There are four kinds of things in Plato's allegorical tale: (1) shadows, (2) puppets or statues, (3) the original objects of which the puppets or statues are imitations, and (4) the sun. These four kinds of things are the symbolic representations of the four kinds of entities that make up reality in Plato's philosophical view of the world. What are these four kinds of entities?
The shadows on the wall of the cave stand for the notions of things that people have in their minds, notions that are more or less closely related to the things that they are notions of. People may have a certain notion of what a rhinoceros is, for example, or an Egyptian temple, or who Socrates was. But there is often a considerable difference between such a notion and the real thing. People may be mistaken about any number of details concerning rhinos or Egyptian temples, and they may have gotten their notion of Socrates from Aristophanes' slanted portrait in "The Clouds" rather than from any familiarity with the real Socrates. There is often no incentive or opportunity to check one's notions against the real world, and thus many people may live their whole lives in the illusory world of their private, unexamined conceptions of things. Like the chained prisoners in Plato's Cave who think that shadows are real they are prisoners of their own closed minds.
The puppets or statues from which the shadows are cast stand for what ordinarily are called the "real things," that is, real rhinos, actual Egyptian temples, or Socrates as he was in real life. People who are free to compare the notions in their minds with the real things are still cave dwellers, but they are not chained anymore. They have reached the first level of their emancipation. They know that private notions or images in people's mind do not necessarily reflect reality, but could be the result of their own projections or other people's lies. These halfway liberated cave dwellers, in other words, are familiar with two kinds of thing: private notions in the mind, and things in the outside world. They have gained a certain degree of freedom because they are able to evaluate critically any possible discrepancy between people's notions of things and the things themselves.
Up to this point, however, any progress in education has taken place inside the cave. Even prisoners who are rid of their chains still find themselves in a realm of relative darkness. The most significant step in their emancipation still lies ahead: the difficult and demanding climb out of the cave. Only when they have made their way into the realm of daylight will the former prisoners encounter the next category of things: the original persons, animals, and other things after which the puppets and statues inside the cave are modeled.
While Plato thus described the emancipating value of education, he obviously was rather pessimistic with regard to its popularity. In the tale of the allegory great emphasis is placed on the hostility that people feel toward education and educated individuals. The ascent out of the cave and into the light is not easy, and it requires a willingness to undergo changes that most people would find too strange to contemplate, or too painful to endure. Not only do cave dwellers dislike leaving the cozy darkness to which they have grown accustomed, they also hate and mistrust those who have been outside and who have come back to suggest that as continuing cave dwellers they may be seriously deficient. Most people strongly dislike being told that they are ignorant. Possibly alluding to the fate of Socrates in his role as intellectual gadfly, Plato concludes the Allegory of the Cave with the merely rhetorical question whether the complacent troglodytes would not “grab and kill the man who attempts to free them and lead them up out of the cave.” In Plato’s estimate, they would always be ready to do just that.
The majority of people, in other words, are too attached to their narrow-minded ways, and too resentful of anyone who tries to shake them out of their complacency. They are not willing to seriously question their own situation and their basic assumptions. And that, according to Plato, is the ultimate reason why democracy is bound to fail. Plato thought that it is not in the nature of most people to exert themselves sufficiently in the pursuit of serious knowledge and self-understanding, or to muster the necessary energy and will to embark on the long march out of the cave of half-knowledge and ignorance. It will always be only a relatively small number of people in any given population who will be willing and able to develop their intellectual faculties to a point where they can grasp their own limitations, and see what would be necessary to organize human society on a comprehensive scale and for the benefit of all.
The majority of people in any sizable polity have rarely been in control of their own destiny, and, according to Plato, they hardly ever will be. The masses will always put too much trust in their authorities, follow too readily their elected or unelected leaders, leave their serious thinking to their representatives, accept their inferior positions as natural, allow themselves to be exploited as long as it is not too crassly done, and--unless they are driven to the point of too extreme suffering--seek their happiness in little and private things. "Bread and circuses" was the formula that the imperial Romans used to pacify their masses—enough food to get by, and enough entertainment to distract their minds from their real situation. The combination of minimum amenities and non-stop entertainment by spectator sports and soap operas serves a similar function in modern societies. For a Platonist it would show a blatant disregard for human nature to expect anything else.
This allegory is a must read for those who seek to understand how we as a general populace can gain control of a sane and just society....
Elementary levels of education occur, of course, more or less automatically in all human communities--by the learning of language and certain basic skills, for example. Plato takes that for granted. In his philosophy he is concerned with the more advanced forms of learning. In his famous "Allegory of the Cave" from Book VII of the Republic he depicts the broad stages of education through which a human being can pass. He depicts education in such a way that its stages can be seen as a process of human emancipation and self-realization. Socrates (here clearly the mouthpiece for Plato's own thoughts) lays out the Allegory of the Cave by reporting a conversation that he had had with one of Plato's brothers a few days earlier:
“Compare," I said, "the absence of education to the following scene. Imagine people who live in a big cave with an entrance that is open to the light. A number of people have been there since an early age, and they are chained in such a way that they can look only in one direction. Light comes from a fire that burns some way behind and above them. Between the fire and the prisoners is a raised footpath with a low wall--of the sort puppet players put up between themselves and their audience."
"I am imagining it," he said.
"Imagine further a number of men carrying along the wall all sorts of vessels that are raised above it, and figures of men and animals that are made of stone or wood or other materials. Some of the men who carry these things are talking, and others are silent."
"Strange figures, and strange prisoners!" he said.
"The prisoners are like us," I replied. "But now tell me, do you think that it would have been possible for these prisoners to see themselves, or to see each other? To see anything except the shadows cast on the wall of the cave by the fire?"
"Not if they hadn't moved their heads since their childhood."
"And wouldn't that also hold for the objects that were carried in front of the fire?"
"Naturally."
"And if they could talk to each other, and give names to what they saw, wouldn't they think they were naming real objects, instead of mere shadows?"
"Of course."
"And if the cave had an echo coming from the wall in front of the prisoners--don't you think that they would assume that it is the shadows that are talking?"
"They surely would," he said.
"Prisoners like that would believe that the mere shadows of things are real things, wouldn't they?"
"How could they not?"
"But now what would happen if these prisoners were liberated and thus relieved of their delusion? Take any one of them who is released from his chains and suddenly forced to stand up, turn his head, walk around, and look up at the fire. Clearly he will be in pain doing all this, and he will be unable to see clearly those things the shadows of which he saw earlier--because he will be blinded by the brightness of the light. What do you think he will say if he is told that what he had seen before was a mere illusion? And that what he was seeing now was real, and that his vision was now more truthful? And if someone pointed to the things being passed along the wall one by one, and asked him what they were, don't you think the ex-prisoner would be at a loss, and that he would believe that what he had seen before was more real than the things now pointed out to him?"
"A lot more real."
"And if he were made to look directly at the light, wouldn't he feel such great pain that he would turn back to those things which he could perceive clearly, and believe they were clearer than the new things that are shown to him?"
"No doubt he would."
"And if, furthermore, somebody dragged him by force up the rough and steep path to the entrance of the cave, and if that person didn't let go of him until he had dragged him out into the light of the sun, wouldn't the liberated prisoner be upset and quite angry? And after coming out into the light, wouldn't his eyes be so filled by the rays of the sun that he couldn't possibly perceive all of the things that we know to be real?"
"No doubt. For a while he wouldn't be able to see anything."
"He would have to get used to the light before he could perceive what exists outside the cave. At first it would be easier for him to see mere shadows, then the reflections of people or other objects in water, and only in the end the things themselves. Later he could go on and look at the things in the sky and the sky itself. And first he would see more easily the light of the stars and the moon by night, and then the sun by day in its full brightness."
"Naturally."
"So the last thing he would see is the sun as it is in itself--the real thing in its proper setting?"
"Necessarily."
"Eventually he would come to the conclusion that it is the sun that produces the seasons and the years, and that it is the guardian of all things in the realm of the visible, and that in some way it is also the cause of all the things that he and his fellow prisoners had seen down in the cave."
"That's what he would conclude in the end."
"And after all that? Don't you think he would consider himself lucky on account of the changes, and that he would feel pity for his former fellow prisoners?"
"Certainly."
"And if there had been honors and prizes among the prisoners which they awarded to the person who was fastest at recognizing shadows as they passed by, and best at remembering the sequence in which they were usually carried past the fire, and therefore was the most capable of predicting which one would come next--do you think the liberated prisoner would want to win those prizes, and that he would be envious of those who were honored in this way, and therefore had authority among the other prisoners? Or would he share the attitude of Homer and greatly desire to 'be on the earth, the slave of another man, a man without land,' and suffer anything rather than share the same opinions and live the same life as these people in the cave?"
"I think he would prefer any kind of misery rather than live the life of the cave."
"And if an ex-prisoner were to go down again and take his old place, wouldn't the sudden change from sunlight to darkness prevent him from seeing anything?"
"Quite."
"And if he had to compete once more with these cave dwellers in judging the shadows while his vision was still dim, wouldn't he be laughed at by everyone else, and wouldn't they maintain that he had ruined his eyesight outside the cave, and that the enterprise of getting outside was therefore a waste of time? And if they had a chance to grab and kill the man who tried to liberate them and lead them out of the cave, wouldn't they do just that?"
In this allegory education is measured in terms of the sorts of things that people are able to perceive. At an early stage people will not see anything except shadows, and shadows for them will be reality. At the end of the educational process people will not only be able to see the things that cause the shadows (the puppets or statues) and the original models of these things (people and things outside the cave), but also the sun that makes all seeing possible. They will realize that shadows are less real than what they are shadows of, and that the puppets and statues in turn are less real than the originals outside the cave. People who have managed to leave the cave will have a comprehensive view of reality, and they will see how every kind of thing is related to every other kind.
There are four kinds of things in Plato's allegorical tale: (1) shadows, (2) puppets or statues, (3) the original objects of which the puppets or statues are imitations, and (4) the sun. These four kinds of things are the symbolic representations of the four kinds of entities that make up reality in Plato's philosophical view of the world. What are these four kinds of entities?
The shadows on the wall of the cave stand for the notions of things that people have in their minds, notions that are more or less closely related to the things that they are notions of. People may have a certain notion of what a rhinoceros is, for example, or an Egyptian temple, or who Socrates was. But there is often a considerable difference between such a notion and the real thing. People may be mistaken about any number of details concerning rhinos or Egyptian temples, and they may have gotten their notion of Socrates from Aristophanes' slanted portrait in "The Clouds" rather than from any familiarity with the real Socrates. There is often no incentive or opportunity to check one's notions against the real world, and thus many people may live their whole lives in the illusory world of their private, unexamined conceptions of things. Like the chained prisoners in Plato's Cave who think that shadows are real they are prisoners of their own closed minds.
The puppets or statues from which the shadows are cast stand for what ordinarily are called the "real things," that is, real rhinos, actual Egyptian temples, or Socrates as he was in real life. People who are free to compare the notions in their minds with the real things are still cave dwellers, but they are not chained anymore. They have reached the first level of their emancipation. They know that private notions or images in people's mind do not necessarily reflect reality, but could be the result of their own projections or other people's lies. These halfway liberated cave dwellers, in other words, are familiar with two kinds of thing: private notions in the mind, and things in the outside world. They have gained a certain degree of freedom because they are able to evaluate critically any possible discrepancy between people's notions of things and the things themselves.
Up to this point, however, any progress in education has taken place inside the cave. Even prisoners who are rid of their chains still find themselves in a realm of relative darkness. The most significant step in their emancipation still lies ahead: the difficult and demanding climb out of the cave. Only when they have made their way into the realm of daylight will the former prisoners encounter the next category of things: the original persons, animals, and other things after which the puppets and statues inside the cave are modeled.
While Plato thus described the emancipating value of education, he obviously was rather pessimistic with regard to its popularity. In the tale of the allegory great emphasis is placed on the hostility that people feel toward education and educated individuals. The ascent out of the cave and into the light is not easy, and it requires a willingness to undergo changes that most people would find too strange to contemplate, or too painful to endure. Not only do cave dwellers dislike leaving the cozy darkness to which they have grown accustomed, they also hate and mistrust those who have been outside and who have come back to suggest that as continuing cave dwellers they may be seriously deficient. Most people strongly dislike being told that they are ignorant. Possibly alluding to the fate of Socrates in his role as intellectual gadfly, Plato concludes the Allegory of the Cave with the merely rhetorical question whether the complacent troglodytes would not “grab and kill the man who attempts to free them and lead them up out of the cave.” In Plato’s estimate, they would always be ready to do just that.
The majority of people, in other words, are too attached to their narrow-minded ways, and too resentful of anyone who tries to shake them out of their complacency. They are not willing to seriously question their own situation and their basic assumptions. And that, according to Plato, is the ultimate reason why democracy is bound to fail. Plato thought that it is not in the nature of most people to exert themselves sufficiently in the pursuit of serious knowledge and self-understanding, or to muster the necessary energy and will to embark on the long march out of the cave of half-knowledge and ignorance. It will always be only a relatively small number of people in any given population who will be willing and able to develop their intellectual faculties to a point where they can grasp their own limitations, and see what would be necessary to organize human society on a comprehensive scale and for the benefit of all.
The majority of people in any sizable polity have rarely been in control of their own destiny, and, according to Plato, they hardly ever will be. The masses will always put too much trust in their authorities, follow too readily their elected or unelected leaders, leave their serious thinking to their representatives, accept their inferior positions as natural, allow themselves to be exploited as long as it is not too crassly done, and--unless they are driven to the point of too extreme suffering--seek their happiness in little and private things. "Bread and circuses" was the formula that the imperial Romans used to pacify their masses—enough food to get by, and enough entertainment to distract their minds from their real situation. The combination of minimum amenities and non-stop entertainment by spectator sports and soap operas serves a similar function in modern societies. For a Platonist it would show a blatant disregard for human nature to expect anything else.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
War is a Racket
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
To get the full flavor of this two time winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor you can Google "General Smedley Butler". He was an interesting character. It seems things have not really changed that much......
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
To get the full flavor of this two time winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor you can Google "General Smedley Butler". He was an interesting character. It seems things have not really changed that much......
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
No Room at The Inn
In Iraq, No Room at The Inn for Auditors
By Paul Kiel - March 12, 2007, 4:04 PM
How strained are resources in Iraq? So strained that the State Department can't afford for three auditors to make a three month visit.
The State Department recently turned down a request for three congressional auditors to make a three-month stay in Baghdad, saying that having them around for that long would be "a serious challenge to mission resources."
In response, 22 Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), have called on Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to make room. "American taxpayers are currently being asked to spend approximately $3,420 every second and $280 million per day in Iraq," reads a letter to Rice sent today. "It is imperative that GAO be given the access it needs to serve as the eyes and ears of the United States Congress...."
But the burden of having those three auditors around would seem almost insurmountable... or at least that's the impression a State Department official gave in a letter to Harkin last week:
"each of [the auditors] would require lodging, extensive support services, security, computers, and other administrative support, as well as the attention of our staff in Baghdad in responding to their requests and inquiries."
You can read the entire letter here. The State Department turned down the GAO's request for a three-month stay, agreeing only to a two-week visit -- although the official pointed out that even that "will place considerable burden on Embassy staff and resources."
In the letter sent to Sec. Rice today, the Democrats didn't buy that argument, asking instead that the State Department make room for a six-month stay for the auditors.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002733.php
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Human Values?
Israeli army 'used human shields'
By Katya Adler
BBC News, Jerusalem
An Israeli human rights group has accused Israel's army of using two young Palestinians as human shields during a recent raid in the West Bank.
The B'Tselem group said it had testimony from a 15-year-old boy, his 24-year-old cousin and also an 11-year-old boy.
They said soldiers had forced them at gunpoint to enter houses ahead of the troops during the raid in Nablus.
The use of human shields is illegal under Israeli and international law.
The Israeli defence force says it is investigating the allegations.
'Knowingly exposed'
The Israeli army occupied the Kasbah, or old town, in Nablus for five days at the end of last month. It said it was hunting for militants and their weapons.
Soldiers conducted house-to-house searches. They imposed a two-day curfew on tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians.
Amid Omeira, aged 15, told B'Tselem that a group of soldiers used the barrels of their rifles to force him to enter a number of houses ahead of them.
His 24-year-old cousin Samah told the group and the BBC of a similar experience, as did Jihan Dadush, aged 11.
From their testimonies, B'Tselem says it believes the Israeli soldiers knowingly exposed Samah and the two children to danger as they expected to find armed men in the houses.
B'Tselem has accused Israel's military authorities of not adequately informing soldiers about both Israeli and international laws which prohibit using civilians as human shields.
B'Tselem says the delay in investigating similar alleged incidents in the past suggests a leniency in the army's attitude towards soldiers who use civilians in this way.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2007/03/08 17:42:09 GMT
© BBC MMVII
Regardless of which side of the fence you support, have we as a culture degraded so far that we find it not only ok, but desireable to use human shields?
Friday, March 9, 2007
Unwelcome Guests???
Have you ever had guests that overstayed their welcome? I mean guests that you really like to see every once in a while? Do they show up unannounced in the middle of the night ready to stay for an extended period of time? Do they bring with them a voracious appetite? Do they let their kids desecrate your well manicured lawn and nicely trimmed hedges?
Now don’t get me wrong, I love to see this menagerie as well as anyone else. I love to watch their interactions and various cavorting as they run and jump and play. As they meander into and out of our life, as they constantly fly into and out of our space.
They do keep me hopping. Making sure there’s enough food around, trying to protect the bushes and shrubs from their onslaughts. Just who are these sometimes unwelcome guests you ask?
Well the list is long and getting longer as the word spreads about our unrestrained hospitality. Here is our guest list:
1) a dozen or so white tail deer( have you ever seen them stand on their hind legs to trim your cedar trees?)
2) a couple of coyotes (they love to lounge under the oaks on sunny days)
3) a extended family of gray squirrels (there is no such thing as a squirrel proof bird feeder)
4) A rather nasty family of red squirrels (they actually drop pine cones on you)
5) chipmunks galore
6) sharp shinned hawks (they love our smaller feathered friends)
7) skunks, ground hogs (we call them wood chucks- have you ever seen how they climb fruit trees?)
8) my favorites are the nut hatches, juncos, cardinals, chickadees, various sparrows, blue jays, three varieties of woodpeckers and the humming birds in warmer weather. Even wild turkeys love to dine under our oak trees.
Well, no matter how much I complain, I guess I’ll settle back, enjoy the activity and try not to get too upset with the lousy job of hedge trimming the deer are doing.
Now don’t get me wrong, I love to see this menagerie as well as anyone else. I love to watch their interactions and various cavorting as they run and jump and play. As they meander into and out of our life, as they constantly fly into and out of our space.
They do keep me hopping. Making sure there’s enough food around, trying to protect the bushes and shrubs from their onslaughts. Just who are these sometimes unwelcome guests you ask?
Well the list is long and getting longer as the word spreads about our unrestrained hospitality. Here is our guest list:
1) a dozen or so white tail deer( have you ever seen them stand on their hind legs to trim your cedar trees?)
2) a couple of coyotes (they love to lounge under the oaks on sunny days)
3) a extended family of gray squirrels (there is no such thing as a squirrel proof bird feeder)
4) A rather nasty family of red squirrels (they actually drop pine cones on you)
5) chipmunks galore
6) sharp shinned hawks (they love our smaller feathered friends)
7) skunks, ground hogs (we call them wood chucks- have you ever seen how they climb fruit trees?)
8) my favorites are the nut hatches, juncos, cardinals, chickadees, various sparrows, blue jays, three varieties of woodpeckers and the humming birds in warmer weather. Even wild turkeys love to dine under our oak trees.
Well, no matter how much I complain, I guess I’ll settle back, enjoy the activity and try not to get too upset with the lousy job of hedge trimming the deer are doing.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Real Heroes II
Real Heroes II
Recently I entered a post involving Lee Marvin, Capt. Kangaroo and Mr. Rogers. It is a story that has circulated over the last three or four years to emphasize a point. The point being that true heroes are usually those common folks that show uncommon courage when in the heat of battle and still be able to not allow those experiences to overcome their humanitarian spirits. The purpose of this myth is to set up a construct to elicit a positive response from the reader and follow that with an action requesting positive support. In other words, to “sell” a point of view or action that if stated alone would may not engender support. Classic marketing technique!
This is fine in the ordinary world of commercial advertising. However,
some of our politicians have refined this technique to help sell their policy's to the unsuspecting public. The technique is as follows;
1) start with the truth (i.e. Lee Marvin was a Marine) (but not on Iwo Jima)!! or (Sadam is a strong man dictator)
2) use a half truth ( Capt. Kangaroo was in the Marines) ( but only at the end of W.W.II, too late to see combat). or (Sadam controls his country in a brutal fashion)
3) Use of a total fabrication ( Mr. Rogers was never in military service) ( upon graduation from university he became an ordained minister). or ( Sadam has weapons of mass destruction and is in cahoots with Al Quida)
4) Use points 1-3 above to support your desired action. ( Invade Iraq NOW) (so we can fight them there so we won’t have to fight them here)
Thus the advertising technique becomes a cynical inverting or distortion of facts, which, for example, makes the victim appear as culprit.
As Joseph Goebbels has been quoted “Propaganda is the art of persuading others of what you do not necessarily believe yourself”.
SOUND FAMILIAR?????
Recently I entered a post involving Lee Marvin, Capt. Kangaroo and Mr. Rogers. It is a story that has circulated over the last three or four years to emphasize a point. The point being that true heroes are usually those common folks that show uncommon courage when in the heat of battle and still be able to not allow those experiences to overcome their humanitarian spirits. The purpose of this myth is to set up a construct to elicit a positive response from the reader and follow that with an action requesting positive support. In other words, to “sell” a point of view or action that if stated alone would may not engender support. Classic marketing technique!
This is fine in the ordinary world of commercial advertising. However,
some of our politicians have refined this technique to help sell their policy's to the unsuspecting public. The technique is as follows;
1) start with the truth (i.e. Lee Marvin was a Marine) (but not on Iwo Jima)!! or (Sadam is a strong man dictator)
2) use a half truth ( Capt. Kangaroo was in the Marines) ( but only at the end of W.W.II, too late to see combat). or (Sadam controls his country in a brutal fashion)
3) Use of a total fabrication ( Mr. Rogers was never in military service) ( upon graduation from university he became an ordained minister). or ( Sadam has weapons of mass destruction and is in cahoots with Al Quida)
4) Use points 1-3 above to support your desired action. ( Invade Iraq NOW) (so we can fight them there so we won’t have to fight them here)
Thus the advertising technique becomes a cynical inverting or distortion of facts, which, for example, makes the victim appear as culprit.
As Joseph Goebbels has been quoted “Propaganda is the art of persuading others of what you do not necessarily believe yourself”.
SOUND FAMILIAR?????
Real Heroes
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Real Heros
Here is something given to me by a friend. I thought it spoke volumes and I hope you do also.
Captain Kangaroo passed away on January 23, 2004 at the age of 76. (DOB: 6/27/27) His death reminded me of the following story.
Some people have been offended that the actor, Lee Marvin, is buried in a grave alongside 3 and 4 star generals at Arlington National Cemetery. His marker gives his name, rank (PVT) and service (USMC). Nothing else. Here’s a guy who was only a movie star who served his time, why the hell does he rate burial with these guys????
Well, following is the amazing answer: I always liked Lee Marvin as an actor but never knew the extent of his Corps experiences. In a time when many Hollywood stars served their country in the armed forces, often in rear echelon posts where they were carefully protected only to be trotted out to perform for the cameras in war bond promotions, Lee was in the heat of battle. A genuine hero, He won the Navy Cross at Iwo Jima. There is only one higher Naval award……. The Medal Of Honor. If that is a surprising testament on the true character of the man, Lee credits his sergeant with an even greater show of bravery.
Dialog from “The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson”: His guest was Lee Marvin. Johnny said,” Lee, I’ll bet a lot of people are unaware that you were a Marine in the initial landing at Iwo Jima… and that during the course of that action you earned the Navy Cross and” “yeah, yeah… I got shot square in the butt and they gave me the Cross for securing a hot spot about halfway up Suribachi. Bad thing about getting shot up on a mountain is guys getting’ shot hauling you down. But, Johnny, at Iwo I served under the bravest man I ever knew. We both got the Cross on the same day, but what he did for his Cross made mine look cheap in comparison.”
“That dumb guy actually stood up on Red beach and directed his troops to move forward and get the hell off the beach. Bullets flying by, with mortar rounds landing everywhere and he stood there as the main target of gunfire so that he could get his men to safety. He did this on more than one occasion because his men’s safety was more important than his own life. That Sergeant and I have been lifelong friends. When they brought me off Suribachi we passed the Sergeant and he lit me a smoke and passed it to me, lying on my belly on the litter and said, “wher’d they get you Lee?” Well Bob… if you make it home before me, tell Mom to sell the outhouse!!!! Johnny, I’m not lying, Sergeant Keeshan was the bravest man I ever knew.
You and I know Sergeant Keeshan as Bob Keeshan, our one and only Captain Kangaroo!!!!
On another note, there was this wimpy little man (who just passed away) on PBS, gentle and quiet. He is another of those you would least expect of being anything but what he portrayed to out youth. His name, Mr. Rogers; he was a U.S. Navy Seal, combat-proven in Vietnam with over twenty-five confirmed kills to his name. He wore a long-sleeved sweater on TV to cover the many tattoos on his forearm and biceps. He was a master in small arms and hand-to-hand combat, able to disarm and kill in a heartbeat. After the war Mr. Rogers became an ordained Presbyterian minister and a pacifist. Vowing to never harm another human and also dedicating the rest of his life to trying to help lead children on the right path in life. He hid away the tattoos and his past life and won our hearts with his quiet wit and charm.
America’s real hero’s don’t flaunt what they did: they quietly go about their day-to-day lives, doing what they do best. They earned our respect and the freedoms that we all enjoy. Look around and see if you can find one of those hero’s in your midst!!
Often, they are the ones you’d least suspect, but would most like to have on your side if anything ever happened. Take the time to thank anyone that has fought for our freedom. With encouragement they could be the next Captain Kangaroo or Mr. Rogers.
(I’m also sure that Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Rogers would want us as ordinary citizens to protect those rights and freedoms they so bravely fought for. We don’t need unnecessary wars and government restrictions on our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, else we diminish the sacrifices of our hero’s. We must now be the non-combat heros. Stand up and be heard. It’s our patriotic duty!!!)
Labels: duty, freedoms, heros, patriots, war
posted by jaybird @ 3:19 PM 2 Comments Links to this post
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Real Heros
Here is something given to me by a friend. I thought it spoke volumes and I hope you do also.
Captain Kangaroo passed away on January 23, 2004 at the age of 76. (DOB: 6/27/27) His death reminded me of the following story.
Some people have been offended that the actor, Lee Marvin, is buried in a grave alongside 3 and 4 star generals at Arlington National Cemetery. His marker gives his name, rank (PVT) and service (USMC). Nothing else. Here’s a guy who was only a movie star who served his time, why the hell does he rate burial with these guys????
Well, following is the amazing answer: I always liked Lee Marvin as an actor but never knew the extent of his Corps experiences. In a time when many Hollywood stars served their country in the armed forces, often in rear echelon posts where they were carefully protected only to be trotted out to perform for the cameras in war bond promotions, Lee was in the heat of battle. A genuine hero, He won the Navy Cross at Iwo Jima. There is only one higher Naval award……. The Medal Of Honor. If that is a surprising testament on the true character of the man, Lee credits his sergeant with an even greater show of bravery.
Dialog from “The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson”: His guest was Lee Marvin. Johnny said,” Lee, I’ll bet a lot of people are unaware that you were a Marine in the initial landing at Iwo Jima… and that during the course of that action you earned the Navy Cross and” “yeah, yeah… I got shot square in the butt and they gave me the Cross for securing a hot spot about halfway up Suribachi. Bad thing about getting shot up on a mountain is guys getting’ shot hauling you down. But, Johnny, at Iwo I served under the bravest man I ever knew. We both got the Cross on the same day, but what he did for his Cross made mine look cheap in comparison.”
“That dumb guy actually stood up on Red beach and directed his troops to move forward and get the hell off the beach. Bullets flying by, with mortar rounds landing everywhere and he stood there as the main target of gunfire so that he could get his men to safety. He did this on more than one occasion because his men’s safety was more important than his own life. That Sergeant and I have been lifelong friends. When they brought me off Suribachi we passed the Sergeant and he lit me a smoke and passed it to me, lying on my belly on the litter and said, “wher’d they get you Lee?” Well Bob… if you make it home before me, tell Mom to sell the outhouse!!!! Johnny, I’m not lying, Sergeant Keeshan was the bravest man I ever knew.
You and I know Sergeant Keeshan as Bob Keeshan, our one and only Captain Kangaroo!!!!
On another note, there was this wimpy little man (who just passed away) on PBS, gentle and quiet. He is another of those you would least expect of being anything but what he portrayed to out youth. His name, Mr. Rogers; he was a U.S. Navy Seal, combat-proven in Vietnam with over twenty-five confirmed kills to his name. He wore a long-sleeved sweater on TV to cover the many tattoos on his forearm and biceps. He was a master in small arms and hand-to-hand combat, able to disarm and kill in a heartbeat. After the war Mr. Rogers became an ordained Presbyterian minister and a pacifist. Vowing to never harm another human and also dedicating the rest of his life to trying to help lead children on the right path in life. He hid away the tattoos and his past life and won our hearts with his quiet wit and charm.
America’s real hero’s don’t flaunt what they did: they quietly go about their day-to-day lives, doing what they do best. They earned our respect and the freedoms that we all enjoy. Look around and see if you can find one of those hero’s in your midst!!
Often, they are the ones you’d least suspect, but would most like to have on your side if anything ever happened. Take the time to thank anyone that has fought for our freedom. With encouragement they could be the next Captain Kangaroo or Mr. Rogers.
(I’m also sure that Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Rogers would want us as ordinary citizens to protect those rights and freedoms they so bravely fought for. We don’t need unnecessary wars and government restrictions on our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, else we diminish the sacrifices of our hero’s. We must now be the non-combat heros. Stand up and be heard. It’s our patriotic duty!!!)
Labels: duty, freedoms, heros, patriots, war
posted by jaybird @ 3:19 PM 2 Comments Links to this post
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Are WE at fault?
Is it ALL our Fault
I struggle lately with what I've been reading in the papers and seeing on the various TV "news" shows. Is it my imagination or have we lost the critical skills of thinking and evaluation. Of what is important and what is trivial, or what's the difference between leading and being led. As far as I'm concerned, the world has been turned upside down when "news" consists of a constant barrage of Anna Nicole or an astronaut love triangle. When innuendo and gossip interests (or titillates) our print/TV media more than the long-term implications of the war in Iraq, the preemptive invasion strategy of this administration and its relationship in increasing geometrically the number of potential terrorists. When we allow certain well-funded lobbyists to influence our governmental actions to satisfy THEIR selfish interests and not the best interests of the general public. When instead of INSISTING that the Middle East situation be solved according to UN Resolution 242, our government aids and abets the Israeli and Palestinian sides with money and arms in order to continue their blood feud.
Are we so lazy that we are eager to believe anything we are told? That we accept as truth the marketing campaigns by various power groups, including our own government? The use of shibboleths like "we must achieve VICTORY" without defining in meaningful terms exactly what that means and how it affects our ordinary citizens, not platitudes like "if we don’t' defeat them there we'll have to fight them here" (the use of fear rather than reason!!!!) Are we using old-time war making strategy where there is self-contained and well-defined enemy against an amorphous and ephemeral enemy? Have we learned anything from our own revolutionary war when WE were the terrorists hiding behind the trees and picking off the cream of England’s army?
I suspect Pogo”s comment that “we have met the enemy and he is us” is absolutely true. By not using critical thinking and evaluation skills we have let the “Deciders” guide and shape our lives according to their desires, not ours. For whatever reasons (fear of retaliation? being unpatriotic?) we have not inculcated in our young, let alone ourselves the sand to question, stand up and be heard. To band together so that we have more than just a voice- in- the- wind but the roar of as hurricane.
Does anyone recall Dwight D. Eisehower's admonition " Beware the military -Industrial Complex"?
Labels: Iraq, lobbyists, middle east, thinking skills
posted by jaybird @ 2:24 PM 5 Comments Links to this post
I struggle lately with what I've been reading in the papers and seeing on the various TV "news" shows. Is it my imagination or have we lost the critical skills of thinking and evaluation. Of what is important and what is trivial, or what's the difference between leading and being led. As far as I'm concerned, the world has been turned upside down when "news" consists of a constant barrage of Anna Nicole or an astronaut love triangle. When innuendo and gossip interests (or titillates) our print/TV media more than the long-term implications of the war in Iraq, the preemptive invasion strategy of this administration and its relationship in increasing geometrically the number of potential terrorists. When we allow certain well-funded lobbyists to influence our governmental actions to satisfy THEIR selfish interests and not the best interests of the general public. When instead of INSISTING that the Middle East situation be solved according to UN Resolution 242, our government aids and abets the Israeli and Palestinian sides with money and arms in order to continue their blood feud.
Are we so lazy that we are eager to believe anything we are told? That we accept as truth the marketing campaigns by various power groups, including our own government? The use of shibboleths like "we must achieve VICTORY" without defining in meaningful terms exactly what that means and how it affects our ordinary citizens, not platitudes like "if we don’t' defeat them there we'll have to fight them here" (the use of fear rather than reason!!!!) Are we using old-time war making strategy where there is self-contained and well-defined enemy against an amorphous and ephemeral enemy? Have we learned anything from our own revolutionary war when WE were the terrorists hiding behind the trees and picking off the cream of England’s army?
I suspect Pogo”s comment that “we have met the enemy and he is us” is absolutely true. By not using critical thinking and evaluation skills we have let the “Deciders” guide and shape our lives according to their desires, not ours. For whatever reasons (fear of retaliation? being unpatriotic?) we have not inculcated in our young, let alone ourselves the sand to question, stand up and be heard. To band together so that we have more than just a voice- in- the- wind but the roar of as hurricane.
Does anyone recall Dwight D. Eisehower's admonition " Beware the military -Industrial Complex"?
Labels: Iraq, lobbyists, middle east, thinking skills
posted by jaybird @ 2:24 PM 5 Comments Links to this post
molly Ivans
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Molly Ivins Charmed and Challenged Us
For those of you that missed Kathleen Parker's recent column, you can see the full article at kparker@kparker.com. Now I am not a fan of Ms Parker since I am an admitted progressive while she is decidely right wing conservative. But I must say that Ms Parker paid her respects to Molly in an very enlightened manner. I wish we could all show the same respect for the person expressing opposing view points. To quote a smal portion of her article "Ivins, the syndicated writer beloved by liberals and despised by conservatives..../ died Wednesday after a seven- year battle with breast cancer. Her parting words to readers : "Raise Hell." I have no special claim to grief when it comes to Ivins. I'm just one of millions who loved reading her. As I said in an E-mail to her a few days ago, which I'm guessing she never saw, I've been a fan as long as I can remember.
She was funny,irrevent and smart. It did'nt matter that she was often wrong, in my view (but not in mine)......Ivins fans took pleasure in telling me I should read Ivins before I died of chronic stupidity; her un-fans wrote to say they read me as an antidote to that Ivins woman. My favorite letters came from readers who said they liked us both the best, even though we were both wrong most of the time........ Molly made me laugh. I admired her style, wit, passion and smarts. As a fellow toiler in the field, I appreciated her doggedness in pursuit of our craft and the skill of her execution.......In a world short on class acts, Ivins was a star--- and the marketplace of ideas will be poorer without her. She was one great columnist. And one great broad"
Thank you Kathleen for your enlightened and thoughtfull comments.
Labels: Ivins, KParker, writer
posted by jaybird @ 3:33 PM 1 Comments Links to this post
Posted by jaybird at 3/08/2007 05:31:00 PM
Molly Ivins Charmed and Challenged Us
For those of you that missed Kathleen Parker's recent column, you can see the full article at kparker@kparker.com. Now I am not a fan of Ms Parker since I am an admitted progressive while she is decidely right wing conservative. But I must say that Ms Parker paid her respects to Molly in an very enlightened manner. I wish we could all show the same respect for the person expressing opposing view points. To quote a smal portion of her article "Ivins, the syndicated writer beloved by liberals and despised by conservatives..../ died Wednesday after a seven- year battle with breast cancer. Her parting words to readers : "Raise Hell." I have no special claim to grief when it comes to Ivins. I'm just one of millions who loved reading her. As I said in an E-mail to her a few days ago, which I'm guessing she never saw, I've been a fan as long as I can remember.
She was funny,irrevent and smart. It did'nt matter that she was often wrong, in my view (but not in mine)......Ivins fans took pleasure in telling me I should read Ivins before I died of chronic stupidity; her un-fans wrote to say they read me as an antidote to that Ivins woman. My favorite letters came from readers who said they liked us both the best, even though we were both wrong most of the time........ Molly made me laugh. I admired her style, wit, passion and smarts. As a fellow toiler in the field, I appreciated her doggedness in pursuit of our craft and the skill of her execution.......In a world short on class acts, Ivins was a star--- and the marketplace of ideas will be poorer without her. She was one great columnist. And one great broad"
Thank you Kathleen for your enlightened and thoughtfull comments.
Labels: Ivins, KParker, writer
posted by jaybird @ 3:33 PM 1 Comments Links to this post
Posted by jaybird at 3/08/2007 05:31:00 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)