one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Wednesday, December 31, 2003 |
Who ARE the Founding Fathers, anyway?
The USA - a land born of genocide and suckled on slavery and cradled in manifest destiny, all the while declaring itself to be the greatest thing to happen to mankind since the Code of Hammurabi.
When the best defense against its crimes it can muster is the timeless cry of the naughty child - "sister did it tooooo!," the thoughtful cannot help but engage in a little introspection, even if it stretches unused muscles.
In the family of nations, America is a child, more accurately an infant.
Ringing prose about modernism and enlightenment will be read with a different perspective by those who count the age of their culture in millennia. As a fine piece I lost the link to mentioned, much of the ills of the world today are merely unpleasant side effects of the blip that consists of the economic preeminence of Europe these last few centuries.
Is the United States a nation at all? In the sense that it declares itself to be so, and thereby becomes one according to the institutions and constructs of its own design, sure.
But it is a nation in the same sense as Kurdistan? Iran? China? Egypt?
The demographic changes that are underway now may lay the foundations of making it one; the popular Amanda Pepperidge concept of the US's "founding," of MinuteMen and pilgrim feet will, in centuries to come, rate closer to a Leif Erickson size paragraph in the history books, while the current labor pains of desperate desert crossings and perilous sea voyages in nonstandard vessels, the ghadi made sari made poncho by women who pat out naan and tortillas and injera and fill them with whatever their neighbor's mother taught in a land they never heard of, brave men whose unshakable recognition that there is not and never shall be any real difference between "in" and "on" raise the poor patchwork soup of leftovers called English to a new place of dignity that at last brings the rules of its pronunciation into a blessed harmony with its phonetic chaos: who is to say that "th" cannot be pronounced as "s" if the speaker pleases, in an alleged language in which "gh" is usually silent?
The Founding Fathers are at this moment hard at work hanging sheet rock, suppressing a smile at the funny people who do not even know how to find their way home without a sign with writing on it, who do not even know that they who now hang the sheet rock were Americans with written languages and poets and astromomers long before the funny people used tools.
The process of reclaiming the continent has begun. And yes, it is one continent.
The Founding Fathers and Founding Mothers come in twos and twelves and sometimes dozens, however they can, from other parts of the continent, from all other continents. They come for those they leave behind, but they also come to build a nation, a nation built from fringes that roofs and landscapes and manicures and woks its way into the center, replacing what cannot hold with something permanent.
They come to slowly, inexorably make the lie into reality, tap tapping with hammers forged in ancient fires to homeimprove the facade, a foundation, walls, sides, a roof.
No law, no migra, no fence can stop them, no draconian regimes, no war can impede them, no amount of parental angst can prevent your children from marrying them.
It was remarkably clever of Mr Jefferson to pen his own remake of the Great Law of the Iroquois, and it is remarkably courageous of the Founders to apply themselves to the task of wresting it from the slimy maw of exploitation in a capitalism T shirt and install it firmly in the temple of Hope.
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath--
America will be!
You are not supported as long as you continue to serve the unjust and horrific U.S. government.
You are not protecting the public in the United States by carrying out the imperialistic orders of your Commander in Chief. You are actually taking part in activities that further endanger the U.S. public by creating further hatred against the United States among the international community. Actions like the militaristic invasion of Iraq serve to create an increase in future September 11, 2001 type reactions in the United States. The only beneficiary of your work is the U.S. economy and U.S. corporations who have a vested interest in rebuilding and helping to run a U.S. occupied Iraq.
Yes, Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator but that is NOT the reason you were sent into a war in Iraq. While the label of a “humanitarian” effort may be easily digestible and morally acceptable, this is the furthest reason for the war in Iraq. The U.S. government, while convincing you and telling the U.S. public that this is a war for the liberation of the Iraqi people, is only after the regional power and extensive resources that the occupation of Iraq will bring. By allowing U.S. corporations to “rebuild” Iraq and by placing a U.S. friendly puppet regime in Baghdad, the U.S. government and economy will benefit tremendously from this unjust pursuit.
Unfortunately, you are the pawns of privileged U.S. governmental policy makers who send you out to massacre populations, risking your own lives only to help increase their corporations and economy. As your loved ones back at home support you and believe you are protecting the freedom and democracy of the United States, you may come home to them only in a body bag – a death that would not be protecting anything other than U.S. economic interests.
The United States government, at no time in recent history, has been involved in “humanitarian” pursuits. If this truly was the concern in Iraq, why then didn’t the U.S. government act to remove Saddam from power when he first began committing atrocities against his own people? Why did Bush Sr. stop after the removal of Iraqis from Kuwait? Why has the United States government, if it is so concerned with “humanitarian” efforts consistently overlooked and ignored international humanitarian violations? Why did the United States government purposely sit back and watch as an estimated 800,000 people were massacred in Rwanda by the Hutu government in 1994? Why did the United States even remove UN peacekeeping troops from the area?
Realize you are being fed lies by the U.S. government, lies that make you risk your lives for what you believe is the safety of the U.S. public. You are not supported as long as you continue to serve the unjust U.S. government, its corporations and economy. You will be heavily supported when you exercise disloyalty to the military and refuse to kill for the U.S. economy. You will be supported when you spread the truth that this is not a “humanitarian” effort.
The choice is yours – come home in a U.S. corporate made body bag, dying for the economy and increasing the threat of terrorist attacks on the U.S. public…or refuse to serve and fight in this corporate war and come home in the most honorable way – by standing up to your Commander in Chief.
It could be a threat, a concession or just a bluff, but the West Bank "disengagement plan" revealed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon early yesterday has something to offend everybody except the Israeli centre at which it was aimed.
In his keynote speech to the annual security conference in Herzliya, north of Tel Aviv, Mr Sharon announced that if there was no agreement with the Palestinians under the stalled US-backed "road map" within the next few months, Israel would impose its own unilateral solution by redeploying to lines of its own choosing.
If forced to take this unilateral action, Mr Sharon warned, Palestinians would be worse off than if they had negotiated an agreement.
The speech broke new ground - and infuriated the Israeli right - by not only promising (again) to dismantle some of the recently established Jewish settlement "outposts" in the West Bank, but by speaking for the first time of redeploying some of the smaller, more isolated older settlements.
But in the same speech Mr Sharon also stated bluntly for the first time that there were areas of the occupied territories that Israel would never give up.
"Israel will strengthen its control over those same areas in the Land of Israel (Israel plus the West Bank) which will constitute an inseparable part of the State of Israel in any future agreement," Mr Sharon said.
"I know you would like to hear names, but we should leave something for later."
The speech follows weeks of hints from within Mr Sharon's Administration that he plans to "withdraw" Israeli troops and some settlers behind the line of the controversial fence which Israel is building inside the West Bank.
Palestinians have long complained that the fence dips deep into their territory to take in armed Jewish settlements planted by Israel inside the seized Arab territories and regarded as illegal by most of the international community.
They say it will also physically annex East Jerusalem and more than 40 per cent of the remainder of the West Bank, including the Jordan valley, to Israel.
The rest of the land they claim for a future state would be turned into a series of discontinuous "bantustans", surrounded by Israeli troops and armed settlements and under only nominal Palestinian control.
The Palestinian Authority reacted angrily to Mr Sharon's speech, saying it confirmed predictions that the fence was a new land grab disguised as a security measure.
"I am disappointed to hear that he (Sharon) is threatening the Palestinians," said recently appointed Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie. "I was expecting something new. We are committed to reaching a permanent agreement... If Mr Sharon is ready to start negotiations we can do it sooner than anybody can expect."
In the Gaza Strip, the spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, said: "Sharon is asking Palestinians to raise white flags, to surrender. This is totally rejected by our people. We will not surrender and our people will defend themselves."
The Israeli plan was also criticised by the White House, despite Mr Sharon's statement that it would not conflict with the US-sponsored road map for peace and would be co-ordinated with the US.
"We would oppose any unilateral steps that block the road towards negotiations under the road map," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
"The United States believes that a settlement must be negotiated and we would oppose any effort - any Israeli effort - to impose a settlement."
Later, however, a Bush Administration official briefing reporters in Washington hailed Mr Sharon's speech as positive.
He said Mr Sharon had reaffirmed the road map and any suggestion the White House was displeased with him was a misreading of what Scott McClellan said.
Even the suggestion of dismantling established West Bank settlements is a departure for Mr Sharon, a veteran hawk who campaigned bitterly against the previous Oslo peace process on the grounds that it meant giving up Israel's claim to the entire Biblical Land of Israel.
Within Israel, his apparent change of heart is attributed to his falling popularity with the Israeli centre, which is worried about the lack of any initiative to end the three-year intifada.
Polls show that most Israelis believe the security fence is justified and necessary to prevent Palestinian terror attacks but are also willing to give up territory and settlements in return for peace. Many are also concerned that in the absence of a separate Palestinian state, higher Arab birth rates could soon make Jews a minority in the lands currently under Israeli control.
The battered Israeli left, which has long warned of this "demographic time bomb" reacted coolly to Mr Sharon's speech. Veteran Labour Party leader and former prime minister Shimon Peres told Israeli television that the speech merely delayed inevitable decisions.
The plan was supported by Tsachi Hanegbi, Public Security Minister and a hardline member of Mr Sharon's right-wing Likud party. "He is warning them (Palestinians), if you don't rein in terror, forget about it, you won't get anything," he said.
Al Gore endorsed front-runner Howard Dean today. Dean owes his meteoric rise up the pop charts, as well as his bulging campaign chest, to his enthusiastic support of Ariel Sharon's atrocities against Palestinian civilians, including such controversial elements as the Policy of Starvation and the Torture Lottery.
After a graceful regroup from a thoughtless remark suggesting that the US should be "even-handed" in the Middle East, Dean had a talking-to from his AIPAC exec on loan campaign boss and a few "advisors" and before you can say "collective punishment," the good Doctor zoomed to Israel to apologize and even pointed out a few chinks in the seemingly impervious Bush administration support for the pariah entity, and promised that with Dean as Prez, unconditional will mean just that - no ifs and or buts about walls and settlements or getting stingy with the dollars.
Although traditionally considered the party of the Liberals, this time around Dems have taken a leaf from the late George Wallace, who vowed after losing an election in 1958 that no one "would ever out-nigger him" again.
Just as Wallace went on to run on a Segregationist and Proud campaign, the Democrats have vowed that no one will out-neocon them, and Dean is the man to make the plan work!
If you love PNAC but wish Bush were just a little more metrosexual, then Howard Dean is your candidate, and the Democratic Party is your new political home.
Forget the nay-sayers who try to paint the Democratic party as the party of the poor and downtrodden, the brown and out, the New Democrats make it very clear that they are here for the well-heeled white wine and white skin set who like their brown folks carefully selected for humility and telepeal and their poor out of sight.
Come next year, the PNAC band just might be getting a new Boy Singer! posted at
Wednesday, December 10, 2003 |
How America Spent Human Rights Day, 2003
After a dazzling week in which US troops killed at least 15 Afghan children, terrorized, maimed and disappeared an unknown number of Iraqis of all ages and stripes, decreed that the dead would no longer be counted, and treated the world to an inspiring video of America's brave soldiers gleefully shooting to death an Iraqi who was writhing on the ground in a most militant and disrespectful manner, after which a fresh-faced young man, starry-eyed with the glamor of it all, called the experience "awesome," of course the really big story of the day, and the one that has captured screens and tongues in both Europe and the New World alike, is this:
Should America get to keep all the money, or should it share it with countries who don't send their own fresh-faced boys over to help "interrogate" the wives and children of those ungrateful wretches who persist in resisting the Occupation despite their neighbors having been mouth-taped and hauled off, never to be seen again for expressing anti-Coalition sentiments?
Few can be found who do not have an opinion, and even fewer who are of the opinion that the US should take its bombs and handcuffs and portable torture chambers and fresh-faced war criminals and rolls of tape and go back home, and let the Iraqi people have the money, the oil, the money from the oil, the money for fixing things to get oil that the US blew up, or wouldn't let them fix since the last time they blew it up, let them have their art treasures and their ancient jewels, their land itself.
It is unclear when, or if, the US voters will reach a "tipping point." Ignorance of "world events," indeed the world itself is something of a point of pride with the average affluent suburbanite, and a quick round of eavesdropping on any commuter train or at any office water cooler will provide a wealth of anecdotal non-scientific polling results on the question of what the average voter thinks about what human rights should be accorded to those that they have been carefully taught to hate.
Even those who claim to be "against the war" seem to think that the solution lies in arranging for Iraqis to be killed by soldiers from more countries. Yeah, that's the ticket. Happy Human Rights Day.
Israel's hard-line prime minister, Ariel Sharon, has ordered his intelligence chiefs and defence forces to prepare a secret plan to drive "hundreds of thousands" of Palestinians out of the West Bank.
They would be deported to the no-man's land in southern Lebanon.
The area is a desolate landscape with freezing conditions in winter and broiling temperatures in summer.
There is scant soil to produce food. Water is also scarce in the region.
Sharon has calculated that, if the plan is implemented, it will cause a furore across Europe. But he believes it will be supported by the powerful Jewish lobby in the United States - the only country whose opinion now ultimately matters to the Israeli leader.
Jordanian intelligence chiefs say that the operation - details of which were leaked to them by a "friendly foreign intelligence service" - could start next year, when the United States will be heavily engaged in the Presidential election campaign.
Blair is not known to be a great fan of Ariel Sharon. Bush, on the other hand, nowadays regards the aged Israeli leader as a powerful instrument to help him win next year's election.
London based sources with good connections to the Jordanian secret service say Sharon wants the plan ready by the end of the year.
"He seems to be resigned that the roadmap to peace will then be over - and that terror groups will resume their suicide bomber attacks," said one of the sources.
Sharon believes this will give him "a just excuse" to remove the Palestinians - as they would then pose what he has called "a totally unacceptable threat to the safety of Israel."
Details of his plan have also been leaked last week to Western intelligence services, including MI6. King Abdullah II of Jordan revealed his own fear about Israeli intentions on his recent visit to London.
"Driving out Arafat and his Palestinians would lead to an uprising in the Middle East against everything Western," said a senior Jordanian intelligence officer.
Of immediate concern to Abdullah is that his own tiny kingdom ' "a mere pimple on the rump of Arab nationalism" was how one Western intelligence report describes Jordan - could be swept away.
Its Arab neighbours have not forgotten that in 1991, King Abdullah's late father, King Hussein, lent his support to Saddam.
With the prospect of an influx from the West Bank of Palestinians and the pro-Iraqi sentiments of many Jordanians, who are bitterly opposed to King Abdullah's acceding to American pressure, the 41-year-old monarch could find himself toppled - or even assassinated.
Actions like Sep 11 do not happen in a vaccuum.
Long before those hijackers ever stepped foot on the planes the damage
had been done. They were brainwashed with the same type of garbage
propaganda that is spewed from Fatwa's weblog.
Middle Eastern countries are so much more barbaric today and preAmercia than America can ever hope to be...America has only been around 230 years...who did you blame for everything before that Ductape? I am calling a Fatwa on your bullshit!
IMO - terrorist plain and simple. He is an Al queda operative who
should be put in a cage on gitmo Skinner
My favorite..."In Defense of Holocaust Deniers"
I always thought that "The Enemy Within" was just a metaphore for liberalism, that is, until I encountered Ductape Fatwa. He should be in an orange jumpsuit for sure.
peopleforchange.netductape is either a commie, al queda, or a deep cover mole
Tells you something about this asshole doesn't it. He's really serious.
I believe that DF is nothing but a Republican plant...
Ductape is a commie, a terrorist, and he drinks blood too. He drinks
Capitalist blood. He eats unborn babies too
Give me your address and I'll send you $20 and a thank-you note for taking your hatred elsewhere.
A terrorist with a sense of humor!
He ain't nuthin' but shit
inadequate, halfway house bullshit
You are a dumbass. Fuck you and your condescension about us "benighted sheeple." hamletta
Untruthful, damaging bullshit
no better than the neocons and no different than Timothy McVeigh
dailykos.coma turd in the punchbowl...if DF were Joe Hill he probably would have killed himself rather than get put to death.
A compost pile of fecundity
dailykos.comdespicable and literally mentally ill