A hatemonger exposed

Here's a great example of how hatemongers are often more interested in being martyred than actually being heard. Not surprising, since we all know what would happen should their blatherings be subjected to rational scrunity.

Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, who heads an anti-immigrant party, decided to make a short anti-Muslim film entitled 'Fitna' (strife). The purpose of the film was to argue that Islam was inherently violent and barbaric and to show the Koran as being fascist.

Mainstream Dutch channels refused to show the screed, which certainly played into the free speech martyr image that Wilders hoped for. An image that fit perfectly with the 'all Muslims want to silence criticism' thesis of his film.

But a Dutch Muslim broadcaster threw a curveball. It decided to call Wilders' bluff and offered to show Fitna unedited on its channel.

Wilders refused this wide exposure and released it on the internet.

In doing so, it exposed what many already knew. Wilders was nothing more than a cheap hatemonger who was more interested in pretending to be a victim than to advancing any kind of civilized dialogue.

Follow the money

Upon reading the comments of an acquaintance on another blog, I decided to take a look at the contribution pages for the campaigns of both Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Each of them has a series of conditions you have to agree to. Such as being of a minimum age, donating your own money, etc. Most of the conditions were similiar between the campaigns except for two.

Obama's campaign required you to swear that...

-This contribution is not made from the funds of a political action committee

and

-This contribution is not made from the funds of an individual registered as a federal lobbyist or a foreign agent, or an entity that is a federally registered lobbying firm or foreign agent.

Hillary's campaign had no problem accepting money from political action committees and lobbyists for corporations or even foreign agents.

Is anyone really shocked?

But it's certainly something in plus column for the Obama campaign.

Update: His foreign policy mindset is worth a look too.

Don't waste your vote

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader (along with running mate Matt Gonzalez) asks why the liberal intelligentsia continues to give their unconditional support to the Democratic Party, despite their continued refusal to act on causes most dear to liberals.

When they came to power, Democrats told us that impeachment would 'off the table' because they have more important things to do.

Like what? Help get us out of Iraq? Extend access to health care to all Americans? Dismantle America's foreign empire?

It turns out that the critical issue that the noble Democrats have been spending their valuable time on, such that they can't address these other issues? Steroids in baseball.

... and Nancy Pelosi strikes out looking.

After over a year in control of Congress, the Democrats have shown no indication that they will get us out of Iraq... or even that they will lead us in that direction. This, despite the fact that most Americans believe the war has been an unmitigated disaster.

Democrats won't advocate universal health care, despite the fact that nearly 2/3 of Americans support guaranteed health insurance for all. At best, Democrats want to nibble around the edges, even though 90 percent of Americans think the health system needs either 'fundamental changes' or 'to be completely rebuilt.'

Democrats won't tackle the bloated 'defense' budget, a budget that's mind-boggingly wasteful even if you exclude the two interminable wars of choice that are undermining our national security.

Democrats won't tackle corporate ownership of government, because they are controlled by corporate money as much as Republicans.

So if the Democrats are too cowardly to take positions on key issues that the majority of Americans support, why exactly should I vote for them?

Why should an anti-war citizen vote for a party that's enabled a disastrous war of aggression?

Why should an anti-militarist vote for a party whose main candidates have not ruled out future wars of aggression against non-threatening countries like Pakistan and Iran?

Why should someone who wants universal health care vote for a party whose candidates wants to make the insurance companies even more powerful?

Why should someone who oppose militarism and an imperial foreign policy vote for a party whose candidates continuously fund these projects?

Why should someone who believes corporate ownership of government has subverted our democracy vote for a corporate-owned party that subverts democracy?

My suggestions are simple. And it's based on a simple question. Do you hold your beliefs in theory or do you actually want them to become reality as soon as possible? If it's the latter, then the suggestions aren't exactly rocket science.

If you're anti-war, vote for a candidate who opposes the war(s)... in action. Don't vote for a candidate who's acted to perpetuate the war(s).

If you support universal health care, vote for a candidate who wants to implement access to health care for all Americans.

If you oppose militarism and empire, vote for a candidate who hasn't enabled it.

If you oppose corporate ownership of government, then vote for a non-corporate owned candidate.

If you really think about it, none of these suggestions are particularly radical. Nothing more than common sense.

For years, liberals and progressives have continually voted against their beliefs in the hope that, despite all evidence, the Democrat nominee would betray their recent record.

At the same time, conservatives and militarists have continually voted in support of their beliefs. They don't pick anti-militarist candidates like Ron Paul. They flogged John McCain back in 2000 when he was anti-theocracy.

In the last decade, which approach has been rewarded at the polls nearly every time?

If you waste your ballot on a candidate who opposes your beliefs, then you'll end up with exactly what you voted for... or worse.

Cheney spits on troops

It's well-known that Vice President Dick Cheney is the most arrogant public figure in this country. But despite his legendary pomposity, his gall continues to astonish even those observers who thought they had gotten use to it.

Cheney started off by insisting that the biggest burden of the Iraq war was carried by George W. Bush. A man who lives in an air-conditioned mansion with taxpayer-funded four-star chefs, with the greatest security detail of any man alive, who jaunts around the world in a luxurious jumbo jet and who will retire comfortably to his ranch in 10 months time.

According to Cheney, Bush carries a far greater burden than the soldiers braving roadside bombs and suffering in the 120 degree heat or their spouses back Stateside trying to raise families alone or veterans maimed in combat vaillantly trying to rehabilitate themselves.

If poor Bush ever feels the burden is too much to handle and wants to get some rest and relaxation, he should feel free to swap jobs with a GI in the Sunni Triangle.

Cheney also pooh-poohed complaints by soldiers who are being deployed repeatedly to Iraq and risked being burnt out. They should really just shut their yaps because it's a volunteer army. Besides, they probably wanted to be sent back to the hellhole three and four times.

In a previous essay entitled 'The astonishing arrogance of the clueless privileged,' I referred to President Bush as a twat, a word I'd never used before in this blog. And yet both that title and that description could just as easily apply to the vice-president.

A nation of infants

Here's something I doubt the folks who bemoan 'political correctness' will say much about. Because according to popular fairy tale, 'political correctness' is only used against conservative ideas.

A Queensbury (NY) resident named Chris Schmidt was recently arrested for a second time for holding up a protest sign in neighboring Glens Falls that read 'Down with the fascist' on one side and 'Fuck Bush' on the other.

The man was cited for disorderly conduct.

I'm certainly no advocate of swearing being part of the political discourse. It's tasteless, demeans a serious debate and says more about the person uttering it than about the object of the invective.

But I've been an anti-war protests when 'fuck you' was one of the more mild insults hurled our way and those people weren't arrested.

Nor should they have been.

Sure such language may have offended some people. But unfortunately political speech will offend people sometimes. That's one of the hazards of democracy.

I'm offended by bumper stickers that read 'Nuke em all and let Allah sort em out.' I'm offended by bumper stickers that read 'If there hadn't been Pearl Harbor, there wouldn't have been Hiroshima.' I'm offended by bumper stickers that imply opposing Bush's policies is a slap in the face to the troops. I'm offended nearly every time Bush opens his mouth.

But I'd never say this kind of speech should be banned. And I'd never say these people should be arrested.

If you can say 'fuck' (or worse) against anti-war protesters, why you can't you say 'fuck' on a sign? Why are the two forms of political expression treated differently? Why is such language permitted on bumper stickers but not on a political sign?

But the thing most upset me was the remark by an observer.

"Language is a very powerful tool," Glens Falls resident David Smith told The Post-Star.

This is absolutely right, which is why I disagree with the use of such language in political discourse.

However, Smith added, "If you're going to use that kind of language, you're asking for people to get violent."

This is absolutely dumbfounding.

The irony is that such comments illustrate the protester's point. Infantilizing the population, saying they need to be protected from uncomfortable ideas, these are key traits of fascism. In fact, at the very root of fascism is the fearmongering proposition that dissent inherently leads to disorder such it must not be tolerated.

It reminds me of how some fundamentalist Islamic societies treat women. They claim that men are so out of control so women must keep their faces or heads covered at all times. They claim that the mere fact of a woman showing her face will provoke uncontrollable men to rape them. It treats men as infants (although it's the women who are made to suffer because of it).

David Smith thinks that Americans are so childish that the mere fact of one person insulting the president is going to incite them to violence. They are unable to control themselves in the face of political words.

I'd like to give Bush supporters more credit. I'd like to think that they are not so immature and out of control to 'get violent' just because someone doesn't like their man.

But if they really are that fanatical or inherently violent, then it's they who need to be restrained, not Chris Schmidt.

After five years of "Liberation," Iraqis are leaving their country in droves because Americans won't

Five years after the launching of the Iraq Aggression, our fearless Leader declared the invasion a "major strategic victory in the broader war on terror."

But Bush's propaganda is belied by reality.

It's easy to be fearless when you're making such declarations from the safety of the Pentagon. But whenever Bush or any of his cabinet members go to Iraq, they have to slink in under cover of darkness because it's so dangerous.

I've already detailed the many ways in which the Aggression has been a disaster, both for Americans and Iraqis. And how it's been a great triumph for the theocrats in Iran.

And a recent poll of Iraqis showed that while many feel that some things are better now than under, still 57 percent want all foreign troops to leave the country immediately. Additionally, 81 percent of non-Kurdish Iraqis view Americans as occupiers, not liberators.

And most to the point: only a third of all Iraqis believe that the Occupation is doing more good than harm.

Only 11 percent felt the Occupation forces were doing enough to restore basic services like drinking water and electricity, services that were taken for granted under Saddam's regime.

This is echoed by the Red Cross. The resolutely, sometimes frustratingly, neutral organization called the situation in Iraq one of the most dire humanitarian emergencies in the world.

And while far right ideologues will call into question the integrity of one of the most respected organizations in the world, just as they do to anyone who isn't a blind apologist for this Disaster, reality continues to smack us in the face... none more so than the Iraqis themselves.

There's one fact that screams for attention.

The number of Iraqis seeking asylum in 2007 nearly DOUBLED as compared to 2006.

If things are getting better, then why are people fleeing at an unprecedented rate?

This in 2007, after five years of US control of Iraq.

The Iraqis obviously aren't sure how much more "Liberation" they can take.

And here's one more fact, after half a year of the vaunted Surge.

35 percent of Iraq's pre-war population remain either refugee in other countries or displaced within Iraq.

These are facts that speak clearly to the situation because they are actions taken by people not to save their jobs or what's left of their integrity, but to save their lives. As such, they speak with much more authority than some ideologue pontificating from a keyboard in a comfortable American suburban living room.

Or from the White House.

Fundraiser for Iraq vets' org

Matt Funiciello passes along information on the following fundraiser that will benefit Iraq Veterans Against the War. The film will be shown tomorrow at 7:30 at the Rock Hill Bakehouse Cafe in Glens Falls.

Wed Mar 19
7:30 pm
** FILM FUNDRAISER **
Donations will be taken, 100 % of which will go to Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW)
Suggested donation is $5.00 dollars. We will pass along every cent to aid the IVAW in its current "Winter Soldier" hearings in Washington.

WINTER SOLDIER (1972)
Vietnam Veterans Against The War
96 min.
RT Rating = 100 %

In 1971, with the My Lai massacre still vivid in the public consciousness, 109 Vietnam War veterans gathered in a hotel in Detroit and, in front of news journalists and a collective of young filmmakers, spoke frankly about their experiences in Vietnam. They called themselves the Winter Soldiers and their testimonials are devastating: women raped and disemboweled, children murdered, prisoners thrown from helicopters, ears severed, villages burned, and families slaughtered.

Almost instantaneously, a pro-war backlash set out to discredit the veterans and their stories, and though their brave confessions were hailed by many senators and congressman, the news media never aired any of the footage. The filmmakers who were present, including Barbara Kopple (HARLAN COUNTY U.S.A.), masterfully edited the three days of interviews into a single 96-minute presentation.

Almost as harrowing as the accounts themselves are the haunted looks and the trembling voices of the young men as they speak openly of becoming debased monsters who were willing to commit atrocities. Though the film seemed to be inexorable evidence that Vietnam war crimes were commonplace rather than anomalous, the film received scant screenings, and the stories never reached the majority of the American public.

During the 2004 presidential election, the Winter Soldier Investigation resurfaced in regards to John Kerry's involvement with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and his role as a pivotal organizer of the event. A group of veterans, indignant over any supposed defamation of soldiers and their actions, set out to attack Kerry's wartime credentials, and to paint the Winter Soldier stories as spurious and fabricated.

In 2005, more than 30 years after it was made, WINTER SOLDIER received general distribution, and the film remained as unsettling and pertinent than ever. The charges that the men were imposters seem ludicrous in the face of these blistering and self-crucifying descriptions.

And the winner of the Iraq Aggression is...

What does it say that every time G. Walker Bush or R. Bruce Cheney or J. Sidney McCain or the War Secretary of the day goes to Iraq, it's secretive, unannounced and cocooned by a massive security detail.

But when the nutjob in charge of Iran pays a visit to Baghdad, it's a very public, grandiose state visit.

How is this possible?

According to some, the "Surge" has made the country a near paradise. One has to ask: the country or the Green Zone?

Those who actually risk their lives to go to Iraq see a different picture than the ideologues.

So not only has this Aggression been disastrous in human terms (mostly Iraqi, of course), in terms of the physical destruction of Iraq's infrastructure and in terms of the defraying of Iraqi society, but the Aggression has destroyed our own influence and credibility (even in the eyes those we claim to have 'liberated') while dramatically increasing the influence and credibility of those we call not just the Enemy, but Evil.

Anyone with an ounce of understanding of human nature knew this was always going to be the case. But such people have not been running this country for some time.

Ahmadinejad can have a grandiose state visit. Bush has to slink in and out under cover of darkness. Does this sound anything like the portrait of a 2008 Iraq that the militarists presented us back in the day? I thought they'd be giving Bush flowers and kissing his feet.


5 years.

Over 500,000,000,000 of our tax dollars wasted.

Nearly 4000 American soldiers have lost their lives to help accomplish all of the above.

And oh by the way, an estimated 150,000 Iraqi civilians have died during the "Liberation." Some estimates are much higher. But there are at least 80,000 that have actually been documented.

What have the results been?

-The myth of a Saddam-al Qaeda link has been discredited;

-Saddam never had weapons of mass destruction, just like pre-war critics such as the much-smeared Scott Ritter and Hans Blix insisted. (You'll remember that all the 'evidence' of the WMD program presented by the militarists in 2003 dated from 1998 and earlier);

-The Middle East is now far more unstable because of the refugee crisis provoked by the Aggression;

-The number of acts of and deaths from terrorism has skyrocketed since the Aggression was launched in 2003. In fact, the rate of deaths due to terrorism has gone up ten-fold since the Aggression was launched;

-The massive flow of refugees out of Iraq into countries like Jordan and Syria demonstrates that living conditions in Iraq are more desperate than even under a genocidal autocrat.

And ultimately, this is the most damning fact of all because it represents the decisions made by people who are most affected by what the US government has done, by the forces it's unleashed. It represents decisions made by people whose lives we claimed we wanted to improve.

Millions of Iraqis have made the agonizing decision to leave their homeland because of the mess we've created.

Despite the b.s. coming out of some people's mouthes, many hundreds of thousands of people have concluded that they feel safer in an Outpost of Tyranny than in 'Liberated' Iraq.

After all this, it's clear that aside from this country's biggest welfare recipients ("defense" contractors), the biggest winner of the Aggression has clearly been Iran.

And it's even clearer who the losers have been.