Ugly Americans

In case anyone wonders why Americans may end up hated throughout the world, here's a perspective:

Blackwater

In case anyone wonders why American's should care, here's a perspective:

Haliburton -- Kellogg, Brown, and Root

There is a solution, the United States has to make contractors operating in its behalf overseas responsible to some authority for action:

Corporate Immunity

If not, here's the result:

Post WWI Italy

United States citizens ought to think about it the next time they hear their President say he's supporting platitudes as "freedom" (except Iraqis under rule of United States contractors), security (except for employees working outside the country for those contractors), and a war against terrorism (wherever President Bush says it exists and needs contractors to support it).

Remember, terrorism lies in the eye of the beholder:

Britain's view of American Revolutionaries

Take care,

jim

Totalitarian State

The so-called “War on Terrorism” appears to be making more headway with its efforts to control ordinary citizens than it is with the ephemeral “terrorist groups” those citizens are supposed to fear.

Garry Kasparov has been sentenced to five days in jail to allow for “free elections” in Russia. Kasparov is charged with organizing a protest against the government of Vladimir Putin, the person who George W Bush “was able to get a sense of his soul.”

It follows the jailing of thousands of supporters of a political opponent of Pakistani President and Bush ally, President Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf has declared a state of emergency in his country to dismiss “independent-minded judges” and control dissent from his citizens prior to a “free” election. It was the second time a political opponent of Musharraf returned to the country from exile to find supporters jailed.

While formal arrests and police control of protesters seem extreme in what could be considered the backwaters of democracies, the activities are paralleled in this nation with the creation of the so-called “free speech zones” where dissent is handled at the end of a police baton and temporary prisons.

Criticized across the extremes of political perspective, the “zones” take on the air of benign legitimacy based on the name coined for them, while effectively preventing dissenters from airing their concerns directly to their leaders. In the United States it creates a "boy in the bubble" zone for the nation's leaders roughly outlined by the DC beltway.

The name of "free speech zones" continues the misdirection aimed at American people, where a “war on terror” to protect our freedom as a country is used as justification to eliminate defined civil liberties contained in the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights and common law values dating back to the Magna Carta which helped dissolve the divine right to rule and place control of a nation in the hands of the subjects.

What is lost on those who back “law and order” as it relates to controlling “terrorism” is the fact that “terrorism” is defined as anything that opposes a ruler, and worse, in a constitutionally-defined government, the rule is by law passed with the consent of the citizens rather than the decree of the leader.

In a society where citizens treat politics as sport and political information is gathered as though watching a play-by-play broadcast during that sporting event, the basis under which this nation has been founded is lost because fewer and fewer really understand the rules by which the game is supposed to be played.

Take care,

jim

Political Perspective Challenge

I'll make the assumption that whoever happens on this blog understands my perception of the capabilities of the person I lovingly call "The Imbecile in Chief" to handle the affairs of state in these United States.

Ignoring aspersions to the legality of the vote count which put him in office, I'm stuck with him, and assume, there are some who are content to follow him to the end of his term, and some who would like him removed, and some who are ambivalent for some pragmatic reason.

Since this blog is aimed at exchanging ideas, I'm interested in hearing why those who may read these notes either believe the current leader is worthy of continuing service, or as a contrary opinion, why he shouldn't remain in office.

Since I don't believe there is binary logic (the concept there is "only" yes-no; right-wrong; black-white; moral-immoral in all decisions), I'd be interested in hearing any pragmatic discussion on the nuances which may tilt the scale nearer one of the polar opposites I posit above, yet not to the opposite as a final solution (a "moderate" position for those who are in tune with the differences between polarity and gradual leanings toward decisions).

Please offer some logical ideas here!

Offer some!

Take care,

jim

A Veteran’s Day

The veteran I knew best was my father – a World War II era draftee who served from mid-1941 until late 1945, including more than three years overseas.

He served in the Army Air Corps as a medical technician at an Army Air Corps fighter base in England. Most of the action he saw was in post mission clean up, when he joined the crews which would rescue the injured or retrieve the bodies of pilots whose planes made it to England, but crashed before reaching the airfield.

His memorable brush with danger came late in the war, when the Germans were indiscriminately launching V-1 “buzz bombs” at the cities and bases along the English coast. He was riding a bicycle along an country road when he heard a noise to his side, and looked to see a bomb skimming the earth toward him. He dove from the bike into a ditch as the bomb stuttered overhead.

My father wasn’t a loud patriot, shouting his support for the government in the “my country right or wrong” tenor that many of today’s “patriots” support their government.

He showed his patriotism by example rather than by talk, offering his neighbors the dignity and respect of being equal citizens in an equal society. His most overt acts were standing at attention facing the flag with his hand over his heart during public ceremonies where the National Anthem played, flying a flag on holidays, and later in life, raising at dawn and lowering at dusk the banner of his country on a pole installed in his front yard. One of the more memorable pictures of him was raising the flag one morning with two of his grandchildren standing at attention and saluting as he performed the ceremony.

He would talk in general terms about the freedoms – upholding the principle of freedom of thought and freedom of expression even if he didn’t agree with the ideas expressed.

About the only time I heard him talk publicly about his service was during one “father-son” baseball game where, following the national anthem, my brother-in-law, who had served in Vietnam, taunted the younger males of the family by saying loudly, “I note that I’m the only veteran standing during the national anthem.”

Dad quietly said that he believed four year’s service in World War II qualified him for the distinction as well. My brother-in-law admitted that World War II was indeed a war and apologized in his grudging way.

Ironically, it was during that Vietnam War that I learned my father’s dedication to the country.

I was a college student in the late 60s, and being strapped for funds, often used my father’s services as a barber at the times I chose to have my hair cut. It was one of those jobs he did to save money, investing in a barber kit when I was a pre-teen with three brothers to trim our hair. Eventually, when the sons were ranging in age from one to 18, he cut all seven sons' hair on a regular basis.

During my college days, when I was living at home and commuting to classes, I’d catch about every other session until I decided to let my hair grow after I’d moved out of the house.

During those sessions, he’d talk with his boys about what concerned them, and after awhile, the boys would bring their concerns to him for advice.

It was one session a couple of years after I’d graduated from high school that I brought my greatest problem to him.

I’d become engulfed in campus activism starting in late 1968, the year after I started my studies in communications arts with a focus on print journalism. After taking a few classes, I got the itch to write, and offered to become a reporter on the school newspaper.

The task was decentralized, in that, there was no strong “newsroom” focus. Assignments were casually offered out based on students calling for publicity and new journalism students seeking some advice on stories they could write. But, for the most part, with a volunteer writing staff and only a few who would work on every issue, the news editor and the managing editor used whatever stories the unpaid reporters brought back, focusing their time on insuring some fairness and double checking accuracy.

It meant that a reporter with some ambition, and an ability to write well was pretty free to pick his / her topics so long as they related back to the campus.

My hot topic was the war and what was going on with students at our campus to address it.

The war had seemed like game playing to me at first. In my pre-high school days, I thought it was “cool” that I could watch this war in the same manner I’d watched the Korean conflict play on my family’s black and white Motorola screen in my first memories.

As I got older, I'd found my father's "Time - Life Pictures of World War II" volume, and would regularly leaf through it looking at the soldiers and the mighty equipment which was used when my father served.

It wasn’t until 1967 that it hit me as “real” when I went with some ex-athletes from my high school to the funeral of the guy I’d known as a coach in my senior year, and the others had known as their quarterback in their earlier playing years.

He looked like the guy who had visited school in his uniform the spring following my first, and last, football season. He was proud of his graduation from infantry school then and happy to be with his friends. This time he wasn’t joking with the guys – he was resting in his casket.

I was in my first year in college when the call came that Carl had been killed.

Standing at the casket, it struck me that the scenes I watched on our family’s color TV weren’t the “games” I’d envisioned when I watched the conflict in Korea, and later played “war” with my friends using little rubber soldiers and off-sized military equipment to set up "battles" in neighborhood sandboxes, and still later with mimic guns running around “the woods” a half mile from my suburban home.

Unlike our games of “war” where the rubber soldiers were “dead” if knocked over by a tossed dirt clod, or "battles" were won in the woods based on how many times someone got the drop on you and “shot” you, Carl wasn’t going to play again.

So, I looked into what was the basis for the fighting, and then saw one friend join the Marines, and another get drafted into the Army after he’d dropped out of school to earn some cash to pay for tuition.

The first friend eventually was wounded, and, I learned later, deserted from the military rather than return. After he dropped from sight, I learned that his cousin was on the newspaper with me. I mentioned we were friends, but I hadn't talked to him in years. His cousin said, "Didn't you know he deserted? He's avoiding everyone!"

The second and I stayed in touch, and corresponded regularly – me offering him a view of “home” and he offering me a view of “war.”

I recall one letter which said, “Don’t come over here if you can avoid it. We’re only over here for Michelin rubber” after my writing changed from news of home to sharing (and seeking some common ground on) my observations of the dysfunction of the politics which got us into the war.

Wrestling with it, I decided that to honor my friend who was there, I wouldn’t avoid service, but I didn’t want to learn how to kill another man simply because some politician forced me to carry a gun.

It was during one of those haircuts when my father and I were talking about politics, and Vietnam. I was scared, but thought I should tell him what I was thinking about.

“Dad,” I said. “I know you are a veteran, but I’m checking into fighting the draft. I’m looking into being a conscientious objector. I’m not going to run away, but I’m not going to let them make me carry a gun and kill people.”

There was a long pause, which made me more nervous. Finally Dad said, “I brought you guys up to make your own decisions.

“I served, but it was to make sure that we had the freedom to make those decisions.

“I support whatever you’re comfortable with.”

Take care,

jim

"Liberal"; "Neocon"; "Right"; "Left"; "Democrat"; "Republican"; "Christian"; "Muslim"; "Jew"; "Commie"; "Islamo-Fascist" -- on Being Played for Saps

My first encounter with the talk radio phenomena was in 1996 while taking a cross country automobile trip with my favorite companion -- my wife.

Our idea was to merge a first visit to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan for either of us with a search for the "real" America by staying away from the interstates on a trip to the Pacific Northwest.

Driving along US 2 in a family van equipped with an AM / FM receiver, it became tough to stay in touch with the outside world as the highway left the last “big” city in upper Michigan and wound toward Duluth.

As the population density shrank, the towns got farther and farther apart, and my wife’s search of the dial looking for any news from the path ahead, would catch the edge of a 1000-watt AM station offering a selection among a preachy woman's voice talking about morality and responsibility, or a loud man's lofty language expressing what was causing "the problems" in our society, or an atonal preacher urging us to follow the Bible, or country music.

Since I’m not fond of country music, and can only take the preacher until he tells me he's the only one who knows how Jesus wants me to live my life, the option was to hear out the preachy woman and the loud man while waiting for news and weather at the next time check or travel in silence without the outside information we sought.

It turned out to be a daily dose of Dr. Laura and then Rush, or Rush and then Dr. Laura marching one behind the other on a schedule between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. weekdays. The only variety was as one station faded and a new one encountered, we may get an instant rerun of the broadcast from the last zone.

It seemed as though every station manager used Rush and Dr. Laura interchangeably to fill those six hours regardless of the time zone.

As we focused more on the background sound while we drove across the sameness of North Dakota’s prairie farms and found fewer "new" things to point out to each other while we rode, I discovered that the tone of the message was "liberal influence is ruining our lives."

Fancying myself one during the Vietnam era, at first I was offended until I realized that what was purported to be "liberal" didn't match what beliefs I held.

"Liberal" was "duped by the media" (I could separate information from manipulation), pro-homosexual (I was ambivalent as long as I wasn't invited to participate), pro-government (not during Vietnam anyway), anti-gun (I'm not fond, but see a use in some instances particularly as we traversed the outback of Montana), anti-individual (I felt free and easy and didn't really care about another being such so long as they didn't interfere with my freeness and easiness), against religion (I thought myself religious), pro-abortion (I wasn't), anti-family (I was taking a trip with my wife because we enjoyed each other's company), unwilling to take responsibility for mistakes (well, I knew we were on our own if something went wrong during the trip), and generally anti-American (I was looking for a broader perspective of the real America!).

How could the speakers get it so wrong?

Having been trained in communications and the media, I guessed the region’s demographics along the Canadian border was pretty much people seeking reinforcement of their isolated beliefs.

Logic didn't matter so long as they were convinced the speaker was "with" them.

It drew listeners to justify ad time on the prairies, the "business" behind commercial radio no matter where broadcast.

So, what became more interesting than the lecturing was the types of callers who would show up on the airwaves to be abused by the hosts. I couldn't figure whether they were seeing their 15-minutes of fame, or were so removed from reality that they didn't realize they were being used. The debate was authoritarian – you’re either with me or wrong.

And, for the most part, the callers left the impression they’d join up with the radio voiced “debater.”

It was then I began to question the crutch – the shortened description of the “problem” which always seemed to creep into the answer. Dr. Laura’s “liberal” was different from Rush’s, but in either instance, its application was ruining whatever semblance of order the microphone owners urged on their listeners between commercial breaks.

Were we children, the “logic” associated with using the term was the same which kept us from looking beneath the bed for fear of finding the “boogie man.”

Having been born and raised and largely oriented to a bigger metropolitan region than I encountered around Grand Forks, Glasgow, Kalispell, Sandpoint, Coeur d’ Alene and Spokane, I thought the phenomena unique to relatively small towns – until we hit Seattle, where we’d still encounter the voices while surfing through the (thankfully) broader variety of entertainment and information (KIRO -- 710 became the regional favorite).

The “boogie man” shtick was a staple no matter what the demographic.

But wait, before those who don’t like a Rush, or a Dr. Laura, or an O'Reilly begin nodding wisely about those talkers' flaccid logic, apply the same “boogie man” definition to the terms in the title used by lesser known radio harranguers who justify their ad time with a "different" perspective.

The single word philosophies are staples in discussion whether you live where the vote was red or blue or the philosophy tends toward right of left.

Many live in a sound bite society where taking the time to think about the ideas behind the terms isn’t as easy as latching on emotionally to a term and following where the pundits who throw it out lead us. We don’t have time to discuss, so, instead, we shout terms at each other in “debate.”

And, every time we shout one of those terms we’re asserting “my boogie man is scarier than your boogie man” and limiting debate to how frequently and loudly we can shout our selected boogie man name.

All it does is herd us behind the few who coin the terms – the one’s who we allow to play us for saps.

Take care,

jim

Ten Steps to Fascism

I took the time last winter to read William L. Shirer's classic: _The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich -- A History of Nazi Germany_.

It was sobering to learn how a single, and largely uneducated man, could take a dysfunctional view of society and influence an allegedly advanced society to become the number one outlaw nation on the planet.

News broadcast over that winter seemed to parallel some of the actions and concepts of characters like Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, and Goering.

Recently Naomi Wolf has defined another concept for controlling an unwitting public with 10 steps taken by dictators in recent history.

They too seem familiar:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

2. Create a gulag

3. Develop a thug caste

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

5. Harass citizens' groups

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

7. Target key individuals

8. Control the press

9. Dissent equals treason

10. Suspend the rule of law

Read the full story here. (See: The Guardian)



Some added commentary. (See: Harpers)


Take care,

jim

My religious right?

I've read the bible, and follow few statements from Jesus which summarize its content. To paraphrase the statements:

Treat other people in a manner you'd like them to treat you.

Before you point a finger at another's failures, take a look at the face in the mirror to point at that reflection's failures.

Don't bother judging another's actions because at some point The One Who Matters will judge yours.

If you treat someone with few worldly goods in a kind manner, you're actually treating The One Who Matters in a kind manner.

It's easier for a camel to get through a one-person-sized gate in a Jerusalem's defensive wall than it is for a person with lots of worldly goods to pass into a happy afterlife with The One Who Matters.

Now, these may not be termed Jesus' ideas from the politically-leaning Christian spokespeople -- sometimes referred to as the Religious Right -- because they don't parrot the words in a bible (see http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/).

But that's the point.

They don't speak for me, and, if they bothered to understand what Jesus said, shouldn't speak in behalf of others.

Religion is personal. One is saved by one's actions rather than how the rest of the people in his society perceive those actions (See the quote about pointing fingers above.).

They lay down a foundation against which public expression of religious is "approved" (See the quote about judging others above.). And that's not their Right, at least as Jesus saw it (See Luke Chapter 18 Verses 9-14 in your favorite bible version.).

Society has a right to regulate itself. But not when it comes to how we address The One Who Matters. (See Matthew Chapter 22 Verse 21 in your favorite bible version.).

Take care,

jim

Stupidest President

I was dining with a number of work colleagues, who weren't discrete enough to mask their negative opinions of anyone who doesn't support George W. Bush.

It triggered the emotional statement:

"George W. Bush is the stupidest person I've ever encountered or heard about as a leader of this country. He's illiterate, illogical, and inept -- a guy who has ruined everything he touches, including the Texas Rangers. It's embarrassing to have him represent me on the world stage. Those who support him are simply sheep, unable to observe his actions, and repeating what his shills in the media tell them to recite in public."

As the dinner was allegedly among "professionals" there was a stunned silence, since "politics" which didn't go along with the majority trend is forbidden.

The leader of the pro-Bush discussion retorted, "Well, I guess we see who's the liberal here. Kerry was . . ."

I didn't respond because my observation wasn't "liberal" but instead an analysis of the President's public actions where he doesn't offer logical thoughts either by argument, or worse, by appropriate grammatical construct, and makes pundit like statements to adults on topics only preschoolers may find interesting ("refineries are the factories which produce gasoline").

It was based, in part, on feedback from friends in Australia who indicate that we American's are a public laughing stock whenever the President is featured in that country's news. This response from a strong "ally?"

On the way home from the dinner, wondering why I didn't fight back, I thought:

No one bothered to defend their "leader's" intelligence.

Like those who berate the "liberal media bias" to prate their own biases from a media pulpit, they demonize the speaker rather than address the logic or illogic of the statement.

They're more impressed with the trappings of the leader ("I respect the presidency") rather than the leader's actions (For what it's worth, I respect the Presidency too. I'm just embarrassed about who we put in it this time.).

The next day, I found it interesting to hear that something like 25 percent of the American people still defend the president. This was compared to 30-something percent who believe there are space aliens living among us.

Look here for some of the wit and wisdom of Bush (See: Slate).

Take care

jim