This is a call and response between John Galt and myself. I've never met John, but he responded to our posting of anti-war pictures on craigslist.org and we began a dialogue that I'd like to name "Call and Response."
Me: Portland says no fucking war!
John: mass graves
Me: Thanks for showing me these pictures.
The business of funding and supporting mad men has to end. Prescott
Bush (the president's grandfather) made a shit load of money doing
business with Hitler, by supplying the Nazi's with steel used to build guns
and tanks for death.
It's too bad that people can't see the real enemy is greed, not cultures
or beliefs, just greed that causes nations to commit murder.
John: Yeah, whatever.
It would still been going on if it was up to you.
Me: Aloha,
"It would still been going on if it was up to you."
What would be going on? No greed, no slavery, no rich and poor?
bushflash
Aloha!
John: Yeah, yeah.
Keep marching and carrying signs. There's real work to be done if you are up to it. Your boy Kerry is going to get pasted in November, enjoy your 15 minutes.
Me: What "real" work are you talking about?
I am interested in what you have to say
and what you think needs to be done.
Kerry is not my man. He's another puppet, just like every other high
powered "elected" offical we've ever had "serve" us.
My view is that we should vote for people who are going to
represent our ideals. People who are going to listen and act the will of the people, not their corporate paymasters, i.e. the shadow hands.
Saddam was our dog. Trained, armed, and manipulated by US and Britain's
oil interest. A pawn, just like every other dictator we
have used and removed at will in the modern era. American Power has become a brutal monster, and in the history books this Empire will go down in a
very negative light, much like the Nazi's.
I love the Bill of Rights, and the ideals our country "stands" for. My wish is that our government walks its own dogma, and takes care of its people. Not rule the globe with an iron fist, figure-headed by an unelected cowboy fuck-face who says things like, "More and more of our imports are coming from overseas."
What do you think needs to happen? Where do you stand?
John: Well, what you say is typical of what I have been hearing from the Democrats, " I don't like Kerry, but I hate Bush." That's weak, man, weak. No default candidate is going to beat an incumbent, especially in the middle of a war.
I really feel that the world has changed, and I 1000 percent agree we've backed
despicable guys, all over the world, for years. The Shah, then Hussein against
Iran, then Bin Laden against the Soviets. Then we smack Hussein, and then incite the Kurds to revolt, leaving them to get slaughtered, NICE. That's one reason I voted for Clinton.
What I don't get, is when Bush says, "We ain't playing that game anymore." and
actually IS on the right side for once, [I mean, all the times we've done the sleazy easy thing, and this time, for once, we get it right] everyone STILL hates him !!?!?
I don't get it. I think terrorism will continue and only get worse, unless we change the root problem, which is that most of the peoples of the world are stuck under the foot of oppression. If real democracy can take hold in Iraq, then it will spread, man, maybe not like wildfire, but it will spread, to Iran, to Syria, to Saudi Arabia, you can't stop it once it gets going. And once people have a real voice in their own lives, what exactly will they be angry enough about to blow themselves up?
It's a big picture thing, I can see the overall plan, I think the WMD thing is a
huge blow, no doubt, because the NEXT time we need to preempt, and there WILL BE a next time, we aren't going to get even the minimal support we got this time.
Western Europe is corrupt, man, it's a failed welfare state, and once we stop
footing their defense bills, which we WILL, and pretty soon, their whole socialist
system is going to collapse. To hold them up as some sort of shining example, I
just don't see it.
I see the Democratic party at this point beholden. So sooo many special
interests, and having to buy them off with sooo many entitlement programs.
I see flat out racists like Al Sharpton, flat out wack-jobs like Kucinich and even
Clark and Dean to an extent. I think we need to move past all that, get to a point where we focus on the real task of bringing freedom to people everywhere, not just in their interests, but in OURS, too.
Sorry to be long winded.
Me: I agree.
Democracy is a wonderful idea.
Freedom to choose who, and how we will be governed.
I don't think there has ever been a true democracy.
Our government is a good example of that.
We get to "choose" leaders between a couple of rich guys who went
to Yale, belong to upper-upper class society, and have never had to work an
honest day in their lives.
An effective and just government would be localized democracies with
representives from the majority of the citizens (i.e., the poor and the workingclass). Decentralization of the power and the decision making, making it more difficult for "special interest" (better stated: money interest) to control the votes and the direction of foreign policy. Being an example to the world of how to govern right would be much better than forcing our way in and setting up shop, "American style."
The fact is, people do care about people and we want everybody to have a fair and just existence. Some people, like the CEO's and other super rich fucks, only care about controling the world market. They use anything including the sacrifice of American citizens. Example: 9/11 was known by the Bushies, it was uncovered in the British press months before the attack,and they sat by and used us to line their pockets and make a power grab in the Middle East.
I want a government that will stand for the ideals it was founded
on. A country that will help when asked, but never control or forcefully influence world politic's for finanical gain.
Nader is a good man, and so is Kucinich.
If people weren't so afraid of "spoilers" and vegans we might get somewhere. Somewhere is a lot better than where we are going. You are right, preempts will happen again, and things will probably get worse before they can get better, that's why we need direct action now more than ever.
Thanks
John: I agree, we are a republic, not a true democracy, Jefferson was afraid the masses were too dumb to have that much DIRECT power. If you've been to, say, a Ranger game lately, you'd probably agree.. LOL
I'll tell you what, man, you and me, let's start getting involved LOCALLY, I mean
everyone knows who the guys running for president are, but who can name their local state or congressional representative ?
Maybe then in 15 years, we'll meet in a presidential election that MEANS something.
Me: Well this has been fun. Thank you for your thoughts. I am one of the writers for http://www.salvationinc.org
We are just a small group of artists that started our own political
zine, which turned into a webzine. If you like to write for us we will gladly publish your articles. We just want to get people talking and thinking about politics, and breath some fresh air into our communities.
I've enjoyed our conversation and, with your permission, would like to use
our dialogue in one of my articles.
Thanks,
Tyler
John: Of course you may. Thanks, Ty.
I often post on Craigslist.org as John Galt and you can always reprint them. Just as courtesy, send me an email so I can enjoy my 15 minutes. =o)
- John Galt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have a topic you'd like to talk about just e-mail me lefty@salvationinc.org
If it goes somewhere, then maybe you will become the next co-author of Call and Response.
Dennis Kucinich will be in Oregon from 3/26 - 3/29.
Fri 26th 7 - 9 PM Lincoln High School gym
1600 S.W. Salmon St
Portland Public Address and Q&A
Sat 27th 8 - 9:30 AM Kalga Café
4147 S.E. Division St
Portland Breakfast with Rep. Kucinich.
Tickets $50, limited seating.
For tickets contact Theressa Mason - volunteer@kucinich-oregon.us or 503-232-8456
Friday, May 23rd, 2003
“Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death” Broadcast for the First Time Ever in the US: Eyewitnesses Testify that US Troops Were Complicit in the Massacre of up to 3,000 Taliban Prisoners During the Afghan War
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The film has been broadcast on national television in countries all over the world and has been screened by the European parliament. Human rights lawyers are calling for investigation into whether U.S. forces are guilty of war crimes. But no U.S. media outlet has broadcast the film.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The film provides eyewitness testimony that U.S. troops were complicit in the massacre of thousands of Taliban prisoners during the Afghan War.
It tells the story of thousands of prisoners who surrendered to the US military’s Afghan allies after the siege of Kunduz. According to eyewitnesses, some three thousand of the prisoners were forced into sealed containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison. Eyewitnesses say when the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S.-allied Afghan soldiers fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. The rest suffered through an appalling road trip lasting up to four days, so thirsty they clawed at the skin of their fellow prisoners as they licked perspiration and even drank blood from open wounds.
Witnesses say that when the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the containers, most of the people inside were dead. They also say US Special Forces re-directed the containers carrying the living and dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried. Now, up to three thousand bodies lie buried in a mass grave.
The film has sent shockwaves around the world. It has been broadcast on national television in Britain, Germany, Italy and Australia. It has been screened by the European parliament. It has outraged human rights groups and international human rights lawyers. They are calling for investigation into whether U.S. Special Forces are guilty of war crimes.
But most Americans have never heard of the film. That’s because not one corporate media outlet in the U.S. will touch it. It has never before been broadcast in this country.
Today, Democracy Now! brings you the premiere broadcast of “Afghan Massacre” in the United States.
“Afghan Massacre” is produced and directed by award-winning Irish filmmaker Jamie Doran. Doran is has worked at the highest levels of television film production for more than two decades. His films have been broadcast on virtually every major channel throughout the world. On average, each of his films are seen in around 35 countries. Before establishing his independent television company, Jamie Doran spent over seven years at BBC Television.
The film was researched by award-winning journalist Najibullah Quraishi, who was beaten almost to death when he tried to obtain video evidence of US Special Forces’ complicity in the massacre. Two of the witnesses who testified in the film are now dead.
* “Afghan Massacre: the Convoy of Death” - produced and directed by award-winning Irish filmmaker Jamie Doran.
You can purchase this documentary here.
Collective action towards a selfish administration with their own interests in mind. It's time we make our voices heard.
We must work together to voice our opposition to a leader that makes decisions based on profit, deception, and revenge-against the voice of their population.
I decided to link this site because of the extreme fun factor involved.
To play the game quickly hit the "refresh" icon and watch the hundreds of thousands grow. God bless you!
The Bush Administration has developed a new approach to this election year. With polls already predicting that the nation wants to take a new direction from the previous four years, Project Terror has been assembled to keep citizens scared and paranoid that unpleasent things could happen at any moment in time. The administration stresses that without another 4 years, it will only get scarier.
President Bush, seen above with Vice President Dick Cheney & Attorney General John Ashcroft (left to right) are going to wear frightening Halloween masks until November 2nd to keep voters living in fear. "BOO!" shouted Bush from the rose garden earlier today, his hands raised in the air and his feet doing a little dance. "We're still working out the rough edges of the project." Karl Rove announced, "We're consulting with both psychologists and special effect masters from Hollywood in what we hope will be a tremendous boost to the president's campaign this summer." Donald Rumsfeld was at the premier of the new Dawn of the Dead in DC this week. He wanted the public to know that without a war president, the next four years could very easily be filled with cannibalistic zombies in our shopping malls. "John Kerry has never dealt with zombies before, at least Bush has some experience fighting terrorism. Successful as he may claim to be, Kerry probably doesn't even know how to kill a zombie," Rumsfeld told reporters at the premier.
John Kerry has yet to comment on Project Terror, but did tell an audience of college students in Madison, Wisconsin that he does know how to kill zombies. "All you need to do is stop the brain, that's how most of them keep going, one good shot in the forehead should do it." Kerry's campaign manager said they're keeping a close eye on how Project Terror will be received by the public.
"We've got a bulk of masks from last Halloween that we will use if we need to. We certainly don't want to come off as the candidate not interested in inciting fear in the mainstream culture of America." She added, "A vote for John Kerry will be a vote for continued fear mongering and terror fighting."
Bush addressing the troops at a port in San Diego, where after he left, the soldiers were sent to Haiti to fight "voodoo warriors."
It's too early to tell what effect Project Terror will have on this election year. It seems to be a risk the Bush Administration is willing to take. An amended budget plan will be sent to Congress next week, adding on 1.5 million dollars in "restoration fees" for the White House, which will be turned into the largest haunted house in the country. "We're sparing no expense at fighting and alerting the public to the terror." When asked exactly what "the terror" was, Bush changed the subject. "Nice one Skip, I've spoken with over 15 leaders of nations overseas and beyond our borders too, they all agree with me." Bush was quickly escorted away from the press and into his "Ghoul Mobile."
Due to the poor economy, traveling prices have dramatically dropped.
From one war monger to the others, Rummy is making sure everything is a-ok.
A week after forecasting 2.6 million newly added jobs this year, the Bush Administration declined to endorse the prediction, saying it was "the work of number-crunchers and that President Bush was not a statistician."
There's a new toy available to keep "evil-doers" out of the picture, or out of their caves, or out of the protests fighting the same wars.
__________________________________________________________________
The Pentagon's Secret Scream
Sonic devices that can inflict pain--or even permanent deafness--are being deployed.
by William M. Arkin
SOUTH POMFRET, Vt. — Marines arriving in Iraq this month as part of a massive troop rotation will bring with them a high-tech weapon never before used in combat — or in peacekeeping. The device is a powerful megaphone the size of a satellite dish that can deliver recorded warnings in Arabic and, on command, emit a piercing tone so excruciating to humans, its boosters say, that it causes crowds to disperse, clears buildings and repels intruders.
"[For] most people, even if they plug their ears, [the device] will produce the equivalent of an instant migraine," says Woody Norris, chairman of American Technology Corp., the San Diego firm that produces the weapon. "It will knock [some people] on their knees."
American Technology says its new product "is designed to determine intent, change behavior and support various rules of engagement." The company is careful in its public relations not to refer to the megaphone as a weapon, or to dwell on the debilitating pain American forces will be able to deliver with it. The military has been equally reticent on the subject.
And that's a problem. The new sound weapon might, in some scenarios, save lives. It might provide a good alternative to lethal force in riot situations, as its proponents assert. But the U.S. is making a huge mistake by trying to quietly deploy a new pain-inducing weapon without first airing all of the legal, policy and human rights issues associated with it.
This is a weapon unlike any other used by the military, and it is certain to provoke public outcry and the conspiracy theories that often greet new U.S. military technology. If the military feels that its new-style weaponry brings something important to the battlefield, and if testing has shown it to be safe, then why not make our reasoning — and research — transparent to the world?
Nonlethal weapons have been promoted by a small circle of boosters for nearly 15 years as something increasingly necessary for the U.S. military in its growing peacekeeping, urban-combat and force-protection missions. Some of the weaponry championed by the group, like rubber bullets, flash-bang grenades and, more recently, electromuscular disruptive devices, or Tasers, has already been deployed.
But the more exotic weapons — including acoustic, laser, and high-powered microwave devices — have not until now been fielded, held up by legal and ethical questions. Despite intense lobbying, over the years the Pentagon leadership has been skeptical of such "wonder weapons." In 1995, then-Secretary of Defense William Perry decided to ban Pentagon development of nonlethal laser weapons intended to permanently blind. His decision led to a subsequent international ban.
So shouldn't we have a similar discussion about high-intensity sound, which can cause permanent hearing loss or even cellular damage? The new megaphone being deployed to Iraq can operate at 145 decibels at 300 yards, according to American Technology, well above the normal threshold for pain. The company posits a scenario in which Al Qaeda terrorists would run screaming from caves after being subjected to a blast of high-decibel sound from the devices, their hands covering their ears. But in Baghdad or other Iraqi towns, where there are crowds and buildings, the sick and elderly, as well as children, are likely to be in the weapon's range.
Proponents of nonlethal weapons argue that pain and hearing loss, if they were to occur, are certainly preferable to death, which is always possible when lethal force is applied. But this argument ignores realities on the ground. Last week, as I watched televised images of angry Iraqis pelting U.S. soldiers with rocks when they arrived to assist those injured in suicide bombings at mosques, I couldn't help but wonder whether the presence of a sound weapon to disperse those crowds would just escalate hostilities.
Last month, the Council on Foreign Relations issued a task force report on nonlethal weapons, arguing that their widespread availability might have helped in the immediate post-combat period in Iraq to reduce looting and sabotage. The council threw its weight behind greater investment in these technologies partly based on a Joint Chiefs of Staff "mission needs statement" signed last December. "U.S. military forces lack the ability to engage targets located where the application of lethal [weapon fire] would be counterproductive to overall campaign objectives," the Joint Chiefs concluded.
The Council on Foreign Relations recognized that the effect of nonlethal weapons is mostly "psychological — persuading people that they would much rather be someplace else, or on our side rather than opposing U.S. military forces." It warned that "television coverage of encounters involving [nonlethal weapons] can still be repugnant, and it would be desirable to provide reliable information to minimize unwarranted criticism."
Yet after paying lip service to the very psychological and political fallout that could result from the employment of novel technologies like acoustic weapons or high-powered microwaves, the council task force urged that prototype nonlethal weapons — that is, weapons just like American Technology's new sound weapon — "be placed with our operating forces" to test their efficacy and create greater demand among combat commanders.
Is actual combat in a foreign country the appropriate place to test a new weapon? Apparently, we are about to find out.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0307-03.htm
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/03/286415.html
US Haiti
by Noam Chomsky
3.9.04
Those who have any concern for Haiti will naturally want to understand how its most recent tragedy has been unfolding. And for those who have had the privilege of any contact with the people of this tortured land, it is not just natural but inescapable. Nevertheless, we make a serious error if we focus too narrowly on the events of the recent past, or even on Haiti alone. The crucial issue for us is what we should be doing about what is taking place. That would be true even if our options and our responsibility were limited; far more so when they are immense and decisive, as in the case of Haiti. And even more so because the course of the terrible story was predictable years ago -- if we failed to act to prevent it. And fail we did. The lessons are clear, and so important that they would be the topic of daily front-page articles in a free press.
Reviewing what was taking place in Haiti shortly after Clinton "restored democracy" in 1994, I was compelled to conclude, unhappily, in Z Magazine that "It would not be very surprising, then, if the Haitian operations become another catastrophe," and if so, "It is not a difficult chore to trot out the familiar phrases that will explain the failure of our mission of benevolence in this failed society." The reasons were evident to anyone who chose to look. And the familiar phrases again resound, sadly and predictably.
There is much solemn discussion today explaining, correctly, that democracy means more than flipping a lever every few years. Functioning democracy has preconditions. One is that the population should have some way to learn what is happening in the world. The real world, not the self-serving portrait offered by the "establishment press," which is disfigured by its "subservience to state power" and "the usual hostility to popular movements" - the accurate words of Paul Farmer, whose work on Haiti is, in its own way, perhaps even as remarkable as what he has accomplished within the country. Farmer was writing in 1993, reviewing mainstream commentary and reporting on Haiti, a disgraceful record that goes back to the days of Wilson's vicious and destructive invasion in 1915, and on to the present. The facts are extensively documented, appalling, and shameful. And they are deemed irrelevant for the usual reasons: they do not conform to the required self-image, and so are efficiently dispatched deep into the memory hole, though they can be unearthed by those who have some interest in the real world.
They will rarely be found, however, in the "establishment press." Keeping to the more liberal and knowledgeable end of the spectrum, the standard version is that in "failed states" like Haiti and Iraq the US must become engaged in benevolent "nation-building" to "enhance democracy," a "noble goal" but one that may be beyond our means because of the inadequacies of the objects of our solicitude. In Haiti, despite Washington's dedicated efforts from Wilson to FDR while the country was under Marine occupation, "the new dawn of Haitian democracy never came." And "not all America's good wishes, nor all its Marines, can achieve [democracy today] until the Haitians do it themselves" (H.D.S. Greenway, Boston Globe). As New York Times correspondent R.W. Apple recounted two centuries of history in 1994, reflecting on the prospects for Clinton's endeavor to "restore democracy" then underway, "Like the French in the 19th century, like the Marines who occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934, the American forces who are trying to impose a new order will confront a complex and violent society with no history of democracy."
Apple does appear to go a bit beyond the norm in his reference to Napoleon's savage assault on Haiti, leaving it in ruins, in order to prevent the crime of liberation in the world's richest colony, the source of much of France's wealth. But perhaps that undertaking too satisfies the fundamental criterion of benevolence: it was supported by the United States, which was naturally outraged and frightened by "the first nation in the world to argue the case of universal freedom for all humankind, revealing the limited definition of freedom adopted by the French and American revolutions." So Haitian historian Patrick Bellegarde-Smith writes, accurately describing the terror in the slave state next door, which was not relieved even when Haiti's successful liberation struggle, at enormous cost, opened the way to the expansion to the West by compelling Napoleon to accept the Louisiana Purchase. The US continued to do what it could to strangle Haiti, even supporting France's insistence that Haiti pay a huge indemnity for the crime of liberating itself, a burden it has never escaped - and France, of course, dismisses with elegant disdain Haiti's request, recently under Aristide, that it at least repay the indemnity, forgetting the responsibilities that a civilized society would accept.
The basic contours of what led to the current tragedy are pretty clear. Just beginning with the 1990 election of Aristide (far too narrow a time frame), Washington was appalled by the election of a populist candidate with a grass-roots constituency just as it had been appalled by the prospect of the hemisphere's first free country on its doorstep two centuries earlier. Washington's traditional allies in Haiti naturally agreed. "The fear of democracy exists, by definitional necessity, in elite groups who monopolize economic and political power," Bellegarde-Smith observes in his perceptive history of Haiti; whether in Haiti or the US or anywhere else.
The threat of democracy in Haiti in 1991 was even more ominous because of the favorable reaction of the international financial institutions (World Bank, IADB) to Aristide's programs, which awakened traditional concerns over the "virus" effect of successful independent development. These are familiar themes in international affairs: American independence aroused similar concerns among European leaders. The dangers are commonly perceived to be particularly grave in a country like Haiti, which had been ravaged by France and then reduced to utter misery by a century of US intervention. If even people in such dire circumstances can take their fate into their own hands, who knows what might happen elsewhere as the "contagion spreads."
The Bush I administration reacted to the disaster of democracy by shifting aid from the democratically elected government to what are called "democratic forces": the wealthy elites and the business sectors, who, along with the murderers and torturers of the military and paramilitaries, had been lauded by the current incumbents in Washington, in their Reaganite phase, for their progress in "democratic development," justifying lavish new aid. The praise came in response to ratification by the Haitian parliament of a law granting Washington's client killer and torturer Baby Doc Duvalier the authority to suspend the rights of any political party without reasons. The law passed by a majority of 99.98%. It therefore marked a positive step towards democracy as compared with the 99% approval of a 1918 law granting US corporations the right to turn the country into a US plantation, passed by 5% of the population after the Haitian Parliament was disbanded at gunpoint by Wilson's Marines when it refused to accept this "progressive measure," essential for "economic development." Their reaction to Baby Doc's encouraging progress towards democracy was characteristic - worldwide -- on the part of the visionaries who are now entrancing educated opinion with their dedication to bringing democracy to a suffering world - although, to be sure, their actual exploits are being tastefully rewritten to satisfy current needs.
Refugees fleeing to the US from the terror of the US-backed dictatorships were forcefully returned, in gross violation of international humanitarian law. The policy was reversed when a democratically elected government took office. Though the flow of refugees reduced to a trickle, they were mostly granted political asylum. Policy returned to normal when a military junta overthrew the Aristide government after seven months, and state terrorist atrocities rose to new heights. The perpetrators were the army - the inheritors of the National Guard left by Wilson's invaders to control the population - and its paramilitary forces. The most important of these, FRAPH, was founded by CIA asset Emmanuel Constant, who now lives happily in Queens, Clinton and Bush II having dismissed extradition requests -- because he would reveal US ties to the murderous junta, it is widely assumed. Constant's contributions to state terror were, after all, meager; merely prime responsibility for the murder of 4-5000 poor blacks.
Recall the core element of the Bush doctrine, which has "already become a de facto rule of international relations," Harvard's Graham Allison writes in Foreign Affairs: "those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves," in the President's words, and must be treated accordingly, by large-scale bombing and invasion.
When Aristide was overthrown by the 1991 military coup, the Organization of American States declared an embargo. Bush I announced that the US would violate it by exempting US firms. He was thus "fine tuning" the embargo for the benefit of the suffering population, the New York Times reported. Clinton authorized even more extreme violations of the embargo: US trade with the junta and its wealthy supporters sharply increased. The crucial element of the embargo was, of course, oil. While the CIA solemnly testified to Congress that the junta "probably will be out of fuel and power very shortly" and "Our intelligence efforts are focused on detecting attempts to circumvent the embargo and monitoring its impact," Clinton secretly authorized the Texaco Oil Company to ship oil to the junta illegally, in violation of presidential directives. This remarkable revelation was the lead story on the AP wires the day before Clinton sent the Marines to "restore democracy," impossible to miss - I happened to be monitoring AP wires that day and saw it repeated prominently over and over -- and obviously of enormous significance for anyone who wanted to understand what was happening. It was suppressed with truly impressive discipline, though reported in industry journals along with scant mention buried in the business press.
Also efficiently suppressed were the crucial conditions that Clinton imposed for Aristide's return: that he adopt the program of the defeated US candidate in the 1990 elections, a former World Bank official who had received 14% of the vote. We call this "restoring democracy," a prime illustration of how US foreign policy has entered a "noble phase" with a "saintly glow," the national press explained. The harsh neoliberal program that Aristide was compelled to adopt was virtually guaranteed to demolish the remaining shreds of economic sovereignty, extending Wilson's progressive legislation and similar US-imposed measures since.
As democracy was thereby restored, the World Bank announced that "The renovated state must focus on an economic strategy centered on the energy and initiative of Civil Society, especially the private sector, both national and foreign." That has the merit of honesty: Haitian Civil Society includes the tiny rich elite and US corporations, but not the vast majority of the population, the peasants and slum-dwellers who had committed the grave sin of organizing to elect their own president. World Bank officers explained that the neoliberal program would benefit the "more open, enlightened, business class" and foreign investors, but assured us that the program "is not going to hurt the poor to the extent it has in other countries" subjected to structural adjustment, because the Haitian poor already lacked minimal protection from proper economic policy, such as subsidies for basic goods. Aristide's Minister in charge of rural development and agrarian reform was not notified of the plans to be imposed on this largely peasant society, to be returned by "America's good wishes" to the track from which it veered briefly after the regrettable democratic election in 1990.
Matters then proceeded in their predictable course. A 1995 USAID report explained that the "export-driven trade and investment policy" that Washington imposed will "relentlessly squeeze the domestic rice farmer," who will be forced to turn to agroexport, with incidental benefits to US agribusiness and investors. Despite their extreme poverty, Haitian rice farmers are quite efficient, but cannot possibly compete with US agribusiness, even if it did not receive 40% of its profits from government subsidies, sharply increased under the Reaganites who are again in power, still producing enlightened rhetoric about the miracles of the market. We now read that Haiti cannot feed itself, another sign of a "failed state."
A few small industries were still able to function, for example, making chicken parts. But US conglomerates have a large surplus of dark meat, and therefore demanded the right to dump their excess products in Haiti. They tried to do the same in Canada and Mexico too, but there illegal dumping could be barred. Not in Haiti, compelled to submit to efficient market principles by the US government and the corporations it serves.
One might note that the Pentagon's proconsul in Iraq, Paul Bremer, ordered a very similar program to be instituted there, with the same beneficiaries in mind. That's also called "enhancing democracy." In fact, the record, highly revealing and important, goes back to the 18th century. Similar programs had a large role in creating today's third world. Meanwhile the powerful ignored the rules, except when they could benefit from them, and were able to become rich developed societies; dramatically the US, which led the way in modern protectionism and, particularly since World War II, has relied crucially on the dynamic state sector for innovation and development, socializing risk and cost.
The punishment of Haiti became much more severe under Bush II -- there are differences within the narrow spectrum of cruelty and greed. Aid was cut and international institutions were pressured to do likewise, under pretexts too outlandish to merit discussion. They are extensively reviewed in Paul Farmer's Uses of Haiti, and in some current press commentary, notably by Jeffrey Sachs (Financial Times) and Tracy Kidder (New York Times).
Putting details aside, what has happened since is eerily similar to the overthrow of Haiti's first democratic government in 1991. The Aristide government, once again, was undermined by US planners, who understood, under Clinton, that the threat of democracy can be overcome if economic sovereignty is eliminated, and presumably also understood that economic development will also be a faint hope under such conditions, one of the best-confirmed lessons of economic history. Bush II planners are even more dedicated to undermining democracy and independence, and despised Aristide and the popular organizations that swept him to power with perhaps even more passion than their predecessors. The forces that reconquered the country are mostly inheritors of the US-installed army and paramilitary terrorists.
Those who are intent on diverting attention from the US role will object that the situation is more complex -- as is always true -- and that Aristide too was guilty of many crimes. Correct, but if he had been a saint the situation would hardly have developed very differently, as was evident in 1994, when the only real hope was that a democratic revolution in the US would make it possible to shift policy in a more civilized direction.
What is happening now is awful, maybe beyond repair. And there is plenty of short-term responsibility on all sides. But the right way for the US and France to proceed is very clear. They should begin with payment of enormous reparations to Haiti (France is perhaps even more hypocritical and disgraceful in this regard than the US). That, however, requires construction of functioning democratic societies in which, at the very least, people have a prayer of knowing what's going on. Commentary on Haiti, Iraq, and other "failed societies" is quite right in stressing the importance of overcoming the "democratic deficit" that substantially reduces the significance of elections. It does not, however, draw the obvious corollary: the lesson applies in spades to a country where "politics is the shadow cast on society by big business," in the words of America's leading social philosopher, John Dewey, describing his own country in days when the blight had spread nowhere near as far as it has today.
For those who are concerned with the substance of democracy and human rights, the basic tasks at home are also clear enough. They have been carried out before, with no slight success, and under incomparably harsher conditions elsewhere, including the slums and hills of Haiti. We do not have to submit, voluntarily, to living in a failed state suffering from an enormous democratic deficit.
...to Nader
by Dan Matthews
Please tell me that this isn’t happening. Tell me that this is a bad Saturday Night Live Skit, and Dana Carvey as Ross Perot will leap onto the scene screaming, “I’m Back!” Unfortunately, this is no joke, no joke indeed.
Four years ago, we as a nation faced a tremendous decision: clown #1 or clown #2, until of course Mr. Ralph Nader entered the race and gave all of us little guys hope! He would fight for us from the inside! The outside insider! He knew he couldn’t win. Hell, we knew he couldn’t win, but he was on our side, outside? Four years ago the liberal fringe fought internally over who was in and who was out, and subsequently got shut out of control.
Four years ago the people of this Great Nation came to realize the truth about our pioneering democracy: it’s bullshit! We live in a representative Republic because we’re not smart enough to govern ourselves. We can’t even correctly fill out a ballot, for fuck sake, let alone appoint the “Leader of the Free World”. We need “Leader of the Free World” appointed judges to do that for us. Idealism, along with freedom, was given the back seat to nepotism and captivity. The GOP flexed its Viagra fueled visage and reminded us that these are big stakes in a big game.
I know that big party politics are corrupted by the greasy tendrils of corporate Amerika. I realize that the lies that are told on both sides are interchangeable. Party politics have been decried since the beginning of this experiment, and a certain founding father called for a revolution every twenty years to keep the government honest. I know that clown #1 would not have done things exactly like clown #2. We are no longer in an era of ideals, as somber as that may sound. There is no room for error, no leniency to vote our heart. This article is a cry to Vote with Your Head. I realize the contradiction. Why vote? It doesn’t matter. However, if it is left up to the “justice” system, the good ol’ boys are going to do whatever it takes to win the election.
This “win at all costs” mantra is the conservative’s best asset. While liberals sit around arguing over who is more liberal or who is an insider, the conservatives unite around a single goal: winning the fucking election. The liberal element in this country needs to recognize that. We know it’s all rhetoric; they’re politicians and it’s their job. Gardeners garden, plumbers plumb, and politicians lie. They have to; it’s in their DNA. Nobody, and let me stress this, nobody who has the capability to run for president is running without an agenda. Now we’re back to clown #1 or clown #2, but wait, this whole diatribe is about clown #3.
Ralph Nader is a hero to me and many people I know. He shows us all that one person can make a difference. He has championed for us as individuals over corporate conglomerates and established watch dog organizations that police the police. All of this has come from his outside standpoint, and makes me question why does he want in? I comprehend the argument that from the proverbial throne, he could rule like a modern David: fair, unbiased and just. He could fight from the inside out, changing policies and placing the power of government back into the hands of the people. I also am aware that those in power do not like to abdicate said power without a fight. It is a preschooler’s pipe dream to believe that even if his snowball’s chance in hell hit, Nader would be able to internally change anything more than his own underwear.
The current political system is so shrouded in secrecy that we as citizens must clamor for any news that isn’t spoon fed to us by the powers themselves. There isn’t a bill before the house or senate (the real powers of our government- make a difference and examine your local elections as closely as or more so than the National façade) that isn’t packed with PAC soft dollars. Political action committees slice open these bills and stuff them with agendas like heroin filled babies. Who’s going to put an end to that? A president can’t adopt a plan like that without it going through both the house and the senate, asking the thieves to turn themselves in.
Four years ago Ralph Nader called upon the American people to put an end to two party politics and made great strides in cementing a third party. Four years ago Bush stole the White House. Initially I was bitter, not towards the Democratic Party for not giving us a better candidate and uniting the factions that the party had become, but at Ralph Nader. This guy walks in and steals a vital contingent of liberal voters, with the excuse that either they wouldn’t have voted anyway or they weren’t being represented. How dare Ralph Nader give the election to the Republicans. Was he really Ralph Nader or a CIA operative? After a few years of anguishing over my apparent paranoia, I realized that maybe, just maybe the reason the Republicans won had more to do with Al Gore inventing the internet and less to do with Ralph Nader.
The Democrats dropped the ball; Nader didn’t wrestle it out of their hands. They didn’t do a better job at pulling their polling factions together than the Republicans (okay maybe they did, but it was close and close always goes to the cheaters). Ralph Nader wasn’t to blame, nor were all the people out there who knowingly voted for someone who couldn’t win to prove a point. There were no major implications. Nader was right: republicans and democrats are two heads of the same monster. Here we are four years later and nothing is different with a republican in the office than if there was a democrat in there, right?
Mr. Nader, I applaud your actions in the private sector. It seems to me that is where you are needed the most. From the outside you are not bound by their backroom biddings, no one needs you to tow the line. You can continue throwing rocks at the battleship; but please concede your ego driven run at the White House. My fellow voters, (if you don’t vote they win) vote with your head and not your heart! If it is close, they will cheat. Kerry sucks ass but he is not George Bush.
A casual complacency caused by callous causes
We’re trying to treat serious wounds with Band Aides and gauzes
But clauses in their codes are making the gap wider
While they run a race to see whose whiter
And backed by more cash, how much does it cost
To make this country realize the dream has been lost
People cloud their vision in an intimate mind-prison
Wishing they had the answers from TV. or religion
Division of the people makes us easier to conquer
With all of us sheep in a row it’s hard for one to wander
Ponder this question next time you pledge allegiance
To which corporation are you pledging obedience?
3.9.04
Attorney General (& national hero) John "Dinky" Ashcroft is having his gall bladder removed today.
John Ashcroft needs our blessings!!! Please call the Dept of Justice Office of the Attorney General - 202-353-1555 & send your wishes of good health.
Or send a get well card to:
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
An article about King George losing his cool ...
Saturday, March 20th 2004 -1PM - The World Still Says No to War - MARCH AND RALLY
March 20th is the next major mobilization against war and occupation. Save this afternoon on your calendars. This coincides with the international call to action, and with the anniversary of the illegal, immoral war on Iraq. The event will be gathering at 1pm, at Pioneer Courthouse Square.
Location: Pioneer Courthouse Square
3.3.04. Same sex marriage licenses are being given to hundreds of loving couples in Multnomah County. Of course, the protestors are there, bibles in hand, scared that love is ruining the sanctity of marriage.
I think this is a wonderful way to treat those protestors...
