Global

Whether one views the 9/11 "terrorist" attacks as blow back, a wake-up call, or an unjustified outrage, they have deeply affected the American psyche and our attitudes toward war, the future, and the world. As a historian trying to understand this phenomenon, I tend to view the government's behavior, before and after 9/11, in the context of its leaders' past actions.

Before 9/11, Bush's inner circle of neoconservative advisors proclaimed the need for a dramatic expansion of U.S. military might entailing "full spectrum dominance" over all other nations and regions (including outer space), long term petro-resource control with permanent Middle East bases, and a preemptive First Strike policy against recalcitrant states. In September 2000, however, the neocon's flagship think tank, the Project for a New America Century, warned that this "process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Mr. Wasserman's column has crucially glaring omissions: GWB loves Jesus, is an instrument of God, and is doing God's work so if you don't believe me, just ask them.  Sadly, possibly nothing in the column can likely be refuted: the information is out there for the entire world to see, but is in the eye of the beholder(s).  Montel recently claimed in effect it has been proved that people who are cruel to animals don't care what they do humans: if so and if reports of a particular child blowing up frogs are true, nothing in Mr. Wasserman's column should be a surprise to any of us.

There is a growing consensus in the United States that mainstream commercial media are by and large not mainstream at all but instead are supportive of the corporate agenda.  Of course, the largest media companies (which provide most Americans' news) and their large advertisers are themselves mammoth corporations.  In addition to promoting policies that advance corporate interests, our major media often appear to place profits ahead of investing in in-depth quality journalism.

To be sure, there are numerous web-based, alternative, and community-supported media challenging the corporate consensus.  But for all their integrity and brilliance, these media outlets cannot challenge corporate power.  They're too small, they don't frame issues on a national scale, they don't win debates, and they don't set the political agenda.

The blank document is the obvious retention of a progressive Ego. Not meant to represent the exactness of this perspective but a focus that makes a major circumstance understandable. At times I have experienced the bleak and harsh woe. Moaning and gnashing the thought was relentless in its assault. This is madness! Other times pure bliss was a fullfilling ripe and splendid state of phenomenon no matter were it a breath of fresh air or the moments relaxation that comes only from exaustion and completion.

I have just finished reading Mr. Wasserman's article and would like to comment on it.  I live in Marshall, Texas, and was here during the Karla Fay Tucker episode.  I recall vividly how angry and saddened I was at the treatment she received under the Bush regime.  I am not condoning her actions; she deserved to be punished for the crimes she committed.  But I did not feel that the death penalty was appopriate for her.  She admitted her wrongs and had sought and apparently found the absolution in, as Mr. Wasserman noted, the religious conversion that Bush credits for making him a man worthy of receiving direct instructions and guidance from God on how to rule the country and dominate the world.  

It's time to stop beating around this Bush and start beating up on him--but good. There is no set of humanitarian or democratic principles by which this administration would not have been removed in any sane society. The last election was questionable at best, and his reckless, dangerous and criminal actions in the ensuing years have shown the whole world he is unfit to govern. The only democratic remedy, impeachment, was set aside early and forcibly by an opposition still afraid of its own shadow. It did make some sense, early on, to argue that, since the Greasy Oil Plutocrats (GOP) controlled both houses, it was a waste of time and energy.

Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Powell, Ridge, Rumsfeld, Powell, Scalia, Rove

PRESIDENT BUSH: Alright, gentlemen. You really screwed up this time. We have very serious business to discuss.

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: I know, George. Those damn Iraqis are going nuts on us. The assassination of our designated council leader. The beheading of Nick Berg. And those photos of the abuse. They've really hurt us. It's time we took action. Every media outlet that carried those photos needs to be shut down. We're going to crush these people once and for all.

KARL ROVE: We're taking steps to destroy CBS, Ted Koppel and all the other clowns that ran with that story. This won't happen again.

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: And Seymour Hersh, you can count your days.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL ASHCROFT: Media use of photos of Iraqis tortured by American troops is an act of terrorism.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Whoa whoa whoa, guys. First things first. We'll deal with that Iraqi stuff in good time. I want to talk about what's really important. Why isn't David Souter dead?

AUSTIN, Texas -- It's quite difficult to convince people you are killing them for their own good. That's our basic problem in Iraq.

            You can try explaining that you are killing them in order to bring freedom and democracy to their nation -- "Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in the world. And as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom," said President Bush. However, this argument is less than convincing if an American bomb or bullet has just killed your child. Or if you were among the 70 percent to 90 percent of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib who were there by accident.  

            Team, our national debate on this occupation is approaching the hopelessly dotty. This is no longer a matter of trying to decide if the glass is half-empty or half-full, or whether our media are looking at this through rose-colored glasses or through a glass darkly. What is, is. The trend lines get steadily worse.

The nearly forty million Americans of African descent find ourselves in an unprecedented situation, with the slow demise of affirmative action. The enemies of racial justice have not (yet) reinstalled “colored” and “white” signs at restrooms and restaurants. Jim Crow segregation isn’t just around the corner. Yet something more powerful and deadly seems to be on the agenda.

As an attorney, I am asked about important court cases, including Brown v Board of Education (May 17, 1954; 50th anniversary is near).  No one can measure the monstrous impact of government schools imposing racism and teaching racism as official policy for so long.  Government school racism did much more damage than private enterprise could ever have afforded to do. It would have been better if government had stayed out of the schools altogether.

    The Brown decision ignores how government schools started the problem that Brown ended.  When government began socializing schools in the late 1800's, it expanded government-mandated racism.  Brown is another example of government peeing on everyone and then claiming that it was rain.

    The Pledge of Allegiance was written (1892) by a bigot who was a self-proclaimed national socialist and advocated that government should operate all schools as a socialist monopoly and end all of the better alternatives.  The government forced children to attend segregated schools where they recited the Pledge using it's original  straight-arm salute.