In order to have a valid argument, you have to prove or at least support your points with either accepted fact, such as: the US Declaration of Independence calls for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; or questionable facts that need independent documentation/verification, such as the Taliban now uses weapons provided by the USA to the Mujahideen during the 1980s:
"Among the weapons the U.S. government sent or had delivered to the Mujahideen were Soviet-origin SA-7 Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs), FIM-92 Stinger SAMs, AK-47 assault rifles, and other small arms and light weapons.
"Suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden was apparently able to procure a number of SA-7 SAMs and Stingers, which he could use to target civilian aircraft in future acts of terror. [3] [this is their footnote for THEIR source]
"The Taliban ...are now armed with weapons left by the Soviets, weapons left over from the U.S. arms pipeline of the 1980s, and arms recently sent by Pakistan, which has leftover stores from the 1980s and acquires other items on the international black market. Pakistan has allegedly continued to provide the Taliban weapons in violation of the UN arms embargo put in place in December 2000. [4]" http://www.fas.org/terrorism/at/index.html
This is the same Pakistan, btw, run by Military Dictator Pervez Musharraf, whom the US has supported for many years. "Since 2001, Pakistan has become one of the largest recipients of U.S. security assistance, including arms transfers; from FY2002 to FY2006, Musharraf's regime has received nearly $1 billion in Foreign Military Financing (grant aid provided to foreign countries specifically for the purchase of US weapons), and has signed government-to-government agreements for nearly $4.34 billion in U.S. weaponry, according to the Defense Department.* http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/11/us_arms_sales_to_pakistan_new.php
That's what is meant by referencing your argument.Read. Study. Learn. Listen to Bill Moyers, Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, etc. Listen to people you don't agree with. Engage.
Listen to the Thomas Jefferson hour on Tuesdays on NPR to get an educated and informed perspective on what the founders of this country really intended. Jefferson's view was MUCH closer to Ron Paul's than to George Bush's or even Ronald Reagan's.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
My responsibilities as a US citizen
Well, I've been ignoring my blog a little the past few days b/c I've gotten caught up in message board arguments that I should probably avoid--but then there's the voice that says, "We change the world one opinion at a time" and that it's no more wasting my time to refute one person's regurgitation of US indoctrination than it is to teach a class of 25 about metaphor and simile when probably none of them will ever use that information.
So I wanted to repost some of my arguments here because I believe they're valid--and I spent hours researching them; I'd hate all that work to be lost in the Facebook ether! ;-)
In response to someone's claim that I defended states that use propaganda and indoctrination:
I find the propaganda and indoctrination in the US worse than any I've ever seen. Granted, I've not lived in China or any Sultanate or dictatorship, and I have no doubt those places are worse.
The thing that most infuriates me about the US is the hypocrisy. We ALWAYS support a pro-corporatocracy dictator (like Noriega and Suharto) over a populist Democrat (Allende, Lumumba, Chavez).
We DID support Castro when he overthrew Batista, b/c we thought he'd do what we wanted. He didn't, so he became the bogeyman. We didn't give a shit what he did to his people as long as he did what WE said.
We supported Saddam Hussein in the Iraq Iran war. Again, we didn't give a shit what he did to his people as long as he did what WE said.
We supported Osama bin Laden and the Mujahadeen against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Never mind that women in Afganistan had the most rights and opportunities under the USSR that they have ever had (including now, when they are worse off than before Sept 11--for evidence, go to http://www.rawa.org/index.php). Why do you think the Taliban is fighting us with US weapons? HELLO! And hey, for those of you conderned about the War on Drugs, the US has made deals with drug dealers throughout Afghanistan, which now (again) provides the vast amount of heroin for the world. At least the Taliban kept heroin production relatively low.
I care about these things b/c I was born in the US and because yes, the US military industrial complex is destroying the world. The US-based corporatocracy is flooding developing countries with toxins and poisons; it's encouraging the deforestation of rainforests that are absolutely ESSENTIAL to human survival on the planet; it produces 45% of the CO2 produced in the world, even though the US makes up only 4.5% of the world population. The island nation of Tuvalu is suing the US in the world court for our contributions to global warming, because the Tuvalese, who have lived there for hundreds of years, now have 6 inches of water in their homes and government buildings, because of global warming. Even the Chesapeake Bay where I live has risen 3 centimeters in the past 10 years.
And these environmental issues don't even take into account the increasing militarization, destruction of community and indigenous ways of life, genocides, sweat shops, and other attrocities to which the US contributes hugely.It is not my job to tell other countries how to run themselves, other societies what's best for them. My job is to look at my OWN society and determine what I can do to stop it from destroying itself and other parts of the world with it.
As a US citizen, I have an obligation to the rest of the world to:
Witness, identify and publicise attrocities
Speak out and educate others who aren't aware
Engage in the political system to bring about change
Commit civil disobedience when and where I must to show my commitment
Do whatever I can on a person and social level to alleviate the suffering of the millions who suffer b/c of the US's actions in the world.
The US was founded and built on dissent and the right to free expression--as well as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I cannot in good conscience pursue my own happiness when the conveniences provided by my society destroy the lives and happiness of others.
So I wanted to repost some of my arguments here because I believe they're valid--and I spent hours researching them; I'd hate all that work to be lost in the Facebook ether! ;-)
In response to someone's claim that I defended states that use propaganda and indoctrination:
I find the propaganda and indoctrination in the US worse than any I've ever seen. Granted, I've not lived in China or any Sultanate or dictatorship, and I have no doubt those places are worse.
The thing that most infuriates me about the US is the hypocrisy. We ALWAYS support a pro-corporatocracy dictator (like Noriega and Suharto) over a populist Democrat (Allende, Lumumba, Chavez).
We DID support Castro when he overthrew Batista, b/c we thought he'd do what we wanted. He didn't, so he became the bogeyman. We didn't give a shit what he did to his people as long as he did what WE said.
We supported Saddam Hussein in the Iraq Iran war. Again, we didn't give a shit what he did to his people as long as he did what WE said.
We supported Osama bin Laden and the Mujahadeen against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Never mind that women in Afganistan had the most rights and opportunities under the USSR that they have ever had (including now, when they are worse off than before Sept 11--for evidence, go to http://www.rawa.org/index.php). Why do you think the Taliban is fighting us with US weapons? HELLO! And hey, for those of you conderned about the War on Drugs, the US has made deals with drug dealers throughout Afghanistan, which now (again) provides the vast amount of heroin for the world. At least the Taliban kept heroin production relatively low.
I care about these things b/c I was born in the US and because yes, the US military industrial complex is destroying the world. The US-based corporatocracy is flooding developing countries with toxins and poisons; it's encouraging the deforestation of rainforests that are absolutely ESSENTIAL to human survival on the planet; it produces 45% of the CO2 produced in the world, even though the US makes up only 4.5% of the world population. The island nation of Tuvalu is suing the US in the world court for our contributions to global warming, because the Tuvalese, who have lived there for hundreds of years, now have 6 inches of water in their homes and government buildings, because of global warming. Even the Chesapeake Bay where I live has risen 3 centimeters in the past 10 years.
And these environmental issues don't even take into account the increasing militarization, destruction of community and indigenous ways of life, genocides, sweat shops, and other attrocities to which the US contributes hugely.It is not my job to tell other countries how to run themselves, other societies what's best for them. My job is to look at my OWN society and determine what I can do to stop it from destroying itself and other parts of the world with it.
As a US citizen, I have an obligation to the rest of the world to:
Witness, identify and publicise attrocities
Speak out and educate others who aren't aware
Engage in the political system to bring about change
Commit civil disobedience when and where I must to show my commitment
Do whatever I can on a person and social level to alleviate the suffering of the millions who suffer b/c of the US's actions in the world.
The US was founded and built on dissent and the right to free expression--as well as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I cannot in good conscience pursue my own happiness when the conveniences provided by my society destroy the lives and happiness of others.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Are we really ready?
Is the US really ready to elect a black man president? Or is this a "we'd rather have a black MAN than a white WOMAN? or is it rich white liberal guilt?I find it very hard to believe that this country is ready for a black president. Or rather—because I don’t think color (or gender) has much to do with a person’s ability to do the job—that this country is ready to VOTE IN a black president. Especially one as erudite and intellectual as Obama obviously is. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing, nothing at all against the young, idealistic, multicultural, inspiring man who has studied the mannerisms of his predecessors and made them his own; all through Thursday night’s speech I saw shadows of Martin and Malcolm, Tutu and Mandela, even Maya Angelou and Oprah, and yet he was never more his own man than when he gave that speech.
For the first time in many years I am shocked AND surprised—and even more amazing is that it is a PLEASANT shock. Unfortunately, years of cynicism make me question both the rationale and the legitimacy of the whole thing. If it’s true that the corporatocracy runs things, then it matters not one whit whether the candidate is black, green, purple; or for that matter, whether it is a he, she or it. All that matters is that the person is a tool of the corporatocracy; being so, anyone can win. Being not, no one can win. Barack Obama does not seem to be a tool—he has worked extraordinarily hard (and somewhat successfully) to come across as honest, sincere, trustworthy. His idealistic rhetoric truly does restore hope. Yet in this fractured society, can his message really pull a majority out to vote for him.
Sadly, also, we already see harbingers of attitudes to come if Obama gets the nomination—check this out, gleaned 3rd hand from Salon but important as a reminder http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/:
By sending forth Hussein Osama out of Iowa, Democrats have unwittingly weakened their general election prospects.
Hussein's exotic mixture of radical liberalism, Kwanzaa Socialism, antipathy towards the unborn, and weakness against his jihadi brethren will all come back to destroy him against almost any Republican opponent, even the snake-grope from Hope. . . .
As defenders of this great Republic, and of the pinnacle of Western civilization that it represents, we should all come together tonight and agree on a common strategy that will keep the White House from becoming a madrassa.
Most important for me, however, is that I have come around to the belief that only Hillary Clinton is our only hope. No offense to Obama, but I don't think he can do it. Even though I ADORE John and Elizabeth Edwards, I don't even think Edwards can do it. I think Hillary is the only one with the experience combined with the MEANNESS to do what has to be done—everything is going to fall apart either just before or just after Bush leaves and we need someone who doesn't give a SHIT what people think, who knows what has to be done and will do it.
It's not going to be a time for a new vision, it's going to be a time for pulling this country back from the edge of the chasm. I don’t want someone—especially someone I like and sympathise with—stuck in the middle of a vortex of absolute chaos with no idea where to go next. Gimme the woman with 8 years on the job and her husband—best two-for-one bargain this country’s ever going to get in national politics—and set them to it, because we’re going to need all that they can give us plus as many contributions from the rest of the field as we can get!
For the first time in many years I am shocked AND surprised—and even more amazing is that it is a PLEASANT shock. Unfortunately, years of cynicism make me question both the rationale and the legitimacy of the whole thing. If it’s true that the corporatocracy runs things, then it matters not one whit whether the candidate is black, green, purple; or for that matter, whether it is a he, she or it. All that matters is that the person is a tool of the corporatocracy; being so, anyone can win. Being not, no one can win. Barack Obama does not seem to be a tool—he has worked extraordinarily hard (and somewhat successfully) to come across as honest, sincere, trustworthy. His idealistic rhetoric truly does restore hope. Yet in this fractured society, can his message really pull a majority out to vote for him.
Sadly, also, we already see harbingers of attitudes to come if Obama gets the nomination—check this out, gleaned 3rd hand from Salon but important as a reminder http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/:
By sending forth Hussein Osama out of Iowa, Democrats have unwittingly weakened their general election prospects.
Hussein's exotic mixture of radical liberalism, Kwanzaa Socialism, antipathy towards the unborn, and weakness against his jihadi brethren will all come back to destroy him against almost any Republican opponent, even the snake-grope from Hope. . . .
As defenders of this great Republic, and of the pinnacle of Western civilization that it represents, we should all come together tonight and agree on a common strategy that will keep the White House from becoming a madrassa.
Most important for me, however, is that I have come around to the belief that only Hillary Clinton is our only hope. No offense to Obama, but I don't think he can do it. Even though I ADORE John and Elizabeth Edwards, I don't even think Edwards can do it. I think Hillary is the only one with the experience combined with the MEANNESS to do what has to be done—everything is going to fall apart either just before or just after Bush leaves and we need someone who doesn't give a SHIT what people think, who knows what has to be done and will do it.
It's not going to be a time for a new vision, it's going to be a time for pulling this country back from the edge of the chasm. I don’t want someone—especially someone I like and sympathise with—stuck in the middle of a vortex of absolute chaos with no idea where to go next. Gimme the woman with 8 years on the job and her husband—best two-for-one bargain this country’s ever going to get in national politics—and set them to it, because we’re going to need all that they can give us plus as many contributions from the rest of the field as we can get!
Thursday, January 3, 2008
The Iowa Caucuses
Just read Salon’s round-up of talking heads’ and celebrities’ (?!? yes I know, not happy Jan) endorsements for president. My hero Gloria Steinem unsurprisingly supports Hilary Clinton. The support for John Edwards is powerful, sincere and well-grounded. Obama’s support seems too dreamy and idealistic. Arguments made for Joe Biden (and against—I didn’t know or had forgotten that he was anti-choice) and Chris Dodd are convincing as well.
In the letters section, people have come up with idealistic combinations that echo my own feelings that I’d like the whole Democratic field—and several Republicans as well—running the country. I’ll take Rodham-Clinton’s pragmatism with Obama’s optimism, Edwards’ populism, Dodd’s stick-to-it-ness, Biden’s experience, Kucinich’s idealism, Richardson’s multiculturalism, along with John McCain’s military wisdom, Ron Paul’s refusal to buy into the dominant paradigm, Mike Huckerby’s ability to reach out without condescending to religious populists, Fred Thompson’s Reaganesque good-naturedness and actor presence, and Rudy Guiliani’s ability to reconcile pro-choice and pro-gun control positions with true conservatism.
Unlike many people, I don’t want Al Gore in this presidential race. Al Gore has found his calling and I want him doing exactly what he’s doing—someone suggested making him the Climate Change Czar: That suits me fine.
As a feminist, I’d really love to see a Ms POTUS. Up until just a month or so ago, I swore I couldn’t support Hillary Rodham Clinton (not least b/c of her acquiescence from Ms Rodham to Mrs. Clinton :-P). I felt a specific betrayal of my feminist consciousness —in an era when hard-fought changes in language, treatment and payment and recognition of women, reproductive rights, and general status of women is sliding backwards, Ms Rodham Clinton’s willingness to cast off the most obvious trappings of feminism was a huge disappointment.
But looking at the bigger picture—surprising as it may be, even to me, a shock in and of itself—I now believe that she is the BEST qualified candidate. I’ve long loved John Edwards and his message of populism, and I’d be thrilled if he won. But the best possible choice has got to be Hillary. Not only is a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency a two-for-one deal, she has (to echo Gloria Steinem, though I did think of these things before I read her endorsement) 8 years of on-the-job experience, she knows exactly what she’s getting into, she won’t take 2 years to learn the job.
This latter is, to me, probably the crux of the matter. Bush has so messed up the country and the world that we don’t have time to wait for someone to learn the job. No matter who is elected, things are going to get much worse before they get better—if they ever do get better. Which of course brings into question what it would mean for things to get better … but that is another story. I do believe that Ms Rodham Clinton has the background to effectively reverse some of the Bush administration’s assault on civil liberties at home—an issue on which her position has never been at question—and that she will end the war in Iraq as it exists, although her hawkishness is the one thing I question.
More than that, however, she will appoint supreme court judges who have the best interests of the US people at heart; she will work to pass legislation that reverses or reduces some of the excesses of the current government; she will not be an impediment to national health care or fairer immigration practices or environmental protection and climate change preparation. I think she is a very, very practical woman/person, and that is what this country needs right now.
As far as the US’s role in the world, there could be no better presidential spouse than Bill Clinton. I, and millions of other people, love Elizabeth Edwards and I do believe that she, like her husband, is sincere and would be graceful, charming, informed and influential. But the whole world knows and loves Bill Clinton, and it’s going to take exactly that kind of respect and admiration to patch up the hash the Bush administration has done to the US’s standing in the world. I can’t think of another person to do it. Whether officially, as Secretary of State, or unofficially as the First Gentleman, Bill Clinton is the only person I know of who could go out into the world and restore something of our reputation.
In the letters section, people have come up with idealistic combinations that echo my own feelings that I’d like the whole Democratic field—and several Republicans as well—running the country. I’ll take Rodham-Clinton’s pragmatism with Obama’s optimism, Edwards’ populism, Dodd’s stick-to-it-ness, Biden’s experience, Kucinich’s idealism, Richardson’s multiculturalism, along with John McCain’s military wisdom, Ron Paul’s refusal to buy into the dominant paradigm, Mike Huckerby’s ability to reach out without condescending to religious populists, Fred Thompson’s Reaganesque good-naturedness and actor presence, and Rudy Guiliani’s ability to reconcile pro-choice and pro-gun control positions with true conservatism.
Unlike many people, I don’t want Al Gore in this presidential race. Al Gore has found his calling and I want him doing exactly what he’s doing—someone suggested making him the Climate Change Czar: That suits me fine.
As a feminist, I’d really love to see a Ms POTUS. Up until just a month or so ago, I swore I couldn’t support Hillary Rodham Clinton (not least b/c of her acquiescence from Ms Rodham to Mrs. Clinton :-P). I felt a specific betrayal of my feminist consciousness —in an era when hard-fought changes in language, treatment and payment and recognition of women, reproductive rights, and general status of women is sliding backwards, Ms Rodham Clinton’s willingness to cast off the most obvious trappings of feminism was a huge disappointment.
But looking at the bigger picture—surprising as it may be, even to me, a shock in and of itself—I now believe that she is the BEST qualified candidate. I’ve long loved John Edwards and his message of populism, and I’d be thrilled if he won. But the best possible choice has got to be Hillary. Not only is a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency a two-for-one deal, she has (to echo Gloria Steinem, though I did think of these things before I read her endorsement) 8 years of on-the-job experience, she knows exactly what she’s getting into, she won’t take 2 years to learn the job.
This latter is, to me, probably the crux of the matter. Bush has so messed up the country and the world that we don’t have time to wait for someone to learn the job. No matter who is elected, things are going to get much worse before they get better—if they ever do get better. Which of course brings into question what it would mean for things to get better … but that is another story. I do believe that Ms Rodham Clinton has the background to effectively reverse some of the Bush administration’s assault on civil liberties at home—an issue on which her position has never been at question—and that she will end the war in Iraq as it exists, although her hawkishness is the one thing I question.
More than that, however, she will appoint supreme court judges who have the best interests of the US people at heart; she will work to pass legislation that reverses or reduces some of the excesses of the current government; she will not be an impediment to national health care or fairer immigration practices or environmental protection and climate change preparation. I think she is a very, very practical woman/person, and that is what this country needs right now.
As far as the US’s role in the world, there could be no better presidential spouse than Bill Clinton. I, and millions of other people, love Elizabeth Edwards and I do believe that she, like her husband, is sincere and would be graceful, charming, informed and influential. But the whole world knows and loves Bill Clinton, and it’s going to take exactly that kind of respect and admiration to patch up the hash the Bush administration has done to the US’s standing in the world. I can’t think of another person to do it. Whether officially, as Secretary of State, or unofficially as the First Gentleman, Bill Clinton is the only person I know of who could go out into the world and restore something of our reputation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)