Just Jihad: Archives
It was bound to happen. Despite the president's numerous statements that he doesn't want to wade into the 2008 election, his remarks today not only signal that he's reneged; they reflect his intention to employ the same tactic that he and the GOP used so successfully in the run up to the 2004 election. If you haven't already guessed, let's just say that it's time to scare the bejeebers out of the voters by raising the prospect of a terrorist attack should the Democrats prevail in November.
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday he was disappointed in "flawed intelligence" before the Iraq war and was concerned that if a Democrat wins the presidency in November and withdrew troops prematurely it could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States."
He acknowledged concerns about leaving the unfinished Iraq war to a Democratic successor. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have said they will bring troops home if elected.
Bush said his "doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States."
This ominous message of potential doom comes from the same man who stood on an aircraft carrier nearly five years ago and declared "Mission Accomplished". I don't know about anyone else, but I'm still trying to figure out which George Bush we're supposed to believe...the one who thought the war in Iraq was a cake walk or the one who thinks the bogeyman is lurking around every corner.
Since I love metaphors, it's worth noting that the president's daughter was married at the family ranch in Texas over the weekend. While I wish her well in her marriage, unfortunately I can't say that America's eight year relationship with George W. Bush was all that successful. As is often stated when speaking about a troubled marriage, the honeymoon has been over for quite some time. I for one can't wait to part ways.
Tagged as: 2004 Election, 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Fear Mongering, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, John McCain, Mission Accomplished, Terrorism
Daniel DiRito | May 13, 2008 | 6:37 PM |
link
| Comments (3)
Hanes used to tell us they would make us feel good all over. With the following ad campaign, one might question whether the underwear company has had a change of heart. The tagline states, "Because the world gives you enough tags" and it's intended to highlight Hanes' new line of tagless products. While the ads were produced in India and aren't scheduled to run in the U.S., they are certainly drawing the attention the ire...of a number of Americans. I certainly understand the reactions, though I'm not sure I fully concur with all of the criticisms.
Let me attempt an explanation by first asking a question. If acceptance emanates from understanding, can the former be achieved if the latter is ignored? Here's the point. Labels are a form of understanding...or in the case of prejudice...misunderstanding. Changing those misunderstandings...and therefore the beliefs (prejudices) that underlie the labels we apply...requires two things. First, there must be an open discussion of all that is incorporated into the conceptions (both good and bad) of those we seek to enlighten. Second, there must be an honest disclosure of the identity (both good and bad) we seek to substitute for the faulty, or more likely, incomplete perceptions.
In looking at the "Faggot" image, my first inclination was to apply my own version of a truth test. Hence, I wanted to know if the image represented any, all, or none of my understandings of being gay. Yes, the first thing I noticed was the word "Faggot"...and it would have been easy to allow this word...frequently used as a pejorative...to halt my thought process.
I didn't do that because I'm convinced that the word itself has no power or meaning. That can only be determined contextually. With that said, an understanding of the ads intent soon emerged as did an appreciation for the journey others (on the outside) must travel in order to comprehend the true essence of those who "wear" this label. The transformative process cannot otherwise begin.
The journey, by those who don't wear these labels, to achieve an acute awareness of those who do, requires an effort that must exceed the obtuse understandings of those who have made known their negative intentions when applying the label. While many complete this journey in spite of the dissonance, real community can only be achieved when the words and the intentions of all the parties becomes harmonious. Reaching that point of stasis can only be achieved when full understanding is realized. Unfortunately, that can only happen when and if it is sought.
Hence, the power or meaning behind these labels cannot be stripped away unless and until the motivations and misconceptions that bolster them can be removed or repaired. Therefore, efforts to forbid the labels circumvent the process necessary to alter the intentions and misunderstandings that corrupt or color them. Their absence from the vernacular has little, if any, correlation with extinguishing the hatred that remains virulent, though hidden and harbored...but perhaps no longer vocalized (at least in public).
We may think silence is solace but that is akin to believing the lamb can safely lie down with the lion without ever having reached the understandings that are required to enable it. Such an act must be predicated upon a mutual respect for the worth of the other...and therefore an acceptance of the right of the other...to exist. Absent that, peril will always persist and quiet must not be misconstrued to mean that cunning has suddenly been quelled.
Faggot, nigger, and paki are labels that appropriately perpetuate corresponding tags like homophobe, racist, bigot, and many more. The incendiary fuel that hides behind all of these words...ready to erupt...will only abate when both sides entertain and pursue transcendent understandings. While logic may tell the lamb it would be foolish to even imagine a direct discussion with the lion...it nonetheless instructs both parties that the primordial change is otherwise precluded.
In the end, the change we seek must be an action, not an admonition. The former moves us forward; the latter moves us apart. The faggot will lie down with the homophobe when the humanity that undoubtedly joins them is allowed to undo the doubts that divide them. In allowing that miraculous moment of awareness, one man can and will choose to lie with another...not as faggot and homophobe...but as nothing more than all we are...human beings. Only then will we all feel good all over.
The three images follow. If you click on the two smaller images, they will be opened as full size images comparable to the larger one that precedes them.
If you would like to see even larger images (far more readable detail is revealed), visit the following link and click on the images:
Ads Of The World
Tagged as: Bigotry, Gay, Hanes Underwear. LGBT, Homophobia, India, Labels, Prejudice, Racism
Daniel DiRito | April 12, 2008 | 3:17 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
The following video contains a good discussion on the recent remarks of General Petraeus as well as George Bush's subsequent statements about the status of the war in Iraq. From the video, one quickly sees the disconnect between what the General believes and what the President wants the American public to accept as fact.
On the one hand, Petraeus tells us we haven't turned any corners, there is no light at the end of the tunnel, and the champaign has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. On the other, the President paints a pretty picture of progress and probable victory in Iraq. The outstanding question remains, "Should we embrace the former or entertain the latter when determining our next course of action with regard to the troubled nation?"
History tells us the estimations of the Bush administration have been a colossal miscalculation. Healthy skepticism should therefore instruct us that the views of the General are apt to be closer to the truth. With that in mind, there is little reason to believe the war in Iraq is nearing an end or that it will result in a functional nation. Hence, everything else we are being told must be manufactured noise intended to keep us dancing in the dark. Whether it is the dance of the swans remains to be seen.
Tagged as: Eleanor Clift, General David Petraeus, George W. Bush, Iraq, John McLaughlin, Pat Buchanan, Troop Surge
Daniel DiRito | April 12, 2008 | 1:04 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
I was sure the writers strike had ended...but then I tuned in today to see the President repeating the same script he's been promoting for years...the one that suggests the war in Iraq will come to a happy ending...eventually.
One has to wonder whether those in charge of directing this production are engaged in an endless edit...locked in a hopeless power struggle to determine if this incursion into Iraq should be billed as a comedy or a tragedy. Regardless, it seems to me that they have mislabeled their latest episode. Rather than call the current act "The Surge", I think it might be best to have titled it "The Stall".
From The Associated Press:
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday ordered an indefinite halt in U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq after July, embracing the key recommendations of his top war commander. Bush said Gen. David Petraeus will "have all the time he needs" to consider when more American forces could return home.
Bush's decisions virtually guarantee a major U.S. presence in Iraq throughout his term in office in January, when a new president takes office.
Bush said U.S. forces have made major gains since he ordered a buildup of about 30,000 U.S. forces last year. "We have renewed and revived the prospect of success" the president said.
"While this war is difficult, it is not endless," Bush said in a message directed to troops, but surely to the American public as well.
The president said that only as conditions in Iraq improve will he bring more troops home, a policy he calls "return on success."
"The day will come when Iraq is a capable partner of the United States," Bush said. "The day will come when Iraq's a stable democracy that helps fight our common enemies and promote our common interests in the Middle East.
"And when that day arrives, you'll come home with pride in your success," Bush said to the military and U.S. civilians in Iraq.
BushCo's refusal to pull the plug on a war with woeful ratings and little hope of a salient story line mirrors the miscalculations of a network intent on running with a stagnant sitcom that is arguably well past its prime. Unfortunately, the BushCo "network" lacks a player with the willingness to open the window and shout out, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore".
Sadly, the war in Iraq isn't a situation where life imitates art...and George Bush isn't the equivalent of Michael J. Fox. Despite our President's many steps backwards, the future isn't apt to be altered or improved. The war in Iraq is akin to a movie most Americans would gladly exit despite the high cost of admission.
Unfortunately, that isn't an option we've been able to impose. Alas, we're left to watch and wait. Let's just hope the new director will insist upon the installation of a new program.
UPDATE:
I think the following video does a good job in describing the BushCo Iraq strategy as an endless war prosecuted on an installment plan...six months at a time.
Tagged as: Back To The Future, Doc Brown, General David Petraeus, George W. Bush, Iraq, Network, Troop Cuts, Troop Surge
Daniel DiRito | April 10, 2008 | 10:37 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
It's one thing to be uneducated; it's another to be stupid. If a new report on drop out rates in major U.S. metropolitan cities is to be believed, fewer Americans are educated. If the following video represents a cross section of the United States, far to many Americans are also stupid. Taken together, they paint a frightening picture. It's a mixture that may well explain our diminishing economic advantage and it may also signal our waning relevance on the world stage.
From The Washington Post:
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration announced Tuesday it will require states to report high school graduation rates in a uniform way instead of using a variety of methods that critics say are often based on unreliable information.
Education Secretary Margaret Spellings announced the change at a news conference at which a report was released showing that 17 of the nation's 50 largest cities had high school graduation rates lower than 50 percent.
Nationally, about 70 percent of U.S. students graduate on time with a regular diploma and about 1.2 million students drop out annually.
"When more than 1 million students a year drop out of high school, it's more than a problem, it's a catastrophe," said former Secretary of State Colin Powell, founding chair of the alliance.
Now take a look at the following video. While this piece was a tongue-in-cheek presentation aired on Australian television, it is difficult to ignore the subtle threads of truth that underly the humor.
When I traveled around the world in late 2004 and early 2005, it became apparent that many foreigners were beginning to mistrust the American public. Generally speaking, the message I received was that the world could excuse the unfortunate election of George Bush in 2000...but his reelection in 2004 had set in motion doubts about the electorate's judgment. Further, the prior willingness to separate the unpopular actions of the U.S. government from the generally positive perceptions of the average American was beginning to erode.
At the same time, I sensed a forgiving tone predicated upon America's long history as a force for good in the world. Notwithstanding, it was apparent that granting the benefit of the doubt would eventually come to an end if our trajectory remained the same.
While the 2006 election may have been viewed as a step in the right direction, I think it's safe to surmise that little has happened since my travels to reassure the rest of the world that a sea change has occurred. The seeming ineffectiveness of the Democrats to reduce or remove our troops from Iraq couldn't have been encouraging.
The world may well view 2008 as our defining moment. Should the American voter install a president who "stays the course", I would anticipate a much stronger backlash and an accelerated erosion of credibility.
In the end, it becomes a question of the meaning of freedom. America has always been a beacon for independent thought and the champion of the oppressed. If our actions in November appear to be an affirmation of the status quo and an acquiescence to conformity, I suspect we will not only be seen as uneducated and stupid; we will soon be relabeled as representative of a mindset that chooses dictation over diplomacy and preemption over persuasion.
If that should transpire, the world may rightly conclude that fear has become the catalyst that will lead a once fearless people to further embrace the suspension of freedom. Hopefully, most Americans are smarter than that. Only time...and the ballot box...will tell.
Tagged as: 2008, Australia, Diplomacy, Education, High School Drop Outs, Humor, Intelligence, Iraq, Israel, John Howard, Preemption, Tony Blair, War on Terror
Daniel DiRito | April 3, 2008 | 12:51 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
Here in the United States, when we think of the troop surge in Iraq, we worry about the increasing number of troops who are being asked to participate in a war that seems to be endless. The Bush administration likes to tout the reduction in troop fatalities and a seeming decline in violence as evidence that the troop surge was warranted and is achieving its goal.
Unfortunately, there is more to the story...and the Guardian has a report that takes a look at the surge from the perspective of the tribes that have been enlisted to assist the U.S. in reducing the violence. According to the report, many of the Iraqis who signed up to assist the U.S. in quelling the violence and identifying al Qaeda sympathizers have yet to be paid for their efforts and are on the verge of a strike.
In his speech marking the fifth anniversary of the war George Bush highlighted the significance of what he called "the first large-scale Arab uprising against Osama bin Laden". Iraq, he said, "has become the place where Arabs joined with Americans to drive al-Qaida out."
But dozens of phone calls to Sahwa leaders reveal bitterness and anger. "We know the Americans are using us to do their dirty work and kill off the resistance for them and then we get nothing for it," said Abu Abdul-Aziz, the head of the council in Abu Ghraib, where 500 men have already quit.
"The Americans got what they wanted. We purged al-Qaida for them and now people are saying why should we have any more deaths for the Americans. They have given us nothing."
In Dora, a southern suburb of Baghdad, the leaders of a Sahwa group of 2,400 men said they were considering strike action because none of the 2,000 applicants they had put forward for jobs with the police and military had been accepted.
The Shia-dominated government of Nouri al-Maliki has found jobs for only a handful of the Sahwa fighters.
It seems to me that this situation demonstrates the fragile nature of the Iraqi situation. Yes, we can pay these people ten dollars daily to gain their support...but that simply points out the economic desperation of many Iraqis. I doubt the U.S. can sustain this recent success without the promise of ongoing payments...a fact that highlights just how tenuous the recent successes may be.
If we cannot continue to fund these "Awakening Councils" indefinitely, those who are participating will need to seek out other sources of income. I suspect that means two things. One, the success of the surge could instantly evaporate. Two, the underlying dynamics necessary to establish a stable and secure Iraq do not exist and may not be possible without a long term U.S. presence.
To be frank, we're simply taking advantage of people who are desperate for the means to survive. As such, should the U.S. cease supporting these individuals, they will be susceptible to the overture of others. Hence, the tribalism and sectarian strife that has plagued Iraq for many years is apt to resurface as soon as we attempt to scale back the measures that accompanied the surge.
The bottom line is that the surge has been a stopgap measure designed to buy the Bush administration the time and political cover to continue its ill-advised war. What lies beneath this facade is a fractious and fragmented society that currently lacks sustainable economic wherewithal and is struggling to find the political will to establish a functional nation.
The 2008 election is an opportunity for Americans to voice their political will. The war in Iraq will be a key consideration and it is critical that Americans have a clear understanding of the real conditions in Iraq as the next president will likely determine how much longer we will remain.
John McCain has recently sought to step back from his assertion that the United States may have to remain in Iraq for a hundred years. Those who believe that John McCain is a straight talking maverick who is willing to level with the American public must not forget his words. Political expediency may force him to modify his prediction, but there should be no doubt that McCain's resolve to remain in Iraq equals that of George Bush.
While I'm inclined to agree with the Senator that it may take decades to complete George Bush's mission in Iraq, I believe it is quite clear that it's a mission we shouldn't have undertaken. It's also a mission that must end. Neither George Bush or John McCain can will the Iraqi people to adopt the outcome we imagine would best serve our interests. Even if both men believe they can, reality should tell us we can't afford the cost.
The 2008 election is our opportunity to send an important message...a message of restoration that reconnects us with our defining principles. Consistent with the intentions of our founding fathers, it should be the will of the American people that determines whether the war in Iraq should proceed. Likewise, it must be the will of the Iraqi people that determines the defining principles that will guide their future. Only then will our mission be accomplished.
The following video was included as part of the Guardian article.
Tagged as: 2008 Election, al Qaeda, Awakening Councils, Baghdad, Diyala, George Bush, Iraq, John McCain, Troop Surge
Daniel DiRito | March 21, 2008 | 10:27 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
Steven Colbert takes on the battle over FISA and the Bush administration's demand that Congress pass the Protect America Act in order to insure the safety of all Americans. In this segment of "The Word", Colbert explains the meaning of "AT & Treason". Colbert, in his typically sarcastic schtick, blames the evil Democrats for delaying the passage of legislation that would grant the telco's the immunity they deserve.
He moves on to shows us the latest knockoff of the Clinton campaign's 3:00AM phone call ad...one he states was designed by the phone companies to effectively scare the crap out of us...by showing us just how frightening the telephone can be.
Tagged as: 3:00 AM, AT&T, Comedy, Fear, FISA, Hillary Clinton, Humor, Immunity, Politics, Protect America Act, Stephen Colbert, Terrorism
Daniel DiRito | March 7, 2008 | 2:08 PM |
link
| Comments (1)
In all the back and forth over the merits of the war in Iraq, we often hear about the money being spent but we're rarely presented with the specific items that could be purchased with that same cash.
The following video does just that. It provides a laundry list of the things that could be purchased for the American people with the money it costs to prosecute the war for one single day.
When one thinks about the war in this way...not to mention the many other costs including the loss of life...it is an astounding contrast and a stark reality check.
However, what ultimately amazes me is the arguments we have endured and will continue to endure during peace time...you know...the arguments that we can't afford health care, we can't assure that Social Security will survive, we can't afford to address poverty or homelessness, we cant assure that a college education is available to all of our citizens, and many more.
It begs an important question -- Why can we afford limitless spending on death and destruction and so little on the basic needs of the American citizenry?
H/T to The Bilerico Project
Tagged as: Deficit Spending, Education, Health Care, Homelessness, Iraq War, Military Spending, National Debt, Poverty, Social Security
Daniel DiRito | February 23, 2008 | 5:19 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
The fact that the bulk of the American public's military assessments are filtered through the prism of the powers that be...a la the Bush administration...can be rather misleading and may well engender a false sense of security. Implied in these assessments is an assurance that our nation is being sufficiently protected from harm. It's not only possible that this is a rose colored view; we may be one unforeseen crisis away from the need to reinstitute a military draft.
A survey of a few thousand current and former military officers overwhelmingly concludes that our military has been stretched dangerously thin by the war in Iraq. What the survey doesn't state may be the ominous six hundred pound gorilla in the room.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has been stretched dangerously thin by the Iraq war, according to almost 90 percent of retired and current military officers polled on the state of America's armed forces.
Eighty percent said it would be unreasonable to expect the U.S. military to wage another major war successfully at this time, according to the poll by the Center for a New American Security think tank and Foreign Policy magazine.
More than 3,400 serving and retired officers took part in the poll, organizers said. Around 90 percent were retired officers, a large majority had combat experience and about 10 percent had served in Iraq or Afghanistan.
"We are putting more strains on the all-volunteer force than it was ever designed to bear," Army Lt. Col. John Nagl, a prominent counterinsurgency expert, said at a panel discussion in Washington on Tuesday to announce the results of the survey.
Eighty-eight percent of respondents said the U.S. military had been stretched dangerously thin by Iraq. Sixty percent said the military was weaker than five years ago, 25 percent said it was stronger and 15 percent said it was about the same.
Truth be told, most Americans still look at military service as an abstract notion that rarely hits home. Yes, they are aware of the failings evidenced during the execution of the Iraq war and the tragic and prolonged loss of life...but they rarely have to worry that their family members might face the prospect of a draft.
If this survey provided only one insight, it should be a recognition that we may be one military crisis away from the necessity to reinstate a policy of involuntary military service. Even more disquieting is the prospect that we may not be able to properly respond to an unexpected military conflict.
In reality, the implementation of a draft would not facilitate an instantaneously fortified military nor would it come without a tremendous price tag. Hence, we could well find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to prioritize our military engagements...or prosecute them with dangerously compromised strategies.
Not only does that suggest a level of vulnerability not seen since being forced to ramp up in order to meet the challenge of past World Wars...it points out just how absurd it was for George Bush to ask Americans to go shopping in the aftermath of 9/11. It also demonstrates the inherent short-sightedness of our commander in chief and the degree to which he prefers placation and prevarication to the direct dissemination of the low-down.
The fact that we have repeatedly found ourselves in unrevealed and/or unexpected positions and predicaments suggests that Americans shouldn't take comfort in the assurances that a draft is out of the question.
A look at the recent Pakistani election and the evaporating power of Pervez Musharraf highlights our current president's propensity to put all of America's proverbial eggs into one basket. All too often that basket has turned out to be a leaky sieve filled with little more than broken and empty shells. The need for a draft may be the next egg scheduled for a surprise scrambling. That would not be a delectable dish.
Tagged as: 9/11, George W. Bush, Iraq, Military Draft, Military Preparedness, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, War
Daniel DiRito | February 19, 2008 | 9:14 PM |
link
| Comments (2)
Recent news events highlight some of the issues that routinely concern gays. It's not the first time and it won't be the last time that we see a confluence of events. However, as one reviews the content of these stories, one begins to see the connections and the consequences that result from the ongoing onslaught to demonize and deny gays the rights afforded to their straight counterparts.
The first item is the shooting of a gay 15-year-old boy in Oxnard California by his 14-year-old classmate.
Prosecutors filed a charge of murder with a hate-crime enhancement Thursday against a 14-year-old boy in the school shooting of a classmate who has been declared brain dead.
Prosecutors said they would try Brandon David McInerney as an adult. They changed the charge from attempted murder after learning that the victim, 15-year-old Lawrence King, will not survive.
Several classmates have said King would wear feminine attire, making him an unpopular figure with other boys at his campus.
King sometimes came to school wearing makeup and high heels, said eighth-grader Nicholas Cortez, 14.
Another eighth-grader, Michael Sweeney, said King's appearance was "freaking the guys out," the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.
"He would come to school in high-heeled boots, makeup, jewelry and painted nails - the whole thing," Sweeney told the Times.
King was shot in the head Tuesday during a class at E.O. Green Junior High in Oxnard, police said. More than 20 other students were in the room at the time.
As I've read about this incident, the thing that struck me is the focus placed upon the "freaked out" reactions of the victim's male classmates. The notion that the mannerisms and dress of a gay student can be viewed as responsible for the irrational responses of the other students exemplifies the degree to which gay teens are victimized by the homophobic indoctrination happening in the homes of millions of families. Instead of having these reactions rebuffed, the attention...and the blame...is shifted to the source. Even worse, the source is dehumanized such that they are soon seen as an expendable representation of the ideological conflict.
It's one thing to not understand the behaviors of others...or to reject them...but it's entirely inappropriate to decide that one has the right to inflict hatred and scorn upon them simply because they are different. Our capitalist culture of conformity only exacerbates the problem. It's the peer pressure to have the right kind of SUV, the nice house in the suburbs, the right brands of clothing, the cell phone and the iPod...all the trappings that have come to be associated with meeting the norms of acceptability.
Further, there is little doubt that this particular brand of hatred (and many others) is taught to children by their parents. There seems to be a belief that simply being near a fellow student who is gay is an implicit threat that warrants and justifies a negative response. As such, the degree to which differentness creates dissonance...and the grounds for violence...has become a palpable pathology.
Not only is that wrong; it is a demonstration of the degree to which children are being encouraged to conclude that the world revolves around their thoughts, beliefs, and feelings. With this particular incident, I suspect the enabling attitude results from the actions of men like James Dobson and Pat Robertson. These religious zealots have sought to assert that the vilification of gays is biblically justified and supersedes the rule of law.
Let me be clear...these men and their organizations don't directly encourage murder or violence...but they frequently allude to events as God's wrath upon gays. At the same time, the mantra that activist judges are forcing Americans to accept the unacceptable further fosters a disregard of our judicial system and enhances a vigilante mindset. When this is done on a regular basis, they signal tacit approval to those who act inappropriately and lack the maturity and the ability to exhibit proper restraint.
Children in Christian schools and homes that embrace men like Dobson and Robertson are constantly bombarded with the assertion that gays are destroying the family and the values they identify with. They hear their parents supporting amendments to ban same-sex marriage, opposing the granting of basic rights to gay couples through civil unions, railing against the "militant homosexual agenda", opposing diversity training in schools, opposing any education that attempts to inform children about homosexuality without condemning it.
I'm of the opinion that enrolling children directly in these battles is harmful to their psyches and is likely a form of brainwashing. Hence, these children are led to believe that a war exists...a war that pits them and their families against a widespread assault from gays. Is it any wonder that some of these children take the next step and engage in the activities they associate with war?
Toss in the fact that some politicians have sought to characterize terrorism as another assault on our way of life and the religious beliefs we hold and one begins to see the possible pressures confronting some of these children. The holy wars they hear about each day suddenly become a subtle directive to act...to become a soldier and vanquish the enemies they come to believe threaten them, their families, and their way of life.
Let's look at another item in the news.
From The Mercury News:
SAN FRANCISCO - As California's highest court prepares to take up a case seeking to legalize same-sex marriage, two groups that failed to get gay marriage bans on the state ballot two years ago are trying again, one with backing from a prominent Christian conservative organization.
The groups, ProtectMarriage.com and VoteYesMarriage.com, have filed ballot language with the California Secretary of State that would, if approved by voters, amend the California Constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.
"The very fact that this is in front of the Supreme Court, I think, will highlight the need for voters to take the issue away from the courts period," said Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com.
By enshrining the two laws that already prevent gays from marrying in the state Constitution, both amendments would overrule the justices if they decide the current statutes are an unconstitutional violation of the civil rights of same-sex couples. The court is expected to issue it's ruling by early June.
The VoteYesMarriage initiative would go a step further, however, by prohibiting the state from granting gays the spousal rights and tax benefits of marriage, as it already has by allowing gays to register as domestic partners. If it passed, those rights would be eliminated.
Clearly, the rhetoric of these groups never seems to match their actions. Despite constantly stating they are simply upholding the religious sanctity of marriage and aren't interested in denying basic rights, they inevitably attach the denial of basic rights to their amendments. Time and again, these measures seek to erase any rights currently afforded to gays as they ultimately view any validation as a loss in their war to eradicate societal acceptance of homosexuality. While they carefully cloak their words when speaking in public (they hate the sin, but love the sinner), I suspect the tone is far more derogatory in the home setting.
If one listens to the constant references to the rapture and the end of days, one becomes aware of the simmering animosities that exist as well as the unspoken calls to engage the forces they deem will be responsible for facilitating them. Again, this constant vilification is apt to trigger actions that dehumanize and demonize others. The fact that young people frequently act out these prejudices simply affirms the pervasive and persuasive nature of the propaganda.
In the end, the rhetoric of intolerance has many victims. While it is impossible to condone the actions of the 14-year-old boy who killed his classmate, it is possible to see that he may also be a victim of a culture that promotes the initiation of bigotry and hatred in innocent children at an early age. Fortunately, many individuals have the capacity to adjust their perceptions once they have had the opportunity to encounter the people they have been taught to assail. Sadly, as is too often the case, the damage done can be so severe that violence is the inevitable outcome.
The fact that the parents of these children are not held accountable is a stain on humanity. We're left to hope it will someday be removed. In the meantime, the bad news will persist.
Tagged as: Bigotry, Brian McInerney, California, E.O. Green Junior High, Gay, Gay Bashing, Homophobia, James Dobson, Lawrence King, LGBT, Oxnard, Parenting, Pat Robertson, Prejudice, Same-Sex Marriage, Transgender, Transsexual
Daniel DiRito | February 15, 2008 | 10:14 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
Keith Olbermann delivers another Special Comment... this time on the wrangling over the FISA law and the president's demand that telecom companies, which cooperated in the governments surveillance of phone calls, be granted a blanket immunity .
Olbermann takes the president to task over his parsing of words and his seeming disregard for the intelligence of the American public.
You go Keith!!
Tagged as: AT&T, Dick Cheney, FISA, Keith Olbermann, President Bush, Surveillance, Telecoms
Daniel DiRito | January 31, 2008 | 10:06 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
Before George Bush leaves office, he may well succeed in redefining the term "national intelligence" as the signature oxymoron of his spin happy administration. After months of ominous warnings about the threats posed by Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, the latest National Intelligence Estimate tells us Iran discontinued the program in 2003.
So as it turns out, while the neocon's were working to foment enough support for a strike on Iran, those assigned to provide us with the factual data needed to justify such an excursion were concluding that the assertions offered by the Bush administration lacked substantiation.
As if this isn't enough reason for concern, just how does a president rationalize telling the American public that Iran's actions may well be apt to cause WWIII while he doesn't possess any recent intelligence to support such an assertion? May I suggest two possible explanations...neither of which brings comfort. One, the President thinks most American voter are stupid and therefore easily manipulated and mislead. Two, the President is actually inept and lacks the intellect to formulate a functional foreign policy. Sadly, I suspect the reality is a near lethal combination of both. Even worse, I'm of the opinion that his penchant for bouts of bravado leave him unable and unwilling to reformulate of reconsider when his conclusions are found to be flawed.
I think the following graphic captures the degree to which spin has become the staple of the George Bush presidency. Disconcerting as it may be, it seems we're left to hope that the 2008 election will arrive before he is able to further compromise our credibility. I know I'm not holding my breath.
Tagged as: Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Iran, Iraq, Neoconservatives, NIE, Nuclear Weapons Program, WMD's
Daniel DiRito | December 4, 2007 | 10:30 PM |
link
| Comments (2)
While seeking a fitting tribute to Norman Mailer given his recent death, I stumbled upon the following video clips from his appearance on Charlie Rose in early 2003. On the show, Mailer provides a reasoned analysis of the merits and pitfalls of invading Iraq. Mailer's comments harken to the concerns raised by Niall Ferguson in this prior Thought Theater posting.
Both men have a keen understanding of the objectives of the Bush Doctrine...though they approach it from different perspectives. Ferguson offers the views of a studied historian and Mailer provides the perspective of a prescient thinker capable of drawing insightful and informative connections frequently missed by those in the mainstream. Notwithstanding, both men appear to reach the same conclusion...a conclusion which suggests that the active exportation of democracy is likely a futile effort. Both men also touch upon the flawed logic behind the initiation of preemptive military actions in response to perceived fears.
Mailer's words in 2003 ought to instruct us well into the future and offer an important warning about the risks of losing the nobility of democracy and acceding to the lure of fascism. His comment that an invasion of Iraq is apt to be the start of something that we cannot finish without changing the nature of American democracy may someday be hailed as one of the most omniscient and prevailing perceptions offered in modern American history.
His anticipatory thoughts on Iraq with regard to it's position in the world political equation are astounding and when they are compared with the logic of the neoconservatives, his amazing visionary capabilities are illuminated. His conclusion about the nature of democracy is nothing short of brilliant and a rational review of the status of our efforts to export it to Iraq highlight the very concerns Mailer raised when he suggested that the Bush administration ultimately sought to change the nature of American life. Nearly five years after Mailer offered these thoughts, one would be hard pressed to refute his hypothesis or the ample evidence of an eroding democracy at home which exists to support it.
Flawed as he was, the magnitude of Mailer's life...and what was lost with his death...will undoubtedly become more evident with the passage of time.
Tagged as: Charlie Rose, Democracy, George W. Bush, Iraq, Neoconservatism, Niall Ferguson, Norman Mailer
Daniel DiRito | November 13, 2007 | 10:27 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
While many Americans are of the belief that the upcoming 2008 election will signal a new direction in U.S. foreign policy, there is little reason to conclude that the actions and implications of the Bush Doctrine can be reversed in short order. In order to understand the future, one must frequently consult the past.
In the following video, Niall Ferguson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, historian, and author of Colossus: The Price of America's Empire, offers an informed conceptual analysis of U.S. foreign policy focused upon the meaning and implications of what has come to be known as the Bush Doctrine. Ferguson points that this doctrine is premised upon three basic principles. They are as follows:
1. Preemption: The need to act against emerging threats before they are fully formed.
2. Unilateralism: The right to act alone against perceived threats.
3. Bringing the hope of democracy and free trade to all corners of the world...and standing for the rule of law, free speech, freedom of worship, equal justice, respect for women, religious and ethnic tolerance, and respect for public and private property.
Ferguson proceeds to explain the good and bad news associated with these goals and the various resources and costs which would be necessary to implement them...paying particular attention to the third goal. Ferguson believes this final objective is most constrained by financial considerations that would most likely exceed the capability of the behemoth U.S. economy.
Ferguson also points to three other deficit areas that would likely constrain the U.S. from achieving the goals of the Bush Doctrine. They include a manpower deficit, an attention deficit, and a legitimacy deficit. In listening to Ferguson, it becomes apparent that he views the legitimacy deficit as the prevailing obstacle to the ongoing pursuit of the Bush Doctrine.
Ferguson talks about manpower with relation to the war in Iraq and the latest surge...noting that the U.S. troop reduction in 2005 led to increasing violence and conflict. He notes that the current surge has improved the conditions in Iraq...which clearly points to the manpower requirements necessary to achieve the goals of the Bush Doctrine.
Ferguson continues with a comprehensive analysis well worth viewing by anyone looking to gain a full understanding of the United States foreign policy considerations, our status with other nations, and the factors which must be considered as we move forward in an ever more complex world.
He pays particular attention to dissecting the false notions that make the Bush Doctrine (especially the Cheney driven belief that we must view future 9/11's as 100% probable and act accordingly) a suspect policy objective premised upon a number of faulty assumptions. From there, Ferguson takes a look at the future considerations and the issues which may soon face the United States and the world.
Tagged as: Bush Doctrine, China, Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, History, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Niall Ferguson, Preemption
Daniel DiRito | November 10, 2007 | 11:25 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
It's easy to get lost in the rhetoric that seeks to explain the status of the war in Iraq. Opponents and apologists alike work tirelessly to find the ammunition necessary to support their positions...yet only two thing remains a constant...the war continues and the deaths it creates are tallied.
Our latest preoccupation is defining the merits of, and deciphering the benefits from, the surge. Is it a success? Has it facilitated a turning point? What happens if we reduce or remove our troops? Unfortunately, the combatants...the ones waging the war about the war...endeavor to spin the data to their benefit...often ignoring context and relevance. A new article in The New York Times documents the annual troop fatalities and provides a glimpse into this back and forth battle...yet points out the prevailing dilemma that never seems to be answered...how and when will we be able to leave Iraq?
BAGHDAD, Nov. 6 — Six American soldiers were killed in three separate attacks Monday, the military said today, taking the number of deaths this year to 851 and making 2007 the deadliest year of the war for American troops.
The deaths come only a few days after the military announced a steep drop in the rate of American deaths this year. In October, 38 American service members died in Iraq, the third lowest monthly tally since 2003, according to Iraq Casualty Count, a web site that tracks military deaths. November’s total, if the current pace continues, would be higher but still far below the war’s average of 69 American military deaths per month.
Despite the decline, American commanders acknowledged that 2007 will be far deadlier than the second worst year, 2004, when 849 Americans died, many of them in major battles for control of insurgent strongholds like Falluja.
Military officials attribute the rise this year to an expanded troop presence during the so-called surge, which brought more than 165,000 troops to Iraq, and sent units out of large bases and into more dangerous communities.
Commanders maintain that despite the high cost in terms of lives lost, the strategy has brought improved security to the country and “tactical momentum" that could stabilize Iraq permanently.
Now I'm not trying to ignore the latest casualty numbers...they are encouraging and hopefully they will be sustained...but one mustn't ignore what history can tell us to expect. The latest surge has unfolded in much the same way as prior surges. It has brought greater security to Baghdad (the region of focus), reduced the number of IED attacks, and lessened the sectarian violence.
Those are tangible results...but they must be measured against the stated objective of the surge when it was initiated; that being to enable the necessary time and space for political progress to be achieved. Further, one must provide the reasons and the rationale by which we can conclude that this surge will result in sustained progress as opposed to the regression which has typified each of those previously attempted.
In looking strictly at the number of American casualties, there is little reason to believe that the surge has achieved lasting results. The fact that 2007 will be the deadliest year suggests that the problems we have confronted since the fall of the Hussein regime remain formidable and its even possible they have continued unabated. Empirical evidence suggests prior increased troop levels in other unsettled regions brought temporary reductions in the above measurables...only to be followed by rising violence once the troop levels were reduced or focused upon another hot spot (the whack-a-mole phenomenon). That certainly raises doubts as to the permanence of the latest achievements.
At the same time, one has to consider what the enemy has learned from the prior troop surges and how that may have impacted their current strategy. Keep in mind that it would be foolish to presume that their calculations have remained static. If history has taught us anything, it is that these extremists are immensely patient and sufficiently cunning.
Suppose they've concluded it is futile to engage in direct confrontation given the greater number of troops and the focused attention they bring? Suppose they believe that the U.S. cannot or will not maintain the current troop levels and the interests of the insurgency is best served by waiting for the Bush administration to begin troop reductions or to wait for the will of the American people to demand an end to the current level of occupation? Suppose they're convinced...as are many other observers...that the hoped for political progress has not materialized and the dynamics necessary for them to do so is not present and may not emerge any time soon?
To suppose otherwise on each of these points seems at best naive, and at worst fully illogical. That brings us back to speculating on a plausible exit strategy. Two thoughts quickly come to mind. One, there is a possibility that the powers that be are truly committed to a democratic Iraq and are therefore seeking an exit that insures as much. Two, there is a possibility that the powers that be have concluded that a democratic Iraq is unattainable and are therefore looking for a window of opportunity to claim success and hastily head for home.
If one buys into the former, then one ought to expect a prolonged presence, an abundance of good luck, and a healthy dose of transformational magic. If one favors the latter, then one ought to expect a politically expedient timeframe for announcing an exit, an abundance of contrivance, and a sickening amount of obfuscatory manipulation.
As I review the choices, this seems to be one of those moments when being between a rock and a hard place actually sounds like a better place to be than where we're at. Its hard to imagine that an idiomatic location is more appealing than reality...but then doesn't that simply illuminate the degree to which our perpetual presence in Iraq baffles the mind?
Tagged as: Exporting Democracy, George W. Bush, Insurgency, Iraq, Neoconservatism, Sectarian Violence, Troop Fatalities, Troop Levels, Troop Surge
Daniel DiRito | November 6, 2007 | 11:36 AM |
link
| Comments (1)
