SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
The rich really are different
Aug 31st, 2006 by Ken Hagler

I hon­estly don’t under­stand how peo­ple can send their com­put­ers to be repaired for a month, have them come back, not work, and then send them back again. I hear that all the time about peo­ple and their Macs. If I’m down for two days I have to buy a new com­puter. [Script­ing News]

It prob­a­bly has some­thing to do with most peo­ple not being mil­lion­aires who can afford to buy a new com­puter at the drop of a hat.

Liberation, American style
Aug 30th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

Killing in the Name of Democ­racy. Pres­i­dent George W. Bush per­pet­u­ally invokes the goal of spread­ing democ­racy to sanc­tify his for­eign pol­icy. Unfor­tu­nately, he is only the lat­est in a string of pres­i­dents who cloaked aggres­sion in ide­al­is­tic rhetoric. Killing in the name of democ­racy has a long and sor­did history.

[…]

The great­est gift the United States could give the world is an exam­ple that serves as a shin­ing city on a hill. As Uni­ver­sity of Penn­syl­va­nia pro­fes­sor Wal­ter McDougall observed, “The best way to pro­mote our insti­tu­tions and val­ues abroad is to strengthen them at home.” But there is scant glory for politi­cians in restrain­ing their urge to “save human­ity.” The igno­rance of the aver­age Amer­i­can has pro­vided no check on “run amok” politi­cians and bureau­crats. [The Future of Free­dom Foun­da­tion]

The arti­cle briefly cov­ers the Feds’ his­tory of “spread­ing democ­racy” by mur­der­ing any­one who doesn’t do what Wash­ing­ton tells them, from the Spanish-American War to the present.

Fascism? Maybe. Bush? Definitely.
Aug 28th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

What Is Fas­cism? Writes Eric Margolis:

The best mod­ern def­i­n­i­tion I’ve read of fas­cism comes in for­mer Colom­bia Uni­ver­sity Pro­fes­sor Robert Paxton’s superb 2004 book, ‘The Anatomy of Fascism.’

Pax­ton defines fascism’s essence, which he aptly terms its ‘emo­tional lava’ as: 1. a sense of over­whelm­ing cri­sis beyond reach of tra­di­tional solu­tions; 2. belief one’s group is the vic­tim, jus­ti­fy­ing any action with­out legal or moral lim­its; 3. need for author­ity by a nat­ural leader above the law, rely­ing on the supe­ri­or­ity of his instincts; 4. right of the cho­sen peo­ple to dom­i­nate oth­ers with­out legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of for­eign ‘contamination.’

Fas­cism demands a suc­ces­sion of wars, for­eign con­quests, and national threats to keep the nation in a state of fear, anx­i­ety and patri­otic hyper­ten­sion. Those who dis­agree are branded ide­o­log­i­cal trai­tors. All suc­cess­ful fas­cists regimes, Pax­ton points out, allied them­selves to tra­di­tional con­ser­v­a­tive par­ties, and to the military-industrial complex.

Highly con­ser­v­a­tive and mil­i­taris­tic regimes are not nec­es­sar­ily fas­cist, says Pax­ton. True fas­cism requires relent­less aggres­sion abroad and a semi-religious ado­ra­tion of the régime at home.” [LewRockwell.com Blog]

As a def­i­n­i­tion of fas­cism, it’s highly ques­tion­able, since it doesn’t address eco­nom­ics at all. It’s cer­tainly a very good descrip­tion of the Bush admin­is­tra­tion and its sup­port­ers, though.

Obscure Freedom Fighters: Danie Theron
Aug 23rd, 2006 by Ken Hagler

Obscure Free­dom Fight­ers: Danie Theron. FROM TIME TO TIME in my read­ing, I come across sto­ries of impres­sive but little-known peo­ple who fought for free­dom in little-known places in his­tory. Peo­ple whose courage and deter­mi­na­tion should not be for­got­ten. William Wal­lace of 13th cen­tury Scot­land is one exam­ple of such a per­son, largely unknown until a screen­writer also named Wal­lace noticed his mon­u­ment in Stir­ling and inquired who the man was. Another exam­ple is Boer sol­dier and scout Danie Theron. [Wolfes­blog]

I’ve read some gen­eral his­to­ries of the Boer War, but this is the first time I’ve heard of Danie Theron. It sounds like his story would indeed make a good movie.

There was a time when Amer­i­cans hon­ored rebels who fought guerilla cam­paigns against the British in our own war for independence–men such as Ethan Allen and Fran­cis Mar­ion. But today, those men are all but for­got­ten as Amer­ica has become the enemy that they fought against. I won­der if in another hun­dred years there will be stat­ues in Bagh­dad to some brave Iraqi rebel who fought to drive out the Amer­i­can Empire.

More Airport Nazis
Aug 22nd, 2006 by Ken Hagler

the “crime” of Fly­ing While Mus­lim. For­get Snakes on a Plane, how about Islam­o­pho­bia on a plane?

First some British pas­sen­gers “mutinied” because two appar­ently Mus­lim men were on the flight.

Then a Cana­dian doc­tor was removed from a flight because a drunk pas­sen­ger thought his Mus­lim prayers were sus­pi­cious.

Now a British pilot was removed from a flight appar­ently for being Mus­lim.

Where will this end? Muslim-only lines at the air­port?

Sara Robin­son at Orci­nus has some good com­men­tary on this:

There’s only one word for this. It’s vig­i­lan­tism, pure and sim­ple. It’s no dif­fer­ent than any other kind of lynch mob. And it is beneath the dig­nity of a civ­i­lized society…

…But there’s far more at stake here than meets the eye. If these vig­i­lante mobs are allowed to get their way on air­planes, what’s to stop them from tak­ing their show on the road? Are we going to see sub­way mobs assault­ing brown peo­ple on train plat­forms to “pre­vent” sub­way bomb­ings? Are resta­rauters going to find them­selves under pres­sure from upset din­ers not to hire — or seat — cer­tain “fright­en­ing” classes of peo­ple? Will neigh­bor­hood groups press real­tors to stop sell­ing local homes to spe­cific eth­nic groups, for fear prop­erty val­ues will drop? Or will they, per­haps, sub­ject “unde­sir­able” neigh­bors to harass­ment cam­paigns until they’re forced to move on?

This all sounds far-fetched — until you real­ize that we’re hardly forty years past an era when most of this was stan­dard oper­at­ing pro­ce­dure in much of Amer­ica. Vig­i­lante jus­tice, racial seg­re­ga­tion in pub­lic accom­mo­da­tions, real estate redlin­ing, and sun­down towns are part of a past that we’ve worked hard to leave behind. It will be a dis­grace to all of us if we allow a few irra­tional bul­lies on air­planes put us on the road to bring­ing it all back.

This is some­thing that we should not allow to con­tinue. It is beneath us. [Al-Muhajabah’s Islamic Blogs]

“They hate us for our freedom?” What freedom?"> They hate us for our freedom?” What freedom?
Aug 22nd, 2006 by Ken Hagler

Back From the Mideast. One of the two men who approached me first, Inspec­tor Har­ris, asked for my id card and board­ing pass. I gave him my board­ing pass and driver’s license. He said “peo­ple are feel­ing offended because of your t-shirt”. I looked at my t-shirt: I was wear­ing my shirt which states in both Ara­bic and Eng­lish “we will not be silent”. You can take a look at it in this pic­ture taken dur­ing our Jor­dan meet­ings with Iraqi MPs. I said “I am very sorry if I offended any­one, I didnt know that this t-shirt will be offen­sive”. He asked me if I had any other T-shirts to put on, and I told him that I had checked in all of my bags and I asked him “why do you want me to take off my t-shirt? Isn’t it my con­sti­tu­tional right to express myself in this way?” The sec­ond man in a green­ish suit inter­fered and said “peo­ple here in the US don’t under­stand these things about con­sti­tu­tional rights”. So I answered him “I live in the US, and I under­stand it is my right to wear this t-shirt”.

Then I once again asked the three of them : “How come you are ask­ing me to change my t-shirt? Isn’t this my con­sti­tu­tional right to wear it? I am ready to change it if you tell me why I should. Do you have an order against Ara­bic t-shirts? Is there such a law against Ara­bic script?” so inspec­tor Har­ris answered “you can’t wear a t-shirt with Ara­bic script and come to an air­port. It is like wear­ing a t-shirt that reads “I am a rob­ber” and going to a bank”. I said “but the mes­sage on my t-shirt is not offen­sive, it just says “we will not be silent”. I got this t-shirt from Wash­ing­ton DC. There are more than a 1000 t-shirts printed with the same slo­gan, you can google them or email them at wewillnotbesilent@gmail.com . It is printed in many other lan­guages: Ara­bic, Farsi, Span­ish, Eng­lish, etc.” Inspec­tor Har­ris said: “We cant make sure that your t-shirt means we will not be silent, we don’t have a trans­la­tor. Maybe it means some­thing else”. I said: “But as you can see, the state­ment is in both Ara­bic and Eng­lish”. He said “maybe it is not the same mes­sage”. So based on the fact that Jet Blue doesn’t have a trans­la­tor, any­thing in Ara­bic is sus­pi­cious because maybe it’ll mean some­thing bad! [Raed in the Mid­dle]

I guess those neo­cons who com­plain that “air­port secu­rity” isn’t ras­cist enough don’t have to worry after all. And if they don’t want peo­ple to com­pare the US gov­ern­ment to Nazi Ger­many, maybe they should stop push­ing it in that direction.

Also, note this account of Raed’s visit to a Lebanese refugee camp:

The other thing you can’t miss in Jor­dan and Syria is people’s anger against the US. On more than occa­sion, I got shouted at because I live in the US. The most inter­est­ing inci­dent was dur­ing a visit to a Lebanese refugee camp. I was called by two young Lebanese peo­ple, and they asked me whether me and the rest of the del­e­ga­tion vis­it­ing their shel­ter where com­ing from the US. I said yes. They said: “you bet­ter get the hell out of here unless you want us to make a scene”. I tried to explain that we are the “good” Amer­i­cans who are against the war, so they said go back home and change your gov­ern­ment. “you can’t come here visit us in a shel­ter that we were sent to because of your tax money and your bombs, and expect us to be nice to you”. So me and the other Amer­i­cans got the hell out of there.

Of course this is why peo­ple really hate the US.

Why people don’t like cops
Aug 21st, 2006 by Ken Hagler

Another For­fei­ture Out­rage.

The Eighth Cir­cuit Court of Appeals has ruled that police may keep the $124,700 they seized from Emil­iano Gonzolez, an immi­grant who by all appear­ances was attempt­ing to use the money to start a legit­i­mate business.

This is an out­ra­geous rul­ing. Consider:

  • Gonzolez was never charged with any crime in rela­tion to the money, much less convicted.

  • Gon­za­lez had an expla­na­tion for the money that a lower court found both “plau­si­ble” and “con­sis­tent.” He brought sev­eral wit­nesses for­ward to cor­rob­o­rate his story (in the pre­pos­ter­ous land of asset for­fei­ture, prop­erty can be guilty of a crime, and the bur­den is often per­son the police seized the prop­erty from to prove he obtained it legally).

  • The gov­ern­ment offered no evi­dence to counter Gonzolez’s explanation.

    Instead, the court ruled that the mere fact that Gonzolez was car­ry­ing a large sum of money, that he had dif­fi­culty under­stand­ing the officer’s ques­tions, that he incor­rectly answered some of those ques­tions (due, Gonzolez says, to fears that if police knew he was car­ry­ing that much money, they might con­fis­cate it — imag­ine that!), and that a drug dog alerted to the car Gonzolez was dri­ving (which, as dis­sent­ing judge Don­ald Lay noted, was a rental, likely dri­ven by dozens of peo­ple before Gonzolez), was enough to “con­vict” the money of hav­ing drug ties, even if there wasn’t enough evi­dence to charge Gonzolez.

    The court ruled that despite the fact that Gonzolez’s wit­nesses were cred­i­ble enough to, in per­son, con­vince a lower court he was telling the truth, on appeal, it, the appel­late court, read­ing those wit­nesses’ tes­ti­mony on paper, sim­ply didn’t believe them.

    So the police get to keep the life­long sav­ings Gonzolez, his friends, and rel­a­tives had pooled to start a busi­ness. No charge, and no con­vic­tion were necessary.

    The opin­ion itself — like most asset for­fei­ture cases — reads like some­thing from a third-rate mil­i­tary junta. Actual excerpts:

  • Pos­ses­sion of a large sum of cash is ‘strong evi­dence’ of a con­nec­tion to drug activity.”

  • …while an inno­cent trav­eler might the­o­ret­i­cally carry more than $100,000 in cash across coun­try and seek to con­ceal funds from would-be thieves on the high­way, we have adopted the common-sense view that bundling and con­ceal­ment of large amounts of cur­rency, com­bined with other sus­pi­cious cir­cum­stances, sup­ports a con­nec­tion between money and drug trafficking.”

  • Gonzolez had flown on a one-way ticket, which we have pre­vi­ously acknowl­edged is evi­dence in favor of forfeiture.”

  • While the claimants’ expla­na­tion for these cir­cum­stances may be “plau­si­ble,” we think it is unlikely. We there­fore con­clude that the gov­ern­ment proved by a pre­pon­der­ance of the evi­dence that the defen­dant cur­rency was sub­stan­tially con­nected to a nar­cotics offense.”

  • My empha­sis added on the last point. The absur­dity of these cases never fails to amaze when you actu­ally see it in print. The money, not Gonzolez, was found guilty of drug crimes.

    The Civil Asset For­fei­ture Reform Act of 2000 was sup­posed to rein in seizure out­rages like this one. Crit­ics of the bill at the time noted that it didn’t go nearly far enough.

    Looks like they may have been right.

    [The Agi­ta­tor]

    I’ve repeat­edly come across cops and their apol­o­gists on the Inter­net insist­ing that nearly all cops are hon­est, and com­plain­ing about how ter­ri­ble it is that peo­ple blame all cops for the actions of “a few bad apples.” But as cases like this and the “no-knock” raids that Radley Balko cov­ers illus­trate, it’s not the dis­hon­est cops that bother peo­ple. It’s cops in cases like this–cops who are doing their jobs just as they’re sup­posed to do. The prob­lem is that their jobs are despicable.

    Cops aren’t hated for the actions of a hand­ful of bad cops, they’re hated for the actions of the over­whelm­ing major­ity of “good” cops, because the nature of their job today requires that they be bru­tal, oppres­sive thugs.

  • Ingratitude everywhere
    Aug 16th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

    Dr. Cochran’s remarks on bush want­ing Amer­ica to be thanked.

    Sub­ject: Dr. Cochran’s remarks on bush want­ing Amer­ica
    to be thanked

    Jerry,

    While it should not have been the only goal, secur­ing
    sin­cere thanks to the Amer­i­can peo­ple for spend­ing 100’s of bil­lions of
    dol­lars of their trea­sury and 1000’s of their young people’s lives seems
    like a rea­son­able beginning.

    Phil

    [Chaos Manor Mus­ings]

    This kind of ingrat­i­tude is com­mon every­where. Why, look at all those ingrates in Europe who still haven’t thanked the Ger­man peo­ple for spend­ing 100’s of bil­lions of reich­marks of their trea­sury and 1000’s of their young people’s lives, and it’s been over 60 years!

    Quote of the Day
    Aug 16th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

    The man who in times of pop­u­lar excite­ment boldly and unflinch­ingly resists hot-tempered clamor for an unnec­es­sary war, and thus exposes him­self to the oppro­bri­ous impu­ta­tion of a lack of patri­o­tism or of courage, to the end of sav­ing his coun­try from a great calamity, is, as to ‘lov­ing and faith­fully serv­ing his coun­try,’ at least as good a patriot as the hero of the most dar­ing feat of arms, and a far bet­ter one than those who, with an osten­ta­tious pre­tense of supe­rior patri­o­tism, cry for war before it is needed, espe­cially if then they let oth­ers do the fighting.

    Carl Schurz

    Fox under fire
    Aug 14th, 2006 by Ken Hagler

    Fox under fire. I sur­prised that Fox isn’t specif­i­cally tar­geted more often:

    The rumors are true: two of our employ­ees have been abducted in Gaza,” he wrote. “We will report this fact via our Israel cor­re­spon­dents. Do NOT do any other seg­ments on it. Do not book guests on this topic. Do not com­ment offi­cially and of course, not on the air, about it. DO pray for their release. I will keep you posted.”

    [John Robb’s Weblog]

    Indeed. As mem­bers of the Evil Empire’s pro­pa­ganda arm, I think most peo­ple (who aren’t Bushe­viks) would agree that they are legit­i­mate tar­gets, just as the “civil­ian” bureau­crats cow­er­ing in the Green Zone would be.

    »  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa
    © Ken Hagler. All rights reserved.