America’s war without end

Endless war.

It’s no longer a nightmare scenario created by some doomsday futurist, but accepted policy among America’s political elites. In his latest article in The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald points out that it’s not merely blowhard pro-military Republicans who support the never-ending war strategy against terrorism, but many top Democrats as well, like Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta and, of course, Obama. Endless war is the one area where the President can claim a bipartisan victory.

Money, notes Greenwald, is a major force behind our government’s perpetual war mentality, as military contractors reap billions in profits spilling blood in the sand. I also think that the situation we have created is like a poker game with no limits, forcing players to keep raising their bets. We need oil, terrorists live in areas where there is oil, we bomb the terrorists and innocent civilians, the people who survive our bombing become angry, more terrorists are created, we need oil…

As many others have pointed out, you can’t kill an idea with a bomb. As long as we continue doing what we’re doing, there will be new generations of terrorists seeking revenge against the West. Obama had his chance to break this insidious cycle, but for reasons we can only guess at, threw in the towel early on and surrendered to the political and profiteer’s voices calling for eternal war.

This is what America has become, a war mongering imperial power that keeps its citizens in constant fear, which allows it to both attack and replenish its enemies.

Setting the record straight

If only real Democrats in Congress were this courageous.

Calls for a new holy war are growing louder

Ready for a new Crusade?

There is a rising chorus of voices among evangelical Christians calling for a war against Islam. Not a war against Islamic terrorists or even radical Muslims, but a holy crusade against the second largest religion on the planet.

A few days ago it was Michele Bachmann cheering for a holy war and now an article published in Charisma, a leading evangelical magazine, advocates the violent obliteration of Islam (It has since been taken down by the magazine).

These calls for genocide are appalling to most of us, but when you are convinced God is on your side, anything is possible. Just watch a beheading video, if you can.

It’s the twenty-first century, but we are still victims of our primitive urges, superstition and intense tribalism. My feeling is that as religion becomes less and less relevant in peoples’ lives, as is the current trajectory, those holding the most dogmatic religious views will become more unhinged and dangerous as they strive for relevancy. It’s happening in the Middle East (with America’s help, of course) and it’s happening among conservative Christian enclaves in the West.

The sad reality is that religious extremists, whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish, never see the extremist in the mirror.

Even MORE short scary stories

A new batch of short scary stories at They're Only Shadows for your Halloween enjoyment.

There’s more to climate change denial than semantics

I’m trying to sort out my feelings after reading an article from the October 1 edition of New York Magazine, “Psychologists are Learning How to Convince Conservatives to Take Climate Change Seriously.”

The crux of the article is that because liberals and conservatives see the world in vastly different ways, we have to craft the message of man-made climate change in a certain code that appeals to a conservative’s deep-rooted biases. Facts alone are not enough. The author and the psychologists he interviews point out more than several times that liberals are to blame for not knowing how to talk to conservatives about this important issue.

As someone who works in marketing, I know all about crafting messages for target audiences. It’s what we do. So at that level the argument makes some sense. Based on background, education, age, gender, etc., people will have different responses to the same message. A message that appeals to me as a liberal will probably not go over so well with red-state evangelical Christians. I get that.

The part of the argument I struggle with is that we are facing a worldwide disaster that is going to have an adverse impact on every living thing, and we must act now to try and reverse its affects. To me, it’s as if I see a tornado bearing down on my Uncle Al’s house and I run in to tell him that he and his family are in danger, but he does nothing because I’m a lying socialist big-government Democrat. I’m left with two choices. Leave them to the mercy of the tornado or physically drag them out of the house. There’s no time to argue or dream up a more appealing message for my conservative kin. Action, one way or another, is required.

The article starts from the baseline that man-made climate change is real, and that those people with an active, functioning brain understand this, but goes on to argue that we (liberals) need to expend energy and time dealing with a group of stubborn, corporate-backed children who refuse to take the threat seriously.

Historically, America has faced this situation many times before. We fought a civil war because we could not as a country reach common ground on slavery. We pulled conservatives kicking and screaming through women’s suffrage, the Great Depression, the Civil Rights movement, ending the war in Vietnam, and the era of environmental regulations, and we very well may have to do it again.

I don’t know. Maybe repackaging the climate change message will work with the average conservative, but the money people behind the deniers, the Koch’s and Adelson’s and Waltons, will not be so easily dissuaded, because their motivation is even more powerful than conservative bias. It’s about the bottom line.

Pluto: “I am not an insignificant space rock!”

Ebola, ISIS, climate change and…Pluto. Yes Pluto, the poor little methane ice-covered rock with an identity crisis at the far reaches of our solar system is back in the news. A Harvard scientist is re-engaging the debate as to whether Pluto is a planet or not. He says, “planet.”

Eight years ago, Pluto had its planet-status denied by a bunch of Pluto haters at the International Astronomical Union. These heartless eggheads humiliated the spunky little orb by claiming it was too small and insignificant to be a “planet.” Umbrage was taken, and the poor little guy, now classified a “dwarf planet” (adding insult to injury), has been sulking in the darkness of space ever since.

Thank god for Professor Owen Gingrich. Finally, a man of courage who is willing to stick up for “THE PLANET PLUTO.” How would you feel if your designation as human being was ripped from you because you were small and really far away? Was Pluto given a chance to respond, allowed to argue its case for planethood? No. The decision was unilateral and made with no consideration for the little guy’s feelings.

And by denying Pluto planet status, there was a definite cold blanket thrown over the hopes and dreams of other small rocks floating in the void of space of becoming planets someday. “If Pluto can’t make it,” went the reasoning, “I don’t have a chance.” But Professor Gingrich brings new hope to the small planet wannabes seeking reclassification.

The stars are shining just a little bit brighter at the limits of our solar system, dreams are rekindled, and Pluto, once known as Planet X, drifts through space with a more positive outlook than it’s had in years. Thank you, Professor Gingrich.

FOX News rewriting Bush era history

All written history is subjective to a point. As humans, we can’t help but bring our biases and prejudices to accounts of the past, even when it comes to what we choose to leave out. A problem arises, however, when you try to revise well-established historical evidence for purely ideological reasons. This was the work of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth in 1984, but there is a parallel organization operating right now with the same agenda as Orwell’s fictional government office, and it’s name is FOX News.

Examples of FOX News’ historical revisionism are too numerous to list, but the latest foray into turning the past on its head is a recent interview with former president George Bush. As if being broadcast from a television studio in the bowels of the Ministry of Truth, sycophant Brian Kilmeade praised Bush for his handling of the Iraq war and focused on a Bush comment that there would be problems if the military left Iraq too soon. Treating him as if he was a wise political sage instead of the man who opened the Pandora’s Box of death and destruction in the Middle East, Kilmeade and FOX News ignored reality altogether, never broaching the subject of WMDs or the missing billions of dollars or the devastated country he handed over to Obama in 2008.

It’s just one more example of why regular viewers of FOX News are the least well-informed consumers of television news.

Anatomy of a deception: How Obama got away with bombing Syria

1. The Obama administration wants to bomb Syria. The American public and general world opinion is heavily against the idea. Congress very skeptical.
2. ISIS threat is scary, but not scary enough. Suddenly, a new super-terrorist organization is identified that makes ISIS look like a Girl Scout troop: Khorasan!
3. Within days, stories start popping up at major news outlets about the danger Khorasan presents to the West. It’s reported that they are operating in…Syria.
4. Tension builds, and CNN breathlessly reports that an “official” claims there is an imminent threat to America from Khorasan. The official says the group is building “improved explosive devices” that are much harder to detect.
5. On September 23, without Congressional or UN approval, Obama claims self-defense and announces air strikes against Syria.
6. Days later, news reports start questioning the Khorasan threat. Further investigation leads to accusations that there isn’t even a group called Khorasan operating in Syria, with some former intelligence agents claiming they’d never heard of the group.
7. Obama administration pats itself on the back.

 

If you’re not mad as hell, you should be

Michele Bachmann wants to declare war on Islam, not merely ISIS, but a new crusade against the second largest religion on the planet. John Boehner and friends want the unemployed to get off their lazy asses and find a job. Bill O’Reilly wants to create a 25,000-member mercenary army to fight in the Middle East. And Sarah Palin gave a speech at the Voter Values Summit this past week that was so incoherent, not even the code-word attuned Tea Party attendees could figure out what had her so pissed off. Oh, the insanity escapes the mouths of these morons like projectile vomit, drenching all of us in its sticky, rank wrongness.

As the mid-term elections draw closer, the lunacy grows louder. Close the borders, impeach Obama, shrink the government, lower taxes…we are treated to a barrage of political ads coming at us from every direction full of deranged accusations and proposed solutions worse than the problem. They are strings of worn clichés and vapid emotional appeals that should insult the intelligence of anyone over the age of ten (my apologies to ten-year olds). If you are a conservative political candidate, there is almost nothing you can say that is too callous, too insulting or too ignorant for your audience. And far too many of these buffoons will be elected to office by aging white voters who think America has been going to hell in a hand basket since the end of the Eisenhower administration.

Ill-informed Republican voters are going to give us more of everything that is wrong with America — more obstructionism, more divisiveness, more intolerance, and more sheer ignorance — hastening this country’s downhill trajectory. Thanks in large part to the Supreme Court, the Koch’s and their deep pocketed friends are bankrolling CEO friendly candidates who never met a billionaire they didn’t like. Our government will continue to be a circus of ineptness.

Where’s Howard Beale when we need him?

Cameron speech does Big Brother proud

This is a disturbing development. In a speech at the U.N. yesterday, British Prime Minister David Cameron said that 9/11 and 7/7 truthers, and others who hold what he considers “extremist” views, are just as dangerous as the violent ISIS. He goes on to compare those holding extreme non-violent views with Nazis and Klu Klux Klansmen.

In his speech, Cameron said:

“We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism - not just violent extremism.”

It’s possible Cameron may walk back some of his comments after the inevitable backlash, but the thought process here is truly Orwellian. It harkens back to the blog I wrote yesterday about the Denver school board member who wants U.S. history to be taught with a more positive, patriotic spin. Who decides these things? Who decides whether a history book for high schoolers includes an honest discussion of slavery or not? Who decides which non-violent views are extremist? It’s our glorious leaders.

In Cameron’s world, you can be labeled an extremist for simply disagreeing with what your government says or does. If I say I don’t buy into the official version of events on 9/11, I’m as dangerous as a knife-wielding ISIS member.

And, after he’s identified the enemy, how exactly is Cameron going to combat non-violent extremist views? Will the extremists be imprisoned? Sent to re-education camps? Labeled as mentally ill?

Cameron’s U.N. speech was fear mongering at its most appalling spiced with totalitarian inclinations. It laid bare both the elite’s growing anxiety at the worldwide threats to Western hegemony and the reactionary, undemocratic response to those threats. Big Brother would be proud.

Dear conservatives, be careful what you ask for

A member of Colorado’s Jefferson County School Board, which includes Denver-area schools, has written a proposal urging high school U.S. history classes to teach positive aspects of U.S. history and its heritage. According to the wording of the proposal, teaching materials should "promote citizenship, patriotism ... (and) respect for authority" and not "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law." In other words, cleanse American history of any unpleasant truths like slavery or Native American genocide or dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Understandably, many students and parents are outraged by the proposed changes, and students from seven Denver-area schools walked out of classes on Tuesday and Wednesday in protest. Unfortunately, this isn’t an isolated incident. Christian fundamentalists have been infiltrating school boards across the country for years in order to push their religious agenda into our children’s classrooms. Texas is an especially egregious example. 

The Denver proposal is Orwell’s Ministry of Truth made real, where history is rewritten to conform to the government-approved version of events. It is an attempt to pull the curtain down on the ugly, violent episodes of our past and pretend they never happened. Truth becomes what the government says it is.

This is, of course, not education but indoctrination. Instead of opening young minds to the world as it is, the mistakes that have been made, and possibly how they might make things better in the future, they would be force-fed historical fantasies and American exceptionalism until they became unquestioning, God-fearing little robots.

And here’s the thing; it’s been tried before. In the 1950s we were made to say the pledge of allegiance every morning, were treated to highly sanitized versions of American history and repeatedly told the importance of respecting authority.

Then came the 1960s…

Killing off America’s middle class is economic suicide

My father was the son of Italian immigrants. Like many young men of his generation, he quit high school to fend for himself during the Great Depression. He became a self-taught auto mechanic and eventually co-owned a garage in Oakland, California. The third of three children, I came along in the early 1950s and grew up in a comfortable middle-class part of the city, enjoying the material benefits of the post-war boom in America. Our house was small but comfortable. He was the sole breadwinner, yet we could afford upper-end cars and took two-week vacations every summer.

We were not Ozzie and Harriet’s family, and we had our struggles and trials, but still, I was brought up living a modest, secure life even though my father never finished the eighth grade and worked with his hands. We were tried and true middle class Americans, a blue-collar family that could still afford nice things.

The point of my little trip down memory lane is to contrast a time when opportunity existed for a large portion of American society, as opposed to today, where opportunity exists for only a very small group at the top of the food chain. The middle class is dying or, more accurately, being killed off by the one percent. In an article on income inequality by Morgan Stanley, there are more than a few depressing graphs and charts illustrating the decline of America’s middle class, but one that stands out is a chart showing the U.S. leading the developed countries of the world in its share of low paying jobs. What does this mean? It means the gap between the tiny group of haves and the rest of us will continue to grow wider and wider.

And this is where I become confused. Doesn’t destroying America’s middle class mean destroying the customer base for many large retailers? If my wages are stagnant or declining while prices of goods rise, that means I’m not going to be able to afford a new model car or a new dishwasher or the latest phone. If I’m the CEO of Target or GM or Amana, why would I support policies or candidates who want to shrink my customer base? Doesn’t that seem self-defeating to you? Yet it’s exactly what’s happening. If the current trajectory doesn’t change, the average person won’t be able to afford to buy things we consider necessities now, like appliances or cars or insurance.

It could be that the richest of the rich simply don’t care. Their wealth places them beyond the concerns of mere mortals and the future of their families seems secure. Are they all as callous, greedy and heartless as the Koch brothers? Perhaps. How else to explain what is happening to our economy?