Sunday, January 9, 2011

Gabrielle Giffords: A Victim Of Violent Fox News/Tea Party Rhetoric?

Posted by Mark on January 8, 2011 at 6:27 pm.

There was a shooting today in Tuscon, Arizona that has taken several lives and has left a United States Congresswoman struggling to survive. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), is out of surgery and is clinging to life. Sadly, Judge John Roll and several others who have not been identified (including a ten year old girl) have already been pronounced dead.


Tea CrusadesWhile there are some disturbing components to this story (itemized below) it is way to soon to attribute motives in this particular case. However, it is not too soon to reiterate the predictable danger that results from irresponsible and violent language that has become far too common in recent years. Fox News has been at the forefront of this trend, permitting their top personalities to engage in dialogue that is overtly hostile, as well as promoting the most vile elements of the Tea Party.


Bill O’Reilly’s labeling of Dr. George Tiller as “Tiller the baby killer” may have played a part in Tiller’s murder. Glenn Beck’s relentless condemnation of George Soros and the Tides Foundation was cited as inspiration by a man who was apprehended after a police shootout while he was on his way to kill Tides and ACLU personnel. Sean Hannity refers to his audience as “Tim McVeigh wannabes” to thunderous applause. Liz Trotta joked about “knocking off” President Obama.



But the risk is not limited to direct threats as those listed above. The tone of many Fox News hosts and analysts is just as dangerous. They cavalierly describe their political adversaries as radicals, communists or fascists who are deliberately destroying America and blaspheming God. What do they expect people to do upon being terrorized by that sort of delusional peril?


I want to emphasize that the facts to follow are not necessarily connected to the gunman in today’s news. But they are notable nevertheless for how they illustrate potential risks due to the sort of anti-social behavior that is encouraged on Fox News.


Rep. Giffords was targeted by the Tea Party and their AstroTurf benefactors Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks.


Glenn Beck attacked Giffords with his co-host calling her a moron for her support of renewable energy in the military.


At a recent event held by Giffords in Arizona, police were called after an attendee dropped a gun.



Giffords’ office was vandalized just hours after she voted for the health care reform package.


Giffords’ opponent, GOP/Tea Party candidate Jesse Kelly, held an event where supporters were encouraged to “Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.”


Also killed was Federal Judge John Roll, who had received numerous death threats after ruling to allow a case involving illegal immigrants to go forward.


Giffords was one of the politicians to whom Keith Olbermann made contributions, leading to his three day suspension from MSNBC.



Sarah Palin (“Don’t Retreat – Reload”) put Giffords on her Hit List.


Joyce Kaufman, talk show host and aide to Rep. Allen West told a Tea Party rally: “If ballots don’t work, bullets will.”


GOP/Tea Party Senate candidate Sharron Angle said: “If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.”


And perhaps most poignantly, Rep. Giffords father, Spencer Giffords, 75, wept when asked if his daughter had any enemies. “Yeah,” he told The New York Post. “The whole Tea Party.”



I repeat, these may have no connection to today’s shooting. But they are indicative of a problem in the media that must be addressed. There have been plenty of other acts of violence whose connection to this sort of rhetoric is well documented. And there have been credible warnings about just this type of tragic event.


To be clear, I am not calling for any kind of censorship. I am calling for responsibility on the part of the press, and absent that, accountability. The people who deliberately use incendiary language to fire up their followers cannot get off scot-free when the predictable consequences occur. It could not be said better than how Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik put it in a press conference addressing the shooting this afternoon:


“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,” the sheriff said. “And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.”



http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=3595

Liberal Ariz. sheriff sees cause of violence

By: Andy Barr
January 9, 2011 12:47 AM EST


By declaring Arizona a “mecca for racism and bigotry” and blaming heated rhetoric on the right for the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik gave voice to those looking for a cause of Saturday’s violence.



With Democratic party leaders for the most part showing restraint in their comments following the shootings, Dupnik expressed at a news conference Saturday night in Tucson what many liberals were thinking, but hadn’t yet said.



“Let me say one thing, because people tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that,” the sheriff said during a press conference. “That may be free speech, but it’s not without consequences.”



During an interview earlier in the day that aired on MSNBC via local NBC affiliate KPNX, Dupnik declared that “it’s time that this country take a little introspective look at the crap that comes out on radio and TV.”



The seven-term sheriff and Bisbee native is well known in Arizona for speaking his mind and has established himself as one of the leading liberal voices in a state that boasts only a handful.



Dupnik, 73, supported Giffords during her campaigns for congress and attracted headlines last spring as one of the most prominent opponents of the state’s controversial immigration law, S.B. 1070, which was signed by GOP Gov. Jan Brewer. Though the policy has been blocked from implementation by a federal court order, Dupnik vowed that he wouldn’t enforce the “racist” law.



On any other day, a warning from a county sheriff — even one known to the national media — to cool overheated talk show chatter wouldn’t have moved the needle much. But with the political class at a total loss over the tragedy and the left aching from the attack on one of their own, Dupnik’s comments have carried outsized weight in driving Saturday’s dialogue.



MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann called Dupnik’s word “extraordinary” in a special Saturday night edition of “Countdown,” and highlighted the sheriff’s media criticism on Twitter.



In a special comment later in the program, Olbermann linked the incident to Giffords being identified last year as one of former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin’s 20 “targets” for the November election, identified by a website showing crosshairs around 20 Democratic districts.



“This morning in Arizona, this age in which this country would accept “targeting” of political opponents and putting bullseyes over their faces and of the dangerous blurring between political rallies and gun shows, ended,” the liberal host said.

Dupnik’s comments were also spotlighted in a series of posts at the top of the liberal Daily Kos.



“Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik isn’t afraid to point the finger at who is culpable,” wrote one Daily Kos blogger.



Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) echoed Dupnik’s sentiments in an interview with the Huffington Post.



“The climate has gotten so toxic in our political discourse, setting up for this kind of reaction for too long. It’s unfortunate to say that. I hate to say that,” Grijalva said. “Anybody who contributed to feeding this monster had better step back and realize they’re threatening our form of government.”



Dupnik’s recognition in local political circles as an outspoken Democrat may end up backfiring for those on the left spotlighting his comments in attempts to pin conservatives with inciting violence.



Several on the right have accused Dupnik and those spotlighting his remarks of exploiting the tragedy for political gain. And local conservatives are quickly spinning his comments as those of a partisan.



“For out of state folks perplexed by Pima County Sherriff comments: Pima County is to AZ as Austin is to TX. Dense Dem area comparatively,” tweeted Pamela Gorman, a conservative activist in Phoenix who ran in a primary campaign against Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.).



And a blogger for the Tucson Citizen identified the “Democrat County Sheriff” in a post attacking Dupnik’s “outrageous” use of the incident for “political reasons.”

The blame of overheated rhetoric on the right incensed leading conservatives, many of which offered statements of support for the congresswoman currently recovering from surgery in an Arizona hospital.



“The left is using this tragedy to score political points. Rep. Giffords was on Gov. Palin’s target list for defeat this past November. The left claims Gov. Palin has blood on her hands. So does the tea party movement,” wrote RedState founder Erick Erickson on his blog. “Let’s not let the left, yet again, spin this against the tea party movement, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or Sarah Palin inciting violence. That’s both a profound lie and just another, though lesser, bit of evil.”



“Politicizing this is repulsive,” added Rebecca Mansour, a spokeswoman for Palin, in a tweet.



http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=DC832363-9500-4F9F-9504-36F5A55FB8CE

Giffords warned in March of ‘consequences’ to Palin’s violent rhetoric

By Stephen C. Webster
Sunday, January 9th, 2011 -- 1:42 am

sarahpalinoops Giffords warned in March of consequences to Palins violent rhetoricFox News employee Sarah Palin's violent rhetoric caused concern back in March 2010, when she released a map of the United States with gun crosshairs over 20 congressional districts, including Arizona's eighth.


The representative for that district, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), now lays in a hospital after a gunman put a bullet in her head, shooting 18 others before his violent eruption ended.


And in an unsettlingly accurate premonition back when Palin "targeted" Democrats encouraged supporters to "reload" and "take aim" at them, Giffords predicted that there would be "consequences" for the escalation of violent rhetoric in the media.



Her language was also defended by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who at the time suggested that using such terms was perfectly fine.


During a March 25th broadcast of MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown," Giffords differed, substantially.



"The thing is, the way that she has it depicted -- the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district -- when people do that, they've got to realize that there's consequences for that action," she said.


Her sentiment then was echoed by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik at a press conference on Saturday, where he called for "people in the radio business and some people in the TV business" to town dow their level of outrage.


"I think it's the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business and what we see on TV and how our youngsters are being raised, that ... This has not become the nice United States that most of us grew up in, and I think it's time that we do the soul searching," he said.


"It's not unusual for all public officials to get threats constantly, myself included," Dupnik added. "That's the sad thing about what's going on in America: pretty soon we're not going to be able to find reasonable decent people willing to subject themselves to serve in public office."


"My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shootings in Arizona," Palin wrote Saturday. "On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice."


The gunman, identified as 22-year-old Arizona resident Jared Lee Loughner, was in police custody Saturday night and allegedly posted a revolutionary screed on the Internet describing his opposition to the world's currency systems and an objection to government control of English language rules, among other things.



This video is from MSNBC, broadcast March 25, 2010.




http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/giffords-warned-march-consequences-palins-violent-rhetoric/

'Vitriol' Cited As Possible Factor In Arizona Tragedy

by Liz Halloran
January 9, 2011

Law enforcement officials continue to piece together the facts in Saturday's shooting rampage that left a federal judge dead and a congresswoman critically injured in Arizona, and some are questioning whether divisive political rhetoric may have played a role.

At least six people died and at least a dozen were injured in the Saturday morning shooting at a Tucson, Ariz., grocery store parking lot, in which the gunman specifically targeted Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Pima County, Ariz. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said. Giffords was shot in the head, and the shooting continued until citizens tackled the suspected gunman, he said.

The dead included John Roll, chief judge of the U.S. District Court of Arizona. Also killed was Gabe Zimmerman, 30, the congresswoman's director of community outreach, and a 9-year-old girl. Two other Giffords staffers were injured.

At a news conference Saturday night, a clearly emotional Dupnik, who has been close to both Giffords and Roll, repeatedly cited what he characterized as the "vitriol" that has infected political discourse. He said that his own state has become "the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

There is reason to believe, he said, that the shooting suspect "may have a mental issue," adding that people like that "are especially susceptible to vitriol."

"That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences," he said.

The suspected gunman was tackled and held by people at the event until police arrived and took him into custody. Law enforcement sources told NPR the suspect was 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner.

Dupnik declined to name the suspect, but said he "has kind of a troubled past — I can tell you that — and we are not convinced he acted alone."

Officials have a photograph of a second "person of interest," a 50-year-old white male, Dupnik said. "We have an individual we are actively in pursuit of, but I cannot tell you who he is at this point," the sheriff said.

The suspect still had ammunition in his weapon when he was tackled, Dupnik said. Law enforcement officials had previous contact with the suspect and he had made threats, the sheriff said.

NPR and other news organizations reported earlier Saturday that Giffords had died. NPR member station KJZZ in Phoenix reported the recently re-elected Democratic congresswoman and six others had been killed by the gunman, based on a source in the Pima County Sheriff's office.

'A Tragedy For Arizona'

"Gabby Giffords was a friend of mine," President Obama said Saturday afternoon in a nationally televised statement from the White House. "It’s not surprising that today Gabby was doing what she always does: listening to the hopes and concerns of her neighbors."

"This is more than a tragedy for those involved," he said. "It is a tragedy for Arizona and a tragedy for our entire country."

Giffords, a moderate "Blue Dog" Democrat and gun rights advocate who in November eked out a win for a third term over Tea Party-backed Republican Jesse Kelly, underwent surgery at University Medical Center in Tucson. Hospital Director Pete Rhee said that a bullet had entered and exited the congresswoman's head, but that he was as "optimistic" as he could be in the situation.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was re-elected to a third term in November.
Drew Angerer/AP

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was re-elected to a third term in November.

There has been a rush to determine what had prompted the massacre in a state that has been roiled by incendiary debate over illegal immigrants and has also become ground zero for those questioning Obama's birthplace.

"It's not a good atmosphere right now, though I'm not saying that's what prompted this," said University of Arizona law professor Andy Silverman, who knew Roll well. "But things in Arizona are very tense, and we've become the incubator for a lot of immigration-related matters and now for the birthers, too."

Giffords' fellow Arizona congressman, Republican Jeff Flake, recalled that she was unfazed after her Tucson office had been targeted by vandals who broke a window on the eve of last year's health care vote.

During an interview with MSNBC after her office was vandalized, Giffords noted that her district was on Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" list of targeted congressional races. And it had been reported that in 2009, Roll and his wife received 24-hour protection for at least a month after receiving death threats after certifying a multimillion-dollar lawsuit illegal immigrants had filed against an Arizona rancher.

Palin, in a statement, offered "sincere condolences" to Giffords and the other victims.

"On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice," she said.
People gather for a candlelight vigil for the victims of a shooting rampage in Arizona, at the steps of the Capitol in Washington on Saturday.
Jose Luis Magana/AP

People gather for a candlelight vigil for the victims of the shooting rampage, at the steps of the Capitol in Washington on Saturday.

As information about Loughner began to emerge later in the day — including online videos and comments posted under the same name as the Tucson native and Mountain View High School graduate — those in Arizona and Washington cautioned against jumping to conclusions.

Some online statements attributed to Loughner suggest an obsession with the nation's currency system and with grammar. In one online video posted under Loughner's name, an American flag is burned.

"It has been a difficult time politically for the country, and I'm sure bloggers and others will go crazy laying blame — on gun rights, on Tea Party people — trying to figure out who's fault it is," said Randy Graf, a Republican who served in the state Legislature with Giffords and lost to her in her first run for Congress.

"As we hear more about the alleged shooter, it seems he may be more like a person with problems whom you can't control," said Graf. He said that despite their political differences, he and Giffords "got along great."
Heard On Air
NPR's Ted Robbins Talks With Guy Raz About The Shooting Jan. 8, 2011
Colleagues Reflect On Rep. Giffords Jan. 8, 2011

Former Rep. Jim Kolbe, the Republican whose seat Giffords won in 2006 when he decided not to seek re-election, said that it is "inappropriate speculation to talk about what the political environment might be."

"We don't have any information yet," said Kolbe, who was a good friend of Roll's. "I don't think members of the media and the public realize that public officials receive threats all the time and have their offices vandalized."

Giffords, 40, has been considered an up-and-coming Democrat, with a moderate streak and an astronaut husband. At age 32, she became the youngest woman ever elected to the Arizona statehouse.

She was described Saturday by Arizona University law professor Lynn Marcus, co-director of the school's immigration clinic, as "very accessible and very warm," someone many know on a first-name basis.

"She's taken a position in support of comprehensive immigration reform, but she hasn't been anyone who is perceived as a liberal or pro-immigrant," Marcus said. "Her constituents in southern Arizona are ranchers and rural Arizonans."
Emergency responders surround the scene of a shooting where a gunman opened fire Saturday, shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and several others in Tuscon, Ariz.

Emergency responders surround the scene of a shooting where a gunman opened fire Saturday, shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and several others in Tuscon, Ariz.

She has advocated enforcement and securing the border as key to handling the challenging issue, Marcus said.

Giffords was expected to lose her race last year in the Republican-leaning 8th Congressional District. As Flake said, there was a "very strong headwind" against her — and all Democrats.

"She got re-elected because she's tenacious," he said. "She's tireless."

Kolbe, who has known Giffords since they served together in the state Legislature, said she is "very outgoing, effervescent and thoughtful."

She has a master's degree from Cornell University and took over her family's tire business in Tucson.

Judge, Congresswoman Were Friends

Roll, a 63-year-old Pennsylvania native who received his law degree from the University of Arizona law school, was appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1991. Silverman, who coordinates a clerk program with Roll, said he considered the judge hardworking, smart and low-key.

"If you put labels on judges, he would be considered more conservative, but I think he's apolitical," Silverman said.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Roll's death was "a somber reminder of the importance of the rule of law and the sacrifices of those who work to secure it."

Dupnik said that Roll, whom he described as "one of the finest human beings I ever met in my life," had stopped by Giffords' event on his way home from Mass, which he attended daily.

Roll and the congresswoman were friends, the sheriff said, and the judge just wanted to say hello before he went home to "do the floors," like he does every Saturday.

As the news continued to spool out Saturday, apolitical was the tone many, including Graf, were seeking.

"We'll get through this," Graf said. "There's time for politics later."

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/09/132780010/vitriol-cited-as-possible-factor-in-arizona-tragedy

US Anti-War Resistance on the Rise

By Kevin Zeese

December 21, 2010



Editor’s Note: Though still relatively small, signs of resistance to the continued Afghan War and to the Obama administration’s campaign against leakers have become unmistakable, from the White House gates to Internet sites that present information the government would prefer to keep hidden.


In this guest essay, anti-war activist Kevin Zeese describes last Thursday’s demonstration at the White House and recounts the depth of new evidence about official wrongdoing and deception emerging from the WikiLeaks disclosures:





Pulitzer Prize winning war correspondent and author Chris Hedges, who has seen more war than most vets, joined in the call for action. He adapted President Obama’s campaign of hope and change, urging everyone not to wait for Obama, but to take action:


“Hope will only come now when we physically defy the violence of the state. All who resist, all who are here today keep hope alive. All who succumb to fear, despair and apathy become an enemy of hope. They become, in their passivity, agencies of injustice.”


Hedges urged actions, large and small, against the corporate-government’s militarism.


As Obama spoke inside the warm White House, outside in the snow 131 veterans and their supporters defied authorities, some chained themselves to the White House fence, others refused to leave when ordered by police. They were arrested. Many promised continued acts of resistance. 


Some, from other movements, like Margaret Flowers, MD of the single-payer health care movement, urged solidarity as resistance is needed on many issues mishandled by corporate-government. The seeds of resistance had been planted.


The watering of that seed was coming from Obama’s false words and the truth escaping from his government’s secrecy. He proclaimed progress in the Afghanistan War. But, the front page of the New York Times, the day before his speech, reported “two new classified intelligence reports offer a more negative assessment and say there is a limited chance of success.” 



These reports (not released by WikiLeaks, but by the traditional leaking in DC) were from the National Intelligence Estimates which brings together the findings of 16 intelligence agencies and showed a conflict with the Defense Department’s more rosy picture.


President Obama then went on to talk about how the U.S. could begin withdrawing troops as the Afghan police were trained and took their place. But, just four days before the President spoke, The Guardian described how “more than 20,000 officers from the Afghan National Police (ANP), the country's main law enforcement agency, have left over the past year.”


President Obama promised to persist until the United States achieved victory, but as Daniel Ellsberg, a veteran and former military analyst for the Pentagon pointed out, Gen. David Petraeus has told the President there will be no victory. 


Ellsberg, reading from Bob Woodward’s Obama’s War quotes Petraeus saying: “You have to recognize also that I don't think you win this war. I think you keep fighting. . . You have to stay after it. This is the kind of fight we're in for the rest of our lives and probably our kids' lives.”


If Obama’s inaccurate statements to the American people about a war costing $5.7 billion per month are not enough, you can look to the documentation of failure and potential war crimes in the WikiLeaks reports, the Iraq and Afghanistan War Logs and the diplomatic cables



They show, among other things, that:


--U.S. troops kill civilians without cause or concern and then cover it up (more examples of hiding civilian killings here, here and here) including killing reporters.



---The CIA is fighting an undeclared and unauthorized war in Pakistan with Blackwater mercenaries.


--Afghan President Hamid Karzai is not trustworthy.


--Afghanistan is rife with corruption and drug dealing.


--The Pakistan military and intelligence agencies aid Al Qaeda and the Taliban.



--U.S. officials look the other way when client governments engage in torture.


The cables also show that beyond the war fronts that Hillary Clinton has turned State Department Foreign Service officers into a nest of spies who violate laws to spy on diplomats all with marching orders drawn up by the CIA. These disclosures have the world looking at the United States with new eyes.



WikiLeaks, the Abu Ghraib prison photos, the reports from Guantanamo Bay, Red Cross reports of secret prisons, intelligence reports and so many other sources of information show Americans what their government is doing. 


And knowing the truth and not acting is complicity in these actions. In the face of this evidence, more and more Americans are acting. It was not only the arrest of 131 vets and their supporters that show a rising tide of resistance. That’s also apparent in the publishing of the documents by WikiLeaks and by major media outlets as well as in the independent media around the globe. 


In the more than 1,000 mirror sites of WikiLeaks set up as the original site was under attack, we see resistance. When more than 100,000 people downloaded the WikiLeaks “insurance policy” and were prepared to release documents if Assange was harmed, it was an act of resistance.  


This resistance also is seen in intelligence officials leaking documents to the New York Times the day before the President spoke on Afghanistan, showing the country that the war is failing despite what the President says. 


Resistance is seen in Americans organizing for their right to know and reaffirming freedom of the press, under the banner WikiLeaksIsDemocracy.org. It is also seen in those standing up for Bradley Manning in the Bradley Manning Support Network.


 

It has always been small things that people do that leads to massive change. While the government has a lot of weapons at its disposal, its insecurity is evident in its reaction to the truth. Government officials show more than embarrassment, they show fear – fear of their own words being exposed and people knowing what they do. 


Everyday that a truth is revealed, the government looses power and influence. It is a problem of its own making.


And, while the U.S. military is the most powerful in the world, and the U.S. taxpayer spends as much as the whole world combined on weapons and war, it has not won a significant war in more than 50 years. 


Now, all this “superpower” status rests on a fragile economy that is in deep collapse and showing no signs of real recovery, while the ship of state is too dysfunctional to respond to multiple crises facing the nation and world.


The superpower is strong, but weak at the same time.  These seem to be the signs of an empire that could collapse at anytime.



Kevin Zeese serves on the steering committee of the Bradley Manning Support Network and Voters For Peace, the organization he directs, is the initiator of WikiLeaksIsDemocracy.org.

http://consortiumnews.com/Print/2010/122110a.html

A Zoo of Our Own Making

By Phil Rockstroh
December 31, 2010

Editor’s Note: At the end of one difficult year and the start of what is sure to be another, there are natural questions about the purpose of human endeavor, doubts that touch us all. For journalists who try to do the job honestly, there are gnawing doubts about the value of this work, uncovering information for a public that often seems distracted or disinterested.

Sometimes, the only answer is an internal one, living up to a personal code of what’s right or what the tradecraft of a profession demands. In this essay (and companion video), poet Phil Rockstroh notes that the barren landscape of American culture presents such an existential quandary to us all: What have we become as a people who “will kill for empire and a parking space?”

In an age, when nature is besieged and the political landscape blighted, and one stands, stoop shouldered and wincing into the howling wasteland of epic-scale idiocy extant in the era, a solitary person can feel lost ... marooned inside an increasingly isolated sense of self.

Whether urban, suburban, or rural dwelling, the sense of alienation, for an individual, is profound ... as discernible to the eye as the constellations of foreclosure signs stippling overgrown front lawns across the land ... as hidden as the abandoned dreams within.

The fraying ligature of the landscape of the United States reveals an inner geography of alienation and anomie.

Living on the island of Manhattan, I daily negotiate an urban layout of practical, but identity-decimating grids -- a cityscape of harsh, inhuman right angles ... a geography that renders street encounters abrupt, curt and intrusive.

After a time, one begins, by reflex, to buffer oneself against such intrusions, withdrawing inward ... becoming a self-enclosed, walking fortress, shielding oneself from the degradations of these impersonal affronts (that feel altogether personal) -- with I- Pods, Blackberries, and other vestments attendant to the muttered prayers of the self-absorbed.

While above the street -- corporate towers -- that are steel and concrete kingdoms of blind, willful ascension -- blot the skyline ... these structures flee upward, as if to escape the implications of life lived at street level and sharing in the consequences of decisions made within their sterile, insular sanctums of power and cupidity.

This is architecture as blind hubris: creations made by the hands of mortal men ... yet failing to have any connection to the ground, these buildings crowd out the real estate of the sacred.

Moreover, their manic skyward thrust leaves them, and those imprisoned within, bereft of roots that reach down into the renewing loam of the earth, to where mortal vanity is delivered to dust and desperate hopes rot and transubstantiate into the compost that nourishes new life.

And blooms of renewal, I suspect, will not be found online as well. The electronic sheen of social media sites is no substitute for communal fabric. There is no animal musk nor angelic apprehensions to en-soul the flesh and tease wisdom out of obdurate will ...

No matter how many restless shades want to friend you on FaceBook nor ghostly texts descend upon you in an unholy Pentecost of Tweets, online exchanges will continue to leave you restless, hollow, and yearning for the colors and cacophony of an authentic agora.

The adolescent purgatory of FaceBook -- with its castings into the Eternal Now of instant praise, acceptance, and rejection -- reflects, magnifies, and acerbates the perpetual adolescence of the contemporary culture of the United States, intensifying its shallow longings and displaced panics, its narcissistic rage and obsession with the superficial.

It devours libido, by providing a pixilated facsimile of the primal dance of human endeavor, leaving one's heart churning in thwarted yearning, locked an evanescent embrace with electronic phantoms, as one, paradoxically, attempts to live out unfulfilled desires by means of hollow communion with the soul-negating source of his alienation.

One can never get enough of what one doesn't need. Ergo, the compulsions and panic of millions of hungry ghosts will hold an ongoing, hollow mass online, in a futile campaign to regain form, gain direction, and walk in meaning and beauty among the things of the world, but instead will remain imprisoned within the very system that condemned them to this fate.

And this is the place, we, as a culture, will remain, for a time. This electronic inferno will be our vale and mountaintop, our sanctuary and leviathan.

We will stare baffled into its vastness, stupefied and lost within its proliferate array of depersonalizing distractions and seductions. The more we try to lose ourselves in it, by surrendering to its shimmering surface attractions, the more tightly we will become bound in the bondage of self.

Naturally, living in the grinding maw of such monsters of alienation will engulf one with ennui and angst. Moreover, the judgment of anyone claiming not to be afflicted should be regarded as suspect.

Possessed by this mode of being: we languish in a zoo of our own making where we gaze, without comprehension, at the confines of our enclosure, chew our paws, pace the cage, and are restless for mealtime. Like an animal in a cage, we are no longer what we were meant to be ... we have forgotten what it is to be alive.

With the exception of superficial form, we begin to lose our affinity to what makes us recognizable as a human being and as an animal -- for we have become simply a sad thing that waits for lunch. And I defy any caged clock-watcher in a cubicle to defy that point.

Restless and agitated in our confinement, we sink further into anomie ... into the benumbing embrace of comfort zones (over- eating, anti-depressants, consumerism as emotional distraction, addiction to electronic media) where we chose safety over the truth of our being.

In these cages of inauthenticity, our heart's longings and human needs are held in stasis by the perfunctory persona we cultivated for approval and acceptance; there, consigned to a barren region of mind where one is rewarded for docility and duplicity, one languishes, bereft of eros and pothos ... unconsciously self-convicted and sentenced for the crime of being a serial betrayer of one's essential self.

So much of the criteria of the modern condition has atomized us, stripped us, collectively, of ritual, purpose and meaning, and placed us in the midst of what T.S. Eliot expressed in prosody as a "heap of broken images."

What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man, You cannot say, or guess, for you know only A heap of broken images, where the sun beats, And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,

And the dry stone no sound of water. Only There is shadow under this red rock, (Come in under the shadow of this red rock), And I will show you something different from either Your shadow at morning striding behind you

Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you; I will show you fear in a handful of dust.

--From: The Waste Land

There is danger, of course, in such places -- but there is also the possibility of renewal.

Personal and historical traumas leave a legacy of bewilderment. And being bewildered i.e., being in a psychic wilderness, lost, having wandered or been cast past the known horizon of experience ... is to be in position to engage the novel, be in the thrall of unfolding mystery, and wander in a soul-suffused landscape of the sublime.

A state of alienation is right where we should be: To be able to adapt to a culture dedicated to little more than finding efficient means of exploiting the hours of the greater public's lives for the benefit of a greedy few ... would be a tragedy.

Living within this culture should bring on despair ... It is a leviathan that has devoured your existence. Do you think you can renovate the belly of the beast ... set up a time-share with Jonah and Pinocchio there ... and live in comfort?

Should not one stagger and stammer in mortification when shown a handful of dust?

Moreover, the solution we are offered -- making ourselves a dwelling within a prison of consumer kitsch -- should and does only bring on more anomie. Eliot wrote the following regarding a psyche attempting to adapt to a dying culture

[...] Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I have seen birth and death, But had thought they were different; this Birth was Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death. We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation, With an alien people clutching their gods. I should be glad of another death.

--From: The Journey of the Magi,

One of the notions, as Rilke might put it, that is "brooding like a seed" in my psyche has been the distinction James Hillman makes between civilization and culture.

Hillman avers that, and I agree, civilization is a dead thing -- an edifice of crumbling marble enshrined in an eros-devoid museum of the mind where we do little more than give empty, obligatory homage to a fossilized tableaux ... our forced reverence is but a perfunctory prayer muttered before the iconography of a dead religion; in contrast, culture is a living, breathing phenomenon of the collective mind, heart, and soul of the people within it.

Its logos inhabit the very air of existence, permeating it like the sound of birdsong, and cricket and cicada stridulation throughout a high summer night.

Moreover, he avers that culture is akin to a madhouse; in fact, the solution lies in the back ward of the asylum, the area where are housed the hopeless cases. In other words, like Dante ... proceed to the place you most fear looking upon, embrace it, and hear its awful keening and heart-opening agonies.

There is the location of rebirth, the last circle of hell ... retreating to a comfort zone will simply leave the situation is stasis.

So the question arises: How does one enter the soul-making shabbiness of the human condition, even though, as always, we are powerless against the trajectory of history and lost within the mad proliferation of culture -- and, as Bob Dylan limned in lyric regarding the alienation this situation evokes, "[one has] no direction home?"

Try this: embrace the bracing pain of your alienation: make a home in being lost. Gaze with wonder of upon the sacred scenery of your bewilderment ... Wandering in the wilderness is a holy state.

Wendell Berry believes such ventures to be one of the true vocations of the soul:

The Real Work

It may be that when we no longer know what to do we have come to our real work, and that when we no longer know which way to go we have come to our real journey.

The mind that is not baffled is not employed. The impeded stream is the one that sings.
--Wendell Berry

In other words, in times such as ours, when we embrace our alienation then we will be welcomed home ... to share a common shelter with the multitudes who are also lost.

Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at: phil@philrockstroh.com. Visit Phil's Web site And at FaceBook.

Angela Tyler-Rockstroh is a Broadcast Designer/Animator who has worked with major Networks such as Cartoon Network, Disney Channel, HBO Family, PBS, as well as, with Michael Moore on his documentaries, "Fahrenheit” and “Sicko."

http://consortiumnews.com/Print/2010/123110b.html

Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

By Robert Parry

June 3, 2009



There’s been talk that George W. Bush was so inept that he should trademark the phrase “Worst President Ever,” though some historians would bestow that title on pre-Civil War President James Buchanan. Still, a case could be made for putting Ronald Reagan in the competition.


Granted, the very idea of rating Reagan as one of the worst presidents ever will infuriate his many right-wing acolytes and offend Washington insiders who have made a cottage industry out of buying some protection from Republicans by lauding the 40th President.


But there’s a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan’s presidency. There’s also a grudging reassessment that the “failed” presidents of the 1970s – Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter – may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country.


Nixon, Ford and Carter won scant praise for addressing the systemic challenges of America’s oil dependence, environmental degradation, the arms race, and nuclear proliferation – all issues that Reagan essentially ignored and that now threaten America’s future.



Nixon helped create the Environmental Protection Agency; he imposed energy-conservation measures; he opened the diplomatic door to communist China. Nixon’s administration also detected the growing weakness in the Soviet Union and advocated a policy of détente (a plan for bringing the Cold War to an end or at least curbing its most dangerous excesses).


After Nixon’s resignation in the Watergate scandal, Ford continued many of Nixon’s policies, particularly trying to wind down the Cold War with Moscow. However, confronting a rebellion from Reagan’s Republican Right in 1976, Ford abandoned “détente.”


Ford also let hard-line Cold Warriors (and a first wave of young intellectuals who became known as neoconservatives) pressure the CIA’s analytical division, and he brought in a new generation of hard-liners, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.


After defeating Ford in 1976, Carter injected more respect for human rights into U.S. foreign policy, a move some scholars believe put an important nail in the coffin of the Soviet Union, leaving it hard-pressed to justify the repressive internal practices of the East Bloc. Carter also emphasized the need to contain the spread of nuclear weapons, especially in unstable countries like Pakistan.


Domestically, Carter pushed a comprehensive energy policy and warned Americans that their growing dependence on foreign oil represented a national security threat, what he famously called “the moral equivalent of war.”




However, powerful vested interests – both domestic and foreign – managed to exploit the shortcomings of these three presidents to sabotage any sustained progress. By 1980, Reagan had become a pied piper luring the American people away from the tough choices that Nixon, Ford and Carter had defined.


Cruelty with a Smile


With his superficially sunny disposition – and a ruthless political strategy of exploiting white-male resentments – Reagan convinced millions of Americans that the threats they faced were: African-American welfare queens, Central American leftists, a rapidly expanding Evil Empire based in Moscow, and the do-good federal government.


In his First Inaugural Address in 1981, Reagan declared that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”


When it came to cutting back on America’s energy use, Reagan’s message could be boiled down to the old reggae lyric, “Don’t worry, be happy.” Rather than pressing Detroit to build smaller, fuel-efficient cars, Reagan made clear that the auto industry could manufacture gas-guzzlers without much nagging from Washington.


The same with the environment. Reagan intentionally staffed the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department with officials who were hostile toward regulation aimed at protecting the environment. George W. Bush didn’t invent Republican hostility toward scientific warnings of environmental calamities; he was just picking up where Reagan left off.



Reagan pushed for deregulation of industries, including banking; he slashed income taxes for the wealthiest Americans in an experiment known as “supply side” economics, which held falsely that cutting rates for the rich would increase revenues and eliminate the federal deficit.


Over the years, “supply side” would evolve into a secular religion for many on the Right, but Reagan’s budget director David Stockman once blurted out the truth, that it would lead to red ink “as far as the eye could see.”


While conceding that some of Reagan’s economic plans did not work out as intended, his defenders – including many mainstream journalists – still argue that Reagan should be hailed as a great President because he “won the Cold War,” a short-hand phrase that they like to attach to his historical biography.


However, a strong case can be made that the Cold War was won well before Reagan arrived in the White House. Indeed, in the 1970s, it was a common perception in the U.S. intelligence community that the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was winding down, in large part because the Soviet economic model had failed in the technological race with the West.


That was the view of many Kremlinologists in the CIA’s analytical division. Also, I was told by a senior CIA’s operations official that some of the CIA’s best spies inside the Soviet hierarchy supported the view that the Soviet Union was headed toward collapse, not surging toward world supremacy, as Reagan and his foreign policy team insisted in the early 1980s.


The CIA analysis was the basis for the détente that was launched by Nixon and Ford, essentially seeking a negotiated solution to the most dangerous remaining aspects of the Cold War.



The Afghan Debacle


In that view, Soviet military operations, including sending troops into Afghanistan in 1979, were mostly defensive in nature. In Afghanistan, the Soviets hoped to prop up a pro-communist government that was seeking to modernize the country but was beset by opposition from Islamic fundamentalists who were getting covert support from the U.S. government.


Though the Afghan covert operation originated with Cold Warriors in the Carter administration, especially national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, the war was dramatically ramped up under Reagan, who traded U.S. acquiescence toward Pakistan’s nuclear bomb for its help in shipping sophisticated weapons to the Afghan jihadists (including a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden).


While Reagan’s acolytes cite the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan as decisive in “winning the Cold War,” the counter-argument is that Moscow was already in disarray – and while failure in Afghanistan may have sped the Soviet Union’s final collapse – it also created twin dangers for the future of the world: the rise of al-Qaeda terrorism and the nuclear bomb in the hands of Pakistan’s unstable Islamic Republic.


Trade-offs elsewhere in the world also damaged long-term U.S. interests. In Latin America, for instance, Reagan’s brutal strategy of arming right-wing militaries to crush peasant, student and labor uprisings left the region with a legacy of anti-Americanism that is now resurfacing in the emergence of populist leftist governments.


In Nicaragua, for instance, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega (whom Reagan once denounced as a “dictator in designer glasses”) is now back in power. In El Salvador, the leftist FMLN won the latest elections. Indeed, across the region, hostility to Washington is now the rule, creating openings for China, Iran, Cuba and other American rivals.



In the early 1980s, Reagan also credentialed a young generation of neocon intellectuals, who pioneered a concept called “perception management,” the shaping of how Americans saw, understood and were frightened by threats from abroad.


Many honest reporters saw their careers damaged when they resisted the lies and distortions of the Reagan administration. Likewise, U.S. intelligence analysts were purged when they refused to bend to the propaganda demands from above.


To marginalize dissent, Reagan and his subordinates stoked anger toward anyone who challenged the era’s feel-good optimism. Skeptics were not just honorable critics, they were un-American defeatists or – in Jeane Kirkpatrick’s memorable attack line – they would “blame America first.”


Under Reagan, a right-wing infrastructure also took shape, linking media outlets (magazines, newspapers, books, etc.) with well-financed think tanks that churned out endless op-eds and research papers. Plus, there were attack groups that went after mainstream journalists who dared disclose information that poked holes in Reagan’s propaganda themes.


In effect, Reagan’s team created a faux reality for the American public. Civil wars in Central America between impoverished peasants and wealthy oligarchs became East-West showdowns. U.S.-backed insurgents in Nicaragua, Angola and Afghanistan were transformed from corrupt, brutal (often drug-tainted) thugs into noble “freedom-fighters.”


With the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan also revived Richard Nixon’s theory of an imperial presidency that could ignore the nation’s laws and evade accountability through criminal cover-ups. That behavior also would rear its head again in the war crimes of George W. Bush. [For details on Reagan’s abuses, see Robert Parry’s Lost History and Secrecy & Privilege.]



Wall Street Greed


The American Dream also dimmed during Reagan’s tenure.


While he played the role of the nation’s kindly grandfather, his operatives divided the American people, using “wedge issues” to deepen grievances especially of white men who were encouraged to see themselves as victims of “reverse discrimination” and “political correctness.”


Yet even as working-class white men were rallying to the Republican banner (as so-called “Reagan Democrats”), their economic interests were being savaged. Unions were broken and marginalized; “free trade” policies shipped manufacturing jobs abroad; old neighborhoods were decaying; drug use among the young was soaring.


Meanwhile, unprecedented greed was unleashed on Wall Street, fraying old-fashioned bonds between company owners and employees.


Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250 times that of an average worker.)



Many other trends set during the Reagan era continued to corrode the U.S. political process in the years after Reagan left office. After 9/11, for instance, the neocons reemerged as a dominant force, reprising their “perception management” tactics, depicting the “war on terror” – like the last days of the Cold War – as a terrifying conflict between good and evil.


The hyping of the Islamic threat mirrored the neocons’ exaggerated depiction of the Soviet menace in the 1980s – and again the propaganda strategy worked. Many Americans let their emotions run wild, from the hunger for revenge after 9/11 to the war fever over invading Iraq.


Arguably, the descent into this dark fantasyland – that Ronald Reagan began in the early 1980s – reached its nadir in the flag-waving early days of the Iraq War. Only gradually did reality begin to reassert itself as the death toll mounted in Iraq and the Katrina disaster reminded Americans why they needed an effective government.


Still, the disasters – set in motion by Ronald Reagan – continued to roll in. Bush’s Reagan-esque tax cuts for the rich blew another huge hole in the federal budget and the Reagan-esque anti-regulatory fervor led to a massive financial meltdown that threw the nation into economic chaos.


Love Reagan; Hate Bush


Ironically, George W. Bush has come in for savage criticism, but the Republican leader who inspired Bush’s presidency – Ronald Reagan – remained an honored figure, his name attached to scores of national landmarks including Washington’s National Airport.



Even leading Democrats genuflect to Reagan. Early in Campaign 2008, when Barack Obama was positioning himself as a bipartisan political figure who could appeal to Republicans, he bowed to the Reagan mystique, hailing the GOP icon as a leader who “changed the trajectory of America.”


Though Obama’s chief point was that Reagan in 1980 “put us on a fundamentally different path” – a point which may be historically undeniable – Obama went further, justifying Reagan's course correction because of “all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability.”


While Obama later clarified his point to say he didn't mean to endorse Reagan's conservative policies, Obama seemed to suggest that Reagan's 1980 election administered a needed dose of accountability to the United States when Reagan actually did the opposite. Reagan’s presidency represented a dangerous escape from accountability – and reality.


Still, Obama and congressional Democrats continue to pander to the Reagan myth. On Tuesday, as the nation approached the fifth anniversary of Reagan’s death, Obama welcomed Nancy Reagan to the White House and signed a law creating a panel to plan and carry out events to honor Reagan’s 100th birthday in 2011.


Obama hailed the right-wing icon. “President Reagan helped as much as any President to restore a sense of optimism in our country, a spirit that transcended politics — that transcended even the most heated arguments of the day,” Obama said. [For more on Obama’s earlier pandering about Reagan, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Obama’s Dubious Praise for Reagan.”]



It’s a sure thing that the Reagan Centennial Committee won't do much more than add to the hagiography surrounding the 40th President.


Despite the grievous harm that Reagan’s presidency inflicted on the American Republic and the American people, it may take many more years before a historian has the guts to put this deformed era into a truthful perspective and rate Reagan where he belongs -- near the bottom of the presidential list.


Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2009/060309.html

Preparing for More Reagan Mythology

By William Blum

January 7, 2011



Editor’s Note: Republicans and the Right have demonstrated again and again that they grasp the value of myth-making, as has been best demonstrated by their relentless hero worship of Ronald Reagan.


By many objective measures – such as his impact on the welfare of average Americans and his disrespect for humanitarian values – Reagan should rank among the worst presidents ever, but that is not what you’ll hear from the media and politicians in the weeks ahead, as William Blum notes in this guest essay:





On New Years Day, a 55-foot long, 26-foot high float honoring Reagan was part of the annual Rose Parade in Pasadena, California.


To help you cope with, hopefully even counter, the misinformation and the omissions that are going to swamp the media for the next few months, here is some basic information about the great man's splendid achievements, first in foreign policy:


Nicaragua


For eight terribly long years the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Ronald Reagan's proxy army, the Contras. It was all-out war from Washington, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the Sandinista government — burning down schools and medical clinics, mining harbors, bombing and strafing, raping and torturing. These Contras were the charming gentlemen Reagan called "freedom fighters" and the "moral equivalent of our founding fathers".


El Salvador


Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protestors and strikers. When the dissidents took to the gun and civil war, the Carter administration and then even more so, the Reagan administration, responded with unlimited money, military aid, and training in support of the government and its death squads and torture, the latter with the help of CIA torture manuals. U.S. military and CIA personnel played an active role on a continuous basis. The result was 75,000 civilian deaths; meaningful social change thwarted; a handful of the wealthy still owned the country; the poor remained as ever; dissidents still had to fear right-wing death squads; there was to be no profound social change in El Salvador while Ronnie sat in the White House with Nancy.



Guatemala


In 1954, a CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of military-government death squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling more than 200,000 victims — indisputably one of the most inhumane chapters of the 20th century. For eight of those years the Reagan administration played a major role.


Perhaps the worst of the military dictators was General Efraín Ríos Montt, who carried out a near-holocaust against the Indians and peasants, for which he was widely condemned in the world. In December 1982, Reagan went to visit the Guatemalan dictator. At a press conference of the two men, Ríos Montt was asked about the Guatemalan policy of scorched earth. He replied "We do not have a policy of scorched earth. We have a policy of scorched communists." After the meeting, referring to the allegations of extensive human-rights abuses, Reagan declared that Ríos Montt was getting "a bad deal" from the media.


Grenada


Reagan invaded this tiny country in October 1983, an invasion totally illegal and immoral, and surrounded by lies (such as "endangered" American medical students). The invasion put into power individuals more beholden to U.S. foreign policy objectives.


Afghanistan


After the Carter administration provoked a Soviet invasion, Reagan came to power to support the Islamic fundamentalists in their war to eject the Soviets and the secular government, which honored women's rights. In the end, the United States and the fundamentalists "won", women's rights and the rest of Afghanistan lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees; in total about half the population. And many thousands of anti-American Islamic fundamentalists, trained and armed by the U.S., on the loose to terrorize the world, to this day.



"To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom," declared Reagan. "Their courage teaches us a great lesson — that there are things in this world worth defending. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors."


The Cold War


As to Reagan's alleged role in ending the Cold War ... pure fiction. He prolonged it. Read the story in one of my books. [Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, p.17-18. Also for the five countries listed above, see the respective chapters in this book.]


Some other examples of the remarkable amorality of Ronald Wilson Reagan and the feel-good heartlessness of his administration:


Reagan, in his famous 1964 speech, "A Time for Choosing", which lifted him to national political status: "We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet."


"Undermining health, safety and environmental regulation. Reagan decreed such rules must be subjected to regulatory impact analysis — corporate-biased cost-benefit analyses, carried out by the Office of Management and Budget. The result: countless positive regulations discarded or revised based on pseudo-scientific conclusions that the cost to corporations would be greater than the public benefit."



"Kick-starting the era of structural adjustment. It was under Reagan administration influence that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank began widely imposing the policy package known as structural adjustment — featuring deregulation, privatization, emphasis on exports, cuts in social spending — that has plunged country after country in the developing world into economic destitution. The IMF chief at the time was honest about what was to come, saying in 1981 that, for low-income countries, 'adjustment is particularly costly in human terms'."


"Silence on the AIDS epidemic. Reagan didn't mention AIDS publicly until 1987, by which point AIDS had killed 19,000 in the United States."

– Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman [June, 2004; Mokhiber is editor of Corporate Crime Reporter; Weissman, editor of the Multinational Monitor, both in Washington, D.C. ]


"Reagan's election changed the political reality. His agenda was rolling back the welfare state, and his budgets included a wide range of cuts for social programs. He was also very strategic about the process. One of his first targets was Legal Aid. This program, which provides legal services for low-income people, was staffed largely by progressive lawyers, many of whom used it as a base to win precedent-setting legal disputes against the government. Reagan drastically cut back the program's funding. He also explicitly prohibited the agency from taking on class-action suits against the government — law suits that had been used with considerable success to expand the rights of low- and moderate-income families."


"The Reagan administration also made weakening the power of unions a top priority. The people he appointed to the National Labor Relations Board were qualitatively more pro-management than appointees by prior Democratic or Republican presidents. This allowed companies to ignore workers' rights with impunity. Reagan also made the firing of strikers an acceptable business practice when he fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Many large corporations quickly embraced the practice. ... The net effect of these policies was that union membership plummeted, going from nearly 20 percent of the private sector workforce in 1980 to just over 7 percent in 2006. "



– Dean Baker [April, 2007; Baker is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington, D.C.]


Reaganomics: a tax policy based on a notion of incentives which says that "the rich aren't working because they have too little money, while the poor aren't working because they have too much."


– John Kenneth Galbraith


"According to the nostrums of Reagan Age America, the current Chinese system — in equal measure capitalist and authoritarian — cannot actually exist. Capitalism spread democracy, we were told ad nauseam by a steady stream of conservative hacks, free-trade apologists, government officials and American companies doing business in China. Given enough Starbuckses and McDonald's, provided with sufficient consumer choice, China would surely become a democracy."


– Harold Meyerson [Washington Post columnist, June 3, 2009]



Throughout the early and mid-1980s, the Reagan administration declared that the Russians were spraying toxic chemicals over Laos, Cambodia and Afghanistan — the so-called "yellow rain" — and had caused more than ten thousand deaths by 1982 alone, (including, in Afghanistan, 3,042 deaths attributed to 47 separate incidents between the summer of 1979 and the summer of 1981, so precise was the information). President Reagan himself denounced the Soviet Union thusly more than 15 times in documents and speeches. The "yellow rain", it turned out, was pollen-laden feces dropped by huge swarms of honeybees flying far overhead. [Killing Hope, p.349]


Reagan's long-drawn-out statements re: Contragate (the scandal involving the covert sale of weapons to Iran to enable Reaganites to continue financing the Contras in the war against the Nicaraguan government after the U.S. Congress cut off funding for the Contras) can be summarized as follows:


I didn't know what was happening.


If I did know, I didn't know enough.


If I knew enough, I didn't know it in time.


If I knew it in time, it wasn't illegal.


If it was illegal, the law didn't apply to me.



If the law applied to me, I didn't know what was happening.


William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2; Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower; West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir; Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire. Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org. This article was originally published in Blum's Anti-Empire Report.



\http://consortiumnews.com/Print/2011/010711a.html

The Coming Christian Divide

By the Rev. Howard Bess
January 8, 2011

Editor’s Note: Christianity is entering a new era of change – and possibly crisis – as young adherents increasingly question the disparity between Jesus’s scriptural messages, which emphasize peace and justice, and the political exploitation of Christianity by the powerful to justify wars, hatreds and the accumulation of vast wealth.

Which way Christianity heads, especially inside the United States, could steer the planet toward either a more peaceful future or one dominated by “the clash of civilizations” abroad and a “winner-take-all” society at home, a crossroads that the Rev. Howard Bess addresses in this guest essay:

Five years ago, we became aware that something significant was happening among Christian churches. Young people were leaving churches in huge numbers, most with no intention to ever return.

Many became associated with a new phrase, the emergent church, and formed themselves into small groups as house or home churches. The gatherings are marked by both worship and vigorous discussion, which are far-ranging but typically focus on Jesus, the rural rabbi from Nazareth.

At or near the top of the questions being debated by emergents is the meaning and significance of the death of Jesus from Nazareth, which is not a new debate but is one the emergents are taking in a new direction.

Students of theological history know that theories about the significance of the death of Jesus on a Roman cross were a major discussion point among the early Church Fathers in the centuries after Jesus’s death and among the leaders of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries.

While the meaning was debated, no one questioned that Jesus died for the sins of the world. Yet, neither the Apostles’ Creed nor the Nicene Creed from the early days of the Catholic Church make any mention of the meaning of the death of Jesus, stating simply that he died, was buried and rose from the dead.

The subsequent debates that took place over the centuries were within the framework of these creeds and other church orthodoxies. But a dramatic change began to take place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in America.

As a reaction to liberalism, American Protestants began formulating the fundamentals of the Christian Faith. Defining the fundamentals was a tool to identify those who were in and those who were out.

Those arguments came to a head between 1910 and 1915 at Princeton Theological Seminary. Out of debates at Princeton five fundamentals were identified. One of the five was the substitutionary atonement of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross.

According to this understanding of the death of Jesus, all of humankind is under a death sentence because of sin. God himself has pronounced this death sentence and his holy integrity cannot be satisfied without executing the death penalty.

To give humankind a way out, God in his mercy sent his son into the world for the specific purpose of dying for the sins of the world as a substitute for us all.

While the Roman Catholic Mass and the Protestant Communion service are open to such an interpretation, the demand of God for a substitutionary atonement has never been stated in such rigid, unrelenting terms as it was in the Princeton statements.

The Princeton fundamentals became the basis of 20th century American Christian Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.

In the American emergent church there is a clear movement away from Fundamentalism. Yet, the emergents that I know do not want to be identified as liberals either. They see themselves as a movement to reform Evangelicalism.

Central to their pursuit is the desire to learn more about the life and teachings of Jesus, with a new motivation to study and understand the aphorisms and parables of Jesus.

The emergents are finding a Jesus that was fully engaged with everyday life, and who, in fact, was crucified by Roman authorities as an insurrectionist. In the study of the life of Jesus, people are finding a man of love, peace, reconciliation and service. THEY DO NOT FIND A SHRED OF VIOLENCE IN HIM.

The corollary of this is that in emergent churches, the participants are questioning the violent side of God that is part and parcel of substitutionary atonement. I strongly suspect that the meaning of the cross will become the battleground of Christian theology in the next decades.

Places of Christian worship are dominated by crosses. Indeed, the cross is the logo of the Christian church.

The Roman Catholic mass and the Protestant Communion celebration are vital and central to Christian worship. These are celebrations of the death of Jesus for the sins of the world. Our understanding of God is at stake as we discuss and argue the meaning of our Communion celebrations.

In our communications age, the younger generations are saying “we have to talk about this!” But Christian churches are seemingly not yet ready to discuss the meaning of our worship ceremonies, nor Christianity’s logo, nor the very nature of God.

Brian McLaren has become a significant voice in the emergent church. His most recent book is entitled A New Kind of Christianity. The subtitle of the book is “Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith.”

The reader can agree or disagree with McLaren’s conclusions, but rest assured, he is asking the vital questions raised by the emergent churches, which today are becoming statistically significant.

Emergents are sincere believers; they are also questioners.

The Rev. Howard Bess is a retired American Baptist minister, who lives in Palmer, Alaska. His e-mail address is hdbss@mtaonline.net.

http://consortiumnews.com/Print/2011/010811a.html