Truth Revival- The New Beginning Begins Now

Ghosts of Christmas' Past, Future Links in Past Notes, Have a Nice Day /Year /Life

2012-01-01T18:38:00.000-08:00

Around that time (mid-July 2003) I was for the first time not getting dizzy all the time and was beginning to get over the effects of getting hit by a car, thrown 6 feet in the air, and landing head first on the pavement. This was about 6 weeks after the accident. I had said in poetry as far back as Triumvirum about my mindset changing over time, but after the accident it was changing extremely rapidly and constantly, continually, and frantically trying out new ways of thinking and analyzing and categorizing perception, and then storing them and moving on to make new ones at an extreme pace.

October 07, 2007
Hazy beginnings, Abrupt Ends, Dreams Overshadowing, and Concentrated Notes
http://www.polsci.com/realblog2.htm#hazy (archived copy)
http://jareddubois.blogspot.com/2007/10/hazy-beginnings-abrupt-ends-dreams.html (original)

As I gaze at the reflections
dancing across the surface
of one of nature's many shallow pools,
I feel as though I am looking
at the ghosts from another time

At the touch of my hand they scatter
only to once again reappear
as the waves slowly begin to quell
and they reveal to me their stories
for they know I need to hear them

But these faces that do haunt me
are not of strangers of long ago
nor are their tales unfamiliar
for they are the different ages of me
and their dreams that did not survive

They are in pools of rain and window panes
and they will follow wherever I go
until the day when I take them back
if ever I decide to again be whole
and no longer bar them from my soul

The Haunting
Triumvirum (1988)
http://www.polsci.com/triumvirum.htm#tv57.htm

After finishing Morality: Individual and Social, (http://www.polsci.com/morality.htm) the idea got stuck in my head at its end that what people will think in the future is not beyond us now, it is just the things we are not ready to accept. None of the things we call improvements to our societies socially now were unheard of 50 or 100 years ago, they were just unsettling the majority of people then. The aim of Towards Tomorrow was to move beyond the present and kick over a few sacred stones of beliefs to see what might lurk beneath them, or see if their foundations were really that sound. ...
This is impossible to do on so many levels, to be able to truly think beyond the bounds, conventions, and biases of ones own time, people, and civilizations. We can gleam a few perspectives from the past, (what we are allowed to know or think about it by current governments), postulate about how other more advanced species might perceive things, or extrapolate on how those in the future might see things as humanity matures, and more of its denizens have greater and unrestricted access to its histories, all of them, not just which versions their present societies wish to stress for their own political purposes which are nothing more than caricatures of the past constructed to validate or support the current beliefs into "instant traditions" more often than not at odds with the past they claim to be upholding. ...
That I am not capable doing such, now any number of people are now qualified to say, for I have attempted just that, to go beyond what people now are capable of understanding which may make sense or more sense to people a dozen or a hundred years from now, to do it for him to show him that even the things we are not able to do that we wished to do, that somehow everything gets done eventually, however indirectly. I doubt anyone can know (with certainty) what people will find relevant a hundred years from now, but to set our sights that high; to attempt to look beyond our world today, our present beliefs of our own time or place in history to see beyond our own horizons to what is or may be true beyond them, such attempts are good and valuable even if the results of which are worthless in and of themselves.
Philosophy when it works best is done in layers. Take what has come before and add to it, build upon it. What people believe now, that which has worth and will withstand the test of time if it is left unsheltered enough to meet all challenges, will at best provide ONLY a foundation for new outlooks we might only catch glimpses of today. The past and previous outlooks need to be incorporated into future ones, and not dominate them, nor restrain them, nor seek to prevent them from arising. Religions are great bearers of the past to the future, and many ideas and ideals would not have survived without being encapsulated into them, yet it is a sad thing when many great ideas of different faiths are not taught or stressed in others because they are perceived as being foreign, outside of ones own religion, and to even think of such thing would be to be unfaithful to ones own religion or people. Religions have kept many great ideas and viewpoints intact for thousands of years, but it is that very rigidity of walls between faiths which keeps good ideas and outlooks from being shared by all. ...
Many good notions have been incorporated and identifiable as being stressed by some religions yet it is those very religious connotations which helped them survive which may keep them from spreading, as if by buying into one notion or belief you must ascribe to an entire belief system, or that you are unfaithful to your own faith by considering views which are parts of religions outside of your own faith. The pursuit of truth ought not to be hindered by who had which beliefs first or which group stresses which values more. The free flow of ideas ought to include all views, not just economic, governmental, and scientific. Those systems are evolving by and large by what works best regardless of how or where it originated, yet with some philosophical and religious ideas, changes seem destined only to create new fractures and vying versions and sects because there are few ways or means to incorporate outside ideas into them to grow or evolve.
I do not necessarily believe what we believe philosophically or religiously will or ought to be believed ten thousand years from now just as no religions from ten thousand years ago are dominant today. Whatever new belief systems emerge will have a part of our beliefs in them or will in some way have grown out of them (and away from them), just as they who will hold and believe them will have grown out of us and our lives. I do not claim to know what those beliefs systems will be like, nor would I necessarily hold them to be more true, but I hope they are tried and true battle tested through rigorous comparisons against contentious contenders without appearing to corner the market or have a trademark on any particular value or belief over any others, and that they will be what we all are, stronger for coming from many different sources into one being.
... In a way each life is a redefinition of all which came before them. Upon each revision, or each redefinition, there are those which are not contradicted and new ideas hinted at which begin to emerge when trying to synthesize them into a coherent whole.
Life is equally complex and real truths are best written between the lines, either that or we just see and apply new meaning to what is not really there which we wish was, some deeper meaning or purpose or logic (which we did not see the first time around) which we wish to impose upon it. ...
... and hopefully this has attested to why one ought to step outside what one ought to think once in awhile, challenge everything that is known or believed on occasion, to attempt to glimpse the Universe beyond our own minds, beliefs, and mindsets. It is ALWAYS heretical, and depending on your society, sometimes (such questioning is) illegal, but always can lead to something more, something valuable, something which now only exists as potential, good or bad, which like us will be judged for its value only once it has been attained, realized, and known. And in the end, not realizing it, not conceiving of it as an option, letting some truths go unknown until the end of time, it is not even a possible viable option. Truth will seek us out to become known, even and most often when, we spurn it.

December 25th, 2002
Heretic Papers II- Beyond the End of the Universe (Posted 6/2009)
http://5dnotes.blogspot.com/2009/06/heretic-papers-ii-beyond-end-of.html

Though the President of the United States would like to take credit for a lack of terrorist attacks, mostly the best he can realistically do to prevent them is to not do anything stupid to make them more likely, such as bombing countries which have not attacked us, occupying them, watching over regimes we put in place unable to provide safety, electricity, clean drinking water, health care, or anything we associate with everyday life, while non-government militias led by people we do not like and do not like us further their control by actually keeping these people alive and semi-secure in ways their “legitimate” government, one that to most people there is complicit and tainted with deferring to an illegal occupation force, us, cannot do and is not doing.
After going from “We are winning” to “We are not losing” the war in Iraq which is not a war, not a Civil War of Iraqis, nor a war of us against Iraq, with an occupation force which is not an occupation of their country but “liberators” which the majority of their public believe shooting us on sight is justified and an overwhelmingly majority of them want us to leave no matter what the consequences are to them. At least for a change they would not have us to referee and perpetually prolong indefinitely their “birth pangs” but instead would eventually have one side or another “win” what is left of that destroyed country. ...
Lord knows when we will get a President would not only know not to do anything stupid to “unintentionally” wreak havoc and destruction all over an area of critical importance to us, destroying our credibility there, making our Muslim allies rightly nervous if not imperiled, but might actually instead try to work to correct the mistakes and stop the hemorrhaging of what history will show was the greatest wound to America, if not any country, which was self-inflicted by so few “democratically” without shame, without fear of accountability, but with one hell of a war profit packed retirement portfolio.

December 25th/26th, 2006
Smokey the Burning Bush to George: Only you can prevent terrorist attacks or forest fires
http://www.polsci.com/realblog.htm#smokey (archived copy)
http://jareddubois.blogspot.com/2006/12/smokey-burning-bush-to-george-only-you.html (original version)

          I have not been doing much writing these last few years, and as I mentioned in the most recent post here, Democracy DOA : Prognosis up from Dead On Arrival, what little writing I have done has been in regards to the past at my "5D notes" blog (http://5dnotes.blogspot.com/). It is hardly "trending" or "current" in any sense, yet I have paced it according to certain things yet to happen as well so it is following a timeline in regards to the present, the times when it is written, alongside the past already-happened one, though not at the same rate of speed, day for day. I try to keep one eye on the future even as I still feel the need to decompress the past a bit.

         The Notes blog is easily the hardest thing I have attempted to do in many respects. As I put it in my most recent post there, Evolve or die: New eyes, blurred and blinded, misbegotten Time Roads, writing well for me usually has not been that difficult. However, though the subject matter of what I am trying to cover there is itself very complex, it is at its most multileveled difficulty to write (or for others to read) when I try to combine different time periods "threads" with the things which I am covering.

          Since that Notes blog is following a particular timeline, still now stuck in July 2003 where it will be for stuck awhile (for several more posts at least), a dense period in many senses of the word. :-) Many of my subsequent notes over the years relate to things within about a week's time in that July. Though I have used about 10 posts now at that blog to cover more the 7 months previous to that July, I feel it would take at least several long posts, with very many paragraphs, both covering the many things that were written at that time, and also to include what I would wish to add now just to even begin to address adequately or sum up breifly what was meant in that times' writings.

          In my later notes I put in a phrase roughly as "forward in time hyperlinks" (the exact line was.. Reverse links (html) forward in time) to cover a certain concept. While writing the notes, here and there I would think to add a hyperlink to a similar thing I had written to that previously in the notes, or in other things I wrote. Then I thought, it would be good to in the future, make the links in the notes go in both directions, both to previous things to better explain that idea or concept, and to future notions of what that idea led to later on. In reality, much of the notes which were heavily abbreviated were ALL in a sense, forward in time links because the reason for writing it in a short cryptic fashion was meant as a placeholder to remind be later about something which I did not have time for, or could not write about at that time, given external circumstances.

          Some of the posts at the 5D Notes blog which I think came off very well, bounce around in time quite effectively in my opinion, linking what I was writing on those dates which it means to cover with ideas similar but written both previous to that time and how they developed later, via leading excerpts hopefully brief and relevant (though others ideas of "brief" and "relevant" will obviously vary, but I *try* to keep them short and relevant). And then in addition to that, there is a twin current timeline of exposition of what I am writing now about then, thus occasionally many different times at once are involved in a post, though all but the present one I am writing now, are all in the past. But since years have elapsed since the period they are meant to cover, that means I can cover the material in this fashion more fully retroactively or looking back, than I ever could have done at that time, and knew it then, without needing to alter or revise the past writings to do so. I can now explain some of what those "forward in time hyperlinks" where meant to cover, i.e. what ideas I had known or believed then which were partially covered in later notes, as well as some others which I have yet to address yet at all. As I put it in RCP Complete...

There are things that I would write that I know ahead of time. Ideas which come at once which have a lot more depth to them than just an idea, almost like remembering an entire book by the title, except sometimes for me they are of things I have not written yet. I just remember them almost whole. RCP may or may not be one of them. Life, the external environment, just selects which ones actually will get done, made, played out.
The Notes I keep have a lot of ideas which I know in shorthand that represent things which are very long and complicated which I have not written yet, many which I never will, and some I would not even want to.

          It is fun in a way to be in one of those futures where/when I would write about some of those things, completing some of the circles a bit. However as I mentioned, this particular time in the present and that particular time in the past are difficult to line up perfectly because most of all of the later notes, far too many to link or explain, all go back to that particular period of late July. It is when the notes became a "shorthand" of things to write about later, while also keeping a ongoing dated journal of what was going on in the present, which I needed both of at that time, and combined them.

          However "fun" it is for me to cover them now, it is also a great deal of work to pull it off, to write them in a way that I think is both appropriate to the depth of it, and to the potential inherent within the present to do it right. Or to do it well, if there is not any one "right" way to do it. In a way, in that last week of July 2003, most all of the later years of notes were "born" in a way. That way being as a pattern of writing, trying to remember and archive what I was currently thinking in the present, while trying to link or put down in shorthand ideas more relevant a future time when I would have time to later sort it out and explain it more fully. Sort of like putting down markers on the ground of where walls or a foundation will stand one day should you get the time to build them later.

          But as I remarked when beginning the idea of archiving the notes, the roots of them go back later to about a year before when I started writing short things of varying complexity because I did not need to or want to, or think I had the time to necessarily, develop those ideas more fully. Those newer, much shorter forms compared to how I wrote before were like the later "Notes" pages (http://www.polsci.com/notes.htm) I am spending a lot of time on going over these days, only those were written without an eye toward future times when I would have to tidy them up a bit by further explaining them or further developing them later. They were self-contained.

          One of my favorites from that time I will put below. I was intending with this post to be written and posted on Christmas Day 2011, to write new things about "current things" going on in the world to match the Christmas Day theme and quotes posted above this, but then I just did not feel like it, so I just enjoyed the day without writing anything. Since today is a week later, New Year's Day 2012, in what will likely be for many people a complex period or turbulent or hard times, more dense with more important things going on than in many other years past, I am enjoying "living in the past" a little bit longer. I suspect that I will be writing about "current things" as well as decompressing that very complex week in July before getting on, hopefully, to even newer things that I have not yet made up or thought about, nothing with past "future links" to. A fresh plate so to speak. So in short, (too late) I just mean to use this semi-planned, semi-revised, short post to say 'Have A Nice (New Year's) Day' to any who might read it. And while you are at it, try to 'Have A Nice Year' too. And in the process of that, try to have a nice rest-of-your-life too, one "Nice Day" at a time until you reach, for whatever for you, is truly coming home.

(the rest of this post follows after this rather lame (though relevant :-) ASCII artwork... (Blogger doesn't render ASCII well, Wiki image substituted)

If I had lived thousands of years ago in what we call ancient Egypt, the prevailing experts at the time would have told me the sun was a god and required a lot of things from me, revering it, paying it a lot of attention, maybe sacrificing things to it to keep it happy, and so on.

Because I live in the time and place I do, the prevailing experts tell me the sun is a condensed form of gaseous atoms burning in a continuous atomic inferno and quite indifferent to my opinions about it or my attitude towards it.

Seeing as I will most likely not in this lifetime get a chance to go to it to test out either theory, I tend to like the latter explanation better since it requires less of me, not just because it has more facts to support it. Call me selfish, but I like the idea that it sits up there billions of miles away just shinning on like a 1970's smiley face button, oblivious to what I do, requiring nothing of me but to consider it occasionally and to have a nice day.

To think of our sun only as a solid or gaseous burning star is not really giving it its due. It means far more to me than just that, and I feel an attachment and obligation to appreciate it since it does by no small measure make everything else in my life possible, though I certainly will not sacrifice anything to it nor run my life around what I think it wants of me.

To know what it is, and to feel its significance to me, these are two very different things. What is matters, but what also matters is what it is to me, that relationship.

Others may interpret God to demand much sacrifice, service, and obedience, others may think God is indifferent. To me God is much like the sun, though not the sun, nor the Earth, nor the water, nor the life, but like all of these or as all of these, as each does, making everything else for me possible, like the sun shining on and on equally for all and asking nothing in return, except maybe once in awhile to stop and to appreciate it, and to have a nice day.

... and now for the musical portion of our show (Lyrics and video are from different songs. The theme is the same. To all those recently back from far away, Welcome Home! ....

every local dive
every jewelry hive
every shot I hear
every hopeless tear
every well dressed crook
every hand I shook
every grain of sand
reminds me who I am
and I feel like coming home

excerpt from "Feel Like Coming Home" by Tom Flannery

Democracy DOA : Prognosis up from Dead On Arrival

2011-04-28T16:13:00.000-07:00

I am very proud of things I wrote 4 years ago this month (in April of 2007) at TruthRevival.org and related things at Polsci.com (also written that April), two web sites of things that I write. But some of the things which I am most proud of having written were written 8 years ago this month (in April of 2003). The former was written some miles up the coast from here in Lahaina, the latter written some miles down the coast from here in Wailea. The thing about having more time, if you understand time or think you do in the way I like to, if you are lucky, you do not see yourself at the end of the line, the present “capping” the past, but always, always, in the middle or center.

Until Yesterday: Experience, Existence, Whose Universe, Co-Existence
Jared DuBois - Wednesday, April 20, 2011
5dnotes.blogspot.com

And within that are the great lessons of Eastern thought, Taoism, Buddhism, and Zen: the need to recognize the limitations of languages, and by extension, of cultures, as contextual, limited in scope to those they were originally developed within or for, but needing constant expansion and having that past, that foundation, being put in new contexts through new experiences and greater histories which they cannot contain without constricting them. Constricted growth is as close to death as it is to life. Growth must be free of the limitations of languages, of single cultures, of single ideologies, of single types of governmental or economic systems, or it is not growth at all, merely attempted sameness, death of better ideas, preventing new words, new concepts, new systems from emerging.
Truth is not found in words. Words like art, like anything in our environment, are attempts to make a representation of truth. The "Western" type of thinking, of an external objectifiable truth to reality has its roots in a wider viewpoint. Among the earliest Greek philosophers, Paramenides among others, knew that thinking was at best an approximation of truth, an elusive search meant to be unending, always sought after, yet forever out of reach. That has nothing to do with the absolutism with which the West has come to be identified with, mainly as an excuse to impose its culture upon others. Parmenides said on truth, "both the unchanging truth behind all that which only seemingly comes and goes from being, and the opinions and perceptions of Man about this in which there cannot be found truth, ... it is necessary for you to see how untruths and misconceptions come to be seen as truth, both (the unchanging truth and our interpretations/changing perceptions of things/subjectivity) together create all experiences."
I began my own philosophical search as a cultural relativist, have moved beyond it, yet am astounded and disheartened beyond measure to see my own culture, America, slam cultural relativism, as something trite, irrelevant, even a fashion without substance. It has become a victim of its own hyped up self-importance, a media preaching that ignorance is better than knowledge. There has been so much of a backlog of falsehood, misrepresentation, propaganda, and outright self- destructive lying to the American people by the Bush Administration of the 21st century that as it begins to get exposed, has the potential to point us, and because of our possibly undue influence or control over the rest of the world, to point the world on a new and better path as we begin once more to speak what we believe to be the truth. We need to try to know what is outside of ourselves, what lies outside of our bodies, minds, beliefs, mindsets and national borders, that is not irrelevant, not without truths of their own which we do not destroy without destroying our own ability to grow.
The truth will begin to be let out more and more. We in the West, we need to demand a media that shows us to us as the rest of the world knows us, so we may see what they do and we do not. To see ourselves from the most points of view. To see ourselves from the most points of approximations or representations of truth that may not be true in individuality, but in sum, in total, in the view we are purposely now kept from seeing, comes as close to the truth as we will ever get without retreating into our own unquestioning assumptions, dogma, propaganda, hubris, and self-delusions. We have become and have been led by the embodiment of such a dark path of willful ignorance. Yet a new path has already begun. It is young yet, this truth telling, and its fate depends upon the actions of millions of others to survive against the legacy we have spun, yet I have faith in it. I have faith that it will grow, that it will survive, and it will dominate the lies, at least in the short term, and at least of the recent past.

Wordplay - TruthRevival.Org First Post
Jared DuBois - Friday, April 6th, 2007
Truthrevival.org / Polsci.com

This is one of the greatest periods of change in American and world history, and now the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction. Not because the hapless Democrats have taken over a corrupted system, but because people are beginning to realize the need to be told the truth, and hopefully in government, they recognize the need to tell them.
Democracy requires stewardship not by the legislators but ultimately by the public informed about what is really going on. Right now, not even the legislators are being told what is going on and they have made it quite clear they prefer to be out of the loop. The lies must end. The free ride is over.
Without the public demanding both political parties in the US to actually represent their interests over corporate interests, other countries interests, the defense and oil companies interests in ways to the detriment and endangerment of it citizens, then it would be time to admit, the grand experiment in democracy, at least in the United States, is over and exists only in rhetoric and lies, about as factual as the disinformation and propaganda being served to them nightly by faux news broadcasts and talking point op-eds.
The American Spirit of democracy and self-government has been asleep for so long it has rightly been mistaken for dead. Whether that is the case has yet to be proven, but if not, the acting has been uncanny.

Giant sucking sound of loss of potential in headwinds: An open road or wind gone out of sails /
RCP Complete
Jared DuBois - Wednesday, April 18th, 2007
Truthrevival.org / Polsci.com

Now there's revolution, but they don't know
what they're fighting.

Excerpt from "Living in the Past" by Jethro Tull

          What little new writing I have done over the past 1½ years has been at my third blog (the other two being TruthRevival.org/Truthrevival.blogspot.com and JaredDuBois.com/jareddubois.blogspot.com) about the notes I wrote while in college and shortly thereafter between 2003 and 2007. Even at that blog, the posts have been few and far between. I do not like the idea of "living in the past" nor looking back for extended periods of time, nor doing what writing about the past often inevitably does, trying to put a new or different spin on it. Plus, after 10 posts spread out over the past 2 years, I still am yet only now getting close to the beginning of the notes.

          The original idea for having a separate blog for my notes came from the fact that my main web site which I keep most of my past writings at, POLSCI.COM, was down for many months about 4 years ago, mostly due to financial reasons. Because of that, I thought it would be good if I put my notes back up on the Internet somewhere where I could refer to them or link to them from time to time. As originally planned, there would have been about 6 posts of each of the raw or unedited notes, and maybe some of the compilation pages, all without any additional exposition or comments added. By the time I started the project 2 years later, I decided to take my time with it, (as the leisurely pacing of it has evidenced) and to add a minimal degree of setup for each part, while trying hard not to try to change or amend what is, and should be, the past. But still to add comments here and there when thinking it to be appropriate.

          Because I like many paragraphs in the notes, I have, since they began, occasionally mined them for related notes about certain topics, or gathering together ones which I thought were better than others. Often this was done simply by searching for a recurring word. The Democracy DOA collection which I am addressing and reposting here, was compiled when looking back through my notes in 2005. I have added a few others from the notes to that collection below now, some without containing necessarily the word “democracy” in them, because I think they kind of go with it.

          After having studied political science, psychology, political psychology, and political sociology spread out over many years and locations from the late 1980’s to the mid 00’s, in Boston, Amherst, Estonia, and Sweden, I have been lucky to have been exposed to a lot of different ideas about democracy, types of government systems, ideas of what governments should do, and what values they should create, nurture, or promote.

         But during the Bush years and seeing how the word “democracy” was being frequently used in a blatantly Newspeak opposite of its actually accepted meaning sort of way, most of my notes about the term “democracy” as it was then being used, again the opposite of its actual meaning, seem now to be rather despondent and cynical. But they were a good look at how the notion of democracy was being bandied about and unfortunately, even in this new “Obama Era”, they seem all too true today as well. The definition of democracy, at least in America, has been heavily skewed to the right or left, or rather just off the charts completely into Crazy Town.

          What got me to thinking about writing this post was recent writing which I have read over people being despondent about what has become of democracy in America these days, many either pronouncing it ill or even dead as I did. (Chris Hedges, ever the cheery cheerleader these days, “When did our democracy die? When did it irrevocably transform itself into a lifeless farce and absurd political theater?”) Democracy DOA was subtitled, Dead On Arrival. Now I am a tad more hopeful. I would use the DOA today more as a question, Dead Or Alive?

          My hope for a renewal of democracy lies predominately outside of the United States at this time. I have long thought democracy best can flourish, develop, and grow outside of the notice or interference of the main powers of the world: Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland; smaller countries fairly wealthy or at least not poor, and mostly to the extent as much as they can be these days: unaligned. My interest in the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania was/is in the hope that they could have been shown to be experimental testing grounds for new ideas for or had new interpretations of government and democracy, given their somewhat unique histories and perspectives. That was true many years ago, but now lessened due to the predominance of heavily neo-conservative influences, which got in there early and somewhat wrecked havoc on their potential developments in original approaches.

          But obviously the focus or hope for democratization now in 2011 is in the unlikely place of the middle-east, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, et all. I say unlikely because, for the reason I think democracy is best developed naturally and therefore best studied in out of the way, smaller, less strategic countries is that democracy developing, or trying to develop, in countries where the major powers of the world have strong interests in, as they say, have many chefs stirring the pot there so to speak.

          That is not to say that democracy cannot develop under these conditions, with interventions and interests of one or many major powers of the world meddling, openly or behind the scenes through their covert intelligence services, but it is hardly a “natural evolution” and often, hardly “democratic” in any sense.

          The only thing fairly shockingly missing from how the of “peaceful revolutions” in the post-soviet space were talked about or presented, whether the first round in 1989-1992, or the so called “colored revolutions” going on at the second time I was studying, (Georgia, Ukraine, etc.) was the lack of stressing the involvement or interests of the West and of the United States. It was as insane as talking or writing about why communism or socialism struggled in Cuba without talking about the embargo and policies of the United States toward Cuba. Not that Cuba should or would have been more successful, but with an intertwined world, one cannot look at politics of movements developing anywhere without mentioning heavily the outside or world trends, and the influences of the more powerful countries meddling or policies and relations, and their reactions toward those movements. It can be a minor factor in a region's “natural” development, or it can be more defining than practically anything else to the history of those regions.

Noam Chomsky recently covered some of those points well… (emphasis my own in the following)

Support for democracy is the province of ideologists and propagandists. In the real world, elite dislike of democracy is the norm. The evidence is overwhelming that democracy is supported insofar as it contributes to social and economic objectives, a conclusion reluctantly conceded by the more serious scholarship. ...
The democracy uprising in the Arab world is sometimes compared to Eastern Europe in 1989, but on dubious grounds. In 1989, the democracy uprising was tolerated by the Russians, and supported by western power in accord with standard doctrine: it plainly conformed to economic and strategic objectives, and was therefore a noble achievement, greatly honored, unlike the struggles at the same time "to defend the people's fundamental human rights" in Central America, in the words of the assassinated Archbishop of El Salvador, one of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the military forces armed and trained by Washington. There was no Gorbachev in the West throughout these horrendous years, and there is none today. And Western power remains hostile to democracy in the Arab world for good reasons. ...
It is small wonder that the "campaign of hatred" against the U.S. that concerned Eisenhower was based on the recognition that the U.S. supports dictators and blocks democracy and development, as do its allies. ...
...Meanwhile the costs of electoral campaigns skyrocketed, driving the parties into the pockets of concentrated capital, increasingly financial: the Republicans reflexively, the Democrats -- by now what used to be moderate Republicans -- not far behind.
Elections have become a charade, run by the public relations industry. After his 2008 victory, Obama won an award from the industry for the best marketing campaign of the year. Executives were euphoric. In the business press they explained that they had been marketing candidates like other commodities since Ronald Reagan, but 2008 was their greatest achievement and would change the style in corporate boardrooms. The 2012 election is expected to cost $2 billion, mostly in corporate funding. Small wonder that Obama is selecting business leaders for top positions. The public is angry and frustrated, but as long as the Muasher principle prevails, that doesn't matter. ...
All of this, and much more, can proceed as long as the Muashar doctrine prevails. As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please, and those who survive will be left to contemplate the outcome.

Is the World Too Big to Fail? The Contours of Global Order
by Noam Chomsky - Thursday, April 21, 2011
TomDispatch.com

Besides echoing the prevailing cynicism about democracy... “Elections have become a charade”, and pointing out as many are doing, now so clear because the United States' polar opposite reactions to similar circumstances in Libya vs. Bahrain, that the US promotes democracy only or mostly when it is in its strategic interest to do so. How democratic a system, or how much democracy the people of middle-eastern countries get will be determined by many factors, both within those countries themselves, and also to a greater degree, by the major power centers of the world.

This interplay between local peoples aspirations of democracy and what is possible or allowed via the outside environment was mentioned well in another recent article… (emphasis my own in the following)

After a review of the “threats” facing the U.S. in Latin America, influential Treasury Secretary George Humphrey informed his NSC colleagues that they should “stop talking so much about democracy” and instead “support dictatorships of the right if their policies are pro-American.” At that moment with a flash of strategic insight, Dwight Eisenhower interrupted to observe that Humphrey was, in effect, saying, “They’re OK if they’re our s.o.b.’s.”
It was a moment to remember, for the President of the United States had just articulated with crystalline clarity the system of global dominion that Washington would implement for the next 50 years -- setting aside democratic principles for a tough realpolitik policy of backing any reliable leader willing to support the U.S., thereby building a worldwide network of national (and often nationalist) leaders who would, in a pinch, put Washington’s needs above local ones. ...
In 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice summed up this record thusly: “For 60 years, the United States pursued stability at the expense of democracy… in the Middle East, and we achieved neither.”

Washington on the Rocks: An Empire of Autocrats, Aristocrats, and Uniformed Thugs Begins to Totter
by Alfred W. McCoy and Brett Reilly - April 25, 2011
TomDispatch.com

          So though as imperfect and skewed, for those within these regions, as their movements toward democracy will be, it is the source of my hope that “democracy” in its traditional meaning, is not yet dead because of many people still willing to risk everything against overwhelming odds to attain it. I am not convinced that economics is not the key motivating factor there, and that much smaller numbers of the demonstrators have any actual notions of what their government should be or how it should operate, other than being generally less repressive toward dissent. And also that they should be less hungry and impoverished, and much of the rest, calling it a “drive for democracy” is more how it is sold to us in the news, but there is still nonetheless a real political movement toward greater democracy there.

          Also, my hopes for democracy have been somewhat bolstered by the Tea Party Movement in the United States. No, I don’t agree with many of their policies, but within that movement was a genuine hope for true and meaningful reform which Obama also promised but most certainly did not deliver. The Tea Party Movement was of course eventually co-opted by the most wealthy and powerful, as most movements are eventually, as will probably happen in most if not all “revolutionary movements” in the middle-east now, as before in history. But within the people who are organizing and being motivated, however badly it ends up, and it usually does end up poorly, there is still for awhile a renewal of hope.

          The so-called “colored revolutions” which I studied in University and out, were not complete failures, but they changed little for most people except who was stealing at the top, and to where the influence or money was heading. One of the best quotes I saw post-orange-movement was a dejected Ukrainian who said to the effect that, “we may as well leave these bastards in power: they are already rich, whereas the new ones have that much more to steal before they are done.” That is how it ends up, and that is what is killing the notion of “democratic change”. That no matter how much you organize, protest, the powerful will step in and “manage” the change you attempt, whatever you attempt, to make you more screwed and worse off than you were before.

          That is what became or is becoming of the Tea Party, but that is where most things go. Many years ago I would have been shocked that people could be so twisted as to protest to keep their children from being able to have affordable medical insurance or free medical care, but no more. It is par for a very horrible course, but that is what there is to work with, deal with, and try to make better. The Tea Party was no more a sellout to the Koch Brothers than “Obamacare” was a sellout to the insurance industries, but within or behind both movements there was a desire for change and a mobilization of the public to achieve something, and that inspired and moved many people to become more political and more politically active.

As I wrote here back when Barack Obama first became president, I thought it would take MANY kinds of political movements to EFFECT REAL CHANGE, and even ONES I DO NOT AGREE WITH, which is what has happened and that gives me hope. As I put it then…

It would be easy for me, like many other writers who were opposed to many of Bush's policies, to now rant instead about thinking or predicting what Obama's mistakes in similar veins will be. That "Change we can believe in" will not occur is too safe a bet to make, not to mention pessimism, and that makes it not of interest to me. Though I agree that Obama's supporters should not support him blindly and should hold him accountable to actually following through on his spoken or believed positions on promises of a different world, pressuring which is necessary to make or even to enable him to follow through on that promise or those promises. I simply refute the idea of complaining about mistakes he has not made yet, but most likely will. Plus, he seems more adaptable than most are to changes which will (okay, I will predict that much) be required, even to a surprising degree. And I would not think that he will not be better or smarter next year than he is now, or was last year. Anyone can grow or change, even within the pressure cooker and bubble of the presidency of the US, and even potentially for the better.
The needed changes go beyond even a (US) president's ability to institute them, but not necessarily beyond a movement like the one which got him the job. With growing movements (plural) for political change, if allowed by my country to flourish (a very big "if" as they may actually threaten real and genuine change which even if for the better, the system would not think to allow to occur or be discussed without a verbal war and political persecution like blowback to whistle-blowers), then nothing that needs to be done cannot be achieved. Democracy is based upon and requires cooperation of the general public protesting and/or demanding things to succeed or even to function as a democracy at all, and greater political action and participation of a majority of our citizens is increasingly required in the absence of any counter-weight to the dominating politicized and myopic beltway mentality of the US mainstream press. And that is an engagement which is long, long overdue.
Where things stand today hopefully at best is to begin that necessary broad or broadest possible dialog for change which is more important or as important as any implemented or chosen changes. The dialog will need to be far more inclusive that what is or can be done, or even should be. All things and roads ought to be considered someday and in due time. And for a greater range than ever before, that time is increasingly right now.
As much as consensus is a good thing and necessary, I prefer to embrace also the right of people saying things I disagree with, even despise, than to simply safely swim in a stream of a world finally coming to it senses, hopefully. Both things are necessary to me. What people deride as political correctness is far more dangerous than either side, left or right, anarchist or neo-con, or those of most any political or philosophical stripes realize. Even good ideas and platforms I agree with get carried to extremes in the absence of any countervailing opposition, even wrongly-founded opposition, which prevents totalitarian-like nanny or police states replacing true freedom. What is beyond question to be thought to be right, without proper checks (and the best, most eloquent arguments possible in opposition to it) from those opinions that are greatly (even universally) thought to be wrong, devolves without being checked into a forced compliance and well-intended insanity, and complete devolution of freedom and an open society.

Giant sucking sound of loss of potential in headwinds: An open road or wind gone out of sails
Jared DuBois - Sunday, February 1, 2009
Truthrevival.org / Polsci.com

         To people on the left who have been so bothered by the Tea Party, not that some of that xenophobia, racism, and being used as tools for Randian billionaires to screw themselves, the poor, the weak, middle-class, and everyone else does not worry me sometimes, but what have progressives done besides roll over and play dead? If it seems astounding that a very small minority of admittedly extremely well-funded number of people can so completely hijack the Republican Party to their own ends, is it not more astounding that the majority of left-leaning members of the Democrats have virtually ceded that they have no power to influence an increasingly right-wing corporate-sponsored “alternative” party? That is in many ways even more sad. Yes I believe in Third parties (though in the American system they are not likely to win without major financial backing), but really, is having the majority of the people, even the majority of those of that party actually to be able to steer the direction of their own party itself, is that really so inconceivable or unmanageable? Or is it just accepting the defeatism of it all, because that is the easiest road to take?

          What is even more disturbing than both a majority of Americans, and a majority of progressives, having no interest in or representation by either of the only two national political parties in America, is the systematic undermining of the mechanisms of democracy of itself. I have already written here previously about electronic voting without a paper trail undermining peoples confidence in their “democracies” ("Pulling the Trigger on the Anti-Democracy Gun (May 30, 2009)", and "More Roadblocks to More Verifiable and Honest Elections (November 22, 2009)") but under Obama it has gotten far worse, not better, despite the fact that the Democrats have often been the most disaffected by under-representation or potential voter fraud. Still, even with control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, absolutely nothing was done for two years to require American elections on a national level to become more verifiable or accountable to the public. Hope that the Republicans will do anything to guarantee more openness and accountability for potentially faked and easily falsified numbers is even more remote now.

          But the icing on the cake of my continued concern for the future of democracy also comes from the United States recently. The Michigan Governor’s ability to fire all town and local government officials and then appoint a “manager” with unlimited legal authority to sell off local property, void contracts, basically abolishing the entire concept of local government and control, the very foundation of government the United States and other older democracies were based on. The United States has three levels of government which came in the order of 1) Local governments, 2) State governments under the British Empire, and the third, the National government which replaced the British throne as the central controller mechanism.

          To put this Michigan “revolution” in anti-democracy in perspective, when I was in University most recently the largest shock in a similar vein to that was Russian President Putin having his legislature give himself the power to remove the elected Governors in the Russian Federation. The last word in that previous sentence is important to that, "Federation". Russia also has a similar system to the United States in that it was/is at least in theory, a federation of semi-independent regions. Removing a level of more local elections than national was viewed, and rightly so, as disturbing. Without getting into the pluses and minuses of whether that was a good move or not, it could not help but send out warning signs of the potential there for a rollback of democracy.

          What is happening in Michigan today is not only in the same vein as what concerned so many about Putin’s action, it is far, far beyond it, and not just least of which because it is happening in America. And it could not be happening in America without the existing corrosion and politicization of the courts to even have gotten this far off the ground. It is worse because it is at the most local level of government which is the most accountable and which the citizenry typically enjoyed the most ability to influence, which gave them whatever semblance of power over their own lives they still might have thought they had.

As Rania Khalek recently put it… (emphasis my own in the following)

Disaster capitalism is on display around the country, as legislators use the debt crisis afflicting their states as an opportunity to hollow out the public sector. In Michigan it’s being packaged as “emergency financial management” by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, who is looking to exploit an economic crisis that has left his state with a severe budget deficit. In March, Snyder signed a law granting state-appointed emergency financial managers (EFM) the ability to fire local elected officials, break teachers’ and public workers’ contracts, seize and sell assets, and eliminate services, entire cities or school districts, all without any public input. He claims these dictatorial restructuring powers will keep Michigan communities out of bankruptcy.
Michigan currently has unelected EFM’s in charge of the schools in Detroit, as well as the cities of Pontiac, Ecorse, and Benton Harbor. In Benton Harbor, the city’s elected mayor and city commissioners were stripped of all power by unelected EFM, Joseph Harris. Harris issued an order saying the city commissioners have no power beyond calling meetings to order, approving minutes, and adjourning meetings. This decimation of local democracy is spreading. Robert Bobb, the EFM that has taken over Detroit’s public school system, sent layoff notices to all of the district’s 5,466 unionized employees. Bobb says he will exercise his power as EFM to unilaterally modify the district’s collective bargaining agreement with the Federation of Teachers starting May 17, 2011.
ACLU of Michigan Executive Director Kary Moss said the law raises concern about separation of powers, its impact on minority communities, collective-bargaining rights and privatization of services. She is absolutely correct. Faced with a deficit, emboldened EFMs can sell off public property to developers, close public schools and authorize charter schools, and void union contracts with literally no recourse for local, tax-paying residents or their elected officials to stop it.

Corporate Coup d’état Coming Soon to a City Near You
by Rania Khalek - Wednesday, April 20, 2011
CommonDreams.org

So to sum up, though I am more hopeful about democracy in general than I was 6 years ago when I wrote Democracy DOA from the notes below, not necessarily still believing it is dead or even dying, I do see it as under fire still as perhaps never before. It is perceived widely as weak or crippled, and the vultures are circling. But I am beginning to see to balance that, there is an increasing willingness of people to step up and fight for what little of it remains. And without a doubt, what is killing it is not the rich, the powerful, or the major powers or corporations. It is dying by the redefinition of it by those actors, and by the willingness of the public around the world to sometimes accept these redefinitions.

The only thing that can turn that around is constantly increasing the political vocabularies and knowledge of people about politics and what is at stake in that debate in every country, and increasing the willingness of people to act out of those beliefs. To protest, to become more involved, and for the “powerful” countries to not attempt to put down such protests at home when directed at themselves, (THE UNITED STATES HAS REFERRED TO ITS OWN ANTI-WAR PROTESTS AS ‘SOFT TERRORISM’) but instead to see them as important, and as necessary, as the democracy movements in the more oppressed regions of the world today. Because if not, if we accept ANY governments opinions that its people are not being repressed, then of course there would be no such thing as repression even as it spreads everywhere, because no country would ever admit it to itself. Political protest movements and an increasingly active public engaged in politics is required to have any level of effective democracy at all, but apathy and the acceptance of individual powerlessness (The best compilation of my notes on politics I still think is the fearlessness page “Fearlessness take back power- Fear sells out Freedom for ‘Security") is killing it.

Best of the Notes - Democracy DOA (Dead On Arrival)

These are the notes on Democracy, unlike most note recombinations, these are not all in chronological order (one of the last one was put first), and many of them, but not all, are repeats, also appearing in POWER!

Spreading democracy in this part of this century is just an excuse to put in people that are loyal to the corporations interests in strategic or untapped countries. People have forgotten what democracy meant before parties were arranged by economic interests and have yet to learn what democracy will mean when the public again regains control. Until then the word "democracy" means a spoiled fish which smells really really bad, unfortunately. Dictatorships had more opportunities for change than these so-called "democracies" because at least when overthrown, people would have a chance for real democracies to be established. These machines which call themselves democratic, by co-opting the language and the cause, conveniently suppress the main avenue of change, and leave people feeling helpless and without direction, wanting what they think they have but know they don't have simultaneously. You want democracy? You have democracy, remember? Now go away!

Basically corporations idealize dictatorships as the best form of government. All variables are removed leaving complete predictability and minimal risk (written in response to initial analysis following the conclusion of the non-violent democratic revolution in Georgia, that it would negatively effect investment there whereas the previous rigged election would have been better for attracting investors to the country)

Elections are the parts of democracy people get to see and convince them they have a say in their governance. How those choices are selected to be put before them are determined by non-democratic means by economic interests. Which choices are given as well as how many inevitably frames their outcomes. Those who can influence these without having their hands being seen directly control governments. Leaders are reduced to personalities who can best push an agenda, and those personalities know they will only get to act the part, unless they dare to believe they got there on their own merits alone. The more willing they are to follow "advice", the more inevitable their rise to power becomes.

Learning from the history of the Soviet Union- if you call yourself a democracy and go to the trouble of having elections, people might one day actually expect them to be fair, or giving the party in power at least a snowball's chance in hell at losing.

Democracies are now structured in ways that the number of bodies (people) a group has is far less significant than the amount of dollars (money) a group has. Minority rule of the most advantaged is now considered normal. The idea that a government would actually have its priorities first and foremost concentrated on the bulk of its populations, usually less affluent, is now considered "populist", extreme, and often dangerous to the current accepted way of business as usual in who governments ought to respond to, or consider whose interests first.

All the things you think are impossible, healing the rift between Christianity and Islam, or even between Judaism and Islam, making China or Russia a real democracy, you need to focus on what makes these things seem impossible, who or how many different groups would oppose such reconciliations or integrations into wider, more expansive and less divided new common communities, and new stronger more diverse common cultures which would emerge from (the) growing partnerships. Once you can identify who would work against such aims, you see it isn't impossible at all, just against a lot of powerful groups in the presents' interests. The only problem is that divided present has few futures which connect back to it, or seen from the present, little hope of surviving long in such a divided house, which will inevitably either unite, or collapse on everyone.

The more power a single person has, the more likely it is to be used indiscriminately and without need for justification or explanation. Rule by committee or consensus may seem unwieldy but it makes abuse of power less likely. Full power sharing is democracy, but depending on the model, makes abuses inevitable when one person ever is in a position of being able to influence every other branch, directly or indirectly. All structures to prevent this from happening are falling like dominoes.

Those who are not willing to risk everything to work towards democracy or to keep it from being eroded or stolen do not deserve it. No matter how rich or poor their country is, no matter how free or controlled their media is, choice if any cannot last long without that, or has already been lost.

When any organism gets too big it subdivides. When any group, political, religious, governmental, gets too powerful and near universal, factions within it develop. The opposite of that happening is greater control, less freedom, and dictatorship. The more it happens and the greater the factionalization, the more control people have over their own lives and destinies. Democracy (supposedly decentralized control in the extreme, far from present reality) means having everyone's voices being heard and counting EQUALLY. By this measure, every day and every way we are moving away from that. Yet new ways must emerge to keep plurality of opinions alive or what is left of freewill is lost.

Freedom is a dream and the right to dream what you wish. Democracy without strict spending limits on advertising and equal treatment in all media is a sick joke.

Of all nations, Russia and China have the greatest potentials for advancing freedom (and democracy). For obvious reasons, discount China. Only people who know they are not free can best know what freedom should mean. Those who believe they are the most free are the easiest to enslave for they can be taken further and longer trustingly down the darkest paths.

Real freedom for the West, real democracy for Russia, and religious tolerance and renaissance in China, and universal literacy with free e-books or free libraries easily accessible for all in every country. A modest start.

Mantra of governments including so-called democracies, of the 21st century: If people can't see it or read about it, it isn't there. The Control-The-Information Age. The only crime (governments can be guilty of) is when their strings are showing.

Event A - a sizable majority of people, including most poor, want something to be the policy of the government against the interests of a smaller minority, including wealthy elites. Event B, it actually becomes policy. How thick is the wall, how much of an obstacle is the government itself in separating events A and B, even in so-called democracies that supposedly represent their (all of their) peoples' interests? In a real democracy, there would be no wall between A and B, and helping A on to becoming B would be the job of the government, not in helping trying to prevent it. In the U.S., that wall is like Fort Knox. It teaches other governments to build better walls between A and B. There ought to be a new name for token or sham democracies. Olihypo-ocracies, with puppet parliaments. One elected representative to another, "Who's your sponsor?" (Democracies which respond to the will of most people, which actually function as democracies, are called "populist" governments (India), and that is very bad, shame, shame, overthrow, overthrow. We don't want that idea to spread and give anyone else's overwhelmingly poor majorities the idea they might be able to influence their governments to think of them first, or even think of them at all, if they all worked together. Welcome, take a good look at the new model, the all new anti-democratic version of "democracy". Its shiny! Its plush! All your neighbors will envy you!)

That societies want to have some smart and others not smart, docile, and politically dumb as a stump, is not new. Its just always a balance between admitting it openly as an objective, accepting it quietly as a necessity, or hypocritically aiming to make all more active and aware of their rights yet working against it as well because doing so means they would wake up and demand a system which takes into account their needs more than the system which fostered them and kept them stupid. All change, even making people literate and democratic participants in ruling themselves, will cost someone or all who were rich before in that society to have to pay more as a result. That what is left of democracies promotes this change, except in regions where it is politically advantageous to their pocketbooks, is getting downright laughable. They keep up the rhetoric of democratic change, but it is only a tool of setting up systems where the will of the public is largely irrelevant to the economic interests of themselves, which is why they are "helped" in the first place. The problem is governments in the West do not wish to admit to themselves they have become all but irrelevant to these forces as well, and are well paid not to in case they ever have any doubts about it. (And are well controlled now.) Those not bought off or not skilled in doublethink denial, they eventually resign once they know it is all bullshit, and there is nothing they can do about it.

The term "democracy" has become so twisted to meaning the opposite of its definition to some by the rhetoric, I have already seen hints that some (in America) think West Europe ought to be "democratized" (i.e. invaded by America) overlooking the fact that their governments, as well as any others and better than most, already represent the wills of their people. Democracy as an agenda is being promoted as when "we" like who is in charge, not necessarily when their people do, which is why dictators are often supported and widely popular Presidents almost openly are attempted to be deposed with our blessings, as with Venezuela. I have no problem with stronger nations imposing their wills upon weaker ones so much as the sickening of my stomach to hear it is being done for their own good and not ours, and in the name of "democracy". The hypocrisy has poisoned any semblance of truth or meaning.

The turning point in history came when the West was willing to get into bed with a horrible dictatorship in China for profit-based motives without requiring political changes and, for many reasons, some good, some bad, turned our backs on Russia when it attempted to become a legitimate democracy. We have proved time and time again our businesses prefer economic dictatorships, where economic policies cannot be changed regardless of the will of its people. Only this it seems is considered a stable investment region and democratic debates about its economic policies or direction for the future, are considered bad. Democratic change is a secondary goal to profit, when it is even attempted rather than suppressed, all the while saying how much we want them to have it. Politicians have no consciences. Money is their first and only true love.

Suicidal in a free speech sort of way - if enough people pretend they have free speech and say what they really think without fear, someday some WILL gain it, though many will have to risk everything. The West gave up free speech when they proved they were not willing to risk shit to keep it, and now are more watched than Malaysia with their governments studying North Korea for good ideas. Maybe not Europe yet, but sure as hell, the United States. People know better than to criticize the government now. It is no longer a safe course of action. People wonder why the current Chinese young won't risk their lives for democracy, with the US having sold ludicrous attack helicopters with machine guns to the Beijing police departments, they know no one of consequence would care. Convergence in governments has occurred, and the more ruthless models won as always. Almost always anyway.

To imagine freedoms and know of them beyond what your government allows or wants you to think about is to begin seeing a wider view, not of the world how it is but how you might think it could be or should be. Once upon a time, some governments understood this as good. That was before they wanted to preserve the present at all cost because in deprivation, there is more power. But the desire grows within those who can see or know those more honest worlds of more intellectual freedoms, and it cannot be destroyed by any government no matter how totalitarian it becomes in trying to control what people think about freedom or define freedom to mean by controlling society and the media, even if it imagines itself to still be a democracy. That makes the dictatorship stronger, the hypocrisy, but true freedom cannot be forgotten once tasted, and the heart and soul remember even after the mind has been cleansed of it. If any people were ever willing to accept their governments definition of freedom, the Soviet Union would never have collapsed, feudalism would not have collapsed, slavery and serfdom would never have been abolished, and democracies would never have arisen, even if they have since abandoned the principle that the people count more than the economic interests, and decry "populism".

The world may never become a democracy and would prefer never to think it would never wish to be one. Some countries are able to get all the resources from anywhere they wish without having to take care of or listen to the people of that region and make them equal citizens in the decision making process or treat them as they would their own. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Exploitation is not a side effect, it is the defining model of how people relate to each other, and have institutionalized it. I know of many better societal models and higher levels of democracy. The people though will always have the lowest level of participation they are willing to accept and have the greatest level of control and manipulation as those in power think they can get away with.

The center of trust, whether in yourself or in others, that you know what is right for them better than they do, when those times and on those issues, they do not match. That is difference between despots and those who truly believe in democracy and freewill beyond their own lies and minds.

The "frontrunner" and presumptive nominee of both parties in the US is determined long before the primaries by the major corporations. With both choices in an election determined and hand-picked by the corporate interests, people are right to wonder where they come in other than to rubber-stamp one body with interchangeable faces capable of talking out of either side of its mouth as long as it eats the same thing with it, money, and serves the same master, money.

The stronger you are, the more power you have, the greater the desire to rule, the need to rule. I know that insatiable feeling too well. There is another to balance that, the desire to impart that power to others, to make them stronger, eventually your equals, to give them more control. People always do the former while promising to do the latter, one day. The problem I have now is with the lies. Electronic voting, sham democracies, rigged elections, electoral systems where the public's will is manipulated by powerful groups so easily and often it is meaningless. They have no power, and are losing any real hope of ever gaining any power over their governments as well. Those who should guard against this, those who are supposed to have stopped it from deteriorating this much, have all been corrupted or blackmailed, either way, side-lined. Those who talk of giving power to the people, democracy, are making sure the blueprints ensure they will never have any power to challenge them or their heirs. That is what power is all about, keeping it and never sharing it, but making everyone think they still have it or never will lose it. Yet those who lose it, allow everyone to be beaten down never assuming it will be them and their children, are only getting what they deserve for being weak and stupid. It is not like they were not told or did not see it coming. (I saw a quote to the effect, completely unchallenged, that a committee in a country determined that voting over the Internet was as safe and tamper proof as voting in voting stations. Maybe if you live in Florida. The reality is there has probably never been a generation in history more willing to sell their children and all other generations into virtual slavery having absolutely NO political rights via any means of controlling their own governments so they, the leadership, can make a quick buck off of selling them out in the present, all while promoting "democracy" and thinking they will be remembered as heroes of it. Self-delusion is after all a small price to pay for getting rich at the expense of others freedom whom you will never meet.)

People are given choices in an election that are as opposed to each other as the most powerful in the country wish those choices to be. Never an election about which type of system, fundamental changes, or increased fairness. Usually politicians offered as "choices" are the same model car, only you get to pick the color.

The EU has neither the institutions nor the rallying cause for its existence to capture the imagination and allegiance of even its own citizens. In its present form as a European Union of democracies, it has become as insignificant beyond a wealthy trade block as (politically speaking) the African countries are merely to the future, the aboriginals of the world to be exploited and wiped out at will. As a global player, the EU has vanished from significance in its present form because it has shown it has no future and very little past. Without a firmer sense of identity and purpose, all the dreams it had to influence humanity and the future have died, and its ideals it sought to enshrine also face now an uncertain and precarious future divided.

When no one is allowed by law or public pressure, to argue the other side of ANY (particular) issue, it (that particular issue) gets progressively more and more extreme in position constantly unchallenged, and debate becomes more and more unthinkable until everyone is simply told what to believe by the most extremist people possible.

Democratizing societies is often an excuse to divide them. Once different groups are made to give preferences to each other, make rules which benefit one subsection of that society at the expense of another or all others, it becomes easy to pick that group of society to give support to and buy influence with. Even if not giving money directly to the parties, rich outside countries can easily identify who belongs to which group when deciding who to do business with and thereby legally make them wealthy in the process, and businessmen within the country begin to take the hint as to which parties or ideologies are the most profitable, and will make them the most powerful because of outside countries preferring to deal with those.

The media stranglehold likely to get us all killed, the public debate in America, when existent at all which now even this is not, is which party's "different" "Bold Ideas" to get us out of the world crippling downward spiraling situation, with machine-like unthinking polls and pundits alike whose thinking processes are limited to left, right, and now the "neither left nor right" neo-con neo-fascist "majority" ideology, which of these ideologies' jockeys, these cookie-cutter prepackaged types of ideological state-approved islands of thinking embodied in parrot talking suits, out of whom which one of them should try or can bring about a stable world in light of constantly escalating weapons of mass destruction, both present ones and damningly new types to come? The blindness and myopicness of it all is both frightening and hilarious at the absurdity of it all. Cheers.

Engineering civilizations- while I reject the Marxist view of a centralized economy, for civilization to proceed for hundreds of years more into the future, governments have to step up and eliminate the power vacuum that has been filled by non-elected non-responsible to their societies as a whole private business interests they can no longer gain any influence over or regulate. The fate of humanity cannot be left to economists who see unemployment as "a political problem, not an economic problem". Some group in power ought to see people's interests first, not view them in terms (other than rhetorically) as superfluous or irrelevant. Others in history, too many to name, thought in terms of economists, when solving unemployment by just ridding oneself of an "excess" of its population through wars or other means. A workable sustainable system will not just appear by itself, be justified or come about in a economics only based model, nor by the result of market forces alone. It requires thought, imagination, and above all, making it not only a serious priority, but the number one aim of all governments for it to have a chance of succeeding by drawing them into a vociferous, real, and unending debate. The best forms of government 500 years from now require a level of education and participation which would no more work in any country today than democracy can flourish in uneducated impoverished regions of the world of today. The goal therefore cannot be to give people a better model of how to live, treat each other, but to find one that can both adapt to the present circumstances while moving them toward those more just models, and above all, keep humanity from committing suicide before they can discover and embrace those better models on their own.

The most ideal forms of government are not defined by what they are at any given point but by their willingness to completely rethink themselves and, if necessary change accordingly, even to something else entirely but keeping and advancing the means to communicate on new changes and preserve that adaptability. Like everything else, its value is in the search, not the actuality. All forms of government will always be flawed, incomplete, unfair to many, and ultimately are provisional upon sets of circumstances always in flux. To keep all variables to change itself, or even most, under control or accounted for to preserve any present form, it ultimately is totalitarian, however benevolent its face may seem. If change and adaptation of structures are necessary, the ability to rethink things, even everything, is like a release valve for discontent which leads to extremism and even ultimately to terrorism. As long as the means to achieve autonomy are structural and real and realizable within ones lifetime, and one has faith in that chance for positive change being more likely than what can be achieved through violence, peaceful change will always more often be preferred eventually when passions have time to cool.

© 2003-2005 by Jared DuBois

Enough living in the past... Back to the Future, Marty...

Ok. Once more, living in the past. I can't resist...

@JaredDuBois -twitter
JaredDuBois.com
facebook.com/Scandere
Scandere.com

The Positive Potentially Transformational Aspect Of Music ( IZ good )

2011-04-03T18:07:00.000-07:00

"Just like birds of a feather
we got to sing together,
we got to spread our love
along this lonely land
We got to realize, we got to stop the lies
We got to love this land
and give her a helping hand"

Excerpt from "I hear music (Mr. Reggae)" by Billy Kaui, Ka'au Crater Boys

          When I started this site, TruthRevival.org, 4 years ago, the first post (partially) had to do with language and it is still one of the posts I am most proud of. In thinking about rebooting this site after giving it a long rest, I thought of many topics over the last year and a half and am happy to make the first new post (partially) about music. I remember an interview with someone (I cannot find it now to link to) on DemocracyNow.org, possibly Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn, and was taken aback by his mentioning of what he considered the importance of music.

          Music is something which I am fairly infrequent about considering as "important". Mindless, banal, trite, inconsequential, insignificant, and irrelevant are adjectives which I would more often think of first. However, philosophically as well as personally, I well understand or have considered the ramifications and felt the impact of this "other" type of language, one many have called a "universal" language.

          Like "love", music has the power not only to move people, but to transform them. "Transform" may seem like too strong a word, but in many cases, music almost literally can open up new worlds for people anywhere in the world. I don't limit this to the "world" of opera houses or stage, or the ability to travel to cities and learn of different cultures, especially Western culture which many within it see as more, or exclusively, "civilized". I mean music itself is potentially transforming in making people feel emotions, canned experiences in a sense, but to feel an affinity to a part of the Universe they don't necessarily understand or know, but like it and want more of it, or to get to know it better. And suddenly they can spend much of their lives in trying to understand it, to become fluent in its language, and can wish to share it with others. Transforming, or potentially transforming, though a grandiose way of putting it, is not incorrect, at least not for a great many people around the world.

          What got me to thinking about writing about music was a simple request a few months ago to look for a CD with Israel (IZ) Kamakawiwo'ole’s "Over the Rainbow" on it. That led to finding a good video of it on YouTube, and then to the idea of having a new post with that video embedded. I tried to decide between 3 different CDs I which thought contained the song. I tried to find one in a used CD store (I live in Hawaii) or a cheap used one on eBay (more on account of being poor rather than being cheap). The one I finally bought was the only one of the 3 without ANY version of that song on it. (The original version was "Over the Rainbow/Wonderful World" on Facing Future, a shorter version of the "Over the Rainbow" parts of the song appeared on Alone in IZ World, a posthumous collection. Likewise, the Wonderful World section of the song appeared without the "Over the Rainbow" parts on Wonderful World, a second posthumous collection. Caveat emptor. Dang you Mountain Apple Records! (Mahalo to you at the end of this though.))

          I have a little bit of history with this subject. When I first heard "Facing Future" I fell in love with the album so much that I gave it as a Christmas gift to many people, even ones I had not given gifts to in years. I had the money to, which was a rare thing, and said roughly to each one, "you absolutely HAVE to listen to this CD. It is that good, you should not miss it and will probably be glad you did." So because of that and my love of that CD and that song (included on it), I was glad to take up the charge of finding someone a copy of it when asked. (Really though, it is already in practically every music store in the world today it seems. Within the last 6 months supposedly IZ's "Over the Rainbow" was the number 1 selling song in France, Switzerland, Germany, and Austria (peaking in December 2010). Unsure of that, but the source is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Kamakawiwo%CA%BBole )

          I may have given a copy to each of my parents (both were alive then) but really would not have expected my father to have listened to it at the time even if I gave him his own copy. My mother "got" or understood and appreciated music in a way my father did not. He was more of a "talk radio" type of person. He listened to music, but not a lot and only in passing, whereas my mother often had music playing around the house while I was growing up.

          One day when the "Young and the Restless/Nadia's theme" came on the radio she asked me to close my eyes when I listened to it and tell her what I saw. Anyone who knew me as a child knew I could not let that go without a comment. "How can I SEE anything if my EYES are CLOSED!" I responded. I probably knew what she meant before she rephrased it, but I just really, really hated trick questions.

          I used to get massive killer headaches in my teens, and a few songs would help relieve the pressure pretty quickly, though with no small part of effort on my part to allow the music to be able to relieve the pain. I had to try to get into a sort of meditative state. Beethoven’s "Für Elise" worked well, as did many tracks by Mozart, but the "Young and the Restless/Nadia's theme" always worked the fastest.

          My father, as I mentioned, did not seem to "get" some kinds of music. Though I remember hearing he had a serious interest in music when he was young, in addition to the classic parental complaint about new music being too loud, he often complained about love songs. "Why would anybody want to listen to something that is depressing or makes them depressed?" he asked more than once.

          I don't think I ever had as good an answer to that for him as I put it in a blog post a few years ago...

The transition was abrupt, and a bit shocking. One second not thinking, not analyzing but just being and experiencing in totality, just feeling joy and wonder at what is before me and then, shock and confusion at what does it mean, what should I do, and not having an answer to a question I never would have anticipated needing to have an answer to. That is what life throws at you whenever you become complacent, if you are lucky.

You may not see it that way. Neither may the bird. But when you get over the shock, you may discover as I did, it was necessary to grow beyond how you saw things before, no matter how much more innocent and carefree and better it was. Both levels of seeing and experiencing you need to know, and the transitions will always be there triggering them, and they are a part of you because the experiences are there to make you feel, good, bad, joy, grief, to make you feel and know through interaction with other living things, what is means to each to be alive, both separate and how you fit together to create those experiences within both, and each within each other as well.

Hazy beginnings, Abrupt Ends, Dreams Overshadowing, and Concentrated Notes
Jareddubois.com / PolSci.com

and similarly from the second previous post to that one...

That is a weakness, a part of my circumstances, that is hardest to bear, by choice or not. Knowledge of why this is so is not lacking in me anymore, but it is not always a comfort. Life is always best a friction, a coarseness, meant to make a mark or impression upon you. Without it, without deep feeling, gliding too easily, you are not engaged in it and less a part of it than you can be. How much you should be a part of it, a part of them, a part of their lives, that is your choice.

Triple Heartbreak: NY Beggars, Yoshoo, and Rotten Apples in Moscow
Jareddubois.com / PolSci.com

          Music can bring out such feeling, even without words. Music, like life or pain or tragedy, or love and joy, makes a mark upon you. It forms a part of your consciousness you may or may not be aware of. As others have said, it can be said to make up the soundtrack of/to your life. It helps you define your preferences and can shape or influence your identity. And for many who play or write music, it can be all these things and much more.

          Western culture in a sense these days seeks to separate people from feeling things too deeply. It is increasingly a doped up culture which is breaking down the connections of empathy and feelings toward the lives of those around you. Even memory manipulation (which is as bad and as truly evil as torture, also ascendant) is now beginning to lay down the foundations of a marketable "unexperience." Oh the good we will do to distance people from what happened to them, to relieve PTSD and help them get on with their lives. Why should those who have killed or tortured people have to live with those memories or guilt when they were just following orders, or why should someone who was raped or brutalized have to relive it? The road to hell, as they say, is paved with good intentions, and we are very far along it already. Those who are insulated from feeling pain, can become insulated from feeling period, and even worse, insulated from the need for controlling or eliminating the desire to inflict pain upon others. Perfected killing/torturing machines.

          Music can help rekindle the feelings or the ability to feel in those who have lost it, or even worse, enable those who never felt things deeply at all. Words and music together can be manipulative, even tranquilizing and sedative in bad way against intolerable acts of ever less democratic "controlled" "democracies" and this unfortunately is well understood by the increasingly authoritarian aspects of governments all around the world. But music is a language nonetheless. Though nothing but corporate friendly- to- government mindless synco-pop may predominate, or empathy killing, objectifying, dehumanizing gangsta rap, and whatever can be advertised as more "edgy" or "on the edge" or "over the edge", also all packaged and sold and marketed by large corporations. There still exists the framework for truly "subversive" music to prevail, though it will never get quasi-authoritarian governments and their corporate sponsors thumbs up and promotion or radio play. Songs which make people question their poverty, their lack of control, their powerlessness, and their utterly corrupted governments and cultures. In the absence of such things played openly or widely, people can still be moved by music which makes them yearn to aspire to more, just from having their "eyes" opened by music to think of things or feel things they never thought of or felt before.

          IZ's music made a big impression on me, and Facing Future I still consider to be one of the best albums of all time. At my also long dormant website, POLSCI.COM, it gave the only "Hawaiian lyric of the month" (it never was monthly though) which was not even a song lyric. This came from the liner notes...

"Facing future I see hope
Hope that we will survive
Hope that we will prosper
Hope that once again we will reap the blessings of this magical land
For without hope I cannot live
Remember the past but do not dwell there
Face the future where all our hopes stand"

Israel Kamakawiwo'ole’s Facing Future liner notes

At the time of that "issue" of POLSCI.COM, December 2004, I was struggling to hope for the future. Those words I connected with, and I added my own blurb about hope beneath it....

It is easy to predict that humanity has no long term prospects for survival, at least free, and easier still once thinking that way, to make it come true. Its continuation based on how we live, treat each other, and the direction we seem to be headed in, expecting it can go on like this for very long defies logic, common sense, and even reason. We are teaching and being taught every day to despise the very international institutions we founded generations ago to bring us together and promote peace. Greed and power frames all discussions on how to treat each other. Those who would profit from setting us apart from each other, forever at each other, never seeing or admitting we all, all around the world, are ohana, family, brothers and sisters, they always rise to the top and forever divide us. I forget often that hope needs no reason nor foundation. It grows even in the most abysmal and desperate circumstances. That is why it is so hard to kill it. Hope is forever our only road forward, and even blind hope might help us find our way forward. Hope must flow into us from beyond this world, for otherwise it would have been stolen from us and sold back to us like everything else.

          But the short paragraph above that “lyric” was also influenced by IZ, as were some other paragraphs in my Notes pages. I had just read a horribly insensitive article by a writer I will not name nor reference purposely who, AT THE TIME THE STATE WAS MOURNING HIS DEATH, (mentioning he was lying in state in the Capital building I believe) mocking his weight and make jokes about what sex with him must have been like. That was just beyond belief. Also I remembered a person I went to school with who could not walk well, multiple defects possibly from birth, who had the most indomitably hopeful empathic manner towards everyone. To most people, they saw just a cripple. What I saw literally blew me away. Some would use the word "saintly," but I saw someone with courage and a hardened positive outlook which literally made me feel unworthy to even be around her.

          One could say with such people, they may have to be that way, so shockingly , so disturbingly hopeful and positive in their outlooks without any seeming meaning or reason for that optimism. With bodies that frail, a good bout of severe depression might well be fatal. They may HAVE to never give up or never doubt whatever beliefs keep them alive and keep them going and keep them from complaining about the, to us, horrible hand fate has dealt them. That actually could be true. But still, I recognize superiority when I see it, and in that respect and in those qualities and quantities, I all too rarely do.

          Those two people, the author of that article mocking IZ because of his weight and using his fame to "sell" it as "journalism", and that person of seemingly indomitable courage influenced what I wrote at the top of that web page...

People who ridicule others because of their apparent disabilities, appearance, or perceived problems or weaknesses are fools. In some who appear weak, infirm, helpless, or ill I have seen a strength of spirit, mana, a thousand times more powerful than in we who dare to think ourselves strong, healthy, or mighty, and may appear as such to others or ourselves. Appearances, physical forms, are nothing, only a superficial reality. The strength of our lives and spirits are only minorly affected by them, and only then as much as we allow them to be affected by them and let those feelings in ourselves about our bodies get us down. Learn to see with your eyes closed and your heart, soul, and mind open. Then you will see true beauty and real strength where others are truly blind to it.

Notes Part 2, Pg 58

And so I remain still trying to see with my eyes closed and my heart, and soul, and mind open. And still, I believe music can help people to do that. I try to learn from the best, and try not to imitate the worst. Mahalo nui loa to IZ and to my parents, wherever they may be, and to all those who have helped me learn to want to do that.

Note: Also mahalo to those at Mountain Apple Records who helped me attribute the current POLSCI.COM's (and seemingly eternal, unchanged for over 2 years) Summer 2008 Hawaiian Lyric of the Month, "Warren's Song/I'll Be There" to the right person. It took some searching on their part, and it was appreciated.

@JaredDuBois -twitter
JaredDuBois.com
facebook.com/Scandere
Scandere.com

More Roadblocks to More Verifiable and Honest Elections

2009-11-22T03:10:00.000-08:00

        PPP’s newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately….
        Belief in the ACORN conspiracy theory is even higher among GOP partisans than the birther one, which only 42% of Republicans expressed agreement with on our national survey in September.

A majority of GOP voters think ACORN stole the ‘08 election for Obama,
by Jim Galloway, Atlanta Journal Constitution
November 19, 2009

        After issuing an oral ruling in May, 2nd Circuit Court Judge Joseph Cardoza sided with five plaintiffs to bar the state Office of Elections from using electronic voting machines or transmitting election results over the Internet or telephone lines. How the ruling might affect the 2010 elections was not immediately known. Chief Election Officer Kevin Cronin said his office was reviewing Cardoza’s decision and was not prepared to comment on specifics. However, in prepared testimony last week, Cronin says budget cuts and other fiscal restrictions by Gov. Linda Lingle have left the Elections Office with insufficient funds to “successfully execute” the 2010 elections, which include races for governor and Congress.

Maui judge formalizes ruling that bans electronic voting,
by B.J. Reyes, Honolulu Star-Bulletin
September 15, 2009

        While many states are moving toward the use of optical-scan ballot systems, which create a paper trail for voters, 17 states and the District of Columbia will be using paperless systems to some extent in November, according to the Verified Voting Foundation.
        Voters in six states — Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Louisiana, New Jersey and South Carolina — will use entirely paperless machines.
        The majority of machines are paperless in seven other states — Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.
        And four states – Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi and Wisconsin — have only a small number of paperless systems in place; the majority of voters in these states will use systems that create a paper trail.

N.J. Voting Machines May Be Tested for Accuracy,
by Joshua Brockman, National Public Radio (NPR.org)
May 22, 2008

An Internet security expert says there's no way Internet voting can reliably replace paper ballots to ease the expense of election day.
        John Hopkins University computer science professor Avi Rubin spoke one day after Lake County, Ind., sat out a transit referendum because county commissioners didn't have a spare half million dollars to fund the election.
        Professor Rubin says there are several problems with Internet voting. He says voters do not know if their votes have been counted, if the vote was private, if others cast votes in the name of someone else.
        He says it's just not possible to secure elections property.
        Rubin is author of the book "Brave New Ballot".
        He says there's no way to tell if a voting system has been hacked, if someone is watching the votes roll in.

Security expert: no way to secure Internet voting,
by John Cody, WBBM Radio - Chicago
November 4, 2009

        On Nov. 3, hundreds of thousands of New Jersey voters will slip behind the voting-booth curtains and secretly decide which man they want to be governor for the next four years. They’ll tap the screen on the electronic voting machine and wait for the lighted "X." They’ll cast their vote and go on their way, content that they have exercised their most basic democratic right.
        But when the polls close and the votes are counted, can we trust the result? Sadly, we can’t be sure. Because New Jersey still doesn’t require its electronic voting machines to produce a paper record to verify their results.
        Paper-ballot proponents are trying to get the law changed. They charge that elections without paper-verified ballots are unconstitutional and illegal, but their lawsuit — Gusciora vs. McGreevey — has dragged on in state court for five years.
        A ruling is expected soon, but not soon enough for this year’s contests. Meanwhile, a plan to retrofit 10,000 electronic voting machines with paper printers was delayed by the Legislature this year for lack of funds. So for yet another major election, New Jersey will use the same unacceptable election policy: We’ll cross our fingers and hope nothing goes terribly wrong.
        Here’s why paperless electronic voting is a crap shoot: Voters hit a button and send a signal that the specially programmed computer must interpret. The computer then decides, for instance, is this a vote for Jon Corzine or Chris Christie or Chris Daggett?
        The vote is recorded, and when the polls close, the machine spits out the results. But there is no way to be certain that a computer glitch or malicious hacking hasn’t corrupted the outcome. We must take the computer’s word — even though most of us don’t have a clue how a computer works.
        Think about it: How many times have computer glitches messed up another part of your life? How many times has your laptop or personal computer been infected with a virus? Computers are not infallible, they break down. And even computers with the most sophisticated firewalls can be breached.

Electronic voting machines: Votes need verification,
by Star-Ledger Editorial Board, New Jersey Star-Ledger
September 28th, 2009

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- The New Jersey Supreme Court has reinstated a ban on exit polls, surveys taken of people as they leave their voting places.
        It also has kept in place a ban on distributing leaflets or other materials within 100 feet of polling places. It said Wednesday prohibiting such activities will ensure voters feel no obstructions to casting their ballots.

NJ court reinstates ban on voting site exit polls,
by Beth DeFalco, Associated Press
September 30, 2009

(Washington, D.C.) – Rep. Rush Holt today reintroduced the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, legislation that would create a national standard of voting to help ensure that every vote is recorded and counted as intended. The bill would require paper ballot voting systems accompanied by accessible ballot marking devices and require routine random audits of electronic voting tallies. The bill has 75 cosponsors.
        “It is time we stop using elections as beta tests for unreliable electronic voting machines,” Holt said. “The ability to vote is the most important right as it is the right through which citizens secure all other rights. Voters shouldn’t have any doubts about whether their votes count and are counted. Congress should pass a national standard ensuring that all voters can record their votes on paper and requiring that in every election, randomly selected precincts be audited.”
        In every federal election that has taken place since the Help America Vote Act was enacted in 2003, citizen watchdog groups have gathered and reported information pertaining to voting machine failures. In the 2004 election, more than 4,800 voting machine were reported to the Election Incident Reporting System, from all but eight states. In the 2006 election, a sampling of voting machine problems gathered by election integrity groups and media reports revealed more than 1,000 such incidents from more than 300 counties in all but 14 states. And in 2008, the Our Vote Live hotline received reports of almost 2,000 voting machine problems in all but 12 states.

Bill Would Require Voter-Verified Paper Ballot and Random Audits,
Rush Holt's Office
June 17, 2009

NARRATOR: As dusk fell on election night, one official noticed something very strange: a sign that the heart of America’s democracy was in danger. In Volusia County, Florida, an election computer counted Al Gore’s totals backwards. He had negative votes.
DEANIE LOWE: It was showing a minus sign in front of the votes that it had subtracted from Gore. I mean, it wasn’t like it was trying to hide it. It says there’s minus-16,022 votes here.
NARRATOR: How could a computer that is supposed to protect the votes of you and me count backwards to give a candidate negative votes? Either it was an error or someone had tried to rig the election. ...
... And the public records, I can’t emphasize enough how important they are. In San Diego in the June 6 election, the event log, the audit log that was obtained by a citizen named Bruce Sims, shows the voting machine dialing out to Diebold at 9:31 p.m. during the count on election night. These are the kinds of things that show up.
AMY GOODMAN: Wait, explain that.
BEV HARRIS: Yes. It’s difficult to explain.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, the machine dialing out?
BEV HARRIS: The machine dialed out and made a remote connection to Diebold at 9:31 p.m. during the count. And when you say, “Explain it,” I don’t know of any legitimate explanation.

Hacking Democracy: New Documentary Exposes Vulnerability of Electronic Voting Machines,
Democracy Now.org
October 31, 2006

MR. CURTIS: Oh, the exit polls should not be
significantly different than the vote.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NADLER: And if they
were, you would conclude what?
MR. CURTIS: I would conclude someone is
playing with the vote.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NADLER: Not with the
exit polls?
MR. CURTIS: That's possible, too. Something
is definitely skewed.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NADLER: Something is
definitely skewed in one or the other?
MR. CURTIS: Right. To select which one,
you'd have to see where the problem is.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NADLER: Let me ask you
one further question. Assuming for the moment that
such software -- that's what called it, such software
to rig a vote was used in one or more machines in Ohio
or in Florida, could you, today, detect that if you'
looked at the source code?
MR. CURTIS: If you get the machines and they
have not been patched yet -- once they get in and
touch them, anything can happen. You could also set
timers to do that, but then you'd see the timers.
Then you'd have to take those machines, decompile
them, which I couldn't do, but possibly Microsoft, an
MIT something could do, you might, you might be able
to see it.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NADLER: You might?
MR. CURTIS: It depends on how good they are
at destroying what they had.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NADLER: Destroying what
they had by tampering with the machine afterwards or
by programming them to destroy instructions in the
first place?
MR. CURTIS: Right.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NADLER: Either or both?
MR. CURTIS: Either or both. You didn't
actually see what's in there, so you don't know if the
code is running as a single executable or running in
various modules. If it's running in modules, you can
make the code actually eat itself.

Transcript of December 13th, 2004 Testimony at Congressional Hearing in Columbus,
Including Clinton Curtis Sworn Testimony,
Freepress.org
December 13, 2004

        On November 22, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Verified Voting Foundation (VVF) announced that they had sent letters to voting officials in eight counties around the country urging them to allow independent testing of their electronic voting machines. The two groups were among the 60 organizations in the Election Protection Coalition (EPC), which ran an Election Day hotline and the web-based Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS). The Coalition received 40,002 reports of election irregularities, including 2,242 incidents concerning voting machines. Click here for an analysis of some of these incidents by a team of computer scientists. (This link requires Adobe Acrobat Reader.) According to EFF and VFF, the most serious problems were reported in Mahoning and Franklin counties in Ohio, Broward and Palm Beach counties in Florida in Florida, Mercer and Philadelphia counties in Pennsylvania, Harris County in Texas and Bernalillo County in New Mexico. Florida and Ohio were the big swing states that gave the election to George Bush.
        While any form of voting fraud or interference is bad, a malfunctioning voting machine can prevent hundreds of people from casting their votes -- or change the votes of those who do. Most computer experts who have studied electronic voting do not consider the systems used in the 2004 election to be secure or reliable. The state of California has successfully sued Diebold, the manufacturer of one touchscreen voting machine over this very issue, after machines that were purchased for California turned out to be unusable. According to programmers and engineers who have investigated the security of electronic voting machines, touchscreen machines can be set up with a default choice for any candidate that would not be visible to the voters. (The Black Box Voting site explains some of the ways in which this can be done.) Their votes would automatically be cast for the default candidate -- such as George Bush -- unless they could successfully override the hidden default choice programmed into the computer. For example, if a voter deliberately chose not to vote for any Presidential candidate, the touchscreen voting machine would count the non-vote as a default vote for George Bush.

        Reports from voters in Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, and elsewhere (especially other swing states) documented that many touchscreen voting machines appeared to have been set with a "Default to Bush". The "Default to Bush" could be changed only if a voter successfully selected another candidate. But it appears that in many cases the voters did not successfully override the "Default to Bush," in some cases because they did not notice the problem and in other cases because it was difficult or impossible to get the machine to accept another candidate. This was a major problem in New Mexico and Mahoning and Franklin counties in Ohio. There were also problems with "Default to Bush in the "Big Three" Florida counties: Palm Beach, Broward and Dade, and elsewhere in Pinellas, Hillsboro, Pasco, Sarasota and Lee. In fact, Florida was the state with the most reported incidents in the Election Protection Coalition/Election Incident Reporting System database. (There are state-by-state links below.)
         Election officials had to replace some of the machines in Mahoning County (Ohio) after repeated attempts by technicians to "recalibrate" them failed. This also happened in Florida and New Mexico. The EIRS system also identified patterns of default away from Kerry and the minor party candidates elsewhere. The same pattern was also found in some U.S. Senate races, including the race in Florida, which elected Republican Mel Martinez over Betty Castor. ...
        Computer security experts and engineers from the International Electronic and Electrical Engineers (IEEE) found evidence that the manufacturer's technicians or representatives have remote access to some vote machines while they are in service, and can change defaults and other settings remotely. Furthermore, some of the voting machine manufacturers monitored the election results remotely on election day. ...
        Many computer systems are designed so that service technicians are able to make changes to the software through a remote connection, but this is not an appropriate feature for a voting machine. The actual security of electronic voting machines is difficult for the general public to determine. Voting machine designs are certified by two highly-secretive consulting firms which have refused to disclose their procedures for testing machines for accuracy and security. Even when they certify a machine, the certificate applies only to the design of the hardware and software -- any individual machine may be altered before an election.

Patterns of Touch Screen Voting Machine Fraud Identified and Documented in Florida, Ohio, New Mexico and Elsewhere in 2004, FLCV.com

        The fallibility of such systems are well known by now. They are hackable as well as prone to error, and if they were hacked, there is no way to trace by whom because there is intentionally no evidence (except by statistical analysis, hardly a smoking gun) and no way to verify without a paper trail, that a wrong result had been given or that it would not have occurred that way anyway. But 'painful' recounts of close elections such as Florida in 2000 and an even closer Minnesota Senatorial election of 2008 can now be simply waved away where these machines dominate or have influence. Nothing to recount. Take the machines word for it because that is all you will ever get, and how it works is as classified as any Honduran death squad's relations to the US government could ever be.
        But there is another aspect of this which is clearly criminal. Though I would state that anyone who is responsible for having built or ordered such machines which INTENTIONALLY produce results, election results for who controls the government no less, which cannot be independently verified have committed crimes against the state or treason, many would consider that an extreme position. Get over it. Mistakes happen all the time. There is no such thing as an error free election anyway so what is the big deal if these new machines are not perfect? That is the price of progress! Heck, it can even be funny too.

        Literally we now have made stealing elections in plain sight no longer a crime. Though we have many many FBI and other officials who will state otherwise, that such actions are still in fact illegal, how can that stand when those running the elections are purposely making it possible for such things to be done, to hide the evidence that any election was indeed 'stolen' and such future investigations, if any, will be hampered by a preemptive 'shredding' of any evidence of such a crime?
        And even if one were to state that such things are merely 'bad judgment' such as creating a system of confinement or 'interrogation' based upon torture, sexual assaults, raping of relatives or threats to do so to elicit cooperation, then how can they explain away a doubling or tripling of doubt in the public of the fairness in their elections, that the person 'elected' to represent them actually won the most votes honestly? The last poll I saw, more than 30% of Americans doubted the fairness of the electoral process, in a large part due to unchallengeable, unverifiable electronic voting machines. That politicians and electoral boards can flagrantly put in systems of voting counting that completely and provably severely diminish the public's faith in the honestly of their elections shows such laws against tampering clearly do not extend to giving people valid reasons to not wish to vote at all. Why vote if you don't think it will be counted fairly? And if that is the intent after all, you have a completely legal way to disenfranchise millions simply because of 'bureaucratic bad decisions' which can create the exact same conditions as riggable voting machines without actually having to rig them except when one thinks simply turning people off to the idea of voting has not worked well enough this particular time.
        Once the evidence came out that such machines could be rigged, leaving them in place and not recalling them should have been prosecuted for the crime that it was, conspiracy to continue to make possible the rigging and theft of an election. And beyond that, even if such machines are not 'provable' to be 'hackable' simply putting in systems which do not have or severely diminish the public's confidence in the honesty of their elections, that alone should make it a crime. For that which undermines the public's desire to vote because such elections are purposely being held up as possibly being or having been tainted, with evidence quite enough to back that suspicion up, should itself be enough to make it a crime, as conspiring to suppress legitimate voters from having reason to vote.

Pulling the trigger on the Anti-Democracy gun,
TruthRevival.org (previous post)
May 30, 2009

        In the 6 months since my last post, Pulling the trigger on the Anti-Democracy gun, nothing much has changed in giving most people reasons to think American elections are completely honest and fair. As with the years before that, when Congressman Holt put forward bills requiring the elimination of unverifiable electronic election machines, such notions and bills died along the way or were held up in committee.

        Still, we have come a long way since November 2000 when most people were first given reason to have suspicions or were even made aware that such machines and vulnerabilities were even present in the election process. Many states since have put forth laws requiring a paper trail, yet nothing has been done on the federal level to give Americans as a whole, assurances that their elections are not being rigged by the companies making the machines, or anyone else.

        As I mentioned in the last post, I don't think you have to actually rig an election's voting machines to rig an election. Even casting doubt on the veracity of the process to the extent that a significant number of people will stay home and not bother to vote at all I believe can be a valid method to sway elections. It may not rise to the level of outright voter intimidation which was used in Ohio in 2004, but it is subversive to any notion of democracy as well.

        The worst danger after the public became aware that their election processes could be manipulated was a push to ban exit polling. If the election results and the exit polls did not match, and a recount was not possible or could be embarrassing, a good number of Congressmen and the press floated the idea of simply getting rid of any independent verification or checks of unverifiable results from electronic machines which produced no backup methods except their own accounts. Of these producing externally unverifiable results, many have repeatedly and demonstrably have shown they could be easily rigged.

        It is nice to think we have moved away from that, that exit polling would continue to be an indication of fraud, but that is hardly the case. The fact that following the evidence of massive fraud in the Florida 2000 election, the major news networks were suddenly convinced to suspend their independent and thus cross verifiable exit polling, and pool their results into one common set of poll numbers was unconscionably stupid if not criminally suspect. This led to the simple fact that there were no exit polls given at all because they were declared tainted or suspect. Without creating a new law expressly forbidding exit polling from being conducted, the exact same outcome was achieved without the embarrassment of looking like a country which more or less openly rigs, or attempts to rig its own elections.

        Anyone who has studied elections of other countries, close, disputed, "colored" revolutions, and so forth, as I have may agree it is a good rule of thumb that an opposition party must win big to win at all. How big depends on the country, whether or not the US or news organizations will quickly accept your results, how quickly you can dampen street demonstrations, and how committed or desperate the demonstrators are, and the amount of funds available to keep them fed, as well as funds to provide sanitation services for thousands of people constantly in the streets. Obviously, getting enough people to have recounts is very expensive, as well as the recount process or revotes.

        A similar knee-jerk reaction to the close votes in Congressional districts in 2008 led to calls to ban recounts. As some have argued bizarrely in Obama's decision making in regards to the Afghanistan morass, that it is better to make a quick decision than the right one, they have put forth that a quick count of votes is more important than an accurate one. No "as long as it takes," just a repeat of "I am ahead now, so please stop counting now." And if that doesn't work, appeal, appeal, appeal. All of this is hardly conducive to getting people to wish to vote, but then how much of what the government does these days actually makes people feel their votes count, if not that they literally were not counted at all?

        In regards to the "must win big to win at all" rule I mentioned for challengers, it was fairly clear that Obama did succeed in meeting that threshold. Over 9 million votes, and more than enough states to have many states and even many combinations of states excluded completely if tainted or "flipped" by fraud, and still he would have won. Yet a majority of Republicans supposedly, according to one poll, think he might have won by fraud, or that, by that logic, he did not really win the Presidency at all.

        That fits neatly in with the many other competing memes that he is not the legitimate President of the United States because: a) he was not born in this country; b) his father was not an American; c) he is or may be the Anti-Christ; d) he is a time-travelling Nazi Moslem Manchurian Candidate;

Colbert assists Bush: Obama is a secret time-traveling Nazi Muslim - Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

... and other similar but less plausible theories. Such a majority response to that question may be also an answer given to balance or get back for the many who claimed that George Bush did not legitimately win the 2000 and/or the 2004 elections. Given that many might use the opportunity to vent frustration about that when asked the same exact question of Obama's victory's legitimacy, one could think such an answer might not be a 100% reflection of what they really think.

        However, even if they really truly think that, despite the evidence that Obama won by a substancial margin, it is not even surprising. It is doubtful that many who think that Obama did not win would be necessarily swayed by greater election safeguards, recounts, and independent verifications or outside checks or monitoring, but that does not excuse the fact that in many states and in many cases there are (and CAN BE by design) none at all. We do not invite international observers to monitor our elections, despite the fact that in many instances some fail to live up to international standards. In too many instances, there is rampant evidence of attempted rigging, and often non-existent investigations.

        And that is only to speak of outright clearly defined election crimes. Strategic malfunctioning of machines, longer lines in some districts over others, uneven placement of machines of varying reliability in successfully recording votes, these are just a few of the harder to prove methods which are allegedly used. But in my mind, none of these is so open, so flagrant, as to continually allow such elections with tainted and suspect machines and methods to go forward year after year, election cycle after election cycle. People are getting rich off these machines, others possibly by hacking or rigging them, and "our public servants" are continuing to place these slot machine (for them) versions of voting machines in place of ones which would accurately record votes with verifiability to their results to actually being provably demonstratively correct. And doing by doing so, continuing to buy them, win or lose for them, is always a win for the companies making them, and always losing more credibility in the results, and losing reasons for people to vote in the first place the more these abominations to democracy spread and are allowed to potentially poison the results, and absolutely, to poison their credibility.

        Voteprotect.org has a good listing of which states have more verifiable counting methods in place, yet even in paper-trail verifiable states like my own, there can be legislation pending to overturn court decisions requiring paper trails or forbidding results from traveling over the Internet. My own state legislature has begun considering reversing course now, so even the "good" or "more verifiable results" states on Voteprotect's map may not be that way next week, or in the next election cycle. And attempts at banning exit polling are always right around the corner too, not to mention the fact that such polls, when conducted now, are not always publicly released. It is said the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. To what degree can we say our current legislators or electors try to live by that motto?

        Sorry, we would like to have open, fair, and completely verifiable elections, but you know, they are just so dang expensive...

Below is map of current states which have verified voting and/or mandatory checks (green yes, red no, yellow partial)...

(Image via Verifiedvoting.org)

Other relevant links..

Electionprotection.org
Verifiedvoting.org
Voteprotect.org
Votersunite.org

Pulling the trigger on the Anti-Democracy gun

2009-05-30T16:03:00.000-07:00

“Where all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing.”

Quote from On Violence, by Hannah Arendt, 1970, Pg. 65

They landed on a wild but narrow scene,
Where few but Nature's footsteps yet had been;
Prepared their arms, and with that gloomy eye,
Stern and sustained, of man's extremity,
When Hope is gone, nor Glory's self remains
To cheer resistance against death or chains,--
They stood, the three, as the three hundred stood
Who dyed Thermopylae with holy blood.
But, ah! how different! 'tis the cause makes all,
Degrades or hallows courage in its fall.
O'er them no fame, eternal and intense,
Blazed through the clouds of Death and beckoned hence;
No grateful country, smiling through her tears,
Begun the praises of a thousand years;
No nation's eyes would on their tomb be bent,
No heroes envy them their monument;
However boldly their warm blood was spilt,
Their Life was shame, their Epitaph was guilt.
And this they knew and felt, at least the one,
The leader of the band he had undone;
Who, born perchance for better things, had set
His life upon a cast which lingered yet:
But now the die was to be thrown, and all
The chances were in favour of his fall:
And such a fall! But still he faced the shock,
Obdurate as a portion of the rock
Whereon he stood, and fixed his levelled gun,
Dark as a sullen cloud before the sun.

Passage from the poem, The Island, by Lord Byron, 1823

Emphasis my own in the following...

        'Every government assumes deeds and misdeeds of the past," writes Hannah Arendt in Eichmann and the Holocaust. "It means hardly more, generally speaking, than that every generation, by virtue of being born into a historical continuum, is burdened by the sins of the fathers as it is blessed with the deeds of the ancestors." ...
        In short, by acknowledging the crimes while refusing to pursue the criminals he has promised to rectify America's grim recent history without ever reckoning with it.
        Events over the past few weeks have shown just how ethically and politically untenable this situation really is. His first term looks as though it may be consumed by these issues anyway - and not on his terms. Having released the torture memos, Obama then reversed his position on releasing photographs that accompanied them on the grounds that to do so would endanger US troops. Having opposed trying Guantánamo prisoners under military commissions, he now supports it. ...
        This should leave us in no doubt as to where the ultimate responsibility lies. "Where all are guilty, no one is," wrote Arendt. "Confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing." ...
        But in the absence of moral leadership the national conversation has morphed seamlessly from human rights to national security, where the issue of torture and detention is debated not on the grounds of morality but efficacy.
        With the former vice-president Dick Cheney leading the charge, the right has managed to mount a spirited defence of torture in which America's rights as the potential, abstract victim of terrorism supersede detainees' rights as actual victims of torture. ...
        Conventions are devised precisely to set boundaries in moments of crisis - in periods of relative harmony there is not much need to refer to them. The Geneva convention, in particular, was devised to establish the rules of engagement during times of war. If the very fact of being at war is reason enough to discard it, then it has no meaning.
        And finally, if showing the world what America has done would inflame anti-American sentiment then maybe America shouldn't do it in the first place.

If Obama Cedes Ground on Torture to Cheney, We'll All Pay a Heavy Price
By acknowledging recent crimes while refusing to pursue
the criminals, the president has made his position untenable,
by Gary Younge, May 24, 2009, The Gaurdian/UK,

        Whatever we were, we have degenerated into a nation that finds glory in deploying the most advanced high-tech, high-explosive weaponry against some of the world’s poorest people, that justifies killing women and children, even by the dozens, even if by doing so it manages to kill one alleged “enemy” fighter. A nation that exalts remote-controlled robot drone aircraft that can attack targets in order to avoid risking soldiers’ lives, even though by doing so, it is predictable that many, many innocent people will be killed. A nation that is proud to have developed weapons of mass slaughter, from shells laden with phosphorus that burns to death, indiscriminately, those who are contacted by the splattered chemical to elaborately baroque anti-personnel fragmentation bombs that spread cute little colored objects designed to look like everything from toys to food packages, but which upon contact explode, releasing whirling metal or plastic fleschettes which shred human flesh on contact. ...
        But we Americans are irrational, panicky cowards. We worry that the terrorists will come and get us.
        My guess is that a lot of this is mass guilt. Whether people admit it or not, I suspect most people know on some subconscious level that we Americans have been living off the rest of the world’s misery. We know we’re stealing oil from the people of nations like Iraq and Nigeria. We know that our toys, our electronics devices and our fancy name-brand running shoes are being made by people who cannot afford to buy them themselves. We know that for decades we have been overthrowing elected governments and propping up fascist dictatorships to keep the exploitation going so that we can buy cheap goods and extract cheap resources (As Marine Medal of Honor hero Smedley Butler long ago admitted, [Reference is to "War is a Racket", see Wikipedia.com, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler] that’s what our “heroes” in uniform are generally doing overseas). ...

Memorial Day in the Land of the Weak and Wussy,
by Dave Lindorff, May 25, 2009, Counterpunch.org,

        After granting the ‘untouchable’ status to all involved in this shameful chapter in our nation’s dangerous downward slide, he now refuses to release the photos, the incriminating evidence, and is doing so by using the exact same justification used repeatedly by his predecessors: ‘Their release would endanger the troops,’ as in ‘the revelation on NSA would endanger our national security’ and ‘stronger whistleblower laws would endanger our intelligence agencies’ and so on and so forth.
        Not only that, he goes even further to shove his secrecy promotion down other nations’ courts throat. In the case of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian citizen and a legal resident in Britain who was held and tortured in Guantanamo from 2004 to 2009, and filed lawsuits in the British courts to have the evidence of his torture released, Mr. Obama’s position has been to threaten the British Government in order to conceal all facts and related evidence. This case involves the brutal torture and so very ‘extraordinary’ rendition practices of the previous administration, the same practices that ‘in words’ were strongly condemned by the President during his candidacy.
        Today he and his administration unapologetically maintain the same Bush Administration position on extraordinary rendition, torture, and related secrecy to cover up. Here is Ben Wizner’s, the attorney who argued the case for the ACLU, response “We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course.” Yes indeed, President Obama has chosen to protect and support the course involving torture, rendition and the abuse of secrecy to cover them all up. ...
        The report also includes the disagreement over the exact number of ‘Civilian Casualties’ in Afghanistan by our military airstrike:
        >>“Government officials have accepted handwritten lists compiled by the villagers of 147 dead civilians. An independent Afghan human rights group said it had accounts from interviews of 117 dead. American officials say that even 100 is an exaggeration but have yet to issue their own count.”<<
        Does it really matter - the difference between 147 and 117 or just 100 when it comes to children, grandmothers…innocent lives lost in a war with no well-defined objectives or plans? If for some it indeed does matter, then here is a more specific and detailed report:
        >>“A copy of the government's list of the names, ages and father's names of each of the 140 dead was obtained by Reuters earlier this week. It shows that 93 of those killed were children -- the youngest eight days old -- and only 22 were adult males."<<
        Maybe releasing the photographs of the nameless unrepresented victims of these airstrikes should be as important as those of torture. Because, from what I see, they and their loss of lives have been reduced to some petty number to fight about.

Two Sides of the Same Coin: From State Secrets to War to Wiretaps,
By Sibel Edmonds, May 25, 2009, Counterpunch.org

        When doctors started reporting that some of the victims of the US bombing of several villages in Farah Province last week—an attack that left between 117 and 147 civilians dead, most of them women and children—were turning up with deep, sharp burns on their body that “looked like” they’d been caused by white phosphorus, the US military was quick to deny responsibility.
        US officials—who initially denied that the US had even bombed any civilians in Farah despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including massive craters where houses had once stood—insisted that “no white phosphorus” was used in the attacks on several villages in Farah.
        Official military policy on the use of white phosphorus is to only use the high-intensity, self-igniting material as a smoke screen during battles or to illuminate targets, not as a weapon against human beings—even enemy troops. ...
        C.J. Chivers, writing in the May 14 edition of the NY Times, in an article headlined “Korangal Valley Memo: In Bleak Afghan Outpost, Troops Slog On,” wrote of how an embattled US Army unit in the Korangal Valley of Afghanistan, had come under attack following a morning memorial service for one of their members, Pfc. Richard Dewater, who had been killed the day before by a mine.
Chivers wrote:
        >>After the ceremony, the violence resumed. The soldiers detected a Taliban spotter on a ridge, which was pounded by mortars and then white phosphorus rounds from a 155 millimeter howitzer.
        What did the insurgents do? When the smoldering subsided, they attacked from exactly the same spot, shelling the outpost with 30-millimeter grenades and putting the soldiers on notice that the last display of firepower had little effect. The Americans escalated. An A-10 aircraft made several gun runs, then dropped a 500-pound bomb.<<
        It is clear from this passage that the military’s use of the phosphorus shells had not been for the officially sanctioned purpose of providing cover. The soldiers had no intention of climbing that hill to attack the spotter on the ridge themselves. They were trying to destroy him with shells and bombs. In fact, the last thing they would have wanted to do was provide the spotter with a smoke cover, which would have helped him escape, and which also would have hidden him from the planes which had been called in to make gun runs at his position. Nor was this a case of illuminating the target. The incident, as Chivers reports, took place in daylight.

The U.S. is Using White Phosphorous in Afghanistan,
By Dave Lindorff, May 18, 2009, Counterpunch.org

        At the week-end Kilcullen and Andrew Exum, a Fellow with the Center for a New American Security, published an op-ed in the The New York Times going one step further. Their basic argument: ‘End the drone attacks’. Why? One of their arguments is pretty compelling (irrespective of the validity of the data):
        >>While violent extremists may be unpopular, for a frightened population they seem less ominous than a faceless enemy that wages war from afar and often kills more civilians than militants. Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders. But, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2 percent — hardly “precision.”<<
Kilcullen and Exum suggest:
        >>Expanding or even just continuing the drone war is a mistake. In fact, it would be in our best interests, and those of the Pakistani people, to declare a moratorium on drone strikes into Pakistan.
        A moratorium on drone strikes in Pakistan? Surely a step too far? The authors readily accept that:
        The appeal of drone attacks for policy makers is clear. For one thing, their effects are measurable. Military commanders and intelligence officials point out that drone attacks have disrupted terrorist networks in Pakistan, killing key leaders and hampering operations. Drone attacks create a sense of insecurity among militants and constrain their interactions with suspected informers. And, because they kill remotely, drone strikes avoid American casualties.<<
But, they argue, on balance the costs outweigh these benefits for 3 reasons:
        >>First, the drone war has created a siege mentality among Pakistani civilians. This is similar to what happened in Somalia in 2005 and 2006, when similar strikes were employed against the forces of the Union of Islamic Courts. While the strikes did kill individual militants who were the targets, public anger over the American show of force solidified the power of extremists.<<

Kilcullen: Drone strikes make Af-Pak strategy harder, not easier,
by Charlie Edwards, May 18, 2009, Globaldashboard.org

        "We need to call off the drones," testified David Kilcullen, who masterminded Iraq's surge for Gen. David Petraeus, to Congress last month. One problem is a dismal precision rate—Pakistani officials claim that as many as 50 civilians die in Predator attacks for every insurgent killed. "The moral requirement is a commitment ... not to strike unless you're sure who you're hitting," says Just and Unjust Wars author Michael Walzer. Peter Bergen, author of The Osama bin Laden I Know, also argues that drones "might fatally undermine U.S. efforts" as people on the ground feel besieged. A poll last year bore this out: 52 percent of Pakistanis blame the U.S. for rising violence; only 8 percent blame Al Qaeda. But the argument is falling on deaf ears: President Obama recently increased Predator flights, and the CIA says attacks are up 30 percent from last year.

To Drone or Not To Drone,
By Adam B. Kushner, May 23, 2009, Newsweek.com

        Imagine a gun or bullets that could automatically decide who to kill. One could point it in the general vicinity of the person who one intended to kill, but the choice of who to kill would ultimately be left to the machine. Sometimes it would lock on and kill the one who it was supposed to, sometimes it would hit someone else, a random pedestrian, woman, child, elderly person, baby in a carriage, the ultimate decision would be not a person's but a machine's.

        Now imagine the consequences. No police officer or person using such a device could be held liable for shooting an innocent bystander. Such distinctions between innocent and guilty, victim or criminal, they would be ultimately irrelevant. No one would or could be held liable if the machine hit the wrong target, and no crime or mistake would be made, so long as it fell within acceptable parameters of suggested probability error. And if it went beyond those parameters killing far more innocent bystanders than intended criminals or other targets, still, whose fault could it be? If such deaths, possibly huge numbers of people, were not crimes but merely 'errors', flaws in an otherwise laudable system of unaccountability, freeing those whose consciences would otherwise be burdened by guilt or feelings of remorse of killing an innocent person from losing any sleep over what they do, or who they killed or maimed unnecessarily, would this be not a good thing? They could increase exponentially their 'targets' without fear of ever being held accountable for 'mistakes' since they would not be 'their' mistakes at all, just another unaccountable untraceable part of 'the system'.

        The blame, if any, for these 'errors' which are not crimes anymore, not even misjudgments, certainly nothing to lose any sleep over, would be with those who made the police or other military group to carry and use such weapons of unaccountability instead of regular, judgment-required ones in which someone would ultimately held responsible for their misuse or 'wrongful deaths'. But then such people would be doing so only because they were told to do so by the authorities, elected representatives of the legitimate government, if the government is elected or legitimate. Thus the blame would not be on them either, nor even the company which invented or manufactured them, nor even on the person who invented them. They were simply making a proposal, it was not their fault the government decided to purchase them. And if they did not invent or make them and the government would have found them useful, they might have bought them instead from a competitor.

        In such a system of shared blame or fault, clearly no one would ever be held responsible for any 'accidental' deaths because, literally, there would not be any definition of such a thing. Such things will happen, it is to be expected, and the benefits of their use are thought to outweigh the costs, especially since now if all are responsible, or a large enough section of society are guilty, then no one is.

        We actually have instituted nationally a system of such fallible systems which can 'accidentally' destroy, or create the exact opposite of what they are supposedly implemented to correct, fairness and the public good. Paper-trail-less voting machines. Machines that can be hacked, can be used to totally subvert democracy or any election, and it is all legal. Such untraceable and unaccountable errors which can put a wrongly decided 'victor' into office more often than the Supreme Court can, are simply not anyone's fault. Not those who designed the machines, not those who purchased them, not those who authorized the funds to purchase them.

        The fallibility of such systems are well known by now. They are hackable as well as prone to error, and if they were hacked, there is no way to trace by whom because there is intentionally no evidence (except by statistical analysis, hardly a smoking gun) and no way to verify without a paper trail, that a wrong result had been given or that it would not have occurred that way anyway. But 'painful' recounts of close elections such as Florida in 2000 and an even closer Minnesota Senatorial election of 2008 can now be simply waved away where these machines dominate or have influence. Nothing to recount. Take the machines word for it because that is all you will ever get, and how it works is as classified as any Honduran death squad's relations to the US government could ever be.

        But there is another aspect of this which is clearly criminal. Though I would state that anyone who is responsible for having built or ordered such machines which INTENTIONALLY produce results, election results for who controls the government no less, which cannot be independently verified have committed crimes against the state or treason, many would consider that an extreme position. Get over it. Mistakes happen all the time. There is no such thing as an error free election anyway so what is the big deal if these new machines are not perfect? That is the price of progress! Heck, it can even be funny too.

        Literally we now have made stealing elections in plain sight no longer a crime. Though we have many many FBI and other officials who will state otherwise, that such actions are still in fact illegal, how can that stand when those running the elections are purposely making it possible for such things to be done, to hide the evidence that any election was indeed 'stolen' and such future investigations, if any, will be hampered by a preemptive 'shredding' of any evidence of such a crime?

        And even if one were to state that such things are merely 'bad judgment' such as creating a system of confinement or 'interrogation' based upon torture, sexual assaults, raping of relatives or threats to do so to elicit cooperation, then how can they explain away a doubling or tripling of doubt in the public of the fairness in their elections, that the person 'elected' to represent them actually won the most votes honestly? The last poll I saw, more than 30% of Americans doubted the fairness of the electoral process, in a large part due to unchallengeable, unverifiable electronic voting machines. That politicians and electoral boards can flagrantly put in systems of voting counting that completely and provably severely diminish the public's faith in the honestly of their elections shows such laws against tampering clearly do not extend to giving people valid reasons to not wish to vote at all. Why vote if you don't think it will be counted fairly? And if that is the intent after all, you have a completely legal way to disenfranchise millions simply because of 'bureaucratic bad decisions' which can create the exact same conditions as riggable voting machines without actually having to rig them except when one thinks simply turning people off to the idea of voting has not worked well enough this particular time.

        Once the evidence came out that such machines could be rigged, leaving them in place and not recalling them should have been prosecuted for the crime that it was, conspiracy to continue to make possible the rigging and theft of an election. And beyond that, even if such machines are not 'provable' to be 'hackable' simply putting in systems which do not have or severely diminish the public's confidence in the honesty of their elections, that alone should make it a crime. For that which undermines the public's desire to vote because such elections are purposely being held up as possibly being or having been tainted, with evidence quite enough to back that suspicion up, should itself be enough to make it a crime, as conspiring to suppress legitimate voters from having reason to vote.

        One would think that the Democrats, more than the Republicans who would benefit from such machines, would act to correct this and put in place laws that would ban machines which produce vote counts not verifiable by manual recounts after the fact, but that does not seem to be the case. Corruption in both parties by corporate interests may indeed stall action on this long enough for those who make and profit from this ability to steal elections to remain in business to once again be in a position to keep or expand such electronic systems, which not only may be hackable, may be able to be illegally used to benefit one candidate over another, but also to corrode the public's faith, shaky as that is, that their government is not completely corrupt already.

        When I voted in 2008, it was on a machine that counted the votes electronically, yet it was required to produce a printed ballot as well which could be used in the event of a recall to verify the computers tabulation. Such machines provide all the benefits of electronic voting machines that do not produce a paper trail except one, they cannot be used to steal an election. States that purchased, never mind those that continue to purchase, such machines that do not produce a paper trail can claim that they do not have funds to purchase new machines, and going back to older more verifiable systems is not practical. That is to admit that it is too expensive to have a system of voting that does not without due reason corrode the public's image of the honesty of their government and its elections, and that a system with a built-in potential to be made to give the completely wrong result than what it was intended to do, (if it indeed was ever intended to produce results accurate to how people voted,) is not valuable enough, or that completely verifiable honest machines are not where the most profits, kickbacks, contracts, or bribes, are to be found. Is that not after all, how government contracts for things like voting machines or anything else are awarded?

-----------------------------------------

        When I first thought of writing this a year ago, I had elections primarily in mind. However the US governments use of drones in 'targeted killings' (read assassinations) in Afghanistan and Pakistan show that the idea of unaccountability in the use of 'smart' weapons that I wanted to start with, have a much more real life meaning than in how it relates to election theft, real, potential, or the threat of which.

        Never mind the overwhelming disproportionate killing of innocent civilians (I know, there are no 'innocent' people over there, or the argument which carries the day stating that), more than 50 men, women, children (mostly women and children) killed for every 'terrorist' killed, it is wholly and completely being done in defiance of international law, treaties, and common sense.

        Before Christianity meant those who go to church regularly in the United States are 50% more likely to approve of torturing people than those who do not, it meant a religion based upon the principle of reciprocity. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Beyond 'American Exceptionalism' or that we are killing people in forwarding 'God's plan', what we are doing by such assassinations is completely what we have determined only the United States is justified in doing.

        We have been operating completely outside of international law so long now that many to most Americans cannot even recognize that there is or ever was such a thing, or that if there was, that it should not apply to us or our nations actions equally as to others.

        The 'justification' for these killings, some in countries we are not even at war with, and doing it in an 'extrajudicial' (read 'completely illegal') way, is that if we asked the governments in which whose territory where they are located to hand them over to us for extradition, that they would be unable or unwilling to do so. This also is limited by the fact that we often do not have any or enough evidence to justify them complying, other than simply handing over anyone we ask them to to be held without trail on evidence we do not have or are not willing to divulge. In such instances as to demand complete trust that we are not acting in error, bad faith, or in haste, in complete contradiction by the way to how we have acted in the past in this manner and are continuing to do so, we do not think such governments would comply with such requests. So we simply kill them all. In their houses, in their churches or mosques, wherever we think they are regardless of who may be around them at the time so long as we say we did it at a time when we think we killed the fewest numbers of innocent people possible, or a least tried to that effect or made some effort in that direction.

        The mirror that the American government cannot see in yet is visible to the entire world outside of the United States is 'What if other nations tried to do that as well? Are we the only nation that has people they want, but that they are in countries unwilling to turn them over to them?”

        The United States has many people living in it that China wants. We even house the leader of the Falon Gong movement which China not only considers a subversive, but the head of a movement who considers himself Jesus Christ reincarnated, has tens of millions of followers, and is considered a threat to their governments existence. Far more so than some Afghan or Pakistani holed up in some remote village we may or may not have any clear evidence against, certainly not with means to destabilize or overthrow our government. What would we think if China were to wipe out his US residence, killing everyone in the building, could they be that precise, whether he were home at the time or not being unimportant, but its OK because they tried at the time of day to kill the least amount of 'innocent' people. They could even make the case as we have, that his servants, followers, lawyers, in his house at the time, not to mention his family could hardly be described as wholly 'innocent' anyway. Not when after torturing a chauffeur for years after holding him without charges, and again torturing him (Enhanced Interrogation ® TM, Newspeak aside) for years, convicted him of terrorism by virtue of being the driver of a terrorist. How innocent can a maid or housekeeper really be? Of course they have it coming to them.

        The British have given asylum to at least one Russian billionaire who has called for the overthrow of the Russian government. Russia very much would like to extradite him so they can charge him for things they say he has done in the past, and I am sure they take him admitting in interviews that he would like to see the government of his country overthrown and is willing to pay to have it done, to be somewhat, at least to the Russians, a criminal with evidence or reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing which is documentable. In Afghanistan or Pakistan the US has supposedly wiped out at least one small village to kill one person, yet we tell the world to trust us, a bad person may have been there, or at least we have some evidence he may have been bad but its classified. Imagine Russia blowing up the billionaire's English estate because they thought that the billionaire was there, or might have been, or could have been, but its OK because they only took out that one home, and those working for him who were helping him, or could have been, and are equally guilty or are 'regrettable accidental deaths'.

        As these two reverse mirror examples of how the US or British would react or think if anyone dared to do anything remotely similar to them to what the US is doing week after week in violation of international law: war crimes, and crimes of aggression, (but since Obama is better than Bush, the world is just supposed to give it a pass), both of those examples are of people from those countries who fled and are charged with real crimes.

        Image if China or Cuba or North Korea was to say to the US government, "there are Americans living in your country (America) who may be terrorists based on secret evidence we have but we can't tell you about. Please hand them over to us so we can torture them or ship them off to a third country where we can have them tortured for us, yet escape accountability for the torturing of them. If the torture, I am sorry, the interrogation of these Americans, who we admit could quite very well be perfectly innocent, but that is hardly the point, is successful, then we will have confessions from them to justify our suspicions about them, even if completely unfounded. And if you do not comply, you really should not be surprised if we level their villages or their homes instead."

        And that is how we treat Pakistan, a democracy,(as if can remain one long if we keep doing this to its people, showing them often that their own government cannot protect them from us.) and supposedly is our ally. The rest of the world can and does expect even harsher requests of them. And all of this is for what? Our own generals and security experts say such attacks make us far more enemies than they kill, not to mention hundreds and hundreds of women and children dead, and many more crippled, disfigured, and will suffer for the rest of their lives. And this is to give President Obama his street cred with the CIA? To prove that the US can be every bit as barbaric as any dictator, warlord, or religious maniac? If that is so, they bravo, mission accomplished. Now is a good time to stop then.

5/25/09 - Rep. Ron Paul Speech- Torturing the Rule of Law

2009-05-25T15:19:00.000-07:00

Torturing the Rule of Law, by Ron Paul, 5/25/09
(See original page by clicking here)

While Congress is sidetracked by who said what to whom and when, our nation finds itself at a crossroads on the issue of torture. We are at a point where we must decide if torture is something that is now going to be considered justifiable and reasonable under certain circumstances, or is America better than that?

“Enhanced interrogation” as some prefer to call it, has been used throughout history, usually by despotic governments, to cruelly punish or to extract politically useful statements from prisoners. Governments that do these things invariably bring shame on themselves.

In addition, information obtained under duress is incredibly unreliable, which is why it is not admissible in a court of law. Legally valid information is freely given by someone of sound mind and body. Someone in excruciating pain, or brought close to death by some horrific procedure is not in any state of mind to give reliable information, and certainly no actions should be taken solely based upon it.

For these reasons, it is illegal in the United States and illegal under Geneva Conventions. Simulated drowning, or water boarding, was not considered an exception to these laws when it was used by the Japanese against US soldiers in World War II. In fact, we hanged Japanese officers for war crimes in 1945 for water boarding. Its status as torture has already been decided by our own courts under this precedent. To look the other way now, when Americans do it, is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Matthew Alexander, author of “How to Break a Terrorist” used non-torture methods of interrogation in Iraq with much success. In fact, one cooperative jihadist told him, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate." Alexander also found that in Iraq “the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.” Alexander’s experiences unequivocally demonstrate that losing our humanity is not beneficial or necessary in fighting terror.

The current administration has reversed its position on releasing evidence of torture by the previous administration and we must ask why. A great and moral nation would have the courage to face the truth so it could abide by the rule of law. To look the other way necessarily implicates all of us and would of course further radicalize people against our troops on the ground. Instead, we have the chance to limit culpability for torture to those who were truly responsible for these crimes against humanity.

Not everyone who was given illegal orders obeyed them. Many FBI agents understood that an illegal order must be disobeyed and they did so. The others must be held accountable, so that all of us are not targeted for blowback for the complicity of some.

The government’s own actions and operations in torturing people, and in acting on illegally obtained and unreliable information to kill and capture, are the most radicalizing forces at work today, not any religion, nor the fact that we are rich and free. The fact that our government engages in evil behavior under the auspices of the American people is what poses the greatest threat to the American people, and it must not be allowed to stand.

The Cheney-Obama Dance to Rehabilitate Torture in the Public Conscience

2009-05-14T23:07:00.000-07:00

        Despite what anyone says about Holocaust denials, be it in Europe, Rwanda, Turkey, or Ukraine, it is, if nothing else, a natural reaction. The more unthinkable something is, the harder it is to believe, the more it conflicts with your world view or opinions, saying it never happened is the first and most logical reaction. It requires the least amount of work, the most superficial introspection if the charges are aimed at your own people or an ally, political, cultural, be it in the present or who you hope to deal with or be identified by or with in the future. Or if such comparisons or relationships cannot help but be made by others.

        When this fails, the second reaction when denials are no longer possible, when ones view of how they wish reality was or should be seen fails or no longer will prevail over creeping cynicism, is a far more dangerous one. Beyond mere minimalization of the charges or 'so-called crimes' becomes the inevitable turn into the storm of outrage to head it off, defeat it, and make it run away to whimper in a corner and never dare show its face again. The proverbial “So what?” So what if it was done, we admit it, we own it now, it is ours to spin, to justify, to make right, to rehabilitate such 'so-called' atrocities in the public's imagination, and to make sure it is never mentioned again without the proper 'respect' that it was due!

        The initial spin regarding how it is outed, what registers when the initial shock hits home, this will last years, generations even, for that which is difficult to face up to, when one is forced to confront ugly truths they would far more prefer to not be made to deal with, to have to face up to when hiding ones head in the sand is far easier, it will be that much harder later to revisit and rethink. Yes, we did that, we dealt with it already, decided it wasn't that big of a deal, and 'moved on'. Making us face it again, why that would just be reopening old wounds, dredging up the past we would rather not have to ever again need to recontemplate. We've crossed that bridge already, move along now.

        This is the little minuet that Cheney and Obama have been playing into equally, each step of one creating the dance toward the inevitable “So what” which will define the notion that torturing people was ever once shocking at all. Anyone who thinks that Cheney is 'losing' the torture argument is living within their own assumptions that people think such things are naturally wrong. Nothing of the kind is happening. Obama by revealing such 'so-called' abuses or 'seemingly potentially criminal' atrocities, and then doing nothing about them, certainly not holding anyone accountable since no 'clear' crimes were committed, is making sure whoever stands up to defend them has his unspoken acknowledgment that such things were potentially reasonable, even possibly necessary. Cheney wins every argument thereafter by default since no one of similar stature dares to argue otherwise, simply to stand by smugly by thinking 'who would ever listen to him?' when, silently, most would prefer to think such things.

        Thinking otherwise is hard, uncomfortable, and who in America would wish to question the rightness of what we have done in the past? Leftists, radicals, un-American Americans of course! The President sure as hell won't, not this President, nor the one before, nor the probable ones to come. If we did it, it must have been for a good reason, and anyone wishing to be 'vindictive' to question the inherent rightness of our actions, if sometimes for no other reason than because it was we who did them, is standing on shaky ground when outright potentially treasonous or un-American. Especially when such things were truly bad, and the worse they were, the more they ought to remain unspoken, and the more right our President is when he makes sure they are either glossed over, never be forced to have to be admitted to, and minimized or trivialized when that is no longer possible when they are exposed. Isn't that the true lesson Obama has decided to give by his actions? Has he not shown this is inescapably how he is to be defined now? He doesn't own the torture, but he does own its rehabilitation, its now every day more and more undeniable 'utility'.

Emphasis usually my own in the following excerpts...

In reversing himself and declaring that the US government will not release further photos in its possession of torture being practiced on captives held by the US military and the CIA, President Obama is sounding increasingly like the Bush/Cheney administration before him.
It may well be that, as Obama says, release of those photos could lead to anger in the Islamic world and perhaps to recruitment gains among groups like Al Qaeda that are attacking American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, but this is only true because at the same time, the Obama administration is opposing taking any legal action against the people who authorized and promoted that torture.
If the Obama administration were to open a full-scale legal investigation into torture, with an independent prosecutor assigned to go after anyone who violated the Geneva Conventions and the US Criminal Code outlawing torture and the authorization, condoning or covering-up of torture, quite the opposite would happen: people in the Islamic world would see that this nation was coming to terms with those who abused the law....
... Obama has endorsed that situation by again referring to the torture as just the actions of "a few people."
It was hardly that, however, and he knows it. Torture was a major part of the Bush/Cheney so-called "War" on Terror, and was being conducted on an industrial scale, with White House lawyers providing legal cover, the Secretary of Defense sending memos urging every more aggressive techniques, and government doctors and psychologists working assiduously to make them more "effective." ...
The truth is always better than a cover-up, and what we now have the president advocating is a cover-up of American torture.
But that's only part of the president's slide into Cheneyism. We have the president now calling for the possible indefinite detention of terror suspects--an idea that only insures that there will always be an incentive for recruiting more terrorists (to avenge those in captivity)--and that makes a joke of our own Constitution, which guarantees everyone--not just citizens--the right to a trial, the right to a presumption of innocence, and protection from "cruel and unusual punishment," which indefinite detention certainly is.

On Torture and War, Obama Channels Cheney, by Dave Lindorff
May 14, 2009: Counterpunch.org

By raising the stakes over the torture issue with his repeated appearances, Dick Cheney isn't merely daring Democratic Congress and the Obama administration to investigate him and other members of the Bush torture team. Cheney's is a scorched earth game he believes he can win.
Cheney's MAD strategy goes something like this. If the DOJ or Congress proceeds with torture probes or prosecutions, Republican retaliation will be massive and total. Nominees will be blocked, legislation filibustered and the gridlock in Washington permanent. The blame for the carnage, the theory goes, will go to the side (in this case, Democrats) which launched the first strike. As Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought."
With the prospect of an atomic political conflict assured of leaving both parties devastated, stalemate is the only alternative. And in Dick Cheney's case, stalemate equals victory. By ratcheting up the public pressure, Cheney is forcing Obama's hand: act on torture, or back down. And by backing down, Obama would in essence codify the Bush administration's criminality. In the unsteady equilibrium which would endure, the Bush torture team would appear to be right, seemingly vindicated. Like the Soviet threat, the risk from torture prosecution would be successfully contained. In his eyes, Cheney's omnipresence isn't a nightmare for Republicans, but their path back.

Cheney's MAD, By Jon Perr
May 14, 2009: Crooksandliars.com

Based on this sampling of polling results, it is easy at first to be surprised and troubled by the degree to which Americans have expressed support for the inhumane treatment and torture of detainees. But public sentiment on such matters does not emerge in a vacuum. Rather, it often reflects the influence of carefully orchestrated marketing campaigns by powerful vested interests eager to shape opinion in support of a specific agenda or facts on the ground. Certainly it is now well known that the Bush administration embraced the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in national security settings. It is therefore instructive to carefully consider the five-pronged message that they and their backers promoted to create a citizenry supportive of torture.
In sum, this seemingly successful campaign of mass persuasion depended upon convincing the public to believe five things: (1) our country is in great danger, (2) torture is the only thing that can keep us safe, (3) the people we torture are monstrous wrongdoers, (4) our decision to torture is moral and for the greater good, and (5) critics of our torture policy should not be trusted. And all the while, the marketers painstakingly avoided using the actual word "torture"--and contested the word's use by anyone else. Of course, this strategy is by no means unique to the selling of torture. A similar approach, designed for hawking war, was used with devastating and tragic effect in building public support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

How Americans Think About Torture - and Why, by Roy Eidelson
May 11, 2009: CommonDreams.org

But don't dismiss Dick Cheney as a fading punch line, or as tragedy reprised as comedy. While the Obama administration has adopted large numbers of policies that directly contradict Cheney's positions, it would be a mistake to overlook Cheney's continued influence on the executive branch through the precedents set by the Bush administration. Among the former vice-president's most important legacies is increased government secrecy. Obama's Department of Justice continues to rely on an alleged "state secrets" privilege. It has thus tried to block lawsuits by victims who alleged they were kidnapped and tortured by U.S. intelligence even though they were innocent of wrongdoing, on the grounds that such trials would reveal state secrets. The same state secrets doctrine was used by Obama's DOJ in an attempt to block investigations of Bush-Cheney warrantless wiretaps. Likewise, the DOJ has attempted to block lawsuits seeking the release of Bush-era e-mails and to prevent prisoners held at Bagram air base in Afghanistan from appearing before a judge to challenge their imprisonment. ...
In the government's commitment to a doctrine of "state secrets" that protect the executive from the scrutiny of other branches of government, in the continued attempt to block lawsuits and release of important documents, and in the shielding of secret programs of torture, unlawful kidnapping and warrantless wiretapping, Obama is preserving policies to which Cheney is deeply committed. In configuring Pushtun fundamentalists in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan as a mortal threat to the U.S. and potentially even a nuclear power, the Obama administration is picking up themes from Cheney's old speeches and running with them. Cheney may or may not win his struggle for the soul of the Republican Party. If we are not careful, he will win the struggle for the soul of the country as a whole.

The Hidden Hand of Dick Cheney:
Out of office, he continues to push his tortured version of reality
-- and his vision of an imperial presidency
-- and there are signs he is succeeding, By Juan Cole
May 13, 2009: Commondreams.org

Slowly but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predcessors' war crimes. But covering up war crimes, refusing to proscute them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention. So Cheney begins to successfully coopt his successor.

Obama Reverses Course On Torture Photos, By Andrew Sullivan
May 13, 2009: TheAtlantic.com

>>Actually covering up evidence of torture is a criminal offense for which you can go to prison here in Britain, and I imagine in the US but I'm not quite sure about that. And the idea that the British government would conspire with the US or be threatened by the US to do this is again an independent violation of the law. . . .
The British courts are saying that the British government relied on President Obama's view that this material about torture shouldn't be released to the public. It became clear to us in Britain that actually President Obama had never made that decision and that the British government had somewhat misrepresented his position to the courts. And what I thought was only fair and appropriate was for President Obama to make a decision himself: Do you, President Obama, I voted for you and I think he's a good man, do you really, really tell your officials to cover up evidence of torture committed by US personnel?<<
That question about Obama's intentions -- along with Obama's decision last month to release the 4 OLC torture memos -- is what led Smith to make his motion for the British High Court to re-consider its ruling that it would not make the torture details public: namely, he wanted definitive evidence one way or the other as to whether Obama really was issuing these threats to the British government.
That definitive evidence came, and it leaves no doubt that these threats to the British government are now being issued every bit as emphatically from Obama. ...
>>>Mr. Smith said that by attempting to keep evidence of Mr. Mohamed's "abuse" secret, the U.S. official who communicated the threats to the British Foreign Office was in breach of British law, specifically the International Criminal Court Act of 2001.
"The U.S. is committing a criminal offense in Britain by seeking to conceal this information. What the Obama administration did is not just ill-advised, it is illegal," he said.<<<
Independently, Article 9 of the Convention Against Torture requires that "States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings." If the U.S. were a country that adhered to its treaty obligations -- rather than systematically ignored them whenever the mood struck -- that, too, would be significant.

Obama administration threatens Britain to keep torture evidence concealed, By Glenn Greenwald
May 12, 2009: Salon.com

Bill Moyer's 'Extra' biased take on the Torture 'debate'

2009-05-03T20:04:00.000-07:00

I lost count how many times everyone in the 'debate' agreed with each other. "Yes. Absolutely. Right. I agree." Is it possible that there are no Americans left who don't believe in torturing people anymore? Who think that we should forget about the past, and look to the future instead of carping on about "crimes" such as torture "might be"? Couldn't Moyers find anyone like John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, or Barack Obama to add a taped comment or two about how such things hardly warrant being called crimes or even illegal? As much as I have criticized the Fox News Channel for such one sided debates, it would be heartening (but wrong) to think everyone agrees torture is wrong in America anymore. My recent guestimation of fourty million maximum who were "pro-torture" it seems was far below the numbers in recently polls, instead 40% to 60% of the population (up to 180 million). These numbers are far far above the 23% who identify with the Republican Party. Anyone else have a clue where this might be heading, especially since the spineless democrats will concede on this as with any other moral backbone issue?

Here are some good lines from the recent Bill Moyer's Journal's shamelessly biased "torture is bad" "debate". Boring and insightful as always. He did not even ask Mike Huckabee to contribute his favorite torture joke. So much for "fairness in broadcasting."

Emphasis my own in the following...

You have a political predicate being laid down by the former administration and by some Republicans now in office that essentially says, because these techniques have been stopped, if and when there's a second attack, it will be the fault of the new administration. That President Obama, in deciding not to torture, has left the country vulnerable to another attack. That is present politics. That's not about the past. That's about now. And that's why this has to be confronted, not only legally, because I agree with that. But politically, as well.

BRUCE FEIN: Mark, torture isn't a Republican or Democratic prohibition. We ratified the Convention against Torture in the Senate. We passed it and made it a crime. It's not a Republican or Democratic issue. Moreover, with regard to this idea of well, as long as we got good information, then we can flout the law. That's not how you do it in the United States. I've been around for 41 years. If you think the law is deficient, then we should have repealed the torture statute.

In fact, if it was so important to undertake waterboarding and torture, Cheney should be out there demanding that it be reinstituted. Because he still agrees that we've got Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda out there, wanting to plot and kill us.

MARK DANNER: But he is out there demanding it be reinstituted.
------------------
MARK DANNER: We're talking about Watergate again, of course, because this was in the aftermath of Watergate. They uncovered all kinds of assassination attempts, C.I.A. wrongdoing. And, in fact, from that point on the President, who before would have basically said, "I didn't know about that." Henceforth, as a result of those hearings, the President had to sign a finding and say, "You know what? Do this. I order you to do this. I'm the President. This is legal."
------------------
MARK DANNER: There's no question that there have been many times in American history when the United States is attacked, when it responds by breaking its own laws. You could cite the Palmer Raids, Korematsu, as you just did, the McCarthy period. You can cite a number of examples. But you asked why this is different. And I'll tell you what it seems to me is dramatically different. This was made legal, within the American Government. I say "made legal" with quotes. This was officially done. This was ordered by the President. The Department of Justice made memos saying you can do this. The principals, Attorney General, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, sat in meetings and talked about interrogations that were plainly illegal, according to our laws, and according to treaties we have signed.

All of it is now laid out before the public, and finally, if you look at Fox News, if you look at discussion of this — usually on the conservative side, not always, but usually on the conservative side — you find a strong attempt, basically, to say, "Not only should this stuff have been done, but we should not handcuff ourselves. We should keep doing it." So, we're talking about not simply what happened before. We're talking about the politics of now. And that's why it's important.
------------------
MARK DANNER: And one should add, by the way, that this is vitally important not only because of what happened before, but because of what's going to happen after another attack. And we have to assume there will be another attack. And if the argument that torture is absolutely crucial to protect the country is accepted by the population, then in the wake of another attack, the politics, I think, are very likely to be extremely poisonous.

Blaming the current administration, because it didn't torture, and thus left the country vulnerable. So, we're talking about not simply the Bush Administration. We're talking about who we are, what we do in the world, how we fight this war, and what will happen in the wake of another attack that's very likely to come.
------------------
MARK DANNER: You had-- tyrannies have a lot of experience with that. I'm not calling the U.S. a tyranny. But I'm saying, I agree, when you say that's the mark of a tyranny, you're completely correct. They did it secretly. But I think there are reasons, you know, there are reasons having to do with their attitude toward presidential power, which is why they didn't do what you're suggesting. Coming out and denouncing it. And I think that they should have done that.

BILL MOYERS: Anybody who expected there would be a diminution in the use and appropriation of executive power if Obama became President has to be disillusioned now.

BRUCE FEIN: Oh, yeah, absolutely-

BILL MOYERS: Because-- because he has expanded the powers of the Presidency in almost every direction, right?

BRUCE FEIN: Exactly.
------------------
BRUCE FEIN: But Mark, let me just identify. These are the ways in which Obama has gone beyond Bush Cheney. Out in the FISA cases, he's argued not only state secrets, he says the Federal Government is absolutely immune. You can't even sue the federal government for violating the FISA. An argument that Cheney and Bush didn't even make.

The other thing with regards to the detainees. Two things. He said that we can avoid the Habeas Corpus, sending the prisoners to Bagram. There's no coverage, no -- law doesn't apply there. Secondly, he's just said, "I won't call them enemy combatants." But he's made the same arguments.
------------------
BRUCE FEIN: The psychology of Empire's one that magnifies threats a million fold. Beyond what the real danger is to the United States. Because there's a compulsion, a psychic thrill, that comes from just being dominant, and not being controlled by anything. Once a country thinks it can live risk free, then it finds the tiniest kind of threat intolerable. And they will flout any law, send the military anywhere, to try to crush it.

They're like-- we're treating Pakistan like they're the next Soviet Red Army with three million people and ICBMs to come across the globe. And one of the things that I think needs to be fleshed out, if you can do it. Is the use of the-- now we're doing the drones. How does the C.I.A. target these people and kill them? How do they know they're getting the right people? And they're-- this antiseptic.

BILL MOYERS: They don't. They don't.

BRUCE FEIN: These are assassination squad. This is the equivalent of assassination squads by technology. They don't have any idea whether they're killing civilians or not. And we just say, "Okay, so what? We're the United States. It doesn't matter whether you're a little speck out there. If you-- if we think you might endanger us from 5,000 miles away, we can kill you.
------------------
MARK DANNER: This is the great loophole--

BRUCE FEIN: The covert act.

MARK DANNER: -- the C.I.A. used to--

BRUCE FEIN: Called the Mosaddeq loophole.

MARK DANNER: The President-- exactly, Mosaddeq. It's how you did assassinations. Now, the Church Committee basically closed that loophole. And put us where we are now. Which is, we have documents that say, "Okay, you want to make things legal? We're gonna show that torture is legal." This is-- comes originally from that loophole. And that C.I.A. loophole is really the heart of the empire. It says that Presidential power, which should be circumscribed in our system, as Bruce says, and as I completely agree. In fact, can be expanded infinitely.

Why? Because in the Cold War. In the nation that the United States has become. This world-straddling empire. The President has to be able to order these things. Has to be able to circumvent the law. And in a sense, we are right where that loophole, in 1947, was going to leave us.

BILL MOYERS: But gentlemen, small nations torture. North Korea. Eastern Europe. Small nations. Which have no presumptions of empire. You know, it reminds me of the photographer in Tom Stoppard. Who says, "People do awful things to other people. But it's worse when it's done in the dark." Isn't-- aren't you talking about the darkness here?

BRUCE FEIN: But it's not only that Bill. I say, if we purport to continue to have a rule of law and a republic, we have to confront these things openly. Repeal the torture statute. And see whether-- will you-- will that withstand scrutiny? Are we gonna openly say, "Yes, we're torture. We're like the North Koreans. That's, it's-- it's different. It does make an enormous amount of difference whether you just try to-- close your eyes to what you have to confront or morally say, "I want to cross that Rubicon, I'm gonna do that."

I don't think the American people would say, "We don't want the torture statute. We want to revoke the-- the convention against torture. But if it happens, it happens. But at least it's done in the proper way. We the people remain sovereign. We know what we're doing. The secrecy is the most horrible thing there is. It means: "hey, we don't control our own destiny. We should have known-- Bill, you and me, should have been able to know what was happening, so we could register our political loyalties. "No, Mr. President, I'm gonna march-- I'm gonna vote against you, if I see that's going on." We didn't know what's going on.
------------------
BRUCE FEIN: And the leaders have to say, "Hey, we gotta accept risk. It-- even if happens on my watch, I will accept the political penalty. If we're gonna remain free, we have to accept some risk. We're not gonna stoop to torture. We're not gonna rape women in order to get their husbands to confess. Because we would destroy the whole purpose of our country if we did that." Leaders have to change the psychology that you identified that's supporting the torture. And they aren't doing it. They are serving as human weather vanes, not-- not-

Still More on Obama Decriminalizing Torture (for Americans only, feel priviledged yet?)

2009-05-03T18:45:00.000-07:00

AMY GOODMAN: —but then saying he will not be holding the interrogators responsible, people involved with it; we have to move forward, not move back.

ALFRED McCOY: Right. That’s exactly how you get impunity. That’s what’s happened every single time in the past. For example, in 1970, the House and Senate of the United States discovered that the Phoenix Program had been engaged in systematic torture, that they had killed through extraditial executions 46,000 South Vietnamese. That’s about the same number of American combat deaths in South Vietnam. Nothing was done. There was no punishment, and the policy of torture continued.
Historian Alfred McCoy: Obama Reluctance on Bush Prosecutions Affirms Culture of Impunity

I wanted to add the following inserts as an update at the bottom of the previous post, but then I decided to start a new post for them instead. Editing long posts gets much more difficult, and it gets harder to find errors in them and correct to them (and there were a lot of grammatical errors in the last one, and I am still finding them). These I quotes below I saw as good points toward what I was trying to say in the previous post.

UPDATE 1:

A similar crisis confronted the U.S. public in the mid-1970s. While the Watergate scandal was unfolding, widespread evidence was mounting of illegal government activity, including domestic spying and the infiltration and disruption of legal political groups, mostly anti-war groups, in a broad-based, secret government crackdown on dissent. In response, the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities was formed. It came to be known as the Church Committee, named after its chairman, Idaho Democratic Sen. Frank Church. The Church Committee documented and exposed extraordinary activities on the CIA and FBI, such as CIA efforts to assassinate foreign leaders, and the FBI’s COINTELPRO (counterintelligence) program, which extensively spied on prominent leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

It is not only the practices that are similar, but the people. Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr., general counsel to the Church Committee, noted two people who were active in the Ford White House and attempted to block the committee’s work: “Rumsfeld and then [Dick] Cheney were people who felt that nothing should be known about these secret operations, and there should be as much disruption as possible.”

Church’s widow, Bethine Church, now 86, continues to be very politically active in Idaho. She was so active in Washington in the 1970s that she was known as “Idaho’s third senator.” She said there needs to be a similar investigation today: “When you think of all the things that the Church Committee tried to straighten out and when you think of the terrific secrecy that Cheney and all of these people dealt with, they were always secretive about everything, and they didn’t want anything known. I think people have to know what went on. And that’s why I think an independent committee [is needed], outside of the Congress, that just looked at the whole problem and everything that happened."

Disclosure of ‘Secrets’ in the ’70s Didn’t Destroy the Nation, by Amy Goodman, April 29, 2009, Truthdig.com

Imagine being able to go back in time and help Dick Cheney stop the Church Committee from going forward. Now also imagine all of the world then holds Dick Cheney's burying of the truth, for "looking to the future, not the past" as a pattern for the whole world to emulate, and the Dick becoming a world-wide popular icon of 'openness in government' thus marking the beginning of a new "Cheney Century" and the new stronger "Strong America" (torture, American-style) model of governance spreading worldwide! Nothing less important, nothing less dangerous than that is going on right now by Obama's criminality in the same vein, mold, and likeness of the previous administrations, but far far more 'popularizing' of it than the previous administration's low popularity ever could. And all because of not 'confronting' its growing popularity at risk to his personal popularity amongst those who think that the US ought to torture people. Can't risk losing their votes, because with Obama's reluctance to take on that mentality and mindset head on, they are growing more numerous (and respectable!) everyday.

UPDATE 2:

The truth is that European liaison services as well as other intelligence services have tempered their cooperation with the CIA because of the use of torture and abuse as well as the extraordinary rendition of innocent individuals from their countries to intelligence services in the Middle East.

The CIA’s extra-legal activities have complicated and undermined the task of maintaining credible relations with our allies in the battle against terrorism.

Both Ignatius and Goss argue that, because of the release of the memos, CIA clandestine operatives will keep their heads down and avoid assignments that carry political risk, and that the decline in CIA “morale and effectiveness” will harm American national security.

More nonsense! CIA operatives and analysts are professionals who pride themselves on service to the country and their oath to the Constitution.

Very few of them took part in the corruption of intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and very few participated in the policies of torture and abuse. They know that the law should not be broken and they want to get these issues behind them so that they can continue to serve the national interests of the United States.

They know that painful truths must be acknowledged and that some price must be paid by all for the chicanery of a few.

If Agency personnel were permitted to share their opinions about torture and abuse with the press, a large majority would oppose the practices. Unfortunately, only those officers seeking to cover-up their own activities have the temerity to talk to reporters.

WPost: All the Ex-President's Excuses, by Melvin A. Goodman, May 1, 2009
http://consortiumnews.com/2009/050109b.html

UPDATE 3:
And to add a bit from the Memo to President Obama on Torture, by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, April 29, 2009 (Updated May 1, 2009)

Please do not be deceived into thinking that most intelligence officials, past and present, condone torture — still less that they are angry that you have put a stop to such techniques.

We are referring, of course, to what President Bush called “an alternative set of procedures” involving cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment that violates domestic and international law. ...
You need to know that the vast majority of intelligence professionals deplore “extraordinary rendition” and the other torture procedures that were subsequently ordered by senior Bush administration officials.

Sadly, President Bush was not the first chief executive to find a small cabal of superpatriots, amateur thugs, and contractors to do his administration’s bidding. But never before in this country were lawless thugs given such free rein. The congressional “oversight” committees looked the other way.

Tenet and his acolytes successfully ingratiated themselves with President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the faux lawyers who devised what actually amounts to a very porous “legal” shield for those who carried out the torture. ...

On April 28, former Vice President Walter Mondale exposed the speciousness of that argument during an interview in Minneapolis. Mondale was one of the senators on the Church Committee, which during the mid-Seventies unearthed the unlawful activities of COINTELPRO and other abuses by intelligence agencies.

Speaking from that experience, Mondale noted that concern over the effect on agency morale — a concern that is widely expressed now — was also voiced both before the Church investigation got under way and while it was proceeding.

The concern proved totally unfounded, according to Mondale, as it quickly became apparent that agency personnel called before the Church Committee were thankful for the chance to get the truth out, get a heavy burden off their shoulders, and put the scandal behind them.

Most important, the truth that was brought to light made it possible for the country to resolve how national security issues should be addressed in the future. Much of that wisdom and many of the legal protections introduced at that time were simply disregarded by your predecessor and the people he picked to run his administration.

As for the need for holding people to account, Mondale had this to say:

"Holding people responsible in some way for what happened is very important. If the verdict here is that you can do these kinds of things and there are no consequences, then that leaves a precedent. I've been around the federal government long enough to know that if there is a bad precedent, it's like leaving a loaded pistol on the kitchen table. You don't know who is going to pick it up and pull the trigger. There need to be consequences for violating the law.”
We of VIPS call for a full, truthful and public fact-finding process to begin without delay. We ask that you give careful consideration to Senator Carl Levin’s suggestion that the attorney general appoint retired judges with solid reputations for integrity to begin the process.

Another viable possibility would be the appointment of an independent “blue-ribbon commission,” perhaps modeled on the Church Committee of the mid-Seventies, to assess any illegal or improper activities and make recommendations for reform in government operations against terrorism.

We commend the administration for releasing the Department of Justice memos attempting to legalize torture. We believe the remaining relevant information must be released promptly so that the citizenry can make informed judgments about what was done in our name and, if warranted, an independent prosecutor can be appointed without unnecessary delay.

We believe strongly that any judgments regarding amnesty, forgiveness or pardon can only be made on the basis of a fully developed, public record — and not used as some sort of political bargaining chip.

Finally, we firmly oppose the notion that anyone can arrogate a right to ignore the Nuremberg Tribunal’s rejection of “only-following-orders” as an acceptable defense.

(signatories are listed alphabetically with former intelligence affiliations)

Gene Betit, US Army, DIA, Arlington, VA
Ray Close, National Clandestine Service (CIA), Princeton, NJ
Phil Giraldi, National Clandestine Service (CIA), Purcellville, VA
Larry Johnson, CIA & Department of State, Bethesda, MD
Pat Lang, US Army (Special Forces), DIA, Alexandria, VA
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council, Linden, VA
Tom Maertens, Department of State, Mankato, MN
Ray McGovern, US Army, CIA, Arlington, VA
Sam Provance, US Army (Abu Ghraib), Greenville, SC
Coleen Rowley, FBI, Apple Valley, MN
Greg Theilmann, Department of State & Senate Intel. Committee staff, Arlington, VA
Ann Wright, US Army, Department of State, Honolulu, HI

Annex

We list below additional experienced intelligence personnel and a few others, who have spoken out/written publicly about the inefficacy and counter productiveness of torture:

FBI: Ali Soufan, Dan Coleman, Jack Cloonan

CIA: John Helgerson (former Inspector General), Bob Baer, Haviland Smith, Mel Goodman

Military: Navy General Counsel Alberto J. Mora; Major General Antonio Taguba (who probed Abu Ghraib and concluded that Bush officials committed war crimes: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/41514.html); Air Force Col Steven M. Kleinman; Rear Admiral (ret) and former Judge Advocate General for the Navy John Hutson; former Naval Intelligence officer and Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration Lawrence Korb; former U.S. military interrogator (pseudonym) Matthew Alexander; and former military intelligence officer Malcolm Nance.

Journalists: Scott Horton, Patrick Cockburn

Update 4:

Indeed. What kind of primitive, brutal country knows for years that its own powerful government officials participated in torture and then fails even to investigate what happened, let alone impose meaningful accountability on the torturers? The international community simply cannot tolerate acquiescence to that sort of evil. Note that the UAE apparently compensated the victims of the prince's torture, whereas the U.S. blocked -- and continues to try to block -- its own torture victims from even having a day in court. ...

>> It had been previously known that officials of the agency had destroyed hundreds of hours of videotaped interrogations, but the documents filed Monday reveal the number of tapes. . . . The destroyed videotapes are thought to have depicted some of the harshest interrogation techniques used by the C.I.A.<<

Only monsters and barbarians fail to destroy their own torture tapes. The New York Times previously reported that the highest-level White House officials -- including David Addington and Alberto Gonzales -- participated in discussions about whether to destroy those videotapes (acts which the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have called "obstruction of justice"), though because we need to Look Forward, Not Back, and this all happened in The Past, we don't know what was said and don't need to. Knowing that might disrupt our moment of quiet, contemplative reflection. ...

>> We tortured people unmercifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during a course of that, both by the armed forces and CIA. [Releasing the memos] was the right thing to do. . . . There is prosecutorial discretion. We shouldn't in my view go after the CIA officers involved in this. There is a good argument in my view for reviewing the White House justice council and the Attorney General's office who okayed this.<<

Gen. McCaffrey's point was echoed by the Hard Leftist Vengeful Partisan, Gen. Antonio Taguba:

>>>[T]here is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. . . . [T]he Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. . . . The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.<<<

Even by official U.S. Government acknowledgments, there have been numerous deaths of detainees in U.S. custody which "were acts of criminal homicide." Independent reports make clear just how prevalent detainee death was.

But anyway, enough about all that divisive partisan unpleasantness -- back to this brutal, criminal UAE prince: let's watch more of those videotapes, express our outrage on behalf of international human rights standards, and threaten the UAE that their relationship with us will suffer severely unless there is a real investigation -- not the whitewash they tried to get away with -- along with real accountability. We simply cannot, in good conscience, maintain productive relations with a country that fails to take "torture" seriously. We are, after all, the United States.

UAE 'Torture' Scandal and Cover-up Sparks Outrage in the US, by Glenn Greenwald, May 3rd, 2009, Salon.com

More on Obama's reducing Torture to merely bad judgment, certainly not a crime (Updated above and corrected)

2009-04-27T01:22:00.000-07:00

Indeed, serious circumvention of statutes should always result in legal proceedings and usually does so unless some affair is settled, to the satisfaction of all parties involved, outside of judicial processes. At the same time, refusal to obey illicit orders, even when commanded to conduct them by superiors, does stand as defense in courts as events related to the My Lai slaughter and similar incidents verify. As such, any claim that one is forced to obey wrongful orders has no weight any more than it did during Stanley Milgram's experiments wherein subjects assumed that they were electrically shocking others and carried out the action merely because they were told to do so.

Therefore, it seems easy to conclude that anyone either authorizing or implementing illicit and agonizing practices on captives, prisoners legally deemed innocent until proven guilty, needs to be publicly investigated and brought to justice when found culpable. That it is not expedient due to extrajudicial complications, such as pertain to future behaviors of CIA agents and as President Obama alleges, should have no bearing. In the end, the whole matter is this simple. ...

On account of such a viewpoint, Major Edwin Glenn was sentenced to ten years of hard labor for inflicting simulated drowning upon a Filipino prisoner at the turn of the century and a US military tribunal found at least one Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, guilty of war crimes after W. W. II for his use of the "water cure" and other acts of cruelty upon Americans and for which he was sentenced to fifteen years of hard labor. In a similar vein, a US army officer was court-martialed in 1968 after assisting in a water boarding exercise executed upon a Vietnamese insurgent.

Just how could the memos' authors and the prison torturers have missed the implications of these prior judgements? If appropriate rulings are not applied to law breakers in the event that they are given undeserved dispensations or pardons, what will serve as impediments to these laws being broken again in the future? Moreover, does the military ban on water boarding and other horrors need to be more defined than these prior happenings irrevocably prove?

The report from the Senate armed services committee, written at the end of 2008, hints at the answer: "The abuse of detainees in US custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."

In a similar vein, water boarding and other forms of severe torment are condemned by Geneva Conventions, the Torture Act, the Detainee Treatment Act and United Nations protocol, as Manfred Nowak, U.N. special rapporteur, makes clear, "The United States, like all other states that are part of the U.N. convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court."

Lies and Torture: When Policies and Words Diverge,
by Emily Spence, Countercurrents.org, 4/22/09

Even if experts have differing views about torture’s effectiveness, there is one point on which they cannot disagree: It violates U.S. and international law. ...

It will be hard to stop this train, though. The rule of law is one of this nation’s founding principles. It’s not optional. Our laws against torture demand to be obeyed—and demand to be enforced.

Torture Is a Crime, and Crimes Demand Prosecution,
by Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, 4/23/09

"Nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." So declared President Obama, after his commendable decision to release the legal memos that his predecessor used to justify torture. Some people in the political and media establishments have echoed his position. We need to look forward, not backward, they say. No prosecutions, please; no investigations; we're just too busy.

And there are indeed immense challenges out there: an economic crisis, a health care crisis, an environmental crisis. Isn't revisiting the abuses of the last eight years, no matter how bad they were, a luxury we can't afford?

No, it isn't, because America is more than a collection of policies. We are, or at least we used to be, a nation of moral ideals. In the past, our government has sometimes done an imperfect job of upholding those ideals. But never before have our leaders so utterly betrayed everything our nation stands for. "This government does not torture people," declared former President Bush, but it did, and all the world knows it.

And the only way we can regain our moral compass, not just for the sake of our position in the world, but for the sake of our own national conscience, is to investigate how that happened, and, if necessary, to prosecute those responsible. ...

Some of them probably just don't want an ugly scene; my guess is that the president, who clearly prefers visions of uplift to confrontation, is in that group. But the ugliness is already there, and pretending it isn't won't make it go away. ...

For the fact is that officials in the Bush administration instituted torture as a policy, misled the nation into a war they wanted to fight and, probably, tortured people in the attempt to extract "confessions" that would justify that war. And during the march to war, most of the political and media establishment looked the other way.

It's hard, then, not to be cynical when some of the people who should have spoken out against what was happening, but didn't, now declare that we should forget the whole era - for the sake of the country, of course. ...

We need to do this for the sake of our future. For this isn't about looking backward, it's about looking forward - because it's about reclaiming America's soul.

Reclaiming America’s Soul, by Paul Krugman, NY Times, 4/34/09

Bush-defending opponents of investigations and prosecutions think they've discovered a trump card: the claim that Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman were briefed on the torture programs and assented to them. The core assumption here -- shared by most establishment pundits -- is that the call for criminal investigations is nothing more than a partisan-driven desire to harm Republicans and Bush officials ("retribution"), and if they can show that some Democratic officials might be swept up in the inquiry, then, they assume, that will motivate investigation proponents to think twice. ...

The reality is exactly the opposite (as usual) of what is being depicted in our media discussions. The call for criminal investigations of torture and other forms of government criminality is the most apolitical and non-partisan argument one can make. The ones who are trying to politicize the justice system and exploit the rule of law for partisan gain are those who are arguing against criminal investigations. John Cole explained this point perfectly yesterday:

>>>At some point they are going to figure out that for most of us, we don’t care if the person has a (R) or (D) behind their name when they were instituting a policy of torture. That is what is so depressing (to me, at least) about the Ari Fleischer’s and the Thiessen’s of the world. They honestly seem to think this is nothing more than a partisan witch-hunt, the same old Washington gotcha politics. It isn’t. When you torture people, you have crossed a really clear line. Innocent people are dead. Lives have been ruined. Our international reputation has been destroyed. Yes, the Bush administration will get most of the blame, but that is because they were in charge and they did this, not because of what party they happen to belong to. If Jane Harman and Nancy Pelosi knew about this and ok’d it, they are just as culpable.<<<

Precisely. To be fair, there are disputes about what exactly Democratic leaders were and were not told, and there are disputes about what they said or did not say. That's what happens when a government operates in virtually total secrecy and does everything possible to stonewall public disclosure. The dispute over the role of Democratic leaders further bolsters the need for full-scale investigations: we ought to know everything that led to these crimes, including the true extent to which the "opposition party" was informed about what was being done and approved of it. The failure of the Democratic Party to meaningfully oppose what was done over the last eight years is a crucial part of the story here and light needs to be shined on that as much as anything else. I don't know of a single person who has devoted themselves to arguing for investigations who contests that fact.

The inability of so many people (both Republicans and Obama-loyal Democrats) to view the need for prosecutions independent of political considerations is a potent sign of how sick our political culture has become. The need for criminal investigations is motivated by one simple, consummately apolitical fact: serious and brutal crimes were committed at the highest levels of the government, ones that left a trail of many victims. A country that purports to live under the rule of law has no choice but to treat its most powerful members who commit serious crimes exactly the same as ordinary citizens who do so. That has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats.

It has to do with the most central premise of the American system of government: that we are a nation of laws, not men, and all are equal before the law. People like John McCain argue that only "banana republics" prosecute former political leaders, but the reality is exactly the opposite. As the Western world has spent decades pointing out, the hallmark of an under-developed, tyrannical society is the very same premise we have embraced: that political elites are free to break the law with impunity and never suffer the consequences that ordinary citizens do.

Democratic complicity and what "politicizing justice" really means,
Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com, 4/24/09

President Obama and several of his senior advisors are now plainly concerned about the torture issue and the momentum it has achieved. They are troubled that it will seize center stage in Washington and disrupt the president’s ability to implement his agenda. These concerns are reasonable to some extent, but in fact that very concern provides a very good reason to remove the next steps in this crisis from the political process. Unlike the Beltway chatterboxes who fill our airwaves, most Americans appreciate the importance of the torture question. It is not a matter of partisan intrigue. It is a fundamental question of national identity and principle. ... The second prong will be a prosecutor who can take a look at all the facts and decide who should be charged for criminal wrongdoing. We know now that the White House considers it politically “inconvenient” to do this. So the big open question is whether we have an attorney general who enforces the law, or a Democratic version of Alberto Gonzales. That will become apparent soon enough.

Straight to the Top, by Scott Horton, Harpers.com, 4/25/09

"Time, you left me standing there
like a tree growing all alone
the wind just stripped me bare
stripped me bare

Time, the past has come and gone
the future's far away,
it all only lasts for one second, one second

Can you teach me about tomorrow
an' all the pain and sorrow running free
'cause tomorrow's just another day
and I don't believe in time,
you ain't no friend of mine"

Excerpt from lyrics of "Time" by Hootie and the Blowfish

        I said it yesterday and I will say it again and as often as I think necessary. It is not the Fox News pundits, the Republicans, the Dick Cheney type politicians, the Sean Hannitys or the Glenn Becks that are cementing or making 'reasonable' torture. No person bears more responsibility today that torture is becoming a 'legitimate policy difference' than President Barack Obama himself. Glenn Greenwald and others were on the right track in mentioning a short while ago that it looked like Obama was accepting the logical and reasonable, not to mention the only LEGAL course, that it is not even up to him, if the law is followed, whether there are investigations or not investigations. As he said on the campaign trail, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, that if crimes were committed, it must be looked into. Backing away from that, acting like he has the power to tell the Justice Department to ignore that crimes were blatantly committed is to do exactly what the Bush Administration did illegally, not only in the same way, but by an order of magnitude many times greater. It is to ultimately covey upon such a crime of obstruction of justice as well as the crimes that obstruction covers up as well, legitimacy and legality. And it is 100% being done in the open in defiance of both American law, and for those fewer Americans who accept there is such a thing, international laws against torture, the UN Charter, and crimes against humanity.

        I broke off my criticism and toned it down many times over years ago now, not only because such a course was ill advised or possibly counter-productive, but because I bowed to the inevitably inescapable conclusion I was the wrong person to be pushing such things. I leave aside the notion that such things going on illegally are 'classifiable' and 'nobody's business' when a government is operating outside of the law, that it is every single one of its citizens right, and even duty, to expose such things because a government which does not follow its own laws is an illegal and criminal organization, period. But I also understand the efficacy of an argument is determined not only by the choice of words, as well as timing being optimal for being heard, but due to a large measure by the person saying it. What is their status in society? What is the position they are in? How did they come into the picture?

        Such things were a concern but were a concern from the start. I broke off, lowered my criticisms greatly and took a longer road because inescapably to me, the environment had significantly shifted by that time. Even within the previous Bush Administration, movement was clearly heading in a different direction. That movement toward a greater openness and honesty was undeniable but the events of this week capping of a general trend during Obama's presidency has meant that things have taken an enormous turn toward the exact opposite of Obama's words. The words and the actions are not only not matching, but the actions show clearly the words have become meaningless.

        Bush said famously 'America does not torture.' Obama says 'Ok, that was not the case, but we will not do that anymore' (for awhile at least while he is in charge). Bush said “The secret prisons that never existed, well they really don't exist now.” Obama improved that to, “Well they did exist, but now we are really closing them down for good.” It is not the rhetoric though but the actions. An executive order is a meaningless self-restraint. Even a specific hard fought bill outlawing (fought because we were told it already was illegal and unnecessary) waterboarding and other such methods too secret to until recently even legally mention were overturned instantly via a presidential signing statement mentioning that the prohibitions against torture which were signed in from of the cameras could simply be ignored at will. And NOTHING which Obama has done cannot be undone just as easily 10 seconds into a new administration, or if he were to decide to simply change his mind.

        The ideal way for this to play out, I acknowledged, was for those in a position to approve such things, ideally those who carried them out, to be the ones to call for an inquiry. In my notes at the time I put it as “2nd Church- ask for”. Later I expanded that a bit because if I abbreviate something a bit too much, I can forget what it was supposed to mean. More fully to remember it later, it became “2nd Church (Commission, who should) ask for”. I chose at the time to believe, as many I think did, that given the chance those who did the worst most illegal things under the Bush Administration, would when the time came, be willing to go public themselves. To think otherwise might have been more accurate, but who would wish to more accurate at the expense of giving people the benefit of the doubt to be so less human as to feel no guilt, no remorse, and be content not to come forward if given the chance, but to instead to choose to keep such things buried forever?

        Little by little, the Obama Administration began closing off those doors, eliminating such potentials one by one. Then more and more, and now to shut everything down completely. The release of the torture memos is clear to many it was the exact opposite of shedding light on the subject. Obama himself stated that the contents were already for the most part publicly known, and that he was legally required to. That part did not keep him from having to 'agonize' over the decision for many months. The term 'legally required to' when pertaining to the President of the United States has been watered down to having little meaning if any. Everything, all laws, treaties, commitments, are merely guidelines if even that.

        The release of the memos was more notable for the cover it gave to go in the other direction. He immediately promised there would be no criminal charges brought for blatantly illegal acts, the highest possible crimes, and all done and admitted to publicly. That he has no authority to shut down such inquiries matters not to the 'unitary executives' like the presidency has become even to the 'good' ones. After all of the criminal wrongdoing of the last administration, what is a little more if done 'for the good of the country' and for 'moving on'. I am not talking about the pardon or even preemptive pardoning, which is within his right, though that right has been abused politically in the past in would be abusive in this case as well. I am talking about a wholesale using the Justice Department in the same way as the previous administration did, for political ends, whether to protect his own party and politicians (and inevitably some of them are culpable) or of wrongdoing by the 'opposite' party. One may think, and unfortunately many do, that "if the president does it, it can't be illegal.” Obama has clearly decided upon doing things that if anyone else did it, it would most certainly be illegal. The freedom to act outside the law, to make criminal investigations of politicians, lawyers, required both by domestic and international laws, subject to the whim of the leader alone. I believe it used to be called, the King's prerogative.

        As I said before, when Bush came out in front of TV camera's and admitted to illegally wiretapping phones against federal laws against it, no matter the fig leaf explanations, basically daring anyone to call him on it, I was completely caught off-guard as I am sure many were. However, as on one hand commendable it was for him to admit that he personally authorized waterboarding upon leaving office, it setup the circumstances of today. Though American's honestly think, contrary to all legal precedents, that because people were ordered to break the law, they ought not to be punished for it. This of course is an excuse we reserve for ourselves because we never have allowed it before and certainly would never allow any other country to use it in defense of protecting those who tortured Americans because they were 'simply following orders'.

        Thus the second front to holding someone, anyone else accountable. Go after those whose completely criminal rendering of the law, done in full knowledge of what the law most obviously and unequivocally states, making the most serious tortures declared 'legal'. But now the cover is over them as well by suggesting that they were only following orders as well. By suggesting that they were told to illegally give invalid justifications for torture from the former president or vice-president, that somehow gives a pass to them as well. If the president or vice-president can do no wrong or anything that they do cannot be illegal, why then the whole mess is exactly what Obama by action if not in words says it is, a legitimate policy difference, albeit a 'stupid' policy. But hardly criminal.

        What surprised me about the article mentioned in the previous post was that it had all the elements I could have hoped for in the 'torture debate'. Unlike criticism from someone 'who was not there so how could you judge?' it was confessions from someone equally guilty. And it nailed it by saying those going out on limbs on similar issues were doing so knowing that such things were criminal when done by others, and that they did so without legal cover and at great risk to themselves for doing so. And even more than all of that, the bravery of addressing the mentality behind it all which is never discussed, that makes it all beyond question no matter how insane or inhuman.

        Obama has seen fit to make sure no Americans will ever be bothered by seeing them testify to how they tortured or whom they tortured while doing so without any legal cover whatsoever. He has gone so far as not only to preemptively put their actions beyond question, but to label them as 'heroes' despite what they may know about it themselves but now never will have to tell. And he even gave their egos a good stroking in case they have second thoughts they might have done anything wrong by torturing people, often innocent, and sometimes to death. Nothing but bad judgment there. No, not even that. Heroic behavior deserving of emulation and praise.

        As I said above, I am not in a position to be the one to condemn this as I was not in their shoes, not in possession of the facts that they were. However, Obama, despite all promises about 'open government' has made the worst crimes America has ever committed now not even crimes in a legal or technical sense. Thank god we did not have similar 'pragmatists' as that when the original Church Commission did manage to bring the US into some semblance of a nation abiding by laws. Ironically their courage allowed people like Obama to reach the point and become president to be able to flush all of that down the drain today. Similar inquiries and truth-outtings are 'mistakes' he at least will not let happen again. Abuses of and by the system are inevitable. Learning of them and correcting of them has become optional no matter how much the corruption destroys us all.

        What I can condemn is that Obama has said those who committed crimes because they were told to, they were heroes. But as others have rightly pointed out, what does that make those who refused to follow illegal orders? Obama has thus far to my knowledge upheld that those who exposed criminal wrongdoing by the government were the criminals, and not those higher ups they reported on. Not the illegal programs because there is no such thing anymore, an illegal program, if it is authorized by the president in violiation of US law, international law, human rights treaties, the UN charter, and even in direct violation of the US Constitution itself.

        These people who have revealed such crimes, who have actually when taken an oath, have been punished for upholding that oath for their noble deeds at grave personal risks, and those that did the blatantly illegal things Obama may as well have given medals to them for their crimes. It is impossible for anyone to be impeached when the only law remaining left is that it is whatever the president, whoever it may be, says it is. One president ignored the Constitution, the present one simply, and completely, made it retroactively legal to do so.

        If he thinks it is not the Justice Departments place to look into such things, if making sure politicians and Justice Department officials must actually follow the law on little things such as torturing human beings, breaking the most serious international laws on human rights possible, if this is not the job of the police, the FBI, or the Justice department to look into, just whose job does Obama think it is? The press, some reporters, left-wing ACLU types, some right-wing get-government-off-our-backs types, bloggers, whom?

        As if they have the power or even the right anymore to expose crimes the government itself is committing expecially since 'President' Obama, unlike 'candidate' Obama or 'Senator' Obama, has stated exposing criminal acts and programs by the government is itself again a higher more punishable crime than the criminal programs themselves, even and especially when those crimes are the most indefensible acts one person can do to another, and the exposure, letting the public know, is actually as required by law to be told as the memos he was so 'tortured' about whether or not he would follow the law in revealing?

New Hope Falters In the Torture 'Debate'

2009-04-26T01:29:00.000-07:00

It is easy to predict that humanity has no long term prospects for survival, at least free, and easier still once thinking that way, to make it come true. Its continuation based on how we live, treat each other, and the direction we seem to be headed in, expecting it can go on like this for very long defies logic, common sense, and even reason. We are teaching and being taught every day to despise the very international institutions we founded generations ago to bring us together and promote peace. Greed and power frames all discussions on how to treat each other. Those who would profit from setting us apart from each other, forever at each other, never seeing or admitting we all, all around the world, are ohana, family, brothers and sisters, they always rise to the top and forever divide us. I forget often that hope needs no reason nor foundation. It grows even in the most abysmal and desperate circumstances. That is why it is so hard to kill it. Hope is forever our only road forward, and even blind hope might help us find our way forward. Hope must flow into us from beyond this world, for otherwise it would have been stolen from us and sold back to us like everything else.

Notes- Part 2 (2004)

I am not pointing fingers at anyone. It is a dangerous world we live in. Torture being done, scientists perfecting it. People have been promoting it (TORTURE!) here on TV or making it palatable to the general public and are getting multi-million dollar salaries in return. But others have silently, and some not so silently, rebelled against this. It is in them and in their lives the hope of any bright future is to be found. Some when asked to torture, to murder unjustly, to go on TV and say how it is debatably reasonable to do such things to people who quite possibly are completely innocent to "possibly" "save" others, namely yourselves from some threat, real or imagined, they quit.

Open House at US Torture Sites, If We Do It, It Is Not Torture Giuliani, 10/26/2007

105 years ago, those who were found guilty of practicing waterboarding at the behest of the US government not only feared jail, they went to jail despite that it was approved of by the President. Congress was not willing to simply sweep it all under the rug and give everyone immunity before the truth could come out, and thankfully for awhile, then at least, a little sunlight was shown, and for awhile at least, publicly at least, it was a crime. And all that even though then, there was no Geneva Conventions then for America to have been violating by such torturing of its prisoners, whereas now they are indeed international war crimes and not just bad manners. Just back then, a sense of decency, morality, and possibly military codes of action that were deemed by some to be "quaint" until there were, somewhat reluctantly reestablished.

What's Different: The New Norm, Your "Right" to remain silent while being Waterboarded, 11/12/2007

        I have mentioned him before in my writings, and mentioning him now is because so many have not heard his most famous words, now dead in the hearts of Americans, many but not all, and need rekindling now more than ever. All that was great about America, the government at least, that small portion of what is America, has gone terribly wrong. Former President James Carter's belief in a self-correcting mechanism is unfortunately seemingly misplaced at the moment. We have been fed illusions of our worth, blinded to the suffering we are inflicting all over the world in the name of values it is apparent to all all over the world we are not living by and seemingly no longer believe in except to use as an excuse to take what we wish and do whatever is our will.
        Nothing can I remember having moved me more deeply than when I read the words below. It is not just words, not just pain or agony at the reality of war we have been sanitized from, protected from, and because of which, that distancing, we watch men and women without hearts advocating things on television to us and to children, what they are teaching to a new generation, advocating avoidable attacks that would cost thousands of innocent lives, without guilt over what they say, without hesitation in what they are advocating, and without regrets. Joseph's pain inoculated me against thinking like that, and his words will outlive the hate mongers, the torture advocators, and those who scorn diplomacy and the avoidance of war as "weak".
        These words, his words, will outlive those people because the world they advocate cannot endure, would not survive. A world which not only remembers these words but learns from them, takes them into its heart as I have into mine, that is a world which can endure. That is the future I work for, hope for, would live and die for, but the future we are creating now, what our present leaders wish to give the world, that is nothing I would want to be a part of. That world in which we have already recently killed tens of thousands of innocents in cold blood unnecessarily, and would kill millions if not billions to prevent the world from growing beyond the systems we have now, based on the need for war, the rewarding of aggression, and the sanctity of mass murders beyond scale in the name of country and in the name of God. May their notions not be passed on. Humanity could not long survive it if they do.

When I think I might never see Hawaii again, 9/24/2006

        It is not always easy for me to have hope for things outside of my control. For many the election of Barack Obama was the beginning of a renewal of hope. Those without that hope will have a much harder time getting through what will no doubt be one of the most severe trials America and the world will have to endure, the economic crisis and wildfires of ethnic hatred, micro- and neo-nationalisms, and worse. From the previous post, I have a hard time with the idea that one can or should simply bury ones head in the sand, flash forward to a few years and say, "Gee wasn't it stupid we thought we had anything to worry about, of course it was all going to turn out alright."

        My hope is diminished by the general loss of ground. Not of any political view or viewpoint but that of general tolerance, civility, and even a loss of humanity. And the focus of hope, President Obama, and not without due reason, has fallen repeatedly to doubt, callousness, and lack of fortitude. So many will say, rightly, one has to choose ones battles carefully, not do what is doomed to failure at the expense of doing what one can succeed at, and thus lessening ones potential to do any good at all.

        By the most unflattering view possible, President Obama has made some of America's worst transgressions of International Law 'popular' and even 'cool'. Having lost control of the debate over torture, he risks institutionalizing it, doing what Democrats have done at the since the beginning of my time, taking it and making it their own rather than to risk looking weak by opposing it. Think this is an exaggeration or no longer valid? Take as an example of Bill Richardson's recent rationalization of signing a bill outlawing the death penalty in his state by having to caveat it with roughly, "But this is even more cruel than executing them. They will be wishing they could die." Thus America's so-called 'left' destroying further (and far more than any Republican could) any rationale behind condemning what almost all of the West outside of America believes to be a barbaric punishment. We will end it, but only if we can justify making prisoners lives even crueler than death so they will literally be praying daily to die.

        The torture debate will be over, and in the Dick Cheney's of the world favor soon simply because President Obama thinks "I have closed that chapter," as if it is just another autobiography book of his. "Not in MY courts!" Winning the war, losing the humanity. I was shocked that 8 years ago 20 to 40 million Americans could be so moved against Democracy by the television that they could answer in a Gallup poll that regardless of who won the election, they wanted George Bush to be president anyway. That was a pittance of the hope destroying fact that today, a mere 8 years later, 20 to 40 million Americans can be moved by the same sort of television commentators (and sometimes the same ones) to justify or even argue about justifying the torture of human beings. If Obama truly was looking forward, it is not hard to see where such a trend is going, and fast, and that nothing could EVER be more important.

        That is what crushes my hope. Not that people can be that mislead, that mistaken. But because the system my government functions with and by rewards such terror advocators with million dollar salaries, makes those who would advocate the worst abuses possible by humans to other humans as 'responsible distinguished commentators' and not least of which, one of only two major parties in the country cannot help but be flirting with coming out in favor of torture, within limits of course. (Of course.)

        Obama may yet rise to the occasion and recognize what he himself far more than the television commentators is creating, the normalcy of American Torture, not in secret, but as a political issue embraced by tens of millions of Americans as a reasonable means of action that only the wimps would wish to do away with or rule out. Cheney only set up the shot. It is Obama who is making it his own legacy and advancing it far further than any Republican ever could.

        But for now, my hope has been emboldened a bit by yet another diatribe by some war resister. Not by flowery words, not by outrages, or by a good hope inspiring speech. By introspection, self-indictment, and looking at the larger picture of what is being created. Even the brave have things about themselves, things they have done, how they think, how these influences combine and effect or harm much else, that they are afraid to look at. He did so quite bravely by many different measures. THAT gives me hope. When the average person starts to demand honesty from himself or herself, it is not long before they start DEMANDING it from their leaders as well. It is only our cowardice to admit our own weaknesses, our own mistakes, to ourselves and thereby to then be able to outgrow them which permits us to create and live in a country that is incapable of doing the same. And right now that shortcoming of honest self-reappraisal is perfectly embodied by our very leadership itself.

        Another day I will write about torture, believe it or not, far from my favorite subject and one difficult to balance my outrage, hurt, and hope. This short post is because that, for today anyway, my strength to confront such topics honestly without shrinking (despite what I have written well about it before is not always easy for me) was helped due to foot soldiers willing to risk everything to expose truths and stand up for truth, instead of by leaders elected to expose the truth and promote peace, who seek rewarding that trust with burying the truth as well as their causes, to increase their political power and their ability to get on with 'more important' things. And in the process undermining and sabotaging all those who seek to improve the country by searching out and knowing and telling the truth.

The article mentioned here is best read in its entirety but a short unrepresentative excerpt is below.

        IVAW represents the voices of conscience for an entire generation of Americans, and really our entire society. We, the Winter Soldiers of the War on Terror, who will speak our truths, no matter what the personal cost, and stand our ground no matter what adversity we may face, and reflect openly and honestly upon ourselves, we represent hope for this nation.

        In South Africa after Apartheid fell, truth and reconciliation commissions were set up to investigate crimes committed by both Apartheid forces and rebel forces. To bring about witnesses to reveal crimes which they participated in or knew about, the commission had to grant amnesty to a large number of people who testified to things not greatly different than we do.

        And we risk everything to come forward and are asking for NOTHING but an ear to hear us, and the means to carry on, and the willingness to know the truths of our government's policies. And it lays so many of us so very low, as we struggle in a society that would rather shut our real histories, us, who we are, out, for a lie, one big murderous soul-sucking lie.

        Well we're done taking it, we're done being victims, and we are organizing a victory, for truth, for the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, for our nation in distress, for the people of the world who we have treated like dispensable objects for too long! For the troops, who languish and grow further away from us while our nation worries about paying rent! For the veterans, who are sleeping homeless on the streets and stuck with the image of a gun in their mouth, or with the sounds of screaming babies. For the women, who are first and most being made the victims of these policies and occupations, and for the female Soldiers in Iraq, don't ever forget that THIS IS NOT NORMAL!!! And for the Muslim people in the United States who have languished in this climate of racism and hate. We are sorry! Your liberation is most important to us!

        IVAW represents hope for all these people, and it represented hope for me, when I needed it most, and it continues to represent so much hope to me. We are going to end this war and we need the support right now folks, more than ever, and we need your energy as we move into Spring and Summer.

Confessions of a War Resister, by Matthis Chiroux, April 25, 2009
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/25

Newer more uncertain ground and a wider variety of pasts

2009-04-15T02:54:00.000-07:00

Walking through forests of palm tree apartments
scoff at the monkeys who live in their dark tents
down by the waterhole drunk every Friday
eating their nuts, saving their raisins for Sunday
Lions and tigers who wait in the shadows
they're fast but they're lazy, and sleep in green meadows...

The rivers are full of crocodile nasties
and He who made kittens put snakes in the grass
He's a lover of life but a player of pawns
yes, the King on His sunset lies waiting for dawn
to light up His Jungle as play is resumed.
The monkeys seem willing to strike up the tune

Excerpts from "Bungle in the Jungle" by Jethro Tull

In the year 9595
I'm kinda wondering if man's gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old Earth can give
and he ain't put back nothing

Now it's been 10,000 years
Man has cried a billion tears
for what he never knew
Now Man's reign is through
but through the eternal night
the twinkling of starlight..
so very far away..
maybe it's only yesterday..

Excerpts from "In the Year 2525" by Zager and Evans

        When going back to college a few years back, there were three movies which were shown which I will write about a bit here. The university had “movie nights” for their foreign students (both colleges I went to in Europe did) in which they showed movies at night which they thought might be of interest from different countries, and sometimes had discussions about them afterwards. Two of the ones I will mention were of those type, on topic to related subjects being taught in the program, but one was not. It only relates to them superficially though it is a funnier movie, not too serious, and a good place to start.

        The first movie I regret not going to see then was “Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” It was not a part of any formally organized movie night, but it was shown in the dorm and all the foreign students were invited. And alcohol, which was very cheap in Estonia, (so much so that thousands of tourists from Finland go there regularly just to get drunk, among other reasons of course,) that was to be a big part of it too. Serious drinking for a seriously funny movie.

        I thought about going but decided not to in a large part because I had recently seen it by renting it off of Netflix a few months prior to then. I would have had to have gotten very drunk not to remember all of the jokes beforehand, especially since I had seen the movie many more times before that years ago. The reason I regretted then and now not going was because it was with a group of people that I was to be studying with, later got to know a bit, and a movie like that is a good way to get to know people better, in a relaxed sort of way.

        The second movie I regretted not seeing was a far more serious movie, a part of the unofficial curriculum of the college program, and one I also was on the dividing line about seeing up until soon before it began. I was simply not in the mood that day to see what I knew to be a very depressing movie. It is an excellent movie by any measure and far more worthy to write about now than a Monty Python movie, but its practically impossible for it not to be disturbingly upsetting, especially if you are in a bad mood to start with. I don't regret it as much now because I did get to see it when I was in Sweden, and since it was a Swedish movie filmed both in Estonia and Sweden, it made sense to see it later when I did. Eventually it turned out there was enough time to eventually get round to it, and after I had been living for awhile in both countries where it was filmed.

        The movie was “Lilja 4-ever” and was set in a vaguely defined area called “somewhere in the former USSR.” The idea was that it could have been set in any number of countries. And the areas where it was filmed, due to standardized Soviet housing, also could have passed for any number of cities in a number of different former Soviet countries. The tale could have been also from a number of countries as well. It was one of those kinds of movies that could never be made in the United States. It was raw and real, and more honest than most movies I have seen.

        It was about human trafficking on one hand, but it also showed the aftereffects of the breakup of the Soviet Union in a devastating light. A real unvarnished look at the destruction of societies due to “economic shock therapy” and “collateral economic damage” from bad policies and corrupt governments. Poverty may be poverty, but how it is inflicted, how it is addressed or not addressed, and how a society can break down, is all shown there between the lines.

        When I say it is honest, it is because it does not exactly show Sweden in a good light either (not that I want to piss off both countries I have studied in: Just like the vague “somewhere in the former USSR” of the first half, the flip side second half could well have been set “somewhere in the West” and could have been any number of Western countries as well). It is not just the traffickers or even the pimps that are bad in the movie, but it is also a bit of an indictment of society as a whole itself which creates and perpetuates these things. That is why I say it is a movie outside of those that can be made in America. (Ask Obama, we don't indict our own societies elites, no matter what. Literally, no matter what. We're not Spain, or Argentina or Peru.) The worst in a way was not the traffickers but those who would get off on raping someone chained to a bed. The doctors, the stockbrokers, the “respectable” members of society whose funds and lack of humanity made and make the trade possible, the market.

        There have been American movies about the drug war which have tried occasionally to be as honest, but that is another area which not only is insufficiently looked at in fiction, but as dishonestly in government as well. The movie “Traffic” was notable trying to cover different aspects of the problem. Few if any movies explore these things in a societal context, as how all the parts of a society function together creating the problems, the connection between the moralist politicians and criminal organizations that “accidentally” work together and promote each others interests. The only more cancerous “adversarial partnerships” to societies as a whole has been between those who would start “pre-emptive” wars and the terrorists they battle, as well as the greater numbers they create as an “accidental” side-effect. They feed each other so much and so completely, they need each other and after a few years depend on each other even when not overtly helping sustain the other. They use the “battle” to their mutual elevations and reputations, as well as their very livelihoods and purposes.

        The third movie that I will mention relates to the other two and connects them in a way. This one I actually did see then. I also did not want to see it at the time because like the Monty Python movie, it was a British comedy which I had seen recently via Netflix. I also, like when “Lilja 4-ever” was shown, was not really in the mood to go. But I could not not see it. It was too perfect to where I was. That movie was “Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.”

        To see that movie at that time with people whom I knew who grew up under Communism, to see the ultimate black comedy about a nuclear war with people who for half of my life were “the enemy” and most of my country would not have really minded to see dead, “nuke worthy” so to speak, and laugh about it together as something of the past, was too great an opportunity to pass up because of not being “in the mood” for seeing a movie. Americans in general don't know the difference between the former Soviet Union and Russia, nor that some of those countries are our allies now.

        Indeed, one of our esteemed Congress persons recently said of Russians, simplifying complex International Relations to something his constituents could digest in a way as to produce the desired excrement of reactions, “they're still Communists.” He nor they care about what the word “Communists” meant, just like the word “Socialist” is just as inappropriately thrown about these days without concern about the little things, like what the words actually mean. Meaning is irrelevant now, most neither know nor care. Simpler to say, “bad people, those people, bad. Grrr. Hate hate hate them, they hate you.”

        Thats always good enough to get you elected or rile people up even if you don't have elections or honestly count the votes if you do. For the record, Estonians are now the “good guys,” Russians are still sometimes the “bad guys” depending on if Russia is not doing what the American government wants recently, and the world “Communist” applies far more to China (in which it is actually) which is now so rich and powerful that no American politician would dare point that fact out in a negative way to his constituents if he thought it might get picked up on, any more than one of them might criticize Israel these days. They own us, or at least them. And through their corruption, now they own us.

        Now if we had what Reagan entertained was possible, and many neo-cons wish was still possible, a “limited” nuclear war in Europe, Estonia, now our allies, would still be just as dead. Only now, if we survive, we would put up a monument or a plaque somewhere to say we feel bad about losing them in the war and what a shame it was and all that. They have, usually without consulting their public's opinion about it or due to any of their actions, been “good guys” to us at times, and “bad guys” and back again. And usually likewise, off and on on how bad we would feel if we felt we had to “obliterate” their lands with nuclear weapons.

        Slowly the world may be learning it doesn't matter where you might live in the world, you are just as irrelevant. No matter which side you choose, and you usually will not get a choice, you are ultimately on the frontlines and will be just as dead as those countries literally on the frontlines and traded back and forth every couple of generations as to which side would mourn you or feel worse about the fact your whole country was incinerated, which inevitably it would be.

        At that time we could watch the same classic Cold War comedy about mutually assured destruction and the death of humanity knowing that at that moment anyway, we were on the same side now. Though it is a comedy, it is a sane movie about an insane set of circumstances, which has surprisingly little abated since the end of the Cold War. Not this year perhaps, but no one of power would want to rule it out either.

        Whether the Communists, the Terrorists, or eventually, seemingly, the Chinese, (whatever political or economic system they may be under in 10 or 20 years,) we need someone to play the “other” to keep up our weapons industry, our sense of purpose, or need to fight something and someone, afloat and forever as propped up as Citibank and AIG, no matter how much it bankrupts us or is likely to kill us, or anyone and everyone else. We know nothing else, and the final punch line, laughing at our own fatal stupidity is still as timeless as ever. Still though, we are very privileged when we are able to laugh about it together with others who were former enemies. It is the sliver of hope in the darkness.

        In that very room, a not unintelligent instructor seemingly pondered over how Gorbachev's reforms always seemed to lead to events which made the Soviet Union further disintegrate. Was he inept or incompetent as many Russians and others whose lives have been destroyed by the “economic collateral damage” which came after the Soviet Union fell believe he was? Were his reforms a logical course of action to take given that the results were the opposite of what was intended, contributing to the collapse he was purportedly trying to stave off? Was he a traitor to his people selling his country off to the West and to gangsters within it, as some allege?

        Not that I could read his mind, or see things as he saw them, but the answer that came forward seemed to me self-evident. He was buying time. Each of the reforms, though ultimately making things worse for the survival of the Soviet Union in the long run prevented catastrophes imminent in the short term. Buying time does not get you monuments usually, nor heroic songs written about you, especially when your country is no longer there at the end of your term. But it is the best thing one can really ever achieve. More time makes everything else possible.

        The myth is of the great and final grand victory over the enemy ushering in a final peace. That is the greatest bullshit story of all time if you look at history. Peace gives way to more wars, and sometimes not long thereafter. We, especially in America, celebrate the “Warrior” far more than any “Peacemaker.” Buying more time is what most people do collectively. It is not glamorous, not earth shattering or earth healing, but it is what each person in a society can contribute to equally and enjoy the benefits of equally. To keep things on track to go another day, live another day to die a different day. It is never ignoble and sometimes the best you get. And it is far from insignificant.

        A different instructor would say later in a room just down the hall from that one, a great truth about what was accomplished by that “failure” of Gorbachev's efforts. Though not talking about that specifically, he hit the nail on the head of the most important thing to buying that time, what it was which gained us the time to be reflective about it now. The biggest concerns he said about the collapse of Soviet Union from the point of view of the US were “loose nukes, loose nukes, and loose nukes.”

        We, the world, in a sense got lucky. Though it is hard to justify much of what came later after the collapse of the Soviet Union, opportunities lost for partnerships, stronger alliances, staving off the general disintegration of public services, the corroding eventually of many societal organizations and structures, Gorbachev's “ineffective” measures to keep an admittedly bad system going a bit longer while a new system was being worked out from scratch, it worked at the time. From the point of view of what else could have been, it could not have worked more brilliantly. It bought the added time necessary. A potentially fatal catastrophic event of a flood of nuclear devices into the wrong hands was almost seemingly miraculously averted.

        And it is in that seeming miraculousness about dodging such bullets that keeps us from ever learning. It is the blindness humanity never seems to overcome. We can say before something happens, it can happen any number of ways and be prepared for many of those equally. But after a few years, then a few dozen or hundred, it becomes fated. We can look back at history and say, “See, wasn't he stupid for not seeing how it was going to turn out?” Literally, we say that thinking God ordained that it must or would have turned out that way.

        One of the most disturbing notions to me about how America has slowly become immunized to the horrors of torture, how it has become debatably reasonable to do, that even a Supreme Court Justice can feel no shame in publicly saying that there is nothing illegal about torturing people so long as you do not charge them first, was that Americans began losing sight it could be any other way. That it should be any other way. Day by day, year by year, whatever atrocities are going on become less and less shocking and more and more normal. Its just, after awhile, how the world is. What can you do?

        Religion, even science, becomes a blanket settling in that things had to have happened the way they did. God meant it to be this way. Saying it should have occurred otherwise is blasphemous after a few years. Many but not all people can be bothered by leaders who get messianic, thinking that God is working through them, guiding them, that whatever bad things he does is justified because it is simply God working his will on Earth through him.

        It seems crazy when directed at the future, to many people. The future most believe can happen differently than these people expect. But after a few generations, in those instances where the world was not destroyed, they look more sane every day. Surely, we will think, such things were necessary to “keep us safe,” that they were vindicated merely by the fact that we still exist, and that “our existence, our children's new existences” were divinely inspired and occurred on schedule, and happened all according to “God's Plan.”

        The flip side of that coin is believing, silently, those who were killed, tortured, raped, murdered, villages wiped out, lands stolen, peoples and cultures wiped out to extinction or near extinction were necessary for our “higher” cultures to replace them. And that bias is in every single fiber of our cultures. We no longer see them or are aware that such biases exist.

        I watched a show about religion recently which mentioned how the notion of “a single God” replaced the “primitive” beliefs of the past. It was not a controversial thing to be said in even in a scientifically responsible documentary. Surely the numbers of Christians and Muslims which numerically make up the majority of humanity would agree that their religions are more “evolved” than “pagan” “primitive” religions which have more than one deity. Who would dare argue otherwise who could not be easily discredited within those cultures, if not ostracized or even killed for trying to promote that their own religion may be equally as “primitive” of a notion, if not more so?

        The biases that are most dangerous are the ones we don't even see that they are there. We change the definitions of words when we do not like what they say about us, exempt ourselves and cultures from how we judge others and other cultures we do not like or disagree with. And worst of all, we are losing the ability to gauge how much hypocrisy is inherent within it which allows two sets of rules to exist, one for the rich and powerful, one for the poor and weak, one for the chosen ones, one for the pagans or primitives, one for Gods own, and one for the forsaken. It all is just becoming normal.

        It may seem too obvious to need to state, but if one believes that the future can go in any number of different ways, it should not be much of a stretch to think that the past could have happened differently as well. Those who did the horrors of the past ought not to be given an automatic pass after a few generations, that they were doing God's will. That it had to happen that way, that it was fate.

        However much time is bought now or by others in the future, I cannot help but feel sometimes it is wasted if we never learn this most simplest of lessons generation after generation after generation. The past did not have to go the way it did. There were other roads. This way was not necessarily the best nor the most just nor the most holy nor the most right. Learning that, feeling that, living that belief every second of every day is the best assurance that new routes will be taken and new patterns of behavior will become better norms, and that the worst of history which we repeat every day and every generation helplessly, will fade out of us in time.

        The song “In the Year 2525” was for me a huge leap in perspective. It was played often on the radio when I was very little and is among my earliest memories. For people to actively and often contemplate cultures many thousands of years into the future, to grow up with pondering such notions, is to give themselves a greater perspective on their own cultures. What religions and governmental systems, ideologies and theories existed 10,000 years ago? How unthinkable would it be if they were still around today? How insane it would be to think ours will still or should be still around 10,000 years from now? As I wrote once in a poem, “as maturity carries with it ingrained superiority saving me from feeling now I am tomorrow's ignoramus.”

        We need to know and remember constantly that we are today the ignoramuses we will ourselves one day see ourselves as, should we get the time to learn more and to know better. If we do not get further, get a better perspective on where we were now, what better use could time be for? If not for nothing, it will be far short of what it could have been. And to believe it always could have been better, always, no matter how good it was, is to better enable it to one day reach more fully toward becoming something better.

Giant sucking sound of loss of potential in headwinds: An open road or wind gone out of sails

2009-02-01T00:38:00.000-08:00

(An alternative 3rd and final "clip show" retrospective to the one planned. I hope to finally move on to only covering new ground here or on my other blog soon.)

            Countries that don't value individuals rights as much as others may see little wrong with killing all those who threaten it from within or to "poison" its culture with foreign ideals. Humanity itself can act this way. If evidence appeared which clearly indicated the actions or intentions of one smaller manageable country negatively affected the prospects of survival of the species at large, nations would rise up and either forcibly reverse that nations action, modify its culture or political system which fostered such actions or attempts, or failing those modifications would, as it were, attempt to take out such a subversive, in this case anti-human, element.
            This may sound unrealistic but what if one country’s culture or political system was a sort of suicide cult pledged to take out all of another culture through uncontainable biological weaponry as an eventual end? Humanity as a whole would try to contain it, keep it from advancing scientifically, but in the end it would either risk being destroyed by it or would decide that such a culture would be too dangerous to let exist if it could not be contained, and would declare war on and / or seek to destroy such a culture. I don’t endorse this, but as one with imagination, I can envision humanity one day forced to confront such a scenario since such groups exist today but do not dominate cultures or governments, hopefully.

Natural and Unnatural Selection
Towards Tomorrow - Early 2001

            We teach by saying, and we learn by thinking, but what we see around us is what we know is real, at least at this level of understanding. Teaching high ideals means nothing if they are not visibly into practice daily, repetitiously, and are ingrained into society in a way that never falters however hard times get, and treacherous the road may seem. What kind of world we make for ourselves now is our achievement. And if it is strong and just it will speak more than volumes to those yet to come. Great countries or civilizations did not become great scheming on how best to be around hundreds of years later in their present forms, they sought to be the best they could of their own time, to meet the needs of those people of those times, and that is why they survived and prospered. It is said examples speak louder than words, but in the end we can use words to prevent us from seeing the reality instead of what we wish to see, and obscure how little our worlds or our lives reflect our values.
            On occasion we will set aside our words, our beliefs, our truths and suppositions, and look with a clear eye to the world around us with the simplicity of a child just learning of the world, of the problems within it we use lots of words to explain, or think we explain, as if by using words to define them, to understand them, they will just fade away once explained or understood. In the end we are just another species hiding behind words using them to explain why what is is not really what it seems to be, not what one looking at it without words, without knowledge of history or theories, or prejudices, or conjectures of any sort, would see. Words give us the means to vastly alter our realities but too often we stop at using them merely to alter our perceptions of reality, and let all the mistakes we think we correct remain untouched and unnoticed.
            Many still believe in a two tracked world. It is O.K. for others to be enslaved if some will live free. It is fine for some populaces to be manipulated so long as others have free will. Once applying that standard to other nations and regions invariably it is applied within. Treachery done for the sake of honor, injustice done when the cause is just, lying to preserve a greater truth. Of these inconsistencies no nation or people are blameless, no hands are clean. The more we try to have it both ways, the more the truth will escape unseen, unnoticed and will become despised by all who think the truth of what we are and what we do matters not to how we see ourselves.
            History can be our judge only if in the end the truths come out and one day are known. A factual record of what we did and said, on so many levels too much to hope for and have done without biases, will matter more than what we thought we were doing or what we believed we were achieving. Those who keep the future in mind, those who believe future generations will one day see through our lies and misrepresentations, our manipulations of others opinions to validate what we should not be doing, what could never withstand open and universal scrutiny, who will have only what we have done to speak for who we were. How then would we look to them, how much could we account for ourselves and for our actions, and how often did we convince ourselves we did not do what we did, did not say what we meant, and could not see ourselves for what we were? Whether God, Santa Claus, or future generations, it is always helpful to think that someone or something can see through you so that you might gain such insight as well. No words, no explanations, no bullshit. Just what was, unabridged, unabbreviated, and uncensored. There may not be much absolute reality in this reality, but what little of it there is we ought do our best never to run away from.

Sliver of Reality
Towards Tomorrow - Late 2001

            It is easy to see that knowledge, fire, power, are not exactly in safe hands at the moment. With that turn of events, fire and knowledge passing into human hands, we separated ourselves from other species in our environment. We cannot turn back the clock, and though some think it possible, we cannot control what everyone will know, nor keep fire from spreading around the world. We need to remember what can quell it. Hope. Fire is change. That fire, the fire of change, cannot be put out. It can be harnessed, used to make our lives better, make us better people and stronger when we know how to guide and direct it to find its highest purpose with hope. Regulated and used properly, we saw fire as our friend, but we forget easily now how awesome its power is, and how easily it spins out of control. Right now people in power mistakenly think fire can be used to contain fire, and that is a gravely mistaken assumption. Hope is all that can manage to bring fire under control and make it serve all of us equally, providing fire does not kill it first.

Pele, Maui, Vulcan, Prometheus, Tree, Serpent, Zeus, and Pandora, all in the same box, nicely wrapped
Polsci.com - Spring 2005

            My fascination with words has framed much of my life. In my teens I started writing poetry seriously and was taken in with the concept of using multiple levels of meaning with the fewest words possible, the swordplay of wordplay, the essence of communication. That is what religions teach as well from the earliest of recorded histories, using stories or parables to convey deeper meanings you cannot either say outright because of the unquestioning times you live in, or that they need to be embodied in people, real or imagined, to become relevant, fleshed out, comprehensible. And that is the essence of deeper levels of meaning to what is written, how different others might see it, for it is the diversity of perception and what different life experiences possible readers bring to bear which gives poetry and other types of attempted 'positive' double-speech, their supposed deeper levels. Saying two things at once, or more, or far more with the same words, requires these other minds and mindsets to speak to to give them these multiple meanings at once.
            And you cannot speak to them without knowledge of them. The tragedy of America in these days is the 'writing off' of other culture's views, especially upon our own actions, as irrelevant and uninformed. To not want to see and know yourself from other culture's points of views, I have said before, not only makes you something ugly, something deformed in the light of general human development, it is to write off their perspectives as meaningless. They might as well not exist. And in that light as in so many other nations in the past, we are doing 'good' to 'remove' them. ...
            I began my own philosophical search as a cultural relativist, have moved beyond it, yet am astounded and disheartened beyond measure to see my own culture, America, slam cultural relativism, as something trite, irrelevant, even a fashion without substance. It has become a victim of its own hyped up self-importance, a media preaching that ignorance is better than knowledge. There has been so much of a backlog of falsehood, misrepresentation, propaganda, and outright self- destructive lying to the American people by the Bush Administration of the 21st century that as it begins to get exposed, has the potential to point us, and because of our possibly undue influence or control over the rest of the world, to point the world on a new and better path as we begin once more to speak what we believe to be the truth. We need to try to know what is outside of ourselves, what lies outside of our bodies, minds, beliefs, mindsets and national borders, that is not irrelevant, not without truths of their own which we do not destroy without destroying our own ability to grow.
            The truth will begin to be let out more and more. We in the West, we need to demand a media that shows us to us as the rest of the world knows us, so we may see what they do and we do not. To see ourselves from the most points of view. To see ourselves from the most points of approximations or representations of truth that may not be true in individuality, but in sum, in total, in the view we are purposely now kept from seeing, comes as close to the truth as we will ever get without retreating into our own unquestioning assumptions, dogma, propaganda, hubris, and self-delusions. We have become and have been led by the embodiment of such a dark path of willful ignorance. Yet a new path has already begun. It is young yet, this truth telling, and its fate depends upon the actions of millions of others to survive against the legacy we have spun, yet I have faith in it. I have faith that it will grow, that it will survive, and it will dominate the lies, at least in the short term, and at least of the recent past.

Wordplay - TruthRevival.Org First Post
4/6/2007

            ...What I can't say, perhaps should not be said. But there are always other things which can. Just because the environment is not the same as I expected, in many ways much more receptive to change and much less need for confrontation as before, that does not mean that all is settled. This is one of the greatest periods of change in American and world history, and now the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction. Not because the hapless Democrats have taken over a corrupted system, but because people are beginning to realize the need to be told the truth, and hopefully in government, they recognize the need to tell them.
            Democracy requires stewardship not by the legislators but ultimately by the public informed about what is really going on. Right now, not even the legislators are being told what is going on and they have made it quite clear they prefer to be out of the loop. The lies must end. The free ride is over.
            Without the public demanding both political parties in the US to actually represent their interests over corporate interests, other countries interests, the defense and oil companies interests in ways to the detriment and endangerment of it citizens, then it would be time to admit, the grand experiment in democracy, at least in the United States, is over and exists only in rhetoric and lies, about as factual as the disinformation and propaganda being served to them nightly by faux news broadcasts and talking point op-eds.

RCP Complete
Polsci.com - Spring 2007 (4/18/07)

            So where is the good in all of this? In the reaction. Where there is an overwhelming degree of criminality and injustice, where lies and disinformation have displaced truth and legitimate information, there is a strength that arises in us all to stand up to it. Repression and suppression are untenable in the long run. They overreach, and by overreaching create opportunities for advancements which cannot be done when times are good and people are content.
            Probably the most victimized nations on this planet, other than in Africa, are found in Latin America. They have suffered death squads, ethnic cleansing, political repression, and all with the approval of “the world's greatest superpower,” (now a junkie on Red Kryptonite) and have bred a people unafraid to stand up against overwhelming odds, pervasive fears and threats, and have a strength which Americans sorely to say do not. (If you think this an exaggeration, compare Mexico's and other southern nations' reaction to potential rigged elections to the near complete non-reaction within the US to the election in 2000. How many in the US are cowered away from protesting because of fear of retribution, surveillance, and loss of jobs?)
            People forget the things they celebrate most are those who stood up against the wrongs of their times, or the ones crushed by heartless and oppressive empires who thought they could write their own rules, and previous laws or the rights of others did not matter as much, and could be subverted or gotten around. As much as the US and others have looked for a magic bullet to break cultures, make them loyal to leaders who do not represent the interests of their peoples, they have not yet succeeded in total and hopefully never will.

The Power and the Mana
TruthRevival.org - 5/6/07

            I don't claim the US has been necessarily an effective champion of such values so much outside of its own mind, nor that it necessarily deserves to be called the best or most effective proponent of them even before this century's astonishing abandonment of them, but that those values integration into a global structure would have been to most of our past generations of Americans a measure of our greatest success and worthy of our most heaviest of losses, as well as a vindication or lessening of our greatest mistakes. We have lost that initiative. We have lost that right to claim that as our signature, and we are losing fast that ability to direct such a spin. Worst than anything, we have lost any leadership that would warrant linking such a progression to be traceable back to us. We have become the obstacle, not the cure.
            To this America must rededicate itself to, to creating such a future democratic order that codifies the values in practice that we still mouth in rote, yet have been as of late abandoning in droves. We must reaffirm that freedom of thought, of expression without fear of being labeled a terrorist or of recrimination, the rights of citizens to oppose governments, even our own, when they think they have erred, and one that curtails any rights only when in the most extreme cases imaginable, and never without debate and consent of those who lose or are asked to give up such rights. Such orders and world governments will come about one day, and if this dark present is any guide, they will come about over our objections and not by our examples, or with our aid.
            America has become like an old king, unwilling to pass on the kingdom to our heirs, forgetting that it was only given to us as a loan, was not and never to be ours to own. "They are not ready yet, too reckless to get any of our power, to yet take the throne." Yet if that is so, it is because we have shown no magnanimity toward ever giving any of it up, have not used that power to create enlightenment in those who will ultimately have to succeed us, but have spent it recklessly upon ourselves without watching the clock on how long that could last or go on.
            When we claimed we were giving some of our power up, portioning it out, it usually was really as a rich old man tries to manipulate those around them seeking to get what they prize, to use that to degrade them and make them subservient. We cannot fathom those who do not want what we have to offer and seek only to find their own way through life if it is contrary to our ways.
            We have lost the war of ideas and now use the most debase forms of control, money and weapons, to limit and close the debates early, but there was time when we valued the ideas more than the power. And there was a time when the love of liberty and justice in ourselves would have prevented us from taking it and denying it so readily and so constantly from others. And valuing the truth more than allowing and permitting the lies of telling ourselves that we are not doing so to them while we know, and it is so obvious to others, that we are robbing them of those freedoms and self-determination and self-rule free from our influence or control.
            We will inevitably lose the head of the table, the control of the debate, the hypothetical throne, if not to our ideological heirs of liberty and justice, then to the heirs we are begetting now of treachery, lies, deceit of the publics, making ignorant misinformed subjects cowering in fear to make ourselves seem larger or omnipotent, and who would torture innocents to get to the guilty, no matter how many to find how few.
            We have not done a good job, not done any job, to prepare the world for being one where we are not in control of whatever we wish to be in control of, yet if we were while we still have some degree of power, we might be able to justify what we have inherited, as all kings have, something won through previous generations manipulations, conquests, and unspeakable acts, yet trying to turn it into something noble and something worthy of being passed on, which those whom it touches would be held up by it, and not made to bow, to cower, nor to be afraid, but far more than we, and more even than we can realize, to be freer men and women.

Empire Needs Redefinition & Transmutation, Not Dangerous Collapse
TruthRevival.org - 5/25/07

            Though many have rightly claimed that this destruction is not limited to this present Bush Administration, that it is merely continuing policies begun by both Democratic and Republican Presidents and Congresses, the idea of democracy, what vestige of it still remains at home, is that a change of administration can herald a change of direction. “That is not us anymore,” a new President is thought to be able to proclaim upon taking office. “I will undo these mistakes or at least try to make them right,” one can hope a new President will promise. The bad Superman has been vanquished. The good Superman has returned and we must look to the future and give back the trust.
            But the trust will not return. There was no bad Superman from an alternate Universe to blame our mistakes on. No Democratic candidate currently running is advocating anything drastic enough or different enough to justify belief in any significant course change to how the US has conducted itself these last 6 years. The lies will continue, either from a different Republican or Democratic white man or woman, or from a Black man or Hispanic President. Pre-emptive war will not be “off-the-table”, threats of regime change of countries that displease us will continue, arms races desired by the corporations which control both parties will increase for the state subsidized guaranteed profits they will generate, and the world will not have much more reason to trust us later than now.
            But they will have to, we think. Our musical chairs, feigned course changes or slight alternations deemed to give to our home population that hope that the future will get better, we think will still spill over to the rest of the world. We do spend countless billions to plant positive stories in foreign press about ourselves, and they get to watch our own propagandized channels and “entertainment” shows (which praise our armed services / CIA / Presidency, etc.) without cost to our government. It is inherent in people to want to hope though. They want to give us the benefit of the doubt that we will not be overthrown completely and plunge the world into a hellish power vacuum, though every day we are inching toward making more and more of the world think, “how could that possibly be worse that what we are offered now?”
            To much of the rest of the world though, they have it bad enough that that end, the end of American hedgmony, cannot come soon enough. Among the richest countries, though our image is tarnished, they remember how we took the heat and did the dirty deeds during the Cold War to keep their economies safe. They may not be grateful and they may realize more than our own citizens how we were getting rich off of that conflict through raping most of the developing world through puppet governments terrorizing their own publics, but they have much stake in keeping the US-based economic system healthy. They want to believe the myth if not the reality of the good Superman is not dead, or at least that a less psychotic one is on the way. Their continued positions as higher than the rest of the world in comforts and economic advantages depend on it. But to more and more of the rest of the world every year, they see only the benefits of our continued implosion.
            The problem is, and I have tried to emphasize this as much as the dangers of attacking Iran, the unpredictability of weapons development. New types of weapons are evolving in ways that will not only put current ones to shame, but will be cheaper and more widely available. Every system of government may soon come apart at the seams. Russia has recognized one avenue pending with trying to limit the availability of its major ethnicity's DNA, but that is simply impossible and even laughable with so many diasporate Russians. America, other than sort of having a “ruling class” of whites which its government might seek to protect, is less at risk, but China has both the greatest vulnerability and is the greatest threat for developing such ethnicity based DNA biological weapons, and also was the first to unlock the code of human DNA as well. Yet biologicals and other types of weapons we can name today are merely the tip of the iceberg of what is in the works for the next 50, 20, or even 10 years.
            Neo-Cons and generals unfortunately have deluded themselves enough to think that having enough weapons pointed at every corner of the earth, even from space can protect American hegemony but that is beyond even the most wishful thinking. Other than mass liquidation of populations so massive that a word stronger than genocide will have to be formulated, in the end it will as now only create more hatred and more unacceptable risks to all but those profiting from making the weapons systems. Armistice, the most hated and feared word of those running America today, at the tops of BOTH political parties, is the ONLY course of survival that has even a negligible chance of long term success. The only question is how many will have to die before the real discussions begin.

How the Bad Superman's Reign Ends
TruthRevival.org - 6/27/07

            It has been over two years now that I have been concerned and written about what was conveyed to me as the very real possibility of a massive, deadly, and mortally self-inflicted wound not only upon Iran but on the US as well, by our own leadership purposely endangering ourselves exponentially in a suicidal overreach. On this and my previous blog, I have wasted many words on the subject. Now that that moment is soon approaching and the rest of the world is finally catching on, it seems more and more unlikely.
            I am neither giving in to making predictions nor odds-making (and certainly not with something now considered the safest of bets). I have problems with both. Most predictions are self-fulfilling and odds in hindsight are nothing more than attempted fortune telling. Things either happen or they don't, or if you view time the way I do, they do and they don't happen. The question is which you will get to see played out.
            This is not the general view of time at this time, but quantum physicists are working on changing that, and if you doubt their influence, remember they are of the profession which brought us to the brink of the precipice of the dangers that this speculated confrontation will unleash. Slowly at first, but without breaks if that particular genie is let out of the bottle. That is not a prediction, that is an inevitably if that route is chosen.

The World We Inherited, The World We Will Leave Behind
TruthRevival.org - 9/4/07

            I am not pointing fingers at anyone. It is a dangerous world we live in. Torture being done, scientists perfecting it. People have been promoting it here on TV or making it palatable to the general public and are getting multi-million dollar salaries in return. But others have silently, and some not so silently, rebelled against this. It is in them and in their lives the hope of any bright future is to be found. Some when asked to torture, to murder unjustly, to go on TV and say how it is debatably reasonable to do such things to people who quite possibly are completely innocent to "possibly" "save" others, namely yourselves from some threat, real or imagined, they quit.
            Others, they do something else. If they are not brave or secure enough to quit, they do what they are asked, but they do it badly. They, though purposeful ineptitude, choose to leave behind a record for the day when a new leadership is in charge who would wish to right the wrongs (or at least recognize them) of the past. It is apparent to all the world now and to themselves, the Democrats in America are no such people. They, in the equivalent of terms of the USSR, would shoot those who would come forward just as much as the previous dictatorship would, they would build towering structures over the mass unmarked graves, and they would bury the past crimes completely and forever.
            Where others saw the "most incompetent administration ever," I saw a group of people seeing the atrocities going on all around them and did the best they could to try to walk the middle ground, those who did not quit outright and those unlike those without consciences, they did what they were asked as badly as believably possible, but so far, to no avail.
            It probably does not matter if Rudy "if we do it, it is not torture" Giuliani becomes the next President, or Hillary Clinton, or Dick Cheney. The mantra is the same. The bodies will stay buried. Torture will become more mainstream. Trials, when allowed at all will become more farcical to the greater ratings and laugh tracks of the Daily Show and Colbert Report. Those who did the unconscionable will watch their superiors who ordered it all go not only unpunished, but becoming more wealthy and respected than ever because of it all, and they will only have what remains of their own consciences to be propped up by the fact that they, at least, did not do it well, and that if anyone of power ever had cared worth damn, it all could have been exposed and stopped.

Open House at US Torture Sites, If We Do It, It Is Not Torture Giuliani
TruthRevival.org - 10/26/07

            I do not necessarily believe what we believe philosophically or religiously will or ought to be believed ten thousand years from now just as no religions from ten thousand years ago are dominant today. Whatever new belief systems emerge will have a part of our beliefs in them or will in some way have grown out of them (and away from them), just as they who will hold and believe them will have grown out of us and our lives. I do not claim to know what those beliefs systems will be like, nor would I necessarily hold them to be more true, but I hope they are tried and true battle tested through rigorous comparisons against contentious contenders without appearing to corner the market or have a trademark on any particular value or belief over any others, and that they will be what we all are, stronger for coming from many different sources into one being. ...
            ...and hopefully this has attested to why one ought to step outside what one ought to think once in awhile, challenge everything that is known or believed on occasion, to attempt to glimpse the Universe beyond our own minds, beliefs, and mindsets. It is ALWAYS heretical, and depending on your society, sometimes (such questioning is) illegal, but always can lead to something more, something valuable, something which now only exists as potential, good or bad, which like us will be judged for its value only once it has been attained, realized, and known. And in the end, not realizing it, not conceiving of it as an option, letting some truths go unknown until the end of time, it is not even a possible viable option. Truth will seek us out to become known, even and most often when, we spurn it.

Tying the 3 Books Together
Christmas 2002

            Question everything. It is more than an old expression or a bumper sticker slogan. I hold to no belief systems, theories, or dogma longer than to simply understand them, though even then I do not necessarily adopt or adhere to them, just to know or see from that point of view. Beliefs or belief systems are merely descriptions of reality. They are not reality. They may not be descriptive or accurate from another or another's point of view. The more factors they cover without exceptions to their rules, the more symmetry they possess and the more true they seem to be. The more they seem to possess this symmetry from the most angles or from more divergent points of view, the more whole, substantive, or relevant they may seem to others, and again, may seem to possess more truth. People like the symmetry so much they stop looking for the data that does not conform to the symmetry which would lead to new and better models. People like models which do not have to appear symmetric or relevant to others' points of view, lives, or experiences far divergent from their own. Few beliefs people possess strive for this symmetry relevant to all others' points of view.

Notes- Part 2
February 2004

Out of the impasses: Those power now who profit from war, lack of discussion or compromise, put on a facade of negotiations which are doomed to fail because their sole purpose is to obtrusify, stall, and provoke more anger at drawing out the conflicts to the last possible second to guarantee the maximum possible profit. Those who would replace these basically, to be fair to those whom their policies kill and maim, these murders, their replacements when compassion outweighs greed once again, if ever, will most likely be weak. Others will sense they can be walked over, made to compromise, agree to things to end the conflicts which should never be even discussed.
            Those running the show know this and use this as a shield. “See, we may get many people, thousands if not millions of people killed for no good reason, but we will save face, stand firm, and give not an inch to appease these “other” murderers who would try to take over as we are trying to expand our influence and control, or at least they would inconvenience this.”
            To quote that infamous political two-timer, Bill Clinton, there needs to be a true third way, not his misnomer for compromise of selling out those who you negotiate for as something it is not, as something other than a sell-out. What is needed is to put things on the table neither side would ever agree to or expect, not to slow, stall, or cripple the negotiations but to begin to reframe the debate beyond the polarity of either sides interests which both sides inevitably only seek to represent.
            The third party which should be included (in the settlements) is generations hence, ones who ascribe to neithers' borders alone but will traverse both, belong to neither culture alone but whose culture includes tenets of both, one who will not see either side as a victor no matter how one-sided or grand a victory against the odds, but will be smart enough to feel only compassion for the dead (and those whose lives were ruined by the conflicts) and pity those who needlessly prolonged it for their own profits and political reputations. These potential peoples' views ought not only to frame the debates but ought to be the guidepost.
            It requires looking above the interests of present institutions, (present) countries and their corporate masters, to what will benefit those who are neither one of your side nor one of the other side, who will most probably despise both your sides and positions equally, but as a son or daughter despises the mistakes of the parents without despising the parents. For if these conflicts are settled now, others will be able to come to be, will be beholden and born out of that merging of beliefs and cultures into a common understanding, conflict and opposites (yielding) to cooperation and rebirth into new offspring. They will owe their lives to coming together or not know life by the present flying further apart. Either sides views and interests are always a zero-sum game, no matter the rhetoric, and never believe otherwise. Each side wants what is best for their own, and that is always less (control) for the other. But in the future, the children of both will literally be the progeny of both at the same time, and their aims are the only ones to lead forever away from an abyss in the present.

Notes- Part Six
7/22/06

I'm tired of spinning my wheels
I need to find a place where my heart can go to heal
I need to get there pretty quick
Hey mister, what you got out on that lot you can sell me in a pinch

Maybe one of them souped-up muscle cars,
the kind that makes you think you're stronger than you are
Color don't matter, no, I don't need leather seats,
all that really concerns me is...

SPEED
How fast will it go
Can it get me over her quickly
zero to sixty
Can it outrun her memory
Yeah, what I really need is an open road
and a whole lot of speed

Lyrics to Speed (Montgomery / Gentry)

(The following was written on or around 1/22/09...)

            The period of time of the transition from the Bush presidency to the Obama presidency is much like the fall of Communism was for their dissidents, to those here who worked for change and against the worst abuses of the Bush years grabs of power and subversion of the Constitution. Now what? That is something a lot of people have had to deal with by once defining themselves in oppostition to something which is no longer there to define themselves against or in opposition to... a loss of their identity in so many ways. Being aware of this consciously and hopefully as much as possible, continually, I try to see beyond it.

            The timing and effects of the invasion of Iraq coincided with a change of direction of my own life, getting back to basics more than a new direction, and constant attempting at outgrowing how I saw things before. So much time did I spend writing and thinking in opposition to what I thought was going wrong, it was impossible not to let it redefine me, for better or worse, in opposition to what I saw as negatives, and pushed me more than I thought wise or prudent, or ever would have wanted without such goings on in the world damaging what I saw as the best potentials the future could have. And an Iranian War of 2006, 2007, or 2008 was just beyond belief in arrogance and stupidity. When I got wind or believed it was not going to happen, I decided to wind down my writing as that potential conflict was a huge part of the reason for my writing, not that I think my writing would, could, or did have much impact, but it was a reflection of events going on in the world on why I felt the need or desire to write. Everyone is created and defined by external events to react to, with, or against.

            That potential bad course was such a defining aspect of my desire to write that the 3rd retrospection mentioned here (in "The Lion, the Serpent and the Phoenix" post (the 1st "clip show" retrospective), and "Alcyone over Cristo Redentor" (2nd "clip show")) was to have been called "Searching for Langston's America with the "Ghosts" of the LOC (Library of Congress); Lines on Maps, Lines in the Sand, and Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bombing Iran". That third "clip show" was to have had a collection of quotes from many of my previous posts comments made about a possible war with Iran, things spinning out of control that that would cause, and the background into what made me think to, want, or need to write of such things. Lack of need or desire to seeing (or thinking) that the world was not going to go that way, a little over a year ago (and it seemingly did not go that way thankfully), I began to rethink wanting to write at all. If not feeling it necessary in me to have to write by feeling I ought to, nor thinking events were going in that particular bad direction where such things might occur, there seemed no point to it anymore.

            It would be easy for me, like many other writers who were opposed to many of Bush's policies, to now rant instead about thinking or predicting what Obama's mistakes in similar veins will be. That "Change we can believe in" will not occur is too safe a bet to make, not to mention pessimism, and that makes it not of interest to me. Though I agree that Obama's supporters should not support him blindly and should hold him accountable to actually following through on his spoken or believed positions on promises of a different world, pressuring which is necessary to make or even to enable him to follow through on that promise or those promises. I simply refute the idea of complaining about mistakes he has not made yet, but most likely will. Plus, he seems more adaptable than most are to changes which will (okay, I will predict that much) be required, even to a surprising degree. And I would not think that he will not be better or smarter next year than he is now, or was last year. Anyone can grow or change, even within the pressure cooker and bubble of the presidency of the US, and even potentially for the better.

            The needed changes go beyond even a (US) president's ability to institute them, but not necessarily beyond a movement like the one which got him the job. With growing movements (plural) for political change, if allowed by my country to flourish (a very big "if" as they may actually threaten real and genuine change which even if for the better, the system would not think to allow to occur or be discussed without a verbal war and political persecustion like blowback to whistle-blowers), then nothing that needs to be done cannot be achieved. Democracy is based upon and requires cooperation of the general public protesting and/or demanding things to succeed or even to function as a democracy at all, and greater political action and participation of a majority of our citizens is increasingly required in the absence of any counter-weight to the dominating politicized and myopic beltway mentality of the US mainstream press. And that is an engagement which is long, long overdue.

            Where things stand today hopefully at best is to begin that necessary broad or broadest possible dialog for change which is more important or as important as any implemented or chosen changes. The dialog will need to be far more inclusive that what is or can be done, or even should be. All things and roads ought to be considered someday and in due time. And for a greater range than ever before, that time is increasingly right now.

            As much as consensus is a good thing and necessary, I prefer to embrace also the right of people saying things I disagree with, even despise, than to simply safely swim in a stream of a world finally coming to it senses, hopefully. Both things are necessary to me. What people deride as political correctness is far more dangerous than either side, left or right, anarchist or neo-con, or those of most any political or philosophical stripes realize. Even good ideas and platforms I agree with get carried to extremes in the absence of any countervailing opposition, even wrongly-founded opposition, which prevents totalitarian-like nanny or police states replacing true freedom. What is beyond question to be thought to be right, without proper checks (and the best, most eloquent arguments possible in opposition to it) from those opinions that are greatly (even universally) thought to be wrong, devolves without being checked into a forced compliance and well-intended insanity, and complete devolution of freedom and an open society.

            So neither will I try to overly praise what I think is good about the way the world is moving now nor simply knee-jerk take a devils advocate point of view (because of being used to being dissatisfied after many years of the trying and torturing hope), which is necessary to keep things moving at all or on course to a better future. Every step forward to be forward at all not only needs to be second guessed, but third, and fourth guessed, and more. The point above all is knowing that at the same time, steps MUST be undertaken and even seemingly trying to stand still means drifting toward some unknown or unintended direction. And such inertia will quickly lead toward multiple cliffs which will undermine or destroy the ability to take any necessary changes of direction at all.