posted by Ukulele Man at 5:23 PM
0 comments
links to this post
Saturday, September 30, 2006
A Thoughtful Response - Final Part
Hey Folks,
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting (click above to see the entire comment). I think it deserves a thoughtful response.Here is the Final Part. My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
And in addition to Chavez aligning himself with an anti-Semitic leader like Ahmadinejad, you might want to ask yourself why he'd want to be pals with someone who is imposing the most primitive right-wing religious government outside of Saudi Arabia on his people.
In case you hadn't researched this topic either, Sharia law calls for the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery, premarital sex, and lesser infractions only require the amputation of a hand or foot. Oh, and for all the atheists reading this, under Sharia law, "people of the Book" (Jews and Christians) have a choice of either converting or paying Jizyah (infidel tax), whereas Godless pagans and atheists have only two choices: convert to Islam or die by the sword.
You might want to do a little more research about how "heroic" and "benign" these guys than you seem to be doing at the moment.
Well, I made it clear in my postings that Chavez is open to criticism for his alignment with Ahmadinejad, and that if Chavez – who is not a Muslim – shares the Iranian’s prejudice that he should be condemned for that. I also stated my belief that, even if Chavez himself were not a racist, he had a responsibility to oppose his ally’s position (not that he’s likely to do that).
As to the suggestion that “you might want to ask yourself why he'd want to be pals with someone who is imposing the most primitive right-wing religious government outside of Saudi Arabia on his people,” I think it’s pretty clear why he’d do that.
Considering Chavez’s in-your-face approach to the imperial powers and their elite Venezuelan proxies, and considering his disdain for the “invisible hand of the infallible market,” whom should he “pal” up with?
He obviously needs pals; he’s a midget cussing out giants. There is an old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and Chavez – if he is to survive – if he is to hold off the giants' inevitable push to restore the old “order” – needs to ally with – as Duhbya might say – “the willing.”
That’s why I think he’s “friends” with the Iranian – just like we, when it met our needs, were “friends” with the “Contras” and Pinochet and Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
Ironically, we are presently “pals” with Saudi Arabia, the nation the commenter describes as an even worse pal than Iran. One of the leaders of Saudi Arabia is even an “honorary member of the Bush family”!
Since Saudi Arabian views are even more primitive than the Iranian’s, I guess American Jews, Christians, pagans, and atheists should be scared about the US government more than their Venezuelan counterparts are of theirs.
I didn’t include American gays in that because they are already seriously concerned about our government.
Well, Folks, that’s it. I really appreciate having received the comment. It prompted a broader discussion, which I hope you found worth reading.
I hope, also, that my homework was adequate.
- Uke Man
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting (click above to see the entire comment). I think it deserves a thoughtful response.Here is the Final Part. My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
And in addition to Chavez aligning himself with an anti-Semitic leader like Ahmadinejad, you might want to ask yourself why he'd want to be pals with someone who is imposing the most primitive right-wing religious government outside of Saudi Arabia on his people.
In case you hadn't researched this topic either, Sharia law calls for the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery, premarital sex, and lesser infractions only require the amputation of a hand or foot. Oh, and for all the atheists reading this, under Sharia law, "people of the Book" (Jews and Christians) have a choice of either converting or paying Jizyah (infidel tax), whereas Godless pagans and atheists have only two choices: convert to Islam or die by the sword.
You might want to do a little more research about how "heroic" and "benign" these guys than you seem to be doing at the moment.
Well, I made it clear in my postings that Chavez is open to criticism for his alignment with Ahmadinejad, and that if Chavez – who is not a Muslim – shares the Iranian’s prejudice that he should be condemned for that. I also stated my belief that, even if Chavez himself were not a racist, he had a responsibility to oppose his ally’s position (not that he’s likely to do that).
As to the suggestion that “you might want to ask yourself why he'd want to be pals with someone who is imposing the most primitive right-wing religious government outside of Saudi Arabia on his people,” I think it’s pretty clear why he’d do that.
Considering Chavez’s in-your-face approach to the imperial powers and their elite Venezuelan proxies, and considering his disdain for the “invisible hand of the infallible market,” whom should he “pal” up with?
He obviously needs pals; he’s a midget cussing out giants. There is an old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and Chavez – if he is to survive – if he is to hold off the giants' inevitable push to restore the old “order” – needs to ally with – as Duhbya might say – “the willing.”
That’s why I think he’s “friends” with the Iranian – just like we, when it met our needs, were “friends” with the “Contras” and Pinochet and Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
Ironically, we are presently “pals” with Saudi Arabia, the nation the commenter describes as an even worse pal than Iran. One of the leaders of Saudi Arabia is even an “honorary member of the Bush family”!
Since Saudi Arabian views are even more primitive than the Iranian’s, I guess American Jews, Christians, pagans, and atheists should be scared about the US government more than their Venezuelan counterparts are of theirs.
I didn’t include American gays in that because they are already seriously concerned about our government.
Well, Folks, that’s it. I really appreciate having received the comment. It prompted a broader discussion, which I hope you found worth reading.
I hope, also, that my homework was adequate.
- Uke Man
posted by Ukulele Man at 5:09 PM
1 comments
links to this post
I can’t believe that most Americans think this is all right.
Hey Folks,
I'm with Herbert, but it seems the Congress is with the Boy President and his god on this one. Where DO the American people weigh in on this?
Are we good Americans? or "good Germans"???
- Uke Man
September 21, 2006
The Torture of Liberty
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
After traveling to Ottawa to interview Maher Arar last year, I wrote: “If John Ashcroft was right, then I was staring into the malevolent, duplicitous eyes of pure evil ... But all I could really see was a polite, unassuming, neatly dressed guy who looked like a suburban Little League coach.”
It turns out John Ashcroft was wrong. After an exhaustive investigation, a government commission in Canada ruled definitively and unequivocally this week that Maher Arar was no terrorist. He was nothing more than a quiet family man who found himself sucked into a vortex of incompetence, hysteria and a so-called war on terror that has gone completely haywire.
He’s lucky he survived. Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen who was born in Syria, was snatched by American authorities as he waited for a connecting flight home from Kennedy Airport in September 2002. The Americans apparently were acting on bad information fed to them by Canadian investigators.
As in the witch hunts of old, no one seemed to care whether there was any factual basis for the allegations against Mr. Arar. Without even a nod in the direction of due process, the Americans put him on a government jet and shipped him off to Jordan, where he was promptly driven to Syria, where he was tortured.
Welcome to extraordinary rendition, a reprehensible practice in which people are kidnapped by the U.S. government and sent off to countries that specialize in the evil arts of torture.
Mr. Arar lived in torment for nearly a year, confined most of the time to a tiny underground cell, about the size of a grave. Despite the torture, the Syrians were unable to connect him to terrorism in any way. The Canadian government managed to secure his release in October 2003.
If this were just a bad but honest mistake, we might be able to simply wish Mr. Arar well and vow never to let it happen again. Instead, the United States is about to ensure that many more individuals who are falsely accused are deprived of the single most fundamental tool they need to establish their innocence.
In the push to enact legislation dealing with the interrogation and prosecution of terror suspects, both the White House and dissident Republicans in the Senate intend to strip away the hallowed safeguard of habeas corpus for some noncitizens held in U.S. custody outside the United States.
Habeas corpus (literally “produce the body”) is a legal proceeding that allows one to challenge his or her detention in a court of law. It is the most significant safeguard against arbitrary imprisonment. Someone deprived of this right — which is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and has been recognized by various societies all the way back to the Middle Ages — can be locked up, whether innocent or guilty of any offense, and never heard from again.
I can’t believe that most Americans think this is all right.
“This is recognized as a broad common-law and constitutional right,” said Bill Goodman, the legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which has been fighting to secure basic legal protections for prisoners in American custody at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
At a minimum, said Mr. Goodman, “A person has a right to know what crime he’s being charged with. And a court can demand that the government produce evidence indicating that there is a reason to hold that person.”
The authority to demand that even the highest officials in a nation — even the president, even the king back in the days of the Magna Carta — justify the detention of a human being is powerful, and essential in a free society.
The right to file for a writ of habeas corpus, insisting that this authority be exercised, is a crucial check on naked governmental power. It’s a check on injustice.
In Washington, instead of saluting this cornerstone of freedom, politicians are about to deep-six it for some people without even much in the way of debate.
Talk about freedom is cheap. We hear it all the time. Real protection against tyrannical behavior by powerful government officials is another matter.
I spoke to Mr. Arar by phone yesterday. He said now that the Canadian government has publicly cleared his name, he would like the U.S. government to follow suit. But the U.S. government is busy trying to make sure that other innocents, trapped unfairly in a cage, have absolutely nowhere to turn. No recourse at all.
I'm with Herbert, but it seems the Congress is with the Boy President and his god on this one. Where DO the American people weigh in on this?
Are we good Americans? or "good Germans"???
- Uke Man
September 21, 2006
The Torture of Liberty
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
After traveling to Ottawa to interview Maher Arar last year, I wrote: “If John Ashcroft was right, then I was staring into the malevolent, duplicitous eyes of pure evil ... But all I could really see was a polite, unassuming, neatly dressed guy who looked like a suburban Little League coach.”
It turns out John Ashcroft was wrong. After an exhaustive investigation, a government commission in Canada ruled definitively and unequivocally this week that Maher Arar was no terrorist. He was nothing more than a quiet family man who found himself sucked into a vortex of incompetence, hysteria and a so-called war on terror that has gone completely haywire.
He’s lucky he survived. Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen who was born in Syria, was snatched by American authorities as he waited for a connecting flight home from Kennedy Airport in September 2002. The Americans apparently were acting on bad information fed to them by Canadian investigators.
As in the witch hunts of old, no one seemed to care whether there was any factual basis for the allegations against Mr. Arar. Without even a nod in the direction of due process, the Americans put him on a government jet and shipped him off to Jordan, where he was promptly driven to Syria, where he was tortured.
Welcome to extraordinary rendition, a reprehensible practice in which people are kidnapped by the U.S. government and sent off to countries that specialize in the evil arts of torture.
Mr. Arar lived in torment for nearly a year, confined most of the time to a tiny underground cell, about the size of a grave. Despite the torture, the Syrians were unable to connect him to terrorism in any way. The Canadian government managed to secure his release in October 2003.
If this were just a bad but honest mistake, we might be able to simply wish Mr. Arar well and vow never to let it happen again. Instead, the United States is about to ensure that many more individuals who are falsely accused are deprived of the single most fundamental tool they need to establish their innocence.
In the push to enact legislation dealing with the interrogation and prosecution of terror suspects, both the White House and dissident Republicans in the Senate intend to strip away the hallowed safeguard of habeas corpus for some noncitizens held in U.S. custody outside the United States.
Habeas corpus (literally “produce the body”) is a legal proceeding that allows one to challenge his or her detention in a court of law. It is the most significant safeguard against arbitrary imprisonment. Someone deprived of this right — which is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and has been recognized by various societies all the way back to the Middle Ages — can be locked up, whether innocent or guilty of any offense, and never heard from again.
I can’t believe that most Americans think this is all right.
“This is recognized as a broad common-law and constitutional right,” said Bill Goodman, the legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which has been fighting to secure basic legal protections for prisoners in American custody at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
At a minimum, said Mr. Goodman, “A person has a right to know what crime he’s being charged with. And a court can demand that the government produce evidence indicating that there is a reason to hold that person.”
The authority to demand that even the highest officials in a nation — even the president, even the king back in the days of the Magna Carta — justify the detention of a human being is powerful, and essential in a free society.
The right to file for a writ of habeas corpus, insisting that this authority be exercised, is a crucial check on naked governmental power. It’s a check on injustice.
In Washington, instead of saluting this cornerstone of freedom, politicians are about to deep-six it for some people without even much in the way of debate.
Talk about freedom is cheap. We hear it all the time. Real protection against tyrannical behavior by powerful government officials is another matter.
I spoke to Mr. Arar by phone yesterday. He said now that the Canadian government has publicly cleared his name, he would like the U.S. government to follow suit. But the U.S. government is busy trying to make sure that other innocents, trapped unfairly in a cage, have absolutely nowhere to turn. No recourse at all.
posted by Ukulele Man at 8:48 AM
1 comments
links to this post
Friday, September 29, 2006
"History is what I say it is" - Napoleon
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past" - George Orwell
posted by Ukulele Man at 12:41 PM
0 comments
links to this post
A Thoughtful Response III
Hey Folks,
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting (click above to see the entire comment). I think it deserves a thoughtful response.
Here is Part III. My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
And as much as you enjoy blogging your opinion, you might not be able to enjoy doing it in Venezuela. In an editorial on January 14 attacking the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the Washington Post wrote, “Mr. Chavez has pushed through a new law that allows the government to fine or shut down private media for vaguely defined offenses against 'public order'.” Something to think about.
Well, let’s assume the Post has it right and isn’t overstating anything. It follows then that there is some pressure on the Venezuelan press relative to what they print or broadcast.
That shouldn’t be surprising for a number of reasons. First, we in the US take it for granted that we have a free press; so, Chavez’s law sounds terrible. But we do not have a free press.
Most of the ubiquitous press sources are owned by conservative businesses. Most depend on advertising dollars provided by conservative businesses. Most play to the lowest common denominator to maximize ratings (and hence revenue) by avoiding controversy and “boring” nuance.
Broadcast journalists are under the thumb of government-controlled regulators and have to be careful about what they say - or face painful regulatory punishment. And public broadcasting is totally at the mercy of the government.
All this hardly adds up to a free press. The press censors itself, either for gain or out of fear, and the government rolls along.
In Venezuela’s case it was just the same before Chavez; the press were part of the elite, white/European/non-Indian minority, and have from the beginning done whatever they could to help thwart Chavez. No self-censorship there.
But the point is this: when the press twisted the news to suit the ruling elite, that was called freedom of the press because the government didn’t need to clamp down. But you better believe they’d have clamped down on hard-line opposition media.
It’s the same here.
Don’t think so? Well, consider Katharine Graham – also of the Washington Post, its owner at the time - who blew the whistle on Viet Nam by publishing the Pentagon Papers.
Ms Graham is a universally-recognized journalistic hero for printing the Pentagon Papers. That’s a given.
In the face of practically everyone at the paper – especially the lawyers – who warned of the most dire consequences if she proceeded, she went ahead.
Her behavior was so courageous that she is seen as a great hero. It is seldom considered, however, that all she did was put a true and important story in the newspaper she ran. People do that every day.
Nothing courageous there – UNLESS we don’t REALLY have freedom of the press in this country.
Remember when the president’s spokesman warned that we had to watch what we say? That’s not just idle talk.
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting (click above to see the entire comment). I think it deserves a thoughtful response.
Here is Part III. My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
And as much as you enjoy blogging your opinion, you might not be able to enjoy doing it in Venezuela. In an editorial on January 14 attacking the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the Washington Post wrote, “Mr. Chavez has pushed through a new law that allows the government to fine or shut down private media for vaguely defined offenses against 'public order'.” Something to think about.
Well, let’s assume the Post has it right and isn’t overstating anything. It follows then that there is some pressure on the Venezuelan press relative to what they print or broadcast.
That shouldn’t be surprising for a number of reasons. First, we in the US take it for granted that we have a free press; so, Chavez’s law sounds terrible. But we do not have a free press.
Most of the ubiquitous press sources are owned by conservative businesses. Most depend on advertising dollars provided by conservative businesses. Most play to the lowest common denominator to maximize ratings (and hence revenue) by avoiding controversy and “boring” nuance.
Broadcast journalists are under the thumb of government-controlled regulators and have to be careful about what they say - or face painful regulatory punishment. And public broadcasting is totally at the mercy of the government.
All this hardly adds up to a free press. The press censors itself, either for gain or out of fear, and the government rolls along.
In Venezuela’s case it was just the same before Chavez; the press were part of the elite, white/European/non-Indian minority, and have from the beginning done whatever they could to help thwart Chavez. No self-censorship there.
But the point is this: when the press twisted the news to suit the ruling elite, that was called freedom of the press because the government didn’t need to clamp down. But you better believe they’d have clamped down on hard-line opposition media.
It’s the same here.
Don’t think so? Well, consider Katharine Graham – also of the Washington Post, its owner at the time - who blew the whistle on Viet Nam by publishing the Pentagon Papers.
Ms Graham is a universally-recognized journalistic hero for printing the Pentagon Papers. That’s a given.
In the face of practically everyone at the paper – especially the lawyers – who warned of the most dire consequences if she proceeded, she went ahead.
Her behavior was so courageous that she is seen as a great hero. It is seldom considered, however, that all she did was put a true and important story in the newspaper she ran. People do that every day.
Nothing courageous there – UNLESS we don’t REALLY have freedom of the press in this country.
Remember when the president’s spokesman warned that we had to watch what we say? That’s not just idle talk.
As for my blogging, that's small potatoes. I'm under the radar. Look at Noam Chomsky. He's well-known, intelligent, widely read; but - even with the plug he got from Chavez - he is no threat to the power lords.
Freedom of the press at this time in this country means: You can say or print anything you want - as long as it has no effect.
- Uke Man
posted by Ukulele Man at 12:26 PM
1 comments
links to this post
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Has Bush Gone Over the Edge
Hill Street Blue
September 5, 2006
An increasing number of Republicans, ranging from former conservative Congressman Joe Scarborough to former President George H.W. Bush, worry that President George W. Bush's tenuous hold on reality is slipping away and the leader of the free world may be sliding into a full-fledged mental breakdown.
Scarborough sounded the warning recently when he devoted an episode of his MSNBC talk show to the topic "Is Bush an Idiot?" Other published reports say Bush's own father is worried about his son's mental state. Psychiatrists who have observed Bush during his presidency share this concern.
Bush family insiders say the former President's concern over his son's mental state was a primary reason why the President made a rare appearance at the family home in Connecticut during August. Bush rarely visits his father. In fact, NBC news anchor Brian Williams recently reported that former President Bill Clinton, who defeated the elder Bush after one term, visits his former rival more often.
White House aides point to the President's increasingly bizarre behavior: an inpromptu "massage" of a foreign leader at the recent G8 conference, his penchant for farting in front of new West Wing aides and his rambling, often incoherent answers to reporters' questions.
John Dean, the White House counsel who helped bring down another deranged President: Richard M. Nixon, shares the concern.
In his book, Conservatives Without Conscience, Dean calls Republican-controlled Washington a bullying, manipulative, prejudiced leadership edging the nation toward a dark era.
"We have returned to the imperial presidency (that existed in the Nixon era)," Dean says. "We have an unchecked presidency."
"Are we on the road to fascism?" he adds. "Clearly, we are not on that road yet. But it would not take much more misguided authoritarian leadership, or thoughtless following of such leaders, to find ourselves there.
"I am not sure which is more frightening," he adds, "another major terror attack or the response of authoritarian conservatives to that attack."
Dr. Justin Frank, the prominent George Washington University psychiatrist who wrote Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, says Bush has lost touch with reality:
With every passing week, President Bush marches deeper and deeper into a world of his own making. Central to Bush's world is an iron will which demands that external reality be changed to conform to his personal view of how things are.
As far as Bush is concerned, he is telling the truth; as Madeleine Albright recently said to Columbia Magazine: "the most serious problem is that George Bush now believes what he says." Like many of my hospitalized patients, Bush has created a vast, detailed but vague delusional system he feels compelled to maintain at all costs. This system helps him manage the terrifying anxiety that threatens to make his already endangered inner world more chaotic.
Psychoanalytic theory suggests that Bush's true enemy is an aspect of himself -- the overwhelming anxiety he works so hard to manage. For Bush, lying remains a central defense mechanism in managing his fears; he lies foremost to himself, altering his perception of external or internal reality to fulfill his psychic need to maintain order. His anxiety is so great that he cannot shift his thinking to account for new information --especially the fact that patriotic families of patriotic soldiers demand that he speak with them.
Taking responsibility has always been hard for George W. Bush. And taking responsibility for inflicting harm on others, a major step in the development of maturity, is a step President Bush has yet to make. Instead, he persists in lying to himself, surrounding himself with people who agree with him. And now he is not safe even inside his own closed circle.
Writes Jeffrey Steinberg in the Lyndon LaRouche scandal sheet Executive Intelligence Review:
"The word is circulating in high-level Republican Party circles that former President George H.W. Bush is profoundly worried about the mental state of his son, the current President."
Ordinarily, it is easy to dismiss a report from such a source but others with credible track records are backing up parts of the EIS report.
Dr, Frank has studied Bush's actions and personality extensively and believes the President needs extensive analysis and help.
"It is not too late for President Bush to have the second half of his medical check-up: psychological testing," Dr. Frank says. "After his recent press conference in which he kept talking about finishing the job while attacking Democrats for wanting an exit strategy, Bush showed even more telltale signs of a particular kind of mental disturbance which medical professionals call thought disorder."
Writing in The Huffington Post, Dr. Frank continues:
I had always felt that his inability to respond to crisis, as seen in his response to 9/11 and Katrina and Israel's bombing of Lebanon, was because he suffered from something called affective flooding, where overwhelming anxiety paralyzes any ability to think or even function. Such a response is similar to denial but writ large. Those who observe the president at such moments - thanks to smuggled film clips and his historic April 2004 press conference when he was asked if he had made any mistakes as president - see that he starts rapid blinking movements before his eyes glaze over and become almost fixed in a blank, mindless stare. This massive disconnection from inner self and outer world is called "splitting."
But a recent press conference (August 21, 2006) showed that when he is in control he is not flooded in this way. Rather, his splitting takes the form of hatred of reality. I use the term hatred purposefully. When he was pushed by a few increasingly frustrated reporters, he behaves like the untreated alcoholic he is - summarily dismissing material reality.
When offered a chance to re-think the Iraq war he becomes obstreperous, using sarcasm to both mask and express his internal rage at being challenged. When back in control he patronizes members of what he calls the "Democrat" party, saying that they are "good people" and that he doesn't question their patriotism. In control he is a poor man's Cicero, saying what he's not going to say anyway. Reading between the lines, he calls his critics quitters.
All of this behavior is in the service of defending himself against reality - something he actively hates. At times, his attempts to ward off reality make him appear stupid. He is not. Rather, internal and external realities are too threatening for him to face. When asked whether he had been surprised or frustrated by all the bad news from Baghdad he didn't even understand the question. This is because the very act of facing such questions threatens to destroy his tenaciously held preconceptions. This he cannot risk; he employs various coping mechanisms to attack such questions in any way he can. Instead of acknowledging personal frustration he said that the war must be frustrating for the national psyche. But his hatred of reality required a more violent approach - the day after his conference he sent more of those poor marines back into a world of horror.
His ability to dismiss reality is profound - more than the simple method used by his mother Barbara, who said she wasn't going to watch the TV news during the war because watching body bags would spoil her "beautiful mind". No, he has a rugged inner strength - unless confronted by surprise - that enables him to dismiss and destroy personal perception.
His mental pulse needs to be taken, not just his physical one. I think that what prevents his doctors from doing so is their fear of what they'd find. Without such an examination, we are left with no medical terms to describe his mental functioning, his private global war on terror which extends to attacks on his own capacity to perceive reality. I have not examined the President, so it is not proper for me to offer a diagnosis. However, my observations lead me to believe that he is psychotic.
September 5, 2006
An increasing number of Republicans, ranging from former conservative Congressman Joe Scarborough to former President George H.W. Bush, worry that President George W. Bush's tenuous hold on reality is slipping away and the leader of the free world may be sliding into a full-fledged mental breakdown.
Scarborough sounded the warning recently when he devoted an episode of his MSNBC talk show to the topic "Is Bush an Idiot?" Other published reports say Bush's own father is worried about his son's mental state. Psychiatrists who have observed Bush during his presidency share this concern.
Bush family insiders say the former President's concern over his son's mental state was a primary reason why the President made a rare appearance at the family home in Connecticut during August. Bush rarely visits his father. In fact, NBC news anchor Brian Williams recently reported that former President Bill Clinton, who defeated the elder Bush after one term, visits his former rival more often.
White House aides point to the President's increasingly bizarre behavior: an inpromptu "massage" of a foreign leader at the recent G8 conference, his penchant for farting in front of new West Wing aides and his rambling, often incoherent answers to reporters' questions.
John Dean, the White House counsel who helped bring down another deranged President: Richard M. Nixon, shares the concern.
In his book, Conservatives Without Conscience, Dean calls Republican-controlled Washington a bullying, manipulative, prejudiced leadership edging the nation toward a dark era.
"We have returned to the imperial presidency (that existed in the Nixon era)," Dean says. "We have an unchecked presidency."
"Are we on the road to fascism?" he adds. "Clearly, we are not on that road yet. But it would not take much more misguided authoritarian leadership, or thoughtless following of such leaders, to find ourselves there.
"I am not sure which is more frightening," he adds, "another major terror attack or the response of authoritarian conservatives to that attack."
Dr. Justin Frank, the prominent George Washington University psychiatrist who wrote Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President, says Bush has lost touch with reality:
With every passing week, President Bush marches deeper and deeper into a world of his own making. Central to Bush's world is an iron will which demands that external reality be changed to conform to his personal view of how things are.
As far as Bush is concerned, he is telling the truth; as Madeleine Albright recently said to Columbia Magazine: "the most serious problem is that George Bush now believes what he says." Like many of my hospitalized patients, Bush has created a vast, detailed but vague delusional system he feels compelled to maintain at all costs. This system helps him manage the terrifying anxiety that threatens to make his already endangered inner world more chaotic.
Psychoanalytic theory suggests that Bush's true enemy is an aspect of himself -- the overwhelming anxiety he works so hard to manage. For Bush, lying remains a central defense mechanism in managing his fears; he lies foremost to himself, altering his perception of external or internal reality to fulfill his psychic need to maintain order. His anxiety is so great that he cannot shift his thinking to account for new information --especially the fact that patriotic families of patriotic soldiers demand that he speak with them.
Taking responsibility has always been hard for George W. Bush. And taking responsibility for inflicting harm on others, a major step in the development of maturity, is a step President Bush has yet to make. Instead, he persists in lying to himself, surrounding himself with people who agree with him. And now he is not safe even inside his own closed circle.
Writes Jeffrey Steinberg in the Lyndon LaRouche scandal sheet Executive Intelligence Review:
"The word is circulating in high-level Republican Party circles that former President George H.W. Bush is profoundly worried about the mental state of his son, the current President."
Ordinarily, it is easy to dismiss a report from such a source but others with credible track records are backing up parts of the EIS report.
Dr, Frank has studied Bush's actions and personality extensively and believes the President needs extensive analysis and help.
"It is not too late for President Bush to have the second half of his medical check-up: psychological testing," Dr. Frank says. "After his recent press conference in which he kept talking about finishing the job while attacking Democrats for wanting an exit strategy, Bush showed even more telltale signs of a particular kind of mental disturbance which medical professionals call thought disorder."
Writing in The Huffington Post, Dr. Frank continues:
I had always felt that his inability to respond to crisis, as seen in his response to 9/11 and Katrina and Israel's bombing of Lebanon, was because he suffered from something called affective flooding, where overwhelming anxiety paralyzes any ability to think or even function. Such a response is similar to denial but writ large. Those who observe the president at such moments - thanks to smuggled film clips and his historic April 2004 press conference when he was asked if he had made any mistakes as president - see that he starts rapid blinking movements before his eyes glaze over and become almost fixed in a blank, mindless stare. This massive disconnection from inner self and outer world is called "splitting."
But a recent press conference (August 21, 2006) showed that when he is in control he is not flooded in this way. Rather, his splitting takes the form of hatred of reality. I use the term hatred purposefully. When he was pushed by a few increasingly frustrated reporters, he behaves like the untreated alcoholic he is - summarily dismissing material reality.
When offered a chance to re-think the Iraq war he becomes obstreperous, using sarcasm to both mask and express his internal rage at being challenged. When back in control he patronizes members of what he calls the "Democrat" party, saying that they are "good people" and that he doesn't question their patriotism. In control he is a poor man's Cicero, saying what he's not going to say anyway. Reading between the lines, he calls his critics quitters.
All of this behavior is in the service of defending himself against reality - something he actively hates. At times, his attempts to ward off reality make him appear stupid. He is not. Rather, internal and external realities are too threatening for him to face. When asked whether he had been surprised or frustrated by all the bad news from Baghdad he didn't even understand the question. This is because the very act of facing such questions threatens to destroy his tenaciously held preconceptions. This he cannot risk; he employs various coping mechanisms to attack such questions in any way he can. Instead of acknowledging personal frustration he said that the war must be frustrating for the national psyche. But his hatred of reality required a more violent approach - the day after his conference he sent more of those poor marines back into a world of horror.
His ability to dismiss reality is profound - more than the simple method used by his mother Barbara, who said she wasn't going to watch the TV news during the war because watching body bags would spoil her "beautiful mind". No, he has a rugged inner strength - unless confronted by surprise - that enables him to dismiss and destroy personal perception.
His mental pulse needs to be taken, not just his physical one. I think that what prevents his doctors from doing so is their fear of what they'd find. Without such an examination, we are left with no medical terms to describe his mental functioning, his private global war on terror which extends to attacks on his own capacity to perceive reality. I have not examined the President, so it is not proper for me to offer a diagnosis. However, my observations lead me to believe that he is psychotic.
posted by Ukulele Man at 11:34 PM
1 comments
links to this post
"Ah can help git more opportun'ties for your discontented unemployed"
"Ah'm tight with Burger King an' WAL-MART !!"
posted by Ukulele Man at 9:49 AM
0 comments
links to this post
A Thoughtful Response - Number II
Hey Folks,
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting (click above to see the entire comment). I think it deserves a thoughtful response. Here is Part II.
My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
The Saudi economy is so completely dependent on oil now that opportunities for livelihoods in that country which are unrelated to petroleum are few and far between, which is just one of the causes of great discontent for the educated young engineers and natural scientists who study abroad, specifically in the midst of Western prosperity, and return home to a country that cannot offer decent employment opportunities. When young people have no significant work to do, it's convenient for them to hang together and cook up resentments, schemes and activities that give meaning to their lives. Like blowing up American and Western interests.
Well, it seems strange to hear that Saudi Arabia and Venezuela - BECAUSE they are blessed with tremendous amounts of oil – are doomed to unemployment and terrorism. What if they were similarly blessed (damned??) with other natural resources like gold or diamonds? It seems to me that it is GOOD to have abundant resources, and that if a country goes bad, such as Saudi Arabia, it isn’t the oil’s fault.
No, actually, it is the kind of government Chavez claims to oppose that brought trouble to the Saudi upper crust and to us via the terrorists. It’s exactly the pattern I described in one of my postings.
A cooperative minority is set up, enriched and protected by a foreign imperialist power who, in return is granted carte blanche to suck riches out of the country – at the expense of the people.
In Saudi Arabia the elite allowed/encouraged hateful religious teachings demonizing the West and others purposefully to keep their people focused on boogey men rather than on the real cause of their suffering: the self-serving elite.
Actually, it was western imperialism and the elite rule it engendered that produced the 9-11 disaster – not an abundance of oil.
I also find a number of incongruities in the comment that for “educated young engineers and natural scientists who study abroad … and return home to a country that cannot offer decent employment opportunities … it's convenient for them to hang together and cook up resentments … Like blowing up American and Western interests.”
First of all, Osama Bin Laden wasn’t unemployed, nor was he upset because of his employment opportunities. The leader of this mess was a wealthy playboy who was pissed off, essentially, because HE wanted to be George Bush bullying the world, but wasn’t.
Secondly, worrying about the hurt feelings and resentment of well-to-do Western-trained engineers and scientists belies an elitist vision that sheds tears for the relative minor difficulties of the “special” few while totally denying the squalor of the vast majority.
Moreover, it reaks of blackmail. The argument goes: unless you take care of the elite, they will blow up the West. The real fear of the elite is the resentment and anger of their mistreated masses being turned on THEM.
They did everything they could, legally and illegally – some things with the help of the US – to get rid of Chavez. So far they have failed, but they won’t stop trying, and Chavez is courageous to spit in their faces.
- Uke Man
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting (click above to see the entire comment). I think it deserves a thoughtful response. Here is Part II.
My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
The Saudi economy is so completely dependent on oil now that opportunities for livelihoods in that country which are unrelated to petroleum are few and far between, which is just one of the causes of great discontent for the educated young engineers and natural scientists who study abroad, specifically in the midst of Western prosperity, and return home to a country that cannot offer decent employment opportunities. When young people have no significant work to do, it's convenient for them to hang together and cook up resentments, schemes and activities that give meaning to their lives. Like blowing up American and Western interests.
Well, it seems strange to hear that Saudi Arabia and Venezuela - BECAUSE they are blessed with tremendous amounts of oil – are doomed to unemployment and terrorism. What if they were similarly blessed (damned??) with other natural resources like gold or diamonds? It seems to me that it is GOOD to have abundant resources, and that if a country goes bad, such as Saudi Arabia, it isn’t the oil’s fault.
No, actually, it is the kind of government Chavez claims to oppose that brought trouble to the Saudi upper crust and to us via the terrorists. It’s exactly the pattern I described in one of my postings.
A cooperative minority is set up, enriched and protected by a foreign imperialist power who, in return is granted carte blanche to suck riches out of the country – at the expense of the people.
In Saudi Arabia the elite allowed/encouraged hateful religious teachings demonizing the West and others purposefully to keep their people focused on boogey men rather than on the real cause of their suffering: the self-serving elite.
Actually, it was western imperialism and the elite rule it engendered that produced the 9-11 disaster – not an abundance of oil.
I also find a number of incongruities in the comment that for “educated young engineers and natural scientists who study abroad … and return home to a country that cannot offer decent employment opportunities … it's convenient for them to hang together and cook up resentments … Like blowing up American and Western interests.”
First of all, Osama Bin Laden wasn’t unemployed, nor was he upset because of his employment opportunities. The leader of this mess was a wealthy playboy who was pissed off, essentially, because HE wanted to be George Bush bullying the world, but wasn’t.
Secondly, worrying about the hurt feelings and resentment of well-to-do Western-trained engineers and scientists belies an elitist vision that sheds tears for the relative minor difficulties of the “special” few while totally denying the squalor of the vast majority.
Moreover, it reaks of blackmail. The argument goes: unless you take care of the elite, they will blow up the West. The real fear of the elite is the resentment and anger of their mistreated masses being turned on THEM.
They did everything they could, legally and illegally – some things with the help of the US – to get rid of Chavez. So far they have failed, but they won’t stop trying, and Chavez is courageous to spit in their faces.
- Uke Man
posted by Ukulele Man at 9:30 AM
0 comments
links to this post
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Uke Man @ Larry's Sat. Night !!!
Hey Folks,
The Uke Man rides again - one more time before taking off for California Dreamin'.
I was invited by my old friends - now known as the Moops! http://www.myspace.com/moopishmusic (check out their site) - to open for them Saturday, Sept. 30 at Larry's http://www.larrysbar.com/index.htm.
I go on at 10:00 for an hour followed by the young'ns.
See you there !!
- Uke Man
The Uke Man rides again - one more time before taking off for California Dreamin'.
I was invited by my old friends - now known as the Moops! http://www.myspace.com/moopishmusic (check out their site) - to open for them Saturday, Sept. 30 at Larry's http://www.larrysbar.com/index.htm.
I go on at 10:00 for an hour followed by the young'ns.
See you there !!
- Uke Man
posted by Ukulele Man at 6:20 PM
1 comments
links to this post
T.J. Hecker of the Moops!! & the Uke Man at Comfest
posted by Ukulele Man at 6:19 PM
0 comments
links to this post
Pope Cookies
99% doctrinally pure !!!
posted by Ukulele Man at 9:12 AM
0 comments
links to this post
What does one make of this?
Pope excommunicates Zambian archbishop
by Martine Nouaille Tue Sep 26, 12:49 PM ET
(a ukethanks to Sondra)
VATICAN CITY (AFP) - A Zambian archbishop, who stunned the Roman Catholic Church in 2001 by getting married in a mass "Moony" ceremony, has been excommunicated for ordaining four married men as bishops, the Vatican has said.
Milingo, who has a fondness for carrying out exorcisms and advocates optional celibacy for Roman Catholic priests, was excommunicated because of "his increasing split" with church regulations and for "sowing division and disarray among the faithful," Tuesday's statement said.
The archbishop ordained the four men in Washington on Sunday, despite what the Vatican said were several attempts by the Holy See to dissuade him otherwise.
The excommunication was carried out "latae sententiae" (literally "by the law itself") -- an automatic expulsion resulting from serious violation of canonical law.
Other offences incurring such a severe penalty include heresy, apostasy, schism, violence against the pope and procuring abortion.
Milingo, 76, was archbishop of Lusaka from 1969 until 1983, when the Vatican asked him to resign because he refused to stop using rituals that were judged to be inconsistent with Catholic teaching.
In 2001, he shocked the Catholic establishment by marrying a Korean acupuncturist in a mass wedding ceremony in New York presided over by Reverend Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church.
Under threat of excommunication from the pope at the time, John Paul II, Milingo renounced the marriage two and a half months later and said he had decided to return to the church.
The Vatican sent him on a year's retreat to a religious order in Argentina, after which he spent four years at a spiritual centre in Zagarolo, east of Rome, where his activities were closely monitored.
He reportedly disappeared from Zagarolo in July, only to turn up days later at a press conference in Washington to announce the formation of "Married Priests Now!" -- a group aimed at defending the rights of Catholic priests to wed.
The Roman Catholic Church requires that all priests be celibate and any choosing to marry must first leave the priesthood.
Born in 1930 in a village in eastern Zambia, Milingo became a Catholic priest at age 28.
Famous across Africa for his radio broadcasts, the Zambian preacher was nominated Archbishop of Lusaka at age 39, a post he held for 14 years before falling out of favor with the Vatican over his activities as a healer and an exorcist.
He was recalled to Rome in 1983 but managed to keep his rank of archbishop.
Later, in his autobiography "The Healer of Souls, " he accused the Vatican of "kidnapping" him and forcing him to live for months -- "like a prisoner" -- in a monastery.
At one point, he even managed to record a couple of music albums, the first entitled "Gubudu Gubudu" ("The Drunkard") and the second an eponymous album dedicated to the continuing battle against evil.
by Martine Nouaille Tue Sep 26, 12:49 PM ET
(a ukethanks to Sondra)
VATICAN CITY (AFP) - A Zambian archbishop, who stunned the Roman Catholic Church in 2001 by getting married in a mass "Moony" ceremony, has been excommunicated for ordaining four married men as bishops, the Vatican has said.
Milingo, who has a fondness for carrying out exorcisms and advocates optional celibacy for Roman Catholic priests, was excommunicated because of "his increasing split" with church regulations and for "sowing division and disarray among the faithful," Tuesday's statement said.
The archbishop ordained the four men in Washington on Sunday, despite what the Vatican said were several attempts by the Holy See to dissuade him otherwise.
The excommunication was carried out "latae sententiae" (literally "by the law itself") -- an automatic expulsion resulting from serious violation of canonical law.
Other offences incurring such a severe penalty include heresy, apostasy, schism, violence against the pope and procuring abortion.
Milingo, 76, was archbishop of Lusaka from 1969 until 1983, when the Vatican asked him to resign because he refused to stop using rituals that were judged to be inconsistent with Catholic teaching.
In 2001, he shocked the Catholic establishment by marrying a Korean acupuncturist in a mass wedding ceremony in New York presided over by Reverend Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church.
Under threat of excommunication from the pope at the time, John Paul II, Milingo renounced the marriage two and a half months later and said he had decided to return to the church.
The Vatican sent him on a year's retreat to a religious order in Argentina, after which he spent four years at a spiritual centre in Zagarolo, east of Rome, where his activities were closely monitored.
He reportedly disappeared from Zagarolo in July, only to turn up days later at a press conference in Washington to announce the formation of "Married Priests Now!" -- a group aimed at defending the rights of Catholic priests to wed.
The Roman Catholic Church requires that all priests be celibate and any choosing to marry must first leave the priesthood.
Born in 1930 in a village in eastern Zambia, Milingo became a Catholic priest at age 28.
Famous across Africa for his radio broadcasts, the Zambian preacher was nominated Archbishop of Lusaka at age 39, a post he held for 14 years before falling out of favor with the Vatican over his activities as a healer and an exorcist.
He was recalled to Rome in 1983 but managed to keep his rank of archbishop.
Later, in his autobiography "The Healer of Souls, " he accused the Vatican of "kidnapping" him and forcing him to live for months -- "like a prisoner" -- in a monastery.
At one point, he even managed to record a couple of music albums, the first entitled "Gubudu Gubudu" ("The Drunkard") and the second an eponymous album dedicated to the continuing battle against evil.
posted by Ukulele Man at 9:07 AM
1 comments
links to this post
There was a whole lot of foreign investment in Africa
when the Europeans owned it.
posted by Ukulele Man at 12:54 AM
0 comments
links to this post
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
A Thoughtful Response - Part I
Hey Folks,
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting (click above to see the entire comment). I think it deserves a thoughtful response. Here is Part I. My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
According to a group of interviews conducted by Benjamin Dangl on Alternet (www.alternet.org): "Venezuelan people have not become richer with Chavez, but the poor are now happy to see the rich become poorer," he continued. "Rich people are poorer because with Chavez's politics we are buying more things from the exterior than we produce at home. There are also fewer investments in the country due to fears investors have about unclear policies and an insecure economic future in Venezuela ... I think there is a movement to 'Cubanize' many sectors of Venezuela. This is impossible because there is not an ideological or philosophical revolution going on here. It is just populism." It's nice to have an opinion, but it's good to do homework on that opinion.
I’m sorry, I tried but I could not find the specific interviews referenced here. We soldier on.
There is a lot to consider in this paragraph. First is the thought that I should do my homework on my opinion; which assumes I haven’t.
Well, I don’t claim to be an expert or a scholar, BUT I have been following the Venezuelan situation for a long time. In addition to reading the regular and alternative press, I’ve attended a meeting at Ohio State University where the issues were discussed and debated by a spectrum of people, including well-to-do Venezuelans.
Whether that constitutes ENOUGH homework is open to debate.
Secondly, it seems clear from the quotation, that the evidence challenging my “opinion” is itself opinion. What does it mean: "Venezuelan people have not become richer with Chavez”? Before Chavez, 80% of the people were poor. Who would expect them to suddenly be “rich”? The question is “Are they better off?” Based on several elections, it seems the majority of the people think they are. Maybe not rich, but better off. And “the poor are now happy to see the rich become poorer” certainly hasn’t been demonstrated as anything more than opinion (although I think it’s a safe bet that the rich aren’t happy).
What is the sense of "Rich people are poorer because with Chavez's politics we are buying more things from the exterior than we produce at home”? If a negative balance of payments constitutes poverty, then the United States is in BIG trouble.
Then there’s: “There are also fewer investments in the country due to fears investors have about unclear policies and an insecure economic future in Venezuela.”
Well, sure. But that’s how economic imperialism works. Foreign imperialists will invest in your country, and if you play ball, allowing THEM to enrich themselves at the expense of your countrymen, they’ll take care of YOU, the top 20% or so.
But if you drop the ball, they lose interest, stop or withdraw their investments, and make life tougher for YOU until the rabble gets whipped back into shape. The “insecure economic future” is pressing on international capitalists and definitely on their Venezuelan collaborators, but – at the worst – no more on the poor than before Chavez. AND, with a government acting as if it cares more about the masses than the elite, there IS hope of the people’s lot being improved, certainly more so than under the old elite policies.
My History homework informs me that a rich minority hates any changes that threaten their favored position, and will say and do just about anything to preserve it (e.g. see Iraqi Sunnis or the Family of Saud ).
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting (click above to see the entire comment). I think it deserves a thoughtful response. Here is Part I. My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
According to a group of interviews conducted by Benjamin Dangl on Alternet (www.alternet.org): "Venezuelan people have not become richer with Chavez, but the poor are now happy to see the rich become poorer," he continued. "Rich people are poorer because with Chavez's politics we are buying more things from the exterior than we produce at home. There are also fewer investments in the country due to fears investors have about unclear policies and an insecure economic future in Venezuela ... I think there is a movement to 'Cubanize' many sectors of Venezuela. This is impossible because there is not an ideological or philosophical revolution going on here. It is just populism." It's nice to have an opinion, but it's good to do homework on that opinion.
I’m sorry, I tried but I could not find the specific interviews referenced here. We soldier on.
There is a lot to consider in this paragraph. First is the thought that I should do my homework on my opinion; which assumes I haven’t.
Well, I don’t claim to be an expert or a scholar, BUT I have been following the Venezuelan situation for a long time. In addition to reading the regular and alternative press, I’ve attended a meeting at Ohio State University where the issues were discussed and debated by a spectrum of people, including well-to-do Venezuelans.
Whether that constitutes ENOUGH homework is open to debate.
Secondly, it seems clear from the quotation, that the evidence challenging my “opinion” is itself opinion. What does it mean: "Venezuelan people have not become richer with Chavez”? Before Chavez, 80% of the people were poor. Who would expect them to suddenly be “rich”? The question is “Are they better off?” Based on several elections, it seems the majority of the people think they are. Maybe not rich, but better off. And “the poor are now happy to see the rich become poorer” certainly hasn’t been demonstrated as anything more than opinion (although I think it’s a safe bet that the rich aren’t happy).
What is the sense of "Rich people are poorer because with Chavez's politics we are buying more things from the exterior than we produce at home”? If a negative balance of payments constitutes poverty, then the United States is in BIG trouble.
Then there’s: “There are also fewer investments in the country due to fears investors have about unclear policies and an insecure economic future in Venezuela.”
Well, sure. But that’s how economic imperialism works. Foreign imperialists will invest in your country, and if you play ball, allowing THEM to enrich themselves at the expense of your countrymen, they’ll take care of YOU, the top 20% or so.
But if you drop the ball, they lose interest, stop or withdraw their investments, and make life tougher for YOU until the rabble gets whipped back into shape. The “insecure economic future” is pressing on international capitalists and definitely on their Venezuelan collaborators, but – at the worst – no more on the poor than before Chavez. AND, with a government acting as if it cares more about the masses than the elite, there IS hope of the people’s lot being improved, certainly more so than under the old elite policies.
My History homework informs me that a rich minority hates any changes that threaten their favored position, and will say and do just about anything to preserve it (e.g. see Iraqi Sunnis or the Family of Saud ).
- Uke Man
posted by Ukulele Man at 6:57 PM
0 comments
links to this post
Fun & Music at Tommy Keegan's last Saturday
posted by Ukulele Man at 10:39 AM
0 comments
links to this post
Music & Fun at Tommy Keegan's last Saturday
posted by Ukulele Man at 10:28 AM
1 comments
links to this post
Keith Olbermann speaks up again
Hey Folks,
In case you missed it, here's Keith Olbermann, a sane voice speaking from within the media asylum:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3&p=News_Comment%20-%20Analysis&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/&fg=
- Uke Man
In case you missed it, here's Keith Olbermann, a sane voice speaking from within the media asylum:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=9c610738-4147-4473-a432-e779a609bae3&p=News_Comment%20-%20Analysis&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15004160/&fg=
- Uke Man
posted by Ukulele Man at 9:22 AM
2 comments
links to this post
Monday, September 25, 2006
A thoughtful comment that deserves a response
Hey Folks,
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting. I think it deserves a thoughtful response. That would take more space than is appropriate for one posting; so, I’m reprinting the comment first, and then will reply over several postings, part by part.
- Uke Man
Anonymous said...
Hi Tom,
You might not be able to think of many things that Chavez has done against many Venezuelans, but you might [not] be doing much research on the subject either.
According to a group of interviews conducted by Benjamin Dangl on Alternet (www.alternet.org): "Venezuelan people have not become richer with Chavez, but the poor are now happy to see the rich become poorer," he continued. "Rich people are poorer because with Chavez's politics we are buying more things from the exterior than we produce at home. There are also fewer investments in the country due to fears investors have about unclear policies and an insecure economic future in Venezuela ... I think there is a movement to 'Cubanize' many sectors of Venezuela. This is impossible because there is not an ideological or philosophical revolution going on here. It is just populism."
It's nice to have an opinion, but it's good to do homework on that opinion.
The Saudi economy is so completely dependent on oil now that opportunities for livelihoods in that country which are unrelated to petroleum are few and far between, which is just one of the causes of great and discontent for the educated young engineers and natural scientists who study abroad, specifically in the midst of Western prosperity, and return home to a country that cannot offer decent employment opportunities. When young people have no significant work to do, it's convenient for them to hang together and cook up resentments, schemes and activities that give meaning to their lives. Like blowing up American and Western interests.
And as much as you enjoy blogging your opinion, you might not be able to enjoy doing it in Venezuela. In an editorial on January 14 attacking the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the Washington Post wrote, “Mr. Chavez has pushed through a new law that allows the government to fine or shut down private media for vaguely defined offenses against 'public order'.” Something to think about.
And in addition to Chavez aligning himself with an anti-Semitic leader like Ahmadinejad, you might want to ask yourself why he'd want to be pals with someone who is imposing the most primitive right-wing religious government outside of Saudi Arabia on his people. In case you hadn't researched this topic either, Sharia law calls for the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery, premarital sex, and lesser infractions only require the amputation of a hand or foot. Oh, and for all the atheists reading this, under Sharia law, "people of the Book" (Jews and Christians) have a choice of either converting or paying Jizyah (infidel tax), whereas Godless pagans and atheists have only two choices: convert to Islam or die by the sword.
You might want to do a little more research about how "heroic" and "benign" these guys [are] than you seem to be doing at the moment.
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting. I think it deserves a thoughtful response. That would take more space than is appropriate for one posting; so, I’m reprinting the comment first, and then will reply over several postings, part by part.
- Uke Man
Anonymous said...
Hi Tom,
You might not be able to think of many things that Chavez has done against many Venezuelans, but you might [not] be doing much research on the subject either.
According to a group of interviews conducted by Benjamin Dangl on Alternet (www.alternet.org): "Venezuelan people have not become richer with Chavez, but the poor are now happy to see the rich become poorer," he continued. "Rich people are poorer because with Chavez's politics we are buying more things from the exterior than we produce at home. There are also fewer investments in the country due to fears investors have about unclear policies and an insecure economic future in Venezuela ... I think there is a movement to 'Cubanize' many sectors of Venezuela. This is impossible because there is not an ideological or philosophical revolution going on here. It is just populism."
It's nice to have an opinion, but it's good to do homework on that opinion.
The Saudi economy is so completely dependent on oil now that opportunities for livelihoods in that country which are unrelated to petroleum are few and far between, which is just one of the causes of great and discontent for the educated young engineers and natural scientists who study abroad, specifically in the midst of Western prosperity, and return home to a country that cannot offer decent employment opportunities. When young people have no significant work to do, it's convenient for them to hang together and cook up resentments, schemes and activities that give meaning to their lives. Like blowing up American and Western interests.
And as much as you enjoy blogging your opinion, you might not be able to enjoy doing it in Venezuela. In an editorial on January 14 attacking the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the Washington Post wrote, “Mr. Chavez has pushed through a new law that allows the government to fine or shut down private media for vaguely defined offenses against 'public order'.” Something to think about.
And in addition to Chavez aligning himself with an anti-Semitic leader like Ahmadinejad, you might want to ask yourself why he'd want to be pals with someone who is imposing the most primitive right-wing religious government outside of Saudi Arabia on his people. In case you hadn't researched this topic either, Sharia law calls for the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery, premarital sex, and lesser infractions only require the amputation of a hand or foot. Oh, and for all the atheists reading this, under Sharia law, "people of the Book" (Jews and Christians) have a choice of either converting or paying Jizyah (infidel tax), whereas Godless pagans and atheists have only two choices: convert to Islam or die by the sword.
You might want to do a little more research about how "heroic" and "benign" these guys [are] than you seem to be doing at the moment.
posted by Ukulele Man at 3:35 PM
0 comments
links to this post
Vote for Me - I'm Black and rich and Republican
and ... I love Jesus and hate fags too!!
posted by Ukulele Man at 2:53 PM
0 comments
links to this post
What did I say about racism?
Hey Folks,
If you’ve been wondering, as I have, how the Columbus Dispatch would come down on the Ohio goober-natorial race, today its decision was made clear. They’ll be endorsing Blackwell.
Glen Sheller, editorial page editor, made it clear today in one of his rare (read “important”) columns, acting as John the Baptist to the Wolfe family’s Jesus.
In an essay that borders on, or demonstrates, racism – you can decide for yourself – Sheller lays out – albeit between the lines – the Dispatch’s election strategy.
He admits what everyone knows, “a Democratic governor is likely to be more sympathetic to minority demands for [what he calls] government favors [and others call “full citizenship].”
He also reveals the paper’s analysis: “In many elections pitting a black candidate against a white one, the question is whether a majority-white electorate will vote for a black candidate. In this one, the major question is how many blacks will vote for the black candidate. With the chance to elect a governor who looks like them…”
So, since significant numbers of white Republicans aren’t buying Blackwell – whether for his half-baked business/education proposals, his religious zealotry, or because of their own racism - the R’s are forced to look to Blacks to save their ass.
But Republicans can’t sell Blackwell to Blacks on the basis of self-interest – Sheller admits as much. So what’s a desperate editorialist to do?
Play the race card.
Demonize the Civil Rights movement, Jesse Jackson, affirmative action, integration, Black pride, Black colleges, and the "race card"; and go so far as to imply that Dr. King – who is unable now to speak for himself – would rather have Jackson supporting a candidate who will harm Blacks simply because the candidate is Black and “looks like them.”
Pretty sad.
So, Folks, if Las Vegas will take your bet, put all your money on the Dispatch endorsing Blackwell. It’s a done deal.
- Uke Man
Jackson’s jilting of Blackwell brings an unusual juxtaposition to Ohio politics
Monday, September 25, 2006
GLENN SHELLER
(my comments in red)
The modern civil-rights movement has been a roller coaster. It has risen, fallen, turned inside-out and doubled back on itself repeatedly. It has achieved great successes and spawned any number of contradictions, often tying itself and the nation in knots (yeah, but the White nation provided the rope and the jusification).
One decade, black leaders have demanded equality; the next, preferences. At one time, busing for racial balance was imperative; now we’re told, minorities are better served by neighborhood schools.
Once, rubbing elbows with white classmates was expected to improve blacks’ academic performance, but a few years later, this idea is seen as condescending to blacks.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said that ensuring racial diversity on college campuses is an interest so compelling that universities deserve a loophole in anti-discrimination law that allows them to give minority applicants an edge in admissions. Yet even as universities handed out these preferences, students segregated themselves in dormitories, cafeterias and ethnically-based campus associations.
And don’t even mention the compelling interest in diversity when the topic is historically black colleges. These institutions, it is said, are vital because they supply black students with a kind of validation and confidence that is hard for them to find on those integrated campuses where diversity is so compelling.
By now, Americans are so used to — or intellectually paralyzed by such ideological pretzel-twisting ( just because Sheller and others can't understand - or choose to not understand - these supposed contradictions, doesn't make them contradictions; instead it reflects, at best, stupidity and, at worst, self-serving racism) that many didn’t even notice what is perhaps the oddest inversion yet: A major black civil-rights leader is actively campaigning against the first black to ever have a shot at the Ohio governor’s mansion.
That happened right here in Columbus last Monday, when the Rev. Jesse Jackson convened a summit at the King Arts Complex to create a coalition, ostensibly to increase voter turnout and protect us all from attempts to suppress our vote (not that ANYTHING like that could happen in Ohio).
Not that Jackson was naive enough to come right out and say who he supports for Ohio governor. He’s probably well aware that certain other folks whose names are preceded by the Rev. have been accused of violating the federal tax code by demonstrating a preference for one of the gubernatorial candidates, specifically, the black one.
Jackson is for the other candidate, who isn’t black, but he doesn’t want to say so. Instead, he said Ohioans should vote based on ethics, not on ethnicity. "You’ve got to choose leaders based on priorities and public policy," he said. "We’re not arguing race; we’re arguing direction."
That’s quite a statement from a guy whose career has been built on playing the race card. And it’s a historic moment in civil-rights history, when a protégé of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. campaigns to prevent a black candidate from achieving political power. (yeah, supporting a good Black candidate is "playing the race card" and opposing a bad Black candidate is "playing the race card" - spoken like a good White man!)
Of course, Jackson embraces colorblindness only because he knows that a Democratic governor is likely to be more sympathetic to minority demands for government favors than a Republican one, even a black one.
For Jackson, colorblindness is not a principle that one should live and defend, it is a mere political tactic, as temporary as any other. But no surprise there; he has always been an opportunist (but Republicans and the Dispatch - on the other hand - DO live on and defend colorblindedness - that's why Blacks have it made in central Ohio).
Jackson’s statement is fascinating for another reason. In many elections pitting a black candidate against a white one, the question is whether a majority-white electorate will vote for a black candidate. In this one, the major question is how many blacks will vote for the black candidate (Sheller, fails to explain why the Whites can't elect Blackwell). With the chance to elect a governor who looks like them, how many blacks will abandon their traditional allegiance to the Democratic Party? He might have added "Please, please, please, please!!!!!"
This has been a worry for Democrats since J. Kenneth Blackwell entered the governor’s race. Jackson can blather on about vote-stealing conspiracies all day, but his real purpose in Ohio is to keep black voters from defecting to Blackwell (and what is Sheller's real purpose?) . That Jackson and Democrats feel the need to do this indicates a refreshing and encouraging change in the usual racial dynamics.
So, even if for the wrong reasons, Jackson is, in this instance, on the side of the angels. He is calling on Ohio voters to be colorblind, to vote for a political candidate based on his ideas, not the melanin content of his skin. This is the part designed to rebut any charges of racist content - i.e. "Oh, yeah!!! We're just saying all this because - unlike Rev. Jackson - WE really aren't racist in any way and NEVER play the "race card."
Amen, brother Jackson. Amen, brother Sheller.
Glenn Sheller is editorial page editor of The Dispatch.
gsheller@dispatch.com
- Uke Man
If you’ve been wondering, as I have, how the Columbus Dispatch would come down on the Ohio goober-natorial race, today its decision was made clear. They’ll be endorsing Blackwell.
Glen Sheller, editorial page editor, made it clear today in one of his rare (read “important”) columns, acting as John the Baptist to the Wolfe family’s Jesus.
In an essay that borders on, or demonstrates, racism – you can decide for yourself – Sheller lays out – albeit between the lines – the Dispatch’s election strategy.
He admits what everyone knows, “a Democratic governor is likely to be more sympathetic to minority demands for [what he calls] government favors [and others call “full citizenship].”
He also reveals the paper’s analysis: “In many elections pitting a black candidate against a white one, the question is whether a majority-white electorate will vote for a black candidate. In this one, the major question is how many blacks will vote for the black candidate. With the chance to elect a governor who looks like them…”
So, since significant numbers of white Republicans aren’t buying Blackwell – whether for his half-baked business/education proposals, his religious zealotry, or because of their own racism - the R’s are forced to look to Blacks to save their ass.
But Republicans can’t sell Blackwell to Blacks on the basis of self-interest – Sheller admits as much. So what’s a desperate editorialist to do?
Play the race card.
Demonize the Civil Rights movement, Jesse Jackson, affirmative action, integration, Black pride, Black colleges, and the "race card"; and go so far as to imply that Dr. King – who is unable now to speak for himself – would rather have Jackson supporting a candidate who will harm Blacks simply because the candidate is Black and “looks like them.”
Pretty sad.
So, Folks, if Las Vegas will take your bet, put all your money on the Dispatch endorsing Blackwell. It’s a done deal.
- Uke Man
Jackson’s jilting of Blackwell brings an unusual juxtaposition to Ohio politics
Monday, September 25, 2006
GLENN SHELLER
(my comments in red)
The modern civil-rights movement has been a roller coaster. It has risen, fallen, turned inside-out and doubled back on itself repeatedly. It has achieved great successes and spawned any number of contradictions, often tying itself and the nation in knots (yeah, but the White nation provided the rope and the jusification).
One decade, black leaders have demanded equality; the next, preferences. At one time, busing for racial balance was imperative; now we’re told, minorities are better served by neighborhood schools.
Once, rubbing elbows with white classmates was expected to improve blacks’ academic performance, but a few years later, this idea is seen as condescending to blacks.
The U.S. Supreme Court has said that ensuring racial diversity on college campuses is an interest so compelling that universities deserve a loophole in anti-discrimination law that allows them to give minority applicants an edge in admissions. Yet even as universities handed out these preferences, students segregated themselves in dormitories, cafeterias and ethnically-based campus associations.
And don’t even mention the compelling interest in diversity when the topic is historically black colleges. These institutions, it is said, are vital because they supply black students with a kind of validation and confidence that is hard for them to find on those integrated campuses where diversity is so compelling.
By now, Americans are so used to — or intellectually paralyzed by such ideological pretzel-twisting ( just because Sheller and others can't understand - or choose to not understand - these supposed contradictions, doesn't make them contradictions; instead it reflects, at best, stupidity and, at worst, self-serving racism) that many didn’t even notice what is perhaps the oddest inversion yet: A major black civil-rights leader is actively campaigning against the first black to ever have a shot at the Ohio governor’s mansion.
That happened right here in Columbus last Monday, when the Rev. Jesse Jackson convened a summit at the King Arts Complex to create a coalition, ostensibly to increase voter turnout and protect us all from attempts to suppress our vote (not that ANYTHING like that could happen in Ohio).
Not that Jackson was naive enough to come right out and say who he supports for Ohio governor. He’s probably well aware that certain other folks whose names are preceded by the Rev. have been accused of violating the federal tax code by demonstrating a preference for one of the gubernatorial candidates, specifically, the black one.
Jackson is for the other candidate, who isn’t black, but he doesn’t want to say so. Instead, he said Ohioans should vote based on ethics, not on ethnicity. "You’ve got to choose leaders based on priorities and public policy," he said. "We’re not arguing race; we’re arguing direction."
That’s quite a statement from a guy whose career has been built on playing the race card. And it’s a historic moment in civil-rights history, when a protégé of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. campaigns to prevent a black candidate from achieving political power. (yeah, supporting a good Black candidate is "playing the race card" and opposing a bad Black candidate is "playing the race card" - spoken like a good White man!)
Of course, Jackson embraces colorblindness only because he knows that a Democratic governor is likely to be more sympathetic to minority demands for government favors than a Republican one, even a black one.
For Jackson, colorblindness is not a principle that one should live and defend, it is a mere political tactic, as temporary as any other. But no surprise there; he has always been an opportunist (but Republicans and the Dispatch - on the other hand - DO live on and defend colorblindedness - that's why Blacks have it made in central Ohio).
Jackson’s statement is fascinating for another reason. In many elections pitting a black candidate against a white one, the question is whether a majority-white electorate will vote for a black candidate. In this one, the major question is how many blacks will vote for the black candidate (Sheller, fails to explain why the Whites can't elect Blackwell). With the chance to elect a governor who looks like them, how many blacks will abandon their traditional allegiance to the Democratic Party? He might have added "Please, please, please, please!!!!!"
This has been a worry for Democrats since J. Kenneth Blackwell entered the governor’s race. Jackson can blather on about vote-stealing conspiracies all day, but his real purpose in Ohio is to keep black voters from defecting to Blackwell (and what is Sheller's real purpose?) . That Jackson and Democrats feel the need to do this indicates a refreshing and encouraging change in the usual racial dynamics.
So, even if for the wrong reasons, Jackson is, in this instance, on the side of the angels. He is calling on Ohio voters to be colorblind, to vote for a political candidate based on his ideas, not the melanin content of his skin. This is the part designed to rebut any charges of racist content - i.e. "Oh, yeah!!! We're just saying all this because - unlike Rev. Jackson - WE really aren't racist in any way and NEVER play the "race card."
Amen, brother Jackson. Amen, brother Sheller.
Glenn Sheller is editorial page editor of The Dispatch.
gsheller@dispatch.com
- Uke Man
posted by Ukulele Man at 1:02 PM
1 comments
links to this post
If Mike Wallace were dead
He'd be rolling over in his grave.
posted by Ukulele Man at 9:31 AM
1 comments
links to this post
Clinton sticks it to Foxxx News
Hey Folks,
If you missed Clinton getting in Chris Wallace's smug little Foxxx Face, here it is. The entire video is 15:51 long, but the fireworks don't start until 4:06, if you want to skip ahead to that point.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6119737638039170671&q=Clinton+and+Chris+Wallace&hl=en
- Uke Man
If you missed Clinton getting in Chris Wallace's smug little Foxxx Face, here it is. The entire video is 15:51 long, but the fireworks don't start until 4:06, if you want to skip ahead to that point.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6119737638039170671&q=Clinton+and+Chris+Wallace&hl=en
- Uke Man
posted by Ukulele Man at 9:21 AM
1 comments
links to this post
Sunday, September 24, 2006
"Freeway Blogger"
Hey Folks,
For fun and iunspiration . . .
Click here:
http://freewayblogger28.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
- Uke Man
For fun and iunspiration . . .
Click here:
http://freewayblogger28.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
- Uke Man
posted by Ukulele Man at 8:38 PM
0 comments
links to this post
Racism has been defeated !! Yeah, right !! - CLICK the VIDEO
Hey Folks,
Leonard Pitts lays it out there to Black folks about their responsibility to do something about the sorry state of racial discrimination. And I agree with him.
You might think White folks wouldn't need a reminder of their role in creating and maintaining this terrible reality and their responsibility toward correcting it.
Well, think again.
- Uke Man
Blacks deform their own self-image
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
LEONARD PITTS JR.
"Can you show me the doll that looks bad? "
The two baby dolls are identical except that one has pale skin, the other is dark. The little black girl, maybe 5 years old, has been holding up the pale doll, but in response to the question, she puts it down and picks up the other.
"Why does that look bad? " the interviewer asks.
"Because it’s black," the little girl says.
"And why do you think that’s the nice doll? " asks the interviewer, referring to the lightskinned doll.
"Because she’s white."
"And can you give me the doll that looks like you? "
The dark-skinned girl reaches for the light-skinned doll, jiggling it as if she really wants to pick it up. In the end, with palpable reluctance, she pushes the black doll forward.
You might be forgiven for thinking you have happened upon one of the "doll tests" conducted by psychologist Kenneth Clark beginning in the late 1930s, tests that helped persuade the Supreme Court to strike down segregation in its Brown vs. Board of Education decision. But this is a new doll test, conducted by Kiri Davis, a 17-year-old high-school student from New York City, for A Girl Like Me, her short film about black girls and standards of beauty. You can see it at http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=A+Girl+Like+Me+Kiri+Davis&search=Search . But be warned: if you have a heart, the new doll test will break it.
Hard upon mourning, though, will come outrage. How is this possible? How can this still be true? How in the hell, a lifetime after a little boy in Arkansas pointed to the black doll and said, "That’s a nigger . .. I’m a nigger," can we still have black children who think black and bad are synonymous?
Some of us were born of the generation that came of age with a mandate to hurl that thinking back onto history’s trash heap. Some of us remember when James Brown sang Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud. Some of us knew that when Aretha Franklin spelled out respect, she wasn’t just talking to a feckless lover. Some of us piled Afros high on our heads and sprayed them with Afro Sheen till they shone. Some of us clenched our fists and cried "Black is beautiful" in the face of a nation that had always told us you could be one or the other, but never both.
And for what? So that 40 years later, our children would still parrot media-derived lies of their own worthlessness? What’s appalling is that many of the lies now originate with black people themselves.
That’s not to let white people off the hook. The simple arithmetic of majority/minority means that under the best of circumstances, a child of color will always see fewer images of people like her in media. And the white makers and gatekeepers of those fewer images have historically weighted them toward ineffectuality, hyper sexuality, native criminality and plain ignorance.
What’s different now is that blacks are, themselves, often the makers and gatekeepers. And under our aegis the images have, if many ways, gotten worse.
To surf the video channels is to be immersed in black culture as conceived by a new generation, a lionization of pimps and gold-diggers, hustlers and thugs who toss the N-word with a gusto that would do the Klan proud. A new generation, afflicted with historical amnesia, blind indifference and a worship of filthy lucre, dances a metaphorical buck and wing, eyes rolling, yassuh bossing, selling itself out, selling its forebears out. Most of all, selling the children out.
And it’s little excuse to say we’re only buying lies we have internalized, lies that become self-fulfilling prophecy. That’s all well and good, but the moment you’re able to understand that you’ve been lied to is the moment you bear responsibility for promulgating some truth in reply. That too few of us are willing to accept that responsibility is driven home every time one of those black children chooses a white doll.
We’ve spent 387 years in this country trying to get white folks to love us. Might help if we first learned to love ourselves.
Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald.
lpitts@herald.com
Leonard Pitts lays it out there to Black folks about their responsibility to do something about the sorry state of racial discrimination. And I agree with him.
You might think White folks wouldn't need a reminder of their role in creating and maintaining this terrible reality and their responsibility toward correcting it.
Well, think again.
- Uke Man
Blacks deform their own self-image
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
LEONARD PITTS JR.
"Can you show me the doll that looks bad? "
The two baby dolls are identical except that one has pale skin, the other is dark. The little black girl, maybe 5 years old, has been holding up the pale doll, but in response to the question, she puts it down and picks up the other.
"Why does that look bad? " the interviewer asks.
"Because it’s black," the little girl says.
"And why do you think that’s the nice doll? " asks the interviewer, referring to the lightskinned doll.
"Because she’s white."
"And can you give me the doll that looks like you? "
The dark-skinned girl reaches for the light-skinned doll, jiggling it as if she really wants to pick it up. In the end, with palpable reluctance, she pushes the black doll forward.
You might be forgiven for thinking you have happened upon one of the "doll tests" conducted by psychologist Kenneth Clark beginning in the late 1930s, tests that helped persuade the Supreme Court to strike down segregation in its Brown vs. Board of Education decision. But this is a new doll test, conducted by Kiri Davis, a 17-year-old high-school student from New York City, for A Girl Like Me, her short film about black girls and standards of beauty. You can see it at http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=A+Girl+Like+Me+Kiri+Davis&search=Search . But be warned: if you have a heart, the new doll test will break it.
Hard upon mourning, though, will come outrage. How is this possible? How can this still be true? How in the hell, a lifetime after a little boy in Arkansas pointed to the black doll and said, "That’s a nigger . .. I’m a nigger," can we still have black children who think black and bad are synonymous?
Some of us were born of the generation that came of age with a mandate to hurl that thinking back onto history’s trash heap. Some of us remember when James Brown sang Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud. Some of us knew that when Aretha Franklin spelled out respect, she wasn’t just talking to a feckless lover. Some of us piled Afros high on our heads and sprayed them with Afro Sheen till they shone. Some of us clenched our fists and cried "Black is beautiful" in the face of a nation that had always told us you could be one or the other, but never both.
And for what? So that 40 years later, our children would still parrot media-derived lies of their own worthlessness? What’s appalling is that many of the lies now originate with black people themselves.
That’s not to let white people off the hook. The simple arithmetic of majority/minority means that under the best of circumstances, a child of color will always see fewer images of people like her in media. And the white makers and gatekeepers of those fewer images have historically weighted them toward ineffectuality, hyper sexuality, native criminality and plain ignorance.
What’s different now is that blacks are, themselves, often the makers and gatekeepers. And under our aegis the images have, if many ways, gotten worse.
To surf the video channels is to be immersed in black culture as conceived by a new generation, a lionization of pimps and gold-diggers, hustlers and thugs who toss the N-word with a gusto that would do the Klan proud. A new generation, afflicted with historical amnesia, blind indifference and a worship of filthy lucre, dances a metaphorical buck and wing, eyes rolling, yassuh bossing, selling itself out, selling its forebears out. Most of all, selling the children out.
And it’s little excuse to say we’re only buying lies we have internalized, lies that become self-fulfilling prophecy. That’s all well and good, but the moment you’re able to understand that you’ve been lied to is the moment you bear responsibility for promulgating some truth in reply. That too few of us are willing to accept that responsibility is driven home every time one of those black children chooses a white doll.
We’ve spent 387 years in this country trying to get white folks to love us. Might help if we first learned to love ourselves.
Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald.
lpitts@herald.com
posted by Ukulele Man at 7:28 PM
1 comments
links to this post
Herbert, Kafka, & Bush - Oh, my!!!
The Kafka Strategy
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
The president seemed about to lose it at times last week. He was fighting with everybody — tenacious reporters frustrated by the absence of straight answers about the treatment of terror suspects; key Republican senators who think it’s crazy for a great country like the U.S. to become a champion of kangaroo courts and the degradation of defendants; even his own former secretary of state, Colin Powell, who worries that the world is coming to “doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”
It seemed that the only people the president wasn’t fighting with were the Democrats, who have gone into a coma, and the yahoos who never had much of a problem with such matters as torture and detention without trial.
As Marvin Gaye once sang, “What’s going on?”
The people at the top are getting scared, that’s what’s going on. The fog of secrecy is lifting, and the Bush administration is frightened to death that it will eventually have to pay a heavy price for the human rights abuses it has ordered or condoned in its so-called war on terror.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to the prisoners seized by the administration, which means that abusing those prisoners — as so many have said for so long — is unquestionably illegal. And there is also the possibility that the Democrats, if they ever wake up, may take control of at least one house of Congress, giving them the kind of subpoena power and oversight that makes the administration tremble.
Bush, Cheney & Co. are desperately trying to hold together a house of cards that is ready to collapse because their strategy and tactics for fighting terrorism were slapped together with no real regard for the rule of law. What we’ve seen over the past few years has been a nightmare version of the United States. Torture? Secret prisons? Capital trials in which key evidence is kept from the accused? That’s the stuff of Kafka, not Madison and Jefferson.
The reason President Bush has been trying so frantically to get Congressional passage of his plan to interrogate and try terror suspects is that he needs its contorted interpretations of the law to keep important cases from falling apart, and to cover the collective keisters of higher-ups who may have authorized or condoned war crimes.
There’s no guarantee that the administration can properly bring to justice even the worst of the bad guys, people like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and 13 other high-profile prisoners who were recently transferred from a secret C.I.A. program to the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. These are men accused of the most heinous of offenses, crimes that would subject them to the death penalty.
But it’s widely believed that some or all of them were tortured. In civilized countries, evidence obtained by torture is inadmissible in a court of law.
The Bush administration would also like to deny terror suspects, even those facing the death penalty, the right to see evidence against them that is classified. This is a concept that is so far beyond the pale it makes most legal scholars gasp.
“We don’t charge people — particularly in capital offenses, but in minor offenses, as well — without letting them see the evidence that is being offered against them,” said Scott Horton, a prominent New York attorney and Columbia law professor who has done extensive human rights work.
“Let’s imagine you’re a prosecutor,” said Mr. Horton. “Are you going to seek the death penalty against someone and convict them and let them be sentenced to death without letting them know what the evidence is against them? No way. What prosecutor wants that?”
One of the biggest concerns of the administration is the possibility of evidence emerging that could lead to charges of war crimes against high-ranking officials. The president and others in the administration have argued that they are seeking changes in the law in order to protect soldiers and ordinary interrogators in the field against war crimes accusations.
But there are already clear guidelines — short of war crimes prosecutions — for dealing with soldiers and civilian interrogators who abuse prisoners. The Abu Ghraib prosecutions are a good example.
The people who would have to worry, if war crimes were found to have been committed, would be those at the top of the command structure who crafted
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
The president seemed about to lose it at times last week. He was fighting with everybody — tenacious reporters frustrated by the absence of straight answers about the treatment of terror suspects; key Republican senators who think it’s crazy for a great country like the U.S. to become a champion of kangaroo courts and the degradation of defendants; even his own former secretary of state, Colin Powell, who worries that the world is coming to “doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.”
It seemed that the only people the president wasn’t fighting with were the Democrats, who have gone into a coma, and the yahoos who never had much of a problem with such matters as torture and detention without trial.
As Marvin Gaye once sang, “What’s going on?”
The people at the top are getting scared, that’s what’s going on. The fog of secrecy is lifting, and the Bush administration is frightened to death that it will eventually have to pay a heavy price for the human rights abuses it has ordered or condoned in its so-called war on terror.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to the prisoners seized by the administration, which means that abusing those prisoners — as so many have said for so long — is unquestionably illegal. And there is also the possibility that the Democrats, if they ever wake up, may take control of at least one house of Congress, giving them the kind of subpoena power and oversight that makes the administration tremble.
Bush, Cheney & Co. are desperately trying to hold together a house of cards that is ready to collapse because their strategy and tactics for fighting terrorism were slapped together with no real regard for the rule of law. What we’ve seen over the past few years has been a nightmare version of the United States. Torture? Secret prisons? Capital trials in which key evidence is kept from the accused? That’s the stuff of Kafka, not Madison and Jefferson.
The reason President Bush has been trying so frantically to get Congressional passage of his plan to interrogate and try terror suspects is that he needs its contorted interpretations of the law to keep important cases from falling apart, and to cover the collective keisters of higher-ups who may have authorized or condoned war crimes.
There’s no guarantee that the administration can properly bring to justice even the worst of the bad guys, people like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and 13 other high-profile prisoners who were recently transferred from a secret C.I.A. program to the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. These are men accused of the most heinous of offenses, crimes that would subject them to the death penalty.
But it’s widely believed that some or all of them were tortured. In civilized countries, evidence obtained by torture is inadmissible in a court of law.
The Bush administration would also like to deny terror suspects, even those facing the death penalty, the right to see evidence against them that is classified. This is a concept that is so far beyond the pale it makes most legal scholars gasp.
“We don’t charge people — particularly in capital offenses, but in minor offenses, as well — without letting them see the evidence that is being offered against them,” said Scott Horton, a prominent New York attorney and Columbia law professor who has done extensive human rights work.
“Let’s imagine you’re a prosecutor,” said Mr. Horton. “Are you going to seek the death penalty against someone and convict them and let them be sentenced to death without letting them know what the evidence is against them? No way. What prosecutor wants that?”
One of the biggest concerns of the administration is the possibility of evidence emerging that could lead to charges of war crimes against high-ranking officials. The president and others in the administration have argued that they are seeking changes in the law in order to protect soldiers and ordinary interrogators in the field against war crimes accusations.
But there are already clear guidelines — short of war crimes prosecutions — for dealing with soldiers and civilian interrogators who abuse prisoners. The Abu Ghraib prosecutions are a good example.
The people who would have to worry, if war crimes were found to have been committed, would be those at the top of the command structure who crafted