When asked by a coworker today how my weekend was I mentioned that I cut the lawn on Saturday, which prompted the response:
"I didn't think any American cut their own lawn these days."
When I asked her what she meant by that (having a fairly good idea what it was), she told me that when she first arrived in the US from Australia, she decided to take a course in Spanish. During the introductions in the initial session of the class she was amazed by some of the reasons stated by other people taking the course:
"I have a maid who doesn't clean the way I'd like her to, so I thought I'd learn how to speak her language so I can tell her what to do..."
"The yard service I have cuts the grass too short and I can't seem to get them to understand how I'd like them to cut it."
My friend said that she and one other person were the only two in the class that didn't have a specific circumstance that motivated them to learn Spanish. They were there just because they wanted to be able to communicate with whoever they came in contact with during the course of an average day for whom English may not be their first language.
But back to my lawn. I told her that working on the yard and the house was empowering and therapeutic for me. People who hire services to do those things are a curiosity to me, unless it's a matter of time or loathing of that sort of work.
The discussion of course morphed into the subject of immigration and how there will most likely never be any serious immigration reform legislation put into place that restricts the influx of labor coming into the US.
The main reason for this is that the jobs that immigrant labor (legal and illegal) do in the US are tasks that the majority of the mainstream population have little desire to take on, like cutting lawns, doing housework, washing dishes, serving fast food, packing poultry and meat, floating sheet rock and roofing houses to name just a few.
If the US were to deport all the illegal immigrants living and working in the country and closed its borders to incoming immigrants the daily workings of the country would be severely hampered. Once things did get going again there would be a noticeable impact on the economy of the US because the people who would most likely be tapped to do all the suddenly worker-less jobs would not be willing to do them for the ridiculously cheap rates that immigrant labor is currently willing to take. Granted, that money would theoretically stay inside the country as opposed to being wired to Mexico or Central America every few weeks, but that would be little consolation to the upper class corporate executive who is having to dole out $100 for the lawn care instead of $25 and pay the maid $14 an hour instead of $6. These new entrants into the service industries that are currently nothing more than a second thought to most because they're so cheap might even get up the gumption to *gasp* organize and demand guaranteed rates and benefits!
No, immigrant labor isn't going anywhere. It's just one more dirty little secret that the elite uber-class likes to use as a lightning rod for galvanizing support but never wants to do anything about as long as it benefits them...
Monday, March 5, 2007
As Concisely As I Can Put It...
The reasons for the introduction of foreign forces in Iraq (WMDs, connections to al Qaeda) have been completely debunked.
The forces in Iraq have not been given the resources to achieve the mission that they have been tasked with. The administration has displayed very little ability to provide these resources. One might even go so far as to say that these resources are being withheld so as to facilitate a situation which can be used to justify the continued presence of these forces indefinitely, and even the expansion of them ("surges").
The mission in Iraq is a flawed one that has not been defined, neither initially or over the course of four years of redefinition and renaming.
The continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq is only further intensifying frustration on the part of the Iraqis. All they see is an occupation that has no foreseeable end and policies being put into place that will strip the Iraqi people of any significant claim to the natural resources of the country.
The answer to the question of whether more terrorists will be created in Iraq if the US withdraws now has to be closely compared to the answer to the question of how many terrorists and insurgents are being created and emboldened by the presence of the US right now. At best, it's a push. More likely, it's worse now than it would be if and when the occupying forces are withdrawn.
The forces in Iraq have not been given the resources to achieve the mission that they have been tasked with. The administration has displayed very little ability to provide these resources. One might even go so far as to say that these resources are being withheld so as to facilitate a situation which can be used to justify the continued presence of these forces indefinitely, and even the expansion of them ("surges").
The mission in Iraq is a flawed one that has not been defined, neither initially or over the course of four years of redefinition and renaming.
The continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq is only further intensifying frustration on the part of the Iraqis. All they see is an occupation that has no foreseeable end and policies being put into place that will strip the Iraqi people of any significant claim to the natural resources of the country.
The answer to the question of whether more terrorists will be created in Iraq if the US withdraws now has to be closely compared to the answer to the question of how many terrorists and insurgents are being created and emboldened by the presence of the US right now. At best, it's a push. More likely, it's worse now than it would be if and when the occupying forces are withdrawn.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
"I expect to die in a concentration camp..."
Paul Craig Roberts was the second guest on The Sunday Monitor tonight. He had some interesting things to say about the Neoconservative movement
and how it has very little in common with the values of traditional conservativism and The Republican Party of the post war 20th century. He espouses that the conservative movement has been usurped by the Neoconservatives and twisted to serve its agenda.
I didn't agree with everything he had to say about this:
"many of these grievances, it's the fault of the left. Even now, they the left can't seem to understand that we're all in grave danger and they need to stop waving the red flag in front of these peoples' face, but they don't. I'm not blaming the Left, I'm blaming the failure of conservatism."
That's not exactly what I heard initially. At the very least, Mr. Roberts would seem to be blaming the 'failure of conservatism' equally with the Left, and at most, his words could be seen as laying the blame for the failure on the Left.
When Mark asked for an example of the 'red flag' issues that Mr. Roberts alluded to the first (and only) example he came up with was:
"Homosexuality. If the Homosexuals had simply been quiet, I think they would have been tolerated.But they had to go get in your face about everything."
Quiet like the Abolitionists were in the mid 19th century, or organized labor activists and Suffragists were in the early 20th century? How about the activists for civil rights in the 1960's and women's rights in the 1970's? One of the bedrock foundations of the identity of America and what sets it apart (at least in theory nowadays) from the rest of the world is that every citizen has the right to express their desire for redress concerning any issue they feel passionate about. Be quiet? That's never gotten anyone anywhere. If you need a recent glaring example, look at Germany from 1933-1945.
To his credit, Mr. Roberts does acknowledge the importance of and current erosion of
the civil right guaranteed (at least on paper) to every citizen by the Constitution. However, I find it difficult to reconcile my viewpoint on the Neoconservative movement and how it got to where it is today with the fact that Gay Rights activists made their case to their representatives and got legislation passed in some states and also, more importantly, brought the issue to the forefront of the American public. The indirect results of this haven't been so positive (the issue was used to galvanize voters and most likely put the Shrub in the White House for a second term), but that has more to do with the diabolical genius of Karl Rove and the Republican machine he has his hand on the throttle of (a least until last November--he may (or may not) have been relagated to navigation duties from the shotgun (I don't like using that word when referring to any Republican) seat).
Mr Roberts states a little later in the interview that:
"the Left creates issues that these people [the neocons] use to solidify support for attacks on civil liberties. I think that what we should all do is to sit back and realize that the most important thing is the civil liberties. It's not Homosexual marriage, or abortion or any particular issue. It's our civil liberties, and we don't do anything to jeopardize them because they're already so jeopardized. In fact, we've essentially lost them with the war on terror."
This is one of the most direct statements on this issue I have heard since the Homeland Security Act and the Military Commissions Act were passed following 9/11. The administration is fond of saying that the terrorists "hate our way of life and want to see it destroyed." This is a bunch of smoke and mirrors that have been employed to give the current leadership carte blanche to do whatever they see fit to do in order to achieve the main Neoconservative pillar (italics are mine):
and how it has very little in common with the values of traditional conservativism and The Republican Party of the post war 20th century. He espouses that the conservative movement has been usurped by the Neoconservatives and twisted to serve its agenda.
I didn't agree with everything he had to say about this:
"many of these grievances, it's the fault of the left. Even now, they the left can't seem to understand that we're all in grave danger and they need to stop waving the red flag in front of these peoples' face, but they don't. I'm not blaming the Left, I'm blaming the failure of conservatism."
That's not exactly what I heard initially. At the very least, Mr. Roberts would seem to be blaming the 'failure of conservatism' equally with the Left, and at most, his words could be seen as laying the blame for the failure on the Left.
When Mark asked for an example of the 'red flag' issues that Mr. Roberts alluded to the first (and only) example he came up with was:
"Homosexuality. If the Homosexuals had simply been quiet, I think they would have been tolerated.But they had to go get in your face about everything."
Quiet like the Abolitionists were in the mid 19th century, or organized labor activists and Suffragists were in the early 20th century? How about the activists for civil rights in the 1960's and women's rights in the 1970's? One of the bedrock foundations of the identity of America and what sets it apart (at least in theory nowadays) from the rest of the world is that every citizen has the right to express their desire for redress concerning any issue they feel passionate about. Be quiet? That's never gotten anyone anywhere. If you need a recent glaring example, look at Germany from 1933-1945.
To his credit, Mr. Roberts does acknowledge the importance of and current erosion of
the civil right guaranteed (at least on paper) to every citizen by the Constitution. However, I find it difficult to reconcile my viewpoint on the Neoconservative movement and how it got to where it is today with the fact that Gay Rights activists made their case to their representatives and got legislation passed in some states and also, more importantly, brought the issue to the forefront of the American public. The indirect results of this haven't been so positive (the issue was used to galvanize voters and most likely put the Shrub in the White House for a second term), but that has more to do with the diabolical genius of Karl Rove and the Republican machine he has his hand on the throttle of (a least until last November--he may (or may not) have been relagated to navigation duties from the shotgun (I don't like using that word when referring to any Republican) seat).
Mr Roberts states a little later in the interview that:
"the Left creates issues that these people [the neocons] use to solidify support for attacks on civil liberties. I think that what we should all do is to sit back and realize that the most important thing is the civil liberties. It's not Homosexual marriage, or abortion or any particular issue. It's our civil liberties, and we don't do anything to jeopardize them because they're already so jeopardized. In fact, we've essentially lost them with the war on terror."
This is one of the most direct statements on this issue I have heard since the Homeland Security Act and the Military Commissions Act were passed following 9/11. The administration is fond of saying that the terrorists "hate our way of life and want to see it destroyed." This is a bunch of smoke and mirrors that have been employed to give the current leadership carte blanche to do whatever they see fit to do in order to achieve the main Neoconservative pillar (italics are mine):
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
From the Project For A New American Century site.
The terrorists who carried out the attacks on 9/11 did so at the behest of Osama bin Laden for a very narrow reason, and that was to attempt to coerce the United States to cease its support for the Saud regime which has been ruling Saudi Arabia in an iron fisted manner that marginalizes the majority of the population for several decades. They don't really care what goes on over here--they're primarily concerned with what's happening in their home countries. That's the primary reason that there hasn't been another significant attack on US soil for over five years. They've seen that striking the US on its home turf will not get the desired results. It will only precipitate the bombing of whatever locale the CIA and FBI can, through their bumbling investigative practices, come up with on short notice as the home base of those they say are responsible in order to placate the howling for blood that the government controlled media outlets can whip the public into with marathon coverage of the next Ground Zero.
The fact that civil liberties here in the US are being compromised can only be an ironic and amusing side effect in the eyes of al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and Omar of the Taliban. It's ironic and chilling that the current state of affairs domestically was foreshadowed on a small scale in the film The Siege. Our civil liberties were being chipped away before Bush got to the White House (even before he was in the Governor's mansion in Austin, TX--possibly before he ran the Texas Rangers baseball team into the ground--oh, for a return to those old days of yore, when all this was just an unimaginable nightmare and anyone who suggested it as an even slight possibility would have been laughed out of the room) with all the wars that George Carlin liked to ridicule: the War on Drugs (search and seizure protections compromised), the War on Organized Crime (surveillance and wiretap protections compromised). 9/11 and the War on Terror merely gave the administration and the Neocons an opening to exploit this wide enough to drive a Mack truck through, which has culminated in the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
At the end of the interview Mark asked Mr. Roberts whether he saw any hope for the situation and he replied:
"the United States is is essentially finished. Liberty's dead, I don't see any way to bring it back. The country is balkanized, it's split, and ignorant. It hasn't the foggiest idea what's happening to it."
and later:
"No, I don't see any signs of hope at all. I see none. None at all. I expect to die in a concentration camp."
Mark was completely floored by that as was I. He tried to regain his momentum by saying to Mr. Roberts that he hoped that wasn't the case and that it's why he does the show to try and inform people about what's going on and spur them into some sort of action.
I can't really blame Roberts for his statements and attitude about the issues that were being discussed. He is an Economist, and they tend to have a clearer picture of how the world really works than most people, because it is, after all, money that makes the world go around more than anything else, and the driving force behind all of the maneuvering and positioning that the administration is and has been doing.
One does have to hope that he is wrong and that the Neocons and their meglomaniacal philosophy will be seen for what it is and brought to a halt.
Crash Course in Iraq
This course in Iraq prepared by Mother Jones magazine should be required reading for every American citizen who cares about their country and how it is viewed as a member of the global community of nations...
The price of the power they yield...
Arthur writes in his most recent blog: "Do these people have any consciences or any souls at all?" My answer to this most innocent and incredulous of questions is that the proof is in the pudding. Check out images ofJoe Lieberman and John McCain lately and ask yourself whether their appearance belies the natural wear and tear of the years that they've been here on the planet or if it could perhaps be the added strain of years and years spent in the government compromising the values of the people they represent and perhaps their own values for the sake of political allies and/or leverage.
The saying about absolute power goes something like this: "...it corrupts absolutely." There is no mention of the physical manifestations of such corruption, but one has to believe that you can't turn your back on some of the qualities that you share with the rest of the Human Race (compassion for a fellow, the basic sense of right and wrong) without it taking some type of physical toll. And who knows, maybe the possession of so much power and the desire for more does have a negative effect on one's physical being in the real world--it sure does in the realm of storytelling...
The saying about absolute power goes something like this: "...it corrupts absolutely." There is no mention of the physical manifestations of such corruption, but one has to believe that you can't turn your back on some of the qualities that you share with the rest of the Human Race (compassion for a fellow, the basic sense of right and wrong) without it taking some type of physical toll. And who knows, maybe the possession of so much power and the desire for more does have a negative effect on one's physical being in the real world--it sure does in the realm of storytelling...
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Wesley Clarke
Amy Goodman interviewed Ret. General Wesley Clarke at the 92nd Street YMCA Cultural Center in New York City on Tuesday February 27th, which I mentioned and linked to here. After a softball about the presidential race and whether he is going to declare his candidacy, she got down to brass tacks and asked him about Iran, the situation in Iraq, and how much influence flag officers in the military have on the policy implemented by administrations with agendas that aren't necessarily based in reality.
One of the most telling things he had to say about the decision to go into Iraq came up when he was recounting a conversation he had with another officer in the Pentagon a week or so after 9/11:
Officer: "We've made the decision to go to war with Iraq."
Clarke: "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?"
Officer: "I don't know. I guess they don't know what else to do."
Clarke: "Did they find some information connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda?"
Officer: "No, no, there's nothing new that way.They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq. I guess it's like, we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments, and I guess if the only tool we have is a hammer, then every problem has to look like a nail."
This cuts to the quick about how the administration was going to justify its actions about whatever it decided to do. It goes beyond the whole issue of inventing intelligence or discounting existing intelligence that does not support the desired course of action.
Clarke went on to relate an exchange with the same General a few weeks later after the bombing in Afghanistan had started:
Clarke: "Are we still going to war with Iraq?"
Officer: "Oh, it's worse than that. I just got this down from upstairs. This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years. Starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and then finishing off with Iran!"
Clarke: "Is it classified?"
Officer: "Yes, Sir!"
Clarke: "Well, don't show it to me..."
Seven countries in five years, eh? Didn't they learn that the Domino theory isn't worth the air it takes to utter that phrase? Or maybe they were so enamored by the cinematography of the domino sequence in The Fog of War. Countries are not dominoes. They're not going to tumble over just because you line them up and push the first one over.
Clarke goes on to point out that while Iran was glad to see the US go into Iraq and remove Saddam, they also viewed the US presence with some trepidation because they knew that the US would be setting its sites on them as soon as Iraq was a done deal. So, in the interest of self preservation, Iran began trying to influence the situation in Iraq to their benefit. They have a large undefended border with Iraq, and they are perfectly aware that the US and Saudi Arabia (a majority Sunni nation) have mutual interests and goals where the ultimate resolution in Iraq is concerned. The recent developments which have brought the leaders of these two Middle East countries together to discuss the situation and hopefully avert conflict and catastrophe are positive signs in a climate that seems to reflect a desire on the parts of European powers and the US to force Iran further and further into a corner.
They then move on to talk about the ramifications of an (unlikely) immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Clarke states that it is:
"mechanically possible, you could line up the battalions on the road, and you could put the gunners in the Humvees and lock and load and shoot their way out of Iraq. You'd have a few roadside bombs, but if you line everybody up, there won't be any roadside bombs, maybe some sniping, you can fly your helicopters over, get your air cover, you can get safely out of there."
I imagine that once the insurgents that did plant the roadside bombs realized what really was going on, they would melt off into the shadows and let the US get on with it as fast as possible. They're not attacking US patrols to inflict damage per se, they're primary objective is to persuade the withdrawal of the occupying forces. Why in the world would they want to disrupt that once they see it actually happening?
What is curious to me are his next words on how the situation might develop after the US was gone:
"when you [the US forces] leave, the Saudis have to find someone to fight the Shias. Who are they going to find? Al Qaeda. Because the groups of Sunnis who would be extremists and willing to fight would probably be the groups connected to Al Qaeda. So, one of the weird inconsistencies in this is that were we to get out early we'd be intensifying the threat against us of a super powerful Sunni extremist group which was now legitimized by overt Saudi funding in an effort to hang on to a to a toehold in side Iraq and block Iranian expansionism."
Well, the Sunnis and the Shia have been at loggerheads for centuries. They're going to have to hash things out and learn to live with each other at some point in the course of history. It probably won't be pretty, but it will happen at some point, no matter what any other country tries to dictate. The US can get out now, or it can get out in twenty years. The fact that there is oil in the region that we don't need and don't import right now, but that we'd like to be able to keep from others at present won't keep the two major sects of Islam from eventually working out their differences.
Clarke continues to talk on this topic by stressing that the focus of change needs to
be placed on the policy as opposed to troop strength and deployment. It seems to me that the time for new policy which can then be implemented with the forces in place or even with additional forces has passed. The only policy change that has a realistic chance of being effective is that which engages and empowers the new Iraqi government as well as the other nation in the region. As long as there is a sizable military force in the region the empowerment part of that new policy will not be there.
There are a lot of angry people in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East, and they're not going to be any less angry when they see the US forces staying and even growing, but saying that they're there with a "new mission".
One of the most telling things he had to say about the decision to go into Iraq came up when he was recounting a conversation he had with another officer in the Pentagon a week or so after 9/11:
Officer: "We've made the decision to go to war with Iraq."
Clarke: "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?"
Officer: "I don't know. I guess they don't know what else to do."
Clarke: "Did they find some information connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda?"
Officer: "No, no, there's nothing new that way.They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq. I guess it's like, we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments, and I guess if the only tool we have is a hammer, then every problem has to look like a nail."
This cuts to the quick about how the administration was going to justify its actions about whatever it decided to do. It goes beyond the whole issue of inventing intelligence or discounting existing intelligence that does not support the desired course of action.
Clarke went on to relate an exchange with the same General a few weeks later after the bombing in Afghanistan had started:
Clarke: "Are we still going to war with Iraq?"
Officer: "Oh, it's worse than that. I just got this down from upstairs. This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years. Starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and then finishing off with Iran!"
Clarke: "Is it classified?"
Officer: "Yes, Sir!"
Clarke: "Well, don't show it to me..."
Seven countries in five years, eh? Didn't they learn that the Domino theory isn't worth the air it takes to utter that phrase? Or maybe they were so enamored by the cinematography of the domino sequence in The Fog of War. Countries are not dominoes. They're not going to tumble over just because you line them up and push the first one over.
Clarke goes on to point out that while Iran was glad to see the US go into Iraq and remove Saddam, they also viewed the US presence with some trepidation because they knew that the US would be setting its sites on them as soon as Iraq was a done deal. So, in the interest of self preservation, Iran began trying to influence the situation in Iraq to their benefit. They have a large undefended border with Iraq, and they are perfectly aware that the US and Saudi Arabia (a majority Sunni nation) have mutual interests and goals where the ultimate resolution in Iraq is concerned. The recent developments which have brought the leaders of these two Middle East countries together to discuss the situation and hopefully avert conflict and catastrophe are positive signs in a climate that seems to reflect a desire on the parts of European powers and the US to force Iran further and further into a corner.
They then move on to talk about the ramifications of an (unlikely) immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Clarke states that it is:
"mechanically possible, you could line up the battalions on the road, and you could put the gunners in the Humvees and lock and load and shoot their way out of Iraq. You'd have a few roadside bombs, but if you line everybody up, there won't be any roadside bombs, maybe some sniping, you can fly your helicopters over, get your air cover, you can get safely out of there."
I imagine that once the insurgents that did plant the roadside bombs realized what really was going on, they would melt off into the shadows and let the US get on with it as fast as possible. They're not attacking US patrols to inflict damage per se, they're primary objective is to persuade the withdrawal of the occupying forces. Why in the world would they want to disrupt that once they see it actually happening?
What is curious to me are his next words on how the situation might develop after the US was gone:
"when you [the US forces] leave, the Saudis have to find someone to fight the Shias. Who are they going to find? Al Qaeda. Because the groups of Sunnis who would be extremists and willing to fight would probably be the groups connected to Al Qaeda. So, one of the weird inconsistencies in this is that were we to get out early we'd be intensifying the threat against us of a super powerful Sunni extremist group which was now legitimized by overt Saudi funding in an effort to hang on to a to a toehold in side Iraq and block Iranian expansionism."
Well, the Sunnis and the Shia have been at loggerheads for centuries. They're going to have to hash things out and learn to live with each other at some point in the course of history. It probably won't be pretty, but it will happen at some point, no matter what any other country tries to dictate. The US can get out now, or it can get out in twenty years. The fact that there is oil in the region that we don't need and don't import right now, but that we'd like to be able to keep from others at present won't keep the two major sects of Islam from eventually working out their differences.
Clarke continues to talk on this topic by stressing that the focus of change needs to
be placed on the policy as opposed to troop strength and deployment. It seems to me that the time for new policy which can then be implemented with the forces in place or even with additional forces has passed. The only policy change that has a realistic chance of being effective is that which engages and empowers the new Iraqi government as well as the other nation in the region. As long as there is a sizable military force in the region the empowerment part of that new policy will not be there.
There are a lot of angry people in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East, and they're not going to be any less angry when they see the US forces staying and even growing, but saying that they're there with a "new mission".
More on Walter Reed...
The Walter Reed fiasco continues to grow in leaps and bounds in terms of sheer ridiculousness and panic. Francis Harvey, the Secretary of the Army, has become the latest lamb to be thrown onto the sacrificial fire that the Bushites hope to immolate the controversy in with his resignation, submitted today. One has to wonder and marvel at the fact that the blame for scandal after scandal is sluffed off on folks who had little if anything to do with the actual decisions that were made which led to crisis/scandal/clusterfuck in question at the moment.
Of course, with the blinding white hot media spotlight on the insufficient care that the veterans returning from Iraq are receiving, the nepotism at the core of it all is beginning to come to light. Where does it all lead to, you ask? Why, (please don't be shocked) a company run by a former executive from our good friends at Halliburton, of course... the same folks that have the safety of the contractors working in the same conditions as our troops over there in Iraq but with none of the protection, weaponry, or ability to defend themselves legally!
You know, only so many rats can desert the ship before there's no none left to sail it and it runs aground on the rocks...
Of course, with the blinding white hot media spotlight on the insufficient care that the veterans returning from Iraq are receiving, the nepotism at the core of it all is beginning to come to light. Where does it all lead to, you ask? Why, (please don't be shocked) a company run by a former executive from our good friends at Halliburton, of course... the same folks that have the safety of the contractors working in the same conditions as our troops over there in Iraq but with none of the protection, weaponry, or ability to defend themselves legally!
You know, only so many rats can desert the ship before there's no none left to sail it and it runs aground on the rocks...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)