The right-wing talking heads are up to their old tricks of distortion and distraction by playing the self-righteous victim over Barack Obama's 'lipstick on a pig' reference to the McCain campaign's claim of being change agents.

As usual, the news media is all over this little manufactured spat. However, I have not heard anyone mention another way of looking at this thing. Could it be argued that the G.O.Pig represents a continuation of the past eight years of bankrupt policies, and Sarah Palin is the young attractive lipstick that has been applied to this pig to make it more appealing?

QuestionItNow

"Why are you speaking about the war Dr. King?"I found the full text and audio of "On Vietnam" at AmericanRhetoric.com
Beyond Vietnam -- A Time to Break Silence
Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered 4 April 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City

Audio mp3 of Address

"Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I need not pause to say how very delighted I am to be here tonight, and how very delighted I am to see you expressing your concern about the issues that will be discussed tonight by turning out in such large numbers. I also want to say that I consider it a great honor to share this program with Dr. Bennett, Dr. Commager, and Rabbi Heschel, some of the distinguished leaders and personalities of our nation. And of course it’s always good to come back to Riverside Church. Over the last eight years, I have had the privilege of preaching here almost every year in that period, and it is always a rich and rewarding experience to come to this great church and this great pulpit. I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statements of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart, and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: "A time comes when silence is betrayal." And that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.

And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King?" "Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" "Peace and civil rights don't mix," they say. "Aren't you hurting the cause of your people," they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.

In the light of such tragic misunderstanding, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church -- the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate -- leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.

I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in the successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reasons to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.

Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellowed [sic] Americans, *who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision.* There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam, and I watched this program broken and eviscerated, as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So, I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. And so we have been repeatedly faced with the cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same schools. And so we watch them in brutal solidarity burning the huts of a poor village, but we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago. I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettoes of the North over the last three years -- especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they ask -- and rightly so -- what about Vietnam? They ask if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

For those who ask the question, "Aren't you a civil rights leader?" and thereby mean to exclude me from the movement for peace, I have this further answer. In 1957 when a group of us formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, we chose as our motto: "To save the soul of America." We were convinced that we could not limit our vision to certain rights for black people, but instead affirmed the conviction that America would never be free or saved from itself until the descendants of its slaves were loosed completely from the shackles they still wear. In a way we were agreeing with Langston Hughes, that black bard of Harlem, who had written earlier:

O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath --
America will be!

Now, it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read: Vietnam. It can never be saved so long as it destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over. So it is that those of us who are yet determined that America will be are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1954** [sic]; and I cannot forget that the Nobel Prize for Peace was also a commission -- a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for "the brotherhood of man." This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I'm speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all men -- for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them? What then can I say to the Vietcong or to Castro or to Mao as a faithful minister of this One? Can I threaten them with death or must I not share with them my life?

And finally, as I try to explain for you and for myself the road that leads from Montgomery to this place I would have offered all that was most valid if I simply said that I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be a son of the living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood, and because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned especially for his suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come tonight to speak for them.

This I believe to be the privilege and the burden of all of us who deem ourselves bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism and which go beyond our nation's self-defined goals and positions. We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation and for those it calls "enemy," for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers.

And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak now not of the soldiers of each side, not of the ideologies of the Liberation Front, not of the junta in Saigon, but simply of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.

They must see Americans as strange liberators. The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence *in 1954* -- in 1945 *rather* -- after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. Our government felt then that the Vietnamese people were not ready for independence, and we again fell victim to the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long. With that tragic decision we rejected a revolutionary government seeking self-determination and a government that had been established not by China -- for whom the Vietnamese have no great love -- but by clearly indigenous forces that included some communists. For the peasants this new government meant real land reform, one of the most important needs in their lives.

For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. Before the end of the war we were meeting eighty percent of the French war costs. Even before the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu, they began to despair of their reckless action, but we did not. We encouraged them with our huge financial and military supplies to continue the war even after they had lost the will. Soon we would be paying almost the full costs of this tragic attempt at recolonization.

After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem. The peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States' influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace.

The only change came from America, as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support. All the while the people read our leaflets and received the regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move on or be destroyed by our bombs.

So they go, primarily women and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals with at least twenty casualties from American firepower for one Vietcong-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them, mostly children. They wander into the towns and see thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers.

What do the peasants think as we ally ourselves with the landlords and as we refuse to put any action into our many words concerning land reform? What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe? Where are the roots of the independent Vietnam we claim to be building? Is it among these voiceless ones?

We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the unified Buddhist Church. We have supported the enemies of the peasants of Saigon. We have corrupted their women and children and killed their men.

Now there is little left to build on, save bitterness. *Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call "fortified hamlets." The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these. Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These, too, are our brothers.

Perhaps a more difficult but no less necessary task is to speak for those who have been designated as our enemies.* What of the National Liberation Front, that strangely anonymous group we call "VC" or "communists"? What must they think of the United States of America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem, which helped to bring them into being as a resistance group in the South? What do they think of our condoning the violence which led to their own taking up of arms? How can they believe in our integrity when now we speak of "aggression from the North" as if there were nothing more essential to the war? How can they trust us when now we charge them with violence after the murderous reign of Diem and charge them with violence while we pour every new weapon of death into their land? Surely we must understand their feelings, even if we do not condone their actions. Surely we must see that the men we supported pressed them to their violence. Surely we must see that our own computerized plans of destruction simply dwarf their greatest acts.

How do they judge us when our officials know that their membership is less than twenty-five percent communist, and yet insist on giving them the blanket name? What must they be thinking when they know that we are aware of their control of major sections of Vietnam, and yet we appear ready to allow national elections in which this highly organized political parallel government will not have a part? They ask how we can speak of free elections when the Saigon press is censored and controlled by the military junta. And they are surely right to wonder what kind of new government we plan to help form without them, the only party in real touch with the peasants. They question our political goals and they deny the reality of a peace settlement from which they will be excluded. Their questions are frighteningly relevant. Is our nation planning to build on political myth again, and then shore it up upon the power of new violence?

Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.

So, too, with Hanoi. In the North, where our bombs now pummel the land, and our mines endanger the waterways, we are met by a deep but understandable mistrust. To speak for them is to explain this lack of confidence in Western words, and especially their distrust of American intentions now. In Hanoi are the men who led the nation to independence against the Japanese and the French, the men who sought membership in the French Commonwealth and were betrayed by the weakness of Paris and the willfulness of the colonial armies. It was they who led a second struggle against French domination at tremendous costs, and then were persuaded to give up the land they controlled between the thirteenth and seventeenth parallel as a temporary measure at Geneva. After 1954 they watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. They remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the president claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than *eight hundred, or rather,* eight thousand miles away from its shores.

At this point I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote:

Each day the war goes on the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom, and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism (unquote).

If we continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy, and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways. In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war.

*I would like to suggest five concrete things that our government should do immediately to begin the long and difficult process of extricating ourselves from this nightmarish conflict:

Number one: End all bombing in North and South Vietnam.

Number two: Declare a unilateral cease-fire in the hope that such action will create the atmosphere for negotiation.

Three: Take immediate steps to prevent other battlegrounds in Southeast Asia by curtailing our military buildup in Thailand and our interference in Laos.

Four: Realistically accept the fact that the National Liberation Front has substantial support in South Vietnam and must thereby play a role in any meaningful negotiations and any future Vietnam government.

Five: *Set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva Agreement.

Part of our ongoing...part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under a new regime which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country, if necessary. Meanwhile... meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.

*As we counsel young men concerning military service, we must clarify for them our nation's role in Vietnam and challenge them with the alternative of conscientious objection. I am pleased to say that this is a path now chosen by more than seventy students at my own alma mater, Morehouse College, and I recommend it to all who find the American course in Vietnam a dishonorable and unjust one. Moreover, I would encourage all ministers of draft age to give up their ministerial exemptions and seek status as conscientious objectors.* These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing.

The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality...and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing "clergy and laymen concerned" committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy.

And so, such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression which has now justified the presence of U.S. military advisors in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru.

It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.



A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.

*This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations.* These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. *We must not engage in a negative anticommunism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice. We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.*

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. We in the West must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch antirevolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores, and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love." "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word" (unquote).

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity. The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood -- it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on."

We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter, but beautiful, struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message -- of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation comes a moment to decide,

In the strife of Truth and Falsehood, for the good or evil side;

Some great cause, God's new Messiah offering each the bloom or blight,

And the choice goes by forever 'twixt that darkness and that light.

Though the cause of evil prosper, yet 'tis truth alone is strong

Though her portions be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong

Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown

Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.


And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace.

If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.

QuestionItNow Blogs

This is a brilliant political speech, one that should lay to rest the flap about the non-issue (Fox Attacks) of Obama's minister's "hate speech." But more than that, this speech sets an agenda for the future of the Obama campaign.

Barack Obama is still refusing to get down in the mud. In this speech, he addressed, and refuted any charges raised by the his preacher's "incendiary language" (Obama's words), addresses racism and sexism, poverty, health care, declining jobs, global warming, and many issues that affect the lives liberty & pursuit of happiness of everyday Americans. He relates them all, advances solutions, and gives America a choice to change, or remain on the Bush Co. charted course to disaster.

It takes about 40 minutes to hear the entire thing, but i think it is well worth the time spent. View Barack Obama's speech 'A More Perfect Union' via this link.

I am not a supreme Obama fan, as he does not go nearly far enough towards renouncing the Iraq war, and preventing the Iran war.... nonetheless, I commend him highly for this courageous stand and for maintaining the high road.


Tammara USA
Helena peace seekers
bake sales for body armor
military families speak out

Still in Iraq

Media Language and War: Manufacturing Convenient Realities
By: Ramzy Baroud

In the competitive world of media today, swift and conveniently selective reporting is of prime importance. Google News, for example claim to scan 4,500 news sources, of which only a few are highlighted as main stories. There are thousands of similar services, all competing to produce a story in the fastest time. Thorough - and thus slower - reporting is relegated to the sidelines and crucial information often appears too little too late.

The Iraq story, which has occupied a huge proportion of headline news for years, serves as a good example of this.

On February 1st, only a few minutes apart, two Iraqi women detonated themselves in two crowded pet markets in the Iraqi capital. Authorities said that 98 people were reportedly killed and 200 were wounded. Eyewitnesses reported a grizzly scene where human and animal body parts littered the streets, hundreds of feet away from the blasts.

Any thorough analysis of the story would have to examine several related factors. First, it would need to juxtapose the high death toll with US and Iraqi governments’ reports of ‘calm’ in the Baghdad area. The claim of a ‘return to normalcy’ in the Iraqi capital has been propagated for months, as a way of validating US President’s Bush’s military ‘surge’. Even if we buy into the questionable statistics aimed at hyping the positive outcome of the surge – questionable because they are only promoted by US and Iraqi military sources, with vested interests in downplaying the seriousness of the ‘insurgency’ – the violence seems to have shifted from the capital into northern areas, especially Mosul.

Instead of admitting failure in halting the violence which has plagued Iraq since the US occupation of 2003, US and Iraqi authorities resort to a continued and violent language to confuse and distract from the real issues.

This is how Alissa J. Rubin began her article for the New York Times (January 31): “The unsettled situation in northern Iraq continued Wednesday as Iraqi troops massed in Mosul to fight Sunni Arab extremists”. This is a brilliant way to divert attention of the story from the failure of the surge to manipulate other values, and lump these values to create a completely fallacious association: "Sunni Arab extremists."

Rubin further quotes an Iraqi defense ministry spokesman as claiming that the goal of the military operation is to oust Al-Qaeda in Iraq from the city and prevent its fighters from returning."

The entry statements contain a dangerously inaccurate linkage between Arabs (an increasing oppressed monitory in the Iraqi city), Sunnis (the ‘remnants of the Saddam regime’ as mindlessly parroted by the media), extremists of the previous group and al-Qaeda. The New York Times story – which often sets the standards for reporting in other major US publications – will have laid the prefect foundation to justify future ethnic cleansings of Sunni Arabs from the city, should the ‘military operation’ succeed in ‘driving out’ al-Qaeda militants (the numbers of which are inflated whenever such exaggeration is necessary).

Returning to the Baghdad markets’ bombings, the response to this tragedy was predictably misleading. The Iraqi government issued the usual, if somewhat bizarre statement, and US officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made fiery condemnations. Enough material was gathered within the hour to inundate us with hundreds of ‘fresh’ news stories, which were mostly a rehash of the official statements made in Baghdad’s Green Zone or in Washington.

CNN online opened one of its articles, made available soon after the market bombings, with: "Two mentally disabled women were strapped with explosives Friday and sent into busy Baghdad markets, where they were blown up by remote control."

The allegation was attributed to an Iraqi government official later in the statement.

The Iraqi official said that "people referred to the bomber at central Baghdad's al-Ghazl market as the "crazy woman" and that the bomber at a second market had an unspecified birth disability."

Who are these ‘people’? Did the CNN reporter examine the legitimacy of that claim by interviewing any of them’?

The involvement of women in this sort of violence is often a critical addition to the story, especially for Western readers. Readers tend to pause longer when they hear of a suicide bomber who was also a mother. They may feel an urge to learn more about the life of such a woman. Was she an inmate in Abu Ghraib? Tortured? Raped? Did she lose a family member to the US war, to the Iraqi death squads?

What do the bombings tell us about the security situation in Baghdad, the success or failure of the ‘surge’ or the war which is driving people to suicide in its most brutal manifestations? Apparently, it tells us nothing.

But Lt. Col. Steve Stover, spokesman for the Multi-National Division-Baghdad has an explanation that seems, at least from the point view of CNN much more relevant than the seemingly unimportant questions above. "By targeting innocent Iraqis, they (those who dispatched the ‘mentally disabled’ women suicide bombers) show their true demonic character." Thus, CNN headline: "'Demonic' militants sent women to bomb markets in Iraq." In Western media language, Arab women are perpetually oppressed victims, and they must maintain that role for the story to read right. Thus, the women bombers cannot be viewed themselves as extremists, but as victims in the hands of extremists.

Within hours the buzz words on online news were ‘mentally disabled’ and ‘demonic’.

But what does ‘demonic’ mean exactly? What real issues does it address? And why should such an irrelevant outburst define the deadliest bombing in Baghdad in months?

Focusing on such extraneous associations - mindless, mad, demonic women, possessed and acting on the behest of bearded and cunning al-Qaeda ‘Arab Sunni, extremists’ – does much more than simply distract from the many military and policy failures in Iraq. It helps create a parallel universe to that of the real world, thus presenting a substitute image that shapes and reshapes the perceptions and imaginations of faraway news consumers.

The ‘real world’ - whether that of Iraq, Palestine, Burma, Kenya or any other - is a world that, although seemingly chaotic, is very much rational. It is predicated on the values of cause and affect. What may seem ‘demonic’ and ‘mad’ to a non-media person should not appear the same to a journalist. The latter’s responsibility is to narrate, contextualize and deconstruct with an independent and critical eye, not merely reiterate what has been told to him by ‘official sources’.

The corporate media’s depiction of the Gaza story which has been unfolding for months might be summed up in one overriding headline: Hordes of Palestinian Breach Gaza Border with Egypt, Israel Concerned over Its Security.

The imprisonment of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza – where poverty stands at 79 percent and unemployment hovers around a similar number, and where the majority of the population is ‘food insecure’ according to United Nations agencies – should have been depicted first and foremost as a humanitarian disaster compelled by an Israeli siege. The dates related to the successive stages of the siege follow a line of Israel’s political, not ‘security’ logic. Any reasonable timeline of recent events could easily verify that (the formation of the Hamas government in March 2006, the ousting of the pro-Israeli Palestinian security apparatus in June 2007 and so on being followed by dramatic Israeli moves to tighten the siege on Gaza, Hamas’ stronghold).

But little of that seemed relevant to the way the Gaza story was amply reported. Like the Iraq story, where the two main trusted sources are the occupation and its puppet Iraqi government, any story of relevance to Israel and Palestine has to be validated by the official Israeli source and to a lesser but growing extent by their allies among Palestinians. The rest are ‘extremist’, radical and hell-bent on the destruction of the ‘Jewish state.’ Note how the Jewishness of Israel is often emphasized whenever the word ‘destruction’ or similar words are infused.

This is what Bridget Johnson wrote in the Seattle PI (January 29) chastising the United Nations’ Human Rights Council for its condemnation of Israel’s siege on Gaza: “There was zero mention of Hamas' continued rocket attacks on Israel -- which preceded the cutoff of supplies that has caused such an uproar -- or Hamas' refusal to renounce violence against and attempted destruction of the Jewish state.”

The claims were preposterous – especially that of a small group’s ‘attempted destruction’ of a country saturated with nuclear arms. The words ‘destruction’ and ‘Jewish state’ are simply passed as an innocent ‘opinion’, read by thousands of Americans. There are many notable omissions as well. Hamas has repeatedly called for a mutual ceasefire. This was also repeatedly rejected or simply ignored by Israel (in the guise of ‘not negotiating with terrorists’). The siege followed the democratic elections of Hamas, not the rocket attacks, the intensity of which corresponded with the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza.

Also conveniently missed is the fact that Palestinians rockets have killed 10 Israelis in several years. The killing of any civilian anywhere is tragic, but the facts are rarely contextualized by the media. The number of Palestinians killed in Gaza as a result of Israeli army attacks since the Annapolis ‘peace’ conference two months ago is estimated at 149. Several folds were killed in Gaza since the siege started early 2006. Over 60 have died since June 2007 as a result of either lack of medicines or Israel’s refusal to allow them entry to better equipped hospitals in the West Bank.

This is only the tip of the iceberg since human suffering cannot only be measured by those who die, but also those who continue to live in perpetual suffering. For Johnson, this is irrelevant, since this is not about right and wrong, but a war of language. To win, one must have command over language – and the way it’s manipulated – and access to platforms that reach the largest number of readers. An easy recipe to victory is an intentional mix of such words as Islamic extremism, al-Qaeda, Hamas, Jewish state, security, destruction, right to exist, juxtaposed with images or clips of angry Palestinian youth burning Israeli and American flags, ‘side-by-side’, and you will have an American public and government standing in eternal solidarity with Israel.

While most US politicians are self-seeking, power hungry and would do whatever it takes to be elected, the average American, unlike what it may seem, is not born ‘pro-Israel’, and ‘anti-Palestinian.’ Most Americans are pro the manufactured, yet misleading image of Israel that reaches their homes through television, waiting at their doorsteps in the morning and is beamed to them through the web. Israel has mastery over the language of the Western media, which, again, helped create a paralleled universe that has little relation to reality. This alternative universe only exist on the pages of New York Times, the images of CNN, and the blabber of Fox News ‘experts’. According to that narrative, Palestinians, are, like the Iraqi women suicide bombers, ‘demonic’, ‘mad’, ‘extremist’, ‘irrational’, self hating, and all the rest.

To recognize reality the way it is, one has to re-examine language. While a critical reader is essential, the task starts in the hand of a journalist, who must understand his topic not based on simple ‘facts’ and perceptions. Simple facts lead to simple conclusions: Sunnis extremists, mad Mullah, unruly Palestinians, besieged Israel. Every story can be told in three different ways: two by the two main conflicting parties, and a third by the journalist himself.

The journalist must not compromise on his independence, must not buy into jargons, mantras, and turn into another official spokesperson. To convey a version of a story that is as close the true story as possible, a media person has to comprehend the context himself, analyze the motives and follow the line of logic: cause and affect, then, impart his new realizations - free of self-censorship, coercion or intimidation. Otherwise, the true story will always be shelved in favor of re-written official statements and repackaged government and military press releases, falsely presented as ‘accurate’, ‘independent’ and ‘impartial’. Mindlessly repeating these official discourses may be easier and more profitable, but it will make no helpful contribution to the field of journalism, and to any possibility of truth and justice.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

QuestionItNow

As usual Ramzy Baroud delivers insightful analysis of world events. American policy makers will be wise to listen to voices such as his. The following message was sent 12/30/07:

Dear Editor:

This article was written before Benazir Bhutto's assassination Thursday, however, it puts some context, I think, around her assassination, and the statements made by the Pakistan, and U.S. governments prior to that.

Hope that you will find it useful.

Regards
Ramzy Baroud
+++++

Machiavellian Musharraf
By Ramzy Baroud

The 42-day drama in Pakistan is far from over; the declaration of emergency and the lifting of emergency are part of a charade, behind which exists a complex power play between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, various camps within the military elite, and the US government. The Pakistani people are the least relevant to these calculations, although every player never fails to justify unwarranted actions in their name.

General Musharraf’s motives for declaring emergency on November 3 are far from enigmatic. To guarantee his political future, Musharraf acted in the decisive, uncompromising fashion of a military man: first he brought the country to a state of suspended animation, then he restructured the government, judiciary, parliament and constitution to align them with his interests. Once these changes were enacted, he revoked the 42-day state of emergency, and even further promised ‘absolutely’ free and transparent legislative elections on January 8 next year.

The Bush administration’s placatory response to Musharraf’s actions (not going further than carefully-worded, benign condemnations) is not the only thing that makes it hard to substantiate the claim that Musharraf acted independently of the US or at the behest of some elements in the Pakistani military alone. Following September 11, 2001, and the invasion of Afghanistan soon after, Musharraf has become one of America’s most faithful allies in the region. US aid to Pakistan multiplied and spent with little accountability. According to Jeffrey D Sachs, a Professor of Economics at Columbia University, "75 per cent of the $10 billion in US aid has gone to the Pakistani military, ostensibly to reimburse Pakistan for its contribution to the ‘war on terror’, and to help it buy F-16s and other weapons systems. Another 16 per cent went straight to the Pakistani budget, no questions asked. That left less than 10 per cent for development and humanitarian assistance."

The Pakistani president is Machiavellian part and parcel. Contrary to appearances, he knows his limits and plays by the unwritten rules of power. When he declared emergency, he cited two objectives with underlying messages.

The first was aimed at his detractors who he claimed had mounted a ‘conspiracy’ to destabilise the country and his rule; as this conspiracy allegedly involved the judiciary, it justified his purge campaign.

The second message cleverly transcended all of that to reel in the US and its ‘war on terror’. Indeed, according to this logic, Musharraf needed a state of emergency to combat a Taleban-inspired insurgency stemming from the tribal areas in the North West Frontier Province. With the US and NATO fighting their own Taleban and Taleban-inspired insurgency in Afghanistan, Musharraf’s actions in Islamabad were meant to supplement the incessant efforts at curbing the terrorist resurgence in the entire region.

It is hardly news that countries which to utilise ‘war on terror’ reasoning to justify violating human rights and democracy in their own countries are often — if not always — American allies or clients.

Musharraf must have understood that his failure to cooperate with US military plans would invite US wrath and hasten his exit (violent or otherwise). While his ‘cooperation’ was hardly optional, it also had its rewards. One of these was a free hand to alter internal political structures, so long as they didn’t in any way interfere with US interests. Musharraf tested this unspoken understanding, and the Bush administration kept true to its word — until the US Congress decided to interfere.

At the same time that Musharraf began decrying the Taleban-inspired insurgency in the tribal areas, US officials began highlighting — if not manipulating — intelligence that exaggerated the same threat.

For example, US Defence Secretary Robert M Gates said in a media briefing on December 21 that Al Qaeda insurgents are shifting focus to Pakistan, threatening the country and its ‘people’. Gates dismissed the Taleban’s violent return to Afghanistan, even mocking the over-publicised spring offensive. "The spring offensive we expected from the Taleban became NATO's spring offensive," he told journalists in Washington. Why this sudden change of priorities, and why did they coincide so well with Musharraf’s own changes?

The shift — which has made Pakistan the primary battleground, as opposed to its previous position as a less important frontier than Afghanistan — could mean a major strategic change in US military policy toward Pakistan in the future. It also emphasises the importance of the role played by Musharraf and his regime.

Musharraf’s validation is urgently needed by the Bush administration now that Congress has passed the spending bill, putting limits on $300 million of US military aid to Pakistan. A sum of $250 million is be used strictly for counter-terrorism operation, and the delivery of the rest hinges on Pakistan’s success — or failure — in living up to the Congress’ strict conditions. This deviation, if not contained quickly, might cause a rift and future difficulties for the US in Pakistan, especially among disgruntled military figures competing for power, privilege and contracts. For now, the White House has gone on crisis management mode, touting the January 8 elections and paying lip service to democracy, free media access and so forth.

One of those involved in defending Musharraf’s record is US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, who, on December 20, said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should be able to report that Pakistan is on its way toward full restoration of democracy. "We're trying to keep moving toward elections that are as fair and as free as possible. We do think there are (additional) steps that can be taken and will be taken," Boucher said.

The US administration and Congress are likely to clash over the best ways to control Pakistan, or — to put it mildly — to ensure Pakistan’s continuous cooperation in the US ‘war on terror’. However the clash manifests, the resulting US foreign policy posture is likely to affect changes – substantial or otherwise – in US policy toward Pakistan, resulting in further interference in the country’s internal affairs, deepening the discord and fuelling more violence. Indeed, it may endanger the future of genuine democracy in Pakistan for years to come.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London)

QuestionItNow

"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government have too much or too little power."
- James Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

QuestionItNow

Those who say the protest movement is dead are not entirely accurate. Why does the MSM neglect to cover events such as the following?

Rally to Support DMC Nurses
Harper Hutzel Hospital
3900 John R, Detroit
Monday, Dec. 10, 5-6 PM

City Council Hearing on Moratorium on Water Shut-offs
Coleman A. Young Municipal Center, 13th Floor
Woodward at Jefferson, Detroit
Tuesday, Dec. 11, 10 AM

Demonstration outside Attorney General Cox meeting on foreclosures
Tell Cox - Moratorium on all Foreclosures NOW!
Help the people, not the banks and real estate companies
Cobo Hall, Detroit
Thursday, Dec. 13, 11 AM
for more info, call 313-319-0870

MECAWI

QuestionItNow

Stop Foreclosures and Evictions Meeting, Sat., Dec 8, 1 PM

- Are your house payments rising out of sight due a variable rate / sub-prime mortgage?
- Are you about to lose your home to foreclosure?
- Are you facing a winter without heat, water or electricity because of rising utility bills?

COME TO AN ORGANIZING MEETING TO BUILD A FIGHT-BACK MOVEMENT

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1:00 PM

CENTRAL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, 4th Floor

23 E. ADAMS at Woodward (Grand Circus Park, Detroit)

Demand Governor Granholm declare a State of Emergency and a

MORATORIUM TO STOP FORECLOSURES & UTILITY SHUT-OFFS

Three separate Michigan statutes – MCL 10.31 et.seq., 10.85 et.seq. and 30.401 et.seq – mandate that the Governor declare a State of Emergency during periods of crisis, natural or 'man-made,' and provide special powers to meet the crisis. During the 1930's, the State legislature utilized its emergency powers to pass the Mortgage Moratorium Act, Act No. 98, Pub. Acts 1933. The Act extended the redemption period during which homeowners could not have their property taken from them after foreclosure from six months, to 5 years. In Russell v. Battle Creek Lumber Co., the Mortgage Moratorium Act was upheld as constitutional by the Michigan Supreme Court based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell, which upheld a similar moratorium passed in Minnesota .

We need emergency action now to protect our homes and keep people from freezing this winter.

Get involved. Call 313-319-0870 for more information.

Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice (MECAWI)

www.mecawi.org


QuestionItNow Blogs

Interesting, no?

Dear National Center Subscriber:

"Good Policy, Good Practice: Improving Outcomes and Productivity in
Higher Education: A Guide for Policymakers" by Patrick M. Callan, Peter
T. Ewell, Joni E. Finney and Dennis P. Jones, November 2007 (#07-5) is
now available on our Web site at
http://www.highereducation.org/reports/policy_practice/index.shtml.

This report describes a wide range of successful strategies that states
can draw from to increase the educational attainment of their residents
while holding down higher education costs. The report also identifies
five policy levers that state leaders can use to achieve their overall
goals for higher education and, more specifically, to implement the
strategies for increasing educational attainment levels.

If you received this message in error, or would like to be removed from
this list, please follow the instructions below.

Kind regards,
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
http://www.highereducation.org

QuestionItNow Blogs

Dear Editor:
Greetings:

I hope all is well. Copied below and also attached is my latest article, A Matter of Opinion; it discusses the role of the ‘expert’ in the corporate media and it offers an alternative.

I hope that you will find it interesting.

Many thanks

Ramzy Baroud
+++++

A Matter of Opinion

By Ramzy Baroud

What do an organic farmer from Spain, a union worker activist from Brazil and a human rights scholar living in London have in common? They are all individuals who affect substantive change in their communities and they are also individuals who are overlooked by the corporate media.

The latter has its own lists of ‘experts’ — usually well-groomed males with little involvement in the daily struggles of the unseen and unheard multitudes of the world, yet able to influence their lives (most often detrimentally) from a well-guarded distance.

So how does the business of expertise work? Why are those qualified to address their own affairs so widely ignored by mainstream channels in favour of intellectual middlemen who purport to have some sort of legitimacy over a range of narratives, without any convincing credentials, let alone first-hand experiences?

The phenomenon precedes the advent of network television and satellite news. It is embedded in a Western tradition that was formulated around imperial conquests: for a people to be conquered, they have to be understood in a language that prioritises the interests of the colonialist over the rights of the colonised. The latter’s identity is replaced by verbal and textual reductionism. Thus Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, the Somali leader who strove for twenty years to free his people from British and Italian colonialism was termed ‘Mad Mullah’ by the British. Hassan, of course, was as ‘mad’ as Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and the vigorous leaders of numerous struggles around the world. The list of these individuals is ever expanding, as activists are written off by those in power, those whose ‘sanity’ preaches subscribing to the status quo and the inherent wisdom of the ‘system’.

This system serves not the majority of people living within it, but rather the combined interests of those with the money and those with the weapons: one funds the other’s military adventurism, and the other guarantees unhindered access to cheap supplies, labour and markets. Without Bush’s war in Iraq, Blackwater could not generate over a billion dollars of extra contracts; the relationship is painfully obvious.

Of course, neither Bush nor Blackwater executives are imprudent enough to speak of their real motives, and it would be equally imprudent for us to trust that Blackwater’s ultimate objective is to contribute to the efforts of the US military to ‘protect’ their country and its founding principles. Unfortunately, though the deceptiveness of dominant rhetoric may often be apparent, when repeated numerous times to millions of people worldwide, it eventually gathers force, and even credibility. The process has real and very deadly consequences: Blackwater mercenaries go on killing sprees; endless media airtime is given to its executives and sympathetic ‘experts’ who ‘objectively’ defend their company’s image; a congressional hearing of good cop/bad cop is held whereby one congressman thanks Blackwater for protecting the lives of Americans overseas while another gently reprimands it for not using extra care. Extra care in gunning down innocent people? At this question the story is shelved. By the time Blackwater kills again it is no longer even newsworthy.

Many far from credible ‘experts’ are employed in this way to neutralise and effectually justify violence. Their roles are those of apologists of state and corporate crimes, and as ideologues who tailor information to fit political and economic agendas. They are dangerous because they have the leverage of being presented as impartial observers, even when their very identity should give away their partiality. Benjamin Netanyahu has managed to reinvent himself to US publics as a ‘terrorism expert’, thanks to Fox News. As for the former Israeli Prime Minister’s own crimes while in office, and his close ties to the neoconservatives — the ‘intellectuals’ behind the Iraq war — and his persistent use of anti-peace language — these are unimportant diversions.

According to the corporate media and the selective samples of humanity they endlessly feature and tout for their ‘expertise’, the world is a convenient place that consists of big companies (and no workers, thus no workers’ rights), prison guards (no prisoners, thus no prisoners’ rights), war engineers (no victims, thus no accountability) and celebrities (no ordinary people, thus no widespread and urgent grievances). All those in brackets don’t exist as actual, living and breathing individuals; they only exist as part of skewed narratives, designed carefully by an expert and a think tank. That ‘expert’ need not be there to understand, he needs only to speak in a language that manipulates prejudice. The working women of India fighting globalisation, the lawyers of Pakistan fighting for judicial independence, the teachers of Palestine fighting for survival amid siege and boycott, the millions of uninsured Americans fighting for a doctor’s appointment — these people simply don’t exist as far as corporate media is concerned. Or worse, they exist but don’t matter.

As those justifying violence on the basis of security, justice and democracy work to make the world increasingly unsafe, unjust and undemocratic, there seems an equally increasing need for a new kind of media, one which requires a new kind of ‘expert’.

When I contacted Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Arun Ghandi, Ilan Pappe and many other intellectuals and activists from all over the world, proposing an alternative to ‘expertise’ in the media, I didn’t expect that just a year later the discussion could evolve into JUSTmedia (JustMedia.net). JUSTmedia is the first initiative to be launched by the People Media Project, a global scheme that hopes to offer a different kind of platform for discourse, dialogue and commentary by promoting the voices of people from all walks of life. Supported by intellectuals who refuse to play by the roles of the ‘mainstream’, the idea is to extend a bridge across cultural, language, geographic and political divides to show and extend the possibilities of true democracy and human rights in the media.

They say it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. After much darkness and much cursing, another kind of candle may well be lit, one which only the efforts of ordinary people could keep alight.

-Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London)

QuestionItNow Blogs

The following was sent to QuestionItNow by Ramzy Baroud. This interview presents an alternative to the stereotypical view of Palestine presented in the main stream media, and is consistent with the QuestionItNow philosophy of presenting voices that are not heard in America today.

Articulating the Unprintable:
Ramzy Baroud Discusses Media Response to His Book

By June Rugh

Ramzy Baroud, veteran Palestinian-American journalist and Editor-in-Chief of the Palestine Chronicle, recently completed a speaking tour of the United States’ East Coast to promote his second book, The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press, 2006). The Second Palestinian Intifada is a far-reaching account of key events of the past five years that transformed the political landscape not only of Palestine and Israel, but of the entire Middle East. With a critical eye, Baroud takes the most controversial issues head-on: the alarming escalation in suicide bombings, the construction of the Separation Wall, the devastating hunger and unemployment in the Occupied Territories, the brutality of the Israeli army, the political surprise of the Palestinian elections. On November 12, 2007, Baroud was interviewed by June Rugh, a freelance writer, in Seattle, Washington.

June Rugh: Good afternoon, Mr. Baroud. Your book, The Second Palestinian Intifada, has been widely praised by eminent scholars and intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, Ilan Pappé, and Norman Finkelstein. Coupled with the national media awareness of the momentum building towards the US-based Palestinian-Israeli peace conference, did your book tour receive considerable attention from the press?

On the contrary, the silence has been deafening. Let me clarify: The Second Palestinian Intifada has received wide coverage in the progressive, alternative, Asian, African, and Arab media, and has been reviewed many academic journals, in print and online. But not one corporate newspaper—that I know of—has touched it so far.

JR: Not one? Are you surprised?

RB: Actually, I’m not surprised at all. In Western corporate media, it is the most predictable and consistent practice: if the narrative doesn’t fit the dominant "liberal" ideology, it is simply omitted. And it’s not just the media boycott of the book. Sometimes the local newspapers refused to cover the events of my tour. Rather than straight reportage, certain newspapers opted to publish defamatory articles and letters to the editor that chastised the academic institutions for inviting me to speak and deliberately misinterpreted my comments.

JR: In other words, they literally replaced your words with other content—a kind of journalistic ventriloquism. Can you give an example?

RB: The most disturbing case occurred around my talk at Virginia Wesleyan College, in Norfolk, Virginia. Norfolk has a powerfully committed antiwar community—in addition to fourteen military bases, interestingly—and I was very much looking forward to speaking to this audience. My core message was a call for justice for the Palestinian people based on coexistence, coupled with global alternatives to war and racism. In my talks, I always address other regions of concern in addition to Palestine; notably, Iraq, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. I feel it’s crucial to give a cross-cultural perspective to encourage the audience think beyond the usual geopolitical limitations and ethnocentricities. Yet a local Jewish newspaper announced the event on the front page as a “"ro-Palestinian journalist" — suddenly, I’m a speaker with a narrow agenda.

JR: What happened when you spoke at the college?

RB: A local rabbi and his supporters came and heckled me with questions and outrageous claims. One said that in 1880 there were more Jews than Christians and Muslims in Palestine; another claimed that my effort to explain the sociopolitical context of suicide bombings was the same as endorsing the horrific attacks of 9/11. Zoberman himself accused me of being a "Hamas sympathizer"; and since Hamas is on the US State Department’s list of terrorist groups, his implication is clear.

JR: This brings to mind an observation by Steven Salaita: that the discourse of mainstream America is shaped in such a way that if an Arab expresses any feature of political identity, he or she immediately evokes the "undefined but identifiable terrorist."

RB: Yes, I’d say that applies here. The Rabbi’s supporters followed me to a second event at a local theatre, and when I refused to modify my statements, he began a campaign of letter-writing and calling the college and local papers, describing my message as "poisonous."

JR: So as far as mainstream media goes, you—and your book—are either ignored or vilified. What is it that strikes a nerve? Is it the topic of Palestine, or your particular perspective?

RB: The subject of Palestine always strikes a nerve in American media. Even more, though, the fact that I was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Gaza to a dispossessed family forced to leave its ancestral village in 1948—leaving behind burned homes and bullet-riddled bodies—does not make me a desirable voice for the "liberal" media. I was raised in a place where I had to negotiate my daily survival among Israeli tanks and soldiers. As a Palestinian, I advocate for a just peace and dignity for my people, who remain hostage to the inhumanity of the Israeli occupation; as an American, I protest my country’s contributions to violence in the Middle East. This is not the kind of writer that the New York Times wants to profile. It’s too far out of their readers’ comfort zone.

JR: So, as a Palestinian, you find yourself doubly effaced: first, by the Israeli government, and then again, by the Western press.

RB: Yes, you could say that.

JR: One of the objectives of your tour was to promote The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle. What is your primary goal in getting people to read this book?

RB: To present an alternative reading of Palestinian history. To help people realize, among other things, that Palestinians should be praised for their courage in taking on the risks of democracy; that they should not be forced to suffer, and a civil war provoked, because their elections resulted in a government that is not a regime compliant to the US government. That the terms "extremism" and "moderation," as used in the corporate press, are not objective concepts, but rather tied to whether a government or political agency serves the interests of the Bush administration. These are concepts you’ll never see in the mainstream media.

JR: So, in a sense, you are raising awareness that an alternative narrative of Palestinian history even exists.

RB: Exactly. And this issue goes beyond me and my particular book. As you know, well-known figures such as Jimmy Carter, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt—even the usually untouchable Desmond Tutu—have recently been victims of smear campaigns, accused of anti-Semitism and so on, simply because they were presenting the Palestinian perspective and, implicitly or explicitly, criticizing US and Israeli government policy.

JR: And that’s in the public forum. It’s striking that even in academia—traditionally, the last bastion of open debate—there is now also a systematic silencing of alternative readings of Palestinian history. Norman Finkelstein was essentially forced to resign position at DePaul University; Ilan Pappé recently left the University of Haifa for similar reasons.

RB: Even the area of publishing is no longer safe. Pluto Press, the publisher of my latest book, is currently fighting for the right to distribute Joel Kovel’s book, Overcoming Zionism, in the United States. Kovel’s book was published by Pluto Press and is distributed in America by the University of Michigan Press, under contract with Pluto. But when the Michigan chapter of the pro-Israel group StandWithUs denounced the Overcoming Zionism as anti-Israel propaganda and discredited facts, the university press stopped its distribution. In early September, the press’s executive board decided to continue distribution temporarily; but the incident has caused the university press to review its relationship with Pluto Press, with a decision due in late November. A statement from the University of Michigan says explicitly that Pluto Press’s decision to publish Kovel’s book brings into question the viability of the university’s distribution agreement with the publisher. So sometimes, quite literally, the phrase "Stop the press!" is treated as a reasonable request.

JR: In other words, what we’re seeing is not just a chilling effect, but a deep freeze that appears to be settling over all alternative sources of information. Do you have suggestions for people who want to counteract this, who want to keep these lines of communication open?

RB: Yes. It’s important to actively support progressive publishing companies such Pluto Press, and to be aware of the attempts to shut down distribution of their books. I’d urge everyone to go to their website and see the books they offer. It is vital to keep information sources flowing to counteract the deceptively complete discourse presented in the corporate media. And be aware of other news sources: progressive websites such as Counterpunch, and other resources such as the Palestine Chronicle, Zmag.org, etc.

JR: It strikes me that by referring to your book and the progressive press as "alternative narratives," we are implicitly affirming the primacy of mainstream media. Yet the fact is that your book, which deals with on-the-ground realities of the second intifada, is not "alternative," but central, and vital to any real understanding of the Palestinian struggle.

RB: Quite right. In fact, if you want a true alternative reality, I’d suggest a front-row ticket to the upcoming peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland. That will be a parallel universe constructed to serve the needs of the Bush administration, with very little to do with the actual needs of either the Palestinian or the Israeli people. It will be a media spectacle, starring Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas as the already-disempowered players, and with little result—except for preserving the US and Israeli governments’ status quo, and keeping the region ruled by military occupation, state violence, and, inevitably, terrorism.

JR: One challenging issue you address in The Second Palestinian Intifada is the increasing violence used by Palestinians against the Israeli military and Israeli civilians. You write that it is important to "contextualize this phenomenon, not to justify it, but to present the Palestinian response as a tragic yet predictable human reaction to decades of subjugation." Do you think it’s possible for the American audience to get beyond the image of a suicide bomber and see the larger phenomenon behind it?

RB: Yes, I do. I assume intelligent readers, and thoughtful readers will ultimately be able to put themselves in the position of the Palestinians described in the book. To eliminate violence, one must be brave enough to examine the root causes. That requires a mixture of humility and imagination—a mental exercise rarely required by the corporate media.

JR: Finally, in practical terms, how can one buy a copy of The Second Palestinian Intifada?

RB: You can order the book directly by sending a check of $23 USD, which includes shipping charges, to Ramzy Baroud, PO Box 196, Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043, USA. If you have a PayPal account, you can send $23 USD, including your shipping address: editor@palestinechronicle.com.

-For more information on Ramzy Baroud, please visit his website at http://www.ramzybaroud.net.


Will America Lead?

Ramzy Aboud reached out to QuestionItNow to share this insightful and thought provoking essay. I found this serendipitous, since I just finished reading The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism by: Naomi Klein.

Klein's book and the following article illuminate a common theme, democracy and corporatism (neo-liberalism aka neoconservatism) are incompatible.


A Case for Arab Dignity

By: Ramzy Baroud

The ongoing socio-economic and political ills that mar potential progress in Middle Eastern countries can largely be attributed to the ill-defined foreign policy of the United States. Utterly desperate situations have arisen whereby US clients rule with an iron fist, making prospects for a meaningful democracy sit at an all-time low. However it would be nothing less than self-deception to elucidate Arab social, economic and political ailments exclusively on US-Israeli military and political belligerency; there needs to be an element of self-reflection and responsibility to make viable any pragmatic steps towards improvement and justice.

The Arab Human Development Reports list political and economic regressions, rampant corruption, utter inequality, oppression of women, and indeed men, lack of cohesion, planning, and forward thinking as significant problems in Arab countries. The 2005 report laboured to put a positive spin on negative situations, choosing to focus on the empowerment of Arab women, who, in some Arab societies are denied access to schools, economic independence and political representation.

The oil boom of the 1970’s, and the wave of neo-liberalism in the 1990’s has turned most Arab countries into class societies, either creating new disparities or deepening already existing ones. But there is little class conflict to speak of today; the poor are, in many cases, literally struggling to survive on day-to-day basis, while the rich have surpassed, in arrogance and attitude, the positions assumed by the elites of Central America. Their access to political power, economic wealth, and total control over most media channels has significantly deepened the divide. Many of Morocco’s poor are braving the tumultuous Mediterranean waters to make it to Europe, to secure meagre jobs with meagre pay, and an uncountable number of Egyptians are in constant hunt for opportunities elsewhere. The situation everywhere is getting more dire, opening the doors for even greater corruption and nepotism to permeate.

The media cannot be counted on to represent the reality on the ground. Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya remain the exception, but they too are receptive to political and economic pulls. And even without these, it takes more than couple of TV stations to cater to the local and national needs of hundreds of millions of people whose cultures, immediate realities and economic and political challenges are too varied to be encapsulated in a few news bulletins, erratic TV debates and passing slogans.

Saddest of all is the fact that Arab masses lack the ability to even vent their frustrations, having lived under a tight grip for decades and crushed mercilessly whenever they dared to march for their rights.

While the ruling elites lavishly spend to set themselves apart from those at the bottom, the latter are forced to learn the language of power, to cater to the elites every whim. No wonder many turn to the most immediate ways of escaping such reality. The Internet is thriving in major Arab cities, not so much as a tool of meaningful communication, but mostly for purposes of chatting and pornography. Both of these create alternate realities. Chatting could also represent the start of new opportunities, that of premeditated love, or, just maybe, a green card or its equivalent in some European country.

The situation is particularly dismal for Palestinians caught between a brutal Israeli occupation and their own corrupt elites. While many live under various regimes with an almost impossible legal status as stateless people, rich Palestinians in the Gulf (and elsewhere) seem blissfully far-removed; the immense Palestinian wealth abroad is yet to benefit the 1.4 (million) Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, 80% of whom are dependent on international aid for their survival.

The US and various European countries are contributing to the chaos, compounding neoliberalism with neo-imperialism, controlling the former colonial outposts via economic dependency in the form of aid, political and military posturing, and NGOs. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID are two prominent examples. NED, funded mostly by a Congressional annual allocation, was founded in 1983 to serve US foreign policy. It claims to be guided by the belief that freedom is a universal human aspiration that can be realized through the development of democratic institutions, procedures, and values. Considering NED’s role in the coup against Venezuelan democracy in April 2002 and other instances of soft intervention, one cannot help but question the organization’s democratic values.

The Arab peoples are in a situation that warrants little envy. In countries like Iraq, a functioning socioeconomic and political structure despite its shortcomings was simply written off in May 2003, with the signature of L. Paul Bremer, the first US ruler of Iraq. The disbanding of the army was followed by the country’s de-Baathification (undermining Sunnis for merely being the favored sect of Saddam), showing utter disregard for the welfare of the Iraqi people.

The Iraq scenario has set a dreadful precedent. Those not content by their current rulers were forced to rethink their priorities when they saw the US-induced chaos in Iraq in action. Those who giddily capitalized on the democracy window were mercilessly crushed. Palestinians were subdued and democracy was snatched away from its proper owners, the majority of the people, and was handed back to the corrupt few. In Egypt, coercion and corruption during elections has managed to maintain the status quo.

There are no easy answers here, no snappy recommendations or full-proof solutions. The task is truly overwhelming. But it is clear that the true interests of the Arab peoples can only be served by Arabs themselves; reforms can not be imposed, true, but that is impossible to achieve under the current power relations - rulers setting themselves up as unquestionably superior to their people, TV channels promoting rampant consumerism and providing endless distraction, and uncountable multitudes seeking deliverance, escapism and, often, falling prey to extremism. For Arab countries to have some hope of a meaningful future (and indeed present), grassroots work must replace intellectual detachment, wealth must be invested in building self-sustained societies, and, most importantly, the dignity of Arab women and men must be preserved above all else.

- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London).

QuestionItNow

"If the doves were to give in to their critics and shut up, then we would all have to trust the Bush administration completely to decide whether to continue, escalate, or end the war. The government would have a free hand to do as it likes. Far from showing their patriotism, critics who muzzle themselves in wartime are abdicating a democratic responsibility."
- By David Greenberg - Posted Wednesday, March 26, 2003
_____________________________________________________

For immediate release: Thu, 11 Oct 2007

Calling all anti-war and social justice activists:

Help organize Oct. 27 Detroit March Against Racism and War

First, this Saturday, Oct. 13, in Detroit we will be going out into the community with sound cars and leafleting crews to build the Oct 27
March Against Racism & War. We want every store in the neighborhood to post flyers (many already have from last Saturday's effort). We want every lamp post to have flyers taped/stapled up. We want to go up and down every street talking to the people about how the war is draining much needed funds from our cities. We want to sign up new activists - many who are angry about the many outrages like the Jena 6 case.

Join us at 1:30 PM sharp at 5922 Second Avenue (just north of Wayne State
University at Antoinette Street). We will be done by 5 PM or so.

Next, we want to invite all activists in lower Michigan to come to Detroit on Oct. 27th for the "March Against Racism and War." We will be marching through one of the poorest neighborhoods in the city. All are welcome! Bring a carload, van load or bus load from your church, anti-war committee or school. Make a sign identifying your city. We want to show that the entire state, urban, suburban and rural are UNITED to demand an end to the war and racism.

Michigan Emergency Committee Against War & Injustice MECAWI

Will America Lead?

Painful 9/11 Truth

Joel S. Hirschhorn

Many technical analyses cast doubt on the official explanation of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, including those presented by an impressive new group: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. More difficult than discovering the truth, however, is convincing most of the public to accept the bitter truth.

Americans easily block out painful truths. Powerful societal forces keep much of the population distracted and uninterested in complex issues. Entertainment-oriented mainstream media contribute to mass ignorance. And the political establishment often buries the truth, uses propaganda and manipulates citizens. Intelligent, strong-willed people can fight all these.

But on a deeper level, many truths are blocked psychologically, because they produce too much pain. This results when truths sharply disagree with strongly held beliefs. The conflict produces cognitive dissonance that can block full acceptance of the disturbing truth. People fall victim to self-manipulation and self-delusion. Truths are dismissed and false beliefs remain embedded.

When it comes to 9/11, we face the strong belief that only Al-Qaeda caused 9/11. But analyses by many experts reveal the collapse of three WTC buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the two towers. Without getting into details that one can spend many hours examining on a number of websites, the general view is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

If correct – IF – the immediate reaction is like a cosmic big bang. It would have taken considerable effort by a number of people with expertise and access to the buildings to rig them so that they could be intentionally collapsed when the two jets hit the towers. Tough questions flood in: Who could have engineered all this? Could foreign agents accomplish such complex actions – and if they did, why not take credit for it? If Americans did it, why would they intentionally inflict inevitable mass death and devastation? Worse, they seemingly knew about the plan to fly the jets into the towers.

Post-9/11, why have the government and official investigations not come to the same controlled demolition conclusion? This might be explained if the government was involved.

Pull one string and the whole 9/11 story unravels as your imagination triggers unending questions. Can Americans support a reinvestigation and rethinking of the 9/11 event? Or would they rather avoid even more pain and preserve the official account that places all blame on Al-Qaeda? So easy to criticize those who offer different explanations as conspiracy nuts.

After all, the new truth would be so shocking that we would have to question our political and government system. Could there have been such malevolence somewhere in our government? Did a monumental conspiracy push us into attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq? Did petroleum and corporate interests shape 9/11?

Like other groups, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth wants a new, honest and comprehensive study that considers all the evidence for controlled demolition. First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions. But let us not allow a possible painful truth block the primary task of determining once and for all what caused the collapse of the WTC towers and building no. 7.

If there were non-Muslim forces – possibly U.S. government ones – that played a major role in the WTC catastrophe, then let us have the courage to face the truth. Suppose some element of our government played a secret, awful role. If we do not uncover it, then we are vulnerable to repeat nefarious and unimaginable activity in the future – possibly to impact the 2008 presidential election. Discovering 9/11 truth would enshrine the wisdom of the old adage: the truth hurts. That means suffering the pain of revealing lies and cover-ups. Mourning over the deaths of building victims and heroic first responders would expand with new anger. And another reason to hate and oppose the Iraq war would surface.

If those that believe the official 9/11 story – especially elected officials – trust their views, then let them support a serious investigation to test the validity of the controlled demolition hypothesis. If they fear and reject doing so, then let us see that as suspicious and unacceptable.

As a former engineering professor with growing skepticism about the official WTC story, I joined Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth; you can learn about the controlled demolition findings and other similar truth-seeking efforts at www.ae911truth.org. You choose: seek the truth yourself or take the easy way and just criticize those who question the official story.

To sum up, horrific possible answers can cause us to shun a question. But clearing our minds of fears of painful truths is essential to clearing our nation of destructive lies. Otherwise, we stay stuck in a delusional democracy.

[Joel S. Hirschhorn was a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a senior staffer at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association; he is the author of Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government at www.delusionaldemocracy.com and co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org.]

QuestionItNow

This evening I heard a straight talking from a 77 year old former representative and senator from Alaska, who is now a Democratic Presidential Candidate. Make Gravel appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher and spoke the truth. He spoke of the issues that should concern every American. Following are some of his observations.

Congress & Bush Co. - "Follow the money if you want to know the government you have."

Democratic Presidential Candidates - "Any candidate who voted for the Iraq War is not fit to be president of the United States, and I will include Obama, because he has not shown leadership."

Global Warming - "We are losing ice sheets in Alaska. This is far more a threat than anything else we are facing."

Iraq - "We had know right to be there in the first place. It is their country." "We need to get our troops out of Iraq in 120 days." "Like during Vietnam, the Republicans are asking for just a little bit more time and we can win. What is there left to 'win' in Iraq?"

China - "They could put us into bankruptcy at an time. And Congress is talking about a trade war?" "They refuse to deal with this problem."

On We the People - "The people need to be empowered. They need to be the ones making new laws."

Hmm, this last statement sounds an awful lot like article v. It sounds like Mike Gravel would like to empower We the People. It appears he believes we can solve our problems better than career politicians on the take.

Will America Lead?

Why Has Congress Failed Americans?

- Joel S. Hirschhorn

The Founders of our nation and the Framers of our Constitution surely did not foresee the day when, of the federal government’s three branches, the public would have the least confidence in Congress. In fact, the public has a little less confidence in Congress than it has in HMOs. At 14 percent, the fraction of Americans with a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress is the lowest in Gallup's history of this measure -- and the lowest of any of the 16 institutions tested in this year's Confidence in Institutions survey. The Supreme Court received 34 percent confidence and the awful presidency of George W. Bush received 25 percent – nothing to be proud of.

The 2006 congressional elections show that switching power between the two major political parties is an act of utter futility. We have a bipartisan failure of Congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities and serve the public. In the end, Democrats may have a different style, but like Republicans are also corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent. Things have gotten so bad institutionally and culturally that we cannot vote our way out of a dysfunctional and destructive Congress as long as the two-party duopoly maintains its grip on our political system.

We no longer have a significant number of members of Congress that rise above partisan political priorities to put the good of the nation and the integrity of our Constitution first.

For our constitutional republic to really work Congress must have the courage and integrity to use its constitutional powers to safeguard Americans’ freedom, security, health, safety and welfare. Even the most distracted and cynical Americans now see Congress has done next to nothing to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities.

Worst of all, Congress has allowed the Bush presidency to accumulate far more power than our Constitution permits. Even after years of arrogant disrespect by Bush and Cheney for our Constitution and Congress itself, Congress is too cowardly to do what they are supposed to do to maintain the structure of our federal government. It has not used the constitutional remedy of impeachment – not to punish Bush – but to preserve the constitutional limits on the presidency.

Add to this: the failure to protect the rule of law; the failure to control spending and reduce our debt; the failure to control our borders and protect our national sovereignty; the failure to stop the insane Iraq war; the failure to stop the many forms of corruption of Congress itself; the failure to restore public confidence in our elections; the failure to stop the excesses of globalization that is destroying our middle class; the failure to address rising economic inequality; the failure to fix our broken health care system; and so much more.

All this has resulted from repugnant runaway politics. Getting elected, grabbing power and enjoying the benefits of office trump governing. Hundreds of members of Congress – in the House and Senate – are mental midgets, embarrassing blowhards, chronic liars, outright crooks, corporate lackeys, and elderly buffoons. They are plutocracy protectors more than democracy defenders. And too many that think they should be president.

So what can the 86 percent of Americans without confidence in Congress do?

Put aside partisan views and stop re-electing members of Congress. Only a handful of incumbents deserve to be re-elected. A very few that never supported the Iraq war, do not use pork spending to reward their supporters, and have worked to impeach Bush, for example.

Now is the time to elect independents and third party candidates to Congress. When one objectively sees the utterly low quality of both Democratic and Republican members of Congress it becomes clear that even a random selection of ordinary Americans would probably do better. But we have thousands of independents and third party members with consi