Voice of the People

Letter from the Editor/Voice of the People: In this section you will find a letter from the Editor, as opposed to a letter to the editor.  It is my desire as editor to emulate that writing style that my family of Word Weavers was raised on.  The style of H.L. Rapier, the master word weaver, the Patriarch! My father H.L. Rapier was a regular writer with the Kankakee Daily Journal.  I remember him spending hours penning the letter that would stimulate thought, make a few people mad, but mostly with grand eloquence deliver a message that would leave some readers scratching their heads, while others would simply say, “that’s right Ray, tell them how it is!” Even those who were left scratching their heads, desperately trying to figure what the “Sam hell” he was talking about did not question him. They just knew that if Ray wrote about it then it needed to be said. He hand delivered (pen delivered) his political views to the steps of Kankakee Politics.  He first ran for Mayor.  Standing up against a strong political family headed by Tom Ryan and then again went up against the same political strong-hold when he ran against George Ryan for a seat as Illinois State Representative.  Standing up for what he believed was nothing for H. L. Rapier.  He would proudly stand firm and call a wrong a “wrong.”  I discovered at a Very young age the concept of “red-lining.”  A concept that many people know very little of, but regrettably it still exist. My father exposed that term even when others questioned the validity of the accusation. Red-lining is/was a term that referenced  financial institutions drawing a red-line around certain parts of a community that it was not going to invest in.  Realtors were encouraged to steer buyers to other neighborhoods knowing that financial institutions would not approve loans in those areas.  It was out of control in Kankakee County, most especially in the City of Kankakee.  To this day Kankakee, Illinois as a community is still rebuilding from the loss of revenue and population as a result of tactics and poor investment pointed out by my father. So in that same vein the word-weavers, here at ArtSeesdiner will join together and keep that spirit alive.  I like to reference it as “soap-blogging” much like the old “soap boxing” that my father took part in as he set his ideas to pen.  He would just trust that someone would be tuning in to read what he had to say.  My father, the Patriarch, the Master WordWeaver indeed had much to say! So it goes with Artseesdiner!

The Voice of ArtSees!

A Myth of a Moral American Authority by dcr  Pulitzer Prize winner, Ron Suskind, has come out with a book entitled ‘The Way of the World’ that asserts convincingly that the Bush administration ordered the CIA to forge a letter covering their collective derriere about WMDs in Iraq and Saddam’s taking delivery of yellow cake uranium from Niger. As of August 24th, the title held the number three spot on the New York Times Best Seller List. Further, US Congressman, John Conyers, as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has undertaken an investigation of Mr Suskind’s assertions.( Mr Conyer’s  official announcement to review the allegations can be read here: http://judiciary.house.gov/news/080811.html ) As despicable as this recounted action is (one of so many the Bush administration has perpetrated that a whole new lexicon is presently being developed by the Oxford Dictionary) and as dismally unsurprising as this latest criminal subterfuge is (The Bushites, after all, have been preparing for the ‘End Time’. With ‘Owl-mighty Gawwd’ on your side, you can do whatever the Hell you want, apparently.) there is, regrettably, one ‘Revelation’ that Mr Suskind has not experienced; that regarding the prevailing myth of American moral authority. At least, not as evidenced by his interviews on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! there isn’t. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=178981 With all due respect to Mr Suskind as an investigative reporter, he ended his pitch on the Daily Show by reiterating his ‘book-tour blurb’, which Stewart had stifled half-way through the interview with a jibe about how crassly Suskind was touting his book. Suskind, in summation, stated with practiced melodrama that “The book’s all about how America’s moral authority has bled away and we need to restore it to fight the battles that we need to fight and, y’know, the way to do it’s with truth!” Can I get an ‘Ay-man’ for the rapturous delusion of American moral authority? Not to belittle or depreciate the authenticity of Mr Suskind’s journalistic efforts, or the nail-in-the-coffin effect this book may have on the already tarnished reputation of George W Bush’s presidency and its dubious legacy, but Mr Suskind is missing a most vital point; that is the unwholesome concept of ‘American Moral Authority’.  The fundamental precept upon which Mr Bush has based his policies – one regrettably shared by many previous administrations – is that the United States of America operates from an elevated moral position which serves to justify all of its actions no matter the legitimacy or the outcome. This vain, prideful fantasy that America possesses intrinsically superior moral authority is both a ludicrous and harmful one. It has been used to white-wash the ruinous, foul effects of American foreign and domestic policy for centuries. (It must be said, though, that the Bush/Cheney co-presidency has taken this doctrine to radical extremes, hence it should be gratifying to all who cherish democracy and the rule of law upon which it is based to know that some of the watch-dogs of the Fourth Estate, like Mr Suskind have not been muzzled. Barking up the wrong tree still serves to raise the alarm that all is not right in the barn-yard.) The American people, from the cradle to the grave, are inculcated with the precept that America can do no moral wrong; that America has a ‘lock’ on righteousness and so, ipso facto, any apparent wrong-doing is done by ‘loose cannons’ and ‘renegades’. The promulgation of this appealing, though unsubstantiated testament has resulted in its being piously accepted as a basic tenet of the secular pseudo-religion of ‘Americanism’. The roots of Americanism lie deep in the sub-soil of the European experience in the North American continent. It is a common notion that the Europeans who laid claim to the land were pursuing a destiny. This sense of predetermination stems from both the secular and religious arenas. Royal decrees, warrants and grants, cultural chauvinism, xenophobia and ethnocentricity, as well as religious prophesy and heavenly mandate lent credence to the idea that the Europeans had a duty and responsibility to tame the land and bring civilization to the continent. One example of this is the famous "City upon a Hill" sermon of 1630, given by Massachusetts Bay Colony governor, John Winthrop, in which he declared that the Puritan colonists immigrating to the ‘New World’ were part of a special pact with God to create a holy community. (That this sermon was cited and needlessly gilded 350 years later by Ronald Reagan should be noted as indicating the persistence of this contemptible principle.)This sense of divine (or regal) mission served to assuage any twinges of the collective guilt which the wholesale slaughter and displacement of the indigenous populations may have elicited in the Christian conscience of the colonists, the colonizers.  This same principle, furthermore, has served to mitigate any sense of shame, remorse or responsibility on the part of Americans for their role in more recent acts of savagery as a result of foreign and domestic policies. Much more could, should and will be said on the concept of ‘Americanism’ as a secular religion. A more concise definition of Americanism and further discussion of some of the other tenets of Americanism can be expected at this forum. This essay, however, shall remain focused on the under-lying precept of ‘Moral Authority’ and its nefarious and pernicious effect on American policy making. Supporting examples which demonstrate the veracity of the claim of American moral authority are rarely if ever offered. This is to be expected. Why should they be, after all? Like any belief system, ‘Americanism’ requires no proof. Notwithstanding one’s ‘faith’ in Americanism, the maxim has little relationship to fact and so creates a prejudicial cognitive dissonance amongst the citizens of the United States. The specious myth of American moral authority is worn by American leaders (and the American people) as a precious, reverential vestment to cover up the numerous, depraved, heinous acts of murderous violence and dehumanizing social injustice that comprise the history of the American Republic. Given America’s checkered, contemptible history (if one is brave and resolute enough to closely examine more than the ‘approved’ glosses used in American schools) Americans cannot rightly lay claim to moral authority or the moral high ground, yet, they do. For to reject the tenet of American moral authority is to renounce one’s faith in Americanism, declare oneself ‘unpatriotic’ and so suffer derision and ostracism from American society and the body politic. Although doctrines of faith, by definition, are held to be unassailable by logic, even so, examples of America’s moral failures might serve to contravene the indiscriminant, unthinking acceptance of the sacrosanct belief in America’s inherent moral ascendency. Let’s start with the unconscionable exclusion of indigenous Americans, African-Americans and women of all races from those who were granted ‘Liberty’ at the signing of America’s most hallowed documents and the effective denial of the rights of full citizenship to those citizens for the greater part of the life of the Republic. Not exactly brimming with righteousness and moral rectitude, one might say. Then again, such injustice was part and parcel of earlier, less civilized times and one might, if one were a true believer in the dogma of Americanism, facilely shoo away any guilt over these shameful inequities,. Moving on (too quickly) from social injustice to the atrocities of war, perhaps the ‘True Believer’ will consider the slaughter and subjugation of (fill-in-the-blank) by America ‘the Righteous’ as permissible evidence of moral turpitude. The indigenous people of the American continent, the Native Americans The indigenous people and citizens of the Philippines following the Spanish-American War The indigenous people of the Hawaiian archipelago   The civilian population of Viet Nam The people of Haiti The people of Guatemala The people of El Salvador The people of Nicaragua The people of Panama The people of Iraq All of the above and more Then, again, it could be argued that war is a monstrous aberration in which atrocities are an unfortunate, yet integral part. (Collateral damage is the modern, accepted terminology for the slaughter of civilians and while euphemisms such as this and ‘non-combatant’ are wide spread, they do not negate or excuse criminal, immoral acts.) Notwithstanding the parenthetical proviso, as General William Tecumseh Sherman correctly observed, “War is Hell!” Thus one might be disposed to dismiss the aberrant behavior of men on the field of battle fighting for their lives as admissible to this argument. The heat of battle, however, would not mitigate the murderous result of aerial bombardment, as the orders and the executions for such ruthless assaults are done at a cool, calculated distance. Since the Second World War, the people of China, Korea, Indonesia, Cuba, Peru, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Libya, Iran, Kuwait, Somalia, Sudan, Bosnia, and Yugoslavia have all suffered ‘death from above’ delivered by the United States  in undeclared ‘wars’. These horrific, cold-blooded incidences of mayhem might register as contravening evidence with those whose faith in American’s moral strength is less certain. Furthermore, if the many adherents of Americanism would stop even for a moment to meditate on the documented assassinations committed by CIA operatives as part of numerous coup d’états  when the brutal and corrupt dictatorships of Mobuto, Trujillo, Somoza, Marcos, the Duvaliers (pere et fil), Suharto, Noriega and Saddam Hussein were installed and maintained to suit American interests (a technical term meaning ‘corporate concerns over investments’) they would start to sense that not even the US State Department could be so naïvely bumbling in the matters of statecraft as to fail to recognize the glaring lack of moral fiber displayed, not only by these despots - certainly not by the murderers in the service to these men - but also by the US administration officials who befriended them and ordered and carried out extra-legal executions. (Visit the site of ‘Friendly Dictator Trading Cards’ for more fun facts about America’s propensity to support fascist autocrats when the money is right.) http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Dictators_Home.html Possibly, borderline apostates should more closely examine and consider the presidentially ordered, CIA directed and financed coups in Chile, Guatemala, Haiti, Iran, etc. that violently and bloodily over-threw the democratically elected governments of those nations because their policies, which strove to place the needs of their own people above the greed of US-based multi-nationals in defiance of the long-standing dictum for subservience to American ‘interests’, were perceived and propagandized as committing the odious ‘crime’ of promoting ‘leftist/Marxist’ or ‘ultra-nationalist’ policies. Conceivably, the Faithful might note America’s determined, decades-long obstruction by veto of repeated UN resolutions calling for a Palestinian State and fair and equitable distribution of vital resources – resolutions supported by near world-wide unanimity which in all likelihood would end most of the animus and violence in the region - while at the same time successive American administrations have been politically, materially and financially supporting the continued dehumanization of the Palestinian people in gruesome, slow-motion genocide by the State of Israel. How might 30 years of America stone-walling the basic human rights of the people of Palestine be viewed as just and righteous? Should the adherents to the creed think the above examples reference events too remote in the past to be conveniently pondered, then consider the recent spate of bi-partisan windging and grousing over the astronomical costs of rebuilding Iraq and the accompanying morally bankrupt proposal that the Iraqis pony up and pay for reparations themselves for the diabolical mess the Bush administrations have made of their country? Such a base, execrable retreat from accountability can hardly be seen as a manifestation of charity, fair-mindedness or moral superiority. Indeed, if the Faithful were simply to focus on the holy ‘War on Terror’ as decreed by Bush the Second in his infamous State of the Union speech in January, 2002, there is a virtually endless list of atrociously immoral actions committed, codified and condoned that coldly testify to a deplorable absence of virtuousness, moral strength, honor and honesty. To Wit: The suspension of habeas corpus, the keystone of the British and American legal systems The denial of due process, The kidnapping and extraordinary rendition of suspects, The torture and dehumanizing abuse of those illegally detained, The lying, dissembling and prevaricating about torture, kidnapping, extraordinary rendition, etc. The murder of thousands upon thousands of Afghani men, women and children, The slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children, The criminal, forced displacement of 5 millions Iraqis, The slaughterous assaults on the people inhabiting the tribal areas of Pakistan, The effective revocation of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of:  freedom of speech freedom of assembly redress of grievances freedom from self-incrimination freedom of privacy The forging of documents indemnifying and exonerating Bush apparatchiks of wrong-doing The perjurious and evasive testimonies given before Congress by Bush operatives The blatant, contemptuous refusal to answer Congressional subpoena to give testimony regarding the aforementioned points Etc Etc In light of the extremely long check list of recent atrocities, war crimes and institutionalized injustice, coupled with those committed over the course of the history of the American Republic and presented with rigorous brevity herein, what justification does anyone have to profess America’s moral authority? A chorus of indignation at the effrontery of the charge laid here that America’s traditional claim to the cherished tenet of its ‘moral authority’ is naught but vapid propaganda must surely have reached a fevered pitch of apoplexy, sending some to grope for needed cardiovascular medication and compelling others to furiously bang out flaming blogs of condemnation and setting still other devotees to shrieking vile epithets and accusations of un-Americanism. Heaven, forefend! “At least, Americans don’t strap C4 to the backs of women and children to blow up shopping malls.” one can hear the patriots piously clamor. “At least, Americans don’t suicidally fly airliners into buildings killing thousands of innocent people!” The response to this straw man’s retort should be obvious: When America has cruise missiles, smart bombs, cluster bombs, bunker busters approaching the destructive power of small nuclear devices, unmanned aircraft armed with laser-guided Hellfire missiles, F-16’s and satellite surveillance, where is the need for such primitive methods of assault as suicide bombers or kamikaze flight plans? The disparity in the result of an attack by a flight of B-52s or B-2s or A-10s or AC-130s or even a single MQ-1 Predator ‘drone’ when compared to that of a young extremist liveried in a bandoleer of high explosives or that of the 9-11 hijackers need not be examined in detail except by those irredeemably blinded by their faith in Americanism or those simply depraved. All of the aforementioned methods of attack are horrific but, to belabor the obvious for the sake of completing the argument, one must admit that coordinated attacks by the US, using the most formidable military force in human history, leave tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties in their wake.  Even the horrendous loss of life on September 11, 2001 pales in comparison to the probably casualties wrought during the opening night of the ignominiously christened ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’. Note that these comparisons are in no respect meant to decriminalize the malevolent acts perpetrated on that bright, sunny day in September, 2001, nor does it mean to exonerate the perpetrators and their co-conspirators of culpability and legal retribution. They are provided so as to offer to the ‘Faithful’ what is hoped to be a fresh perspective from which to view the murderous immoral acts of the American government. Granted, the American people and American administrations have undertaken many noble, humanitarian projects. The premise being argued here is not that Americans and their government are wholly without merit or virtue. The contention is that Americans, demonstratively, do not have the right to claim intrinsic moral authority. There is no denying that the Marshall Plan was of true benefit to the people of Europe, for instance. (Never mind that the lion’s share of the funds went directly into the pockets of American corporations.) Charitable, humanitarian organizations such as the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, C.A.R.E. and others depend on the contributions of generous, compassionate Americans. Moreover, slavery was eventually abolished though its abolition in the USA took place long after all other industrialized nations had made slavery illegal and anathema. Suffrage was eventually won by American women after a prolonged struggle though glass ceilings and inequality in the work-place persist to this day. Therefore, no doubt, there are a few bright lights in American history which play a counterpoint to the many harsh, immoral discordances outlined previously. These contrapuntal incidences only obscure, as through a distorted lens, the sanguine, savage landscapes which have been the result of American foreign and domestic policy and serve as rationale for the reprehensible, megalomaniacal, holier-than-thou conceit expressed by the aphorism in question. We, as Americans, must ask ourselves if there has ever been any other nation on earth that has so brazenly used such a hypocritical, self-serving, self-deluding, propagandistic platitude to gloss over inveterate wrong-doing. Indeed, there are and there have been, but none of the possible comparisons are in the least bit complimentary. That this polemic has not made effort to differentiate the citizens of the United States from the policies of the government is not an oversight nor a tactful omission. As a republic, we, the people, are ultimately responsible for the actions of our elected representatives and their appointees. Claiming that the White House, the Houses of Congress, the State Department, the CIA or any other branch or agency of our government have taken actions for which the American electorate shares no responsibility or culpability is an untenable assertion if America is a truly functioning democracy. To excuse American citizens from the sins of its government is to confess that the United States is a ‘failed state’, one having only hollow, insubstantial rituals of democracy rather than viable democratic processes. Much more can and will be said on this matter at another time, as well. America’s supposed ‘moral authority’ is a sham; a fantasy that any bright adolescent could perceive as a charade if only the straight, unspun facts were presented honestly. It is regrettable that a journalist of Mr Suskind’s stature has not seen beneath the reverential cloak that disguises the bitter, sorry truth of America’s political character and as an apostate, publically renounced the false creed of America’s moral authority. By so doing, his investigative journalism would be under-scored and elevated to loftier heights and his service to Truth and the American public would have greater, lasting effect than does merely exposing the political iniquities, however heinous, of specific culprits. The Voice of the People can be heard in Blog form! The Triad, what is it and do we need to be concerned? By M. E. LaLuna I have been against the war in Iraq, I have questioned Bush’s and our Bi-partisan congress’ motives, I have pondered the significance of our being there, and until recently I have thought it was a big mistake.  A great part of me still does.  But, recently I have been looking deeper into the global reality of the Iraqi conflict and what it really means.  It means we need to limit the power and control of the Middle East.  It means we need to be present in an area that is unstable.  It means we need to better understand the threat to the East and to the North of Iraq. We do need to be mindful of the past 40 years of unrest in Iraq, Iran and Israel and that relationship as it does indeed affect the entire world.  So,… Recently Senator McCain was asked about the Iraqi conflict during an interview with George Stephanopolous, and my major criticism in his response is this: When he was asked about concern over political and financial growth in Russia and what does it mean to the United States and the rest of the world I was saddened that he only mentioned concern over Putin.  That when he was asked simultaneously about Iran he only mentioned Russia and the instability in Iran, what I wanted him to say was that he was concerned about the Triad between Russia, Iran and China, that he would include in the conversation regarding Putin’s hand choosing of Medvedev that he would discuss Hu Jintao and Medvedev’s alliance against the placement of missiles on the Eastern front to protect European nations against Iran.  Bottom line is this, and I encourage you to read on regarding my rationale on this topic.  Bottom line: Who is contributing to the buildup in Russia?  Who is strengthening Russia economically, politically?  Who is contributing to Iran’s nuclear growth and military provision? It is not solely Russia and Iran helping the other, there is a third party, a large third party, a communist third party. Is Russia gearing up for a fight? Is it just acting as the eastern world’s scarecrow?  Why would Russia seek to act the scarecrow for Iran?  What it is the overall purpose of a military buildup and by what financial means is a recently struggling country able to build up a military strength? Russia is the stop gap between the Western world and China. In order to measure the importance of Russia and its role as either scarecrow or legitimate bully, we must identify what entity is fueling its ability to stand up against the United States in either role. Are the recent investments by Russian billionaires’ (and continued investment) in the rich real estate of Colorado and the recent discussion of drilling for shale oil in the rich terrain of Colorado a coincidence? Let’s look at Russia from a logistic, strategic point of reference.  It is the provider of a logistic land mass that can protect China by land access as well a provider of the necessary nuclear commodities for Iran.  Example: Russia supplies nuclear materials to Iran, Iran supplies oil (and is a leading energy source) to China, China supplies financial support to Russia, Russia builds up as a “junior power” under China, Iran becomes the dominant power in the Middle East, and China continues to consume the world’s energy resources while it continues to build up economically to become the world’s superpower. The evidence that identifies a Triad in the East including Russian, China and Iran has grown in significance.  As the United States continues to trade and enable an emergence of a capitalistic mind-set for the purpose of economic growth for a few key United States investors, we begin to see an emergence of a middle class in China and India.  This consumerism extends to the excessive need for precious metals and raw materials found in Russia and Africa.  In order to put these materials into development an excessive amount of energy is necessary to do so.  The triad of Russia, China and Iran is all a part of the “bigger” plan.  That “bigger” plan is to unseat the United States, disabling it and creating an AXIS that can shut down the US. What does Capitalism look like minus democracy? It is believed that the United States is not included in the end times and part of that is because the United States as we now know it will no longer be in existence.  The United States as a global infant is experiencing what many believe caused the fall of Rome…a disproportionate cost to fuel ratio through "synchronous failure." (Thomas Homer-Dixon, The Upside of Down) Not long ago Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met to denounce jointly the US missile shield. This concerns me as I am confused as to the mixed messages that China is sending the United States.  China wants US citizen’s investment capital, US financial support and recent philanthropic support following the earthquake, but yet if feels as though we are a military threat.  Russia fears our involvement in and around them logistically, all the while supporting the build-up in both China and Iran.  How can we as a nation befriend and support China, at the same time that China is intimately involved with Russia and Iran? As for this writer, I believe that Russia’s threat should be taken seriously as it has the support of its neighbors.  It is clear that there cannot be a separation between Russia, Iran and China.  Whether it is scarecrow tactics or straight on bullying, it should not be ignored. What does it mean in relationship to the “end?” Well, the end will first be a systematic end to a few, then the many, then an end to all.  Like dominoes there will be a starting point and then an “end” point.  As China consumes mass quantities of the world’s energy resources, financially builds up Russia to the point that they are flexing military muscle and financially enables Iran to rely solely on Russia and China for its continued strengthening in the Middle East we must identify the strongest point of the Axis.