Michael Jackson and America’s Superstardom

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Michael Jackson and America's Superstardom I greatly admired Michael Jackson. I admire anyone who's the very best at what they do, and Michael Jackson was definitely that. I remember when I first heard him. He was doing a tune called "Who's Lovin' You?" He was a mere child at the time, but his talent was so fully developed, and he sang with so much emotional maturity, I mistook the high pitch of his voice to be that of a very soulful adult female. Then later when he did "Billie Jean" at the Motown reunion, he seemed to literally defy gravity as he Moonwalked across the stage. So yes, this young man was, without a doubt, one of the greatest entertainers who ever lived. But Michael's life - that shooting star that dazzled humanity with its awesome display, only to burn out much too soon - threatens to serve as a perfect metaphor for America itself. The story of the United States parallels that of Michael Jackson. It is also the story of a precocious child star that dazzled humanity with its awesome display. The United States is undoubtedly a superstar among nations, but we must not let hubris allow us to forget that among those very same nations, we are nothing more than a precocious child. While the United States is 233 years old, that's relatively nothing when it comes to the history of nations. Iran, one of the oldest nations on Earth, is over 8000 years old. That means that when Jesus Christ walked the Earth, Iran was more than 6000 years older than the United States is today, even then. We need to keep that in mind as we formulate the language of our foreign policy, because believe me, it is a fact that has not been lost on the Iranian people. It is America's failure to recognize and respect that fact that has caused so much animosity towards the United States among Muslims in the Middle East - and much of that animosity has also extended to many of our allies in the West. And it is in recognition of that fact that President Obama took the tact that he did in his Cairo speech. While many in the GOP are trying to play politics with this issue, President Obama's Cairo speech reflected the ultimate in statesmanship and good common sense. He recognized that no one likes a cocky and disrespectful child, and that's exactly what the United States has become. Bush was seen not only by Muslim countries, but countries all over the world as a bratty child who was using the clout of militarism to talk down to nations that dwarf the United States in terms of history and cultural tradition. Thus, it was absolutely necessary in order to establish constructive engagement in the Middle East for President Obama to first repent, and then ask the world to please forgive the stupidity of his arrogant sibling. He was right to assure the people of the Middle East that the United States recognize them as a great and ancient culture, whose religion has contributed tremendously to mankind. Just through those few common-sense words President Obama began a healing process that immediately began to mend animosities held against the United States for over sixty years. Clear evidence of that was immediately apparent. Immediately after his Cairo speech the people of Lebanon voted to appoint Saad al-Hariri, Backed by the United States, as their new prime minister, and voted down the Iranian backed Hezbollah hardliners. And immediately after that, the Iranian people took to the street in opposition to hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But just like the jihadists, GOP hardliners like Dick and Liz Cheney claim that President Obama's position is weak, and it makes America less safe. But the facts belie their contention, since the very people who are voting for a more reasoned stance towards the United States are the very same people that jihadists depend on to recruit their terrorists. So why is the GOP taking such a hard stand against common sense? Just like the jihadists in the Middle East the GOP require an enemy to maintain power. The jihadists in Iran came to power as a result of mass demonstrations just like we see in Iran today. But in that case, the demonstrations were against the United States for toppling Iran's democratically elected government and replacing it with Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, a United States puppet. So since hatred of the United States is what brought them into power, the jihadists feel that it is incumbent upon them to maintain that hatred to remain in power. The same is true of the GOP. The Republican party's agenda - protecting the interest of the corporatocy, like the insurance industry over the good health and well being of American families, for example - is so counterintuitive to what's in the best interest of the people that it is incumbent upon the GOP to always maintain an enemy - any enemy - in order to circumvent the common sense of the people and appeal to their emotions. A perfect example of that is the way the GOP has convinced a large segment of the American people that acting in their own interest constitutes socialism - and of course, socialism leads to communism. Thus, according to their reasoning, anything that gives priority to our own families over corporatism is communist inspired. They've successfully used that reasoning to circumvent our common sense. Clear evidence of that is if we used our common sense we'd realize that social security and medicare, two of the most popular programs in America, are both based on socialist principles - so is congress' healthcare plan. Everything is about dollars and cents to the GOP, including war. The only people in America who hasn't suffered from the war in Iraq is the GOP and their corporate cronies. In fact, while America suffers, they've benefitted from it greatly. While the children of the poor and middle class are dying, their children are cheering us on from the lobbies of exclusive country clubs; and while average Americans are losing their jobs and homes, GOP cronies are wallowing in the profits of war. So what does this have to do with Michael Jackson? Just like Michael Jackson, Americans have derived enormous benefits from our status as world superstars. But that's not always a good thing, because also like Michael Jackson, our status as superstars have caused us to overindulge ourselves. If Michael hadn't been such a superstar the world might have placed limits on him. In that case, the plastic surgeon who disfigured him might have refused to do the excessive surgery, which I'm convinced led to his decline. And if it turns out that he died as a result of drugs administered to help boost him for his comeback, he might still be alive today if he'd been simply, Michael the postal worker. The very same dynamic is true of America. If we hadn't been such a superstar, the world may not have allowed us to invade Iraq. In that case, 4000 young Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children would be alive today. In addition, if we had invaded, George Bush and Dick Cheney would be in chains today, facing charges of war crimes. So while President Obama indicates that he wants to look forward, that is the luxury of a superstar. When one considers the result of looking forward after Richard Nixon's Watergate, and Ronald Reagan's Iran/Contra affair, it becomes clear that the salvation of America may lie in looking back, and holding ourselves accountable, just this once. 　 Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

An Open Response to Halliburton

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

An Open Response to Halliburton

Ms. Gabriel,

I’m writing in response to your June 23rd request for an immediate correction to a statement made regarding the Halliburton Corp. in my June 20th article, Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option? Your communication reads as follows:

FOR YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION

The article, “Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option?” posted Saturday, June 20, on The Wattree Chronicle contains information about Halliburton that is completely misleading and incorrect.

Halliburton is not a military contractor. Halliburton is one of the world’s largest providers of products and services to the energy industry, and serves the upstream oil and gas industry throughout the lifecycle of the reservoir – from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and formation evaluation, well construction and completion, and optimizing production through the life of the field.

You will note that all of the government services and engineering and construction businesses have been and remain with KBR. To confirm, KBR and Halliburton are completely separate and independent of each other. Halliburton separated KBR from the company in April 2007 (http://www.halliburton.com/public/news/pubsdata/press_release/2007/corpnws_040507a.html.

We respectfully request you make this correction immediately.
Kind regards,

Diana Gabriel
Senior Manager, Public Relations
Halliburton
diana.gabriel@halliburton.com
Office: 713.759.2608
Cell: [Redacted]
Fax: 281.575.5790

While I am always careful to obtain multiple sources for any assertions that I make in my articles, nevertheless, I went back to objectively revisit the facts just in case it was necessary to accommodate your request. Halliburton is only mentioned one time in the entire article, and the paragraph reads as follows:

“And there's a very logical reason for that. Business, by it's very nature, is designed to generate profit, not to provide services - there was ample evidence of that during the Bush administration. Prior to the military turning over many of its support services to Halliburton, for example, we never heard about our troops being given contaminated water or being electrocuted in the shower. The reason for that is our military's top priority was maintaining the troops, while Halliburton's top priority is maximizing its profits. The very same dynamic is at work when it comes to insuring our citizens - and the politicians know it, but they don't care, because again, for them, it's about me first, and only then, the public good. I mean, am I the only one sick of these people dictating what is on and off the table? I don't think so.”

Try as I might, Ms. Gabriel, I can’t find anything inaccurate about that statement. While you pointed out that “Halliburton separated KBR from the company in April
2007," testimony before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee indicates that KBR was providing our military with substandard services long before then - and then, being rewarded for it.

On May 20, 2009 Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, opened the hearings on “Rewarding Failure: Contractor Bonuses for Faulty Work in Iraq,” with the following statement, which reads in part:

“Today’s hearing is a result of this Committee’s continuing investigation into the deaths of over a dozen U.S. soldiers by electrocution in Iraq. That investigation has led us to internal Pentagon documents showing that in 2007 and 2008, contractor KBR received bonuses of $83.4 million for work that, according to the Pentagon’s own investigation, led to the electrocution
deaths of U.S. troops.”

That doesn’t mean that the work was performed in 2007 and 2008 - that’s when they received the bonuses.

The committee’s third witness was Mr. Charles Smith. Mr Smith was the former Chief of HQ, Army Field Support Command, Field Support Contracting Division. According to Sen. Dorgan’s opening statement, “In that capacity, he [Mr. Smith] managed the massive LOGCAP contract that the Pentagon awarded to KBR, until he was forced out of his job in 2004 when he refused to approve paying KBR more than $1billion in questionable charges." He went on to say, "I should note that Mr. Smith was removed from his job despite the fact that in November 2004 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld awarded him the Department of Defense’s Medal for Distinguished Civilian Service.”

Mr. Smith’s testimony includes the following:

“In August 2004, the Army’s approach to KBR underwent a complete change. The goal of award fee boards became one of making KBR financially sound, even if it was not performing in accordance with the contract. This was consistent with actions to rescind the 15% withhold definitize contract cost estimates well above the DCAA recommended amounts, and remove me from my position. The Army’s stated reason is that it was afraid KBR would cease performance or allow their subcontractors to cease performance. I did not think this was a credible threat, as KBR would have lost its military business entirely by this action. I do not believe the Army has
stated the real reason for its change in approach to KBR.”

So frankly, Ms. Gabriel, I don’t see where I was inaccurate at all. In fact, Halliburton’s position seems to be completely analogous to a man who gets his hand shot off while committing a robbery, then pleads not guilty on the grounds that he’s no longer associated with the hand that held the gun.

Thus, with all due respect, I think I’ll let the article stand as is. I don’t see where it is the least bit misleading. In fact, upon review, I don’t think I went far enough - but I fully intend to remedy that situation in the very near future.



Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everybody who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Healthcare: Why Can’t We Get the Congressional Option?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Healthcare: Why Can't We Get the Congressional Option? There's at least one thing that Republicans do much better than Democrats, and that's marketing their initiatives. It doesn't matter how regressive the idea, Republicans manage to frame it in a way that if you oppose it you look like you're either degenerate, or at the very least, un-American. For example, instead of accurately calling themselves "The Order of Religious Bigots Dedicated to Shoving Our Version of God Down America's Throat," they market their insanity as "The Moral Majority," and instead of being honest and calling themselves "The Public Vagina Brigade," they call themselves "The Right to Life" proponents (even though they're willing to let that very same life starve to death after it's born). Conservatives get a lot of milage out of their creativity in this area, and progressives would do well to follow suit. The initiative to legalize same-sex marriage would have been much more marketable, for example, if it had been dubbed "The Right to Love." And the same is true of healthcare reform. Proponents of a public option for healthcare could make life a lot more difficult for opponents in congress if instead of calling it "The Public Option" they simply dubbed it "The Congressional Option" - that way the issue would be self-explanatory. It would force every member of congress who placed the interest of the insurance industry over the welfare of his or her constituents to explain why they want to deny the American people the opportunity to opt into the exact same plan that congress and their families enjoy. But I only bring this issue up as an introduction to a much more serious problem - demagoguery. All of the public manipulation above is symptomatic of a system that's out of control. It's a clear example of how politicians who are suppose to represent the people, are using marketing and public manipulation to feather their own nests. The vast majority of politicians could care less about abortion, same-sex marriage, religion, or national healthcare reform. The only thing these people truly care about is being reelected - and that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans. The mere fact that these people, who we sent to congress to represent our interests, are willing to undermine our most fundamental right to long and healthy lives in order to ingratiate themselves with the insurance industry and feather their own nests, clearly demonstrates that our system is broken, and it requires our immediate attention. With our economy in the worst shape that it's ever been since the Great Depression, let there be no doubt about the fact that we're involved in a class war. But the only way that America is going to come out whole is if we come to grips with an objective truth - we're either going to win together, or we're all going to lose together. That makes it all the more important that we have statesmen and women in office, rather than self-serving demagogues who can't see beyond the next election, but the latter is exactly what we've created. We now have an entirely new class of people among us - the political class. With the exception of a handful of legislators, these people don't care about the rich, the poor, or the middle class - all they care about is who's in the best position to get them reelected in the next election cycle. They are totally self-serving, and America is suffering for it. The abject selfishness of these people have either created or contributed to every single problem that we have in America today. But Americans are beginning to recognize that fact, that's why congress is either at, or close to, its lowest point ever in the polls. It's becoming increasingly clear that these politicians have become so arrogant and self-serving that they've lost touch with the people that they're suppose to represent. They've completely forgotten that they're public servants, our employees, not America's aristocracy. The political class has, literally, come to think of themselves as royalty. Hyperbole? Let's look at the facts: During the Great Depression the House of Representatives voted to cut their own salary from $9,000 to $8,500 per year. In contrast, today a regular member of the house makes $174,000 a year. They've given themselves $16,000 in raises over the past five years. In addition to that, while their constituents are losing their jobs, their homes, and struggling to make ends meet, earlier this year congress gave itself an additional $93,000 (in addition to their salary) in "petty cash." Then, at the very same time that they were lavishing themselves in this unconscionable orgy of largess, they were coming up with countless excuses why our children shouldn't receive the same medical coverage as their own. First they tried to cloud the issue by claiming that providing the American people with a congressional option for healthcare was a form of socialism, but then, so is social security. They then claimed that a congressional option would lead to government bureaucrats stepping between patients and their doctors, yet, they don't seem to have any problem in that regard, nor do their families. The truth is, most of the members of congress could care less about any of that. All they really care about is their bottom line - being reelected. Thus, in this case, the best interests of their constituents have to take a backseat while they follow the money - money which is in the hands of large insurance companies that are determined to avoid having to either amend their business practices or lower their rates in order to compete with a government option. These politicians try to cover themselves by touting the virtues of the free market, but they know full well that while there are certain things that the business community can do much better than government, like marketing, manufacturing, and selling, there are other things that business is lousy at, like providing public service. Most of us have an innate understanding of that fact, that's why very few citizens would opt for a private military, police, or fire department. And there's a very logical reason for that. Business, by it's very nature, is designed to generate profit, not to provide services - there was ample evidence of that during the Bush administration. Prior to the military turning over many of its support services to Halliburton, for example, we never heard about our troops being given contaminated water or being electrocuted in the shower. The reason for that is our military's top priority was maintaining the troops, while Halliburton's top priority is maximizing its profits. The very same dynamic is at work when it comes to insuring our citizens - and the politicians know it, but they don't care, because again, for them, it's about me first, and only then, the public good. I mean, am I the only one sick of these people dictating what is on and off the table? I don't think so. So what should we do about these demagogues? The only way the people can regain control of the system is by completely cleaning house. We need to use our primary system to vote most our sitting politicians out of office - both Democratic and Republican. That will send an unequivocal message to everyone holding public office who's running things. Thereafter, we need do away with all congressional perks, and instruct the newly elected politicians to vote themselves a salary and compensation package that reflects the median income of a middle class American, and salaries should be capped at an agreed upon percentage above the minimum wage. Only then will we be able to establish and maintain a representative body that is truly reflective of the people. In short, we need representatives who actually feel our pain - those who can only imagine it, just won't do.  Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com If you really want to be hip, hop into a book.

Sphere: Related Content

The Republican Vision for America - Divide and Conquer

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE The Republican Vision for America - Divide and Conquer The current situation in Iran is perfectly analogous to what's going on here in the United States. The vast majority of the people want a common-sense approach to domestic and world politics, while the old guard, stuck in the blind animosities of the past, are determined to promote and exploit those animosities for their own end, and at any cost - including the misery and death of their own people. In Iran the old guard is represented by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; in the U.S., Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. In Iran they are called jihadist, while in the U.S. we refer to them as the Republican Party. Like the jihadist in the Middle East, Republican wing-nuts claim to be acting on a mission from God. Also like their counterparts in the Middle East, these GOP leaders believe that the end justifies the means, which leaves them free to lie, cheat, steal, torture, and kill innocent people. Their primary method of operation is to take a germ of truth, then infuse it with false conclusions and lies to poison and inflame the minds of the people to act against their own interest. Just like the jihadist, they specialize in using the people's own ignorance against them in order to divide and conquer. But it seems that the people of both cultures have said enough is enough. Due to unprecedented corruption during the Republican administration, and the belief by many Americans that they'd been robbed of both the 2000 and 2004 elections, in the 2006 election the people voted Republicans out of office by the largest numbers in a generation. Then in a more graphic break with the past, in 2008 Barack Obama was voted into office as the first African American president of the United States. The people of Iran are currently in a struggle with their old guard as well. They too believe that a desperate and corrupt old guard has attempted to steal their vote. It's still too early to determine the outcome of the struggle between the will of the people and the jihadists in Iran, since as we speak there's rioting in the street, and Iran's Guardian Council (the old guard) has agreed to recount the votes. But here in the United States, the Republican Party has embarked upon a scorched Earth policy, and a strategy of divide and conquer. Their primary goal seems to be to sabotage the nation's recovery by keeping the people divided. Thereafter, if they're successful, they intend to regain power by simply saying, we told you so. Thus, they've dedicated their existence to making America suffer for the next four years. A Clear example of the Republican Party's method of operation can be seen in the activities of Rabbi Nachum Shifren. Rabbi Shifren has become a perennial Republican candidate for the 26th District of the California State Senate. I first came into contact with him when he began to contact many of us in the Black press with a message of working to improve the Los Angeles Unified School District. Republicans always build their lies on a germ of truth - after all, who could possibly disagree that we have a dysfunctional educational system. But like many Republican wing-nuts, the hubris of his racist mindset has caused him to underestimate the intelligence of the Black community. He actually thought he could ingratiate himself with Black writers through flattery. He would never try such a ploy with a White journalist. Essentially, he came to me and said, he felt the need to approach me because of my exceptional insight. He was sure that with my keen intelligence I would be able to relay his message to those in the community who weren't bright enough to see the big picture. In other words, I'm a credit to my race. I had long since researched the Rabbi, so I was fully aware that he was a rabid ultra-conservative who had been a strong supporter of Pat Buchanan, and had been all but banished from the Jewish community. But one should never try to out scream a fool. You listen to them carefully - very carefully. And this is what I heard: He said, "There is nothing more corrosive to the fabric of our city than hatred based on race. But let's get real. We don't then overcompensate by hiring LAPD officers that are 4 feet, 10 inches tall! We don't go and hire officers that have rap sheets, or are otherwise unqualified. The racisim here is absolutely overt! The thinking goes like this: let's just get ANYBODY in there, as long as they're a CERTAIN skincolor..." "Eric, I reached the boiling point when I was stopped by a woman officer that was shorter than her 9mm. I attended a Neighborhood Council meeting in W. LA in which the "captain" , a female officer, addressed the group. I looked at another officer present and remarked how this 5'6'', 150 lb woman could be the captain. He told me that many male candidates had been passed over for the position." When I asked him to substantiate his claim he responded with opinions and anecdotes. I then pointed out to him that while diminutive female officers are not what those of our generation have come to expect, I can think of very few instances where these young women have been overpowered by thugs. On the other hand, I can think of a number of instances where physically oversized, but intellectually diminutive, thug police officers have assaulted and in some cases killed innocent citizens. So I'd rather see brains over brawn any day. And with regard to the question that he asked the officer at the neighborhood council meeting regarding how this 5'6'', 150 lb woman could be the captain." I pointed out to him that his question alone betrayed a mindset that I found quite troubling. I then asked, how did he know the female captain wasn't twice as qualified as all of the male candidates that she competed against, to which, I never got a response. I also pointed out that he had based his assessment of the captain on purely his own opinion of what SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT BE. Thus, he'd betrayed a tendency to base his conclusions on less than informed and highly subjective opinions - the very same kind of opinions that caused many to conclude that Blacks should never be placed in positions of responsibility, or that Jews should never be trusted. But here's where I lost patience with him. He said the following: "But who in the corrupted Black leadership will call for a moment of silence for those African Americans murdered in racially charged ethnic cleansing by radical Hispanic gangs? Now that we need to discuss "racism" in America by those that want to Marginalize African American citizens, where is Attorney General Eric Holder? Will he step up and do his job? Or is he also in bed with the Reconquista crowd, paralyzed by political correctness." The above statement pointed out his true colors. It was a thinly veiled use of the murder of Stephen Tyrone Johns at the Holocaust Museum to promote the Rabbi's political agenda. Black people are also being killed by Black gangs, but he wasn't concerned about that. His only intent was to slander the Obama administration, and cause a division within the Black and Hispanic coalition that's making it impossible for Republicans to be elected. How much does Shifren really care about Black people? Listen to the poison that he's feeding the young people in a speech before the Silicon Valley Young Republican Federation: "Multi-culturalism will be the nail in the coffin for our country . . . There are a substantial number of Black and Latino educators and administrators who will stop at nothing until they have seen 'the last gasp of White America.'" Spoken like a true jihadist. Eric L. Wattree Wattree.blogspot.com If you really want to be hip, hop into a book.

Sphere: Related Content

An Indictment against the Mainstream Media

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree An Indictment against the Mainstream Media . On September 15, 2002–six months and four days prior to the Iraqi invasion--I published an article entitled "Would Bush's Saber Rattle as Loudly Against China?"in the Portland Independent Media Center (no one else would publish it at the time) that said the following: . Now that we've reached the anniversary of 9-11, I am consumed by one thought--in light of what I've seen over the past year I find myself much more afraid of Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft than I am the al-Qaeda. While I understand that terrorists strike without warning to destroy life and property to promote their own agenda, it has become increasingly clear that Bush and his cohorts threaten to be even more destructive by attacking life, liberty, and the very foundation of this nation in the promotion of theirs. . Over the past year these conservative war mongers have been playing the American people like a fiddle. Now they want to sacrifice American lives for nothing more than their own political advantage. Just ask yourself, what does Saddam Hussain have to do with 9-11? Absolutely nothing. Evidence of that can be found in the fact that if Saddam had been involved in 9-11 the administration would have gone after him initially. So why is it suddenly so imperative that we invade Iraq now? I'll tell you why. Since Bush was unable to produce the head of Osama Bin Laden, he now needs another villain to take Bin Laden's place in order to keep his numbers up in the polls-- and if that means having to sacrifice a few American lives and ignite even more terrorist activity on American soil in the process, so be it. . It is a well known political fact that the American people tend to rally around the president when the country's at war. That's why the Bush Administration fell all over themselves after 9-11 to declare "a war against terrorism." And the American people reacted just as planed-Bush's numbers immediately went up in the polls. But now with the mystery surrounding the fate of Osama Bin Laden, the administration has found itself without a war to sustain those numbers, so now they have to create one. . While I'm not prepared to say that the Bush Administration allowed 9-11 to take place, it is clear that the timing of the 9-11 tragedy was without a doubt the best thing that could ever happened to Bush's presidency. Bush was a lame duck the minute he was sworn in. It seems that as soon as Bush entered The Oval Office the stock market began to falter and the economy started to weaken. And whenever he spoke, the next day's news was not so much what he said, but whether or not he got through the speech without falling on his face. In addition, his big tax cut that was touted as the key to boosting the economy turned out to be a bust, and he was so inept in dealing with congress that a Republican senator changed parties costing Bush control of the senate. As a result, when 9-11 took place, it was embraced by conservatives more like it was a football rally than the sober occasion that it was--thus, all the flag waving, ceremonies, and strutting about. . But where was all that bluster prior to 9-11? ABC News reported on May 16th of this year that the Bush Administration acknowledged that U.S. Intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before 9-11 that Osama Bin Laden's terrorists might try to hijack a plane. It was also reported that Bush privately alerted transportation officials and security agencies, but other than that, simply sat on the information. The administration claims that the information they received was non-specific, but one would think that even if they couldn't determine exactly when and where the attack was going to take place, at the very least they could have warned the American people. If they had, maybe some of the people who died would have chosen not to fly-or possibly, chosen to leave their children behind. But no, this president who now claims to be so concerned with protecting our welfare that he feels compelled to launch an unprovoked attack against Iraq, was at that time more interested in the impact that warning us would have on the airline industry. . What the American people needs to understand is that the power elite in this country doesn't view the United States in the same way as its citizens. They see the United States as a huge corporation, with its various industries as its subsidiaries. They see American citizens, particularly the lower and middle class, as simply pawns to be cajoled and manipulated in whatever way is necessary to meet the goals of the corporation. Therefore, they didn't view the tragedy of 9-11 in the same patriotic way as the average American citizen. After the initial shock, they saw 9-11 in terms of dollars and cents. Ultimately, it was viewed as an assault on their corporate superstructure. Later they recognized that the incident could be used as a distraction for the American people, and still later, an opportunity to move on Middle Eastern oil interests. . So let there be no doubt, all of the flag waving, ceremonies, and patriotic speeches have nothing to do with 9-11; they are designed to whip the American people into such a frenzy that they're blinded to Bush's actual agenda. And that agenda includes the following. 1).Committing America (and American lives) to a war in order to get himself re-elected. 2).Taking control of Iraqi oil fields to benefit his friends in big business. 3).Keeping the American voter distracted from considering the ramifications of the recent corporate scandals. 4).Keeping the American people from recognizing how inept he is as president. The rest of the world sees Bush's agenda for what it is, and the American people would too if they'd stop waving their flags long enough to consider the flag's true meaning. The American flag represents freedom and justice, not trying to dictate who should lead other countries. It represents the open debate of issues, not intolerance to any and everyone who disagree with your point of view. It represents the guarantee of personal freedom, not the suspension of the Bill of Rights. .  If the American people would just stop to consider these facts, it would become clear that even while Bush and his conservative cohorts are frantically waving our flag, they are simultaneously waging war against the very values that the flag and this great country represent. . These issues can, and will, be debated ad nauseam, but the American people need only ask themselves two questions to put all of the administration's nonsense into perspective. First, would the administration be so anxious to go to war if we were talking about China as opposed to Iraq? And secondly, do we think that invading Iraq will make us more, or less safe from terrorist attacks? If we answer those questions honestly, it becomes clear that the administration is being disingenuous at best.*** . So what I'd like to know is this--if a shade tree journalist sitting up in his den in the heart of a Los Angeles ghetto could see what was going on, why couldn't the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, CNN and all of the networks; Harvard, Yale, and all of the various and sundry Ph.D.s from America's great institutions of learning? And why couldn't the nation's think tanks, all of the nation's political scientists, and the United States Congress figure it out? The answer is, they had, then simply turned their backs and allowed our youth to march off to their deaths. The most irrefutable evidence of that? None of their children died. . Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everybody who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

The Moral Strangulation of America

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE The Moral Strangulation of America In my last article I pointed out that the character of America is being fundamentally changed. In less than two generations we've gone from citizens who were politically engaged and socially aware, to zombies who simply accept what we're being told by our favorite demagogues. We've gone from citizens who held our politicians' feet to the fire, to a group of cattle who allow our politicians to dictate what is, and what isn't, off the table - in spite of our instinctive clamor for the simple adherence to the law. We've allowed politicians to go from representatives with the single mandate of doing our biding, to so-called leaders who dictate to us what's in our best interest. As a direct result, the script has been flipped - we now define what's in the people's best interest by what's in the best interest of the politicians who are supposed to defer us. The above scenario has caused us to lose touch with what it means to be American. That, in turn, has led to the ridiculous debate over whether or not America should commit war crimes, and if those who committed the crimes should be held accountable. Thus, we're no longer considering what's in the best interest of America, with our primary allegiance to American ideals and our legacy to the world, we are now giving priority to what's in the best interest of George Bush and Dick Cheney, who are destined to go down in history as two of the most malevolent individuals in the history of humanity - and if we allow ourselves to lose this moral debate, this generation of Americans are going right down the drain of history with them. It seems incredible that America can lose so much ground as a people in such a short period of time. But when one considers how methodically we've been manipulated, it becomes quite understandable. It's just a matter of removing one link from the chain. Thereafter, the rest of the chain has no connection to its legacy, ideals, or accumulated knowledge, and that's exactly what has taken place in America. Over the past thirty years conservatives have mounted a concerted assault on education. They've demonized the teachers union, they've fought every attempt to fund education, and they've attacked and successfully abolished the Fairness Doctrine as an assault on freedom of speech. Thus, they've effectively blocked every avenue of public education. Thereafter, they bought up most of the conduits of public information and filled the void with conservative propaganda. The Rush Limbaugh Show, for example, is even given away to small radio stations all over the United States for free. The propaganda campaign became so pervasively blatant at one point that liberal talk shows couldn't even be broadcasted to our troops in Iraq - talk show host Ed Shultz was blocked from broadcasting in Iraq. As a direct result of this information black out, along with the inadvertent influences of MTV, BET, video games, and other online distractions that takes away from what used to be the normal flow of family communication, an entire generation of Americans have been effectively disconnected from what it means to be an American. They don't know, nor do they care, anything about Thomas Jefferson, the American Revolution, American ideals, or even how to find North America on a map. All they know is what feels good, who won the Super Bowl, what Paris Hilton said the night before, and the vicious misinformation of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News - and that doesn't make for a viable electorate. The situation has become so bad that we now have a generation of GOP politicians who don't even know what it means to be the loyal opposition. They don't understand the importance of putting America first, that's why they're running in circles, name-calling, and just saying no to everything. And on Democratic side, we've spawned a generation of politicians who are so gun-shy and self-serving that they're afraid to stand up for even the most long-standing Democratic principles. The only thing that curbed this situation is that the GOP became so blatant in their arrogance, and so greedy and abusive in their policies, that their behavior served to throw ice water in our faces. But now that we're awake, we need to make sure that America is never allowed to fall asleep again. The past several years have clearly demonstrated that America cannot survive without an educated and politically engaged electorate, so we must insist that our educational system is fully funded. And in order to make sure that we have uniformity in the education of our citizens, our educational system should be nationalized. The education of America is much too important to leave to local demagogues, or to be funded by local property taxes. Such a system guarnatees the short shrift of children who go to schools in areas with a low tax base? And vouchers should be out of the question. The voucher system will lead to a two-tier society. A voucher system will only lead to large corporations and right-wing religious groups robbing us of our revenue and brainwashing our children. What's going to happen once they raise tuition beyond the reach of the poor and there's no public schools left for the poor to return to? I'll tell you what's going to happen - the poor will remain uneducated, and their only choices in life will be to either work for large corporations for whatever pennies the corporations choose to throw their way, or join the military and become cannon fodder for military/industrial expansionism. That was the end-game. After all, when have you ever known the GOP to be worried about the education of Black children before? It is also important that we reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives claim that the Fairness Doctrine is a form of censorship, but that argument appeals directly to the level of ignorance we've attained through its abolishment. The Fairness Doctrine doesn't inhibit speech, it enhances it. The GOP argument hinges on the proposition that they should have the right to disseminate poisonous propaganda with impunity, and without challenge. Now, that constitute's censorship. The American people have just as much right to demand that truth be disseminated over our airways as we do to have truth in labeling on our food products. These are just two common sense solutions to one of the nation's most insidious problems - ignorance. If we adopt these solutions maybe Americans will have the wherewithal to benefit from the experiences of our forefathers, and avoid having to relive their long and hard earned experience with European demagoguery. Dick Cheney argues, for example, that America should be willing to forgo our ideals, the dignity of others, and the freedom of personal privacy to remain safe from terrorism. But just a little education informs us that Benjamin Franklin had heard that tired argument before, and he admonished in anticipation of such stupidity that "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" (Benjamin Franklin, 1706 - 1790, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 ).      Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everybody who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

A Simple Question: Would God Condone Torture?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE A Simple Question: Would God Condone Torture? Maybe I'm missing something, but I find it uniquely ironic that some the same people who clamor for prayer in school, claim that same-sex marriage is an abomination under God, who insist that America is a Christian nation, and fight for the Biblical version of creationism over science, are also the very same people who demand the right to be armed to the teeth with some of the most destructive private weapons on Earth, the right to slaughter and bring the most excruciating kinds of death upon God's other creatures for nothing more than their own entertainment, and now, condone the torture of other human beings as a legitimate tool of government. Is it just me, or does anyone else see this as the very height of hypocrisy? It seems to me that the mere fact that we're even debating the merits of torture is a clear indication that we've gone much too far towards allowing America to become a decadent nation. It has become clear that due to our all consuming preoccupation with personal titillation and hedonistic materialism to the exclusion of intellectual, moral, and ethical development, we're rapidly transforming this nation from that shining light on the hill, to a decadent hellhole in the valley of iniquity. Hypocrisy, self-delusion, deceit is no longer the exception, it has become the rule. And this is no accident. I've been watching this nation gradually sink into the abyss for the past thirty years. The late Sen. Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island, and sponsor of the Pell Grant said, "The strength of the United States is not the gold at Fort Knox or the weapons of mass destruction that we have, but the sum total of the education and the character of our people." No truer words were ever spoken, and they directly address the source of many, if not all of the problems that we face today. We've allowed ourselves to be manipulated, robbed, and cheated, as a direct result of becoming morally and intellectually bankrupt. We've become so preoccupied with big houses, big cars, and the pursuit of pleasure that we've completely lost perspective regarding what is real, and what is important in life. A prime example of that is a guy who was in the news earlier this week - I forgot his name, and it's not even worth researching, but in any case - after catching a football and running a few yards, he thought he was so important that he could thumb his nose at the President of the United States. This guy is so caught up in the superficial, and has become so completely overwhelmed with his own delusion of importance that the meaning of graciousness and simple courtesy has been completely lost on him. He was quoted as saying the only reason the president invited us to the White House was because we won the super bowl. Well, of course that's the reason! He failed to realize that an invitation from the president represents the people of the United States congratulating him and his teammates for a job well done. But obviously, he misunderstands the relative importance between the president of the United States, and a guy who caught a football. This guy is apparently under the impression that he's become so important that by rejecting the invitation to the White House he was depriving the president of the honor of meeting him. He fails to realize that playing football represents the toy department of life - just like too many more of us. Thus, I must admit it was partially the president's fault for inviting him in the first place. The president should have invited all of the young people across this country who graduated as the top scholars in their respective classes. By doing so, it not only would have placed what's important to the nation in perspective, but they would have also had the intellect to recognize the honor that had been bestowed upon them. Education is the key to a viable society, and the lack thereof is the key to our destruction. We often discuss, for example, how badly we need campaign reform, and how unrestricted lobbying prevents the government from functioning as it should. While that is undoubtedly true in our current circumstance, if we had a better educated electorate it wouldn't matter how much money poured into a politician's campaign coffers, he still couldn't be elected without being responsive to the needs of the people. After all, the only thing campaign funds are good for is brainwashing the ignorant. An educated electorate wouldn't be as prone to respond to the ten second sound bite, or the logical inconsistencies that demagogues present as patriotism. And they'd understand enough about America's traditions to recognize that torture is the perfect anthesis of not only Christianity, but the very foundation that this nation was built upon. They'd also recognize that promoting the interests of the people wasn't some sort of evil, socialist plot, and they'd see the inconsistency of attacking Iraq, while the people who attacked the United States were in Afghanistan. They'd also ask pertinent questions like"Why aren't the children of the rich, and political class, dying in this war like our love ones?" An educated electorate would have demanded to know what Cheney discussed with the business leaders he gathered together when the Bush administration first entered office - and they wouldn't have accepted "it's none of your business" as an answer. And a red flag would have immediately gone up when the corporation that Cheney headed received a lucrative no-bid contract as a result of invading an oil-rich nation. A thoughtful electorate would have asked early on why would an administration who claim to love and honor our troops send them into harms way without the wherewithal to protect their lives. And why would a patriotic administration throw billions of dollars at their cronies without any accountability, yet make the troops that they so honor have to pay for equipment lost on the field of battle, and are even forced to pay for their own meals while lying in the hospital after being wounded? After all, even prisoners of war don't have to pay for their own meals. Finally a thinking electorate would ask themselveswhy did the Bush/Cheney administration forced our troops to endure multiple deployments, and even held them hostage after their enlistment was up, when virtually every member of the administration moved hell and Earth to avoid military service when it was their time to serve the nation? Then, and even more curious, why did they do everything that they could to block an enhanced GI Bill to assist these same troops that they so honored, upon their return to civilian life. And now Cheney comes before us once again - at this point, filthy rich - to convince a grossly undereducated, naive, and self-absorbed public that he did it all for America. And you know what, he went up 10 points in the polls. God help America.    Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content

Republicans: Stuck in Own Muck

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Republicans: Stuck in Own Muck With the Grand Old Party experiencing its most precipitous decline in modern times, the very last thing it needs is a rusty old anchor pulling it down even farther. But that’s exactly what it’s got as it finds itself helplessly attached to a discredited and unrepentant Dick Cheney. Ironically, previously elusive and camera-shy, now that the former vice president is out of office, no one in the Republican Party seems to be able to shut him up. Like a drowning man, he’s flailing about and willing, it seems, to take anyone down with him in order to save his own hide. He’s become a loose cannon, far removed from the ethic of team player that he insisted upon by all while he was in office. He’s a defense attorney’s worse nightmare. And his unabashed tendency for self-service over loyalty was clearly evident in a recent interview on CBS’ Face the Nation when he pointed the finger at former President Bush as being responsible for signing off on waterboarding. Undoubtedly Cheney feels the gathering storm of accountability coming down upon him for what he calls "enhanced interrogation techniques" but the rest of the world is calling torture. His method of operation remains the same, however. Just as he did in his attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq, he’s using the shotgun approach in his attempt to justify the administration’s campaign of torture. But unfortunately for the GOP, in doing so, he’s giving the nation, and the world, a front row seat in observing the complete lack of character of one of the most reviled politicians in the history of this nation, and like it or not, the GOP feels forced to stand by him. First, in an attempt to use Department of Justice lawyers as human shields, he claimed that DOJ attorneys advised the administration that waterboarding wasn’t torture. Thereafter, he tried to give the impression that he was selflessly trying to defend "the little guy" by insisting that the attorneys in question shouldn’t be held culpable for giving their best legal advice. But actually, he wasn’t defending "the little guy" at all–he was actually fortifying a bunker to protect Dick Cheney. The only way that Cheney can keep DOJ attorneys on the reservation, and not have them reveal the genesis of their "legal opinions" in order to save their own necks, he must provide them with a cover for those opinions–a sort of, quid pro quo, like the one Scooter Libby thought he had. It is a must that he pull that off in order to hide behind the contention that he was simply following their advice as his cover. If he failed to protect the DOJ attorneys first, at some point in the future we’d undoubtedly hear Judge Bybee, former Attorney General Gonzales and others testifying that they wrote the memos because the vice president relayed a direct order to them from the commander and chief to do so during a time of war." That defense might not fly, but neither did their memos. So just in case that tact doesn't work, Cheney is also trying to justify the use of torture (why deal in euphemisms?) by claiming that it was, and is, necessary in order to protect America. He contends that the Bush administration has kept us safe from attack for over seven years. But what evidence does he have of that? Both our Mexican and Canadian borders are like sieves. If Jose Gonzales can simply walk across the border, what prevents Osama Bin Laden from doing the same? What evidence does he have that Osama didn’t simply say, why waste perfectly good terrorist when Cheney and Bush are destroying America from within? The terrorists have done their part--they've created a situation that ignited the greed, corruption, and opportunism of the Bush/Cheney administration. Now all they have to do is sit back and watch America collapse from within. That's why we haven't been attacked. Experts of every stripe dispute the claim that torture is an effective tool against terrorism, but even if it were partially effective, torture is against international law, and in direct contradiction of everything American stands for. The United States was not only a party to, but was a leader in hunting down, trying, and executing war criminals for indulging in that very same practice. But even if we accepted Cheney’s position in this matter, how far should we go? If it’s all right to torture a detainee to protect America, would we be just as justified in waterboarding the detainee’s seven year-old daughter to get the detainee to talk–or what about placing her head in a vice? If not, why not--wouldn’t that also be justified in the name of protecting America? The reason we don't do such things is because such a practice would spell the total destruction of America as we know it. Once we go down that slippery slop, there’s no end to it. There are many who would say that American citizens who smoke weed are a threat to America. Should we torture them as well? The problem with the Dick Cheneys of the world is that they fail to recognize that America is much more than a place on the map–it’s also an ideal. If the people of this nation picked up and moved to the North Pole, the North Pole would become America, because our American values would come right along with us. Conversely, if we desert those ideals, regardless to where we happen to be located, we’re no longer Americans. The ideals that Cheney espouse would feel much more at home in Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia. The day that America embraces them, will be the day the terrorists can declare victory over the United States. America has begun to realize that fact. As a result, the nation is in the midst of a new awakening that has left Cheney, Limbaugh, and much of the GOP leadership with their proverbial pants down. That’s why the GOP is in such a flux, and all we hear from them is one resounding no–to everything. That’s all they can say, because due to the GOP’s heavy reliance on wingnuts, social bigots, and various other extremists, they’re now completely locked in with the Cheneys and Limbaughs of the world. That’s their only means of support. At this point, the closest parallel to the GOP position with respect to Cheney and Limbaugh would be having to stand as a character reference for Charles Manson because your family was being held hostage. But it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving group of people. It’s next to impossible to feel sorry for the GOP because they’re getting exactly what hypocrites, demagogues, and social manipulators deserve. They've slipped in their own feces. Now, after basing their entire political careers on false patriotism, it’s going be pure hell trying to explain to their constituents why they supported two draft dodgers--Rush Limbaugh (a racist gasbag who avoided his military obligation by declaring a boil on his butt), and Dick Cheney (who had five deferments and indicated that "I had other priorities" when asked why he avoided the service)-- over Colin Powell (a decorated war hero, a Four Star General, former Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, and Sec. of State). Neither of these two draft dodgers think Gen. Colin Powell deserves to be called a Republican. Well, I guess you can find an area of agreement with anyone, because at this point, neither do I. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content

Carrie Prejean: Are Progressives Becoming as Intolerant as Conservatives?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Carrie Prejean: Are Progressives Becoming as Intolerant as Conservatives? I've always been proud to consider myself a progressive, because being a progressive meant that I was open-minded, willing to assess every issue on its own merit, and I'm tolerant of varying points of view. But it seems that many of today's "progressives" have corrupted the term. Though many of these people call themselves progressives, they are not progressive thinkers–they are progressive in name only. Over the years they seem to have somehow lost their way, and as a result, have managed to redefined the term "progressive" to simply mean, not conservative. A case in point is the unconscionable way in which the so-called progressive community has demonized Carrie Prejean after she indicated, almost apologetically during the Miss America Pageant, that she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman. Why in the world did she say that?!! Thereafter, she was called a bitch, seminude photos of her have been posted on the Internet, and she's been generally, dragged through the mud. It is unbelievable that people who call themselves progressive could do that to that young woman. While I 'm in total disagreement with her views on same-sex marriage, those are her views, and she has every right to them. She didn't try to shove her point of view down America's throat; she was specifically asked whether SHE thought same-sex marriage should be legalized. And she and she responded– quite honestly, diplomatically, and in my opinion, quite courageously, that she didn't. Then the judge, Perez, I think his name was, taped a video on Youtube calling her "a dumb bitch." So I ask you, what kind of progressive thinker can take the position that a person doesn't have a right to their own views? Perez even went so far as to dictate how Ms. Prejean SHOULD have answered the question. Who the Hell is he to tell a person what they should think? People like, Perez, is more damaging to their cause than they are helpful, because in many cases, it's not the issue that people are against, they just don't like the people who represent the issue. I agree with Perez on this issue, but I don't like him. So if I was on the fence regarding same-sex marriage, I'd vote against it–not against the issue, but against him, and I'm certain that many progressive issues are being voted down for that very reason. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a progressive as "A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government." Granted, Ms. Prejean's attitude toward same-sex marriage is far less than progressive, but she never claimed to be a progressive. She said she was a Christian, so there's nothing unusual for her to adhere to a belief system that she's been taught all of her life. On the other hand, however, for so-called progressives to denigrate this young lady as though she doesn't have a right to her private opinion, nor religious beliefs, is far more destructive to society and backward thinking, than anything that she's ever publicly uttered, at least to my knowledge--and such a position is certainly not a progressive point of view. Many of the people who call themselves progressives today seem to have been infected by what old-school progressives considered their most ardent foe and the most pernicious bane on society--intolerance. It's no longer good enough to say that gays and lesbians should be afforded equal rights and be allowed to marry like anyone else in our society, now it is required that everyone must enthusiastically embrace that position–in spite of their religious beliefs, and even in their private thoughts. And it's no longer good enough to say that women deserve equal rights in the workplace, now, any woman who chooses to be a full-time mother and homemaker is considered a turncoat to the feminist movement, and "unenlightened." And please don't let a woman use her femininity in the workplace to get ahead–just as men use their masculinity on a daily basis–she's immediately demonized. In fact, I'm virtually certain that Ms. Prejean's feminine beauty is playing a large part in her demonization. And the irony is, such demonization is often led by other women. Due to our leftist indoctrination, they fail to realize that's the very worst kind of sexual discrimination. They've allowed themselves to be convinced that the only way a woman can truly validate herself as being a worthy individual is to prove that she can be just like a man. A similar mindset is reflected in the Black community. Many Blacks feel like the only way that they can validate themselves is by proving how "White" they can be. Both assumptions are silly, premised on backward thinking, and are highly derogatory to what it means to be a woman, and/or, a Black person. Both President and First Lady Obama are excellent examples of the fact that you have to abandon neither your heritage nor your femininity to embrace excellence. Thus, in this progressive's opinion, such thinking is the very height of ignorance. In fact, it's laying the groundwork for a new kind of latter-day conservatism. After all, it is not so much what Rush Limbaugh and the GOP leadership think that is so insidious, it's their belief that no one should be allowed to disagree with them. And any so-called progressives who share that mindset not only validate Limbaugh's point of view, but are in fact, conservatives themselves. The only difference between them and Limbaugh is that they're conservative regarding a different set of issues. They even share the conservative trait of hypocrisy. A true progressive recognizes that the most important characteristic of any free and viable society is tolerance. They clearly understand that the only difference between the old U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany was one was led by lift-wing radicals and the other by right-wing reactionaries. But in spite of that, they had more in common than they had that set them apart–they were both dictatorships, they were both oppressive, and like every dictatorship, they were both intolerant of individual beliefs. The very same dynamic is at work, though to a much lesser degree, in this country. Thus, progressives must always remain cognizant of the fact that we corner the market on neither wisdom, intellect, nor morality. Therefore, once we begin to give priority to dogma over independent thought, we cease being progressives, and become just another group of fanatical wingnuts--like Perez Hilton.  Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content

Accountability: America’s Moral Responsibility to Humanity

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Accountability: America's Moral Responsibility to Humanity Eight years of Republican "leadership" has left America both economically devastated, and globally humiliated. Yet, far from apologizing for the damage that they've done to the stability and image of this great nation, instead, they've circled their wagons and gone into damage control mode–not to control the damage that they've done to the nation, but in an attempt to rewrite history in order to control the damage that they've done to themselves. So now, as President Obama goes about the business of desperately trying to return America to its former position of economic stability at home, and respect, admiration, and moral authority abroad, the GOP leadership seems to be completely oblivious to the nation's desperate and immediate need for a concerted effort in that regard. They're like clueless children who find it impossible to see the big picture. Thus, at this point it has become abundantly clear that their primary concern is not with restoring America to a sound footing in the world, but rather, simply restoring themselves to power at any cost. This situation points out the wisdom of always seeking to draw something of value from every adversity, and in this case, we should seek enlightenment. In spite of the fact that virtually everyone in the Bush administration managed to avoid serving this nation in uniform (Bush went AWOL, and Cheney obtained five (5) deferments), the GOP has somehow managed to pre-empt and wrap themselves in the glorious vestments of patriotism. But this current situation should teach us a valuable lesson in that regard–never go by what people say; always go by what they do. And what are they doing--while the American people are experiencing the kind of suffering that this country hasn't seen since the Great Depression, and the United States has become the "Dick Cheney" of the world, the GOP's one and only concern is how they can regain power. Is that patriotism? I don't think so. There's only one word to describe this current batch of Republican wingnuts--and you have to go outside the English language to find it--hutzpah. They've left this nation's global standing at its lowest ebb ever, and they've also left us much less safe. But in spite of that, Sean Hannity and FOX news have seen fit to trot out Dick Cheney to lecture President Obama on national governance and world affairs. What Makes these people think that anyone is interested in listening to anything this guy has to say? The vice president of the Crips has a higher approval rating than Dick Cheney, so they can have but one motive--to create division and disseminate propaganda. But Hannity's time would have been better spent holding a seance, then conjuring up the spirit of John Wayne Gacy to give us a lecture on child rearing. It couldn't have been any less productive, but at least there would have been an entertainment factor involved. Then you have Karl Rove trying to imply that President Obama is turning America into a banana republic. When I first heard him, the word "stupid" immediately came to mind. Either Rove is stupid, or he thinks the American people are complete fools. Now, think about it. Wasn't Karl Rove a major part of the very administration that lied us into war, illegally invaded a sovereign state, sent our troops off to war without the proper equipment to keep themselves alive, then made them pay for their own meals while lying wounded in the hospital, then looted the nation's treasury and resources, setup no-bid contracts to enrich their cronies, spied on their own citizens, and as we speak, are now trying to convince America that torture and all of the things listed above are ok, so that Bush, Cheney–and their entire crowd-- won't be prosecuted for war crimes, defrauding the American people, and the senseless waste of human life for personal gain? If I'm not mistaken, I think Karl Rove was indeed a major part of all that. So who looks, sounds, and behaves more like tinhorn dictators? Thus, before Rove starts pointing his finger at President Obama, he needs to smell it first. As a direct result of the greed, poor judgment, and self-service of these people, instead of focusing our efforts on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border where Osama Bin Laden and the others who planned and executed the Nine-Eleven attack on America were in hiding, they went to Iraq and began to tortured innocent detainees–not to protect America, but in an attempt to justify the lies they were telling the American people in order to steal Iraqi oil, enrich themselves, and loot this nation of the necessary resources to fund the New Deal programs that they couldn't attack legislatively. Now, as a direct result of that flawed judgment, we have the Taliban a mere sixty miles away from a nuclear armed Pakistan. So I don't know about the rest of America, but to me, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove's claim of keeping us safe is sounding pretty ridiculous about now. Thus, to even consider "moving on" without prosecuting these people is out of the question. If we simply turned the page on this matter, we become accessories to their war crimes. In addition, we cannot allow them to just walk away from placing the survival of this nation–and indeed, the world--in serious jeopardy. And further, if we are fortunate enough to survive this unmitigated episode of irresponsibility, we need to send an unmistakably graphic message to the next group of budding demagogues, who they've undoubtedly planted throughout the government. If Nixon had gone to prison for Watergate, and Reagan had become his cellmate for selling arms to Iran, we wouldn't be going through what we're going through right now. And finally, we have a moral responsibility to the world. A nation cannot just turn the page after its leaders have committed war crimes and are responsible for the slaughter and/or displacement of a million people. That page won't turn without the offending nation engaging in aggressive corrective action. If it were any other nation, the United States would demand accountability, so we can demand nothing less of ourselves. I know--they're simply wingnut Republiclowns, but their behavior in office was much more than a meaningless prank. Just because we put up with them, doesn't mean that the world should have to. After all, we even carry a pooper scooper for our pets. Trying to walk away from the atrocities of the past seven years would be like defecating and then trying to walk away without cleaning ourselves. We'd have to walk wide-legged and very uncomfortably, throughout the rest of history. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content

Meet Caesar: The New, Greatest Singer in the World

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Meet Caesar: The New, Greatest Singer in the World It was about 3 a.m. In the morning, and I found myself, as I am prone to do at that secluded hour, strollin' down the laid back and funky avenues of The Jazz Network. I love that place. It's the kind of place where if you're a jazz lover, you'll immediately feel like you're among family and friends. It's a virtual city, and it's only reason for being is as a monument to jazz. One minute you're accompanied down its soulful avenues by Buster Williams, with his slow, swaggerin' bass lines struttin' along beside you, then you turn the corner, and there's Buddy Rich and his big band tryin' to blow all the windows out the joint–it's a true oasis of jazz in this vast wasteland of contemporary mediocrity. As I strolled awash in musical bliss through its various nooks and crannies, I suddenly began to hear the first few bars of "I Wish You Love." I immediately stopped in my tracks, because even in this rarified musical environment, the beautiful melody of that hauntingly gorgeous tune was being caressed by a voice that literally took my breath away. While I hate to use such an unhip and overworked adjective, breathtaking is the only word appropriate to describe my reaction to its mellow, yet velvet tones. It was a finely tune instrument in perfect pitch, with the beauty, phrasing and diction of Nat King Cole. Yet, it was also reminiscent of Jesse Belvin, Johnny Mathis, and Sam Fletcher, and with the slightly muffled, airy sound of Luther Vandross, that made the heart say, "hush"–and it all came together to create a sound that was uniquely, and beautifully, its very own. So I immediately knew that I was dealing with immortality in the making, so naturally I stopped to investigate. The voice belonged to a confident, yet unassuming young man known simply, but appropriately, as Caesar. Appropriate, because just like his namesake, he was clearly sent to Earth as a conqueror. I've been a jazz fan every since I slipped out of the womb, so I'm intimately familiar with all of the material output of the great, and the near great–and in my humble, but highly informed opinion, Caesar is beyond great. This young man is one of those talents that come around maybe once or twice in a hundred years–and only then, if we're extremely lucky. Even at this point, so early in his career, I wouldn't hesitate to put him in the company of Nat King Cole, Jesse Belvin, Ella Fitzgerald, and Sarah Vaughan. While I realize that's a mighty tall order for him to live up to, true greatness doesn't require a runway–Picasso was born Picasso, he didn't require a learning curve, and so it is with this young man. Caesar, like Nat, Ella, and Sarah Vaughan, is one of those rare people that's clearly dripping with greatness from the moment they, in many cases, stumble upon their calling (Ella wanted to be a dancer). From the very moment they're born, the writing is on the wall–it's all about greatness, just waiting to happen. While I'm quite hesitant to insert myself into this piece, as a writer I recognize that there's an obvious question just screaming to be addressed–who am I to make all of these grandiose assertions? What credentials do I have to take it upon myself to single-handedly bestow greatness upon anyone? My answer to that is short and sweet–I was born with legendary ears. When I was twelve years old and my friends were still singing nursery rhymes, I was listening to Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, and Dexter Gordon. My mother was quite concerned, because she was afraid that I was following in my father's footsteps–and I thank God every day that she was right. He's was also what she called "a jazz fanatic," and she was convinced that was what led to many of the problems in his life, which we won't get into here. By the time I was fourteen, my father used to take great pride in buying new jazz albums and impressing his friends by calling me into the room and having me listen, then tell his friends who the musicians were that was playing on the various tunes. He used to win money that way, until his friends got hip to me. It was a piece of cake–I could tell them who was playing before the record got to the bridge of the first tune. His friends would be amazed, while I'd walk away wondering how they could call themselves jazz fans and not be able to recognize the piano of Bud Powell when they heard him. So I'll put my ears up against anybody who ever lived, and I'm telling you, my ears tell me that Caesar is not only great, but he's destined to become among the greatest of the greats. And there's another thing that struck me about this young man--he's not just all music. He's multi-dimensional and highly intelligent. Born Irvin R. Caesar in Chicago, Il in 1965. He attended Percy L. Julian High School, where he played guitar in the jazz band. At the same time, he played football, basketball, and baseball. The football team won three Chicago city championships, and he was captain of the team his senior year. After graduation, he went on to play Outside Linebacker for Southern University in Baton Rouge, La., where he also received a degree in Business Management. Inheriting a sense of purpose from his father, also name Irvin Caesar--who was a political activist during the sixties, and worked closely with Vice President Hubert H. Humphry--after obtaining his degree, young Caesar went on to work first, as a Procurement Officer and then Operations Manager for American Manufactures in Houston, Texas. They provided humanitarian assistance to over 40 countries around the world. Then he went to Islamabad, Pakistan as a contractor for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). He worked to provided humanitarian assistance to Afghan rebels, who were then at war with the Soviet Union. To our benefit, this young man's intelligence, background, and depth of experience didn't go to waste. You can hear every drop of his intellect, compassion, and commitment to humanity literally dripping from every note he sings. You don't simply hear this young man, you experience him. Ironically, Caesar was born the very same year that Nat King Cole died. So while I've never been one to wax metaphysical, I dedicate this piece to a new old friend. Because as I listen to this young man's velvet tones, I can't help but wonder if perhaps, Nat decided, that he wasn't quite done yet. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com April 17, 2009 Pain is the mother of enlightenment--and she's married to adversity.

Sphere: Related Content

GOP Underestimates Conservative America

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE GOP Underestimates Conservative America While President Obama is going about his valiant and statesman-like attempt to rescue America and restore our image at home and abroad, the GOP's politics as usual, diehard operatives are acting like spoiled brats determined to undermine the president's–and America's–effort. But in their blind attempt to regain power they seem to have forgotten one important fact–the vast majority of true conservatives are fiercely loyal Americans, and don't share their view of power at any cost. While conservatives have a vastly different view from liberals regarding the policies that make America great, the two groups have one very important thing in common–both groups understand that even as we indulge in our sibling rivalry, we are all Americans. America is a family, which means the viability of our nation and proud American traditions must come first. But many of the wingnuts on both the right and the left have long since lost sight of that very fundamental principle. They've allowed what was once a healthy sibling rivalry to escalate into a hatred within the American family that supercedes the viability of America itself. That is unacceptable, and it is exactly that mindset that has led directly to the crises that the nation faces today. In their wisdom, however, the American people decided to put an end to it. That's why we have radicals on the left, calling President Obama a sellout, and reactionaries on the right, calling him a socialist. But the fact is, President Obama is a true mainstream American that the American people have sent to Washington to put an end to this childish bickering. President Obama is neither liberal nor is he a conservative, he's a progressive--and while the terms liberal and progressive are often used interchangeably, there's a big difference. Both liberals and conservatives are people who have, by definition, surrendered their independent thought to the exigencies of political ideology. On the other hand, a progressive is an independent thinker who recognizes that truth and wisdom, more often not, is neither black nor white–it generally resides in the grey. A clear example of that is the liberal tendency to promote the idea that a "progressive tax" is a system where people who make less money should pay a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than people who make more. That's complete nonsense, unjust, and therefore not progressive thinking. A true progressive supports public policies that are fair to all, and recognizes that justice is blind, therefore, caters to neither race, creed, sex, nor social or economic status. True progressives understand that it is just as unjust to discriminate against the privileged as it is the poor. Egalitarian principles dictate that everyone pay the exact same percentage of their income in taxes--that, is progressive taxation. The argument that it won't work because it won't bring in enough revenue, is a meaningless argument to a true progressive, because progressive thinking dictates that convenience has nothing to do with what is just. On the other hand, fiscal conservatives argue that the national doctrine of freedom of expression dictates that corporations should be allowed to send lobbyist to Washington with pockets full of money to lobby and influence congressional legislation. That's also ridiculous. Corporations are not citizens, so a citizen's right to petition government is not an inalienable right required to be extended to corporations. When citizens incorporate a business they are relieved of much of their personal liabilities, therefore, when acting as a corporate entity, they must sacrifice many of the rights that they enjoy as private citizens. Thus, if the nation wouldadhered to common sense in addressing national issues rather than allowing public policy to be dictated by radical wingnuts and special interests, the gains that we would acquire as a direct result would allow everyone to prosper and be treated fairly. If tax payers didn't have to foot the bill every time some corporate big wig took his girlfriend to a power lunch or bought a Mercedes and wrote it off as a business expense, we'd have enough revenue to treat every American taxpayer equally. It would also take a wedge issue off the table that political demagogues use to divide us–after all, many fiscally conservative Republicans are socially progressive, so an evenhanded taxation policy would make them much less apt to align themselves with social bigots. Contrary to what some would have us believe, all conservatives are not self-serving bigots. The election of President Obama makes it clear that many registered Republicans understood that in spite of party and personal interest, President Obama was uniquely qualified to lead this nation at this moment in our history. They didn't see his Black skin as a deficit. On the contrary, they saw Barack Obama's diverse background as an asset, so they set their personal interest and idology aside, put America first. They should be honored for that, instead of dragged through the mud with GOP demagogues. These people understood that Obama's Black skin allowed him to understand what it meant to be Black and poor in America. They also understood that being the product of an immigrant father, he fully understood the challenges and hardships of millions of immigrants across this land. It was clear to these conservatives that after having lived all over the world, and even enjoying the benefits of differing cultures within his own family, that Barack Obama had a unique understanding of the mindset and views held towards America by other people and cultures throughout the world. They also recognized that after being raised and loved by White Americans in the very heartland of this nation, that he also understood the needs, fears, and aspirations of middle American. And finally, they recognized that he's a brilliant intellectual and constitutional scholar, whose knowledge of America and American traditions would dwarf nearly any president in the history of this nation. So in spite of all of the divisive rhetoric served up by the GOP hatemongers, these conservatives said, while I don't entirely agree with his philosophy of governance, I going to support him, because he's right for America at this point in our history. They deserve recognition for that, because unlike the Limbaugh wingnuts, and liberals of every stripe, it was the ideological sacrifice of those conservatives that led directly to the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. Therefore, as progressives, let us not make the mistake of gloating in the face of these people, because while liberals and progressives turned out in larger numbers, no group in America has made a greater sacrifice to ensure that Barack Obama is sitting in the White House today. Progressives should also learn from President Obama, and not confuse all conservatives with GOP wingnuts. Listen to the words of Charles, a true conservative, at the link below, and begin to understand that it is not conservatism that is the enemy. Limbaugh told this conservative caller that he was not a Republican, he was one of the stupid people that allowed President Obama to be elected. Limbaugh was right in one respect, the man is not a Republican, at least, as Limbaugh defines Republicanism, but neither is he stupid--he's a loyal, conservative American. I take great pride in coming to the defense of this man. He said that he was a former Marine, and so am I, so it comes naturally. Limbaugh told him that he didn't know diddley squat, but unlike Limbaugh and his kind, Charles does know what it means to come to the defense of America. As a former Marine, I've known such men. He's of the very same breed that left their families and marched off to die, to defeat slavery.    Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

Sphere: Related Content