Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Mumbai, the NYT's Revisionism, and Lessons Not Learned
[T]he Bush administration did enormous damage to American credibility throughout much of the region when it blessed what turned out to be a failed coup against Mr. Chávez.
Indeed it did. But what the Times fails to mention, and is apparently eager to erase, is that "the Bush administration" was far from alone in blessing that coup attempt:
The New York Times Editorial Page, April 13, 2002 -- one day after the coup:
With yesterday's resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona. . . .
Early yesterday [Chávez] was compelled to resign by military commanders unwilling to order their troops to fire on fellow Venezuelans to keep him in power. He is being held at a military base and may face charges in Thursday's killings.
New presidential elections should be held this year, perhaps at the same time the new Congress is chosen. Some time is needed for plausible national leaders to emerge and parties to reorganize. But Venezuela urgently needs a leader with a strong democratic mandate to clean up the mess, encourage entrepreneurial freedom and slim down and professionalize the bureaucracy.
That was one of the most Orwellian editorials written in the last decade. The Times -- in the very first line -- mimicked the claim of the Bush administration that Chavez "resigned," even though, several paragraphs later, they expressly acknowledged that Chavez "was compelled to resign by military commanders" (the definition of a "coup"). Further mimicking the administration, the Times perversely celebrated the coup as safeguarding "Venezuelan democracy" ("Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator"), even though the coup deposed someone whom the Times Editorial itself said "was elected president in 1998" and -- again using the Times' own language -- "handed power to" an unelected, pro-American "respected business leader, Pedro Carmona," who quickly proceeded to dissolve the democratically elected National Assembly, the Supreme Court and other key institutions.
Worse still, the Times Editorial mindlessly spouted the administration's claim that "Washington never publicly demonized Mr. Chávez" and "his removal was a purely Venezuelan affair." Yet less than a week later, the Times itself was compelled to report that the Bush administration "acknowledged today that a senior administration official [Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich] was in contact with Mr. Chávez's successor on the very day he took over"' -- a disclosure which, as the Times put it with great understatement, "raised questions as to whether Reich or other officials were stage-managing the takeover by Mr. Carmona."
Four days after its pro-coup Editorial, the Times -- once Chavez was returned to power in the wake of Carmona's anti-democratic moves -- returned to the topic of Venezuela, once again echoing the official line from Bush officials, who took to condemning the now-failed coup attempt. The Times, while justifying pro-coup sentiments as understandable, proceeded to denounce that reaction without really apologizing for its own role in endorsing it:
In his three years in office, Mr. Chávez has been such a divisive and demagogic leader that his forced departure last week drew applause at home and in Washington. That reaction, which we shared, overlooked the undemocratic manner in which he was removed. Forcibly unseating a democratically elected leader, no matter how badly he has performed, is never something to cheer.
Despite that, the Times still expressed optimism about the coup, righteously intoning in the first paragraph: "we hope Mr. Chávez will act as a more responsible and moderate leader now that he seems to realize the anger he stirred."
And the Times was hardly alone. As FAIR documented that week -- in a reported entitled "U.S. Papers Hail Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move" -- "the editorial boards of several major U.S. newspapers followed the U.S. government's lead and greeted the news with enthusiasm."
* * * * *
It's nice that the Times -- with a disgraced George Bush on his way out the door -- has come to view the Venezuelan military coup as the destructive, anti-democratic event which, by definition, it was. And it's also nice that the Times is now willing to assign blame for anti-U.S. sentiments in Latin America at least partially to the actions of the U.S. Government itself. But it's important that the Times not be allowed to delete its own involvement in those events. Just as was true for Joe Klein's very similar self-serving revisionism on Wednesday, the point here goes far beyond merely illustrating the dishonesty that lies at the heart of this re-writing of history.
The Times' propagandistic cheer-leading for the military coup in Venezuela is an important illustrative event which should be regretted, but not erased. There are vital lessons from the last eight years that get obscured when influential outlets such as the Times Editorial Page try to erase their own responsibility for events and heap all blame on "the Bush administration" -- which was able to do what it did only because it enjoyed the acquiescence, complicity and often blind support from so many of our leading political and media institutions.
To this day, Chavez's hostility towards the U.S. Government (just as is true for the hostility of Iranian and Cuban leaders and many others) is depicted as proof of his dangerous extremism and irrationality -- even his mental instability -- as though American attempts to dictate who governs other countries will generate anger and resentment only among the Primitive, the Crazed, and the Evil. More generally, discussions of our own role in spawning anti-American sentiment around the world is still more or less off limits in mainstream discourse, ludicrously demonized as "Blame America First" pathology from anti-American fringes on the radical Left and the isolationist Right. And our political and media elite continue to bastardize language to justify whatever we do, with "democracy" meaning "a government that follows U.S. dictates regardless of how it gained and maintains power," and "dictatorship" meaning "a government not beholden to U.S. dictates even if they were democratically elected."
It wasn't just the Bush administraiton, but most of our media and political elite, which approved of the overthrow of Venezuela's democratically elected leader and overlooked our own role in it. There is much to learn from that which the NYT Editorial Board shouldn't be able to suppress.
* * * * *
But just as importantly, that heinous though typical pro-coup, government-mimicking NYT Editorial was written in April, 2002 -- just months after the 9/11 attacks, when the extremism and mindless submission to Government authority that would grip this country for the next several years was still rumbling towards it peak. The terrorist attacks in India this week serve as a critical reminder of how easily those forces are unleashed.
Any decent, civilized person watching scenes in Mumbai of extremists shooting indiscriminate machine gun fire and launching grenades into civilians crowds -- deliberately slaughtering innocent people by the dozens -- is going to feel disgust, fury, and a desire for vengeance against the perpetrators, regardless of what precipitated it. The temptation is great even among the most rational to empower authority to do anything and everything -- without limits -- to punish those responsible and prevent repeat occurrences. That's a natural, even understandable, response. And it's the response that the attackers hope to provoke.
It's that temptation to which most Americans -- and our leading media institutions -- succumbed in the wake of 9/11, and it's exactly the reaction that's most self-destructive. As documented by this superb Washington Post Op-Ed today from Dileep Padgaonkar, former editor of the Times of India, the Indian Government -- in response to prior terrorist attacks -- has been employing tactics all-too-familiar to Americans: "terrorism suspects have been picked up at random and denied legal rights"; "allegations of torture by police are routine"; "suspects have been held for years as their court cases have dragged on. Convictions have been few and far between"; Muslims and Hindus are subjected to vastly disparate treatment; and much of the most consequential actions take place in secrecy, shielded from public view, debate or accountability.
As Padgaonkar details, many of these measures, particularly in the wake of new terrorist attacks, are emotionally satisfying, yet they do little other than exacerbate the problem, spawn further extremism and resentment, and massively increase the likelihood of further and more reckless attacks -- thereby fueling this cycle endlessly -- all while degrading the very institutions and values that are ostensibly being defended. The greater one's physical or emotional proximity to the attacks, the greater is the danger that one will seek excessively to empower and submit to government authority and cheer for destructive counter-measures which allow few, if any, limits.
What happened in the U.S. over the last eight years is about much, much more than what "the Bush administration" did. It begins there, but responsibility in the post 9/11-era is much more diffuse and collective than that. Shoveling it all off on the administration that is leaving, while exonerating our culpable media and political institutions that remain, isn't merely historically inaccurate and unfair, though it is that. Allowing that revisionism also ensures that the critical lessons that ought to be learned will instead be easily and quickly forgotten when similar episodes occur here in the future.
- Posted in
102 Comments so far
Show AllIn Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc ... there is no room for secularism. The US may be in a rot but like India it is a secular nation which too many Muslims take for granted. I notice that in the US and in India, Muslim women can easily wear jeans and short skirts and even take off their burkas and show off their beautiful hair. In those Muslim nations, they'd get shot for even a tiny exposure. It's funny how these brain-washed pro-Islamofascists lie about Hindus being the culprit when in fact, the Muslims are their own culprits. If they'd stop ABUSING their freedoms being given to them and stand up to terrorists and trouble makers in their own Muslim community, they wouldn't be paying the price they're now paying for it. The Islamo-fascists have done everything to destroy the Hindu, Christian, Jewish, and even non-religious foundations in Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc ... and yet they still complain about being the victims. When those Muslim nations can open their doors to secularism, then they can complain about the US and India. Until then, they can shut the hell up and quit being a bunch of welfare queens like Wall $treet.
I thought we were talking about the NYT's Revisionism.
Me too but the Ann Coulter bot stole the board!
Ann Coulter bot? I compared Carla Waters's and your comments and amazingly, you two have a lot in common. While I don't agree with her idea of bombing Afghanistan just to get rid of Al Queda and the Taliban, what exactly is it about Carla Waters that qualifies her as an Ann Coulter bot? You lefties need to quit fighting amongst yourselves or you'll never win.
Jason Jordan
Sandpoint, Idaho
Don't try to reason with DCBeltway1. She's out of touch and just a hate monger. Trying to reason with her is like trying to teach a pig table manners. She claims to be an independent libertarian but she's just being a hypocrite. I wouldn't worry about that loser. She'll do just fine anyway especially since she's filthy rich and thinks everyone should rent a shack and she blames the homeowners alone for the mortgage crisis.
Carla I pity you since you were abused as a child. Oftentimes abusers lash out at others and you continue to do so with me and many other board members. I strongly encourage you to seek mental help.
As far as being filthy rich that would be nice but I'm poor.
Perhaps it would be better for lefties to all goose-step together like the righties.
Or maybe not.
Carla - “In Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc ... there is no room for secularism. The US may be in a rot but like India it is a secular nation which too many Muslims take for granted”
Carla I’ve noticed that many Americans of European descent (let’s call them christo-fascists) take their secularism for granted as well.
Overall, I think this is one of Greenwald’s best articles.
"Carla I’ve noticed that many Americans of European descent (let’s call them christo-fascists) take their secularism for granted as well."
Thanks jlocke123. I did kind of bring this up at other posts but you framed it rather well. The fundies, regardless of which religion they're in, are no different and are the reason more of us are becoming atheists. Religion is nothing but a tool used to control to the point of total fascism. When I switched from Christian to atheist, I did feel awkward at first but after a couple of weeks, I felt completely free and relieved of my misery. My husband is somewhat religious but since he witness the religious abuse I went through as a child, he understands completely.
"Carla I’ve noticed that many Americans of European descent (let’s call them christo-fascists) take their secularism for granted as well."
Thanks jlocke123. I did kind of bring this up at other posts but you framed it rather well. The fundies, regardless of which religion they're in, are no different and are the reason more of us are becoming atheists. Religion is nothing but a tool used to control to the point of total fascism. When I switched from Christian to atheist, I did feel awkward at first but after a couple of weeks, I felt completely free and relieved of my misery. My husband is somewhat religious but since he witnessed the religious abuse I went through as a child, he understands completely. Besides, not a single religion has treated women kindly so I'm proud to be an atheist as I come across current events of religious abuse against women in the news.
"Islamo-Fascism" is a term of propaganda manufactured by the U.S. Right Wing echo-chamber to associate Islam with the evils of Hitler. The Right always needs an enemy, real, exaggerated or manufactured, as its M.O. is to manipulate people through fear. The uncritical use of the term means the acceptance of this Right Wing frame.
Just unpacking "Islamo-Fascism" illustrates its absurdity:
Mussolini gave a straightforward definition of facsism in 1936, he stated:
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it [fascism] is simply the union of state and corporate power."
So, with "Islamo-Fascism" we have multinational corporations, government and religious extremists all working together for the same ends? It seems a better description of our country under Bush than marginalized (e.g. the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt) religious nationalists who are leery of all things Western - especially corporations!
Your use of "Islamo-Fascism" makes me wonder why you are on this site. You are either an amazingly uncritical thinker for someone reading CD, or, you are a Right-Wing troll.
Please, do your homework* or spend your time somewhere else.
*Check out Edward Said, Robert Fisk; Tariq Ali among others...
"So, with "Islamo-Fascism" we have multinational corporations, government and religious extremists all working together for the same ends?"
Go ask the corrupt leaders of the Arab World. They're for "free" trade, deregulation, privatization, etc ... As a matter of fact, the big business crooks do business with those corrupt leaders who in return keep the money and further oppress their own people.
There may be Muslims who are not fanatical and who may in fact be trying to stand up to tyranny in their own Muslim community and I applaud them for it and offer my apologies to them if. However, if you even bothered to do your homework, you would have noticed that between the Christian cultists and the radical Muslim extremists, there's really no difference and both are "conservative" rightwing. I'm glad I'm an atheist !
Yes, there are plenty of "corrupt leaders of the Arab world" but they are "our friends", most of whom were put into power by the West in the 20th century. It is not Islam which guides these corrupt leaders but rather the same greed that guides our leaders. When our Right-Wing pundits toss out the Islamo-Fascist label it is not aimed at the House of Saud (who profit from their association with Western governments and corporations) but rather those that see the influence of the West as destructive to their culture and political self-determination.
As Greenwald intimates, they've got a lot to be angry about. Islamic fundamentalism is partly a RESPONSE to the infiltration of Western hegemony in their world. Many of the terrorists got their start in the Mujahadeen where the C.I.A. armed and trained these "holy warriors" to fight a proxy war against the Soviet Union in 1980's Afghanistan (incidentally, which provided the soil for the rise of the Talaban). The US Government is deeply responsible for the scourge of terrorism on many levels.
I am not saying that Islamic fundamentalist extremists don't exist, but rather that they are not fascists. They are not united with big business which would be necessary to accurately deserve description of "fascist." However, Christo-fascism does exist and it exists in its most virulent form in the USA.
RE: "There may be Muslims who are not fanatical and who may in fact be trying to stand up to tyranny in their own Muslim community..."
You seem to believe that non-fanatical Muslims are an aberration. Where do you get this? Given your assumptions, you would seem to come from an ideological background which is not only conservative but reactionary. I consider myself to be more or less an atheist, but that doesn't mean I think all, or even most, of those who follow a religious tradition to be fanatical. Over many decades, those who have fought most consistently for peace, justice and human rights, have had at their foundation, a religious faith. A great example, is the American Friends Service Committee aka, the Quakers. It is important to make a distinction between those in power who would manipulate religious faith for their own ends and the religious practice itself.
In terms of homework:
I recommend reading Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback" trilogy on US foreign policy in the Middle East. A good and comprehensive place to start.
As for Christo-fascism I have read and recommend Chris Hedges' "American Fascists" and Michelle Goldberg's "Kingdom Coming: the Rise of Christian Militarism", both scary but important reading. Also, I recommend Andrew Bacevich's, "New American Militarism" which has a chapter on the relationship of certain sects of American Christianity and war and empire.
What homework would you recommend?
Carla Waters:
...if you even bothered to do your homework, you would have noticed that between the Christian cultists and the radical Muslim extremists, there's really no difference and both are "conservative" rightwing. I'm glad I'm an atheist !
COMMENT:
"Christian cultists" and "radical Musllim extremists" may be "conservative rightwing" but that doesn't necessarily make them fascists. Oil sheiks who own and who very definitely control their countries are not corporations. And "if you even bothered to do your homework" you would know that.
As for saying that you are an atheist a second time in case we missed it the first time, I can only wonder if you are trying to give atheism a bad name.
""Christian cultists" and "radical Musllim extremists" may be "conservative rightwing" but that doesn't necessarily make them fascists. Oil sheiks who own and who very definitely control their countries are not corporations. And "if you even bothered to do your homework" you would know that."
Your brain is in confusion mode. They are fascists because they want to impose control on others and they give religion a bad name and push away their membership which is why I switched to being atheist. As for oil sheiks, maybe not corporations but your gas guzzler is what supports those dictators. You cannot deny that Saudi Arabia is a DICTATORSHIP while Venezuela isn't. You need to do your homework or get remedial training first before trying to be a blind sock puppet. And you call yourself "liberal" or "Progressive" ? What a sick joke !
Carla Waters:
They are fascists because they want to impose control on others and they give religion a bad name and push away their membership which is why I switched to being atheist.
COMMENT:
Huh? "give religion a bad name and push away their membership which is why I switched to being an atheist"?
Wow. And you think I am confused! That sentence is hebephrenic - a word salad. Fascists gave religion a bad name so you became an atheist you say? Is that so you could become a fascist? You changed your theology based, not on reason like most atheists of my acquaintance, but because you think a political group has given religion a bad name?
But wait, Mussolini and Hitler were both Catholic and spoke of God, so where did you get the idea that fascists want to "give religion a bad name"? Actually it was fascism's enemy, Communism, that wanted to "give religion a bad name." You are giving atheism a bad name. All the atheists I know, and I know a lot, are rational.
And just which piece of writing did you come up with such a definition of fascism? Not from anything I read of Mussolini's or found in a dictionary. And I know you couldn't have gotten it from Palmero Togliatti's "Lectures on Fascism" which I very carefully read.
"As for oil sheiks, maybe not corporations." Yes, not corporations. You seem to be struggling to create a disconnect between fascism and corporatism, which is what right-wingers do.
Any socio-economic ideology Wingers want to defame they call "fascism" or "communism" or "liberal." Anything at all to distract from the reality of the connection between capitalism, fascism, and corporatism.
As your claim that I have called myself a liberal or progressive, I have never done so. I don't wear a label because I want to avoid the baggage that labeling myself would bring with it.
And what the hell does Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have to do with fascism?
As for Venezuela, you wrote this jumble of disconnected ideas today at 10:42 pm. If you had read my post of 9:22, over an hour earlier, you would know I have the highest possible regard for the current democratic government of Venezuela. "You need to do your homework" you say? Then take your own advice.
My apologies for shutting down this exchange of sniping now, but honestly, I'm not going to learn a thing from you of value and I feel quite certain you aren't going to learn anything from.... Well, anybody.
Bye, bye.
Tom Larsen:
"Islamo-Fascism" is a term of propaganda manufactured by the U.S. Right Wing echo-chamber to associate Islam with the evils of Hitler.
COMMENT:
Adolph Hitler was democratically elected, his government worked closely with and was strongly supported financially and philosophically by holders of corporate and private wealth, he told lies to excuse invasions of benign countries, he supported and used to his advantage popular prejudice against religious, ethnic, and social minorities, he assumed powers not granted to him by German law, he imprisoned people indefinitely without due process and without substantiated charges, he allowed or ordered people tortured. All this is what historians, pundits, and government officials of the one-time "Allied" countries have routinely referred to and defined as "fascism."
Substitute the name of George W. Bush for the name of Adolph Hitler in the preceding paragraph and the description remains completely true, and so does the definition of the word used to describe a form of government.
Using Mussolini's simplified and oft-quoted definition of fascism as corporatism, most capitalist nations are fascist by that definition, but the term is usually applied only to an autocratic brutal form of corporatacracy that violates human rights within its own country and violates international law without.
Most Germans supported or allowed Hitler's fascist government through most of his rule and most Americans supported or allowed Bush's fascist government through most of his rule.
Yet, even though they apply the definition of "fascist" to other regimes, most Americans are too timorous to apply that same definition and call the US government what it is: a fascist nation.
Unfortunately, many people, wingers or not, have applied the word to various totalitarian or autocratic or simply brutal regimes that may not be corporatacricies.
The right-wing by applying the word fascism, divorced from its original meaning of corporatism, to merely apply to any brutal regime, or even any democratic regime they don't like such as Chavez's Venezuela, is distracting the public from the dangers of corporatism. Which is quite possibly the deliberate intention:
Venezuela
The fascist's in the ruling class have long employed the services of some of the country's leading wordsmiths such as William Safire. Thus "liberal," and "socialism" became demon words, and "fascist" has come to mean the "other" and not themselves. Yes, Orwellian indeed.
I too, think Carla should do her homework unless she's just a Right-Wing troll. However, I don't necessarily think the Right-Wingers should stay out of Common Dreams discussions. Anyone who dreams of the common good and is capable of critical thinking should have little difficulty in seeing the elitist authoritarian bigotted viewpoints behind those writers who do not share the common dreams for the common good. To defeat your enemy you must recognize him/her.
So let's welcome the Elizabeth Hasselbeck and the Ann Coulter wannabees to our commons: heck, it gives us an excuse to bring truth to light, and even if such as they are incapable of recognizing it, others may benefit.
And laugh at any stupidity you read here- laughter helps bring relief from the grim realities. Without the likes of GWB and Danforth "potatoe" Quayle comedians would have suffered a dearth of material.
"I too, think Carla should do her homework unless she's just a Right-Wing troll"
You are a trip I tell you. LOL ! If you even read my other posts on other topics, you would have realized that I'm a mix. Do I support Hugo Chavez? He's a hell of a lot better than King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia when it comes to using the oil revenue to repair the public infrastructure.
Tom Larsen:
"Islamo-Fascism" is a term of propaganda manufactured by the U.S. Right Wing echo-chamber to associate Islam with the evils of Hitler.
COMMENT:
Adolph Hitler was democratically elected, his government worked closely with and was strongly supported financially and philosophically by holders of corporate and private wealth, he told lies to excuse invasions of benign countries, he supported and used to his advantage popular prejudice against religious, ethnic, and social minorities, he assumed powers not granted to him by German law, he imprisoned people indefinitely without due process and without substantiated charges, he allowed or ordered people tortured. All this is what historians, pundits, and government officials of the one-time "Allied" countries have routinely referred to and defined as "fascism."
Substitute the name of George W. Bush for the name of Adolph Hitler in the preceding paragraph and the description remains completely true, and so does the definition of the word used to describe a form of government.
Using Mussolini's simplified and oft-quoted definition of fascism as corporatism, most capitalist nations are fascist by that definition, but the term is usually applied only to an autocratic brutal form of corporatacracy that violates human rights within its own country and violates international law without.
Most Germans supported or allowed Hitler's fascist government through most of his rule and most Americans supported or allowed Bush's fascist government through most of his rule.
Yet, even though they apply the definition of "fascist" to other regimes, most Americans are too timorous to apply that same definition and call the US government what it is: a fascist nation.
Unfortunately, many people, wingers or not, have applied the word to various totalitarian or autocratic or simply brutal regimes that may not be corporatacricies.
The right-wing by applying the word fascism, divorced from its original meaning of corporatism, to merely apply to any brutal regime, or even any democratic regime they don't like such as Chavez's Venezuela, is distracting the public from the dangers of corporatism. Which is quite possibly the deliberate intention:
Venezuela
The fascist's in the ruling class have long employed the services of some of the country's leading wordsmiths such as William Safire. Thus "liberal," and "socialism" became demon words, and "fascist" has come to mean the "other" and not themselves. Yes, Orwellian indeed.
I too, think Carla should do her homework unless she's just a Right-Wing troll. However, I don't necessarily think the Right-Wingers should stay out of Common Dreams discussions. Anyone who dreams of the common good and is capable of critical thinking should have little difficulty in seeing the elitist authoritarian bigotted viewpoints behind those writers who do not share the common dreams for the common good. To defeat your enemy you must recognize him/her.
So let's welcome the Elizabeth Hasselbeck and the Ann Coulter wannabees to our commons: heck, it gives us an excuse to bring truth to light, and even if such as they are incapable of recognizing it, others may benefit.
And laugh at any stupidity you read here- laughter helps bring relief from the grim realities. Without the likes of GWB and Danforth "potatoe" Quayle comedians would have suffered a dearth of material.
Sioux Rose
ADVOCATE: Your analogy reminds me of the fat person who looks in the mirror and thinks they are "average."
The way the Nazis instigated and then utilized the burning of their Reishtang (not sure of the spelling, sorry), as the seminal event to blame on terrorists, and then use as a trigger for lessening liberties while telling the populace it was necessary for their own security also reads like a movie script 2nd rendition played out in America as 911 and the resulting Homeland Security we-must-spy-on-you modus operandi. Yep. TOO many ominous parallels, but the fat person is you know, just too average to note it.
Sioux Rose:
TOO many ominous parallels.
COMMENT:
Exactly.
Carla Water,
You are either a TROLL or deeply ignorant about the middle east and its politics.
Most likely you are extremely influence and biased by hateful Zionist views
Actually, I studied the Middle East and South East Asia history and politics thoroughly to actually be able to tell good from evil. It's apparent that like most on this forum, your brain is stuck on "but Muslims are the victims of x". Get an independent brain or shut up.
jeeze carla you are beginning to sound like the non-smoker rants from the folks that just gave up smoking..you sound like it is possible to convert to atheism..atheism is a religion as any other which finds you..most of the folks i know whom follow the ideals of no higher being than themselves do not consider evil or good..
ken
And you call people who defend Islamo-fundies "normal" ? Yeah, that's "progressive" or "liberal" ! Hypocrite !
naw !! i tend toward being a communist..have a glimps..the worker is king..
ken
communist ? yuck. no thank you. I'll stick to regulated capitalism instead.
seems the discussion was about good and evil of what's happening in india 'n whether the folks which follow the teaching's of Mohammad are fascist..so i will play your game..ya like what's going on with capitalism??
ken
Since I'm an economic vigilante, I'm doing great. I was going to help bail you sorry losers out by voting for Ralph Nader but you just had to fall for Obama so maybe it wasn't a bad idea to join the crowd after all. I put up with the last 8 years so I'll withstand the next 4.
I lived in the middle east and I know what I am talking about.
I expressed my view politely and you tell me to shut up!!
You proved that you are a miserable lout and a real nasty.!!!
Commoner3 I've been to the Middle East also commoner and have seen Muslim women wear jeans in such far flung places as Morocco and Kuwait. Carla has never been to these places and she's full of shit. This also has nothing to do with the attacks in Mumbai.
She's done nothing but create division, spread hate, and preach Islamophobia on this site. I'm angry and devestated to by the attacks also. I condemn the people who did the attacks. But now is the time to support the Indian people, the Indian people are made up of a multi-religious community and we need to help them now and work towards peace.
I live in a Muslim country and you are full of baloney. Hate and baloney.
Last 8 years???? you mean the last 200 years....
The only difference between the military expansionist policy of Bush, and the military expansionist policy of the the USA for the last 200 years, is Bush has just been a bigger dick about it.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/interventions.htm
word!
Hear, hear--sock it to the Times!
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
'The Times' propagandistic cheer-leading for the military coup in Venezuela is an important illustrative event which should be regretted, but not erased. There are vital lessons from the last eight years that get obscured when influential outlets such as the Times Editorial Page try to erase their own responsibility for events and heap all blame on "the Bush administration" -- which was able to do what it did only because it enjoyed the acquiescence, complicity and often blind support from so many of our leading political and media institutions.'
Excellent - and this goes far beyond the media. The Bush Administration was allowed to stand for eight years. The New York Times was not the only enabler. All Americans share in the responsibility to the extent they did not impeach him and end that administration before it ended on its own.
There is still time to impeach Bush and Cheney, and if it is not done, it wll be a blot on the USA forever.
The Times does not like a real democracy such as Venezuela but they like dictatorships such as those of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
. . . a respected business leader . . .
No such thing exists.
chomsky calls them "totallogies" - undeniable and unquestionable statements of fact
such as: america is good
america is special
god loves america
and so on
he also points out that if "we" do it - it is good, if "they" did it - it is terrorism
let's not rush to judgment about who is doing this or why
there are many scum of many ilks positioning to take advantage of this situation already
we should be careful
once again though, glen raises the specter of 9/11 without any acknowledgment of the fact that that event has never been investigated and that there has been no proof offered demonstrating any involvement on the part of osama bin laden
in fact, he hasn't been seen since 2001 and yet he is still invoked as a bogeyman - newsflash osl is dead
9/11 was an inside job - carried out by elements inside the government and corporations who have made trillions off the war
bush has led an all too willing country into the sewer and this shit really stinks
now we have the idiot palin carrying the banner of a burned out and shelled gop who's only remaining battle cry is that of hatred and racism
sad state of affairs
but just wait until obama launches the war in pakistan - then you will see blowback and the united states will get its long overdue comeuppance for all the murder and destruction it has wrought
what goes around - comes around
cheers, b
When are we going to get past the propaganda line that every country wants to be America? They don't. They have seen what our "free market capitalism" has
become, and how it has destroyed any concept of "the common good" among Americans. They are appalled that taxpayers give corporations billions of dollars of welfare each year, in the form of "tax relief", etc., while only spitting on their poor. They reject the absence of job security, unaffordable higher education, lack of health care -- all those social policies that protect our economic caste system. They can certainly see how our absence of social supports destroys families and lives. Perhaps the largest portion of the US population today is but a single illness, a single job loss, away from losing everything -- and it simply doesn't matter how carefully you "worked hard and played by all the rules".
Sioux Rose
DH FABIAN: Incarceraing 2.2 million is not exactly good PR for "The land of the free and home of the brave," nor is the probable statistic of over a BILLION guns on our streets! High levels or rape & domestic abuse, added to road rage and lethal roadway statistics (about 45,000 die a year in traffic accidents or highway fatalities), added to astounding numbers of the morbidly obese, childhood Diabetes rates, depression... no, I don't think America is exactly the Mecca of idealized fantasies these days. (For those who would counter by mentioning all the Mexicans crossing our border, think NAFTA and the decimation of small farming operations in that nation. People don't just face death crossing borders out of sheer caprice.)
In one of Obama's inspiring well-written, well-orated speeches, he said, movingly, "Are we our brother and sisters' keepers"?
Whether it's the NYTIMES which is not the newspaper of integrity and carefully accurate journalism it once was [or am I fooling myself and just have gained more knowledge and sophistication?], with its all-aboard, cheerleader inaccuracies and strange editorials of the last eight years or whether its the war-fever-hawks, big-business-as-usual cabinet members Obama has selected that evoke happy spasms from such newspapers as the NYTIMES, I wonder if that question Obama asked in his speech was supposed to read, "Are we the takers from our brothers and sisters, and WE* get to keep everything?
*The same folks who've been reaping it in from war profits, invading and attacking other countries to bring them democracy, and screw-the-little-people profits on oil and other goodies made by relocated corporations and little-people jobs to China, Dubai, India, Pakistan, etcetera.
I've been listening and reading, and it seems to me that the the world is being run by the mentalities of 10-year-old boys who know how to speak in grown-up voices and dress properly, but their higher wisdoms and their deeper sensibilities haven't made it past "take that," "I'll take that; it's mine!" "Get out of my way or I'll drone you and splat you with my missiles," "We're the good guys; you're the bad guys," and other flat, rigid, uncreative ideologies that draw a line in the sand and at the base of the mountain of which they perceive themselves to be King of, at the top, ... always at the top.
Viva, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales!
Cee Miracles:
Viva, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales!
COMMENT:
These two and the other leaning-to-the-left leaders in Latin America have begun a movement that may be the best, possibly the only, chance for a peaceful and just future for the world.
From a region that gave the name "banana republics" to family-owned countries, tyrannical oligarchies, and petty dictatorships, now comes the best hope for the future. A decade ago who could possibly foresee this possibility?
Do you want an example of how grown ups behave?
The peoples of Greenland had a referendum to vote for more autonomy from the Country of Denmark.
Greenland has been a colony of Denmark since 1721. The vote favored more autonomy by a number of over 70 percent. The Inuit leaders indicated that this the first step towards total independence which they feel they not yet ready for.
The head of the Government of Denmark called the Inuit leaders and congratulated them on their decision indicating that the Danish parliament will approve the decision within months.
They have worked out a deal wherin Denmark will still subsidize Greenland to the tune of 350 million Krona a year. Greenlands new Government will get the royalties from any minerals/oil/natural gas up to the sum of 75 million. After that Greenland and Denmark will share equally in any such proceeds up to the point that that 350 million subsidy repaid. Thereafter the People of Greenalnd get 100 percent of further royalties.
No bombings. No air strikes. No riots or kidnappings. No trying to rob the Inuit of their resources.
Now what do I fear? I fear the United States of America will go to Greenland bearing gifts, asking for Military access for an "Arctic Command" I fear other nations will jockey for position to see who can get in on the action using bribery and other means to foment dissension amongst the peoples of Greenland. I fear the IMF and the World bank will go into Greenland to help the people develop their budding nation, only to allow open the floodgates to the Corporations.
I really hope that when the peoples of Greenland do finally become a fully independent nation, that they are very very wary of all the nations and corporations that will want to be "their friends".
Be especially wary of the promises of "capitalism" and the "Free markets" for if they adopt them as others will want them to be adopted they will not br free for long.
That all said, I can not say enough about how "Civilized" this latest event was.
If they can act in such a manner why can't everyone else?
Based on history, your fears are quite rational and reasonably justified. I can only hope they do not come true.
Be careful about attributing a "movement" being "begun" by those who were ELECTED - which means they are responding to the existance of a majority seeking balances that are local, regional, sustainable, inclusive hence democratic.
These leaders also function with administrative structures that continue to include opposition representatives - also definition of democracy.
Too true.
Joe
When I was a teenager during the Vietnam era I realized that the NYT was uncritically printing statements by Westmoreland, Johnson et al that could not possibly be true. If you kept track, the running count of "Viet Cong" we claimed to have killed practically exceeded the population of Vietnam. They printed government statements as though they were for real and did no independent verification. The Wall Street Journal was more truthful.
Joe
Glen's article reminded me of Jeremiah Wright's now infamous speech that he delivered immediately after 9-11. The media remembers 'God Damn the United States'. It was an excellent speech whose premise was that we shouldn't react in fury. 'Revenge is mine' says the bible and Rev. Wright foresaw how the US would might fall into vengeful policies that would lead us to act unchristian. Turns out we acted unchristian and stupidly. Our economy is ruined as a result of the war. It's painful to watch the news, and is so now as I hear our media trying to link these Mumbai attacks to AlQuaeda. For people listening to NPR, CNN, Fox or MSNBC, they listen with half an ear and all they pick up is that this has something to do with our 'war aganist terrorism' and anti-semitism. Responsible background reporting about what was actually behind this will evaporate amidst the bloviation of pundits. I stopped reading the NYTimes decades ago when I realised it was a bunch of propaganda.
justmiming:(Like your screen name). What is the exact date of Rev. Wright's "famous" speech? On the NYTimes: after the "run up to the war" on Iraq, the NYTimes is rather low on credibility.