“It is the law that to become a naturalized citizen of this country you must have knowledge and understanding of English, including a basic ability to read, write, and speak the language,” Tancredo said. “So what may I ask are our presidential candidates doing participating in a Spanish speaking debate? Pandering comes to mind.”

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act an immigrant must show the “ability to read, write, and speak English” in order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States. Additionally, they must show “a favorable disposition towards the United States.”

So, Tancredo is asserting that if you are a naturalized citizen and you don’t speak english you’re not only breaking the law but you are unamerican. He is suggesting that multi-lingualism is something new and frightening. Since the first immigrants arrived in this country they have brought with them their own cultures and languages. My great-grandmother –a naturalized citizen– never did converse in english, preferring her native polish. My great-grandfather ran for councilman and served his constituents in their native tongue. Was he illegal, Tom? My grandfather, who served in the Pacific as a mechanic on Bougainville and other hellish hotspots, was completely bi-lingual and chose to live in a neighborhood where polish was the everyday language of commerce and life. Was he unamerican, Tom?

There is nothing new or different about immigrant groups retaining their language for two or three generations. As a boy, when I visited my grandfather’s house, I remember seeing the local newspapers in polish, hearing the local polish radio stations, and watching the badly dubbed polish TV — in fact, the first time I saw “It’s a Wonderful Life” it had been dubbed into polish. The nature of media is to serve its audience, to pander to them in some way to get their attention. It is assinine to assert that an immigrant is somehow less American because they have not fully discarded their native language.

A little history lesson may be beneficial for for Tom, and his followers. The idea of a national language was broached early on in the days of our republic, it was dismissed as impractical and pointless. The leading languages our founding fathers considered for their new country, Tom, were french and greek — with some calls for hebrew. English, it seems, was too much associated with the monarchy they had just fought to free themselves from. By not choosing a national language, our early statesmen and thinkers allowed America to do with language what it does best with all things: assimilate, adapt, and grow. If we were to characterize American english as a person we would have to characterize it as (with some apologies to my feminist friends) a happy slut. Our language gleefully takes vocabulary where ever it finds it –a greek prefix here, a latinate suffix there, a spanish noun, a turkish title, it doesn’t care. English has grown in use around the world not due to US military might, but because it adapts and remains relevant. English is never lacks for vocabulary to describe the world. Why? Because it accepts all comers and adapts itself to the world. People, Tom, do not assimilate countries and languages do –otherwise they become irrelevant.

Language is not what defines us as Americans. The english language is simply a way in which we express our culture. The question of what it means to be an American goes back to the earliest days of the original colonies. It’s a question which is at the heart of American literature and art. To some degree, Americanism can be defined as the ability to survive in a new land away from home and loved ones, to seek a better economic and civic life for yourself and your loved ones, to define a new country as it defines you. This has never been a easy process, as bigotry and hatred have always followed newcomers. But one would think that our country would have learned by now that it is those who dare to leave all, or those who standup against the injustices of their migration, which bring to this country the courage which is so desperately needed.

YouTube Link

This Sunday, 11/18/07, the NorthShore chapter of the Illinois Green Party will be showing Ian Inaba’s film American Blackout at our coffeehouse. The film documents the practices of fraud and voter caging which have occurred in recent elections. There will be a number of Illinois Green candidates attending the showing, as well as people involved in recent suits launched against the Federal Election Commission. We expect an interesting and enlightening discussion following the showing. The film will begin around 4:00 Pm at 1813 Dempster, Evanston, IL. There is, of course, no admission charge — though we’d appreciate it if you bought a cup of coffee or a snack.

There is nothing inherently illegal with private or local currencies — in fact the United States has a long history of alternative currency models. Private currencies, however, cannot be represented as legal, government backed, tender. This point was always stressed to any of our Liberty Dollar users. Most of our users, however, didn’t care, as they saw the coins — made of silver — as having traditional fungible value. Personally, I have some issues with metallic currency standards, and a number of the folks with Liberty Dollar and I had some heated discussions about the topic. However, I always found the Liberty Dollar people to be very thoughtful, well informed, and committed. So I would be surprised to find that there was any real illegality occurring within Liberty Dollar itself.

It does seem odd that the government would choose this time to act against the Liberty Dollar, and in such a heavy-handed fashion. It may be that some in the government are concerned about the perceived value of the US dollar –presently trading at 1.47€ and $1.02 to the Canadian dollar, a drop of 50% in the past 9 months. If even a small percentage of Americans began to loose confidence in the dollar and began to adopt a commodity based currency, the result could be disastrous: we could easily find ourselves in a period of hyper-inflation and economic depression. Of course, eliminating commodity currencies does not prevent this from happening anyway. If such a downturn would occur it would be the result of the disastrous monetary policies followed for the past seven years, far more then it would be the fault of the Liberty Dollar.

YouTube Link

Today is Armistice day - Veteran’s Day. A day to try to remember all those of sacrificed their lives and more for their countries. It is a truism that as time passes, we forget the conflicts of the past: the reason’s they were fought and the people who sacrificed for them. For how long will we remember today’s conflicts? How long until we repeat the same mistakes over?

This week one of the nation’s top intelligence officials made a startling announcement:

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.

Safeguard from whom? should be the question that is asked of Mr. Kern. I doubt very much that al Qaeda or Syria cares where our day to day travels take us , but my boss might, your insurance company might, political opponents might. What Mr. Kern is insisting upon is a surveillance state - one in which government collected information is seamlessly shared with business collected data. For instance: you go to an ATM at 8:00 Am, Stop and buy a coffee at 8:30 Am using a discount card, punch into work at 9:00 AM - respond your e-mail & make calls, drive home via a tollbridge at 5:00 Pm, stop off for a drink at 5:30, then go home and read your personal e-mail, visit and adult website, maybe read some blogs; the government would now know exactly where you were during the day, and what you were doing. Perhaps you visited a blog which was critical of government policies; you might now find yourself undergoing additional IRS auditing - after all it’s happened before, or find yourself bared from flying. What Mr. Kerr is suggesting is even a bit more nefarious: a two way street in which businesses have access to to personal data for their own purposes. Perhaps your employer is devout and decides to fire you because you consume pornography — there is currently no law which protects employees for actions unrelated to their work. Perhaps your health insurance company decides you are consuming too much alcohol and decides to raise your premium or drop you. All of these things are more than possible, they are probable outcomes of Mr. Kerr’s policy. Information, it has been said, is power, and once made available those with the information will make the most use of it as possible.

Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, and James Madison all published their works under pseudonyms — anonymously. And they all did so at a time in which the future of their country was far less certain then it is today. Mr. Kerr, and the administration, keep arguing that we are in greater peril today then we have ever been before. But there is little to no evidence of this. If our country is in peril, it is from the incompetence and hubris of its leaders, not from any outside force. But these same leaders cry for more power to help assuage the fear their own policies have created. Should Mr. Kerr and his administration get their way, we and future Americans will quickly learn to fear our own government and its powers. To quote a popular film, “People should not fear the government; Government should fear the people.”

One can almost hear the glee in their voices when they throw out the patented ticking bomb scenario* to justify their desire to torture suspected terrorists. As these pundits are eager to adopt a tactic pioneered by the Spanish Inquisition and honed by the Khmer Rouge, I would like to know what interrogation tactic would be too immoral, or violate our country’s values, in the ticking bomb scenario? To save the hypothetical city from a terrorist attack would it be acceptable to electro-shock the suspected terrorist? On his chest and extremities? On his genetiles? Would it be acceptable to cut off his digits or limbs while he watched? Could one kill his wife in front of him? Or his son? Could one, in order to save a city from the evil terrorist, rape his young daughter in his presence? Just how determined and macho are you pundits?

Over a hundred years ago Fyodor Dostoevsky asked the very question which I posed above. Ivan Karamozov presents his brother Alyosha with the following dilemma: Suppose that in order to bring eternal happiness to the world, it was essential and inevitable to torture to death one tiny innocent creature, only one small child. Would you consent? How we answer this question defines our humanity and therefore the kind of country we wish to have. People cannot abandon their individual humanity and then claim that their nation is in anyway just or moral. To suggest otherwise is is treasonous to the founding principles of our country.

*The ticking bomb scenario is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated in the debate on torture. Outside of a concocted television plot, the possibility of the scenario –in which the government captures a single terrorist who has specific location of a ticking bomb which will detonate, causing massive destruction, in a short time– actually occurring is so infinitesimal it should be dismissed as implausible. The scenario, however, provides the crucial exception to the prohibitions against torture for those who seek it. Since this scenario never occurs, the exemption is constantly extended. Instead of torturing only the terrorist with direct knowledge of the plot, interrogators now extend the act to those they believe have second or third hand knowledge. Eventually, they are torturing suspects who know suspects who are related to terrorists who may know the leader of a plot to detonate a bomb in the United States. This is the reality of torture. This is the reality of what the United States is engaged in.

Authoritarianism should not be confused with fascism –though one may lead to the other and vice-versa. Where the later seeks to unite a country under single cooperative rule lead by a charismatic leader, authoritarianism seeks only the goal of power for its leader, and his small band of loyalists. Where fascism uses nationalism and fear to unite the people into a fasces, authoritarianism primarily uses fear to maintain power, with little concern of uniting people in anything other then fear of itself or its prescribed enemies. Authoritarianism is the poor man’s fascism. It requires little to intellectual honesty, but offers the same ultimate power to its leaders.

The current authoritarian crop is found among the leading candidates for the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States. These men are engaged in a battle to prove which is stronger. They argue as to which will more quickly throw off the burdensome weaknesses of law (national or international), or which has the strength of will to incarcerate and abuse more of their enemies. These are men of steel. They argue for the preternatural power of the Presidency. They acknowledge no limits on this power; for they believe that that the next president must expand upon the powers the existing one. This, they suggest, must be done until the Presidency is indistinguishable from the Roman office of Dictator: an office with unlimited power to protect the state.

Among the prospective Duci, John McCain –the only combat veteran– has suggested that America cease torturing its detainees. Mr. McCain has been mocked for his stance in the past, and met with the equivocation argument of “we’re no worse then the evil we are fighting;” an argument used to justify nearly every atrocity throughout history. Mr. McCain has suffered for his beliefs among the base of his party –he is presently polling third or fourth. And though Mr. McCain believes in the authoritarian office of President, this is not enough to satisfy many. His party stalwarts believe that a single iron willed leader is the only thing that can save them from the enemy they have created in their fear. They will trust only a man who has the vision to see beyond law and reason and into the depths of their fears and dreams for order and vengeance.

For nearly one hundred years, our country had hosted two great political parties, both of which vied for political dominance generally within the framework of our laws and government. Even in the worst days of our republic in which the most heinous decisions were made (such as Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens) the acts were made with the full knowledge of the other branches of our government and with lawful review. But today, one party insists that one part of our government –the excellency of the Presidency– must be allowed to operate in secret, with secret expansive powers which no court nor man can hold to account. The Republican party has chosen an expedient path of authoritarianism in hopes that the fears and desperation of the American people match those of the party’s financiers and base. The other party, the Democratic Party, has showed itself either too afraid or too covetous of these new powers to act against its political adversaries. This party has shown itself to lack any will of leadership, authoritarian or otherwise, and thus struggles for unity and direction. The base of the Democratic party has been clear in its demands, but the leadership has ignored their calls and has pursued appeasement through ‘moderation’. The Republican party has offered a vision of the future, though be it a frightening one. The Democratic party, however, has been able to provide little evidence that it is opposed to the authoritarian ideas from across the aisle, or that it has the will to govern at all.

Our republic is in danger. But it is not threatened from without, but from within. It is threatened by those who seek to use its offices to gain ultimate authority; it is threatened by those pundits and politicians who cynically see all of politics as a win/loose game; and it is threatened by a frightened and apathetic public who seek quick fixes over reasoned understanding. It is only this final element which may be changing. There are growing voices outside of the pundits and politicians calling for introspection and change. It remains to be seen whether those voices will be heard by those threatening our nation.

Superstitious junta members believe that any contact with female undergarments - clean or dirty - will sap them of their power, said Jackie Pollack, a member of the Lanna Action for Burma Committee.

“Not only are they brutal, but they are also very superstitious. They believe that touching a woman’s pants or sarong will make them lose their strength,” Ms Pollack told Guardian Unlimited.

It never ceases to amaze how common the fear of women’s naughty bits is among despotic authoritarians. During a visit from the Pope last year the Polish authorities banned the sales of lingerie and tampons. The sale of tampons, by unlicensed medical professionals has also been banned in Taiwan. Authoritarians seem to have some innate fear of the female body. Nearly all the anti-homosexual rhetoric, here in the states, focuses on the feminizing of the male body by emphasizing stereotypical female characteristics such as physical weakness, passivity, and of course an obsession on the penetration of the sexual body.

The despots of Burma seem to believe that simply touching a pair of panties, which may have been in the proximity of a vagina, imparts femitons which attack the precious masculine bodily fluids. It is no coincidence that this fear of women’s bodies has created a policy of using rape as a political and military weapon. Their fear and hatred of women’s bodies allows these men to justify performing the most unspeakable acts against them.

Next week on October 24th, the US Campaign for Burma will be holding a grass roots media awareness day. They hope to bring more pressure on the UN — and particularly China — to take action against the brutal leaders of Burma. There is still some hope for the Burmese people that the world can force the government to recognize the duly elected leaders of Burma and provide some relief to the brutalized citizens of this small country.

The 79-year-old geneticist said he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.”. He said he hoped that everyone was equal, but countered that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

Of course Dr. Watson’s opinions have no basis in scientific reasoning or fact. But the mere notion that a Nobel accredited scientist should utter such nonsense gives credence to racist theories and policies throughout the world. Dr. Watson has never been a good spokesman for the common humanity of man. In the past, he has suggested a link between skin-tone and libido, and has suggested that a woman may wish to abort her child if it can be shown the child would be a homosexual.

It’s not clear if Dr. Watson is simply so egomaniacle that he believes his discovery of fifty years ago is the golden key to understanding all of societies problems — and that we can ignore historical and economic movements like colonialism, slavery, and genocide to explain social/economic problems among people. Or if he is simply, like so many, a prisoner to the prejudices and racism of the culture of his youth. In either case, it is sad and disturbing to see a man who pioneered our understanding of the common biology of humanity to espouse discredited and divisive 19th century views. It all seems to suggest that no matter how far we extend our intelligence we must continue to fight the ignorance of our personal prejudices.

Press Secretary Perino: “But the legal opinion of the United States is that we do not torture. The statutes have been interpreted, the committees have been briefed. And I believe that the members that have been briefed are satisfied that the policy of the United States, and the practices, do not constitute torture.”

That the American government has been involved in torture for the last fifty years should come as no surprise to scholars and observers of its foreign policy. America’s techniques were honed in Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, and El Salvador. But what was once done as consultations with foreign security services in the past, has now become overtly practiced by the American government.

When President Bush insists that “We do not torture” it is always with a wink and a nudge to foreign interests and the American people. Historically, governments never admit that that torture prisoners. They will couch their language in professional euphemisms: “enhanced interrogations”, “harsh questioning,” “psychological treatment,” “re-education” are all terms used in the past by governments which tortured prisoners, but denied that they tortured. Even the classification of ‘prisoner’ becomes euphemised: in the Soviet Union prisoners became “patients,” or “dissidents,” in Latin America they were “suspects” or “rebels,” in China “counter-revolutionaries,” and here, in America, they are “detainees” or “enemy combatants”. But this re-defining of language, this euphemization, was never intended to completely hide the fact that all of these governments engaged in in torture. Rather, the language is designed to provide both the highest levels of deniability and justification of tortures use.

As former CIA officer Robert Baer has stated, torture is not an effective or accurate means of acquiring intelligence information. In fact there are well known methods of interrogation which have proven accurate, and which do not involve physical or psychological violence. Around the world, torture is is publicly denounced and decried as inhuman, barbarous, and cruel. So why is torture employed? Partially because it is so publicly reviled. Employing torture signifies a state’s determination and its willingness to protect its interests. For those people who strongly support the state, the act of torture tends embolden their support. For this group, torture — through a state proxy — signifies strength, resolve, and feeds a cathartic need for violent retribution against those they perceive as enemies of the state they support. Torture allows the state transmits the message that it has the ultimate authority over life, death, pain, and comfort. Because of this torture can never be completely hidden. The state must make sure that its ‘enemies’ are aware of its actions. But the state must also maintain the ability to plausibly deny that it utilizes torture. Historically, states have found it nearly impossible to achieve this balance. For years, it was considered monstrously humorous that the Soviets or the Cubans would deny that they tortured prisoners. Today that same sarcastic view is held of America.

Governments which employ torture always claim they need to do so to save the nation from its enemies. But there is no evidence to support this. There is no record of a nation falling because it failed to torture its prisoners. But there is ample evidence to suggest that torture generates fear, which engenders hatred, and which leads to violence against the nation and its people. As President Bush and his supporters have decided that America is to be a torturing nation, they should consider that the terror they try to engender today may be visited upon them tomorrow. They should reflect on the fact that by taking up the banner of torture they have equated America with those nations whose citizens fled to America to escape the horrors of their own torturers. They should remember that history and law always condemns the brutality and horror of torture and those who supported and employed it.