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.
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.”
At some point today Michael Mukasey will, essentially, be confirmed as the next Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Mukasey’s testimony of blatant evasion and obfuscation regarding water boarding and torture should stand as one of the more shameful moments in our history. But those who defend Mr. Mukasey and the act of water boarding –such as Mona Charen, Andrew McCarthy, and Patrick Buchanan– represent a betrayal of our country’s laws and values which boarders on monstrous.
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.
In participating of Kevin Drum’s Wingnuttiest Blog Post of All Time competition, I was reminded of the great American poet Wallace Stevens’ Emperor of Ice Cream for some reason. So here it is:
Call the roller of big cigars,
The muscular one, and bid him whip
In kitchen cups concupiscent curds.
Let the wenches dawdle in such dress
As they are used to wear, and let the boys
Bring flowers in last month’s newspapers.
Let be be finale of seem.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.
Take from the dresser of deal,
Lacking the three glass knobs, that sheet
On which she embroidered fantails once
And spread it so as to cover her face.
If her horny feet protrude, they come
To show how cold she is, and dumb.
Let the lamp affix its beam.
The only emperor is the emperor of ice-cream.
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.
Despondent over the lack of of action against the Burmese dictators recent murder and repression, an activist group in Thailand has organized women to send their underwear to the Burmese government offices and embassies. The Panties for Peace protest is designed to first keep the ever saddening plight of Burma in the minds of the media and policy makers, and secondly to play upon the masculine superstitions of the Burmese depots:
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.
Congratulations to President Mr. Gore on being the recipient of this years Nobel Peace Prize. Though snarkly derided by the right wing pundits, the award of this prize to Mr. Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change demonstrates that there is a different heralded path for our world. One which is not based upon division, bombast and invasions. The Washington Post compares the path of the two leaders.
coffeehouse news, elections, voter fraud
