Cut Out The White Noise!

I've been thinking a lot about what the actual essence of the leftist movement has become. A blog? Has the fight for progressive change been reduced to nothing more than a surplus of privileged bureaucrats spewing rhetoric from behind the safety of a computer screen? I would certainly hope not. The movement is, in itself, a movement, a call for direct action, and in turn, and most importantly, the action itself. There are thousands of news outlets and thousands upon thousands more bloggers who simply scour the internet and recycle that news with their own political agenda rehashed on top. That is not a movement as far as I'm concerned, anyone can do that. The movement are those who hit the streets and speak out for what they believe in, not those who wear name badges on their lapels and rub elbows with political pundits at well organized functions.

I blog to inform and educate, that much is true, but more than that, I blog to motivate, and encourage direct action, action which I myself, participate in. With a presidential election looming and world events seemingly sputtering towards utter chaos, things like exchanging quips at a debate or Bush throwing out the first pitch at a baseball game just aren't important. In fact, it's not even important who you are voting for or why. What is important is that you vote, or to go beyond that, that you believe in something and are willing to stand up for what you believe. That is what the movement is about.

I would never encourage anyone to do anything dangerous or illegal, but to be honest, if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. Look at any number of great historical figures from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. all the way back to the founding fathers of America. Many of them served time in jail or risked their life standing up for what they believed. True change demands risk. If you truly believe in something you would be willing to take that risk. Nobody is going to knock on your door and say "Hey, I read your website and I hear what you're saying. Let's bring the troops home." Pass out flyers, shout it from the rooftops, even write it on a wall if that's what you think the situation demands. Just don't feel contended to write it on your website and call it a day.

If there is one thing that plagues the leftist movement, it's not the opposition we face from without, but the complacency and self-satisfaction that exists within. I recently had the opportunity to meet quite a few notable leftist bloggers at a cocktail event, as part of a conference sponsored by Take Back America (takebackamerica.org). To be perfectly honest, I was left in a state of utter disgust and outrage has to how smug everyone seemed to be. Ice cubes clinging in glasses, self-described activists and leftists clamoring over who they got their complimentary drink tickets from, and everyone having a good chuckle at a sub-par, at best, George W. Bush impersonator. Do you think the Bush Administration and their ilk, the very opposition we face, let themselves get distracted away from their agenda by such childish buffoonery? And this on the eve of an actual protest on the 5 year anniversary of America's invasion of Iraq. Do you know how many people from that Take Back America conference that I saw at the protest? None.

These are the people who talk themselves in circles, complaining about this policy or complaining about that law, and then when push comes to shove, and there is action taking place, nobody is there. If that sounds like it might describe you, let me be the first to say that you are not an activist, you are not progressive, and you are not part of any leftist movement. It doesn't matter how many people read your website. Talk without action is meaningless.

The Fear In The Force

In the first Star Wars prequel "The Phantom Menace", there is a certain ominous nugget of Yoda wisdom that has always struck me as being extremely apropos to the modern social and political climate of America. While the rest of the jedi masters are debating training Anakin Skywalker in the ways of the force, where despite his talents, there is immense risk involved, Yoda asserts the danger of the situation with was is perhaps his best quote.

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

Sensing the fear within Anakin, Yoda cautions that training him is dangerous, being that fear is only the first in a natural progression of more treacherous emotions. Being that we already know the inevitable outcome, that being the genesis of Darth Vader, at face value, this is nothing more than dramatic irony for the descent of Anakin Skywalker to the dark side. Pertinent as it may be to the Star Wars saga unfolding, I would still maintain that this wisdom serves its axiomatic purpose far better in the real world, outside of the film. And Never have i found this hypothesis to ringer truer then i did today in reading this cnn.com news story:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/03/28/science.project.scare.ap/index.html

Apparently, panic erupted on the New York City subway when a college student's science project started to malfunction. Despite the student's pleas to commuters, that the object in his possession was only a science project and not an explosive devise, people got scared and things got out of hand. The student's lesson being that the public is far to easily frightened for him to transport his homework by train.

Fear in public society has certainly reached fever pitch, I doubt there is much room to contest that, but this seems to cross a new threshold of paranoia. Looking at things pragmatically, the chances of a bomb going off on the subway, while possible, are extremely unlikely. Not to mention that, were this gentleman actually carrying a bomb, he would most likely would have detonated it, in lieu of taking it out in plain sight and trying to reassure his fellow passengers that he did not have a bomb. Yet, despite all logic to the contrary, mayhem ensued, and the boy had to answer to the firm hand of the law.

Once again, fear got the best of people. It is because of illogical scenes like this that we are forced to forfeit our civil liberties and submit to things like random bag searches, among other invasions of privacy. Do not buy into the fear mongering propaganda we are bombarded with like the "If you see something, say something" subway posters. The guy next to you is probably not a terrorist, accept that. When did the collective mentality of America become so self-destructively terrified? Fear may be the first step on the path to the dark side but let us always remember that better freedom with danger than peace with slavery.

Days of Being Wild

It may seem like a crazy notion these days, but believe it or not, prior to 2003, prisoner abuses committed abroad by private military and security contractors were subject to prosecution from the Justice Department (DOJ). Alas, this is no longer the case. It was the DOJ's decision to divert responsibility, and require that all cases of detainee abuse be handled by the US Attorney's Office. So why is it that the US Attorney's office has not prosecuted a single private military or security contractor, despite numerous reports of torture and abuse of detainees, rape of co-workers, and killing of Iraqi civilians by contractors? How can we stand for this?

Bush and Co. are really letting their sadistic friends go wild in Iraq, and as is to be predicted, we inherit the anti-americanism this breeds. Worst of all, it is our troops, who are the ones taking the brunt of this resentment. Of the 24 cases of human rights violations committed by private military and security contractors, referred to the DOJ by the Department of Defense and the CIA, only 2 have been prosecuted. The DOJ declined to prosecute the other 22 on grounds of "insufficient evidence" and "low probability of conviction", clearly a game of mutual favors is being played and it is unacceptable.

To be perfectly honest, I am at a loss that private military contractors even have the jurisdiction to arrest and detain citizens of Iraq. They are only there as part of a "for profit" capitalist venture, and therefore have no reason for doing things in a way that is sympathetic or conducive to international diplomacy. If anything, a continuation of this pointless conflict means more profits for them.

I have sent e-mails urging both New York State Senators to stand up against these atrocities being committed in the name of my country and to hold these criminals accountable for their actions. I urge everyone reading this to appeal to their local elected officials and do the same.

Thus far I have only received electronically generated responses from both Charles Schumer and Hilary Clinton. Both are very busy, I'm sure. However, both make claims that they will eventually address my grievances specifically and get back to me. For those of you in New York, I will provide the e-mail addresses where both can be reached below:

-senator@schumer.senate.gov
-senator_clinton@clinton.senate.gov

This is what democracy looks like. Take action.

Give Peace A Chance.

On March 19 I headed down to Washington DC to participate in protests against the United States occupation of Iraq. It was a beautiful thing to see so many people of different races, ethnicities, ages and walks of life, all standing together in solidarity to demonstrate against such an unjust and atrocious act of war. As we marched down the street, we were cheered on by nearly everyone whose periphery we happened to pass through. People yelling while waiting for the bus, people clapping from their office windows, everyone. Over the course of the day, the message became clear. Although not everyone was able or interested in protesting, the people were united against the war.

I will say that contrary to most media reports of arrests and police brutality, that the law enforcement acted in way which was, for the most part, sympathetic to our cause. On our early morning march, we had a police motorcycle brigade escorting us on our way and blocking traffic.



Along the march down K street we met up with Funk The War, a dance party protest, organized by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). As we approached the students of SDS had already overtaken, and were occupying, the main intersection of K street and 17th. The purpose being to act out in civil disobedience against the war by dancing in the street where it impeded the natural flow of society. A society all too willing to forget and/or behave indifferent towards the events of the war which occur every day. Traffic was brought to a halt, and likely, much to their dismay, commuters were forced to take a time out and think about what the cause behind this action was.



It was here that our first altercation with the police took place. After a time, the police decided that it was necessary for us to clear out of the intersection and allow traffic to resume. As nobody would comply, they felt they were left with no choice but to use force. Although a few small skirmishes ensued, I preceived this process as being relatively painless. Nobody was arrested, or seriously hurt, despite the outraged chants to the contrary. We regrouped at a nearby park before setting out on the march again. This time the police followed us, not necessarily to protect us, but more to keep us from delaying traffic at any one spot for an extended period of time.



We marched to the national headquarters of armed forces recruiting and joined up with protesters already there, voicing opposition to the military's wildly recognized strategy of preying on university students of low income by offering enlistment as a means of paying for tuition. Once again the police forced us to be on our way before too long.



It was on our continued march that I myself was thrown into a UPS truck by a police officer trying to force us on to the sidewalk. An entirely unnecessary use of brute force, however I simply returned to the street without acknowledging the officer who pushed me and continued on the march. We regrouped at a park before setting out to make an attempt at covering the White House fence with crime scene tape as a means of illustrating the war crimes committed by the Bush administration, an action which was handily overturned by the police. By this time it was pouring rain and moral was becoming more volatile. Again we marched back to K street where we overtook a main intersection and resumed our occupation.

Desks were brought out and students chained themselves to them in the middle of the street. The police diverted traffic for at least 3 blocks on all sides of the intersection and surrounded us with numerous squad cars and paddy wagons. It seemed as though the time for mass arrests was drawing near. The chants of the protesters no longer had anything to do with peace or ending the war, but rather simply about our right to claim the street. The overall demeanor of the crowd now seemed very antagonistic. I was actually extremely disheartened to see things becoming this way. My whole reason for being there was to voice opposition to the war, I had no interest in engaging the police just because I had the group mentality of invincibility. Nor did I have any interest in occupying the streets just to occupy them. In a way, chants such as "our streets" struck me as being ironic in light of the fact that we were protesting the US occupation of Iraq. I was reminded of a famous Karl Marx quote that Zizek often refers to: "They know not what they are doing, but they are doing it anyway." While I supported the cause and I supported the protesters, the main point of why we were there had been lost. No progressive chance can come from empty militancy.



Soaking wet from the pouring rain and disenfranchised with how quickly the protest had become misguided I had decided to head home. From what I later heard, the police ended up allowing the protest to take its course and did not intervene any more. They simply diverted traffic, and stayed there to make sure things did not get out of hand, but the protesters were allowed to occupy the intersection.

A Responsible Plan To End The War In Iraq

On this, the eve of the 5th anniversary of America's unilateral invasion of Iraq, a new plan has been released today to exit Iraq as safely and as quickly as possible. Granted this plan is a far cry from a ratified resolution, let alone an actual withdrawal, but this is a start. To become too disillusioned to recognize progress when we have it would be a grave mistake. If you are against the war there are things you can do to change it. It is not so much that the obstacles we face are too great, or that the enemies against us are too powerful, only that too few are willing to stand up and fight. Apathy is what keeps things heading in the wrong direction, but there is a movement and all are welcome. Voicing your opposition to such a heinous crime against humanity as this war, will not get you arrested. You are entitled to protest. That right is guaranteed to you in the constitution of this country. Only when we become too timid to exercise these rights are we in danger of losing them. I encourage everyone to take the time to read the executive summary below, if not the entire plan, and to visit the website of the plan to sign your name in support.

"The United States invaded Iraq in March 2003. Since then, nearly 4,000 American troops have lost their lives and nearly thirty thousand more have suffered serious injuries, while as many as a million Iraqis may be dead. The financial costs of the war to the U.S. economy will ultimately exceed $3 trillion. More than a year ago, the American public demanded a new direction in Iraq by electing a new Congress, and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (the Baker-Hamilton Commission) presented a set of recommendations for just such a new direction. President Bush rejected the majority of those recommendations and proceeded—largely unchecked by Congress—on a course explicitly contrary to them.
Since that time, the current administration and its congressional allies have continued to use shifting rationales for extending our military involvement in Iraq with no end in sight. The American public has been presented with a set of false choices: a semi-permanent military occupation of Iraq versus a precipitous and destabilizing withdrawal. There is a deepening public desire for a new path forward and a cohesive military, diplomatic, and economic strategy that will end the war in Iraq while protecting American interests.

There are two strategic questions raised by our current dilemma:

1.) How do we bring American military engagement in Iraq to a responsible end?
There is no military solution to the problems faced in Iraq: the real progress that can be made requires diplomatic, political, and economic means. We must stop counter-productive military operations by U.S. occupation forces and end our military presence in Iraq.

2.) How do we prevent a repeat of the mistakes we've made?
The breakdown of checks and balances in our government led to bad decision-making which damaged America's national security. Ending this war and preventing future situations like it requires that we restore these Constitutional checks and balances and fix the ways in which our governmental, military, and civil institutions have failed us.

Discussions of Iraq in the media have focused almost entirely on military operations and issues, but any real solution will require us to look at a broader set of problems. Beyond redeploying our troops, we must place equal importance on applying the full arsenal of non-military tools at our disposal. The American public must also re-engage in the discussions and decision-making about how to proceed.

What follows is a series of objectives that, taken together, refocus our current military involvement in the region while repairing damage to the U.S. to prevent a repeat of our mistakes. We have included some sample legislation currently in Congress to show that these objectives have been identified and can be addressed given sufficient political will. We have also included recommendations that the Baker-Hamilton Commission published in the Iraq Study Group Report. In some cases, no existing legislation or clear recommendations exist and new authorizing legislation plus careful planning would be required.

Supporters of this document have committed to these objectives. The American people do not need to wait for a new Congress and new administration to pursue this agenda: public pressure on our current elected officials to act can help us move in the right direction even before January 2009, when we hope a new presidential administration and a new Congress will avail themselves of the opportunity to address the great challenges we face as a nation. We are aware that facts on the ground will change moving forward, and the legislation is included just to show that a responsible end to the war is possible given the political will.

As circumstances on the ground change, what is required of our response may change as well; consequently, we will be updating information on this and other legislation at www.responsibleplan.com.

End U.S. military action in Iraq:
There is no military solution in Iraq. Our current course unacceptably holds U.S. strategic fortunes hostage to events in Iraq that are beyond our control; we must change course. Using diplomatic, political, and economic power, we can responsibly end the war and removing all of our troops from Iraq.

Using U.S. diplomatic power:
Much of the remaining work to be completed in Iraq requires the effective use of diplomatic power. Many of Iraq's neighbors are currently contributing to instability and need to be persuaded to assist instead in stabilization.

Addressing humanitarian concerns:
The humanitarian crisis caused by Iraq's situation is destabilizing to the region and damaging to America's moral credibility. We must both take responsibility for the Iraqis who are now endangered because of their assistance to the U.S. and begin to address the regional problems of displaced Iraqis.

Restoring our Constitution:
Many mistakes were made in the course of this war, and our systems of checks and balances have failed us at critical moments. To prevent repeating those mistakes, we must repair the underlying Constitutional framework of our republic and provide checks to executive authority. Balance must be restored between the executive and the judicial branch (for instance through the restoration of habeas corpus), between the executive and the legislative branch (for instance through clarifying that the President does not have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally alter legislation through signing statements), and between the executive and the people of the United States (for instance by clarifying that the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and a warrant for the government to spy on Americans).

Restoring our military:
Repairing the damage done to our military will require reforms in contracting procedures, restoring benefits for members of the military and veterans, and investment in repairing or replacing damaged military equipment.

The need for contracting reform is substantial. Private militias have direct incentives to prolong the conflict rather than resolve it; their use needs to be phased out. Contractors must be legally accountable for their actions. War profiteering must be stopped, and those who have engaged in it need to answer for their actions.

The safety of our men and women in uniform requires that we adhere to international standards with respect to treatment of prisoners. We must also make it clear that the United States does not torture, and that we do not send people to other places to be tortured, either.

The military is having substantial difficulty with recruiting and retention; we could begin to help by delivering on more of the promises the original Montgomery G.I. Bill made and by delivering on our promises regarding healthcare for veterans.

Restoring independence to the media:
The consolidation of our news media into the control of a relatively few corporate entities stifled a full and fair discussion and debate around Iraq. A more robust debate could be encouraged by expanding access to media.

Creating a new, U.S.-centered energy policy:
Finally, we are clearly tied to Iraq through our dependence on oil, which makes us vulnerable. Moving away from that dependence is necessary for strategic, economic, and environmental reasons."
-http://responsibleplan.com

Is Barack Obama's Change Something We Can Believe In?

I'm sure you've seen the slogans, "Change We Can Believe In". Senator Barack Obama has done a tremendous job of rallying pseudo liberals behind his veiled cause. It is extremely easy to make promises of immediate withdrawal from Iraq in order to get the majority of Americans, disillusioned with our unjust war, to get behind his campaign. However, I sincerely doubt that those who have read the fine print of Obama's plan for Iraq would still carry the same enthusiasm. Obama's promises don't really amount to anything more than the same old rhetoric we have come to expect from cogs in the political machine. Now is the most dire of times to allow ourselves to become complacent with the empty promises politicians make.

On his official website "barackobama.com", there isn't really a whole lot that is said in terms of getting American troops out of Iraq. Not only that, but the one paragraph that is there seems to be extremely ambiguous and vague, if not outright contradictory.

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Already in this keynote statement we see a blatant contradiction. That being that there is a solid declaration of no permanent American bases in Iraq and that American troops will be remaining in Iraq indefinitely to protect our embassy and diplomats. Granted there are troops guarding our embassies at every American Embassy in the world. However our planned Embassy in Baghdad is no ordinary Embassy. The American Embassy in Iraq is going to be the single largest embassy in the history of the world. A massive complex spanning 140 acres, or roughly the size of 80 football fields, and costing $592 million to build and $1.2 billion to operate every year. Not only will the enclosed complex have a swimming pool and tennis courts but the personal residence of the U.S. ambassador to Iraq will be a whopping 16,000 square feet. I would ask anyone what the true benefit of having such an embassy in Iraq would be if not to continue to protect our economic interests at the cost of more lives on both sides? This unfortunately being the main reason we find ourselves there in the first place. But I'm sure none of this elitist luxury will breed any anti-american sentiment in the residents of Baghdad, who are only allowed 5.6 hours of electricity a day.
(http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/29/photos-embassy-iraq/)

However not only does Barack Obama plan to keep enough troops in Iraq to protect the embassy, but that extends beyond the embassy to maintaining order in the entire Green Zone. Obama has made it explicitly clear that he plans to employ as many troops as necessary to sustain order within the 4 square miles of permanent American Imperialism. If you calculate the number of troops it would take to protect the gargantuan Embassy, in addition to the number of troops it would take to protect the green zone we are still looking at quite a few American troops permanently stuck somewhere we had no right being in the first place. Between 40,000 and 80,000 to be exact. That doesn't sound like much of a withdrawal to me.

Now is not the time to appease ourselves with false promises and false hope. When politicians start promising change and start promising hope, it is our job as informed citizens to demand more. When we are told American troops will come home, we need to make our voices heard that that means all troops home. The best of what's offered is not enough. We will not be silenced until we have achieved true change.

A Time For Change?

In hearing Slovaj Zizek speak last evening I was surprised to hear him attest to the notion that free-market capitalism is not going to be the final stage in the economic progression of modern society. Rather, with hard work, we will eventually make our way to a socialist state in which true equality exists. Personal opinions aside, I actually find it quite difficult to believe this. And yet, at the same time, I can't help but wonder, how is it that we are not already there? I suppose it just needs to be evaluated what our priorities actually are, freedom or equality? Not to mention the extent to which either truly exist.

Most people would be against things moving to the far left, if for nothing else, than simply out of habit. With remnants of the cold war still in our minds and a preternatural fear of all that is different, it seems impossible that there could ever be such a drastic democratic shift towards a socialist/communist state. But why? Do we really have the freedoms that we value so much? Does the power really reside within the people? Sure, in some sense, we elect our own representatives. But then what? After that, they pretty much enact policy arbitrarily to their individual free will. I don't ever remember being allowed to vote on explicit guidelines barring the C.I.A.'s use of extraordinary rendition and water boarding. Nor have I ever had any say in American's foreign policy and things of that nature. Clearly what is democratic about American society already exists with severe limitations. In a very real sense we already exist under the conditions of a dictatorship.

The question then turns to freedom. Again, our freedoms only exist so long as they are made to exist by those in power. In terms of freedom of expression, take something as insignificant as a myspace profile. Sure one is relatively free to do what they want with their individual profile, only so long as it complies with the terms of service myspace upholds. For example, you would not be able to have a nude photo of yourself on your myspace. Why? Because, myspace does not allow for it. Inevitably, others will always decide the extent of your freedoms according to their opinions. I use this petty example of personal expression, only to avoid speaking of the censorship that comes with the bureaucracy of our capitalist system. A television news program would never run a story about the unsanitary conditions of a certain restaurant, if that restaurant was a corporate sponsor. Naturally, the content of said news program will always be limited to covering those things which do not pose a conflict of interest to that which pays for it. All one needs to do is remember the backlash all parties involved received when singer Janet Jackson exposed her breast during the Super Bowl Half-time Show. The FCC fined both the performers and the network, the sponsors of the broadcast were outraged and as a consequence what was allowed to be shown on television became much more conservative. Of course censorship goes far beyond this. The government obviously already controls what information is made available to us based upon what they want us to know. There had never been reports of terrorists using airplanes as missiles prior to 9/11 despite the fact that extensive documentation exists proving that our government had been warned of such a thing occurring on numerous occasions. Our freedoms/the free exchange of knowledge have always been, and will always be, subject to outside approval.

The question then becomes, that as citizens, if we do not actually have power or freedom to nearly the extent that we are led to believe we do, then what is being so vehemently defended? Granted there are positive aspects to our current system of government. Power changes hands peacefully every 4 years, we do have freedoms that, when not being infringed upon, allow for a great deal of expression, etc. However these same freedoms come with dire consequences. So I pose the question that at what cost would we be willing to forfeit these things, or rather, acknowledge what we already lack, in return for greater equality?

Would those who have the luxuries in life, which are not afforded to most, ever be willing to make concessions for the greater good of society? How does one justify having 4 cars and 3 houses when a large portion of our population is homeless, without healthcare and hungry? Especially considering it is very rarely as cut and dry as those who have, earned it, and those who have not, are in their current situation as a product of their own decisions. The ultimate question being, at what point does it become necessary to forcibly implement what is good for most against the minority who stand the most to lose?