Categories
Political

Fish swimming the wrong way

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I can’t be the only person who is uncomfortable with the premise behind Spirit of America. But I looked around, and see nothing but universal approval of this organization.

Look at the premise behind this organization–it fills requests submitted by service people. This sounds good, true. But it also sounds like a lot of propaganda, and not just in Iraq.

When you consider that one of the largest ‘requests’ met was to provide TV gear so that the people of Iraq could have access to ‘unbiased’ news, doesn’t this give you the slightest pause?

Current TV news in Iraq often carries negative, highly-biased accounts of the U.S. presence. Unanswered, its effect is to stoke resentment and encourage conflict. The Marines seek to ensure the Iraqi people have access to better, more balanced information. By equipping local television stations and providing the ability to generate news and programming, the Marines will create a viable news alternative – one owned and operated by local Iraqi citizens.

The donated equipment will be the property of the Iraqi stations. The stations can create their own news and choose their own programming with the agreement that they will prohibit airing of anti-coalition messages that incite the local population. The stations also agree to sell airtime at a fair market price so that the Marines can communicate their information efficiently and quickly when needed.

For example, images were recently broadcast of a mosque in Fallujah damaged during fighting. With these stations the Marines could have provided the full picture by airing video of combatants firing on them from the mosque grounds. These stations would have enabled Iraqis to understand the complete picture. News of reconstruction projects and humanitarian assistance that balances the news of conflict will also be provided on these stations. The stations will be free to criticize the Coalition.

I read this and did not get a warm and fuzzy. Do you all read this, and get a warm and fuzzy?

There are the heart touching stories of dental kits for kids and frisbees and lots of pictures of really cute kids, and I can see how questioning this would be tantamount to, well, kicking kittens, but read the following:

“The amount of poverty and desperation after the Hussein regime is legion. Hopefully kids will grow up in this free Iraq because we were here. Kids just love to hear you talk and sing and know that you care about them. We will help them again in the future.”

“It is not yet safe for non-military humanitarian organizations operate in Iraq as they can in other nations. Therefore, in many cases, it falls to the American military in the region to provide that extra relief to help the people recover. Kirkuk is “home” to the 507 AEG at Kirkuk AB.”

I think it’s great these soldiers want to help…but I can’t help thinking an Iraq safe enough for non-military organizations, much less the people, themselves, has to be a priority. For instance, these schools discussed–which ones will allow girls, and how safe will it be for the girls to attend? Just something that came to mind when I read the description.

Spirit of America just seems like so much dripping patriotism, like butter on hot pancakes. More of a way to feel good about ourselves then to really make a meaningful difference in Iraq.

Update

I don’t mean to ignore the other excellent comments in this list–regardless of whether they are in agreement or not–but did want to specifically address one that has been on my mind tonight. Dave Rogers asked:

Now, all that being said, I could be wrong. There may some aspect of this idea that I haven’t thought of that makes it a totally bad idea. I’m not sure what that would be, but if someone makes a convincing case for why this is a bad idea, then I would certainly actively oppose it.

That pushed me into looking more closely about why I disliked Sprit of America, enough to actively write against it. Is it because it’s rather saturated with patriotism? Or that the effort is more for the people of this country then the Iraqi? These are both valid concerns, but not enough to explain my own strong reaction.

I was about to go to bed, and it hit me: because it’s a lie. It’s a nice lie, and a patriotic lie, but it’s a lie.

The Spirit group says that the effort is to help the Iraqi people, but we know just from the discussion here and elsewhere related to the first deliverable of television equipment that most of the effort is being directed at creating a positive image of America in Iraq. This isn’t bad–but that’s not the ostensible reason given for this action. So the very premise is based on a lie.

However, that’s not important. What is important is: is it a good lie? Does great good come of Spirit of America regardless of the inherent truth behind it? After all, kids get toys, and people get tools. These are good things.

True–but I can see harm coming from these actions; how we perceive these acts won’t be the same as how others, including the people in Iraq, will perceive these acts.

If this catches on and ends up in the media, which I’m sure it will, and Iraq and the Middle East see us patting ourselves on the back for sending a bunch of frisbees to the country, after we had just been exposed for harming and humiliating prisoners, what will their reaction be?

We send television stations after closing down those run locally, but tell the people that they can still run their own programs. Is this not a lie? Is there not a caveat that says they can’t incite the local populace, and they have to allow the Marines to run ‘ads’? Leads one to wonder: why would Marines need to run ads? And what do they mean by ‘incite’ the local populace? Perhaps by showing photos of the prisoners being humilated? This incited a fair number of people in this country – I imagine that they were a tad pissed in Iraq.

Our own hypocrisy must come into play as we compare ourselves the people of Iraq and pride ourselves on how much more in control we are. We have heard in this list how incitement of the people here is so different from incitement of the people there. After all, when they get angry in Iraq, they kill.

Well, guess what boys and girls: our history is littered with people getting angry and killing in this country. Last time I looked, more Iraqi have died because we got angry over two towers being destroyed in New York, then Americans have died because Iraqi are angry at us.

We talk about training the people in Iraq and giving them tools, as if they are children and have no skills or craft themselves. Have we totally forgotten that civilization started in that country? Are we so blind to the fact that they are college educated, and skilled, and connected, and they don’t need our patronage? They need peace.

Do we continue sending a message to the world that we in this country think of the Iraqi as slow intellect children with poor impulse control who need our help? Seeing us in this arrogant light, I don’t particularly much like America, either.

Will you send me a frisbee to change my mind?

They don’t need our tools. They need our damn respect. Can we wrap that in a red, white, and blue ribbon and send it?

Jeff Jarvis wrote:

This is important work on so many levels: As Dan says, no matter what you think about the war, we have a human obligation to help the Iraqi people. But it is also enlightened self-interest: If we can help the Iraqis build their nation and their democracy and if we can connect with them on a personal level – if, to be blunt, we can demonstrate that Americans are not ugly – then we create a foothold for democracy, freedom, modernity, civilization, and just friendship in the Middle East.

…then we create a foothold for democracy, freedom, modernity, civilization, and just friendship in the Middle East… Sorry, but that’s not respect.

I am reminded of the movie Pollyanna, and the fine, wealthy ladies of the community and their acts of charity to the poorer people of the town. In the movie this was exposed as a false act, because there was no respect given as part of the gift.

I have no doubts that there are a lot of good people involved with Spirit of America–people who really want to help out in Iraq. And I respect that and them: for their generosity and their wanting to do something to help. I have not given them the credit they deserve, and for that, I was remiss, and apologize.

And I agree that if the soldiers want to help then they should be given the means to help–by providing security for those organizations equipped to help properly.

If we truly care about the people of Iraq, then we ask our service people to do their job: with courtesy to the people, and kindness, and friendliness. However, these service people don’t need toys, they need training. They need to be rotated out when they’re tired, and they need to stop being lied to about when they’re coming home. Above all they need to realize they have to respect these people, because Iraq is their home, not ours.

In addition, we need to fire every person in command who encourages our service people to humiliate the people of that country. Starting at the top…which is us. We can’t buy our way out of embarrassment.

If we want to contribute goods or services, then there are several good organizations that will help in the area, including Doctors without Borders–but without a patriotic price tag attached. We need to encourage the UN to work with the US and Iraq and other Middle East countries to ensure these organizations can work without fear. And then we need to contribute to help keep them going. They’re experienced in providing lasting help;all we are is a bunch of bloggers with too much patriotic bunting on our hands, and perhaps a little too much ‘go with the flow’ good vibes leading us hither and yon. And yes, genuine interest in helping.

We have to realize that no matter what we do, the Iraqi people are not going to suddenly like us overnight. We have tromped rather heavily in their country, and we haven’t been on our best behavior since. Perhaps over time, if we follow through on our commitments, and we start thinking of the people with respect, they might begin to at least learn to tolerate us; maybe someday, they’ll grow to like us.

We also have to realize that a few trinkets may have bought us an island in the past, but they aren’t going to buy us love, now.

I feel with this writing that I have joined the ranks of those speaking with utmost surety. Can’t you hear my fist pounding on the table? Where’s my box? Believe me, though, when I say that I fully realize my take on this could be completely, and absolutely wrong.

Perhaps this struggle will be overcome with a frisbee. Wouln’t that be nice, if that’s all it took?

Categories
Political

National day of prayer

Thursday is this country’s National Day of Prayer. This day was set aside back in the 1950’s, the same era when “In God We Trust” was added to the coins, and “Under God” added to the Pledge of Allegience. The purpose of the event is to bring people together from all denominations to pray for the country and to give thanks. Normally I don’t even notice when this day occurs. This year, though, it has several very interesting aspects to it.

First of all, I read that all are welcome to pray on Thursday, but only those members from certain Christian churches can lead prayer sessions. This has peeved the Mormon Church who have been told that they may not lead prayer sessions–in Utah, no less.

Of course if you’re Jewish or Muslim, Hindu, or a member of a Christian sect outside of those classified as a “evangelical Christian Church”, you also can’t lead a prayer session on this day. Well, I suppose you could. I don’t think you’ll get arrested if you do. In fact, if you don’t pray, you probably won’t get arrested.

That’s kind of reassuring.

Now, Oliver North is leading a prayer session. He’s been designated as the Honorary Chair for this year’s events (oh, and by the way, you can order his book here, at the NDP site). Yes, that is the Oliver North of the Iran-Contra illegal gun sales.

(In case you don’t know US history that well, that was when we sold guns to Iran (fighting Iraq–we also supplied arms to Iraq) and then used the money to fund terrorists in Nicaragua.)

Yeah, that Oliver North.

I’m not giving an opinion about this day of prayer led by evangelical Christian churches, to pray for our ‘campaign of freedom’ in Iraq and elsewhere, led by a man who was involved in one of the worst scandals to have ever hit this country.

Nope. No opinion at all.

By the way, what are you doing this Thursday during the Day of Prayer?

Categories
Political

Can we still be friends

What happens after the Presidential elections in the United States in November has been on my mind a lot lately. The ramifications for my country are significant, and of the seven elections I’ve participated in the past (missing the eighth because I turned 18 two weeks after the election), I don’t remember one having such a degree of emotional commitment as this election. No, not even the elections during the Vietnam War.

This year we’re seeing two hundred years of political flashpoints come together into one huge, and disturbingly virulent fireball: race, religion, state rights versus federal; US as empire and US as peacekeeper terrorism, expanionism, libertarian versus socialistic economics, and the role of the federal government; abortion, gay marriage, immigration, health care, creationism versus evolution, and the environment and progress.

It’s almost like a bad poem, and since I missed the Blogger poem day yesterday:

Race, religion, fed versus state
who do we appreciate?

US as empire and peacekeeper, too
boils down to US rules.

Terrorism and expansionism
put the bad guys into prison.

Libertarian or social, true.
I got mine, and so do you.

Abortion or gay,
who holds sway?

Give us your money,
you can keep your poor.

It’s okay to die,
just don’t get sick.

Can’t stuff a tree into a gas tank
but it’s hard to breath petroleum.

God created me, you stupid ape.

But more than just the impact this election will have on this country and the world,
I wonder about the impact on our online relationships with each other. To say that nothing will change after this election in regards to our interactions with others we’ve come to know online is foolishly optimistic. Of course things will change, but how they’ll change, I don’t know.

I’m lucky in that over half the people I’ve come to know online are not from this country. I’ve been able to meet people from South Africa and Canada; Austrlia, New Zealand, and the UK; Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Iraq, China, and other countries known and not. It’s been a rich experience, but its also been painful at times . Never before have I been able to borrow so many other’s eyes to see my own country, and the sight has not always been pretty or pleasant.

There are not a lot of countries who are very happy with the United States now, but much of the anger has been directed at the President and his staff. After all, Bush did not win the popular vote, so we can’t necessarily be held accountable for his actions. But what happens if Bush gets re-elected? At that time Bush’s actions will be seen as following the mandate of the people of this country, and how is that going to alter other country’s views of each of us?

If Bush is re-elected, can we still be friends?

Even when I share much of the same views as those who would condemn our actions, I have found myself experiencing tension, more than once, with someone I consider friend, primarily because of condemnation of our actions has been balanced, precariously, against condemnation of the nation as a whole. And good or bad, I am part of this nation.

I’ve known Chris, otherwise known as Stavros of Emptybottle almost longer than anyone else, but when he says in my comments, “I hate America”, it is difficult for me to accept this with any form of objectivity. What “America”, I want to say. I am part of America.

I have long respected Mike Golby’s satirical eloquence and his passion, and he has become an important part of my life, but even so earlier in April I found myself pushing back at him, in anger:

What do you want, Mike?

You don’t want Bush. You don’t want Kerry. You don’t like Americans, because we fuck up constantly.

Do you want us to just detonate all of out atomic bombs over our own country and wipe us off the face of the world? Will that then end all evil, since we are the root of?

I’ve read Mike’s condemnation of the Bush administration and our actions for months and never had anything but agreement. So why did I get angry this time? I think it’s because I see that precarious balance against America, the government and America, the people. Even when Mike says this is bullshit, he also writes:

Until U.S. citizens start telling the U.S. administration what they think of it, the world and I can only believe they condone what is happening in Iraq and elsewhere.

Yet I don’t want Chris or Mike to stop what they are saying because I do agree with their anger; I know, intellectually, neither means me when they make their statements. But what will happen between us if Bush were re-elected? Will that anger grow? If so, will the tension grow, too?

Even within the country, Bush being re-elected is going to create an enormous amount of tension. If I seem to be angry at Mike for demanding that we be held accountable for our actions, imagine the contradiction when I turn around and get angry at other of my fellow citizens for just this same reason.

I should maintain an intellectual detachment from the political process, but I cannot. Every time I hear the President invoke religion as his platform, I will find myself pushing back at the religious, yes even those who are tolerant. Every time I hear the President paint yet another country as ‘evil’, I lash out at even the most reasonable in his support. Every time I see a wilderness area opened up for oil exploration, or more foul substances released into the air or water, I turn my frustrated, heart broken, and desperate eyes of rage on the nearest moderate Republican, and I let loose with both barrels.

“Damn you! Look what you’ve done!”

You might think that in those circles where only the like-minded frequent, such as among the warbloggers, the results of the election won’t be an impact on the relationships because the people agree. If Bush doesn’t win, they will support each other. If Bush does win, they will still support each other.

However, it doesn’t take much to see that among the warbloggers, for the most part, the only thing they do agree on is Bush’s aggressive military stance. Once the election is over, Bush winning or not, what will then form the cohesive elements in their lives? At that point, I see many reaching a point of burn out and either they will quit or they will change. No one can talk about war every day, day in day out, no matter how much they relish it now. But if the warbloggers don’t have war–what will they have?

What if Bush does not win, like I and so many others hope? One can say if getting Bush re-elected is the cohesive force behind those who support “the war”, whatever “the war” is, making sure Bush isn’t elected is just as much a cohesive force for others.

Look around you. Can you see all of us engaging in the same level of rhetoric for the next four years? But do we then write about poetry and technology and bookbinding and hiking and ignore the hundreds that were just blown up in Baghdad? I can, and I will, and so will you–but sometimes the words seem stretched thin, like new skin over an open wound.

Maybe they are. New skin signifies healing.

Regardless of the election results, I think too many things have been in motion for us to ever pull out without enormous damage, no matter what course we take. I’d like to think that we can mend our differences with other countries, and find a solution to Iraq and the Middle East, and save the environment, and feed the hungry and care for the sick, but unlike so many other pundits, I don’t know what the solutions are.

(Speaking of pundits, how many sincere essays written with an absolute confidence that the weblogger knows the truth can we read before our heads implode? Including our own essays (as I raise my hand signifying my own guilt)? When I see somebody write with gentle humility or compassion or humor now, I want to cry. I want to drink in the words like they are water in the desert. I’ll even partake of delicious arrogance, if it’s done in service of poking holes in our self-satisfied bubbles.)

Perhaps I am too sensitive, or lacking in the objectivity or the necessary degree of intellectualism that allows us to have our dissenting dialogs without blowing apart in fire and bits of burnt ego. After the election, we will continue as we are, with no difference, and I am seeing non-existent specters. At this point, you’re all shaking your heads with pity for me, all the while in the back of your mind is a single thought: let’s form a pool to see when she’ll crack.

Maybe I’m just experiencing the frustration of feeling close to people who I haven’t met physically, and most likely never will, and I miss that direct contact. I can’t hug Chris or Mike to reaffirm that we are friends despite our countries and our differences, and this makes it worse. I must also admit, too, in quiet moments, that even if we were to have the chance, we might still not meet because what we share is woven of silver threads that are beautiful as long we don’t look directly at them.

And maybe it’s nothing more than my mood reflecting this gray day and the storm last night. It’s odd, but as I lay there in the dark and watched the lightning through the window and listened to the crack of thunder, I thought about the events in the last few weeks, and how the brightest moment in them was a silly little meme known as “23rd page, fifth sentence”.

It is now 185 days until November 2nd, 2004

Categories
People Political Weblogging

Not one word

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I am trying not to focus too much on Iraq because frankly the situation over in that country makes me so angry that I want to break something. But it’s hard to ignore the reports about our abuse of Iraqi prisoners in the very prison we have used as a model for our justification of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. This abuse is not rumor but has been proven to be fact and pretending that it doesn’t exist does no one any good.

But that’s just what’s happening among our warblogging compatriots. They cannot see a way to spin this into being the fault of terrorists or the Iraqi people themselves, so they just pretend–like Sinclair in the previous post about the soldiers who have died in Iraq–that it doesn’t exist.

For instance, nary a word at Glenn Reynolds weblog that I can see. That wouldn’t have bothered me much, or surprised me really, except that he also chose this particular time to run with a posting about our forces being too soft in Iraq. And then he has the unmitigated gall to say that there is a ‘consensus’ among webloggers that we all somehow agree with this, that we are too soft in Iraq.

Over 10,000 Iraqi have died in this little ‘rightous’ war of yours, Reynolds. Over 600 in Fallujah, alone. When you say ‘consensus among webloggers’ you’re saying you speak for all of us, and that we want more people dead in Iraq.

Other pundits might like to take the more intellectual route on this issue in refuting you, and more power to them. My response is more simple and direct: fuck you, Reynolds.

Beg pardon. What I meant to say is: Instafuck you, Reynolds.

Categories
Media Political

Two and two equals zero

Thanks to Sheila Lennan I found out that the local St. Louis ABC affiliate is one of the few that will not be telecasting Ted Koppel’s April 30th Nightline show, featuring him reading the names of the service people killed in Iraq to this point.

I called the station twice, and was put through to the comment line, to listen to a prepared talk by Tom Tiptom, who is some kind of station manager. I found it antagonistic and pugnacious–an attitude I would expect more from an amateur warblogging site rather than a professional news organization. In addition, I found the arguments presented to be confusing.

According to Mr. Tiptom, the reason that Sinclair is not telecasting the show is because Koppel is not also reading the names of the victims of the New York terrorist attack, and all terrorist attacks since. This, then, makes this a political statement.

All I could think of when I heard this was: huh?

What does the terrorist attacks on 9/11 have to do with the reading of the names of the soldiers who have been killed in Iraq? How can Ted Koppel’s reading of the names be seen as ‘political’, and the stations choosing not to broadcast the show not be seen as equally political?

Are we going to now spend the next several months before the election in this country denying that people are being killed in Iraq, because to acknowledge this is somehow political? Are we literally not going to show broadcasts that demonstrate the costs of our actions? Are we going to pretend that all is well in Iraq and that because of our actions there, terrorism is being held in check, when it’s been proven that there was no connection between Iraq and the attacks in New York?

When I responded on the comment line, I was angry. I am still angry. If the station had chosen to make a comment disavowing the nature of Koppel’s broadcast as political, but then showed it anyway, I would have respected that. And the station. But by not showing the broadcast, they’ve removed my right to make my own opinion about the broadcast, Koppel’s right to be heard, and these soldiers’ right to be remembered, separate from any political movement.

Worst though is that the station thinks people in St. Louis are so stupid that we can’t form our own opinions about the political nature of this broadcast, and therefore we must be protected from ourselves. Or perhaps what the station is saying is that we can’t be permitted to form our own opinions, outside of those it seeks to foster. And that doesn’t make me angry–it scares me.

Just calling the stations doesn’t seem to be enough. What I’m thinking of doing instead is driving down to where the station is located, and during the time when Nightline would normally be broadcast, standing outside the station and yelling each of the service people’s names, myself. Empty gesture? Perhaps. But better than empty complacency.

updateLetter from Senator McCain to Sinclair.