01
Jan
Feedback
We welcome your contributions, critiques, and suggestions. Leave a comment at the end of any blog entry, or send us an email.
Story Tips, Comments
Email: roc[at]roryoconnor.org
Text Corrections, Site Errors, Technical Stuff
Email: webmaster[at]roryoconnor.org
Your blog on Barak Obama was just terrific. I had never heard of this guy and I’m sitting there watching the proceedings and when he came on and started delivering the keynote speech I was electrified! I knew I was watching a real comer, a breakthrough in the political scene. I’m 83 and won’t see it happen, but you will. Mass media sucks, doesn’t it.
July 28th, 2004 at 5:47 pmI read the various comments (notably Dan Rather, who should know better) about the networks’ lack of attention to the DNC and the self-generated ‘CV’ that there’s nothing to cover, and I disagree VIGOROUSLY. Two people who appeared before the convention last night were such departures from the norm and such windows on the future of this country that I can’t fathom the audacity and arrogance of the networks, which assigned them to the “nothing new here” basket. Somebody needs a cataract operation (or a “blinders removal procedure”).
Barack Obama, the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review and soon to be the only African American member of the United States Senate, the son of a Kenyan immigrant, and Teresa Heinz Kerry, quite possibly the next First Lady of the United States and, herself, an immagrant born in Mozambique, spoke to the convention, Ms. Heinz Kerry in five fluent languages. If these are boring events of no interest to the media moguls of America, then someone needs to slap some sense into somebody. Not only are these significant events; they are benchmarks in the evolution of this country.
And, if anyone thinks Ms. Heinz Kerry’s words were too “scripted” — well, they just don’t know the lady — at all.
I get why everybody’s ga ga over Barack Obama’s speech, inspiring it was indeed, but….
The address (I call it that because it was much more than a speech) that Ms. Heinz Kerry gave last night was one of the most remarkable things I’ve ever seen. I am still stunned by it.
What I find absurd and unfortunate, and indicative of the lack of depth in thought (including political discourse, perhaps more than the rest) in this country, was listening to commentators who judged her ’speech’ by the standards of politics. The ‘political’ analysis, the analysis of how she “did” and what it might mean in “voter impact” and the condescending conclusion that she’d “done what she needed to do” - meaning that she’d gotten a “passing grade” I guess, according to their head-in-the-sand analysis - totally missed the import of what had just happened in that hall.
This was an address from a strong, self-empowered, determined, probably brilliant woman who spoke directly to the people of the world, not only the assembled political junkies and operatives and media in the hall or hovering at their monitors to “judge” her “performance.” This was a statesman (or statesperson if that’s a word) of the world whose words and message transcended the hall and even the boundaries of this country. It conjured images of Golda Maier and others of like ilk. This was a seminal moment and, though she was well received, and favorably “reviewed” even by conventional standards, I hope the moment is not missed.
I want a copy of her speech and I want a video/DVD as well. I want my daughters to see it and I want it for myself, to see again. This woman is a future force in the world, not merely the spouse of a famous man. I don’t think John Edwards will overshadow John Kerry. But, Teresa Heinz Kerry might.
In a totally inadequate word… wow.
And, while we’re at it, shame… on the networks.
July 28th, 2004 at 8:12 pmHi, Rory,
Thank you for your excellent article on “dead” Democrats. My dead Democrat father, James V Allred, physically left our planet in 1959 at the age of 60. In his speech, as governor of Texas, nominating John Nance Garner for vice-president at the Democrat 1936 Convention in Philadelphia, Dad’s resonant, vibrant voice denounced “Republican Andrew W. Mellon’s “soak the poor” tax schemes.” Guess not much has changed. I’m a Green Party member & a San Mateo County registered elector for Ralph Nader. All the best in your efforts to bring integrity to investigative journalism, and promote “libert and justice for ALL,”
Sam Houston Allred
July 29th, 2004 at 4:12 pmHe was totally wired. Look at the second debate, big pause before “Need some wood?” head down, very awkward. Also, he blurted out “Off-road diesel engines” before he even knew what he was talking about, head down again. Someone asks you what you’ll do for the environment, and you blurt out “Off-road diesel engines”? Makes no sense.
October 12th, 2004 at 10:54 amI played the blame game too. But it comes down to the fact that this country thinks democrats are too left wing for their taste. And you’re advocating that democrats will win if they become advocate more “left wing” issues.
Let’s face it: this election was decided by people who are afraid of gay people and think abortion is wrong. Forgive me, if I don’t understand how god tells you that killing a fetus is wrong but killing grown men and women is right; that torture is right but giving someone a helping hand is wrong. I must have read the wrong bible when I was growing up.
This election was not a referendum on Bush but a referendum of where the American people stand. And all I can say is that I’m bitterly disappointed. I used to have faith in humanity - that as a people we would rise above fear and were more generous than greedy. But hey - how many times can I get an answer to the contrary before I start to think that people don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves.
So forgive me if I sound pessimistic but the 53% have voted. And I don’t think advocating that we act like real “Democrats” is the answer because that’s not the answer that Americans are responding to.
November 3rd, 2004 at 6:03 pmRory — thanks so much for your piece that appeared in Alternet about the Democrats and the blame game. I have doubts that there is any way to change the Democratic party within this two-party system. And perhaps the only way to change the Dems is to be willing to consistently refuse to give them a mandate until they adopt a progressive agenda. Regardless, love the commentary, it’s much needed in these times.
November 4th, 2004 at 7:00 pmyikes! i just read the story about the military/discovery channel “marriage”. wouldn’t it be great to counter this kind of programming with a peace channel? the possiblities are endless in promoting individuals and countries that are working for real change and growth as a species, lest we blow ourselves into extinction! someone has to counter-produce the idea that, yes, we can survive if we learn tolerance and work for the common good.
December 7th, 2004 at 4:54 pmmaybe i’m just a dreamer…..
30 March 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA: City of West Hollywood public
access cable television cablecast today a 45 minute
program without edit or interruption entitled
‘HOW SAY YOU : JURY NULLIFICATION IN AMERICA’
featuring an interview with First Amendment lawyer
Clyde Dewitt of Los Angeles.
Integral to the interview on obscenity law in the
United States were unedited clips of pornographic
material including MF intercourse, interracial group
sex, transsexual oral copulation, bestiality, gang
rape, golden shower, facial, enema and simulated child
pornography.
In Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon in 1996,
two of Mr. Fitzpatrick’s
cable television productions, ‘ORGY-TV’ & ‘SJR41′,
which both included unedited scenes of Sado-Masochism
and Necrophilia, were found Obscene and banned in the
United States by court order.
The Supreme Court of the United States denied
Certiorari on 17 March 1997
upholding the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of
Appeals and the U.S. District Court
of Oregon in their refusal to order ABC affiliate
KATU-TV in Portland Oregon to run
a sexually explicit campaign ad for Mr. Fitzpatrick’s
1996 write-in campaign for United States Senate.
In 1998, John Michael Fitzpatrick ran for the
Republican nomination for United States Senate in
Oregon and won a county placing second in a three way
race with 27 percent of the vote statewide.
“Political speech should be free of government
Censorship” Mr. Fitzpatrick said
in describing his video efforts to facilitate more
fully informed public policy debates on Obscenity law.
For More Information
April 2nd, 2005 at 2:40 amjohnm90213@yahoo.com
I strongly suggest that you read and recommend the book: “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris, currently #3 on the best sellers list.
October 10th, 2005 at 7:14 pmA Perfect Marraige of Freedom & Justice, Tradition & Modernity
Ranked Ballot (“RB”, each voter ranking all candidates in order
of preference) will give us a Perfect Marriage of Freedom & Justice,
Tradition & Modernity, Instant Global TRUE Democracy, the Most
Free Market Possible, all the Payback, Catch-up & Makeup one could wish,
Ecological Politics & Political Ecology, a Maximization of
Cooperatization & a REAL Solution.
Because it always elects the candidate most exactly in the middle
February 1st, 2006 at 7:27 pmof all voting, Ranked Ballot is “top-dead-center-counter-extremist”
& more anti-terrorist than all the recent retrenchments combined.
While it would be equally useful for all else, RB’s real
power is perhaps most clearly shown in the case of potential tribal-
civil war, as in Iraq. Unless the Parliament comes to select its
Prime Minister by RB, it may not hold, & the world will be in
danger of going to war over some oil well, or multi-ethnic
city. RB would be equally useful for all other parliamentary
&/or presidential systems, cooperatives, collective leaderships,
tribal groupings, religious confessions, political parties &
associations as well.
Because it gives the minorities a real say in which majority
member gets chosen, RB is the only thing that will lead them
to support of any plan more than inadequate confederation.
Because it gives all combinations of programs, not just parties,
an equal chance, RB is the only thing that’s truly just.
Because it provides real-time alternatives to all proposals,
from wherever: market, coop or social, RB has brakes,
reverse, 3D hyper-drive & goes sideways. It will result
in “phantasmagoric subtlefaction”. Both more liberty
and justice can be found in RB than in any ideology. Help
put this idea, in time (before “clockwork orange”, “1984”,
cosmic collision or “category seven”) to as many as possible.
The $15,000 cost of a single full-page ad in USA Today, enough to
put RB to virtually everyone involved on earth, would be repaid in
a year & a half at the pre-9/11 US annual defense spending of
$10,000 per family.
We imagine running on the single issue of RB, allowing a citizens’ advisory
board based on”Organized Communications” (”OC”, small
randomly assigned discussion groups electing reps to higher
& higher levels by means of RB til one small group, exactly
in the middle, remains) to guide us in the rest. You do
the same, from the most local on up. (Ten to the power of ten: ten
levels of groups of ten, would be sufficient to organized & unite
all mankind.) The “additive” form of RB is first choices being
counted & then, if noone has 50 %(+), the next choices being
added in, & so on, until someone finally does. RB is the sole
unchangeable plank & bylaw of the Preferential (what it’s
called in Robert’s Rules of Order) Ballot Party, the only
practicable third party. How can we ask it of others if we do
not have it ourselves? Gotta be in somebody’s interest.
Please see www.preferentialballotparty.org.
“Zoe” Norman Zidbeck, founder, USA
realzoe@hotmail.com, preferentiality257@yahoo.com,
preferentiality@verizon.net
It’s not encouraging that in America, the land of the free, the home of a brave, that suddenly many people, way too many people have allowed themselves to become intimidated and fearful of demonstrating free speech to the extent of editing content out of a classic innocent play like “Grease”, and cancelling a play like the “Crucible” which is a story about what happens when the far “right” is in control. What is scary is that reasonable people are allowing themselves be bullied by the minority of right-wing American’s who have very skewed and twisted thinking and want nothing more than to control the world and everyone in it. Now that is what’s scary!!! It is this kind of situation which can seriously harm democracy. It is scary that people in the news media would become intimidated and fearful allowing themselves cave in to pressure from Muslims and not print a cartoon because it could be offensive to some. Where was the Muslim outrage over murder, mayhem and a multitude of terrorist acts, children being murdered, etc. I am cutting and pasting an email which was sent to me about the Muslim outrage over the cartoon:
It’s amazing how many Muslims have become absolutely outraged about a cartoon yet few seem to demonstrate much if any outrage over the myraid of terrorist attacks which have taken place, i.e. 9/11, bombings in other places all over the world.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage. Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage. Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage. Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels inEgypt. No Muslim outrage. A Muslim attacks a missionary children’s school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage. Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia. Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage. Let’s go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage. Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of
children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage. Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.
I think this says it all. I can only pray that we the majority of American’s who are reasonably minded can stop being the silent majority and become willing to stand up and be counted, stand up and call a spade a spade and demonstrate the courage to take America back.
February 16th, 2006 at 2:52 pmGood questions, Rory, though some are repetitive.
i won’t be discussing CNN’s coverage of the start of the war, since i didn’t start working at CNN until December 2004 - so i would not know what i was talking about!
but i’ll faithfully discuss our coverage of the war since that date. looking forward to our conversation.
March 15th, 2006 at 6:07 pmBe sure to ask Klein about that video of Kyra Phillips leading a cheer on a planeload of press personnel (I can’t bring myself to call them “journalists” for obvious reasons) headed to Baghdad for the initial bombing that launched the war.
But oh, I forgot. He didn’t work there then! Silly me. But plenty of others did, and plenty saw that cute little wartime souvenir. So go way out on a limb and ask him anyway.
March 17th, 2006 at 6:53 pmOne of my major problems with the National Media is its inability, or unwillingness, to cover the news objectively. When one side presents its position then the other side, if they allow it, presents its position, the news reader goes to the next subject without digging into the truth as to what was said.
March 17th, 2006 at 7:54 pmIn addition, news should not be considered entertainment and should be presented in its raw elements. Also, along the entertainment line, I would hope the American people would be more interested in the failures of government policy than the continuous chatting about the likes, e.g., of “Michael Jackson”.
Instant ~ GLOBAL ~ TRUE ~ Democracy:
Ranked Ballot will bring us:
Instant ~ GLOBAL ~ TRUE ~ Democracy
A REAL Solution to Terror
A Perfect Marriage of Freedom & Justice, Tradition & Modernity
The Most Free Market (& Cooperation AND Community) Possible
All the Payback, Catch-up & Makeup One Could Wish
Political Ecology & Ecological Politics
What’s Best for ALL Workers
Instant Global Women’s Liberation
AND
The Moderation, Rationalization & Objectivization of the Drug Wars Now That Arabs
Have Brought Their Version of Coffee to America.
—More specifically, — “Organized Communications” (”OC”), plus running on the single
issue of Ranked Ballot (“RB”) will. (OC is small randomly assigned discussion groups electing reps to higher & higher levels by means of “Ranked Ballot” til one small group,
exactly in the middle of all voting, remains. Ranked Ballot (“RB”) is
each voter ranking all candidates in order of preference.)
—Because it always elects the candidate most exactly in the middle of all
May 21st, 2006 at 7:08 pmvoting, RB is “top-dead-center-counter-extremist” & thus more anti-
terrorist than all the recent retrenchments combined. While it would
be equally useful for all else, RB’s real power is perhaps most clearly
shown in the case of potential inter-tribal war, as in Iraq. Had they not
chosen to require a (minimalist elitist) 2/3 vote for Prime Minister (“The Week”,
022406), a “variant” of RB, the Parliament might have lacked
(& still might lack) stability & the world would have been (& may still be) in danger
of going to war over some oil well, or multi-ethnic city. Elitism may
yet prove too clever. (Perhaps they’ll have to agree to deny the PM-ship
to all the parties’ leaders & hold a secret RB vote among the
parliament’s members before they’re done.) RB would be equally useful
for all other parliamentary &/or presidential systems, cooperatives,
collective leaderships, tribal groupings, religious confessions,
political parties, associations & cabals as well.
—Because it gives the minorities a real say in which majority member gets
chosen, RB is the only thing that will lead them to support of any plan more
than inadequate confederation.
—Because it gives all combinations of programs, not just parties, an equal
chance, RB is the only thing that’s truly just.
—Because it provides real-time alternatives to all proposals, from wherever:
market, coop or social, RB has brakes, reverse, 3D hyper-drive & goes
sideways. It will result in “phantasmagoric subtlefaction”. Both more
Liberty and Justice can be found in RB than in any ideology. Help put this
idea, in time (before “clockwork orange”, “1984”, cosmic collision
“category seven”, economic collapse or literalist contretemps) to as many
as possible. The $15,000 cost of a single full-page ad in USA Today,
enough to put RB to virtually everyone involved on earth, would be repaid
in a year & a half at the pre-9/11 US annual defense spending of $10,000
per family.
—You too run on the single issue of RB, promising a citizens’
advisory board based on OC to guide us in the rest, from the most local
on up, or at least only as a subterranean internal policy within your
personal group. Ten to the power of ten (ten levels of random groups of ten)
would be sufficient to organize & unite all mankind. The “additive”
form of RB, is to count first choices & then, if noone has 50 %, to add
in the next choices, & so on, until someone finally does. RB is the sole
unchangeable plank & bylaw of the Preferential (what RB’s called in
Robert’s Rules of Order) Ballot Party, the only practicable third party.
The more skewed (less top dead center) more commonly espoused,
“eliminative” form of RB, is called “IRV” (Instant Runoff Voting).
—While the Iraqis saw fit to include “their” (elitist) 2/3
vote in the new Iraqi constitution for PM, neither the Reps nor Dems spoke
out for a super majority during the recent Supreme Court
confirmations. Good enough for emergency situations, Australia, New
Zealand, Kerala India, Iraq, London, Ireland, Cambridge Mass, Vermont,
Ferndale Mich (?), Frisco, Berkeley, Takoma Park, the House Reps for
selecting the majority leader, the Utah Republican Party for nominations,
& both the Green & Libertarian parties, but not good enough for the rest of
us? Must be in somebody’s interest. How can we ask it of others if we do
not have it ourselves? I should accept if my name wins with the write-ins.
“Zoe”
www.preferentialballotparty.org
USA, Planet Earth
How many times do we have to be reminded? There is no (quote) “war on terror” (unquote). It is a stupid statement, and I’ll explain why in a moment. I don’t mean that as a pejorative. And to repeat it, or give it any credence, is to help spread a lie, a deliberate attempt at propaganda, or a statement by a person who does not know what he or she is talking about. I find that the newspapers and television, as well as “blogs” on the internet, all use the phrase “war on terror” and it does everyone a disservice. Google alone states that there are 137,000,000 references to this phase.
When our President, George Bush, says those words, he is talking non-sense. So is anyone else using these words.
The words are inflammatory, and their ultimate effect often deliberately to cause people to suspend any rational judgment about the things the speaker wants to do because of this so-called “War on Terror.” When rational judgment is suspended, people will do anything no matter how ineffective it is because of the emotional mind-clouding power, and the fear it gives rise to, when such meaningless words are used.
It is also extremely sloppy journalism to repeat this phase, except as a direct quote, because it is meaningless. It is as meaningless as “war on laziness” or the “war on weather.” Journalists seem never to have heard of semantics, which looks at the meaning of words and how their use affects us.
Right now, we as a country are involved in a number of situations, some dangerous, some not, one or two very separate wars, some diplomatic efforts, and a very diverse set of circumstances that may possibly threaten our way of life, and we, as a country, appear to be afraid of a number of diversified groups of people who reside in various countries. We are also, as a country, possibly threatened in a number of ways by a number of countries, as opposed to small scattered groups of people. All of these have been lumped together into a catch phrase that is entirely meaningless, namely a “war on terror.”
If we can define what these groups and countries are and distinguish how they differ from one another, it can help us to understand what we’re doing, why we’re doing it, and what the characteristics of all this mixed up “war on terror” might really mean. This, of course, immediately implies that there is no one single opponent against whom we can wage war, but instead presents a variety of different situations, some more dangerous than others, each of them requiring that we handle them, as best we can, in different ways if we want to reduce any threat they pose.
• The first group of people that we claim to be fighting with is a vaguely defined group, once led by a man named Bin Laden, that calls itself Al Qaeda. It appears to be based in Afghanistan, but may have spread to various other countries. It is a loosely-knit, guerrilla group that dislikes “the West”, vaguely defined as European and American countries. We don’t know nearly enough about it to be “at war” with this group because it is so diffuse, and it is all too easy to confuse it with other groups at times. It is not certain that its leaders are alive or have control over this group because it is so diffuse. Originally, it was most probably responsible for the event known as “9/11”. We, as a country under President Bush, claim to be fighting this group but appear to have lost interest in pursuing this group forcefully.
I say “claim to be fighting” because, for all of our efforts, we have never caught Bin Laden, and Al Qaeda appears to be stronger than ever before. We have troops in Afghanistan, but they appear to be there mainly poised to defend the central government, which has been threatened by a number of groups including the Taliban (the prior totalitarian government), war lords in various provinces, and a loose network of guerillas including the Al Qaeda group. The current Administration, led by President Bush, has apparently de-emphasized our military efforts in Afghanistan and his rhetoric, his use of the words “war on terror”, appear to be mainly directed at Iraq, not Afghanistan.
The number of deaths of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan in this first military operation is 255 with 765 injured as of January 2006, as tracked by Wikipedia. I cite this figure in sharp contrast to the number of U.S. troops killed in the next military effort, still going on today, in Iraq which was 2,299 U.S. soldiers killed and 33,094 seriously injured as of March 2006 (cited at the site http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspxhttp://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx). The disparity between Afghanistan and Iraq, in terms of dead and casualties is very revealing about what is being emphasized.
• The second group that we were fighting was the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. It was a war declared by President Bush, with no real resistance from Congress. The enemy was a vague one – mainly the dictator, Saddam Hussein, who somehow had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and was linked vaguely to “terrorists”, the same ones named in Afghanistan as being Al Qaeda. None of these reasons has proven to be true. I repeat: None of the reasons given for this war have been proven to be true. As cited above, more than 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq as a result of this war. Because of what the President and his Administration have been saying, and repeating as a mantra, according to many surveys, many people in the U.S. believe, irrationally, that this war is being fought as a “war on terror.” This is simply not an accurate or true statement.
It appears that Iraq has three major ethnic groups that have never gotten along. When Saddam was in charge of the country, the Sunni controlled everything with an iron hand. The Shiites, although in the majority, had no political power. The Kurds, the third group, also had no power. Once Saddam’s forces were overcome by the U.S. forces, the Shiites grabbed political power, the Kurds grabbed the northern part of the country, and the Sunni who had control and resented losing it have begun conducting an insurgency. The Shiites and the Sunni both have deep hatred of each other; it is obvious that the Sunni aren’t used to being out of power, and the Shiites resent all of the terrible things that were done to their people when the Sunni were in power. This is has led to brutal killings, with our troops in the middle, mainly siding with the Shiite majority. The country at this time may be in civil war.
Our troops really aren’t fighting “terror” or “terrorists” here. They are actually intervening in an internal conflict that has been going on for a long time back to when England and Winston Churchill was involved. I will add that there have been instances of non-Iraqi individuals crossing the border into Iraq from Syria and Iran to attack American military forces, and some of these individuals may be linked to Al Qaeda, but that is not the biggest part of the problem. In fact, because of our invasion of Iraq and our destruction of the status quo, by eliminating Saddam Hussein, it may be that we have opened a whole new breeding ground for, and encouraged, these individuals to learn how to operate successfully and conduct terrorist operations.
Iraq thus appears to be involved in a civil war of Sunnis versus Shiites, with Kurds protecting their interests, and some outsiders conducting guerilla terrorist operations aimed at fomenting unrest and driving the U.S. forces out. We cannot be involved in a “war on terror” here because there are at least four separate parties here, and it isn’t always clear who is doing what to hurt or kill whom.
• A third arena whom we are not fighting is North Korea, a dictatorship that is working to build an atomic bomb capability. This country is a military threat to South Korea because it possesses a huge standing army of more than a million soldiers. It is a country with a well-defined government, not a loosely organized group of individuals. We have not declared war on them, nor have they declared war on the U.S. But for some reason, at times, they have been included in this “war on terror.”
• A fourth arena that is also sometimes referred to under the mantra of “war on terror” is Iran. Iran is the largest country in the Middle East, with a government that is primarily run by its religious right. They may provide a place for Al Qaeda and other groups which dislike the U.S. for various reasons to develop and train members. We are not at war with Iran, and they are not at war with us. But, for some reason, they also have been lumped into this “war on terror”.
• There are other places in the world, such as South America and the Philippines, that have been also lumped into this “war on terror”, but, again, we have not declared war on them nor have they declared war on the U.S. Numerous groups, some of which hate the U.S. and some involved in insurgencies against their existing government, have the earmarks of “terrorists” in that they conduct underground operations, kill people indiscriminately, have loose organizations, may or may not be linked to other similar organizations.
• In general, it is also important to separate different types of terrorists (a very maligned word) into specific and different groups. For example, Basque separatists, in Spain, commit what we would call terrorist acts. So do the Tamil Tigers in northern Sri Lanka. They can both be called “terrorists.” Please note that, although these groups commit acts that seem to be terrorist acts, such as blowing up bombs in public places and killed innocent civilians, both of these groups are internal in their countries and act much as if they were engaged in a civil war against their existing government.
• So we are not at war with all of the groups I’ve mentioned. We couldn’t be. Many of them have no government for us to declare war on. It is sloppy use of communication to say that we are engaged in a “war on terror” when we really need to understand that there are many such groups around the world, each separate and different, each requiring different tactics, each posing a different type of threat (in some cases, no threat) to our country.
Please remember that next time you hear these words. If you understand what has been said here, you will be able to determine how absurd such a claim is (“war on terror”) and look at what the person saying these words is really trying to do. He or she may be trying to scare you so you don’t think clearly; he or she may be pushing an agenda to take rights away from you; he or she may be saying such words to get elected again; or to be considered “patriotic” or “strong” or “effective”. Always listen to the words and match them to the actions. The outcome may surprise you and open your eyes to what is actually going on.
July 12th, 2006 at 10:20 amEnjoyed today’s piece in commondreams.org.
Wanted to let you know about this: www.kenwaldman.com/astheworldburns.htm
Official release date is October 1–earliest readers have been very enthusiastic.
Be well!
—–Ken Waldman www.kenwaldman.com/astheworldburns.htm
September 21st, 2006 at 12:24 pm