23 October 2007
Peanuts, parrots, and brownies
Since 9/11, much has been made of the heroism of the "first responders" - police, fire, EMTs. Without a doubt, they deserve our utmost respect and appreciation. However, I'd like to bring attention to the "first responder" of the animal kingdom, Peanut the Parrot:
Shannon Conwell, 33, said he and his 9-year-old son fell asleep on the couch while watching a movie. They awoke about 3 a.m. Friday, Oct. 19th to find their home on fire after hearing the family's Amazon parrot, Peanut, imitating a fire alarm.
"He was really screaming his head off,'' Conwell said.
The smoke alarm had activated, but it was the bird's call that caught Conwell's attention.
This story reminds us that, in this post 9/11 age, we need to think outside of the box in terms of our personal security. Much as the government has created the Department of Homeland Security, we should all create our own Departments of Household Security. In fact, I was able to hire former FEMA director Michael "Heckuva Job" Brown to lead mine! I have also hired a staff of five parrots to work closely with Brownie on creating a repeater system for the one fire alarm I do have. Brownie convinced me this made more sense than getting more fire alarms, because, to quote him, "Parrots are the smartest people there are, and they can smell fire a mile away." Anyway, he's great, and I've never felt safer.
Labels: brownie, disaster in chief, escape
¶ 8:55 AM 0 comments
07 June 2007
Our own Pinochet?
Yes, the Disaster in Chief is pretty much done as a relevant political force. I think Tuesday night's Republican debate, in which virtually every one of the 36 Republican candidates for president distanced his white, wrinkled self from W, was the final nail in the coffin. Every single major and minor domestic effort he has recently made in Congress has died on the vine (immigration now, too). His popularity is at rock bottom. He's even losing some of his base. Certainly he has zero chance at attaining a level of popularity that might in any way give him even the smallest amount of political capital. So, point is, he's not even a lame duck, he's a dead duck.
That said, he's still got his somewhere between 28 and 35 % support out there. They're not going away. To stand with this guy now, after everything he's done, you have to really really love him, deify him even, see him as some sort of savior, or at least, noble defender of some core belief or principal. If Bush went on TV tomorrow and declared HIMSELF the Worst President in History, these people would still love him.
Hold that thought a second, and consider something. Today, a grouping of the world's most important and effective human rights organizations have used the media to call for the end to the secret detentions of 39 people. Among these are several children. Yes, we have reached the point where the United States is disappearing people, pulling them from their homes and jobs and whisking them away, destination unknown.
This might seem like a strange and terrible new trend, but it is not new to many countries. Among them, Chile suffered from this practice for decades under Pinochet. I have a particular knowledge of what happened in Chile, as I studied there and have read and written extensively about it. The family with whom I lived there was exiled shortly after Pinochet's coup; they were lucky to get out in time, lest they too become disappeareds (a fate which tragically befell many of their friends). They lost contact with so many people when they left, and upon their return, found that many people had figured they (the family) were themselves disappeared.
The loss of a loved one is a tough thing for anyone to deal with. But what happens when a loved one is disappeared is far worse: he or she is brutally kidnapped at the hands of government thugs, often in front of children. No cause for detention is given. No information on whereabouts is provided. The family and friends of the disappeared go weeks, then months, then years without knowing anything. It is like death, but without the closure that death provides. It is in itself a horrific form of torture.
Pinochet's henchmen did this in the name of "saving democracy" and the Chilean people, ostensibly from the looming Marxist threat supposedly presented by the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende. Bush's henchmen do this in the name of "saving democracy" and "freedom" from the looming terrorist threat supposedly presented by these men and women whose language they do not speak and whose culture they do not understand. I do not dispute that the US government might have good reasons to think these people are involved in terrorism against the United States; what I do dispute, wholeheartedly, is the need to defy the very ideals our nation was founded upon in the process of detaining, questioning, and holding them.
Now returning to those unwavering Bush supporters: clearly, this news will not sway them, will not turn them against our near-authoritarian president. They believe in him, and trust everything he does. As I consider them, try to understand them, and our role in our society, I cannot help but see so many parallels with what I saw in Chile. There, during the 1973 Pinochet coup, the same arguments were made. Slowly, many people realized how horribly Pinochet had led the country astray. When "democracy" began the process of reestablishing itself, in the late 1980s and early 90s, many citizens utilized the (semi) free press and the (semi) independent judiciary to spread the truth about the past and to seek justice. The truth did indeed begin to sway even some who had supported Pinochet. But, just as many ignored it, or continued to try to discredit the truthspeakers. They continued to stand by Pinochet.
Over time, this amount of people dropped to somewhere between 20 and 30% of the population (though another 20% called Pinochet a bad man but sought no justice). But those supporters continued to deify him, hold them up as a savior, a model Chilean. They fought every single effort to undo his policies and to correct the historical record. They were what Dick Cheney might call "dead-enders". To this very day, with Pinochet dead, with a largely strong and free government in place, and with the true whereabouts of many of the disappeared finally discovered, they continue to praise him.
So where will Bush's own dead-enders wind up? Now, I realize that Bush has not disappeared American citizens (at least to our knowledge) and that we do not have American families dealing with grief on the level of what hundreds of thousands of Chileans had to. However, the Bush apologists are just as bad as those of Pinochet. Even as we as a country try to move forward, beginning in 2009 with our Democratic president, these dead-enders will still be a vocal force in our society. They will fight efforts to examine the truth about 9/11, the Iraq Debacle, Abu Ghraib, and our own policy of disappearing people. Our nation will continue to deal with the consequences of all of these things as well (as many often point out, our policies have become a better terrorist factory than anything Osama could have hoped to himself build).
What will be our own process of national reconciliation? Chileans have largely been unable to fully reconcile their past, and it continues to haunt them today. I fear that much the same will happen here. That 30% will do whatever it takes to falsify the legacy of our own Pinochet.
That said, he's still got his somewhere between 28 and 35 % support out there. They're not going away. To stand with this guy now, after everything he's done, you have to really really love him, deify him even, see him as some sort of savior, or at least, noble defender of some core belief or principal. If Bush went on TV tomorrow and declared HIMSELF the Worst President in History, these people would still love him.
Hold that thought a second, and consider something. Today, a grouping of the world's most important and effective human rights organizations have used the media to call for the end to the secret detentions of 39 people. Among these are several children. Yes, we have reached the point where the United States is disappearing people, pulling them from their homes and jobs and whisking them away, destination unknown.
This might seem like a strange and terrible new trend, but it is not new to many countries. Among them, Chile suffered from this practice for decades under Pinochet. I have a particular knowledge of what happened in Chile, as I studied there and have read and written extensively about it. The family with whom I lived there was exiled shortly after Pinochet's coup; they were lucky to get out in time, lest they too become disappeareds (a fate which tragically befell many of their friends). They lost contact with so many people when they left, and upon their return, found that many people had figured they (the family) were themselves disappeared.
The loss of a loved one is a tough thing for anyone to deal with. But what happens when a loved one is disappeared is far worse: he or she is brutally kidnapped at the hands of government thugs, often in front of children. No cause for detention is given. No information on whereabouts is provided. The family and friends of the disappeared go weeks, then months, then years without knowing anything. It is like death, but without the closure that death provides. It is in itself a horrific form of torture.
Pinochet's henchmen did this in the name of "saving democracy" and the Chilean people, ostensibly from the looming Marxist threat supposedly presented by the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende. Bush's henchmen do this in the name of "saving democracy" and "freedom" from the looming terrorist threat supposedly presented by these men and women whose language they do not speak and whose culture they do not understand. I do not dispute that the US government might have good reasons to think these people are involved in terrorism against the United States; what I do dispute, wholeheartedly, is the need to defy the very ideals our nation was founded upon in the process of detaining, questioning, and holding them.
Now returning to those unwavering Bush supporters: clearly, this news will not sway them, will not turn them against our near-authoritarian president. They believe in him, and trust everything he does. As I consider them, try to understand them, and our role in our society, I cannot help but see so many parallels with what I saw in Chile. There, during the 1973 Pinochet coup, the same arguments were made. Slowly, many people realized how horribly Pinochet had led the country astray. When "democracy" began the process of reestablishing itself, in the late 1980s and early 90s, many citizens utilized the (semi) free press and the (semi) independent judiciary to spread the truth about the past and to seek justice. The truth did indeed begin to sway even some who had supported Pinochet. But, just as many ignored it, or continued to try to discredit the truthspeakers. They continued to stand by Pinochet.
Over time, this amount of people dropped to somewhere between 20 and 30% of the population (though another 20% called Pinochet a bad man but sought no justice). But those supporters continued to deify him, hold them up as a savior, a model Chilean. They fought every single effort to undo his policies and to correct the historical record. They were what Dick Cheney might call "dead-enders". To this very day, with Pinochet dead, with a largely strong and free government in place, and with the true whereabouts of many of the disappeared finally discovered, they continue to praise him.
So where will Bush's own dead-enders wind up? Now, I realize that Bush has not disappeared American citizens (at least to our knowledge) and that we do not have American families dealing with grief on the level of what hundreds of thousands of Chileans had to. However, the Bush apologists are just as bad as those of Pinochet. Even as we as a country try to move forward, beginning in 2009 with our Democratic president, these dead-enders will still be a vocal force in our society. They will fight efforts to examine the truth about 9/11, the Iraq Debacle, Abu Ghraib, and our own policy of disappearing people. Our nation will continue to deal with the consequences of all of these things as well (as many often point out, our policies have become a better terrorist factory than anything Osama could have hoped to himself build).
What will be our own process of national reconciliation? Chileans have largely been unable to fully reconcile their past, and it continues to haunt them today. I fear that much the same will happen here. That 30% will do whatever it takes to falsify the legacy of our own Pinochet.
Labels: disaster in chief
¶ 12:45 PM 2 comments
03 April 2007
Where there's fire...
Where were you on September 7, 2006? I can't recall exactly where I was, though I assume I went to work and then watched the Mets beat the Dodgers 7-0. One thing I CAN say with absolute certainty that I was NOT involved in a firefight with Iranian troops somewhere on the Iran-Iraq border. Not all Americans can say the same:
Despite the uncertainty surrounding the facts, we simply cannot ignore the fact that American and Iranian troops exchanged fire along the Iraqi border. This is hugely significant. Iran has been, for several years, on that flame-broiled rotisserie grill that is the BushCo. Axis of Evil. Several well-documented intelligence battles have been fought between Iran and the U.S. in the past year, with the kidnapping of the 15 U.K. troops being only the latest in a series of strikes from both sides. A chain of escalation has been established and it shows no signs of abating.
As noted in the Time.com article linked to above, the past several months have seen American troops pulled off of the Iranian border in order to provide more "security" for Iraqi cities, primarily Baghdad. Though we cannot be certain as to the Disaster in Chief's next step in his brilliant Iraq strategy, we ought to assume that someday in the near future American troops will return, with whatever Iraqi soldiers they have access to, to the Iranian border. What will happen then?
Over two years ago, in this post, I suggested that a primary American goal of the occupation of Iraq was to create a proxy army (that being Iraq's) with which to fight Iran.
As a nation, Iraq's greatest struggle has been against Iran. The two countries share a massive border, and the divisions internally among the Shia seem to make any sense of a greater "Shia Alliance" between Iraqi Shia and the Iranians impossible. That doesn't mean that there won't be people in the Iraqi government who are pro-Iran. However, the combination of the Sunni and Kurds (firmly anti-Iranian) with Iraqi nationalist Shia and other anti-Iran Shia could easily help this reach critical mass. Further factor in the behind the scenes work of the Americans (clashing with Iran on all fronts, building the Iraqi military in an American model, stepping up border patrols against Iran) and you have the perfect recipe for a regional conflagration.
Obviously, the Iraqi state is not currently in a position to fight a war with another state. However, the calls from both Republicans and Democrats for the Iraqis to begin doing more seem to further us down this path. Stoking Iraqi nationalism may be the only way to create any sort of multi-ethnic consensus (and real government) in that country, and Iran is the natural target (not to mention one that is fully sanctioned by Disaster in Chief). Adding American troops to the mix just fuels the fire. A chain of escalation has already been established. Where will it end?
The soldiers who were there still talk about the September 7 firefight on the Iran-Iraq border in whispers. At Forward Operating Base Warhorse, the main U.S. military outpost in Iraq's eastern Diyala Province bordering Iran, U.S. troops recount events reluctantly, offering details only on condition that they remain nameless. Everyone seems to sense the possible consequences of revealing that a clash between U.S. and Iranian forces had turned deadly. And although the Pentagon has acknowledged that a firefight took place, it says it cannot say anything more.The article goes on to give a few details around a largely hush-hush firefight that was, in all probability, not provoked by either side. U.S. and Iraqi troops, operating in tandem, might have crossed into Iranian territory. Iranians might have crossed into Iraqi territory. People from any or all three of the nations involved might have died, and might have done so on either side of the border. The Pentagon does not wish to discuss this. The Iranians have not mentioned it. The only reports, sketchy ones at that, come from the few people who were involved. So, who cares?
(Time.com)
Despite the uncertainty surrounding the facts, we simply cannot ignore the fact that American and Iranian troops exchanged fire along the Iraqi border. This is hugely significant. Iran has been, for several years, on that flame-broiled rotisserie grill that is the BushCo. Axis of Evil. Several well-documented intelligence battles have been fought between Iran and the U.S. in the past year, with the kidnapping of the 15 U.K. troops being only the latest in a series of strikes from both sides. A chain of escalation has been established and it shows no signs of abating.
As noted in the Time.com article linked to above, the past several months have seen American troops pulled off of the Iranian border in order to provide more "security" for Iraqi cities, primarily Baghdad. Though we cannot be certain as to the Disaster in Chief's next step in his brilliant Iraq strategy, we ought to assume that someday in the near future American troops will return, with whatever Iraqi soldiers they have access to, to the Iranian border. What will happen then?
Over two years ago, in this post, I suggested that a primary American goal of the occupation of Iraq was to create a proxy army (that being Iraq's) with which to fight Iran.
But, does anyone really believe that anytime in the next 30 years an Iraqi government will be able to stand up to the United States (and the thousands of U.S. troops based there)? The Iraqi leaders in power will most likely have received significant U.S. help to get into power in the first place. They might even possibly see a war with Iran as a way to stoke "Iraqi" nationalism and, in doing so, create some semblance of unity among the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds who have been cursed by the boundaries of colonialism into sharing a nation-state.Unfortunately, I still see this as becoming a reality. It makes too much sense. Anyone who has studied even a bit of world history knows one of the most common ways to unify a divided country is to create a common enemy. Just look at Yugoslavia, a conglomerate of multiple religions and ethnicities. Tito gave his people a dual enemy - the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. - and painted over centuries of ethnic bloodshed to form a new nation-state. As that common enemy melted away, so too did the bonds that held the state together.
As a nation, Iraq's greatest struggle has been against Iran. The two countries share a massive border, and the divisions internally among the Shia seem to make any sense of a greater "Shia Alliance" between Iraqi Shia and the Iranians impossible. That doesn't mean that there won't be people in the Iraqi government who are pro-Iran. However, the combination of the Sunni and Kurds (firmly anti-Iranian) with Iraqi nationalist Shia and other anti-Iran Shia could easily help this reach critical mass. Further factor in the behind the scenes work of the Americans (clashing with Iran on all fronts, building the Iraqi military in an American model, stepping up border patrols against Iran) and you have the perfect recipe for a regional conflagration.
Obviously, the Iraqi state is not currently in a position to fight a war with another state. However, the calls from both Republicans and Democrats for the Iraqis to begin doing more seem to further us down this path. Stoking Iraqi nationalism may be the only way to create any sort of multi-ethnic consensus (and real government) in that country, and Iran is the natural target (not to mention one that is fully sanctioned by Disaster in Chief). Adding American troops to the mix just fuels the fire. A chain of escalation has already been established. Where will it end?
Labels: disaster in chief, Iran, iraq
¶ 7:30 AM 0 comments
09 March 2007
Spring cleaning
I can't say I blame them:
GUATEMALA CITY --Mayan priests will purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after President Bush visits next week, an official with close ties to the group said Thursday.I think that the Democratic party needs to get in touch with these guys. We will need them to perform a similar ritual on the White House in early 2009."That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture," Juan Tiney, the director of a Mayan nongovernmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, said Thursday.
Labels: disaster in chief, spiritual cleansing
¶ 12:21 PM 0 comments
