United States of Amnesia

For tragic, unjust, horrible events in history not to repeat themselves, people must remember an event which has taken place, recall that what happened was bad, and recognize developing situations that are similar. In this way, our collective consciousness will ultimately avoid repeating the atrocities of the past.

A simple analogy can explain this idea well: Gina remembers placing her hand on the hot stove, recalls that it was painful, and recognizes the probability that it will be painful if she repeats this action.

Now, I know I am oversimplifying things here. But the point in this is that we must remember past atrocities to avoid future atrocities. On this I think most people would agree with me.

So now the question becomes: Why do we seem to have trouble remembering the past?

Not only do we lose sight of history's lessons with each new generation, but we seem to have trouble remembering the past even within a generation.

I submit that this 'amnesia' is largely the fault of the media. For an historical event to be recalled by our collective consciousness, it must have been part of the collective consciousness in the first place. I contend that we don't remember many events of history because, as far as the mainstream press was concerned, they didn't happen.

And that's another problem altogether- it is a fundamental failure of the media. Remember, a 'free and diverse press' is critical for democracy to function properly and we have seen continued consolidation of this country's accessible media outlets into the hands of a few conglomerates, especially since the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

By now you may be saying to yourself, 'to what forgotten historical atrocities is he referring?' Or, 'get to the point asshole.'

Ok, here it is:

Threats to the national security of the United States are a natural and inevitable result of this country's historical record of abysmal foreign policy. Terrorist attacks against the US are not 'pre-emptive' or 'unprovoked', but instead they are the result of decades, indeed centuries, of American oppression, exploitation and aggression abroad.

American Imperialism and foreign intervention is all quite well documented (here, here, here, more recently here, and many, many other places). Much has been written on the subject and many have studied it. But you won't find much about it in the mainstream press, today or in the past. Sure, if you look hard enough you are bound to come across a story or two in the mainstream that sheds some light on the reality of US foreign policy. But these instances are so rare that the true nature and extent of the matter never enters the 'collective consciousness', and that is the crucial factor.

And so it is my belief that wars of aggression-- like the current one in Iraq (which is an illegal war anyway) and the one that is looming ominously on the horizon against Iran-- do not and fundamentally can not ever achieve the supposed goal of fighting and eliminating terrorism (or the 'red menace'- communism- as was the Imperial Mantra before the wall came down). On the contrary, such wars only stoke the fires of resentment for American Imperialism and will lead to more, not less attacks against the United States and, ultimately, the demise of the American Empire.

Again, we must turn to the lessons of history. Just as every other aggressive imperial power in history has collapsed under its own weight, so too will it be with the United States if it does not re-evaluate and re-think its foreign policy.

Bill-O, Bill-O, Bill-O

From mediamatters.org:

During the April 18 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Bill O'Reilly asserted that homeless people will "not support themselves" because they "want to get drunk, or they want to get high ... or they don't want to work [because] they're too lazy." Although drug and alcohol abuse is prevalent among the homeless, most cases of homelessness are the result of a variety of factors. According to the National Resource and Training Center on Homelessness and Mental Illness (NRTCHMI), among the leading causes of homelessness in America are debilitating mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and manic depression, physical and sexual abuse, abject poverty, and other involuntary health conditions such as diabetes and cancer. Nearly 39 percent of the homeless report mental health problems, and nearly 25 percent of them meet the criteria for serious mental illness. In fact as many homeless people report mental illnesses as report problems with alcohol use, and similarly as many people report sexual and physical abuse as report drug use problems. In addition, 25 percent of the homeless population is reportedly under the age of 18.

O'Reilly added that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a "hidden agenda" to "force society to house people who will not support themselves." O'Reilly's comments came in response to an April 15 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that police officers cannot arrest people for loitering in homeless encampments in the section of Los Angeles known as Skid Row.

From the April 18 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: OK, and that's exactly what happened in Los Angeles. The ACLU sued, saying that the police could not arrest or remove any homeless person on the street. Sleeping on the street, blocking the street, urinating or defecating on the street or anything. Now, they sued because the ACLU knew that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco would eventually hear the case, which it did. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as you may know, the most liberal court this country has ever seen. Its rulings are overturned by the Supreme Court 75 percent of the time. But you take it there and you'll get probably a loony ruling, a loony ruling.

Now, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-to-1 that Los Angeles' policy of arresting homeless people for sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks violates the Eighth Amendment, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, ladies and gentlemen. Cruel and unusual punishment. An estimated 80,000 homeless are in L.A. County on any given night. An estimated 12,000 homeless live in Skid Row, a 50-block area in downtown L.A., the highest concentration of homeless in the USA. OK? Now, this lawsuit will be overturned by the Supreme Court if they hear it, and I believe they will. Because, just think about it, and the, and the [Los Angeles city] councilwoman, Ms. [Jan] Perry, made a very interesting point. This could happen anywhere in the United States.

[...]

The ACLU wants to force society to house people who will not support themselves, who will not do it, because they want to get drunk, or they want to get high, or they want -- they don't want to work, they're too lazy. They say, "OK, that's a person's choice. The government should give them a house, and food, and walking-around money, and everything else." That's what it's all about. This is the hidden agenda.

NRTCHMI reported that people who are homeless frequently report health problems:

38 percent report alcohol use problems.
26 percent report other drug use problems.
39 percent report some form of mental health problems (20-25 percent meet criteria for serious mental illness).
66 percent report either substance use and/or mental health problems.
3 percent report having HIV/AIDS.
26 percent report acute health problems other than HIV/AIDS, such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, or sexually transmitted diseases.
46 percent report chronic health conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or cancer.
Also, according to NRTCHMI, homeless adults also have high rates of other characteristics:

23 percent are veterans (compared with 13 percent of the general population).
25 percent were physically or sexually abused as children.
27 percent were in foster care or institutions as children.
21 percent were homeless as children.
54 percent were incarcerated at some point in their lives.

And They Lived Happily Ever After

From www.washingtonpost.com:

Half a century ago, Iran was very close to a real democracy. It had an elected legislature, called the majlis, and it had a repressive monarch, called the shah, and power veered uncertainly between them. In 1951, over the shah's objections, the majlis voted in a man named Mohammad Mosaddeq as prime minister. His big issue was nationalizing the oil companies.

But in 1952 the United States had an election for president, and the winner (Dwight Eisenhower) got more votes than anyone in Iran. That must explain why in 1953, in the spirit of democracy, the CIA instigated a riot and then staged a coup. Mosaddeq was arrested, the majlis was ultimately dissolved and the shah ran things his way, which involved torture and death for political opponents, caviar and champagne for an international cast of hangers-on, and no more crazy talk about nationalizing the oil companies.

Am I missing something? Maybe I don't grasp this guy's (Washington Post Op-Ed Columnist Michael Kinsley) sense of humor, but I don't think I like it. Even worse (or 'funnier') than the above statement is what Mr. Kinsley leaves us with at the end of his article, which you will find out soon...

Particularly troubling is his assertion that the 1953 US-backed coup that overthrew popular Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq was 'in the spirit of democracy' because US President Eisenhower 'got more votes than anyone in Iran'. This statement is true, of course, because Eisenhower received nearly 34 million votes in 1952 (source) while the population of Iran in 1951 was a mere 16 million people (source).

At least Mr. Kinsley is honest in his description of the coup as 'instigated' and 'staged' by the CIA. Not that the United States' long history of questionable foreign policy implemented by the CIA is news (questionable being a rather polite word- more appropriate may be 'criminal' or 'inhumane' or 'illegal').

But then Mr. Kinsley goes on to mention the US-backed Shah's inclination to "torture and [kill] political opponents". I guess I am just confused about Mr. Kinsley's direction. I find myself wondering where he stands on the issues he mentions and, more importantly, where he stands on similar issues that are materializing around Iran today.

As promised, here is the conclusion of Mr. Kinsley's little essay:

...we [the United States] marched in [to Afghanistan] and got rid of the Taliban. Then we marched into Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein. Now we're -- well, we haven't figured out what, but we're hopping mad and gonna do something, dammit, about Iran.

And they lived happily ever after.

And they lived happily ever after!? Who did? I am still having trouble understanding Mr. Kinsley's sense of humor. Perhaps he would like to enlighten me?

Patriotism?

Today I saw a sign on the back of a truck.

It said:

"Support our troops
Wherever they go
No aid or comfort to the enemy, ever"

I almost cried...

The Red Menace?

The Danger of Hugo Chávez's Successful Socialism

NEW YORK--When the hated despots of nations like Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan loot their countries' treasuries, transfer their oil wealth to personal Swiss bank accounts and use the rest to finance (in the House of Saud's case) terrorist extremists, American politicians praise them as trusted friends and allies. But when a democratically elected populist president uses Venezuela's oil profits to lift poor people out of poverty, they accuse him of pandering.

Continue reading...