Start communicating
Elections
Recent Village Updates
Login to find out
has added a new journalIf you were to cast your vote today, who would you vote for?
Login to find out
has added a new journalWhat was McCain thinking????? Does he really think he can win with her name on the ticket?
Login to find out
has added a new journalwww.counterpunch.org
June 27, 2008
SOS, Different Year
What's a Voter to Do?
By RON JACOBS
In the good ol' USA, I'm considered a white guy. Despite my leftist/anarcho politics and my preference for news that isn't filtered through the capitalist media, I'm a white guy as far as polling demographics go. I've got friends who fear immigrants and blacks, wear their rednecks a little too proudly, and genuinely like Lynyrd Skynyrd because of the band's politics. Despite this, I still tend to believe that most US residents are a bit more liberal than those particular friends. So I can't figure out why the hell someone like Barack Obama thinks he has to cater to their vote. These folks, if they do vote, are never going to vote for a Democrat anyhow since they are convinced that the party is composed of Satan's spawn.
However, like a good number of the rest of the white guys out there, when Obama starts dissing African-American fathers and catering to the Nixonian/Clintonian silent majority that is only silent because it doesn't exist, he loses me. Most US voters are cynical enough anyway about the entire electoral process and when Obama starts talking like ever other Democratic presidential candidate of the past twenty or so years, their desire to go vote decreases faster than George Bush's polling figures have over the past year. In other words, when the Democratic candidate starts trying to be the lite version of whatever type of lunatic the GOP is running, lots of folks don't bother to vote. After all, what the hell difference will it make?
The war in Iraq? Well, Obama is hedging his bets by telling the media that he would have to see what the facts on the ground are. Even worse, he has essentially stated that he would let the generals tell him what course to take if he gets elected. Now, isn't this exactly what George Bush is doing? Even more fundamentally, since when did the generals take on the role as the deciding factor in whether or not the US military will occupy a country and kill its people? I mean, come on, these generals have a vested interest in war. That's how they make their living for chrissake! It's always been my understanding that it is up to us, the American people, to decide whether or not we want to be destroying another nation with the men and women that wear the US uniform. Given that, it's my understanding most US residents oppose the occupation and war in Iraq (and possibly in Afghanistan, as well.) Obama should be asking the US people not the freakin' generals!
War on Iran? Obama is for that as well. Without getting into the particulars here, let me just say that I think this idea is one of the most stupid ideas to come out of Washington in my lifetime. It's not that I'm a fan of the Tehran government as far as that goes, but it really isn't any of my business how the Iranians run their country. In fact, from what I know about the place from Iranian friends and others is that Iran is not a giant monolith intent on building nuclear weapons and destroying all its perceived enemies. In fact, this is not even the desire of much of the Iranian government if any of it. In fact, from where I sit, this description seems to fit the government in Washington better than it does the one in Tehran. After all, which legislature is probably going to pass legislation very soon that enables the White House to put a naval blockade in place around Iran? You got it. The one in Washington, DC. The legislation is known as HR 580 and has garnered dozens of cosponsors demanding that the US carry out what is internationally recognized as an act of war against Iran. Guess who is pushing this legislation? That's right, AIPAC.
Which brings me to another Obama talking point. Why did he consider it necessary to talk before AIPAC and pledge that he would support Israel no matter what that nation's government does? I mean, he went and talked to AIPAC before he talked to any other group. Why? This is a lobby whose entire raison d'etre is to get tons of money from the US taxpayers to fund an illegal, immoral, brutal and politically questionable occupation. Last I looked, Israel was not part of the United States although it might as well be considering the amount of aid it gets from the Feds. Seems to me that they should either figure out how to survive without sucking off the Washington teat or demand statehood or territorial status. Not that I'm in favor of the latter, but we might as well certify the facts..
And then there's John Effin McCain. What's a voter going to do? Ralph Nader can't win and can probably only help Mr. Keating Five McCain win.
Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at: [email protected]
Login to find out
has added a new journalDemocratic Candidates Compassion Forum
Aired April 13, 2008
...
BROWN: Senator, you are a Christian, but as a child you had more exposure to Islam than probably most Americans ever will. How did that shape you?
OBAMA: Well, I lived in Indonesia for four-and-a-half years when I was a child. And, actually, ironically, the first school I went to in Indonesia was a Catholic school. So, you know, myself and Senator Bob Casey, who's sitting here, we had pretty similar experiences probably, in part, of at least our elementary school.
I then attended a public school, but the majority of the country was Muslim. And the brand of Islam that was being practiced in Indonesia at the time was a very tolerant Islam. The country itself was explicitly secular in its constitution.
And so you didn't have the oppressive state that was trying to impose people's religious beliefs. And Christians and people of other faiths lived very comfortably there. And women were working, and out, and were not wearing the traditional coverings that we see in the Middle East.
And so what it taught me, and what it still teaches me, as I think about foreign policy now, is that Islam can be compatible with the modern world.
It can be a partner with the Christian and Jewish and Hindu and Buddhist faiths in trying to create a better world.
And so I am always careful and suspicious of attempts to paint Islam with a broad brush because the overwhelming majority of the people of the Islamic faith are people of good will who are trying to raise their families and live up to their values and ideals and to try to raise their kids as best they can and that's something that I think we always have to remember as opposed to assuming a clash of civilizations that sometimes are overheated rhetoric that politically is talked about. transcripts.cnn.com
Login to find out
has added a new journalwww.counterpunch.org
June 23, 2008
Worse Than Dred Scott?
McCain, Racism and the Supreme Court
By ROBERT FANTINA
John McCain, the elderly senator from Arizona who also happens to be the GOP presidential candidate, weighed in on the recent Supreme Court decision that granted prisoners incarcerated in one of the most notorious prisons on the planet, Guantanamo, the right to seek redress in civilian courts. Said Mr. McCain: the decision is ?one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.?
Mr. McCain is apparently either relying on the notion that U.S. voters know little about the history of the Supreme Court, or he is simply stating his clear beliefs. If one looks back to 1857 and a certain Supreme Court decision from ?the history of this country,? one learns that the court decreed ?that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States.? Additionally, the court also nullified the 1820 Missouri Compromise, declaring it unconstitutional, thus legalizing slavery throughout the nation. This infamous ruling is known as the Dred Scott decision.
Does Mr. McCain really believe that granting political prisoners some basic rights is more horrifying than decreeing that an entire segment of the population is somehow less than human? Perhaps he does. It must be remembered that after the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., legislation was proposed to make his birthday a national holiday. Arizona was one of the last states to enact such legislation, and opposition to that legislation was led by a member of the House of Representatives, one John McCain. Today, of course, he presents a laundry list of excuses of why he did so then. One he doesn?t mention is the fact that the African-American vote had no value for him at that time. Things are different now, of course.
Regarding the Guantanamo decision, Mr. McCain continued: ?These are people who are not citizens. They do not and never have been given the rights that citizens in this country have. Now, my friends, there are some bad people down there. There are some bad people.?
We will overlook for the moment Mr. McCain?s annoying habit of addressing his audience as ?my friends,? and focus instead on his assertion that ?there are some bad people down there.? How he justifies appointing himself as judge and jury he does not care to explain. How he sees fairness in dumping prisoners as young as fifteen into the hell hole of Guantanamo he also does not bother to discuss. He has decreed that these unfortunate victims belong in the U.S.?s Cuba-based torture chamber.
Even the U.S. military defense lawyer for one of them, 21-year-old Omar Khadr, who has been in Guantanamo for six years, says that his client cannot get a fair trial there; he wants him sent back to Canada, not an unusual request since Mr. Khadr is a Canadian citizen. But no, Mr. McCain would prefer that the Supreme Court not interfere with his personal appraisal of ?bad people? and what they deserve.
Democratic presidential candidate, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, had a more measured response. He said that this decision ??ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice while also protecting our core values.? He further said this: ?The Court?s decision is a rejection of the Bush administration?s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo. This is an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.? It appears that Mr. Obama takes a more thoughtful view of the decision, whereas Mr. McCain seems content to cater to the worst notions of some U.S. citizens: the Muslims are out to get us!
And Mr. McCain considers this ruling to be worse than declaring that African-Americans can never be citizens. But that must not be surprising from one of Congress?s leading opponents of a bill honoring Dr. King. In a recent attempt to explain away his opposition to that legislation, Mr. McCain said this: ?We can be slow... to give greatness its due.?
One may wonder why the Supreme Court was ever put into a position of determining if the U.S.?s political prisoners should have basic human rights; such a thing should be a given, not something only allowed following a Supreme Court decision. But within the context of a nation that has slid dangerously close to fascism in just seven short years (not that it was so far away prior to the Supreme Court?s appointment of George Bush to the presidency; if Mr. McCain wants to talk about terrible Supreme Court decisions, he might start there), the recent court decision might be categorized as ?great.? And once again, Mr. McCain, not one to learn from the past, is ?slow to give greatness its due.?
And yet, while Mr. McCain acknowledges his inability to ?give greatness its due,? he seems to see it where few others do. He proudly endorses Mr. Bush?s disastrous wars, and states that he will continue them up to some undefined victory. He seeks to make permanent Mr. Bush?s tax cuts which clearly benefit the wealthy and do nothing for the poor and middle class. He sees great progress in Iraq as he tours Baghdad with enough security to protect Fort Knox. He appears to possess the same disdain for facts and reality that his hero, Mr. Bush, has demonstrated throughout his presidency.
This is the man who would be president; at a time when much of the United States and most of the world longs for someone to lead the U.S. out of the political and moral morass into which Mr. Bush dragged it, Mr. McCain sees value in shoving the country deeper into it. As millions of Americans desperately seek employment and do all that they can to keep from facing foreclosure; when health care is outside the reach of 47,000,000 citizens while the health care companies rake in unprecedented profits; as U.S. soldiers die to enrich the executives of huge oil conglomerates, Mr. McCain sees little reason for change. He, of course, need not worry about foreclosure: his wife is an heiress. As a member of Congress he has government-provided health care, and as a former soldier he sees great value in sending young Americans to war zones to adhere to the cardinal rule of the U.S. military: follow orders.
Polls that indicate a close race for the presidency should be humiliating to any thinking U.S. citizen. That any but the most rabid conservatives, ensconced in their mansions and surrounded by their guns and their servants, can consider voting for Mr. McCain is astounding. There are some, of course, who cannot tolerate the thought of an African-American in the White House (mightn?t he rename it the Black House?), and will vote for whomever the Republicans nominate, regardless of how reactionary, out of touch and incompetent he may be. These are the people who the Republicans have successfully convinced to vote against their own best interests in the past; they may replicate that success.
If they do, the consequences will certainly fit the crime; the tragedy is the suffering of so many who had no hand in it, but will experience those consequences anyway.
Robert Fantina is author of 'Desertion and the American Soldier: 1776--2006.