I've finally achieved consistency in my life. Any person of average or above intelligence can predict what I will say next with unerring accuracy. And what I say will always be wrong.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

[CanYoAssDigIt] Ollie North spreads his filth and rot far and wide.

Ah yes, back in the 80s politics alienated me from two dear friends.
They were both supporters of that champion of goodness and light, ol'
666 himself, Ronald Wilson Reagan (though like that guy in Batman
Begins, it turns out he wasn't really the devil, he was just
practice).

From Nixon to Reagan to Bush, like a triple play threat from the
pit.... each worse than the last.

I wish I had turned out for the protests against North. It's
encouraging that there were some, in a place like Wenatchee - maybe
there's hope.

30,000 civilians killed by the contras ("The moral equivalent of our
founding fathers" - it was Ronald Reagan that was holding Washington
Jefferson, et all in such low esteem, not me. Though I suspect some
Native Americans might be inclined to agree).. That's almost as bad
as what Frederick Wortham did to the youth of America. I had to grow
up without comic books that had images of torture and dismemberment.

Oh, the humanity!

December 16, 2005
Why I Didn't Salute...
When Ollie North Came to Hot Springs

By JOHN BOMAR

"They took out their knives and stuck them under his fingernails.
After they took his fingernails off, then they broke his elbows.
Afterwards they gouged out his eyes. Then they took their bayonets and
made all sorts of slices in his skin all around his chest, arms, and
legs. They then took his hair off and the skin of his scalp. When they
saw there was nothing left to do with him, they threw gasoline on him
and burned him. The next day they started the same thing with a 13
year old girl. They did more or less the same, but they did other
things to her too. First, she was utilized, raped by all the officers.
They stripped her and threw her in a small room, they went in one by
one. Afterwards they took her out tied and blindfolded. Then they
began the same mutilating, pulling her fingernails out and cutting off
her fingers, breaking her arms, gouging out her eyes and all they did
to the other fellow. They cut her legs and stuck an iron rod into her
womb."

"Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and
took out her heart. The men had their arms broken and their testicles
cut off and their eyes poked out. They were then killed by slitting
their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit."

These are but two of the hundreds of documented eyewitness accounts of
the kind of brutal and sadistic rapes, sodomies, kidnappings, tortures
and murders committed by the Contra forces in Nicaragua in the 1980's
-- Contras that were clothed, fed and armed by the illegal efforts of
Oliver North.

I guess it is no wonder that his recent visit to Hot Springs gave me
waking nightmares. It was as if the spirits of those brutalized,
tortured and murdered by the Contra "freedom fighters" were calling
out to me. Perhaps it was my working knowledge of Spanish and my
thirty years of travel to Latin America that brought these souls to my
door. The images haunted and shamed me. The most horrible aspect of
these tales is that the atrocities were commonly committed on the most
vulnerable; young boys and girls, their pregnant mothers and their
grandparents. Many times the families were forced to watch as these
abominations were carried out. Terror, you see, is most effective and
intimidating when viewed publicly. In all, over 30,000 civilians were
killed in Nicaragua by the Contras, mostly peasants, rural doctors and
health care workers, teachers, clergy, and civil administrators trying
to afford social services to the poorest in the land. This is our
government's most recent legacy in Central America.

The Sandanistas had been freely and fairly elected among seven active
political parties, with 75% voter turn out. It was declared a just
election by all international observers and monitors. After leading
the rebellion to oust one of Latin America's most infamously brutal
and greedy military dictators Anastacio Samoza, the new government
chose a more socialized model that quickly garnered international
acclaim for its efforts at providing health care, food, education,
literacy and land reform for its population. It also brought on the
wrath of the U.S. government and the CIA who financed the ex-national
guardsmen: Samoza's former henchmen, who formed the core of the Contra
forces. Eventually, the U.S. congress was so repulsed by the stories
of horror and butchery coming out of the villages in northern
Nicaragua, and lobbied strongly by ecumenical church organizations
representing millions of church goers, they forbade any further
financing of the effort or any further U.S. involvement. A
congressional intelligence committee at the time confirmed that the
Contras "raped, tortured and killed unarmed civilians, including
children" and that "groups of civilians, including pregnant women and
children were burned, dismembered, blinded and beheaded."

With the elimination of U.S. funds the Contra forces waned and were
forced back into their sanctuaries across Nicaragua's borders. That
was when Mr. North secretly went to work in the basement of the White
House. His unlawful scheme eventually involved tens of millions of
dollars, secretly selling arms to the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran.
This sad story also includes sworn testimony by those involved of
cocaine filled airplanes returning to the U.S. after dropping off
supplies, explosives and arms to the Contras. Some have attributed
this "coca pipeline" to the crack epidemic that swept through many
American cities in the mid 1980's. By his own hand written accounts at
the time, preserved in the last days of the Reagan administration, Mr.
North acknowledged being repeatedly informed of contra ties to drug
trafficking. Luis Posada, deeply implicated in the terrorist bombing
of a Cubana DC 8 airliner filled with teenagers in 1976, and a
confessed hotel lobby bomber, was a leading local coordinator of the
effort. Many lurid tales have come to light in the ensuing years of
our CIA,s dealings with the dirtiest of the dirty in Latin America
during this era.

I guess, being a believer in the inalienable rights of an oppressed
people to rise up and throw off their yokes and form a new government,
even one we don't particularly like, puts me in a foreign camp to
some. To me, national sovereignty means a country being able to chart
its own course, free of coercive outside attack from powerful and
wealthy forces, even down what many of us believe is the dead-end road
of extreme socialism. It is giving to other nations nothing more than
we demand for ourselves.

So, I hope you can understand if I couldn't stand up and salute when
Ollie came to town. The whispered voices and tortured images wouldn't
let me.

Dr. John Bomar, a veteran of the Vietnam War, is a Catholic Lay
Minister and student of Latin American history. He can be reached at:
johnrbomar@hotsprings.net

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/9rHolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanYoAssDigIt/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CanYoAssDigIt-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Friday, December 16, 2005

[CanYoAssDigIt] Fwd: Counting Iraqi Casualties

FAIR is another good source of accurate information, one I neglected
to mention last message. In their current communique, they critique
the way the media in this country has ignored Iraqi casualties (until
Bush responded to the issue) and now they can talk about them - but in
terms of explaining, apologizing for, finessing, supporting, and
rationalizing Bush's statements. For example: "On NPR's Morning
Edition (12/13/05), Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution
said, 'I give Mr. Bush credit for having given some information, and
it shows that he's conscious of this very human toll of the war, so I
think it was a good thing that he responded.'"

Did anybody hear that program? Did they throw him the usual
puffballs? Did you know that interview subjects on NPR submit a list
of the questions they want asked of them? That is why the interviews
are rarely challenging, why their answers are so glib, and why the NPR
interviewers sometimes sound as if they are thinking about doing their
laundry while they conduct the interview. They probably are.

The "This American Life" segment they reference sounds interesting.
Did anybody hear that? I was about to give NPR some kudos, but
suddenly realised that program is not an NPR program, but is a
production of PRI and Chicago Public Radio.

KUOW does well to go outside of NPR to get programming - Democracy
Now! would be a valuable addition to their programming.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FAIR <fair@fair.org>
Date: Dec 16, 2005 12:09 PM
Subject: Counting Iraqi Casualties
To: matt.mattlove1@gmail.com
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2778

Media Advisory

Counting Iraqi Casualties
Why didn't the press ask?

12/16/05

Throughout the Iraq War, the mainstream media have shown little
interest in documenting or quantifying the suffering of Iraqis. But a
recent comment by George W. Bush provoked an unexpected round of
discussion of the topic.

At the close of a public event on December 12, Bush took questions
from the audience. And the very first question was unusually direct:

"I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been
killed. And by Iraqis, I include civilians, military police,
insurgents, translators."

Bush's response: "How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I
would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial
incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis."

Suddenly, major newspapers and broadcast outlets were engaged in an
unexpected discussion about the human toll of the war for Iraqis.
Reporters began to cite Iraq Body Count's tally of civilian deaths as
a possible source for Bush's claim (USA Today, 12/14/05; CNN,
12/12/05).

Often overlooked was the fact that Iraq Body Count's research is
limited to civilian deaths--not including insurgents or security
forces, as asked by the questioner--and only those civilian deaths
that were reported by the media. The resulting total, as the group
acknowledges on its website, is therefore a low estimate: "It is
likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by
the media."

A more scientific survey of total civilian deaths in Iraq that was
published in the British medical journal The Lancet (10/29/04)
suggested a much higher death toll of 100,000. But as FAIR pointed out
in a March 21, 2005 Action Alert, media discussions of Iraqi
casualties have tended to avoid or dismiss that higher estimate. The
Lancet study was largely ignored by the mainstream press when it was
released (This American Life, 10/28/05) and remains largely outside
the realm of discussion a year later.

Some in the media seemed eager to congratulate Bush for even
addressing the issue. On NPR's Morning Edition (12/13/05), Michael
O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution said, "I give Mr. Bush credit
for having given some information, and it shows that he's conscious of
this very human toll of the war, so I think it was a good thing that
he responded."

ABC reporter Claire Shipman (12/13/05) was also impressed,
acknowledging that while "getting specific like that about extremely
murky casualty figures can be a no-win political proposition," it
could prove beneficial to Bush: "Now some have suggested it's a
healthy sign that the president was so willing to get specific about
the number of Iraqi dead, that it shows how closely he's following the
cost of the war." Shipman went on to add: "So far, civilian casualties
in Iraq don't at all approach those of the other big wars of the last
century."

But the most interesting and perhaps obvious aspect of this incident
has gone largely untouched: Why haven't reporters asked Bush this
question yet? White House spokesman Scott McLellan has rarely had to
answer questions about Iraqi deaths during his regular press briefings
(a few exceptions have come from syndicated columnist Helen Thomas and
progressive journalist Russell Mokhiber).

As media reports have suggested, the White House is not eager to talk
about the deaths caused by its Iraq policy. But neither, it seems, is
the press corps.
****

For many years Tom Tomorrow's cartoons have taken aim at the
absurdities of our political system and the corporate media. For only
$15, you can order "The Wrath of Sparky," "Penguin Soup for the Soul,"
and "When Penguins Attack."

Naomi Klein on torture, Eric Boehlert on Sami al-Arian (12/16/05-12/22/05)


Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send
copies of your correspondence with media outlets, including any
responses, to fair@fair.org.
________________________________

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/9rHolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanYoAssDigIt/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CanYoAssDigIt-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

[CanYoAssDigIt] Correction

I typed:

> http://www.democracynow.com/

that should be

http://www.democracynow.org/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/9rHolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanYoAssDigIt/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CanYoAssDigIt-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[CanYoAssDigIt] Places to go for factual reporting on current events and progressive perspectives

I have heard longtime NPR fans murmer that it's useful to hear what
the other side has to say, and you get that at NPR. Sure, but you can
get that at Fox and CNN, too, but where do you go what you want to
hear the factual truth, or opinion that runs counter to the status
quo?

I used to try to point out flaws in NPR reporting. I can't keep up any
more, it's awful. It's not surprsing the government's radion network
gives you people from the American Enterprise Institute and The
Council on Foreign Relations and The Washington Times (Rev. Moon's
paper, does anybody remember that?) who will repeat the government's
line.

But where do you go if you want to know what is really going on, and
not just the neocon spin on reality?

http://www.gregpalast.com/
http://www.democracynow.com/

and today at http://www.counterpunch.org:

December 14, 2005

A Death Toll Lower Than DC Murder Rate?
NPR Swallows Bush Guestimate on Iraqi Dead
By APRIL HURLEY, M.D.

To: Scott Inskeep
National Public Radio

Dear Mr. Inskeep:

Yesterday, on your National Public Radio Show, Morning Edition, you
asked an "expert" to comment on G.W. Bush's evident ignorance. Your
stooge pundit, Michael O'Hanlon, was satisfied with George's
guestimate that 30,000 Iraqi civilians and combatants have been killed
during 32 months of invasion and occupation. He suggested that G.W's
figure doesn't include Iraqi crime victims. This proposes a mortality
rate for Iraqis from combat alone that is lower than Washington D.C.'s
homicide rate during the year of the latest stats, 2002. A war zone
also safer than Baltimore, Detroit and New Orleans before Katrina.
Perhaps a paid professional at NPR, who isn't busy doing the bidding
of a White House propagandist, would wonder what's wrong with this
picture and do some minimal investigation. Such as the most globally
respected survey, an independent and heroic study on the casualties in
Iraq, peer reviewed and published in The Lancet. A curious child could
get those US city homicide figures and do the math!

I witnessed Shock and Awe in Baghdad and the tsunami of lies
discounting those deaths. The bombing then was brutal and the
occupation since has been a serial massacre. Iraq today is our massive
Guernica. It is obscene that this war president continues in denial
that he has, conservatively, caused the death of 150,000-200,000 Iraqi
men, women and kids. And this after, conservatively again, more than
500,000 died under Clinton's promoting of UN sanctions. How can you
National Public Radio people live with your complicity in hustling
such horrific crimes and distortions about them.

The tangled web of deception spun by NPR must feel like a cocoon for
you by now! I am another outraged listener reminding all of you. We
are an internet-literate audience; we won't tolerate being brainwashed
by our own public airwaves. And the drivel you choose to distract us
with at these critical times will serve to secure your indictment.

Increasingly outraged,
April Hurley, MD

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/9rHolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanYoAssDigIt/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CanYoAssDigIt-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

[CanYoAssDigIt] Re: [Bizarro_UltraZine] Pinter Attacks Bush and Blair in Nobel Speech

I doubt this will be of much interest. Pinter doesn't have tits. He
goes on and on long after the atrophied attention span wanders. He
disappoints, by failing to rant, as the IMDB (a reliable source)
accuses him of doing. Instead, he writes a logically compelling and
accurate assessment of US foreign policy.

Therefore, I plead with you to to ignore the following, not not read
any further into this text, which is the majoiryt of the text of
Pinter's acceptence speech (not rant), which takes up at the point he
stops speaking about art and starts speaking about politics.

....the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are
interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that
power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in
ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of
their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of
lies, upon which we feed.

As every single person here knows, the justification for the invasion
of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed a highly dangerous body of
weapons of mass destruction, some of which could be fired in 45
minutes, bringing about appalling devastation. We were assured that
was true. It was not true. We were told that Iraq had a relationship
with Al Quaeda and shared responsibility for the atrocity in New York
of September 11th 2001. We were assured that this was true. It was not
true. We were told that Iraq threatened the security of the world. We
were assured it was true. It was not true.

The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do with how
the United States understands its role in the world and how it chooses
to embody it.

But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the
recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy since the
end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon us to
subject this period to at least some kind of even limited scrutiny,
which is all that time will allow here.

Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout
Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic brutality,
the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent
thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.

But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same period have
only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone
acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe this
must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on where
the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain extent, by
the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' actions
throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte
blanche to do what it liked.

Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been America's
favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has described
as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that
thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb on them
in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the country,
that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene bloom.
When the populace has been subdued or beaten to death the same thing
and your own friends, the military and the great corporations, sit
comfortably in power, you go before the camera and say that democracy
has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US foreign policy in the
years to which I refer.

The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I choose to
offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its role in the
world, both then and now.

I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the late 1980s.

The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give more
money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of Nicaragua.
I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of Nicaragua but the
most important member of this delegation was a Father John Metcalf.
The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz (then number two to the
ambassador, later ambassador himself). Father Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am
in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built
a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace.
A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed
everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They
raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal
manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US
government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist
activity.'

Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational, responsible
and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in diplomatic
circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity.
'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent people
always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared at him. He did
not flinch.

Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

Finally somebody said: 'But in this case "innocent people were the
victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one
among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further
atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is your
government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of murder and
destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?'

Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as presented
support your assertions,' he said.

As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he enjoyed my
plays. I did not reply.

I should remind you that at the time President Reagan made the
following statement: 'The Contras are the moral equivalent of our
Founding Fathers.'

The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in
Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the
Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular
revolution.

The Sandinistas weren't perfect. They possessed their fair share of
arrogance and their political philosophy contained a number of
contradictory elements. But they were intelligent, rational and
civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic
society. The death penalty was abolished. Hundreds of thousands of
poverty-stricken peasants were brought back from the dead. Over
100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were
built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the
country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a
free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio
was eradicated.

The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist
subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was
being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social
and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of
health care and education and achieve social unity and national self
respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do
the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to
the status quo in El Salvador.

I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us.
President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian
dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the
British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in
fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There
was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or
official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in
Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two
Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were
actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States
had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in
1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of
successive military dictatorships.

Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously
murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by
a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia,
USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while
saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they
killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was
possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified
them as communists. They died because they dared to question the
status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and
oppression, which had been their birthright.

The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It
took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic
persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the
Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once
again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free
education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance.
'Democracy' had prevailed.

But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It
was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as
if it never happened.

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right
wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second
World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay,
Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of
course, Chile. The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in
1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries.
Did they take place? And are they in all cases attributable to US
foreign policy? The answer is yes they did take place and they are
attributable to American foreign policy. But you wouldn't know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening
it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest. The
crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious,
remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You
have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical
manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for
universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of
hypnosis.

I put to you that the United States is without doubt the greatest show
on the road. Brutal, indifferent, scornful and ruthless it may be but
it is also very clever. As a salesman it is out on its own and its
most saleable commodity is self love. It's a winner. Listen to all
American presidents on television say the words, 'the American
people', as in the sentence, 'I say to the American people it is time
to pray and to defend the rights of the American people and I ask the
American people to trust their president in the action he is about to
take on behalf of the American people.'

It's a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep
thought at bay. The words 'the American people' provide a truly
voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don't need to think. Just lie
back on the cushion. The cushion may be suffocating your intelligence
and your critical faculties but it's very comfortable. This does not
apply of course to the 40 million people living below the poverty line
and the 2 million men and women imprisoned in the vast gulag of
prisons, which extends across the US.

The United States no longer bothers about low intensity conflict. It
no longer sees any point in being reticent or even devious. It puts
its cards on the table without fear or favour. It quite simply doesn't
give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical
dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant. It also has its
own bleating little lamb tagging behind it on a lead, the pathetic and
supine Great Britain.

What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What
do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed
these days conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts
but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all
this dead? Look at Guantanamo Bay. Hundreds of people detained without
charge for over three years, with no legal representation or due
process, technically detained forever. This totally illegitimate
structure is maintained in defiance of the Geneva Convention. It is
not only tolerated but hardly thought about by what's called the
'international community'. This criminal outrage is being committed by
a country, which declares itself to be 'the leader of the free world'.
Do we think about the inhabitants of Guantanamo Bay? What does the
media say about them? They pop up occasionally a small item on page
six. They have been consigned to a no man's land from which indeed
they may never return. At present many are on hunger strike, being
force-fed, including British residents. No niceties in these
force-feeding procedures. No sedative or anaesthetic. Just a tube
stuck up your nose and into your throat. You vomit blood. This is
torture. What has the British Foreign Secretary said about this?
Nothing. What has the British Prime Minister said about this? Nothing.
Why not? Because the United States has said: to criticise our conduct
in Guantanamo Bay constitutes an unfriendly act. You're either with us
or against us. So Blair shuts up.

The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state
terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of
international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action
inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the
media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate
American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading
as a last resort all other justifications having failed to justify
themselves as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force
responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of
innocent people.

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable
acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi
people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle
East'.

How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described
as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than
enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair
be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice. But
Bush has been clever. He has not ratified the International Criminal
Court of Justice. Therefore if any American soldier or for that matter
politician finds himself in the dock Bush has warned that he will send
in the marines. But Tony Blair has ratified the Court and is therefore
available for prosecution. We can let the Court have his address if
they're interested. It is Number 10, Downing Street, London.

Death in this context is irrelevant. Both Bush and Blair place death
well away on the back burner. At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by
American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These
people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank.
They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,'
said the American general Tommy Franks.

Early in the invasion there was a photograph published on the front
page of British newspapers of Tony Blair kissing the cheek of a little
Iraqi boy. 'A grateful child,' said the caption. A few days later
there was a story and photograph, on an inside page, of another
four-year-old boy with no arms. His family had been blown up by a
missile. He was the only survivor. 'When do I get my arms back?' he
asked. The story was dropped. Well, Tony Blair wasn't holding him in
his arms, nor the body of any other mutilated child, nor the body of
any bloody corpse. Blood is dirty. It dirties your shirt and tie when
you're making a sincere speech on television.

The 2,000 American dead are an embarrassment. They are transported to
their graves in the dark. Funerals are unobtrusive, out of harm's way.
The mutilated rot in their beds, some for the rest of their lives. So
the dead and the mutilated both rot, in different kinds of graves.

Here is an extract from a poem by Pablo Neruda, 'I'm Explaining a Few Things':

And one morning all that was burning,
one morning the bonfires
leapt out of the earth
devouring human beings
and from then on fire,
gunpowder from then on,
and from then on blood.
Bandits with planes and Moors,
bandits with finger-rings and duchesses,
bandits with black friars spattering blessings
came through the sky to kill children
and the blood of children ran through the streets
without fuss, like children's blood.

Jackals that the jackals would despise
stones that the dry thistle would bite on and spit out,
vipers that the vipers would abominate.

Face to face with you I have seen the blood
of Spain tower like a tide
to drown you in one wave
of pride and knives.

Treacherous
generals:
see my dead house,
look at broken Spain:
from every house burning metal flows
instead of flowers
from every socket of Spain
Spain emerges
and from every dead child a rifle with eyes
and from every crime bullets are born
which will one day find
the bull's eye of your hearts.

And you will ask: why doesn't his poetry
speak of dreams and leaves
and the great volcanoes of his native land.

Come and see the blood in the streets.
Come and see
the blood in the streets.
Come and see the blood
in the streets!*

Let me make it quite clear that in quoting from Neruda's poem I am in
no way comparing Republican Spain to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. I quote
Neruda because nowhere in contemporary poetry have I read such a
powerful visceral description of the bombing of civilians.

I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about
putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official
declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is
not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of
land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.

The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout
the world in 132 countries, with the honourable exception of Sweden,
of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there
all right.

The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear
warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched
with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear
force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are
intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I
wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes?
China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile
insanity the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons is at
the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind
ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing
and shows no sign of relaxing it.

Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself
are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's
actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force
yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear which we can see growing
daily in the United States is unlikely to diminish.

I know that President Bush has many extremely competent speech writers
but I would like to volunteer for the job myself. I propose the
following short address which he can make on television to the nation.
I see him grave, hair carefully combed, serious, winning, sincere,
often beguiling, sometimes employing a wry smile, curiously
attractive, a man's man.

'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's
God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't
have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop
people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a
barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving
democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate
electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great
nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And
he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist?
This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'

A writer's life is a highly vulnerable, almost naked activity. We
don't have to weep about that. The writer makes his choice and is
stuck with it. But it is true to say that you are open to all the
winds, some of them icy indeed. You are out on your own, out on a
limb. You find no shelter, no protection unless you lie in which case
of course you have constructed your own protection and, it could be
argued, become a politician.

I have referred to death quite a few times this evening. I shall now
quote a poem of my own called 'Death'.

Where was the dead body found?
Who found the dead body?
Was the dead body dead when found?
How was the dead body found?

Who was the dead body?

Who was the father or daughter or brother
Or uncle or sister or mother or son
Of the dead and abandoned body?

Was the body dead when abandoned?
Was the body abandoned?
By whom had it been abandoned?

Was the dead body naked or dressed for a journey?

What made you declare the dead body dead?
Did you declare the dead body dead?
How well did you know the dead body?
How did you know the dead body was dead?

Did you wash the dead body
Did you close both its eyes
Did you bury the body
Did you leave it abandoned
Did you kiss the dead body

When we look into a mirror we think the image that confronts us is
accurate. But move a millimetre and the image changes. We are actually
looking at a never-ending range of reflections. But sometimes a writer
has to smash the mirror for it is on the other side of that mirror
that the truth stares at us.

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching,
unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define
the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation
which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

If such a determination is not embodied in our political vision we
have no hope of restoring what is so nearly lost to us the dignity of
man.

* Extract from "I'm Explaining a Few Things" translated by Nathaniel
Tarn, from Pablo Neruda: Selected Poems, published by Jonathan Cape,
London 1970. Used by permission of The Random House Group Limited.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/9rHolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CanYoAssDigIt/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CanYoAssDigIt-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/