Words, Wind and Why Not

Chomsky's Assessment

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 18:39:00 +0000

I hope Noam Chomsky won't mind my reprinting his article in its entirety. One of these days, I'll look up the law about reprinting. I think it's ok as long as it's properly credited. So, the below was written by Noam Chomsky who is Institute Professor & Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the author of dozens of books on U.S. foreign policy. He writes a monthly column for The New York Times News Service/Syndicate.

‘The Arab World Is on Fire’
By Noam Chomsky (first published in the New York Times)

A common refrain among pundits is that fear of radical Islam requires opposition to democracy on pragmatic grounds. That formulation is misleading.

“The Arab world is on fire,” al-Jazeera reported on January 27, while throughout the region, Western allies “are quickly losing their influence.”

The shock wave was set in motion by the dramatic uprising in Tunisia that drove out a Western-backed dictator, with reverberations especially in Egypt, where demonstrators overwhelmed a dictator’s brutal police.

Observers compared the events to the toppling of Russian domains in 1989, but there are important differences.

Crucially, no Mikhail Gorbachev exists among the great powers that support the Arab dictators. Rather, Washington and its allies keep to the well-established principle that democracy is acceptable only insofar as it conforms to strategic and economic objectives: fine in enemy territory (up to a point), but not in our backyard, please, unless it is properly tamed.

One 1989 comparison has some validity: Romania, where Washington maintained its support for Nicolae Ceausescu, the most vicious of the East European dictators, until the allegiance became untenable. Then Washington hailed his overthrow while the past was erased.

That is a standard pattern: Ferdinand Marcos, Jean-Claude Duvalier, Chun Doo Hwan, Suharto and many other useful gangsters. It may be under way in the case of Hosni Mubarak, along with routine efforts to try to ensure that a successor regime will not veer far from the approved path.

The current hope appears to be Mubarak loyalist Gen. Omar Suleiman, just named Egypt’s vice president. Suleiman, the longtime head of the intelligence services, is despised by the rebelling public almost as much as the dictator himself.

A common refrain among pundits is that fear of radical Islam requires (reluctant) opposition to democracy on pragmatic grounds. While not without some merit, the formulation is misleading. The general threat has always been independence. In the Arab world, the United States and its allies have regularly supported radical Islamists, sometimes to prevent the threat of secular nationalism.

A familiar example is Saudi Arabia, the ideological center of radical Islam (and of Islamic terror). Another in a long list is Zia ul-Haq, the most brutal of Pakistan’s dictators and President Reagan’s favorite, who carried out a program of radical Islamization (with Saudi funding).

“The traditional argument put forward in and out of the Arab world is that there is nothing wrong, everything is under control,” says Marwan Muasher, former Jordanian official and now director of Middle East research for the Carnegie Endowment. “With this line of thinking, entrenched forces argue that opponents and outsiders calling for reform are exaggerating the conditions on the ground.”

Therefore the public can be dismissed. The doctrine traces far back and generalizes worldwide, to U.S. home territory as well. In the event of unrest, tactical shifts may be necessary, but always with an eye to reasserting control.

The vibrant democracy movement in Tunisia was directed against “a police state, with little freedom of expression or association, and serious human rights problems,” ruled by a dictator whose family was hated for their venality. This was the assessment by U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec in a July 2009 cable released by WikiLeaks.

Therefore to some observers the WikiLeaks “documents should create a comforting feeling among the American public that officials aren’t asleep at the switch”—indeed, that the cables are so supportive of U.S. policies that it is almost as if Obama is leaking them himself (or so Jacob Heilbrunn writes in The National Interest.)

“America should give Assange a medal,” says a headline in the Financial Times. Chief foreign-policy analyst Gideon Rachman writes that “America’s foreign policy comes across as principled, intelligent and pragmatic—the public position taken by the U.S. on any given issue is usually the private position as well.”

In this view, WikiLeaks undermines the “conspiracy theorists” who question the noble motives that Washington regularly proclaims.

Godec’s cable supports these judgments—at least if we look no further. If we do, as foreign policy analyst Stephen Zunes reports in Foreign Policy in Focus, we find that, with Godec’s information in hand, Washington provided $12 million in military aid to Tunisia. As it happens, Tunisia was one of only five foreign beneficiaries: Israel (routinely); the two Middle East dictatorships Egypt and Jordan; and Colombia, which has long had the worst human-rights record and the most U.S. military aid in the hemisphere.

Heilbrunn’s Exhibit A is Arab support for U.S. policies targeting Iran, revealed by leaked cables. Rachman too seizes on this example, as did the media generally, hailing these encouraging revelations. The reactions illustrate how profound is the contempt for democracy in the educated culture.

Unmentioned is what the population thinks—easily discovered. According to polls released by the Brookings Institution in August, some Arabs agree with Washington and Western commentators that Iran is a threat: 10 percent. In contrast, they regard the U.S. and Israel as the major threats (77 percent; 88 percent).

Arab opinion is so hostile to Washington’s policies that a majority (57 percent) think regional security would be enhanced if Iran had nuclear weapons. Still, “there is nothing wrong, everything is under control” (as Marwan Muasher describes the prevailing fantasy). The dictators support us. Their subjects can be ignored—unless they break their chains, and then policy must be adjusted.

Other leaks also appear to lend support to the enthusiastic judgments about Washington’s nobility. In July 2009, Hugo Llorens, U.S. ambassador to Honduras, informed Washington of an embassy investigation of “legal and constitutional issues surrounding the June 28 forced removal of President Manuel `Mel’ Zelaya.”

The embassy concluded that “there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch.” Very admirable, except that President Obama proceeded to break with almost all of Latin America and Europe by supporting the coup regime and dismissing subsequent atrocities.

Perhaps the most remarkable WikiLeaks revelations have to do with Pakistan, reviewed by foreign policy analyst Fred Branfman in Truthdig.

The cables reveal that the U.S. embassy is well aware that Washington’s war in Afghanistan and Pakistan not only intensifies rampant anti-Americanism but also “risks destabilizing the Pakistani state” and even raises a threat of the ultimate nightmare: that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists.

Again, the revelations “should create a comforting feeling—that officials are not asleep at the switch” (Heilbrunn’s words)—while Washington marches stalwartly toward disaster.

© The New York Times Syndicate

Egypt Erupts

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 01:37:00 +0000

Favorite quote for the day by Egyptian Nobel Laureate Mohamed ElBaradei, "Of course, you in the West have been sold the idea that the only options in the Arab world are between authoritarian regimes and Islamic jihadists. That’s obviously bogus. If we are talking about Egypt, there is a whole rainbow variety of people who are secular, liberal, market-oriented, and if you give them a chance they will organize themselves to elect a government that is modern and moderate. They want desperately to catch up with the rest of the world."

A Pakistani-American Novel

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 17:20:00 +0000

My review of Saffron Dreams by Shailah Abdullah in Pakistaniaat: A Journal of Pakistani Studies, edited by Masood Raja. Visit the index here.

To order this book, go to amazon.com

The Tea Party Farce

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:26:00 +0000

From: Merced Sun-Star
Tuesday, Aug. 10, 2010
Keith Law: The tea party farce

While driving down Highway 99 the other day, I came upon a car decked out in "tea party" bumper stickers. One simply said "DOPE" in the same colors as Barack Obama's "HOPE" bumper stickers from his 2008 campaign.

I felt the urge to respond with a "DUPE" bumper sticker of my own.

The tea party movement is a farce, and it is disappointing that citizens are duped by the snake-oil show. The salesmen include the Wall Street traders who initiated the idea, as well as the defeated Republicans who promote the cause into the spectacle that it has become. These include Texas Republican Dick Armey's organization Freedom Works, and the cast of the conservative broadcasting company, Fox.

The original tea party evokes images of our founders who fought against an imperialist kingdom to create a more democratic union. The "tea party" movement is fighting against a president who was democratically elected by the processes established in the Constitution by those very founders.

Given the political beliefs and the demographic makeup of those who are in the "tea party" movement, a better historical reference would evoke the Confederate side in the Civil War.

In contrast to what they want us to believe, the "tea party" movement is not nonpartisan, it is not attempting to defend the Constitution, and it is not antideficit or antisocialism. What it is, mostly, is disgruntled elderly, white conservative men who lost the 2008 election that brought into office another smart, young politician from Illinois, the land of Abraham Lincoln. Both by his race and his political defense of our nation's underprivileged, Obama represents a threat to this group.

The demographic research is in; those who make up the tea party are primarily white (79 percent), male (61 percent), conservative Republicans (80 percent) and better off financially than the national average.

It is understandable that "tea party" goers would want to distance themselves from the Republican Party given the ruin we suffered under their eight years of governance. However, they would not be a movement if not for the clout received from disgruntled Republicans.

One could sympathize with the tea party's concern for deficit spending, and defer alleging there is a racist motive among many of its leaders, if their first protest didn't take place one month after Obama took office.

Where were these folks when President George Bush was turning the Clinton surplus into the largest deficit in our history? A good chunk of that deficit spending went to fund a war that was based on lies. Is that a better use of our resources than attempting to supply health care to the needy, or to assist the nation during a recession?

The first contemporary president to riddle us with debt was Ronald Reagan, a man conservatives love to love. If one graphs deficit spending since World War II, the picture that emerges depicts a world where Republicans are far less responsible than their Democratic counterparts.

Though they deny it, the stories we hear of the implicit and explicit racism within the tea party are not incidental to the movement. According to polling research done at the University of Washington, tea party members are more likely to believe that African Americans are less hardworking, less intelligent and less trustworthy; and they are less favorable to immigration.

Their grandest farce is the attack on illegal immigration, as if our loss of good-paying jobs beccause to folks came over to do manual labor for minimum wages. This is the same racist scapegoating that goes on in every economic bust since Germany did it to the Jews during the Great Depression.

Our job loss is caused by to many factors, but one of the most prominent is the flight of jobs overseas due to rich folks looking for cheap labor. These are the same rich folks who bankroll the conservative movement.

Before tea party followers assume their self-righteous battle in defense of our Constitution, they should take the time to read it. There, they will find that in the preamble our founders placed liberty last in a list of virtues that included establishing justice and promoting the general welfare. The preamble is important because it established the overall intention behind the rest of the Constitution.

There can be differences of opinion about how to establish a just health care system, or how to promote the general welfare in the deep recession and financial crisis that we inherited from the very Republicans who are now protesting under tea party banners.

However, it is ridiculous to argue that the path taken by Obama is against the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

The strategy of using the government to supply a public good goes back as far as Thomas Jefferson, who argued for a public education system.

Franklin Roosevelt used the government as the consumer of last resort during the Great Depression in order to stimulate the economy.

As everyone who has taken an economics course knows, the intention behind this is to save capitalism. Of course, we can debate the relative effectiveness of the remedy, but no reasonable person believes that it is a plot by an anti-American dictator, as tea party folks allege.

Finally, as research shows, tea party goers are not against socialism, as a disproportionate number are elderly folks who are counting on collecting Social Security checks and enjoying the socialized health care system known as Medicare. Further, the Dick Armey types have been supporting corporate welfare for the rich for generations.

Tea party followers are financially better off than the general population, so they hate paying taxes; however, they sure do like the programs that the government provides to them.

They want to get as much as they can from the government while paying as little as possible to support the government; A simple case of greed.

As long as this sentiment has sway in Washington we will suffer the massive deficit spending that tea party goers say they are against.

Keith Law is a professor of philosophy and humanities at Merced College.

Article Hits My Nail

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:08:00 +0000

Yes, I hammer too! And, sometimes I'm happy to hit a nail on the head. In John Cory's "Running on Bullshit," he captures my feeling on the media. While I'm glad Fox News has Maddow and Olbermann to punch back, I do get tired of the punching and yearn for PBS-like facts on what's what in the world. Meanwhile, let's all send PBS some money. We'd be a wasteland of information if it weren't for their work. And, they would be much better if not for having to cover or comment on the crapola-driven controversies that the media births then reports on.

"Running on Bullshit"
By John Cory, Reader Supported News
25 July 2010

In the 1976 film Network, Howard Beale explains why on the previous evening's broadcast he had announced that he would commit public suicide on the air: "Well, I'll tell you what happened: I just ran out of bullshit ... So I don't have any bullshit left, just ran out of it, you see."

That is not a concern for what passes as our modern media because bullshit comes with a golden microphone and silver-framed teleprompter. Bring your own pooper-scooper.

The media narrative of the Shirley Sherrod event began with, "racist discovered at NAACP," then promptly shifted to, "oops, my bad," and then to, "what's wrong with this White House and why is the President afraid of FOX?"

On Wednesday's ABC Nightline Cynthia McFadden introduced a segment about the kerfuffle Andrew Breitbart had stirred up. Kerfuffle? That sounds so harmless.

The NY Times ran an editorial that began: "The Obama Administration has been shamed by its rush to judgment," and ended by noting that this time, Glenn Beck was right.

Howard Kurtz gave cover to FOX and Breitbart by glossing over the whole incident and ending with, "Still, one fact is indisputable. It was Vilsack, not Breitbart, who kicked Sherrod out of her job."

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC chided the White House for continually falling for these FOX News stunts, and Keith Olbermann interrupted his vacation for a Special Comment on the whole Sherrod affair and lectured Obama about standing up to the right-wing FOX noise machine.

Let's be blunt here, the media is not interested in journalism or news or context or factual reportage; it is interested in what sells - and that my friends, is bullshit.

CNN is a slogan generating "news" organization. "Keeping them honest" is the term most often used while uttering the phrase "both sides do it," as protection against accusations of being part of the "liberal media."

MSNBC has positioned itself as the anti-FOX with its so-called "liberal/progressive" evening lineup that punches back at the propaganda of FOX. It is Keith versus Bill-O and Rachel versus Hannity or whomever she can snark and giggle at. It is the World Wrestling Federation of "I know I am but what are you!"

In other words - bullshit. Lethal repugnant odious, but oh so shiny bullshit.

It is time to re-read Gene Lyons' "Fools For Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater." It is time to remind ourselves that the NY Times and Washington Post were cheerleaders for war with Iraq and Afghanistan. The networks quivered in near orgasm over the chance to embed with troops and roll across the desert in glorious full battle-rattle. The "media" attacked Michael Hastings over his reporting on Gen. McChrystal and whined about the need for friendly access to the military, and at the same time complained that BP restricted their ability to cover the Gulf oil disaster. BP was being mean!

The truth is, had BP oil been used as a lubricant for a celebrity sex scandal, the media would have broken through the security lines and rushed the bedroom for photographs. But of course, the oil was only used to lubricate the screwing of America, so nothing to see here - move along.

Our "media news" outlets are nothing more than carnival barkers and hucksters. They are the last real manufacturer left in this country. They manufacture sensationalistic fear while selling conformity to the great, unwashed American consumer. They sell tribalism and all the products that go with it.

In other words - bullshit.

The Sherrod affair was never about racism. It was blowback for attacks on the Tea Party - that manufactured coalition of hate and anger supported by conservative corporate largesse - just like that other media creation - Sarah Palin.

All the media did was yell: Fight! Fight! Someone called someone else a racist and then someone else showed that the other someone was a racist too and both sides do it so - we're just keeping them honest. See?

Breitbart won the prize his kind desires most - headlines and media profile.

MSNBC and FOX got to punch and blame each other, so that's a win.

The American people lost. They lost an opportunity to have an honest discussion about people and racism, about institutional racism, about the progress and redemption of race in our society. But at least they were entertained for a while. And isn't that what it's all about, really, a little entertainment between job losses and military suicides and the 100 bank failures so far this year and oh yeah, having to talk about that scary race thing?

One night Howard Beale ran out of bullshit. Howard Beale is a fictional character.

So is our modern media.

USDA is racist, alright

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 01:27:00 +0000

Must read article about the Sherrod assault:

The Real Story of Racism at the USDA

Thursday 22 July 2010

by: Chris Kromm | Facing South

It's an astonishing development given the history of race relations at the USDA, an agency whose own Commission on Small Farms admitted in 1998 that "the history of discrimination at the U.S. Department of Agriculture ... is well-documented" -- not against white farmers, but African-American, Native American and other minorities who were pushed off their land by decades of racially-biased laws and practices.

It's also a black eye for President Obama and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, who signaled a desire to atone for the USDA's checkered past, including pushing for funding of a historic $1.15 billion settlement that would help thousands of African American farmers but now faces bitter resistance from Senate Republicans.

Forced Off the Land

Any discussion about race and the USDA has to start with the crisis of black land loss. Although the U.S. government never followed through on its promise to freed slaves of "40 acres and a mule," African-Americans were able to establish a foothold in Southern agriculture. Black land ownership peaked in 1910, when 218,000 African-American farmers had an ownership stake in 15 million acres of land.

By 1992, those numbers had dwindled to 2.3 million acres held by 18,000 black farmers. And that wasn't just because farming was declining as a way of life: Blacks were being pushed off the land in vastly disproportionate numbers. In 1920, one of out seven U.S. farms were black-run; by 1992, African-Americans operated one out of 100 farms.

The USDA isn't to blame for all of that decline, but the agency created by President Lincoln in 1862 as the "people's department" did little to stem the tide -- and in many cases, made the situation worse.

After decades of criticism and an upsurge in activism by African-American farmers, the USDA hosted a series of "listening sessions" in the 1990s, which added to a growing body of evidence of systematic discrimination:

Black farmers tell stories of USDA officials -- especially local loan authorities in all-white county committees in the South -- spitting on them, throwing their loan applications in the trash and illegally denying them loans. This happened for decades, through at least the 1990s. When the USDA's local offices did approve loans to Black farmers, they were often supervised (farmers couldn't spend the borrowed money without receiving item-by-item authorization from the USDA) or late (and in farming, timing is everything). Meanwhile, white farmers were receiving unsupervised, on-time loans. Many say egregious discrimination by local loan officials persists today.

Among those concluding that such racial bias persisted were the USDA's own researchers: In the mid-1990s, they released a report [pdf] which, analyzing data from 1990 to 1995, found "minorities received less than their fair share of USDA money for crop payments, disaster payments, and loans."

Adding insult to injury, when African-American and other minority farmers filed complaints, the USDA did little to address them. In 1983, President Reagan pushed through budget cuts that eliminated the USDA Office of Civil Rights -- and officials admitted they "simply threw discrimination complaints in the trash without ever responding to or investigating them" until 1996, when the office re-opened. Even when there were findings of discrimination, they often went unpaid -- and those that did often came too late, since the farm had already been foreclosed.

In 1997, a USDA Civil Rights Team found the agency's system for handling civil rights complaints was still in shambles [pdf]: the agency was disorganized, the process for handling complaints about program benefits was "a failure," and the process for handling employment discrimination claims was "untimely and unresponsive."

A follow-up report [pdf] by the GAO in 1999 found 44 percent of program discrimination cases, and 64 percent of employment discrimination cases, had been backclogged for over a year.

Taking USDA Discrimination to Court

It was against this backdrop that in 1997, a group of black farmers led by Tim Pigford of North Carolina filed a class action lawsuit against the USDA. In all 22,000 farmers were granted access to the lawsuit, and in 1999 the government admitted wrongdoing and agreed to a $2.3 billion settlement -- the largest civil rights settlement in history.

But African-American farmers had misgivings with the Pigford settlement. For one, only farmers discriminated against between 1981 and 1996 could join the lawsuit. Second, the settlement forced farmers to take one of two options: Track A, to receive an immediate $50,000 cash payout, or Track B, the promise of a larger amount if more extensive documentation was provided -- a challenge given that many farmers didn't keep records.

Many farmers who joined the lawsuit were also denied payment: By one estimate, nine out of 10 farmers who sought restitution under Pigford were denied. The Bush Department of Justice spent 56,000 office hours and $12 million contesting farmers' claims; many farmers feel their cases were dismissed on technicalities.

The Politics Behind the Sherrod Affair

Shortly after coming into office, President Obama and his chief at the Department of Agriculture, Iowa's Tom Vilsack, signaled a change in direction at USDA. Vilsack declared "A New Civil Rights Era at USDA," and stepped-up handling of civil rights claims in the agency.

This year, Vilsack and the USDA also responded to concerns over handling of the Pigford case, agreeing to a historic second settlement -- known as Pigford II -- in April that would deliver another $1.25 billion to farmers who were excluded from the first case. As Vilsack declared:

We have worked hard to address USDA's checkered past so we can get to the business of helping farmers succeed. The agreement reached today is an important milestone in putting these discriminatory claims behind us for good.

But the Pigford II case was very much still alive when right-wing media outlets went after Shirley Sherrod this week. Sherrod herself had received $150,000 from the USDA last year as part of the original Pigford lawsuit, which has been bitterly opposed by Republicans and conservative media.

The settlement is also now a major political battle in Congress: President Obama had put aside $1.15 billion in May to cover Pigford II cases, which the House later approved. But Republicans stripped the money out of their bills, leaving the supplemental spending now being debated in the Senate as the final option to appropriate the funding.

Given the stakes of the Pigford II decision -- which again affirms the present-day consequences of decades of racial discrimination -- and the sharp partisan battle over spending in Congress, black farmer advocates don't think the attacks on Sherrod this week are a coincidence.

And given the history of racial discrimination at USDA, they can't help but note the hypocrisy. As Gary Grant, president of the 20,000-strong Black Farmers & Agriculturalists Association, said in a statement [pdf]:

The statement from Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture, that USDA does not "tolerate" racial discrimination is a complete lie. Talk to almost any family member of a black farmer or check out ... the government's documentation of how USDA employees, on the local and federal level discriminated against black farmers, in particular. And nothing was ever done to penalize the all white officials bent on destroying a society of black farmers across the nation: not one firing, not one charge brought, and not one pension lost. Yet at the first erroneous offering by a conservative blogger that a black woman from USDA might have discriminated, she is immediately forced to resign.

Which begs the question: Where was the Republican and conservative concern over USDA "racism" before this week's swiftboating of Shirley Sherrod?

EBSCOhost: WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? FEMINIST MEMOIR WRITING

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:59:00 +0000

EBSCOhost: WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? FEMINIST MEMOIR WRITING

Just bookmarking this so I won't lose it.

Sarah Palin: Fooling None of the People All of the Time

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:03:00 +0000

I'm re-printing this complete article by Deepak Chopra. Originally published in the San Fran Chronicle, I read it on Huffington Post. It's the best explanation of Palin I've read:

Last fall it seemed as if Sarah Palin would light a fuse and cause a social explosion. Behind her beauty-pageant smile lurked the shadow, the dark side of human nature. Her tactic of appealing to the worst impulses of the electorate had a long history in the Republican Party. Indeed, Palin inherited the selfish, mean-spirited values of another politician with a gleaming smile, Ronald Reagan.

When it first dawned in American politics, the shadow was shocking. Values were turned upside down. The AIDS crisis? Ignore it. They deserve what they got. The deficit? Doesn't matter as long as the rich get what they want. Huge unemployment and falling incomes among the working class? Feed them crank social issues so they have someone to hate. Palin breathes this noxious atmosphere like the clear air of Alaska and thrives on it.

Now, however, Palin brings a smile. When she quit her job as governor, it was obvious that someone had whispered in her ear, "You're fading. Soon you'll be a nobody. Grab the money while you can." And so she did, earning a hefty advance, much of which, fittingly, goes to paying off lawsuits related to her ethical violations while in office. The shadow that seemed so dangerous a year ago has been defanged, reduced to spiteful backbiting against the McCain campaign, the very people who gave Palin her spot in the limelight to begin with.

I hope the left will take a deep breath and stop treating Palin like a diabolical force. The American character has always had a large dose of orneriness in it, and the more ornery you were, the farther west you moved. Alaska has a reputation for being an icebox for malcontents. Palin came straight from the source, and countless Americans root for her. In hard times, being the bellyacher-in-chief is a valid role. Hence the rise of Glenn Beck.

But nobody is being fooled. A recent Gallup poll showed that 67% of responders don't want Palin to run for president. Fear of Palin is ill-advised on two counts. First, fear is what the shadow wants. Without it, the shadow has no power. Second, the left needs to learn how to win graciously. The current upheaval in American society, which has been an enormous threat on many fronts, called forth a president and a constituency that knows how to handle crisis. The voices of sanity are prevailing. The solutions that have emerged on all fronts -- economic, social, and international -- represent the best in the American character.

But you can't expect everyone to join the party. As long as we know that Palin is fooling nobody all of the time, the darker side can be tolerated. The shadow is always with us. Today it's on a book tour.

Swine Flu Vaccine Lawsuit Filed

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:58:00 +0000

Attorney James Turner filed a complaint Friday in federal court in the District of Columbia for a Temporary Restraining Order to halt the distribution, licensing and use of four swine flu vaccines.

Turner said, "The FDA is required by law to establish that a vaccine is safe and effective before it can be given to the public. We are arguing that they did not establish that the vaccine was effective, and did not establish that it was safe. They are trying to get it on the market by a waiver."

Turner also said, "There are no records of clinical trials or peer-reviewed studies demonstrating safety testing. And no medical professional has gone on record stating that H1N1 vaccines are safe for the public."

Legal Team
The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Leslie Fourton, J.D., of New York City, is working with the respected Washington regulatory law firm of Swankin and Turner and a team of legal experts from around the country, including attorneys Larry Becraft, Ala; Alan G. Phillips, N.C.; and Ralph Fucetola, N.J. (aka "The Vitamin Lawyer").

James Turner, of Swankin and Turner, is also chairman of the board of Citizens for Health, a non-profit health activist organization. He was involved in stopping the administration of the 1976 swine flu vaccine when immunization had to be terminated not only because the feared epidemic failed to happen, but because thousands of Americans suffered adverse reactions, including Guillain-Barre syndrome, that in some cases led to paralysis and death.

Advice about Apple's I-Phone and Cells

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:28:00 +0000

Warnings, advice and general information about cell phones from Dr. Mercola.

John Taylor Gatto's "Things Educated People Do"

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:41:00 +0000

Really educated people ...

1) Establish an individual set of values but recognize those of the surrounding community and of the various cultures of the world.

2) Explore their own ancestry, culture, and place.

3) Are comfortable being alone, yet understand dynamics between people and form healthy relationships.

4) Accept mortality, knowing that every choice affects the generations to come.

5) Create new things and find new experiences.

6) Think for themselves; observe, analyze, and discover truth without relying on the opinions of others.

7) Favor love, curiosity, reverence, and empathy rather than material wealth.

8) Choose a vocation that contributes to the common good.

9) Enjoy a variety of new places and experiences but identify and cherish a place to call home.

10) Express their own voice with confidence.

11) Add value to every encounter and every group of which they are a part.

12) Always ask: “Who am I? Where are my limits? What are my possibilities?”

Reagonomic Zombies

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:10:00 +0000

I join Paul Krugman in his dismay over the ability of money to negatively influence politicians considering a public option for healthcare. Here's praying for some sanity and heroism to get this accomplished without Ted Kennedy and with whimpy politicians afraid to lose campaign contributions if they do what's best for the people of this country.

It's a must read article especially if you still think Reagonomics did any good.

R.I.P. Ted Kennedy

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 02:34:00 +0000

I am sad about the Papa Liberal's death. I've read and heard a lot of things about Senator Kennedy this week that I had not known. I didn't know how hard he fought for medicare, or to stop back alley abortions, or for people with disabilities to be treated with dignity, or for civil rights.

Jim Wallis (Left wing Christian): "Ted Kennedy showed you can have passionate and clear political commitments (nobody had stronger ones than he did) and, yet, still reach out to others with very different political views on the basis of shared moral values, love of country, and commitment to the common good.

"We desperately need to heed his voice now: "I hope for an America where we can all contend freely and vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity." His hope should be our goal today."

President Obama: "For nearly five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts.

"His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives -- in seniors who know new dignity; in families that know new opportunity; in children who know education's promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including me.

"In the United States Senate, I can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. His seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth and good cheer. He battled passionately on the Senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintained warm friendships across party lines. And that's one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy."

Root Canals: There is no love tunnel.

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:35:00 +0000

You've probably heard of Dr. Weston Price who has studied indigenous people and their teeth. He also is one of the early dentists who warned against amalgam fillings and root canals. He made a lot of early connections between cancer and bad teeth. It seems that bacteria is the culprit that seeps into the bloodstream from the tip of the root area. Read here what he said about root canals: Root Canal Cover-Up Exposed

Here's to your BRIGHTIE WHITIES! Say cheese.

Mercury Dental Fillings (The AMALGAM Threat)

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:45:00 +0000

If you haven't figured out yet that mercury fillings are killing you, watch this video:

And don't listen to your old-foggie dentist who keeps telling you that you have nothing to worry about. Modern-trained dentists know better. Toxicologists know better. Anyone who knows about toxicity knows better.

Poetry

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:38:00 +0000

I didn't realize Woody was wise, but here he is, thinking, rhyming, summing it all up and making you want to sit under a tree and breathe.

The best article ever on taxes. Relearn all you know.

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:53:00 +0000

Taxes 101

Don't Worry!

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:15:00 +0000

"Worrying is using your imagination to create something you don't want."

--- Abraham Hicks

Sotomayor

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:53:00 +0000

I hope every Hispanic in this country watched the Sotomayor Supreme Court hearings. The arrogant behavior of Republican senators show that they still do not understand the link between their words and their thoughts. They still think it's 1970. And if you missed it, let me tell you, they still look at women as emotional, weak creatures prone to "meltdowns". The questions were so impertinent and irrelevant. I can't imagine a white man being grilled about his belonging to an all-white fraternity or business association as some kind of "proof" that he is a racist.

In The Nation, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, summed up an article on the same subject much better than I can:

"I was proud of Sotomayor's restraint, but I also wanted her to counter attack, to punch back, to show anger. She couldn't do so in part because she is bound by the rules of judicial decorum. She also couldn't do so because of the racialized, gender rules of political engagement that allow white men, from senators to firemen, to express outrage, indignation, and emotion, but disallow those same expressions from women of color.

"The Republican attacks on Sotomayor were not meant to derail her nomination. They were meant to degrade and humiliate as a warning: if you attempt to assert your equality within a system still dominated by white male racial privilege you may get a place at the table, but not without public punishment."

Amnesty International

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:56:00 +0000

Creative Distractions

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:55:00 +0000

Why do I relate to this? (Thanks to my friend Beth Watzke out in Portland for this little film.)

Michael Jackson Montage Footage

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:14:00 +0000

Very sweet.

They Lost Their Lives For Oil

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:14:00 +0000

There's evidence now that oil executives were telling Bush two years before the Iraq War that he needed to get rid of Saddam Hussein in order to stabilize U.S. oil prices.

Read an excerpt of the article "Eager to Tap Iraq's Vast Oil Reserves" here.

It says, "That April 2001 report, 'Strategic Policy Challenges for the 21st Century,' was prepared by the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy and the US Council on Foreign Relations at the request of then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

"In retrospect, it appears that the report helped focus administration thinking on why it made geopolitical sense to oust Hussein, whose country sat on the world's second largest oil reserves.

"'Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East,' the report said."

Do Not Go Gently

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:08:00 +0000

to see this movie: Land of the Lost. Ok, most of you would never consider seeing a Will Ferrell movie. Just in case you agree to go because someone else wants to, don't! Don't Go Gently To That Movie! However, remembering the Sleestaks and seeing their lizardy zombie selves back in scary action was cool for a nano second. And remembering Chaca and that I was attracted to the little cave man was interesting too but only for a nano second. The rest was tortuous. I should have been paying taxes or pulling out my fingernails; it would've been more fun.

Today I Discovered a Hero.

noreply@blogger.com (D.L. Hall) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:06:00 +0000

I recently read about an amazing young man named Aaron Cohen. Maybe you've already heard about him, but I hadn't. I found him on this art site that had photos of Darfur. It is called Exhibit Darfur

Read the bio below about this guy. He's amazing.

Aaron Cohen is a human rights activist who draws his inspiration from the "Jubilee," the ancient law of debt forgiveness and slave liberation. Cohen has sought to establish a modern-day Jubilee movement to free slaves around the world.
Media stories have lauded his work implementing a contemporary Jubilee observance and have called Cohen a "Slave Hunter" for his efforts finding the victims of human trafficking and retrieving thousands from slavery. Cohen was awarded a Commendation from the County of Los Angeles for his efforts combating human trafficking, retrieving victims in Darfur, in California, and sub-contracting on government assignments overseas. On these international missions to Myanmar Burma and to war-torn Iraq-- Cohen worked undercover as a "john," and assessed the phenomenon of slavery from the inside. He was recently named by the World War II Memorial Foundation, the Immortal Chaplains, as the recipient of the 2008 Prize for Humanity. The award is given to "those who risk all to protect others of different faith or ethnic origin", and he was honored with a US Congressional Certificate of Merit for his service in 2008.

Aaron Cohen remains active in human rights missions in Sudan, Iraq, and Burma and is now building partners for upcoming missions this dry season to southern Darfur. "We're happy with the advocacy work the Darfur movement is accomplishing." Cohen said, "and now we have to help those men, women, and children on the ground who are sold into slavery, who are being persecuted, starved to death, or killed. If we work together we can save lives." Activists interested in supporting the humanitarian field work in Sudan this winter can contact Aaron Cohen directly at the email: abolishslavery@gmail.com. Winter missions to Darfur, Sudan will be funded through the Millionkids campaign.