Single-eye vision
“What is seen with one eye has no depth.”
I’m thinking, as I ponder the wisdom of Ursula LeGuin, that American culture is at the end of what it can accomplish with its single-eyed vision. For all our material progress, for all our ability to dominate just about anything or anyone we encounter — this is our history, our manifest destiny — things are falling apart in every sector of society.
What’s left of the media can’t stop selling us our own desperation and anxiety. We keep piling on more of the same — more troops in Afghanistan, more surveillance cameras in our neighborhoods — but it isn’t working. Could it be that we’re not seeing the world the way we need to see it?
The promise the United States once represented to the world has spent itself, and what we have to offer in terms of opportunity, or at least hope, is dwarfed by the spreading shadow of our hubris. And it’s all coming home to roost.
I’m thinking, as I ponder the wisdom of Ursula LeGuin, that American culture is at the end of what it can accomplish with its single-eyed vision. For all our material progress, for all our ability to dominate just about anything or anyone we encounter — this is our history, our manifest destiny — things are falling apart in every sector of society.
What’s left of the media can’t stop selling us our own desperation and anxiety. We keep piling on more of the same — more troops in Afghanistan, more surveillance cameras in our neighborhoods — but it isn’t working. Could it be that we’re not seeing the world the way we need to see it?
The promise the United States once represented to the world has spent itself, and what we have to offer in terms of opportunity, or at least hope, is dwarfed by the spreading shadow of our hubris. And it’s all coming home to roost.
Is this Tom Friedman's "Walter Cronkite Moment" on Afghanistan?
The Iraq war's chief New York Times cheerleader has reversed field on Afghanistan. Does it mean there will be no escalation?
In early 1968, after the devastating Tet Offense, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite pronounced the Vietnam War unwinnable. Lyndon Johnson knew he had "lost middle America" and soon declined to run for a second term. The war dragged on for seven more hellish years. But the hearts and minds of the American public had been lost.
Tom Friedman is no Walter Cronkite. His Times column is influential in certain circles, but has nowhere near the nationally unifying force as Cronkite's evening broadcasts.
On the other hand, his admonition to "Don't Build Up" in Afghanistan indicates that the Pentagon PR blitzkrieg demanding more troops has failed in key corporate circles.
Friedman's arguments are both strategic and monetary. "We simply do not have the Afghan partners, the NATO allies, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interest to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan," he warns.
In early 1968, after the devastating Tet Offense, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite pronounced the Vietnam War unwinnable. Lyndon Johnson knew he had "lost middle America" and soon declined to run for a second term. The war dragged on for seven more hellish years. But the hearts and minds of the American public had been lost.
Tom Friedman is no Walter Cronkite. His Times column is influential in certain circles, but has nowhere near the nationally unifying force as Cronkite's evening broadcasts.
On the other hand, his admonition to "Don't Build Up" in Afghanistan indicates that the Pentagon PR blitzkrieg demanding more troops has failed in key corporate circles.
Friedman's arguments are both strategic and monetary. "We simply do not have the Afghan partners, the NATO allies, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interest to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan," he warns.
Did Obama/McCain choice matter?
There appear to be two teams in Washington playing under the banners of elephants and donkeys. They have different platforms, use different rhetoric, call each other bad names, and (in the case of the elephants) filibuster bills and impeach and prosecute abuses and crimes by the other side. One team wants to provide us with more healthcare, maybe, sort of, and the other does not. One side is hesitant about or even resistant to demonizing or discriminating against foreigners and immigrants and gays and racial minorities, and the other is not. One side wants to protect the right to unionize, maybe, sort of, and the other does not.
But both teams favor Wall Street bailouts, corporate trade agreements, an ever larger military, corporate contributions, bi-partisan gerrymandering, an ever greater presence of military bases abroad, restrictions on ballot access, the continuation and escalation of illegal wars, and extension of the powers to spy without warrants, detain without charges, rendition, torture (yes, torture), make laws by signing-statement or executive order or secret memo, and -- of course -- the assurance of immunity for high officials' war crimes.
But both teams favor Wall Street bailouts, corporate trade agreements, an ever larger military, corporate contributions, bi-partisan gerrymandering, an ever greater presence of military bases abroad, restrictions on ballot access, the continuation and escalation of illegal wars, and extension of the powers to spy without warrants, detain without charges, rendition, torture (yes, torture), make laws by signing-statement or executive order or secret memo, and -- of course -- the assurance of immunity for high officials' war crimes.
Accepting the prize
I may be wrong, but I think Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because the selection committee was feeling as soul sick as I do at the ebbing of humanity’s great opportunity to corral global militarism and fundamentally reprioritize.
Obama’s election last year rode on global aspirations for — at the very least — a saner world, a humanizing of the values around which nations organize themselves. He fused, or so several billion people believed, the peace, civil rights and environmental movements of the last half century with the realpolitik of presidential elections, and made impossible dreams begin to flicker in the real world.
“If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do,” said Thorbjorn Jagland, the committee chairman, adding ominously: “It could be too late to respond three years from now.”
Obama’s election last year rode on global aspirations for — at the very least — a saner world, a humanizing of the values around which nations organize themselves. He fused, or so several billion people believed, the peace, civil rights and environmental movements of the last half century with the realpolitik of presidential elections, and made impossible dreams begin to flicker in the real world.
“If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do,” said Thorbjorn Jagland, the committee chairman, adding ominously: “It could be too late to respond three years from now.”
Beware a Times/Pentagon "virtual coup" on Afghanistan
Some military coups are still done the old-fashioned way. Tanks surround the capital, generals grab the radio station, the slaughter begins.
Here our the Declaration of Independence scorned King George III for elevating his army over the colonial legislatures. The Founders opposed a standing army. Our first Commander George Washington warned against military entanglements. So did Dwight Eisenhower nearly two centuries later. These "quaint" monuments to civilian rule form the core of our constitutional culture.
So when the Pentagon wants to trash inconvenient opposition and escalate yet another war, it seeks subtler means. For example the "virtual coup" now being staged in league with the New York Times, aimed at plunging us catastrophically deeper into Afghanistan.
It's how they drove us into the abyss in Vietnam and Iraq. It demands we decide who will rule---the Pentagon, or the public.
Here our the Declaration of Independence scorned King George III for elevating his army over the colonial legislatures. The Founders opposed a standing army. Our first Commander George Washington warned against military entanglements. So did Dwight Eisenhower nearly two centuries later. These "quaint" monuments to civilian rule form the core of our constitutional culture.
So when the Pentagon wants to trash inconvenient opposition and escalate yet another war, it seeks subtler means. For example the "virtual coup" now being staged in league with the New York Times, aimed at plunging us catastrophically deeper into Afghanistan.
It's how they drove us into the abyss in Vietnam and Iraq. It demands we decide who will rule---the Pentagon, or the public.
Starting Another Year of War in Afghanistan
October 2009 has begun with the New York Times reporting that “the president, vice president and an array of cabinet secretaries, intelligence chiefs, generals, diplomats and advisers gathered in a windowless basement room of the White House for three hours on Wednesday to chart a new course in Afghanistan.”
As this month begins the ninth year of the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, “windowless” seems to be an apt metaphor. The structure of thought and the range of options being debated in Washington’s high places are notably insular. The “new course” will be a permutation of the present course.
While certainty is lacking, steely resolve is evident. An unspoken mantra remains in effect: When in doubt, keep killing. The knotty question is: Exactly who and how?
News accounts are filled with stories about options that mix “counterinsurgency” with “counterterrorism.” The thicker the jargon in Washington, the louder the erudite tunes from the latest best and brightest -- whistling past graveyards, to be filled by people far away.
As this month begins the ninth year of the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, “windowless” seems to be an apt metaphor. The structure of thought and the range of options being debated in Washington’s high places are notably insular. The “new course” will be a permutation of the present course.
While certainty is lacking, steely resolve is evident. An unspoken mantra remains in effect: When in doubt, keep killing. The knotty question is: Exactly who and how?
News accounts are filled with stories about options that mix “counterinsurgency” with “counterterrorism.” The thicker the jargon in Washington, the louder the erudite tunes from the latest best and brightest -- whistling past graveyards, to be filled by people far away.
That Nobel screams: "Out of Afghanistan & Go for Solartopia!"
Above the din, the Nobel message screams: "U.S. OUT OF AFGHANISTAN, & GO FOR SOLARTOPIA!"
It's now up to US to use that Nobel to win that dual prize.
This award never went to two of the most critical peacemakers of the 20th Century: Mahatma Gandhi, who pioneered the successful use of mass non-violence; and Eleanor Roosevelt, feminist godmother of the New Deal's social programs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It has not gone to Cesar Chavez, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Thich Nhat Hanh, John XXIII and so many more.
But yes it did to Barack Obama. Why?
Right now we have no choice but to defer to the committee that took the plunge. Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland explained that "It could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now we have an opportunity to respond---all of us."
Respond to what?
"We couldn't get around these deep changes that are taking place" under Obama.
ARE taking place? Or WILL take place? Or MIGHT take place if somebody plays this card right.
Say you're a committee member desperate for peace and a solution to climate chaos.
It's now up to US to use that Nobel to win that dual prize.
This award never went to two of the most critical peacemakers of the 20th Century: Mahatma Gandhi, who pioneered the successful use of mass non-violence; and Eleanor Roosevelt, feminist godmother of the New Deal's social programs and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
It has not gone to Cesar Chavez, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Thich Nhat Hanh, John XXIII and so many more.
But yes it did to Barack Obama. Why?
Right now we have no choice but to defer to the committee that took the plunge. Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland explained that "It could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now we have an opportunity to respond---all of us."
Respond to what?
"We couldn't get around these deep changes that are taking place" under Obama.
ARE taking place? Or WILL take place? Or MIGHT take place if somebody plays this card right.
Say you're a committee member desperate for peace and a solution to climate chaos.
Obama will also lose the Afghani Olympics
The stunning rejection of Barack Obama's play for the Chicago Olympics had better teach him a good lesson about escalating in Afghanistan.
Ignoring fierce grassroots resistance in Chicago itself, the Obamas flew to Copenhagen with Mayor Richard Daley to "persuade" the International Olympic Committee to give the games to the Windy City.
Imagine yourself a member of the Olympic Committee as the almighty President of the United States and his entourage, with the world media in tow, swoops down from Olympus to tell you how to make your decision.
Are we surprised Chicago was summarily bounced?
Imagine yourself an Afghani villager as the almighty President of the United States shoots down from Olympus those murderous drones that kill your family and your neighbors, to be followed by heavily armed troops who---after eight years of brutal slaughter---now want to "help."
Obama's decision on Afghanistan will define the rest of his presidency---and the fate of our nation.
He can mimic Lyndon Johnson and senselessly squander American lives and treasure. He will then finish as a slumped, tragic failure (along with the rest of us).
Ignoring fierce grassroots resistance in Chicago itself, the Obamas flew to Copenhagen with Mayor Richard Daley to "persuade" the International Olympic Committee to give the games to the Windy City.
Imagine yourself a member of the Olympic Committee as the almighty President of the United States and his entourage, with the world media in tow, swoops down from Olympus to tell you how to make your decision.
Are we surprised Chicago was summarily bounced?
Imagine yourself an Afghani villager as the almighty President of the United States shoots down from Olympus those murderous drones that kill your family and your neighbors, to be followed by heavily armed troops who---after eight years of brutal slaughter---now want to "help."
Obama's decision on Afghanistan will define the rest of his presidency---and the fate of our nation.
He can mimic Lyndon Johnson and senselessly squander American lives and treasure. He will then finish as a slumped, tragic failure (along with the rest of us).
I am Barack Obama's political prisoner now
The United States Department of Justice has once again made a mockery of its lofty and pretentious title.
After releasing an original and continuing disciple of death cult leader Charles Manson who attempted to shoot President Gerald Ford, an admitted Croatian terrorist, and another attempted assassin of President Ford under the mandatory 30-year parole law, the U.S. Parole Commission deemed that my release would "promote disrespect for the law."
If only the federal government would have respected its own laws, not to mention the treaties that are, under the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land, I would never have been convicted nor forced to spend more than half my life in captivity. Not to mention the fact that every law in this country was created without the consent of Native peoples and is applied unequally at our expense. If nothing else, my experience should raise serious questions about the FBI's supposed jurisdiction in Indian Country.
The Columbus Free Press talks with David Swanson, author of <i>Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union</i>
SPECIAL EVENT: David Swanson will be in Columbus at 7pm on Sept. 9 for a book signing and meet-and-greet at Areopagitica, a bookstore at 3510 N. High St. near Oakland Park in Clintonville. For more information, contact Connie Hammond at chammon@columbus.rr.com
F.P.: Tell us about the book.
David Swanson: The book is called Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and forming a more perfect union, and as that title might suggest, it’s somewhat divided into a couple of parts. One part – what’s wrong, and one part, what do we do about it.
The part about what’s wrong deals largely with the real acceleration during the past eight years of the transfer of power -- from the Congress, and the courts and the people to the White House, and the crimes and abuses but also the systemic changes that need to be undone and reversed
F.P.: Tell us about the book.
David Swanson: The book is called Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and forming a more perfect union, and as that title might suggest, it’s somewhat divided into a couple of parts. One part – what’s wrong, and one part, what do we do about it.
The part about what’s wrong deals largely with the real acceleration during the past eight years of the transfer of power -- from the Congress, and the courts and the people to the White House, and the crimes and abuses but also the systemic changes that need to be undone and reversed