| Wednesday, February 19, 2003 |  |
| Political Threads... Peace Protests, Opinions & Blogging Research Help! |
 Great articles about the recent world-wide peace protests and the impending war... about oil or not? And the St. Petersburg Times on-line reminds us 'Do not overlook importance of antiwar protests' despite Bush and Blair's defiance of them.... and we must REALIZE that indeed we are involved with what is perhaps the largest peace protests in world history. As In These Times reports:"New YorkâThe massive, coordinated outpouring of anti-war protest in more than 600 different cities across the globe on February 15 was something unprecedented in world history. Commentators reached and grasped to come up with anything to compare it with: The parties that wreathed the world during the millennium? The revolutions of 1848?I keep hearing on these right-wing radio stations and in 'their' blog articles, that the right says it doesn't want or advocate war... but they compare our current situation with what Churchill went through in England with Hitler's impending threat. One compelling argument is indeed analogous to this recent time in our history. The question they ask: do the peace rally-ers think that this is peace? If Iraq/ Saddam Hussein are indeed planning on creating 'weapons of mass distruction'... what are they planning on doing with them? .., is the argument. They add that therefore the anti-war movement is helping Saddam. Another question put to 'us' is: Why don't we have signs about Saddam instead of Bush. I'd agree with this one. Saddam indeed is using the protests which seem mostly against Bush and Blair to prove his innocence. That isn't right. It is true that WWII would not have been so huge, had Churchill been heeded much earlier in the game. The more time Hitler had to prepare for his own aims. You can read Senator John McCain's latest stance on this. Good food for thought, to follow all the politics of this complex situation. How could we disarm Iraq, then? I heard an interview on the radio over the weekend with a Daniel Rosenthal about the brilliant idea of using the Arab League in disarming Saddam. (this is all I could find on him in English in Google} --- I also think it might have been on the Gary Farber show -- but the only thing I can find in Google is this blog which is quite mysterious.... anyone?) Well, this Rosenthall said that the general collective psyche of the Arab nations, feel very slighted by the U.S. and they don't believe their Middle East radio broadcasts about democracy. From much knowledge and first-hand research into the subject, Rosenthal deducts that by the U.S. utilizing the political power of the Arab League, which was created at the end of WWII by the British Government, there would be a great change in attitude towards the U.S. He also cited Bush's great mistake with his now infamous 'axis of evil' speech of over a year ago. That by grouping your enemies together, you give them a common cause for aligning where it wouldn't have been obvious before. For example, the secular philosophy of Saddam is quite opposed to the orthodox fanatics of Al Queda... and they would be considered just as much enemies as the U.S. and Al Queda are. Furthermore, North Korea is now known to be a supplier of military arsenals to Iraq. .... If anyone knows where we can find out more about Rosenthal, please help! [ Politics/ Activism | 2003-02-19 15:38 | 5 comments | PermaLink ] More > |
| Today's Threads.. Twisting Tighter Tougher & Through to Transformation? |
 According to the crazy right-wing AM radio stations and commentators I listen to as I descend from the Morongo Basin to the Choachella Valley every day, in a recent statement Senator McCain tells Clinton and Carter to 'shut up'. (Not, though I can't find this transcript yet in any news searchs!) ....
For example, far right commentator Glen Beck thinks that it's the Clinton's desire to rule the world by 2008. Which won't be too bad in my view. I see Clinton a lot like JFK. Obviously both men sold their souls to the devil to get into office. Clinton I am sure was some instrument with the Iran-Contra funds when he was governor of Arkansas; and it is well documented about JFK's daddy's mob and Hoffa buddies buying votes (see 'Double Cross' by the Gioccana bros). But there is an energy for lack of a better word that both men took on and almost embodied. They 'rose to the occasion' in a symbolic and thus important sense. I was lucky to experience the European view of Clinton in his last year in office whilst I was in the UK. An incredible statesman. Could talk beyond rhetoric without notes for an hour at a time. Yes, I know my conspiracy and liberal friends would say he was just as bad in policy as present King George---and, yes, just like Blair, both men represent a 'labour' and 'democratic' platform that is far more to the right and sold out to corrupt corporate interests. No longer seeming to care about the eroding working/ middle class common folks.... and, I agree. Yet, there is something inherently cool and smartly hip about Clinton... some Light with a capital L--that one can almost sense or detect in his very presence and in the invisible forces behind what he symbolizes whenever he takes the podium or has a lucid moment captured on camera... That's where I draw my analogy with Kennedy. Also the very atmosphere of business and the culture in the country. Where the money was hot. The idea that information, knowledge and virtual realities possessed an inherent value beyond what the current profit margin was. Of course the dot com bubble needed to burst to some extent. But the money although still corporate and thus still corrupt---was a step in the right direction, not the same power as the old money of tobacco and oil that seems to be behind the Bush camp. So, Beck says that Clinton is jockeying for UN Secretary-General. Here's a few negative ideas on the matter; ... Sure he is still looking out for his own grandeur and political career. But no matter, I feel he could be well 'used' in these situations. And here Laura Ingraham warns: "As conservatives long suspected, Bill Clinton's loyalty, as evidenced in this speech, is not primarily to this country. His loyalty is to the liberal European elites who adore both him and the prospect of the world where America is no longer the world's sole super power. (Clinton also warned against US efforts to "dominate and run the world.")Similarly, Beck 'warns', what if in 2008 the then UN Secretary-General Clinton is hosting a party for his wife the eve of the election---who will run the world then? None of these 'warnings' frighten me. Rather a deliver a strange surreal hope and even a promise amist all the current mayhem... if we could make it to 2008. Maybe the fall of Rome won't hurt so bad if a former Casesar--having been matured, humbled and even more enlightened--is involved with it's empiricism's punishment and potential reform on the global stage... and if Hillary keeps her spine up! [ Politics/ Activism | 2003-02-19 13:30 | 6 comments | PermaLink ] More > |