TIANANMEN SQUARE – 20 YEARS LATER

Today marks the twentieth anniversary of the Chinese Tiananmen Square protests, when, on June 3-4, 1989, students followed by peasants and factory workers filled the square demanding a more democratic government.

Tanks and soldiers came and the brutal repression of the people was re-established amid gun fire and tear gas.

The world watched and did – nothing.

Not much has changed since then; the Chinese government continues its brutal inhumane acts against its own people and, on this anniversary of what the Chinese government claims was a nonevent, Tiananmen Square was closed to any who wished to mark the date by holding vigil where they lost loved ones.

"We've been under 24-hour surveillance for a week and aren't able to leave home to mourn. It's totally inhuman," said Xu Jue, whose son was 22 when he was shot in the chest by soldiers and bled to death on June 4, 1989.

While China tries to black out any images that point to dissent amongst the people, tens of thousands of people showed up for a candlelight vigil in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park.

Other world governments have asked China to acknowledge the events and examine their role in human rights abuses, but an unapologetic Chinese government continues to insist the world should mind its own business.

And so I hope everyone will pause for a moment to consider the plight of the Chinese people as well as other people all over the world suffering and dying for their desire to have peace and dignity and freedom.

In the words of Jacob Marley's ghost, "Mankind is our business!"

Reading the riot act - again

I remember when "subornation of perjury" entered the common parlance; back when they told us it was a crime for Bill Clinton to say "don't tell my wife" even though he wasn't actually on trial for cheating on Hillary. It's all zipped away in my hypocrisy directory along with Ann Coulter's call for Federal Judges to be poisoned and the amazing comment about me on another blog where I was accused of calling for the bloody decapitation of Rush Limbaugh when I said that heads should roll at Fox News. Fairness, balance and objectivity, if I could find much of it, would occupy a smaller file.

None the less, it may be that incitements to violence have at long last lost some of whatever it was that protected them. Racist Radio bloviator, blogger and frequent guest of Sean Hannity, Hal Turner has been arrested in Connecticut after he advised Connecticut Catholics to get out their guns and go after two legislators and an Ethics Committee official. Is there a difference between that and asking listeners to poison Judges? Perhaps someone in Connecticut thought the threat a little too credible; a little too specific, seeing that Turner promised on his blog to publish the addresses of his targets. Perhaps a little too much not to take seriously following the latest murder of Dr. Tiller.

"Mr. Turner's comments are above and beyond the threshold of free speech,"

said Police Chief Michael J. Fallon according to Raw Story today.

"He is inciting others through his website to commit acts of violence and has created fear and alarm. He should be held accountable for his conduct."

Yes he should.

Does this signal the beginning of an era when people are called to take responsibility for their words? Don't be silly, but if prompts the media to begin to reassess those they dub "conservatives" I think all of us should welcome it no matter what we call ourselves.

¿qué has dicho?

My first reaction as a detail oriented person, was that Bustelo was an Italian brand of coffee and Pilon would have been a better choice if your trying to stereotype someone. My second reaction was "what the hell is he thinking?" Is he trying to tell us that Sonia Sotomayor is no more than some ethnic fortune teller whose advice is sold along with plantains and lotto tickets in some Puerto Rican grocery store? (and by the way, aren't those Puerto Ricans backward and picturesque?)

So what are you saying here, Mr. Danziger? Beats me - what about you?

Sticks and stones

We have come a short way toward a human society that recognizes our simian heritage of ganging up on, stereotyping, dominating and persecuting one group or another, real or created for the purpose, but it's a long road and I don't expect ever to see the end of it. Does our language reflect our resistance to women who step outside the roles, the personalities, occupations, attitudes and feelings our religion and popular culture allow? It does and a culture that exploits the most vulgar and ignorant and hostile people by making them role models and their ugly ways a thing to be aspired to, can't be expected to change without a fight. It's a fight not only against meanness and small mindedness itself, but against big corporations that make a lot of money marketing the paraphernalia and associating their soft drinks, vehicles, clothes and music with the self righteous vulgarians. And of course we can't count out Big Religion and the martial spirit of war loving America either.

Of course we all have our noses rightly rubbed in some things but there's a tendency to cash in on the enlightened counterculture as well and sometimes to absurd extremes. I was, for instance, reprimanded some time ago by some 30-somethings when talking about Rwanda. I had used the word Batutsi and was immediately identified as a racist because I didn't use the "preferred" term: the Tutsi People. That would of course be cause for someone of that tribe to smile - or perhaps anyone speaking a language of the Bantu family, since that's the proper way to refer to someone of that ethnicity -- just as the Ganda people are Baganda and speak Luganda in the country of Uganda. Sometimes we're just parroting ignorant opinion when looking for ignorant opinion to feel superior to. Sometimes we're using our enlightened purity of thought to be bigots toward others.

In a culture that defines any word by the way the 12 year olds are using it, it's not surprising that we can't even get schools to include American classics that use the "N" word if they were written by a white man like Samuel Clemens. It's easier to call a man who was always on the side of minorities and against slavery a racist, than to recognize the flexibility of the language we invoke every time we use it wrongly. Have we lost the idea that racism, bigotry, prejudice are intentions and not a list of words? Can't we laugh at the righteous feelings we give ourselves for calling a tiger Asian instead of the Asiatic that was preferred before the non-asian word police told us, without adequate explanation, that it was wrong? Has anyone mentioned receantly that "Caucasian" is a racist word? Not likely.

There's something terrible about "Asiatic" that we don't risk enquiring too deeply into but we don't mind giggling and japing at anything about a woman of a certain age by calling her "granny" every time she steps out of the rocking chair and puts down the knitting. I write hundreds of letters, that do no more than get me labeled as "Gramps" because I object to the wisdom and right thinking of the giggling class.

So maybe I can be forgiven for not being as carefully and visibly sensitive to the programs of movements and associations intended to improve the human condition and because it's as often as not misguided toward me and my intentions and my vocabulary. For one thing, the predominant religion of this country, the one people like to say should be substituted for the constitution, is based on stereotyping Jews and in a negative fashion and it's so ingrained in the culture that people who have made a career out being called tolerant and indeed Liberal don't bother to notice it.

I'm not talking about the "Conservative" troll who went after me at The Reaction a while back, calling me a "kike." I'm talking about people like Gary Trudeau, whose "Bloomsbury" strip has advocated for equality, fraternity and all the other good stuff, but last Sunday told us that the "Old Testament" God was crabby and snarky while the "New Testament" was all about Love. Of course that's not born out by the texts, unless it's the Sunday School excerpts selected to deceive small children, but neither is the assertion that Jesus the Pacifist "Snapped" at the "Money Lenders" in the Temple, because of course despite 1800 years or so of pernicious propaganda, it was money changers, not lenders who were there to prevent people from breaking the first and second commandments by bringing Greek or Roman coins into the building. Jesus like his countrymen from Israel, didn't like the sale of sacrificial animals or the Temple itself - otherwise he didn't give a damn about the exchange rate.

So ingrained is the stereotype of the perfidious money grubbing Jew that all our careful and choreographed speech can't prevent us from illustrating our ignorance, bigotry and condescention, particularly while our "beliefs" demand that we preserve it -- and if we were to accept that the Roman Empire killed Jesus, we would have to start all over and clergymen would have to get jobs.

As humans, we all have a strong need to set ourselves off against and superior to the Other and much that we do in the name of ridding ourselves of prejudice, ignorance and arrogance are just another form of it.

A Hippin' and a Hoppin' (Good Golly Miss Molly?)…. Or, "You the Cutest Little Jailbird I Ever Did See." (Elvis)

Was going to post this as a comment, but it seems a bit too long for that, so here goes, in reply to Squid's "ethics of words" posts and comments.

On the hippity hoppity genre, yes I've long had a Jurassic dislike of most of it. Wouldn't condemn the entirety since it's possible for people to do intelligent and creative things in any artistic form. That said, what I hear a lot of – usually at supersonic jet decibels (which seems to me a deliberately hostile gesture: don't like my music? eff all y'all!) – is racial animosity, gender-based hate and degradation, praising of a vicious, depraved lifestyle centered on impenetrability ("hardness") and violence that few listeners would dare to practice (or, one may hope, would even want to practice). A lot of them probably just enjoy the beat and think it makes them seem cool, or something like that. Are they even listening to the words? Best send-up of hip-hop culture I've seen lately: that episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm in which Larry advises the "it" rapper Crazee-Eyez Killa on his lyrics. It's priceless watching these two huddle over a string of ridiculous boasts, obscenities, and threats.

Some who defend certain kinds of rap are buying into a time-honored – and very flawed – theory of art that responds to any and all criticism with the inane utterance, "Don't blame me; I'm just telling it like it is." These people haven't read the utterly utter Oscar Wilde, evidently, because his put-downs of realism as a method in art are decisive: everyone knows the critical dictum "life imitates art far more than art imitates life." Wilde also said in defiance of Matthew Arnold that the critic's task is "to see the object as in itself it really is not." Bravo, Oscar! But best of all is his observation that Hamlet's insistence that dramatic players "hold the mirror up to nature" merely proves the man was afflicted with "absolute insanity on all matters pertaining to art." Speak the speech, Oscar! But seriously, the point here is that perhaps artists, while their first responsibility is simply to do what they must because they are creative people, might also do well to consider that art hath a shaping power over the mind and perhaps even regarding our conduct. I'm starting to sound like a neoclassical moralist, but I've long said that those who deny the power of art to shape and influence us are telling us it is among life's "trifles, light as air." Strip art of its danger altogether, tell us it's just entertainment or adornment, and we trivialize it. This is not to say that politicians and priggish religious fanatics should be allowed to censor artistic expression at will. It's up to il popolo to patronize or not to patronise what we like and don't like. È la cosa nostra, non è vero?

As for the popularity of prison life and lingo …. I've noticed that there are even television shows devoted to this lurid and, finally, sad theme. I can hardly think of anything more vulgar and degrading, or more revealing of the sickening crudity and moral imbecility of an entire culture, than this fad. It is as if a bunch of domestic puppies (may I use the word "bourgeoisie" here?) get a thrill from watching the doings of their wild cousins, the wolves. The role this piffle plays in the cultural imaginary is obvious: nearly every time you hear a joke about (or indeed any reference whatsoever to) prison, out comes the obligatory sneering mention of homosexual rape. First, that practice is almost certainly much less common than the commenters imply, and second, it betrays the depraved sexual aggressivity of the unincarcerated commenter. We rightly denounce the political and "military" use of rape against women in places like Bosnia or Darfur, but then we tout what we imagine to be male-on-male rape camps as normal manifestations of our sense of justice. No wonder there was so little outcry here about Abu-Ghraib, or, as our learned former president of blessed memory might call it, Aboogaroogah (thanks to David Corn, if memory serves, for that silly pronunciation). There would be more to say about this had I time. Perhaps some will pick it up as a thread? What I'm addressing is not surprising at all. With her usual acumen, Squid delineates the issue well: placing males as females and then insulting them is the oldest trick in the book: indeed, the worst insult men can think of to put down other men describes what half of them seem to believe a female should do for them on a first date. Preferably before they've said hello….

The Ethics of Words and Language

If you are Caucasian like me - Imagine, if you will, being so angry with an African American person that you hollered “NIGGER!” at them? Go on – imagine that? Can you? Does it make you cringe at the thought? Does it fill you with horror that you are uttering a word – angrily and hatefully and publicly used by many whites during and before the civil rights movement? Does it conjure up horrific images of lynching in your mind?

If you are like me – you never could and never would EVER so insult an African American person – no matter how angry you were. No matter how justified you felt in your anger. If we white folk were to all allow this word to begin to permeate our discourse again, how do you think it would make the African American community feel? That perhaps all of their efforts at striving for equality – in the face of many hurdles – were all for nothing? Were slipping away?

Yes – some African Americans use this term towards each other – I don’t understand this – but then again – I am not African American. But I do know and respect that they do NOT consider it acceptable for we white folk to do so.

Fair enough.

Well – now that we’ve imagined this horrific scenario – a society that started hatefully and angrily hurling the word NIGGER around again – imagine this – a society in which the word BITCH began to be used again widely and publicly in all circles of society.

Guess what – it’s not that hard to imagine because that is precisely the society within which we live.

Now to speak from my heart as a middle-agish woman who has been striving for respect and equality within a patriarchal world most of her life - whenever I hear a woman – ANY woman called a bitch I am saddened to the core of my being. I get angry. I feel PERSONALLY insulted. Any society that accepts the calling of one woman a BITCH is only one breath away from hurling the SLUR in my face. I begin to despair, to wonder what I have been struggling for. What have so many women struggled for? Why is BITCH gaining – again – in PUBLIC popularity but NIGGER is not – or any other racial/ethnic slur that we no longer dare publicly condone? Why are women not allowed the same amount of respect? Women of ANY race or ethnicity?

And when I hear a woman call another woman a bitch the pain in my soul is beyond expressible words. I think to myself – she just doesn’t get it. But why doesn’t she get it? Increasingly I hear my college students – young women – angrily call each other bitches. Where did they get the message that this is ok? The answer is – they never got the message that it ISN’T. I am increasingly appalled by the lack of knowledge of my students and even of women my own age about the history of women - of all racial and ethnic backgrounds - and their struggles. A history that deserves respect. A history that - if it were properly taught and appreciated - might make us more respectful of the use of language with respect to women. With respect to gender.

Last semester I had to explain to my class what the Women's Lib movement was and when it was - they hadn't a blessed clue.

One of the leading feminist journals for years has been BITCH MAGAZINE. I have never been terribly comfortable with the title but I do recognize what this literary champion of feminism is trying to do within ITS OWN community – to reclaim the word positively. To neutralize it. While I confess I think this to be a naïve venture, they absolutely do NOT advocate allowing the word to be used by men or women as part of everyday discourse, angry or otherwise. In fact – quite the opposite.

Now lest anyone think this particular journal is responsible for the continual, pervasive, hateful use of this term – hardly – it is a little-read journal read almost exclusively by ardent feminists.

I am also appalled at the use of this word in liberal circles – the political faction most associated – rightly or wrongly – with human rights. The blind hypocrisy simply boggles the mind.

So – I am begging anyone - man, woman, white, black, purple or green - who reads this post – PLEASE! – if you ever feel compelled to hurl this foul word at a woman of any race, any ethnic background or any political or spiritual belief – stop & imagine calling an African American person that you were angry at nigger. To my ears – it’s the same thing. Just as nigger will be forever associated with racial hatred and injustice – so bitch continues to be heavy ladened with sexism, if not outright misogyny. Insults that target a person’s race, gender, ethnicity, religion – need to go the way of the dinosaurs if we are ever to live in a society of civil discourse that truly respects its members for both their differences & their similarities.

Language is and always has been part of human evolution – both in spoken and written form. How we express ourselves as individuals and as a society defines us to our very core. Language is an expression of personal values, societal values and concerns. Language matters and words – the essential component of language – matter.

Gloria Steinem, Susan B. Anthony, bell hooks - and all my living & dead foremothers deserve a better legacy. Please help me pass it on to our children. Because if we don’t – then CUNT – yes, CUNT – will be the next word to become part of our everyday vernacular. And yet another slur aimed at our daughters. Our mothers. Wives. Girl-friends.

Oh - But wait – it already IS.

Raping for Freedom

Somebody must be running a little bit scared since the Commander Guy has put away his toys and has entered the stage, making excuses about torture. It's legal and I did it to protect you he said in Michigan last night and perhaps many of those people who decide they're "conservatives" and therefore trust whatever the Republican government says, will buy the story despite their pretended anti-government stance. "I'm from the government and I'm here to inspect your hamburger meat" scares the hell out of them, but "I'm from the government and I rape and murder women and children to protect you" slides down the throat as easily as the Flavor-Aid in Jonestown.

To be up-front about it, I think the experiment is over and democracy lost, but as a cynical observer of our national hypocrisy I'm anticipating a great deal of entertainment if and when the statements of General Taguba and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are graphically depicted to the public as irrefutable proof. I truly want to see the Decider reduced to justifying the sodomy of little boys to "protect" us. I want to see him justify his love of war and conquest with unscrupulous cowardice. I want to hear Cheney justify shoving light sticks and batons up the rectums of crying and screaming teenagers as "saving lives." Of course they've already done that, but they've portrayed it only as making horned and bearded terrorist devils "uncomfortable" and the man who delights in shooting tame birds laughs at our squeamishness.

I want to hear Rush and Ann tell us that American prison guards were justified in forcing oral sex on captured Muslim women "because they might know something" and we all know they wanted it. I want to hear the lot of them giggle at these pictures. I want to hear them tell us that Iraq was not justified at rising up against us for these acts alone, costing us thousands of lives.

No, we didn't torture anyone, but when we did, it was legal because we make the law and the Geneva convention doesn't apply because old women and boys don't wear uniforms and besides Geneva is in a foreign country when the men are all girly Liberals and Festus, Missouri would long since have become a Taliban stronghold if we hadn't. You may laugh or cry or sputter like a Republican, but that's been the argument.

Did Bush and his henchmen actually save my life in his chambers of horror? If so, my life is worth nothing and your life and your honor is worth less than nothing if you defend it.

Citizens United against democracy

Some days it doesn't feel like it's worth getting up. I was hoping to sleep late this morning, but I was awakened at 8:01 by the phone and being too groggy to check the caller ID which would have told me it wasn't anything I should answer, I picked up.

Of course it was yet another seditious Republican hate group calling itself Citizens United trying once again to vilify the president by conducting a "brief poll" which of course consisted of a minute's hysterical rant by David Bossie ( who brags about having investigated the Clinton Administration and has written vituperative and not too factual books on Al Gore and John Kerry) about how Obama is destroying America and heaps praise on Limbaugh and Fox News. A fulsomely perky female voice returned and asked me which is more damaging for America:

1. Obama's massive tax and spending increases,
2. or his inexperienced, naive and weak foreign policy agenda?

Well, I won't mention my reaction to the cheerful little twit . I was not my usual kind self, and there were questionable expletives amongst my lecture about forced choice questions and dishonest polls and dishonest politicians attacking Democracy, I must say, but I'm sure she had me down as choosing one of the above despite my tirade about Bossie being a seditious enemy of all I hold dear.

Like everything else about the Republican sleaze machine, it's based on deception anyway and their "polls" have no actual validity. Of course I wasn't my usual kind self to the folks representing Newt Gingrich or his "poll" of leading questions last week either. Fake polls seem to be the way to get us, exhausted by the 18 months of hysterical telephone opinion shouting, to participate. Everyone wants his opinion heard: not everyone is smart enough to realize he's being used.

Newt, surprisingly, is no friend of Bossie. According to the Washington Post, when he was fired from his job as an investigator working for Representative Dan Burton (R-IN) on the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee in 1998, Speaker Gingrich said to Burton of Bossie's behavior:

"I'm embarrassed for you, I'm embarrassed for myself, and I'm embarrassed for the [House Republican] conference at the circus that went on at your committee."

Indeed, even George H. W. Bush said of Bossie:

"We will do whatever we can to stop any filthy campaign tactics"

and W, himself no stranger to sleazy campaign tactics and not known for his sense of shame, asked his supporters not to support him as well.

But such is the fever of Obama Derangement Syndrome that this turd has again floated to the surface of the cesspool and who knows, perhaps will emerge from your telephone while you're trying to catch up on your sleep or eat your dinner or watch TV of an evening. But why wait?

If you have time on your hands today, try calling 866-635-8661 and ask Citizens United about their opinion of people who try to undermine our government "in time of war" or perhaps throw any of their other nauseous accusations back at them. Tell 'em Fogg sent ya. Tell them you're taking a poll.

Torture, Cheney, and Spineless Democrats

First, the good news. Chicago-based conservative radio host Eric "Mancow" Muller underwent waterboarding in an effort to silence critics of the procedure by showing, once and for all, that it is not torture (no, that's not the good part). But, as it turned out, Muller decided waterboarding is torture. I'm thrilled for Mancow's revelation; hopefully his words rang true in the ears of torture excusers across the land.

Here's the video:



Now some more good news. A former 14-year interrogator thoroughly rebuked last week's remarks by former Vice President Cheney on torture. The interrogator has overseen more than 1,000 interrogations and conducted over 300 himself in Iraq, including the interrogation of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. And guess what? He did it all using traditional methods - no torture. Here's the video (a quadruple-level, immediate must-watch):



And now even more good news (we're on a roll). General Petraeus has endorsed Obama's close Gitmo/no more torture decisions.

I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

With respect to Guantanamo. I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees.

That's pretty staunch support from a very prominent military leader (and one who has been praised up and down by all manner of conservatives).

And now the bad, yet unsurprising, news. The Democrats are wimps. I know, I know. It's a shock. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in particular, is a wimp. The Nevada senator reportedly led the charge against the bill to provide funding to close Gitmo out of a concern of appearing too "liberal". Reid is, justifiably, afraid of losing his senate seat. But maybe, instead of trying to play politics with issues as important as national security and torture, he should do his job. Just a thought. It is nothing short of astounding that even though the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House and have at their helm the most charismatic, pragmatic leader in a generation (that being Obama) they are still bowing to Republican ideology at every turn. Furthermore Obama has already paved the road for them by taking very early stands on torture and closing Gitmo. All they have to do is follow. Yet they are completely inept at doing even that. Someone mentioned to me the other day that the Democrats are still acting like their in the minority (and the Republicans, unfortunately, think they're still in the majority). Mr. Reid, grow a pair or get out.

--

Originally posted at The Political Panorama.

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECISION ON PROPOSITION 8: COWARDICE, STUPIDITY, OR CLEVERNESS?

California’s highest court hath spoken (perhaps “stammered” might be a better word choice). Here is the background. Last year (May 15, 2008), the same high court struck down a law passed by the legislature that banned gay marriage. In the language of the decision, the court raised sexual orientation to the same level as race and gender in weighing discrimination claims. Within months, the empire struck back with Proposition 8, a ballot initiative to amend the California Constitution and neutralize the court’s earlier decision. Prop 8 passed by 52% of the popular vote.

This time, California’s highest court caved to voters in a ruling that raises more questions and contradictions than before.  Here are excerpts of the ruling:

Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question (…) setting aside our own personal beliefs and values [p. 3].

Contrary to petitioners’ assertion, Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases — that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” (...) Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion [p. 7].

Finally, we consider whether Proposition 8 affects the validity of the marriages of same-sex couples that were performed prior to the adoption of Proposition 8. Applying well-established legal principles pertinent to the question whether a constitutional provision should be interpreted to apply prospectively or retroactively, we conclude that the new section cannot properly be interpreted to apply retroactively. Accordingly, the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid and must continue to be recognized in this state [p.13].

If I understand this ruling correctly, 18,000 gay couples get to keep their marriages but no future marriages will be recognized in California unless the State Constitution is amended yet again or the decision is struck down by a Federal court. In other words, some gay couples end up more privileged than others, but, somehow, the ruling does not violate equal protections under the State Constitution or the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. What an amazing feat of twisted logic!

If one fully appreciates the internal contradiction of the ruling, perhaps the California high court has cleverly inserted self-destruct language that will eventually deconstruct the ruling. Cowardice, stupidity, or cleverness? How do you see it?