Fear Leads to Violence

You don’t have to be Yoda to understand that fear leads to hate and ultimately to violence.  This post by Amanda Marcotte over at Pandagon is worth reading in its entirety:

I do think there’s value in talking about the use of inciting language, like Sarah Palin is fond of doing, but I have to say that is probably less of a problem than paranoia. The violent rhetoric encourages people to see violence as a solution, but it’s the paranoia that gives them cause to get that wound up, or in the likely case of Loughner, to latch onto right wing paranoia as a delusion.

It isn’t the violent rhetoric, its the eliminationist rhetoric that is the main language side of the problem.  When the right talks about the left as traitors, scum, or in any way attacks their humanity – they are lowering the intrinsic ethical barriers to entry for violent actions against the left.  That is a huge part of the problem.

That said, Amanda (and Jon Stewart) are right on when they not the large place fear has in stimulating political violence.  Let’s get inside the head of a potential right wing terrorist:

You believe the President is a foreign national from Kenya bent on becoming America’s next hitler.  You think liberals are working to help him destroy the economy, establish death panels and concentration camps, and morally corrupt the nation by attacking Christianity and Christian laws.  You think liberals murder babies and have wet dreams about bringing stalin-style communism to the US.

How could those beliefs not lead to violence?

I think that is the interesting question out of all of this.

On Obama, Gay Marriage, and Prop 8

A Quick Hit:

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead.

Now their son opposes Gay Marriage.  Prop 8 has been struck down, but this battle brings the fight to White House.  Obama must weigh in, and his backward, incoherent and irrational opposition to marriage for some US citizens but not others will once again be brought into the light.  His ironic position is that of “separate but equal”.  The only equality he is defending to place the demands of theocratic bullying on the same level as the rational, compassionate, popularly supported desire for true equality for people of any sexual orientation.

As Keith Olberman said:

This is about the… human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not… understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don’t want to deny you yours. They don’t want to take anything away from you. They want what you want — a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Well Mr President?  Will you step up to the ethical plate and take a swing for equality?  Or will you continue to cower and let theocrats – who harbor no intentions of ever supporting you or your party electorally – dictate the policy we all have to live with?

Bloggers and Iran’s Fear

Iran is afraid of bloggers, and is instituting the death penalty to harshly curb their rights.

Via BoingBoing:

New legislation has been proposed in Iran that could make blogging a crime punishable by death. Cyrus Farivar has a story on today’s edition of the PRI radio show The World: Iran considers harsh penalty for some bloggers (3:30).

Over at Global Voices, Hamid Tehrani writes:

On Wednesday, Iranian members of parliament voted to discuss a draft bill that seeks to “toughen punishment for disturbing mental security in society.” The text of the bill would add, “establishing websites and weblogs promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy,” to the list of crimes punishable by death.In recent years, some Iranian bloggers have been sent to jail and many have had their sites filtered. If the Iranian parliament approves this draft bill, bloggers fear they could be legally executed as criminals. No one has defined what it means to “disturb mental security in society”.

Such discussion concerning blogs has not been unique to Iran. It shows that many authorities do not only wish to filter blogs, but also to eliminate bloggers!

A translated English copy of the proposed legislation is here. [International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran]

Aside from being a gross violation of human rights, it is an admission by the Iranian government that they are too weak to stand up to opposition.  Apostasty will be used to silence religious criticism, and “corruption” is a catch-all that will surely be used to silence political opponents.

When a country resorts to murder to keep power, it eventually finds that a tighter grip is a weaker one.  All America needs to do is be diplomatic and friendly, depriving Iran of a common enemy to unite against.  As sympathetic friends, we’ll find ourselves in the better position of being inspirational to the brave people in Iran who fight back.

Discourse and Assassination: McCain/Clinton vs Obama

Hillary Clinton’s assassination quote is far more problematic than I originally thought.

Frankly I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt in the light of what I felt where more serious offenses, but I think I was wrong to do so. Kevin noticed some interesting trends in terms of how people responded to her quote:

At the primarily white blogs, there is much debate over whether or not what she has said is offensive (I won’t bother repeating it here since it’s been posted everywhere) and yet when you look at black bloggers, and other bloggers of color, there is an almost unanimous agreement that her remarks were reprehensible. I also noticed that in the links being provided by blog authors and commentators at the primarily white blogs, to support their agreement or disagreement with the offensiveness of Sen. Clinton’s statements, all are to other primarily white blogs and white bloggers. I find this problematic because I’ve seen a lot of comments on these blogs to the effect of “anyone who thinks that her statement was truly offensive is paranoid, a nut case, delusional, incapable of rational thought, etc,” and this leads me to think that a lot of people just aren’t taking into consideration, let alone even reading and listening to the black and other bloggers of color that Clinton’s statement has affected not only on a political level, but on a deeply personal level.

As I was writing a comment, I saw something I hadn’t seen before. In spite of whether or not her quote had ill intention behind it, or whether she was referring to herself or Obama as RFK, her comment has helped push the idea of assassination further into mainstream discourse. Fox is apparently making cracks along the same lines (although they are decidedly more “fringe” in terms of content, in terms of reach they are effectively mainstream).

The other problem with Clinton’s remark is that it shares something reprehensible in common with John McCain’s jabs about who he imagines Hamas would like to see elected. The one thing that was utterly clear and unmistakable about Hillary Clinton’s comment was that she was saying we should structure our primaries based on the possible actions of violent racists. That we should be moved to action by fear, that is the lowest sort of pandering. It is the lowest sort of pandering because it debases us. It reduces us to animals, to prey, scrambling to avoid the predators without any care for who we scratch, bite, or leave behind in the process. It appeals to our feral nature.

When it comes down to it Barack Obama began as a candidate of convenience for me, the person I judged least likely to utterly betray Democratic ideals (and given his past support (with Clinton) of Lieberman during his primary, I was quite wary). But the man is doing what he can to elevate the national discourse. What Hillary ignores and McCain *sometimes* pretends to do, Barack Obama accomplishes.

When I think of the notions of liberty, and what it means to be an American, I think of bravery and an unwavering commitment to human rights and ethical principles. I don’t ascribe to the “what it should mean to be an American” school on this. This is what it has always meant to be an American, even if only a relative few people throughout history have seen it and lived it. If ever anything was un-American, it is an appeal to be ruled by fear. It is that appeal, in both McCain’s Bush-like “the terrorists want you to vote Democrat” and Clinton’s “we should have a backup candidate in case one is shot”, that is offensive on a visceral level.

We can do far better than that. We can appeal to hope and raise up our spirits and our innate courage. And we can win.

[Edit: Oops, the post was written by guest blogger Kevin, not Nezua.]

McCain: Let Hamas Decide For You

The problem with McCain’s fear mongering, from a practical rhetorical perspective, is that it invites searing counterpoints. The Taijiquan classics state one should be without hollows or projections, and this applies quite well to rhetoric. McCain said (Huffington Post, emphasis mine):

From The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb:

McCain spoke with bloggers this morning on a number of issues ranging from William Ayers to Rev. Wright to Tony Rezko. Jennifer Rubin noted that Hamas had endorsed Senator Obama and asked McCain whether Obama might have given “an unhelpful signal” to the terrorist group. McCain’s response:

All I can tell you Jennifer is that I think it’s very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas’s worst nightmare….If senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

Now the Huffington Post piece does go on to tear apart both McCain’s argument and his ethics. But I’m going to zero in on the obvious weakness this exposes. By citing an organization recognized by the US as a terrorist outfit as a reason to vote a certain way, John McCain is clearly saying we ought to take their opinion into consideration when deciding who will represent us in government. In other words, Obama might speak for you on Health Care, Security and Foreign Policy, the Economy, and Civil Rights issues, but forget all of that, because people who use bombs and rockets have an opinion. I just don’t understand how a man can claim to have any authority on protecting us from terrorists when he directly urges us to give in to terror and count their authority above our own! Especially on an issue so central as who leads this country.

That becomes McCain’s real message. Give in to fear. Let foreign organizations effect your vote. McCain wouldn’t be Hamas’s worst nightmare. He’s already giving them political clout in our country, free of charge.

That is the counter argument the Obama campaign should be making. McCain leaned out too far and left himself open. So far the Obama campaign’s response has been a slap that leaves them open as well:

Spokesman Hari Sevugan responded to McCain’s insinuations about Obama by pointing out that McCain may be going back on his pledge to run a positive campaign:

“We want to take Senator McCain at his word that he wants to run a respectful campaign, but that is becoming increasingly difficult when he continually tries to use the politics of association and makes claims he knows not to be true to advance his campaign.”

The politics of association isn’t a bad tactic if its an active association on the part of the candidate.  Now Obama’s campaign has a soundbite to be exploited if they ever decide to take that road.  If they instead aim at the implications for the integrity of our voice and our decision making process, and the role of fear in our national politics, they can counter without leaving a vulnerability.  Fear is where McCain’s campaign is weak.  That’s where we should strike.

Political SC Church Crosses Line on Obama

Pastor Roger Byrd crossed the line between Church and State in a classless way, by repeating the more vicious lies from the GOP’s whisper campaign against Barack Obama (WYFF):

Pastor Roger Byrd said that he just wanted to get people thinking. So last Thursday, he put a new message on the sign at the Jonesville Church of God.It reads: “Obama, Osama, hmm, are they brothers?”

Wow.

Byrd said that the message wasn’t meant to be racial or political.

What a load. So what was it meant to convey?

“It’s simply to cause people to realize and to see what possibly could happen if we were to get someone in there that does not believe in Jesus Christ,” he said.

What could happen? Is he insinuating we need a Christian in office, a naked religious test, to avoid things like terrorism? Or is he simply saying fearmongering and race-baiting like his is what we should expect if anyone outside his narrow mind’s tolerance gets into office?

When asked if he believes that Barack Obama is Muslim, Byrd said, “I don’t know. See it asks a question: Are they brothers? In other words, is he Muslim ? I don’t know. He says he’s not. I hope he’s not. But I don’t know. And it’s just something to try to stir people’s minds. It was never intended to hurt feelings or to offend anybody.”

Obama has said repeatedly during his campaign that he is a Christian and attends Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Pastor Byrd is an idiot, and a prime example of Church attempting to encroach on state:

Despite some criticism, Byrd says that the message will stay on the sign. He took the issue before his congregation Sunday night, and they decided unanimously to keep it.

Yet his congregation unsettles me a little more.

Natural Relations and Fear

Sush has posted a really thoughtful thread on what meanings one might find behind the phrase Unnatural Relations (emphasis mine):

In that way I’ve always thought of human sexuality as transcending “natural relations”, because we have made sex about more than fulfilling a lust or procreating. Sex, to me, is about two people learning to be one. It is about give and take, sacrifice and dominance, learning to be in control and out of it, giving of yourself and taking of another. That is far more than simply nature, it is a metaphor for all things real and spiritual. It is the dance of creation itself- not because it makes life but because it IS life.

So what is unnatural? Is it unnatural to have sex in a way that doesn’t lead to procreation? Is it a sin to use birth control? Is it a sin when a married and committed couple engage in mutual masturbation or anal sex? Where exactly is the line between natural and unnatural? Is the only holy sex that which is done in the dark with socks still on and both feeling a little embarrassed afterwards?

Shush has a really beautiful way of putting how we approach sex as a society.  In many ways we are socialized to feel shame about our bodies, and sex involves expressing our bodies a most intimate and messy way.  Breaking through that socially induced fear and experiencing sex as the “dance of creation” is, I think, a vital part of experiencing a full and healthy life.  It is also central to the worldview that validates rather than punishes the sexual act, and accepts different expressions of it between two consenting adults.

The spiritual path is one that teaches one to overcome and eventually eliminate fear.  It should never, ever instill new fears and anxieties.  As a society we might take a good hard look at what the politics of sexual fear and shame that crops up in organized religion does for us, and what it takes away.  Upon inspection we won’t find an equal trade.

Anti-War Protests and Working in DC

This morning in my “General” folder in Outlook (that’s where all the company-wide email goes by default), I found this email from our “Office Manager” noting there will be protests, and concluding with:

Building management plans to operate the building on a normal business throughout the day on Wednesday, March 19, 2008. They will, however, be prepared to lock the building on a moment’s notice should events warrant. Please be advised that you will not receive notice immediately if they make a decision to lock the building based on activity outside the building. They will secure the building first and notify us after securing the property.

Of course nothing happened. But the attitude around the office prior to the protests was one of anxiety (“will they get in our way?”) to disdain (“what do they think they are accomplishing?”). The folks I work with tend to be a mix of liberal to conservative, with those who oppose the war strongly and those who support it.

During the protests there was a mix of interest “The police were there arresting protestors!” and disinterest, which by far ruled the day. In corporate America, the protests were a curiosity. Something to keep an eye on, but otherwise of no consequence. Later today at class (which was full of generally very well informed folks), only one fellow knew the protests even happened, and what they were for.

In my mind, a protest serves several purposes. It is a PR action, it can bolster morale within a movement (and be quite empowering), and it can effect direct action. With the media being the way it is, massive numbers and effective cleverness are necessary for a protest to make waves. It needs to be something new!

That said, I wonder what an anti-war rally with the express purpose of empowering people (to go back to their communities and take action, etc) might look like.

I wonder if anyone has the strength or sees the point of engaging in direct action. The folks at the IRS today were unable to block people from entering. Was it a symbolic victory to have people briefly block the front entrance, and have other protesters hauled off to prison?

What do you think?

The Sally Kern Video

She’s saying what other Republicans are thinking.

My friend Kelly emailed this to me.  Then I saw it pop up and up on Pandagon, and on C&L.  And of course its accompanied by commentary like “is this person bat-shit crazy, or is this nutjob bat-shit crazy?”.  That this is somehow outrageous.  It isn’t.  Let’s look at her statements piece by piece.  As written down by Pam:

Studies show, no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you know, a few decades. . .

This is a familiar line.  I’ve forgotten exactly which Republican candidate echoed it (bonus points if anyone can point out who).  But it feeds into a standard, paranoid extremist narrative.  The same one that surfaces when some creepy ass to the right of George Bush starts using words and phrases like “birth-rate”, “europeans” and “white pride” together.  This idea that civilization is somehow doomed because two people of the same sex are in love is directly tied to stock racist fodder like the decline of the white Christian european race.

…They are going after our young children, as young as two years of age, to try to teach them that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle.

Democrats and liberals criticize the education system because they want to fix it.  Republicans and conservatives do so to prevent, literally, progress.  They want to keep people stupid and bigoted, and this ties neatly into that seething fear.  Children’s books, k-12 curriculums, anything that teaches equality and understanding is an old and practiced target for the right.

One of my colleagues said We don’t have a gay problem in our community…well you know what, that is so dumb. If you have cancer in your little toe, do you just say that I’m going to forget about it since the rest of you is fine? It spreads! This stuff is deadly and it is spreading. It will destroy our young people and it will destroy this nation.

And top it all off with some eliminationism.

Folks, none of this is new, none of this extraordinary.  It is merely an extension of a single line of reasoning into our mainstream discourse. Expect the media to cover this video, as it is quite the fascinating little instigator.  But don’t expect any of them to link this to the rising tide of extremist discourse, or to explore the significance of combining anti-gay fear and the politics of race, supremacy, and hate.  Above all, don’t expect an intrepid paper reporter or news anchor to state the unspeakable discourse: That for every Sally Kern who says this stuff out loud, there are a hundred Delays, Bushes, Hasterts, McCains, and Huckabees who are thinking it, and basing the platforms and their policies on it.

Hillary’s Fear Ad and Obama’s Response

Hillary’s latest ad is badass. The essential equation is “Won’t somebody think of the children” + fear. The straight up honesty involved in such a tact is refreshing. Hillary Clinton is going to manipulate the shit out of you running for office, and if elected, will continue to do so. How very McCain “liberal conservative” of her. Via Pam at Pandagon(text quoted from ABC) :

“It’s 3:00am and your children are asleep,” the voice over says. “There’s a phone in the White House, and it’s ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call.”

“Whether someone knows the world’s leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead. It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?”

Obama’s response video provides an alternative appeal. The strange idea that more than having any experience, it is having the correct experience that counts:

“It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone ringing in the White House.  Something’s happening in the world. When that call gets answered, shouldn’t the president be the one – the only one – who had judgment and courage to oppose the Iraq war from the start… Who understood the REAL threat to America was al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Who led the effort to secure loose nuclear weapons around the globe… In a dangerous world, it’s judgment that matters. I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message..”

Experience is a liability if you’ve made the wrong decisions. Barack Obama’s ad makes that a central point in this campaign, and one that will be of equal use when he faces off against McCain in November.

Media Trying to Resuscitate Clinton

She is the media’s candidate, the annointed front runner.  And she’s going down in the face of sincerity, optimism, and practical wisdom.  Barack Obama is winning, and desperate to prop up their favorite, the media is playing hard and fast:

Oftentimes, the write-ups read as if she received the night’s lone standing ovation.

“And at the right time… at the end… earning one of the only standing ovations in the 40-plus hours of debates,” wrote Marc Ambinder.”When she finished,” wrote Newsday, “the audience gave her a standing ovation that took many, including Obama, by surprise.”

“Was it a pivotal moment that could change the campaign, or the swan song of a candidate who may be nearing the end of her U.S. presidential bid?” reads the Reuters analysis. “Hillary Clinton’s concluding statement in a televised debate on Thursday drew a standing ovation from the audience and plaudits from analysts.”

But the response to the senator’s remarks, which came at the conclusion of the debate, may be getting exaggerated attention. “There were standing ovations in and out of almost every break,” a CNN debate producer told The Huffington Post. A review of debate video tape confirms this.

Not exactlyt he pivotal moment its being sold as.  The actual quote (emphasis mine):

Depending on your political vantage point, Sen. Hillary Clinton either resurrected her campaign, ripped a line off of John Edwards, or offered her valedictory address to voters when she declared: “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people, and that’s what this election should be about.”

The Clinton camp trumpeted the quote as “the moment she retook the reins of this race,” and her words have received the preponderance of press attention from last night’s debate.

This is a soft reference to the politics of fear and security Clinton has been tapping into from day one of her campaign for President.  Its a gentle way of suggesting that without her in office, we are going to be in danger.  Its the same tactic McCain will use against the Democratic nominee in the general election.

The quote was a defining moment for Clinton.  She resorted once again to her old tricks, sharing a weakness with McCain:

In 1992, the Clinton campaign’s mantra was “It’s the economy, stupid”. This year, I think the Obama campaign’s should be “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. It’s hard to listen to McCain speak in the future tense and take it seriously when the man has no new ideas. Even worse for McCain, when late-night talkshows are already joking about him like he’s Mr. Magoo, you know he’s in for a rough nine months.

If this is the best Clinton’s campaign can do to gain the trust and enthusiasm of Democratic voters, her campaign is going to continue to crash and burn.

Why They Call it Homo Phobia

There are a number of issues that arise around the notion of sexuality and gender that, honestly, could use a healthy debate. Issues like should a Church be allowed to practice discrimination? (4Simpsons):

4. Apparently churches shouldn’t be able to discipline according to the Bible

A gay Christian who won a claim against the Church of England has been awarded more than £47,000 in compensation. John Reaney took the Hereford diocesan board of finance to an employment tribunal after his appointment as a youth worker was blocked.

Or the possibly competing comfort levels of trans-gendered folks and women:

3. You’re transphobic if you oppose letting people go in the bathroom of their choosing. If your young daughter wonders why the bearded guy in the dress is in the women’s room, accuse her of hate speech.

But that really isn’t possible for some folks, and Neil disappoints by joining their ranks. His positions and conclusions reek of hysteria:

Political perspective: These folks have successfully infiltrated churches, the education establishment and government. It is only going to get worse if “civil unions” are approved more broadly, because they establish a precedent for sexual preferences being civil rights.

This is the old “the world is going to end if we recognize the equality of gay people” argument. And hey folks, its true, just look at the smoking hole in the ground where Massachusetts used to be. God totally zapped that heathen state. (Emphasis mine):

2. Judges: ‘Gay’ exposure OK for kindergarteners

As WND reported in 2006, U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed the civil rights lawsuit by David and Tonia Parker of Lexington, concluding there is an obligation for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

Is he kidding? Endorse? From Wing Nut Daily (emphasis mine):

In a case that could wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court, an appeals panel upheld dismissal of a lawsuit by Massachusetts parents seeking to prevent discussion of homosexual families in their children’s elementary school classrooms.

They don’t even want to talk about homosexual families. Your personal faith can be bigoted I suppose, but that is just denying reality. (emphasis mine)

“Public schools,” wrote Judge Sandra L. Lynch, “are not obliged to shield individual students from ideas which potentially are religiously offensive, particularly when the school imposes no requirement that the student agree with or affirm those ideas, or even participate in discussions about them.“

I guess these parents will opt to keep their kids home to school, where they may remain shielded and dumb to the outside world. Sandra Lynch is absolutely correct in her opinion. Note that last part. How does an optional discussion of the existence of homosexual parents constitute either endorsement or even acceptance? Thats just dishonest.

4. Apparently churches shouldn’t be able to discipline according to the Bible

A gay Christian who won a claim against the Church of England has been awarded more than £47,000 in compensation. John Reaney took the Hereford diocesan board of finance to an employment tribunal after his appointment as a youth worker was blocked.

This is an interesting case. Should Christian Identity churches be allowed to keep people of color from working for them? (Frankly, stunts like these are just another reason for removing the tax-exempt status of Churches). As an employer, why should they be allowed to discriminate while secular employers cannot? Why should Churches operate above the law?

Unfortunately there are some interesting issues to discuss here, without getting frantic.

1, Christian photographer hauled before Human Rights Commission for refusing same-sex job. I wish it would have been a Muslim photographer. That would have made it more interesting.

“I wish it would have been a Muslim photographer”? Wow. It would have been every bit as heinous. Why stop at photography? Why not allow hotels to ban gay customers, or restaurants to refuse to server LGBT individuals? What’s even more disturbing is the couple’s insistence (it was actually a couple who owned a small photography business, if you read past the headline) that this was “communicating a message”. It was a marriage. They wanted pictures for their album. This just heads back to the Christianist hysteria that the Gays are trying to spread homosexuality.

Neil ends on a positive note with a quote from his favorite holy book (which is faultless and dictated by God, btw):

Matthew 18:6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

That’s beautiful Neil. That’s effectively calling for the Lexington school district, teachers, gay rights advocates, lawyers in the case, and the judges along the way who affirmed those rights, to be killed. Neil has crossed the line that divides bigotry and hate, and done so with an eliminationist flourish.

UPDATE:  A commentor at 4Simpsons, one “Bubba”, has invited folks who comment here to journey on over and offer their opinions right into the gnashing teeth of the beast.  (It seems the fundies don’t like coming over to play on the liberal /rational side of the fence, Neil and Theobromophile excluded).

McCain the Warlord

With all the talk of the “independent vote” McCain is snapping up, it’ll be easy to get swept up in the media glow and view the man as a sane, reason-governed paragon of virtue. As a compromise candidate for a Republican field racked by distasteful failures and disunity.

John’s stance on war is not sane. We’ll do well as an electorate to remember this (ThinkProgress):

NBC’s Nightly News provided further details about McCain’s one-hour guided tour. He was accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” Still photographs provided by the military to NBC News seemed to show McCain wearing a bulletproof vest during his visit.

McCain recently claimed that there “are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today.” In a press conference after his Baghdad tour, McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market today was proof that you could indeed “walk freely” in some areas of Baghdad.

Catch that?  Walking through a market with 100 soldiers, helicopters and gunships, and a bulletproof vest, is walking freely.  This man doesn’t see the same world we live in.  So comments like these really make me shiver (Huffington Post):

Sen. John McCain told a crowd of supporters on Sunday, “It’s a tough war we’re in. It’s not going to be over right away. There’s going to be other wars.” Offering more of his increasingly bleak “straight talk,” he repeated the claim: “I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.”

Iran?  Syria?  Where will Jolly old McCain drag this country next?  Is he prepared for the cost of war?

“And right now – we’re gonna have a lot of PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] to treat, my friends,” he said. “We’re gonna have a lot of combat wounds that have to do with these terrible explosive IEDs that inflict such severe wounds. And my friends, it’s gonna be tough, we’re gonna have a lot to do.”

We are no friends of John McCain.  Friends don’t look into the heart of war’s consequences, into shattered spines and amputated legs, into children with hairline fractures in their personalities, and say “it’s gonna be tough”.  These are the words of men who inject us with fear and then offer to sell us security at the sale price of our rights and dignity as a nation.

And this man wants to be our next President.

Lying US into Iran

US Officials edited video and flat out lied in an effort to make Iran appear to be a danger to us.  Via Johnathen Schwarz at TMW:

Are you the kind of weirdo who thinks Congress should investigate when the Pentagon essentially fabricates a video of U.S. ships being “threatened” by Iran? Just because it could, you know, lead to a massive war based on lies? (Gareth Porter has an excellent run down of how things happened, here.)

If you are such a weirdo, you can contact Congress via Just Foreign Policy.

From the article (emphasis mine):

The new information that appears to contradict the original version of the incident includes the revelation that U.S. officials spliced the audio recording of an alleged Iranian threat onto to a videotape of the incident.

Also unraveling the story is testimony from a former U.S. naval officer that non-official chatter is common on the channel used to communicate with the Iranian boats and testimony from the commander of the U.S. 5th fleet that the commanding officers of the U.S. warships involved in the incident never felt the need to warn the Iranians of a possible use of force against them.

Further undermining the U.S. version of the incident is a video released by Iran Thursday showing an Iranian naval officer on a small boat hailing one of three ships. 

That didn’t stop US Officials from presenting a very different story:

The dramatic version of the incident reported by U.S. news media throughout Tuesday and Wednesday suggested that Iranian speedboats, apparently belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard navy, had made moves to attack three U.S. warships entering the Strait and that the U.S. commander had been on the verge of firing at them when they broke off.

Typical of the network coverage was a story by ABC’s Jonathan Karl quoting a Pentagon official as saying the Iranian boats “were a heartbeat from being blown up”. 

The rest of the article goes into even more detail, how parts of the messages received might not have even come from the Iranian patrol ships.

This hollow manipulation of the public trust to push us into another war, when we are already short troops for our side adventure in Iraq and are unable to contribute needed troops to Afghanistan, shows how purely incompetent the Republican approach to security is.  An approach, I might add, that every Republican save for the only isolationist in the race has endorsed, and the presumed front runner in the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton, has helped enable.

This story may or may not catch fire in the press, but there is something deeply wrong with any candidate who does not seize it and make a relevant message of truth and trust a part of their campaign.

Risk vs The Fear Vote

Republican candidates, especially Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, have followed in George Bush’s bloody oratorical footsteps. They craft their messages using fear in the same way cigarette companies used free cigarettes. Instead of hook ’em while they’re young, its hook ’em while they’re old and afraid of damn near everything.  Fear campaigns target everyone, but they are  especially targeted towards taking advantage of the elderly.

From insistence on Americans being more target than citizen, to subtle attacks like emphasizing the importance of experience, its all about appealing to a sense of security. You see, Republicans (and Republican minded strategists) do have a lock on security. Not national security. Iraq is proving that. No, on the feeling of security.

But what America needs right now is not a feeling of security. It is actual security. And we are making a very direct trade. When we take the message of McCain and Clinton over more promising candidates like Obama or Edwards, we are opting for comforting gloss over substance. We are taking the nervous and exploited rheumy eyed views of the fearful old over the hunger for meaningful change hopeful youth bring to the table.

As a country we need risk. We need to take a sharp look at our very system of government and shake things up. And we are walking straight away from change into a cycle in which right wing extremists exchange rule with status quo centrists over the decades. And that dance only leads one way: away from progress and into a restrictive and bigoted past.

If we want to overcome our problems as a nation, we must overcome our fear.