The following essay was written in the end of 2006, but it ought to be examined in terms of Bloomberg’s tactics to overcome term limits.  And we should take it very seriously, because it is part of something much larger.

inside hegemony

[hegemony: the ability of a dominant group to exert or maintain control through a combination of overt and subtle mechanisms. (Antonio Gramsci, 1891 - 1937)]

Noam Chomsky says that it is the “free press” and the apparent democracy that needs propaganda more than the countries who restrict freedom of speech and the power of its people.  This seems an obvious assertion because our government’s power to restrict us comes through opinions that we form about our government and its actions.

Hegemony has two tiers.  The first being the dominant group’s (or government’s) efforts to maintain control over the outside groups, i.e., a country maintaining control over other countries.    The second tier is the dominant group’s (or government’s) efforts to maintain control over its own people, the people of its country. 

The government needs the second tier, or control over its own people, in a “free state” to be gotten by public opinion, in order to maintain its control over the outside groups or countries.  Being a voting nation, the “free” country must vote on the body of government.  Presumably this voting influences the actions taken by that governing body.

The war in Iraq is an excellent example of how the tiers feed off of each other and, really, can not function with out its counterpart. 

The war on terrorism, which preceded the war on Iraq but was used to get us into Iraq, is in itself a fine example of the two tiers operating together for the end goal of our governments control of both the outer and inner groups.

So, in order for our powerful government to keep power over its people and shape the opinion of the people to back its actions, it must manipulate the press both by filtering information that gets into the mainstream and by inferring truths in the media,  and controlling the output of the images of itself and its enemies.  And our perception of what is unchangeable.

For example…

Though Washington knew that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons, in 1984 our government adamantly resisted the ban on them.  West Germany also resisted because they were making huge profits from the sale of the chemicals.  Because of US pressure, the most the UN Security Council could get was a statement that it “deplored chemical weapon use.” (Power, A Problem from Hell, p. 179)  We were giving Saddam 500 million dollars a year in credit.  In 1987 the U.S. knew Saddam was using those chemical weapons on “his own people,”  the Kurds in Iraq.  In 1988 we had evidence of genocide.  In 1989, Bush Senior upped the aid to Iraq to 1 billion dollars in agricultural aid.  But our press never got this far when they spun history to say “Saddam had gassed his own people.”  Yes.  And the U.S. helped pay for it. 

In fact, at the time, it was more important that our “economic” interests and “commercial opportunities” be honored than our humanitarian interests.  Meaning the Senators and Congressmen voting against intervention had constituencies in farming and agriculture. Among other things. Maintaining the status quo was the easiest thing for re-election.  Even if it meant a genocide taking place. It was, after all, someone else’s genocide. 

Somehow before the present Iraq war, this was never brought forward.  Because it was important that the people not get this information.

Likewise, in order for the ruling class to maintain control of its media image in order to keep up public opinion and therefore power over its people, it must manipulate and support whoever will serve its best (read corporate) interests. 

For example…  

While we “liberals” sat around appalled at Fox News and its ability to guide the mass opinion based on hearsay, soon after Hilary Clinton would not only be taking donations from Rupert Murdoch (CEO of Fox), but also participating in a fundraiser he was having for her.  Lately, Fox News, an obstinate supporter of the Republican party, has been airing Hilary bad mouth Bush.  What would be Fox’s interest in supporting Hilary if she were really about changing the status quo and shifting the imbalance of power or if she weren’t somehow indebted to them for her campaign contributions?

This is troubling, but, we think, “okay, the laws protect us.   From the lies.  The deception.  The gross mismanagement of funds.  The torture.  We have just elected a democratic Congress and Senate to right this.  We are saved. 

We are saved.

The people will be heard.

We are: by the people, for the people.  I keep hearing that.  It keeps echoing in my head, bouncing from wall to wall of my skull… “by the people, for the people…”

But.

I have evidence that this is not what our nation is. 

I am here to warn you that our system is misaligned from the people.  If we continue on our course conferring with hegemony, we will be in grave danger as a democracy because what it will take to support this “Superpower” will smother all the people who are the people.  A small minority of corporations and individuals who are buying the government are profiting, and we, the people, are paying their taxes.  Look at campaign finance.

Might I say the gross problem of campaign finance.  Political candidates will first protect those who put them into power.  In a “free” country such as ours, this means protecting those who finance their campaigns.  We’ve all heard of this, and we know the candidate with more money and more exposure often wins.  No!  You say, look at the last election. The people have spoken. Then.  Let’s look beyond partisan borders. Look at the primaries.  Look at how, say, the democratic candidate wins a primary.  Against another democrat.  They need lots of money.  It is the media exposure that will get them elected.  Okay.  Who gives them the money?  The poor people that need to be spoken for?  The people in New Orleans who needed help before, during and after Katrina hit?  The kids without text books?  The struggling artist and middle class family who need health insurance?  Hmmm.  I don’t think so.  This is a problem; who will speak for the majority?  This is not a new problem in the Capitalist System of Democracy.  “Well, we can’t be perfect.”  No.  Right.  We can’t.  I am simply trying to figure out who the people are that is the “buy” and who the people are that is the “for.”  Words can be so misleading with their passionate proclamations.  But the people, in this case, is not the majority. 

This problem of campaign finance will lead us to something called “earmarks.” 

An earmark is a grant or money given to a group, organization, or business that is stuck into a spending  bill, most often having nothing to do with the bill, goes unannounced, and often unrecognized by the would-be opponents.  It’s often a “payback”.  You know.  You scratch my back… For instance a lawmaker might propose money for a specific institution with which he or she has a direct or indirect connection.  Hardly surprising when one looks at the spending fiasco in Iraq and the war profiteering, most earmarks are funneled through the defense department or other government agencies to contractors. 

A few brave democrats, like Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are proposing ethics reforms.  Rules that will help separate the agenda of the people from the personal campaign-financing agenda of the Senator or Congressman allowing these gross overspendings and oversights to take place.  If this is a democracy by and for the people, why is the question of ethics and representation not at the vanguard of preserving this democracy?

The cycle continues with the government trying to influence opinion while those the government protects influence what the government tells us and what it does not.  So the government continues its propaganda to convince us that we are in danger as a nation and should forfeit tax money, civil liberties, and the right to know and so choose how our money is being spent while funding a Homeland Securities act, which funnels huge amounts of money into an organization designed to protect us from terrorism.  But when establishing the Office of Homeland Securities, legislation was passed that protects the pharmaceuticals from being sued over damage to children from vaccines. That is part of the Homeland Securities Act.  I wonder what this has to do with terrorism.  Who is really being protected?

To make things really terrifying in 2006 a new rendition of the Patriot act was passed, you know the infamous bill that allows our government to spy on us, solicit medical and library records, also records from book purchases, among even scarier things, like dropping in on email, etc.  Is this protecting we, the people more, or the government that needs to influence our opinion and, even, instill fear in us for expressing an opinion counter to the opinion they would like us to have?  And it was just passed again for 2007.

Yet, no one, neither  Democrat, Republican , or citizen is up in arms about any of this.  Instead we hear the conversations of “ethics” reform and “campaign finance reform” only whispered through the Sunday news.  Of course, we begin with campaign finance reform and this will lead back to the principle of our democracy that the government is supposed to be a voice of the people.  But if the people with no money have no voice, the people with no voice will continue to suffer while our Nation protects the corporations, pharmaceuticals and government spending on contractors who charge a hundred dollars for a load of laundry for our soldiers in Iraq.

What is brilliant and tragically laughable is that we have been convinced that the government is maintaining the status quo for our benefit and that it is there to protect us, that Homeland Security, the Patriot act, and government over-spending is, somehow, protecting us.  That all these parts of bills that go unpronounced, like allowing military recruiters into all public schools, an addendum to the “No Child Left Behind” act, we are somehow protecting the education of these children.  Who is served by this?  Is it the people, the masses, the undereducated and underpaid?  Or is it, again, the military industrial complex, and what “we the people” are complying with in our fear of losing the “only Super Power status” that is, really, destroying our Nation, and, more importantly, destroying our democracy.

Remember Rome.

An empire can not stand alone forever.  Nor can it oppress its own people and keep them as servants to fuel its power without, eventually, imploding. 

We are imploding.  And we just keep watching television.

LD Napier

 

 

The following 3 essays were written over several months in 2007. Before and after the midterm elections and around some major rulings by the supreme court.

I see them as a trilogy. (or triageJ) With extreme unease, my concerns for my country not only run parallel to each other, but also they overlap.  They all speak to the same illness and all foreshadow the erosion of our Liberties.

Unless we stand up.

And speak out.

And protect…

 

The Security of Our Republic ( or With Liberty, and Justice, for All.  Part 1)

 

“Alexander Hamilton said, ‘If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and greatest source of our security in a Republic?  The answer would be an inviolable respect for the Constitution and its Laws.’”

A great Tragedy has befallen our Nation, eviscerating “Liberty and Justice for All.”

The Security of our Nation is in jeopardy.  We keep hearing the rote replay of our leaders telling us the Security of our Nation is dependent upon our proactivity against the war on terrorism.  But there can be no security to our Nation, our Republic, if we do not heed the warning of Alexander Hamilton.  If we do not see that, ultimately, it is the respect for our constitution, and Laws like the Geneva Convention, that will keep us most secure.

The Congress has passed the president’s definition of  “enemy combatant.”  And these “enemy combatants” can be detained (read imprisoned) without being charged, and they can be held indefinitely (read four years many of those people have been in Guantanamo.)

The definition of  “Enemy Combatant” is broadened to “purposefully and or materially supported hostilities against the United States” including, as stated in the NY Times (Sat. 9/30/06)… “those accused of providing financial or indirect support to terrorists”

Congress has rendered itself mute and impotent by their preference to policy and politics over civil and human rights.

We have, historically, watched (and watch) genocide being committed against nation after nation.  We have not acted, primarily because of single-minded foreign policy and the cowardess that strangles our Congress when indifference has more political solvent than humanity.  Now our very own constitution is being edited and co-opted before our eyes.  And our Congress has granted this President the right to do so.

The Democrats now have a majority in the House and the Senate, and they have spoken of the withdraw of troops in Iraq.  But they have not yet spoken of the “withdraw of troops at home.”

Why are so few terrified?

Why are so few outraged?

Where is the outcry of loss of our freedoms?

Have we, as a people, forgotten this is BY THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE?  Have we, as a people, become too afraid, or just too complicit?  Are we not taking action because, thus far, our direct person or family member has not been prey to this outlandish wiretapping, imprisonment, or torture and this gross compromise of human rights? 

But. 

Our constitution is burning.

Is that not enough?

The 5^th amendment: (No person shall …)“be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, and the 6th amendment: A right to a speedy trial and confrontation of witnesses… have been seized.

Is that not enough?

Not only for “suspected terrorists” but for anyone “supporting hostilities against the United States.”  That means you.

Now, you might say, ah, “I have nothing to worry about because I am a Patriot.  I do not break the law.  And I do not support “Islamo-Fascists.”

But.  I ask you this?  What is the definition of hostile?  Is it expressing anger?  Is it being verbally supportive of a government who our government deems evil  but is not part of the Islamo-Fascist nations(Castro or Chavez)?  Or is it speaking out against the cut in funding for the Palestinian state which is creating more violence there, hinging on a civil war?  Or is it saying that this will be the second Civil war we have instigated in a matter of four years?

Does a suspected terrorist mean attending a demonstration without a police permit.  People have been arrested for those, and imprisoned, and served time.  If this demonstration is against the war in Iraq or the impending war with Iran or how our government is dismantling our constitution, item by item, will this be seen as “hostility?”  If I do not support the methods and path of this “war on terror” and I protest against them, will I be seen as a “hostile” force against the  United States?

And what of the 1^st amendment?  Freedom of Speech.

Are we not compromising it, if not dismembering it if one is afraid to speak his or her mind because the government might be listening and, so, believe this person to be an “enemy combatant,” if for instance the person says, “I hate this criminal government? I am against our government’s vision of “birth pangs” for a new middle East, and I think our country participated in the slaughter of civilians in Lebanon?  Will I be seen as an “enemy combatant” for sympathizing with the enemy?  Is sympathy not “indirect support” for the enemy?

And if you agree with none of my political analysis or thought, you must, indeed, believe, still, in our constitution.  You must believe with the point I am trying to make.  And in the imperative nature to keep our rights intact by maintaining “an inviolable respect for the Constitution and its Laws.”

How can we be forgetting the best things about our Republic and the most fundamental Freedoms of living in the U.S.A.  Our “Freedom of Speech”, freedom to say anything, and freedom to speak out against the government, our right to protest, our right to expect a hearing and due process if we are charged with a crime.  These rights are what made this country great.  And the fact that we treat(ed) all people, even prisoners of war, humanely.

The 4th amendment: search and Seizure – “the right of people… against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Has already been undone by the president’s wiretapping and email eavesdropping.   And as if this wasn’t enough,  the Supreme Court ruled it is illegal, but our government is still doing it.  Where, then, is the Security of our Republic?

This whole debacle our Nation faces in conjunction with the torture of war prisoners, excessive numbers of uncharged detainees (over four-hundred still uncharged detainees at Guantanamo, at least a hundred in secretive CIA locales, and at least thirteen hundred people in prison in Iraq), and our very own freedom being taken from us in the name of fighting for freedom, is an abomination of what we say or want to believe our country is.  Our country was founded on the constitution and defines itself by this and our bill of rights.  These rights, our foundation, our core, our LIBERTIES, are being taken away from us? 

The 1^st,  4^th , 5^th , and 6^th amendments are already compromised if not disbanded.

This is not a bi-partisan problem.  It was Senator McCain, a Republican, who TRIED to call off the dogs and the torture of prisoners. I would not count on the Democrats to have the courage to undo these actions that many of them voted for?

We need to petition the Supreme court to intervene. 

We need to speak out as a collective people.

This is no longer about the war on terrorists.

This is about the war on our Republic by its very own leaders.

This is about what we must remember it has always been about…

“Liberty and Justice for All.”

ld napier 

 

With Liberty.  And Justice.  For All…  (Part 2.)

 “Supreme Court Turns Down (45) Detainees’ Habeus Corpus Case” (New York Times, April 3^rd, 2007).

THIS IS AFTER FIVE YEARS IN PRISON WITHOUT BEING CHARGED!

WHY ARE WE STILL NOT YET OUTRAGED?!

I almost did not begin this essay because it feels redundant.  I feel like I have been asking this question soooo many times during the changing constitution of the W administration that it has become rhetorical.  It has become an insolent question, one that I have stopped asking, because with it comes a sickening in my stomach of disgust, cynicism, superiority, and anger.  I do not want to feel any of these things.

These detainees have been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay for five years.  We have all read about the torture and inhumane treatment of these people (read human beings) entrusted to the care of the United States of America.  Many of us have seen pictures and videos explicating these horrors.  The fact that we are torturing other human beings should be enough to create and sustain outrage, in the least.  But we have not massed together as a body of people United for Liberty and Justice for all.  This means for people foreign to our soil.  And for U.S. citizens.

If we are not outraged to action over the torture of innocents under our own roof, then why would we be outraged about the loss of peoples’ right to “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness?”  Have we forgotten  that our constitution guarantees that the federal government shall not deprive us of these things “without due process of law,” and  “a speedy public trial.”

Habeas Corpus, located in Article 1, Section 9 of our constitution, is the right of any detainee / prisoner to petition the court for being held unlawfully.  This is a vital vein of our bleeding democracy. 

Because there are almost 400 detainees in Guantanamo, and only TEN have been charged since the detention center began to keep the liberties of  these “terror” suspects at bay, I decided to sicken myself with superiority and anger and again ask, Why are we not yet outraged!!!

It happened that I was working on another article about the problems with our perceived free press (which I agree with Noam Chomsky when he says this is more dangerous than a blatantly unfree press).  So when the article was printed in the New York Times about the Justices turning down these detainees’ rights, constitutional rights, I thought… well, this is in the press.  That’s good.  I can’t argue about this because it’s here in front of peoples’ eyes to…

To what?

I thought again… it’s right here.  Page A14 of the New York Times, April 3^rd, 2007. People who want to know what’s going on in this Nation can read all about how the constitutional rights of these detainees do not apply because… we have decided so.  It’s here for people to see so they may…

Become outraged!!!

 

This is what keeps going through my mind.  The “free” press is working in this instance, and it doesn’t matter.  Because we aren’t using the information.  And if we stop using the (little bit of) information we get in our “free” press, then what on earth will happen to our democracy.  A democracy, by definition, is for the people and by the people.  That means the people must speak up.  And Congress will be beholden to do something.  Like doing away with the Military Commissions act of 2006 which denies habeas corpus to “aliens detained as enemy combatants.”

How Congress allowed a law like this to pass is an embarrassment to our nation, though there is hope since the law was passed in October – before midterm elections.  And why the “newer gentler congress” has not yet done away with this law is a further embarrassment to our nation.  Our freedom is contingent upon our due process.  Due process for everyone taken into detention by our country.

Congress can act in the interest of democracy here, just like they FINALLY stood up against this amoral and inane war.  We proved in the last couple months that something about our struggling democracy is still working.  And that if the people stand up, Congress will be so afraid of not getting re-elected that they will, actually, do something.  Yes, as I said, cynicism,  Congress acts out of fear for losing their jobs.  Many of us act or do not act out of fear for losing something.  This is often why people do not speak out.  They abide by the status quo because they know the outcome is what they know.  Change means potential loss.

But I am here to pose this second important question.

What greater loss is there if we are losing our Constitution?  What we all find so endearing about this country… that we can speak amongst ourselves, bash the system, complain, practice free-thinking art, talk on the phone about our despair in watching this government rob these detainees of their liberty, condemn the torture that continues… did I say talk on the phone.  Never mind.  That freedom guaranteed to us in the  1^st and 4^th amendment is stuttering around the Patriot Act, which allows wiretapping and email interception, among other things.

Okay, so you say these detainees lack of rights does not affect your daily life or your liberty… perhaps, if you can block it out, it does not affect your pursuit of happiness either.

But.  Remember the telephone.

These are not mutually exclusive events.

They are happening together.

They are happening to all of us.

One Nation.

Undivided.

With Liberty.

And Justice.

For all.

ld Napier

 

Sedition  (or with Liberty, and Justice, for All, Part 3)

“Rushing to war is easy if the proponent of war portrays opponents as unpatriotic.”

- Hermann Goring

Not Ironically at all, Hermann Gorig (Goering in English), second in command of the Third Reich, was also Commander in Chief of the Forschungsamt, the covert network of spying and monitoring telephone and other communications in Nazi Germany. 

On Sunday, March 25, 2007, the New York Times printed an article about the New York City Police monitoring protesters of the Bush administration and the war.  Apparently the Supreme court has allowed “monitoring” of political groups, with certain restrictions.  However, these particular police officers took the job of “monitoring” these individuals very seriously.  The police officers themselves went to California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts. Michigan, Montreal, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, D.C. and, even, Europe.

Does it not seem odd to anyone other than me that these NYCPD officers were traipsing around the U.S., Canada, and Europe “monitoring” protestors of the Bush administration and his war?

Doesn’t this seem a bit beyond the role of a City police officer?  Who is overseeing this?  Bloomberg, yes.  But isn’t he just a mayor?  Or is he?  Do the Mayors who support the Republican party now have power to assign their police officers to monitor those who do not support the party?  Does this seem like fascism to anyone else? Or am I alone here (as the media would have me believe)?

Fascism might seem an extreme word, but if we look at the definers of fascism according to scholars, “nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to political liberalism.” (Wikepedia, Encyclopedia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 12 Jan. 2007)

One can not argue that five of these seven definers are pervasive in our present society.  The “militarism” can easily be translated to the government’s phone tapping, summoning emails; by and large the Patriot acts fill the role of covert militarism. 

As for the, possibly, arguable “totalitarianism” as defined by Wikepedia, 2007, “Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.”

That’s not the U.S., you say.  No way.  But.  How do “secret police” differ from undercover police spying on people?  And if you do not think our media is “state controlled”, I ask you to look again. 

For example, the same man who sent police traipsing around the world to spy on people, New York’s very own Bloomberg, owns the “leading source of data, news and analytics for corporations, news organizations, financial professionals and individuals around the globe.” Also, of interest is “The Bloomberg television and Bloomberg radio services are syndicated to more than 800 affiliates worldwide, and generate thousands of news reports that are available to Bloomberg users in realtime via the Bloomberg professional service and syndicated to more than 350 newspapers and publications.”  (Business Week European Leadership Forum, 07)  The difference between “regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism” and media which represents plutocracy rather than pluralism is slight. 

Another example of limited media access due to consolidated ownership is The New York Times Company, which, not only owns the New York Times and maintains what news is “fit to print,” but also owns another 18 newspapers nation wide, many the leading paper of its metropolitan area (and with vast influence), such as The Boston Globe and The International Herald Tribune. In addition, The New York Times Company owns several television, and radio stations and owns 50% of the Discovery Times Channel.

Looking beyond printed newspapers at the media giants (TV, cable, film, internet) there are nine corporations dominating the media world: • AOL-Time Warner, • Disney, • Bertelsmann, • News Corporation, • TCI, • General Electric (owner of NBC), • Sony (owner of Columbia and TriStar Pictures and major recording interests), and • Seagram (owner of Universal film and music interests), and  • Viacom [Viacom owns MTV, Paramount, Sundance Channel, etc., but also owns CBS corporation which owns 36 television stations in 16 states and 104 radio stations in 18 states. (Well Connected – The Center for Public Integrity, 2007)].

What becomes the printed news and broadcast news is up to a few, who are the minority of the public, BUT since these companies are for-profit companies with shareholders, legally the company must disseminate information based, first, on company profit, not public policy, relevancy, or democracy.

The “free press” has, in fact, been bought. 

That’s a lot of information disseminated for profit.  No wonder it is not curious that there is not more “anti-corporate” news or even “balanced-interest” news or any world news published within the borders of the main stream media that might be outside the realm of enhancing U.S. imperialist interests. Or hegemony, which is synonymous with the U.S. Imperial interests.  For example, why is nothing about Columbia ever in the main stream news?  A country we give over 2 million dollars a day in aid, the majority of which goes directly to the military, knowing that the government has death squads and paramilitary terrorizing the civilians, and the country (read government) has the worst record of human rights abuses on file.  We say we are helping Columbia fight the war on drugs, but what is not in the news is that the “leftist” rebels are not fighting only for their land but also for economic and social reforms, including the abuse of Columbia’s own oil profits.  In fact the Clinton administration did a study on the affect military intervention has on the drug trade and it found that there would likely be no positive effect, and, perhaps, the intervention would only increase profits for the drug lords. (RAND study)

Why is nothing about the Human Rights abuses by China in Tibet ever in the media.  China is not only equal to corporate interest, but China owns the largest percentage of U.S. debt.

Why is nothing about the horrid slaughter of citizens in the Congo in the news?  Why have we not divested from that country because of human rights abuses?  Could it be because the materials needed for cell phones and other technology are found and gotten in the Congo?

And what about Darfur?  Genocide committed before our eyes.  It is rarely spoken if in the news.  And there is still no public policy that this nation has created to deal with the slaughter of half a million people and displacement of millions of people.  To involve ourselves in this country’s genocide is not, this far, profitable.  There is a small constituency trying to put pressure on China to divest from Darfur – since they have billions of dollars in revenue coming from Darfur.  We can not put pressure on China because we have nothing to bargain with.  Unless we want to stop buying cheap goods and increase industry in this country at a short term cost and long term pay off.   But we do not invest in long term.  The eventual demise of our country.

And of our costly “free” press.

Unfortunately, for short term “security”, we have sold our freedom of speech, and for short term profit margins we have sold our press.

In the recent past, I know the media made us feel like those against the breach of Constitutional rights and the abuse of Executive powers were quite alone.  The media made us feel alone with our anger - not only of how we got into this war, but also in the permissibility of corporations to profit from it and to allow our government to create departments such as The Homeland Security department and bills such as the Patriot Act to “portray (its) opponents as unpatriotic.”  The media also quite successfully perpetrated the idea that none or few in the Senate and House initially stood against these things.  The media has succeeded in its call to support the status quo of this corrupt war by making those who oppose it feel isolated and, at times, hopeless. 

I am sure that most people did not know that in 2002, 156 Senators and Congressmen voted against the war in Iraq.  23 Senators and 133 Congressmen.  That is almost a fourth of Senators and a third of Congressmen,  That was in a Republican Dominated House and Senate.

After all, there have been many votes that did not make the Times news.  Perhaps the economic editors, or political allies did not find this news “fit to print” since they did not want people to know that there was, actually, dissent to the war.

On March 28, 2007 the New York Times reported that the Senate finally rallied behind a pullout date for the war.  The vote was 50 to 48 in favor of a pullout timetable attached to a spending bill.  The House already voted for a conditional pullout date to go along with its spending bill last week.  President Bush vows to veto everybody.

This is momentous for those of us who have felt despondent and defeated in our protests against the war, but it is an example of how media is the definer of the status quo, real or illusory. 

So now the press is on my side.  It’s telling us all the nation has stood up against the war.  It’s telling us that the Press is free to speak out again.

It’s telling us that the Supreme Court has turned down detainees’ habeas corpus. (New York Times, April 3, 2007)

But what are we doing about it?  What are we doing about all of this information we have and all the information we do not. 

I risk being tried for sedition, as an “enemy combatant,” for my sympathies with “unpatriotic” causes.

But.

Great leaders are those who have gone against their society, not those who have tried to tame it.

Even Jesus Christ was considered a rebel.

He was, in fact, killed for sedition by the Romans.

Now we are the Romans. 

And we must remember the words of Alexander Hamilton:

“If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and greatest source of our security in a Republic?  The answer would be an inviolable respect for the Constitution and its Laws.’”

What began in this country as a purchasing of the free press, has foiled inward as an erosion of our constitution.  Our news does not run counter to the oligarchy.  And we can not speak aloud (or protest against the war) or we risk being called “unpatriotic” and, potentially, imprisoned as “enemy combatants.” If imprisoned as such we have lost our right to habeas corpus, and, so, all adherence to and “respect for the Constitution and its Laws.”

With this we have given our government back the core of our constitution which was, originally, “for the people.”

A concept only exists in society behind and within its language.  Or means of expression.

And when we have lost the words forever, we have forever lost

“with Liberty, and Justice, for all…”

 

ld napier

 

may 07