JFK and the Unspeakable [Orbis Books, 4/30/8]

JFK and the Unspeakable
Why He Died and Why It Matters
by James W. Douglass

Advance Praise for JFK and the Unspeakable

"JFK and the Unspeakable is an exceptional achievement. Douglass has made the strongest case so far in the JFK assassination literature as to the Who and the Why of Dallas. The conjunction of unrestrained elements in cold war America—defense industry elites, Pentagon planners, and the heads of the intelligence community—were the forces that led inexorably to Dallas and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.”--Gerald McKnight, author, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why

“With penetrating insight and unswerving integrity, Douglass probes the fundamental truths about JFK’s assassination. If, he contends, humanity permits those truths to slip into history ignored and undefined it does so at its own peril. By far the most important book yet written on the subject.” --Gaeton Fonzi, former Staff Investigator, US House Select Committee on Assassinations

“Douglass presents, brilliantly, an unfamiliar yet thoroughly convincing account of a series of creditable decisions of John F. Kennedy—at odds with his initial Cold War stance—that earned him the secret distrust and hatred of hard-liners among the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA. Did this suspicion and rage lead directly to his murder by agents of these institutions, as Douglass concludes? Many readers who are not yet convinced of this ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ by Douglass’s prosecutorial indictment will find themselves, perhaps—like myself—for the first time, compelled to call for an authoritative criminal investigation. Recent events give all the more urgency to learning what such an inquiry can teach us about how, by whom, and in whose interests this country is run.” --Daniel Ellsberg, author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers

“For forty years Jim Douglass has been our leading North American Catholic theologian of peace. But this monumental work on the witness of JFK is something deeper still. Douglass is trying to get us to connect the dots between our ‘citizen denial,’ the government’s ‘plausible deniability,’ and the Unspeakable. This book has the potential to change our narrative about our country, and our lives as citizens and disciples. May we have ears to hear these truths, hearts able to bear their burden, and hands willing to build a new story.”—Ched Myers, author, Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus

“This book’s story of JFK and the ‘unspeakable’ is a stunning mix of political thriller and meticulous scholarship. Even as it points persuasively to rogue powers at work in the U.S. military-industrial complex, it also witnesses to the power of spirit, inspiring prophetic voices like Thomas Merton’s, turning a president like John Kennedy toward peace, thus also enabling readers to see into the current deep structure of U.S. war and empire. Douglass’s book offers a goldmine of information and is indispensable for building prophetic spirit and hope.”—Mark Lewis Taylor, Princeton Theological Seminary

“A remarkable book: devastating in its documented indictment of the dark forces that have long deformed the public life of this country, while also illuminating JFK’s final vision of world peace and documenting beyond reasonable doubt the unspeakable assassination of our last partially admirable president. This book should be required reading for every American citizen.”—Richard Falk, Milbank Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University

“This is the most thoroughly researched and documented book ever written about President Kennedy’s determination to prevent a nuclear war—and how his success in that struggle cost him his life. And yet, Douglass leads us well beyond the ‘whodunit’ dimensions of the story. He leads us straight into the urgent implications for the present, into what Thomas Merton called the ‘unspeakable.’ In the shadows of our own time we begin to become better prepared to break free of the violence that threatens all of us today.”—Don Mosely, co-founder Jubilee Partners

“A remarkable achievement, outstanding even in an overcrowded field. It is profoundly conceived, researched, considered, argued, and written. Douglass shows persuasively how Kennedy’s innovative steps in foreign policy produced dangerous opposition within his own national security establishment. Not all will agree with his detailed speculation as to what happened in Dallas. But Douglass’s large picture of America’s political agony is, I believe, incontrovertible and certain to last.”--Peter Dale Scott, author Deep Politics and the Death of JFK

"Jim Douglass’s spiritual and eloquent telling of President John F. Kennedy’s martyrdom for peace is a peerless and extraordinary historical contribution.”—Vincent J. Salandria, author, False Mystery: Essays on the Assassination of JFK

“Douglass writes with moral force, clarity, and the careful attention to detail that will make JFK and the Unspeakable a sourcebook for many years to come, for it provides us with the stubborn facts needed to rebuild a constitutional democracy within the United States.”--Marcus Raskin, co-founder, Institute for Policy Studies

“Jim Douglass never ceases to surprise us, taking us where we do not expect or often wish to go. In this fascinating work he links politics and spirituality. In re-forming the past he reshapes the future, with hope, thank God.”--Bill J. Leonard, Dean and Professor of Church History Wake Forest University Divinity School

“Jim Douglass is a courageous and single-minded Christian whose convictions are reflected in his life and witness. In this provocative new book, he brings together history and spirituality at the intersection of one of the most pivotal—and yet still mystifying—events of the past century. A myth-exploding story and compelling read.”--Timothy George, Dean Beeson Divinity School of Samford University

“In JFK and the Unspeakable Jim Douglass steadily guides us toward a strategy of peace. By dramatizing JFK’s remarkable conversion away from a U.S. foreign policy based on military threat and force, Douglass holds forth hope for current generations to similarly dismantle our addiction to war. Douglass’s dedication to nonviolence could have salvific effects as people ponder this astonishing book.”—Kathy Kelly, Voices for Creative Nonviolence

An astonishing new examination of the Kennedy assassination and its meaning today for the struggle for peace.

James Douglass lays out the journey that led JFK in the course of three years from his position as a traditional ColdWarrior to his determination to break with the logic of the Cold War and lead the world in an entirely different direction. This sequence of steps led his adversaries in the military and intelligence establishment to view him as a virtual traitor who had to be eliminated.

Douglass’s book has all the elements of a political thriller. But the stakes couldn’t be higher. Only by understanding the truth behind the murder of JFK can we grasp his vision and assume the urgent struggle for peace today.

“For forty years Jim Douglass has been our leading North American Catholic theologian of peace. But this monumental work on the witness of JFK is something deeper still. . . .This book has the potential to change our narrative about our country, and our lives as citizens and disciples.May we have ears to hear these truths, hearts able to bear their burden, and hands willing to build a new story.”—Ched Myers, author, Binding the Strong Man

James W. Douglass is a longtime peace activist and writer.He and his wife Shelley are co-founders of the Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action in Poulsbo, Washington, and Mary’s House, a Catholic Worker house of hospitality in Birmingham, Alabama. His books include The Nonviolent Cross, The Nonviolent Coming of God, and Resistance and Contemplation.

Stanley Hauerwas on Bonhoeffer, Truth, and Politics

H/T: inhabitatiodei

58 MINUTES, YOUTUBE

Clinton the Hawk and Her Advisors

[More astute analysis from Jack at AfterTheFuture]

Clinton the Hawk and Her Advisors

Again, in case you needed reminding about one of the most important differences between Obama and Clinton:

It should come as no surprise that during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, Obama spoke at a Chicago anti-war rally while Clinton went as far as falsely claiming that Iraq was actively supporting al-Qaeda. And during the recent State of the Union address, when Bush proclaimed that the Iraqi surge was working, Clinton stood and cheered while Obama remained seated and silent.

Clinton's advisors are similarly confident in the ability of the United States to impose its will through force. This is reflected to this day in the strong support for President Bush's troop surge among such Clinton advisors (and original invasion advocates) as Jack Keane, Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon.

Clinton's top foreign policy advisor -- and her likely pick for Secretary of State -- Richard Holbrooke, insisted that Iraq remained "a clear and present danger at all times." He rejected the broad international legal consensus against such offensive wars and insisted European governments and anti-war demonstrators who opposed a U.S. invasion of Iraq "undoubtedly encouraged" Saddam Hussein.

Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, who served as her husband's national security advisor, insisted that "even a contained Saddam" was "harmful to stability and to positive change in the region" and insisted on the necessity of "regime change." Other top Clinton advisors -- such as former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright -- confidently predicted that American military power could easily suppress any opposition to a U.S. takeover of Iraq.

By contrast, during the lead-up to the war, Obama's advisors recognized as highly suspect the Bush administration's claims regarding Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" and offensive delivery systems capable of threatening U.S. national security. Read more.

Obama's advisers include Zbigniew Brezinksi, Joseph Cirincione, Susan Rice, Larry Korb, Samantha Power, and Richard Clarke. This isn't the group Dennis Kucinich would likely pick, but they are people who have been much more clearheaded about the folly of our Middle Eastern adventurism.

These differences in the key circles of foreign policy specialists surrounding these two candidates are consistent with their diametrically opposing views in the lead-up to the war, with Clinton voting to let President Bush invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his choosing, while Obama was speaking out to oppose a U.S. invasion.

Hillary Clinton has a few advisors who did oppose the war, like Wesley Clark, but taken together, the kinds of key people she's surrounded herself with supports the likelihood that her administration, like Bush's, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars.

By contrast, as The Nation magazine noted, a Barack Obama administration would be more likely to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America's allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country's international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort.

This late 20th Century foreign-policy mentality embraced by both Clinton and the Republicans should be mothballed ASAP. See also the article mentioned in The Nation for more details on Obama's people.

See also this Matt Yglesias post and comments on the meme that Obama doesn't have

People get ready?

"People get ready, there's a train a comin'
You don't need no baggage, you just get on board
All you need is faith to hear the diesels hummin'
Don't need no ticket, you just thank the Lord

People get ready for the train to Jordan
It's picking up passengers from coast to coast
Faith is the key, open the doors and board 'em
There's hope for all among those loved the most..."


---------------------------

To: Anon

cc: Jack

(Jack, this could be a separate ATF entry given its spiritual and moral tone...)

I'll give you this, Anon:

The way Obama and, frankly, all other politicians use words like "unity" is generally hollow, saccharine, and devoid of heft/substantiality.

Underneath the surface, though, the need for real unity--the need for an urgent and deeply spiritual uniting of persons on some core, foundational levels--is profound.

For me, the supreme tragedy of this election season--the heartbreaking and devastating revelation that really has me sad and sorrowful about the country--is the extent to which a solid third of Americans (perhaps as many as 40 percent) are, as a matter of plain, sober and cerebral analysis, NUTJOBS.

I say that without malice or resentment (up until very recently, I couldn't say so honestly, but now I can). I say it as a political analyst, not as a moral and spiritual being.

As a moral and spiritual being, my heart is wounded and crushed that 1/3 of Americans are so fully for the continuation of war, for the automatic long-term enshrinement of tax cuts, and for harsh treatment of immigrants who have not followed the letter of the law in coming to this country.

I am and have been taken aback this week by the ugly way in which the poster boys and girls of the right wing--Coulter, Limbaugh, DeLay, Ingraham, Dobson, and many, many others--are repudiating McCain and calling him "not a true conservative."

As someone who treated Al Gore in 2000 the way right-wingers are treating McCain now, I feel personally shamed by the level of anger and resentment I carried toward Gore in 2000 (and to Kerry in 2004 after he beat Howard Dean, my guy; Gore was persona non grata inside my heart after he played gutter politics to beat back my candidate, Bill Bradley, in 2000).

I have come to the startling and stunning yet completely undeniable realization that these right-wingers--people whom I have intensely disliked for years, and whose failures have been greatly relished by me and my liberal friends & family members--are, in terms of the patterns and contours of their political (election-based) thinking, are much closer to me than I ever could have appreciated.

Much as I felt the Al Gore of 2000 and the John Kerry of 2004 were betrayers of liberalism (ditto Bill Clinton after the 1994 Republican Revolution), right-wingers now feel that McCain is a traitor to the conservative cause.

So to bring this full circle, unity--REAL unity, the unity that can never be adequately expressed by even a gifted stump orator such as Obama--is about having a heart of compassion for the other, especially the other who stands in entrenched opposition to oneself.

Such a heart and mindset of empathy and compassion--loving your neighbor as yourself, doing for others as they would do unto you--are the cornerstones of good humanity. Accordingly, they lead us to agree on certain fundamentals that were always at the heart of the American ideal, the things that made this country great: equality, universality, freedom, unlimited opportunity, basic civil rights, unfettered self expression as long as it doesn't encroach upon the rights of others.

Unity is a deeply needed value/virtue in America and, for that matter, the world. One simply needs to realize that it's up to us, as Americans, to do the soul searching necessary to bring that about. Politicians will not do it for us.

That's why the right-wing attacks on McCain are so saddening. They reflect a solid third of the country (the solid third that still approves of Bush's job performance) that will demonize a person if s/he strays from marching orders to the slightest extent, including/especially in the defense of illegal immigrants, Iraqis suffering from war, or anyone else who represents THE OTHER.

We need to be unified with all persons, so that THE OTHER ceases to be a part of our vocabularly and, for that matter, our mindset.

That is, ironically, the changing of mythos that Jack has spoken about, and which Obama (albeit on a superficial level that most people can't appreciate) is trying to articulate on the hustings.

Posted by: Matt Zemek | February 08, 2008 at 09:31 AM

Crossing the Threshold of Hope

...."Israel's methodical actions make it clear that it is systematically grinding down and now actually starving people for whose welfare it is legally accountable simply because it regards Gaza's 1.5 million men, women and children as a surplus population it would, quite simply, like to get rid of one way or the other: a sentiment made quite clear when Israel's chief Ashkenazi rabbi proposed, shortly after the current crisis began, that the entire Palestinian population of Gaza should just be removed and transferred to the Egyptian desert. 'They will have a nice country, and we shall have our country and we shall live in peace,'"- "The Strangulation of Gaza", The Nation, Feb. 18, 2008.

Such a peace was well known to the Roman empire: "They made a desert and called it peace." - Tacitus.

Christians, of course, need not fear that that they will be forced to look at the starving faces which our government's unceasing support for Israel has procured. Nor will their pastors intrude any unwelcome pleas for justice, but we will all continue to enjoy the "Gospel of Prosperity" until the Rapture takes us to eternal Disneyland. How pleased God must be with us.

posted by Boyd at 12:51 PM

Which Side of History Are You On?

Chalmers Johnson on "military Keynesianism" and imperial bankruptcy

This is a clip from a new film, "Chalmers Johnson on American Hegemony," in Cinema Libre Studios' Speaking Freely series in which Johnson discusses "military Keynesianism" and imperial bankruptcy.

Jesus for President - Politics for Ordinary Radicals

Chapter/Section Summaries

Section 1
A good Creation of love and beauty takes a turn for the worse, landing it in a murderous chaos. What to do? Flood it and start fresh? Build a tower that reaches heaven? Appoint an adventurous elderly couple to lead the people out of the nations to the Promised Land? Something has to save humanity from themselves …

Section 2
The construction of a set-apart people into a living temple of blessing is going so-so. The solution: God puts skin on to show the world what love looks like. But here’s the catch: the Prince of Peace is born as a refugee in the middle of a genocide and is rescued from the trash bin of imperial executions to stand at the pinnacle of this peculiar people. A strange way to start a revolution …

Section 3
Flags on altars, images of the gods on money … Caesar is colonizing our imaginations. What has happened to the slaughtered Lamb, the Prince of Peace? There seems to be another gospel spreading across the empire, and two Kingdoms are colliding. What is a Jesus-follower to do when the empire gets baptized?

Section 4
Snapshots of political imagination … the question is not are we political, but how are we political. Not are we relevant, but are we peculiar? The answer lies in how we embody what we believe. Our greatest challenge is to maintain the distinctiveness of our faith in a world gone mad. And all of creation waits, groans, for a people who live God’s dream with fresh imagination.

The Times, They Are A-Changin'?

Mike Gravel rates Democrat opponents

Congress could do a good job, theoretically, but it can't. Why? Its owned lock, stock, and barrel by corporate America. So you think you're going to become president and you're going to turn to the Congress and say, “Let's really straighten out corporate America.” This is foolishness. It's fantasy.

Video and transcript - 10/01/08

Quote of the Day: Robert Scheer

In response to Gloria Steinem's column asserting that women become more radical as they age, and that's why they voted in N.H. for Clinton:

What is radical about voting for a corporate lawyer who, in defense of her Arkansas savings and loan shenanigans, once said you can't be a lawyer without working for banks? Steinem boasts of Clinton's "unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House" without referencing the Clinton White House's giveaways to corporate America at the expense of poor and working Americans, the majority of them being women. Sen. Clinton's key election operative, Mark Penn, was the other half of the Dick Morris team that recast populist Bill Clinton as the master of triangulation. . . .

Yes, Bill Clinton was a very good president compared to what came immediately before and after, and his wife has many strong points in her favor, not the least of which is her wonkish intelligence. What I object to is the notion that the perspective of gender or race trumps that of economic class in considering the traumas of this nation. That is because the George W. Bush administration engaged in class warfare for the rich with a vengeance that has left many Americans hurting, and we desperately need change to reverse that destructive course.

Let's get our priorities straight, shall we? Having a woman or an African-American president would mean our having reached a wonderful milestone, but it's secondary to the more significant problems that confront us, which have to do with economic structure, power aggregation, and foreign adventurism.

Moderate Complacency

another good one from Jack at "AfterTheFuture"

What Are Our Voices For?

More wisdom from NonViolentJesus

"And woe unto you if you are torturing your fellow human being. Woe unto you if you are getting rich by providing material support, service, or assistance to the purveyors of torture, for how does it profit a person to gain the whole world but lose his or her soul? Woe unto the politicians who have abused our nation’s fear to find support for torture and who change the definition of torture in order to say with a straight face, 'Americans don’t torture'. Woe unto the politicians who have not spoken out loudly enough to condemn torture. Woe to the religious communities and leaders who have been silent. Woe unto you, for you will have to go to bed each night knowing that you have sinned against humanity and against God." - Ben Daniel

Listen to the words of a soldier trying to follow his faith:

Specialist Joshua Casteel - Listen to the audio clip (or download)

warcomeshome.org


Where is the leadership which should expect from bishops, the shepherds of the people of God? Justice must be enthroned - this is the work of Jesus. 40 years of hermaneutics, Vatican II, and all the rest, and not a single forthright criticism of a war that they admit was in no way justified by just war principles, not as long as it really matters - while the war is in progress.

"For too long the language of morality and sin has been commandeered by those among us who think the primary goal of religion is to regulate human intimacy. People like you and me—that is to say, thoughtful people of faith whose souls are inclined to the work of making the world a better place—we don’t want our religious faithfulness to be confused with prudishness, so we shy away from anything that might look like a pounded pulpit or that might smell like brimstone.

"Brothers and sisters, dear friends, when it comes to torture, we need to lose that inhibition, because how can torture be anything but immoral? And if we cannot condemn as sin that which truly is immoral, then what might our God-given voices be for?Brothers and sisters, dear friends, when it comes to torture, we need to lose that inhibition, because how can torture be anything but immoral? And if we cannot condemn as sin that which truly is immoral, then what might our God-given voices be for?" - Ben Daniel, speech at the headquarters of a company that renders "enemy combatants" to be tortured for the edification and career advancement of American politicians.

Indeed, what is the purpose of spiritual life if it can't be moved by the plight of our brothers and sisters and we are condemned to live in a fairy land of Rapture? For what has God given us minds and hands and hearts if they cannot be moved by a world of starvation caused directly by the corporations that coddle us with obscene and undeserved comfort? Our hearts were not given us so that we could distract them with brainless nonsense while the world burns.

"I am not schooled in national security or in international politics. I am a pastor, and I wouldn’t be a very good one if the promotion of social righteousness were not part of my ministry. What I know about torture is this: it’s not just ineffective, and unpatriotic and illegal, and dangerous. To torture someone is immoral because it is cruel and it is unfair. Torture uses punishment to determine guilt rather than using guilt to determine punishment. Torture desecrates the image of God that is common to all humanity. Torture is a sin." - Ben Daniel

It is as much a mortal sin as abortion, though you don't hear Catholic bishops shaking that tree very often. They have more important things to deal with than the torture of human beings.

"And woe unto you if you are torturing your fellow human being. Woe unto you if you are getting rich by providing material support, service, or assistance to the purveyors of torture, for how does it profit a person to gain the whole world but lose his or her soul? Woe unto the politicians who have abused our nation’s fear to find support for torture and who change the definition of torture in order to say with a straight face, 'Americans don’t torture'. Woe unto the politicians who have not spoken out loudly enough to condemn torture. Woe to the religious communities and leaders who have been silent. Woe unto you, for you will have to go to bed each night knowing that you have sinned against humanity and against God." - Ben Daniel

And you will have to sleep in the sin your silence has nurtured.

"The final word belongs to grace. Grace enables and empowers us to change. The good news is that no matter what the propagators of hatred and fear may tell us, we can reject the sin of torture and so can they. We can just say no. There remains time for the amendment of our national character. By grace we can affirm the sanctity of each human life. By grace we can refuse to live under the illusionary comfort of security that is conceived in cruelty and born of brutality. By grace we may live moral and upright lives." - Ben Daniel

Wake from sin and speak. It is the only true security.

posted by Boyd at 1:05 PM | 0 comments links to this post

Beyond Liberal & Conservative (Updated)

From Jack at "After The Future"

November 11, 2007
Beyond Liberal & Conservative (Updated)

From Frank Rich, "The Coup at Home:

Last weekend a new Washington Post-ABC News poll found that the Democratic-controlled Congress and Mr. Bush are both roundly despised throughout the land, and that only 24 percent of Americans believe their country is on the right track. That’s almost as low as the United States’ rock-bottom approval ratings in the latest Pew surveys of Pakistan (15 percent) and Turkey (9 percent).

Wrong track is a euphemism. We are a people in clinical depression. Americans know that the ideals that once set our nation apart from the world have been vandalized, and no matter which party they belong to, they do not see a restoration anytime soon.

Anybody who is still stuck in the liberal/conservative dichotomy is hopelessly incapable of understanding what's happening to us. We're now into the American/unAmerican dichotomy, in which 'American' stands for honor, decency, and the rule of law, while unAmerican stands for the kind of corruption and brutality in the name of national security that has overtaken the GOP. As Rich says earlier in this column:

To believe that this corruption will simply evaporate when the Bush presidency is done is to underestimate the permanent erosion inflicted over the past six years. What was once shocking and unacceptable in America has now been internalized as the new normal.

This is most apparent in the Republican presidential race, where most of the candidates seem to be running for dictator and make no apologies for it. They’re falling over each other to expand Gitmo, see who can promise the most torture and abridge the largest number of constitutional rights. The front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, boasts a proven record in extralegal executive power grabs, Musharraf-style: After 9/11 he tried to mount a coup, floating the idea that he stay on as mayor in defiance of New York’s term-limits law.

Democracies are certainly capable of electing governments that will do away with democracy. It's happened elsewhere, and while most Americans don't want to face up to it, it's happening here. Lots of people understand this, but it has been troubling to me that it has taken those Americans who think of themselves as moderates and principled conservatives so long to catch on. There are a few like Andrew Sullivan and John Cole, both GOP cheerleaders earlier on, who have publicly and repentantly repudiated their earlier administration support. They both understand that the Republican Party no longer stands for what they thought it did, even remotely. Why they ever thought this particular group was trustworthy is another question, but both have become ardent critics, and they should be credited for not allowing their good sense and decency from being obscured by their ideology. ...CONTINUE READING JACK'S POST

Boomer Culpability (Updated)

From the blog 'After the Future'

October 21, 2007

MZ in response to my "Soft Tryranny" post asked what I thought about boomer culpability in getting us where we are. I'll share a few thoughts here, but what do other boomers think? Non-boomers--what's your take on the responsibility of your elders in getting us all into this fix?

I'd say first of all, the boomer generation is no different than any other except that it was young during an unusual--perhaps aberrational--moment in history. The technocracy trembled a little during that moment, but it didn't take long for it to recover and to reassert its control. Some boomers were affected by an awakening to new possibility that the sixties pointed to, but most in my generation were not affected. There's a reason Nixon pushed for the voting age to be lowered to 18 in 1970--he knew most young people would vote for him, and they did in '72.

As a young man, I wanted to believe that the creative burst that manifested in the sixties represented the introduction of a new cultural era, and I searched everywhere to find people to connect with who shared that hope. I went to meetings of the SDS and other radical left groups and was for the most part disgusted by the egoism, anger, and hedonism that seemed to be their animating spirit. It became clear that the idealism I was looking for would not be found there because for the most part the people in my generation who were leading the student movements didn't have it. They were driven primarily by narcissism and fear of the draft. The technocracy finally figured this out and adjusted by endorsing sexual license and taking away the draft. I learned then that the New Left in this country had its head up its ass then, and nothing much has changed since insofar as its ghost still dominates political discourse on the left.

There were and are exceptions. I admired what Saul Alinsky and his serious disciples were able to achieve. I admired the for the most part the sober analysis of Noam Chomsky, and there are several bloggers in the Chomsky "school" to whom I refer from time to time. But the closest thing I found to what I was looking for was in the Christian social activism of Dorothy Day, Cesar Chavez, and I admired what Daniel Berrigan was trying to do, and the liberation theology movement in Latin America. These people were all for real. I was influenced by the hope for a Church "devoid of means of power" envisioned by the brothers of Taize (Rest in peace, Brother Eric) went to Yale to study theology, worked as a book editor, and then faded away to live on the margins of the technocracy in the late eighties and nineties, allowing myself to become preoccupied by family and other local concerns as it became clearer that whatever the sixties were, they were a moment that had come and gone.

I woke up to the fact that while the American ideal is real, it has had a relatively weak influence in American history. The American spirit has mostly been a celebration of unrestrained greed and powerlust. Looking back on it now, it would appear that the only lasting effect of the sixties was to allow unrestrained sexuality join up with unrestrained greed and power. The technocracy is indifferent to sexual behavior or even promotes destroying traditional restraints. Sex keeps us all distracted. Better from the technocracy's point of view that we should be preoccupied with sexual rights than with political or economic rights.

If "freedom" becomes primarily identified with sexual freedom, not a problem for the technocracy. Whatever the the debate team pros and cons regarding abortion, its promotion as a technological solution to a deeply human and morally complex problem always bothered me and should have bothered more on the serious left, which was so easily co-opted by the technocracy on this issue. No fuss, no muss--so hygienic. I have always seen abortion as cognate with the technocracy's soul-numbing agenda, and it's no wonder that the narcissism of the left blinded them to that aspect of it. It shouldn't be surprising that abortion was enthusiastically approved by the elites in the technocracy and their children in my generation. Stupid sex without life consequences--cool. And it fits in so well with the technocracy's agenda to trivialize, demystify, and dehumanize us.

If the sixties had a political focus beginning the attempt to analyze and understand the technocracy's power, the seventies gave up on that project, focussed on its new sexual liberation toy, my generation and the tweener generation born in the thirties and the war years thus distracted averted their eyes from the more important developments taking place in the economic and political spheres. The tweeners and the boomers were essentially bought off with drugs, sex, and rock 'n roll, our late-modern version of Roman bread and circuses. And people on the left today wonder why they can't mobilize opposition to the technocratic beast? Our generation and those that followed us haven't even a shred of the discipline or the willingness to sacrifice and fight that would be required to face it down. In that we're all culpable. We're soft, and that's the way the technocracy likes us.

So are we boomers culpable more than others? Sure we were too easily bought off (Remember Jerry Rubin?), but it's hard for me to imagine what the leaders of our generation could have done differently. Is it realistic to believe that our generation could have dismantled the military industrial technocracy before 1989? I don't think so. The moment for that would have been in the fifties when we were kids, but the cold-war hysteria of our parents' 'greatest' generation made that an impossibility. And everyone in power at that time believed that the only way to keep the prosperity machine running was by feeding the military-industrial beast.

I suggested that our generation grew up in a historically aberrational era, and what made it so was its historically unprecedented affluence so quickly after a time of such horror and suffering. It was a dizzying time, and no one wanted to mess with success.The lingering fear of a return to the horrors of the 30s and 40s made it psychologically impossible for our parents' generation to consider starving the beast rather than to give it everything it demanded. As a result it became the fat, insatiable horror it is today. Sanity was an impossible option because the preservation of American prosperity and power was the only real option, so American society adjusted to the madness and called it normal.

And so after 1989 we elected for the first time one of our own. He is the boomer paradigm: a patina of idealism thinly coating crude instinctuality, ambition, and a ready willingness to serve the technocratic beast created in the forties and fifties. The technocracy prefers Republicans, but it can work with housetrained Democrats. And Clinton pretty much did everything he was told (as will his wife). His boomer VP, Al Gore, though compromised and complicit in the system, was still the better man in which genuine idealism had not been completely squeezed out of him. But the sincerity of his idealism is precisely what disqualified him from being elected. The beast does not tolerate genuine idealism, only its appearance.

And that's how it stands. Washington has become Babylon on the Potomac, a place attractive primarily to the power depraved, the money depraved, or the sexually depraved. No truly decent person could thrive there, and any person naive enough to think differently and who goes there with the idea to change things is quickly disillusioned and leaves, adapts, or in some rare cases makes a stand for principle, usually futile That's why Mukasey's getting a pass. That's why FISA is being dismantled. That's why we lost habeas corpus. That's why if Cheney/Bush decide to attack Iran, congress will get on the bandwagon.

That's what inside-the-Beltway politicians and media understand that the rest of us don't: nothing really matters except feeding the beast. Even the decent ones would say: "Unless you live in the belly of the beast, you cannot have any realistic idea what it's like to work in such an environment. Criticize all you want, unless you're here, you have no idea how things work and what's possible." I understand that, and that's why I don't believe there's any changing things from inside the system--pressure has to be brought from outside.

That kind of pressure is not likely to be brought against this system any time soon--certainly not by the boomer generation. So what is there to be done? the typical American might ask. They might quite reasonably answer: Not much, so why pay attention? Might as well enjoy the bread and circuses while they last. That's pretty much all you can do until the whole thing sooner or later collapses of its own corrupt weight as these systems inevitably do. Katrina was just a shot across the bow. We're evolving into Brazil where the elites will be safe and comfortable within their plushly appointed, Blackwater-guarded, gated communities, and the rest of us will be living in various versions of New Orleans.

So I think the idealism of the sixties was always something of a sham. Deep-seated, sincere Idealism is always a minority position in every generation. In that respect the boomers are no better or worse than any other generation. Maybe future generations will do better.

Update: Some might think my argument about the bloated beast is the same as the Libertarian argument to shrink government. The size of the government is not the issue, but whose interests it serves, and ours has ceased to serve the common good, serving instead the forces that have gradually transformed us into a militaristic surveillance state. Any government-shrinking Libertarian who supported the invasion of Iraq or approves the militarization of our economy over the last sixty years wants opposite things at the same time. Ron Paul seems to get that. I'm not sure so-called libertarian conservatives like Sullivan do. I don't buy into Paul's Libertarianism--I think it leads inevitably to the Brazilification of the country whether it's intended or not--but I would vote for him in a heartbeat if the only other choice was Hillary.

October 21, 2007 at 01:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

It Takes A Village to Start World War III

Published on Thursday, October 11, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

by Nancy Kricorian

On September 26, 2007, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton voted yes on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that effectively labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a “terrorist organization.” The Revolutionary Guard Corps is the largest branch of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s military. It is unprecedented in American history that the armed forces of a sovereign nation have been named “a terrorist organization.” In response to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, Iran’s Foreign Ministry and parliament have designated the U.S. Army and CIA as terrorist organizations.

Clinton was the lone Democratic presidential candidate to support this legislation that many view as giving President Bush authority to launch an air war against Iran. Senator Chris Dodd, in explaining his negative vote, said, “We learned in the run up to the Iraq war that seemingly nonbinding language passed by this Senate can have profound consequences. We need the president to use robust diplomacy to address concerns with Iran, not the language in this amendment that the president can point to if he decides to draw this country into another disastrous war of choice.” He added, “We shouldn’t repeat our mistakes and enable this President again.”

How the World Works

[Brilliant writing and analysis from the blog 'AfterTheFuture'. click title above to read full post]

...this is the way the world works. Power uses power to consolidate power. The power system is self-perpetuating because it only hires and promotes people who serve its interests without questioning them. And the system and those who serve it co-opt or threaten anybody who would question it. The beltway media are full of people who have been threatened or coopted, and they may or may not be consciously aware of their acquiescence.

They live in a culture of acquiescence to power, and so it is normal and expected behavior for them to acquiesce to it. They do it without thinking, taking their cues from whoever it is whose job it is to give such cues. And they take the cues because their careers and lifestyles depend on it. They would not have risen to the positions they hold now if they were not ambitiously good cue takers. And so they have a vested interest in praising and supporting those who, like them, take the cues and squelching anybody who refuses to take them, because their livelihood and wellbeing depends on the charade continuing.

And whether we approve or disapprove makes no difference because we don't hire them, and our criticisms have little or no impact on their performance. They perform for their bosses and for one another in this self-reinforcing fiction that keeps them all in the positions they worked so hard to obtain. The self-perpetuation of the system doesn't require conspiracies and evil geniuses, just a lot of people pursuing their self interests and forming alliances with others who understand the game and will help you out so long as you serve their interests and play by the rules. Challenging the rules is out of the question, and gets you kicked out of the game. A guy like Ralph Nader will never be taken seriously because he challenges the rules--and Liberals who want Nader thrown out of the game are basically acquiescing to the rules as they are set up. The problem with Liberals is basically their naive belief that the system still works.

Kamiya and Greenwald are like wide-eyed boys who are telling us the emperor has no clothes, but it doesn't matter because there are too many people with a vested interest in the charade continuing, and everyone who sees the truth of the situation has no imagination about what to do about it. And if they do, if they express their understandable outrage, they will get ridiculed, ostracized or even tasered and arrested. And for what? Will it change anything?

Nothing is going to happen in Washington until serious power coalitions develop that have weight enough to counter the enormous entrenched and unaccountable corporate and bureaucratic power that is the driving force behind, particularly, the M/I complex. There are other power centers, but this one is the most deeply entrenched and the most resistant to political control.

I don't think the people who serve these power centers are evil, but they are the banal servants of evil. What is needed are heroes. These servants of power are just ordinary human beings like the media types described above. They are ambitious, and they do what they are told in order to get ahead. Petraeus is the archetype of this kind of person. The media recognize one of their own--he's a talented brown-nose, nothing more. That's what is so facetious about his being lionized last week. People like him don't think about the big picture. They are given assignments, they complete them, and they are rewarded. They mostly believe they are doing good work, serving their country. They don't think about the implications too much, and they are too willing to believe the propaganda justifying their mission because to question it would undermine their career aspirations, and, anyway, what good what that do?

The power system is self-perpetuating in this way. To change it would require a high level of awareness and a level of heroic commitment from millions of people inside and outside of government. And what citizens do in the ballot box is irrelevant until a slate of candidates arise who say that they are willing to confront and subject this system to the will of the people. Until that happens, the charade continues, and while Republicans are the more obsequious in serving these power centers, the Democrats, as we've seen, haven't the political will to confront them. They, too, are careerists, and first and foremost is the fulfillment of their own and their consultants' ambitions, and that requires that they, too, play by the rules. That's what it takes to be taken seriously, and that's just how the world works.

P.S. The whole Greensapn Iraq was "largely about oil'" statement in his new book is an interesting breach of the rules that even he, the most serious of serious Beltway types, felt he had to back away from by convolutedly talking about the threat Saddam posed to the Straits of Hormuz (?!). Just say anything, Alan--Americans don't know where the straits are anyway, and don't care. Of course Iraq was and continues to be largely, if not most importantly, about oil. But it's against the rules to talk about oil. What was he thinking? Did Andrea know he slipped it into his book?

September 18, 2007 at 10:52 AM

An Open Letter to the New Generation of Military Officers Serving and Protecting Our Nation By Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.

Dear Comrades in Arms,
You are facing challenges in 2007 that we of previous generations never dreamed of. I'm just an old fighter pilot (101 combat missions in Vietnam , F-4 Phantom, Phu Cat, 1969-1970) who's now a disabled veteran with terminal cancer from Agent Orange. Our mailing list (over 22,000) includes veterans from all branches of the service, all political parties, and all parts of the political spectrum. We are Republicans and Democrats, Greens and Libertarians, Constitutionists and Reformers, and a good many Independents. What unites us is our desire for a government that (1) follows the Constitution, (2) honors the truth, and (3) serves the people.
We see our government going down the wrong path, all too often ignoring military advice, and heading us toward great danger. And we look to you who still serve as the best hope for protecting our nation from disaster.
We see the current Iraq War as having been unnecessary, entered into under false pretenses, and horribly mismanaged by the civilian authorities. Thousands of our brave troops have been needlessly sacrificed in a futile attempt at occupation of a hostile land. Many more thousands have suffered wounds which will change their lives forever. Tens of thousands have severe psychological problems because of what they have seen and what they have done. Potentially hundreds of thousands could be poisoned by depleted uranium, with symptoms appearing years later, just as happened to us exposed to Agent Orange. The military services are depleted and demoralized. The VA system is under-funded and overwhelmed. The National Guard and Reserves have been subjected to tour after tour, disrupting lives for even the lucky ones who return intact. Jobs have been lost, marriages have been destroyed, homes have been foreclosed, and children have been estranged. And for what? We have lost allies, made new enemies, and created thousands of new terrorists, further endangering the American people.
But you know all this. I'm sure you also see the enormous danger in a possible attack on Iran , possibly with nuclear weapons. Such an event, seriously contemplated by the Cheney faction of the Bush administration, would make enemies of Russia and China and turn us into the number one rogue nation on earth. The effect on our long-term national security would be devastating.
Some of us had hoped that the new Democratic Congress would end the occupation of Iraq and take firm steps to prevent an attack on Iran , perhaps by impeaching Bush and Cheney. These hopes have been dashed. The lily-livered Democrats have caved in, turning their backs on those few (like Congressman Jack Murtha) who understand the situation. Many of us have personally walked the halls of Congress, to no avail.
This is where you come in.
We know that many of you share our concern and our determination to protect our republic from an arrogant, out-of-control, imperial presidency and a compliant, namby-pamby Congress (both of which are unduly influenced by the oil companies and other big-money interests). We know that you (like us) wouldn't have pursued a military career unless you were idealistic and devoted to our nation and its people. (None of us do it for the pay and working conditions!) But we also recognize that you may not see how you can influence these events. We in the military have always had a historic subservience to civilian authority.
Perhaps I can help with whatever wisdom I've gathered from age (I retired in 1978, so I am ancient indeed).
Our oath of office is to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Might I suggest that this includes a rogue president and vice-president? Certainly we are bound to carry out the legal orders of our superiors. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which binds all of us enshrines the Nuremberg Principles which this country established after World War II (which you are too young to remember). One of those Nuremberg Principles says that we in the military have not only the right, but also the DUTY to refuse an illegal order. It was on this basis that we executed Nazi officers who were “only carrying out their orders.”
The Constitution which we are sworn to uphold says that treaties entered into by the United States are the “highest law of the land,” equivalent to the Constitution itself. Accordingly, we in the military are sworn to uphold treaty law, including the United Nations charter and the Geneva Convention.
Based on the above, I contend that should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran (for example), you are duty-bound to refuse that order. I might also suggest that you should consider whether the circumstances demand that you arrest whoever gave the order as a war criminal.
I know for a fact that in recent history (once under Nixon and once under Reagan), the military nuclear chain of command in the White House discussed these things and were prepared to refuse an order to “nuke Russia .” In effect they took the (non-existent) “button” out of the hands of the President.. We were thus never quite as close to World War III as many feared, no matter how irrational any president might have become. They determined that the proper response to any such order was, “Why, sir?” Unless there was (in their words) a “damn good answer,” nothing was going to happen.
I suggest that if you in this generation have not had such a discussion, perhaps it is time you do. In hindsight, it's too bad such a discussion did not take place prior to the preemptive “shock and awe” attack on Baghdad . Many of us at the time spoke out vehemently that such an attack would be an impeachable offense, a war crime against the people of Iraq , and treason against the United States of America . But our voices were drowned out and never reached the ears of the generals in 2003. I now regret that I never sent a letter such as this at that time, but depended on the corporate media to carry my message. I must not make that mistake again.
Also in hindsight, President Bush could be court-martialed for abuse of power as Commander-in-Chief. Vice President Cheney could probably be court-martialed for his performance as Acting Commander-in-Chief in the White House bunker the morning of September 11, 2001 .
We in the U.S. military would never consider a military coup, removing an elected president and installing one of our own. But following our oath of office, obeying the Nuremberg Principles, and preventing a rogue president from committing a war crime is not a military coup. If it requires the detention of executive branch officials, we will not impose a military dictatorship. We will let the Constitutional succession take place. This is what we are sworn to. This is protecting the Constitution, our highest obligation. In 2007, this is what is meant by “Duty, Honor, Country.”
Thank you all for your service to this nation. May God bless America , and sustain us in this difficult time. And thanks for listening to the musings of an old junior officer.
Respectfully,



Robert M. Bowman, PhD, Lt. Col., USAF, ret.
1494 Patriot Dr , Melbourne , FL 32940
home phone (321) 752-5955; cell (321) 258-0582

Speaking of right wing hypocricy, today's Gospel is instructive:

Mt 23,23-26:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. (But) these you should have done, without neglecting the others. Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel! Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You cleanse the outside of cup and dish, but inside they are full of plunder and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may be clean."

Republican Family Values

From 'The Patriot':

So, yet another self-hating gay Republican Senator was nailed with his hand in the cookie jar the other day. Larry Craig, the junior Senator from Idaho was arrested playing footsie with an undercover police office in a bathroom stall in the Minneapolis St. Paul airport back in June. He pled guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct on Monday. The CNN story can be found here.The disgusting part of the story isn’t what Craig was doing in the bathroom stall. Hell, the Patriot doesn’t care who or even what Republican Senators decide to have sexual relations with on their own time. And maybe the diversion of a sexual encounter in an airport bathroom helped the man reduce some tension caused by waiting in a 2 hour line to get through security. Hell, flying sucks these days and everybody knows it. No, the truly disturbing part of this story is that Craig was one of the most ardent senators when it came to pushing so-called “family-values” issues while all the while he’s been trolling airport men’s rooms for blow jobs. Craig is a morality crypto fascist; a conservative who believes that the government should stay out of the financial markets but install a camera in your bedroom. Craig's voting record has earned him top ratings from social conservative groups such as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council. He has also supported a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In 1996, Craig also voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages and prevents states from being forced to recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples legally performed in other states. Talk about self-hating!The other chuckle to come out of this story is that Craig now regrets his guilty plea and claims he was railroaded into it because he didn’t have the advice of a lawyer. How a Republican Senator can say that kind of thing with a straight face is beyond me. The tough-on-crime Republican party has tried to do away with the right to counsel for years from their assault on Miranda to their gutting of the Constitution. How quick the little rats are to run behind the tattered document when it’s their own sorry ass in the sling.
Posted by Mark at 2:06 PM 0 comments Links to this post