Um, nothing yet…
I’ll post immediately if this changes…
Um, nothing yet…
I’ll post immediately if this changes…
So on the heels of a young gay man having beglittered Repugnican Tea Party presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich at a book signing in Minneapolis earlier this week, advising Gingrich to “feel the rainbow” and to “stop the hate” (see video grab above), the latest Gingrich campaign-stop snafu that they’re reporting is that Gingrich’s cell phone went off in the middle of a campaign pitch in Iowa — and that the ring tone was Abba’s “Dancing Queen.”
That’s gay enough, but Gingrich’s response to the ringing cell phone is even gayer:
“I love that sequence. The energy. The excitement,” he said of the ring tone, which was taken from the musical “Mamma Mia.”
Showtunes. Abba. “Dancing Queen.” “Mamma Mia.”
Yup. Just toe-tappin’ good fun…
Gingrich vows to plod ahead*, which makes me happy, because with campaign stories like this, it would be a crying shame for him to give up now.
*Gingrich, who is widely known for his Donald Trump-like low-self esteem, recently described his current presidential campaign as “something that happens once or twice in a century, a genuine grassroots campaign of very big ideas,” adding that he “[expects] it to take a while for it to sink in” for us mere mortals as to how momentous his current presidential campaign is.
Of his turbulent campaign startup, he helpfully, humbly explained, “Ronald Reagan’s opening week in the 1980 campaign was filled with bumps. It happens if you’re the candidate of ideas.”
So many black progressives have been thrown under Barack Obama’s bus (Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, et. al.) that the bus no longer can move an inch. Let’s not add the corpse of Cornel West (pictured above with Barack Obama when Obama was campaigning for the White House) to the under-bus body count.
Left-wing activist and scholar Cornel West is under fire for, among other strong statements, recently having called President Barack Obama “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats,” adding, “And now he has become head of the American killing machine and is proud of it.”
I have no real problem with those words because I have no problem with the truth. The truth is the truth, even if only one person in a thousand (or ten thousand or a hundred thousand or a million or…) is willing to utter it in a sea of lemmings. (Or, as Ted Rall aptly calls Obama’s allegedly left-of-center followers, “Obamabots.”)
The only exception that I can take to calling Obama “a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats” is that I don’t know that it’s necessary to emphasize “black.” A mascot of Wall Street oligarchs or a puppet of corporate plutocrats is a problem, regardless of the mascot’s or puppet’s race, sex, sexual orientation, religious orientation, age, etc.
Maybe West emphasized “black” because at least on some level he expects a fellow black man to be progressive, like he is. But, as West himself has acknowledged, Obama “[grew] up in a white context,” so “all he has known culturally is white.”
Because Obama is not the descendent of African slaves and because he was raised by his white mother’s family, it is unfair for descendents of African slaves, like West, to expect Obama to be a carbon copy of themselves*, and, it seems to me, because he is half white and half black, it always has been Obama’s own prerogative to embrace one half more than the other, even if he had a choice in the matter, but, given his upbringing, I don’t see that he had much of a choice. (Children don’t get to pick who raises them.)
My problem with Obama is that he has betrayed his progressive base. He made campaign promises — promises that I took seriously, not cynically, as in the assertion that all politicians make and then break their promises, and so you’re stupid if you believe otherwise — and then he systematically proceeded to break his promises, denouncing his left-wing critics as hopelessly delusional about political reality as he did so (and his “bots” dutifully, blindly follow his lead in that).
Obama promised “hope” and “change,” and because of his promises I gave him hundreds of dollars and my vote. But instead of “hope” and “change,” we still have an economy in shambles, we still hand over billions of dollars to corporate welfare recipients, and we still give the war profiteers billions of our tax dollars via the bogus warfare in the Middle East and elsewhere while the American empire rots from within here at home.
Oh, but we got Osama bin Laden! But that and a quarter won’t even buy us a Coke and a smile.
I don’t claim to agree with West on everything, because I don’t know everything that he has proclaimed, but I like him. I saw him speak here in Sacramento (where he was raised) some years ago, and I was moved by his talk about the black American experience to the point that I got tears in my eyes. (Unfortunately, I was one of the only white people in the audience, and maybe even the only one, and brother West was, for the most part, preaching to the choir; those who really should have been there, who really needed to be there, were not there. [But doesn’t it almost always seem to go that way?])
Yes, I consider Cornel West to be a brother, but I am concerned that perhaps he and I define the term “brother” differently. I consider someone who shares my progressive values and worldview to be my brother or sister, regardless of his or her race, age, sexual orientation or even religious orientation. As a fellow democratic socialist, I consider West to be my brother. But, because I am white, would West call me “brother”? I would like to think so, but I’m not certain.**
I can’t know what it’s like to be a descendent of black slaves, and I would never, like Bill Clinton or at least John Kerry did, insinuate that I, who although I’ve always been middle class was born into some degree of white privilege, truly feel black Americans’ pain. I have not walked in their shoes, so I cannot, and so I do not, make that claim. (Bill Clinton was called by many as “the first black president,” and Kerry once stupidly stated that he wanted to be “the next black president.” I find such faux familiarity to be disrespectful as well as false.)
Even if he would not call me “brother,” I am not going to jump on the bandwagon of throwing Cornel West under the bus like Barack Obama threw his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, under the bus, and then Van Jones and then Shirley Sherrod. I think that such rhetoric as that of Salon.com editor Joan Walsh (who was a staunch Billary Clinton ’08 supporter before she became an Obamabot) that West has had a “tragic meltdown,” not only is overblown but is deleterious to progressivism.
Walsh writes of “the unrealistic left” (which is, I surmise, akin to the Obama administration’s “professional left”) and proclaims:
I’m on record saying that despite my disappointments on the economic and civil liberties front, I support Obama’s re-election: He’s as progressive a leader as we’re able to elect right now, and if you have issues with him – as I do – it’s time to work to elect strong Democrats at the state and local level. I’m pro-Obama – and also pro-reasonable organizing efforts to push him left.
“[Un]reasonable.” “[Un]realistic.” These are interesting terms. Fucking fact is, Obama had the nation’s good will and both houses of Congress controlled by his party for two fucking years, and he squandered that rare opportunity to push through a progressive agenda.
For that alone he does not deserve re-election, but sellouts — Obamabots — like Walsh, who actually make such statements as “despite my disappointments on the economic and civil liberties front, I [still] support Obama’s re-election” since Obama is the lesser of the politically viable evils, are destroying what’s left of the left.
How can we actual leftists have “unrealistic” expectations when so-called “Democratic” sellouts like Obama don’t even try? How can you know what’s possible and what’s impossible to achieve, what is realistic and what is unrealistic, when you surrender from the very fucking beginning? The establishment Democrats almost always surrender before the game even begins. Meanwhile, the Repugnican Tea Party traitors roll out such radical ideas as decimating Medicare. Yes, they are stupid, but they’re bold.
As the Repugnican Tea Party traitors succeed in pushing the nation’s politics further and further to the right, Obamabots like Joan Walsh help the wingnuts by contributing to the rightward drift of the Democratic Party, which began under Bill Clinton, by excusing anything and everything that establishment/Clintonesque Democrats do or don’t do, simply because they use the “Democratic” label — and because these Democrats in name only are, the Obamabots assert, the best that we can do. (And besides, what do you want? A Repugnican president?)
That Barack Obama isn’t as bad as are the Repugnican Tea Party traitors who want to be president just doesn’t fucking cut it for me. He’d have to do much better than that for me to give him another penny or my vote again.
Obama’s new campaign in which you can buy a T-shirt or a mug displaying his birth certificate and the words “MADE in the USA” under his portrait —
— is clever, but the nation needs an awful lot more than more clever Obama campaigns right now, and on the heels of having been punk’d by the “hope” and “change” campaign, I, for one, am just not in the mood to fall for yet another clever Obama campaign. (Although if I were working on the Obama campaign, my snappy slogan might be something like: “Barack Obama 2012: Really This Time!”)
I suppose that I have to give props to Team Obama for finding a way to turn the pathetic and racist birth certificate bullshit into a fundraising campaign, but I cannot, in good conscience, give Team Obama even a penny, as clever as the new campaign is.
At some point this sellout shit has to stop. I, for one, don’t want to be responsible, even minutely, for its perpetuation — even by buying one of the clever T-shirts or mugs.
But back to brother West.
Let’s not make him into a scapegoat for the serious failings of Barack Obama as president of the United States of America. Instead, let’s continue to talk about identity politics versus political ideology and what roles they have and what roles they should have in rescuing the American experiment from the edge of the abyss.
As a gay man, for instance, while it would be great to have a gay or lesbian president, I’d much rather have a heterosexual president who actually is progressive than a gay or lesbian president who, like Obama, is too cowardly or too personally comfortable (or both) to pursue a progressive agenda.
Similarly, I’m not impressed by the mere fact that Obama is the first actual (half-)black president. There are plenty of wingnutty black men, such as (not in any certain order) U.S. Supreme Court “Justice” Clarence Thomas, recently booted Repugnican National Committee chair Michael Steele, former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (who delivered the pivotal state of Ohio to George W. Bush in 2004 much as how Katherine Harris had delivered the pivotal state of Florida to Bush in 2000), and presidential aspirants Herman Cain and Alan Keyes, and I’d never want any of them anywhere near the White House, not because of the color of their skin, but because of the content of their character. (On that note, I once saw Al Sharpton speak here in Sacramento [in early 2005, I believe it was], and I still remember his quip that “Condoleezza Rice [yet another black wingnut, as well as a war criminal] is of my color but is not of my kind.”)
The problem with Barack Obama isn’t that he isn’t “black enough.” The problem is that he isn’t progressive enough — and that he had promised to be progressive, but broke that promise.
That is the discussion that we need to be having instead of kicking around brother Cornel West.
P.S. I highly recommend the article on Cornel West by Chris Hedges that stirred the West brouhaha. It is here. In the article, Hedges quotes West as having said other things that are making people butt-hurt, such as that Obama “feels most comfortable with upper middle-class white and Jewish men who consider themselves very smart, very savvy and very effective in getting what they want,” which to me more or less seems to be true, whether it’s considered politically correct or not, but Hedges also quotes West as having said other things that aren’t being repeated as much as are his “controversial” statements, such as
“This [Obama’s presidency] was maybe America’s last chance to fight back against the greed of the Wall Street oligarchs and corporate plutocrats, to generate some serious discussion about public interest and common good that sustains any democratic experiment.
“We are squeezing out all of the democratic juices we have. The escalation of the class war against the poor and the working class is intense. More and more working people are beaten down. They are world-weary. They are into self-medication. They are turning on each other. They are scapegoating the most vulnerable rather than confronting the most powerful.
“It is a profoundly human response to panic and catastrophe. I thought Barack Obama could have provided some way out. But he lacks backbone.”
“Can you imagine if Barack Obama had taken office and deliberately educated and taught the American people about the nature of the financial catastrophe and what greed was really taking place?
“If he had told us what kind of mechanisms of accountability needed to be in place, if he had focused on homeowners rather than investment banks for bailouts and engaged in massive job creation, he could have nipped in the bud the right-wing populism of the tea party folk.
“The tea party folk are right when they say the government is corrupt. It is corrupt. Big business and banks have taken over government and corrupted it in deep ways.
“We have got to attempt to tell the truth, and that truth is painful. It is a truth that is against the thick lies of the mainstream. In telling that truth we become so maladjusted to the prevailing injustice that the Democratic Party, more and more, is not just milquetoast and spineless, as it was before, but thoroughly complicitous with some of the worst things in the American empire.
“I don’t think in good conscience I could tell anybody to vote for Obama. If it turns out in the end that we have a crypto-fascist movement and the only thing standing between us and fascism is Barack Obama, then we have to put our foot on the brake. But we’ve got to think seriously of third-party candidates, third formations, third parties….”
Yup. This perhaps was our last chance to turn it around, and Obama thus far has only blown it. Ironically, West could have been talking about himself when he noted that the people “are turning on each other,” “scapegoating the most vulnerable rather than confronting the most powerful,” because right now they’re scapegoating West instead of confronting Obama, who apparently likes the presidency only for its perks. He certainly has no stomach for the hard work that a truly progressive president has before him or her.
Anyway, I also recommend Chris Hedges’ book Death of the Liberal Class, which is about “liberal” sellouts like Joan Walsh who in their cowardice, laziness, selfishness and hypocrisy aid and abet the right wing in the right wing’s destruction of the nation and the planet.
*West also remarked that “Obama, coming out of Kansas influence, [with] white, loving grandparents, coming out of Hawaii and Indonesia, when he meets these independent black folk who have a history of slavery, Jim Crow, Jane Crow and so on, he is very apprehensive. He has a certain rootlessness, a deracination. It is understandable.”
“Deracination”? Is an identification with a history of slavery required to be considered to be black? Is Obama really required to identify with the descendents of black slaves when he is not such a descendent and was not raised by the descendents of slaves? Is this not demanding too much of Obama?
**West has referred to economists Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman as “brother Joseph Stiglitz and brother Paul Krugman,” and so I tend to believe that his definition of “brother” is about ideology, not race, but he also has referred to Obama as “brother,” yet rather clearly disagrees with Obama’s politics, so I am uncertain as to his own personal definition of the term.
Even a casual political observer can see that it’s already over for Repugnican Tea Party presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich, who seems to have flamed out about as quickly as did Donald Trump (whose presidential aspirations, I’m guessing, never were serious).
The only question now is when Gingrich will acknowledge that it’s all over.
In one week, Gingrich has been skewered for having criticized Repugnican Tea Party U.S. Rep. Paul Pretty Boy Ryan’s plan to destroy Medicare — after all, Eddie Munster cum J.C. Penney catalog model Ryan is being groomed to be the party’s next Ronald Reagan (although there sure seems to be an awful lot of Next Ronald Reagans…) — and Gingrich was even the victim of a public attack with fairy dust.
Gingrich has been raked over the coals for having told the truth about Ryan’s plan to destroy Medicare. Gingrich, on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” called Ryan’s plan “radical” “right-wing social engineering.”
How you back away from such a strong statement as that I don’t know, but the Repugnicans now are reporting that Ryan and Gingrich have kissed and made up, no hard feelings, blah blah blah.
While Gingrich has been lambasted for not having marched in lockstep with the Repugnican Tea Party, even Paul Ryan seems to recognize that he’s politically toxic, as he decided earlier this week not to run for a U.S. Senate seat in his home state of Wisconsin that because of a retirement is up for grabs in November 2012. (I had wanted to see a showdown for the Senate seat between Ryan and fairly progressive Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, but alas, that is not to be…)
Yesterday, Gingrich was “attacked” during a book signing in Minneapolis by a young man who proclaimed, “Stop the hate!” and sprinkled him with glitter:
Associated Press photo
(I’m, um, guessing that the young man is gay and that he was making a statement about Gingrich’s homophobia. To the young man I say: You go, girl!)
I have a feeling that if he keeps campaigning, Gingrich is going to be embarrassed like this frequently.
However, I wouldn’t be surprised if Gingrich keeps on going. In polls taken over the past month, Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump occupied the top four slots of Repugnican Tea Party presidential favorites, so with the two of them having dropped out* within the past week, this pretty much leaves Gingrich’s toughest competitors Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, and Palin hasn’t announced that she’s running.
But Gingrich has not only the present, but has contemporary American history, against him. Since Dwight D. Eisenhower, no U.S. president has not been at least the governor of a state, a U.S. senator or U.S. vice president before moving on to the Oval Office. (Take that, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul!)
While Mitt Romney isn’t widely loved among the Repugnican Tea Party, I still expect him to emerge as the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nominee.
Increasingly, it seems, no one else wants that job.
P.S. I finally watched the video of Gingrich’s beglittering, and yes, it was a harmless protest against Gingrich’s history of homophobia.
“Nice to live in a free country,” Gingrich remarks falsely as he brushes away a shitload of glitter from the table on which he’s been signing copies of his book after the protester has been escorted away.
Why is it when wingnuts make statements like that, that they just love freedom, especially their opponents’ freedom, they’re just not believable?
*A wingnut recently left a comment stating that I’m ignorant for having stated that Barack Obama’s having ordered the assassination of Osama bin Laden was meant to boost Obama’s political standing, but not long after bin Laden’s assassination, both Huckabee and Trump bailed out, so, it seems to me, yes, bin Laden’s killing certainly coincided at least with the period of time in which Repugnican Tea Party candidates need to be deciding whether or not they’re going to run against Obama.
Former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, wife Maria Shriver of the Kennedy clan and their four children, who now range in age from 13 to 21, are pictured in 2006. (Not pictured is the child, who now is at least 10 years old, that Schwarzenegger now admits he had with his
maid household staff…)
True, I’m another male, but hey, Arnold Schwarzenegger is potent! He found a way! And, he gets around!
But seriously, the governorship of Repugnican Arnold Schwarzenegger was a sham from the very beginning, even if he had never laid a finger on another woman outside of his marriage to Kennedy clan member Maria Shriver.
The right-wing fucktards love their time machine. Step, for a moment, into mine:
In November 2002, the uncharismatic incumbent Democratic California Gov. Gray Davis won re-election to a second term by only 5 percentage points over his bumbling Richie Rich frat boy Repugnican opponent, Bill Simon, who, to give you an idea of his caliber, at the climax of the gubernatorial campaign claimed that he possessed photographic evidence that Davis had accepted a campaign contribution on state property, in violation of state law — only the photograph that Simon produced quickly proved to have been shot inside of a private individual’s home.
Since a bumbling fool like Simon still came so close to unseating Davis, the Repugnican sharks smelled Davis’ blood in the water. Repugnican California U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, the richest member of the U.S. House of Representatives and a little Napoleon and Joe McCarthy hybrid, wanted to buy the governorship (like billionaire Nutmeg Whitman tried to do in November 2010), and so he fronted about $2 million of his own to initiate the petitition drive to force a gubernatorial recall election.
But Hollywood action movie star Schwarzenegger swooped in and Little Napoleon’s dream of buying the governorship for himself came to a crashing halt. There were dozens of candidates in the circus-like October 2003 gubernatorial recall election, including Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, the late child actor Gary Coleman, and (former?) porn star Mary Carey (all three of whom made the top 10 in the final election results).
The first question on the recall election ballot was whether or not Davis should stay or go; 55.4 percent voted that he should go. The second question on the recall election ballot was who, if Davis were ousted, should be the new governor, and those who voted that Davis should remain in office still were able to pick his replacement, if it came to that.
The individual who got the most votes was Schwarzenegger, with 48.6 percent of them. Coming in at second place was then-Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, a Democrat, with 31.5 percent, and coming in at third place was establishment Repugnican politician Tom McClintock at 13.4 percent. (Bill Simon actually ran in the recall election but came in at 12th place, with one-tenth of 1 percent of the vote, and Issa did not run in the recall election at all. Who could compete with the Hollywood action movie star?)
So the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, while it did not violate the letter of the state’s law, violated the spirit of democracy, a tenet of which is that if you lose an election because your candidate was weak, you suck it up and you run a better candidate next time. You don’t orchestrate what essentially is a do-over election less than a year later with a stronger candidate (in this case, a celebrity).
But wait, there’s more.
As Schwarzenegger ran for governor in 2003, numerous women came forward and claimed that he had sexually harassed — in some cases, sexually assaulted — them over a period of several years.
Although the Schwarzenegger campaign did its best to paint all of the women as liars, as unlikely as it was that that many women would have come forward with such allegations and be fabricating them, Schwarzenegger did at first promise to subject himself to an investigation of the sexual misconduct claims — after the recall election, of course. And, of course, this “investigation” was going to be conducted by a private investigator hired by Schwarzenegger.
So Schwarzenegger came into office and into power in 2003 under circumstances that were shady* at the very best, and I’m not even going to go into his pre-recall-election ties with the sleazy corporation Enron, which the Enron-supporting Repugnicans unfairly and hypocritically used to beat up on Gray Davis.
And today we know one more piece of information about Schwarzenegger that if we had known in 2003 he probably never would have been the “governator”: that at least a decade ago Schwarzenegger sired a child with one of his household staff. (I’m thinking that that would be a maid, but the media are using the term “household staff,” which I suppose is a little better than “household technician.”)
The Los Angeles Times reports that Schwarzenegger reports that he told Shriver about his love child only after he left the governor’s office in January. The Times reports that very apparently Schwarzenegger supported the child financially while the child’s mother was to keep her mouth shut — or perhaps, because the child’s mother also was married to someone else when the child was conceived, she decided herself to keep quiet, and wasn’t coerced into silence — and reportedly, Shriver had no idea about this arrangement between Schwarzenegger and his in-house baby mama until after Schwarzenegger left the governorship, and thus their fairly recent separation.
Baby mama left the Schwarzenegger household in January after at least two decades of having worked there, the Times reports.
So, tarnished, methinks, is Schwarzenegger’s legacy at least here in California, and I think it’s safe to say that his political future, if he had one (he probably didn’t), is no more.
Schwarzenegger is the very same man, after all, for whom the white-supremacist wingnuts wanted to change the U.S. Constitution so that he could run for U.S. president even though he was born in Austria, while Barack Obama, because he’s half-black, was badgered for his birth certificate even though no sane individual believes that Obama was not born in Hawaii.
Most who have heard about the Schwarzenegger love child (and is/are there more than one love child, I wonder?) probably feel sorry for Maria Shriver and for her children, but I can’t help but think of the damage that the fraud who is Arnold Schwarzenegger did to the entire state of California. We can’t get back the years that he was governor, the years in which he’d promised to turn the state around but only drove it even further into the ditch.
Maria Shriver isn’t Schwarzenegger’s only victim, although she is symbolic of his apparent view of women: that they are objects to be used, whether for a cheap sexual thrill or a rung to be stepped upon on the ladder to high political office. (The governorship of California, the nation’s most populous state, was the very first elected office that Schwarzenegger had ever held. Not at all bad for a political novice.)
Arnold Schwarzenegger has millions of victims: Californians who would have voted very differently in October 2003 had they known then what they know about Schwarzenegger today — what Schwarzenegger reportedly deliberately kept not just from his wife, but deliberately kept from us all.
P.S. I’ve always been miffed at Shriver for having been supportive of the male chauvinist pig Schwarzenegger — coming from the Kennedy clan, her marriage to him and her political support of him considerably helped him to win the governorship of the blue state of California in 2003 — and no, I don’t let off the hook the millions of Californians who stupidly voted for Schwarzenegger in 2003. And he won re-election in the gubernatorial election of 2006, beating the uncharismatic and nerdish Democratic candidate, then-State Treasurer Phil Angelides, 56 percent to 39 percent.
(For the record, I voted for Democrat Cruz Bustamante in the 2003 recall election, and for Angelides in 2006, but the state’s Democratic Party really fucking blew both elections. In denial that Gray Davis might actually be recalled, the state party did not rally around any replacement candidate, apparently believing that to do so would have been taken as a sign of defeat — so Bustamante was pretty much left to campaign on his own — and the state’s party insiders rallied behind Angelides in the party’s gubernatorial primary election when the much more charismatic State Controller Steve Westly had the better chance of beating Schwarzenegger in 2006.)
*Of course, as the worthwhile documentary “Nuremberg,” which I saw last night, portrays, the right-wing Nazi Party came into power under shady, manipulative circumstances at best, and Schwarzenegger’s father was a brownshirt. They seem to have done things a certain way in that part of the globe… (Also, Schwarzenegger was buddies with Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldheim, whom he even invited to his wedding. I find any associations with the Nazi Party, such as the fact that Pope Palpatine was a member of the Hitler Youth, to be chilling, even if those with the associations [or their defenders] claim, correctly or incorrectly, that they had no choice in the association [as is the case with the pope].)
Repugnican Tea Party douchebag Mike Huckabee announced last night that he isn’t running for president in 2012, but since he’s busy helping to rewrite U.S. history in order to indoctrinate the youngins, hell, he can just write right now that he won the 2012 presidential election and that he was the nation’s Best! President! Ever!
Many others have covered Huckabee’s participation in the selling of really bad cartoons on “American history” for home-schooled kids (such as here and here, and Rachel Maddow has covered it too). The cartoons are so fucking bad that they appear to be parodies by the creators of “South Park,” but oh, they’re not parodies…
Yes, that appears to me to be a knife-wielding, menacing mulatto. In the video he apparently commands the good little white kids (who have access to a time machine, but of course as long as we’re still anti-science we’ll never get to that point): “Give me your money!” Subtle!
(If I had written the little video, I might have had the good little white kids retort: “First show us your birth certificate!”)
The Orwellian right-wing attempt to rewrite U.S. history is nothing new. Glenn Beck has the online “Beck University,” and its home page proclaims, “LEARN REAL AMERICAN HISTORY.” (Also on the home page is a link to a nice little video of Glenn titled “Presidents You Should Hate,” because Glenn’s a good little Mormon boy and God wants him to hate and to tell you whom to hate [you have to subscribe to the website to get Glenn’s God-given insight, though…]).
One of “Beck U”’s “professors” — and all of his “professors” appear to be middle-aged to old white men, shockingly — is David Barton, a white wingnut who has thought himself qualified enough to
write on rewrite black American history:
I’m thinking that maybe Anita Bryant should write a book on gay and lesbian American history. Perhaps Maggie Gallagher could take some time out of her crusade against marriage between any two consenting adults to be a co-author of the enlightening, setting-the-record-straight (wink wink) historical account.
The radical-right-wing attempt to rewrite U.S. history is chilling, but while I don’t want to underestimate the radical right’s harm to the nation and to the world, I can’t see a day when their “history” ever becomes mainstream. True, our mainstream U.S. history taught to public schoolchildren is whitewashed as it is, more or less teaches our children that the U.S. never can do any wrong (even the many, many episodes of the oppression of minorities are portrayed as just little potholes in the Road to Freedom, you see), but Huckabee’s and Beck’s brand of U.S. “history” is highly unlikely to make it very far outside of its apparent target audience of home-schooling parents.
One child who is home-schooled in wingnuttery is a tragic loss — not only will the successfully brainwashed child be unable to function in a world in which his or her backasswards beliefs are in the minority, but the world will have lost a fully functional human being — but the percentage of parents who would expose their children to stupid white male propaganda thankfully remains small. Most parents want their children to be well-adjusted, functional, productive adults.
Anyway, Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and a former Southern Baptist pastor, has indicated that God doesn’t want him to run for president, but I think that even Huckabee, as off of his rocker as he is, knows that his ilk is a dying breed and that he can’t win the White House. White people who hate non-whites, non-“Christians,” non-heterosexuals and non-Americans and who believe that women should be subservient to men are finding it increasingly difficult to succeed on a national political stage because their numbers are decreasing.
The Internet, too, while it contains a lot of garbage, also has made it increasingly difficult for stupid white men and their supporters to keep the masses ignorant by keeping information unavailable to them. The wingnuts no longer can stem the flow of information as easily as they have in the past.
The wingnuts can put all of the revisionist books and videos out there that they want. I wish them luck in “protecting” their offspring from being exposed to what the saner members of the much larger world believe. This is exactly what they want to do, of course, and thus, home-schooling.
This is, of course, the largest logical weakness of such oppressively closed systems: If the system is so accurate, so true, so right, then why must it shut out the rest of the world? Why must it be so encapsulated?
Anticipating this question from the home-schooled kiddies, apparently, one of Huckabee’s “history” cartoons has one of the kiddie characters declaring (at the triumphant end of a cartoon on World War II): “What we see in here [in their time-machine travels] isn’t always the same as what we read in books or see on TV. So what? We know the truth, and that’s good enough for us!”
Wow. That says so much more than I could continue to say right now.
But I will say good fucking riddance to Mike Huckabee, who never will be president of the United States of America* — except perhaps in his really bad propagandistic cartoons for the kiddies.
Ed Rollins, who chaired Huckabee’s 2008 [presidential] campaign and had been talking with fundraisers about a 2012 Huckabee bid, said it would be difficult [for Huckabee] to find another opportunity like this.
“It was all there for him,” Rollins said.
About to leave a comment? Comments are a courtesy, not a right, and as such are subject to rejection or deletion. (You can always man up and post a blog piece of your own on your own blog; I’m not required to help you get your opinions out there.) General guidelines for leaving comments are here.
I had thought that the Osama bin Laden assassination would have run its course by now here in the United States of Amnesia, but, with nothing else to replace it – except, perhaps, for the “news” that Bristol Palin’s facial appearance indeed has been altered, she says, because she had jaw surgery (this is the most-viewed “news” story on Yahoo! News as I type this sentence) — it lingers still.
It’s a sign of the collapsing of the American empire that so many Americans have found comfort, I suppose the word is, in the assassination of a rather pathetic man in hiding whose last big show was almost a full decade ago.
I mean, how convenient it is to blame more than a decade of American stupidity and laxity* on one man, and how tempting it is to believe that with his death goes American stupidity and laxity. If bin Laden was the cause of all of our problems, then surely his death is the magical solution to all of our problems! Right? Right?
As I wrote right after I found out about it, bin Laden’s assassination has changed nothing except for the national “news” obsession du jour (or, in this case, de la semaine). Bin Laden had been fairly powerless for years before his assassination, and his largest achievement was in destroying the American economy.
And hell, he didn’t even have to do the work. It was the treasonous wingnuts of the unelected Bush regime, using their wet dream of 9/11 like the Reichstag Fire to fulfill their wingnutty wish list, who did the work for bin Laden, using 9/11 for years as their cover to push through a radical right-wing, treasonous agenda they otherwise never would have been able to push through.
And it was an hysterical, cowed populace that allowed them to, just as it had allowed them to steal the White House in the first place.
While President Barack Obama seems to have driven the final stake into the heart of “birtherism,” whose death was long overdue, and for at least the short term can stave off any charges that militarily he’s a pussy, sooner or later the economy is going to reassert its political gravitational pull on Planet Obama.
An NBC News poll taken late last week shows that while almost 60 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of foreign policy (the bin Laden bounce, no doubt), almost 60 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy.
The bin Laden bounce has put Obama slightly above a 50-percent overall approval rating in the Gallup Poll after he had languished in the 40s for more than the past year, only occassionally hitting 50 percent or 51 percent in that time period.**
Given the weak field of Repugnican Tea Party candidates, however, Obama’s re-election is likely even in an economic environment that might otherwise seriously jeopardize a second presidential term.
But what Obama’s probable re-election means is the continued rightward drift of the nation, in which the new “center” is still right of center and continues going rightward. What’s good for Barack Obama’s personal political fortune, unfortunately, is bad for the nation and for the rest of the planet.
And how you do something matters. I don’t mourn the death of mass murderer Osama bin Laden any more than I would mourn the death of mass murderer George W. Bush or mass murderer Dick Cheney (or mass murderer Condoleezza Rice*** or mass murderer Donald Rumsfeld or…), but how it was achieved was shitty, regardless of how history, which up until now, at least, always has been written by the victors, might tell the story.
George W. Bush is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent human beings, is a much bigger mass murderer than was bin Laden, yet should a military team from a justice-pursuing Iraq (which was home to most of Bush’s victims) take out Bush on American soil like a military team from the U.S. took out bin Laden on Pakistani soil, Americans would be, literally, up in arms.
Even mass murderers like George W. Bush deserve a fair trial. Summary, extrajudicial execution, no matter who its victim is, is always wrong. The perpetrators of such tactics are no better than are their victims. And that’s what the Obama administration’s assassination of Osama bin Laden proved to the world: That the majority of the inhabitants of the United States of America is no better than was bin Laden.
Finally, I hope to make this my last post on Osama bin Laden’s assassination. But before I go I want to leave you with Ted Rall’s current column on the topic. Here it is, in full:
President Obama murdered Osama bin Laden. I am surprised that the left has been so supportive — not of the end result, but of the way it was carried out.
Imagine if the killing had gone down the same exact way, but under Bush. Armed commandos invade a foreign country, storm into a suburban neighborhood, blow a hole in a house and blow away an unarmed man in front of his 12-year-old daughter. The guy is a murder suspect. Mass murder. But there’s no attempt to arrest him or bring him to justice. They spirit his bloody corpse out of the country and dump it into the ocean.
Osama bin Laden was suspected ordering of one of the most horrific crimes of the decade. He might have been taken alive. Yet Obama’s commandos killed him. A big part of the puzzle — the key to the truth, who might have led us to other people responsible for 9/11 — is gone.
Barack Obama is our Jack Ruby.
Liberals would be appalled if this had happened four years ago. They would have protested Bush’s violations of international law and basic human rights. They would have complained about killing the Al Qaeda leader before questioning him about possible terrorist plots. They would have demanded investigations.
But this happened under Obama. Which means that even liberal lawyers who ought to (and probably do) know better are going along. At a panel discussion at the Justice Institute at Pace Law School, University of Houston law professor Jordan Paust asserted: “You can [legally] use military force without consent in foreign countries.”
“At some point a sovereign state [such as Pakistan] that’s harboring an international fugitive loses the right to assert sovereignty,” added Robert Van Lierop.
Paust and Van Lierop are, respectively, a leading opponent of torture at Guantánamo and a former UN ambassador known for his activism on climate change. Both are “liberal.”
In the U.S., conservatives and “liberals” agree: Might makes right. America’s military-intelligence apparatus is so fearsome that it can deploy its soldiers and agents without fear of retribution.
Might makes right. [Emphasis mine.]
In 2007, for example, U.S. Special Forces invaded Iran from U.S.-occupied Iraq in order to kidnap Iranian border guards. It was an outrage. In practical terms, however, there was nothing the Iranians could do about it.
The United States’ 900-pound gorilla act might go over better if we weren’t a nation that constantly prattles on and on about how civilized we are, how important it is that everyone follow the rules. For example:
“We’re a nation of laws!” Obama recently exclaimed. “We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate.”
He wasn’t talking about himself. This was about PFC Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of supplying the big Defense Department data dump to WikiLeaks. Manning has been subjected to torture including sleep deprivation and forced nudity — treatment ordered by Obama.
Truth is, the Constitution, our treaty obligations and our stacks of legal codes are worthless paper. We’re not a nation of laws. We’re a nation of gun-toting, missile-lobbing, drone-flying goons.
U.S. officials do whatever they feel like and then dress up their brazenly illegal acts with perverse Orwellian propaganda. [Emphasis mine.]
“I authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice,” Obama claimed, as if blowing away an unarmed man in a foreign country was the moral equivalent of filing an extradition request with the Pakistani government and putting him on trial before 12 unbiased jurors in a court of law.
Justice is a legal process. It is not a military assault. [Emphasis mine.]
When considering the legality or morality of an act it helps to consider different scenarios. What, for example, if Pakistan had military power equal to ours? Last week’s lead news might have begun something like this:
“Pakistan has intercepted four U.S. helicopters over its airspace, forced them to land, and taken 79 heavily-armed commandos as prisoners. According to Pakistani military officials, the incident took place about 100 miles from the border of U.S.-occupied Afghanistan.
“‘They didn’t stray across the border accidentally. This was a deliberate act,’ said a Pakistani general. President Asif Ali Zardari has asked Pakistan’s nuclear weapons infrastructure has been placed on high alert as the parliament, the Majlis-e-Shoora, considers whether to issue a declaration of war…”
Or let’s assume a different reimagining. What if the United States really [were] a nation of laws?
Then the news might look like the following:
“Bipartisan demands for congressional investigations into the assassination of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden quickly escalated into demands for presidential impeachment after reports that U.S. forces operating under orders from President Obama invaded a sovereign nation without permission to carry out what House Speaker John Boehner called ‘a mob-style hit.’
“Standing at Boehner’s side, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi decried Obama’s ‘cowboy antics’ and said she had received numerous phone calls from the relatives of 9/11 victims furious that true justice had been denied. Meanwhile, in New York, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon moved for sanctions against the United States…”
In fact, no one knows whether Osama bin Laden was involved in 9/11.
They suspect. They feel. They don’t know.
For what it’s worth, he denied it: “Following the latest explosions in the United States, some Americans are pointing the finger at me, but I deny that because I have not done it,” bin Laden said in a statement released on 9/16/01. “The United States has always accused me of these incidents which have been caused by its enemies. Reiterating once again, I say that I have not done it, and the perpetrators have carried this out because of their own interest.”
Why should we believe him? Why not? He admitted his responsibility for the East Africa embassy bombings in 1998.
Interestingly, the FBI never mentioned 9/11 on his “wanted” poster.
There was the famous “confession video” — but it was translated into English by the CIA, hardly an objective source. Arabic language experts say the CIA manipulated bin Laden’s discussion of what he had watched on TV into an admission of guilt. For example, they changed bin Laden’s passive-voice discussion to active: “[the 19 hijackers] were required to go” became, in the CIA version, “we asked each of them to go to America.”
“The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it,” said Gernot Rotter, professor of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg.
Other [bin Laden] communiqués appear to take credit for 9/11 — but there’s a possibility that he was trying to keep himself relevant for his Islamist audience. Anyway, a confession does not prove guilt. Police receive numerous “confessions” for high-profile crimes. They can’t just shoot everyone who confesses.
I’m not angry that Bin Laden is dead. Nor am I happy. I didn’t know the guy or care for his ideology.
I’m angry that, without a trial or a real investigation, we will never know whether he was guilty of 9/11 — or, if he was, who else was involved.
Our Jack Ruby, Barack Obama, made sure of that.
Yup. And I’ve wondered if perhaps bin Laden was assassinated by the Obama administration because he knew too much, and a trial at an international court of law would have brought what he knew to light.
*Our problems preceded Sept. 11, 2001. Our democracy pretty much was diagnosed with terminal illness when Americans just allowed Team Bush to steal the White House in late 2000. After that, anything else that followed, such as the devasation that was just allowed to occur on 9/11 and with Hurricane Katrina four years later, couldn’t have been a surprise.
**Obama enjoyed approval ratings in the 60s during his first six months in office. He then gradually slid into the 50s and then into the 40s.
***Rice’s recent interview on MSNBC was, um, interesting. She hasn’t changed a bit. You still know when she’s lying — it’s whenever her lips are moving. (Seriously, though, she always has the quavering voice of a liar, and when she’s really lying, she moves her head rapidly from side to side.)
While I doubt Rice’s sanity, as I doubt the sanity of any mass murderer/war criminal, I don’t believe that she actually believes the lies that she spews forth. I believe that she is terrified that one day she might actually be hauled before an international criminal court, and therefore she’s sticking to the same old lies about her part in the execution of the illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust Vietraq War that she’s been telling for years now.
About to leave a comment? Comments are a courtesy, not a right, and as such are subject to rejection or deletion. (You can always man up and post a blog piece of your own on your own blog; I’m not required to help you get your opinions out there.) General guidelines for leaving comments are here.
Was this past weekend’s assassination of Osama bin Laden legal?
Unsurprisingly, in the articles that I’ve read online, Americans tend to say that of course it was — he was an “enemy combatant” with whom we were “at war”; U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder actually called, quite speciously, bin Laden’s assassination “an act of national self-defense” (and not, say, a revenge killing); and besides, Barack Obama had said when he was campaigning for president that if we got bin Laden in our sights then he would order him killed (as though if you simply warn someone that you will do something illegal, such as rape her or murder him, if you get the opportunity to do so and then do so, then your actual act is not illegal because hey, you’d given him or her a warning!) — while those outside of the U.S. are much less likely to make such a certain pronouncement, expressing problems with the facts that bin Laden was unarmed and that the raid on his compound was conducted without the consent or even the prior notification of the government of the sovereign nation of Pakistan. Bin Laden should have been captured, if at all possible, and put on trial, since everyone, even the likes of bin Laden, has the right to due process, these dissenters have expressed.
One of these dissenters, Kent University international lawyer Nick Grief, called bin Laden’s killing what it apparently was: an “extrajudicial killing without due process of the law,” and he noted that even Nazi war criminals were brought to trial at the end of World War II.
Louise Doswald-Beck, former legal chief for the International Committee of the Red Cross, said that bin Laden was not an enemy combatant but that “He was basically head of a terrorist criminal network, which means that you’re not really looking at the law of armed conflict but at lethal action against a dangerous criminal.”
Another British lawyer, Michael Mansfield, said, “The serious risk is that in the absence of an authoritative narrative of events played out in Abbottabad, vengeance will become synonymized with justice, and that revenge will supplant due process. … Whatever feelings of elation and relief may dominate the airwaves, they must not be allowed to submerge core questions about the legality of the exercise, nor to permit vengeance or summary execution to become substitutes for justice.” [Emphasis mine.]
And it looks as though the United Nations is investigating the legality of bin Laden’s assassination. Reports The Associated Press today:
Geneva – The United Nations’ independent investigator on extrajudicial killings* has called on the United States to reveal more details of the raid on Osama bin Laden’s Pakistan hideaway to allow experts to assess the legality of his killing.
South African law professor Christof Heyns said in a statement [today] that Washington “should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards.”
Heyns says “it will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture Bin Laden.”
His statement echoed similar appeals from other UN officials, human rights groups and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
U.S. officials say the raid is legal under U.S. and international law.
Of course “U.S. officials say the raid [was] legal under U.S. and international law.” How often does the perpetrator of a crime admit it?
In any event, it’s not like the U.S. is going to respect any adverse finding by the UN anyway. The UN Security Council would not rubber-stamp George W. Bush’s illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust Vietraq War, but the Bush regime went ahead and launched it anyway in March 2003. The U.S. respects the UN only when it is convenient for the U.S. to do so, which is one of the many reasons that the U.S. is so hated throughout the world: its blatant hypocrisy and double standards.
I still believe that the assassination of Osama bin Laden was meant, at least in part, for Barack Obama’s political gain. I believe that Obama wanted to show that he’s just as bad a bad-ass as George W. Bush tried to pass himself off as, and also, what’s better to counter the charges that Obama is not really an American and actually is Muslim than to snuff out Osama bin Laden, to take him dead or
The so-called “swing voters” are susceptible to such wingnutty charges that Obama isn’t a citizen and that he’s actually a Muslim, and it’s the support of the “swing voters” (he’s screwed his progressive base) that Obama so very badly wants for his re-election.
Weirdly, though, in the White House photo of the gathering in the Situation Room during the operation to assassinate bin Laden that everyone has dissected to death —
— to me, Obama doesn’t look like the leader of all of it. To me, he looks like he’s just kind of shrinking in the corner, a bit bewildered and perhaps overwhelmed by all of it, and hell, just from this photo, Secretary of State Billary Clinton appears to be more in charge than Obama does. Obama appears in the photo to be an onlooker at most.
In any event, Osama bin Laden is dead, which even Al-Qaeda has acknowledged, and it’s not like there will be formal repercussions for the U.S. government for once again very apparently having violated international law.
But it will be interesting to see for how long the U.S. can maintain its position as the global bully. Bin Laden’s actions significantly weakened what he believed to be the “great Satan,” the American empire, costing the United States at least $3 trillion, pundits are saying. (Of course, much if not most of that $3 trillion went to greedy war profiteers, not for the actual benefit of the U.S., and much of it simply disappeared and remains unaccounted for to this day.)
And as China is poised to become the world’s No. 1 economy within the next decade, as the U.S. economy continues to teeter on the brink of collapse, how long will the U.S. be able to call the shots globally?
It is in the long-term interests of the United States of America — and any other nation’s — to follow the rule of law. It is easier and more convenient, in the short run, to circumvent the law, but to circumvent the law often bites you in the ass later, often (if not usually) costing you more than if you had just done it right the first time.
Because he was not put on trial, but was assassinated, Osama bin Laden is now, to many in the Muslim world, a martyr whose manner of death only proves his assertions about American abuse of power against Arabs and Muslims to be correct. We Americans can, and should, fully expect bin Laden’s death to be avenged. And then we’ll avenge that. This tit-for-tat bullshit bloodshed can go on for years and years and years, which is exactly what the war profiteers and the weasels of the military-industrial complex want.
And just as the United States was somewhat recovering from its reputation as the global asshole that the treasonous members of the unelected Bush regime earned it, Barack Obama, by mimicking George “W. for Wanted Dead or Alive” Bush, has taken us backasswards again.
Can we at least take away that Nobel Peace Prize that he so prematurely was awarded while the UN investigates the legality of his unilateral order to assassinate bin Laden?
P.S. Reuters reports a little more thoroughly today of the United Nations’ looking into the legality of bin Laden’s assassination. Reuters reports today:
Martin Scheinin, UN special rapporteur on protecting human rights while countering terrorism … and Christof Heyns, UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that in certain exceptional cases, deadly force may be used in “operations against terrorists.”
“However, the norm should be that terrorists be dealt with as criminals, through legal processes of arrest, trial and judicially-decided punishment,” the independent experts said in a joint statement.
“In respect of the recent use of deadly force against Osama bin Laden, the United States of America should disclose the supporting facts to allow an assessment in terms of international human rights law standards,” they said. “It will be particularly important to know if the planning of the mission allowed an effort to capture bin Laden.”
Scheinin, a Finnish law professor who teaches in Florence, and Heyns, a South African human rights law professor, report to the UN Human Rights Council, whose 47 members include the United States. …
Navi Pillay, the top UN human rights official, also called this week for light to be shed on the killing, stressing that all counter-terrorism operations must respect international law.
“We’ve raised a question mark about what happened precisely, more details are needed at this point,” her spokesman Rupert Colville told a briefing in Geneva [today].
*Those Obama apologists and American jingoists who take exception to the word “assassination” (as though only, say, an American president could be assassinated) at least cannot argue that bin Laden’s killing was indeed, at the least, an extrajudicial execution.
One of the reasons that I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 was that I was sick and fucking tired of being embarrassed to be an American. Americans’ assholism was a condition that long preceded the theft of the White House by George W. Bush & Co. in 2000, to be sure, but the eight, long, nightmarish years of rule by the unelected Bush regime exacerbated the condition immensely.
“That’s not who we are. We don’t trot out this stuff as trophies. We don’t need to spike the football,” Obama reportedly said of his recent decision not to release any supposed photographs of the freshly snuffed Osama bin Laden.
“We don’t need to spike the football.”
This just might be the fastest that Obama, the Promise-Breaker in Chief, has gone against his word: After just having promised not to “spike the football,” The Associated Press reports that today Obama “has arrived in New York for a solemn [wink wink] visit to Ground Zero, where he will try to bury the memory of Osama bin Laden by honoring those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.”
The fucktarded Obama apologists — and they are legion — claim that of course Obama isn’t milking the bin Laden assassination for all of the political gain that it’s worth.
I’m sure that it’s just a fucking coinky-dink that today also is the first Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate debate for the 2012 presidential campaign season.
So we went from George W. Bush shamelessly exploiting 9/11 for crass political gain to Barack Obama exploiting 9/11 for crass political gain.
So much for that “change” that Obama incessantly promised us, unless he’d meant that everything would be the same but that the individual who holds the title of president of the United States would change.
It’s bad enough that videos of drunken white frat boys (who most likely will always lead comfortable, overprivileged lives and never will sacrifice themselves significantly for any cause greater than themselves or ever come in harm’s way) chanting “U-S-A!” in celebration of bin Laden’s assassination are all over the Internet.
Now, we have to have an official, national drunken frat boy celebration.
The 10th anniversary of 9/11 is coming up in just about four months and one week. We couldn’t have just waited for a “solemn” (that is, a non-gloating, not unseemly — because that’s not who we are!) observance then?
The problem with Osama bin Laden is that he had no respect for human life; he killed casually. However, while bin Laden killed just under 3,000 American civilians on Sept. 11, 2001, the United States slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq in revenge for 9/11 when Iraq had had nothing whatsofuckingever to do with 9/11. Not one of the 19 9/11 hijackers was an Iraqi (15 of them, however, were Saudi), and no link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein ever was discovered.
The majority of Americans were wholly complicit in this mass murder, this crime against humanity, this war crime. Without their support, the illegal, immoral, unjust and unprovoked Vietraq War never could have been launched in March 2003.
Yet Americans denounce bin Laden, the textbook scapegoat, as the murderous monster when American mass murder far surpasses anything that bin Laden ever accomplished (well, in terms of body counts of innocents, anyway).
The American slaughter of civilians continues in Pakistan and Afghanistan with Americans’ complicity — even, perhaps even especially, with the support (or at least the acquiescence) of the self-identified left. After all, if the nation’s first black president is ordering the slaughter, it must be just! (And surely, using “Terminator”-like unmanned flying killing machines makes the slaughter clean and, dare I say, humane!)
I keep seeing all of these simple-minded, black-and-white, hypocritical, jingoistic, smug editorial cartoons of bin Laden meeting Satan in hell.
If we accept that hell is for those who hold human life to be cheap, easily disposed of, then Americans will overpopulate hell. Only in the hypocritical (but typical), assholy American mind could it be envisioned that mass murderer bin Laden and his followers are fit for hell, but American mass murderers like George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, et. al., and their followers are fit for heaven.
It’s not like hell can hold either “Islamofascists” or those who call themselves “Christians” but who have no problem with mass murder (supporting it or actually committing it) while pronouncing themselves God’s chosen and the world’s morally supreme people. There is, I am sure, plenty of room in hell for mass murderers of all religions.
The blood of bin Laden does not wash away the blood that already was on American hands. It only adds to it.
More killing, even the revenge killing of the unarmed Osama bin Laden (who should have been captured and put on trial, and would have been if the United States of America were a civilized nation), is nothing to celebrate, especially if you call yourself a Christian.