I am partway through this book and full of things to say about it, and the thought of sitting down to type them all out exhausts me. I am a Susan Faludi fan, to the extent that someone can be a fan who has read only books by her. In fact, I have read only three books by her and I'm not even sure if there are more. The cover of the book promotes her as the author of Backlash and Stiffed, and those are--fancy this!--the very two books I've read!

I hardly remember Backlash and I only remember reading it as a follow-up to Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth, which a friend gave to me in college. I was riled up and indignant after reading Wolf, but all I can remember about it is that she wrote about liking to wear cowboy boots and lipstick. I remember even less of Backlash. I read those two authors again in succession with Wolf's Mis-Conceptions and Faludi's Stiffed and still have much stronger memories of both books. I wasn't pregnant then, but Wolf had me riled up again, this time about the medical industrial complex and the pathologizing of pregnancy and the benefits of going au natural in the delivery room, if I was such a coward as to resort to a delivery room in the first place. I am sure I am overstating the contents of the book, but it did influence me to the point that when I was actually pregnant I established from the outset a contrary relationship with my doctor, arguing over everything from conception dates to induction of labor. I even spent four hours of my life in horrible pain because I waved off the epidural when it was offered to me (and when I finally demanded it they took their sweet time about hooking it up--yeah, the stuff that romcoms are made of). Second time around, I let the doctors do whatever they wanted and there were a lot more smiles and air kisses. Dude. They invented medicine for a reason! Should I get pregnant again, I'll provide a full-length diatribe, but until then it is just a digression.

So after reading Mis-Conceptions I read Faludi's Stiffed; they must have been published relatively close together, because I remember pulling them from the "New" shelf at the new (at the time) library. This memory is highly fallible and I welcome publication date corrections. Anyway, Stiffed just struck me as eloquent and sad, and left me with a real appreciation of how men's status has changed, for better and for worse, throughout the decades, too. I don't remember that the book was particularly the "male answer" to the feminism movement, and it wasn't a call for pity for men, but it hit some real emotional moments and described real pain and confusion. What I remember the most were the interviews with Sylvester Stallone (of all people!). He talked about himself, his father, his career, the characters he portrayed... the interview was excerpted throughout the book, but getting him into it was a real bonus. I mean, what other persona encapsulates so many masculine ideals and failures? The other guys I remember are the laid-off aeronautical engineers and the Vietnam vets being harangued by World War II vets. It's a dense book, it's a hard book to read, and it is so not bitter, angry, or resentful.

I am appreciating these qualities again in the new book, The Terror Dream. Talk about 9/11 annoys me because I am heartless and cold; I even hate the phrase "9/11." Not as much as I hate "9-11" or the word "kinnygarden," but it's up there. 1) I prefer to refer to events with actual references to events and 2) I dislike cutesy shorthand. But it's in the subtitle of the book, so I roll with it. And it actually did occur on that date, so I can't fault the term entirely. And thus I arrive at this interesting observation. Sort of interesting.

This is the copy of the hardcover book I am in possession of:

Note the subtitle: "Fear and Fantasy" and "9/11." Note the art. It's a sunset, or a sunny day obscured by smoke, with a cityscape far in the distance. I hadn't paid attention to the cover at all. And then a chain of events arose with these links:

1. I was reading the book last night before going to sleep.
2. I was impressed with the book.
3. I reported first thing to my online friends at Northern Attack how much I was enjoying the book so far.
4. I looked up reviews at Amazon so I could learn what to think about the book.
5. I noticed that a paperback version of the book was going to be released in two months, with the following subtitle and cover art:

Of course, the book isn't available yet, but I don't think I am naive to assume that the actual book will be the same. Look at those silhouettes--it's obviously the World Trade Center. But the subtitle is so different! "Myth" and "Misogyny"? "Insecure"? I really wonder whose idea it was to change it? I worked for a tiny while in a tiny corner of book publishing, and learned just enough to find changes like these interesting although not nearly enough to qualify for ever making changes like that myself at real book publishing company in a position of real responsibility. I also don't know enough about Faludi's clout or Holt's attitudes to do more than speculate about the source of the change. Did the book fail to sell enough copies? Was "9/11" off-putting? Is it a dated term? Does "Misogyny" more completely encompass the author's ideas? I can tell you right now, based on the assumption that the text is not changing in any meaningful way, that I hate the new cover. It looks like retrofiction, or the opening credits of "Bewitched." Was there a conversation between editors and the designers about it? Was that the point? I also don't like the change from "Post-9/11" to "Insecure." It's so vague. When has "America" ever been more or less confident than it is now? Not to go all postmodern, if that's the right term, but "Americans" are "Americans" just like they have always been. Militarily, we are probably more secure than "before." It's such a weak word.

Of course, the first cover conveys absolutely no information. For that matter, the title conveys no real information. I am currently reading books on gender roles for my next work project. I never would have selected this book based on the title if I hadn't seen a review of the book that popped up in my database search on "gender roles." The second cover certainly shows men acting and women victiming, but the title is just an odd one. Perhaps it's aiming for some artful juxtaposition that I am too dense to see.

But none of that was what I really meant to talk about. Last night, after I turned the light out, my head was filled with amazement at how different reading this Faludi book is from reading that stupid Maureen Dowd book. That Dowd book was scatterbrained, vague, oddly arranged, and written so the author and her unnamed friends--who comprise the bulk of information "sources" for the "research"--could laugh about their private jokes later. But the Faludi book (which I would normally refer to by name, especially in a Word document, but I am not now doing so because I am sick of typing the codes and because actually leaving off typing to go click the format button provided is an interruption of my thought that would be far more disruptive than this parenthetical aside is) hits newspaper headlines, interviews, press conferences, letters to the editors, blog comments, chat room transcripts, magazine articles, movie dialogue... you name it. She either has a staff of ten people or she spends more time online than I do! I wish I was her. My admiration for her seemingly thorough coverage of pop-culture and journalism sources is countered by my embarrassment that I let all these horrible turns of events slip by my notice. Of course, my out is that when I'm online I'm watching old SciFi at Hulu.com, I'm posting up a storm on online message boards, I'm shopping, or I'm trying to figure out what new ailment is affecting my tomato harvest that will never be. (It appears to be fungus, this time. Damn you, unusual semi-tropical weather!) Plus she manages to absorb and remember all this sad testaments to the state of the union without becoming angry or hostile. At least, she never seems angry or hostile to me. She lays it out, and then I get riled up. It's not the same as the Naomi Wolf approach, who is angry for you and then you collude in rage. But I can't remember everything that I was thinking about and I am not that sorry that I didn't get up and type it out. You'll have to trust me that it was articulate, insightful, well-formatted, and full of key words and phrases that would have driven traffic to this blog like a mofo.

For purposes of full disclosure, I am only partway through the book. I reserve the right to take it all back, undermine what I've said today, and retract my initial impressions. Still, if nothing else, it was fun to remember those crazy days when the 9/11 Widows were in the news! Those crazy kids. It takes all kinds, right? And now that I have loosely corralled my thoughts, I can return to my BSG podcast listening. I'm on the part where they are discussing the script for the Razor movie. I haven't seen all the way through season 4 yet, though, so don't tell me what happens after Callie gets sucked out the airlock. But am I the only person in the world who thought she was killing herself after finding herself pregnant with a second Cylon baby? And why the hell are Helo AND Athena on the garbage scow with Starbuck instead of with Hera. If ever there was a couple in the known universe who is less likely to leave their baby again it is that one, but I can't believe they would have brought her along, and we certainly didn't see her on the ship.

It's a mystery.

Naomi Wolf at Ron Paul Rally

[googlevideo=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7986232623313268729]

. . .

Ron Paul supporters gathered at 9:30 am on Saturday morning to participate in the Campaign for Liberty's Revolution March. My husband and I drove to the Metro parking lot in Vienna and then we took the Orange Line to the Smithsonian. I didn't know anyone else so I wasn't sure if I should go or not, but I think it was a good experience for me. (Since my husband doesn't have any paid time off from work left after our trip to Peru, our summer vacation trend seems to be exhausting and hot day trips. :) )

One guy, reminding me of Zacchius, climbed into a tree to take photos of the crowd gathering before the march began. It would have been nice to see the crowd from above, because when I was in the middle of everyone I had no idea how many people were there. Thousands. But I don't know how many thousands. We were told to walk in groups of 20 so that we could be counted, but that was laughably unrealistic.

We marched from the Washington Monument, down Constitution Avenue to the lawn of the Capitol Building. Being on Constitution Avenue, not on the sidewalk, was made possible by permits and policemen blocking traffic. I am grateful that it was well-organized with access to porta-potties and free bottles of water. The marshals and the medics did their jobs well.

I felt like every single person had their camera with them, since we knew we would have to "cover" the event for ourselves in the absence of The Media. (I mean what an old episode of the Simpsons refers to as "CNNBCBS, a division of ABC".) So many 20-somethings had that look that gave them away as likely bloggers and YouTube account holders.

It was awesome to walk right by the IRS building and chuckle at the quotation engraved in stone: "TAXES ARE WHAT WE PAY FOR A CIVILIZED SOCIETY" OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES. And then we saw a statue outside of the National Archives that was engraved: "ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF LIBERTY". A little farther down we saw an entire side of a building which assured us that Congress cannot prohibit ". . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES".

A few dozen people were dressed in colonial costumes. It was over 90 degrees and we were in the sun all day. I was dripping with sweat in a light blue cotton sleeveless shirt, so I have no idea how the people in costumes were able to stand it. There were revolutionary flags (the Rattlesnake Flag and the Gadsden Flag circa 1776) carried by many people and three guys that had made suits of armor out of Ron Paul campaign signs complete with helmets, axes and swords. I wore the campaign button that Michael Nystrom designed, and I got one of the free stickers from isupportronpaul.com that one of his friends was handing out.

As we came onto the Capitol Lawn and got closer to the platform, I heard Aimee Allen's song "Ron Paul Revolution" being broadcast over the speakers (repeatedly for about 30 minutes). I was disappointed that she couldn't be at the rally to sing it live, but I just read on her MySpace page that she was seriously injured in June. I hope you are healing well, Aimee!

Naomi Wolf was one of the many speakers that afternoon at the rally. I had just read her 2003 article on pornography in New York Magazine, which BlueMilk blogged about last week. She was introduced as a leftist (not ridiculing her, but certainly teasing her) and she acknowledged that she had never hung out with a libertarian crowd before. But she said we have love of the Constitution in common. Civil liberties are very important to her; she mentioned Dennis Kucinich several times during her speech. I uploaded her speech to Google Video so that you can hear what she said and see what an enthusiastic and energetic woman she is.

The last person to speak was, of course, Congressman Ron Paul. What I liked the most about Dr. Paul's speech was that he explained the price of liberty. When people are given the responsibility to make their own decisions about what they smoke and eat and drink (raw milk, for example) they take responsibility for their decisions instead of trusting the government to keep them safe and happy. The price of this liberty is that some people choose poorly. But the rewards are that people are able to take care of problems within real relationships like families and communities. His attitude was casual and confident. Two of his granddaughters were there and sat on the platform stairs during his speech. He gleefully told the crowd of his plans for September 1st and 2nd. I didn't record his speech, but it is easily accessible on YouTube.

Maybe people get nervous when Dr. Paul says that the revolution is permanent because that sounds like something a communist insurgent would say, but I recognize now what he means. Eternal vigilance means people never get to a point where they feel comfortable with their government. Eternal vigilance means people distrust central power and stay informed of the bills that are being discussed and passed. When people stop being vigilant, the revolution ends and the government succeeds in its counterinsurgency efforts. We are losing the liberties that make our country strong. That's the lesson I took away from the rally.

I took so many photos it is hard to choose which ones to share here. There are many more on Flickr thanks to Jlilyea, who took some really nice ones. (I'm in the bottom right-hand corner of the one that I linked to!)

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Video above taken by and posted with full report here. Check it out, even watch the video there instead and read, read, read.

Naomi Wolf's commentary "Fascist America, in 10 easy steps" author of "The End of America", speaking on July 12th, 2008 in Washington D.C. for Ron Paul.

Support Break The Matrix on the right before there are no rights left at all.

Support Global Research on the left before the Police State USA becomes complete.

Wake up America and defend the Constitution.

Sincerely,

Bitter

Hinterlands

MORE COVERAGE of the REVOLUTION MARCH

.

Come to the Revolution March this Saturday if you can! It starts at 9:30 AM on the North East Lawn by the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C.

Confirmed speakers include: Charles Goyette, G. Edward Griffin, Naomi Wolf, Jack McLamb, Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul and many more.

Go to RevolutionMarch.com for more information.

Have any of us felt like natural women in a long, long time? Today, over on beaut, the ladies discussed the merkin - the down-there hair for the lady whose down-there hair, well, isn't quite there. According to the guardian, it was borne of a desire [by prostitutes, natch] to cover up unseemly sights down below: pubic lice, herpes, and so on. A valiant cause, therefore.

Today, the merkin is apparently only acceptable in fetishist circles or, one presumes, if you want to have a really good laugh. Or - if you want to have the Union Jack emblazoned on your pubic area. The whole Spencer Tunick experience did, however, make me see the benefits of the merkin; although when I suggested that it may have helped to Ciara, she responded with a definitive "if they did a knee merkin I may have taken up that offer - my crotch wasn't the area concerning me most".

But... I digress. The thing that bothers me most about the whole merkin affair, is that there's no merkin for men. Much as there's no lipstick, no Brazilian wax (back, sack and crack doesn't quite have the same ring to it, it has to be said), no tights, no high heels, no Double Wear, no silk-satin lingerie sets. We have it all wrong, kids - and the way things are going, we're never going to make it right again.

Naomi Wolfe, in her book, The Beauty Myth, maintains that female beauty - the modern idea of female beauty, replete with waxing, self-maintenance and more make-up than you'd find in the whole of Mount Anville, was not created, but encouraged at the same time as the female sufferage movement as a way of keeping the good ladies down: they may want equal pay and, fine, they'll get it eventually, but by God we'll find other ways of keeping them on their knees (Michael O'Leary would know all about that).

And, though some of her views might be a bit too far-fetched for the less cynical among us (for the record, when it comes to cynicism, I'm right there with her), Wolfe has a point. If - and only if - a woman makes it to become a manager in her place of employ, you can guarantee that her management technique will not be the same as that of a male manager. This is a generalisation, but they are useful, in their place, and it's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility to state that most female managers have a more difficult job: if they wear suits, they are bitches; if they wear skirts, they slept their way to the top; if they reprimand in a straightforward way, they're bitches; if they're sickly sweet, they're, well, undercover bitches.

If a woman chooses not to shave her legs, she's probably a lesbian (and therefore a feminist, and most likely a bitch, in the bargain); if she doesn't wear make-up, she's unattractive; if she lets herself get fat, she's over the hill, and she'll probably turn into a bitch out of resentment. Most of the qualities - relaxation, a bit of slovenliness, some over-indulgence - that signify that a man is successful, signify that a woman has lost it. Who saw Indiana Jones and didn't think "no way, Indie wouldn't go for that old hag, what about a bit of Cate? He could bring her around!"?

The battle of the sexes is not going to be over until us women start thinking of ourselves as equal. Distinguishing ourselves as women often serves only to exacerbate the myths that surround us, as a sex and as an anomaly, a non-understandable entity that is here for several functions, none of which should involve power, success or, heaven forbid ambition (again: lesbian). We need to get off our chairs and back onto our high horses, and stop saying things like "I'm not a feminist, but...". Because if you're not, then you should be. If you're not, then, please, half your paycheck and give the other half to your partner. He deserves it: he's a man, after all.

Policy restricting liquids on air travel: Anyone that's been on a plane in the last few years probably knows about this. what you probably did not know is that airport security guards have forced some passengers to ingest liquids (e.g. a Long Island mother forced to drink from three bottles filled with her own breast milk prior to boarding a plane by JFK). Wolf drew a parallel here to Mussolini and German SS forcing their citizens to ingest liquids in their times.

Invasion of Iraq: another one you're probably familiar with but perhaps never really thought about. Cheney promised we would be "greeted as liberators." Did you know this was the same promise Nazi propaganda asserted to German citizens as their armies occupied the Rhineland?

The Military Commissions Act: this is probably the scariest one. I won't bore you with details but in a nutshell what it does is that the President (any president), on his say-so alone, can decide you are an "enemy combatant" without any evidence against you, seize you off the street and imprison you in isolation for months, interrogate (torture) you, and anything you say during these interrogations can be admitted into your trial (which may be postponed indefinitely)..

Is it really that preposterous to be drawing parallels to Nazi Germany at this point?

TMZ is reporting that the American Medical Association or AMA, and more specifically the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, is issuing a decree against various types of home birth and midwifery, aimed specifically at Ricki Lake.

Why Ricki Lake? Well,this year, Lake helped produce a documentary about the birth industry called The Business of Being Born. The documentary centered around various insiders in the home birth world as well as a few doctors who doubt the efficacy and safety of home births and midwives. The conclusion of the film was, essentially, that the birth industry is being run like a business and women are suffering for it. Infant mortality is very high in this country, higher than in nations that support home birth and midwife options. Countries highly accepting of home birth and midwifery have lower infant mortality rates, lower incidences of cesarean sections, lower birth costs, and generally better conditions for pregnant moms.

Lake's argument is nothing new, of course. In the film, the director interviews Ina May Gaskin, a famous home birth advocate since the sixties who, over the course of her career, has assisted in the home-based births of thousands of women.

My older brother and I were both born in home-based births and, since I was a child, have heard about the horrors of the medically-controlled birth industry, including the views of Ina May Gaskin. Now, I'm not that old, but am still old enough to know that this was an issue that's not recent since I was hearing about the ineffective birth industry more than twenty years ago. Now, as an adult, the issue is being revisited by the likes of Lake and Naomi Wolf who, in 2003, published a scathing indictment of the birth industry in her book Misconceptions. Both Wolf and Lake come to similar conclusions: medical intervention is nice, but is not necessary for all women. Home-based birth and midwifery are effective, cheap, and emotionally and physically beneficial to women with normal pregnancies.

Not surprisingly, the AMA has a beef with home births. Think of it this way: the AMA is an organization of doctors that has far too much influence on the medical industry. The AMA is known for opposing many ideas, not for the general health of the populace, but as a self-preservation method. The AMA is interested mostly in the bottom line of doctors, not the health of Americans.

Home births obviously cut into the profits of OB/GYN's. The average hospital birth can involve steady drips with drugs, a delivery by a doctor, and medical intervention that often leads to cesarean section births rather than preventing them. A cesarean will net the he hospital and OB several thousand dollars extra. While a home birth with a qualified midwife might only cost a few thousand, a vaginal hospital birth will be twice that, and a full medical birth with a pitocin drip, epidural, and cesarean intervention may run up to $8,000 or more.

The AMA's resolution states that they are trying to write and pass legislation (PDF warning) affirming their belief that hospital births are the safest, the same argument they've been giving for years. What they fail to mention in their resolution is the high infant mortality rate that is a very possible result of the large number of hospital births in our nation. The United States ranks 163rd in the work in infant mortality, and nations like Luxemborg, Cuba, Singapore, and South Korea have lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. Is hospital birth really safer with numbers like these?

Lake shot back at the AMA report, telling the AP, quote

"It's scary that both (the ACOG and the AMA) have sort of targeted me," Lake told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "And, you know, I'm all about choice. This is not unlike the abortion issue. I am pro-choice when it comes to childbirth and choices in birth. Home birth was around long before hospitals were taking over — and I just think women need to know (the information) so that they can make the best choice for them."

It was an exhausting experience, seeing those photos. How the people live – the ones the American government would want us to believe are monsters. It was heart-numbing to see decapitated soldiers and dead children in the streets. These were photos ABC Family would quietly dismiss from its programming. But the Iraq War is such an abstract term for us here at home, it's easy to dismiss our country's drift into the fascist 'neutral zone.' One by one, our constitutional freedoms are being taken away, but we don't realize it; the water is boiling, so to speak.

I am proud to be an American, there is no doubt. But that pride comes mostly from the ideals and fearlessness of our forefathers (misogyny and slavery and racism and Puritanism aside), and not from what we, as a nation, are doing right now. In fact, at this very moment in history I am ashamed of my country. Does it sound like I’m contradicting myself? Think about this:

I came across an article by Stephen Funk in the Huffington Post [1], in which he accounts his trip to the San Francisco National Cemetery on the decommissioned military base known as the Presidio.

He writes how 30,000 tiny recycled American flags are used to mark the graves of ex-patriots, and how he doubts he’ll ever be buried alongside military personnel there – or anywhere – because of the fact that he’s spoken out against the war, because he has gone to prison for speaking out, not to mention that he’s gay. You see, we all know soldiers have no first amendment rights. After all, one who is told not to speak out for himself is less likely to speak out for others.

But still, I am proud to be an American.

I read a Village Voice article by Nat Hentoff [2] that tells a story of a young German by the name of Murat Kurnaz who at age 19, upon traveling to Pakistan to learn more about his faith months after the 9/11 attacks, was kidnapped by the U.S. government and imprisoned for 5 years, during which time he was tortured, even when overwhelming evidence pointed to his innocence.

I wasn’t surprised to read of this, after having read the highly acclaimed (and highly controversial) The End of America by Naomi Wolf [3], which accounts this country’s gradual shift to fascism by comparing current events to those of history:

One of the first things the Nazis did was to establish prisons in legal "outer space," often in basements, guarded by SS officers who were not accountable to the state....Hitler came to power in a democracy that at first still possessed an independent judiciary, human rights lawyers, an accountable military, and a legitimate prison system. But, in a matter of months, he had deployed a paramilitary force answerable to him; set in motion an alternative system of tribunals in which his representatives served as judge, jury, and exectioner; and established a network of illegitimate prisons where torture took place.

In addition to other, more grotesque crimes, Bush’s government has created a secret system of prisons all over the world (intentionally off American soil) for the purpose of going outside of the law, because torturing and detaining ordinary citizens without legal representation or trial on American soil is against the Constitution. According to Wolf's research, "'Guantanamo...was, in fact, outlawed by the Geneva Conventions of 1949.'" [3] Kurnaz was tortured by the U.S. government in a place 'condemned' by the Geneva Conventions, for five years, even though he was innocent. But he wasn't alone. Google him to find out more, along with 'Jose Padilla.' I was especially not surprised to find that the government had created special model cells (at Guantanamo and other 'model' prisons) for the media.

Meanwhile, here at home, the U.S. government has created the largest and most powerful paramilitary force (in essence, a private contractor) to do what the military cannot do, both overseas and on American soil. This force (Blackwater) does not answer to the Constitution (as the military must), and quite possibly represents the force who would subdue the people in the event of a police state. (Check out both their website and the wikipedia reference, for starters - it's pretty scary.)

But if you still don’t understand the significance of contracting our very own private military or prisons (and illegal torturing) overseas, let’s talk about what’s going on right here, outside your door:

Dana Priest and Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post put together a breathtaking article [4] about U.S. immigrant concentration camps. Yusif Osman, a native of Ghana, died in one of these prisons because of “shabby medical care.” His health wasn’t taken seriously. But his case isn’t unique:

Osman’s death is a single tragedy in a larger story of life, death and often shabby medical care within an unseen network of special prisons for foreign detainees across the country. Some 33,000 people are crammed into these overcrowded compounds on a given day, waiting to be deported or for a judge to let them stay here.

This invisible network of prisons is, at its worst, akin to the classic Nazi concentration camp. It’s safe to say that Aushwitz didn’t care about its prisoners’ health. And like the Nazi camps, ours (also seen during WWII with those of Japanese descent living in the U.S.) also imprison innocent people:

Most are working-class men and women or indigent laborers who made mistakes that seem to pose no threat to national security: a Salvadoran who bought drugs in his 20th year of poverty in Los Angeles; a U.S. legal U.S. resident from Mexico who took $50 for driving two undocumented day laborers into a border city. Or they are waiting for political asylum from danger in their own countries: a Somali without a valid visa trying to prove she would be killed had she remained in her village; a journalist who fled Congo out of fear fro his life, worked as a limousine driver and fathered six American children, but never was able to get the asylum he sought.

If the image of Nazi-esque persecution doesn’t make you think about how democracy might just be fading in this country, just imagine neighbors turning neighbors in over such issues as undocumented immigration, as encouraged by various government officials like Oklahoma’s Governor Brad Henry who, in a sweeping 2007 immigration reform bill, took the power out of the federal government’s hands and created an atmosphere of discrimination (in housing and education, among other things) for that state’s estimated 100,000 illegal immigrants to fearfully live (and work) in.

But yes, I am still proud to be an American.

What really baffled me in DUMBO that night was that seemingly none of those privileged, educated people knew why we invaded Iraq. It's as if I had taken a step back in the time machine to past arguments and theories about what we, as a nation, could possibly be doing invading a country in the Middle East who had seemingly done nothing to us. Weapons of mass destruction? Harboring terrorists? Or to secure a precious commodity? (Here’s a hint: go to the gas station after you read this blog and fill up your tank.)

When the lights came back up, discussion around the invasion and occupation began. And when I raised my hand to remind the audience (who by this point had erupted in arguments over what president had done what) that we had indeed invaded Iraq for oil, I was greeted with vacant stares. It seemed as if most of those people had no idea what I was talking about (if any of them had I wouldn't know, because not one agreed with me, or at all acknowledged what I said). I was even scoffed at by a gentlemen to my right when I suggested we look to the future to solve our problems.

Perhaps the most disgusting observation of all, over the past few months, was this YouTube video I came across yesterday, one that is now circulating through Facebook and other online communities. A video that documents our soldiers destroying Iraqi herders' sheep for fun, taunting children running behind their tanks, disrespecting the elderly with disparaging remarks, and torturing animals – including throwing a defenseless puppy into the desert. A testament to how our military is doing its job overseas (even though, most of us – our elected officials included – don’t know what that job is anymore).

Yes, I am proud to be an American. Watch the video.

[1] Stephen Funk, "Tiny American Flags," The Huffington Post. May 27, 2008

[2] Nat Hentoff, “Our Very Own Axis of Evil,” The Village Voice. April 16-22, 2008

[3] Naomi Wolf, The End of America, Chelsea Green, 51.

[4] Priest and Goldstein, "System of Neglect," The Washington Post. May 11, 2008

This all reminds me of Naomi Wolf's book, The End of America:  Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot.  It's $11.16 over at Amazon.com.  Go order it or head to your local book shop and pick up a copy and read it, today.  It won't take you long.  I think I read it in three hours.  It will blow - your - mind.  And scare the hell out of you.  And then you'll understand why we got such an horrific rating from Privacy International.

You can also check out Ms. Wolf giving a talk about the book here, on YouTube:

Oh, and when you read about the Military Commissions Act, know that both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton (and Senators Biden and Dodd) voted against it.  Surprise, however, Senator McCain not only voted for it, but spoke in earnest for the bill.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Wczorajszy jakże piękny wiosenny wieczór spedziłam na prelekcji Naomi Wolf. Nie jestem jej zagorzała wielbicielką, wręcz uważam, ze jest odrobinę zbyrt szalona jak na mój gust, ale Carol mnie zabrała, wiec poszłam. Wolf jest pisarką i konsultantką polityczną. Pisze też wiersze i jest aktywnie zaangażowana w ruch feministyczny. Tematyką spotkania był upadek Ameryki. A raczej upadek demokracji w USA. Słuchałam z zaciekwieniem z niektórymi tezami sie nie zgadzajac, przy innych potakujac głową.

Co mnie najbardziej zdziwiło? Naomi Wolf jest kobietą sukcesu. Jej ksiażki cieszą się wielką popularnością, jej wykłady uczeszczane są tłumnie. Ona sama natomiast kilkukrotnie podczas tych ponad dwóch godzin podkerślała, że jest matką. Tak jakby chciała za wszelką cene pokazać wszystkim, że jest normalna. Patrzcie na mnie spełniłam swą rolę jako kobieta, urodziłam dwojkę dzieci, kocham ich nad życie, a cała reszta to dodatek. Ok, wyolbrzymiam. Nie było aż tak, ale po co takie teksty: Ja to rozumiem, bo jestem matka i bla bla bla. A mowa wcale nie była o dzieciach, wcale nie o macierzyństwie. Poza tym, na litość, matki też są rożne i nie wszystkie tak samo spostrzegają rzeczywistość.

Rule by fear or rule by law?

Lewis Seiler,Dan Hamburg
Monday, February 4, 2008

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."

- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943

Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."

Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.

According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."

Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?

Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.

Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.

U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.

According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.

A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.

What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?

The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.

Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.

San Francisco Chronicle ->

If you've not have yet read Naomi Wolf's The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, consider picking up a copy. Wolf outlines the ten escalating steps to a fascist government regime, drawing parallels between Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy with the last eight years of the Bush regime. It's disturbing how history repeats itself; more disturbing is how suppression of a society's freedom goes unnoticed when it is achieved through subtle progressive steps.

Rule Number 3 is the establishment of a paramilitary force. The Bush administration has heavily relied on private security forces in Iraq because of a shortage of American soliders. According to Jeremy Scahill, author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army

there’s some 100,000 contractors—I actually think there are probably more than that. That’s a strangely round number. But the fact of the matter is that we know from internal government audits that were done on the Iraq occupation that there are some 48,000 employees of private mercenary companies operating in Iraq right now. (Truthdig, March 2007)

The US government is dependent upon these private firms because of the shortage of qualified enlistees, as well as the ability to plug and play, since many of these guns-for-hire were originally trained by the US armed forces or law enforcement. (Good Magazine provides a great graphic depiction of just how unpopular enrolling to serve in Iraq is)

Per Wolf's research,

The company's lawyers argue that Blackwater can't be held accountable to the Pentagon's Uniform code of Military Justice because its soldiers are civilians. But they can't be sued in civil court either -- because they are part of the U.S. military. (p.75)

Hence the power that private security companies give the parties holding the purse strings.

And what these companies do is they give the Bush administration extraordinary political cover. Their deaths don’t get counted, their injuries don’t get counted, their crimes don’t get reported, they don’t get investigated, they don’t get prosecuted. (Scahill interview, Truthdig, March 2007)

At the moment, security contractors are posted in unsavory locations, so American don't really appreciate the sort of damage a team of elite mercenaries can do with that free license. Iraq's budding government wants Blackwater out of its country after finding a group of the private soldiers murdered civilians without repercussion last fall.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government accepted the findings of an Iraqi investigative committee that determined Blackwater guards, without provocation, killed 17 Iraqis last month in Nisoor Square in western Baghdad. . .

The officials said the Cabinet decided Tuesday to establish a committee to find ways to repeal a 2004 directive issued by L. Paul Bremer, chief of the former U.S. occupation government in Iraq. The order placed private security companies outside Iraqi law. . .

The Iraqi probe into the Sept. 16 shooting found that Blackwater personnel guarding a State Department convoy opened fire on Iraqis without reason. Blackwater said its men came under fire first, although no witnesses have been found to corroborate the claim. The guards involved have been isolated and have not been available to comment. (San Francisco Chronicle, September 24, 2007)

Our highly efficient government is still "investigating" the incident, so renewing the Blackwater contract was A-OK to them, while Iraqi officials' protests were ignored.

Imagine hiring Blackwater forces to shore up Homeland Security, a team of trained mercenaries whose contracts allow for little oversight and less prosecution in the event of law breaking. We care little of contractor infractions overseas, so that precedent would likely follow back to the US, which would be the next step in building up a private military force that could quell average Americans and make us afraid to protest injustices out of fear of unpunishable retribution.

What is a Fascist State? Should you be concerned that America is becoming one?

It is happening here... NOW!

From BrassCheckTV:

Mussolini created the blueprint (with inspiration from Lenin), Hitler elaborated on it, Stalin studied Hitler...Here's how it works (notice how many Bush & Co. is using now.):

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

2. Create a gulag

3. Develop a thug caste

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

5. Harass citizens' groups

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

7. Target key individuals

8. Control the press

9. Dissent equals treason

10. Suspend the rule of law

Wolf's conclusion? Impeachment of Bush and Cheney is not enough. Prosecuting (and jailing) them for crimes committed is the only rational solution.

Share this video widely.