SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (67695)11/25/2004 2:55:08 PM
From: Crimson Ghost  Respond to of 89467
 
Kerry and the Gift of Impunity
Naomi Klein

November 24, 2004 - Iconic images inspire love and hate, and so it is with the photograph of James Blake Miller, the 20-year-old Marine from Appalachia who has been christened "the face of Falluja" by prowar pundits and "The Marlboro Man" by pretty much everyone else. Reprinted in more than a hundred newspapers, the Los Angeles Times photograph shows Miller "after more than twelve hours of nearly nonstop deadly combat" in Falluja, his face coated in war paint, a bloody scratch on his nose, and a freshly lit cigarette hanging from his lips.

Gazing lovingly at Miller, Dan Rather confessed that, "for me, this is personal.... This is a warrior with his eyes on the far horizon, scanning for danger. See it, study it, absorb it. Think about it. Then take a deep breath of pride. And if your eyes don't dampen, you're a better man or woman than I." A few days later, the LA Times declared that its photo had "moved into the realm of the iconic." In truth, the image just feels iconic because it is so laughably derivative: It's a straight-up rip-off of the most powerful icon in American advertising (the Marlboro Man), which in turn imitated the brightest star ever created by Hollywood (John Wayne) who was himself channeling America's most powerful founding myth (the cowboy on the rugged frontier). It's like a song you feel like you've heard a thousand times before--because you have.

But never mind that. For a country that just elected a wannabe Marlboro Man as its President, Miller is an icon, and as if to prove it he has ignited his very own controversy. "Lots of children, particularly boys, play 'army' and like to imitate this young man. The clear message of the photo is that the way to relax after a battle is with a cigarette," wrote Daniel Maloney in a scolding letter to the Houston Chronicle. Linda Ortman made the same point to the editors of the Dallas Morning News: "Are there no photos of nonsmoking soldiers in Iraq?" A reader of the New York Post suggested more politically correct propaganda imagery: "Maybe showing a Marine in a tank, helping another GI or drinking water, would have a more positive impact on your readers."

Yes, that's right: Letter-writers from across the nation are united in their outrage--not that the steely-eyed smoking soldier makes mass killing look cool but that the laudable act of mass killing makes the grave crime of smoking look cool. It reminds me of the joke about the Hasidic rabbi who says all sexual positions are acceptable except for one: standing up, "because that could lead to dancing."

On second thought, perhaps Miller does deserve to be elevated to the status of icon--not of the war in Iraq but of the new era of supercharged American impunity. Because outside US borders, it is, of course, a different Marine who has been awarded the prize as "the face of Falluja": the soldier captured on tape executing a wounded, unarmed prisoner in a mosque. Runners-up are a photograph of 2-year-old Fallujan in a hospital bed with one of his tiny legs blown off; a dead child lying in the street, clutching the headless body of an adult; and an emergency health clinic blasted to rubble. Inside the United States, these snapshots of a lawless occupation appeared only briefly, if at all. Yet Miller's icon status has endured, kept alive with human interest stories about fans sending cartons of Marlboros to Falluja, interviews with the Marine's proud mother and earnest discussions about whether smoking might reduce Miller's effectiveness as a fighting machine.

Impunity--the perception of being outside the law--has long been the hallmark of the Bush regime. What is alarming is that it appears to have deepened since the election, ushering in what can best be described as an orgy of impunity. In Iraq, US forces and their Iraqi surrogates are assaulting civilian targets and openly attacking doctors, clerics and journalists who have dared to count the bodies. At home, impunity has been made official policy with Bush's nomination of Alberto Gonzales--the man who personally advised the President in his infamous "torture memo" that the Geneva Conventions are "obsolete"--as Attorney General.

This kind of defiance cannot simply be explained by Bush's win. There has to be something in how he won, in how the election was fought, that gave this Administration the distinct impression that it had been handed a "get out of the Geneva Conventions free" card. That's because the Administration was handed precisely such a gift--by John Kerry.

In the name of "electability," the Kerry campaign gave Bush five months on the campaign trail without ever facing serious questions about violations of international law. Fearing he would be seen as soft on terror and disloyal to US troops, Kerry stayed scandalously silent about Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. When it became clear that fury would rain down on Falluja as soon as the polls closed, Kerry never spoke out against the plan, or against the illegal bombings of civilian areas that took place throughout the campaign. Even after The Lancet published its landmark study estimating that 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion and occupation, Kerry repeated his outrageous (and frankly racist) claim that Americans "have borne 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq." His unmistakable message: Iraqi deaths don't count. By buying the highly questionable logic that Americans are incapable of caring about anyone's lives but their own, the Kerry campaign and its supporters became complicit in the dehumanization of Iraqis, reinforcing the idea that some lives are insufficiently important to risk losing votes over. And it is this morally bankrupt logic, more than the election of any single candidate, that allows these crimes to continue unchecked.

The real-world result of all the "strategic" thinking is the worst of both worlds: It didn't get Kerry elected and it sent a clear message to the people who were elected that they will pay no political price for committing war crimes. And this is Kerry's true gift to Bush: not just the presidency, but impunity. You can see it perhaps best of all in the Marlboro Man in Falluja, and the surreal debates that swirl around him. Genuine impunity breeds a kind of delusional decadence, and this is its face: a nation bickering about smoking while Iraq burns.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (67695)11/26/2004 2:52:25 PM
From: Kip518  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
George Bush's real agenda

Hoover Institute channels neocon demands through Condi Rice.

by Donald Gutstein

Ronald Reagan obtained most of his ideas from the big business-backed Heritage Foundation. Ten days after Reagan's 1980 victory, the foundation delivered a 3000-page, 20-volume report entitled Mandate for Leadership to the Reagan transition team - whose ranks included 11 Heritage staff and fellows. The mandate contained 2000 recommendations to serve as "a blueprint for the construction of a conservative government." Included in the document were ideas like Star Wars and deep tax cuts for the rich. A year later the foundation issued a follow-up report which claimed that about 60% of the initial report's recommendations had been implemented, at least in part.

George W Bush taps a different source of reactionary advice ­ the big business-backed Hoover Institution for War, Peace and Revolution on the campus of Stanford University. That's where Bush's national security adviser and soon-to-be secretary of state Condoleezza Rice learned that the US had to manufacture a big, bad enemy to scare the people enough so they would rally to the corporate cause.

Rice went to the Hoover Institution just when Ronald Reagan's "evil empire," also known as the Soviet Union, was collapsing. As an expert on Soviet affairs, Rice had to find a new line of work and she helped fabricate another scary enemy ­ Iraq, a member in good standing of the Axis of Evil.

Rice's career has consisted of a revolving door between increasingly powerful posts in succeeding Republican administrations and propaganda work at the Hoover, where she is subsidized by Tom Stephenson, a prominent venture capitalist and a Republican "super ranger," meaning he contributed at least $300,000 to the 2004 Bush campaign.

Little is said in media analysis of the Bush victory about the role of big business in financing an elaborate, well-coordinated reactionary propaganda machine of think tanks like Heritage and Hoover, which pushed America far to the right. Business worked for 30 years to win this election and Bush knows exactly what it wants in return ­ more tax cuts, continued dismantling of publicly-supported programs like education, health care and pensions, and expanding US hegemony and business around the globe.

Is it fair to label these think tanks reactionary rather than just conservative, which is what they call themselves? Sociologist Albert Hirschman notes that each major advance in civilization - civil rights in the eighteenth century, political rights in the nineteenth and social and economic rights in the twentieth - has been followed by "ideological counterthrusts of extraordinary force" as elites attempt, with all their power, to hold on to their privilege. Often these backlashes have led to convulsive social and political struggles and to setbacks for progressive programs and to much human suffering and misery.

In the twentieth century, the New Deal in the United States and similar social reforms in Canada led to widely held beliefs that minimal conditions of education, health, economic well-being and security are rights to be enjoyed by all.

Business went along for the ride during the post-World War II economic boom but in the '70s decided enough was enough. Rather than resort to the violent suppression of previous democratic advances, wealthy businessmen like Adolph Coors and John Olin made common cause with former liberals and Trotskyites like David Horowitz and Irving Kristol to launch a war of ideas that would destroy the welfare state and role back the social gains of the twentieth century (and at the same time reverse some of the civil and political gains of earlier centuries).

The investment paid off handsomely with the victories of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and Ronald Reagan in 1980, Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America in 1994, and now, Bush.

Today, think tanks like the Hoover Institution play a bigger role in setting Bush's agenda than the legions of faithful who trooped out to the polls at the command of their pastors.

Hoover specializes in foreign and defense policy. Its $25-million-a-year budget is funded largely by conservative foundations and big corporations like ExxonMobil, which has a lot at stake in Bush's Iraq and mid-East policies. Ford and General Motors are other backers.

Condoleezza Rice was a director of Chevron, another Hoover backer, and even had a Chevron supertanker named after her (quietly renamed just before Bush appointed her national security adviser).

What do these corporations receive for their money? Dozens of reports and studies calling for oil security and American hegemony in the Middle East, ideas that would be laughed off if proposed directly by ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco. These studies are widely reported in the corporate media, ensuring they become part of public discourse.

The corporate backers also get the Hoover people. Besides Rice, there is Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame, who was a Hoover senior fellow during the Clinton years. He is George Bush's special assistant for the Near East. Critics complained he had no credentials for this important post except his ideology but surely that's the point of the exercise. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was a Hoover Institution overseer and eight Hoover fellows including Newt Gingrich are members of the Bush Administration's Defense Policy Board advising Rumsfeld.

On the domestic front, the Hoover motto is 'freedom or welfare state'. Hoover promoted the flat tax for over a decade and helped pull economic policy to the right. With ExxonMobil such a important backer, attacking the science of climate change and the Kyoto Accord is a Hoover mainstay. One Hoover senior fellow is on the ExxonMobil board and was head of George Bush Senior's Council of Economic Advisors. Another senior fellow was deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, and was responsible for Reagan's tax cuts for the rich. Yet another Hoover senior fellow is George W Bush's Treasury undersecretary for international affairs.

And on it goes. Dozens of think tanks churn out thousands of studies and op-ed pieces every year and their senior fellows hold important posts in the Bush administration. Business and right-wing foundations pump hundreds of millions of dollars into these enterprises. That's how the agenda gets set.

Donald Gutstein is a senior lecturer in the School of Communication at Simon Fraser University. He was co-director of Project Censored Canada and NewsWatch Canada and is currently working on a book about corporate propaganda.

straightgoods.ca