there is no terrorist threat!

I read with interest the article by greg krikorian in column one of today's latimes. the headline read - "Confronting terror, calmly" and the subheading was, "A top expert draws upon classified data as well as experience. His verdict? The threat is here to stay, but we can cope." fair enough, sounded like it was the kind of thing worth reading and the column one articles tend to be pretty good. past experience and disappointments have made me suspicious of articles about terrorism, but I try to keep an open mind, and regardless of my ability (or lack of it) to do so, I'm always curious to discover what is being written - and published - about terrorism these days.

the first few paragraphs only stoked my skepticism and I prepared myself to be frustrated and disappointed again, but I have to admit that despite the description of brian jenkins - the "top expert" - as having been seasoned in guatemala and vietnam and then having enjoyed a forty year tenure at the rand corporation - all of which set off warning signals with me - he comes off as being a pretty legit and insightful authority on all things terror related. here is a brief excerpt that led me to reconsider my initial suspicion and to read the rest of the article more carefully than I otherwise might have.

In some ways, Jenkins knows too much. He is immersed routinely in risk assessments and intelligence reports brimming with the stuff of nightmares. His assessment: "We are not going to end terrorism, not in any future I see."

Yet he exudes calm. His Southern California home -- neither fortress nor bunker -- is in a leafy, accessible neighborhood. He is a relaxed frequent flier, traveling more than 200,000 miles a year, much of it to terrorism conferences or briefings around the world.

And he thinks the country can cope as well.

"During the Cold War both the U.S. and Soviet Union spent a great deal of time and money understanding each other. To a great extent, that spared us from mutual annihilation," Jenkins says.

Similarly, he says, in the war on terrorism "we have to have a better understanding of what we're up against." Demonizing terrorists as "wicked and evil" plays into their hands, while learning about "their quantifiable goals and understandable motives" demystifies them.

Knowledge, he says, is the antidote to anxiety.

I mean, how refreshing is that? - here's an expert on terrorism actually calling for an understanding of terrorist motivation - even going so far as to characterize these motives as "understandable" and discouraging the over simplification of terrorists - the bush/cheney/et al. method - as "wicked and evil" (that's the "evil doers" of innumerable bush speeches).

so I continued reading optimistically looking for more well reasoned viewpoints. in reference to his first tour in vietnam as a green beret jenkins says,

That first combat tour would provide a valuable lesson, he says, in how not to fight terrorism.

"If in the process of going after terrorists you create terror, then you are going to be in conflict forever," he says. And accepting high levels of "collateral casualties" among the local population is sure to be "a losing strategy."

I absolutely agree. and so, as I read on I was more certain that the article would continue in this vein, but (not surprisingly I suppose) I was disappointed. no solutions or answers were forthcoming. what the article seemed on the verge of depicting was a new insight which I'm still yet to see printed - and that is that terrorism is simply a method (a weapon, if you prefer) that will continue to be used as long as circumstances lend themselves to that use. and if we are to minimize it or maybe even ultimately overcome it to a significant degree then we must work towards the eradication of the motivations behind it.

some month ago, curious about just what constitutes terrorism, I looked online for definitions. it turns out that in the realm of description, that for terrorism is somewhat evasive. I came across the wikipedia article headed "terrorism" which then led me to the article headed "definition of terrorism" - (as an aside, I just went back to these articles to review the information, and noticed that in the first of the two(the one headed just "terrorism", brian jenkins is quoted in reference to the subjectivity involved in applying the "terrorist" label) - the passage that stuck with me from that intial reading is this;

"As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage in acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest."

I think that too often the implications of this rather apt, I think, description go unheeded. terrorism it says, is the "weapon of the weakest" to me this suggests an obvious cause and an equally obvious solution. if one wants to limit or do away with terrorism, one must remove the circumstances that drive it, and the circumstances are essentially that terrorism is resorted to when all other options are absent. if we continue to deny voice to political and religious factions and give them no other method of being heard while we at the same time insistently (persistently?) impose our will upon them, then they will inevitably resort to terrorism as a last resort and tragic way of being heard. the wikipedia article on terrorism includes a list of causes of terrorism, which essentially describe situations surrounding those from whom power and opportunity have been taken away. terrorism, it appears, is the weapon of the disenfranchised.

as jenkins, I think sugggests, our methods in the current "war on terrorism" are counter-productive, only serving to exacerbate the problem - it is possible that that is not his viewpoint and perhaps I'm mistaken in that supposition because the article doesn't attribute that sentiment to him, nevertheless it seems implicit in some of his statements I've read both in this latimes article and elsewhere.

I'm pleased to see this article appear, but discouraged that it didn't follow its implications to these apparent conclusions. our "global war on terror is nothing more than a politically motivated tool designed to give us an excuse to exert our will on less powerful states and fuel our military driven economy. it does nothing at all towards achieving its purported goal of combatting terrorism - in fact it clearly promotes terrorist activity and encourages its continuance by playing into the hands of the very individuals and groups we claim to be struggling against. if this is as clear as it is to me, it must be clear to at least some of the people calling the shots, and I can only assume that that means the overcoming of terrorism is not the primary goal of our administration, anymore than the capturing of osama bin laden is - in fact, I fear that, the administration actually sees an advantage to promoting terrorism, as it gives them a much needed enemy in its effort to pour funds into our military - and for that matter, having osama bin laden at large as the "face of that enemy" is much more valuable than having him dead or behind bars.

we have fallen for this myth of terrorism and have created our enemy where there was none... and we continue to do so. if we want to end terrorism we must seek to end poverty and hunger and political and religious disenfranchisement. but alas, ending terrorism is not what this is all about, nor has it ever been.

the only way to end the war on terrorism is simply to declare it over, which incidentally would go a long way towards ending terrorism, as long as we continue to focus so heavily on terrorism, glorifying it and making it a viable weapon it will continue, and as long as we continue to exert our will on others and gain our wealth from their deprivation, terrorism will continue to exist.

and by the way, we are the victims of terrorism primarily because our leaders and our media have instilled the fear of terrorism in us - out of all proportion to its actual existence. in relation to all of the other potential dangers facing us as mortal human beings, the threat of terrorism is so miniscule as to be essentially non-existent, and that is why I say in addition to - don't believe the fear mongers - THERE IS NO TERRORIST THREAT!

john mccain is an idiot and he is not alone.

maybe the form this blog should take is to simply report the most ridiculous or offensive bit of fear mongering, propaganda, media driven manipualtion or attempt at mind control to appear in the news each day.

this one was actually in an latimes article about john mccain that appeared monday - it's been sort of a busy week, so I'm just getting around to it now.

"I'm running for president of the United States because I believe the transcendent challenge of the 21st century is radical Islamic extremism," McCain told reporters at an airplane museum between Tampa and Orlando.

McCain, who compared Romney to Democrats who have pushed to end the war, said: "If we had, quote, set timetables, the outcome of the conflict would have been different and it would have entailed a much greater expenditure of American blood and treasure."

absolutely unbelievable - well, to me it is, but a lot of people gobble this stuff up and actually come back for more - this is the kool-aid the republicans have been handing out for the past six and a half years and we're drinking it now more than ever - to be fair, although the republican administration started it - a lot of democrats have chimed right in with it too. you are being manipulated by political leaders and newscasters who frighteningly have been drinking too much of their own propaganda spiked thirst quencher.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it - don't believe the fear mongers.

and by the way, there is no terrorist threat.

Jose Padilla is sentenced to 17 years

here's some background on this, in case you need filling in... and you might be interested in this.

well, I'm glad that they didn't give padilla a life sentence, but I hope it is even further reduced on appeal - I think it's ridiculous that he was ever charged with anything in the first place - the bush administration was clearly grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to justify its fabricated war on terror - the extremes that they had to go to, to find people they could accuse speaks volumes. the sad truth remains though that their propagandizing worked and they instilled fear on our country and have held us hostage ever since - that is precisely why the name of this blog is what it is - we must all be diligent in our efforts to resist succumbing to the fear mongers' influence - too often over the past six years our government and the news media have sought to promote an environment of fear, and because of their efforts, fear has invaded our societal psyche like a disease. we are not in the danger that they portray us to be - sure their are people who will use violence to further their cause and to draw attention to their efforts and vent their frustration and anger (and sure padilla was a potential danger - but note the judge's comments about the evidence - or lack of it - below), I'm certain there are even more of these people now than there were six years ago - but they aren't around every corner and they're not anxious to "attack us on our own soil" as our leaders have so often suggested - the reason we have not experienced a follow up attack since 9/11/2001 is not because of the billions of dollars and hard work by the dept of homeland security, it is simply because the threat as portrayed by the bush administration and the news media, is not real - if terrorists wanted to attack us they could - I can think of a dozen different ways to do it, and if I can they can - which simply means that if they haven't, they don't want to.

here's a link to the padilla article, I'll include a couple excerpts below in case you don't want to read the whole thing.

Prosecutors had sought a life sentence, but Cooke (she's the judge) said she arrived at the 17-year sentence after considering the "harsh conditions" during Padilla's lengthy military detention at a Navy brig in South Carolina.

"I do find that the conditions were so harsh for Mr. Padilla ... they warrant consideration in the sentencing in this case," the judge said. However, he did not get credit for time served.

Padilla's lawyers claimed his treatment amounted to torture, which U.S. officials have repeatedly denied. His attorneys say he was forced to stand in painful stress positions, given LSD or other drugs as "truth serum," deprived of sleep and even a mattress for extended periods and subjected to loud noises, extreme heat and cold and noxious odors.

_______________________________________________

Cooke said that as serious as the conspiracy was, there was no evidence linking the men to specific acts of terrorism anywhere.

"There is no evidence that these defendants personally maimed, kidnapped or killed anyone in the United States or elsewhere," she said.

_______________________________________________

"It is definitely a defeat for the government," said Hassoun lawyer Jeanne Baker.

"The government has not made America any safer. It has just made America less free," said William Swor, who represents Jayyousi.

_______________________________________________

Padilla's arrest was initially portrayed by the Bush administration as an important victory in the months immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, and later was seen as a symbol of the administration's zeal to prevent homegrown terrorism.

Civil liberties groups and Padilla's lawyers called his detention unconstitutional for someone born in this country.

hillary, mlk and what is it really all about?

so, I've been thinking about starting a blog to comment on political topics and items in the news. every day, it seems like there is something I feel like spouting off about, but have thus far managed to keep my comments to myself or else only impose them on the unfortunates who happen to stop by my table in front of stroh's on abbot kinney while I'm reading the paper in the morning. it's been a fairly easy thing to procrastinate on the creation of this blog, I've been aided by my natural disinclination to take on any unnecessary commitments or obligations, and am very aware that a blog can be a nagging demand on one's time - having allowed my old blog to go neglected for ages and ages and atrophy into a mere storehouse for various little art projects and announcements, that don't quite fit in on my website. I've also refrained from starting a blog of this sort because I'm well aware that the internet/blogosphere suffers from a terrible glut of blogs by people expressing viewpoints that readers will either agree with or disagree with but seldom be swayed by, and not only does this add to my general belief in the futility of making the effort, it also brings up the issue of ego and pride because of course I don't want to cast myself in with all the other quacks and self-righteous pundits.

nevertheless, I find myself with a bit extra free time today and since I seem to be lacking in what little restraint I usually have, I've given into the temptation and am beginning this blog - we'll see how diligently I stick with it.

today is martin luther king jr day and that will serve as the impetus for this initial entry. not specifically mlk, or the holiday, but what I want to comment on are the accounts of hillary clinton's statement at the abyssinian baptist church in harlem yesterday. every report I've read about this has had the same quote by her regarding her teenage experience of going on a trip with members of her church youth group to hear dr king speak in chicago; "It was a transforming experience for me, He made it very clear that the civil rights movement was about economic justice.'' here's an latimes article and here's one from the washington post. but there are countless others (actually, according to the google news search I just did, there are 778 related stories - but I think "countless" was a fair estimate). I find this unsettling. I mean, yeah sure economic justice was a part of it, but there was more to it wasn't there ? maybe not...

so anyway, I did a little research, first I found this webpage, that explained to me just what it was that hillary heard. apparently she attended an event hosted by the Chicago Sunday Evening Club where king delivered his "Remaining Awake through a Revolution" sermon on April 15, 1962 (which incidentally, was a day after my grandmother's 55th birthday and three days prior to my sister's first - I believe neither of them however, were in chicago that evening).

I can understand how an impressionable teenage girl would come away from that speech with the impression that "the civil rights movement was about economic justice.'' quite a lot of the speech does in fact focus on the importance of overcoming poverty - you can read the whole speech here, but if you're in a hurry, I'll include a brief pertinent excerpt;

There is another thing closely related to racism that I would like to mention as another challenge. We are challenged to rid our nation and the world of poverty. Like a monstrous octopus, poverty spreads its nagging, prehensile tentacles into hamlets and villages all over our world. Two-thirds of the people of the world go to bed hungry tonight. They are ill-housed; they are ill-nourished; they are shabbily clad. I’ve seen it in Latin America; I’ve seen it in Africa; I’ve seen this poverty in Asia.

he goes on to talk about the opportunity that america (the us) has "to help bridge the gulf between the haves and the have-nots." but the important thing to keep in mind is that this is only one part of his speech and this speech is only one of many that he gave and the eradication of poverty and pursuit of economic justice is only one part of the civil rights movement.

don't get me wrong - I'm all for the eradication of poverty - I think I'm more in favor of it than hillary - way more. but I think that reading these words she spoke yesterday, quoted over and over in news articles, ellicited a negative reaction in me for a few reasons.

first, I really believe that the civil rights movement is about much more than "economic justice," I believe that it is about social justice and political justice and racial, ethnic and gender justice. I believe that it is about changing the very nature of the way our society and culture think - to allow for acceptance of our fellow human beings even when they are to greater or lesser degrees different than we ourselves are, or even when they believe in things or see things differently than we ourselves do. hillary clinton's statement, by focusing on economic justice cheapens the civil rights movement by portraying it as a materially based rather than a spiritually based thing.

second, I can't help but interpret her words as a jaded use of mlk's legacy to further her own agenda. I don't believe for a minute that hillary's idea of economic justice is remotely similar to mlk's vision of ending poverty through our nation's wealth and the 20th century's scientific and technological advances. hillary wants improve our economy, and she will try to do what she deems necessary to accomplish that and if history and precedent is any gauge she will do that at the expense of not only our most poor citizens, but also the impoverished throughout the world - and as the economy improves, the actual beneficiaries will be those who already had and once again the have nots will be left behind. mlk was looking at the big picture - he was not talking about improving our national economy for the sake of our nation's wealth, he was talking about ending poverty throughout the world - using our nation's wealth and power to end poverty at home and abroad - and not, by the way just economic poverty, but the poverty of opportunity (" if a man doesn’t have a job or an income, he has neither life nor liberty nor the possibility for the pursuit of happiness. He merely exists.") and finally, the thing that really bugged me about all these articles quoting hillary's comment is that the more times I read it, the more I kept expecting to read about somebody questioning it, but I haven't found one single instance of even a raised eyebrow over the supposition that "the civil rights movement was about economic justice.'' - and again, I'm not saying that the pursuit of economic justice is not an important part of the civil rights movement, but I am saying that it is not the only part or necessarily even the primary part, and I think it's important to ask just what a politician means when they use that phrase - the implication from the way the news articles presented her comments was that economic justice (whatever she meant by that) is what mlk and the civil rights movement were working for - but that misses the point of so many other social and cultural and political aspects to the movement... or at least I think it does.

so that's it, I'd be interested to hear any responses to this. maybe I'm just naive when it comes to things like this and maybe "it [really i]s the economy stupid" and maybe all people want is wealth or the perception of it for themselves at any cost, let the chips fall where they may, and maybe all the other stuff is just fancy talk. I honestly don't know. but I've always thought the civil rights movement was about change of a different sort than mere economics.

which does bring me to what I see as a tragically missed opportunity by the clinton camp - although a telling one - as I said, I think it's fair and unsurprising that a teenage girl would walk away after hearing king's "Remaining Awake through a Revolution" sermon and think that the civil rights movement was only a call economic justice, but it seems that as an adult running for office and alluding to the experience publically, it seems that she - or at least one of her people - would've reread it to see what else he was saying, and had they done so, they would've found this;

I want to say one other challenge that we face is simply that we must find an alternative to war and bloodshed. Anyone who feels, and there are still a lot of people who feel that way, that war can solve the social problems facing mankind is sleeping through a great revolution. President Kennedy said on one occasion, "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind." The world must hear this. I pray God that America will hear this before it is too late, because today we’re fighting a war.

I am convinced that it is one of the most unjust wars that has ever been fought in the history of the world. Our involvement in the war in Vietnam has torn up the Geneva Accord. It has strengthened the military-industrial complex; it has strengthened the forces of reaction in our nation. It has put us against the self-determination of a vast majority of the Vietnamese people, and put us in the position of protecting a corrupt regime that is stacked against the poor.

It has played havoc with our domestic destinies. This day we are spending five hundred thousand dollars to kill every Vietcong soldier. Every time we kill one we spend about five hundred thousand dollars while we spend only fifty-three dollars a year for every person characterized as poverty-stricken in the so-called poverty program, which is not even a good skirmish against poverty.

Not only that, it has put us in a position of appearing to the world as an arrogant nation. And here we are ten thousand miles away from home fighting for the so-called freedom of the Vietnamese people when we have not even put our own house in order. And we force young black men and young white men to fight and kill in brutal solidarity. Yet when they come back home that can’t hardly live on the same block together.

ok, you get the idea, and I'm sure you don't need me to suggest you replace the vietnam references to iraq ones. it seems to me, that if hillary was really against the war, she would've brought up this part of king's speech too... but I don't think she really is against the war, except when it works to her benefit - and I don't think she felt that bringing this comparison up would've worked to accomplish her goals - because she's not against war - in fact I think she sees a lot of economic advantages to it, and so it would be awkward to touch on mlk's statements, so she didn't bother. to be fair, obama is pretty ok with the whole war in general thing too, much more than I'd like him to be - kucinich is the only one who truly believes in peace, and alas I don't think he stands much of a chance...

oh, and by the way - just because I love a little math problem, I wanted to update mlk's figures. it turns out that figuring the cost of the war in iraq at 487 billion (I looked it up here and rounded down) and the number of iraqi deaths at 150, 000 (I know there're lots of uncertainties about that figure, but it seems a pretty reasonable estimate) then we as a nation of tax payers it costs us 3.25 million dollars to kill an iraqi. hmmm - there's somethin' to think about.

and just for fun, I used the figure 500,000 for the number of iraqi deaths - and even if that estimate is the accurate one, we still pay about a million per scalp.

happy mlk day!