Current Events Watch

A few years ago, political scientist Laurence Britt dissected the regimes of the most infamous of all fascists: Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Suharto.

You have no doubt read or seen this before, but brushing up on history never hurt anyone. There are lessons to be learned from mistakes of the past.

However, considering that for the last eight years Führer Bush has been given nigh on carte blanche to establish the supreme global American Reich, methinks that perhaps some boning up on history might be in order lest we repeat similar electoral faux pas in the future.

I would also wager that it would be safe to anticipate a soon forthcoming revised and newly-updated report from Dr. Larry B. in which he most likely will expand upon his previous list of textbook-case fascists.

Per Britt, the following are the fourteen commonalities shared amongst all foresaid faces of fascism. Let’s review, shall we?

_________________________________________________

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

_________________________________________________

Well, we’ve pretty much been able to successfully tick every one of those in defining the reigns of each of the aforementioned. Including, of course, our own dear Mister President.

So study up, people, and let us learn from our and other’s historical mistakes. As a certain wise man once said, “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” Let’s hope not.

fascism, george bush, fascist regime, patriotism, politics, government

To postulate that we all trust in God is perhaps just a tad bit presumptuous, don’t you think? I mean, many don’t even believe in, or are at best iffy about, the existence of a supreme entity in the first place, so I’m fairly certain that those folks would probably take issue. “We trust whom? Really?”

But, of course, being the godly nation that we are (I’m sure the Almighty is so very proud), it’s only fitting that mandatory emblazonment of In God We Trust be conferred upon all currency minted and printed in these United States of America. Infidels need to just suck it up.

And it must be most prominently displayed, of course, lest the religious right-wing looney tunes get their panties in a bunch! Apparently they are avid readers of coinage, and wish to not be required to squint when reading their daily affirmation.

So now they’ve gone ballistic about the unsatisfactory design of the latest U.S. Mint’s gold-colored dollar coins, in tribute to our dead presidents. Four coins are released per year. The first four, honoring George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, were issued last year.

More to come, stay tuned. Oh, the anticipation!

Anyway, under Congressional edict, the Mint was required to place the national mottos In God We Trust and E Pluribus Unum along the edge of the coins. The idea was to allow for more dramatic portraits and fancy artwork on the heads and tails.

Well, that was apparently most unacceptable! The Moral Majority of coin-reading Christians complained that the words were hard to read, and that they might wear off over time.

So Congress buckled, of course, recognizing the error of their ways. Live and learn. Now, they’ve tweaked the rules to better please the Lord and the lunatics, so that the phrase In God We Trust has greater prominence on the new presidential dollar coins.

They’ve passed legislation that the phrase be moved from the edge (where one might presumably rub God the wrong way) to the back or front of the coin.

God bless America.

President George W. Bush signed the measure into law last month after the Religious Right conservatives complained about the new coins, insisting that by relegating the phrase to the edge of the coin was some kind of malevolent plot to ditch the phrase altogether.

I really doubt that the good Lord would mind so much if we did just that.

presidential coins, u.s. mint, in god we trust, gold dollar coins, religious right, george bush

John Edwards … over and out. I really thought he would stick with it through Super Tuesday but, in reality, I suppose the timing makes sense.

If you’ve been barely passing all semester, chances are you’re not going to be able to pull an A+ out of your ass come next week’s big exam. So dropping out now was probably a wise decision on his part.

I have been supporting Obama for some time, but have often said that I would probably have taken the Edwards route if I thought he stood a reasonable chance of making it to the general election. I figured this day would come, though. I just didn’t know when.

After all, his campaign coverage has been practically nil in comparison with Obama’s and Clinton’s. It was particularly noticeable throughout the debates, and mainstream media attention is, of course, crucial for any candidate’s success.

Is he not black enough? Not buxom enough? Nah, that’s probably not it. After all, they give plenty of coverage to the typical run-of-the-mill white boys of contrary political orientation.

So why is he clearly lowest man on the MSM totem pole? His message has consistently been as good, if not better in some instances, than his fellow Democratic opposition.

I’m glad he managed to hang in there for as long as he did, though, if for no other reason than to force the still-in-the-running dynamic duo to step it up a notch or two.

As his senior campaign adviser Joe Trippi said, “Look, the guy led on every single issue out there, whether it was poverty, the economy, global warming, or universal health care.

“He moved the progressive agenda much further than any other candidate - so much so that both Clinton and Obama adopted a lot of his language and agenda. Which is a great thing to have done.”

His populist viewpoint put pressure on his opponents to vie for union endorsements, and he was the first out of the gate with comprehensive plans for universal healthcare and education, forcing the others in the field to play catch-up.

Edwards was also the only one who consistently hammered corporate America for hurting middle and lower-income Americans, by sacrificing their health care and pension benefits in lieu of higher profits and salaries for the shareholders and CEOs respectively.

“The corporate greed that is destroying the middle class in this country is stealing your children’s future. It is stealing the future of Democrats’ children, Independents’ children, Republicans’ children.”, Edwards said.

Well, there you have it.

That, my friend, was the real deathblow to this campaign. Good night, John-Boy.

Considering that all major media outlets are owned by just a handful of massive corporations, it’s no wonder that they had little interest in touting his agenda.

With most news outlets having fallen into the hands of large conglomerates, conflicts of interest predictably interfere. They are in it for the money, after all, and are obligated by law to put profit ahead of all other considerations. Responsible journalism? Who needs it.

So Edwards has thrown in the towel. He may be gone, but I hope not forgotten, and that he has influenced both the Clinton and Obama camps in positive and permanent ways.

I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting either of them to jump on the corporate greed bandwagon, though, lest they, too, be shunned and suffer similar fates.

john edwards, edwards presidential campaign, presidential campaign, 2008 election, presidential campaign, presidential race, corporate media, mainstream media

I still have my Kerry-Edwards yard signs, pins, bumper stickers, magnets and sundry loser paraphernalia from 2004. Don’t really know why. I hoard. (Thank goodness this isn’t a podcast lest my reputation be tarnished! For the record, I’m not even nappy-headed.)

Waste of money, that was. Not to mention a waste of time. It took me forever to get the bumper sticker aligned just-so. And those wire pokey stick-it-in-the-ground yard signs? They have a mind of their own. They tend to seriously flail. I risked putting an eye out just getting it to stay put, but finally had it under control after about half an hour.

All for naught. We still lost.

Great googly moogly. Who’d have thunk it? The king of all village idiots was re-coronated. Lots of folks apparently queued up for the short bus that day.

So his days are now numbered. Bush begone, and good riddance. I’m afraid, though, that unless we step up to the plate, we may very well end up with more of the same ol’ same ol’, albeit bearing a different “Hi, My Name Is … ” lapel sticker.

As Lewis Black said in reference to the 2004 election:

“The fact of the matter is the Democrats not being able to find somebody to defeat George Bush is beyond belief. It’s stunning.

“It would be like finding a normal person who would lose in the Special Olympics.”

We’ll hopefully do better this time around. Obama, Clinton, Edwards … any one will do. Take your pick, get your yard signage now, and don’t forget the safety glasses. Trust me on that one. Oh yeah, and voting might not be such a bad idea, either.

republican debate, hillary clinton, barack obama, john edwards, 2008 election, presidential election, george bush, politics

In a tight race, with all being unquestionably worthy competitors, you’d think it would behoove the top three to step it up a notch in campaigning for the nomination, never knowing who might next take the lead or come nipping at their heels.

With such pressure, platitudinal rhetoric is bupkis. Forced by necessity to take their respective stump speeches beyond cliché, it would seem imperative that they strive to differentiate themselves one from the other.

Not so much.

Last night’s Democratic debate (?) in Nevada between the invited top three frontrunners turned into such a love fest that I needed a cigarette when it was over. Was it good for me? Not really, but I faked it, enduring the full two hours. A mercy viewing, one might say, but truth be told it was less than pleasurable for me. And I’m not the only one less than impressed.

Debate? Hardly. It moreso resembled a friendly coffee klatsch. Friendly is actually an understatement; I kept expecting Barney to make a cameo appearance. “I love you, you love me, we’re a happy family.”

They were all so agreeable with one another that it seemed as if they were vying for the the position of most-worthy running mate should things go terribly awry within their own campaigns, wanting to make nice with either of the other two who might be crowned Democratic king or queen.

A friend of mine asked me several days ago why I’ve tossed my hat into Obama’s ring in this three-ring circus, and you know what? I really didn’t have an answer to that question. I know my number one pick is for all intents and purposes a non-contender (thanks to media disenfranchisement), but amongst the remaining, I don’t see that much difference, truth be told.

While it’s great to see them all just get along, and as much as I hate mudslinging which seems to be par for the course in any election, I would have liked to at least have heard each of them, at some point, attempt to elucidate exactly why he or she should be president. Even if spoken nicely, with hugs and kisses all around.

I heard, more than once, how they were all for change (the key word in this election, which is indeed a most excellent notion) but that there are “some fundamental differences” between the three. What those differences are certainly were not elaborated upon last night, that’s for sure. How many times did we hear “I agree with Hillary that … “, or “Like John said …”, or “Barack is right about …” ?

The X’s and O’s aren’t necessarily a bad thing. I like to see a civil exchange between those of my party. But last night’s debate honestly didn’t help me one whit in answering the question posed to me, “Why Obama?”

democratic debate, nevada primaries, las vegas debate, hillary clinton, barack obama, john edwards, dennis kucinich, presidential debates, 2008 election

By Mike Huckabee

First, I’d like to sincerely thank Doug Robertson for allowing me this opportunity to contribute. I’ll admit I was more than a bit surprised at the invitation. After all, he does moderate my comments (I have yet to see one posted), and he has been less than kind toward me from time to time. Still, I appreciate the chance to share with your readers today, so I thank you, Doug.

These days I don’t have as much time as I would like to dial up the Interweb. So when I do have occasion to connect with my online friends, I try to avoid politics as much as possible and instead share from my heart. That’s why today, I am not asking for your vote, or trying to convince you why I should be your next president.

No, on this Sabbath Day, I would like to put politics aside and instead focus on something of much greater significance. A message that I also shared with the congregation of a down-home country megachurch in South Carolina just this morning … the importance of humility and trusting in Jesus to open the gates to heaven.

The criteria to get into heaven is you have to be not good, but perfect. That’s the real challenge in it.

On that day, when I pull up, I’ll be asked, “Do you have what it takes to get in?”

And if I ask, “Well, what does it take to get in?”

“Gotta be perfect.”

Well, I’m afraid I don’t have that, but you know what? I won’t be there alone that day. Somebody is going to be with me. His name is Jesus, and He’s promised that He would never leave me or forsake me!

I’ll admit, it felt really good to be back behind the pulpit again, sharing the Gospel and fellowshipping with the Body of Christ, exclusive of political agenda. A welcome reprieve from the campaign trail, I must say.

Of course, it would have been unnecessary to bother asking for their votes anyway. Preaching to the choir, that would be! (Ha Ha) Anyway, I already know that those fine disciples in South Carolina will be led by the Holy Spirit in making the right choice.

I have faith that they, like me, recognize the urgency of getting this nation back on the straight and narrow, taking it back for Christ as the Almighty intended.

Like I said at a Baptist convention back in 1998, the reason I got into politics in the first place was because I knew government didn’t have the real answers, that the real answers lie in accepting Jesus Christ into our lives.

Nonetheless, I’m sure my message has already been heard loudly and clearly by the faithful, so it was indeed a blessing to forego campaigning this morning and instead simply minister God’s Word to the people.

Pastor Hamlet, though, was kind enough to encourage the folks to vote according to Biblical principles, which was a not-so-subtle nod in my direction, I’m sure. I think he may even have given me a wink at the time, but I can’t swear to that.

That was nice of him, and I appreciated it, although I really wasn’t there to toot my own candidacy horn. It was actually kind of embarrassing, what with the South Carolina primaries coming up in just a few days and all. I’m sure my face was as red as a beet.

In conclusion, I would like to say thank you to all for reading, with a special shout out to the wonderful people in South Carolina. See y’all real soon!

And, of course, thank you again, Doug. I will be praying that you accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior before Super Tuesday.

Faith, Family, Freedom! And may God bless America! ~ Mike

[Doug here. Is it just me, or does anyone else tend to think that if Huck was Muslim, he’d probably be an Islamic extremist?]

mike huckabee, 2008 election, huckabee, huckabee preaching, south carolina primaries, huckabee president

While the remaining Democratic presidential contenders in all probability are honing their drawls and scanning the pages of their translative English-to-Southern dictionaries, the better to woo South Carolinians later this month, native son John Edwards has some clear advantages this time around.

Born and raised in that neck of the woods, and as one of the top three Democrats in the race, I’d wager that Edwards is fixin’ to open a can of good ol’ southern whoopass on the other two of the trinity. His fluency in the language ain’t gonna hurt none neither.

I’m no Carnac (I don’t even own a turban), but I think Edwards will pull this one off without a hitch. I very much like the guy, and although I’m still hoping that Obama is the last man standing, I’d like to see this trend of mixing things up continue. Obama wasn’t supposed to win in Iowa, nor was Clinton in New Hampshire. The pundits were wrong.

And from what I’ve been hearing and reading, they don’t seem to be holding out much hope for an Edwards victory in South Carolina, either. Yet another reason to think he might just be able to earn bragging rights come the 26th; political forecasting hasn’t exactly been spot-on thus far.

I didn’t think Obama was going to fetch Iowa, nor Hillary New Hampshire. Admittedly, my soothsaying skills may also appear to be less than impressive. I’ve learned my lesson, though. This time around I’m paying no attention to punditry nor polling; I’m going against the grain and relying on my gut, predicting John on top, Hillary in the middle, and Barack on bottom. (That prompts some rather disturbing mental imagery!)

I may be proven wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time. But if I am right and John-Boy wins in South Carolina … well, I told you so. I do doubt, however, win or lose, that he will hang in there for the final lap. Déjà vu all over again, circa 2004.

Either way, though, I don’t think it will be the last we hear from him in 2008. After all, he’d make a fine vice presidential running mate. Using my somewhat questionable psychic abilities, I further predict an Obama-Edwards ticket in the not-too-distant future. That would make me happy. We’ll have to wait and see, of course, but if I’m mistaken on either count, I will simply delete this post like it never happened.

john edwards, south carolina primaries, 2008 election, presidential candidates, presidential campaign, presidential election, barack obama, hillary clinton

Bill Clinton, at his 1993 inaugural address, said, “There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.” I wish that I still believed, but I’m not so sure anymore.

I miss Bill. And I miss my rose-colored glasses. Now I simply see red. All that George Bush and his band of cronies have wrought since setting foot in the Oval Office has led me to believe that perhaps there is very little left that is right with America.

Maybe there really wasn’t that much right to begin with, but I thought things were beginning to look up. As a nation we haven’t had such a stellar track record, of course, despite historical spin doctoring.

Near-extermination and subsequent oppression of the indigenous peoples? Yep, that was us … Manifest Destiny and all.

Atomic bomb attacks on civilian populations? Missions accomplished.

Stealing a page from the opponent’s playbook and interning American citizens to War Relocation Centers (”concentration camps” sounds so Nazi) because of their ethnicity? Caught red-handed.

Then, just when you think we might finally be making some forward progress, enter Bush to take the proverbial three steps back.

I hate Bush’s regressive America. Of course, to the thin-skinned patriots out there, using the words “hate” and “America” in the same sentence is nothing short of treasonous.

Anti-patriotic I am because I oppose an illegal war, a criminal administration, and am disgusted that our civil liberties are being flushed down the toilet.

“America, love it or leave it,” they say. Well, I may not necessarily love it right now, but leave it? Wherever else I might go, I could possibly become subject to current U.S. foreign policy, and I’ll have none of that! No thank you.

Look, I don’t hate America. It’s probably one of the best countries ever stolen. But we’re not necessarily the bee’s knees, either. And until we get back on the right track (kicking Bush’s sorry ass to the curb will be the first lost step regained), I’ll not be proudly waving Old Glory. Thank God the countdown has begun.

To end with another quote: “Let America realize that self-scrutiny is not treason. Self-examination is not disloyalty.” - Richard Cardinal Cushing

patriotism, george w. bush, american history, american presidents, 2008 election

I must say I was rather surprised that Obama got the thumbs up from Iowans last night. Not exactly flabbergasted, mind you, but I really didn’t expect to see him emerge as the Democratic victor in doubtless one of the whitest amongst white states. Maybe a racially prejudiced presumption on my part, I admit. My apologies to all pallid Hawkeye lefties. Sorry.

It wasn’t even close. The guy kind of kicked ass with nearly 38% of the votes.

Albeit with trifling party representation, Obama has for the time being secured the top spot on the Democratic leaderboard after the first round of competition.

Iowa is only the first of many tough rows to hoe, though, and despite the hype and opening ceremony ballyhoo (not to mention the inordinate millions spent on candidatial entrance fees), the Cornfield Follies really matter little when all is said and done.

Consider that Bill Clinton got only 3% of Dem votes for nominee in the 1992 caucus, and it becomes pretty clear that Iowans are not necessarily midwestern Nostradamuses.

I’m happy, though, with Obama’s first-earned bragging rights from last night’s win, whether or not he ultimately prevails. I like him, and since my guy D.K. has all but thrown in the towel, at this point I tend to think that perhaps B.O. is the way to go.

If nothing else, the results in Iowa revealed at least a soupçon of interest in effecting a much-needed course change, from the path that this country has been led down for the past seven years. Bush has certainly proven his lack of directional sense.

Expect some competitive script-tweaking from Hillary and John as the race continues.

Oh yeah, the Republican swarm bestowed upon holier-than-thou Huckster top honor for their team last night, too. Whatever.

barack obama, iowa caucus, hillary clinton, john edwards, mike huckabee, presidential election

It’s all about endorsements. In every presidential election, candidates clamor to obtain the backing of this union, that ethnic community, a fellow politician, or the editorial staff of some influential newspaper. Personally, I don’t care who is giving props to whom. I’ll make up my own mind, thank you very much, regardless of whether or not my favorite newspaper opts to champion my guy or gal.

Still, an endorsement gives a campaigning candidate additional political clout, something to proudly crow about while poopooing hats thrown into an opponent’s ring.

Not often, though, does one happen across an anti-endorsement. Publicly declaring “we really don’t care who you vote for, as long as it’s not…” is seldom done.

But that’s exactly what the editors of New Hampshire’s The Concord Monitor did this past weekend, just days before the New Hampshire primaries, informing readers why they should not vote for Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Period.

No published favorited pick as of yet for either party, simply a rather scathing laundry list of reasons why rooting for Romney is really, really wrong.

In the Monitor’s article published a few days ago, they referred to Romney as a “disquieting figure” and that although he looks and acts like a presidential contender, he “surely must be stopped.”

Of course, Republican cheerleading is inherently way off beam in my opinion (with the exception of my admitted and rather inexplicable political crush on Ron Paul), so I think they should all be stopped.

Notwithstanding, the editors at large do raise some good points about Romney worth considering by those who may tend to lean right, as wrong as they might be.

Looking at the facts, it seems that he has gone beyond simply assuming a Reagan-esque coiffure in pandering to the right-wing religious conservative gang, by taking flip-flopping to a whole new über level.

An occasional flip here and a random flop there are, of course, par for the course amongst all members of the homo politicus species, but some of Mitt’s mindshifts are pretty radical indeed, particularly regarding issues that any self-respecting Republican would deem vital. As the Monitor put it:

“If you followed only his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, you might imagine Romney as a pragmatic moderate with liberal positions on numerous social issues and an ability to work well with Democrats.

“If you followed only his campaign for president, you’d swear he was a red-meat conservative, pandering to the religious right, whatever the cost.

“Pay attention to both, and you’re left to wonder if there’s anything at all at his core.”

A few key Jekyll and Hyde cases in point:

Then: As senatorial candidate in 1994, running against Ted Kennedy, he claimed that he would be the stronger advocate for gay rights of the two.

Now: These days, well, not so much. Now he makes it a point to declare his opposition to gay marriage and adoption. That whole gay rights thing doesn’t sit so well with his new audience.

Then: Back in the day, pre-Commander-in-Chief-wannabe Romney assured voters that he was pro-choice and said that, “You will not see me wavering on that.” No way, no how. He even referred to the tragedy of a family member’s botched illegal abortion to justify keeping abortions safe and legal.

Now: He has apparently switched teams, now identifying with and playing for the pro-lifers. It’s a baby, not a choice. Without a doubt, some major right-wing brownie points scored here.

Then: The old Romney supported stem-cell research, once more with personal flair. Citing his own wife’s multiple sclerosis, he said that such research could help families like his.

Now: The new Romney largely opposes it. Again, the baby thing. Another secured thumbs-up from the peanut gallery.

Like I said, pick a candidate, any candidate from any party, and you’d be hard-pressed to find one who hasn’t dodged, waffled or completely flip-flopped at some point. I don’t believe there’s anything intrinsically wrong with that. Politicians are human, too (I think), and humans change their minds over time, sometimes even making the complete 180.

But, really, give me a break. The Monitor is spot-on. No way can Romney provide any reasonable explanation for this particular set of turnarounds in any way that could possibly be convincing to potential voters, other than that they are based on nothing more than his own ambition.

mitt romney, presidential campaign, presidential endorsements, 2008 election, presidential election, politics, presidential candidates

“Well, I think … if you are ever going to go destroy a country or wreak havoc on a country, it would need to be justified.”

These, the words of 28-year-old Jeremy Hinzman, ex-Army paratrooper formerly with the 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Carolinian no longer, he’s now hanging out in Toronto, Canada with his wife and kid after loading up the car and making the border-crossing road trip when his application for Conscientious Objector status was rejected by the U.S. military.

Joining the military in early 2001, he completed basic combat training and airborne school at Fort Benning in Georgia. It didn’t take him long to realize that he was participating in something that wasn’t quite right.

At Fort Benning, bayonet training featured this beaut of a chant:

Instructor: “What makes the grass grow?”

Trainees: “Blood, blood, blood!”

Jeremy started to think his enlistment probably wasn’t such a wise decision after all.

On to Fort Bragg, though, to complete his training. He was no slouch, by the way. Awarded the highly coveted expert infantry badge, given only to those who master dozens of tasks involving deadly military skills, he was admired by his superiors for his work ethic.

Then in January of 2002, along with his wife, he began attending meetings of the Religious Society of Friends. Quakers, whose Peace Testimony against participation in war, and against military service as combatants is a major principle.

His newly found pacifism and the birth of his son were among the reasons he cited for applying for Conscientious Objector status in August 2002. A little too late, perhaps, since his unit was deployed to Afghanistan shortly thereafter while his application was still under
consideration. And since his superior officers claimed to have no record of his application, he was ordered to go with.

So off they went, with Hinzman being assigned duty in a non-combat role there while the powers that be mulled over his request. After returning, he learned that his application had ultimately been denied and he was subsequently ordered to return to and serve again with his regular unit.

Then came the edict that it was time to pack the duffel bags once again, rack up some additional frequent flier miles, and head on over to Iraq, proliferating democracy.

Hence the family road trip, due north. A secret journey to avoid an illegal and controversial war, no doubt, since such blatant desertion is a felony punishable by death.

Really. Desertion and even disobedience carry the death penalty in a time of war. I kid you not.

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 15 offenses can be punishable by death, though many of these crimes — such as desertion or disobeying a superior commissioned officer’s orders — carry the death penalty only in time of war.

So anyway, he applied for refugee status once on Canadian soil. I can’t say that I blame him. I wouldn’t be hankering to return stateside, either, all things considered!

Hinzman’s hearing was held in December of 2004.

The argument was made by him and his attorney that invading Iraq constituted a violation of international law, and that the subsequent occupation violates international human rights, as specified by the Geneva Convention.

They also argued that, in fact, his failure to refuse participation in such illegal activities would clearly be a breach of the Nuremberg Tribunal, turning Hinzman into a potential war criminal.

In March of 2005, Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board determined that he was not a conscientious objector and was thus ineligible for refugee status.

Hinzman’s team challenged, but, alas, a year later in March of 2006, the Federal Court dismissed the request for a review of the previous year’s decision.

A last-ditch effort last month to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada didn’t go so well, either. They refused to even hear the case.

Read Jeremy’s and other war deserters’ commentaries from 2005, about why they opted to hightail it to Canada in lieu of further participation in George W. Bush’s illegal bloodbath that is Iraq.

Of course, thousands of other soldiers have followed suit. These are troops I can unequivocally say that I truly support. What happens to them now that Canada seems to be in cahoots with Bushdom, I don’t know. Still, I admire their bravery and courage to take a stand against the atrocities of this administration. Heroes indeed.

iraq war, soldiers, troops, deserters, jeremy hinzman, anti-war, anti-bush, army deserters, george bush

Yesterday the Republicans, today the Democrats. Their final respective debates before the Iowa caucuses to be held on January 3, and a combined three hours of my life frittered away. Must see TV? Hardly. Mind-numbing it was. The Republicans were in fact so boring that I actually dozed off for a few minutes. I did enjoy today’s Democratic powwow a bit more, but that’s probably simply due to my left-leaning proclivity. Not that there was much pow or wow, really. Both debates were pretty tame. And lame.

I was pissed off, too, that both my diminutive Dem Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel were barred from the debate … because neither have a campaign office in the Hawkeye state. Well, that’s not quite true. Kucinich does, but he made the mistake of renting non-commercial space. Live and learn, I suppose. The devil is in the details.

On the other hand, hello??? That weird little Republican black dude Alan Keyes got his chance to rant yesterday (he apparently doesn’t understand the concept of questions and answers) and, as far as I have been able to determine, has neither qualifying commercial nor non-commercial office space in Iowa. I’d be surprised if he has a campaign office anywhere, for that matter. Maybe they allowed him to appear simply for the sake of comedy relief.

Having already been subjected to a marathon of debates thus far in this presidential campaign season, I suppose there isn’t really much that we haven’t already heard from any of the candidates, so it’s little wonder that the last two days of monotonous discourse were so snooze-inducing. Still, I watched.

Based solely on performance, I’d say that the red team champ from yesterday’s episode would have to be (pains me to even say it, but …) Huckabee. Certainly not a fan of the Huck by any stretch of the imagination, but as I said, I am simply making an objective assessment based on performance alone. Ken-Doll Romney (who in the real world is ever that perfectly coiffed?) did well, also, by the same criterion. Of course, the loser isn’t even debatable, so to speak. This is one team that would clearly be better off if it simply lost its Keyes.

As for the blue team, I would say that the winner this afternoon was probably Obama. Again, purely performance-based. I enjoyed Biden, too, and thought he did well. Clinton seemed to pick up steam only toward the end of the show, so she lost some points there. With Obama on her tail (there’s a mental image that ought not be), her strategy seems to be shifting a bit and she somehow came across as less confident than usual. I think the consolation prize would have to go to Richardson. Nothing against the guy, it’s just that his public performances are consistently subpar.

Of course, a one-off stellar performance or a one-time bomb probably won’t really matter much to the folks in Iowa when next month rolls around. All of the candidates have been ass-kissing their ways across the state for some time now, fluffing their fans before the voters head off to the polls. At the end of the day, specifically the third one in January, it will ultimately come down to which contender kissed the most. I think it’s still too early in the game to think that the results are all that relevant, but apparently the pundits put a lot of stock into these opening ceremonies, so I guess I’ll concede to those in the know.

To all of the candidates, get some sleep (try watching the most recent debates, that’ll help), and prepare to pucker up. There’s still plenty of requisite ass-kissing on the agenda. Next stop, New Hampshire.

2008 election, presidential debate, kucinich, gravel, huckabee, romney, clinton, obama, iowa caucus, democratic debate, republican debate, iowa debates, elections

In case you haven’t heard, we’re in the midst of an ice storm here in the Midwest. Ice is cold, not to mention slippery, so I just stayed in today. All day. Since the power came back on this morning, I’ve spent pretty much most of my time right here, Googling and Stumbling until my eyes have officially glazed over. My ass is kind of numb, too, now that I think about it.

Nonetheless, as one thing led to another, like they do, I happened upon this video of a song I had not heard in quite some time. I was only six years old in 1969 when those three days of peace and music (as well as various other activities) went down at Woodstock, so at the time I was probably fretting mostly about starting the first grade. Full day class, and no more naps. I’m sure I wasn’t so much aware of, much less concerned about, worldly events or the war.

First grade is a distant memory. But as history repeats, and Vietnam on steroids is upon us, I’m certainly old enough now to appreciate this song, decades later, in light of our current (Iraq/n) situation. Outta sight song, and a groovy performance by Country Joe from that historic hippie hoe-down. Far out, man!

iraq war, vietnam war, anti-war, war protest song, anti-war video, woodstock, country joe, country joe mcdonald, country joe & the fish, feel like i’m fixin’ to die rag, iraq, vietnam, war, george bush

I’m suggesting that Dennis Kucinich doles out the $8.99 over at talltall.com for a pair of shoe lift inserts. I’d even chip in for the S&H. Maybe if my favorite wee presidential contender were just a wee bit taller people would pay a wee bit more well-deserved attention to the guy.

I think he and Hillary pretty much see eye-to-eye, if only in the literal sense, but she certainly hasn’t had any problem garnering her fair share of attention. What’s up with that? Of course, she has breasts. If Dennis is averse to height-modifying contraptions, falsies might work just as well. Whatever it takes.

One of his shining moments at the last Democratic debate, when given the rare opportunity to speak, was when he said that, well, yeah, he was the only one of the gang on stage who voted against the Patriot Act … because he read it.

A statement which, if you recall, none of the other contestants even bothered to dispute. I guess there’s no arguing with the truth. Reading is fundamental, as we’ve all been taught, but apparently it’s also optional. BSAlert.com shows the clip of my vertically-challenged pick for Pres taking to task his fellow Commander-In-Chief hopefuls.

I guess his compatriots up there on Capitol Hill didn’t get the hint. Or maybe they simply opted to forego the refresher Reading 101 course in lieu of Advanced Ass-Kissing class. Either way, for whatever reason, the proposed Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (H.R. 1955/S. 1959), was approved in the House with an overwhelming vote of 404 to 6. Dennis being one of the six because he, of course, reads.

Call this one Patriot Act Part Deux. Constitution? What Constitution?

Speaking last week in New York, Kucinich, when asked about his vote, said, “If you understand what this bill does, it really sets the stage for further criminalization of protest. This is the way our democracy little, by little, by little, is being stripped away from us. This bill, I believe, is a clear violation of the first amendment.” He referred to the bill as the “thought crime bill.”

Enter the Thought Police. Yet another Orwellian prophecy fulfilled. The bill would create a national commission to make legislative recommendations on how to prevent, disrupt and mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Fine. No one wants that kind of behavior, homegrown or otherwise!

However, just like Act I, this proposition is worded quite vaguely, so that those of us who may have radical or “extreme belief systems” might be monitored lest a criminal act should occur. Because I’m critical of the Bush administration, I am suspect. A homegrown terrorist just waiting to happen.

Because I have bad thoughts from time to time about the bastard and his bastardly bastard friends, I am a potential felon. If one actually reads the bill (following the example of Kucinich and his five literate homies), it is obvious that this is one of the most “blatant attacks against the Constitution yet”, to quote RogueGovernment.com.

Dennis reads a lot, apparently. As he pointed out at his little NYC get-together last week, this latest proposal is similar to another bill passed in 2006, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (who knew?) which also criminalized dissent.

According to that bill, anyone who engages in any activity that would interfere or cause damage to businesses engaged in animal enterprises, could be charged with a felony. This includes acts that could cause a loss of profits to the business. Screw the animals, just don’t fuck with the profits. It’s all about the money, after all. Animal rights activists, beware. Protest = Terrorism.

Only six members of the House were present for that vote. Kucinich was the only one to oppose the bill. He noted that the bill was “written in such a way as to have a chilling effect on the exercise of the constitutional rights of protest.”

We’ll have to wait and see what happens to H.R. 1955 when it makes its way to the Senate, of course. But I’d wager that the results will be similar to last month’s House vote … which means next stop, Dubya’s desk. I guess I’ll just have to work harder at thinking only good thoughts. The Thought Police cometh.

dennis kucinich, patriot act, hr 1955, homegrown terrorism, terrorism, george bush, thought police

I’m surprised that Team Bush didn’t think of this one sooner. Or maybe they did, and simply decided that it would be best to allow adequate passage of time following the big nine-eleven-aught-one calamity for a bit of that national firefighters-as-gods fervor to fade before redrafting their job descriptions, so as not to besmirch their iconic status.

Apparently enough time has now lapsed, the rewrite is complete, and new duties have been assigned. And not everyone is happy about that.

Firefighters, unlike the police, do not need those pesky warrants to enter thousands of homes each year, making them ideal candidates for nipping terrorism in the bud! Although there have been concerns raised of how this might tarnish their image with the public at large, and may, just perhaps, infringe on people’s privacy, firefighters in major cities around the country are being trained to don their terrorist-spotting helmets for the sake of homeland security. Hey, since they are already there, why not have a look around the place?

As part of the program, which started last December, Homeland Security gave secret clearances (surprise!) to nine New York fire chiefs, according to The Associated Press, to be on the lookout for and report anything even hinting at terrorism to the appropriate authorities.

“They’re really doing technical inspections, and if perchance they find something like, you know, a bunch of RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) rounds in somebody’s basement, I think it’s a no-brainer,” said Jack Tomarchio, a senior official in Homeland Security’s intelligence division.

Come to find out, the How To Spot A Terrorist training classes have already been on the agenda for ladder and engine companies at firehouses across the country for the last few years. I guess now it’s just officially sanctioned and governmentally promoted.

Mike German, national security policy counsel to the ACLU and former FBI agent, said the concept is dangerously similar to the Bush administration’s proposal in 2002 to have the mailman, cable guy, TV repairman, or anyone with access to private homes, report suspicious behavior to the FBI. “Americans universally abhorred that idea,” German said.

The ACLU is taking the position that using firefighters as intelligence agents is just another step in the same direction that has been taken since Sept. 11, 2001, in which our privacy rights have been violated and taken away. I tend to agree.

Firstly, I would like to think that any firefighter worth his weight in water, whether or not officially trained in terrorist detection, should probably have the common sense to consider reporting, post haste, any happened-upon stockpile of grenades.

Secondly, if The Anarchist Cookbook is the coffee-table book of choice, particularly if excessively bookmarked and dog-eared, I’d hope that there might be an urgent FYI call patched through to someone who might need to be aware of such things. Sometimes you don’t need no schoolin’ to know when things just ain’t quite right.

Of course, the classes do educate about other, less-obvious things that should be considered suspect as well. Things to look for that, without appropriate training, would probably go unnoticed.

Things that we all might also want to keep in mind before dialing 911 in case a future kitchen mishap results in an out-of-control grease fire.

Even if rocket-propelled grenades have been well-hidden, and inappropriate reading material has been stashed, keep in mind that your hose-wielding savior may well be looking for other, subtle indications of terroristic propensity. Behaviors, for example, that the government would classify as “signs of planning and support for terrorism.”

KEY POINTS TO REMEMBER:

- Be nice. Welcome them warmly into your burning home. If they ask you to unkink the hose, do so. Perhaps follow up by offering them a beverage after the conflagration has been extinguished. They are taught to be alert for a person who is “hostile or uncooperative”.

- Be patriotic. Wave an American flag if one is handy, being careful not to fan the flames, of course. If that’s not an option, burst into song, any patriotic anthem will do. They’ve also learned to pick up on anyone “expressing hate or discontent with the United States.”

- No picture-taking. Resist the urge to take snapshots or video to later upload to your MySpace page. “Still and video cameras” are definitely considered highly suspect. Best to probably squirrel away the cams with the grenade stash ahead of time.

- Be sure your home is well-furnished. If it’s not, you’ll probably be better off to just let the place succumb to the flames. If the fire guys show up and find you have “little or no furniture other than a bed or a mattress”, you’ll no doubt be deemed a potential national threat.

Just some pointers. Better safe than sorry.

homeland security, bush administration, firefighters, terrorism, terrorists, national security, aclu, mike german, jack tomarchio