Friday, June 24, 2011

An Open Letter to Arne Duncan Bedtime for Punk Rock Relavancy? By COLIN KALMBACHER

Spite. Look it up.

I was on the cusp of 15. About to begin high school. I'd be older than everybody else, but then, I always was.

The currents of fate and bureaucracy had decided not only would I be forced to spend the next four years at a high school with zero of my friends, but I'd also be jettisoning those relationships with gusto by spending my final summer before high school isolated some 881 miles away in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Fuck it. I'd be older. I'd be smarter. I'd be punk rock about the whole thing.

And I'd certainly need some spite to survive.

So, aside from a summer spent vandalizing the hallmarks and institutions of civil society in Cheyenne, I would also spend many many hours poring over the words of Noam Chomsky (for the knowledge), Richard Adams (to soften the blow of an imminent loss of innocence), Franz Kafka (masturbatory yet self-explanatory self-serving artistic self-preservation nonsense) and Jello Biafra (cue the spite.)

In a surprisingly well-lit basement I found myself alone and in the best of company.

Of course, Jello Biafra's words came accompanied with music that sounded like Dick Dale on dextroamphetamine. These were your, our, the Dead Kennedys. America's foremost political punk rock band and one of the most seminal groups of all time.

It was the purest, fastest, nastiest and most abrasive music still capable of retaining melody. And it came outfitted with anthemic battle cries, calls to action and instructions on how squares ought to fuck right off. I was no intellectual. But this was music with so much intelligence, passion and daring that it seemed as if Rimbaud picked up an Armalite and joined the fifth column.

I was a spite-ridden, angst-driven, punk rock-obsessed teenager with the world at my feet. I was ready to smash it.

But let's pause before we get worked up into a frenzy of unhelpful imagery about what punk is and means.

From the beginning: the counter-cultural movement we've all come to know, understand, love and hate has been exactly that: a counter-cultural movement.

For the purposes of utilizing and becoming part of something bigger than one's self (and surely some will differ, and many more will not) punk can and should be understood as an art movement with distinct and loud politics and myriad forms of music hustled underneath an edgy umbrella of defiance. Punk was heavily infused with the Situationist critique of capitalism and the requisite attention to destroying it with fun from the get-go. A way to create, form and sustain communities [Or 'scenes' as they came to be known. A term that attracts both affection and derision.] outside of the conservative, passive consensus of society writ large.

Punk has always been dangerous. (Or has at least considered itself to be.) Not for the nihilistic caricature conjured up/embraced by some or the tendency to gravitate towards small-scale brawls with cops or stake out emotional territory with a closet full of offensive t-shirts. Punk was dangerous then for the challenges it presented to the structures and assumptions of the days in which it was born and discovering what it stood for. It's less dangerous now due to massive amounts of recuperation by the charlatans, corporations and, yes, the sell-outs who've decided to trade in complacency for cash. But whatever. Punk still retains a degree of danger for the alternative world in which it operates and still insists -demands- is possible.

The insistence on likening punk to nihilism is based on a cursory and intentionally ignorant misreading of a few wayward Sex Pistols lyrics taken out of context (and perhaps in tandem with the myopic notion of letting Sid Vicious ever speak into a microphone.) And sure, there are certainly nihilistic infiltrators ready to take any sort of anti-establishment concept and dilute it so much they mistake it for essence. Calls to "Turn on, tune in, [and] drop out," are always heeded by the self-absorbed no matter which decade they belong to. Some even take the time out to write on their clothes and purchase multipacks of safety pins.

In terms of music, nihilism is best embodied by the glamour, excess, materialism and self-indulgent drug use typified by the bloated rock stars that punk rock was and is still railing and reviling against.

If the scenes are stale (and they are) then the idea, never fully realized, is as fresh as ever: That a destructive force is capable of harnessing anger, rage and spite to build something new, different and maybe even better. At the very least it won't be quite as boring.

Punk rock gave the world The Clash. And as we grew bored of bloated '70s rock stars here in the States, The Clash grew bored of the U.S.A. and set a standard for purposeful defiance. You could have your punk and actually delineate your politics, too. It need not be vague. Without going off the deep-end of romanticized myth-making about Strummer, Jones, et, al. suffice it to say that there was a clarion call. And the guys who became the Dead Kennedys, led by Biafra's vitriolic and acute tirades against empire and injustice answered that call and then some.

The Dead Kennedys helped any discerning punk understand the dictum made famous by Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin that the passion for destruction can be a creative passion, too.

What gives the Dead Kennedys staying power and makes them so attractive to so many punks and other assorted margin-walkers is not necessarily the bizarre combination of surf-guitar, hardcore beats and full-throated rage--you can get at least two out of the three from so many acts of the era--but the words scrawled and wailed into the collective consciousness of all those within earshot of their lyricist, lead-singer and frontman Jello Biafra. Words that don't simply cry or yearn for justice über alles. Words that demand it.

Without getting mired in the intricacies of Biafra's politics and song lyrics, suffice to say the Dead Kennedys were what happened when The Clash crash-landed in San Francisco, got louder, meaner and more direct. And railed against empire at home, conservatism in all forms, sacred cows of all stripes (especially within the punk scene) and decided that the destruction of society itself was the end goal...if we really felt like being decent human beings to one another. [For a lyrical primer check out "Stars and Stripes of Corruption".]

So, when I heard that Jello Biafra was bucking the BDS boycott and had even considered playing a show in Tel Aviv, I was quite simply heartbroken. I wanted to break a violin.

When I read his justification for deciding to cross the picket line I was moved to anger. This was a man from whom, quite literally, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of young people have, for better or for worse, and for decades, found at least the seeds of their own political and moral compasses. Midnight Apache helicopter raids against the civilian populations of the West Bank? I first heard about it on one of Biafra's spoken-word albums. The image stuck. But now the source seems like a quivering and faulty projector.

Biafra's justification is callow. It's craven and self-serving. Most of all: it's insistently wrong and timid.

Being insistently wrong and timid (re: conventional...or if you're into that, read Time) is how the oligarchs, plutocrats and all their fawning, slightly-liberal court-jesters move up in the world.

Sure, punk rock can be wrong. It should be wrong on occasion. It takes leaps into crowds and ideas. It dares. Yet it also demands boldness. Playing a show in the de facto capital of apartheid Israel (after being begged not to by those on the front lines of the struggle) with the implicit and explicit suggestion of equivalency between Israel and the Palestinians is less than even the opposite of bold. It's Tom Friedman. With guitars.

Jello Biafra is going to play a show in Tel Aviv first and foremost to play a show in Tel Aviv.

This isn't the conundrum of whether Paul Simon traveling to South Africa to write and record with black musicians violated the cultural boycott of that apartheid country. There's no debate to be had here. There's nothing vague about what's going on: Israel is an apartheid country and Jello Biafra wants to sell concert tickets there. He's on tour. This isn't a fact-finding mission. It's a money-grab wrapped in the garb of measured and reasoned concern. In academic terms: It's bullshit.

Jello Biafra is trying to act like a Very Serious Person. You know the type. They get to sit down for the Sunday morning talk shows. They get book deals, best-sellers and respectability. They dismiss activists and thumb their aging noses at new ways of resistance.

Much hay has been made (by outside detractors and navel-gazing punks alike) of the idea that punk rock is just canned rebellion. A product. An image without an idea. Something to temper and guide one's adolescent urges to act out and then, to eventually grow out of. It's always been a silly argument made by the cynical and defeated. It's the refuge of assholes.

Jello Biafra, because of his elder-statesman, warlord-like status has the opportunity to weigh in heavily on that argument. By playing in apartheid Israel he just might win it for those same people who've always dismissed him, his life work and all the millions of people around the globe who've found something good and real and pure there.

Punk rock doesn't need that. And if Jello Biafra refuses to see the light on the situation in Israel and Palestine, punk rock doesn't need him either.

If this sounds particularly harsh and rigid, demanding and dogmatic, even frothing and fundamentalist, then let's get back to spite.

And, finally, let's simply quote Biafra at Biafra and anyone who defends his decision to play in the cultural capital of apartheid Israel at the height of a cultural boycott observed by the Pixies, Elvis Costello, Gorillaz, Roger Waters and the late Gil Scott-Heron amongst others:

Jello, if you play your scheduled gig in Tel Aviv and thereby normalize the standards of repression that you have always so fervently and forcefully spoken out against, you're simply and forever a "chickenshit conformist like your parents."


Colin Kalmbacher can be reached at: colinkalmbacher@gmail.com.

All Together Now One Tiny Voice By WILLIAM MANSON

Last night I heard something. We were all celebrating--kind of a going-away party for Bob and Gretchen. They've had a great year—Bob's a big oil company honcho, you know, and we were toasting (and roasting?) him about his six-figure bonus. Not bad, right? So they're off to Martha's Vineyard Monday—now that they've solved this year's servant problem—and we were all in high spirits, laughing and joking about nothing in particular.

All this trouble about Afghanistan, Bob groused, as if the war had exhibited bad manners by interrupting his leisure. Gretchen had a sudden brainstorm: "You know, forty years ago, all the stylish young women who shopped at Bloomingdale's for Christmas wore an embroidered, quite expensive, sheepskin coat, called…an Afghan. Isn't it a shame…" she mused, trailing off.

We all toasted Afghan seamstresses, laughing carelessly. I suppose, as usual, we'd had a little too much to drink—but the wine was first-rate! Before we left, Bob extracted a promise from us to fly up to see them just before Labor Day. He especially wants to take us to a new Vietnamese restaurant in the Haven, not too expensive either.

With our usual last-minute banter at the door, Anne and I—my name's Steve, by the way-- said our goodbyes and walked to the car. Then something unusual happened. A little voice, a little voice whispering urgently, said:

George W. Bush is a mass murderer. )BARACK OBAMA IS A MASS MURDERER TOO)

Strange, wasn't it? Particularly odd, because like everybody else I know, I'd practically forgotten about Bush (and about the two wars he started). This is the summer of 2011, dammit, and those wars, however regrettable, seem to be just about over and the Dow is bouncing back in a fitful but ultimately quite satisfying way. Anne and I are quite satisfied with ourselves at the moment, and even the kids are doing just great, for a change. So, what's the problem with this—voice? By the time we got home and parked the car, I'd already forgotten all about it and was still savoring that incomparable Bordeaux. It was only nine or so, so I told Anne I'd be up after I did a little work. I just wanted to check my portfolio, you know, usual Friday night routine. You see, I'd very wisely shifted $1.2 mil into weapons funds in January 2003. Well, I don't have to tell you… What was that? That pipsqueak voice again! And what was it saying?:

George W. Bush is a mass murderer. )BARACK OBAMA IS A MASS MURDERER TOO)

This is ridiculous, I wanted to shout (but maybe Anne was already drifting off). How do you know? I silently fumed. And what's it got to do with me?

Next morning, Saturday morning, the sun was shining, just as it shines every morning. I contentedly drank espresso and munched croissants as I idly glanced at the Times. Good article on hotels in Aruba, nice profile of this young Turk—hedgefund-wizard, something about NATO and civilians on p. 20. You know, I've never cared much for politics. Hard to keep up with all the issues. Course I've always voted Republican: fiscal responsibility, you know, not all that wasteful social spending. Course, what with the defense budget being what it is, my military stocks have done quite nicely, thank you very much, and Bob as an oilman understandably feels… Just then the voice, in an ever-so-sibilant tone, said:

George W. Bush is a mass murderer. )BARACK OBAMA IS A MASS MURDERER TOO)

Well, I'd just about had enough of this! I'd planned to play a round of golf at the club and stay for lunch with some Wall Street chums, but I was now in a pretty bad mood. What, ultimately, is this all about? I mused irritably. Iraq? But that's all over and done with, our troops are almost all out of there, and… the Iraqi people? Sad. Unfortunate. A lot of mistakes. But no use crying over spilt milk. What's done is done (and cannot be undone). Just the same, now that my disposition was spoiled for the day, I thought I'd zip over to the library, the Public Library, you know, just to find out what this is all about. After all, this was getting annoying, if not infuriating.

I looked up "murder" and "George W. Bush" and, after fooling around for a while, came up with a book called The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, by the respected prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. For some reason the title grabbed me, maybe because "the voice," so-called, had been prompting me to read it? Anyway, I sat right down and read it (mostly). WMD. Al-Qaeda funding. Yellow-cake from Niger. All lies! You know, I'd really forgotten about all that stuff. And all the people who were killed: boys and girls and grandmothers by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, whose only crime was to live "in harm's away." And kids from Alabama or Michigan who joined up, to be heroic and "serve their country." A liar. There was no getting around it. A shameless, brazen, vicious liar. And a mass murderer.

It goes without saying that I'd forgotten all about golf (and even about my stocks, if you want to know the truth). You see, in the last analysis, I did want to know the truth--even though my self-interest didn't want to. I couldn't help perusing another book I found on the shelves, George W. Bush: War Criminal? In a painstakingly detailed analysis, the scholar Michael Haas documents dozens of violations of the UN Charter, Hague and Geneva Conventions, War Crimes Act, and much, much more. My own voice, but a voice I hadn't heard in quite a while, couldn't help saying (in a library whisper): What kind of country is this, when such a president, elected to serve the people and obey the Constitution, goes on to a lucrative retirement of book deals, speaking engagements, ball games and even-more vacations?

I couldn't not listen to what these authors were saying, much as I'd ordinarily like to. Because, you see, something happened. I felt different, more somber I guess, in a way I couldn't have imagined at the party last night. You see, I discovered who (and what) the voice is. It is the voice of conscience—a voice often unheard in the mad activity and mindless diversions of our daily lives, but a voice utterly true to our truest, innermost selves.

So, as you might expect, I stopped hearing the voice—stopped, because I became the voice. I don't know what I can accomplish, but I can't really go back to the way things were. In any way I can, by speaking up, I will challenge my friends' complacency, my neighbors' self-indulgence, by speaking for something so much greater than our personal comforts: Justice. And this is what I will say:

George W. Bush is a mass murderer.
)BARACK OBAMA IS A MASS MURDERER TOO)

William Manson previously taught social science at Rutgers and Columbia universities.

It's Okay to Praise "The Vagina Monologues" ... But Vagina Jewellery is So-o-o Wrong Vajazzled in Essex By BRENDAN O'NEILL London.



Is there a right way and a wrong way for a woman to worship her vagina? Judging from this week's weird media debate about "vajazzling", there clearly is.

On Monday evening, Newsnight caused its normally catatonic viewers to wake up and spill their Ovaltine by featuring a discussion about vajazzling.

Beloved of Essex girls in particular, this practice involves the jazzing up of the vagina, where the pubic hair is waxed off and replaced by stick-on jewels.

The Newsnight reporter, Liz MacKean, wore her best Horrified-of-Hampstead face as she bravely entered into alien territory - a beauty salon for permatanned working-class women - and gawped in alarm at a vajazzle catalogue.

In the studio, Jeremy Paxman oversaw a debate in which brainy middle-class feminists informed us that these Essex birds feel "compelled by society" to make themselves look more "pornographic".

Of course they couldn't possibly have decided for themselves to be vajazzled - no, they were propelled into the beauty therapist's chair by forces beyond their control and understanding.

One of the feminists described vajazzling as a "symbolic castration", with these poor unfortunate women effectively being "prepped for surgery by Dr Bling".

She said it with all the sneering condescension of those Victorian anthropologists who once looked with disgust upon the plaited pubes and exposed boobs of strange African tribes. Only today it is Essex that is viewed as an exotic land full of weird women, by well-educated feminists who live in the more civilized bits of south-east England.

The great irony is that the very same feministas who sneer at vajazzling are just as likely to sing the praises of something like The Vagina Monologues.

That interminable pussy-fest featured well-known middle-aged women taking to the stage on Broadway, in the West End and across Europe to bore on at great length about their clitorises and the power of the c**t.

It won plaudits from the broadsheet press, and female celebs queued up for the opportunity to praise their private parts in public.

So it is apparently wrong to vajazzle your vagina, but perfectly okay to valorise it; it is bad to "worship" it with jewels but good to "worship" it with words in front of like-minded liberal feminists.

Such are the double standards of modern-day feminism. This week's bemused and aloof discussion of vajazzling exposes the snobbery of the sisterhood, the disdain that many feminists feel for the plucked and preened women of Essex and other jazzy towns, who apparently "do sex" in the wrong way.

Feminism today seems to be more about expressing disdain for the sexual antics of women from the lower orders than it is about demanding equal treatment.

Consider the recent rehabilitation of burlesque, that old tassle-spinning artform in which women in corsets tease and tantalize their audiences. Influential feminists always sing the praises of burlesque dancing in one breath while denouncing lapdancing in the next. Burlesque is "empowering"; lapdancing is "degrading".

In her new book How to be a Woman, Caitlin Moran becomes the latest in a very long line of non-vajazzled feminists to insist that lap-dancing is "not fine" but burlesque is.

Here, once again, a clear moral distinction is made between sexy stuff done by middle-class women and sexy stuff done by working-class women. It's not okay for working-class women to strut their stuff for cash, but it's fine for middle-class history students from Oxford to be part-time tassle-swingers for "art".

The message is clear: "Our preferred method of stripping is fun - yours is disgusting."

Likewise, the recent Slutwalks phenomenon confirmed that the only acceptable "slut" in the eyes of respectable feminists is the knowing and ironic one, who dress provocatively only to make a political point. Those other "sluts" - the real ones, in their alcopop-stained micro-dresses - are a different matter entirely.

So where the Slutwalk sluts won garlands of praise from female commentators, so-called "ladettes" are more likely to give those same commentators nightmares. Young women who dress saucily and drink heartily because they actually want to get screwed at the end of the night are pitied as at-risk and deluded creatures.

Both Germaine Greer and Fay Weldon, grande dames of modern feminism, have attacked these "ladettes" as out-of-control creatures, who only aspire to "join the masculinist elite.”

There's a brilliant irony at the heart of modern feminism: it presents itself as edgy, yet it implicitly promotes new morals and manners that all good women must apparently adopt. Its distinction between right-minded women and fallen women, between a vagina-worshipping elite of feminists and the vajazzled hordes, breathes new life into the old Victorian divide between the Good and Bad amongst the fairer sex.


Brendan O'Neill is editor of spiked and among other publications, contributes to The First Post, where this first appeared.

Housing, Race and Murder in Chicago Burned at the Stake for Being Poor By RON JACOBS



One of the places I lived at in Berkeley, California in the 1970s was owned by the biggest landlord in the part of California known as the Eastbay. He owned buildings in the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, El Cerrito and Albany. In addition, his property management company was responsible for hundreds more buildings. While my friends and I lived in this particular apartment, the citizens of Berkeley passed a Rent Control Ordinance that was fiercely opposed by the landlords in the city, especially ours. In response to the new law that prevented landlords from raising rents without approval from the Rent Control Board (where tenants and tenant activists had the majority), our landlord stopped making repairs on many of his properties. In response, the tenants in our building began withholding rent. This was also one of the law's provisions. This went on for more than six months. Meanwhile, properties that were in worse shape than ours was came awfully close to being uninhabitable. In Oakland, where there was no rent control ordinance, a small child whose family rented an apartment from our landlord died in a fire related to this state of disrepair. Despite efforts by some church and community groups in Oakland, no charges were filed against the landlord. In addition, the child's family lost their place to live.

I remembered this incident while reading Joe Allen's newest book People Wasn't Made To Burn. The story therein is of a man, James Hickman, who loses two of his children in a fire that was almost certainly set by his landlord as a means of chasing the tenants from the building so that he could increase his income. At the time of the fire, the living conditions were already unsafe and unhealthy, yet greed compelled by the desire to increase profit rendered any concerns about this irrelevant. His children's deaths eventually drove Mr. Hickman into such depths of depression that he killed the landlord. After seeing justice for his children's death denied by the system, Hickman saw no other course but to administer his own. The murder of the landlord inspired a movement to defend Mr. Hickman and change the nature of rental housing in Chicago. Allen takes this tragic story and renders it into a chilling narrative that reads like a novel. Simultaneously, Allen's description of the efforts undertaken by socialists and others in Hickman's defense read like an organizing primer.

It was the presence of socialists and other like-minded folks that made sure that the movement against the prosecution of Hickman was bigger than Hickman or his act. Under the direction of these activists, the movement around Hickman's defense became an indictment of a system that let slumlords get away with murder. During the period that this story takes place there were so-called covenant laws that forbade blacks from renting in certain neighborhoods, thereby allowing unscrupulous landlords to charge exorbitant rents for buildings they did not even attempt to maintain. This aspect of legal institutional racism endangered the poor, especially African-Americans.

Furthermore, it was the system of profit that encouraged landlords to let their properties slip into dangerous disrepair while overcharging their tenants. It was also the system of profit that encouraged corruption amongst the very officials hired to guarantee safe living conditions. As labor leader Willoughby Abner told a rally on the opening day of Hickman’s trial: "The same government which failed to heed the need of Hickman and millions of other Hickmans is now trying to convict Hickman for its own crimes, its own failures." Indeed, it is that system that continues to insure that abuses like this continue to this day.

Allen has written a masterpiece of historical narrative. The story of James Hickman and his family is an emotionally wrought story on its own. Allen's retelling leaves none of that emotion out. Although it is history he is writing down, the manner of the telling makes that history as current as the latest breaking news. The book is further enhanced by the inclusion of artist Ben Shahn's illustrations reprinted from a 1947 Harper's magazine feature about the Hickman case. Allen ends his story with a description of a 2010 fire in Cicero, Illinois, which is right outside of Chicago. There were no fire escapes in the building and it was overcrowded. The people who lived there were violating occupancy laws because they could not afford separate apartments. That fire killed seven people and was found to be deliberately set by the landlord and his maintenance man. This time around the authorities were able to get an indictment of the men responsible for the deaths. In fact, the prosecution intends to seek the death penalty. However, the system that Willoughby Abner said "failed to heed the need of Hickman and millions of other Hickmans" continues to force people to live in unsafe living conditions while making it likely that unscrupulous landlords will continue to choose profits over the safety of those who rent from them. Indeed, it will continue to make it likely that certain landlords would rather burn their properties than take care of them.


Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way the Wind Blew: a History of the Weather Underground and Short Order Frame Up. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His collection of essays and other musings titled Tripping Through the American Night is now available in print and his new novel is The Co-Conspirator's Tale. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625@charter.net

Well Done! The Mother of Intervention By MISSY COMLEY BEATTIE

Yesterday, I said to my sister Laura, "I don't believe in hell, but if I'm wrong, I'll be removing wallpaper there."

I've spent the last four days working on her condo, stripping the walls of dark green and brown. She and her partner Erma are moving three buildings down from my place. I'm in charge of wallpaper eradication. Laura's the painter. Erma's in Kentucky, sorting through a lifetime of accumulation, giving stuff away, and packing what they'll need.

While spraying and scraping, I did my usual tangential wanderings/wonderings. How many coats of paint would one have to apply to reduce significantly the space within the room?

"You're deep," Laura said, when I posed the question. I think she's grumpy.

I should be.

I found the seams in the dining room's border and pulled the offending decoration off and away easily. The identical border in the living room was a bitch. Even worse was the entrance foyer. Beneath the paper was glue, a thick membrane of skin.

Difficult situations are supposed to inspire creative solutions. Nothing ingenious occurred to me. I had a spray bottle, a scraping tool, and something to protect the floor but nothing abracadabra to get rid of that dermis, hanging like confounding chad all over the surface.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Laura handed me a gadget (made in New Zealand) that fits in the palm. You run it over the paper, up and down, round and round, to score and allow more water to penetrate. Great device.

Life presents hurdles, but someone generally unravels the predicament to suit his or her requirements.

For example:

Nuclear power plants throughout the country are leaking radiation into our water supply and, magically, an authority announces a new and lower standard for drinking water. Done.

According to a report prepared by Russia's Federal Atomic Energy Agency, the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant in Nebraska suffered "a catastrophic loss of cooling" on June 7 when the Missouri River flooded the area. Obama ordered a "news blackout". Done.

Wildfires are raging in Arizona and Sen. John McCain identified the culprits—"illegal immigrants". Done.

War is expanded to Libya and Obama agrees with lawyers who conclude that military action in the country doesn't amount to hostilities—that our bombing is humanitarian. Done. Reminds me of Operation New Dawn, the name of the war that's officially over in Iraq where thousands of troops remain in "support roles", still killing. And dying. Done.

Money is flowing to Wall Street—through print, print, print. But Obama said this gem in January of 2011: "We want an economy fueled by what we invent and what we build. We're going back to Thomas Edison's principles. We're going to build stuff and invent stuff." I'm sure we have. No improvement to infrastructure or job creation but plenty of sophisticated weaponry. Done.

Advanced propagandizing is a prerequisite for elected officialdom. The repackaging amounts to language-ing for perception alteration. Languishing is the result.

Seems necessity is not just the mother of invention. Necessity, also, is the mother of intervention. And this country's "leadership" is the mother of all interveners.

Missy Beattie is exhausted in Baltimore. Commiserate with her at missybeat@gmail.com.

The Anti-Islamism Hobby Horse Out of the Wilders By FARZANA VERSEY

It was indeed "a beautiful day" as Geert Wilders, the Dutch politician, wrote after being acquitted for hate speech against Islam. It was a beautiful day not because it was a victory for freedom of speech, but because what Wilders has been doing is akin to sowing wild oats. One should hope he has now got his hormonal kicks and can get down to real political debate.

The first thing he needs to realise in a secular set-up is that religion ought to have no place in such debates. He comes with a huge baggage of a right-winger and a devout Roman Catholic. If this is his personal viewpoint, then it is perfectly valid – he can hate anything he likes. Does it have any place in public discourse? He writes: "My view on Islam is that it is not so much a religion as a totalitarian political ideology with religious elements. While there are many moderate Muslims, Islam's political ideology is radical and has global ambitions."

It is indeed possible to see religion through a political prism, and most societies do so as it is easier than selling new ideologies. Wilders Party for Freedom (PVV) has risen to a large extent due to his rabid stance. Perhaps he does not have a mirror around to show him that his criticism of Islam comes from projection. His audience is clearly taken in by his totalitarian views and his own expansionism is quite evident.

It is inadvertently amusing when he says "now it is legal to criticise Islam". This sounds like a statement of an addict seeking legitimacy for his habit. It begs the question: Why is it important to criticise Islam?

A Guardian profile of February 2008 states: "Likening the Islamic sacred text to Hitler's Mein Kampf, he wants the 'fascist Koran' outlawed in Holland, the constitution rewritten to make that possible, all immigration from Muslim countries halted, Muslim immigrants paid to leave and all Muslim 'criminals' stripped of Dutch citizenship and deported 'back where they came from'. But he has nothing against Muslims. 'I have a problem with Islamic tradition, culture, ideology. Not with Muslim people'."

It would have been nice if he could see culture more holistically instead of through the hole of some Arabian Nights dark fantasy, unless he is seriously filigree-resistant. More seriously, where does he draw the line between Muslims and Islam? His comments would have made sense had he been an atheist or born a Muslim and concerned about the state of people in societies that may shackle them due to stringent laws. He lives in the west and is riding on anti-Islamism because it happens to be at the centre of political turmoil in many parts of the globe. Besides internal strife, much of religious resurgence has been a result of western intrusion in such territories.

One commiserates with Wilder about Muslim criminals, but what about criminals belonging to other faiths? What if the Muslims do not have any criminal record and are contributing in professional capacities or as unskilled labour to these societies? Would being Muslim be sufficient to qualify as a crime? Should Muslim societies return the favour by deporting westerners who work in their countries?

The action against hate speech is not restricted to Muslims. "The Dutch penal code states in its articles 137c and 137d that anyone who either 'publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way that incites hatred against a group of people' or 'in any way that insults a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their hetero- or homosexual inclination or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, will be punished'." These are Wilders' own words.

The prosecution stated, "Freedom of expression fulfills an essential role in public debate in a democratic society. That comments are hurtful and offensive for a large number of Muslims does not mean that they are punishable." So, how can his acquittal be a victory for freedom of speech when it goes against the law? Why has he been treated with kid gloves? It is likely that had someone been critical of homosexuals or the disabled there might not have been a case at all except for a few rumblings.

This leads to the other question: Why do Muslims always protest?

It is a disturbing trend for it works against the Muslims more than anyone else. But can anyone point out to concerted hate speeches against other religions by non-militant Islamists, except for calling them infidels? If anything, it is the liberal Muslims who are critical of holy cows among Muslims as well as others. Then there are 'career Muslims' who have had a brush with censorship and get catapulted to fame solely on that basis. Take the case of Ayaan Ali Hirsi, Dutch writer-activist. She was included in Time magazine's list of 100 most influential people in 2005, a year after Theo Van Gogh was killed for his film 'Submission' based on her script. She had already decided on her position, but her public stance was that the brutal killing made her aware: "Militant Islam shuts down any criticism of Koran. Be it in any language – Chinese, Hindi, English – even if you touch upon Koran, all discussion ends with accusations of 'traitor' and 'infidel' hurled at you."

One is not quite sure about a term like "militant Islam", for those who believe it is militant cannot be Islamic. For them such militancy would be internalised. If the reference is to terrorists, then Islam is their calling card, although one does not have to restate that more Muslims have been killed due to this so-called Islamic militancy. It is unfortunate that people do not comprehend such a glaring fact.

One can empathise with Ali for being hounded by a bunch of fanatics, which is not how the debates deal with such issues by confining their ire to the fringe elements. There are blanket assertions about the faith with militancy added as a mere prefix. Ali's views on the west reveal a certain cosy understanding: "The idea that the US is conspiring against Islam is devised by vested interests such as Iran and Saudi Arabia because they resist the American demand for democratization, despite years of aid. In both Europe and the US there's a fertile liberal ground to do anything."

Indeed. You can burn the Koran, you can create paranoia, you can decide what people ought to wear and not wear. Aid comes with strings attached and the US has a relationship of convenience with Saudi Arabia. It is amazing that liberal commentators brazenly propagate the idea of American supremacy and how it can "demand democratization" when it has its snide unstated policies in place regarding the 'others' within its shores. The anti-Islamists are coddled because they can be used to showcase sympathy. Bring on the stand-up comics, the activists, the bold ones who stick their fatwa-ed necks out. It is the western establishments that use them and place a higher price on their heads than the militant groups. They are the prized jockeys for the multicultural derby.

Wilders had described his film 'Fitna' most audaciously: "It's like a walk through the Koran. My intention is to show the real face of Islam. I see it as a threat. I'm trying to use images to show that what's written in the Koran is giving incentives to people all over the world. On a daily basis Moroccan youths are beating up homosexuals on the streets of Amsterdam."

Are there no cops in Amsterdam to arrest these youths? Are they beating up these homosexuals because they have taken a walk through the Koran? Or is it homophobia that might have nothing to do with religion?

Social consciousness is being married to faith in every sphere and it has snowballed to such an extent that one cannot discuss any issue without the crutch of religion. While among some circles there is shock that liberals have come together with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, no one blinks when Tony Blair converts to Catholicism, a Bishop heads a government, the oath of office is taken in the name of god, courts make you swear on holy books, bedside draws in hotels in most parts of the world have a copy of the Bible, ailing members of the Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood donations because it goes against their faith and missionary movements have spread their tentacles, especially in poverty-stricken areas. They offer sops for conversion.

* * *

What differentiates them from Islam, then? They do not have fatwas and jihad. It is purely a matter of semantics. The grammar of belief begins with full stops. It cannot grow because its fate has been sealed. Evolution – no, not the one that rattled the Christian Garden of Eden – is anathema because it is akin less to betrayal and more to freeing oneself from non-cognisable fences.

The concept of the infidel is to shirk any outside influence. At the scriptural level it was to create a following. In contemporary times it works as community. The books of all religions have some such survival mechanism. Christianity states: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." (2 Cor.6:14-17)

There are passages that are even more aggressive. The moot point is that books don't talk. There has to be an apparatus that connects the dots and creates craters from them.

An apt analogy would be the priesthood. Joseph McCabe discussing the Psychology of Religion has brought in this important dimension:

"The American population is especially composed of religious, and often fanatical, contingents from nations of the old world who had suffered persecution; and even in the last hundred years the main streams of immigration (Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish, etc.) have predominantly brought religious fanatics, because they naturally came from the poorest, least educated, and most overcrowded countries, which means the most religious.

"Now consider the fortunes of the most fanatical of them all, the Roman Catholics, when the great expansion of the American people toward the Pacific took place in the nineteenth century. It is true that there were not priests enough to found chapels wherever a few hundred Catholics settled – a difficulty which Rome can always overcome by consecrating German or Belgian peasants and drafting them abroad – but the main point was that priests were generally disinclined to leave Boston and Philadelphia and rough it with the western pioneers. The result was that in a few decades literally millions of these fanatical Catholics lost all interest in religion…The New York Freeman's Journal in the same year (1898) put the loss at twenty millions, and I have shown from immigration analyses that the loss was at least fourteen or fifteen millions. In other words, the most fanatical of all religious adherents fell away in masses when there were no priests to bother them, and, although priests came along as soon as there was money enough in any town to give a middle-class income to an ordained peasant, they never recovered the apostates or (in most cases) their children."

The recovery has taken place as part of the marketing prototype to create a demand. The demand is accelerated when there is competition. Acquisitiveness is about having what the other does not. A health drink will show a child triumph over another who ends up with a bloodied nose.

All religions have been born with blood trails. The footprints have coagulated. The journey is, therefore, a tribute to fossilisation. Middle-men swoop down on the hardened remains – whether it is militants, evangelists or Wilders-like demagogues. It is business for these predator-priests of frisson.

Farzana Versey is a Mumbai-based author-columnist. She can be reached at http://farzana-versey.blogspot.com/

An Open Letter to Arne Duncan Assault on Detroit By TOM STEPHENS

US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan labeled Detroit "ground zero" in education reform by video conference. He pointed out that Detroit students have posted the worst scores in the nation in math, reading and science, levels that shocked local and national education officials. Duncan said those results, on the National Assessment of Educational Progress Trial Urban District Assessment, caused some to view the city as having "no viable future if the status quo is allowed to stand." (From The Detroit News, June 21, 2011)

Hon. Secretary Duncan:

Your labeling of Detroit and its People, including our Children, in a five-minute video conference address on June 21, 2011, is much more than an egregious display of bad manners, arrogance and racism.

The education "reform" movement whose standard you bear may have reached a new low – especially in your extraordinarily narrow and myopic, even obsessive focus on high-stakes testing of children and phony standards for "accountability" (standards that you apply to children, but never to the politicians and corporate interests who are pushing them). In short, you must have gone completely insane.

Permit me to explain this harsh judgment.

Many studies and competent professional educators have by now concluded that the infamous "No Child Left Behind" Act model of education has failed our children. Indeed, longstanding opponents of these "reforms" have been amply justified by experience in our original assessment of this model: it was designed to punish public school systems and children in low-income communities, predominantly of color, while generating enormous profits for corporate testing and turnaround ventures.

Even advocates of these failed "reforms" (most notably former Bush administration education official Diane Ravitch, in her bestselling book "The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education"), have evaluated the evidence generated by a decade of such "reform," and exposed its failure to promote effective education, and its success at enriching and empowering unqualified political operatives like yourself, who are nevertheless pressing ahead amidst wars and recession with a second decade of this failed model.

However, until now as far as I know no one has been so bold, mindless or irresponsible as to claim that the results of a single standardized test battery condemn an entire community to non-viability. Standardized tests have often been shown to be scientifically unreliable for assessing and intervening in educational programs. When used as overly prescriptive guides to policy, they produce wildly divergent results, condemning successful programs working under the most difficult conditions to the label of "failure," while rewarding far less effective educational systems in better-resourced communities. Perhaps even worse, the corporate "reform" mania for testing reinforces an anti-intellectual, reductionist and counter-productive praxis of "teaching to the test," instead of real, dynamic education in the modes of critical thought, agency and empowerment through intellectual growth. All this is more than enough to condemn the high-stakes testing regime for which you stand as the federal government's top bureaucrat. But until now no one has publicly claimed that a community could be condemned to "no viable future" by poor test results. Shame on you!

Your five-minute video conference assessment of Detroit's community was in support of the third state takeover proposal for Detroit Public Schools since 1999. The first two state takeovers are now widely acknowledged to have inflicted nearly catastrophic damage on this system and the children it seeks to serve, amounting to a peculiar form of institutionalized and politicized corporate child abuse. Now you support yet another ill-planned experiment with the intellectual and cultural welfare of Detroit's children.

What do you even know about Detroit or its people?

What evidence do you have that Governor Rick Snyder's new, and vaguely defined "Educational Achievement Authority" and ""Educational Achievement System" will actually improve educational outcomes for Detroit's children, as opposed to institutionalizing the school-to-prison pipeline in "underperforming" schools for children labeled as "failures," underwritten by the biased, partisan agenda of the Broad Foundation and other members of what Ms. Ravitch appropriately calls "the billionaire boys' club," i.e., the Gates and Walton Foundations?

Will you apologize to Detroit, its people and children for your abusive statements, delivered in the most thoughtless and insulting way?

School "failure" results from the failure of your "reform" agenda to create a new paradigm for education – not a "race to the top," but a race to regain our humanity and become well-educated, effective citizens in a democracy. Of necessity, Detroit is learning faster than most places how real education can address the challenges of our community, and how these challenges are opportunities to engage children and people of all ages in educational programs that grow our souls.

I respectfully suggest that Detroiters and others with actual knowledge of our community, and especially Detroit's children, many of whom are thriving in excellent schools, should write Secretary Duncan and inform him, in your own words, why we are a distinctly viable, creative, flourishing and beloved community:

Honorable Arne Duncan
Secretary of Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202


Tom Stephens is a lawyer in Detroit. He can be reached at: jail4banksters@yahoo.com

Menace to Society The Drug War at 40 By HELEN REDMOND



U.S.A.

United States of Addiction.

To the war on drugs.

40th Anniversary this year.

NixonFordCarterReaganBushClintonBushObama.

Happy 40th anniversary?

Not.

40 can trigger a midlife crisis.

What have I done for 40 years of my life?

Not a question for the drug warriors.

Drug war vets look back on 4 decades of war with fondness.

Shame on these soldiers.

Their war is a war on poor, Black people. Not drugs.

Racist war.

Blacks represent 12 percent of the U.S. population.

Blacks are 37 percent of those arrested on drug charges.

Blacks are 59 percent of those convicted on drug charges.

Blacks account for 74 percent of drug offenders sentenced to prison.

A report titled "Targeting Blacks for Marijuana" revealed: "Young Blacks use marijuana at lower rates than young whites. Yet from 2004 to 2008, in every one of the 25 largest counties in California, Blacks were arrested for marijuana possession at higher rates than whites, typically at double, triple, or even quadruple the rate of whites."

The war goes on, still.

Even under the first African-American president.

Tough on crime.

Tough love.

Tough luck.

Tough shit.

Do the crime. Do the time.

A lot of time.

Lock 'em up and throw away the key.

That'll work.

MMS. Mandatory minimum sentence.

Douglas Lindsay, an army vet, sold crack to pay for college. He was implicated in a 14-person crack conspiracy. A first-time, nonviolent offender he was found guilty at trial and was originally sentenced to life in prison. Due to the crack retroactivity amendment his sentence was reduced to 27 years.

Tracy Cowan, a single mom, was sentenced to 20 to 40 years in prison for delivery/manufacture of cocaine and for possession of two firearms. Tracy's boyfriend used her house to store drugs. Tracy did not sell drugs. Tracy had two guns. Her home had been burglarized twice. Her guns were locked in a bedroom closet.

What will you will be doing for the next 20 to 27 to 40 years of your life?

We know what Tracy and Douglas will be doing.

Rotting in prison.

Tracy won't attend her three children's graduations, be at their birthday parties, or go out for lunch with girlfriends.

Douglas won't be sitting in a college classroom, get married, or go to a basketball game with buddies.

FAMM. Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

FAMM wants to free MMS prisoners from America's drug gulags.

The punishment should fit the crime.

Like George Bush's crime of killing Iraqis in an illegal war.

Or Obama's crime of killing Afghans in an illegal war.

Or the undeclared war on Pakistan. US military predator drone strikes: For every militant killed, about 10 civilians die.

Hold on. Bush and Obama didn't get a MMS.

No truth-in-sentencing.

No three strikes you're out.

War crimes are different than drug crimes.

Some people do the crime, but not the time.

Drug users are demonized and despised. Humiliated and brutalized.

Predators, killers, dope fiends, thieves, scum, a scourge, crack heads.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote in an opinion: "To be a confirmed drug addict is to be one of the walking dead."

A federal court called narcotics "worse than poisons" because they make men and women "moral perverts."

The Delaware legislature seriously debated bringing back the public whipping post for drug offenders.

The House Armed Services Committee solution for prison overcrowding: Ship drug offenders to remote islands. Richard Ray (D-Ga.) said: "You can't go anywhere. You won't be interrupted by families coming to visit every weekend."

Menace to society.

"Pot had helped and booze...maybe a little blow when you could afford it."
Barack Obama admitted to drug use in his 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father.

Barack was addicted to nicotine.

He said: "I constantly struggle with it. Have I fallen off the wagon sometimes? Yes. Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker? No."

Michelle told him to quit.

He did. She's proud of him.

Cruel and unusual punishment.

Punish, punish, punish.

Did I say punish?

And punish some more.

Drug warriors say the darndest things.

William Bennett, former drug czar, endorsed the beheading of drug dealers.

Daryl Gates, former police chief of Los Angeles, said all drug users should be "taken out and shot."

Nancy Reagan: "Just say no."

Ronald Reagan: "We are making no excuses for drugs, soft, hard or otherwise. Drugs are bad and we are going after them."

Bill Clinton: "I didn't inhale."

Barack Obama: "I inhaled frequently. I thought that was the point."

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 stated: "It is the declared policy of the United States Government to create a drug-free America by 1995."

Hmmm…2011-1995.

You do the math.

The Bill of Rights.

What Bill of Rights?

If you're suspected of a drug crime you have no rights.

You're wrong.

Police, and drug agents have the rights: To stop, detain and question you without warrant or probable cause on the streets and on the highway. Warrantless searches of homes.

Stop and frisk.

Buy and bust.

Roadblocks.

Snitches.

Informants.

Wiretapping.

Drug testing. Pee in this cup if you want the job.

Drug sniffing dogs.

"The law does not regard the dog's sniffing as the equivalent of a search on the theory that there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in the odor of contraband…As a result, no right of privacy is invaded by the sniff, so the police do not need a search warrant or even "probable cause" to use the dog on a citizen."

The drug warriors will not end, call off or stop the war on drugs.

Why?

Because the war on drugs is a cover for the pursuit of another agenda.

What's on that agenda? Hint: It's not a drug-free America.

Demonize and scapegoat drug users and Black people for social problems. It's not unemployment, poverty, homelessness or lack of drug treatment.

Keep us fighting one another.

"They divided both to conquer each." Frederick Douglass.

Give federal and state law enforcement more power to invade our lives.

Keep the sprawling prison-industrial complex in profitable business.

Lester Grinspoon: "Our society cannot be both drug-free and free."

America needs a new civil war to end the war on drugs.


Helen Redmond is a freelance journalist and writes about health care and drugs. She can be reached at redmondmadrid@yahoo.com

Questions Swirl Around Government's Anti-Tobacco Campaign The Villification of Smokers By WALTER BRASCH



The federal government has launched what may become one of the most effective propaganda campaigns in American history.

Beginning September 2012, every cigarette manufacturer must display one of nine government-approved graphics on the top half, both front and back, of every cigarette pack. Among the warnings is a picture of a pair of healthy lungs next to a pair of cancerous lungs, with the notice: "Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease." Another warning is equally definitive: "Cigarettes cause cancer," with a picture of rotting gums and teeth. A person with an oxygen mask is the graphic for the text, "Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease." Other pictures show smoke coming from a tracheotomy hole and a dead body with autopsy stitches on his chest. Other warnings, with appropriate graphics are: "Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby," "Tobacco smoke can harm your children," and "Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in non-smokers." One graphic shows a man in a T-shirt with the message, "I quit." Cigarette manufacturers must include all nine warnings in rotation on their packs.

In addition, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also requires that one-fifth of every print ad must include the warnings.

The FDA directive is based upon Congressional action in 2009. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which received strong bipartisan support, also prohibited cigarette manufacturers from sponsoring sports and cultural events. It further restricted tobacco companies from advertising their products on T-shirts and other clothing items.

The first cigarette ad was in the New York National Daily in May 1789. By the Civil War, cigarette ads were appearing regularly in newspapers. The tobacco industry's own propaganda machine significantly increased full-page full-color ads in magazines during the 1930s and 1940s; a decade later, the industry was one of the first to recognize the influence of the emerging television medium. The ads not only extolled the advantages of smoking, they linked dozens of celebrities to their campaigns. Bob Hope pushed Chesterfields; Ronald Reagan wanted Americans to give Chesterfields as a Christmas gift. One popular ad even had Santa Claus enjoying a Lucky Strike. Marlboros became hugely successful with its Marlboro Man commercials that featured rugged cowboy individualism. To get the largely untapped female demographic into its sales net, cigarette companies went with what is now seen as sexist advertising. Lucky Strike wanted women to smoke its cigarettes "to keep a slender figure." Misty cigarettes emphasized its smoke, like its women, was "slim and sassy."

Camel cigarettes, which would eventually develop Joe Camel as its cartoon spokesman to counter the Marlboro Man, tied health, opinion leaders, and tobacco smoke. Its survey of more than 100,000 physicians of every specialty said Camels was their preferred brand.

However, by the mid-1960s, physicians had begun backing away not just from Camels but all cigarettes. A Surgeon's General's report in 1964 concluded there was a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer. The following year, the Surgeon General required tobacco manufacturers to put onto every cigarette pack a warning, "Cigarettes may be hazardous to your health."

In 1967, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled that the Fairness Doctrine required TV and radio stations to run anti-smoking ads at no cost. The message was clear to the financial departments—voluntarily eliminate cigarette advertising or lose five to ten minutes of sales time every broadcast day. In 1971, the FCC banned all cigarette advertising on radio and TV.

By 2003, cigarette advertising peaked at $15 billion, according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) To counter cigarette company advertising campaigns, government steadily raised cigarette taxes. State and local taxes accounted for $16.6 billion in 2008, according to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. Federal taxes, raised to $1.01 a pack in 2009, brought in about $8.5 billion. New York City residents pay the highest taxes per pack--$1.50 city tax, $4.35 state tax, $1.01 federal tax. The average combined tax nationwide is $5.51. Much of the money is used to develop anti-smoking campaigns.

About 443,000 deaths each year are primarily from the effects of cigarette smoke, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new campaign aims to cut that by half. The FDA estimates there are about 46 million smokers.

It's obvious that both tobacco manufacturer and government advertising campaigns have been effective. But there are several questions that need to be asked.

If the federal government demands health warnings on cigarette packs, why doesn't it also demand similar warnings on other products that also carry known health risks, like liquor?

If there is so much evidence that cigarette smoke—with its tar, nicotine, and associated chemicals—poses such a high health risk, why doesn't the federal government ban it, like it does numerous products known to be unsafe?

Does the federal government's campaign violate the First Amendment protections of freedom of speech? This becomes an even more important question since the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that with few exceptions corporations enjoy the same rights as individual citizens.

If there is evidence that tobacco smoke is unsafe and unhealthy, and the government levies excessive taxes, why did the federal government grant $194.4 million in agriculture subsidies in 2010 and about $1.1 billion in subsidies since 2000?

Finally, if the evidence is overwhelming that cigarette smoke is dangerous, and the federal government taxes every pack but doesn't ban cigarettes, why has it been so adamant in refusing to decriminalize marijuana, which has significantly fewer health risks than what is in the average cigarette?

Walter Brasch has never smoked, but respects the rights of those who do.

"...America's Singular Role in the Course of Human Events" Obama's Singularities By WILLIAM A. COOK "We arouse and arrange our memories to suit our psychic needs." -- Michael Kammen, Columbus in History

If George W. Bush could attest to his mission from God Almighty to invade Iraq-- 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq ." And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it'" (Nabel Shaath, BBC, 6/10/05) -- then certainly President Obama, our most recent American Prophet, can attest to “America’s singular role in the course of human events.” As Obama waxed eloquently in the latter third of his address to the people of the world, and most pointedly to the American people who must remain “united” behind his determination to complete his mission for “...the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance,” he marked with great profundity that we must “learn the lessons” of this past decade, “We have learned anew the profound cost of war” listing as he did so the costs to America, leaving for another day, no doubt, the million and a half Iraqis killed and the untold millions that fled their country, and the thousands upon thousands left maimed and physically and mentally ravaged.

But neither God nor His prophets have given much consideration to the enemy, another lesson we might have learned from our past. Minister John Robinson testified to God’s intervention on behalf of His chosen when our Puritan forebears exterminated the Pequot Indians in 1637:

Thus were they now at their Wits End, who not many Hours before exalted themselves in their great Pride, threatning and resolving the utter Ruin and Destruction of all the English, Exulting and Rejoycing with Songs and Dances: But God was above them, who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven: Thus were the Stout Hearted spoiled, having slept their last Sleep, and none of their Men could find their Hands: Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies! (Quoted in David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 136).

In 1630, John Winthrop , in his sermon to his Puritan followers, “A model of Christian Charity,” declared that they were the chosen people of “our” God , arriving in God’s chosen land, the new Zion, given to them as the new Israelites to be as a “city on a Hill” where the eyes of all the people in the world could see the covenant between their God and His people, a covenant that provided protection by God unless they were to break it, and their “security ceaseth.” Belief in that God and that covenant seems to exist to the present day since America has yet to accept any responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people that inhabited the land we call the United States of America. Needless to say the cleansing continued well into the 1800s, and one might suggest with some reason, to the present day.

Every nation needs a mythic explanation of its purpose and a hero to exemplify its unique place “in the course of human events,” as our President remarked. But how does a nation “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” find such a hero? It’s difficult, if not pretentious, to promote oneself as you proclaim that all are equal. Who among our “founding fathers” could be elevated to such stature: Washington who vocally proclaimed the inferiority of the indigenous people; Jefferson who fathered yet another nation of Jeffersons with Sally Heming’s, his personal slave; Adams who declared on behalf of the pseudo-Aristoi and mocked his wife’s efforts on behalf of women; or maybe Thomas Paine who indeed declared all equal but was rejected and forgotten by the very men that led the Revolutionary forces that would not have existed had he not spoken so eloquently of the virtues of freedom and liberty?

A difficult task indeed. Yet find a hero they did, in Columbus, in the first half of the 1800s. Indeed, Columbus emerged as a myth and a symbol, a “man of vision and audacity” who defeated the “forces of entrenched tradition,” a man of hope and spirit willing to take risks even in foreign lands to accomplish his mission, a man sent by God to bring the puritas de sangre to the heathens of this very continent that they might be saved for Christ. Fortunately Americans could turn to one of their own for corroboration of these myths in Washington Irving’s Columbus. “We arouse and arrange our memories to suit our psychic needs.”

Thus from 1492, the initiation of the greatest holocaust in history against the indigenous people, before even the conception of a United States existed, the myth of God given rights to the spoils of war waged on behalf of “sacred beliefs” ordained by Christ through his ministers, became a lesson learned by the Puritans, the settlers, the pioneers, and the government of the U.S. until the whole of this nation came to heal. By 1846 our government declared its right to the land of Mexico north of the Rio Grande by initiating a war to ensure the continuation of slavery in Texas, fought against Spain in 1898 to gain control of Cuba and the Philippines in the Pacific, most notably in the eradication of the Moro Muslims in a massacre, described in caustic satire by Mark Twain. American imperialism baptized as “Manifest Destiny” or “bringing God’s word to the heathens” continues unabated.

It is a corrosive mindset indelibly branded on the American psyche. It is the underlying proclamation of Obama’s address to his people couched in words without meaning: “the tide of war is receding,” “the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance,” “These long wars will come to a responsible end.” The first implies that our President knows the certainty of God’s vision, yet the vision belies the reality of the past and the lessons to be learned from that past: the destruction of the evil Taliban in Afghanistan within three months only to have that conflagration become the longest war in American history; the 90 day war that did not materialize in Iraq although the declaration of its demise was broadcast world-wide from the deck of an aircraft carrier; the spread of the terrorists from nation to nation as America’s killing fields leap from Afghanistan to Iraq to Pakistan to Yemen to Libya as hatred for America grows geometrically as civilians die; and, perhaps most tellingly, the on-going support by America of the genocide taking place in Israel against the Palestinian people, a massacre that has no “light of secure peace” in the distance.

Consider “These long wars will come to a responsible end.” What is the “responsible end” for a war instigated and entered into on the basis of lies to the American people, to the soldiers of the United States, and to the nations United as Colin Powell testified to a platter of fabrications shoved down the throats of unknowing delegates who gave their consent on behalf of their people? What is the “responsible end” to an irresponsible war? How does this nation give recompense to the dead, to the maimed, to the refugees and to the children whose lives have been lost to the American war machine? Will the “responsible end” declare the true reasons for the war? Will it tell the Iraqi people and all of our coalition partners that our true purpose was control of oil reserves to maintain our vaunted standard of living, that it was to secure oil for Israel, that it provided America with a means of establishing 14 more air bases to effectively surround Iran, that democracy was offered as a means of electing our puppet to replace Saddam; will we act responsibly and tell the truth?

Consider that Obama knew the purpose of his statement; “... this decade of war has caused many to question the nature of America’s engagement around the world...some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security and embrace isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face.” Notice the word ‘retreat’ used negatively against those who would question his mission to be Emperor of the World; cowards all, no doubt, though he does not offer them the respect due a logical question: who declared America “anchor of global security”? When were the American people asked to vote that we should undertake such a mission? But that’s not all. Such “retreatists” are also “isolationists.” They are also “ignorant.” Ignorant of what? That they do not know why America has taken on this role; that they realize that America is awash in debt that threatens to undermine the nation; that they do not profit as a people from Pentagon investments in on-going wars; nor do they receive the million dollar salaries made by CEO’s of companies that furnish the war machine? Why are these questions not addressed by the Prophet? Americans are either with our imperial, mission driven mindset or they are “retreatists” and ignorant isolationists. How convenient.

Finally, and perhaps most audaciously, Obama ends with these cautionary words: “...we must remember that what sets America apart is not solely our power—it is the principles upon which our union was founded. We are a nation that brings our enemies to justice while adhering to the rule of law and respecting the rights of all our citizens.” What principles in our founding documents justify America’s blatant, on-going, calculated rejection of international law and the laws of the United States as it vetoes United Nations resolution after resolution condemning the illegal actions of the state of Israel?

The UN Security Council has passed a large number of resolutions condemning Israel for its actions in the Middle East and against the Palestinian people and surrounding nations. The General Assembly has passed over 100 resolutions condemning Israeli actions and policies. In addition, the International Court of Justice has ruled that the wall that Israel is building through the occupied Palestinian territories substantially violates the human rights of the Palestinian people and needs to be torn down immediately, and the people affected must be compensated for their losses.

Israel has ignored all of the resolutions of the Security Council, which is a violation of the Charter, and by extension, international law. And it has also ignored all of the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court.

In addition, it is important to note that in support of Israel, the United States has exercised its veto power in the Security Council to cancel out many other resolutions that were otherwise passed unanimously or by the vast majority of its members. (STUDY GUIDE : International Law & Israel).

Once again, Obama understands the audacity of this contradiction even as he utters it to the American people. He is a student of the Constitution, yet he mocks the foundational documents by justifying the decades long action of the U.S in the Security Council as it vetoes the will of the majority of nations that see Israel’s immunity a product of the United States’ decision to break its agreements with the international body. Just this February, Obama vetoed the last action taken by the UNGA and the UNSC by denying the recognition of illegality, even though 14 member states of the UNSC had declared the resolution justified.

Over the weekend, the United States vetoed a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories after failing to convince the Palestinian government to withdraw it. The veto came despite support for the resolution from the 14 other members of the Security Council, including the four permanent members. The Obama administration explained its opposition: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the prospects for peace would be damaged by any action taken at the UNSC. The reaction to the U.S. veto in both Israel and in the wider region shows that the U.S. position is becoming increasingly untenable in the face of changes in the Arab world ( Feb/ 2011).

Such disdain for America’s founding documents makes a mockery of Obama’s address to the people. We are no longer a nation that abides by laws; we are a nation under the control of a foreign government that has coerced the U. S. Congress to succumb to its policies and dictates. One need only witness the ridiculous demeanor of our bobbing representatives who gave obeisance to the Prime Minister of Israel as he presented lies on top of lies, quietly smiling his approval as he virtually conducted a symphony of applause.

Our government no longer protects its citizens’ rights; it emasculates them. We do not protect our freedom and prosperity by extending it to others, we are in lock-down at airports and at home, we are in debt because we have brought military control through occupation to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, and imprisonment, torture and oppression to the Palestinian people by allowing the illegal actions of Israel to destroy their country. In all of this, we have not protected Americans, we have made their lives insecure and unstable.

Deception and deceit do not create a united nation, they foster only doubt, indignation, and distrust. Contrary to Obama’s assertion, “We stand not for empire, but for self-determination,” the policy of the Bush administration from September 2002 on was exactly the opposite; we stood for empire and threatened any nation that dared to oppose us. Two years into the Obama administration and not one major policy of the Bush era has been altered. Indeed, our policies on torture, privacy, cyber-control, NSA secret spying on Americans, Guantanamo imprisonment by military courts, on-going invasion of other nations without their acceptance continues.

This very speech belies the assertion; he condemns Americans who oppose his will by maligning them and that in turn negates his last statement, “We will support those revolutions with fidelity to our ideals, with the power of our example, and with an unwavering belief that all human beings deserve to live with freedom and dignity.” In effect, Obama seeks compliance and obedience to his determination that “America’s singular role in the course of human events,” as determined by his administration, will be the only principled response to the world that questions America’s “role” and
the citizens that find this myth of America repugnant, unacceptable and destructive.

William A. Cook is a Professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. His latest book, The Plight of the Palestinians, was published by Macmillan this past August. He can be reached at www.drwilliamacook.com or wcook@laverne.edu.

A Last Shot at Heroism? The Anguish in the American Dream By ROBERT JENSEN

Whether celebrated or condemned, the American Dream endures, though always ambiguously. We are forever describing and defining, analyzing and assessing the concept, and with each attempt to clarify, the idea of an American Dream grows more incoherent yet more entrenched.

The literature of this dream analysis is virtually endless, as writers undertake the task of achieving, saving, chasing, restoring, protecting, confronting, pursuing, reviving, shaping, renewing, and challenging the American Dream. Other writers are busy devouring, recapturing, fulfilling, chasing, liberating, advertising, redesigning, rescuing, spreading, updating, inventing, reevaluating, financing, redefining, remembering, and expanding the American Dream. And let's not forget those who are deepening, building, debating, burying, destroying, ruining, promoting, tracking, betraying, remaking, living, regulating, undermining, marketing, downsizing, and revitalizing the American Dream.

We are exhorted to awaken from, and face up to, the dream, as we explore the myths behind, crisis of, cracks in, decline of, and quest for the American Dream.

My favorite book title on the subject has to be Andy Kaufman: Wrestling with the American Dream, which explores the comedian's career "within a broader discussion of the ideology of the American Dream." According to the book's publisher, the author "brilliantly decodes Kaufman in a way that makes it possible to grasp his radical agenda beyond avant-garde theories of transgression. As an entertainer, Kaufman submerged his identity beneath a multiplicity of personas, enacting the American belief that the self can and should be endlessly remade for the sake of happiness and success. He did this so rigorously and consistently that he exposed the internal contradictions of America's ideology of self-invention."

As we can see, writers are eager to dive deep into the American Dream to find strikingly original insights, bold new interpretations, previously unexplored nuances. I will take a different approach: I want to skate on the surface and state the obvious. It's a strategy seldom employed, I believe, because such a reckoning with our past leaves us uneasy about the present and terrified of the future. That strategy leaves us in anguish.

I believe that to be fully alive today is to live with anguish, not for one's own condition in the world but for the condition of a broken world. My anguish flows not from the realization that it is getting harder for people to live the American Dream, but from the recognition that the American Dream has made it harder to hold together the living world.

So, our task tonight is to tell the truth about the domination that is at the heart of the American Dream so that we may face the brokenness of our world. Only then can we embrace the anguish of the American Dream and confront honestly our moment in history.


The epic dream

James Truslow Adams appears to have been the first to have used the phrase "the American Dream" in print, in his 1931 book The Epic of America.[1] This stockbroker turned historian defined it as "that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone." But he didn't reduce the dream to materialism and emphasized U.S. social mobility in contrast with a more rigid European class system:

"It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position."

Adams was, in fact, concerned about the growing materialism of U.S. life, and he wondered about "the ugly scars which have also been left on us by our three centuries of exploitation and conquest of the continent." He was writing at the beginning of the Great Depression, coming off the go-go years of the 1920s. So, not surprisingly, his list of those problems will sound familiar to us:

"how it was that we came to insist upon business and money-making and material improvement as good in themselves; how they took on the aspects of moral virtues; how we came to consider an unthinking optimism essential; how we refused to look on the seamy and sordid realities of any situation in which we found ourselves; how we regarded criticism as obstructive and dangerous for our new communities; how we came to think manners undemocratic, and a cultivated mind a hindrance to success, a sign of inefficient effeminacy; how size and statistics of material development came to be more important in our eyes than quality and spiritual values; how in the ever-shifting advance of the frontier we came to lose sight of the past in hopes for the future; how we forgot to live, in the struggle to 'make a living'; how our education tended to become utilitarian or aimless; and how other unfortunate traits only too notable today were developed."

Yet for all his concerns, Adams believed that the United States could overcome these problems as long as the dream endured, and that led him into the dead end of clichés: "If we are to make the dream come true we must all work together, no longer to build bigger, but to build better." For Adams, as the book's title makes clear, the story of America is an epic, and "The epic loses all its glory without the dream."

But dreams of glory are bound to betray us, and 80 years later the question is whether the story of the United States is an epic or a tragedy. More on that later.


The dream and domination

Adams' definition of the dream as the belief that "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone" is rather abstract. One historian's "short history" of the concept[2] highlights the dreams of religious freedom, political independence, racial equality, upward mobility, home ownership, and personal fulfillment that run through U.S. history, but a concept used by so many people for so many different purposes can't be easily defined. Rather than try to organize the complexity, I want to focus on what has made the American Dream possible. That much is simple: The American Dream is born of, and maintained by, domination.

By this claim, I don't mean that the American Dream is to dominate (though many who claim to be living the American Dream revel in their ability to dominate), but rather that whatever the specific articulation of the American Dream, it is built on domination. This is the obvious truth on the surface, the reality that most dreamers want to leave out, perhaps because it leads to a painful question: How deeply woven into the fabric of U.S. society is the domination/subordination dynamic on which this country's wealth and freedom are based?

First, the American part: The United States of America can dream only because of one of the most extensive acts of genocide in recorded human history. When Europeans landed in the region that was eventually to include the United States, there were people here. Population estimates vary, but a conservative estimate is 12 million north of the Rio Grande, perhaps 2 million in what is now Canada and the rest in what is now the continental United States. By the end of the so-called Indian Wars, the 1900 census recorded 237,000 indigenous people in the United States. That's an extermination rate of 95 to 99 percent.[3] That is to say, the European colonists and their heirs successfully eliminated almost the entire indigenous population -- or the "merciless Indian Savages" as they are labeled in the Declaration of Independence, one of the most famous articulations of the American Dream. Almost every Indian died in the course of the European invasion to create the United States so that we may dream our dreams. Millions of people died for the crime of being inconveniently located on land desired by Europeans who believed in their right to dominate.

Second, the dream part: Adams pointed out that while this is always about more than money, the idea of getting one's share of the American bounty is at the core of the American Dream. That bounty did not, of course, drop out of the sky. It was ripped out of the ground and drawn from the water in a fashion that has left the continent ravaged, a dismemberment of nature that is an unavoidable consequence of a worldview that glorifies domination. "From [Europeans'] first arrival we have behaved as though nature must be either subdued or ignored," writes the scientist and philosopher Wes Jackson, one of the leading thinkers in the sustainable agriculture movement.[4] As Jackson points out, our economy has always been extractive, even before the industrial revolution dramatically accelerated the assault in the 19th century and the petrochemical revolution began poisoning the world more intensively in the 20th. From the start, we mined the forests, soil, and aquifers, just as we eventually mined minerals and fossil fuels, leaving ecosystems ragged and in ruin, perhaps beyond recovery in any human timeframe. All that was done by people who believed in their right to dominate.

This analysis helps us critique the naïve notions of opportunity and bounty in the American Dream. The notion of endless opportunity for all in the American Dream is routinely invoked by those who are unconcerned about the inherent inequality in capitalism or ignore the deeply embedded white supremacy that expresses itself in institutional and unconscious racism, which constrains indigenous, black, and Latino people in the United States. The notion of endless bounty in the American Dream leads people to believe that because such bounty has always been available that it will continue to be available through the alleged magic of technology. In America, the dreamers want to believe that the domination of people to clear the frontier was acceptable, and with the frontier gone, that the evermore intense domination of nature to keep the bounty flowing is acceptable.

Of course the United States is not the only place where greed has combined with fantasies of superiority to produce horrific crimes, nor is the only place where humans have relentlessly degraded ecosystems. But the United States is the wealthiest and most powerful country in the history of the world, and the country that claims for itself a unique place in history, "the city upon a hill"[5] that serves as "the beacon to the world of the way life should be," in the words of one of Texas' U.S. senators.[6] The American Dream is put forward as a dream for all the world to adopt, but it clearly can't be so. Some of the people of the world have had to be sacrificed for the dream, as has the living world. Dreams based on domination are, by definition, limited.

Jackson reminds us how these two forms of domination come together in the United States when he asserts, "We are still more the cultural descendants of Columbus and Coronado than we are of the natives we replaced."[7] Citing the writer Wendell Berry, he points out "that as we came across the continent, cutting the forests and plowing the prairies, we never knew what we were doing because we have never known what we were undoing."[8]

Dreams based on domination by people over the non-human world are dreams only for the short-term. Dreams based on domination by some people over others are dreams only for the privileged. As Malcolm X put it, "I see America through the eyes of the victim. I don't see any American dream; I see an American nightmare."[9]


Justice and sustainability

A world based on domination/subordination is a profoundly unjust world and a fundamentally unsustainable world.

The state of our unjust world: A third of the people on the planet live on less than $2 per day, while half live on less than $2.50 a day.[10] That means at least half the people in this world cannot meet basic expenditures for the food, clothing, shelter, health, and education necessary for a minimally decent life. Concern about this is not confined to radical idealists. Consider the judgment of James Wolfensohn near the end of his term as president of the World Bank:

It is time to take a cold, hard look at the future. Our planet is not balanced. Too few control too much, and many have too little to hope for. Too much turmoil, too many wars, too much suffering. The demographics of the future speak to a growing imbalance of people, resources, and the environment. If we act together now, we can change the world for the better. If we do not, we shall leave greater and more intractable problems for our children.[11]

The state of our unsustainable world: Every measure of the health of the continent -- groundwater depletion, topsoil loss, chemical contamination, increased toxicity in our own bodies, the number and size of "dead zones" in the surrounding oceans, accelerating extinction of species and reduction of bio-diversity -- suggests we may be past the point of restoration. This warning comes from 1,700 of the world's leading scientists:

Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.[12]

That statement was issued in 1992, and in the past two decades we have yet to change course.

These days when someone seeks my support for an idea, project, or institution, I ask whether it makes some contribution to the struggle for justice and sustainability. No one idea, project, or institution can solve our problems, of course, and perhaps even no combination can save us. But I am convinced we must ask this question in all aspects of our lives.

I have concluded that the American Dream is inconsistent with social justice and ecological sustainability. So, I'm against the American Dream. I don't want to rescue, redefine, or renew the American Dream. I want us all to recognize the need to transcend the domination/subordination dynamic at the heart of the American Dream. If we could manage that, the dream would fade -- as dreams do -- when we awake and come into consciousness.

That's my principled argument. Now let's consider two questions about political and rhetorical strategy.


Strategic considerations I: A radical core

A few years ago, sometime around the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, I got a call from a New York Times reporter who was writing a piece about the anti-war movement's attempt to rally folks around the idea that "peace is patriotic." I told him I never used that phrase and routinely argued against patriotism -- instead of trying to redefine patriotism, I wanted to abandon the concept as intellectually, politically, and morally indefensible.[13] He was intrigued and asked me to explain. Realize, this was the first, and so far the only, time I have been interviewed by a Times reporter, and so even though I know that newspaper to be a tool of the ruling class, I wanted to make a good impression. First, I pointed out that critiques of patriotism have been made by radicals in the past and that there was nothing all that new in what I had to say. After I explained my argument, he said he couldn't see a hole in the reasoning but that it didn't really matter. "No one is ever going to accept that," he said, and so my position -- no matter how compelling -- didn't end up in his story.

Perhaps I can take some solace in knowing that he thought my argument was right. But it's not enough just to be right, of course -- we want to be effective. Is an argument irrelevant if it can't be communicated widely in the mainstream? Is that the fate of an assault on the idea of an American Dream?

It's certainly true that the American Dream is a deeply rooted part of the ideology of superiority of the dominant culture, and there is evidence all around us that this ideology is more deeply entrenched than ever, perhaps because the decline of American power and wealth is so obvious, and people are scrambling. But that doesn't automatically mean that we should avoid radical critiques and play to the mainstream. I believe those critiques are more important than ever.

This conclusion stems from an assessment of the political terrain on which we operate today. This is not a mass-movement moment, not a time in which large numbers of Americans are likely to engage in political activity that challenges basic systems of power and wealth. I believe we are in a period in which the most important work is creating the organizations and networks that will be important in the future, when the political conditions change, for better or worse. Whatever is coming, we need sharper analysis, stronger vehicles for action, and more resilient connections among people. In short, this is a cadre-building moment.

Although for some people the phrase "cadre-building" may invoke the worst of the left's revolutionary dogmatism, I have something different in mind. For me, "cadre" doesn't mean "vanguard" or "self-appointed bearers of truth." It signals commitment, but with an openness to rethinking theory and practice. I see this kind of organizing in some groups in Austin, TX, where I live. Not surprisingly, they are groups led by younger people who are drawing on longstanding radical ideas, updating as needed to fit a changing world. These organizers reject the ideology that comforts the culture. The old folks -- which I define as anyone my age, 52, and older -- who are useful in these endeavors also are willing to leave behind these chauvinistic stories about national greatness.

To openly challenge the American Dream is to signal that we are not afraid to (1) tell the truth and (2) keep working in the face of significant impediments. This kind of challenge speaks to those who are hungry for honest talk about the depth of our problems and are yearning to be part of a community that perseveres without illusions. That isn't a majority, maybe not yet a significant minority, but those people have the resolve that we will need.

Back to the patriotism critique: Despite the popularity of the "peace is patriotic" bumper stickers, I have continued to offer my argument against the concept of patriotism, and whenever I speak about it in a lecture, people tell me that it was helpful to hear the position articulated in public. Over and over, on this and other issues, I hear people saying that they have had such thoughts but felt isolated and that hearing the critique in public shores up their sense that they are not crazy. Perhaps these kinds of more radical analyses don't change the course of existing movements, but they help bolster those who are at the core of the more radical movements we need, and they help us identify each other.


Strategic considerations II: Engagement

Although a radical critique of the American Dream isn't likely to land in the New York Times, we shouldn't ignore the ways we can use such arguments for outreach to liberal, and even conservative, communities. Once again, an example about patriotism: I have had conversations with conservative Christians, who typically are among the most hyper-patriotic Americans, in which I challenged them to square that patriotism with their Christian faith.[14] Isn't patriotism a form of idolatry? I can't claim to have converted large numbers to an anti-empire/anti-capitalist politics. But as the evangelicals say, we sometimes make progress one by one, from within. Framing questions in a way that forces people to see that conventional politics is at odds with their most deeply held moral principles is a potentially effective strategy. It doesn't always work -- we humans are known for our ability to hold contradictory ideas -- but it is one resource in the organizers' toolkit.

So, we might consider critiquing the American Dream by contrasting it with another widely embraced idea, the Golden Rule or the ethic of reciprocity, which says we should treat others as we would like to be treated. That principle shows up in virtually all religious teachings and secular philosophy.[15] In Christianity, Jesus phrased it this way in the Sermon on the Mount:

[12] So whatever you wish that someone would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
[Matt. 7:12]

One of the best-known stories about the great Jewish scholar Hillel from the first century BCE concerns a man who challenged him to "teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel's response: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it."[16]

This is echoed in the repeated biblical command, in the Hebrew Bible as well as the New Testament, to "love thy neighbor as thyself." [Lev. 19:18] In Islam, one of the Prophet Muhammad's central teachings was, "None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself."[17] In secular Western philosophy, Kant's categorical imperative is a touchstone: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."[18]

On the surface, the American Dream of success for all appears to be an articulation of the Golden Rule, of equal opportunity for all. When I suggest that the two ideas are, in fact, in opposition, it gives me a chance to make the case that the Dream is based on domination and, therefore, a violation of that core principle. How can we reconcile our commitment to an ethic of reciprocity while endorsing a vision of society that leads to an unjust and unsustainable world? How can we face the least among us today, and our descendants tomorrow, knowing we turned away from the moral commitments we claim to be most dear to us? A critique of the American Dream can open up that conversation.


Telling the tale: Epic or tragic hero?

The American Dream typically is illustrated with stories of heroes who live the dream. But the larger story of American Dream casts the United States itself as the hero on a global stage. The question we might ask, uncomfortably: Is the United States an epic hero or a tragic one?

Literature scholars argue over the definition of the terms "epic" and "tragedy," but in common usage an epic celebrates the deeds of a hero who is favored by, and perhaps descended from, the gods. These heroes overcome adversity to do great things in the service of great causes. Epic heroes win.

A tragic hero loses, but typically not because of an external force. The essence of tragedy is what Aristotle called "hamartia," an error in judgment made because of some character flaw, such as hubris. That excessive pride of the protagonist becomes his downfall. Although some traditions talk about the sin of pride, most of us understand that taking some pride in ourselves is psychologically healthy. The problem is excessive pride, when we elevate ourselves and lose a sense of the equal value of others.

This distinction is crucial in dealing with the American Dream, which people often understand in the context of their own hard work and sacrifice. People justifiably take pride, for example, in having worked to start a small business, making it possible for their children to get a college education, which is one common articulation of the American Dream. I can tell you a story about a grandfather who emigrated from Denmark and worked hard his whole life as a blacksmith and metal worker, about parents who came from modest circumstances and worked hard their whole lives, about my own story of working hard. That story is true, but also true is the story of domination that created the landscape on which my grandfather, my parents, and I have worked. Pride in work turns to hubris when one believes one is special for having worked, as if our work is somehow more ennobling than that of others, as if we worked on a level playing field.

When we fall into hubris individually, the consequences can be disastrous for us and those around us. When we fall into that hubris as a nation -- when we ignore the domination on which our dreams are based -- the consequences are more dramatic. And when that nation is the wealthiest and most powerful in the world, at a time in history when the high-energy/high-technology society is unraveling the fabric of the living world, the consequences are life-threatening globally.

Not to worry, some say: After all, other empires have come and gone, other species have come and gone, but the world endures. That flippant response glosses over two important considerations. First, empires cause immense suffering as they are built and as they decline. Second, the level of human intervention into the larger world has never been on this scale, so that the collapse of an empire poses new risks. To toss off these questions is to abandon one's humanity.

To face this honestly, we need to recognize just how inadequate are our existing ideas, projects, and institutions. Quoting the late geographer Dan Luten, Jackson reminds us:

"[Most Europeans] came as a poor people to a seemingly empty land that was rich in resources. We built our institutions with that perception of reality. Our political institutions, our educational institutions, our economic institutions -- all built on that perception of reality. In our time we have become rich people in an increasingly poor land that is filling up, and the institutions don't hold."[19]

Developing new institutions is never easy. But it will be easier if we can abandon our epic dreams and start dealing the tragic nature of circumstances.


The end of the epic, for us all

To conclude I want to return to the words of our first American Dreamer, James Truslow Adams: "The epic loses all its glory without the dream."

Glory is about distinction, about claiming a special place. The American Dream asserts such a place in history for the United States, and from that vantage point U.S. domination seems justified. The future -- if there is to be a future -- depends on us being able to give up the illusion of being special and abandon the epic story of the United States.

It is tempting to end there, with those of us who critique the domination/subordination dynamic lecturing the American Dreamers about how they must change. But I think we critics have dreams to give up as well. We have our epics of resistance, our heroes who persevere against injustice in our counter-narratives. Our rejection of the idea of the American Dream is absorbed into the Dream itself, no matter how much we object. How do we live in America and not Dream?

In other words, how do we persevere in a nightmare? Can we stay committed to radical politics without much hope for a happy ending? What if we were to succeed in our epic struggle to transcend the American Dream but then find that the American Dream is just one small part of the larger tragedy of the modern human? What if the task is not simply to give up the dream of the United States as special but the dream of the human species as special? And what if the global forces set in motion during the high-energy/high-technology era are beyond the point of no return?

Surrounded by the big majestic buildings and tiny sophisticated electronic gadgets created through human cleverness, it's easy for us to believe we are smart enough to run a complex world. But cleverness is not wisdom, and the ability to create does not guarantee we can control the destruction we have unleashed. It may be that no matter what the fate of the American Dream, there is no way to rewrite this larger epic, that too much of the tragedy has already been played out.

But here's the good news: While tragic heroes meet an unhappy fate, a community can learn from the protagonist's fall. Even tragic heroes can, at the end, celebrate the dignity of the human spirit in their failure. That may be the task of Americans, to recognize that we can't reverse course in time to prevent our ultimate failure, but that in the time remaining we can recognize our hamartia, name our hubris, and do what we can to undo the damage.

That may be the one chance for the United States to be truly heroic, for us to learn to leave the stage gracefully.

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center http://thirdcoastactivist.org. His latest book is Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007). Jensen is also the author of The Heart of Whiteness: Race, Racism, and White Privilege and Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (both from City Lights Books); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang). He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu and his articles can be found online at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/index.html.


Notes

[1] James Truslow Adams, The Epic of America (New York: Triangle Books, 1931).

[2] Jim Cullen, The American Dream: A Short History of an Idea that Shaped a Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).

[3] See David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992); and Ward Churchill, A Little Matter of Genocide (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997). Churchill argues persuasively that the fact that a large number of those indigenous people died of disease doesn't absolve white America. Sometimes those diseases were spread intentionally, and even when that wasn't the case the white invaders did nothing to curtail contact with Indians to limit the destruction. Whether the Indians died in war or from disease, starvation and exposure, white society remained culpable.

[4] Wes Jackson, Becoming Native to This Place (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1994), p. 19.

[5] This phrase is attributed to Puritan John Winthrop's 1630 sermon, "A Model of Christian Charity," which draws on Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount, "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid." [Matt. 5:14] The late president Ronald Reagan was fond of describing the United States as a "shining city upon a hill," as he did in his farewell address on January 11, 1989. http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/farewell.asp

[6] Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senate debate on "Authorization of the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq," (S.J. Res. 45) October 09, 2002. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/Z?r107:S09OC2-0011.

[7] Jackson, Becoming Native to This Place, p. 15.

[8] Wes Jackson, "Becoming Native to This Place," Thirteenth Annual E. F. Schumacher Lectures,
October 1993, Yale University, New Haven, CT. http://neweconomicsinstitute.org/publications/lectures/Jackson/Wes/becoming-native-to-this-place

[9] Malcolm X, Malcolm X Speaks: Selected Speeches and Statements, George Breitman, ed. (New York: Grove, 1965), Chapter 3, "The Ballot or the Bullet," p. 26.

[10] World Bank, "World Development Report 2008," October 2007. www.worldbank.org/wdr2008

[11] James D. Wolfensohn, address to the Board of Governors of the World Bank Group, September 23, 2003. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/jdwsp-092303.pdf

[12] Henry Kendall, a Nobel Prize physicist and former chair of the Union of Concerned Scientists' board of directors, was the primary author of the "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity." http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1992-world-scientists-warning-to-humanity.html

[13] For this argument, see Chapter 3 of my book Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2004). That chapter is also available online at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/CoEPatriotism.pdf

[14] For an example of this in the context of the American Dream, see David Platt, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah Books, 2010). Unfortunately, his critique of the American Dream appears to be rooted in a conservative theology that asserts Christianity as the one true faith tradition, replacing a reactionary nationalism with a reactionary religion.

[15] For a summary, see "Shared belief in the Golden Rule." http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

[16] Talmud, tracate Shabbat 31a. http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_31.html

[17] Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadith (Cambridge, UK: Islamic Texts Society, 1997), Hadith 13.

[18] Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 3rd ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993), p. 30.

[19] Wes Jackson, Consulting the Genius of the Place: An Ecological Approach to a New Agriculture (Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint, 2010), p. 117.