You’re Letting the Terrorists Win

A popular phrase to flatten criticism of the Bush administration immediately following 9/11 was “you’re letting the terrorists win.”

Usually this was followed by one of several ways to complete the sentence, such as:

You’re letting the terrorists win if you criticise America.

You’re letting the terrorists win if you don’t support the troops and everything that they do.

You’re letting the terrorists win if you want to ban torture or wiretapping.

I would like to introduce a new tradition for this phrase, just in time for the 7th anniversary of the attacks on September 11, 2001. Thomas Jefferson once said that it is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government. During the last 7 years, thinking, patriotic Americans have watched in horror as our government has tarnished our image and ruined our credibility on the world’s stage. We allowed this to happen because we were afraid, but we can no longer afford to let the powers that be wreck everything about this country that makes it great. So from now on, I suggest we say this:

You’re letting the terrorists win if you invade sovereign nations.

You’re letting the terrorists win if you allow the government to tap our phones without a warrant.

You’re letting the terrorists win if you condone torture and violating the Geneva conventions.

Is anything that I’m saying extreme? Unpatriotic? Ultra-liberal? No. I’m not claiming that the Bush administration knew about 9-11, or even worse, was responsible. I’m not saying that we should not defend ourselves from terrorists and other foreign threats. I’m not even saying that the war on terror is a lost and hopeless cause and a horrible squandering of our resources. All I’m saying is that we can’t let the anger and the grief still lingering in our hearts to change us.

We were all shocked and hurt by the attacks.

Every American will remember the day and where they were when they first heard about it. But we can’t let that painful memory corrupt what makes us unique, and why we call ourselves the land of the free.

Al Queda and other enemies of the nation are fond of calling us “The Great Satan.” Every day that we kill innocent civilians with airstrikes in the name of wiping out a few Jihadists, we are proving them right. In order to truly bring an end to the war on terror, we need to change the way we operate and get back to the principles that make America great.

Abiding by the law, showing restraint, humanity, and god forbid mercy to even the most hardened terrorists would go a long way towards defeating our enemies.

John Mccain is NOT Batman

This is a public service announcement concerning the political themes in The Dark Knight.

John Mccain is not Batman.

Repeat:

John Mccain is not Batman. Neither is President Bush.

Furthermore, I’m pretty sure that Batman isn’t even a real person.

Why do I have to say this? Because some conservatives have gone out on a limb and claimed that the stunning success of the Dark Knight at the box office somehow is evidence that the public is clamboring for a Republican victory in November.

I take offense to this on so many levels that I don’t even know where to begin.

I liked the Dark Knight. Alot. I like it so much that I saw it for the 3rd time yesterday. So it dismays me to see a work of art so heinously twisted into propaganda by the arch-conservative portions of the media. The film does not include any presidential endorsements. Aside from the source material author’s intentions, it is open to interpretation. You can see it as a hoorah for America’s foreign policy of the last 7 years, you have every right to. But that doesn’t necessarily make it fucking so.

My first article on the film was a simple review, with a nuanced look at the terrorism themes within the film. Notice how I did not say that Barack Obama is like Batman, or that the film makes any explicit political points, aside from a very clear condemnation of domestic spying.

My second article examined the possibility that The Dark Knight subtly embraced such stalwart conservative ideas as torture, extraordinary rendition, and imperialism. If you pay very close attention to the movie, you can see that the answer is no.

Lumping President Bush and Senator Mccain in with a crime-fighting superhero is about as logical as calling Barack Obama the antichrist.

If you really need me to explain the difference, here it is:

As I have pointed out before, Batman does not murder anyone. Even the Joker. Despite his cruel terrorist campaign, Batman simply refuses to kill him. George Bush and John Mccain want to hunt down every single terrorist and take their lives.

Batman is not an elected official with standards and laws that he must observe: he is a vigilante that does not have the same responsibilities that a President does. George Bush and John Mccain have an employer that they must answer to: the American people, and a document that they must follow: the constitution.

Batman is not a human being: His victims are not made of flesh and blood. The characters that he tortures and cripples in the comics and the movies do not have families, cultures, or lives of their own. Jihadists on the other hand, do have families. They are real people, and there are real reasons why they want to destroy us. When we bomb their cities and towns, real people, who are innocent in the conflict, really die.

If you can’t make the distinction between fantasy and reality, what makes you think that you can make a sound choice when you vote for President of the United States?

Will the Real Mccain Please Stand Up?

Much has been said about how little the American public knows about Barack Obama. He’s a new face, with only a few years of national political experience, and people just really aren’t sure what he’s all about.

On the other hand, almost nothing has been said about how well the country knows John Mccain.

I’d like to put forth the idea that we know just as much about Mccain than we do about Obama. This may seem strange, given that he’s been in the public eye for 40 years, and he has an extensive voting record that he can be judged by, but a closer examination reveals that we might not be getting the same John Mccain that we hope for, and that can apply to both sides.

The only universal quality for the Senator that both conservatives and liberals respect is his service during Vietnam: we admire his courage in facing the tortures of Hanoi Hilton. In fact, whenever Obama addresses Mccain, the first thing he says is how much he appreciates his sacrifices for the country.

But when you go beyond his military record, things get fuzzy. For a long time, Mccain was considered to be a Maverick. He was derided by conservatives as being a traitor when he sided with the Democrats on legislation from immigration to campaign finance reform. He earned a great deal of admiration from progressives for his willingness to vote based on his conscience and judgment, not party affiliation.

And yet when you look at his overall voting record, he’s been one of the most consistently conservative voices in the Senate since he came into office. This has never been more apparent since he decided to run for President on the Republican platform. The Bush tax cuts he voted against twice because he found them personally immoral, he voted for this time around. When pressure came from all over the right wing, he changed his stance on immigration from amnesty and open borders to securing the border, maybe even building a fence.

Is this shrewd political maneuvering, or is Mccain a sellout? Will he sell his principles to get a seat in the White House?

I am on the fence. If John Mccain wins the election and returns to his Maverick persona, I will rejoice. But which side will we see? Does John Mccain really hate war as much as he professes to, or will he rush into more wars, and continue Bush’s imperial nightmare? As President, will he finally outlaw torture in terror interrogations, or will he spout a line about defending the nation by any means necessary? Is he an honest straight-talker, or a slimy pol with an even slimier tongue? Is his judgment sound, or will his infamous temper get the best of him in moments of crisis? Is John Mccain a tried and true small government conservative or an empire builder? These are questions that Republican voters need to ask themselves.

The world will be a better place with Mccain at the helm of the free world, rather than Bush. But that may not be saying much, if Mccain forsakes his independent roots and goes the way of the neocon.

The War Comes Home

I don’t seek out political discussions, especially at parties. This weekend the controversy came to me. On Saturday my roommate and I celebrated our graduation by inviting over a bunch of people and buying ludicrous amounts of alcohol. (We somehow ran out around 4 in the morning.) By all accounts, everyone seemed to have a good time and the party was relatively drama free. But the specter of war is never far away and Iraq reared its ugly head at our Grad party in a number of ways.

A friend of mine from both high school and college was one of the first to show up. After one beer and a few minutes of catching up, she got an urgent call. A friend of hers who got back from Iraq several months ago was apparently having an episode. After his 2nd tour, he came back and since has been battling depression, post traumatic stress, and alcoholism. When he drinks, he “gets scary” and tries to talk about the things he saw and experienced in the warzone. My friend chose to leave and comfort him, which I understand. The unfortunate part came when people asked my why she had to leave, and after I told them they each responded, “oooh,” and then followed an uncomfortable silence.

Later in the evening, we learned that 2 of our party-ers were Marines. When things started winding down they told stories about Iraq, some of them humorous, some frightening. Through the haze of conversations and kegs I recall one phrase being repeated with some regularity.

“I’m not fuckin goin back.”

Today comes a report that US casualties are at an all-time low since the invasion in 2003. The same story reports that oil revenues are at an all-time high. (Because that news is supposed to bring us just as much joy as the latter.) If these trends continue, then the war may well be over by 2013 and our boy and girls can finally come home. The sad fact is that we have done a piss-poor job of looking after them.

Here’s to hoping that when they get back, we actually deliver on the promises that were made to them when they signed up.

A Shift

One of the more deplorable things about politics is that most people never change their minds on a subject; once they have made their decision about an issue, it will stand in ther mind no matter what evidence is presented against it. They make fantastic mental leaps in order to assimilate the evidence into whatever idea they already have. I hope that I never become like that.

Today I came across an article from last year that has shifted my opinion on the Israeli question.

http://web.israelinsider.com/views/10767.htm

If you don’t care to read the whole thing, in essence, it states that Nazi propaganda was very widespread throughout the Arab world during the 30’s, and that it has helped shape many of the anti-Semitic views throughout the Muslim world, to this day. I was unaware that Hitler’s words were able to reach such an audience.

Now, this doesn’t mean that I’m ready to sign on and say that we need to bomb Iran in order to save Israel from certain destruction. A great deal of the hatred that Muslims have for Israel come from Israel’s own policies in dealing with the Palestinians, and much of the same could be said for America’s foreign policies. I do not believe that we are in the Middle East to protect Israel, or to bring democracy to the masses: this war is, was, and always will be about oil. But reading the impact that the Nazi message had on many of the people: “God in heaven, Hitler on Earth,” is disturbing enough for me to think that maybe Mr. Bush isn’t entirely wrong when he compares these regimes to Germany in the 30’s.

Scaling back America’s empire abroad would go a long way to improving our image around the world and would slow the growth of terrorist ideologies, but we should never at any point negotiate with any party or nation that has taken Hitler’s words to heart.

365 Ways to Hide from Reality

I really would love to list a full 365 ways to bury your head in the sand, or up your ass, but I don’t have that much time. Instead, I will explore the 3 most common and politically infamous ways of ignoring reality or lacking any grasp on the way things work here in this country.

1. Be a conservative who supports the free market but wants a border fence. These two ideas are about as incompatible as it gets. Opening up the market means opening up borders to anyone who wants to participate in the global economy; and the global economy depends on the cheap labor that immigrants provide, especially here in the States. The same people who talk about big government interfering with hard-working Americans generally use the same tone of disdain when talking about Mexicans who come up here and take away (white) Americans’ jobs. I’m sorry folks, but you just can’t have it both ways. The free market ensures that labor costs and immigration policies will be linked.

Today thousands of immigrants and their families and friends are marching through Chicago and other cities, because they want to participate in this great American experiment of democratic voting and markets. Are you going to deny them that? Well, you can’t anyway. A border fence cannot stop the flow of immigrants into this country anymore than it can stop the thousands of tons of drugs that come across as well. You’re just going to have to accept the notion that you won’t be fulfilling your life-long dream of being a bus-boy. The Mexicans have just as much of a right to be here as the Jews, Asians, Irish, and Germans that came before them. They’re not going away. Just accept it.

2. Believe that the surge is really working. I myself have fallen into this fallacy. But a temporary decrease in spectacular attacks do not prove that the strategy can work. There is no way that the surge can work. And for the inevitable idiot claims that I am somehow disrespecting the troops by saying this, I have no reason to even answer you, but the fact is that the surge is yet another impossible burden that has been placed on our troops. The reason I was opposed to this war from the beginning is because I support the troops who fight it. End of story.

The reason that the surge cannot work is because, just like the entire Iraqi mission, it is a flawed idea to begin with. Democracy cannot be forced upon people with a gun anymore than political reconciliation can be achieved through massive troop buildups. The violence has lessened since the surge began, but that’s not the question here. Without a permanent, comprehensive solution that is worked out by the IRAQIS there will be no end to this war. To expect the American soldier to keep carrying that burden while the corrupt, inept, illegitimate Iraqi government works towards “peace” is the true meaning of not supporting the troops. And for those of you who claim that we just need to give them more time, let me remind you that 5 years ago today, our President stood on the deck of a naval vessel in front of a giant banner that read “Mission Accomplished.” Don’t believe it for a second; then or now.

3. Believing that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John Mccain will truly change things. The very fact that these 3 candidates have come as far as they have proves that their interests lie with the wealthy elite, not with the average American. For all his talk of campaign finance reform, John Mccain has taken millions from PAC’s and corporations and hasn’t apologized for it. Barack Obama claims that he has stayed away from this dirty money but it’s only a twisting of terms; the truth is that he has taken far more money from corporate America than any other candidate. Hillary Clinton is about as entrenched in the Washington power structure as you can get, and all her talk about health care is hallow as hell; in 1994 she may have really meant it, but since she has taken millions of dollars from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

For hundreds of years people have been running on the platform of change and hope, and very very few of them have actually followed through. In order to affect any real change in America, we need to change the way campaigns are funded, and stop voting for a pack of bloated elephants and jackasses.