|
![]() |
|
Y’ALL COME BACK NOW The U.S. public likes stereotypes. Over the years, we have seen quite
a few, some funny and some inflammatory. For instance, African-Americans have been portrayed as lazy and shiftless. But at
least they are good basketball players and dancers. Today, Arabs are the recipient of many stereotypical designations that
are not exactly accolades. They are "camel jockeys" and terrorists. Mexicans are "beaners." To be fair, not only people of color have come under fire in assessing
negative images. Southerners of the U.S. have been the subject of many jokes that are not complimentary. The term "redneck"
is used to describe someone who holds racist tendencies. Sure, there are some racists in the South today, but the region hosts
many white people who are not inclined to make negative statements about African-Americans. Probably the most widely used subjects used to poke fun at Southerners
are their accents and use of the English language. Years ago, a friend of mine from Alabama explained to me that the words
"you all" are translated into "y’all" in his neck of the woods. It is pronounced as one word. The stuff that comes out
of the ground, the reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, is pronounced "oll." There are other variances as well. Perhaps the most popular stereotypical depiction of a Southerner who
is not exactly Einstein and is also a little crooked has been that of a Southern sheriff. They are semi-literate and either
chew tobacco or chomp on a cigar. The law enforcers are noted for stopping motorists and affixing trumped-up charges, but
their humanity comes to the forefront when they offer the driver a chance to get off the hook by making a financial contribution
to them. In 1970, the Dodge Motor Company made a few advertisements using the
Southern sheriff as the brunt to the punch lines to their ads. He was fat, had a small vocabulary, and chewed on a cigar.
Ironically, the person who played this part, as well as made a living at depicting a dimwitted Southerner in many movies,
is Clifton James, who was born in New York. Before you read the rest of this article, please go to this link to see him in
action as he pulls over a young driver and attempts to charge him with driving a racing car within city limits, a violation
in the town where he works: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1WICosbX8k They may be a dying breed, but one of these sheriff types came out
of the woodwork recently. According to an Associated Press article of July 19, 2008, titled "Trucker Fined $500 for Failing
Roadside English Test:" Manuel Castillo drove through Alabama in a truck filled with onions
and left with a $500 ticket for something he didn’t think he was doing: speaking English poorly. Castillo, who was stopped on his way back to California, said he knows
federal law requires him to be able to converse in English with an officer but he thought his language skills were good enough
to avoid a ticket. Castillo wasn’t speeding, and the inspection and computer check
turned up no offences, so he was surprised to get a ticket for being a "non-English-speaking driver." The Star newspaper of Canada ran the story and received many replies. Here are a few: Castillo had a trucker’s license for 20 years. In that time,
he never received a ticket for any infraction. In other words, he is an accomplished trucker with an unblemished record. While
speaking to the Alabama state trooper, the officer had no trouble understanding him. He just did not like his accent. Xenophobia is rampant in the U.S. Unfortunately, it is growing, not
receding. I have written several columns about the "English only" movement in
the U.S. and how ludicrous it is. I offer the same challenge to the Alabama state trooper who wrote up Castillo that I give
to any U.S. citizen who espouses "English only" in the U.S.: when your use of the English language is faultless, maybe then
you can open your mouth in opposition to those who speak English with an accent. In parting, I would like to see the Alabama lawman stopped in New
York City for an infraction and see if the New York cop could understand him. Fat chance. SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF The human race is gullible. In India, thousands of villages have "haunted
houses" in which no person will enter. Haiti practices voodoo and many Haitians are convinced that a voodoo practitioner can
put a spell on them that will make their heads turn 180 degrees so they will be looking behind them. Most U.S. citizens mock such practices, yet they also are guilty of
suspension of disbelief. My last article was a spoof about the cover of the New Yorker magazine on which Obama and
his wife were pictured in an unflattering manner that depicted them through the eyes of his opponents. I wrote about
this and then proceeded to make up names of magazines and organizations. I took the New Yorker incident to the absurd. A reader from Canada said that it will be unfortunate, but some of
my readers will think my article was true. He was right. I designed a cover of a fictitious magazine, Quack, in which
I showed a dog humping a duck and said the feature article was written by an astute researcher who proved the old saying,
"Fuck a duck." The publishers were NADA (North American Duck Admirers). The first inkling that someone would believe this came from a retired
pro wrestler friend of mine, who, while reading the article, said, "I didn’t know there was a North American Duck Admirers
group." I told him that he took too many bumps on the head during his wrestling career. The next day, a friend to whom I sent the article, wrote back and
said, "As usual, your articles are interesting and informative." I responded, this article was meant to be neither. Today, I was speaking to one of my clients who enjoyed the article
for its satirical content, and then I told him, "The editor of Quack magazine called me today and said they would pull
the cover of the September issue after I noted that it may offend some duck lovers." I was shocked when the person to whom
I was speaking said, "Really. It made such an impact." Unreal. There is one huge aspect of history that surpasses even the gullibility
of people believing my spoof on ducks: the invasion of Iraq was going to be a cakewalk. There have been billions of words written about Iraq. Writers vary
from unapologetic warmongers to hardline resistance supporters. However, few have written in detail about the one aspect of
the U.S. policy that was the big gamble. If it worked, we would not be writing about Iraq today. The big gamble was that Iraqis would welcome the U.S. as liberators.
If they had, Bush would have no political problems today and his acceptance rate of the U.S. public would be very high. The
anti-war opponents would be buried and no one would listen to their messages. There would be no anti-war or pro resistance websites. The main reason for the ignorance is the age-old human frailty called
"suspension of disbelief." Bush and cohorts knew Chalabi was lying through his teeth to garner the multi-million-dollar paydays
he received from Washington. However, they did believe his assessment of the Iraqi people wanting to be liberated. One date that is rarely mentioned is crucial in talking about Iraq:
April 6, 2003. On that day, Chalabi was flown into the south of Iraq by the U.S. military. According to Chalabi, when they
landed he would be met by 100,000 Iraqi freedom fighters. The actual number who showed was zero. That incident hit the U.S.
hard because they knew they had been conned again. Let's go forward three days. On April 9, 2003, we saw George Bush
in front of his television watching the toppling of a statue of Saddam Hussein. When it hit the ground, Bush was elated. He
got up from his chair and went out to make the announcement. According to Bush, the toppling of the statue held the same importance
as the falling of the Berlin Wall. What he did not tell the people is that the statue was torn down by U.S. military personnel
and tanks, not Iraqis. Aerial views of the event show a handful of Iraqis along with a few dozen reporters and the U.S. military
presence. Hardly an act of defiance from the general public. At this time, the administration still held high hopes that Chalabi
was right. For a couple of days, chaos was the order of the day. Then, the merde hit the fan. By the middle of April, the
victorious conquering heroes were being shot at by Iraqis. In May, the acts of resistance grew in number. "Dead enders" was
the phrase of the day. We were assured that within a couple of months, all resistance would be squelched. Just prior to the invasion, we saw retired-general-after-retired-general
give assessments. On one TV talk show, retired General Barry McAffrie, the mastermind behind the murders of 8,000 Iraqi men,
women and children four days after the 1991 cease-fire between the U.S. and Iraq, stated that Iraq would fall within three
to six days of the invasion. Another general disagreed and said it would take at least two weeks. They both laughed at the
joke while Scott Ritter was hiding his head in his hands, all the time shaking his head from side-to-side and saying, "No,
no, no." The generals and the interviewer then laughed at Ritter for his nonsensical attitude that Iraqis would fight back. I am surprised that no one has made a video of this few minutes of
the broadcast and then followed it with a video of a U.S. tank being blown up. It would be gory, but those few minutes would
speak volumes. But, the U.S. public has never been fond of wanting to know the truth. And, it is in bad form to attack their
heroes, such as McAffrie. During this time, the administration highlighted the opinions of Chalabi
and those of his ilk. They only listened to what they wanted to hear and Chalabi, the master liar he is, picked up on this
and actually embellished his message. Fairy tales are for kids. Bush had watched too many movies of Paris
being liberated from the Nazis where the French women were showering the U.S. troops with flowers and kissing the soldiers. Then, the U.S. personnel became targets. They were not even allowed
to travel safely, let alone be welcomed. They were disoriented because they knew the person who watched them in the morning
may be the one to shoot an RPG at them that afternoon. Just think if the big gamble had worked. The average Iraqi would be
eating at McDonald's a couple of times a week. In Damascus and Tehran, the stars and stripes would adorn public buildings.
The U.S. would be thriving economically after robbing all of Iraq's and Iran's oil, which would be selling for about $10 a
barrel. The anti-war crowd in the U.S. would be underground. Of all the pundits who predicted the outcome of an Iraqi invasion,
one was keenly accurate; Tariq Aziz. He said, "We will welcome the Americans to Iraq. Unfortunately, we ran out of candy so
we will have to substitute bullets." Tuesday-Thursday, July 15-17, 2008 STOP THE DENIGRATION Wow, we now have a new big issue in the U.S. presidential campaign.
For the past couple of weeks, the big news has been who is the better Christian, McCain or Obama. Both have renounced former
pastors and are trying to out-Christian each other. At least they have not been suckered into talking about mundane issues
such as the economy, war, or the environment. Now, The New Yorker magazine has supplied everyone with the
biggest issue of the campaign. The cover of its July 21st issue is a satirical look at how Obama opponents have
lied about him and his wife. The Obamas are depicted using all the false stereotypes thrust on them. At first, I thought, "What an excellent political statement." But,
my conclusion seems to be wrong. There is an outrage calling the illustration racist and bigoted. The opposition to the cover
is not coming from the bigots to which it is aimed. It is coming from Obama and his supporters. Enough is enough. I was wrong on this one, so I began to call in some
markers from inside sources and lay bare other publications that are in the process of publishing denigrating trash. A source, who will remain anonymous, sent me the cover of the soon-to-be-published
monthly version of the NRA (National Rodent Association) magazine, The New Mouser. It is despicable. The publishers
thought it was appropriate to show the popularity of Mickey Mouse. In fact, it denigrates the Walt Disney character. First, the women who were duped into wearing Mickey and Minnie Mouse
contraptions on their breasts do irreparable harm to the Mice. Minnie is no lesbian, but she is shown with her nose on top
of one of a female nipple. Now, Mickey Mouse happens to appear on the left breast of the pair, indicating that he is of the
political left. We’ll have none of this: Mickey Mouse is no pinko. Both women are wearing Mousketeer caps. This is an insult because
it is evident that they are both way too old to be members of the Mickey Mouse Club. And, the one on the left is holding what
appears to be a cup filled with an alcoholic drink. Mickey and Minnie never touched the stuff. As in the case with Obama, a well-intentioned act turned into a disaster.
I am still trying to find out if these actions were just honest mistakes or if there were any communist infiltrators involved. If you didn’t think that was the epitome of disrespect, I have
something even more diabolical to report. Another anonymous contact led me to try to infiltrate the offices of NADA (North
American Duck Admirers). He tipped me off about the proposed cover for its September issue of the organization’s publication
Quack. Sure enough, this upcoming magazine makes the Obama and the Mickey Mouse issues look like mere kid’s play. A researcher at NADA took two years to discover the origin and further
use of the statement, "Fuck a duck." Not only did he gain rare information, but he struck paydirt with a picture for the cover,
showing that the term is not only an allegory. U.S. society has gotten out of control. Instead of government officials
as well as the leadership of various social groups sticking to the issues at hand, they are perpetrating slimy actions that
border on criminal. But, there is hope for the future. Some publications are trying to
ensure that the U.S. public only reads good, wholesome articles about their groups. Recently, I spoke to the president of
NBC (National Beer-swillers Club), Randy Joe Billy Bob Jimmie Johnson about the quandary. He maintains that his organization
only permits the positive image of beer aficionados in the group’s publications and correspondence. Johnson concluded,
"We don’t need no satire." MOVEON SHOULD MOVE OUT Shortly after the illegal March 2003 invasion of Iraq, a new group
came to the forefront of the anti-war movement: MoveOn. Its only stated goal was to get the U.S. out of Iraq. It endorsed
no one or no party. Its principles seemed honorable. Shortly after its inception, MoveOn began to endorse and collect money
for John Kerry’s candidacy. MoveOn became a shill for the Democratic Party. At this time, the calls for money for the
group began to intensify. The problematic aspect of the change in direction was that Kerry voted to go to war against Iraq. I sent MoveOn a long message and tried to find out why the group changed.
I received no reply, despite the organization’s false pretense of being an anti-war movement that endorses no candidate. Since the Kerry fundraising effort, MoveOn has blatantly moved away
from its original goal. Today, the group is more pro-Obama than Obama. I have yet to ask MoveOn
to take my name off its mailing list only so I can see how morally bankrupt and deceitful it is. When you think it has reached
its lowest, MoveOn surprises you and descends even further. Today’s message is a denigration of FOX News for using racist
tactics against Obama. There are almost 300 words in the message, yet not one about the Iraq debacle. I know it is fruitless to respond, but I did anyway. First of all,
it takes one a long time just to respond to MoveOn. The obligatory calls for money are evident, as are links to respond to
them if you want to have a party supporting Obama. Only in the fine print of an insignificant page does the group give information
on how to respond. And, there is no e-mail address, only a box in which to insert a comment. Here is mine and the electronically-created
response to it. ________________________________________________________ Dear People, I became a member of MoveOn at the beginning of your organization.
Your platform was honorable: stop the war in Iraq. Then, in 2004, you became a shill for Kerry, a supporter of the war. Since
then, your message has gone downhill considerably. You suggested that your members perform a "McCain Watch" and detail
his statements and platform. I would suggest an "Obama Watch" as well. In the past couple of weeks, he has sounded more like
George Bush than George Bush. The "faith-based iniitiative" had been taboo for candidates to mention. Bush shoved this down
the throats of the U.S. citizenry by presidential decree. Finally, Obama mentioned it. Instead of saying it was one of the
worst programs in the history of the U.S. ($10 billion down the drain and a miserable failure), he wants to increase
the program. Obama, with all his talk of the problems with the Patriot Act, voted for the latest legislation to actually
enhance and expand the act. Then, Obama the anti-war candidate who has stated he will bring U.S. troops home, has waffled
on that issue, the only one left for voters who once supported his entire candidacy. Over the past two years, I have sent several messages to your group
with no reply to me. It is a shame to see that the honorable beginnings of MoveOn have transformed into a money-begging group
that supports a candidate who is indistinguishable from the Republicans. Everything you originally stood for has been transformed
into the opposite, including the quest for money. Sincerely, Malcom Lagauche ______________________________________________ Here is their canned reply: Thanks for contacting MoveOn.org. But all mail is read and carefully considered. CLINTON BLEW IT The title of this column is a perfect example both the beauty and
the curse of the English language: many times, a word construes more than one meaning. Take the title. It could mean that Clinton blew on his saxophone.
Or, change the name Clinton to Monika and put the former president’s name at the end of the statement, and we have "Monika
blew Bill." Again, a correct statement. But, today’s column has nothing to do with sex or music. It
is about blown (there it is, another variant of that word again) chances for settling the Iraq issue during his second term. Today, all I hear from the Democrats (officials and the general public)
is how George Bush is a murderous thug who invaded Iraq under dubious circumstances. The fairy tale is that the honorable
Democrats would have handled the situation much differently. Hogwash! During her tenure as Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright stated
time and time again that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). She was a broken record. However, in 2005, in Sweden,
she told a group that if Al Gore was elected president in 2000, he would not have gone to war because "we knew Saddam did
not have these weapons." One of those statements must be a lie. Now, let’s look at how many Iraqis have been killed by the U.S.
because of military action and the embargo that was in place from 1990 to 2003. Almost three million. Let’s look at how many were killed under three administrations,
two Republican and one Democrat. Hmmm. It appears that many more died from January 1993 to January 2001. But, this was a Democratic
administration. In other words, the Democrats have as much, if not more, blood on their hands than the Republicans in the
1990-2003 period of the U.S.-Iraq War. By the way, the war is still going on. There is no official document
calling for the end of the war, making this conflict a 17-year battle, with no end in sight. Let’s get back to Clinton. History now shows us that Iraq was
telling the truth from 1992 on when it said, "We don’t have any more illegal weapons." Even the term "illegal" is wrong,
but Iraq swallowed its pride and consented to the terms of a 1991 agreement. These same weapons are not deemed illegal in
the countries that possess them (most countries in the world), yet Iraq had to sign away certain aspects of defending itself. Let’s go to 1997. By now, the embargo had killed more than one
million people under the watch of Bill Clinton. But, there were certain quarters that were trying to get the embargo ended. One person who was at the forefront of ending the embargo and welcoming
Iraq back into civilization was Jack Kemp. That’s right, the conservative former congressman who was Bob Dole’s
choice for vice president in 1996. Although he espoused conservative issues, Kemp is basically a good
human being. He is not a racist and neither is he xenophobic. He is fair. An aspect of his vice-presidential run in 1996 is
rarely brought up: that of him knowingly throwing away any chances of ever being president by being on the same ticket as
Dole, a sacrificial lamb to the Republican Party because they knew they would be trounced. Kemp put the good of the party
above his own personal future. In 1997, Kemp was aghast to find out that U.S. personnel at the U.N.
were ordered never to utter one word to an Iraqi on the diplomatic staff. If they saw an Iraqi, they were to ignore him. He
questioned Clinton on this because he thought the only way to settle the Iraq-U.S. dispute was through diplomacy. But, no
one could practice diplomacy if one side was considered non-existent. Kemp put forth an initiative through his organization, Empower America,
to seriously discuss an end to the embargo. He advocated a six-month period of "snap inspections" in which U.N. inspectors
would hold unannounced sessions anywhere in the country. By 1998, the Kemp plan was growing. Former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and
former U.S. President Jimmy Carter joined Kemp in making a plan to end this period of history. At the time, the late Nizar Hamdoon was the Iraq’s Ambassador
to the U.N. He had the assurances from his government that the Kemp plan was acceptable and desired. But, the administration
turned a blind eye to any talks with Iraq. To this day, I still don’t know the reason why Clinton did not
take the opportunity offered in 1998. He and his cohorts never made public Kemp’s offer. Instead, they upped the ante.
Bill Richardson, then the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. rejected any deal with Baghdad. But, the U.S. signed a piece of paper
in 1991 stating the sanctions would be lifted once the weapons were destroyed. Richardson said that the embargo would remain
as long as Saddam was in power. The 1991 agreement, like most U.S. treaties, was not worth the paper it was singed on. Just
ask the U.S. Native American community; what’s left of it. During what could have been a dynamic time for a bold move to ensure
peace and the cessation of genocide against Iraqis, the Clinton administration was mute. Then, in October and November of
1998, Clinton began to make allegations against Iraq and the public thought war was just around the corner. In December, the
U.N. pulled its inspection team from Iraq and the U.S. launched Operation Desert Fox, a military campaign that further eroded
Iraq’s infrastructure. Hundreds of buildings were bombed and after the air show stopped, Clinton said the U.S. destroyed
much of Baghdad’s chemical weapons stockpile. What stockpile? As we now know, in 1991 the Iraqis destroyed it themselves,
so all the destruction of the 1998 bombing and missile attacks destroyed anything but chemical weapons. Backdoor negotiations made Iraq think the light at the end of the
tunnel was now visible. But, it received a whack instead. It is no wonder the Iraqis would not trust any words uttered by
the U.S. The tragedy of this is that the U.S. public still believes the horse
dung we have been fed by successive administrations. It’s too bad Monika wasn’t blowing Bill while he was blowing
a chance at becoming a person of integrity and vision. It just may have kept his mind off bombing Iraq. ZIMBABWE TO U.S. AND BRITAIN: GO HANG The U.S. and Britain just can’t allow a country in its crosshairs
to function on its own. Both imperialist nations are calling for more sanctions on Zimbabwe. To many Westerners, sanctions
are a slap on the wrist, but the truth is different. As we saw with Iraq, sanctions are no less than murder without firing
bullets. On July 1, 2008, according to an Al Jazeera news article titled, "African
Leaders Urge Zimbabwe Unity:" But the US has prepared UN sanctions in response to Mugabe's re-election. James McGee, the US ambassador to Zimbabwe, told Al Jazeera that African
nations had to focus on Zimbabwe in the aftermath of the disputed election. "No matter what type of statement comes out of the African Union we
still believe that the diplomatic process must be a robust one. We have to work with the diplomatic community across Africa
to ensure that the diplomatic light stays on Zimbabwe. "[Mugabe’s government] cannot hide in the dark and continue
its nefarious practices. We want the world to see what is happening in Zimbabwe." What a bunch of self-serving horse manure. McGee has undertaken deeds
that are not a part of the job resume for an ambassador. He has been a thorn in the side of the Zimbabwean government and
has actively worked with the opposition to assist in the overthrow of the government. If anything, McGee should thank Mugabe
for not throwing him out of the country. In most countries of the world, if an ambassador was involved with shenanigans like
McGee has performed, he/she would have been escorted to an international airport with a one-way ticket back to Washington. The U.S. is no country to lecture others on the legitimacy of elections.
Just look at all the discrepancies of the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. national elections and they far surpass anything that can
be construed as shady by the Zimbabwean government. The main point here is that the U.S. is once again trying to have
its own stooges put in power by elections in foreign countries. The list of U.S. active involvement in elections of nations
is long: Bosnia, Serbia, Ukraine, Belarus, Iraq, Nicaragua and Venezuela are some of the more blatant incursions. In the case
of Bosnia and Serbia, the U.S. unilaterally negated elections. The reason? According to Madeleine Albright, "The wrong side
won." After a few decades of backing off the affairs of foreign nations,
Britain is again attempting to regain an empire on which the sun never sets. And, the Labour Party, not the Conservatives,
is in the forefront of the copycat imperialism. The U.S. copied Britain and now Britain is copying the U.S. Zimbabwe is not about to take the outside infringement laying down.
The country called elections according to its constitution and the opposition declined to field a candidate. The leader of
the opposition to Mugabe, Morgan Tsvangirai, fled the country and returned. Shortly after, he took refuge at the embassy of
The Netherlands. Despite his odd activities, he accuses the Zimbabwean government of not having fair elections because there
was only one candidate. He does not mention that the only reason for there being only one candidate is that he disappeared
and stated he would not run. On July 1, 2008, Zimbabwean spokesman George Charamba addressed the
issue of outside interference in Zimbabwe politics. According to CNN News: George Charamba, a spokesman for Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe,
told reporters at the African Union summit in Egypt: "The way out is a way defined by the Zimbabwean people, free from outside
interference, and that is exactly what will resolve the matter. "For as long as there are some external interests that are
seeking to express themselves within our own politics, then naturally we have that kind of resistance because for us it recalls
a certain experience, ugly experience we have gone through before, that of colonialism." When asked specifically about Britain's influence in the election
-- and criticism of the Mugabe government -- Charamba bristled. "They can go and hang," he said. "They can go and hang a thousand
times, they have no basis, they have no claim on Zimbabwean politics
at all and that is exactly the issue." With the U.S. blatantly leading a movement to re-colonize Africa,
I’m sure we have not heard the end of this segment of Zimbabwe’s history. If Barak Obama is elected president
of the U.S., the program will advance to overdrive mode. Sudan and Zimbabwe already have large bullseyes affixed to them on
a map of Africa. Sunday-Tuesday, June 29-July 1, 2008 ARABAPHOBIA IN FULL SWING A few years ago, a person was almost beaten to death in San Diego
in a parking lot. The perpetrators hollered racist remarks while they were pounding the merde out of him: "Go back to Iraq
you bastard! We’ll come back and kill you if we don’t finish the job now." They almost killed the man. However, he was of Portuguese descent,
not Arabic. The anti-Arab mood is so intense that U.S. bigots don’t care
what nationality one is, only that he/she looks like an Arab. That’s good enough. The irony is that most Americans have never met an Arab. They mindlessly
make hateful statements without knowing the first thing about their "enemies." And this attitude comes from a population made
of immigrants. For the past 18 years, I have made a point of talking to people of
Arab backgrounds. As you see from my writing, I bring up aspects that many journalists evade. By knowing what Arabs think
about various subjects, one can learn much. It is shameful that no one in the U.S. administrations of Bush I, Clinton and
Bush II have shown even the most remote knowledge of Arab culture and thought. From January 17 to February 28, 1991, I spent two hours nightly in
an Iraqi-American-owned store in El Cajon, California. This was the time of Desert Storm. I took notes and I listened. What
I learned was far from what the media were telling us about Iraq and Iraqis. To gain meaningful information, one must gain the trust of the Arab
people with whom he/she fraternizes. In the case of the aforementioned store, the owner would give a signal to a person to
whom I was speaking and the person then would open up. Shortly after Desert Storm, the owner of the market sold his store,
yet he gave me the names of a few people who would assist me with my quest for knowledge of Arabs and the Arab world. By 1995, I had numerous Arab friends: Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians
and Syrians. Toward the end of the year, I noticed a sign at the corner gas station saying, "Under New Management." I went
in and heard the new proprietor speaking English with an Arabic accent. "Where are you from?" I asked. "Jordan," was the reply.
I now had another outlet for meeting people from the Middle East. Shortly after meeting him, his mechanic approached me and said, "I’m
Sabah. I hear you’re a writer." He then said he was working on his PhD and needed an editor for the project. I offered
to help him. Soon after, Sabah was hired by the largest Ford dealer in the area
as a mechanic. He came by my house to drop off some of his work and I noticed his name tag said, "Sam." When I asked him if
this was his nickname, he said he was told by the company that he must call himself Sam. I was irate and told him it was illegal
for the company to do that. The next time I saw him, his name tag said "Sabah." He did pay a price for sticking up to using his own name, however.
The company watched him relentlessly and harassed him many times. His work was impeccable, so the firm could not fire him. In time, he acquired his PhD and became a professor of business management
at Brescia University in Kentucky. Then 9/11 occurred. His own personal secretary began to ignore him. One day, he burst into
her office and told her, "I didn’t have anything to do with it, you know." When he entered a small store with his daughter (who had blonde hair)
and asked to use the rest room, on coming out he found that the owner had called the police and reported that "an Arab" had
kidnapped the girl. Since then, he has had many stories to tell. Another meeting place is a market/restaurant owned by my friend Mahmoud,
a Palestinian. He is very politically aware and I have gained much knowledge from him, as well as he has from me. For years,
he had a small market, but six years ago, he opened his current venture, a much larger enterprise with a restaurant attached.
In that time, the F.B.I. has visited him several times. They have
taken his books away twice to peruse. One time, an agent asked him, "Have you ever thought of blowing up a building?" How
many non-Arab U.S. citizens are badgered like this almost every day? Mahmoud tells me that customers, on a regular basis, harass him about
being an Arab. They come into his store and tell how great it is that "we’re kicking the Arabs’ asses in Iraq."
He asks why they do this when they know of his background. I tell him that it’s xenophobia and ethnocentrism run awry. One day, a new cashier, who was very nervous because it was her first
day on the job, was being chastised by a customer whose car heralded a pro-Israel bumper sticker. He said to the cashier,
"You’re a refugee, right? You people are all refugees." The girl, about age 19 or 20, responded, "I don’t know
what you’re talking about. I was born in La Mesa." The customer then nastily repeated his refugee statement and laughed.
Normally, I am quiet, but some times one must step up to the plate
and be heard. I said, "You are an asshole and should be ashamed of yourself. An adult trying to humiliate a young person like
that." Because I was considerably larger than he and in much better shape, he did not respond and quickly left the store.
The girl thanked me. Had I not intervened, he would have probably continued his line of talk for a few more minutes. It made
him feel superior by demeaning a young girl. I will end with an anecdote about Mahmoud. Even though we are in troubled
times, we can make some humor of events. Mahmoud’s entire family was given a few hours to leave their
house in 1948 after the state of Israel came into being. They lost all their land that had been in the family for generations.
Today, his family lives in Jordan after spending years in Kuwait. They are stateless. Because of this background, Mahmoud
is not exactly a fan of the state of Israel. A few years ago, a professional wrestler, Bryan Walsh, lived with
me for a few months. He had never met Mahmoud. One day, I said, "Let’s go down to the market at the corner." I then
concocted a scheme to confuse Mahmoud. I entered the store and said "Hi" to Mahmoud and then went into a
corner and pretended that I was looking at the large selection of Arabic breads offered. A minute later, Walsh entered the
store. Mahmoud said, "Hi. May I help you?" Walsh asked, "Do you serve Jews?" Mahmoud immediately replied, "Of course." "I’ll take two," said Walsh. I was in the corner and had my mouth covered so I wouldn't laugh.
Mahmoud was stunned. He looked toward me and then saw Walsh laughing. After he put two and two together, he smiled and flipped
me off. A BIG LOSS Yesterday I opened my e-mail messages and the subject line for the
first one read: "Memorial for George Carlin." I thought, "Oh no. Not George Carlin." When I opened the message it stated that
Carlin died on Sunday evening of a heart attack. The Humanist Association of San Diego announced a memorial celebration of
Carlin’s life to be held next week. Many non-U.S. citizens may not know of George Carlin. He was a comedian
who broke all the rules of hypocritical social mores in the U.S. Nothing was sacred to Carlin when it came to exposing duplicity,
falseness, and outright stupidity. In the 1960s and 1970s, Carlin was in the forefront of the war of freedom of speech. Carlin may be remembered by many as the comedian with a foul mouth.
This is true, but his obscenity-laced routines transcended language and were laden with philosophical observations that few
humans could duplicate. Among other things, Carlin was an outspoken critic of racism, ethnocentrism
and xenophobia. He was a loud voice against the U.S. government in its dealing death and destruction to the world. I can think of no better tribute to George Carlin than posting a portion
of his book Napalm and Silly Putty, published in 2001, in which he delved into U.S. foreign policy, particularly the
1991 Gulf War. Even though he used many terms of sexuality and human body parts, his assessment is as accurate as that of
any intellectual expert. ROCKETS AND PENISES IN THE PERSIAN GULF History Lesson I’d like to talk a little about the "war" we had in the Persian
Gulf. Remember that? The big war in the Persian Gulf? Lemme tell you what was goin’ on. Naturally, you can forget all that entertaining fiction about having
to defend the model democracy those lucky Kuwaitis get to live under. And for the moment you can also put aside the very real,
periodic need Americans have for testing their new weapons on human flesh. And also, just for the fun of it, let’s ignore
George Bush’s obligation to protect the oil interests of his family and friends. There was another much more important
consideration at work. Here’s what really happened., Dropping a Load for Uncle Sam The simple fact is that America was long overdue to drop high explosives
on helpless civilians; people who have no argument with us whatsoever. After all, it had been awhile, and the hunger gnaws.
Remember that’s our specialty: picking on countries that have marginally effective air forces. Yugoslavia is another,
more recent, example. Surfing Unnecessary But all that aside, let me tell you what I liked about that Gulf War:
it was the first war that appeared on every television channel, including cable. And even though the TV show consisted largely
of Pentagon war criminals displaying maps and charts, it got very good ratings. And that makes sense because we like war.
We’re a warlike people. We can’t stand not to be fucking with someone. We couldn’t wait for the Cold War
to end so we could climb into the big Arab sandbox and play with our nice new toys. We enjoy war. And one reason we enjoy it is that we’re good at it. You know
why we’re good at it? Because we get a lot of practice. This country is only 200 years old, and already we’ve
had 10 major wars. We average a major war every 20 years. So we’re good at it. And it’s just as well we are, because we’re not very good
at anything else. Can’t build a decent car anymore. Can’t make a TV set, a cell phone, or a VCR. Got no steel
industry left. No textiles. Can’t educate our young people. Can’t get health care to our old people. But we can
bomb the shit outta your country, all right. We can bomb the shit out of your country! If You’re Brown, You’re Goin’ Down Especially if your country is full of brown people. Oh, we like that,
don’t we? That’s our hobby now. But it’s also our new job in the world: bombing brown people. Iraq, Panama,
Grenada, Libya. You got some brown people in your country? Tell ‘em to watch the fuck out, or we’ll goddamn bomb
them. Well, who were the last white people you can remember that we bombed?
In fact, can you remember any white people we ever bombed? The Germans! That’s it! Those are the only ones. And
that was only because they were tryin’ to cut in on our action. They wanted to dominate the world. Bullshit! That’s
our job. That’s our fuckin’ job. But the Germans are ancient history. These days, we only bomb brown
people. And not because they’re cutting in on our action: we do it because they’re brown. Even those Serbs we
bombed in Yugoslavia aren’t really white, are they? Naaah! They’re sort of down near the swarthy end of the white
spectrum. Just brown enough to bomb. I’m still waiting for the day we bomb the English. People who really deserve it. A Disobedient American Now, you folks might’ve noticed I don’t feel about the
Gulf War the way we were instructed to feel about it by the United States government. My mind doesn’t work that way.
You see, I’ve got this real moron thing I do, it’s called "thinking." And I guess I’m not a very good American,
because I like to form my own opinions: I don’t just roll over when I’m told. Most Americans roll over on command.
Not me. There are certain rules I observe. Believe You Me My first rule: Never believe anything anyone in authority says. None
of them. Government, police, clergy, the corporate criminals. None of them. And neither do I believe anything I’m told
by the media, who, in the case of the Gulf War, functioned as little more then unpaid employees of the Defense Department,
and who, most of the time, operate as an unofficial public relations agency for government and industry. I don’t believe in any of them. And I have to tell you, folks,
I don’t really believe much in my country either. I don’t get all choked up about yellow ribbons and American
flags. I see them as symbols, and I leave them to the symbol-minded. Show Us Your Dick I also look at the war itself a little differently from most. I see
it largely as an exercise in dick-waving. That’s really all it is: a lot of men standing around in a field waving their
dicks at one another. Men, insecure about the size of their penises, choose to kill one another. That’s also what all the moron athlete bullshit is about, and
what that macho, male posturing and strutting around in bars and locker rooms represents. It’s called "dick fear." Men
are terrified that their dicks are inadequate, and so they have to "compete" in order to feel better about themselves. And
since war is the ultimate competition, essentially men are killing one another in order to improve their genital self-esteem. You don’t need to be a historian or a political scientist to
see the Bigger Dick Foreign Policy Theory at work. It goes like this: "What? They have bigger dicks? Bomb them!" And of course,
the bombs, the rockets, and the bullets are all shaped like penises. Phallic weapons. There’s an unconscious need to
project that national penis into the affairs of others. It’s called "fucking with people." Show Us Your Bush So, as far as I’m concerned, that whole thing in the Persian
Gulf was nothing more than one big dick-waving cockfight. In this particular one, Saddam Hussein questioned the size of George
Bush’s dick. And George Bush had been called a wimp for so long, he apparently felt the need to act out his manhood
fantasies by sending America’s white children to kill other people’s brown children. Clearly the worst kind of
wimp. Even his name, "Bush," as slang, is related to the genitals
without actually being the genitals. A bush is sort of a passive, secondary sex characteristic. It’s even used as a
slang term for women. "Hey, pal, how’s the bush in this area?" I can’t help thinking, if this president’s
name had been George Boner … well he might have felt a little better about himself and he wouldn’t have had to
kill all those children. Too bad he couldn’t locate his manhood. Premature Extraction Actually, when you think about it, this country has had a manhood
problem for some time. You can tell by the language we use; language always gives us away. What did we do wrong in Vietnam?
We "pulled out." Not a very manly thing to do. No. When you’re fucking people, you’re supposed to stay with it
and fuck them good; fuck them to death; hang in there and keep fucking them until they’re all fucking dead. But in Vietnam, what happened was by accident we left a few women
and children alive, and we haven’t felt good about ourselves since. That’s why in the Persian Gulf, George Bush
had to say, "This will not be another Vietnam." He actually said, "this time we’re going all the way." Imagine.
An American president using the sexual slang of a 13-year-old to describe his foreign policy. And, of course, when it got right down to it, he didn’t "go
all the way." Faced with going into Baghdad, he punked out. No balls. Just Bush. Instead, he applied sanctions, so he’d
be sure that an extra half a million brown children would die. And so his oil buddies could continue to fill their pockets. If you want to know what happened in the Persian Gulf, just remember
the first names of the two men who ran that war: Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. Dick and colon. Someone got fucked up the ass.
And those brown people better make sure they keep their pants on because Dick and Colin have come back for an encore. A FORGOTTEN "DAY OF INFAMY" Many countries have one or two days a year that indicate a national
tragedy. In the U.S., December 7, 1941, the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, is labeled a "day of infamy." Almost 60
years later, September 11, 2001 surpassed December 7 as a rallying cry for U.S. solidarity. Iraq, a country much smaller than the U.S., and never as large a player
on the international scene, can claim several days of infamy: January 17, 1991 (the beginning of Desert Storm); February 14,
1991 (the destruction of the Amiryah Bomb Shelter); March 20, 2003 (the start of the U.S. illegal invasion and occupation
of Iraq); and April 9, 2003, (U.S. forces enter Baghdad) among others. But, one date that gains little international attention
is imbedded in the hearts and minds of most Iraqis: June 26, 1993. On that date, the U.S. military, under the command of Bill Clinton,
ordered 23 Tomahawk guided missiles to demolish the headquarters of the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence services, in central
Baghdad. Twenty of the missiles hit the agency complex, while "only" three missed their targets. A jubilant Clinton took to the airwaves and proclaimed victory. He
was happy that only three missed their mark. One could think he was addressing the public about the score of a sporting event. Of the three that missed, one destroyed the home of Layla al-Attar,
killing her and her husband, and blinding her daughter. Layla al-Attar was the director of the Iraqi National Art Museum and
a leading Arab artist who was revered in Iraq much the same as Norman Rockwell was in the U.S. In addition, she was a spokesperson
for international peace, for the inner peace of women, and for resistance against U.S. hegemony. Layla al-Attar symbolized
Iraq. When news of al-Attar’s death broke, Iraq mourned. A special
person who transcended political ideology and represented all of humankind had been assassinated. During the Gulf War, her home was almost totally destroyed by U.S.
missiles. Two years later, shortly after the completion of the house’s reconstruction, an "errant" missile finished
the job that its cousin had only partially performed in earlier years. Although never proven, it is quite easy to give credence to the theory
that Layla al-Attar was the target of a missile, not merely a casualty of "collateral damage" from a misguided projectile.
Every Iraqi believes she was marked, but shortly after her execution, the rest of the world forgot. Outside the Arab world, Layla al-Attar was on the verge of becoming
a top international artist. European art galleries were beginning to highlight her work. In the U.S., however, she was little
known. Little international outrage was heard when she was killed. The reason behind the attack was as bogus as any given during the
Bush I years. Clinton stated that information was in-hand that showed Iraqi operatives were behind an aborted assassination
attempt on former President George Bush in April 1993 at a ceremony praising him in Kuwait. Clinton added that Saddam Hussein
ordered the attempt on Bush’s life. At the last minute, those who were to carry out the attack were apprehended and
Clinton had to teach the Iraqis a lesson. The big lie still persisted. Those arrested were merely drug and alcohol
smugglers. In the aftermath of the June 26 missile attack, one-by-one the mythical would-be assassins were released from Kuwaiti
jails, but, the U.S. media did not consider this information newsworthy. It was not as exciting as assassination plots and
missile attacks. On November 1, 1993, the New Yorker published an article by
Seymour Hersh titled "A Case Not Closed." In it, Hersh went into detail about the entire event and basically showed there
was no validity to Clinton’s claim. Why did Clinton order this attack? At the time, Republicans and pro-war
Democrats criticized him for being "weak" on Iraq and other invisible threats against the U.S. Clinton had to earn respect.
What better target than Iraq, a defenseless country that was isolated because of U.S. propaganda? According to Hersh: Three of the million-dollar missiles missed their targets and landed
on nearby homes, killing eight civilians, including Layla al-Attar, one of Iraq’s most gifted artists. The death toll
was considered acceptable by the White House. Clinton administration officials acknowledged that they had been "lucky," as
one national security aide put it, in that only three of the computer-guided missiles went off course. Thus, on a Saturday in June, the president and his advisors could
not resist proving their toughness in the international arena. If they had truly had full confidence in what they were telling
the press and the public about Saddam Hussein’s involvement in a plot to kill George bush, they would have almost certainly
ordered a far fiercer response than they did. As it was, confronted with evidence too weak to be conclusive but, in their
view, perhaps not weak enough to be dismissed, they chose to fire missiles at night at an intelligence center in the middle
of a large populous city. Over the years, many people have uttered, "Saddam tried to kill Bush’s
father," in defense of Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq. In March 2008, the story took another turn as an unlikely organization
admitted the plot was a hoax: the Pentagon. The March 23, 2008 issue of Newsweek ran an article called
"Saddam’s Files," written by Michael Isikoff. It stated: President Bush said lots of things about Saddam
Hussein in the run-up to the Iraq War. But few of his charges grabbed more attention than an unscripted remark he made at
a Texas political fund-raiser on Sept. 26, 2002. "After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad at one time," Bush said.
The comment referred to a 1993 claim by the Kuwaiti government—accepted by the Clinton administration—that the
Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) had plotted to assassinate President George H. W. Bush during a trip
to Kuwait that spring … But curiously little has been heard about the allegedly foiled
assassination plot in the five years since the U.S. military invaded Iraq. A just-released Pentagon study on the Iraqi regime's
ties to terrorism only adds to the mystery. The review, conducted for the Pentagon's Joint
Forces Command, combed through 600,000 pages of Iraqi intelligence documents seized after the fall of Baghdad, as well as
thousands of hours of audio- and videotapes of Saddam's conversations with his ministers and top aides … … But the Pentagon researchers found no documents that referred
to a plan to kill Bush. The absence was conspicuous because researchers, aware of its potential significance, were looking
for such evidence. "It was surprising," said one source familiar with the preparation of the report (who under Pentagon ground
rules was not permitted to speak on the record). Given how much the Iraqis did document, "you would have thought there would
have been some veiled reference to something about [the plot]." Despite the Pentagon coming clean after 15 years of the public believing
a myth about the nonexistent assassination attempt, not too much has changed in the perception and reporting of those times.
In April 2008, weeks after the Pentagon announced the Kuwaiti hoax, the National Defense University, a quasi-government organization,
published a report called Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and Its Aftermath," written by Colonel Joseph J.
Collins, a retired U.S. Army officer. Collins seemed to be writing about a fantasy scenario of Iraq. His
assessments were not accurate and at times, differed greatly from the facts. One of them stated: "Since the Republicans had
last been in power, Saddam had tried to assassinate the elder Bush." No one challenged Collins’ statement, despite the
Pentagon’s earlier declaration. It appears that no matter how many people debunk this lie, it has a life of its own
and will go down in history as fact. Hersh was quite right in his assessment of picking on the weak. U.S.
citizens take pride in the fact that their society scorns bullies who pick on defenseless adversaries. However, they contradict
their own philosophy by cheering on the murdering of foreign civilians who are the weakest prey of all. I know that a few days from now, most Iraqis will be mourning
the assassination of Layla al-Attar that occurred 15 years ago. And, on that day, those resistance fighters who are at work
will remember her as well. Her legacy is why they are fighting today. I wonder if Bill Clinton, as he leaves his church of
choice this Sunday, Bible in hand and being photographed by the press, will remember Layla al-Attar. ANOTHER LIE DEBUNKED We’ve heard them all: Saddam killed the entire Iraqi national
soccer team; Saddam’s favorite recreational pursuit was to watch people boil in acid; and, let’s not forget the
human shredding machine in which people were turned into ground meat and then Saddam fed them to his pets. All these preposterous allegations, and many more, were fed to the
people of the West and many were believed. But, a recent claim, even though less dramatic and violent, is more disastrous.
Recently, an FBI agent, who interviewed Saddam while the Iraqi president was incarcerated, made statements that people in
the U.S. government (Democrat and Republican alike) are now using to legitimize the March 2003 invasion of Iraq: Saddam conned
them into believing Iraq had retained massive amounts of weapons of mass destruction after the U.N. ordered the country to
destroy them. This new development made a lot of U.S. politicians feel at ease.
Now, they can stop making more lies and say the dirty bastard Saddam hoodwinked them again. The truth, as in most instances concerning Iraq, was far different.
The Iraqi government was telling the world that it had destroyed its WMD and had fulfilled its obligation to have the sanctions
lifted. This is not mere hearsay. It is sad to see that those who told the truth have been murdered and those who lied are
making the rounds selling their memoirs. On July 3, 1995, the Baghdad Observer ran an article titled,
"China to Back Drive to End UN Sanctions, Says Ramadhan." The article, placed under a photo of Saddam Hussein clearly states
that Iraq had destroyed the weapons in question. Unfortunately, China’s efforts came to naught because of the U.S. policy
of never lifting the embargo with Saddam Hussein in power. Here is the article. It’s very sad that no one in the West
took a little time to research and find such a piece that contradicts the words of U.S. government officials as well as the
FBI agent who gained a formidable payday for stating such fabrications. In case anyone claims ambiguity in Iraq’s wording of its destruction
of WMD, please pay attention to the statement: " … now that Iraq has met all the obligations set by the Security Council
resolutions." China to Back Drive to End UN Sanctions, Says Ramadhan July 3, 1995 Iraq’s Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadhan has said China would
play a role in the UN Security Council implementation of Paragraph 22 of Resolution 687. Mr. Ramadhan was quoted by INA as saying upon arrival here following
a tour that took him to China and Vietnam, the Chinese leadership had shown full understanding of Iraq’s positive attitude
vis-à-vis the UN Security Council and Special Committee in charge of eliminatiing Iraq’s mass destruction weapons. He said the Iraqi delegation’s visit to China was intended to
explain the latest developments of the UN-imposed sanctions clamped on Iraq. The team also discussed the role China can play
as a permanent UN Security Council member in the implementation of Paragraph 22 now that Iraq has met all the obligations
set by the Security Council resolutions. Both sides also discussed the future prospects of bilateral Iraqi-Chinese relations. The Vice-President said China was undertaken to support Iraq at the
Security Council out of the conviction that the plight of Iraqis must be ended and Iraq has done its duty in compliance with
Security Council resolutions. He said his visit to China was successful with the Chinese voicing confidence in Iraq’s
economic potentials and its key role in the region. Referring to his visit to Vietnam, Mr. Ramadhan said he had briefed
the Vietnamese leadership on the Iraq-UN relations and the need for the implementation of Paragraph 22 now that Iraq had done
its duty. He said he had lengthy talks with the Vietnamese leaders on means
of enhancing cooperation and bilateral talks in the post-sanctions period. The Vietnamese government and people have appreciated Iraq’s
support for Vietnam during and after the war of liberation promising to do everything they can in return. WORDS OF CONFUSION Language dates back thousands of years. Once humankind began to talk
and write, language progressed and communication became more precise. However, current statements and writing have halted
the advancement of precision and are beginning to drag the English language back to a communication form that is not readily
understandable. In the past two days, just by reading newspapers or online news, I
have seen some of the most ridiculous items in print. Some are outright hilarious because of the mis-use of the English language,
while others are blatant lies that no one challenges. Let’s begin with the toy section in the department store of
life, sports. Yesterday’s headline in the San Diego Union-Tribune heralded, "Giants Score 3 in 10th
on Hoffman." That wasn’t a creative headline, but it can pass. Let’s look at the sub-headline: "Wining Run Plates
on Grounder to Short." For those who know little of baseball, home plate is the area of the field on which a runner crosses
to score a run. I have never seen the word "plate" as a noun used to indicate a verb. This would be like writing a basketball
headline similar to "Los Angeles Baskets at Buzzer for Win." Or, "England Goals on Penalty Shot Against Germany" in football
(soccer to U.S. inhabitants). If that wasn’t bad enough, the headline on page 3 stated: "Canary
Island Teen a French Revelation." When I read that, I thought, "How the hell can someone from the Canary Islands be French?"
After I began to read the confusing article, I saw that the writer was describing the French Open, a tennis tournament. The
word "Open" should have been inserted between French and Revelation. This was no mere typographical error. In the past year
or so, sports headlines in the U.S. have changed nouns into verbs and adjectives into nouns. It is in vogue to display misleading
and incomprehensive headlines. Let’s get to some more serious stuff. The AP ran a short piece
describing the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq. It stated, "The figure includes eight military civilians killed in
action." I have seen the designation "military civilians" many times in describing U.S. deaths in Iraq. But, how can this
be? I checked several dictionaries to find the answer. It is impossible. In fact, in each dictionary, the meaning of the word
"civilian" was "a non-military person" and the antonym was "serviceman." Barack Obama is receiving heat for his statement about Jerusalem a
few days ago when he declared that the city will not be divided and is the capital of Israel. Well, he clarified the issue
by saying: "And I think that it is smart for us to - to work through a system
in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem, but that Israel has a legitimate claim
on that city." That’s exactly what he said a few days prior, yet no one seemed
to ask the question, "What’s different from your previous statement?" His double-speak seems to have worked. Many Arab
voices protested his original statement, yet they seemed to buy his upgraded version. John McCain, all the time berating Obama for making the statement
about Jerusalem, gave his own version of the status of the city: "Jerusalem is undivided, Jerusalem is the capital and we should move
the embassy to Jerusalem before anything happens." McCain out-Obamad Obama. Laura Bush, wife and Alcoholics Anonymous advisor to George Bush,
visited Afghanistan yesterday to bolster the American University in Afghanistan. After meeting the stooge Afghan president,
she announced that Washington will spend $80 million over five years to support the American University in Afghanistan and
the National Literacy Center. What’s wrong with this? Isn’t the American University
a benevolent institution that just wants to help the poor people of Afghanistan to learn to read and write? Of course not. The American University in Afghanistan is funded by the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID). Any USAID facility is a hotbed of U.S. spies. If you have a strong stomach,
go to the organization’s webpage and read many fairy tales. For instance, when Tony Blair announced in November 2003
that 400,000 bodies had been found in mass graves in Iraq, USAID stated: If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity
surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot’s Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust
of World War II. On July 18, 2004, Tony Blair changed his tune. He admitted that he
"mis-spoke" about the number of bodies found and that the real number was about 5,000. (Further investigation showed that
almost all were victims of the Kurdish civil war in the 1990s or were killed by U.S. bombs in 1991.) Despite almost four years
passing of the public acknowledgement of the error in the number of bodies, USAID still carries the inflated figure on its
website. Here’s another gem from USAID: Iraq’s 1970 constitution made Iraqi women nominally equal with
men, guaranteeing them the right to vote, hold political office, and work outside of the home. However, this legislation was
frequently not enforced and by 1990, laws protecting women were repealed. Despite active discrimination, Iraqi women still
struggled to participate in the workforce, earn and education, and remain political sphere (The words from "earn" to "sphere"
are as they appear in the USAID propaganda. Maybe someone can translate them into understandable English). This provides a
ready context for renewed support for women’s rights and their increased participation in society. Talk about re-writing history and replacing it with lies of the worst
sort. Imagine a woman in Iraq today reading this misinformation. Imagine an Iraqi woman who once was part of the workforce
and now can not leave her home. Imagine an Iraqi woman who could walk the streets of Baghdad without a veil and without threat
to her well-being. They would disagree with USAID’s assessment. The problem here is that no one in the media takes USAID to task.
Even worse, the general public believes the lies and then credits a spy agency for making the plight of Iraqi women better.
The acquiescence to the lies is nothing better than allowing verbal terrorism. I’ve left the best for last. Hilary Clinton gave an impassioned
speech declaring the end to her quest for the U.S. presidency. She mentioned the positive elements that came from her campaign,
especially the fact that women’s voices were heard as never before in U.S. politics. In commending those who voted for
her, Clinton said: "Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling
this time, thanks to you, it's got about 18 million cracks in it." Her choice of words was not astute and could be construed in various
ways. One of the uses of the word "crack" as a noun is low slang for a female, making reference to the shape of a vagina.
This term is occasionally heard in barrooms and on street corners and is considered sexist and crude. I can just see someone
thinking that Clinton referred to 18 million women. But, I will leave it to someone else to punch holes in (pun intended). UNBREAKABLE TODAY, UNBREAKABLE TOMORROW, UNBREAKABLE
FOREVER During the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign, many people of the left
supported Bill Clinton. The catch-phrase of the day was: "We know he’s not ideal, but when he gets in office, he will
change things. He has to be moderate to get elected." Then came the disappointment. Throughout the Arab world, Clinton’s election was heralded.
Those who opposed the Iraqi embargo said that Clinton would represent a fresh look at the sanctions. It soon became evident
that it was business as usual. Under the Clinton administration, more Iraqis died than in the two military actions by a couple
of Bushes. Here we go again. Barack Obama is the posterperson of the left and
of those who want to see the Arab world get a fair shake in dealing with Israel. The same statements abound: "He’ll
change when he’s in office;" "We know he’s not ideal, but he represents a new look in politics." Many Arab-Americans
are putting Obama on a pedestal. Unfortunately, that pedestal has already begun to crumble. On June 4, 2008, it was announced that Obama had officially won the
Democratic nomination for the office of president of the United States. His first public statements came in a speech to the
American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC), the very powerful unquestioning pro-Israel lobby. Within minutes of the official
proclamation of his victory, Obama was telling the world of his strong support of Israel. According to the article "Obama
Pledges Support for Israel," from Al-Jazeera News of June 4, 2008: Barack Obama, the US Democratic presumptive presidential nominee,
has pledged to safeguard Israel's security if elected president in November. Obama also described the US bond with the Jewish state as "unbreakable
today, unbreakable tomorrow, unbreakable for ever" and said he spoke as a "true friend" of Israel. "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided,"
the Illinois senator said. There should be no doubt where Obama stands in reference to the Arab
world and Israel. The irony of his statement is that he stole it from a segregationist governor. George Wallace in the early
1960s took the stand to keep the state of Alabama segregated. His famous statement in defense of apartheid was, "Segregation
today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." It boggles the mind to see an African American presidential candidate use
such a statement. But, it is also accurate because of the segregated society Israel represents. Let’s look at some of Obama’s words over the past few
years and it is evident that he represents the same imperialistic attitudes of the status quo: Evidently, Obama does not take into consideration two holocausts that
were much more widespread: those of 100 million Africans during the years of U.S. slavery and the decimation of 30 million
Native Americans on behalf of the Catholic Church and European settlers in North America. He has taken off the table the two
most important aspects for Palestinians: the right of return and the status of Jerusalem. His views on matters of foreign
policy are identical to those of the neocons. There’s an old saying: "Don’t wish for something too much
because you just might get it." In the case with Obama, many of his supporters will be very disappointed after takes office
on January 20, 2009 (if elected). TAKE ME OUT TO THE BALLGAME Memorial Day weekend is the traditional start of many Little League
Baseball organizations in the U.S. When I played baseball as a youngster in my home town of about 5,000 people, all teams
assembled at the town library and then marched to the ball field, about a half mile away, with a marching band leading the
way. The parade was viewed by townspeople lining the road. Opening day was at hand. This tradition again occurred this past weekend in the U.S. What about
Iraqi kids and the playing of their sports? Some in Baquba weren’t so lucky. According to a Reuters report of May 30,
2008, titled, "Iraqi Children Playing Soccer Blown Up by Bomb: One Iraqi child was killed and two wounded on Friday when a group
of children playing soccer picked up a bomb and it exploded, police said. The children, aged about 5 or 6, were playing near a rubbish dump
in Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) northeast of Baghdad, when they spotted a strange object, police said. When they picked it up, the home-made device exploded. Relatives brought the injured children to a local hospital, where
they lay in bed, bandaged and blood-spattered. Amidst the "fog of war," one glaring aspect of Iraqi society has received
little or no ink in the U.S.: the gradual and violent cessation of sports in Iraq. These unfortunate kids were playing soccer (football to the rest of
the world outside the U.S.) in an out-of-the-way garbage dump. Many times, kids who play soccer today in Iraq have to find
a decrepit area that no one can see, and have adult guards, just to kick a ball around for a few minutes. The thought police of the "new Iraq" have undone sporting activities
in a country that once was laden with sports participants and fans. Remember the Iraqi national tennis team who was gunned
down on a street a few years ago for wearing shorts? This was an opening salvo in a war against sports that has increased
dramatically. Even chess is taboo. In 2006, Ayatollah Sistani, issued a fatwa against the playing of chess. He did say, however,
that playing cricket was okay. Iraqis have never been known to display passion for the sport of cricket. I recently read articles about the top Iraqi basketball league. One
club played in front of four fans. After the game, the captain said that he was surprised that four spectators attended. Usually
there was none. He added that fans and players alike are concerned about their lives because of the danger involved in playing
sports. He also said that the league did not have much time left because of the dwindling number of players. Last week, without fanfare, the Iraqi quisling government disbanded
the nation’s National Olympic Committee as well as the governing bodies of all Iraqi sports. FIFA, the world governing body of football was not impressed. According
to Al-Jazeera News, in a May 27, 2008 article titled, "FIFA Warns Iraq to Stop Interfering:" Sepp Blatter, Fifa president, has urged the Iraqi government to stop
interfering in sport to avoid being banned from international football and this year's Beijing Olympics. Fifa imposed a temporary suspension on the Iraqi football team and
threatened to extend the ban to one year after the government announced last week they were disbanding the National Olympic
Committee of Iraq. Blatter said Iraq's actions were in strict breach of Fifa's regulations
outlawing political interference, with the executive board forced to take action Sports in Iraq are following the same path as the once-great Iraqi
education system; the stability of life in the country; the world-class health system; and the once-proud city of Baghdad:
a path to extinction. Before I wrote this article, I looked at a few editions of the Baghdad
Observer from the mid-1990s. During the embargo, the broad-sheet English language newspaper consisted of four pages. Most
of page four consisted of sports feature stories or statistics. Pictures of participants in volleyball, basketball, football,
track and field, and other sports were featured. The top teams of sports were heralded as national treasures. On page three of the Baghdad Observer, many column inches were
devoted to the arts. Information of the latest plays, art exhibits, clubs, concerts and cinemas adorned the entertainment
section. During the embargo against Iraq, sports and the arts held a major
part of the life of Iraqis. I have little information about these activities before the sanctions, but I can only imagine
that a free Iraq prior to these times held sports in an even higher esteem. Today, there is no reporting on the arts or sports because they either
have been totally eliminated from Iraqi life or they are quickly on the way to extinction. The U.S. said it would bring "freedom"
to Iraq. In the aspect of sports, that has become a reality: Iraq will soon be free of all sports. RE-CONQUERING AFRICA In February 1990, Saddam Hussein, at a summit in Amman, Jordan, told
the Arab world: The country that exerts the greatest influence on the Gulf and its
oil, will consolidate its superiority as an unrivaled superpower. This proves that if the population of the Gulf — and
of the entire Arab world — is not vigilant, this area will be ruled according to the wishes of the United States. Nowadays, Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe, is sounding a lot
like Saddam. He is warning the Africans that Western powers, mainly the U.S. and Britain, are in the process of re-conquering
Africa. He saw the signs a few years ago. At the Earth Summit in September 2002, Mugabe stated: Sustainable development is not possible without agrarian reforms that
acknowledge that land comes first before all else and that all else grows from the land. In our situation, this fundamental
has pitted the black majority against an obdurate and internationally well-connected racial minority, largely of British descent,
brought in and sustained by British colonialism, now being supported and manipulated by the Blair Government. We are not English, we are not Europeans. We have not asked for any
square inch of that territory. Let no one interfere in the internal affairs of our nation. So, Blair, keep your England and
let me keep my Zimbabwe. Since those statements, the U.S. and Britain have applied sanctions
on Zimbabwe and the country has undergone a deadly drought. As with Saddam and the embargo years when the U.S. blamed the
Iraqi president for the degradation of Iraq, Britain and the U.S. are now blaming Mugabe for a fluke of nature and the disastrous
effects of sanctions. Unfortunately, the people of the West are again buying this false bill of goods. Today, Mugabe is fighting for his political life. The U.S. ambassador
to Zimbabwe is openly giving advice (and probably a handsome amount of finances) to the Zimbabwe opposition. Mugabe is threatening
to kick him out of the country. Plans for Africa transcend Zimbabwe. Sudan is in the firing line as
well. Darfur is being presented in the West as a genocide against Christians. The current party line is that the Arab north
is decimating the African south. What a bunch of cobblers. All Sudanese are Africans. The country’s president is as
black as any African anywhere on the continent. Two things are apparent here. The first is the demonizing of a person,
much as the West demonized Saddam Hussein and now Robert Mugabe. The second is the allegations that Christians are being massacred.
The pope recently told Bush that he is upset that Christians are being killed in Iraq. How about the one and a half million
non-Christians who have been killed since the March 2003 invasion? They don’t count. Now, we see the obligatory peace groups and Hollywood stars lining
up to speak about the atrocities in Darfur. Where were they after March 2003? Some mildly protested the invasion of Iraq,
but once the country fell, they all went back to chasing their Oscars. A couple of days ago, McCain, Clinton and Obama signed a full-page
statement in the New York Times condemning the Sudanese government Don’t expect any enlightening programs for
Africa when a new U.S. president is inaugurated in January 2009. These two countries are just a part of the equation for the West to
again rape Africa of its raw materials. After the first conquest, the West thought all was gone, but new discoveries of massive
amounts of oil, as well as other raw materials, again beckon the white man back to Africa. The former world heavyweight boxing
champion, Mike Tyson, is not exactly known for his brainpower. However, years ago, he made an astute statement. When he returned
from his first trip to Africa, a reporter asked him what he thought of the continent. Tyson replied: When the white man first went to Africa, he had all the religion and
the Africans had all the raw materials. When the white man left Africa, he had all the raw materials and the Africans had
all the religion. In the past decade or so, Christian missionaries have escalated their
presence in Africa. Most are working hand-in-hand with the West. Also, they are thwarting efforts to teach Africans birth
control. The results have been devastating. There are many more clues to show that the West again has its eyes
on Africa. By the end of 2006, Somalia was experiencing a relatively peaceful lifestyle for the first time in decades. The
U.S. would have none of this and co-opted Ethiopia to invade the country and bring an on-paper-only stooge government to power.
Then, the U.S. began bombing Somalia. The bombing continues to this day. Eritrea, a country not known for blowing up airplanes and buildings,
was put on the U.S. list of state-sponsored terrorism a few months ago. Their crime was that they did |