Independent Progressive Thought

The more I read about the US,the more I appreciate its tradition of freedom and the interpretation of freedom. This excerpt is from an article from The Baltimore Sun on CommonDreams.org.


As they pick up the torch, they can take heart from an unlikely source -- a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued during the dark days of World War II. Penned by Justice Robert Jackson, it upheld the right of Jehovah's Witness children not to salute the flag on religious grounds and affirmed the role of dissent in our democracy.



"Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much," said the court. "That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of [freedom's] substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order . If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."



How did a nation with examples so inspiring as this come to be a pseudo-police state for dissenters? Life is great as long as you toe the party line, but these days from what I read and hear, expressing dissent in the workplace and social environments is frowned upon. People act as though dissenting could get them in trouble. Last time I checked, the US's claim to fame was that it is a free country. Perhaps that should read was a free country.

posted by Nashib @ 8:17 PM

War Hawks Blinded by Hardened Hearts - By Courtland Milloy, Monday, March 31, 2003; Page B01 Washington Post

"I think the level of casualties is secondary," American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael A. Ledeen told the gathering of war hawks. "I mean, it may sound like an odd thing to say, but all the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war. . . . What we hate is not casualties, but losing."

...

"We did not choose this war," Ledeen told me. "Terrorists have been killing us for 20 years plus, and this is the first time we've really responded. We are reluctant to engage in war, but once we start fighting, we fight to win."

Loser, he said, is a very bad word in America.
...


Is this not incredible ? I mean here you have the perspective of someone who is very rich and knows that he will never be hurt during these wars nor will any of his loved ones. It is beyond imagine for savages like him to understand that the people who die would rather be referred to as loser than die (I can't speak for all of them, but I am sure given the options at least some would choose the former). Their families would rather have the loved ones than some abstract ideal from which they will clearly NEVER benefit. It will however benefit the nauseatingly rich and powerful. (Note they are very different than just rich and powerful).

posted by Nashib @ 12:56 PM

Some days, just so you don't get caught in the endless downward spiral of depression due to this war, you just gotta look for antiwar humor.

Who's leading who?

Anti-war vs. pro-war

posted by Nashib @ 12:54 PM

Taken off a list-serv; not sure of who to attribute the original to :

CNN/Reuters: News reports have filtered out early this morning that US forces have swooped on an Iraqi Primary School and detained 6th grade teacher Mohammed Al-Hazar.

Sources indicate that, when arrested, Al-Hazar was in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square and a calculator. US President George W Bush argued that this was clear and overwhelming evidence that Iraq indeed possessed weapons of maths instruction.

posted by Nashib @ 12:42 PM

Another random thought: why is that pro-war protesters always seem like they never made it to the gifted program at school? Moron makes it evident that I would have a hard time socializing with the pro-war circuit.

posted by Nashib @ 10:08 PM

Another one of those interesting coincidences today. Jerry sends me a link to a very interesting article in the New Yorker. It discusses, in depth, how the show is being run by the Secretary of Defense and even the military decisions from the Joint Staff have been trumped by those of the Secretary.

Then Saharsha emails me this comment In one telling, though little-noticed passage in Bob Woodward’s Bush at War, Bush asks Gen. Tommy Franks for his opinion, only to have Franks defer to Rumsfeld.

“Sir, I think exactly what my secretary thinks, what he’s ever thought, what he will ever think, or whatever he thought he might think,” said Franks, who is now commander of U.S. forces fighting in Iraq.

posted by Nashib @ 3:14 PM

Saharsha muses: It seems that the United States and the UK make a great deal about the humanitarian relief for the Iraqi people. It should be noted, that the Geneva Convention requires them to do so. If they are not, then it is a major war crime. So, please, spare us the rhetoric about how they help the poor Iraqi people.

posted by Nashib @ 11:11 AM

Is this not disgusting ! From an article by Robert Fisk on CommonDreams.org At least 62 civilians had died by yesterday afternoon, and the coding on that hunk of metal contains the identity of the culprit. The Americans and British were doing their best yesterday to suggest that an Iraqi anti-aircraft missile destroyed those dozens of lives, adding that they were "still investigating" the carnage. But the coding is in Western style, not in Arabic. And many of the survivors heard the plane. Now that the American news outlets are blindly parroting this ridiculous propaganda about it being an Iraqi missile, are they legitimate targets? Using the morally bankrupt standards of the American administration and military the answer would be a resounding Yes ! Certainly the motive cited for the bombing of the civilian broadcast center.

It should be noted that the article goes into a great deal more detail about the identity of the missile with serial numbers that distinctly identify it. I am sure if this type of information easily got into the hands of common americans they would much more easily be against the war inspite of the fact that the war has already begun.

posted by Nashib @ 8:10 PM