Obama's Inaugural Address: A Bad-Weather Speech for Bad-Weather Times
| Tue Jan. 20, 2009 2:11 PM PST
With over a million exhilarated Americans filling the space between the civic shrines of the Capitol and the Washington Monument on the National Mall, President Barack Obama, in the first American inaugural address delivered by a black man, acknowledged the enthusiasm and hope he and his victory have inspired, but his speech was not overly celebratory. Instead, he attempted to guide the nation into what promises, due to circumstances heretofore beyond his control, to be a somber time and a trying presidency.
Underneath clear skies on a crisp, slightly-colder-than-usual day, the 44th president began, "I stand here today humbled by the task before us." He noted that he had just become one of the few presidents who takes office "amidst gathering clouds and raging storms." He outlined the obvious problems his administration faces: war, a weak economy (partly due to the "greed and irresponsibility" of "some"), job losses, businesses closed, homes lost, a broken health care system, and failing schools.
Vowing to meet these daunting challenges, the new president offered not policy details but, yes, hope. He praised the unsung workers (including slaves) of America's past, "obscure in their labor," who built this country. But, he added, the current challenges "will not be met easily or in a short span of time." He maintained that Americans "must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America." And that renewal, he said, would demand "bold and swift" action, including the building of roads and bridges, electric grids and digital lines. It also would entail reforming health care, developing alternative energy, and revitalizing schools. He acknowledged this is a big job.
Obama portrayed his response to the moment at hand as ideology-free: "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them--that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works--whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." Obama can try to depict his agenda as post-ideological, but these words do convey the opposite sentiment of Ronald Reagan's first inaugural address: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." And Obama did challenge another fundamental precept of conservatism when he noted that the free market cannot always be trusted: "without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control." This was a speech of progressive notions--without explicitly championing them.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Obama was obligatorily gracious toward his predecessor, thanking George W. Bush for his "service to our nation." (When Bush first appeared for the ceremony, parts of the audience sang, "Sha-na-na-nah, hey, hey, good-bye.") But Obama's speech contained significant jabs at the Bush-Cheney status quo he aims to undo. He pledged to "restore science to its rightful place." The audience applauded. Referring to "our common defense," Obama declared, "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"--a direct reference to Gitmo, torture, and the like. He added that the United States will not give up its ideals "for expediency's sake" and that everyone around the world should know that "we are ready to lead once more." The crowd cheered. Obama vowed to "responsibly leave Iraq to its people" and "forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan." (When Bush spoke at his second inauguration, he did not utter the words "Iraq" and "Afghanistan.") Obama said he would "work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat and roll back the specter of a warming planet." (Bush spoke of neither threat in either of his two inaugural speeches.) And Obama was not shy in criticizing American self-absorption and over-consumption: "We can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our border, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect." In other words, it is time to end the complacency of the Bush-Cheney years.
As Obama did throughout the campaign, he found a way to hail the glories of America's past while poignantly addressing its sins and flaws. It is precisely because the country has "tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation and emerged from that dark chapter stronger," he maintained, that it can handle its present troubles. That may or may not be so, but coming from Obama--who had drawn hundreds of thousands of black Americans to Washington to share this historic experience--the sentiment has deep and rich resonance. As he pointed out, "a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath."
Obama now has the unenviable double duty of telling the public the disheartening truths about current crises he inherits and inspiring it to overcome these difficulties. The inauguration ceremony at the Capitol reflected the sensibilities of the Obama culture. Aretha Franklin sang "My Country 'Tis of Thee." (Franklin's performance wowed the crowd, which barely reacted to the invocation of fundamentalist super-pastor Rick Warren, who noted that Martin Luther King Jr. is "shouting in heaven.") Itzhak Perlmen, Yo-Yo Ma, Anthony McGill, and Garbiela Montero played a version of the Shaker song "Simple Gifts." Oprah Winfrey, Beyoncé, and Sean Combs sat in the first rows. But at the end of the speech, Obama turned to the original commander-in-chief, George Washington, for inspiration.
During a dark moment of the American battle for independence, when "the enemy was advancing" and "the snow was stained with blood," Obama recounted, Washington ordered a message be read to the people: "Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger came forth to meet it."
Obama had begun by speaking of ominous storms; he ended referring to a dark winter. It was a speech of bad weather. The rhetoric soared at moments but it never shined. The take-home message was no shocker: we have lots to do below cloudy skies. This was not a speech of surprises, and it remains to be seen if any portion will become a only-thing-to-fear-is-fear-itself catchphrase.
But it was a speech in sync with the moment. During the campaign, Obama issued an invitation to voters: join me in a crusade to change Washington and, then, the nation. That is how to obtain health care reform and how to end the Iraq war, he insisted. It's not about me, it's about you, he said. But now that dark clouds have gathered, he's no longer leading a movement of political change, he's fighting for the survival of the US economy. And he insisted in this speech that he cannot do it without other Americans pitching in. What they are to do was unclear--other than to stay true to the America values of "hard work, and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism." Yet what he was signaling was that in the days, weeks, and months ahead--as Obama endeavors to move his far-reaching agenda through Congress--he will need as many Americans as he can rally to push, and perhaps push hard.
Once Obama concluded his address, his fellow citizens began leaving the mall, and dust rose from the cold ground of the capital. As Obama sat and listened to the benediction delivered by the Reverend Joseph Lowery, a veteran of the civil rights struggle (who noted that Obama "has come to this high office at a low moment"), the new president could look out at the Washington Monument and see a haze engulf its base. Thousands were leaving to return to their daily lives. When the dust settles, Obama will begin the most difficult of tasks. Hope and virtue may not be enough.
Front page photo by Ed Homich.
Comments
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Tue Jan. 20, 2009 7:11 PM PST.
I keep hearing Obama telling us how much work we're going to have to do.
For Crissakes, what is he talking about? I'm working 3 jobs already, and I'm RETIRED, supposedly. One of them makes our house payment 9 months out of the year. The other 2 are my small businesses that are operating at a loss but should start turning a profit before we run out of money.
I retired from engineering where I typically worked 60-70 hours a week and that's no bull. Everyone else in the company did, too. Everybody I know who still has a job is working overtime trying to keep it.
So who is he talking to when he says we're gonna have to work hard? I can't work any harder than I'm working right now. The problem isn't that we're lazy, it's that we've been SCREWED.
Look, the people who need to get busy are the jackasses we sent to Washington to represent us who can't get anything right. That is, they can't unless it has to do with getting themselves re-selected or lining their own pockets... or setting up their fall-back position as a big-bucks lobbyist if the public turns them out.
Those Congress people have sold us down the river. Just when you thought that the top 1/10th of 1% couldn't get any greedier, they figured out a way to screw the taxpayers directly, eliminating the middleman. They're just going to SEIZE our money. They've already screwed the manufacturing laborers, the trade unions, the small and mid-size businesses, the mid-level management and professionals, and the shareholders out of every drop of blood they could get. So it's on to the taxpayers.
We need to get THAT fixed, not to be "workin' harder". That's a Bush line. It's not worthy of an Obama speech.
-Wexler
Submitted by John Anderson (not verified) on Tue Jan. 20, 2009 7:14 PM PST.
It is about time that we had a real president!
I do not think that is the kind of work the President had in mind Mr. Wexler. He knows many of us are fighting just to survive. He knows that too many people like you who have worked hard all your life must continue to do so even in your so called retirement. I think he means sir that on top of the work we are doing to live we have to get more involved in the governance of our country. I know that for myself as a single dad I was focused on will I make enough today to feed, house and clothe myself and my kids? I voted and donated what I could but that was the extent of it. At the end of the day I would do the house work and try to rest for tomorrow. The President was asking me that even after all that will I make one more phone call? Will I write one more letter? Will I make the effort to get more of my neighbors organized? If necessary when the time comes to force those politicians you spoke of to do what is right for all working people, am I willing to take to the streets and protest with the rest of my brothers and sisters? Let's face it, we still live in a Democracy. Those politicians can only be crooks because WE LET THEM. The President is asking me and you to go that extra mile to make the changes we wish to see. Will you join us ?
The whole idea of been "guided" by a leader is scary. Bush, Obama, ObaBush... the USA is not a free country. More than ever, the USA is a dictatorship. Obama has already blood on his hands by giving $300B to wars in the Iraq; Let's see how many he kills through his policies. Don't serve in the US Army! Please!!!! Emigrate to... well, there is no choice; government is everywhere. Get ready for hyperinflation. Good luck.
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Wed Jan. 21, 2009 5:06 AM PST.
Pablo...
I have tried the "involvement" route by activism both within and without the 2 party system. IT'S RIGGED.
You probably noticed that the only two things you have that a politician wants is your dollar and your vote. They don't care about your input.
If they did, (and they all pretend to, to some extent) how would the Wall Street Bailout have gotten passed? If they did, how could the Democrats ignore the 2006 mandate to end the Iraq occupation and do nothing? If they really cared what we thought, why would they posture on wedge issues and obfuscate the true business of government in bills that are thousands of pages long that hardly any of THEM bother to read?
We have become a nation where the government and corporate interests are so intertwined that it meets the definition of "fascist". I supported Obama in the early days, even worked for him as a precinct captain in Iowa. I HOPE he starts moving us in the right direction, but there is so much broken right now that all the politicians have cover to do nothing.
With the Dow dipping into the 7000 range yesterday, they can all wring their hands and tell us they can't spend money on social programs right now because we have to save the banking industry, the auto industry, the insurance industry, the housing industry, the financial industry, and all the other industries that have been raided, gutted, raped, and left to die by the roadside by Bush and his "constituency".
I should have listened to that little voice in my head that told me to pull my money out of the markets when AIG failed last summer. Damn. Now it's too late. If I had that dough, we could get the hell out of here, which I still plan to do once I figure out if we're going north or south.
-Wexler
"Iraq occupation"
is an inaccurate characterization. There is a duly elected government in control of Iraq, who is recognized as such by at least 180 nations. The US military resides on Iraqi soil by invitation of that government, thus, it is NOT an "occupation".
Re: Obama:
We finally have a competent captain at the controls. However, the aircraft is critically low on fuel. That is our basic dilemma. We needed competent piloting 8 years ago. While I agree that the 2-party system leaves much to be desired, what these Nader and Paul people overlook is that if their party was in control, it would still be a 2-party system--with theirs as one of the two parties. This economic situation has been the result of decades of abuse and contrary to oft repeated opinions, it is we the people who allowed this. Hitler was not responsible for WW2. Hitler, as EMPOWERED by his population was responsible for WW2. Average people should have known that we can't continue borrowing from our grandchildren. But it was too easy to resist.
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Wed Jan. 21, 2009 9:20 AM PST.
Trollstein...
Although you may technically be correct that the US military is not occupying Iraq, anyone with common sense knows that we are. The government of Iraq has no legitimacy with its own people. It doesn't matter if YOU think it's legitimate or if "180 nations" do. BTW, I would like them listed by name, please, and when they recognized the Iraqi government.
Common sense should dictate. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have the facts, argue the facts. I have the facts, you have the "law" imposed on the people of Iraq by an illegal war in which a million of them were killed and 4 million driven from the country as refugees.
Common sense should dictate.
I would NEVER accuse you of having that, based on your previous posts.
Have a nice day.
-Wexler
Wexler:
". . . . . .anyone with common sense. . . . " [Translation: Anyone who agrees with you].
"The government of Iraq has no legitimacy with its own people. . . " Another convenient untruth. While some in Iraq do not recognize their government's legitimacy, some in America (like you for example) do not recognize the legitimacy of the U.S. government. A question for you: Was the Saddam regime more (or less) legitimate among common Iraqis?
Regarding an alphabetical list: Not enough time and you are not worth the effort either. However, for the benefit of potential other readers, the link below expounds on the Iraqi recognition among fellow Arab governments.
http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-arabs-recognize-iraqi-govt-as...
You:
" . . .illegal war in which a million of them were killed and 4 million driven from the country as refugees."
The US armed forces kicked the crap out of about 20,000 Iraqis and I am not here to defend that strategy and especially its cost on civilians. However, the balance of about 140,000 (not 1-million) deaths were the direct result of Muslim-on-Muslim civil violence, much of it aimed directly at civilians (whereas the US never targeted civilians). Or, do you submit that the terror bombs regularly being detonated at food markets (aimed at women and children) were planted by clandestine American forces?
I don't really expect answers. Two things I have learned to expect from people like you are:
a. Truth is a matter of personal opinion (yours)
b. Since this faction are typically comprised of frustrated control freaks, the answering of questions is generally seen and submissive and thus, is usually avoided.
Have a great day! And do be sure and come back.
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Wed Jan. 21, 2009 10:46 AM PST.
TS...
I'm not going to start up with you again. Good thing nobody believes your crap, otherwise we'd have VP Palin.
Will there be anything else?
-Wexler
Wex:
Another common symptom of the political fringe: The misapprehension that they speak for everyone else. FYI: Those who have limited (or no) knowledge-base would tend not to adopt your positions, because you do not lift a pinky-finger to defend them. Even if you were right (which you are not) no one would know it from your flimsy arguments. As for your Palin claim: I am quite certain that I supported Obama (minimally) months before you. Since you now seem to be divesting of your tacit and inconsistent support for him, you have little authority to heckle me as I have never voted for a republican in my life and if you paid attention, you would well know that by now.
There is one very unpopular thing that Obama can do that will cause immediate pain, but long-term health.
Announce that the federal government will take no direct role in any activity which artificially sustains home values and will not bail out any individuals or corporate entities that have sustained losses.
There needs to be a dramatic ratcheting down in values of homes to their historic rates (generally entry level homes have been valued at twice the average income in the community).
Once values come down to 'normal' levels, we can rebuild. Without this necessary revaluation, we will be like Japan in the from the late 80s through the 90s, wallowing in gradual economic decline.
Submitted by Stan (not verified) on Wed Jan. 21, 2009 1:28 PM PST.
You can mince words whatever way you want...but the truth is the US invaded Iraq and has been occupying it illegally since March 2003. Bloodshed is down because the US war machine has destroyed, murdered or made refugees out of millions of Iraqis who now have no home in this world anymore. Basically just to protect American fat-asses from missing the Super Bowl. So, stop with the bull**** about the military being there at Iraqi request.
Stan: I don't think I "mince words" at all. Quite the contrary, I elaborate. Obviously, the regime change was an arbitrary action that the president of the US ordered according to his own judgment, and was not supported by any international convention(s). However, the US and British armed forces were already stationed in the Kurdish portions of Iraq and had been there since the end of the first Gulf War. And that (at least) I believe was called for by the U.N. mandates relating to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. To spell this out as a 'legal pleading' would take pages. I don't have the time and you wouldn't care anyway. So I try to cut-to-the-chase and that is what you call "mincing of words".
Saddam was a VERY bad man who had designs on world domination through the control of all the Mid East oil. It was only the USA who ultimately frustrated his life's goal. Israel assisted when they took out his nuclear weapons plant.
I reiterate my earlier comment that it is the goal of the radical Arab/Muslim militancy to blow up their own civilians and eat their cake too by blaming us and Israel. Positions like yours essentially show that this strategy can find some success, especially among people who harbor a hatred for the USA, Israel, Jews, or anyone who agrees with them. Would you please answer the question Wexler avoided?
>Do you submit that the terror bombs regularly being detonated at food markets (aimed at women and children) were planted by clandestine American forces?
Why are these terror attacks our responsibility--any more then a woman who files for divorce is then responsible for her estranged husband burning the family house down?
Trollstein should know better. The establishment and massive economic, political, and military backing of Israel is in service of the strategic interests of U.S. empire in the Middle East, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is a product of that. One result: two thirds of the 1.5 million people packed into the tiny, impoverished territory of Gaza were driven from their homes in other parts of Israeli-occupied Palestine through Zionist terror (for documentation of Zionist ethnic cleansing and terror, see "The Nakba: Ethnic Cleansing and the Birth of Israel," Revolution #130, May 25, 2008, and other resources at revcom.us).
Within Gaza, conditions were horrific even before Israel's current invasion. When Israel ended occupation and direct military rule over Gaza in 2005, it kept complete control of the land, sea and air borders. Israel sent armored bulldozers to destroy Gaza's fruit orchards, blockaded the fishing port, cut off supplies to factories and other businesses, and forbade most Gaza residents the right to work elsewhere or even leave. As a result, approximately a million of Gaza's people are dependent on UN food distribution, and food and supplies smuggled in through tunnels from Egypt. And the situation has gotten much worse since Hamas seized control of Gaza in June 2007. Even before the current massacre, Israel was strangling the people of Gaza. Israeli blockades have cut off food, medicine, and fuel. A partially leaked but still-secret report by the International Red Cross reported that a "dramatic fall in living standards has triggered a shift in diet that will damage the long-term health of those living in Gaza and has led to alarming deficiencies in iron, vitamin A and vitamin D." ("Chronic malnutrition in Gaza blamed on Israel," Independent, November 15, 2008) And, like the Nazis, Israel (and its U.S. sponsor) claim that any resistance to what they are doing to the people of Gaza then justifies even more brutality and death.
"However, the balance of about 140,000 (not 1-million) deaths were the direct result of Muslim-on-Muslim civil violence, much of it aimed directly at civilians (whereas the US never targeted civilians). Or, do you submit that the terror bombs regularly being detonated at food markets (aimed at women and children) were planted by clandestine American forces?" Opinion Research Business carried out a survey that estimated 1,033,000 violent deaths due to the Iraq War. It is evident that you, as an American, want to justify the criminal enterprise in Iraq. In the end, you are free to read CNN, and Fox, and the Washington Post, and the NYT...and believe Bush, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Feith, and Perle and...What you cannot do is make the rest of the world believe that your political leadership means well. We believe that American forces have been evil and have brought suffering and destruction upon innocents. You may believe the propaganda from your government in the sense that your forces are so respectful of human life. That's crap. This million of deaths has been a direct cause of the US invasion. In fact, US forces have killed people they deem terrorists at will, including those persons' wives and children. This is, I guess, what you call law and order. In reading the media of your country, one cannot fail to perceive that the gratuitous murder of the "bad" guy's family members, neighbors, and other innocent persons in the vicinity appears to create no blip on the average American's moral radar screen. Perhaps Americans do not consider Yemenis, Iraqis, Afghans, and Pakistanis to be real human beings whose right to life you are obliged to respect? So much for the US "never targets civilians". In the end, you Americans find yourselves observing with extreme moral disengagement as your leadership murders persons whose identities remain uncertain along with assorted others whose only crime is being in the same area as the targeted individuals after all, the Hellfire, which makes a very big blast, can scarcely be described as a surgically precise killing instrument, right Trollstein? Regarding Obama, unfortunately, he is Wilsonian as everybody else in the American Establishment, and in this sense, he doesn't conceive any real limits, political, financial, military or moral, on American power. I want to finish with something an American wrote. Let it enlighten you, if you want. "Why do troops run down civilians with vehicles to avoid slowing down? Why do troops throw bottles and cans at pedestrians to entertain themselves? Why did the massacres like Haditha occur? Why did the utter destruction of Fallujah happen? Why are wedding parties bombed by US aircraft? Why did a whole squad participate in the premeditated half-hour-long rape and murder of a screaming 14-year-old girl? Why is it that approaching an invader's roadblock can carry death sentence for a whole family? Why can children be woken from their beds by soldiers kicking down the house doors? Why are thousands held imprisoned without cause? Why are Iraqi and Afghan elders obliged to obey 20-year-old invaders who can't even speak their language? Why do your peers (perhaps even you) refer to all Iraqis or Afghans with epithets? Why do your peers laugh when they retell stories of their own cruelties and their humiliations of the people whose nations they have invaded? Why are you there?" Mr. Wexler, things here in South America are not that bad, so you may want to pay a visit. You may like it.
PS> This entire concept of "International Law" is nearly a complete misnomer. The ONLY world tribunal which is empowered to enact and enforce so-called international law is the U.N Security Counsel. Since we are speaking of "illegitimacy", lets explore: Russia (sham democracy and no freedom of press). China (no democracy, no freedom of press, limited freedom of speech and now the world's most dangerous polluter (by far). France (62-million total population = about 1/120th of the world's population). England (Same population as Francebetween the two, equaling 1/60th of the world's population and a whopping 1/3rd of the total vetoes). Also conspicuous is who is missing: India, the world's largest democracy, (about 1/6th the world's total population) with freedom of speech and press. the whole concept is ridiculous Since any one of the permenant members may scuttle any resolution, this is world governance by 'black-ball'. Even if a bill passes un-vetoed, it is generally and inherently defective, since most treaty conventions are written in deliberately ambiguous language, so that each member state may claim to have won the disparate demands they had each insisted on.
In conclusion, it is metaphysically impossible that the same 50% of any single population is wrong 100% of the time. This is VERY important people: (If you care to, you are about to learn something that neither Socrates, Buddha or Mother Theresa taught you.)
If one votes with the left 100% of the time, one is guaranteed to be incorrect some significant percentage of the time and the same goes for voting all to the right. If one picks-and-chooses their various positions, then they risk being wrong 100% of the time or at best (fearing the same type of ridicule I have experienced) many will take the simple (and far less risky) stand and pick the one side which best approximates their ideology. But the most difficult and clearly the more accurate way forward is to reason every solution independently. While one can never be 100% correct, at least that way one is making an effort to achieve the highest success rate possible--irrespective of the (generally adverse) social consequences.
In order to adequately reason one's solutions, one must use detailed information. So, reader please beware of people who are abundant with their opinions and yet lacking in details and/or evidence. Simply calling someone else's reasoning "crap" or "bullsh*t" without providing counter arguments is generally the recourse of an idealog. The total avoidance of answering questions is also a common trait of the habitually half-assed. (I say this as a proud, 3/4 assed blogger).
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Wed Jan. 21, 2009 3:25 PM PST.
TS...
You are entitled to your opinions but you are not in command of the facts. You constantly confuse the two in your own posts and then criticize people who don't want to bother to respond to your -snip snip snip- posts. (In the snipped part, please insert the expletives I deleted).
Only in your mind does international law not exist. Only in your mind is the US not occupying Iraq. Only in your mind does common sense fail to connect with the observations that any school child can make.
This hash is old. Really old. You are indeed a troll. You're trolling for an argument, posting like a gasbag Republican then claiming to be a die-hard Democrat.
You're not to be believed, and I'm certainly not going to get excited about you. Eminently un-remarkable.
But... thanks for playing.
-Wexler
PS I think this thread was about Obama's speech, in case you forgot.
Ira:
I'll give you credit for being a better author then some of the others. And, thank you (I think) for not busting my balls (personally). I suppose we are making progress. Now for some further progress.
You wrote:
"When Israel ended occupation and direct military rule over Gaza in 2005, it kept complete control of the land, sea and air borders."
True but so what? That fact alone does not prove anything except that (for one thing) Gaza is not yet its own nation. Do the Sioux Indians have their own airspace? military? Why would they specifically need such? Do the Palestinian-Arabs (about 4.5-million) living in about 10 "host" countries have their own airspace? National borders? Military?
You:
"Israel sent armored bulldozers to destroy Gaza's fruit orchards, blockaded the fishing port, cut off supplies to factories and other businesses, and forbade most Gaza residents the right to work elsewhere or even leave."
Partly true but misleading in a few ways. You connected both comments together, as if both events occurred simultaneously, which is inaccurate. Israel departed Gaza reluctantly (and withdrew its population from some towns which had been ethnically Jewish for 3,200 years) in an effort to foster peace, based on longstanding complaints from various Arab potentates, including Chairman Arafat and President Abbas. The residents of Gaza responded with an instantaneous expansion of violence against Israel.
BTW: When I was in Gaza in 1984, things were relatively peaceful. The residents had jobs inside Israel and while there was no great love between the Arabs and Hebrews, it was no worse then some US neighborhoods between different ethnic groups who might not love each other. I summit that at the time, the two populations were better disposed towards each other then Catholic and Protestant Irish. Today's problems started when Pope John-Paul legitimized Yasser Arafat with a personal meeting and friendly photo op. At the time, the Soviet union had begun to release Jews and many of those Jews went to Israel, angering the local Arab population who (accurately) believed that their labor value was being diluted and especially so by people moving in from outside the Mid East. (Their hope was to be absorbed as Israeli citizens and eventually, to outnumber the Hebrews). Another Christian, an Arab woman negotiator fomented this unrest and called a general strike. That was the turning point in the controversy the world faces today.
So the entire controversy rests on one concept:
Is Israel a refuge for Jews?
That was its intended purpose when the League of Nations mandated it in 1924 and again in 1948--when the U.N. mandated its creation. Initially, Palestine consisted of 45,000 sq-miles and had been under the total control of Turkey for 400 years. The legal treaties which ended WW1 seeded the bulk of the Mid East to its local residents and all the various Arab countries which we are now familiar with were created at that time. Also officially, legitimately and legally created were Kurdistan and the yet unnamed "Jewish National Homeland". At that same moment, Israel and Kurdistan became every bit as legitimate as Saudi Arabia and Syria. It is thus, no coincidence that the major remaining mid East controversy is over both these two nations, one having been facilitated following a genocide and the other existing and a confederated sub-state.
You wrote:
" . . . . food and supplies smuggled in through tunnels from Egypt. "
Ironically, if these tunnels were not being used to smuggle weapons in direct violation of the Oslo Accords, there would have been no problem with the food supply.
You:
"And, like the Nazis, Israel (and its U.S. sponsor) claim that any resistance to what they are doing to the people of Gaza then justifies even more brutality and death."
You couldn't help but to digress into rhetorical and inappropriate propaganda.
Israel is under no legal or moral obligation to accept equivalent casualties. They are fighting a 90-year old war against their existence. They can only be judged in comparison to what other countries would do if under attack for that same reason for an equivalent amount of time. Now ask yourself: What would Russia do? What would China do? What would France so?
"PARIS: President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France would consider a nuclear response against any state-backed terrorist strike against its interests."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/19/news/france.php
(BTW: Sarcozy is far to the right of Chirac).
Michael:
I blog on this site well knowing that the common viewer is mid to far left. My voice would have far less meaning if it were part of a chorus of others with similar positions.
Wexler:
You wrote:
" . . . you are not in command of the facts."
Yet, you rarely if ever chalenge me on point. For good reason. Ultimately, doing so (in the internet age) would reveal that you have very limited knoledge. For example, you wanted me to list all the nations who recognized the new Iraqi government. Had I done so, there is no way in hell you would have admitted anything. As it stands, I provided a reasonable reference that the Arab nations, which are more cogent to this point then, say Norway (who also recognises the Iraqi regime) are on board and conside this government legitimate. Do I get an 'ataboy'? Not from you.
You:
" . . . claiming to be a die-hard Democrat".
In case you did not notice, at least 90% of the Democrats holding elected federal office in the US agree with my positions on the subjects you mentioned.
As to your statements about international law and occupation, I have had my say and do not think anything further is needed. Especially so since you have merely restated your previous conclusions without anything new. The various readers shall draw their own conclusions on those issues.
Lastly, it was you who dragged Iraq into this discussion.
Ira - I just have to shout hooray at your post. It's rare and refreshing to read someone on any blog that is aware and knowledgable of the reality of Israeli/palestinian relations and history. I have had many people decry it as revisionist but one needs to merely look it up. It's all there is Israel's own documents that they released on their 50th anniversary.
My heart breaks at what has happened in Gaza and will continue to happen over and over again in Palestine. why can't Israel be seen for the bully and state sponsor of terrorism that it is? I have family not in Gaza but they are Arab-Israeli Christians in Jerusalem (translation 3rd class citizen) and the west bank. All of this will never stop until someone finally cuts off Israel's military support. For those of you that say they have the right to defend themselves, I say they do but not to the point of genocide. It seems like every 6 months they hit an area of Palestine really hard and then there are 3,000+ Palestinians dead to a handful of Israelis. That's not defense, that's a massacre.
TS - You say so what that they don't have control over their borders, sea, or air? It is a big deal. Israel controls all that goes into Gaza and the West bank. This means food (much of which rots because it gets stopped for days at a time) water (they only get water once or twice a week when it's peaceful) and work many work in Israel and when curfews occur, it doesn't mean teenage kids aren't allowed out after 8PM - it means that noone can leave their house at all except for a designated 2 hours a week or you'll be shot. Not for going to the hospital for a heart attack or to give birth to a baby. Israel is known to target ambulances with their precise targeting missiles as well. It also means that GAzans may not fish off their coast, or access their known deposits of oil off their coast or those deposits in the west bank. Signs of severe malnutrition and growth retardation are showing up among the population. Is this Israel's post holocaust legacy? To recreate it for another people? To have them live in Ghetto's, be subject to discriminatory laws and slowly wipe them out by starvation and bombing?
It also means they control all the foreign aid meant for Palestine. Every single dollar goes through Israel and millions upon millions, intended for food, medicine, hospitals, schools, never ever reach Palestine because Israel doesn't give it to them. That is directly from Jimmy Carter's book. So it does matter. It matters a hell of a lot.
The speech was only a speech but it was really a great deception. You could see that the man was selling a dubious medicine. None of the real problems was addressed.
Obama's plan wants to spend trillions of fiat money in order to give a bust to the economy. But, as you can see by the new collaborators such as Geithner, this money will end up in the hands of the same banking elite that has created this havoc. Ever since they got hold of the Fed and took a monopoly on "money creation" and "interest collection", the American population has seen their currency descend to cents along with the real value of their incomes. The whole world has been robbed through this artifice, since 70% of the US money is used abroad. But this time, since the US economy represents only 20% of the world economy, there is no way to produce trillions of "new Money" without causing an inflationary reaction. Most countries will reduce their own currencies and change their dollar reserves. Eventually hyperinflation may be the result of the "Obama plan". It is time to face the reality of the tyranny that the banking elite has imposed in the US and Western countries. If the monetary-financial system is not changed for good, this recession may continue for a decade. A similar situation happened in Germany in 1860, which was called the "Great Crisis". Out of 600 banks in Germany, 550 were in Jewish hands. They decided to reduce liquidity, in order to provoke a crisis and buy cheap, but the ensuing depression lasted a decade. In the present circumstances, the banking elite has been creating money and collecting interests without relation to the growth of the economy. If the GDP is only 2%, they collected interests over 10%. That induces the enslavement of the population through debt and induces devaluation, since more money has to be created in order to cover interests. This has happened in the US, Germany and most countries. The US will have negative growth this year and Germany GDP will fall by 2.7% Whereas in China, with 80% of the economy in the hands of the nation, the total banking system is run by the State, therefore interests are low and go to enrich the state or the communities. A steady near 10% growth has been obtained for decades and in the last quarter the economy had a reduction to a 6.8% growth, due to the fall of Western imports, but China will surmount the crisis with a similar or improved growth for 2009. It is simple, the State or the communities should manage the banking system and create money for the benefit of society, not for the benefit of a greedy and crooked elite that has enforced a tyranny over the US. The totality of US congressmen, except 4, have been bought by this elite. Representatives that have opposed are forced to leave as in the cases of Paul Findley or Cynthia McKinney.There is no chance that any legislation that tries to reduce the privileges of this infamous elite will pass Congress. And Obama seems to be managed by the same elite. It is time that people start fighting the elite and forcing the real change that is needed, otherwise the crisis will go on for years and will repeat itself endlessly. There is no reason why in the XXI century, we maintain a system of money and interests that is an anachronism and only serves the purposes of a cruel and corrupt elite!
It seems that a portion of those leaving comments are more interested in giving their opinions about all current issues rather than the article at hand.
The article about President Obama's speech, and the direction he looks to lead this country has both good points and bad. I find it too easy to throw the ills of this country, and the culture of this country today on the lap of former President Bush. We need to remember that the President is temporary, and does not wield as much power as the average American thinks or believes. The true power of change comes from the central banks, world bank, and international corporations. They monetary system is what guides them, and is what dictates policy. Once we open our eyes to this fact, and understand that everything else is just an illusion of what they want us to see. Then true change may begin from the people up through government.
Jeffrey C:
Does it actually harm you (or anyone) that bloggers wish to converse on any topic they feel worthy of their time?
While a few people merely clip-and-paste, most people (at least those you reference) use original materials, some carefully written and all time comsumptive. How does such an expenditure of personal free time adversely effect you or anyone else, (including MoFo Jones?)
As president, Obama will instantly become the world's number one arms dealer, number one trainer of secret police, number one detonator of bombs, and number one sponsor of forces, US and foreign, that by objective definition do terrorism.
Obama can stop that. He can cry halt, order: 'Stop civilian killings. Now.'
If he truly does, he'll be a hero worthy of Dr. King, of the freedom giants he rode.
If not, he'll become responsible for mass murders, and the first victims will likely fall sometime between today's swearing-in and the last inaugural ball.
Bush Sr.: Forever in infamy
Submitted by Wang (not verified) on Mon Mar. 23, 2009 3:19 PM PDT.
Speaking of Barack Obama: LONG LIVE EMPEROR OBAMA!
Obama is a racial-minority individual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably condemns any and all racial discrimination and/or prejudice which had been brought about by George Herbert Walker Bush.
There is bad news about George Herbert Walker Bush.
What if basically all racial-minority people would subscribe to the interpretations that George Herbert Walker Bush committed monstrous, racist, hate crimes while he was the President of the United States?
It will eventually come out: it is only a matter of time.
Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., With the Highest Level of Academic Honors at Graduation, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post. And there are at least hundreds of copies in very many countries around the world.)
_________________
“If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Off the top of my head—it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.
