The Death of Sadaam Hussein

It is clear that U.S. policy makers in this administration can proceed without fear of opposition from any quarter. The Democratic Party's "victory" in the last election was to have fooled the U.S. electorate into believing that its wishes for an early end to the debacle in Iraq would be heeded. These guys can't backtrack fast enough at this point. What is at stake here, however, may be more significant than Democrats and Republicans alike realize. If voting for the so-called opposition party does not bring about a change in direction, voters are left with essentially two options: (a) join the ever-increasing mass of citizens who show little faith in the democratic system and refuse to use the ballot box; or (b) create additional political parties. Perhaps we should all hope for option B. That would mean that at least one good thing will come of the arrogant disregard for the people's will currently being demonstrated by both parties. The assassination of Sadaam Hussein has evocations of Tolstoy's "Hadji Murat" or of the decision to have Marat assassinated by Charlotte Corday. This is the politics of nineteenth century intrigue--a tradition that owes more to Machiavelli than it does to Tom Paine.

Before--

After--

A Modest Proposal to CBS News

I have a great idea for the CBS News folks. Buy out the rest of Katie Couric's contract before she embarrasses the station any more than she already has. Then, hire Gwen Ifill away from public television's Nightly News. Gwen is an actual journalist as opposed to an entertainer/media personality. She is more than capable enough to do the job and is far more in the tradition of Edward R. Murrow or Dan Rather. She started out as a bright young journalist, is seasoned in television as a result of her years on PBS and is clearly ambitious. Frankly, I find her smiling engagingly at clearly inappropriate times troublesome, but that shouldn't be an issue on network television, and she might even be coached out of some idiosyncrasies she should have abandoned years ago. CBS would win ratings, curiosity seeking viewers, the reputation of being ahead of its time for "discovering" a talented newsperson who happens to be both female and black.

Representative Dennis Kucinich: A Voice in the Wilderness?

It is interesting that many callers to C-Span talk-in shows preface their remarks with, "Thank you for C-Span." As a latecomer to the joys of C-Span, I have only recently learned why that is. It is on C-Span alone that one can access a range of opinion rarely encountered on what the left calls the "corporate media." Sadly, that characterization more and more fits the programming on PBS which, since the Gingrich revolution, shifted its political spectrum severely to the right. Even the Nightly News Hour and the now occasional work of Bill Moyers can no longer be depended upon to represent the true diversity of the political spectrum in this country. And thus we are down to Amy Goodman's Democracy Now and the overall broadcasting efforts of Pacifica radio stations such as WBAI here in New York. It is only on C-Span that one could hear the full remarks made by Representative Dennis Kucinich as he announced his candidacy for President on an anti-war platform.

Rep. Kucinich can be seen as a voice in the wilderness. He has already been caricatured as a quixotic figure. And, indeed, while citizens of the U.S. can take pride in the fact that a Dennis Kucinich is still possible, it is alarming that his is one of the very few voices among the Democrats who has called for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Kucinich alludes to the estimated 650,000 Iraqis who have died as a result of the U.S.'s illegal invasion and occupation of their nation. Millions more have been injured or forced to flee their homeland. Six hundred and fifty thousand people. Imagine over 200 World Trade Center attacks on our own land. The argument that we must avoid leaving in defeat, that such a departure would not only be a humiliating defeat for this country but disruptive to conditions in the area, an argument which like all big lies, is repeated endlessly, brings political disingenuity to new depths.

The facts is that we have already been humiliated, that the longer we stay, the deeper our humiliation will become, that our only hope for restoring the world's confidence in the people of the U.S. is to demonstrate that we can acknowledge a grave political mistake and begin to make reparations. As for disrupting the area, it is the presence of U.S. troops that is disrupting the area. There is every likelihood that their complete withdrawal--"temporary" bases and all--will bring greater calm to the area.

If the Democrats waffle, temporize, stall on this one, they will be inviting their demise as a U.S. political institution. As of now, it appears that they do not get it. They have a very brief window in which to save themselves.

Manifest Destiny?

After stealing the richer, northern half of Mexico in the name of a (divinely inspired?) destiny that was manifest from our nation's origins and then spending the next 150 years smugly confident that Mexico would no longer be a threat, events seem to be getting out of hand. With Venezuela, Chile and others of our neighbors to the south turning to populist left wing leaders, the very real possibility of a Cuba-like regime south of the Rio Grande is giving U.S. policy
makers pause. Oaxaca is in flames and the floor of the Mexican congress is looking more and more like a rumble. It appears that U.S. immigration policy, namely turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants from Mexico, designed to relieve some of the pressure--and divert some of the votes--may not be enough to stem the tide of radical change.