Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Iraq War Views

An Email Interaction

by Richard May in response to Fred Vaughan

Fred wrote, "If one pokes an active hornets nest something will happen."


Fred,

The hornets will greet you with cake and flowers and view you as their liberator!

The Creator made hornets as lovers of freedom. Hornets should have a Western style democracy. If a hornet tries to sting you, it's part of Al Qaeda.

Don't misunderestimate hornets! Lovers of freedom should invade hornets nests everywhere. A surge of nest pokers is vital to our national interest or the hornets will attack the Homeland!

If you see a mad dog, kick it!

You just don't make any sense, Fred!

"W"-Tzu

Read More...

Saturday, January 20, 2007

The Promised Land

Fred Vaughan headshot by Fred Vaughan

After the peaceful breakup of the Soviet Union and the Israeli - Palestinian resolution quite a few years ago now, I was reminded of the stupidity of concepts such as manifest destiny; fifty-four-forty-or-fight; the Little Big Horn; the Promised Land; the Bay of Pigs; the taking of Europe by Cromagnons from Neanderthals; Catholic Croatia, Serbian and Muslim Bosnian hatreds; Somalia; the genocidal war in Rwanda; the Sudan; now Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.. All involved an absurd but universal notion that "This land is my land!" and anyone else is an interloper. Having been (or supposing that it was their destiny to be!) in control of a particular hunk of land at a particular time since their racial memory began constituted in all such cases a perpetuated sacred responsibility to re-take the land whenever there was the slightest provocation or vulnerability of the current occupant at whatever cost is required in terms of human life. All these persistent grudges have guaranteed generations of genocide and poverty, especially in the "old world" where many still extent races of men have at one time or another been born into more or less legitimate control of some appreciable piece of soil. And why? Even as I propose to doubt the inevitability of such chaos it almost seems even to me to be the only reasonable conduct of history. But of course even the apparent reasonability of this insanity springs from my racial memory and the fact that we have not yet broken our umbilical with "Mother Earth," our linkage with "Land of Israel," "This land is my land from sea to shining sea," etc.. We limit our "ethnicity" to encompass only a limited group by our religion, color, political ties, etc. but then we glue this label onto the land even though the land may be shared by many groups. Ultimately (one might hope!) our vision could be improved to include all associated people and all indigenous species of the region. From religious protectorates associated with "The Land" sprang governments to control (optimistically for their own survival) the people that occupied the land.

Governments are born of a particular people but have always been instituted as being over all the people in a region and are, thereby, bounded artificially by that region rather than that people that is their legitimate bound, but the land does not obey laws, the requirement for all encompassing laws throughout a region can only be to assure the security of the government of the one people from internal attack at the hands of the disenfranchised peoples, not in any inclusive sense of wanting everyone to be equal sharers of the bounty of the region or to protect all from outside attack. Governments implicitly condone an ethnic "purging" of the land by occupation. Oh, yes, the disenfranchised whether they remain or flee as refugees still (and then to an even greater and much fantasized degree) "love" their homelands, only giving up control of them in desperation, hoping and scheming to someday "take" them back. Islam raises this to another level: Any region once occupied by Muslims must be secured and retaken if lost by the Mother of All Battles -- Jahad!

But individuals only inhabit the land for a generation and collectively such mortals constitute a people. So why can only one ethnic group peacefully occupy any hunk of land at any one time? Why do we so naturally focus on such narrow windows of geography and history? Why don't we squint our eyes temporally to blur our historic vision as we do our spatial vision when we look at a piece of art to perceive the layout independent of the details. Why is continuous sequential control over contiguous square miles throughout historically short periods so profoundly more glorious than contemporaneous control of non-contiguous (or even non-geometrical) areas throughout a much larger interval? (The Jews accomplished this feat amazingly well until it appeared obvious that real estate itself was also important. Did ownership itself distort that vision?) On large enough time scales interrupted control is simply contemporaneous control like timesharing in a multitasking computer system where the multitasking allows several jobs to share resources during the same appreciable interval on the same computer even though on a microscopic scale each was only individually in control of the machine (or "a" machine on an interconnected network) during separated short intervals of time. Why can human beings who have mastered such multitasking schemes not "get it"?.

Radio and TV signals and starlight all pass through every infinitesimal region of our atmosphere at the very same time without solely possessing it (although, of course, the property rights of waveband regions are being bitterly contested just as claim jumper grabbed at mining rights, but again, only by money grubbing interests and governments). In fact there are on the order of 10 billion times more quanta of light than matter in our universe and they crisscross every cubic centimeter of all space with none demanding ownership to pass.

Looking West from the back porch on the house on "my" farm of 27 years, I "loved" the land, not just my farm land but the whole setting as far as the eye could see to the Olympic mountains. My neighbor to the North looked South and "loved" the land, not just his land, but my land as far as his eye can see to Mount Rainier. In a very real sense, we "own" our own perspectives -- all of it! -- and sometimes confuse that for all the land we see, like Lot in the Old testament. Clearly, Lot did not actually own the "well-watered plains of Jordan" he had claimed -- probably much to the chagrin of his wife!

We raised race horses on our farm until a few years back, controlling their destinies in the long haul, but on a day-to-day basis, they had their own hierarchy. We could not change it other than get rid of a horse if it became too destructive like God might have sent a lightning bolt or turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt to effect a similar correction process in Old Testament days. Or we could banish them to a remote paddock or send them to the track as a God might have sent a man to war, or sell them as slave owners sold their slaves "down river".

Then there were the cats! A tom always ruled our farm with an iron clawed paw; he might originate as the most docile of kittens loved by our children, sleep for virtually three years like a curled up caterpillar as did "Patches The Horrible," but then one day his "destiny" would dawn upon him and the most feared force in the barn cat kingdom would begin a reign of terror without precedent. We could never do anything much about this carnage other than get rid of the aggressor when the carnage irritated us too badly! (Not a bad idea!) Then there were the pigeons, the mice, not to mention the flies, the frogs, and -- us! These stratified kingdoms co-inhabited the same twenty some odd acres for many years. There were disastrous interactions on occasion, as when a horse kicked a person or stepped on a cat, or a person started a vehicle with a cat hiding near the fan belt, or as when Patches bit through my rubber boot when I had attempted to break up a cat fight by stepping into a whirl of fur. But by most any accounting these were pretty minor events in the affairs of the respective kingdoms. But of course we fed the cats including those who couldn't or wouldn't eat the mice and rats (and pigeons!) that ate the oats that the horses should have eaten. And the horses won the races that provided the money to feed their dams and everybody else on the whole damn farm. And it all worked pretty well.

In the United States we have First, Second and even Third World nations. Why can't we acknowledge"..., [these many] nation[s], under God [sic.], indivisible, with liberty and justice for all..."? Let them all exist on the same soil with their own legitimate governments, even unique forms of governments. The United Nations or some hierarchy of nations should be able to accommodate the similarity of mailing addresses and monitor and control the interactions. But in this country at this time it is popular to hate welfare (even?) worse than foreign aid, but they are really the same thing, especially now in our age of the Small World where we search for bin Laden. The war in Iraq is costing the US $9 billion per month according to the nonpartisan government accounting office. In short, the cost of the senseless war in Iraq and paying the interest on the increasing national debt required to support it dwarfs welfare, but a "Christian Nation -- under God" cannot afford help the less fortunate?

I felt very congratulatory to the Israelis and Palestinians on their Peace Accord even though they were each no doubt as oblivious to the sense they were making as the cats and horses on our farm ...

... that we have now sold, after having dispersed the last of our horses, with one of the conditions of sale having been that we "get rid of the cats." That's commerce … and the price we pay for it.

Sadly, since the Palestinian Peace accord Rabin was assassinated by one of his own people for his role in bringing about a new order. Bus bombs and human bombs, and Israeli assassinations and increased occupation continue to appall us all in destroying the peace process. The Serbs and Croats wrecked havoc in the Balkans but were eventually stopped after the genocide. Genocide has killed millions in Africa in the last decade alone. Sunnis killed Shiites in Iraq under Saddam because it was "their land" even though they were out numbered. Now both Sunnis and Shiites slaughter each other in total civil war carnage because (no matter who gets the oil underneath it that is protected by US troops) each side believes Iraq to be "their land". Thousands die every moth in Iraq; just today the news is that 105 have died Baghdad alone.

And it will continue to happen. It has to happen. It will happen to us … unless we learn that "The Promised Land" is not dirt.

Read More...

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Historical Discussion: From Iraq to China

On April 2, 2003 the Guardian, one of England's preeminent journals, published an article by a prominent Indian author, Arundhati Roy. Evoking names from the dawn of civilization, Roy called her essay "Mesopotamia. Babylon. The Tigris and Euphrates". It was a scathing, eloquent attack on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and it inspired an exchange of letters between the author and others on an e-mail list -- a wide-ranging debate that started with Baghdad and ended with in China, with stops along the way in Japan and Turkey.

Brian Schwartz headshot by Brian Schwartz

(2003)

The article is so well written. No surprise there. Roy is a fine writer. That's why she won the Booker Prize. But she thrives on controversy... and this article is no exception. Is she right? It's too soon to say. If we succeed in creating a democratic, prosperous Iraq, a new golden age to rival the caliphate of Rashid, Roy's article will be consigned to the dustbin of history. If not, well, her article will be quoted by every future historian.

Sixty years ago, after a long war of unparalleled brutality, the US occupied Japan. The Japanese did not welcome our troops as liberators. If I recall correctly, thousands of Japanese killed themselves rather than live under US rule.

The US occupation lasted several years. Fortunately for all, some bright soul conceived of the idea of using the occupation government as a dumping ground for American socialists and left-wingers, and this idea was followed for the first 2 years, during which time a program of land reform broke up large landowners' holdings. A constitution was drafted, and Japan today is one of the freest, most democratic countries in the world. Instead of retaining control of Japan's economy, or looting it, we transformed it into our biggest economic rival.

In "The mouse that roared," a British comedy film made a few years later, in 1959, a bankrupt country declares war on the US, reasoning that they will be quickly defeated, and then reformed, refinanced and rebuilt. I hope the same happens in real life.

Is Japan a special case?

Thinking about it, I realized that Japan's transformation was not unique. Other countries did the same, albeit less successfully: Turkey under Ataturk, China under the last emperors (their slogan was "learn from the barbarians in order to defeat the barbarians"), Thailand under King Chulalungkorn. What all these countries had in common was they were among the very few never to have been colonized by Europe. Iraq was colonized, and never had a similar transformation, but is one of the most resilient regions in history: Sumer, Assyria. Babylon, the Caliphate, etc..

It's true that Japan learned from Tang dynasty China, but then they shut their doors to the outside world for a thousand years.

Is China a special case?

China was poised at the edge of economic success 700 years ago, but, like Moses, never quite made it to the promised land. The neo-Confucian philosophers of the 13th century should have triggered a scientific renaissance. They didn't. The global voyages of Admiral Cheng Ho in the 15th century should have led to an era of world domination. It didn't. The textile factories of Suzhou in the 16th should have been the vanguard of industrial revolution. They weren't. Why? One possible answer (which I don't totally agree with) is that the Chinese upper class looked down on merchants, commerce and industry instead of nourishing them. Since the Chinese upper class was in part selected by IQ tests (sort of...they emphasized crystallized g), this should be a warning to high-IQ societies.

Communist China, as you say, is a lot like ancient China. I wrote this in 1986 [in Brian's book A World of Villages, page 432]: "In China, as in India, history moves in circles. During the past thirty years, China has undergone radical transformation, but all of China's changes find their roots in China's past. China has been cut off from the rest of the world for so long that even when its people are seeking to break with the past they turn to it for guidance."

Read More...

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

History Lesson

by Prof. Ed Rehmus

Edward Rehmus by Edward Rehmus

(2003)

Now that Babylon has fallen, we must move quickly on to that other Arab stronghold: Syria! (Damascus, specifically.) With these important stations of the Ancient World under his belt — see, we've already got the "Future" (albeit the minimal Walt Disney version) — Napoleon is now ready to move on to that uttermost ancient of stations: China!

This game, we know from history, eventually plays out. And of course, even Napoleon knows his empire, though eternal, is not immortal, so he will coast the rest of the way downward to land on a soft pillow in the history books.

Sadly, however, every conqueror leaves a wasteland behind him, having been obliged at times to violate sensible tradition. When this Empire falls, speaking ex nostradamu, the entire world will have become a cesspool.

Now, this being so, the wretched survivors of the 21st Century must deal with reviving the corpse of civilization bequeathed to them. They may have certain advantages, such as science and "libertas in chaos," but since they lack the genius of classical skills, their machine will be lopsided and feckless. Thus will begin to brew new human bacteria and soon thereafter will appear the symptoms of kings and leaders like blisters on the social skin. And then the cycle begins anew, of this disease called monkey mumps.

Edward Rehmus in Paris (1999)
Ed in Paris (1999)

Read More...

Escalation in Iraq

With the debate over how the US should deal with the current chaos in Iraq and whether or not to escalate the number of troops, it might be interesting to look back at a couple of perspectives of what could have been expected to happen at the time of the invasion by US troops. The next couple of articles will address those insights.

Read More...

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Pop War

Sean J. Vaughan headshot by Sean J. Vaughan

Something that has been on my mind from time to time is the ironic difference between what Americans like in their epic war movies vs. the way America (well, the leadership) acts in the real world with regard to war.

A recent example this millenium is "The Lord of the Ring: The Two Towers". Besides the obvious mistake that I and many folks I know make of calling the evil two towers "the twin towers", America clearly resembles the evil side much more than the good side. The ring clearly represents technology and the way the "good" side looks at technology vs the way the "evil" side looks at technology eerily maps to how many in the Muslim countries (including bin Laden) and western civilization view technology; namely: If "the good" use the ring they succumb to its power and become evil; if "the evil" use the ring they can and likely will destroy the world. Even the manner in which "the good" eventually win the day partly utilizes "terrorist" methodology: common creatures (hobbits) infiltrating the "evil" territories and destroying the ultimate weapon (the ring) which has the side affect of weakening and helping in the defeat of the evil enemy.

The scariest example of this irony is with Star Wars (at least the first three movies). The imagery of the destruction of the Twin Death Stars eerily coincides with the imagery of the twin towers' destruction; not to mention the actual methods employed by The Rebels and Al Quaeda to produce said destruction. The scariest bit of all is how America's government fully embraced the relationship by terming the retaliation "America Strikes Back," a clear link to "Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back". Why are we so eager to embrace the evil side?

Another weaker example is "Gladiator" where Maximus goes from being a celebrated Roman war leader to a lowly slave gladiator who sticks it to the resident Ceasar. Weakly analogous to Bin Laden working with American interests against The Soviet Union only to "turn against" us later.

Movies provide a very good mirror for what people's perceptions are. The more popular the movie the more people likely relate to the protagonist or message. Based on this information, it seems clear that Americans should be able to relate to the Al Quaeda situation fairly readily. (Not necessarily agree with it, but at least have some understanding for their plight).

It makes sense that Senator Murray and Representative McDermott from the Seattle area would have more understanding than other congressional leaders about this: the new popularization of coffee originated around here and was first popularized in Muslim countries. (A pretty major shift in Islam was caused by disagreement between the religious leaders and "the people" on whether consumption of coffee was "ok" or not as I understand it).

Read More...

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

"Iraq - Deception and Denial"*

* - A title given to the President's 2003 State of the Union address

"It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. - Joseph Wilson

by Fred Vaughan

(This article was originally published in July 2003, but its message is at least as poignant today as it was then.)

When sexual escapades of a former president rocked this Nation, Kenneth Starr was the man of the hour - year… or rather… years - through our prolonged travail. No stone was left unturned in a sixty-six million dollar pursuit of Truth. And what was that priceless gem of truth with such a costly price tag? President Clinton lied about having had sex with a consenting adult. We now know this as fact because even though both tried their damnedest to hide the ugly fact from us, Kenneth Starr persisted in his sordid "duties" until peeking under sheets on private sex acts became a national pastime. Finally the President's untruths to conceal such facts from us were found by House Republicans to constitute an impeachable offense. As ridiculous as it sounds, that's the truth! Congressmen who had concealed their own infidelities now deemed it treasonous for a President to lie about anything - even that - well, at least "under oath," whatever that means. Truth and Honesty writ large. Henceforth the American people must demand no less of their Presidents?

drawing by Caryl Clark

So is a constitutionally mandated State of the Union address "under oath" or is lying OK in such an informal dispatch of Presidential responsibility? Are there no standards with regard to honesty in Presidential addresses to congress in pursuit of proclamations of war? Or could hoodwinking a nation including its elected representatives with regard to national security matters only frivolously be considered impeachable?

The White House has finally disclosed what everyone in the world with a shred of objectivity suspected even as the words were uttered - that the touted evidence for Iraq attempting to secure uranium from an "African nation" for an alleged program of developing weapons of mass destruction had been trumped up. Eleven months earlier it had been shown by an independent investigation at the behest of the Bush Administration to have been a forgery. Never mind for now who the forgers were. Vice President Cheney had himself sent a special aide, former Ambassador to several African nations and chief US diplomat in Baghdad prior to the first Gulf War, Joseph Wilson, to uncover the truth in Niger. Wilson found the truth and reported his findings that the documents referred to were in fact crude forgeries. This "British Intelligence data" that Bush cited in this regard had also been shown to be bogus by the CIA months before the State of the Union. Of course other "classified British Intelligence data" was cited by the Bush Administration to convince the US Congress to hand its constitutional powers to declare war over to the President. This too was bogus; it was shown to have derived as a mere word-for-word plagiarism from an angry British student's term paper with absolutely no authenticity. This was all well known before President Bush sent troops to battle. This administration's professed reasons for going to war were in fact fabrications! In Joseph Wilson's words to Meet the Press on Sunday July 6th, "That information was erroneous, and they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the British white paper and the President's State of the Union address."

Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice both claim to have known nothing of the forged evidence. They claim that that information had been buried amongst so much data that…well…how could they be expected to have known? Vice President Cheney's office similarly ducks responsibility. Given Wilson's assignment by Cheney and the reported resolution, all these claims seem doubtful at best. A 27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern, states, "The fact that Cheney's office had originally asked that the Iraq-Niger report be checked out makes it inconceivable that his office would not have been informed of the results." Nor are Wilson and McGovern alone. Greg Thielmann who was Director of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research for the State Department until his retirement last September made these statements at a press conference held July 9th. "I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq." And furthermore, that as of the commencement of military operations in March, "Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States." He added, "This administration has had a faith-based intelligence attitude."

But could intelligent people with cognizance of world political situations - even without "classified British intelligence" - really have believed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that threatened the security of the United States even without proof of crude forgeries and plagiarism from puerile sources? Or that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were somehow in cahoots with regard to 9/11 or could even conceivably have resolved longstanding differences to lend credibility to administration justifications for invading a sovereign nation without UN approval? I don't think so. On July 8th, however still trying to strengthen that link, Reuters indicated that an unnamed "US official" claimed an Iraqi had met with 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta in Prague shortly before the 9/11 attack. But Newsweek reported on June 9th under the title, "Where are the WMDs?" that: "The hard-liners at Defense seized on a report that Muhammad Atta, the chief hijacker, met in Prague in early April 2001 with an Iraqi intelligence official. Only one problem with that story, the FBI pointed out. Atta was traveling at the time between Florida and Virginia Beach, Va. (The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts.)"

Also on July 8th that White House spokesman Ari Fleischer finally stated before the press corps that the President's statements during the State of the Union address had been "incorrect." We all know that no one can determine for certain whether untruths (however egregious) have resulted from dishonesty or the perpetrator having unwittingly been duped. But if these were not lies then incompetence of the current administration with regard to our national security interests is so flagrant that either offense would make impeachment imperative would it not?

Nonetheless, on July 11th CIA Director George Tenet took the fall for "wrongly allowing President Bush to tell the American people that Iraq was seeking nuclear material from Africa when analysts had doubts about the quality of the intelligence." In fact the CIA's "doubts" had purged a White House speech in October well before the State of the Union. Tenet contritely stated that he was culpable for not insisting the President remove the comment from his speech once more - whose speech? Whose lies? Ah yes! The Buck Stops where? Immediately following Tenet's abject acquiescence President Bush announced, "I now consider the uranium issue closed!" And does he still have confidence in his scapegoated CIA Director? "Absolutely!" Furthermore, he is without doubt that he did the right thing regardless - "the world is a better place." That's what "faith-based intelligence" is all about.

Where was this guy during Watergate and Whitewater? Surely Kenneth Starr will step out of a phone booth once more - for American family values…won't he?

SUPERSTARR

Read More...

Patriotism Was His Religion

Irving Berlin the Agnostic

by Dan Barker

Originally published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.

This article was included in the 52nd issue of the Carnival of the Godless.

How many patriotic Americans, proudly singing "God Bless America," realize that the song they are intoning was written by a man who did not believe in God?

Or that it was intended as an anti-war anthem?

Irving Berlin is by any measure the greatest composer of popular American music, with hundreds of enduring hits, such as "Alexander's Ragtime Band," "I Love A Piano," "Always," "Blue Skies," "Let's Have Another Cup of Coffee," "Cheek to Cheek," "Marie," "Play a Simple Melody," "There's No Business Like Show Business," "Anything You Can Do," "Easter Parade," and "White Christmas."

Born in 1888 into a Russian Jewish family who came to New York City to escape religious persecution when Irving was five years old, he quickly shed his religious roots and fell in love with America. He became an American citizen when he was 29. "Patriotism was Irving Berlin's true religion," writes biographer Laurence Bergreen in As Thousands Cheer: The Life of Irving Berlin (1990).

Irving Berlin was "not a religious person," according to his daughter Mary Ellin. Relating the story of Irving's marriage to Ellin Mackay in 1926, whose devout father had a deep reluctance to welcome a "lower-class" Jew into the wealthy Catholic family, she writes:

"About religion -- Jew and Catholic. My mother has broached the subject of being married by a priest. She herself, though she goes to mass, keeps up appearances, doesn't believe in all that anymore, she assures him. She has had such a strange religious upbringing: a Protestant like her mother till the divorce, a Catholic since. But a priest might help soften her father. Irving, however, the cantor's son, doesn't see himself being married by a priest. Though he is not a religious person, doesn't even keep up appearances of being an observant Jew, he does not forget who his people are." (Irving Berlin: A Daughter's Memoir, by Mary Ellin Barrett, 1994.) They got married in an unannounced secular, civil ceremony at the Municipal Building, not a church or synagogue.

Once they had children, Mrs. Berlin did try to keep up a minimal appearance of religious tradition. Mary Ellin writes that her unbelieving parents "had their first bad fight when my mother suggested raising me as a Catholic . . . ."

The Berlins had three daughters. "Both our parents," Mary Ellin recalls, "would pass down to their children the moral and ethical values common to all great religions; give us a sense of what was right and what was wrong; raise us not to be good Jews or good Catholics or good whatever else you might care to cite, but to be good (or try to be) human beings. . . . When we grew up, she said, we would be free to choose--if we knew what was best for us, the religion of our husband. . . . It wouldn't quite work out, when we 'grew up,' as my mother hoped. All three of us would share our father's agnosticism and sidestep our husband's faiths."

The man who wrote "White Christmas" actually hated Christmas. "Many years later," Mary Ellin writes, "when Christmas was celebrated irregularly in my parents' house, if at all, my mother said, almost casually, 'Oh, you know, I hated Christmas, we both hated Christmas. We only did it for you children.'"

So why did an agnostic humanist who hated Christmas write the song "White Christmas?"

Undoubtedly, it had something to do with the businessman in him. When his friend Cole Porter confessed that he hated his own "Don't Fence Me In," a surprise international hit, Berlin advised him, "Never hate a song that has sold a half million copies." (Cole Porter, by William McBrien, 1998.)

Christmas, for Irving Berlin, was not a religious holiday: it was an American holiday. He simply needed a melody in 1940 for a show called Holiday Inn, an escapist "American way of life" musical (when all hell was breaking loose in Europe) which called for a song for each holiday. The words to "White Christmas" are not about the birth of a savior-god: they are about winter, the real reason for the season.

Biographer Bergreen writes about the Christmas of 1942:

"Accustomed to traditional holiday celebrations, Ellin arranged for a Christmas tree to be delivered to Berlin's hotel suite in Detroit, where he was performing in This is the Army, and with the girls' assistance she proceeded to decorate the tree while a photographer memorialized the occasion. The photograph of the songwriter, his wife, and family decorating the Christmas tree, when reproduced in the newspapers, served as another plug for 'White Christmas.' Berlin, the cantor's son, rationalized his participation in the Christmas rite on the basis that it had become an American holiday, and as a professional patriot, he made a habit of appropriating all things American to himself."

This U.S. postage stamp (above left) was issued in a ceremony in New York City in September 2002, one year after the 9/11 WTC attacks. Out of agnostic Irving Berlin's 1,500+ songs, "God Bless America" was chosen to represent his life's work.

"God Bless America" was originally written in 1918 for a patriotic WWI show. Irving Berlin had joined the army, and (according to Harry Ruby, his pianist colleague at Camp Upton) to avoid getting up early each morning, Irving convinced his superiors to allow him to serve his country by producing a musical for military PR. It was a light-hearted life-in-the-army show called Yip, Yip Yaphank, including the comic bugle call "Oh, How I Hate to Get Up In The Morning."

As he was finishing the writing, "Berlin composed one unashamedly patriotic anthem," Bergreen writes, "which spoke of prairies and mountains and oceans white with foam. He called it 'God Bless America,' but even as he dictated it to Ruby, Berlin became insecure about its originality. 'There were so many patriotic songs coming out everywhere at the time,' Ruby recalled. 'Every song-writer was pouring them out.' As he wrote down the melody, Ruby said to Berlin, 'Geez, another one?' Deciding that Ruby was right, that the song was too solemn to ring true for the acerbic doughboys, Berlin cut it from the score and placed it in his trunk. 'Just a little sticky' was the way he described the song. 'I couldn't visualize soldiers marching to it. So I laid it aside and tried other things.'"

The song was forgotten for two decades. During those years, Irving Berlin's attitude toward war evolved.

In 1938, while the United States was resisting joining the new European conflict, the singer Kate Smith was looking for a song to perform during her Armistice Day broadcast--a "song of peace," she said. It happened that Irving Berlin was also casting about for an idea for a pacifist anthem. Almost no one in America wanted to go to war. "I'd like to write a great peace song," he told an interviewer, "but it's hard to do, because you have trouble dramatizing peace. Easy to dramatize war. . . . Yet music is so important. It changes thinking, it influences everybody, whether they know it or not."

He tried writing a couple of peace songs, but they were "too much like making a speech to music," he said. It then occurred to him to dig up that discarded composition from 1918.

"I had to make one or two changes in the lyrics," Berlin continued in the interview, "and they in turn led me to a slight change and, I think, an improvement in the melody. . . . One line in particular; the original line ran: 'Stand beside her and guide her to the right with a light from above.' In 1918 the phrase 'to the right' had no political significance, as it has now. So for obvious reasons I changed the phrase to 'Through the night with a light from above,' and I think that's better.

"One of the original lines read: 'Make her victorious on land and foam, God bless America, my home sweet home.' Well, I didn't want this to be a war song, so I changed that line to 'From the mountains to the prairies to the oceans white with foam, God Bless America, my home, sweet home.' This longer line altered the meter and led to a change in the melody."

Kate Smith sang Berlin's peace anthem on national radio on November 11, and it became an immediate hit.

"The reason 'God Bless America' caught on," Berlin tried to explain to The New York Times in 1940, "is that it happens to have a universal appeal. Any song that had that is bound to be a success. . . ."

Discussing the mystery of what makes a hit song, he continued: "The mob is always right. It seems to be able to sense instinctively what is good, and I believe that there are darned few good songs which have not been whistled or sung by the crowd."

This was "a populist credo, as well as a merchant's," Bergreen observes. Irving Berlin may have been right about the business of the mob's taste in music, but he never envisioned "God Bless America" becoming a pro-war anthem, as it is often sung by "the right" today.

Some of us freethinkers might wonder why an agnostic would write a song about "God" at all, especially a Jewish agnostic who must have known that the capital-G "God" is perceived by most to be the Christian deity. But just as "White Christmas" is not about Christ, "God Bless America" is not about God; it is about America. Irving Berlin was not an atheist evangelist; he was a songwriter and businessman who wrote and sold music that reflected the popular mood.

"'God Bless America' revealed that patriotism was Irving Berlin's true religion," Bergreen writes. "It evoked the same emotional response in him that conventional religious belief summoned in others; it was his rock."

Even though Irving Berlin occasionally used the word "God" in a poetic sense, never once in his more than 1,500 songs did he ever promote religion.

"I don't write church lyrics on the side," he once told a journalist, "have no passion for flowers, and never read Shakespeare in the original Greek."

In fact, he sometimes poked fun at faith.

Four years after the original "God Bless America," Irving Berlin wrote "Pack Up Your Sins and Go to the Devil in Hades," a song for his 1922 Music Box Review performed at the new Music Box Theater in New York, which he had built especially for his productions. The song was about the recent "jazz" craze that was sweeping the country, which was being condemned by the Church.

"In the press and from pulpits, self-appointed guardians of public morality decried this dancing bestiary," Bergreen writes. "Matters became so serious that a New York grand jury investigated, and after due deliberation arrived at a 'presentment condemning the turkey trot and kindred dances and laying particular stress on the fact that the hotels and cafes allow such dances.' " People were arrested for dancing! Some lost their jobs for dancing during lunch breaks.

During Berlin's 1922 rebellious revue, an attractive comedienne named Charlotte Greenwood, dressed in a red devil suit, dispatched popular jazz musicians to hell singing, "They've got a couple of old reformers in heaven, making them go to bed at eleven. Pack up your sins and go to the devil, and you'll never have to go to bed at all." (See sidebar.) The song is the perfect antidote to "God Bless America."

Irving Berlin died quietly at home in 1989 at the age of 101. A patriotic agnostic who devoted himself to enriching America, he lived a productive life full of family values, hard work, determination, and joy. He did not believe in an afterlife; but maybe he did jokingly wish for a hell, because "all the nice people are there."

As Mark Twain said, "Heaven for climate; hell for society." If there is a hell, we unbelievers will be in great company.

Dan Barker, a former minister, is a staff member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Dan's father Norman Barker can be seen playing the trombone alongside Judy Garland as she sings "I Want to Go Back to Michigan" in the 1948 musical movie of Irving Berlin's "Easter Parade."

"Pack Up Your Sins and Go to the Devil in Hades" is recorded on Dan's new "Beware of Dogma" CD produced by the Foundation. Also on that CD is a parody of "God Bless America," and the new freethinking "God-Less America," re-written by Dan Barker and Steve Benson.

Read More...

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Terrorism: What Is it?

author - September 2003
by Martin Hunt

Most of us agree that terrorists are murderous bastards. But there are many sorts of murderous bastards. Are all murderous bastards terrorist? The Beltway snipers from a few years ago sure did spread terror - but should they be placed in the same category as suicide bombers motivated by bad religion and oppression?

Nobody doubts that the attack on 9/11 was a terrorist attack. The attack on Baghdad in the spring of 2003 was a terrorist attack too. The very term used to describe the strategy by the Pentagon; "Shock and Awe", refers to the terror that the US leaders hoped to create among Iraqis in order to minimize their resistance to invasion. The "Shock and Awe" image is particularly disturbing, because for a long time the Western democracies had tried to not be terrorists - UN peacekeeping missions were the opposite of terrorism - people risking their lives in very difficult situations to try and make populations feel safe enough to resume normal life.

Nobody doubts that suicide bombers are terrorist weapons. The point of terror is to make people scared that they will be killed or mutilated as they innocently go about their daily business. This fear is supposed to generate a political instability that will cause old power structures to collapse and new ones to arise. In this view the Beltway Snipers, terrifying as they were, were not terrorists - they were extortionists - guys out for a quick buck.

We forget that terror, as a weapon, has a long history. Israel wouldn't exist without the terrorist atrocities committed by Zionists led by Menachim Begin 50 years ago. The British were driven from Palestine by terror. A friend of mine's father was there at the time, as a British soldier. He tells of Zionists murdering people, and then booby trapping their bodies with bombs to also get the ambulance crew. My point here isn't to vilify Israel -- its only to point out that terrorism isn't only a vile tactic used against us by outsiders. Terrorism is a weapon that has been used by the ruthless through the ages - and all peoples and nations have their fair share of ruthless and violent people clawing after power, for whatever reason.

There is another aspect of terrorism that we often forget. The American people were understandably traumatized by the events of 9/11. Much of the world was traumatized by that. But surely it must be acknowledged that a large proportion of the trauma grew out of the presentation of those terrible events on TV. Hour after hour, day after day, people saw those planes slamming into those towers. Hour after hour we saw photos of the victims in the tower hurtling to the ground. I still have an image in my mind of a bald guy in mid air - head pointed to the ground, his body curled into a fetal position. My point here is that that kind of coverage magnifies the terror generated by the events tremendously.

So, in the contemporary world, some governments are using terrorist acts done by others to terrorize its own population into passive obedience. Even now, five years down the road we live in a situation where governments use terrorist acts as an excuse to do whatever they want. According to recent reports, Donald Rumsfield was agitating for an attack on Iraq the day after 9/11. He'd been wanting to do that for years, and here was his excuse. My view is that a government that uses terror in this way is itself using terror as a tool - my definition of terrorism above covers this situation very neatly.

On 9/11 al Quaeda carried out a terrorist action against the USA, and more broadly against all of the open societies in the world. I'm not particularly clear about what al Quaeda hoped to accomplish with such an act. But it is clear that many people have seized upon that attack as an excuse to transform democracy. I think that its not unreasonable to say that these people are actually trying to destroy democracy as we know it by instituing such a severe regime of security and secrecy that the citizens will not be well enough informed about their society to be able to make rational decisions.

For me, terrorism is a weapon. Weapons are used in war. I don't think that terrorism, as a weapon, is any worse than cruise missiles, atomic bombs, invasion forces or any of the other military capabilities possessed by the governments of the world. It would be nice to say that terror is too inhumane to be used because it kills so many non-combatants. All warfare kills non-combatants, and all warfare terrorizes non-combatants. It's a bit too cute to single out terrorism as intolerable while we think of the rest as being honorably military.

I have an extreme abhorrence for terrorists. For me though, George Bush is the biggest terrorist in the world. Ariel Sharon is a terrorist too. Just this summer, in Lebanon, we witnessed a war where both sides were obviously terrorsts - attacking each other's civilian populations to try and force political change. Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist also, but a minor one - one created in fact by the US in Afghanistan in the 1980's. Bin Laden is a traitor of course in that he has turned against his sponsors. But he's not the big guy.

I sure hope that this will not be construed as an anti-American rant. It's not my intention. My intention is merely to point out that if we are to resist the anti-democratic direction that our society is going that a lot of people will have to realize that they are being emotionally manipulated to have a "knee-jerk" reaction to whatever the government chooses to label "terrorist". We need to resist this manipulation and regain our perspective. If we allow democracy to be destroyed, then we will have thrown away something of tremendous value in a futile effort to be "safe". Our biggest protection is our democratic values. If we throw away our liberty then we will not be safe.

Read More...