FOR SALE: The integrity of American print journalism.
That’s not what the flier sent out by the Washington Post said. Not in so many words. But it might as well have said that. The flier, circulated Wednesday, offered lobbyists access to Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s reporters and editors. This off-the-record access would be arranged at the home of Washington Post Publisher and Chief Executive Officer Katharine Weymouth (photo below). The price of admission: as much as $250,000 a head.
A health care lobbyist, who received the flier, passed it on to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict of interest. Imagine that! A lobbyist giving ethics lessons to the press!
As they say in Jamaica, look what me, poor boy, live to see!
This poor boy has lived to see the once-proud American press degraded and diminished over the years… Unheeded at my anonymous newsroom desk, I grumbled as ads began appearing on section pages, and then on front pages… as coverage of the nuts and bolts of democracy - city and county commission meetings, courts, school board meetings, and so on - was cut back, way back… as tabloid froth and pseudo-literature spread like a fungus over the news pages… as obvious pandering and naked polemics replaced honest commentary in editorials and on op-ed pages…
The excuse for the transformation was always declining readership and the resulting loss of advertising revenue. Times were hard and newspapers had to do what they had to do to stay alive, I was told. To quote another Jamaican saying, “When man in trouble monkey jacket fit him.” Trouble is when a man wears a monkey’s jacket he tends to make a monkey of himself.
Over the years, I watched in dismay and disbelief as newspapers were perverted in a misguided attempt to inveigle readers, pacify critics and please advertisers. I saw slick, “market-oriented” business executives take over the newsroom, and I listened to endless messages of a new journalism that would captivate readers and usher in a new and profitable era for newspapers. It didn’t happen, of course.
The reason newspaper readership vanished was because the newspapers vanished. In their place appeared an array of pseudo-magazines, with full color and fancy phrases, consumer tips and quasi-fictional feature stories. Occasionally, newspapers ran an “expose” to maintain the illusion of a vigilant press. Readers realized they could get the same kind of thing - only better - on television, and started canceling their newspaper subscriptions. And the trend accelerated with the emergence of the Internet.
Instead of recognizing they had abandoned their franchise and returning to their roots, newspapers became even more frothy and frilly, forgetting their traditions and losing their souls… until it has come to this.
With the newsroom in an uproar after Politico ran a story on the Post’s flier, Weymouth canceled the planned “salon.” Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli (photo at left), who left the conservative Wall Street Journal to join the supposedly more “liberal” Post, denied all knowledge of the sell-out.
“This should never have happened,” Weymouth told Post media reporter Howard Kurtz. “The fliers got out and weren’t vetted. They didn’t represent at all what we were attempting to do. We’re not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom.”
I have to admit that I finally agree with one of those TV pundits. We were listening to the Ed Show on MSNBC last night when Sandra remarked, “He sounds just like you.” I guess the guy must read my blogs. Anyway, as my wife astutely observed, host Ed Schultz (photo below) was ranting and raving, pretty much as I am wont to do, about the namby-pamby way in which the popular U.S. President and the party that Americans elected to run the country are approaching health care reform.
President Obama and the Democrats seem to believe they need Republican support to get the health care mess straightened out. So they may be willing to pass a lousy bill on the assumption that it would be better than no bill at all. Of course, you and I know that’s horsefeathers, to put it politely.
The Democrats should work out the best solution they can, write a bill to implement it and use their majority in Congress to pass it.
As I see it, such a bill would have to include a public option, which Republicans declare they will not support. In that case, two eventualities could prevent the bill from becoming law:
Blue Dog Democrats and other party moles might join the Republicans to defeat it.
Republicans might succeed in filibustering it.
In Canada, Jamaica or the United Kingdom, defeat of a major government proposal immediately shuts down Parliament and triggers a new election. That threat helps keep members of the majority party in line because the last thing politicians want is to have to face the voters prematurely. Not so in America. Blue Dog Democrats can sabotage their party as they like with no immediate consequences.
But that doesn’t mean there would be no consequences for those who vote against health care reform. Poll after poll has shown that the majority of Americans support health care reform and want a public option included. For example, a national poll of 3,063 registered voters released yesterday shows that 69 percent of Americans want the option of purchasing government-run health insurance. And you might recall that the promise of health care reform was a major reason Barack Obama won the presidency and swept the Democrats into power on his coattails in November.
If a Health Care bill with a government option is defeated in Congress, American voters would undoubtedly respond in next year’s elections (and in 2012) by kicking out the politicians responsible for its defeat. Sabotage of such a popular bill would give the Democrats a powerful campaign issue and probably finish off what’s left of the Republican Party. It would also end the careers of those craven Democrats who put special interest campaign contributions ahead of the public good.
So now the exodus begins. The crusaders who supposedly brought freedom and democracy to Iraq are coming home, “mission accomplished” at last. After nearly seven years of bombs and bullets, blood and tears, the doughboys or dogfaces or leathernecks, or whatever they call them these days, can come marching home again - the first wave of them, anyway. Trumpets will sound triumphantly and drums will beat a welcome. The streets will be lined with cheering crowds and patriotic bunting will flutter from utility poles.
And while that might make your spine tingle, it makes my stomach sick. For one thing, more than 4,300 of America’s brave fighters won’t be marching anywhere ever again. Flag draped coffins bear testimony to that.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq were built on lies and sustained by ignorance. Those weapons of mass destruction the Bush-Cheney propaganda machine warned Americans about? Why, they turned out to be non-existent. As all the world knows by now, the Iraq invasion was sold to Americans by a lying administration. And the chimera of democracy in Iraq was founded on ignorance.
Apparently, the Bush foreign affairs “experts” didn’t realize that Iraqi society is divided by voting blocs based on religious affiliation. They obviously didn’t know that the election of a Shia government was never in doubt because the vast majority of Iraq’s voters are Shia.
The hundreds of thousands of slaughtered Iraqis, the murdered and mutilated children, the thousands of soldiers and insurgents died in vain - all of them. Before the invasion, Iraq was ruled by a despicable dictator, but there was order. An ancient culture survived, and thousands of years of history were documented in museums… museums that were bombed and looted in the invasion.
After the occupation, what is left? Apparently, another dictator. Here’s an excerpt from an article in The Nation by Robert Dreyfuss:
As we pull back, we’re leaving Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (photo at right) in charge. Increasingly, Maliki is taking on the trappings of a dictator. He’s established a network of security agencies that report directly to him. He’s built a countrywide patronage system to bribe and pay off tribal allies, in anticipation of 2010 elections. He’s shown no compunction against using the army, the police and the secret agencies he controls to eliminate rivals. He’s used divide-and-conquer tactics to outflank the Sunni-led sahwa movement, known as the Awakening or the Sons of Iraq, driving some of them back into armed resistance and others into sullen resentment or fear for their lives.
And Maliki, despite his protestations that he is a born-again “nationalist,” has close ties to Iran. With Iran now revealed as a fundamentalist-run, naked military dictatorship, I expect Iran to act ruthlessly vis-a-vis Iraq, and if he wants to stay in power Maliki will pretty much have to go along.
And the same ancient culture survives, but without many of the priceless relics from thousands of years of history… The traditions that subjugate women persist. The order is gone - there is violence in the streets - utilities are disrupted and the infrastructure is destroyed. The economy is in disarray. The society is in conflict.
And the power structure has changed. Before, it was the Sunnis that ruled. Now it’s the Shia. I suppose you could argue that because the majority of Iraqis are Shia, it’s a democratic government. But I am sure the Sunnis don’t see it that way. And the Sunnis have been America’s traditional allies. It was America that provided Saddam Hussein with doomsday weapons to kill Iranians and oppress the Shia and the Kurds. The dominant Muslim faction in Saudi Arabia and other “friendly” Mideast states is the Sunni. The Shia faction has close ties to Iran, and by handing over Iraq to the Shia, America, in effect, handed it over to the Iranian ayatollahs and that unspeakable Ahmadinejad creature.
According to the Dreyfuss article:
Maliki sits atop a conspiratorial little party called Al Dawa, a fundamentalist Islamist grouping, and he is reliant on a small, secretive clique that surrounds him. During the February election, in order to appeal to Iraqi voters, Maliki posed as a nationalist of sorts, but in fact he is dependent on two outside powers. First, he’s dependent on the United States, for despite his bravado about the US withdrawal from Iraq’s cities, Maliki desperately needs American backing to remain in power, to build up his armed forces. And second, Maliki is dependent on the good will of Iran, which could topple him instantly if he crossed Tehran.
But, as usual, Big Business is making out like bandits - and not only through the repugnant war profiteering you must have heard about. Here’s more from the Dreyfuss piece:
While Iraq’s Shia population celebrated in the streets and Iraq’s Sunni population crouched in fear, another group got right to business. “The long-awaited auction of licenses to develop Iraq’s huge oil reserves began Tuesday amid unusual contentiousness,” reported The New York Times on Tuesday, “as multinationals demanded far more revenue from every barrel of increased production than the authorities were willing to allow. Scores of Chinese, Russian, American and British oil executives, representing eight of the world’s top 10 non-state oil companies, gathered in a hotel meeting room in the Green Zone. They listened closely on headphones to translations as bids for six oil fields and two natural gas fields were read out and then rushed into consultations.”
But, at least, Johnny is marching home again - hurrah! hurrah!
I don’t watch “Meet the Press” on NBC now that Tim Russert is gone. David Gregory is no Tim Russert. But I happened on the program recently as I idly clicked my TV remote, and I saw David Axelrod’s earnest countenance, so I paused to visit. And what I heard troubled me greatly.
“Just this week in the health committee on — in the Senate, where Senator Dodd has done such a great job in moving healthcare reform along, 82 amendments were accepted from Republican members that I think will strengthen the healthcare bill,” Axelrod was saying. “And that is a positive thing.”
Say what? I don’t see that as a positive thing at all. I don’t want those 82 amendments in the health care bill. If I had wanted Republican legislation I would have voted Republican. I voted for the Democratic Party because I wanted the legislation the Democrats promised. How hard is that to understand?
Axelrod was, of course, touting the President’s “bipartisan” approach. President Obama is always preaching bipartisanship - for better or for worse, it seems. “Whether we’re Democrats or Republicans, surely there’s got to be some capacity for us to work together,” he says. “We may not agree on everything but at least we can set aside small differences to get things done. People have to break out of some of the ideological rigidity and gridlock that we’ve been carrying around for too long.”
Wow! Does that ever sound good. Sensible. Mature. Pragamatic. Whatever… But that’s just not how a democracy works. In a democracy opposing sides offer their programs to the voters and the voters choose the program they like best. Then the winning party is supposed to implement that program. In November, American voters chose the Democrats by a wide margin. They have a right to expect Congress to implement a Democratic agenda.
If that agenda proves ineffective, the voters can kick out the Democrats in the next election and give the Republicans a chance to try their ideas. So, why is the President so keen on “bipartisanship”? And why is the Democratic majority in Congress handing the reins over to the Republican minority?
If the Democrats implement a Republican agenda, my vote was wasted. If I had wanted a Republican agenda, I would have voted Republican. The way things are going, I might as well not vote next time.
My representative in the United States House of Representatives is a 65-year-old woman named Ginny Brown-Waite. Whenever I sign one of those petitions asking Congress to vote for pro-environmental legislation or some other “good cause,” I get an email from this woman explaining at length why she is against it and why I should be, too. Naturally, when I get a chance to vote, I fill in the blank next to her opponent’s name, whoever he or she might be. But Ginny Brown-Waite is always re-elected. She is a Republican, and in the part of Florida where I live just about everybody votes Republican. After all, they might tell you, they’re decent, church-going citizens - not baby killers!
A Roman Catholic, Brown-Waite (photo at right) is certainly no baby killer. She has a lifetime rating of 90 percent from the American Conservative Union and zero percent from NARAL (formerly the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League). And when it comes to defending religion, she does not flinch. She has a zero percent rating on the separation of church and state in America. She even voted for an amendment that protects religious discrimination in hiring.
Brown-Waite is less enthusiastic about civil rights. The NAACP gives her a score of only 17 percent on affirmative action. She voted yes on a Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage. And she voted yes on making the infamous Patriot Act permanent. An ardent opponent of gun control, she proudly carries a gun when she is home in Hernando County.
Brown-Waite supports the death penalty on religious grounds. Apparently, the word came directly from God. She says she saw “a message” in a nosebleed suffered by death row inmate Allen Lee Davis during his execution on July 8, 1999. The blood was in the shape of a cross, she said, so she figures God was blessing the execution.
In view of her track record, you can imagine my surprise when I learned from a service called Truthout that this religious woman was involved in some shady stock trading. I knew that police had caught her husband, former New York state trooper Harvey Waite, stealing her opponent’s lawn signs when she ran against state Senator Karen Thurman back in 2002, but that was just politics. This is greed.
Truthout sent me an article from The Cleveland Plain Dealer exposing members of Congress who eagerly traded bank stocks while overseeing the recent multi-billion-dollar bank bailout. The day before the House passed the bailout, “Brown-Waite grabbed up Citigroup stock,” the article charges. (You can read the story at www.truthout.org/062809Y?n )
According to the newspaper:
Anticipating bargains or profits or just trying to unload before the bottom fell out, members of the House Financial Services Committee, or brokers on their behalf, were buying and selling stocks including Bank of America and Citigroup - some of the very corporations their committee would later rap for greed, a Plain Dealer examination of congressional stock market transactions shows….
For example, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, a Florida Republican, bought Citigroup stock valued between $1,001 and $15,000 on Oct. 2, the day before the House passed the financial rescue bill and President George W. Bush signed it into law, records show. She opposed the bill.
Eleven days later, she bought $1,001 to $15,000 worth of Bank of America stock. It was on the same day that then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told leading banks that he expected them to accept billions in bailout money to prevent a financial meltdown.
Brown-Waite, who has since left the committee to join the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, and her spokeswoman would not comment for this article. The precise value of her investments is not publicly known because financial disclosure reports provide only broad ranges, although some members include detailed brokerage reports.
I sent the Plain Dealer article to the editor of the local newspaper, but have not received a reply. My guess is that he isn’t planning to follow up. But even if he does, you can bet your last dollar that Brown-Waite will be re-elected if she runs again. In these parts, greed is OK. “Baby killing” is not.
If we lived in a just world, those frowsy-looking Iranian mullahs would be strung up by their thumbs and horsewhipped (or worse), a democratic government would be installed in Iran, and an international group would be appointed to ensure no nuclear weapon is ever developed there.
Furthermore, that tinpot despot in North Korea would be given a swift kick in the behind and exiled to the sacred slope where his special rice is grown. He would spend the rest of his life growing food for the people he has been starving in order to maintain his lavish lifestyle and build up his massive army.
I’m sure you can think of many other evil dictators who should be punished, many other oppressed populations that should be freed and fed. The question is how?
The United Nations can’t do it. The way it’s set up, the international body is almost useless. For one thing, the Security Council is immobilized by the conflicting agendas of its members. On one side are America, France and the United Kingdom; on the other are Russia and China. And to ensure gridlock, each of the members has veto power.
Some people in the United States, inexplicably including several respected politicians, think they should take on the job. After all, that’s what America is all about, isn’t it? From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli, and all that, right?
Sorry, folks. America can’t police the world. It’s too big a job. You could spend the next century trying to help oppressed people without even covering the continent of Africa. It would be like trying to save a crowd of drowning people single-handed. You would surely end up drowning, yourself.
And there’s also the question of America’s “national interests.” Some of the despots who rule their people with an iron fist are its allies and trading partners. The United States would be foolhardy to try and introduce democracy and civil rights in China, for example. And you won’t hear much about oppression of the people, especially minorities, in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. The president there is supposed to be “pro-West,” and it wouldn’t be politically useful to offend him. And while Russia is no friend of Western democracy, Europe and Israel need Russia’s oil, and America needs Russia’s support - or at least its restraint - in dealing with diplomatic issues.
That’s one reason you haven’t heard of any American or Israeli bombers taking off for Iran. Russia has a decades-old alliance with Iran, and I understand it’s Russia that has supplied Iran with the materials and technology for its nuclear program. (Photo at left shows Russia’s Vladimir Putin palling around with Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)
As for North Korea, I would think the U.S. needs China’s permission to take out Kim Jong-il (pictured above in a relaxed moment). China was the force behind North Korea’s aggression back in the Fifties, and it’s China that has been propping up Kim’s isolated and impoverished regime.
It’s frustrating, I know, folks. It would feel so good to “bomb, bomb, bomb” Iran - or at least the Iranian government (surely, you wouldn’t want to bomb those poor protesters, who have endured so much pain already). But there’s not much you can do, except gnash your teeth and shake your fists. Any progress in Iran - or in other oppressed areas of the world - will have to come from within, with the help of more enlightened international cooperation from without. As long as great powers like Russia and China remain oppressive and despotic themselves, worldwide democracy and freedom will be a long time coming.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed comprehensive climate change legislation yesterday, which did not surprise me. What leaves me stunned and furious is that 44 Democrats voted against the bill. What in tarnation is going on? Sandra and I did not send our few dollars to help elect so-called Democrats who, once in Congress, cynically defend the interests of oil barons at the expense of the planet’s survival.
Some Democrats justified their opposition to the bill by citing provisions adversely affecting corn ethanol production, which has been shown to be of little help in reducing fossil fuel consumption but which has enriched farmers in the politicians’ constituencies. Once again, personal political gain trumped the public good.
So many Democrats in the House and Senate have lined up against reform, against progress, that the change we paid for with our nickels and dimes grows more elusive every day. Eight Republicans voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and helped the bill squeak through the House by 219 votes to 212. Maybe we should have contributed to those Republicans’ election campaigns instead.
An even tougher battle is expected in the Senate, where several Democrats are niggling over details in a thinly veiled effort to sabotage climate change legislation.
Not a day passes without a request for a donation to the Democrats. They must think that we are unaware of what’s going on. They will not get another penny from this household until we figure out what our money is buying. And I don’t think we are alone. I bet millions of Americans who made small contributions to President Obama’s campaign - and to the Democratic Party because of Obama’s agenda - will think twice before writing a check in 2010.
The Democratic Party is in for a rude awakening unless its leaders find a way to deliver the platform its supporters have a right to expect. And that means keeping such promises as affordable health care for all Americans; environmental responsibility and massive development of alternative energy; a level financial playing field; protection of our civil rights and privacy; and preservation of our wildlife and wilderness.
Politicians who oppose such policies should not be allowed to call themselves Democrats, and should have to run for election under their true colors. No party can expect continuing support from its members unless it delivers on the promises of its platform. Is it possible that the money from special interests is so overwhelming that the individual contributor no longer matters? Has America become a plutocracy instead of a democracy? We will have to wait and see what happens in next year’s elections.
I was not a Michael Jackson fan. I don’t think I have ever listened to “Thriller.” But I couldn’t escape reading and hearing about the “King of Pop” over the years. And I remember with fondness the littlest member of the Jackson Five, who was so full of zest, so nimble and so appealing. Someone said the boy is father to the man or something like that, but I am often bewildered by the transmogrification some cute children undergo as they grow into adults.
That little Jackson Five kid (pictured performing at right) was a world apart from the skin-bleached, one-gloved showman (photo below) who apparently lived for the limelight and was eventually burned by the limelight. Like a moth that cannot resist the flame, Michael Jackson played with fire, risking his reputation and his life by circling ever closer to disaster. From what I’ve heard, he had an unnatural childhood - and I can easily understand that. He was so young when his family hit the showbiz jackpot. He certainly had an unnatural adulthood. And it was not all his own doing.
I think he succumbed to the influences of a sick society, rebuilding his nose and bleaching his skin (I know, I know, he said it was a natural disorder but if you believe that…), looking for love in all the wrong places, indulging in self destructive habits, excessive displays and conspicuous consumption, apparently accepting the Hollywood hype about himself. But for all that, he was more sinned against than sinning.
Celebrities attract parasites who can be incredibly unscrupulous and shameless. And they fed off his fame like a swarm of flies. I think that was the reality behind the child molestation accusations. I think grifters saw a chance to make a score and took a shot at it. From the little I know, I am prepared to give Michael the benefit of the doubt, to believe he was the big-hearted philanthropist he seemed to be, and to attribute his excessive predilection for the company of children to innocent eccentricity. For in many ways, the King of Pop remained a kid.
And I hope it is that little boy who survives in our memory, and not the Tinsel Town creation that is being mourned by millions around the world today.
For an objective summary of Michael Jackson’s life, click:
I cannot bear to watch that wretched South Carolina governor being ridiculed and shamed on television. And I will not yield to temptation and use him as an example of the general depravity of Republican politicians. Not that I fail to grasp the irony of the Republican Party’s self-righteous preaching about “family values.” Not that I condone Republican politicians’ hypocrisy: They take the name of the Lord in vain when they exploit morality and religion for political advantage, and they expose themselves to justifiable contempt when they throw stones at others and are later shown - as they so often are - to live in glass houses.
I suspect most Republican politicians - most politicians - are depraved. Politics is a dirty business. And politicians often are dirty. But a love affair is no laughing matter. It can be beautiful. It can be sordid. It can - and often is - tragic.
In the case of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (pictured above with his family at his swearing-in ceremony), it is a tragedy. To understand the horror of it, you have only to read this passage from one of the emails he sent his lover, emails that are now being tittered at by a titillated public:
This is ground I have certainly never covered before - so if you have pearls of wisdom on how we figure all this out please let me know. In the meantime please sleep soundly knowing that despite the best efforts of my head my heart cries out for you, your voice, your body, the touch of your lips, the touch of your finger tips and an even deeper connection to your soul.
If you have ever fallen under the spell of an irresistible attraction, you will understand. If you have not, you cannot know what Mark Sanford is going through. He fell into that ring of fire that Johnny Cash sang about when he lost his heart to June Carter. And he can only watch helplessly as his life and career go up in smoke.
He will have to answer to his wife and four sons. And he will bear those scars forever. He will be diminished in the eyes of family and friends. He will be humbled when he looks in the mirror. Far less important, he will lose the trust of his constituents and irreparably damage his chances of political advancement.
Do not misunderstand me. I could not disagree more with Sanford’s politics. To me he is a sorry excuse for a governor. He seems to be arrogant, ill-informed and self promoting. And it would be tempting to say, “It serves him right!”
But as a fellow human being, I pity him for the pain he must endure, and I pity his wife and family for their anguish. And I pity his lover, herself a hapless victim of Cupid’s arrow. Affairs of the heart are unpredictable. Love is like a train wreck. It comes without warning, and the best anyone can do is try to pick up the pieces.
The massive demonstrations in Iran have set off a frenzy among the hawks of the world who seem to believe that violence can be the antidote for violence. These hawks are impatient, unschooled people who have refused to learn the lessons of history. Rarely does violence bring good results. True victory is won in the heart not on the battlefield.
People who are physically subjugated often harbor such resentment that subsequent peace is unattainable. The creation of Israel provides an example of this. The seizure of Irish homes by the English is another. As the old saying puts it, “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
Iran’s path to attaining human rights will be long and arduous. The Islamic theocracy has deep and strong roots. Even if one group of mullahs is overthrown, the succeeding ayatollahs are unlikely to allow true reform. Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the leading opposition figure, is no human rights activist. He is a long-time member of the theocracy who is seeking the presidency under the existing political structure. To replace Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Mousavi would be - as they say in Jamaica - to “swap black dog fe monkey.” The difference would be skin deep.
President Obama knows this, and while he is “heartbroken” by the suffering of the Iranian protesters, he recognizes how counterproductive it would be for him to incite more demonstrations. He knows the appearance of U.S. intervention in the dispute would be the kiss of death for the protesters’ cause.
If a genuine urge for freedom is emerging among Iranians, they will have to win it for themselves. And I think they will have to take the long road. They might be wise to study the life of Mahatma Gandhi (pictured at right) for starters. Gandhi’s crusade of nonviolent resistance to Britain eventually led to India’s independence, but it took more than a quarter of a century. It took even longer for the nonviolent revolution advocated by Martin Luther King to bear fruit in the election of America’s first black president. And in both cases, the leaders of the crusade were prepared to endure personal sacrifice. Gandhi fasted. King died.
Perhaps the face of Neda (photo below) - a beautiful woman murdered by a sniper in the flower of her youth - will provide the symbol that Iranians need to resist and endure. In India, protesters squatted in the middle of the road and refused to budge even when they were clubbed and whipped. When salt was taxed, thousands marched to the shore and dried their own salt.
Instead of gathering in the streets where the Basiji can pick them off from the rooftops, Iran’s protesters will need to adopt smarter tactics. They might choose a general strike as one method. But it will take not one but many strikes to bring down the mullahs, and the strikers must be prepared to endure great personal hardship, as times are hard in Iran and few have any savings.
Instead of shaking their fists at the mullahs, hawks like John McCain should be cudgeling their brains for nonviolent ways to help the protesters. Senator McCain is chairman of a covert operation known as the International Republican Institute, and this organization has been accused of fomenting unrest in Iran. Perhaps groups like this can find secret ways of smuggling food and money into Iran to help the strikers survive - instead of egging them on to risk their lives in the street.
But I doubt that McCain would consider this approach. It seems that he would much rather “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” which would give the Iranians a common enemy and end any hope of human rights for Iranians in the foreseeable future.
Over the years, I watched in dismay and disbelief as newspapers were perverted in a misguided attempt to inveigle readers, pacify critics and please advertisers. I saw slick, “market-oriented” business executives take over the newsroom, and I listened to endless messages of a new journalism that would captivate readers and usher in a new and profitable era for newspapers. It didn’t happen, of course.
Instead of recognizing they had abandoned their franchise and returning to their roots, newspapers became even more frothy and frilly, forgetting their traditions and losing their souls… until it has come to this.
