Zcom_simple

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

President Bush Defends the Homeland

By David Peterson at Jul 25, 2007


Change Text Size a- | A+

By my count, the Commander-in-Chief used the phrase 'al Qaida' a total of 87 different times yesterday during his speech at the U.S. Air Force base in Charleston, South Carolina.  (Others have come up with even higher estimates: At one point yesterday, CNN estimated 93 times.)   Since the White House's transcript of the speech totals approx. 3,600 words, this means that the American President uttered the phrase 'al Qaida' (which counts as two words, incidentally) once every 41 words (roughly).  Insofar as the so-called War on Terror and Defense of the Homeland go, this might be the all-time record.  (Though I admit to not having checked very many of the speeches delivered by Dick Cheney over the past six years or so.  Or everything associated with the Department of Homeland Security.  Or the news reports and commentaries that stream across the FOX News Channel, the Weekly Standard, and similar venues.) 

As David Keen pointed out in CounterPunch the other day, the propagandist's Number One weapon is repetition: "repeat your message often enough and people will believe it."  No less an expert in the craft than the Fuhrer himself once counseled: "The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. [Propaganda] must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."  Indeed. 

Given such profligate word-usage among the White House speechwriters responsible for drafting the July 24 beauty, it's difficult to decide which single passage out of the whole deserves to be highlighted the most.   So you'll have to forgive me for my choices.  (Both of which came near the end of the speech.) 

At this stage, I guess we can dispense with wondering whether or not any of it is true. These days -- and perhaps just about forever -- whatever is true around official Washington is true by some freakish accident -- the purely contingent correspondence between whatever the regime asserts for the sake of power, and whatever happens to be the case in the world on any particular occasion.  

Truth-as-usefulness is another matter.  And, therefore, a more practical question comes to mind: Whether or not all of the regime's efforts, taken as a whole, will by the waning months of 2008 prove sufficiently frightening to convince Americans to stand up and, in a single voice, to chant: Enough with democracy and the November 2008 elections already!  It's Bush-Cheney for as long as the Homeland is threatened and the War on Terror lasts.

We will see.

(Two brief excerpts follow from "President Bush Discusses War on Terror in South Carolina," White House Office of the Press Secretary, July 24, 2007. -- Feel free to nominate your own personal favorite.  It'd be awfully hard to miss the side of this barn.) 

And most important for the people who wonder if the fight in Iraq is worth it, al Qaida in Iraq shares Osama bin Laden's goal of making Iraq a base for its radical Islamic empire, and using it as a safe haven for attacks on America. That is why our intelligence community reports -- and I quote -- "compared with [other leading Sunni jihadist groups], al Qaida in Iraq stands out for its extremism, unmatched operational strength, foreign leadership, and determination to take the jihad beyond Iraq's borders." 

Our top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has said that al Qaida is "public enemy number one" in Iraq. Fellow citizens, these people have sworn allegiance to the man who ordered the death of nearly 3,000 people on our soil. Al Qaida is public enemy number one for the Iraqi people; al Qaida is public enemy number one for the American people. And that is why, for the security of our country, we will stay on the hunt, we'll deny them safe haven, and we will defeat them where they have made their stand.

….……..

I've explained the connection between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate. I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection. The facts are that al Qaida terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they are plotting to kill Americans here at home again. Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of al Qaida in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat. If we were to follow their advice, it would be dangerous for the world -- and disastrous for America. We will defeat al Qaida in Iraq.

 


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Update (Tom Toles, Washington Post, July 26):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Update (August 22): Get a load of this image (as shot by Jim Young of Reuters today in Kansas City, MO):

  "The greatest weapon in the arsenal
  of democracy is the desire for liberty
  written into the human heart by our
  Creator.  So long as we remain true
  to our ideals, we will defeat the ex-
  tremists in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We
  will help those countries' peoples stand
  up functioning democracies in the heart
  of the broader Middle East.  And when
  that hard work is done and the critics of today recede from memory, the cause of freedom will be stronger, a vital region will be brighter, and the American people will be safer. Thank you, and God bless. (Applause.)" ("President Bush Attends Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention, Discusses War on Terror," White House Office of the Press Secretary, August 22, 2007.) 

Looking over this image, I can't make up my mind whether the photographer worships his subject matter, or holds him in contempt?  Based on the image alone, one can make both cases. -- What do you think?

"Don't know much about history," Matthew Yglesias, The Guardian, August 22, 2007
"
Will U.S. be final victim of its global dance macabre?" Gul Jammas Hussain, Mehr News Agency, August 22, 2007 
"
Bush accused of twisting history over Iraq, Asia war links," P. Parameswaran, Agence France Presse, August 23, 2007
"
The big muddy," Editorial, Baltimore Sun, August 23, 2007
"
President Compares Vietnam, Iraq Wars," Farah Sotckman, Boston Globe, August 23, 2007
"
Bush cites past wars for lessons on Iraq," Michael Tackett, Chicago Tribune, August 23, 2007
"
Bush draws parallels between Iran and Vietnam," Richard Alleyne, Daily Telegraph, August 23, 2007
"
George Bush: Iraq must not become Vietnam," Alex Spillius, Daily Telegraph, August 23, 2007
"
Bush warns of Iraqi 'killing fields'," Edward Luce, Financial Times, August 23, 2007
"
This is a war for credibility," Martin Woolacott, The Guardian, August 23, 2007
"
How can this bloody failure be regarded as a good war?" Seumas Milne, The Guardian, August 23, 2007
"
Iraq: The vanishing coalition," Leonard Boyle and Kim Sengupta, The Independent, August 23, 2007
"
The Iraqis don't deserve us. So we betray them…," Robert Fisk, The Independent, August 23, 2007
"
The retreat from Iraq," Adrian Hamilton, The Independent, August 23, 2007
"
The Asian Example," Editorial, New York Sun, August 23, 2007
"
Bush Declares That 'Free Iraq' Is within Reach," Jim Rutenberg et al., New York Times-IHT, August 23, 2007
"
Historians Question Bush's Reading of Lessons of Vietnam War for Iraq," Thom Shanker, New York Times, August 23, 2007
"
British forces' effort in Iraq criticised by US general," Hamish Macdonell, The Scotsman, August 23, 2007
"
Bush invokes Vietnam to justify Iraq commitment," Tm Reid, The Times, August 23, 2007
"
Iraq and Vietnam," Editorial, The Times, August 23, 2007
"
Spectre of Vietnam looms large over the killing fields of Iraq," Gerard Baker, The Times, August 23, 2007
"
An imprudent comparison that undermines the American case," Bronwen Maddox, The Times, August 23, 2007 
"
Quitting Iraq would have dire results, Bush warns," Paul Koring, Toronto Globe and Mail, August 23, 2007
"
Bush: Remember Vietnam," Tim Harper, Toronto Star, August 23, 2007 
"
Discarded Troop Plan Gets a Second Look," Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal, August 23, 2007 [$$$$$]
"
Bush Ties Iraq Effort To Vietnam Lessons," John D. McKinnon, Wall Street Journal, August 23, 2007 [$$$$$]
"
Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam," Michael A. Fletcher, Washington Post, August 23, 2007

 

Update (September 15): Yet another example of defending the Homeland:

"Erwin Chemerinsky and the Post-9/11 Attack on Academic Freedom," Marjorie Cohn, The Jurist, September 15, 2007
 

Person

Re: The United States of Gargoyles

By Kissenger, Clark at Jul 26, 2007 21:07 PM

This is a rich vein indeed, but I daresay this quote of István Bibó will be of help in overcoming hordes of unseen demons:

Being a democrat means, primarily, not to be afraid...


Reply this comment


Person

The United States of Gargoyles

By Kissenger, Clark at Jul 26, 2007 19:10 PM

SK:

It is a delightful surprise to see that John Mueller's debunking of the "terrorists" who lurk underneath each of our beds is available free-of-charge at Foreign Affairs.  ("Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?: The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy," September/October, 2006.)  The "terrorism" industry really took off post-9/11.  (Herman & O'Sullivan's term -- and maybe EH's single most important area of inquiry, or at least tied with the worthy/unworthy victim dichotomy, and with the earlier constructive - benign - nefarious - and mythical bloodbath categories.) Where there is a strong demand for anything -- as long as it's humanly possible -- and when it isn't, there's always the promises of organized religion -- the humans' penchant for pretending seldom leaves them at a loss to supply it. 

Have often wondered whether the great explorations of the human psyche (nice examples cited in your post) really applied to the ostensible object of inquiry -- to the human subject, that is -- or whether they might not have been better spent on human instituitons and mass-cults?

There is no simple answer, of course.  Though anyone curious to know where my prejudices lie might start with this line (which I am stealing from Artaud): That in comparison to the lucidity of individuals, group dynamics and anonymous posters are no better than dens of apes who are themselves obsessed and persecuted and who possess nothing to mitigate the most appalling states of anguish and human suffocation but a ridiculous terminology and cocktail parties.

Or, more literally:

Things are going badly because sick consciousness has a vested interest right now in not recovering from its sickness.  This is why a tainted society has invented psychiatry to defend itself against the investigations of certain superior intellects whose faculties of divination would be troublesome. 


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Reply this comment


Person

One wonders what odd

By Kissenger, Clark at Jul 26, 2007 18:34 PM

One wonders what odd politico-psychological problems this gargoyle saw over the course of the 20th century? The late István Bibó could have mined this rich vein of "political hysteria" for everyone's edification (even of those caught in its thrall). Here's a synopsis of the idea, courtesy of Emmanuel Terray:

In a series of mid-twentieth century essays the Hungarian historian, István Bibó, attempted to explain the blindness and irresponsibility that had characterized the interwar politics of the Central European states—Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary—and led them to catastrophe. In doing so he proposed a new concept, that of political hysteria. Bibó's central hypothesis was that when a community fails to find within itself the means or energy to deal with a problem that challenges, if not its existence, then at least its way of being and self-image, it may be tempted to adopt a peculiar defensive ploy. It will substitute a fictional problem, which can be mediated purely through words and symbols, for the real one that it finds insurmountable. In grappling with the former, the community can convince itself that it has successfully confronted the latter. It experiences a sense of relief and thus feels itself able to carry on as before. Anthropologists have explained the magical practices of ‘primitive' societies along similar lines. Communities which feel themselves defenceless before a nature that they cannot control will people it with invisible powers—gods, djinns, spirits—that are its masters. At a stroke, these communities provide themselves with a means not just to understand the forces of nature but to affect them, by propitiating their gods with sacrifices and incantations.

For those inclined to a more humdrum (based on "reasonable explanation" as the author puts it) reading of the world, here's something more in keeping with their taste.

Reply this comment


Z

What is your point?

By Anonymous, Anonymous at Jul 26, 2007 09:27 AM

What is your point?

Reply this comment


Person

Reply to SK

By Kissenger, Clark at Jul 25, 2007 23:32 PM

SK:

Never heard of this kind of Methuselah before. -- But how about the advertisement for the Sci-Fi convention 


David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Postscript. Do you suppose the national political gargoyles protecting the gates to the Homeland ever heard of the related psychological concepts of projection and transference?

Reply this comment


Person

Methuselah?

By Kissenger, Clark at Jul 25, 2007 22:34 PM

Maybe President Bush is one of the "unnamed" still recovering from the depredations of another Middle Eastern group over the weekend.


Reply this comment

Loading_border