Sunday, June 11, 2006

It's a No-No, Ge-no


It's the never-ending story or, as Attytood said, there's never going to be a last word about Geno's Steaks, We shall overcome.

Joe Vento has now gone Ann Coulter -- it's Bigotry in Motion. He's gone national, as noted by Philly Future in Geno's "English Only" story goes national: there is going to be trouble, such as an interview on Good Morning America, see English Only at Famous Philly Cheesesteak Joint (story, including video).

A few days ago, Will Bunch of Attytood cited Young Philly Politics, in Fear and Loathing in Philadelphia, asking if Geno's Steaks was violating the Civil Rights Act by his English only policy. The Philadelphia Inquirer provides the potential answer in today's front page installment, Immigration and cheesesteaks:

A city agency charged with investigating discrimination plans to file a complaint Monday that questions the legality of the signs, which Vento has said are directed at the Mexican immigrants in Geno's South Philadelphia neighborhood.

"We're alleging that the sign itself is enough of an unwelcoming message that it may violate the Fair Practices Act," said Rachel Lawton, acting executive director of the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations.

Mary Catherine Roper, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the signs straddle a line between free speech and discrimination.

Geno's "has a right to express its opinion, however offensive," she said. "But there are specific limitations on places of public accommodation, because they are supposed to be available to everyone."

See also, Rick Nichols' food column, Seeing the writing on Geno's wall.

My orignal posts on the Geno's brouhaha are here: No Cheese Wid for me and Pat's is King of Steaks.

(Photo via Attytood).

Fear of Flying

I have come to loathe the thought of having to travel by airplane. When I first started my legal career, I worked at a big white-shoe law firm in Pittsburgh and there was no better way to go -- especially when I was travelling first class on the dime of a client (and was also able to bill my time spent en route to that client as well). Ahh, the joy of it all. I think my worst extravagence was a flight from Philly to NYC that I took, but back then, it was the only way to go.

Today, not so much. I avoid air travel if at all possible. It has become the worst way to travel, in my opinion. There are all sorts of reasons -- such as late flights, long delays, lost luggage, cramped quarters and no food (as opposed to the old crummy food), which have all combined to make a travel by plane an unwelcome part of any trip.

But far and away, the thought of having to deal with airport security is the biggest issue. I hate the thought of our loss of privacy generally and air travel brings it home more than anything else for me. It makes me miserable from the moment I step inside the airport itself. I am an average, middle aged woman, who was raised to be polite and friendly in all social situations (I'm one of those people that wouldn't insult the restaurant by sending my meal back), so I am hardly the rabble-rouser type that would warrant suspicion. But that doesn't matter. Courtesy is not a part of the experience that you pay for with your ticket. Instead, the authoritarian personality of the person wearing a uniform is very evident in the airline and security personnel. Power and authority have combined to create the airport bully. Without any provocation, you are treated in a rude, hostile fashion by someone who obviously loves being in a position to give orders. No questions asked.

Or answered, based upon this post by the Practical Nomad blog, Unanswered questions at Dulles Airport, written by travel writer Edward Hasbrouck, who describes a situation that is worthy of the police state this country has become. Flying out of Dulles airport in DC, Hasbrouck provided his passport as ID when he checked in with United, but later declined to do so when asked by someone before he reached the TSA checkpoint. Instead, he questioned who the person was (i.e. whether he was a government employee), and what basis the person had for requiring that his ID be shown at that point in the process. For raising these questions, the police were called & he was almost arrested. Read the whole tale of woe -- woe on us, that is, for the state of our state.

See also, this Wired News story, The Great No-ID Airport Challenge, about identification requirements when flying.

Cartoon of the Day

*Bill Schorr

Saturday, June 10, 2006

What's Going On



For your late night listening pleasure.

Marvin Gaye was probably one of the best performers ever. This is a live performance from a 1973 film, "Save the Children" which is wonderful.

As a commenter to the video noted, this is a hymn to peace and we need it now, more than ever.

Enjoy.

(From the Late Nite Music Club at Crooks and Liars)

Cartoon of the Day

*Tony Auth, Philadelphia Inquirer

He Knows About Which He Speaks

Will Bunch of Attytood provides the latest installment in the Santorum Saga. In his post, That's "weird": Santorum rewrites history, Bunch notes that the audio version of that scintillating book by Santorum, "It takes a Family," contained a bit of editing:

Bob Casey Jr. campaign caught an alteration on one of the book's most controversial passages, the one where the Pennsylvania GOP senator decries the "weird socialization" that he believes that children get in public schools.
It's hard to get definitive numbers, but I would guess that about 85% of students go to public school in Pennsylvania (a bit more in high school). In light of this, I would think that Santorum's screed against public school education was not the most popular thing for Santorum to have said. Of course, he is a product of public high school -- and weird is a perfect word to apply to Santorum. As a public high school graduate myself (my brief interlude from an otherwise all Catholic education), I would say that he's in the minority. But I guess it's hard to get that perspective when you look in the mirror everyday and see Santorum. It would have to warp your world view.

Another bit of funky editing was noted by the Inquirer, Santorum Web site sends mixed signal:
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum seemed to be sending different messages to different audiences on his campaign Web site this week.

English-language visitors to www.ricksantorum.com encountered a home page filled with concern about the "amnesty-ridden proposal" the U.S. Senate adopted to deal with illegal immigration.

But a section of the site for Spanish readers made no mention of amnesty in its discourse on immigration. Nor did it refer to "rewarding criminal behavior" of illegal immigrants, as the English version did.

Jim Hoefler, a professor of political science at Dickinson College, noted: "The English version is kind of the Rick Santorum we know - no amnesty, law and order, tough guy. The Spanish version is a lot softer - we need to find a balance, that sort of approach."
Commenting on these discrepancies, blogger Liberal Avenger recalls that this is The Party of Nixon, after all. As he says, "From the grave, Nixon exerts his influence on the GOP," noting Santorum's excuses about these changes:
So, it’s just an honest mistake. Like the changes in the audio book. Like claiming residence for a house you don’t live in. With any luck, we won’t have Rick Santorum to kick around much longer.
I agree that it's a Republican thing. Because Santorum is a Republican, his mistatements don't qualify as lying. That's just the way they speak. It's like the tale of The Scorpion and the Frog. That is, when a Republican is asked why he lied, when the truth is recorded and so most likely will be uncovered, the Republican responded: "I could not help myself. It is my nature." So speaketh Santorum.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Pat's is King of Steaks


Today must be a time for follow ups.

This one's a follow up on the No Cheese Wid for me post about the "English Only" Cheesesteak place, Geno's. Apparently, the Geno's story started with blogger Philebrity, who has been a long time Geno's patron, but got "uncomfortable" with the heavy dose of bigotry on exhibition (see picture). See also his post: The Love Of Hot Moo-Cow Wit Cheese Knows No Language Barrier.

There's also an audio clip of a Radio Times interview with Geno's owner, Joe Vento (see Radio Times 6/6/06 Show, Hour 2). I ordinarily would never say this, but I'm not the one judging others by their use of language, he is. And by my standards, as an English major, the man can't speak English! As Philebrity put it:

As those of you who listened to Vento on WHYY’s Radio Times yesterday can attest, Vento holds fast to his xenophobic beliefs, wrapping them cozily in patriotism and false “sympathy” for today’s immigrant classes. Not that Mr. Vento himself has the English vocabulary to characterize even his own opinions with that kind of clarity. He’d probably be the first to tell you just he’s not a particularly enlightened guy. (Did anyone else seem to hear him repeatedly say “Ingish” when he meant “English” on the show yesterday?)
Obviously, the man never read the maxim about throwing stones while living in a glass house. Or perhaps he can't read either. Otherwise, he'd be embarrassed by those signs.

Tags: , ,

Gutless Republican Worm

Jack Cafferty calls PA Senator Arlen Specter a "gutless Republican worm" for backing down on the investigation of the Bush Administration's secret NSA spying program. See the video at Crooks and Liars.

The original story is here, Spies 'R (On) Us, including the original video clip. Cafferty finally saw the Arlen we in Philadelphia all know so well. As I said then, if we have to rely on Specter to save us, as Will Bunch of Attytood put it, "God help us."

Random Fetish

The Daily Show's Jon Stewart interview with Bill Bennett discusses the Gay Marriage Amendment. The exchange, in part:

Stewart: So why not encourage gay people to join in in that family arrangement if that is what provides stability to a society?

Bennett: Well I think if gay. . gay people are already members of families...

Stewart: What?!

Bennett: They're sons and they're daughters..

Stewart: So that's where the buck stops, that's the gay ceiling.

Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart:I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.
Once that hate gets out, it's hard to put a lid on it. It becomes acceptable to be a bigot, as we are seeing more of, daily.

Blogger Towleroad reports that, in Boston Macy's Removes Gay Mannequins After Wingnuts Complain. The mannequins were removed "after complaints from the group [MassResistance] that the display was offensive. The display was designed by Macy's with approval of the Boston Pride Committee."

The display offended "a few of their customers," so they removed it. When do the black mannequins go to the back of the bus? When the Council of Concerned Citizens objects?

As Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo noted, they want even the gay mannequins back in the closet.

Oh Federated, not a good move. I would venture that more "gay" money is spent at Macy's and Bloomies than Christian Right $$. I may not be gay, but my money is going elsewhere too.

UPDATE: More from Jon Stewart on the Defense Gay Marriage a/k/a Defense of Bigotry saga.

Bye, Bye Billy


Billy Preston died yesterday.

As the NY Times reports, Billy Preston, 59, Soul Musician, Is Dead; Renowned Keyboardist and Collaborator, Preston was a "splashy gospel-rooted keyboardist whose career included No. 1 solo hits and work with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones."

As the Times notes:

Mr. Preston had an extensive career as a sideman, working with musicians from Little Richard to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. His own hits included the Grammy-winning instrumental "Outa-Space" in 1972 and the No. 1 pop singles "Will It Go Round in Circles" (1973) and "Nothing From Nothing" (1974). He also wrote (with Bruce Fisher) the ubiquitous "You Are So Beautiful."

* * * *

Mr. Preston was the musical guest on the first "Saturday Night Live," broadcast in 1975. He appeared in the 1978 Beatles-inspired film "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" as Sergeant Pepper In 1979 he had a hit duet with the singer Syreeta Wright, "With You I'm Born Again."
Crooks and Liars has video clips of "My Sweet Lord" and "That's the Way God Planned It," with George Harrison from the Concert for Bangladesh.

You can also see a fabulous performance of "You are so Beautiful," with Patti Labelle & Joe Cocker and Billy Preston on piano, at the Apollo in 1985. And here's a live performance of Will It Go Around in Circles?, with Eric Clapton & Billy Preston in 2001.

And here's a clip, of the song With You I'm Born Again, with Billy Preston & Syretta Wright, which was one of my all time favorite love songs.

Bye, Bye Billy. RIP.

UPDATE: And this is an amazing video, Billy Preston & Nat King Cole, performing the Fats Domino hit song "Blueberry Hill" -- when Billy Preston was about 10 years old (around 1957). You can see he was meant to be a performer even then.

Finally, here's a Tribute to Billy Preston:

Tribute (from the beatlemaniacs)


Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Cartoon of the Day

* Doug Marlette, Tulsa World

Evil lurks

June 6, 2006.
06/06/06.
666.

As Newsday warns, Evil lurks, if you take 666 as gospel:

There are those worthless souls who ignore the power of 666; who believe Tuesday- June 6, 2006 - is nothing more than another ordinary mark on the ordinary calendar. They will go about their lives, blind to the blood-curdling evil all around.

Soon, the streets will fill with death and decay.

Soon, scalped chickens will fall from the sky.

Soon, the anti-Christ will rise to render the earth a mosh pit of despair; an empty, rotted stink hole of evil mayhem brought about by all things satanic. Doom will reign! Faces will melt! Alan Thicke will star in a new sitcom! The world will explode! Die! Die! Die!

Or, maybe not.

* * * *

There have been no public warnings; no cries from Pope Benedict to load up on canned goods. And yet, a legitimate biblical tie between 666 and bad stuff seems to exist. As reads Revelation 13:16-18: "He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666."

By "the beast," is the Bible referring to a three-headed, red-eyed ogre? Unlikely. Instead, most scholars interpret 666 to be the numerical code for Nero, the fifth Roman Emperor (54-68 AD) of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, who ruthlessly persecuted Christians. "The legend of the anti-Christ is that of an agent of Satan empowered to pave the way for the end of times," says Phil Stevens, a professor of anthropology at University at Buffalo and an expert on religious symbolism. "The myth of the anti-Christ has been passed down through the generations. But to start with, it appeared to be simply a very disliked man."
If that's the case, we know that the curse of 666 is true & that the beast roams among us. Who is our leader on this evil day of 666? The ruthless anti-Christ? Who knows. A very disliked man. For sure.

And if that isn't prove positive, The Satirical Political Report notes the publication of THE DaBUSHI CODE:

Following his controversial blockbuster novel, Dan Brown is at it again, attempting to unlock the other great mystery of the world, in his new non-fiction book, The DaBushi Code.

Under Brown’s theory, there has been a massive conspiracy to cover up the fact that George W. Bush is actually the offspring of Satan, who had sex with Barbara Bush as part of Poppy’s initiation ritual into Skull and Bones at Yale.

Brown’s premise is that this is the only logical way to explain Bush’s instigation of a pointless and tragic war in Iraq, his reckless indifference to human life during Katrina, and his failure to seriously address global warming, The Devil’s ultimate revenge against God’s creation of the Earth.

* * * *

The DaBushi Code also postulates that contrary to popular belief, “WMD” had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, but actually stands for “W Must Die.” This edict was handed down to Saddam from Satan himself, who was upset that Bush was giving “evil” a bad name.

As Don Davis (who is that rare phenomena, a lawyer with a sense of humor) adds, "The publication of this post on the eve of 6/6/06 is purely coincidental. Or perhaps, as the Public Editor of The New York Times might put it, 'The Devil made us do it.'”

Tags: , ,

Monday, June 05, 2006

Cartoon of the Day

* Gary Markstein

No Cheese Wid for me


I only wish that I ate cheesesteaks, just so I could protest by refusing to patronize Geno's Steaks after this column in the Philadelphia Inquirer, An old struggle to adapt to a new country's ways.

Joseph Vento is extremely proud of the fact that he has "laminated signs, festooned with American eagles, at his South Philadelphia cheesesteak emporium: This is America. When Ordering, Speak English."

Even better, he in effect admits that he would refuse to serve his own Italian born grandparents, who (like my own) spoke broken English. The article says:

Joseph Vento's grandfather and namesake, a street-corner jeweler from Sicily, had trouble with English.

"They tried," Vento said of his grandparents. "They had a hard time. Look at the price they paid. They were limited."

The Ventos rarely left their South Philadelphia neighborhood.
However, unlike him, I have great admiration and respect for my grandparents efforts in dealing with the difficulties of moving -- as adults -- to a foreign country and trying to adapt to a new language and customs. I can remember my grandmother, who loved to travel, being reluctant to venture outside our neighborhood, because she was embarrassed by her heavily accented English, afraid that people wouldn't understand her.

Of course, Vento doesn't care about others. It should be his way or the highway. It also doesn't matter that he didn't quite get the history of the immigration influx at the turn of the previous century correct. After all, people like him never do worry about the facts. As the Inquirer noted:

But history challenges many assumptions about the hurdles aspiring Americans used to face, say scholars of the last massive migration to the United States, which occurred between 1880 and 1920.

"There was no such thing as an 'illegal' immigrant," said Roger Daniels, a member of the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island History Committee and author of Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigrants and Immigration Policy Since 1882.

The Old Country often required exit visas, which created the possibility of illegal emigrants. But the United States did not issue entry visas until 1921.

Before that, no meaningful immigration restrictions existed, except for a bar on Chinese enacted in 1882. Congress imposed no other limits on the number of immigrants - from any one country, or in total. About a million arrived each year in the early 1900s. It wasn't until 1924 that Congress imposed an annual cap of 155,000 immigrants.

"If you could get here and weren't terribly diseased, you could get in," Daniels said.

By contrast, backlogs, country quotas and annual caps now make legal immigration a tortuous and nearly impossible process for many, said Thomas Conaghan, director of the Irish Immigration and Pastoral Center in Upper Darby.

Past immigrants, once here, faced a backlash fueled by anxiety about religions, languages and races that were relatively new to the United States. Fear of anarchist and "Red" ideologies and the competition for jobs also played roles.

Help-wanted ads limited applicants to native-born Americans, said Kathryn Wilson, director of education at the Pennsylvania Historical Society.

Current critics of illegal immigration echo earlier generations of nativists, say academic experts on ethnicity.

"A lot of the rhetoric was similar: 'They don't speak English. They don't want to be Americans,' " said Mae M. Ngai, a University of Chicago historian and author of Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America.

The real issue was revealed in a follow up editorial by Deborah Leavy, AT GENO'S, NO ENGLISH, NO SERVICE:
Jimmy, the guy at the window at Geno's when I stopped by, denied the rule was aimed at foreign tourists. "Some people have taken it the wrong way," he told me between taking orders.

"If you come here from France, and you're on vacation, you shouldn't have to speak English. I try to work with them."

And how do you tell the tourists from the immigrants, legal or illegal - unless what you really mean is Mexicans.

"This was a predominantly Italian neighborhood, and for some reason it's turning Mexican," complained Vento. "They're not speaking the language. It's a big problem, and it's getting worse."
Ahh, yes. It finally comes out. The English only rule is merely bigotry against Latinos. By an Italian American no less. A man who's own relatives no doubt experienced bigotry gets his turn.

Good news is that it's not so for everyone. As Leavy observed:
Not for Tom Francano, who has been taking orders across the street at Pat's King of Steaks for 27 years. "We welcome everybody. We speak everything here. We're multicultural."

Long Live Pat's!

UPDATE: Like me, Attytood was a little late to this controversy. In his post, "Querría un filete de queso....CON!" -- the disgrace that is Geno's Steaks, and what can be done about it, he notes the misremembering or disconnect between reality and perception in the English only debate. Contrary to popular belief, as this article, Immigration—The Wages of Fear, notes: "Hispanics are learning English faster than did Italian and Polish immigrants a century ago."

I also like the idea of the meet up at Geno's with 100+ people, ordering in various foreign languages over the 4th of July week-end. Sign me up!

Tags: , ,

Say a Little Prayer

Very interesting (and hope laden) piece by Jay Rosen of PressThink in A Prayer for the Philly Papers, on the upcoming sale of the Inquirer/Daily News to the local group led by Brian Tierney (see The Good News and Bad News), plus an added treat of lively and insightful dialogue in the Comments by a number of journalists past and present from the papers, among others.

Contrasted with this picture of the papers' news owners & future, is another portrait -- of the leader of the pack, Brian Tierney, in Philadelphia Weekly's column, Brian Tierney Makes a Pledge. This less flattering portrayal includes the reaction of former Inquirer reporter Ralph Cipriano (for details, see The Good News and Bad News), who's run in with Tierney precipitated a lawsuit against the paper.

Best sign for me is the fact that Tierney will be the full time CEO of Philadelphia Holdings Co., the new owner. He is, by all accounts, a zealous advocate for his clients. One would hope that he would be no less so when he is "representing" the papers. There's still a concern that he will try to tilt the papers to the right, since he's fairly conservative politically, but again, that would be against his interests in this liberal-minded, Democratic town. One can only hope & I will.

Veritasiness Tour

From White House Correspondents Dinner to Commencement Speaker, Stephen Colbert is there. Editor & Publisher reports on Colbert's address, Colbert Tells College Graduates: Get Your Own TV Show, noting:

He backed English as the official language of the United States — “God wrote (the Bible) in English for a reason: So it could be taught in our public schools.”

UPDATE: Complete transcript of address available here: 2006 Commencement Address. Partial Video available here: YouTube. Local media coverage, from Galesburg Register reporting on speech, Colbert keeps crowd in stitches.

Sunday, June 04, 2006

Cartoon of the Day


Philadelphia Edition

*John Cole, The Times Tribune

Don't Want No Loving

Guess what Monday is? Monday is the day President Bush will speak about an issue near and dear to his heart and the hearts of many conservatives. It's also the day before the Senate votes on the very same thing. Is it the war? Deficits? Health insurance? Immigration? Iran? North Korea?

Not even close. No, the president is going to talk about amending the Constitution in order to ban gay marriage. This is something that absolutely, positively has no chance of happening, nada, zippo, none. But that doesn't matter. Mr. Bush will take time to make a speech. The Senate will take time to talk and vote on it, because it's something that matters to the Republican base.

This is pure politics. If has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in gay marriage. It's blatant posturing by Republicans, who are increasingly desperate as the midterm elections approach. There's not a lot else to get people interested in voting on them, based on their record of the last five years.

But if you can appeal to the hatred, bigotry, or discrimination in some people, you might move them to the polls to vote against that big, bad gay married couple that one day might in down the street.
So says Jack Cafferty of the Cafferty File. See video & transcript at Crooks and Liars.

As a warm up, Bush did a little cheerleading for the right on his radio address, see
And Now, For Some Saturday Morning Pandering, in which he argued:
Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious, and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. [...]

In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives. And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people -- not by the courts. [...]
As Daily Kos blogger Georgia10 noted:
The President couldn't have made his position any clearer. Courts should not be overturning the will of the people when it comes who should and should not be allowed to marry. Now, which enterprising White House reporter will ask whether the President thinks that Loving v. Virginia should be overturned?
(Via Eschaton).

UPDATE: The comparison to Loving v. Virginia is very apt. As noted in The Importance of...: The Anti-Miscegenation Amendment, "[i]n December of 1912, an amendment to the Constitution was introduced to abolish racial intermarriage:
Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited.
Ah yes, that old will of the people. We wouldn't want to deny "the people" their will to be prejudiced, now would we?

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Is It Over?

The Independent has an article (not available online), Why it's over for America, an exerpt from Noam Chomsky's new book, which posits that "An inability to protect its citizens. The belief that it is above the law. A lack of democracy. Three defining characteristics of the 'failed state'. And that, says Noam Chomsky, is exactly what the US is becoming." Explaining how the U.S. lost it's way, Chomsky writes:

The selection of issues that should rank high on the agenda of concern for human welfare and rights is, naturally, a subjective matter. But there are a few choices that seem unavoidable, because they bear so directly on the prospects for decent survival. Among them are at least these three: nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the fact that the government of the world's leading power is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of these catastrophes. It is important to stress the government, because the population, not surprisingly, does not agree.

That brings up a fourth issue that should deeply concern Americans, and the world: the sharp divide between public opinion and public policy, one of the reasons for the fear, which cannot casually be put aside, that, as Gar Alperowitz puts it in America Beyond Capitalism, "the American 'system' as a whole is in real trouble - that it is heading in a direction that spells the end of its historic values of "quality, liberty, and meaningful democracy."

The "system" is coming to have some of the features of failed states, to adopt a currently fashionable notion that is conventionally applied to states regarded as potential threats to our security (like Iraq) or as needing our intervention to rescue the population from severe internal threats (like Haiti). Though the concept is recognised to be, according to the journal Foreign Affairs "frustratingly imprecise", some of the primary characteristics of failed states can be identified.

One is their inability or unwillingness to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction. Another is their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law, and hence free to carry out aggression and violence. And if they have democratic forms, they suffer from a serious "democratic deficit" that deprives their formal democratic institutions of real substance.

Among the hardest tasks that anyone can undertake, and one of the most important, is to look honestly in the mirror. If we allow ourselves to do so, we should have little difficulty in finding the characteristics of "failed states" right at home.

* * * *

One commonly hears that carping critics complain about what is wrong, but do not present solutions. There is an accurate translation for that charge: "They present solutions, but I don't like them." In addition to the proposals that should be familiar about dealing with the crises that reach to the level of survival, a few simple suggestions for the United States have already been mentioned: 1) accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and the World Court; 2) sign and carry forward the Kyoto protocols; 3) let the UN take the lead in international crises; 4) rely on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military ones in confronting terror; 5) keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter; 6) give up the Security Council veto and have "a decent respect for the opinion of mankind," as the Declaration of Independence advises, even if power centres disagree; 7) cut back sharply on military spending and sharply increase social spending. For people who believe in democracy, these are very conservative suggestions: they appear to be the opinions of the majority of the US population, in most cases the overwhelming majority. They are in radical opposition to public policy. To be sure, we cannot be very confident about the state of public opinion on such matters because of an other feature of the democratic deficit: the topics scarcely enter into public discussion and the basic facts are little known. In a highly atomised society, the public is therefore largely deprived of the opportunity to form considered opinions.

* * * *

Though it is natural for doctrinal systems to seek to induce pessimism, hopelessness, and despair, reality is different. There has been substantial progress in the unending quest for justice and freedom in recent years, leaving a legacy that can be carried forward from a higher plane than before. . . . There are many ways to promote democracy at home, carrying it to new dimensions. Opportunities are ample, and failure to grasp them is likely to have ominous repercussions: for the country, for the world, and for future generations.
See also: Stephen Lendman's Comments On Noam Chomsky's New Book - FAILED STATES, for an in depth discussion of the book. As he notes:
Having laid out his premises, Chomsky believes the US today exhibits the very features we cite as characteristics of "failed states" - a term we use for nations seen as potential threats to our security which may require our intervention against in self-defense. But the very notion of what a failed state may be is imprecise at best, he states. It may be their inability to protect their citizens from violence or destruction. It may also be they believe they're beyond the reach of international law and thus free to act as aggressors. Even democracies aren't immune to this problem because they may suffer from a "democratic deficit" that makes their system unable to function properly enough.

Chomsky goes much further saying if we evaluate our own state policies honestly and accurately "we should have little difficulty in finding the characteristics of 'failed states' right at home." . . . . Chomsky then spends the first half of his book documenting how the US crafts its policies and uses its enormous power to threaten other states with isolation or destruction unless they're subservient to our will. He also explains how we react when they go their own way and how routinely and arrogantly we ignore and violate sacred international law and norms in the process.

Chomsky sees the US as an out of control predatory hegemon reserving for itself alone the right to wage permanent war on the world and justify it under a doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense" or preventive war. The Bush administration claims justified in doing so against any nation it sees as a threat to our national security. It doesn't matter if it is, just that we say it is. Sacred international law, treaties and other standard and accepted norms observed by most other nations are just seen as "quaint (and) out of date" and can be ignored. It hardly matters to those in Washington that in the wake of WW II, the most destructive war ever, the UN was established primarily "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" and possibility of "ultimate doom." Although it was left unstated at the time, it was clear that language meant the devastation that would result from a nuclear holocaust.
Sound familiar? Now this is something that should make one afraid. Very afraid.

(Full Independent article available here: News From Babylon)