Evo Morales on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show

My wife loves this guy and his name because his name, Evo Morales, translates as… ‘Eve Morals’. A boy named Evo in Bolivia might have a life just a little like a boy named Sue in Oklahoma would! Who knows? Here he is on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show

Maybe Ahmadinejad should have done that program instead of visiting Columbia University? He could have done some jokes along the lines of….

There was an Imam, Pastor, and Rabbi who all went out to lunch together with God and here’s what they all ordered….

Jon Stewart certainly would have treated him with respect and dignity instead of trying to incite a war.

Ahmadinejad versus American imperialism

Here is a link that leads to the video of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s appearance at Columbia University.

It begins with Bollinger’s diatribe but then eventually gets around to Ahmadinejad speaking. The transcript can also be read here but if you can spend the time, you get a much clearer picture of what Ahmadinejad is saying by watching the speech instead of merely reading it. It’s worth the time spent.

Lee Bollinger- who is this attack dog for Bush?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came and went from New York City with his message for a just Peace in the Middle East, and the US media went into a hysteria. Lead attack dog for going to war against Iran was Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University, who invited Ahmadinejad into his den so that he could barrage him with a Right Wing temper tantrum for the US corporate press to disseminate.

Why would such a nice ‘liberal’ do this work for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? After all, isn’t Lee Bollinger a free speech champion as he is most often portrayed in the US press?

Well it turns out that this description of him doled out time and time again by our bullshit press is just a bunch of crap. Bollinger has no liberal credentials other than being a lawyer. He took a case or two that dealt with some ‘free speech’ questions but that hardly makes this guy Mr. Free Speech at all. It seems that he never exercises ‘free speech’ except to encourage invasions and bombardments of countries like Iran?

Try to find anything critical of Bush and his regime made by Bollinger over the last 7 years on the last 7 years via a search on the Internet? Good luck…. Here is what you will find though. You will find that Mr Liberal is actually a corporate hack on the board of the establishment Right Wing Washington Post along with Warren Buffett and Melinda Gates, amongst other corporate criminals now parked there. The Post is not liberal at all, so why can’t the press correctly identify Bollinger as being a Right Wing hack rather than calling him a champion of free speech? In fact, Lee Bollinger is your garden variety Zionist inside the US Establishment.

The President of Iran surely knew who he was dealing with when he decided to accept the speaking engagement at Columbia University. Despite the stupidity and disingenuousness of his remarks about gays in Iran, it was he who came off as advocating peace though. Something that neither Bush nor Bollinger do.

The US has to mislabel and hide who and what Lee Bollinger really is from the public and even then his belligerence was so open and obnoxious that he actually hurt the US government case that going to the war with Iran would be solely defensive in nature. It most certainly would not be, and Zionist Lee Bollinger personalized this aggressive desire and tendency toward committing mass murder by a government (the US) much more than Ahmadinejad.

Our country’s ‘leaders’ over and over are demonstrating themselves to be a bunch of power hungry, violent and even genocidal group of thugs. Lee Bollinger is case in point. He was pushing for the US to start a war with Iran but we should resist the call. And if Bollinger wants to champion ‘free speech’ then he should take his carnival to the Occupied Territories and champion tearing down The Wall. Israel would take his ‘free speech’ and shove it back down his throat for sure.

Media Hysteria pushes for US military attack on Iranian people

One of Iran’s government leaders visits New York City to attend a United Nations function and the US media uses this as an excuse to rabidly push for a US war against that country.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s right to free speech was so threatening to Bush and Cheney that they had to deny him a visit to the site of the ruins of 9/11 to place a wreath in remembrance of those that died there. Why?

The truth is, the US government feared what he had to say, so they censured him by denying him access to the World Trade Center site. It was a simple as that. He did speak at Columbia University though, and The New York Times printed some of that transcript

What is noticeable about the media reporting is how all the hysteria comes from the US Right Wing, the US government, and their corporate media lackeys. Ahmadinejad toned down and resisted from what would have been correct in labeling the US government as the main source of world terrorism. After all, this is the country that through the last decades has been responsible for killing millions of Iranians and Iraqis through its promotion of war in the Middle East.

That is not even to mention the deaths from US government terrorism that have wracked Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and the Occupied Territories controlled by US backed Israel. Instead, Ahmadinejad spoke out for Peace, something that the US corporate media has a real problem doing.

The US media in contrast, has tried to churn up a surge to more war. We, The American People, have to learn how to read between the lines of our corporate media sources and resist their propaganda and its call for yet more bloodshed.

Enough is enough. We should understand by now that demonization of the leader of another country is usually the prelude to attacking it.

The Last Penis Operation

I love how reading on the internet can get you thinking and moving in weird ways. Like this reportage titled Man with Two Penises Loses Wife.

One would actually think that she would take advantage of that?… but probably she just didn’t like sex that much?

Anyway, I got to that article by way of antiwar.com since they had a link titled Dilbert on Ahmadinejad which got me to a commentary on The Dilbert Blog by Scott Adams. I’ve liked him ever since the humorless Democratic Party-tied liberal, Norman Solomon, attacked him with an entire book dedicated to Dilbert, of all things!

Anyway, things go full circle sometimes and Dilbert does defend Ahmadinejad quite well, I rather think. The Iranian president certainly is a prick, but then most of those people making a fuss about him seem to be what might best be termed DOUBLE PRICKS. We should be like the wife in the story of the man with 2 penises. We should just leave these DOUBLE PRICKS and get on with reality and life. It’s just too much all the time getting screwed!

The DOUBLE PRICKS extreme are the current US government and the current Israeli government IMO. Right on Dilbert! Down with Ratbert and Dogbert! DOUBLE PRICKS like this are way too much tax-fed militarism to take all the time.

Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad antiJewish?

We have on this blog, a comment made by a Zionist who identified himself with the name of the president of Iran. Coward. As such, he is imitating the Jewish comedian Sasha Cohen’s character who represents himself as a backward Muslim named ‘Borat’. I am old enough to remember that this was the style in Southern KKK circles, too. Some White KKKers and other White racists found it fantastically funny to burlesque Blacks by giving themselves nicknames which were considered at the time as being Black names. They would then play at being ‘niggers’ as they called the victims of their racist abuse.

In like manner, a couple of years ago I participated in a heavily Israeli loaded MSN newsgroup where a lot of Israeli IDF types were sending in pictures from Israel along with their racist antiArab/ antiMuslim vitriol. The most obnoxious of these stone cold thugs called himself ‘Abbas’, the name of the, at that time, new Palestinian Authority president. He just thought it such a laugh to be a racist Jewish killer and to be writing under the e-nickname ‘Abbas’. So here is an interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Judge for yourself who is the more odious racist, our anonymous Zionist poster, or the person he is making fun of?

Time Magazine banality of puff

Dead presidentBagNewsNotes drew my attention to the cover of a recent Time Magazine, a posterized image of Iranian President Mahmmud Ahmadinejad. The photo was manipulated reminiscent of OJ’s mug being darkened for sinister effect.
 
Readers commented on Ahmadinejad being made a cartoon, or a throwback to student movement political posters. I’d put it back further. I think the photo editors at Time are after a tin-type look, suggesting the Islamic Revolution is profoundly backward, belonging to the century before last perhaps.

The composition of the picture, particularly the woodgrainish, oddly insufficient backdrop behind Ahmadinejad’s head, reminds me of the post-mortem photographs of dead outlaws in the American West. Pictures of the outlaws brought to justice, laid out semi-vertically against their wood-box coffins, were circulated in the old west to publicize their successful apprehension. This provided proof for everyone to see with their own eyes that a feared outlaw was dead.

Add to Ahmadinejad’s resemblance the dark hair and beard and I think this Time cover emulates a photograph made iconic in Latin America at least, spread around by our government as a warning to others: the Dead Che Guevara.

How do you suppose the Time editors excuse themselves for their art direction whim? Do they think readers will accept it as fair that one personage be accorded an intimate portrait on the cover of Time, and yet another receives a editorialized visage?

The editors at Time can’t expect their readers to remain naive for much longer. I’m encouraged by the trend in children’s TV cartoons to mock the manipulation toolbag of media artists. The cliche of Bambi Eyes for example is mocked from Spongebob to Jimmy Neutron. They make obvious the deliberate use of caricatured expressions when they are being manipulative. Our children’s media literacy will be greatly enhanced and Time’s techniques will have to become more sophisticated.

Haditha
I had a chance to peruse a copy of this issue at the dentist’s. Further inside is a profile of one of the marines, The Face of Haditha, on trial for a possible war crime in Haditha. Shooting 24 Iraqi civilians, some of them at point blank range. Sargeant Frank Wuterich speaks out, the headline reads, “for the very first time.” The layout features a large picture of Wuterich on the left and a brief bio and interview on the right. Let me cut to the meat of the article, Wuterich is not permitted by his lawyer to say anything about what happened at Haditha except that he believes with incredulity that the actions of he and his comrades were within their legal rules of engagement. Wuterich also ponders innocently why he has not been asked more by the military investigators about what happened at Haditha. Thus, Time Inc has slipped us two items: the suggestion of innocence, and the suggestion that the prosecutors are not after the truth.

Take a look at the photograph. Sargeant Frank Wuterich stands with his arms crossed in frank honesty. He’s got big brown eyes and he’s addressing us squarely, looking like our paperboy come to collect our subscription. He’s young, attractive as American Pie, with big doe eyes. He’s got a partially concealed tattoo on his forearm and in the article we read he has several. One tattoo he was reluctant to show the photographer, we’re told, is of a dagger skewering severed fingers and eyeballs, his wife “doesn’t like that one so much.”

Bloggers
On the issue’s back page is a whimsical article by book reviewer Lev Grossman defending himself against blogger Edward Champion who has been picking on him. Grossman’s piece is an honest rebuttal to a difference of opinion, but he ends it with the usual dismissal columnists use to trump their blogger counterparts, “at least I’m getting paid to write this.”

Paid by whom Mr. Grossman? By a media conglomerate which is distorting the news to an audience of readers less culturally savvy than a common child? Good for you.

Showing fealty

Demonstrating fealty to the SaudisJon Stewart parodied the Bush-Ahmadinejad face off at the U.N. on Thursday, characterizing George Bush’s address as a Mafia don trying to intimidate his subjects.
 
In this light, the significance of Bush holding hands with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah earlier this year finally hit me. Bush is probably taking out on us what he’s getting from his masters. The public hand-holding was none other than a show of fealty.

At first I thought Bush could have been helping the not-so-elder along a Texas trail. Or maybe hand-holding might be a Saudi custom between friends. I laughed a bit at the gay innuendo, thinking about Jeffrey Gannon/Guckert, the gay prostitute who frequents the White House but nobody knows for whom, keeping in mind Stephen Colbert’s chiding White House Spokesman Scott McClellan for retiring to “spend more time with Andrew Card’s children.”
 
What does it mean to kiss the Don’s ring? Or the Pope’s? Or to touch another’s feet? It isn’t affection, it isn’t submission. It’s the literal origin of what it is to kiss ass. An act which both parties agree to be distasteful and beneath one’s dignity, but necessary to demean oneself to show deference.

It means subjugation, to humiliate yourself, in the original sense of humility, to abase yourself before your superior, before everyone’s eyes, to demonstrate your allegiance.

Holding Prince Abdullah’s hand was not about kissing up to the Saudis to cement an oil deal. It was an offer George W. could not refuse. Who owns a major share of the US treasury bonds? Who could break the US economy at will? To whom does Bush owe his fortune and ascendency? “Hold my hand.”

What could it mean for the President of the United States to be demonstrating his fealty to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia?

Hugo Chavez Evil Knievel

While everyone was looking for Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to seize the headlines, our Chimp-in-Chief receives a dressing down from Venezuelan upstart Hugo Chavez like no one has ever dared address the Emperor before. Not just calling Bush the Devil, but fleshing it out, “it still smells of sulphur in here.”

These words come of course from one of the axis of evils. Evil here being confused for the global justice movement, which seeks equitable rights for all human beings. To an industrialist landlord such a prospect probably does sound evil.

The most successful purveyors of this evil ideology in the last century were Mahatma Gandhi, Fidel Castro, and Nelson Mandela, among others, and most recently Subcommandante Marcos, Hugo Chavez and Eva Morales. There have been more who have been unfortunately crushed like flies.

Hugo Chavez fashions himself after the great populist liberator of the Americas, Simon Bolivar.
That’s about as boastful as, say, George W. Bush telling us the W stands for Washington. But Venezuela’s got the oil, and Hugo Chavez has the love of his people. A liberator for the Americas he may be. Let’s hope he means to save our America as well.

Bush and the former mayor of Tehran

Revolutionaries escorting CIA from US embassyThis is just RICH! Another headline! Bush and his Iranian nemisis to address the U.N. on the same day. Bush determined to avoid Ahmadinejad in the hallway! AND HOW!
 
Bush’s people don’t want to make an issue of the two meeting, although if Ahmadinejad approaches, “nobody’s going to body-block” him. Talk about giving diplomacy a chance.

Of the man who leads Iran, the nation which has been the demon of Bush’s preoccupation and the focus of Bush’s address to the General Assembly, Bush aids don’t want to accord Ahmadinejad so much importance. “We’re talking about the former mayor of Tehran here.”

Really. And Bush is what? A former what?

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was among the former Revolutionary Guard student leaders who seized the American embassy in Tehran and precipitated the fall of the Shah and the end of US influence in Persia.

Bush was what? What? Oil man? Sports team owner? Alcoholic until he was 40? Maybe drinks still? Draft dodger of the blue-blood sort, dodged even his Reservist duty? Cocaine dealer in college, busted and sentenced to community service when others served long prison sentences? What? He won’t deign to meet with a former mayor of Tehran?

Ahmadinejad may be mouthing off too much for everyone’s comfort, but he has also singlehandedly brought the question of Israel’s legitimacy in the Middle East back to the discussion of a resolution in Palestine.

Ahmadinejad made minced meat of Mike Wallace in his CBS interview, in spite of the fact that 60-Minutes had control of the editing. I’m reluctant to mention Ahmadinejad and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence, but the Iranian president’s interview reminded me of Saddam’s talk with Dan Rather. The soon to be toppled dictator ran circles around our boy Dan. One rarely sees presidents measured up against journalists. Both are bright, but the brilliance required of a self-made statesman becomes pretty self evidence.

Now let’s talk about George Bush. Bush can’t even be interviewed by an informal commission without being accompanied by Dick Cheney. The vice-president’s nickname in CIA circles is “Edgar.” The best guess is that Edgar is a reference to Edgar Bergen, father of Candice Bergen and beloved ventriloquist to his wooden chum Charley McCarthy. Would Bush be the dummy “Charley?” Is that too much of a stretch?

Bush can’t handle a debate without an electronic prompter, nor a speech without someone feeding him his lines. That’s why he pauses between phrases. We know the routine from weddings: repeat after me: to have and to hold, to have and to hold, till death do us part, till death do us part, amen, amen. Bush can’t even handle an audience that isn’t vetted of just the hardcore ditto-heads.

White house officials are saying it is Ahmadinejad who is eager to avoid coming face to face with Bush. He’d come out at a disadvantage they say “because he’s shorter than Bush.” Really now? Shorter than Bush? I don’t even believe that.

Ahmadinejad and Hamas not denying Holocaust

Iranian president
No one is suggesting that the Holocaust didn’t happen, or that six million Jews weren’t killed by the Nazis. The mythology surrounding the Holocaust has to do with its aftermath: how the murder of six million Jews became justification for the creation of a Jewish state on land which belonged altogether to someone else.
 
That is the mythology about the Holocaust which natives of the Middle East would like the rest of us to contemplate.

Western media seems intent on perpetuating a distortion of the Muslim position. So intent are they to avoid questioning the legitimacy of Zionism that anyone who does is painted as a “Holocaust denier.”

No one is denying the Holocaust! And no one is calling for killing any more Jews! “Wiping Israel off the map” is a truncated translation of what the Muslim voices have expressed. It does not mean “off the face of the earth” or “eradicate” or “exterminate.”

Right to exist
Hamas is often described as not believing in Israel’s right to exist. It sounds so unreasonable. Everyone has a right to exist. But Israel is not a person, it’s an entity. Try this on for size. Does Jewish occupied Palestine have a right to exist? Did French occupied Algeria have a “right to exist?”

Algeria had a right to exist, and the French there had every right to exist, as a minority. And as we’ve seen with all former colonies, the majority population has an inclination to rise against its upper class oppressors. The west has of course the inclination to try to prop up those embattled regimes.

Israel was a nation created in 1949, carved out of the land of the Palestinians to make a home for European Jews. Israel is regarded by many as a last example of colonialism. White settlers laying claim to the lands of another people.

Now the Israelis are erecting a wall to separate themselves from the darker skinned Arabs. It’s an apartheid wall, and we’ve seen apartheid before. The Boers of Dutch ancestry no longer rule South Africa because the world wouldn’t stand for it.

Israelis have as much right to exist as anyone, as the Boers for example, but they don’t have a divine right to exist on the backs of their native brothers.

Apartheir wall   Israelis call it a “fence.” To construct it required demolishing entire Palestinian neighborhoods, often separating Palestinian farmers from their fields and orchards.
 
 

Off the map
When the Iranian president says he would like to wipe Israel off the map, he’s not saying he wishes to kill anyone. He didn’t say he wants to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth, he’s saying he’d like to see Israel off the map OF THE MIDDLE EAST!

Ahmadinejad even suggested that Israel relocate itself to Europe. If Europeans feel so bad about the Holocaust which they inflicted upon the Jews, why shouldn’t it fall to Europe to offer up some of its real estate for a Jewish homeland?

Ahmadinejad, like many Muslims, doesn’t see that it was Europe or America’s place to bequeath Ancient Judea to the present day Jews, a land which for the last two thousand years has belonged to non-Jews and went by the name of Palestine.

We all came from Africa. Does that give us a right to resettle it without regard to who’s already living there? Should someone resurrect Babylon, Alexander’s Greater Macedonia, or the Holy Roman Empire?

Hamas, and the PLO before it, speak of driving this foreign intruder from Palestinian land. The Muslims scattered the Israelites into Europe two thousand years ago. Now interlopers have brought them back and Hamas has pledged to drive them out again.

Imagine if America chose to return its Puritans whence they came, to England, where they weren’t terribly popular the first time. Perhaps the English would vow to expel the kill-joys once again to the New World.

As unreasonable as it was to redraw international borders to recreate a Promised Land, so too might it be unreasonable to undo the land grab of 1949. Perhaps the most pragmatic course of action would be to insist the Israelis and the Palestinians cohabit the promised land. They can govern themselves democratically and the chips will fall where they may. This age of enlightened democracy should have little patience for dogmatic racism and religious prejudice, from either side.

The world should be able to look upon these religious squabbles with impartiality. Although it seems Israelis are plenty worried that the secular west may not always grant Jewish fundamentalism more deference than its Islamic rivals. Therein lies the importance in not denying the Holocaust.

Holocaust myth
What peoples, among victims of genocide, have ever been granted their own ancient Promised Land as a redress for the genocide? None. Is this because the Holocaust was such a unique genocide? Indeed, to be labeled a Holocaust denier you merely have to be denying the uniqueness of the Holocaust.

When Iran president Ahmadinejad says that he wants to examine the myth of the Holocaust, he is threatening to challenge the prevailing Zionist interpretation.

Ward Churchill got in trouble with the Zionists because he wanted to compare the genocide of Native Americans to the Holocaust. He makes the case mainly because the policy of extermination conducted against the original inhabitants of the Americas is still denied, and as a result extensions of the policies persist.

I think the argument to prove Churchill’s point leads in an altogether different direction. This is because the Jewish extermination was not an act of imperialism against an weaker people.

The genocide against the Native Americans was like the systematic extermination of indigenous peoples everywhere: Australia’s aborigines, Indonesia’s Ache and Timorese. It is also the age-old mechanics of one people conquering another, like the genocide by the Turkish of the Armenians, and the recent actions of the Sudanese Arabs against their blacks.

The genocide against the Jews was class warfare upward. It belonged in a category like the Soviet and Chinese against their bourgeois and intellectuals, like the Khmer Rouge genocide of the urban Cambodians most of whom were ethnic Chinese, like the Hutu slaughtering of the Tutsies, like the traditional and recurring pogroms against Jews. It’s hard to say that even the Spanish Inquisition wasn’t after the usury profits of the Jews.

Thus antisemitism is less unique than its name implies, and resembles very much Marx’s class warfare where the proletariat is trying to come out from under its oppressors, or perceived oppressors.

The Holocaust is touted as religious genocide, hence the rationale for redress which honors their biggest religious wish: return to their Promised Land.

The Zionist count on the west’s continued support of that religious goal. They need an independent Israel with a homogeneous Jewish religion. They know that if they were to be integrated with the region’s present-day peoples, as a Jewish minority among Palestinians, they stand a good chance of being voted off the island.

So here are America and modern Europe, standing in support of a dogmatic religious group. It does not play well with others, and it insists in fact that it be segregated from everyone else, even as it usurps the land of others, and occupies adjacent lands under the pretext of its national security.

I have no doubt that victims of the Holocaust would themselves be shocked and shamed at the crimes that Israel is committing in their name against the peoples of Palestine.

Why America and Europe should side in religious solidarity with Jewish fundamentalists without sympathy for the Islamic fundamentalists is the consequence of believing a myth.