http://www.progressive.org/wx011611.html
U.S. Empire Mocks Martin Luther King Day
By Matthew Rothschild,
TheProgressive.com: anuary 16, 2011
I was watching the great Green Bay Packers game Saturday night, and at half
time there was a presentation of colors. The honor guard was representing,
we were told, the men and women in uniform who are protecting us in 177
countries around the world.
177 countries?
As we celebrate the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr., that one fact tells
you just how badly we've failed to put into practice the vision of Dr. King.
That fact of troops in 177 countries confirms that we are still "a society
gone mad on war," as Dr. King noted in his magnificent speech at Riverside
Church entitled, "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence," on April 4,
1967, a year to the day before he was assassinated. (All the quotes that
follow are from this speech of King's, his most profound and radical one.)
That fact of troops in 177 countries confirms that we have yet to have the
"true revolution of values" that will make us "say of war: 'This way of
settling our differences is not just.' "
That fact-along with Bush's war in Iraq and Obama's war in Afghanistan and
the U.S. supplying two-thirds of the global arms trade--confirms that we are
still "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
That fact confirms that we still have failed to embrace "allegiances and
loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism."
King said, "Our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional.
Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole.a
worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race,
class, and nation." And so he talked of being "a citizen of the world."
But we are as nationalistic as ever in this country today.
And the fact that we have troops in 177 countries means that we are
"approaching spiritual death" because we as a nation continue "year after
year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social
uplift."
And the fact that we have troops in 177 countries means that we are an
empire, and that we are still "refusing to give up the privileges and the
pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment." Dr.
King denounced in this speech the "individual capitalists of the West
investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to
take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the
countries."
That is still going on today, and it goes by the fancy name of
"globalization," but it's the same old neo-imperialism.
Today, with troops in 177 countries, we still wrestle with "the giant
triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism."
And today, with troops in 177 countries, we still have a "glaring contrast
of poverty and wealth." Actually, it's even more glaring than when King
spoke 44 years ago.
Dr. King urged us to have a "radical revolution of values."
But with troops stationed in 177 countries, that revolution seems more
distant than ever.
And note: President Obama on the campaign trail liked to quote a phrase from
Dr. King's Riverside speech, though he didn't identify the speech itself.
That phrase was "the fierce urgency of now."
But Obama's "fierce urgency of now" was not well defined, much less acted
upon. Dr. King was clear, however: The urgency was about choosing between
"nonviolent coexistence or violent co- annihilation."
We have not yet made that choice.
And Obama has not made that choice.
In fact, he went to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, where he invoked
King's name but then quarreled with him and came out defending war.
So, today, the United States has troops in 177 countries. And that's nothing
to celebrate on Martin Luther King Day.
If you liked this story by Matthew Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive
magazine, check out his story "Obama's Wisdom a Comfort in Tucson."
---------
Before He Cuts Social Security, I Hope the President Listens To This "Obama"
Guy
By Richard (RJ) Eskow
January 14, 2011 - 4:13pm ET
In an open letter to the President this week, Sen. Bernie Sanders mentioned
"worriesome reports" that the President is planning to cut Social Security.
These reports don't come out of the blue. They're the culmination of a
months-long campaign. The White House has been privately signalling for
months that it was leaning in that direction, and now the sky over
Washington is darkening with trial balloons floating up from Pennsylvania
Avenue.
Before you make such a disastrous and unwarranted move, Mr. President,
there's someone I think you should meet. Actually, you may have run into him
before: He's a skinny guy with an keen analytical mind and a gift for
brilliant oratory. Sound familiar? He ran for President last time around,
and he had some very sensible things to say about Social Security:
(go to http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011010214/he-cuts-
social-security-i-hope-president-listens-obama-guy to listen/watch video (97
seconds long))
As you can see in this video, Presidential candidate Barack Obama opposed
exactly the kind of cuts that are being discussed now by the White House.
Candidate Obama pointed out that John McCain had indicated he would cut
retirement benefits, either by raising the retirement age or slowing down
the cost of living (COLA) adjustments, and responded unequivocally. "Let me
be clear," the Candidate said. "I will not do either." That statement is
admirable for its clarity and forthrightness - so much so, in fact, that it
bears repeating:
"Let me be clear. I will not do either."
The Candidate showed a genuine command of the topic, and clearly understood
what actuaries and others with specialized knowledge of the topic had been
saying for years: that raising the cap on payroll tax deductions - or
perhaps applying it to income above $250,000 - would remove any long-term
concerns about the program's solvency.
In 2008 the public has just weathered a nerve-rattling attempt by
Republicans to 'privatize' and cut Social Security, and it had survived an
Administration that was openly run by lobbyists and special interests.
Recently their trust in government has been shaken by the appointment of a
series of right-leaning business figures to this Administration. Candidate
Obama promised a different kind of government - and he pledged to defend
Social Security.
Lobbyists have been hard at work trying to destroy Social Security ever
since that election, and now they see their opportunity. The Chamber of
Commerce, which the President is scheduled to address on February 5,
continues to press for Social Security cuts and privatization. And the
President's own Deficit Commission was stacked with a number of people in
the past or present employ of Pete Peterson, a billionaire who has made
Social Security cuts a lifelong passion. Peterson has quite a few people in
Washington lobbying for his point of view (some of them have economics
degrees).
But that's not who Barack Obama was elected to represent. The President was
elected to represent the New Silent Majority, that vast number of Americans
who have seen nobody in Washington fighting for them. Three out of four
Americans want the government to do more to crack down on Wall Street, so
the President's recent appointments won't please them. Are they about to
discover that the President's pledge to protect their old-age financial
security is being broken?
Our latest polls show that eight out of ten Americans oppose cutting Social
Security to reduce the deficit. That includes 78% of independents, 82% of
Republicans, and 74% of Tea Party supporters. That's worth repeating: The
President may be on the verge of adopting a position that's too right wing
for the Tea Party.
Our polling page also details the Democratic Party's plunging support among
seniors. That's a fifteen-year trend that has accelerated under President
Obama (the gap has widened from 8% to 21%). Wonder how candidate Barack
Obama would have performed with this age group, with his straightforward
position on this issue?
It would have seemed unthinkable in 2008 that Democrats could lose their
lead over Republicans on the question, "Which party do you trust on Social
Security?" Yet the figures are clear: The President and his party have lost
the public's trust on this issue. "Trust" is a profound and delicate
relationship. If you make an unequivocal promise, and then start
equivocating as soon as you're in a position to meet your commitment, trust
will fade away like dew on the White House lawn.
But it's not too late. The President can still stand up for Social Security
in his State of the Union address, repeating the sensible (and financially
accurate) comments of Harry Reid. Reid was absolutely right when he said
that the "arithmetic" for Social Security was sound. There are reams of
actuarial and economic studies to confirm that comment. Reid was eqully
correct to say that Social Security cuts are "something that's perpetuated
by people who don't like government." (The President may feel that such a
comment isn't "civil discourse," but I don't feel it's very civil to
frighten people needlessly for political reasons.)
The Candidate was right: We can protect Social Security benefits - which are
too low, if anything - and fix future financial problems (scheduled to occur
in 2037) by raising the cap. That would be smart policy and smart politics.
It would also send the message that Candidate Obama and President Obama are
one and the same person - a person who keeps his promises.
I'm sure his advisors are telling him that he must cut Social Security, even
though it's politically unwise and fiscally unnecessary. Before he does, I
hope the President will take the time to listen to Candidate Obama. I think
he'll find that he's a pretty impressive guy. We certainly thought so; we
elected him.
The President might want to give special attention to the words spoken by
that candidate when he declared his intention to run for President, on a
winter's day in Springfield just three years ago:
"Too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away,
all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special
interests move in, and people turn away, disappointed as before, left to
struggle on their own."
The President we elected will stand up and defend Social Security in his
State of the Union address. We're hoping to see him there.
This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign.
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list.
To be on our list: earthactionnetwork@earthlink.net
For more info: www.earthactionnetwork.org
Rfor more info about Mha Atma: www.drmhaatma.com.
"We are dealing with a far more ominous threat than sickness and death. We
are dealing with the dark side of humanity -- selfishness, avarice,
aggression. All this has already polluted our skies, emptied our oceans,
destroyed our forests and extinguished thousands of beautiful animals. Are
our children next? . It is no longer enough to vaccinate them or give them
food and water and only cure the symptoms of man's tendency to destroy
everything we hold dear. Whether it be famine in Ethiopia, excruciating
poverty in Guatemala and Honduras, civil strife in El Salvador or ethnic
massacre in the Sudan, I saw but one glaring truth; these are not natural
disaster but man-made tragedies for which there is only one man-made
solution - Peace."
~Audrey Hepburn, April 1989, in a speech given while serving as goodwill
ambassador for Unicef
No comments:
Post a Comment