The Largest Minority

Part 2 of 2

You are Being Lied to About Pirates

April 13th, 2009 by Guest

by Johann Hari

Who imagined that in 2009, the world’s governments would be declaring a new War on Pirates? As you read this, the British Royal Navy - backed by the ships of more than two dozen nations, from the U.S. to China - is sailing into Somalian waters to take on men we still picture as parrot-on-the-shoulder pantomime villains. They will soon be fighting Somalian ships and even chasing the pirates onto land, into one of the most broken countries on earth.

But behind the arrr-me-hearties oddness of this tale, there is an untold scandal. The people our governments are labeling as “one of the great menaces of our times” have an extraordinary story to tell - and some justice on their side.

Pirates have never been quite who we think they are. In the “golden age of piracy” - from 1650 to 1730 - the idea of the pirate as the senseless, savage thief that lingers today was created by the British government in a great propaganda heave. Many ordinary people believed it was false: Pirates were often rescued from the gallows by supportive crowds. Why? What did they see that we can’t?

In his book “Villains of All Nations,” the historian Marcus Rediker pores through the evidence to find out. If you became a merchant or navy sailor then - plucked from the docks of London’s East End, young and hungry - you ended up in a floating wooden Hell. You worked all hours on a cramped, half-starved ship, and if you slacked off for a second, the all-powerful captain would whip you with the cat o’ nine tails. If you slacked consistently, you could be thrown overboard. And at the end of months or years of this, you were often cheated of your wages.

Pirates were the first people to rebel against this world. They mutinied against their tyrannical captains - and created a different way of working on the seas. Once they had a ship, the pirates elected their captains, and made all their decisions collectively. They shared their bounty out in what Rediker calls “one of the most egalitarian plans for the disposition of resources to be found anywhere in the 18th century.”

They even took in escaped African slaves and lived with them as equals. The pirates showed “quite clearly - and subversively - that ships did not have to be run in the brutal and oppressive ways of the merchant service and the Royal navy.” This is why they were popular, despite being unproductive thieves.

The words of one pirate from that lost age - a young British man called William Scott - should echo into this new age of piracy. Just before he was hanged in Charleston, South Carolina, he said: “What I did was to keep me from perishing. I was forced to go a-pirating to live.”

In 1991, the government of Somalia - in the Horn of Africa - collapsed. Its 9 million people have been teetering on starvation ever since - and many of the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country’s food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.

Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.

e-mail this post | 4 Comments »

The Colbert Report - The 10.31 Project

April 3rd, 2009 by Manila Ryce

It’s good to see Glenn Beck going back to a simpler time. No, not all the way back to the 1700’s like Ron Paul’s crazy-ass fanboy groupies, but a post-9/11 spirit when liberals were terrorists and conservatives were shamelessly exploiting the tragedy of a national disaster. I foolishly thought that strategy burnt itself out in a glorious ball of flames last year during Giuliani’s presidential bid, but Beck proves you can’t keep a good marketing tool down. Luckily, Stephen Colbert also proves that he will own you if you’re a complete douche.

Obama Admin Converges with Bush Terror Policies

February 23rd, 2009 by Manila Ryce

Part 1 of 3

The Obama administration has surprised many of its supporters (while confirming the suspicions of many rational people) by embracing key parts of the Bush administration’s illegal policies, including indefinite detention, kidnapping, and invoking state secrets privileges. Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald joins Democracy Now! to address this abuse of power while Jane Mayer of the New Yorker plays the role of standard Obama apologist as she begs the audience to give the president the benefit of the doubt while hypocritically denouncing the very same policies when they occurred under Bush.

e-mail this post | 2 Comments »

A Classic: Chomsky Schools the International Press at the UN

February 18th, 2009 by Manila Ryce

Produced by Democracy Now!, Noam Chomsky addresses the international press at the United Nations on June 5th, 2006 while taking the liberty to slap the shit out of a few of the dolts.

Part 1 of 15

Terrorists, freedom fighters, or schlemiels? You pick: By Saul Landau

February 10th, 2009 by Manila Ryce

Condi Rice: “What we’re seeing here, in a sense, is the growing birth pangs of a new Middle East.”

Jon Stewart: “Birth pangs? Yes, I believe today’s contraction took out a city block.”

On January 21, President Obama telephoned the King of Jordan, the Prime Minister of Israel, the President of Egypt and Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, before dispatching former Senator George Mitchell to spearhead peace negotiations. He excluded Hamas leaders from his phone tree, although they had won the 2006 election to represent the people of Gaza. Obviously, Hamas has also won the label “terrorist” and, as Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni proudly if not smugly assured members of the National Press Club in Washington DC, Israel would not talk with Hamas. ‘We do not negotiate with terrorists,” she asserted, moral indignation dripping from her words. (January 16)

Her father, Eitan Livni, proudly served as chief operations officer of the Irgun, a right wing Zionist gang that in the post 1945 period sent letter bombs to the British occupying authorities and in 1946 blew up the King David hotel in Jerusalem. Some Jews died in that terrorist act along with others who had no relationship to the issue of an Israeli state. Some British intelligence officials also got blown away.

Livni’s ops dressed up as Arabs. Who would suspect benign Arabs? “People who looked like they might be violent Zionists would have attracted suspicion,” wrote Juan Cole. “Later generations of rightwing Zionists have attempted to convince the rest of the world that the Arab kaffiyah is an icon of terrorism; but their parents were perfectly willing to display it as a sign of innocence (and perhaps with the intention that the Arabs should take the fall).” (Juan Cole)

In 2006, Likudnik and former Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu commemorated that bombing, also honored by surviving Irgun members. In 1948, Irgun members also participated in what Arabs call a massacre of Palestinian civilians at Deir Yassin. Israeli historians differ as to whether the more than 100 dead, including many old people, were shot or died as a result of the battle. Tzipi has not repudiated her father’s actions, but feels no apparent sense of shame or even contradiction when she labels her current foes as terrorists with whom she will never negotiate. Well, maybe she never negotiated with her father! Oh, he wasn’t a terrorist; he was an Israeli patriot!

As a supposedly anti-terrorist action, Israel dropped thousands of tons of bombs on Gaza in December and January. It had tried a similar “anti-terrorist” tactic against southern Lebanon in 2006. Unlike the relatively primitive explosives used by the old terrorists, like Eitan Livni, Israel today employs white phosphorous and cluster bombs — anti-personnel weapons originally designed for use against large numbers of troops on a battlefield, but not to be deployed against civilians. Israel dropped these people killers on Lebanese farms just before its army withdrew. Deterrent or child killer? Let¹s not quibble over definitions!

President Shimon Peres called both cluster bomb dropping and the Lebanon war itself “mistakes.” Those mistakes have become history which, in the United States, remains “bunk” (Henry Ford). Since the past seems relevant only in five, 10, 25 and 50 year commemorations, the media didn’t see the need to provide a more immediate context for its readers and viewers; so Livni’s father’s activities did not get reported widely.

Why Are We Still at War? By Norman Solomon

February 7th, 2009 by Manila Ryce

Remember the time Glenn Beck invited Norman Solomon on CNN to criticize other news channels for their vested corporate interests but got royally served for not disclosing his own station’s ties? Yeah, good times.

The United States began its war in Afghanistan 88 months ago. “The war on terror” has no sunset clause. As a perpetual emotion machine, it offers to avenge what can never heal and to fix grief that is irreparable.

For the crimes against humanity committed on Sept. 11, 2001, countless others are to follow, with huge conceits about technological “sophistication” and moral superiority. But if we scrape away the concrete of media truisms, we may reach substrata where some poets have dug.

W.H. Auden: “Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return.”

Stanley Kunitz: “In a murderous time / the heart breaks and breaks / and lives by breaking.”

And from 1965, when another faraway war got its jolt of righteous escalation from Washington’s certainty, Richard Farina wrote: “And death will be our darling and fear will be our name.” Then as now came the lessons that taught with unfathomable violence once and for all that unauthorized violence must be crushed by superior violence.

The U.S. war effort in Afghanistan owes itself to the enduring “war on terrorism,” chasing a holy grail of victory that can never be.

Early into the second year of the Afghanistan war, in November 2002, a retired U.S. Army general, William Odom, appeared on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” program and told viewers: “Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It’s a tactic. It’s about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we’re going to win that war. We’re not going to win the war on terrorism.”

But the “war on terrorism” rubric — increasingly shortened to the even vaguer “war on terror” — kept holding enormous promise for a warfare state of mind. Early on, the writer Joan Didion saw the blotting of the horizon and said so: “We had seen, most importantly, the insistent use of Sept. 11 to justify the reconception of America’s correct role in the world as one of initiating and waging virtually perpetual war.”