'scapegoatism'

in hearing again tonight about how it was "terrorists" and "outside influences" and so on driving the unrest in iraq, i of course had the same reaction as every other time i hear the situation manipulated further for propaganda as such, as i'm sure you all do as well; the iraqis don't need provocation. period. their 'provocation' is the war and everything that's come along with it: occupation, death, injuries, unemployment, lack of potable water, hunger, disease, confusion, fear, not knowing what's coming next or even what's going on now, seeing areas of their homeland bombed out, including perhaps their own homes, etc. etc.....

i'm reminded of a quotation i once saw: "love must be learned and learned again; there is no end to it. hate needs no instruction, but wants only to be provoked."

there is a lot of 'hate' in iraq now for many of the things going on, and much of it for good reason.... but it can never be framed in such a way by 'certain people,' because then they may have to accept some responsibility for that. no, it is much easier to pawn it off on someone else. "terrorists," for instance.


does this seem familiar? it should. and not because it's been a tactic of the administration's we've heard and seen more times than the clorox commercial jingle (" momma's got the magic..." you know the one... and now, it's in your head again).... this is the same tactic used on civil rights leaders. let's take al and jesse for instance. even with some of their humanly faults (imagine that), it doesn't matter what you think of them, because attacks against them, more or less, really aren't about them; it's about what it is they do, or seek to do with regards to civil rights issues. it's the very same type of shit aimed at all such civil rights leaders, no matter how venerable. it is easier to accuse a "rabble-rouser" of, well, rousing rabble, whatever in the hell that means, instead of considering the merits of their claims, particularly when you don't want to have to do that. it's the classical ad hominem, with a sprinkle of cognitive dissonance.

that's why king was a "troublemaker." but king didn't create the problems for the black community america failed, and more often refused, to address. the only 'trouble' he made was helping to bring these things to the forefront of the dialogue in america. but you understand, that's the 'real' trouble for people who don't want to accept responsibility for anything, even if they helped to create it in the first place, not the fact that there are or may be legitimate beefs. hey, why worry about that when you can recuse yourself and put it on somebody else?


i was going to subtitle this piece, "restoring integrity to the white house," but, i think anyone reading this clearly got that on their own.

anything?... hello?

is to blame that problem on outside sources. That is true for individuals, businesses and countries. It is also the surest way to complete failure. Only honest appraisals openly arrived by the parties involved can provide a foundation for an equitable and just solution.