Politics - Quarantining dissent

[ibe98765]

This is utterly disgusting, IMO. Mr. Bush drives another nail into his coffin for him and his administration come next November's elections.

Quarantining dissent How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech James BovardSunday, January 4, 2004 URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...INGPQ40MB81.DTL  When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us." The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind." At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in a so-called free- speech area. Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' " Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?" Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were grandmothers -- were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome." One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, "War is good business. Invest your sons." The seven were charged with trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct." Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined. Denise Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media." When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars. The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free-speech zone." Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.' " Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing." Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department -- in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding "entering a restricted area around the president of the United States." If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5,000 fine. Federal Magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a petty offense. Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide. Bursey's trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access. Bursey sought to subpoena Attorney General John Ashcroft and presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached." The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the "free-speech zone" but refused to cooperate. The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way." Except for having their constitutional rights shredded. The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern and practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and elsewhere. The ACLU's Witold Walczak said of the protesters, "The individuals we are talking about didn't pose a security threat; they posed a political threat." The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs -- as has happened in some demonstrations -- is pointless because potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Assuming that terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity. The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries. When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by George Bush and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can't be heard." Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area. For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city and impose a "virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters," according to Britain's Evening Standard. But instead of a "free-speech zone," the Bush administration demanded an "exclusion zone" to protect Bush from protesters' messages. Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the "forward strategy of freedom" and declared, "We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings." Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected terrorists. Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during demonstrations in New York, Washington and elsewhere. One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring a number of people. When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act." Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people." Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies. On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox." The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of the FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate report. On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators, supposedly to "blunt potential violence by extremist elements," according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official. Given the FBI's expansive definition of "potential violence" in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor. James Bovard is the author of "Terrorism & Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil." This article is adapted from one that appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of the American Conservative.

[linuxdude32]

Tsk. Tsk. I've noticed our people do the same thing whenever we have world dignitaries visiting like the G8 summits and WTO meetings. Big fences to keep the protesters away supposedly in the name of safety.

[beeTee]

Yeah ibe, I've been hearing about this type of stuff for some months now. I think it will probably get worse the closer November comes. Technically, we could draw negative attention by posting things like this and others of us responding to them.like Jason-dude said. Tsk-Tsk

[nlinecomputers]

Like Clinton was any better. He was good at isolating protester too when he went about.

[ibe98765]

Like Clinton was any better.  He was good at isolating protester too when he went about.

Clinton's not President any longer. I suggest better to forget about what he may or may not have done and instead, concentrate on the present and what is being done now...

[nlinecomputers]

Agreed to a point. But Bush's ability to do this is built on the back of Clinton's ways. I was only pointing out that this isn't new behavior on the part of Bush. I don't think it matters WHO is President when it comes to abusing the power of the office. The article has the tone of Bush Bashing and tries to give you the impression that this is some how unique behavior on Bush's part. It's not. Such an omission strikes me as having one sided political views.

[ibe98765]

Agreed to a point. But Bush's ability to do this is built on the back of Clinton's ways. I was only pointing out that this isn't new behavior on the part of Bush.  I don't think it matters WHO is President when it comes to abusing the power of the office.  The article has the tone of Bush Bashing and tries to give you the impression that this is some how unique behavior on Bush's part.  It's not.  Such an omission strikes me as having one sided political views.

Well, two wrongs still don't make a right. If someone in the past did something wrong or underhanded, you don't build upon that, you correct it...But actually, I don't recall Clinton doing this. I do seem to recall Clinton wading into crowds and pumping the flesh, something that I don't recall Bush doing, even pre-9/11. Are you sure your accusation regarding Clinton is accurate? I would be interested in any reference links you may have documenting that Clinton's Secret Service people also corralled protestors 1/2 or more miles away from where he was speaking.

[Specmon]

Tsk-TsK???Draw negative attention??This kind of behaviour has nothing to do with Clinton. It has EVERYTHING to do with the whole neocon administration ramrodding agendas that no one voted for down our throats. Is the (desired) result of people like John Ashcroft and Carl Rove proclaiming that anyone who objects to ANY aspect of policy is unpatriotic and therefore at the least to be dismissed, and more likely to be treated as criminal and/or terrorist material.Wanna tell me that Clinton and Janet Reno played so loosely with our constitutional rights?Remember Bush making the statement that the protestors can say whatever they want, but he doesn't have to listen?He doesn't have to listen, has no intention of listening, because no force on earth will prevent these people from carrying out the neocon agenda.While you stand there going "tsk-tsk" the government is pulling the biggest swindle in American history while wrapped in the flag.And you're standing there singing " I love a parade" while they march off with the birthright of you and your children, hypnotically chanting 9-11, 9-11, 9-11.You may be willing to surrender "your" rights to this patriotic trance, but I want to state that while terrorisn changed a lot in this country, it did not change the constitution.I'm completely with ibe. What is happening is disgusting. And I intend to make Bush hear me this November at the ballot box.

[nlinecomputers]

Agreed to a point. But Bush's ability to do this is built on the back of Clinton's ways. I was only pointing out that this isn't new behavior on the part of Bush.  I don't think it matters WHO is President when it comes to abusing the power of the office.  The article has the tone of Bush Bashing and tries to give you the impression that this is some how unique behavior on Bush's part.  It's not.  Such an omission strikes me as having one sided political views.

Well, two wrongs still don't make a right. If someone in the past did something wrong or underhanded, you don't build upon that, you correct it...But actually, I don't recall Clinton doing this. I do seem to recall Clinton wading into crowds and pumping the flesh, something that I don't recall Bush doing, even pre-9/11. Are you sure your accusation regarding Clinton is accurate? I would be interested in any reference links you may have documenting that Clinton's Secret Service people also corralled protestors 1/2 or more miles away from where he was speaking.

Your misunderstanding me. I'm not in favor of these things being done by Bush. I'm just stating that this isn't new behavior on the part of the government. I do agree that Bush appears to be much more aggressive about it. And why not? He can get away with it much more when he has the whole terrorism threat to cover his actions by. When opportunity strikes either side will sell out your rights. Plenty of democrats signed the Patriot Act as well. Some how I doubt much would change if even if Howard Dean were elected President. As for proof I'm searching Google without much luck. I do remember such events but they were not mainstream news items mostly reported by WAAAAY right wing groups who's nonbiased stance and truthfulness is questionable. Lot's of them were anti-abortion groups if I recall correctly. If I find it I'll get back to ya.

[beeTee]

...............................While you stand there going "tsk-tsk" the government is pulling the biggest swindle in American history while wrapped in the flag.And you're standing there singing " I love a parade" while they march off with the birthright of you and your children, hypnotically chanting 9-11, 9-11, 9-11.You may be willing to surrender "your" rights to this patriotic trance, but I want  to state that while terrorisn changed a lot in this country, it did not change the constitution.I'm completely with ibe.  What is happening is disgusting. And I intend to make Bush hear me this November at the ballot box.

We had several political arguments a couple of months ago. It got pretty ugly, and I was right in the middle of it. It really went nowhere. I won't post my remarks on the subject of Dubya anymore. It's much more radical than what you posted. besides, any of us who served our duty has a nice set of fingerprints in the FBI database.I'll just keep posting the url for Michael Moores website, Michaelmoore.com and hope more and more people here will go there and get educated, as well as entertainedIf you're adventurous, you can even check out this jewel of a website. just go there with a lot of time, and when you get finished sometime this spring, you'll be even more upset (family forum, remember??).

[Lover of quiet computers]

Mr. Bush drives another nail into his coffin for him  and his administration come next November's elections.

I'm 100% with you on that. Any of the potential Democratic nominees would be an improvement.

[havnblast]

Interesting links BT really makes you scratch your head

[beeTee]

I haven't been there in quite some time. Unfortunately, Lot's of what they say makes sense. However, in this day and age, I don't think it's all to smart to talk about it without encrypted mail.

[Peachy]

Here is an opinion piece that you should all consider and this one...

[havnblast]

Ahhhh yes more on the Bush power - Peachy, the Dark Chapter is a good write up.You have to admit - things are not as they appear and it's not just a small group that has noticed this. The whole idea of a plane crashing into the pentagon is interesting with no plane wreckage or passengers.

[ibe98765]

And you're standing there singing " I love a parade" while they march off with  the birthright of you and your children, hypnotically chanting 9-11, 9-11, 9-11.

It's all explained here: http://www.ucomics.com/doonesbury/2003/12/28/

[Jeber]

On a more positive note, Bush isn't the first President we've had that wasn't well respected in the international community. And he's not the first President who thought that his office was above the law and constitution. I'll give him this, at least he's made his mistakes in public, openly, sometimes obviously...not by hiring ex-intel guys to break into offices.But the point I wanted to make is that the country has survived and gone on. The old "cycle of life" thing. Somehow, and not always gracefully, we have dealt with the situation and gotten back to pretty much where we were. Extreme laws can be enacted, but extremes eventually get modified back to generally acceptable. Politicians can start the country off in a radical direction, but the weight of common opinion will pull it back towards the middle path.Short term concerns are very real, and of importance. But in the larger view, I'm confident that we'll get through this moment in time without major upheaval.I could also be very wrong. In which case I shall revive the former campus radical that still survives, in kernal form, within me.

[havnblast]

True Jeber - a little history shows that. A very good point.

[RichNRockville]

Joe McCarthy would have loved these days.

[linuxdude32]

Well, my tsk, tsk comes because though I've considered writing congressmen, senators and the like, being Canadian, I doubt they'd give a D***. In fact, since Canada didn't support the US in it's act of aggression on Iraq, we'd most likely be ignored for that reason alone (i.e. you're just like the French).I doubt very much that Clinton had the same amount of protesters to deal with as Bush does, with good reason. Bush is the most neo-conservative president the US has ever had but that in itself isn't disturbing. What's disturbing is how much ignorance has been made a virtue by this president. Just the other day he was calling Ms. Rice, his "unsticker".

[Cluttermagnet]

Bush isn't the first President we've had that wasn't well respected in the international community. And he's not the first President who thought that his office was above the law and constitution. I'll give him this, at least he's made his mistakes in public, openly, sometimes obviously...not by hiring ex-intel guys to break into offices.

Nixon's approach could be characterized as "surreptitious", Reagan's as well. Bush's approach is a better fit to "brazen". After a questionable election and upon being installed in office by Supreme court fiat, he falsely claimed a mandate and has ruled from the far right ever since, despite his campaign claims to be a "uniter". Without doubt he is one of the most polarizing, disliked presidents since the time of Lincoln.

However, in this day and age, I don't think it's all to smart to talk about it without encrypted mail.

For the first time in my life, I realize that I may have a rational basis for actually fearing my own national government- that by speaking out against the present US administration, I may actually attract negative consequences and perhaps be likened to international terrorists. I am proud and grateful to be an American, but I don't agree with a lot of what these guys say, wrapping themselves in the flag. They do not speak for me, and we no longer speak with one voice. We have been skillfully pitted one against another. "Divide and conquer" Although the admin pays lip service to the concepts of 'freedom' and 'free speech', its actions give the lie to those claims.

Joe McCarthy would have loved these days.

Indeed.

the country has survived and gone on. The old "cycle of life" thing. Somehow, and not always gracefully, we have dealt with the situation and gotten back to pretty much where we were. Extreme laws can be enacted, but extremes eventually get modified back to generally acceptable. Politicians can start the country off in a radical direction, but the weight of common opinion will pull it back towards the middle path.Short term concerns are very real, and of importance. But in the larger view, I'm confident that we'll get through this moment in time without major upheaval. I could also be very wrong. In which case I shall revive the former campus radical that still survives, in kernal form, within me.

I think reality today is heavily skewed towards the second scenario as being the more likely outcome. It is tempting to draw comparisons to other eras and to try to find solace from observing the cycles, and seeing dynamic equilibrium eventually 'righting' an upset system and drawing it to the center. Alas, a more appropriate model for what is happening in macro political- social terms would be the termite metaphor. 'Termites' have been gnawing away at the real wealth of the middle class for about 50+ years now. It may not be reasonable to expect that this system can right itself. Maybe it can, but the odds are ever so much worse than they were, say, 50 years ago. The real wealth of the middle class grew for 50-100 years prior. It was still growing well after the end of WW II. But the decay of graft has overtaken the system. Our system at a macro level is a wealth redistribution scheme that will lead to the collapse of the middle class into poverty. In other words, the majority have been systematically and covertly embezzled out of much of their real wealth, and those losses are not recoverable. It is a cynical 'debit it foreward' scheme, and all our notes are about to be called in, ready or not.To make matters worse, our population is increasingly poorly educated. People do not even know and use their own 'native' english well. You see all sorts of spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors today, making it very clear that this is but one area in which the schools now almost totally fail to teach any longer. We are barely maintaining our literacy rate, and indeed we may well be losing ground there. Still worse, Joe Average is woefully ignorant of national and world history, knows little about his hard- won rights, and definitely stands to lose them all. What saddens me the most is how easily such large groups of my countrymen have been suckered, mislead, and deceived over the years. That trend is accelerating. Soon enough, these chickens will be coming home to roost.

[Peachy]

One of the saddest things is that to paraphrase an editorial writer I read in a Canadian newspaper last month: Americans aren't stupid, but they sure are gullible. Cluttermagnet, indeed, the rest of the world sees the events of 9/11 differently. Whether or not 9/11 was an "inside job" or not, the Bush imperialists are exploiting it to the full hilt. When I was a university student before the outbreak of the 1991 Persian Gulf War I remember George H. Bush declaring that now was the time of a "New World Order". Remember that? It was a speech called Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Persian Gulf Crisis and the Federal Budget Deficit he made on September 11, 1990 to the U.S. Congress. I highly doubt Muslim terrorists would use that anniversary to put into effect a Jihad. No, it resonates more with those within the U.S. that want to put into practice those words from the beginning of the 90s.

[Grasshopper]

I'm willing to bet that every president since (don't know when) has done the same thing. It just comes with the territory. Just another thing for the media to blow out of proportion. Think about it. Think of what you go thru to get another job. Lots of paperwork and background checks. It's even worse for government, military/civilian military, or high profile job. Now think of the effort that goes into protecting the world's most powerful man. Yes, I know the politics of it (with the cordoning off of the dissenters) is not exactly protection, but the principle is the same. His *posse* will do things ahead of him that even he won't know about.Politics is not fair, people. It's his right to do this if he wants. It's *not really* a free country when it comes to politics. He may not get voted back, but that would be his own fault.

[Guest LilBambi]

There are NO candidates for the next election.

[Guest LilBambi]

I might just consider voting for N.O.T.A next year.(None Of The Above -- then maybe they can throw out all the candidates!) LOL!

[Peachy]

Politics is not fair, people. It's his right to do this if he wants. It's *not really* a free country when it comes to politics. He may not get voted back, but that would be his own fault.

Well you just said it. But I would word it this way: you don't live in a free country because you have NO politics. What we are witnessing is pure statecraft, not politics in the democratic sense. In reference to the New World Order, I once wrote a column for my university paper which I gave the title, "Pax Americana". My argument at the time was that with those words, Bush Sr. was setting up the conditions for turning the American Republic into the American Empire. My historical reference at the time was to use the analogy of ancient Rome. I think events bear witness to my prognosis over a decade ago... Just substitute Britney Spears for Bread and Circuses

[Guest LilBambi]

I would have said Roman Empire too but more because it was destroyed from the inside out.

[Grasshopper]

In reference to the New World Order, I once wrote a column for my university paper which I gave the title, "Pax Americana". My argument at the time was that with those words, Bush Sr. was setting up the conditions for turning the American Republic into the American Empire.

I'd be interested in reading that. Do you still have it?

[Peachy]

You asked for it!

Oikos 39: Pax AmericanaI had two profound chats, while selling tickets during the Fringe Festival this summer. One was with someone just hanging out and the second with my venue manager. I said we were heading into another Dark Age. The guy hanging out, a Montrealer, agreed with the sentiment and both of us brought forth various facts, bits of evidence, speculations and arguments to illustrate our mutual position. The manager, a Bostonian, questioned my statement and wanted an explanation. I want to add something more to what I told her.Okay, "Dark Age" may be too harsh a judgment. I'm not pining for some golden age of the past. I'm just skeptical about what the future may bring because, whoever controls the past controls the future -- I read that somewhere. This feeling may seem all too true if you rest your argument on the idea that television is a medium of propaganda unlike any known to history. Television didn't help Rodney King get any justice, you see.Television is not the problem. (A caveat: As a cultural legacy one cannot dismiss it easily. Television is a fact of life for many -- and for Dan Quayle, reality.) But television is not reality, just a mere parody. My apocalyptic nightmare is much more than that. In part, it is the end of the world as some know it. In another, it is a return to a world we'd rather just forget.A frightening image came to mind after I heard a strange report on the radio about Morrissey. The Pretentious One, sneering at the world, wrapped in the Union Jack, proclaims that Blacks and Whites will never get along. Is there something out of context here? Something I missed because I am not in London at the moment? Can I dismiss him? I'd like to but I'd be totally naive, I think. To ignore such symbolism, to ignore the social life that makes it possible, is to flirt with a history ready to repeat itself with a vengeance -- "an accident waiting to happen." I guess we must forever smash fascism wherever it pokes its ugly head.Darkness lingers in my head then. I learned in school about a Dark Age of western "civilization" when the Roman Empire was in its death throes. The present is a different sort of Dark Age. Still, dark times, where evil seems to have a field day, fall in among the shadows of a once great imperial power. The Soviet Union is not that empire. It is the United States of America. American influence, formerly economic, now military, is Noam Chomsky's worst nightmare -- and frighteningly global. Influential as the centralized authority of Washington D.C. may be in world affairs, it is more remarkable for its failings at home. Like the Roman Imperial State, a large ideological chasm separates the White House from the majority of its underclass citizens.Hence, the media story of the summer: family values. The Republicans seem intent on protecting the privileges of the wealthy, a "family" that excludes Blacks, lesbians and gays, feminists, poor people, or anyone that doesn't make a living from exploiting other human beings. Why does George Bush want to save the "American Family" so much? Could it be because if every family in the US were like the First Family, nobody would notice the country falling apart around them? That nobody would question the corporate elites that control who gets to work and who doesn't?I make this point because there are people in the US who are trying to make their country a better place. These activists must not only fight ignorance and old habits, but also their own governments. They are fighting attitudes that are adverse to social change, attitudes taught as matter-of-factly as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. They are fighting attitudes that label compassion and concern for fellow human beings as "socialism" or worse, "Communism."To govern a nation that covers the vastness that the US does, or even Canada, China, and the former Soviet Union, require an imperial form of government. Canadian imperialism is benign even if absurd. Is Canada a worthy place to live in because Canadian governments have occasionally cared for the needs of its citizens? At least the UN thinks so. I hope it is more than that. I hope it is because people living north of the 49th parallel are genuinely giving and not because the government legislates it so. Every time I hear the dire warnings of fiscal conservatives, reform or progressive, I wonder though. However, I bet the many people in the US who want a Canadian-style national health-care system regardless of what George Bush believes, are not a fiction and are every bit as caring as we think we are.For the fall from the moral high ground can be rather painful. Canadian cities suffer from the same problem as any that lives in thrall to a dimming imperial centre. Only now, the feudal robber barons of medieval times are being replaced by the multinational corporations. It is a Dark Age when reason seems futile against the "white noise" of civilization.

[Corrine]

It is a Dark Age when reason seems futile against the "white noise" of civilization.

You certainly wrote a mouthful there. Your closing sentence really hit.