The following is my response to letter published July 8, 2009 in which the guy was calling for the impeachment of the people named. He also wanted them tried and convicted of war crimes. His argument centered around snippets of speeches that they made regarding going to war with Iraq. He blamed these people for the deaths of more than 4,000 service men and women. I decided the other side should be told as well. My response was  published in The Macon Telegraph July 10, 2009.

Impeach themselves

In regards to Oscar M. Coile’s letter: No, Congress will not try and convict George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Ari Fleischer, Colin Powell or Donald Rumsfeld of war crimes. Nor will Congress try and convict anyone else whose speeches he might dig up. Why? The answer is simple: Congress would then have to try and convict itself. According to the U.S. Senate roll call votes of the 107th Congress, 2nd Session, Measure title A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq: 29 Democrat senators voted Yea. Those senators included Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry and Jay Rockefeller, to name a few. Also, according to the 107th Congress/House/2nd session/Vote 455 (on the same measure as above) 81 Democrats voted Yea.

Call me crazy, but I do not think a Democratic Congress would vote to try and convict 110 of its own. President Bush would not have been able to go to war had the House and Senate not passed the resolutions. The United States government, does, after all, have checks and balances.

Another thing, do not use the deaths of military personnel to further your argument. I lost a friend over there shortly before his 19th birthday. I know several others who have been on multiple tours. They couldn’t wait to sign up to fight for the country they love.

— Stephanie Granados

The original letter was not on the Web site.

UNDER GOD

John Chuckman

Senator Thomas Daschle, in a heroic moment of striking a blow for freedom, called a federal appeal court’s ruling that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional “just nuts.” His reaction undoubtedly reflects the same bedrock, tribune-of-the-people qualities that have made him such a mighty guardian against the dangerous excesses of Mr. Bush.

We all heard Sen. Daschle speak out against torture and killing of prisoners, the bombing of civilians, and improper arrests, didn’t we? Oh well, maybe not, but on this life-and-death issue we know he is on the side of the angels. After all, that redoubtable spokesman for freedom’s interests, Ari Fleischer, assured us, while his boss dozed off a lunch-time virgin Bloody Mary in the family quarters of the White House, that the president thinks the ruling “ridiculous.”

How can you go wrong with endorsements like that? And they were buttressed by the brave defenders of the right of those who already own most of America to own its elections too, the United States Senate, with a triumphant resolution in support of the pledge as worded (99/nil). My, Americans must feel proud of leaders endowed with such remarkable thoughtfulness and fortitude.

Of course, the only thing that truly is ridiculous here, apart from the entire U.S. Senate now wasting time on this, is the fact that the words, “under God,” ever were added in the first place. They were the product of the swell days of malts in the soda shop, fallout shelters, and an American government planning atomic pre-emptive strikes on the U.S.S.R. Funny, how that last idea has gained a new currency under Bush.

This religious profession, and there is no other expression for the words, represents the same pandering to prejudice as the 487 or so times the Congress has voted for a flag-desecration amendment to the Constitution, something that even a mail-order law student knows is a wretched idea. At least the flag amendments stood no chance of becoming law with the immense effort required to alter the American Constitution. But the pledge-phrase is something people have had to endure since 1954.

Contrary to the assertion that the pledge is a voluntary act, it effectively is not. When school classrooms and assemblies are asked to rise and recite the words, it is a very rare individual indeed who would ignore the immense social pressure involved to resist. He or she might not actually say the words, but you can be sure they are standing with hand to heart to avoid a trip to the principal’s office and a lot of sneers in the playground.

There is a rumor that in some parts of the South and the Midwest, there is a movement to bring back the old way of saying the pledge, with arm extended in Nazi-like salute, but I can’t confirm the truth of this, although it would clearly be in the spirit of cramming religious beliefs down other peoples’ throats.

The use of social pressure in this fashion is nothing less than a favored technique of tyranny. And that is why America’s Puritans are so attached to such practices. After all, they know they are right and everyone else is wrong – a characteristic belief of those with a proclivity to tyranny. There’s likely considerable dissatisfaction that the words aren’t “under Jesus,” but that fact serves to demonstrates to the world that the spirit of compromise isn’t totally dead in America.

Forgotten utterly are the hard-fought battles for true religious freedom in the 18th century. The skeptic Jefferson, a strong believer in religious tolerance and freedom (even though he did slip a mite on human freedom), worked with people like the Baptists in Virginia to achieve a new degree of religious freedom. Before his efforts, Baptists and others had to pay taxes for the established church, regardless of whether they ever attended.

It is actually difficult to understand why any religious person would want the government’s imprimatur on any matter touching religion. Faith is one of those precious, private, personal things that are better left untouched by government. No one gains from officially-endorsed religious expressions. Indeed, we are only diminished by them. They weaken the strength of a society by attempting to exclude or limit or define what only an individual’s conscience may properly judge.

Some will say the phrase “under God” is universal with no connotations of sect or specific religion. Well, that really isn’t true. As the judge writing the decision so correctly observed, the phrase is equivalent to “under Vishnu,” “under Zeus,” or “under no god.” Any of these would instantly rankle the sensibilities of many Christians and Jews.

And what is gained by having such a religious bromide attached to a patriotic profession? It clearly offends some people, but does it truly please anyone? It reminds me of the battle to have prayers in American public schools. As though the poor public schools didn’t already have enough problems to deal with. And as though any student who felt so inclined couldn’t quietly pray at any time in any place.

But there was a huge, time-consuming debate simply because some people were determined to push their beliefs into the faces of others. The compromise was offered of a “moment of silence,” again something that could please almost no one and prove irritating to many.

Oh, how much better off everyone would be if religion were left where it properly belongs, to the houses of worship and to the individual’s private thoughts.

Last night on AC360 (don’t forget how important it is to watch Anderson Cooper in these dire times), Mr. Cooper welcomed CNN regular and former President Clinton advisor Paul Begala, as well as former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. What happened next was what usually happens when you pin a conservative and a liberal against each other: fightin’ words. The only thing that could make this clip better was if they actually showed Anderson Cooper instead of just hearing his lovely voice.

Politics and snakes were two of the main topics on Tuesday’s 360.  Some people would argue that there is no difference between the two. 

Let’s start with the fifteen minutes Anderson spent on discussing the issues surrounding the important topic of torture.  Although Anderson called it “breaking news,’ the subject of the torture memos has been in the news since they were released last Thursday (April 16).  However, there have been a few new developments.

Anderson discussed these developments with CNN Senior White House correspondent Ed Henry. 

The most controversial being what Anderson called a “change of face” by Obama on whether or not to prosecute Bush officials for approving harsh interrogation methods that the Obama administration considers “torture.”

OBAMA:  With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don’t want to prejudge that.

In my opinion, this is just another example of Obama pushing the responsibility for his flip-flopping onto someone else, in this case Attorney General Eric Holder.  This was just 24 hours after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said that the president didn’t want prosecution.

What was it that Obama said in Prague on April 5th?  Oh yeah:

OBAMA:  Words mean something.

I guess he had a “change of face” about that as well.

There is speculation that Obama was pressured by senate intelligence chair Dianne Feinstein and by a petition circulated by liberal group moveon.org demanding that Attorney General Holder appoint a special prosecutor.

The second development had to do with seemingly conflicting memos by National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair.  As Henry reported, last Thursday, after the release of the torture memos by the White House, Admiral Blair sent a private memo to intelligence employees which said that ” High value information came from interrogation in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country,” but in a public statement released later that same day, the admiral seemed to backpedal on what he had said, omitting that portion of the memo replacing it with the following:

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but ther is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means.”

However, Wendy Morigi, spokesperson for Blair told Henry that “Director Blair does believe that high-value information was obtained from these interrogations, but he believes more damage was done to America by the fact that there was alleged torture going on.  That at the end of the day, the price the U.S. paid in terms of image, in terms of recruitment, outweighed any benefits that may have come from these interrogations.”

In my opinion, that is quite a difference from what Blair originally said.  If that was truly what he meant why didn’t he say so in the first place?

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has charged that the White House is withholding other memos that would support finding that torture tactics did work.

Henry said that the White House would not confirm whether or not these memos exist and he opined as to why they will not be releasing anymore memos in the near future:

HENRY:  Because A, it might not help their point of view. But B, they’re also very happy when you talk to administration advisers in private to have a battle with Vice President Cheney drag out.  It’s much better for them politically to be fighting with an unpopular former vice-president than to be battling out with fellow Democrats on the left who are upset with some of the president’s policies. 

The fireworks began during the panel discussion with Paul Begala and Ari Fleischer.

COOPER:  Ari, you said, it’s basically opening up a Pandora’s box for the president, leaving — leaving the door open to a possible prosecution.

How is that opening a Pandora’s box?

FLEISCHER:  Well, number one, we didn’t release any Clinton memos.  Clinton didn’t release any previous President Bush top-secret memos.  The problem that I have with all of this is, now that the White House is doing this to its predecessor, what will future White Houses do, depending on how the world turns under Barack Obama?

Something will go wrong during Barack Obama’s presidency.  Do you really want to be in a position where whoever follows him says, it was your fault; you must have done something; there’s this top-secret memo we will find somewhere that makes you look or sound culpable?

Fleischer makes a good point here.  Do we want all future presidents second guessing all of their decisions because they are worried that they may be brought up on charges by future administrations?

Of course Obama lap dog Paul Begala tried to excuse Obama from any and all responsibility for releasing the memos:

BEGALA:  Well, first up, the president was compelled to release them by a lawsuit, a lawsuit that his lawyers, the Justice Department and the White House counsel, decided they could not successfully defend.

We have a Freedom of Information Act, I know it’s — it’s an adjustment, but we now have a White House that lives under the rule of law and obeys the laws.

Oh really?  I guess Begala forgot about all those tax cheats that Obama appointed to his administration.

The discussion was not without its legitimate moments:

COOPER:  They destroyed the videotapes of two people being tortured, water-boarded, more than 100 times.

FLEISCHER:  I think that’s a fair question.  And I think the CIA destroys a lot of things.  They — they typically like to destroy as much things as they can.  That’s a matter of procedure at the CIA, not only on this, but on a host of…

In my opinion, that is unacceptable.  This type of information should never be destroyed and it should be a crime when it is.

Anderson asked both guests if torture can be justified if it is proven that is works, both guests said that it was not.  However, I wonder if Anderson, Begala, or Fleischer would have the same opinion if the life of one of their loved ones was on the line? 

Fleischer made another good point about the prosecutions:

FLEISCHER: And, Anderson, that’s why I said the only people who are in a position to make an authorative judgment on it (torture) should be career, independent-minded people at the Department of Justice, without anybody at the White House interfering or anybody else interfering…

And then, if they decide it was, then they have got a very careful decision to make about how far and extensive do you prosecute people.

Is it the people who did it?  Is it the Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill who were briefed on it and didn’t object to it?  And who in the administration would you have to apply the standard to?

It is very curious that Obama has decided to consider prosecuting those at the level that would probably not include any Democrats.  

Anderson’s behavior during this discussion was combative and highly unprofessional.  He was hostile towards Fleischer and interrupted him repeatedly, often to allow Begala to make his point and to prevent Fleischer from making his.  

Anderson literally choked on his own words when he said this to the viewers after this shameful display:

COOPER:  We’re trying to present multiple sides on this, so you can make up your own mind at home, what you believe.

Speaking of forked tongues…

John Zarrella reported about a problem residents of South Florida are having with Burmese Pythons.  Apparently people have been dumping their unwanted pet snakes into the Everglades and they have been mating in the wild.  Twenty years ago they did not exist in this area, but now there are an estimated 30,000 pythons flourishing there now. These snakes can grow to be 12 feet long and as much as 200 pounds.

They are traveling out of the Everglades in all directions and as Zarrella reports, ”Wildlife biologists are concerned they’ll devour pets and endangered species, or worse, menace small children.”  With no natural enemies in the area, the only way to control them is to catch them and kill them.

Zarrella did some snake wrangling himself during this report…

…and Anderson, a real “snake charmer,”  played with his own snake back at the NY studio!

I covered this at AOL today, but I can’t stress enought how bad a miscalculation it is for the left to constantly jump all over  her.  The Republican establishment is doing that job, and shitting all over themselves in the process.  If the regular people in the party have to choose between them and Palin, well, the left wins.

I’m used to nobody listening to me, but I called this a long time ago, and now it’s obvious.  Now that McCain is toast, the GOP wants to send Palin back to Wasilla, but she ain’t goin’ nowhere, you betcha.

“This…is…sewious!“

I knew the extra money for canned tuna would pay off!

Coho, tuna, trout IM’s explained at last!

More Levi-bashing, this time by Gramps Palin.

Begala goes all Jon Stewart on Ari Fleischer.

Twitter Fail:  I picked up, like, 5 followers.

Ari Fleischer is no poet, and it may be unfair to subject his literary figures to very close scrutiny; but I do expect a certain level of rhetorical competence from the man who once was entrusted with making dread pronouncements and weasel-like prevarications from the White House bully pulpit.

That’s why I was a little dismayed as I tried to follow Fleischer’s argument in today’s Wall Street Journal. The central figure of his op-ed asks us to imagine the federal tax code as “an inverted pyramid scheme,” in which the tax code appears in the shape of an upside-down pyramid.

The only the way the pyramid can stand is by spinning fast enough or by having a wide enough tip so it won’t fall down. The federal version of this spinning top is the tax code: the government collects its money almost entirely from people at the narrow tip and then gives it to the people at the wider side.

Leave aside, for the moment, the strange inversion of social class that this metaphor requires: the top ten percent of earners are actually on the bottom of the spinning top and everybody else occupies the ever widening area of the inverted pyramid. Fleischer’s intention is clear enough: he wants to make the point that the 10 percent earning over 92,400 dollars pay over 72 percent of the taxes. They are the tip at the bottom of the top — the tip on which it all spins.

To rectify this situation, and in the name of a “more conservative, fiscal discipline,” Fleischer calls for an “Economic Growth Code,” under which everyone — he even repeats the word for emphasis, everyone — would pay their fair share.

Odd that in this critique of wealth redistribution we should hear a faint echo of Marx (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”); but maybe not so odd: after all, this is Fleischer’s Utopia, where the Republicans have abolished Medicare, Social Security and estate taxes and are running a progressive income tax scheme with “no deductions or credits at all.”

In this topsy-turvy world, “the bottom 50%” — those are people at the broad top of the inverted pyramid — will pay for the government services they now mooch; top earners will sacrifice loopholes and deductions on which they now rely to reduce their tax burden. The tax base will broaden widely. Politicians will no longer exploit the tax code to divide us along class lines.

You may be excused if you don’t yet feel the love. It’s all about keeping the pyramid spinning: “Growth is the key to keeping the pyramid spinning, and to keep spinning the pyramid’s tip needs to be broadened.”

I am no physicist, but the figure here gives me pause. And I can’t get past the rhetorical failure to consider whether there is wisdom in Fleischer’s policy. After all, the broader you make the spinning top’s narrow tip, the more the pyramid will come to resemble a cube, and the slower it will spin. And you will necessarily have to apply more force to keep it spinning.

This isn’t a quibble — or if it is, it may be an important one. Remember, at the start of his piece Fleischer says we have two options: one, to keep the pyramid spinning fast enough; and, two, to broaden the base. What happened to the first option? What happened, in other words, to the argument for increased velocity, or just the image of economic velocity? Why opt for deceleration or cubic inertia if there is, in fact, another option? And what would that option look like? And why doesn’t Fleischer want to entertain that option here?

I don’t want to live or work in a cube; and there is, overall, something gray and grim, something intellectually parsimonious and unexciting, in Fleischer’s notion of growth. Though he says Republicans should “make their mark” by concentrating on economic growth, he never really specifies how they ought to do that, beyond following his prescriptions for tax reform.

No doubt, the tax code needs reform. But rejiggering or revamping the tax code does not add up to a strategy for growth; only a wonk — and a Republican wonk at that — would think it does.

Innovation, new industries and technologies, new business models and new ideas about the role of business in society — none of these have a place in Fleischer’s Utopia, at least as he presents it here. Entrepreneurs, too, go largely unrecognized and uncelebrated, even though their efforts and energies make the top go round and round, sometimes very fast — sometimes even too fast.

No Promethean fire, just a cold calculation of how much each of us owes. Why? Maybe because Ari Fleischer really does think that changing the tax code is the most urgent thing we can do right now to spur growth, or at least the best thing the Republicans can do to regain political advantage. Or maybe because he’s still just the public face of a shady ventriloquist act on which the curtain should have gone down long ago.

Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post: Obama’s Economic Mirage

Ari Fleischer in the Wall Street Journal: Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes

Two radio programs are the focus of this post, and you can listen to both below. Both deal, in very different ways, with the significance of the jury’s verdict in Ward Churchill’s wrongful termination suit against the University of Colorado.

The first one is an interview with Ward Churchill that took place earlier this morning — see Ward Churchill on WBAI Pacifica Radio 99.5 FM in New York City, on 10 April 2009, (also see here).

“I felt vindicated,” Churchill says, adding that the “University’s case for research misconduct was not deemed credible by the jury.” Ward Churchill also flatly denied and contradicted a report in The Daily Camera, “Churchill to ask for $1M if judge won’t reinstate CU job,” stating that he is not asking for any money. He also made the point, one that he noted the mainstream media continues to ignore, about the extent of fraud and falsification in the University of Colorado’s own investigative committee’s report about his research. He does not back down from the fact of American genocide against Natives, and he notes how so many get away so easily with genocide-denial and genocide-minimizing, which is politically correct only when speaking of American Indians.

Returning to the result of the jury’s verdict, Ward Churchill got $1 more than he asked for, and five out of six jurors wanted to amply compensate Churchill, as repeatedly attested to by Bethany Newill (see here and here). The reality is, as Churchill in his radio interview this morning reminds those who will listen and have the capacity to understand, that Churchill’s legal team did not detail the economic costs of Churchill’s losses as a result of his wrongful termination. The jurors, for their part, did not want to jeopardize their unanimity around the core issue of the case which, as clearly specified in the complaint submitted by Churchill’s legal team (see here), was always about his being wrongly fired for exercising his free speech rights. They also agreed, and as I said before this greatly increased my estimation of the jurors, that certain issues and qualities cannot be monetized, contrary to the capitalist logic that most North Americans routinely imbibe.

Listen to Ward Churchill (26 mins., 37 secs.):

▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲

The second radio program is about the verdict of the jury in Ward Churchill’s lawsuit. It comes from Caplis and Silverman on Denver’s 630 KHOW radio station, and it manifests the striking ability of two individuals to construct an alternate reality by severely truncating the range of facts that they are willing to listen to or able to absorb through their extremely dense ideological filters. Thus, in the world according to Caplis and Silverman, the jury’s verdict was a “total repudiation of Ward Churchill,” a “big win for CU and a rejection of Ward Churchill.” All that really matters to them is what Ward Churchill had to say about 9/11, as one of them says: “it’s hard to erase the horror of Ward Churchill’s speech.” They then project their emotions into the minds of the jury, asserting that their award of $1 meant that they “did see through Ward Churchill and they rejected him.” To make this case, they have to insist that Ward Churchill and his legal team “wanted money.” Sure, the jury’s verdict was also about the “free speech Amendment, and all that,” but that this verdict is still about the “jurors’ rejection of Ward Churchill.” One of them goes back and states that, yes, a “majority” of jurors did find that CU’s termination of Churchill’s position was a violation of Constitutionally protected free speech — but note the wording: a majority, as opposed to the actual fact, that it was unanimous, which is the only way there could have been a verdict. Back to the drum beat, as they continue: “Pat O’Rourke won…he won the case,” referring to the defense attorney for CU. They insist, because they have to or else their world falls to pieces around them like so many shards of a collapsing WTC tower: this was “such a tremendous victory to have the jury reject Churchill that way,” and, alright, “there was that one part” of the verdict that went for Churchill, but really this was “a personal slap down.” “Churchill hates us because we exposed him,” they say with pride. It’s an interesting conclusion: I hate what they do too, and they have never even mentioned me.

The issue of money weighs very heavily on the “minds” of Caplis and Silverman, and they then seek to prove that the case was all about money, so they play a barely audible tape (to make sure their voices are louder) of Churchill’s attorney David Lane, speaking during closing arguments: “Churchill didn’t ask for a nickel, he said ‘All I want is my job back,’…What are ‘damages’ in this case? Damages are justice.” Caplis and Silverman repeatedly talk over the muffled audio of Lane, interjecting with what they think are clever little quips, waiting for any mention of money to interject “sounds like money to me,” so that even if one were to say, “I don’t want money” that is transformed by them: “Oh look! He said money.”

Then Bethany Newill comes in, and reality strikes Caplis and Silverman: they got the facts completely backwards. They had argued all along that the majority of jurors did not want to award money, except for one (the exact reverse of that was true). It seems that they were unable to absorb what she was telling them, that the focus for the jurors was not about the money, since it is too difficult to come to an estimate of the dollar value of a reputation; and, had Churchill’s legal team ever bothered to specify the losses, and provided evidence, then Newill said the jury would have definitely awarded a lot of money. But never mind the verdict now, or any of the facts of the case, and let’s hark back to the glorious tragedy of 9/11.

Caplis and Silverman are thus left to do what? To try to convert Newill to something entirely irrelevant to the case, that Churchill somehow advocated and condoned “terrorism.”

I was “impressed” by the program, but by “impressed” I mean the same way that I might be impressed if, while suffering from an overdose of hallucinogenic drugs and extreme sleep deprivation, I were to be forcibly marched through a mile-long freak show inhabited by howling ghouls and mutants. Caplis and Silverman are extraordinary cowards, on a moral and intellectual level, if I may be so bold as to use the term “intellectual” in the same sentence as their names.

Listen to Caplis & Silverman (53 mins., 40 secs.):

▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲▼▲

God’s Terminal Nation

No wonder that many people in the U.S. media continue to speak as if the attacks of 11 September 2001 came out of nowhere, had no cause, no roots, no justification. When you think, for too long, that God is always on your side, eventually some begin to think that their nation actually is God, and any attack against God can only be the work of the Devil. Not just the work of evil people, but cowards: Caplis and Silverman call Churchill a coward — and yet he stood up and spoke out in public, at great personal cost, saying what was most politically unpopular at the time, breaching patriotic correctness.

As for the 9/11 hijackers, I would like to see anyone who thinks they were “cowards” spend years of their own lives consciously training for their own personal annihilation in the service of a greater cause, learning to fly a large passenger jet so as to crash it into a skyscraper, and that after taking the plane by force. I could not do it — could you? Robert Fisk put it a different way on 14 September 2001:

This is a formidable enemy. To dismiss it as a bunch of cowards perpetrating senseless acts of violence is complacent nonsense. People willing to kill thousands of innocents while they kill themselves are not cowards. They are deadly, vicious warriors and need to be treated as such. Nor are their acts of violence senseless. They have a very specific aim: to avenge alleged historical wrongs and to bring the great American satan to its knees. (source)

Bill Maher, for his part, also agreed with none other than right wing academic Dinesh D’Souza that the 9/11 hijackers were anything but cowards:

Panelist Dinesh D’Souza mentioned that he didn’t think the terrorists were “cowards,” as George Bush had described them. Maher replied: “We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly. You’re right.” (source)

Some of us may have forgotten the White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, who responded to Bill Maher’s comments (ignoring, or ignorant of D’Souza’s own comments) by urging Americans “to watch what they say”: “This is not a time for remarks like that. There never is” (see here and here).

Cowards, it would seem, are those who use a radio microphone to speak silence into the ears of listeners, afraid to ever question or challenge the authorized truths of their society. Yet, there is also the semblance of the courage of a hijacker here, and Caplis and Silverman may share more with the 9/11 hijackers than they would ever care to admit.

God Commands That We All Drown Together

The extremely astute anthropological conclusion that a culture that cannot escape itself is a culture that is terminal, originally came to me from a single sentence in a newspaper column by the late Lloyd Best, a column I may have preserved somewhere but which I have not seen in at least a decade. Shutting down dissent, leading pitchfork parades against critics, and committing the cardinal sin of not recognizing the vital role of dissent as part of the existential fibre of the true university, is very much like watching people in a room filling with poisonous gas as their leader commands that all exits be sealed. It would be like the captain of a sinking ship ordering that all lifeboats be cut loose and all passengers chained to the deck. The voyage must continue, even if to the bottom of the ocean.

Consensus won by force — fire the critics, deny them a livelihood, pursue them everywhere with threats, ridicule and scorn — is the way a previously hegemonic culture turns into orthodoxy, in a vain attempt to buy itself time and to stall its impending decline. “America” today is the forced product of an illusion of agreement, where the logic of state became a de facto religion, now degenerating into a violent sectional cult. Consensus won by argument demands contestation, and that requires the most vigorous dissent possible. By castigating dissent, the Caplis and Silvermans of the world would gut the university, and have everyone sink with them. However, just as some people push back, some also prefer not to drown. I love how Ward Churchill swims.

Sphere Related Content

Horiwood.Com's Sam Cruickshank & "Smilers" Miley Cyrus chillax

In case you missed it, i’ll play these again. These are the top rating posts (before the ‘Natasha Richardson is critical’ story broke, for the month of Feb/March  on Horiwood.com. Have fun, surfing through them. Happy clicking.

ENJOY THE LIST OF HORIWOOD TOP 40 POSTS, DOWN UNDER:

1. PUSSYGATE – BRITNEY’S VAGINA MONOLOGUE  AT THE  CIRCUS

2. VANESSA HUDGENS – OSCARS DRESS

3. DID LINDSAY LOHAN THINK HER MADONNA WOULD COVER GLAMOUR

4. OCTO-MOM’S BIRTH VIDEO -SPOOFED BY JIMMY KIMMEL

5. FEDS WORRY IF RUTH MADOFF WILL BE A $93MIL COUGAR ON THE LOOSE!

6. GUY SEBASTIAN’S COVER OF STEVIE WONDER’S FALLING IN LOVE

7. NIPPLEGATE – BEYONCE

8. ORIGINAL AUSTRALIAN IDOL, GUY SEBASTIAN HAS MOVED TO USA

9. TV ONE ACCESS NAMES HALLE BERRY AS SEXIEST WOMAN ALIVE

10. ABOUT HORIWOOD

11. WHO ARE HORIWOOD.COM’S TOP CELEBS SO FAR IN 2009?

12. NOTE TO BILLIONAIRES – THIS WILL SELL

13. HOT! CHECK OUT SUPER JUNIOR’S “Sorry Sorry 작사 작사

14. TINA DAVIS SPEAKS. CHRIS BROWN HAS ISSUES

15. MILES TO GO – MILEY CYRUS REFLECTS ON HER CLIMB SO FAR

16. RIHANNA – A $10 MILLION +1 FOR CHRIS BROWN

17. NIPPLEGATE – PAMELA ANDERSON AT VIVIENNE WESTWOOD

18. AMERICA’S 5 BIGGEST BANKS IN TROUBLE

19. LADY GAGA TURNS DOWN PLAY BOY OFFER

20. A GQ GREEK’S INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE -ROBERT PATTINSON GIVES BLOOD ON HIS RISING HOLLYWOOD CELEBRITY

21. BLONDE & BLONDER – WHEN PARIS HILTON MET LADY GAGA

22. VANESSA HUDGENS’ SLEEPING BEAUTY – IN LOVE AMERICA AWAKENS TO A NEW DAY

23. HORIWOOD – TU MAI MAGAZINE – MARCH 09

24. I AM CHANGING – BEYONCE IN TRIBECA HOOD

25. RIHANNA’S BEATINGS WERE ESCALATING

26. IF MISS TESSA OF NEW ZEALAND HAD BEEN DESIGNING

27. BATTERED RIHANNA TAKES CHRIS BROWN BACK

28. ALL THE SINGLE LADIES, MEET ALBERT. HE’S 25 & WORTH $2.1 BIL

29. ISRAEL SINGS FOR THEIR ARMS WITH A BOLLYWOOD PITCH

30. QUOTE OF THE DAY – KRISTEN STEWART ON ROBERT PATTINSON

31. ITS ON – JON STUART VS CNBC’S JIM CRAMER

32. POLITICAL TALK TV IS HOT IN AMERICA AGAIN – MATTHEWS VS FLEICSHER

33. 16 TEENAGERS MASSACRED AS GERMAN SCHOOL WEEPS RACHEL’S TEARS

34. MEET ADAM LAMBERT OF AMERICAN IDOL

35. JON STUART SQUEEZES JIM CRAMER FOR RATINGS

36. AMERICAN IDOL SHOCKER – MEGAN GETS ELIMINATED

37. MEET TESSA ABBOTT OF NEW ZEALAND

38. WHO IS EDUARDO VERASTEGUI?

39. SAD! NFL PLAYERS LOST AT SEA

40. RECEIVE THE POWER WITH GUY SEBASTIAN, AUSTRALIAN IDOL

And the winner is… Britney Spears, of course!

HORIWOOD TOP 20 POSTS, LAST 4 WEEKS – 3.17.09

On Horiwood.Com this month, flashes of partial nudity during performance got Britney, Beyonce and Pamela Anderson into the upper top 40. Sensationalism sells fast.

Perhaps, the most interesting fact on Horiwood.Com, is that politics are not what people are reading online as their first preference of media. It’s only when talk show hosts have feuds that politics becomes hot in public consciousness again. 

In the main, Horiwood.Com’s readers are very celebrity driven in what media they love to read and see and experience each day. Viewers have deep loyalty to their favorite celebrities, more so than to their president or political leaders. Readers are also prepared to back rising talent if they are beautiful, talented and artistic. This has been the case with artist and budding fashionista Miss Tessa of New Zealand.

Likewise, Guy Sebastian of Australia with his blend of spirituality and talent beat out young Hollywood rising stars, Zac Efron and Robert Pattinson. This perhaps indicates that people are ready to see more spiritually minded stars in the world. Also of note, is that Miss Tessa garnered more hits than teen superstar, Miley Cyrus (Horiwood’s angel).

Outside of the mix of beauty, shock factor, achievements, talents, antics, inspiration and sheer amusement that celebrities provide each week, tragedies like the NFL football players being lost at sea, American banks in crises and high school massacres akin to the Columbine tragedy are also selling.

We also have to welcome Nadya Suleman into the media mix whether we like her or not, because Octo-Mom,her 14 kids (consisting of the octuplets) along with her trials of survival fascinate or annoy us all and have captured our attention in 2009.

70% of Horiwood.Com’s online viewers enjoy their media in image and text format. 30% appreciate video format. Thanks for making February/ March so successful and so much fun on Horiwood.com. It’s about you, the viewers.

Horiwood.Com is committed to provide you with media from “Hollywood’s Smarter Thinking Website in Entertainment and Uplifting Politics” that believes in “Young America Emerging Through a Recession,”  and that provides Entertainment news from New Zealand, Australia, the UK, India, Asian cultures, The Middle East and other countries outside of the US from Hollywood.

To be globally minded and respectful of other cultures different to our own, is smart in the new America. Horiwood continues to promote the rareness of the Maori (hori) language of New Zealand, the gift of hori humor in its resiliance to survive, sustain the spirit, believe in all peoples dreams, by causing others to thrive through an encouraging tone  in entertaintainment. This is the gift of Horiwood.Com to support those who seek to “uplift the human spirit in entertainment and life.”

To email what you’d like to see more of, or to send news and advertising items that you think are worthy of being posted on the website, you can email Sam Cruickshank: horiwood@live.com. Thanks very much for a great month. Love you all, God bless, stay shiny & see you soon

ENJOY THE LIST OF HORIWOOD TOP 40 POSTS, DOWN UNDER:

1. PUSSYGATE – BRITNEY’S VAGINA MONOLOGUE  AT THE  CIRCUS

2. VANESSA HUDGENS – OSCARS DRESS

3. DID LINDSAY LOHAN THINK HER MADONNA WOULD COVER GLAMOUR

4. OCTO-MOM’S BIRTH VIDEO -SPOOFED BY JIMMY KIMMEL

5. FEDS WORRY IF RUTH MADOFF WILL BE A $93MIL COUGAR ON THE LOOSE!

6. GUY SEBASTIAN’S COVER OF STEVIE WONDER’S FALLING IN LOVE

7. NIPPLEGATE – BEYONCE

8. ORIGINAL AUSTRALIAN IDOL, GUY SEBASTIAN HAS MOVED TO USA

9. TV ONE ACCESS NAMES HALLE BERRY AS SEXIEST WOMAN ALIVE

10. ABOUT HORIWOOD

11. WHO ARE HORIWOOD.COM’S TOP CELEBS SO FAR IN 2009?

12. NOTE TO BILLIONAIRES – THIS WILL SELL

13. HOT! CHECK OUT SUPER JUNIOR’S “Sorry Sorry 작사 작사

14. TINA DAVIS SPEAKS. CHRIS BROWN HAS ISSUES

15. MILES TO GO – MILEY CYRUS REFLECTS ON HER CLIMB SO FAR

16. RIHANNA – A $10 MILLION +1 FOR CHRIS BROWN

17. NIPPLEGATE – PAMELA ANDERSON AT VIVIENNE WESTWOOD

18. AMERICA’S 5 BIGGEST BANKS IN TROUBLE

19. LADY GAGA TURNS DOWN PLAY BOY OFFER

20. A GQ GREEK’S INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE -ROBERT PATTINSON GIVES BLOOD ON HIS RISING HOLLYWOOD CELEBRITY

21. BLONDE & BLONDER – WHEN PARIS HILTON MET LADY GAGA

22. VANESSA HUDGENS’ SLEEPING BEAUTY – IN LOVE AMERICA AWAKENS TO A NEW DAY

23. HORIWOOD – TU MAI MAGAZINE – MARCH 09

24. I AM CHANGING – BEYONCE IN TRIBECA HOOD

25. RIHANNA’S BEATINGS WERE ESCALATING

26. IF MISS TESSA OF NEW ZEALAND HAD BEEN DESIGNING

27. BATTERED RIHANNA TAKES CHRIS BROWN BACK

28. ALL THE SINGLE LADIES, MEET ALBERT. HE’S 25 & WORTH $2.1 BIL

29. ISRAEL SINGS FOR THEIR ARMS WITH A BOLLYWOOD PITCH

30. QUOTE OF THE DAY – KRISTEN STEWART ON ROBERT PATTINSON

31. ITS ON – JON STUART VS CNBC’S JIM CRAMER

32. POLITICAL TALK TV IS HOT IN AMERICA AGAIN – MATTHEWS VS FLEICSHER

33. 16 TEENAGERS MASSACRED AS GERMAN SCHOOL WEEPS RACHEL’S TEARS

34. MEET ADAM LAMBERT OF AMERICAN IDOL

35. JON STUART SQUEEZES JIM CRAMER FOR RATINGS

36. AMERICAN IDOL SHOCKER – MEGAN GETS ELIMINATED

37. MEET TESSA ABBOTT OF NEW ZEALAND

38. WHO IS EDUARDO VERASTEGUI?

39. SAD! NFL PLAYERS LOST AT SEA

40. RECEIVE THE POWER WITH GUY SEBASTIAN, AUSTRALIAN IDOL