Mn-prog-events Mailing List: Progressive Calendar 05.14.06

[David Shove (shove001]

            P R O G R E S S I V E   C A L E N D A R    05.14.06

1. Palestine day     5.14 5pm
2. Labor/60Minutes   5.14 6pm
3. Mpls GP/Bicking   5.14 7pm
4. Vets for peace    5.14 8pm
5. Israeli lobby/TV  5.14 10:30pm

6. Eat for WAMM      5.15-20 9am
7. Natural step      5.15 4pm
8. Violence-free     5.15 5pm
9. Beyond treason/f  5.15 6:30pm
10. Co/elder/housing 5.15 7pm
11. mn911            5.15 7pm

12. John Pilger     - Chavez a threat because he offers a decent society
13. Stephen Lendman - From a republic to tyranny (excerpt)
14. Michael Doliner - Killing democracy the Straussian way
15. Amnesty Intl    - US government creating "climate of torture"
16. ed              - Attention hoppers

--------1 of 16--------

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 00:51:29 -0500
From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: Palestine day 5.14 5pm

Sunday, 5/14, 5 to 8 pm, Al-Alqa Institute presents Palestine Day, a fun
family day with art, lit, pictures, food, Irondale High School, 2425 Long
Lake Rd, New Brighton.  612-554-2460.


--------2 of 16--------

From: Lydia Howell <lhowell [at] visi.com>
Subject: Labor/60Minutes 5.14 6pm

So many Americans are working harder with less to show for it - and
PurpleOcean founder and Service Employees International Union President
Andy Stern speaks for all of us when he says it's time for action.

*On Sunday, May 14 at 6pm, the CBS program "60 Minutes" plans to air a
13-minute profile featuring Andy Stern and SEIU, the fastest-growing union
in the country.*

It's not often the news media tell the truth about what's happening to
working families. See what Andy Stern has to say about the crisis facing
working people in America and around the world and how SEIU members are
supporting elected officials with pro-worker agendas, partnering with
responsible employers, making global connections, and fighting to ensure
that all working people have a voice.

Spread the word. Forward this message to your family, friends, and
co-workers. And watch on Sunday!

In solidarity, Aisha Satterwhite PurpleOcean.org
<http://www.purpleocean.org>

/PurpleOcean, an affiliate of SEIU, is an online community of people
working towards social and economic justice. PO members stand with over
1.8 million workers - from nurses and health care workers to librarians
and public service employees to security guards and janitors. Join our
fight to protect working people on issues like affordable health care,
immigration reform, and corporate accountability!/


--------3 of 16--------

Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 17:05:58 -0500
From: Dave Bicking <dave [at] colorstudy.com>
Subject: Mpls GP/Bicking 5.14 7pm

Sunday, May 14, 7pm, at Dave Bicking's house:  3211 22nd Ave. S., Mpls
(lower)  Two blocks south of Lake St., just west of Hiawatha LRT stop.
(potluck snacks). [Agenda includes stadium madness and hall of shame
legislators.]


--------4 of 16--------

Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 00:51:29 -0500
From: Charles Underwood <charleyunderwood [at] hotmail.com>
Subject: Vets for peace 5.14 8pm

Sunday, 5/14, 8 pm, Vetarans for Peace monthly meeting, St. Stephens school
basement, 2123 Clinton Ave S, Mpls   Wayne Wittman, 651-774-4008.


--------5 of 16--------

Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 17:25:16 -0500
From: Ahmed A <ata200221 [at] msn.com>
Subject: Israeli lobby/TV 5.14 10:30pm

The Lobby

[Ahmed] Professor Jesse Benjamin and Professor Fouzi Slisli will address
the report and the American Political Taboo: how could a small country
like Israel have that much influence on American foreign policy.

Jesse Benjamin is an associate professor in the Department of Human
Relations and Multicultural Education at St. Cloud State University. He is
a sociologist and anthropologist who has done research in Israel,
Palestine, Egypt and East Africa, and has been a social justice activist
for twenty years

They dared to speak, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt professor both of
great intellect and great researches, finally published their exhaustive
report on the role that Israeli lobby plays in American foreign policy -
"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in
1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its
relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel
and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has
inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion".

Also watch Eric Lingham the Star tribune editor meet the Egyptian poet
Ahmed Fouad Negim in his home in Egypt...

Ahmed Tharwat/Host
BelAhdan, with Ahmed
Arab Americans TV show
Airs on MN Public TV Ch17
Sundays at 10:30pm
And every Tuesday at 6:30pm ET on
National TV/ Bridges TV
Channel 578 on DISH Network


--------6 of 16--------

From: wamm <wamm [at] mtn.org>
Subject: Eat for WAMM 5.15-20 9am

Jump Out of the Big Box and Shop Unchained: WAMM Week at Sinbad Deli
May 15-20, 9am-9pm. Sinbad, 2528 Nicollet Avenue South, Minneapolis.

Are you concerned that our economy has our backs up against the Wal-Mart?
You are invited to exercise your dollar power by supporting local,
independent stores and services and WAMM. Here's a great way to do
something wonderful for yourself and the world, too, by contributing to
WAMM while you sit down to a lunch or dinner of Mediterranean buffet food.
Be sure to mention WAMM when you arrive. All-you-can-eat Lebanese Buffet
for $8.99. The difference from the regular price will go to WAMM. FFI:
Call WAMM at 612-827-5364.


--------7 of 16--------

From: Karen Engelsen <siribear [at] earthlink.net>
Subject: Natural step 5.15 4pm

4-7 pm, May 15 & 22 Sustainability and the Natural Step Framework: A
Win-Win-Win for Business, Our Community and the Earth at the University
Bank, 200 University Ave W, Saint Paul, MN.

Enjoy organic Hors D'oeuvres and beverages courtesy of our host and
sponsor University Bank. Please RSVP. There is a special reduced rate
thanks to the generosity of University Bank: $50 if payment received by
May 9 (Normally $95), including course materials. $10 additional after and
$20 at the door if available.  Contributing members of Alliance receive a
$10 discount. A limited number of scholarships are available. If you can't
come to the second session you can come another time. For
registration/info: Alliance for Sustainability
<http://www.afors.org/>www.afors.org; 612-331-1099,
<mailto:info [at] afors.org>info [at] afors.org


--------8 of 16--------

From: erin [at] mnwomen.org
Subject: Violence-free 5.15 5pm

Monday, May 15: Initiative for Violence-Free Families/Family & Children's
Service 2006 Walk the Talk Recognition Reception. 5-7 PM. Luther
Seminary/Olson Campus Center, 2481 Como Avenue, St. Paul. RSVP to Becca
Boesen at 612/728-2084.


--------9 of 16--------

From: wamm <wamm [at] mtn.org>
Subject: Beyond treason/film 5.15 6:30pm

5. WAMM Free Third Monday Movie and Discussion: "Beyond Treason"

Monday May 15, 6:30pm St. Joan of Arc Church, Hospitality Hall, 4537 Third
Avenue South, Minneapolis. Parking is close, free and easy.

"Beyond Treason" (100 minutes) documents the U.S. Government's long
history of conducting deadly military experiments. Sponsored by: WAMM.


--------10 of 16--------

From: Sagesusan71 [at] aol.com
Subject: Co/elder/housing 5.15 7pm

Cohousing and ElderCohousing Informational Meeting:
May 15 Monday, 7-9pm
St. Anthony Park Library
2245 Como Av StPaul (lower conference room)

Come learn about the exciting concept of Cohousing and Elder Cohousing!
Video on exising Cohousing Communities
Conversation around "What would an Elder friendly Cohousing Community
look like"?
FREE! Bring a friend

More information on cohousing: www.cohousing.org www.eldercohousing.orgt
Contact: Bob or Susan Phone: (651) 649 - 1154 or Email: robrankin3 [at] aol.com


--------11 of 16--------

From: altera vista <alteravista [at] earthlink.net>
Subject: mn911 5.15 7pm

MN911 meets Monday, May 15, at 7pm.  Note that we will switch back to
Cahoots coffeehouse (Selby 1/2 block east of Snelling) for this meeting.


--------12 of 16--------

[Hope from the south, evil from the north]

Chavez Is A Threat Because He Offers The Alternative Of A Decent Society
By John Pilger
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2006-05/13pilger.cfm
ZNet Commentary
May 13, 2006

I have spent the past three weeks filming in the hillside barrios of
Caracas, in streets and breeze-block houses that defy gravity and
torrential rain and emerge at night like fireflies in the fog. Caracas is
said to be one of the world's toughest cities, yet I have known no fear;
the poorest have welcomed my colleagues and me with a warmth
characteristic of ordinary Venezuelans but also with the unmistakable
confidence of a people who know that change is possible and who, in their
everyday lives, are reclaiming noble concepts long emptied of their
meaning in the west: "reform", "popular democracy", "equity", "social
justice" and, yes, "freedom".

The other night, in a room bare except for a single fluorescent tube, I
heard these words spoken by the likes of Ana Lucia Fernandez, aged 86,
Celedonia Oviedo, aged 74, and Mavis Mendez, aged 95. A mere 33-year-old,
Sonia Alvarez, had come with her two young children. Until about a year
ago, none of them could read and write; now they are studying mathematics.
For the first time in its modern era, Venezuela has almost 100% literacy.

This achievement is due to a national programme, called Mision Robinson,
designed for adults and teenagers previously denied an education because
of poverty. Mision Ribas is giving everyone a secondary school education,
called a bachillerato. (The names Robinson and Ribas refer to Venezuelan
independence leaders from the 19th century.) Named, like much else here,
after the great liberator Simon Bolivar, "Bolivarian", or people's,
universities have opened, introducing, as one parent told me, "treasures
of the mind, history and music and art, we barely knew existed". Under
Hugo Chavez, Venezuela is the first major oil producer to use its oil
revenue to liberate the poor.

Mavis Mendez has seen, in her 95 years, a parade of governments preside
over the theft of tens of billions of dollars in oil spoils, much of it
flown to Miami, together with the steepest descent into poverty ever known
in Latin America; from 18% in 1980 to 65% in 1995, three years before
Chavez was elected. "We didn't matter in a human sense," she said. "We
lived and died without real education and running water, and food we
couldn't afford. When we fell ill, the weakest died. In the east of the
city, where the mansions are, we were invisible, or we were feared. Now I
can read and write my name, and so much more; and whatever the rich and
their media say, we have planted the seeds of true democracy, and I am
full of joy that I have lived to witness it."

Latin American governments often give their regimes a new sense of
legitimacy by holding a constituent assembly that drafts a new
constitution. When he was elected in 1998, Chavez used this brilliantly to
decentralise, to give the impoverished grassroots power they had never
known and to begin to dismantle a corrupt political superstructure as a
prerequisite to changing the direction of the economy. His setting-up of
misions as a means of bypassing saboteurs in the old, corrupt bureaucracy
was typical of the extraordinary political and social imagination that is
changing Venezuela peacefully. This is his "Bolivarian revolution", which,
at this stage, is not dissimilar to the post-war European social
democracies.

Chavez, a former army major, was anxious to prove he was not yet another
military "strongman". He promised that his every move would be subject to
the will of the people. In his first year as president in 1999, he held an
unprecedented number of votes: a referendum on whether or not people
wanted a new constituent assembly; elections for the assembly; a second
referendum ratifying the new constitution - 71% of the people approved
each of the 396 articles that gave Mavis and Celedonia and Ana Lucia, and
their children and grandchildren, unheard-of freedoms, such as Article
123, which for the first time recognised the human rights of mixed-race
and black people, of whom Chavez is one.

"The indigenous peoples," it says, "have the right to maintain their own
economic practices, based on reciprocity, solidarity and exchange ... and
to define their priorities ... " The little red book of the Venezuelan
constitution became a bestseller on the streets. Nora Hernandez, a
community worker in Petare barrio, took me to her local state-run
supermarket, which is funded entirely by oil revenue and where prices are
up to half those in the commercial chains. Proudly, she showed me articles
of the constitution written on the backs of soap-powder packets. "We can
never go back," she said.

In La Vega barrio, I listened to a nurse, Mariella Machado, a big round
black woman of 45 with a wonderfully wicked laugh, stand and speak at an
urban land council on subjects ranging from homelessness to the Iraq war.
That day, they were launching Mision Madres de Barrio, a programme aimed
specifically at poverty among single mothers. Under the constitution,
women have the right to be paid as carers, and can borrow from a special
women's bank. From next month, the poorest housewives will get about £120
a month.

It is not surprising that Chavez has now won eight elections and
referendums in eight years, each time increasing his majority, a world
record. He is the most popular head of state in the western hemisphere,
probably in the world. That is why he survived, amazingly, a
Washington-backed coup in 2002. Mariella and Celedonia and Nora and
hundreds of thousands of others came down from the barrios and demanded
that the army remain loyal. "The people rescued me," Chavez told me. "They
did it with all the media against me, preventing even the basic facts of
what had happened. For popular democracy in heroic action, I suggest you
need look no further."

The venomous attacks on Chavez, who arrives in London tomorrow, have begun
and resemble uncannily those of the privately owned Venezuelan television
and press, which called for the elected government to be overthrown.
Fact-deprived attacks on Chavez in the Times and the Financial Times this
week, each with that peculiar malice reserved for true dissenters from
Thatcher's and Blair's one true way, follow a travesty of journalism on
Channel 4 News last month, which effectively accused the Venezuelan
president of plotting to make nuclear weapons with Iran, an absurd
fantasy. The reporter sneered at policies to eradicate poverty and
presented Chavez as a sinister buffoon, while Donald Rumsfeld was allowed
to liken him to Hitler, unchallenged. In contrast, Tony Blair, a patrician
with no equivalent democratic record, having been elected by a fifth of
those eligible to vote and having caused the violent death of tens of
thousands of Iraqis, is allowed to continue spinning his truly absurd
political survival tale.

Chavez is, of course, a threat, especially to the United States. Like the
Sandinistas in Nicaragua, who based their revolution on the English
co-operative moment, and the moderate Allende in Chile, he offers the
threat of an alternative way of developing a decent society: in other
words, the threat of a good example in a continent where the majority of
humanity has long suffered a Washington-designed peonage. In the US media
in the 1980s, the "threat" of tiny Nicaragua was seriously debated until
it was crushed. Venezuela is clearly being "softened up" for something
similar.

A US army publication, Doctrine for Asymmetric War against Venezuela,
describes Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution as the "largest threat
since the Soviet Union and Communism". When I said to Chavez that the US
historically had had its way in Latin America, he replied: "Yes, and my
assassination would come as no surprise. But the empire is in trouble, and
the people of Venezuela will resist an attack. We ask only for the support
of all true democrats."

John Pilger's new book, Freedom Next Time, is published next month by
Bantam Press www.johnpilger.com


--------13 of 16--------

From a republic to tyranny (excerpt)
by Stephen Lendman

Tommy Franks discusses a second 911

"[T]his time we may be getting in over our heads and headed for the abyss
if the alarm sounded by retired General Tommy Franks proves true. A few
months after he retired, he gave an interview to Cigar Aficionado magazine
(a most unlikely venue - maybe he envisioned the world going up in smoke)
and made what to some was an astonishing statement. He said if another
terrorist attack occurs in the US 'the Constitution will likely be
discarded in favor of a military form of government.' He went on to say
such an attack will result in our losing our 'freedom and liberty we've
seen for a couple of hundred years......(and that Bush)..... will likely
declare martial law.......'

Have I ruined your day? Fasten your seat belt, it gets worse. For some
time now, a number of US government officials and private 'terrorism'
experts are on record predicting it's just a matter of when, not if, the
US will be struck again. Some say it will be worse than 9/11. And on June
6, 2003, the AP quoted a US government report that 'there is a high
probability that al-Qaida will attempt an attack with weapons of mass
destruction in the next two years.' Now I'd never advise anyone believe
anything said by any government official. But those of us, including
myself, convinced our own government was behind or complicit in the first
9/11 attack, should take this warning very seriously. It means if that
conclusion is true (and again, I believe it is) this warning and General
Franks' grim assessment may, in fact, be advance word of what's ahead. We
should heed that warning and be prepared as best we can. One astute
observer I heard comment said in all seriousness that for anyone with
enough resources a prudent option today would be to have 'a second
passport and a little property in Vancouver." He added we should think out
our escape route in advance and be ready to take it.'"

From: "War Making 101: A User's Manual: The move from a Republic to
Tyranny," by Stephen Lendman, full text available at
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=LEN20060325&articleId=2170


--------14 of 16--------

[I printed the following in the 10.13.05 PC. Every day brings more
evidence that this is what the Bush crime/slime/grime family/gang has in
mind for us. -ed]

Killing Democracy The Straussian Way
Shadia B. Drury's Leo Strauss and the American Right
by Michael Doliner
Book Review

Drury, Shadia B.: Leo Strauss and the American Right, Palgrave Macmillan,
February 1999, ISBN 0-31221-783-8, 256 pages, $29.95 (hardcover)

(Swans - October 10, 2005)   Will the backlash from Katrina's destruction
and the Bush Administration's woeful response to it finally do in the
neocons? If you think so you don't know whom you are dealing with. Many
have connected the name of Leo Strauss with the Neoconservatives, but
almost nowhere do I find the actual content of this connection. Strauss
was a professor. What did he profess? It is not sufficient merely to use
Strauss's name with a sneer, for his actual thought is likely far more
daring than you can imagine. The neocons are more than just the usual
hacks serving the imperial masters. They share Strauss's dark vision.

Shadia Drury, a professor of philosophy at the University of Regina has
written an excellent book about Strauss, Leo Strauss and the American
Right. According to Drury, Strauss's attitude towards liberal democracy
was at the root of this thought. "Strauss abhorred liberal democracy
because he associated it with the Weimar Republic whose constitution was
drafted at the end of World War I." Many Jewish European expatriates, who,
like Strauss, survived World War II, identified American liberal democracy
with the Weimar Republic, and the weakness and decadence of Weimar with
the rise of Nazism. Strauss persuaded students such as Allan Bloom, Henry
Jaffa, Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, and many others of this connection.
He convinced them that liberalism was the root of Nazism and therefore
abhorrent.

Liberalism, as Drury makes clear later on, boils down to the belief not
that everyone is equal, but that everyone should be given an equal
opportunity to make what he can of himself. It extols individual
development at the expense of community; its principle is meritocracy.
Liberalism, dedicated to individual development, has no absolutes, and
tolerates such things as abortion, one step from Hitler's gas chambers.
Because it has no absolutes, individuals dedicated to their own
advancement only with difficulty unite into communities with common
beliefs. Consequently liberal democracies are weak and a demagogue can
easily overwhelm them. The weakness and nihilism of Weimar led to, or even
became, Nazi Germany. For Strauss, American liberal democracy, Weimar
revived, is an evil threatening all truly human existence.

But Drury claims that Strauss disliked liberalism not only because he
thought it might lead to nihilism and therefore Nazism. "It was the ideals
of liberalism itself -- secular politics, human rights, equal dignity, and
human freedom -- that he did not relish." These too he would abolish, for
they were the very opposite of what he considered to be the good society.
His vision was of a hierarchical society based on natural inequalities and
welded together with the fanatical devotion state religion engenders.

Strauss's political program is designed to counter the ills of liberalism.
He believed in, and proposed, a state religion as a way of reviving
absolutes, countering free thought, and enforcing a cohesive unity.
Strauss argued against a society containing a multiplicity of coexisting
religions and goals, which would break the society apart. He thought that
ordinary people should not be exposed to reason. To rely on reason is to
look into the abyss, for reason provided no comforting absolutes to shield
one against the blank sky. Strauss opposed not reason itself, but reason
stripped of its secrecy. Reason is for the few, not the many. The
Enlightenment, the exposing of reason, was the beginning of the disaster.
A reliance on reason, as opposed to religion, produced "modernity" which
is nothing more than nihilism made political.

The visible leaders of this state are the "gentlemen." Drawn from the best
families, trained to appear like leaders, imbued with the language of
honor and piety, they are the Straussian State's figureheads. Although
Strauss advocated a single state religion for the hoi polloi, at the top
guiding the gentlemen, was a secret cabal of atheistic "philosophers."
Strauss knew, and believed that all great philosophers knew, that religion
is hokum. It was necessary for the masses, but not for the philosophers
who, Strauss thought, would secretly rule the state. These atheistic
philosophers would supply Machiavellian wisdom to the gentlemen. Drury
notes that in attributing wisdom to the philosophers Strauss is not a
conservative, for conservatives believe that the traditions of the
society, as they have developed over time, and not these philosophers, are
the repository of wisdom. The society Strauss envisions is really only
"good" for these philosophers. Everyone else is forced to live in
delusion. Of course, Strauss believed average people couldn't bear the
truth and needed the comfort of religion, so he argued that his
hierarchical state was good for them too.

Because they reason in secret, the Straussian philosophers must form a
secret society in which they reveal the truth to their students, "the
puppies." Their works will contain their real "esoteric" meaning hidden in
a diversionary "exoteric" meaning. And since these philosophers will be
political they will form a cabal in order to rule. Their job, at first, is
to wean America away from its "love affair" with liberalism. To do this
they will drive a wedge between liberalism and democracy. Strauss
distinguishes between the two. "Liberalism is concerned with securing the
greatest possible freedom for individuals. And this may very well be
accomplished with a constitutional monarchy. Democracy is the rule of the
people, or rule according to the will of the people or the majority." It
can easily be used to suppress liberalism. By demagogic manipulation
democracy, through a populist appeal, can be turned against liberalism.
Since the cabal tells the truth only to its own elite members, and
dissembles to everyone else for the purpose of welding together this rigid
hierarchical structure, lying to the public is a virtue. Indeed all the
gentlemen's speech to the public, supplied by the philosophers, is for the
purpose of manipulation.

The essential first task for the philosophers is to produce ideology that
the gentlemen will use to attack liberalism and gain power. Strauss's
hatred of liberalism is so virulent that he sees the struggle against it
as a war, and in war all is fair. For this reason Straussians will use
every dirty trick they can think of in the democratic arena in order to
defeat liberalism. While doing so they will corrupt democracy itself. But
since democracy is only a tool with which to defeat liberalism in order to
institute the true Straussian hierarchical society, this is of little
import. In the end they will jettison democracy if to do so is expedient.

After it defeats liberalism, the cabal will still have work to do to
institute the Straussian good society. Even with religion and the lies of
the philosophers, the society will not be stable. "Strauss thinks that a
political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat,
and following Machiavelli, he maintains that if no external threat exists,
then one has to be manufactured." The fundamental political categories are
"us" and "them." A sense of perpetual crisis and war cements the society
together with absolute loyalty to the gentlemen. But the categories "us"
and "them" do not stop at external enemies. The sense of crisis makes the
struggle against internal enemies an even more desperate war of "us"
against "them."

Since domestic politics is also conceived in terms of war, the rules of
democracy must not be allowed to prevent victory. Opponents of the ruling
cabal, whatever their stripe, are "them." Indeed, since the cabal of
philosophers is deceiving everyone else, even those who have joined the
cause out of religious zeal are, in a real sense, "them." A small circle
of initiates who repel the advances of everyone else is a feature of the
Straussian State. These initiates are philosophers who rely on reason, and
nihilistic reason tells them there are no rules, none, in this domestic
battle.

One thing the philosophers will not have to do is philosophize. Strauss
believed that all the great (ancient) philosophers agreed on all
fundamental points. There is really not much philosophizing left to do,
for the truth is obvious to anyone who has discovered or been let in on
the secret. The real truth is that justice is the rule of the stronger,
who act to help "us" and hurt "them." Thus the idea of an objective good
and evil that Strauss thinks necessary for social cohesion is a lie
foisted upon the hoi polloi. It is just part of the religion. The
philosophers are philosophers because they are in the know. They bask in
the realization that Strauss thought them worthy of receiving the
revelation. The good news is that philosophy is erotic. It is the pursuit
of Metis, Zeus's sexy first wife.

Eventually the philosophers can become political actors themselves by
becoming philosopher-prophets, philosophers with a religious message
promulgated for political purposes. At this point they can dispense with
the gentlemen, who had been their tools, and lead openly. Strauss
identifies these philosopher-prophets with Nietzsche's Overman, his vision
of the highest human type. This figure's religion is a creation, a work of
art, not a vision of truth.

Such, in outline, is Drury's description of the Straussian political map.
Drury is a careful thinker and willingly admits that some of Strauss's
insights are accurate. She grants him liberalism's weakness and
democracy's vulnerability to demagogues. But she rejects the necessary
devolution of liberalism into Nazism, and finds the aspects of liberalism
Strauss finds distasteful good.

After viewing the outline of Strauss's good society I wondered what he had
against Hitler. Strauss was a Jewish nationalist without being a Zionist.
He thought it was essential for Jews to be without a country and advocated
that Jews embrace their suffering as eternal foreigners as an essential
part of Judaism. If suffering is good for Jews, war is essential, and
everything is permitted in war, what did Hitler do wrong?

There is much more to this book, and Drury does an excellent job of
exposing the caricatures of liberalism and democracy and the fantasies of
the overman that go into the Straussian picture. But what I think most
important is an understanding of just what these people are up to. They
are not, as some think, merely agents of Israel. Nor was the war fought
merely for oil. They did not ally themselves with the religious right
merely for expedience. They do not seek primarily to further the fortunes
of Halliburton and Bechtel. All these are real motives, but they are
peripheral motives. Their goal is to turn America into the Straussian
State and rule it perpetually. Consequently, the debacle in Iraq does not
seriously affect their plans. Even the Katrina aftermath might not shake
them. A Straussian society needs an endless war to supply a "them" against
which "we" will do endless battle. The endless war, such a horrible
prospect for the rest of us, provided the political glue to transform the
United States of American from a liberal democracy to a Straussian
totalitarian state.

Straussians would rip up American traditions starting from the Declaration
of Independence, an Enlightenment document if there ever was one. Nothing
could be more repellent to them than the rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. That is a description of decadent liberalism. They
prefer death, bondage, and the fear of God (for others.) Straussians are
orders of magnitude more subversive than any communist ever was.
Paradoxically, Straussians do think that Cindy Sheehan's son Casey died
for a noble cause, the transformation of the United States of America into
the Straussian State. But of course they can never say so for their goal
must remain a secret one. It must remain secret because the Straussian
state is the good society only for the philosophers. Everyone else remains
deluded and oppressed. While the "philosophers play with their puppies"
the rest of us slave away or go off to die.

Because Straussians think they are fighting for human life itself they
will not give up. Loss of popularity will not affect them. Gaining and
holding political power is a life and death matter for them. They know
perfectly well that Americans are "in love with liberalism," so any public
objection to their program from this source is to be expected. Liberal
criticisms will not sway Strauss's followers. The failure of the Iraq war
and the growing American isolation in the world do not worry them. They
want an endless war and the more embattled Americans feel the more
inclined they will be to accept a strong ruler and the rest of the
Straussian program. Nor do they mind natural disasters like Katrina's
aftermath if they can use it to tighten the control of the gentlemen.
Those who suffer are, after all, "them."

Strauss is certainly anything but stupid. His ideas when laid out may be a
bookworm's fantasy of power, a fantasy that is now in danger of being
realized, but this only proves that intellectuals can have enormous
influence. Drury, a professor of philosophy herself, offers sharp but fair
criticism. When Strauss accuses liberalism of trivializing life and
turning it into a pursuit of cheap pleasures he has a point. And when he
says that the average man cannot face nihilism and needs religion to
endure existence, he may be right. But Drury denies that religion can do
what Strauss thinks it can. Institutionalized religion ossifies and loses
its spiritual power. When it is reduced to a political tool it is
corrupted. And Drury also reminds us of the good things about liberalism.

But Drury does more than that. Although Drury disapproves of Strauss, she
is willing to recognize the validity of many of his perceptions. It is not
sufficient for liberals to merely find reasons why Strauss is wrong, it is
also important to ask about why the United States of America has fallen so
very far short of its ideals. Liberal democracy, with all its good points,
has become monstrous. Why?

To explain how Heidegger, whom he admired, could have embraced Hitler,
Strauss argued that Heidegger perceived the problem but had no cure.
Perhaps we can look at Strauss in the same way. The Straussian vision is
an awful one, but is it awful because we are "in love with" liberal
democracy? Strauss knew that secrecy about his ideas was essential to his
success. Even if we could defeat him through exposure, that would still
leave an enormous real problem to solve. Why has liberal democracy in
America proved so murderous? My own feeling is that class warfare has
destroyed the United States far more than liberalism has, but I must admit
that even if America shared its wealth fairly, it has produced something
tawdry and mean. This is not to say there isn't much that is wonderful,
but most of it, in my opinion, was created in opposition to the dominant
culture. It may just be that Strauss is right that liberalism will result
in a subhuman society. Would America have been different if the rich had
not engaged in relentless class warfare? I would say so, but nothing can
now demonstrate it. The cheap tawdry pleasures Americans who have
succeeded waste their wealth on only demonstrate Strauss's point. That no
clear alternative to Strauss's vision is easily available to us shows that
this crisis of culture is ours as well as his.

Drury, Shadia B.: Leo Strauss and the American Right, Palgrave Macmillan,
February 1999, ISBN 0-31221-783-8, 256 pages, $29.95 (hardcover)


--------15 of 16--------

Amnesty International - May 3, 2006
US: Government creating "climate of torture"
AI Index: AMR 51/070/2006 (Public)
News Service No: 109
3 May 2006

Amnesty International today made public a report detailing its concerns
about torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners
and detainees both in the US and in US detention sites around the world.

The report has already been sent to members of the UN Committee Against
Torture, who will be examining the US compliance with the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment on 5 and 8 May in Geneva. The Convention against Torture
prohibits the use of torture in all circumstances and requires states to
take effective legal and other measures to prevent torture and to provide
appropriate punishment for those who commit torture.

The US is reportedly sending a 30-strong delegation to Geneva to defend
its record. In its written report to the Committee, the US government
asserted its unequivocal opposition to the use or practice of torture
under any circumstances -- including war or public emergency.

"Although the US government continues to assert its condemnation of
torture and ill-treatment, these statements contradict what is happening
in practice," said Curt Goering, Senior Deputy Executive Director Of
Amnesty International USA. "The US government is not only failing to take
steps to eradicate torture it is actually creating a climate in which
torture and other ill-treatment can flourish -- including by trying to
narrow the definition of torture."

The Amnesty International report describes how measures taken by the US
government in response to widespread torture and ill-treatment of
detainees held in US military custody in the context of the "war on
terror" have been far from adequate. This is despite evidence that much of
the ill-treatment stemmed directly from official policy and practice.

The report reviews several cases where detainees held in US custody in
Afghanistan and Iraq have died under torture. To this day, no US agent has
been prosecuted for "torture" or "war crimes".

"The heaviest sentence imposed on anyone to date for a torture-related
death while in US custody is five months -- the same sentence that you
might receive in the US for stealing a bicycle. In this case, the
five-month sentence was for assaulting a 22-year-old taxi-driver who was
hooded and chained to a ceiling while being kicked and beaten until he
died," said Curt Goering.

"While the government continues to try to claim that the abuse of
detainees in US custody was mainly due to a few 'aberrant' soldiers, there
is clear evidence to the contrary. Most of the torture and ill-treatment
stemmed directly from officially sanctioned procedures and policies --
including interrogation techniques approved by Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld," said Javier Zuniga, Amnesty International's Americas Programme
Director.

The report also lists concerns surrounding violations of the Convention
against Torture under US domestic law, including ill-treatment and
excessive force by police, cruel use of electro-shock weapons, inhuman and
degrading conditions of isolation in "super-max" security prisons and
abuses against women in the prison system -- including sexual abuse by
male guards and shackling while pregnant and in labour.

The US last appeared before the Committee Against Torture in May 2000.
Practices criticized by the Committee six years ago -- such as the use of
electro-shock weapons and excessively harsh conditions in "super-maximum"
security prisons -- have in some cases been exported for use by US forces
abroad -- serving as a model for the treatment of US detainees in the
context of the "war on terror".

"The US has long taken a selective approach to international standards,
but in recent years, the US government has taken unprecedented steps to
disregard its obligations under international treaties. This threatens to
undermine the whole framework of international human rights law --
including the consensus on the absolute prohibition of torture and other
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," said Javier Zuniga.

Amnesty International called on the US to demonstrate its commitment to
eradicating torture, by withdrawing the reservations it has entered to the
Convention against Torture, including its "understanding" of Article 1 of
the Convention, which could restrict the scope of the definition of
torture by the US.

The organization also called on the US to clarify to the Committee in no
uncertain terms that under its laws no one, including the President, has
the right or authority to order the torture or ill-treatment of detainees
under any circumstances whatsoever -- and that anyone who does so,
including the President, will have committed a crime.

Background

The Committee Against Torture is a 10-member body of independent experts
established by the Convention against Torture to monitor the compliance of
states with their obligations under the treaty. It meets twice a year and,
among other tasks, reviews the periodic reports of states. At its
forthcoming 36th session, which will take place from 1 to 19 May 2006, it
will consider reports presented by Georgia, Guatemala, Republic of Korea,
Qatar, Peru, Togo and the US. Amnesty International has provided written
briefings to the Committee in respect of Georgia, Guatemala, Qatar, Togo
and the US.

The second and third periodic reports of the US will be considered by the
Human Rights Committee, which monitors states' compliance under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, at its 87th session
in July.

In total, 141 states have ratified the Convention against Torture.

For a full copy of the report, please see
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510612006

Amnesty International is campaigning to stop torture and other
ill-treatment in the "war on terror". For more information, please go to
the campaign home page: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-index-eng

For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in
+London, UK, on 44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web:
http://www.amnesty.org
For latest human rights news view http://news.amnesty.org


--------16 of 16--------

Attention hoppers
Your wetland will be bulldozed
for big box shoppers

wrappers from whoppers
lazy trash droppers


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   - David Shove             shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu
   rhymes with clove         Progressive Calendar
                     over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02
              please send all messages in plain text no attachments