Here We Go Again - Ozzie Guillen, Free Speech, & American Foreign Policy

So I’m watching HBO’s “Real Time” with comedian and social critic Bill Maher, and during his final “New Rules” monologue he reminded me about how important it is that we not limit freedom of expressions or opinions in this country.
I’m a firm adherent to the doctrine of free speech, whether it promotes hate or inspires love. Simply put, putting restrictions on someone else’s right to voice their opinion potentially limits my own. Individuals—unless it is obviously and immediately disruptive to society—should be able to speak without censor or sanction, except that of counter opinions.
What makes attempts to put a lid on free speech dangerous and counter-productive is that it limits the information that we use to engage in a reasonable discourse on potential and actual government and/or social policies. Especially policies which seek to influence thinking and opinion of the general public…regardless how devoid of reason such policies are.
These converging issues, free speech and irrational government policy, became the focus of news earlier this week when Florida Marlin’s baseball team coach Ozzie Guillen responded to a question by a Time Magazine writer about men he admired. The often outspoken veteran sports figure reportedly responded,

"I love Fidel Castro" and "I respect Fidel Castro. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that [expletive] is still here."

As is the case whenever a public figure airs a personally-held opinion, he was condemned and forced to apologize.
As a blogger, voracious reader, and information-news junkie, I must admit that I have heard far more controversial and far worse commentary by other public figures, some being our elected officials. However, what I find disturbing are the calls for Guillen’s firing…and for what? For daring to express a personally-held admiration for someone whom nine American presidential administrations have blindly expressed contempt for based on an outdated international policy?
In the early 1970s, the Nixon Administration established formal diplomatic relations with then “Red China”s as a counter to Soviet adversarial relations, and forsaking the previous recognition of the “real” Chinese government on the island of Taiwan (where Western-friendly Chinese Nationalists fled after being defeated by pro-Moscow Mao Zedong’s Communists in 1949). During this time, 50 million Chinese were being starved to death as a result of Mao’s state-sanctioned policies. Also during this time, thousands of Chinese were still being arrested and summarily executed for ambiguous “crimes against the state,” and free speech was still harshly suppressed. Chinese military forces had even fought against American forces during the Korean War. And as late as the 1989, the year of the massacre of young dissidents in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, the United States continued its diplomatic ties to (yes…”communist”) China.
But we still continued and continue to condemn Cuba based on our ideological demonization of Castro’s brand of “communism” (and the fact that the American government couldn’t stand that Castro nationalized foreign-owned interests in order to pay for socioeconomic reforms he instituted in order to establish his communist policies only 90 miles off our shores). Ok, so Cuban exiles in Miami are still a little peeved that Castro is still alive and kicking. You’re not there, and he’s not in power—in theory anyway. Is that a reason to rake a man over the coals because he is able see through the propaganda machine of our often irrational policy toward Cuba to still admire the man who’s made such a mark on the country for the last 50 years?
However, practical as it was that Guillen apologized, it says a lot for the erosion of free speech in this country when people must yield to the opinion of a small but vocal minority group...especially when our foreign policy toward Cuba makes no rational sense. Censoring Guillen’s and others’ right to be heard and to put forth opposing points of thinking with regard to public policy limits discourse. America has been in bedfellows with far worse dictators, had relations with far worse regimes…some guilty of war crimes! Yet, we continue to ostracize the government of Cuba based on an outdated ideological--not rational--policy.
For a brilliant summary of this issue, I invite you to watch Friday’s broadcast of Maher’s “New Rules” segment from “Real Time.”




It seems that when it comes to American foreign policy, there are "Communists" and there are Communists. And when it comes to personal opinions and free speech, there are opinions which are "honest" and those which are "correct."

Read More

Another Military intervention (Libya)...Here We Go Again!

Let me jump right into the conclusion first: the “allied” (hardly an accurate affiliation since America is providing the lion’s share of the effort in terms of material and cost) air strikes against Moammar Gadhafi’s forces are ill-advised. My bad. I didn’t mean to state my position so cryptically, as if I were either running for public office or were a career politician trying to avoid being pinned to a policy position which could go either way…good or bad.
I am stating for the record that I am firmly against the American military intervention going on in Libya. And before any critics out there start popping off at the mouth about how its unlike you to be against a policy which is at essence a humanitarian endeavor, there are several practical reasons why the country needs to reconsider its direct intervention in the growing political (and now civil) unrest in the Middle East.

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from earlier this month (AP photograph)

For one thing, America simply does not know the identities of all of the Libyan rebel movement’s key players. This reflects the reality that going into a political/military hotbed without knowledge of who or which organized faction(s)is/are leading the opposition against the longtime leader of the North African nation was a hastily-crafted (and executed) opportunistic foreign policy endeavor. And such an undertaking under these circumstances could be perceived as questionable decision-making at best. Who after all, jumps feet first into a fight where the combatants are someone who is a longtime enemy, and an implied opponent whose intentions are likewise implied? The last time this happened with regards to American foreign policy, we got the quagmire that was and continues to be Iraq.
Another reasonable justification as to why America should not be involved in what is essentially an internal affair of Libya is that being so gives off the more-than-valid perception—to both would-be friends and foes alike—is that America’s Middle Eastern policy is inconsistent, and biased…no matter the White House administration in authority. With regards to the current wave of popular uprisings throughout the Arab World, and up until the very moment the first million-dollar-apiece cruise missile began hitting targets on Libyan soil, America kept its interventions to the level of democratic (small “d”) rhetoric. Even when America’s regional ally Saudi Arabia—whose own popular protests helped topple longtime pro-American president Hosni Mubarak—sent its own troops into neighboring Bahrain to help quell political unrests there which threatened to unseat the unpopular Bahrainian king, very little in the way of calls for any kind of Western action was heard from within the Obama Administration. Granted the level of brutality brought to bear by (the) Arab governments under siege against their respective opponents varies, the fact of the matter is that there seems to be an unspoken line of demarcation in Middle Eastern sand with regards to suppression of protests against unpopular leaders/leadership; in one country it’s an internal affair, while in another it’s a violation of human rights. Even this morning, Syrian authorities have been shooting protesters down in the streets as reported by CNN and other news outlets, with no word of calls for action coming from Washington as of this writing.
The final reason against military intervention is simply cost. With the estimated cost of just one Tomahawk cruise missile at $100 million dollars each, one can only estimate how much money this little excursion into ill-advised geopolitical territory is costing the American taxpayer. And one would think that with the conservative political wolves (i.e., The Republican Party and their Tea Party patrons) already at the door, President Obama would be a little more discriminating about how to best spend the American taxpayer dollar, especially in light of the often-cited justification against the president's propensity to "spend wildly"as a result of his domestic policies.

Indeed, one could conceivably argue that Libya’s brutal actions against opponents of its ruling regime could have been nipped in the bud if American military intervention were consistently applied based on human rights instead of the concept of real politick, and if we were clearly stating our positions and telegraphing our intent to intervene with regards to such. It seems that America’s foreign policy, especially with regards to the Middle East reflects its domestic political policies of inconsistency and ideological cherry-picking…which results in nothing in the way of substantive change.

Read More

The Iranian Protests...a Historical Primer.

Note: This article was originally published with the American Chronicle on 06/25/09
( link: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/107619)


It’s one of those ironies of life that no matter how much education, experience, or power a person has, they will always seem to make wrong choices…especially when their perceived self-interests or emotions impact these wrong choices. That’s exactly the dynamic we are witnessing as events are playing themselves out in Iran following the residential elections of 2 weeks ago.
Many political leaders from both major ideological branches in America (but most vocally led by conservative Republican Party-affiliated lawmakers) have criticized President Obama for not speaking out more vocally in support of the opposition-led mass protests that have been occurring almost daily in the streets of the Iranian capital, Tehran since the disputed election results over two weeks ago…and the deadly violent government attempts to halt the protests. His rationale rightly so, was that publicly coming out essentially on the side of the Iranian government’s opponents would hand incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a propaganda tool for use to justify both government’s violent response to the protests, and to play to his supporters’ fears that the protests are “proof” of “American intervention” in Iran’s domestic affairs. Indeed, foreign reporters have had their visas revoked, have been threatened with arrest if observed openly reporting on the protests, and government officials such as Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hasan Qashqavi has asserted that the “bias” by which foreign media (e.g., the various Western news outlets such as the American networks and the British BBC) has “exaggerated” the scope of police/protestor clashes and numbers of opposition supporters represents the political stance of those Western governments.
A few days ago on June 20th —maybe as a result or in spite of these criticisms—the president called for the Iranian government to “stop all violent and unjust actions” against the protesters. The full-court pressing by conservative lawmakers seemingly put the president on the defensive; both Arizona Senators John McCain and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham made the rounds on the Sunday morning talk show circuit to state what amounted to their party’s viewpoint on the president’s hesitant approach on the issue of the unrest in Iran. For his part, Graham, a de facto opponent of all things Obama, stated that “The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it. He's been timid and passive more than I would like."
Yesterday, June 23rd, the president gave an address in the Rose Garden of the White House which, despite protestations to the contrary, seemed to be a capitulation to the pressures of the growing chorus of criticism that his response thus far to the situation in Iran has been too passive. This apparent caving-in to pressure is even more problematic for the president considering that during the 2008 election, he made his intentions clear to at least open the door to a conditional dialogue with the Iranian government, partially in the hopes of assuaging the Iranian government’s quest to acquire nuclear capability—a complete 180 degree turn from the previous Bush Administration’s approach of confrontation and military action innuendo. While President Ahmadinejad would have probably won re-election by a slim lead—as he has a substantial level of public support—its obvious that officials went too far in trying to portray his re-election as consensual mandate by the people of Iran; chief opposition candidate, former Prime Minister Hossein Mousavi seemingly “lost” the election overwhelmingly even in his hometown district, an unlikelyhood that is at odds with the numbers of supporters who have gathered in the streets of the capital since the election “results.”
The fraudulent elections, the violent suppression of the mass protests, the propaganda offensive against the opposition and their “Western ‘supporters’” have caged President Obama up his own policy tree in his intentions to deal with the Iranian government. He is now faced with the options of either continuing ahead with his intent to start a dialogue with the Iranian government toward a resolution of the nuclear (weapons) crisis, or abandoning this intent in lieu of the behavior of the Iranian government over the past couple of weeks. On June 15th, 3 days after the disputed elections, the president noted that America would “continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we’ll see where it takes us.” But that was before the growing chorus of criticism against his stance on not commenting openly about the election results and the popular response. Undoubtedly, his continual intent to open talks with the Iranian government will create an open sea for his policy opponents within the Republican Party to attack…and the criticisms already unleashed toward his initial response (or lack thereof) have the sharks circling.
These recent events surrounding the question of Iran are somewhat perplexing to me, in a negative sense. I honestly don’t know what’s more annoying…the obvious politicization of protests in a country that has been out of favor with America since the late 1970s, or our woeful ignoring of America’s foreign policy history as it relates to Iran.
In 1953, the CIA was instrumental is squashing the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people when bringing back to power the Shah of Iran. Under an autocracy every bit as suppressive as the current government (and backed by the American government), the Iranian people slowly began to sit aside their differences, and eventually managed to overthrow the regime of the Shah in 1979 by way of popular, non-violent, democratic mass uprisings among the Iranian people, culminating in the popularly renown Islamic Revolution. That resulted in the installation of a government run mostly by religious clerics, who were rabbit adherents of a conservative and strict interpretation of Islamic law that suppresses many civil liberties of the people, purportedly sponsors known terrorist groups, and is openly hostile toward both state America and Israel in particular, and the West in general. That history is what opponents of the current Iranian government hope to see occur now, either through natural internal combustion, or external intervention.
But external intervention—American intervention—is why we currently have an issue with Iran. The election crisis, the nuclear issue, and Iran’s hostility toward the West would probably never have even emerged had the religious government not come to power after 1979. Things could, and probably would be radically different today. Had America opted to promote the emerging democracy in 1953 instead of working selfishly behind the scenes to suppress it, Iran might instead have become a thriving Western-friendly democracy in the Muslim-dominated Middle East.
Any inclination to intervene in the internal affairs of Iran would ignore the lessons of our last intervention there. It’s not a stretch that, given the events that immediately followed the America’s questionable invasion of Iraq, destabilizing the government of Iran could make a bad situation worse. Without the few controls there are under the current regime, more radical elements could rise to power and create a crisis which could make the current ones pale by comparison. In a worse-case scenario, attacking Iran could marshal the support for the radical government in the Muslim world…a place where the US already has precious few friends as it is. Even support for opposing forces within another country limited to vocal support could be a disaster in the making. Who could forget the first President Bush’s urging for the Iraqi people to “rise up” against a militarily defeated Saddam Hussein after the end of the 1991 Gulf War, only to ignore pleas for tangible assistance as what was left of the late Iraqi president’s military machine brutally suppressed the resulting revolt in the country’s Southern region, and killing untold numbers?
It is a rather disconcerting notion that in America, politicians and political leaders can and do politicize such a potentially volatile situation for no other reason than to one-up their political rivals. And yet, those same individuals don’t hesitate to call “expose” someone publicly who they feel engage in the same practice, but under different circumstances, such as the Republican propensity to call traditional Civil Rights activists “race hustlers.” Not only is such a practice philosophically hypocritical, but ignores the possible perils of future repercussions as well as the cautions of ignoring history.
I know it’s a bit idealistic, but we send our representatives to Washington to work in our—the electorate’s—best interests, not their own. They should have the ability to think for us, not work against the interests of the people. And we the people should be smart enough to know what is in our interests, and what is not. Read people. Learn to understand the historical basis for what is occurring in the world! Learn, and think…stop spouting off some party line just because it runs contrary to the party line!

Read More

Have Shoe, Will Travel!

By now, everyone and their mothers have heard about the Shoe Hurled ‘Round the World; the now infamous news footage of the Iraqi news journalist hurling his shoes at President George Bush. A search of that particular news footage on You Tube will bring up dozens of clones of the incident.
The audacity (or comedy) factor of the reporter aside, one can’t help but wonder about whether or not this act symbolizes a voice of dissatisfaction among the Iraqi people about the U.S intervention in the country. Almost hours after the incident was made known throughout the news media, large numbers of Iraqi citizens took to the streets in support of the brazen reporter’s actions. Moreover, looking through You Tube’s (and other similar site’s) postings of the incident garners an incredible number of written replies—many also supporting the reporter’s actions—both within and outside of America’s borders.
As I watched CNN break in with the initial news reports of the incident, I actually pictured Vice-President Dick Cheney in a public school somewhere, reading a story to a group of grade school kids. In my vision of events, I imagined an aide walking up to him and whispering in his ear that “the president was almost hit by a flying shoe.” In order to keep up appearance of sturdy leadership, Cheney keeps reading to the unsuspecting kids. A few seconds later, the aide returns to the VP’s side to inform him that “a second shoe has almost hit the president.”




A humorously warped perspective granted, but my vision of the incident was just as comical and unrealistic as the president’s brushing off of the incident with—while admirable—out-of-place humor. True leadership would compel one to examine the symbolic defiance of the act and consider whether or not it represented growing dissent at the U.S. military’s occupation of the country. Maybe the act, the small but growing chorus of worldwide support, the rallies, and the pro-act newspaper editorials indicate that those opposed to the continued American presence in Iraq are becoming just as dedicated to stating their discontent as those who would martyr themselves with the goal of ending the American presence.
Exporting the ideas of Democracy, although laudable, has become tainted by hints of ethnocentrism in our oft-heard response that “the Iraqis should be grateful that we got rid of Saddam for them!” It presupposes that Democracy is the best system for everyone, which is at best debatable among civilized people from various cultures with varying beliefs. Ideas should not be imposed on anyone uninvited, and least of all, not at the barrel of a gun.
Most importantly, American leadership should be more competent, and the citizenry should demand more accountability for a lack of competence. If our leaders are so blinded by, arrogance, personal idealism, and the belief that what we do is in the Greater Interest that they cannot open their minds to the possibility that support for a man throwing a couple of shoes in dissent against American policy represents discontent, then maybe we need to stop viewing that video of the incident so much, and start looking at the Big Picture.

Read More