The 'Gringo Empire' as Role Model & The 'Moral Low Ground'

In the book 'Wetback Nation - the case for Opening the Mexican-American Border' - (2004) - by Peter Laufer, the author writes,

"...few Gringos think of their lands from Texas to California as conquered territory. Such selective memory allowed President Clinton to declare..."

'Americans never fought for empire, for territory, for dominance.' --***

"...In fact that's exactly what Americans fought for when they invaded Mexico in 1846. In his book The Annexation of Mexico, the American journalist John Ross, who has been reporting from Mexico for over a generation, suggests that Walt Whitman's commentary in the Brooklyn Eagle sums up American public opinion at the time: 'Miserable, inefficient Mexico. What has she to do with the great mission of peopling the New World with a noble race? Be it ours to achieve this mission!..."

"...In addition to the fight along the Texas border, (President) Polk dispatched troops to seize Mexico's northwest--the land from New Mexico out to California..."

"It was a war 'unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States', according to a house resolution passed 85 - 81 just before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848, ceding half of Mexico to the United States."

"Mexicans agreed to the bad deal and remember it well."

Mr Ken notes that least President Polk asked Congress to declare war on Mexico, and after a brief debate it did. The last time a president asked Congress for a declaration of war was on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Hungary & Romania).***

Our new 21st Century 'imperial president' sends troops wherever he wants by lying to Congress about the reasons for waging war, and misinforming and bullying the 'lapdog' Main Stream Media. Our new 'emperor' enforces only the laws he approves of, suspends Habeas Corpus at will, and presumes to tell other nations what kind of weapons they may develop.

To paraphase President Clinton on Larry King Live (9/20/06),

"Because of what the U.S. has done around the world in the last 5 years (preventative wars, withdrawing from international treaties, torture as official policy), the only argument the U.S. has when it orders Iran to forego nuclear weapons is-- 'we think that you are bad and we are good, so you cannot have nuclear weapons'. The U.S. no longer has the moral high ground, because of what the administration has been doing."

At least our former president can recall recent history, even though he may have slept through 'History of the American West 101' class...


***President Bill Clinton at the Memorial Day service at Arlington National Cemetary

***After World War II, Congress voluntarily limited its use of the power to declare war to issuing authorizations of force. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress. The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations eleven separate times. Curtesy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Preemptive and Preventive War--A Perspective

In consideration of the Bush Administration's "preventive" war and subsequent occupation of Iraq, and its contemplated military action against Iran--yet another Carrier Group is being sent to the Persian Gulf--MrKen thinks that this is perhaps an auspicious moment to take a hard look at what the terms 'preventive' and 'preemptive' really mean. A short historical discussion follows. According to a recent Wikipedia entry---

Preventive war is war launched in anticipation of a future loss of security or strategic advantage. Preventive war is sharply distinct from preemptive war, or anticipatory self-defense. Preventive war is only claimed to prevent a hypothetical attack which might occur in the future; for example, a war launched to prevent an adversary acquiring more powerful weapons. In international law, preventive war has no recognized status as distinct from a war of aggression. Many wars have been characterised as "preventive" in nature, often by both sides of the conflict...

Legal scholars generally agree that preventive war is not legally distinct from aggression, "the supreme crime" in international law. Commentators as diverse as Dwight Eisenhower and Noam Chomsky have argued that accepting one preventive war would open the floodgates to all preventive wars, reducing the world to "the law of the jungle"...

As Noam Chomsky elaborates--

'The grand strategy (of the Bush Administaration) authorises the US to carry out preventive war: preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term "preventive" is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the supreme crime that was condemned at Nuremberg.'

MrKen notes that while the Japanese like to think of their attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 as preemptive war, or anticipatory self defense, Wikipedia accurately describes the action as preventive war-or simply an act of aggression--it...

'was motivated by the knowledge that American military power was rapidly increasing, while American policy towards Japan was becoming more adversarial. America was moving battleships and strategic bombers into the Asian theatre, an action which was construed as a long-term potential threat but was not a real or anticipated attack.'

But MrKen observes that the United States actually has a long and bloody history of fighting 'preventive' wars. The genocidal military actions against the millions of 'squatters' in North America (i.e., the American Indians) by the European invaders come immediately to mind. And, as I wrote previously in this blog on Sept. 21, 2006--[The 'Gringo Empire' as Role Model and the 'Moral Low Ground']---

'In the book 'Wetback Nation - the case for Opening the Mexican-American Border' - (2004) - by Peter Laufer, the author writes,'

"...few Gringos think of their lands from Texas to California as conquered territory. Such selective memory allowed President Clinton to declare..."

'Americans never fought for empire, for territory, for dominance.' 1

"...In fact that's exactly what Americans fought for when they invaded Mexico in 1846..." 2

"...In addition to the fight along the Texas border, (President) Polk dispatched troops to seize Mexico's northwest--the land from New Mexico out to California..." Ibid.

"It was a war 'unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States', according to a house resolution passed 85 - 81 just before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed in 1848, ceding half of Mexico to the United States." Ibid.

"Mexicans agreed to the bad deal and remember it well." Ibid.

Link to MrKen's entire blog entry: http://mrken45sworld.blogspot.com/search?q=Mexico

********************************************************************************

For those readers who desire a more modern opinion on preventive war by a U.S. President, let us turn to the policies of John F. Kennedy, prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

'...In March 1962, the idea that the United States might be prepared to mount a first strike against the Soviet Union was made publicly by President Kennedy himself. The veteran correspondent Stewart Alsop, known to be a personal friend of Kennedy, wrote an article on 'Kennedy's Grand Strategy' for the Saturday Evening Post on the basis of a long interview with the President. The text and quotations were cleared by the President before publication. The key phrase was: 'Khrushchev must not be certain that, where its vital interests are threatened, the U.S. will never strike first. As Kennedy says, "In some circumstances we might have to take the initiative."' 3

One can only wonder with trepidation what new adventures in preventive war the Bush Administration will undertake in its waning months of power...

Footnotes:

1 President Bill Clinton at a Memorial Day Service at Arlington National Cemetary.
2 'Wetback Nation - the case for Opening the Mexican-American Border' - (2004) - by Peter Laufer.
3 'The Cold War-A History - (1993) - by Martin Walker (Interview with President Kennedy in the Saturday Evening Post 31 March 1962)
Link http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-History-Martin-Walker/dp/0805034544

Huckabee Hunts for Pakistani Terrorists in Iowa

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, the GOP's 'Christian' candidate, is a rube as clueless as they come (except for 'W' of course). Barron's Alan Abelson hilariously satirized this political parvenu* in his 'Up & Down Wall Street' column of Jan. 7, 2008--

"The geographically challenged Mr. Huckabee, whose strongest card seems to be his amiability, demonstrated to the apparent satisfaction of the state's Republicans that he was a regular guy by donning some hunting gear and shooting at flocks of quizzical birds. But, in fact, our Iowa sources tell us, he was really after bigger game: He was keen on picking off some Pakistani terrorists who, he implied, have been sneaking into Iowa by the thousands to do their mischief."

"For Mr. Huckabee seems to have confused Pakistan with Mexico in terms of their respective locations and also seems to believe that Iowa borders on Mexico/Pakistan. We must admit we never did a thorough survey of the state in the considerable time we spent in such places as Red Oak and Iowa City. So it could be he's discovered a hitherto unknown sliver of the state (that) snakes its way undetected to the nations southern border. We're quite eager to see what comparable revelations Mr. Huckabee's journeys through New Hampshire yield."

*parvenu - A person who has suddenly risen above his social and economic class without the background or qualifications for his new status.

Hahahahahaha...Alan Abelson's column alone is worth the price of a Barron's subscription. :>) MrKen has been reading his gems for almost 40 years.

To get a free look at this week's Barron's, follow this link: (but you will have to subscribe or purchase a newstand copy ($5.00) to read Abelson's complete "Up & Down Wall Street" column.

http://online.barrons.com/public/main?mod=topnav

Age Discrimination: Blame the Victim

I am reprinting Ronni Bennett's post of today from her excellent Blog - Time Goes By - what it's really like to get older.

First, here is the comment I posted in response (for other comments please follow the link).

Hi Ronni,

I am new to your blog, also. I have found the job-hunting experience so discouraging and frustrating that I have simply given up.

I have found that the NYC job market is heavily skewed toward young people, illegal immigrants, and others willing to work for 'slave wages'. As Paul Krugman has pointed out, there are a very small number of highly paid positions in the city, mainly in finance - and a large number of very low-paying jobs in the service sector-bars, restaurants, Starbucks (I've worked there), healthcare, call centers (worked for one where everybody's salary was permanently frozen at $11/hr), etc. And this development mirrors job creation nationally, as we export more and more good jobs abroad. Employers just love offering these 'entry level' positions and could not care less about 'experience'- much less age discrimination laws.

I have over 20 years experience in the finance sector, but I have found it is almost worthless in today's job market.

I am planning to start collecting Social Security as soon as I turn 62 in 14 months.

And move out of NYC, and probably out of the U.S. to Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica or some other place I will actually be able to afford.

Ken

Now Ronni's Post:

Friday, 14 July 2006

Age Discrimination: Blame the Victim

I was contacted by a man who is writing a story for the job website, monster.com, about how old people can “reposition their skills for today’s job market.”

Having no idea what that means, I asked the writer who said it refers to old people who are “afraid” to update their skills. When I pushed for a source for that piece of information, he told me it’s “all those old people out there” who say so.

Ah, I see. That’s certainly as reliable as a Pew survey or a Yankelovich poll, don’t you think?

I had been skeptical of this interview from the get-go and had warned the writer when he first emailed that I might not be the person who could best meet his needs since I’d already taken issue with his ageist assumptions a couple of years ago.

On that occasion, he had written approvingly that elders could take pay cuts of 20 percent to get a job (no matter their skills or experience, of course) because with their kids out of college, their living expenses are low.

Let’s see if that statement can withstand the TGB Bias Test by replacing the word “elders” with “blacks”: “…blacks can take pay cuts of 20 percent because their living expenses are low.”

As expected, it fails the test. The statement would never make it past the editor’s desk but, apparently, it’s okay when applied to elders.

Well, it wasn’t okay when it was published and it will never be okay. In print or in practice, that statement is morally reprehensible and typical of too much so-called “advice” to elders on getting a job.

In fact, it is an excellent example of pure, unadulterated age discrimination, the kind of ludicrous practice the women’s movement took down several decades ago. (It was once acceptable to pay women less than men for the same job because men had families to support and women didn’t.)

When I reminded the interviewer that I’d made such objections to his advice in the past, he told me it would be a waste of time to interview me and hung up. I’m sure he will find someone to quote who more closely matches his point of view on elder workers, which makes it important to speak up against the shameful tactic of most of the employment experts who in print and practice blame the victim.

Elder job seekers are invariably told to play the age discrimination game with the following advice:

• Update you skills
• Don’t list your college graduation date
• Don’t list any jobs older than ten years
• Use a “functional” not “chronological” resume
• Be prepared for young interviewers to be shocked at your aged appearance after they’ve read your resume with no dates and assumed you are younger
• Be sure you are well groomed for the interview

What’s wrong with this list? First, it is demeaning, but that is the least of it. These and similar directives (one “expert” recommends cosmetic surgery) from headhunters, recruiters, employment experts and job sites such as monster.com abet a real crime.

There are federal and local laws against age discrimination in the workplace that are flouted every day with a wink and a nod. When people who set themselves up as experts – many who consider themselves journalists - tell elders to hide their age, they are going along with a crime and in doing so, transferring the responsibility from the criminals – employers who practice age discrimination - onto elder victims of it. (“Well, if you give the actual year you graduated from college, of course they won’t hire you.”)

These people are telling us that we must lie or we will not be allowed to work no matter the law.

It’s much the same as the current debate on illegal immigrants. Whatever you believe their fate should be (stay or go), it is they who are taking the heat for usurping jobs Americans might or might not otherwise want. Meanwhile, their employers are allowed to reap billion-dollar profits on the backs of the immigrants who are paid slave wages.

And, according to a piece he wrote in 2004, the interviewer who hung up when I challenged his ageism believes that elders, like illegal immigrants, deserve no more than slave wages.

None of this will change until we – elders – demand to be treated as full citizens with all the rights and privileges we enjoyed before we committed the sin of getting old. What makes it harder than it would otherwise be is that being old isn’t the actual sin. The culture – employers, media, youth and beauty police, etc. – don’t really care how old anyone is as long as they appear to be young. These people are hypocrites even while blaming the victim.

Posted by Ronni Bennett at 05:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)