|
|
|
|
FOX Watch
A Breath of Fresh Air
Students at Hampshire College speak out, only to see FOX News all but call out the National Guard!
Roger "Li'l Goebbels" Ailes focuses the attention of his youthful neo-Fascist pundits on ideological kids
SPECIAL TO AMERICAN POLITICS JOURNAL
By Jeff Koopersmith
Sept. 10, 2001 -- Washington, DC (APJP) -- The twin out-of-control FOX News Channel executives -- Roger Ailes and his sidekick Mr. Moody -- are at it again.
This time, the boys are putting a foul full-court press on students at Hampshire College, one of the first student bodies in the United States to publicly scold the federal government regarding its tactics in Afghanistan and "our war on terrorism" at home and abroad.
Will FOX News be satisfied only when one of its prized psychotic, right-wing fundamentalist, gun-loving, commie-hating, black-lynching, Jew-blaming, gay-loathing, Hispanic-torturing, Mormon-baiting, Catholic-taunting, Fed-hating viewers takes up a rifle and begins firing on dissenting kids?
Of course not. But FOX News is providing the ammunition for just this as I write.
All you need do is tune the so-called "fair and balanced" cable channel for a day or two -- and see for yourself.
I'll discuss my feelings about the student censure later in this editorial -- but first let me remind you of who the "players" are.
FOX News is, of course, the ever-eager primary instigator for whipping up hatred among the less-educated in the United States, and did not miss a beat misrepresenting the December 6th tally of Hampshire College student votes: 693 in favor,121 against, and 11 abstentions, totals which closely mirror the national political attitudes of all Americans -- not Americans who simply vote.
FOX News chose to imply that these students, aged between 17 and 23, voted as "adults" to "attack" the government of the United States and our president, and that this vote was nothing more than "anarchy sponsored" by "spoiled rich kids" who, obviously (in FOX world), are not patriots.
What the Hampshire College all-community vote did, in reality, was to call upon our government and its leaders to take a different look at U.S. policies in the Near and Middle East.
This is the first highly publicized breath of fresh air demonstrating that university students still carry the torch of Constitutional freedom and general justice in the United States, much as they did during the Vietnam abattoir that chewed up 50,000 kids, including my friends and colleagues.
Lately, thanks largely to FOX News and myriad Hollywood movie stars and studios, there has been plenty of cashing in on the deaths of our parents and grandparents during World War II. Now, FOX is playing the opposite side of "patriotism", practicing hate-filled revisitations against those students who had participated in Vietnam protests (I don't include those who were knowingly cooperating with or being financed by the Soviets or the Chinese -- and there were some of those).
Some movie moguls are facilitating the new right, encouraging vicious attacks on student actions by labeling these kids traitors as well. Even Jane Fonda,whose workout tapes should have made her the 1980s "poster girl" for entrepreneurial daring and business acumen, has once again become the butt of many attacks by FOX News "commentators" since September in what appears to be a well-orchestrated attack on the left from the ultra-right.
Chief among these media moguls is Rupert Murdoch, a man who "avalanche-bought" his way into American citizenship and then proceeded to dumb-down America, foisting his brand of implied neo-Fascist propaganda on U.S. citizens using the cover mantra "news, fair and balanced" on his multi-billion-dollar propaganda operation -- Fox News Channel.
Murdoch, in an uncannily Hitlerian move, chose one of the ugliest (inside and out) men in media, Roger Ailes, to become his Martin Bohrmann. Ailes, and Ailes's Hochfurher Moody, hold court at Fox News headquarters in New York each day where they regularly conspire to regurgitate and resuscitate a parade of Nixonian and Reaganian felons, true traitors including Casper Weinberger, Oliver North, "Bud" McFarlane and Edwin Meese, and a host of other indicted or unindicted petty criminals from within the ultra-right who are now cashing in on America's fears over the horrible attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon outside Washington D.C as FOX News "experts" and "commentators".
Ailes features hagged-out pseudointellectual "authors" such as Ms. Peggy Noonan, who writes books at the behest (or for the behest) of right-wing lunatics such as Richard Mellon "Scrooge McDick" Scaife -- who thereupon buys nearly all the copies he can to falsely put them on the New York Times best-seller list.
And even the New York Times has jumped on the bandwagon. Last night Showtime ran a laughable Times-produced micro-documentary about assassination attempt on then-president Reagan by the psychotic John Hinckley, a lead-in to give credibility to a truly lame "Showtime Original" movie which practically lynched General Alexander Haig -- a man still alive and well -- and painted him as a sociopath and traitor in a shameful attempt to shed "light" on the truth. None other than Howell Raines featured prominently and not too flatteringly in the lead-up piece. Talk about self-serving.
Raines, best known as the idiot who led the left-wing attack on Bill Clinton for doing what Raines would probably love to have done to him, kept me in stitches last night. He proved to be poorly spoken, sounded more and more like a redneck than the Editor-in- Chief of the New York Times as the documentary slogged on, and pretended to know what he was talking about when it came to the intimate workings of the Reagan Inner Circle.
While most of you know that I really feel affection for Ron and Nancy Reagan as people, I must also mention that the Showtime "original movie" depicted Nancy Reagan as just about crazy as a loon and the "Reagan Troika" -- Ed Meese among them -- as level-headed, even though they thoroughly gutted the U.S. Constitution with the help of George H. Bush Sr. as the President lay nearly dying in George Washington University Hospital.
But I do digress.
Ailes, who lately has threatened to "turn me into the authorities" because I am "insane", has stopped answering my critical e-mails to him, possibly for fear that he will look even more harebrained than he is -- because American Politics Journal kindly agreed to publish these exchanges.
Make no mistake, however. Ailes has alerted all the "men" in police and law enforcement he thinks are his buddies to watch what I and other anti-FOX, anti-swine opinion journalists write. I know this because a few of Ailes's so-called "friends" are also my buddies, and in fact hate men such as Mr. Ailes -- even though they might share some of his political views. A couple of these men have contacted me recently and told me what Ailes had attempted to do: smear me as "un-American" because I take him and any propagandist from the ultra-right to task, especially over selling advertisements in exchange for lying to the American people.
Today Mr. Ailes, true to form, is attacking people he sees as defenseless -- kids.
He has two targets this week.
Target one is John Walker Lindh, the truly idiotic and probably in-need-of-a-quiet-hospital American kid who volunteered and fought with the Taliban
Target two -- or, more accurately, targets 2 through 694 -- are the students at Hampshire College who dared take on the U.S. government in a democratic ballot initiative which condemned the Bush Administration for the way it is handling our war on terrorism.
|
If its call-in segments are any indication of its viewership, Ailes should seriously consider renaming his mediocre drive-time morning television show "FOX and Freepers" -- or, better yet, "FOX and Fascists". During the past two days, between 6 AM and 9AM when these three hooligans reign, telephoners have called for the death of the American kid who was captured fighting with the Taliban, and calling for worse as they verbally attack Hampshire College students.
I won't mention Donahey's and callers suggestions about what "to do with" these students -- if only to prevent right-wing lunatics from the Ozarks, the "Deep" South, the Midwest or the Virginia suburbst from getting any 'fancy' ideas.
Donahey, who is called Seedy Dummy-Ho by left-of-center American underground journalists, sneered at the kids as she commented. Donahey always has a sneer on her face -- which reminds one of the look tragic women have after being slapped around for years by a vicious boyfriend or husband. But E.D.'s "special" sneer -- reserved for the Taliban-American kid and Hampshire College students -- is really something to behold, akin to what I imagine Panamanian General-cum-Druglord (and good friend of George Bush) Manuel Noriega looked like when he examined the toilet after finishing his business.
Donahey, ever eager to follow in goose-step with Ailes's orders, or what she thought he would order, pretends that college students are adults when she simultaneously waxes certain that we also "know" that Mr. Condit's alleged gal-pal Chandra Levy and former White House intern Monica Lewinsky are merely "children."
This morning, Donahey and her goons also "interviewed" Noonan, author of "Why I Hate That Bitch Hillary Clinton's Guts" or some such title. Noonan looked as if she had just rolled out of bed at the Bowery Mission -- perhaps she did after a night with her boyfriend, reputed to be the famous Jack Daniels -- but was nevertheless quick to condemn anyone who didn't agree with her and George W. Bush.
Noonan waxed ineloquent about her "new" book -- another phonied-up piece of fiction -- and treated us to calculated snide remarks about anything Democrat or anyone not murdering the nearest Islamic fundamentalist.
But I digress, and should not, because what happened at Hampshire College last week is important, in every truly "American" sense, and the aftermath should be watched closely by any American concerned with freedom.
In Amherst, Massachusetts -- smack-dab in the middle of western Massachusetts, which leans largely conservative, in contrast to the greater Boston region and the Cape -- Hampshire College's students voted 6-1 to condemn America's "war on terrorism" -- but NOT for the reasons that the cretins at Fox News want you to believe.
In fact, the organizer of this initiative -- Mr. Michael Sherrard from Hampshire Students for a Peaceful Response -- seems most concerned about killing innocents and the threats to safety and civil liberty at home.
Sherrard and the organizers of this democratic vote are quick, however, to defend the right of Ailes and FOX News to freely express their view against the vote.
But I wouldn't go that far, primarily because FOX News does not express views. Instead, it engages in journalistic lynching, targeting people who are out of step with ultra-right-wing marching orders -- always without giving viewers the complete facts.
FOX News has not reported, for example, that Hampshire College, in the early 1970s, was also the first college to vote for the impeachment of Richard Nixon.
Like Murdoch and Ailes (whose agenda seems primarily a desire to lower tax rates for corporate and wealthy interests and to turn the United States into a predator nation), the Hampshire College students honestly seem to believe that they too have a right to attempt to influence U.S. domestic and foreign policy.
And you know what?
They do.
The Hampshire College group and several other college groups around the nation have affiliated under six points of unity:
1. Mourning for the victims of the September 11th tragedies.
2. Calling for peaceful pursuit of justice to all who supported those attacks on Americans.
3. Condemnation of racial and ethnic scapegoating and bigotry.
4. Opposition to any curtailment of civil liberties
5. Provocation of discussion about the root causes of terrorism
6. The recognition of something they call "global justice" as the condition for a true and lasting peace.
This would have been fine -- simply listing these goals. Instead, the students clouded the mission with well-intended but naive statements that allow jackals like Ailes to pounce. Don't believe me? Here is full text of their initiative, along with my critique of the weaknesses (I am a tough grader):
"The tragic day of September 11, and the days following, have been a time of profound suffering for people everywhere: firefighters in New York, secretaries in Washington D.C., and farmers in Afghanistan. One indiscriminate act of violence has been followed by another, a pattern seriously endangering the prospects for a just and peaceful world. In such a time of loss, we must ask ourselves is there a path out of this escalating cycle of violence?"
The student initiative is not worded well because it is not true, as one sentence describes that Afghani "farmers" are the only people being killed by American and Allied forces. Along with those farmers are terrorists, men and women bent on destroying the United States, and people who hate Christians, Jews and freedom. Also, the attacks in New York and on the Pentagon were not "indiscriminate" at all; neither are our attacks in Afghanistan. Both Al Queda and the United States and its allies are and were quite "discriminating" when choosing their targets.
If these students had simply opposed follow-up acts of violence simply with other acts of violence that showed little hope for progress, this would have sufficed. They clouded their goal with unsupportable "facts."
But the students are correct when they question the prospects for a just and peaceful world based on military or economic might alone, and of course are correct when they ask the question implicitly -- "what is the path out of cycles of violence?" This question is as old as recorded history. The answer, I fear, is only some grotesque genetic alteration that might carve out the warlike tendencies of humans -- not really a possibility, I think.
"Yes, we can respond to the tragedy of September 11 as a crime against humanity, carried out by individuals, not as an act of warfare for which a nation must be held responsible. This path would proceed within a framework of genuine international cooperation and be designed to bring to justice those guilty of the crime - without destroying the lives of innocent millions. It would employ the proven tools of transparent and conclusive investigations, diplomatic and police efforts, and fair courts of law to achieve its goal."
The students make an admirable point here. We can either call September 11 a crime against humanity OR a crime against the United States. The problem is that this crime cannot be looked at generally only as a crime against humanity because those sponsoring and carrying it out selected the U.S., its symbols and its citizens as their targets.
Thus, the idea that this is a crime against humanity OR a crime carried out by individuals only is lost. It was both a crime against humanity and a crime against individuals and their way of life.
Therefore the call for international cooperation designed to bring justice to the guilty works, or does not work -- but loses the mandatory nature of a general inhuman crime. Also, destroying the lives of "millions" is far too dramatic a statement to be taken seriously. Tens of thousands might be more factual at most.
I must agree though that whatever the method of justice-- American-held or internationally sponsored -- any investigation and all trials should be transparent and public, if only to prove the righteousness of our judicial system and our form of government. Without that transparency, we sink to the level of a dictatorship -- even if benevolent -- without visible and examinable procedures of law.
"At home, we can meet the immediate need for effective security through common-sense solutions that apply fairly to everyone, while preserving our hard-won civil liberties."
While the intent is laudable here, the flat assumption that "common-sense" solutions will suffice to keep Americans, or any people, secure against terrorism is just plain naïve. Preserving liberty while pursuing the complex issue of providing such security IS mandatory, and this, after all, is the thrust of the student's argument here.
"Instead, the Bush administration has embarked upon a very different path - with disastrous consequences:
The death toll of innocent Afghan civilians killed by inevitably imprecise bombing is mounting.
The U.S. military campaign has made it impossible for international relief organizations to deliver the food aid necessary to prevent the starvation of millions of Afghan civilians in the winter now beginning. The token and scattered aid efforts of the United States have been roundly criticized as insufficient, or even counterproductive, by such organizations. A massive humanitarian crisis remains."
The students make one good point here and then erode it by making unproved and unsubstantiated allegations.
While I agree that the Administration may have embarked on a path that could have disastrous consequences, those consequences have little to do with the death toll among Afghan civilians. First, few governments in the world, unfortunately, care much about Afghan civilians -- or they wouldn't have allowed them to starve in the rubble of that country's post-Soviet occupation in the first place.
Second, very few civilians have been killed by Allied bombing or other actions during this military operation. The United States and its allies, as well as several hundred charitable organizations, have large-scale food and shelter programs operating to help Afghanis survive the winter.
The provisions of food thus far have been scattered, this is true; however, this is more due to fighting from the Taliban and the impossibility of distributing food during wartime than it is from lack of trying -- even by the Bush "administration".
As a matter of fact, American propaganda counts mightily, and perhaps importantly, in the successful feeding the civilian population -- thus underscoring U.S. fairness, even if unfair.
And yes, a massive humanitarian crisis does exist -- and has existed since the beginning of time. The students should have left out this last sentence as it is far too general and impossible to solve through the efforts of the U.S. alone, and certainly through United Nations auspices -- so deeply scattered and embattled today.
"While the Northern Alliance has forced the Taliban from power (certainly a welcome development), they too possess a disturbing record of human-rights violations, especially against women and political dissidents."
This is true, and the Bush Administration is well aware of this truth. However, it is fine for the students to point this out once again and to make certain that the U.S. and our allies do not forget women during the installation of a more pro-Western government in Afghanistan.
"The current suffering in Afghanistan will only deepen the conditions of loss and desperation which foster international terrorism. Even the CIA has stated that strikes against Afghanistan are '100% certain' to lead to terrorist reprisals."
Using the words of the CIA, in or out of context, is superfluous to the student's central argument. Certainly it is prima facie truth that others will regard U.S. attacks in Afghanistan -- no matter how defensive they truly are -- as offensive, and provide new foundation for further and future attacks on the United States and its allies. Of course, this is the natural outgrowth of any war.
People choose up sides.
"The recent 'U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T.' Act infringes upon everyone's First and Fourth Amendment freedoms. Rights to privacy, speech, and association remain as critical as ever and are, if anything, more so in times of trial."
This is one of the most important statements the students make -- yet it is disappointing that they do not add even a sentence to explain why Constitutional guarantees are threatened by this program. They should make certain to follow-up with the media about this crucial point.
"The proposed 'economic stimulus' package provides billions of dollars in corporate giveaways and tax breaks, but almost nothing for laid-off workers and poor communities most at risk."
It looks like the students here are emulating the Congress by throwing in the kitchen sink where it doesn't belong and thereby making their arguments far weaker. It would have been better to ask how America will pay the bills for increased security and the hunt for international terrorism while providing massive tax cuts at the same time.
"Both at home and abroad, the 'War on Terrorism' is symptomatic of the racism of American society, in its disregard for the lives of people of color overseas, encouragement of racial, ethnic, and religious scapegoating and violence, and practice of law enforcement 'profiling.'"
A complex issue, yes. However, to label the entire society "racist" as is implied here is really an unripe excuse for the argument itself. While some Americans are racists, and engage in racial, ethnic and religious scapegoating (including violence), the great majority of Americans do not fit this "profile" at all. The Hampshire College students would have done better to link these traits to the ultra-right in America and to some of our leaders, who are easily identified by their voting patterns and, regretfully, by the geopolitical acreage they represent.
Profiling is a problem -- but in times of terror there is little other choice I can see -- that is, if the students are talking about profiling Middle-Eastern names, ethnic appearance, visa status, etc. These "targets" -- even under left wing scrutiny -- are arguably defensible, at least in the short term. There are few, for instance, who do no deeply regret the internment -- in concentration camps without forced labor -- of Japanese-Americans during WW II. We've come a long way in six decades; on the other hand, when you factor in social norms of that period, few can offer up an alternative that would have proven acceptable in 1940s America.
The students are absolutely correct that some local, state and federal policing organization do profile Americans and others for investigation, arrest and even harassment -- but this argument really has little place in a discussion of terrorism, and makes the entire argument less potent and appear almost to be an overall attack on American values themselves.
And this plays right into the hands of people like Roger Ailes of Fox News -- and should be avoided.
While there are many subjects to be addressed with far more concern than is currently exhibited within our American culture, this ballot initiative is not the place to do it in that it addressed a much narrower base of concern.
"New legislative and law enforcement initiatives threaten specifically the rights of non-citizens, through indefinite detentions without indictment, military tribunals, arbitrary deportation, and unfair targeting of international students."
Again, this paragraph, which should have directly followed or preceded the paragraph on loss of constitutional guarantees, rings all too true to be ignored. While the Bush team has many avenues of defense here, the use of indefinite detention, military tribunal, wrongful deportation (which is a matter of law and really does not belong here), and "unfair" targeting of foreign students is a disgrace in the eyes of many constitutional scholars from the left and the right, and is the "weakest link" in the Administration's approach to deal with terrorism internally. Mr. Bush should abandon this tack as soon as he can find an excuse to so do while still saving face.
"For all of these reasons, and many more, we, the students, faculty, and staff of Hampshire College, have no choice but to condemn the current "War on Terrorism," and demand that it not be expanded to Iraq or any other countries. We call for the resumption of effective independent humanitarian aid in Afghanistan, and the immediate halt to the U.S. military action that prevents it. We call for a U.N.-led effort to establish in Afghanistan a democratic and multi-ethnic government, respectful of the rights of women."
This paragraph, reasonably well-intended, is really also ill-advised. Here, students wish to condemn the "method" by which the war on terrorism is being pursued, yet they "demand" that it not be expanded -- and then name Iraq as a country to defend in this sense. If one is looking to persuade large numbers of people, "Iraq" is a suicidal word to use to make a good point. Additionally, to "demand" is to fly in the face of their own pleas.
There are far more targets on the potential list of foreign nations who sponsor support or allow terrorists protection within their borders than just Iraq. Chief among these are Somalia and Indonesia -- but one should also include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen and other Middle Eastern and Gulf states on this list, diplomatic consequences be damned.
Every terrorist thus far identified directly in connection with the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon was either Egyptian or Saudi. It would have been far more effective for the students to mention these countries -- allies of the United States -- than to mention Iraq, a nation almost continually at war with the United States rightfully or wrongfully. Calling to attention the hypocrisy of America attacking Afghanistan and not attacking Saudi Arabia and the centers of pseudo-Islamic fundamentalism, which are located in such cities as Cairo and Riyadh, is logically and ethically bankrupt -- yet the students ignored these well-known facts.
They should not have.
Calling for a United Nations sponsored effort to establish a democracy in Afghanistan is also quite naïve, inasmuch as many member nations are not democracies at all and do not support democratic forms of government. The U.N. has never taken a position that democracy is the only acceptable form of government to my knowledge.
Also, to call for the establishment of a specific from of government led by specific types of people is not within the parameters of even our own Constitution and laws. Now, calling for a democratic, multi-ethnic and woman-involved government would have been fine -- but to ask the United Nations to guarantee such is impossible and therefore undermines the arguments which are genuinely laudable.
"Furthermore, we demand that the Hampshire administration join us in resisting any arbitrary and unfair law-enforcement invasion of our own community, especially efforts targeting international students and campus activists."
As a child of the 1960s and '70s I can't help but smile at the demands against the college administration. Ah, if the administration would only perform...
"Finally, military action will never put an end to international terrorism, which often stems from forces that have previously received the support of the American government. In its place, we must, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., 'rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter -- but beautiful -- struggle for a new world,' a world where hunger, war, and economic injustice, the root causes of terrorism, are eliminated. This way alone leads to safety, security, and lasting peace. Thus, we commit the full resources and energies of our community to this endeavor, and challenge our colleagues at schools around the country, and all over the world, to do the same."
This last paragraph is testament to the undying positive and ideal nature of youth.
My heart burst with joy that students somewhere were at least taking a sideward glace at the performance of their leaders -- rightfully or in error by conclusion. I thought academia, traditionally the forerunner and instigator of meaningful change, had all but disappeared from this role.
Evidently, and thankfully, they have not.
And no matter which side of the aisle you sit on, this spells good news and hope for fresh perspective injected into a society that has pursued wealth, beyond almost all else, for over twenty years.
The students recognize the inherent hypocrisy of all governments: supporting something or someone one day and annihilating it the next. The student initiative recognizes the leadership of men and women like Dr. King, who believed in non-violent change in society -- here and abroad -- although it was, ironically, violence that sealed the passage of the 1964 Voting Right Act and other socially redeeming legislation of that era -- something the students have not acknowledged.
Best of all, these students commit themselves by their personal votes, to using the full force of their youth, education and idealism to challenge the rest of us to re-examine our ways and means of accomplishing justice, legal and economic, social and otherwise.
Could we ask for anything more?
Do we really want our future rubber-stamping our past?
While so many of these kids will shortly be bruised and assaulted by the realities in life and the undermining of idealism that so often goes with age and fear of the unknown, thank God for them and their general commitment to good.
Therein lies the strength of our nation and the earth. It is this adolescent plea -- perhaps too well hidden with exigencies that block a much simpler goal
Peace on Earth and good will to all men.
Copyright © 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc.
