CON GAMES 24/7: Shining Stars, Whither Obama?

March 18th, 2008 at 03:25pm Michael Conniff 2

Click here for the complete "Con Games with Michael Conniff" from March 18, 2008.

The Con Man welcomes two young children from Shining Stars and Dr. Larry McCleary, the pediatric neurosurgeon who acts as the organization's chief medical officer.

Then "Con Games" deconstructs the speech on race by Barack Obama.

Go here for all the Con Man's radio shows, blogs, and columns.

http://interface.audiovideoweb.com/lnk/1c2win1781/CON+GAMES+3-18-08+shining+stars--obama+race.mp3/play.asx

Entry Filed under: Health, Aspen, Colorado, Con Games, Non-Profits, United Post

7 Comments Add your own

1. Mitch Mulhall | March 18th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.
~Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., September 16, 2001

When I heard Reverend Wright’s sermon excerpt (and reading it doesn’t do it justice), I was struck by an immediate sense of déjà vu. Where had I heard those words before?

On the day after 9/11/2001, Ward Churchill penned an essay he titled, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: reflections on the consequences of U.S. imperial arrogance and criminality. In the final paragraph of this essay, Churchill wrote:

As for those in the World Trade Center... Well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved - and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" - a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" - counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in - and in many cases excelling at - it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
~Ward LeRoy Churchill, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, September 12, 2001

Astonishing. Two people, a University Professor in Boulder and a Preacher at a United Church of Christ in Chicago both invoke the same roosting chicken imagery within days of arguably the most indefensible acts mass murder in history.

During this morning’s Con Games radio program, Jimmy Ibbotson called in to defend the broader message of Dr. Wright’s sermon, saying that he understood what Wright means. Michael pointed out that Wright was not the first to use “roosting chickens” imagery and blew what I thought was a timely and ripe post topic right out of my mental reservoir. Their exchange went about like this:

Con Man: Go ahead you’re live with the Con Man.

Jimmy: Yea Michael, it’s the very man who wrote that—

Con Man: The very man who I was talking about, Jimmy Ibbotson from Woody Creek… Go ahead.

Jimmy: I’m waiting for Barack [Obama] to come to the stage this morning to bail out his candidacy here—

Con Man: Oh, he’s not in that much trouble.

Jimmy: You really feel that way? I’m glad to hear you say that.

Con Man: No, no. This is, you know, it’s like… Here’s what it comes down to: they don’t have anything on this guy. [laughs] They don’t have anything on Barack Obama. This is the only thing they have come up with, um, that—that in any way calls into question what he’s been saying, and it’s third-hand.

Jimmy: I totally understand what the good Reverend Wright was saying. It’s what got Bill Maher fired from CBS—the very same thing—

Con Man: Well I don’t totally understand what he [Reverend Wright] was saying—

Jimmy: I understand that a lot of your listeners don’t. My sister in Pittsburg—a normal person—is really offended by the whole deal. But I understand that what he was saying—

Con Man: What was he saying?

Jimmy: What he was saying is that the chickens came home to roost at 9/11, and they did, and I’ve felt that way—

Con Man: OK, hang on a second—

Jimmy: Our foreign policy… Go ahead.

Con Man: Let’s stay with the phrase “the chickens came home to roost.” Have you heard that phrase before in any of these debates about 9/11? Has that ever come up before?

Jimmy: I said it myself—

Con Man: OK—

Jimmy: It’s karma, I mean we had to—they had to do somethin’ to get our attention. We were screwin’ up the rest of the world.

Con Man: Give me a minute here because I want to walk you through this: You know who used that phrase? It was Ward Churchill.

Jimmy: [laughs]

Con Man: It was. It was the University of Colorado Professor who got caught in plagiarism, etcetera, and who called the people of 9/11 “little Eichmanns” even the janitors in the building he held responsible…

Jimmy: Janitors? He’s talking about people who were sending our money, our American tax dollars, to support repressive regimes in the, you know, oil… what do you call them, you know they are Banana Republics over there in the Middle East that the—

Con Man: Ok but hang on a second. There is a notion in the phrase “chickens coming home to roost” that implies that we got what we deserved, OK, and I am going to draw the line there. I don’t think that anybody in that building got what they deserved.

Jimmy: And no, I don’t either. I—

Con Man: They’re just innocent victims. They’re collateral damage. They were used… they were also… you know the other thing that’s, that’s really, um, heinous about that notion, in my opinion, is that it also takes the focus off what the terrorists actually did, and what they did was unspeakable because they killed innocent people without blinking an eye—

Jimmy: But they struck a blow to financial control of the World by Wall Street and by Washington.

Con Man: I understand that, but that’s—Jimmy thank you for your call, I can’t, I can’t go with you there… I’m just… The point I want to make is what the Reverend Jeremiah Wright said, um, I think is pretty indefensible, but Obama didn’t say it…

In fairness, I understand Jimmy’s point. The World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and whetever the target was for flight 93—these were symbolic targets, not effective ones. I sometimes wonder whether they were meant more to garner support in the Islamic world than to terrorize America. That said, the extent to which you can call the U.S. responsible for 9/11 doesn’t go quite as far with me as it apparently does with others. I remain un-persuaded by any argument that tries to justify the death of Morgan Stanley and Cantor Fitzgerald desk traders—some of whom I knew professionally, if only by phone—on the basis that such a person is somehow emblematic of an unfettered State run amuck in capitalistic greed, lust for power, and blindness to the evils of the military industrial complex. I find this kind of logic not just a reach, but also pin-headed in an unapologetically dull kind of way.

So just where does this “roosting chickens” imagery come from, anyway? Did Wright borrow from Churchill? Or did Churchill, who lost his tenured professorship at CU Boulder over charges of “research misconduct” (a.k.a., “plagiarism”), borrow from Wright?

Neither.

Malcolm X used this reference on December 4, 1963. After a speech in which he predicted the demise of America due to the slavery of its past, a reporter asked Malcomb X to comment on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Malcolm X obliged, saying that he thought the assassination was an example of “chickens coming home to roost,” presumably for America’s past acceptance of slavery. Malcolm X’s speech that night became known by this moniker. And thus began the application of this conceit as a means of ascribing the responsibility for a past action to a group of people connected to that past only by pallor of their ethnicity, or, in the case of Wright, nationality. To this, Churchill would have us add education, vocation, cell-phone ownership and disposable income as well.

Beyond polarizing people into an unhelpful, either/or proposition—either you’re presently willing to accept responsibility today for a problem of the past or you’re not—this conceit draws a curtain between a problem and those willing to brave unlovely truths to find meaningful and lasting solutions. Certainly I appreciate the practice of looking inward and critically assessing what I can do to improve myself, and I acknowledge my limited ability to change problems that are not rooted in me, but occasionally, if only once in a blue moon, I am not the problem. I’ve never owned a slave. I’ve never killed a Palestinian. And the thought of terrorizing a South African has never crossed my mind.

I don’t have much tolerance for this kind of played political hyperbole, and I don’t think I’ll ever understand why others do.

Cheers,
2. reckless G | March 19th, 2008 at 6:44 am

Help me out here Mitch. Are you saying that actions have no consequences? Or that the consequences of America’s foreign policy are not the American people’s responsibility. Are you telling us that because you personally “have never killed a Palestinian,” you have no culpability in your government giving your tax money to the Israelis to kill Palestinians?

If you ask me, anyone who denies that the World Trade Center came down as a direct result of US involvement in the Middle East has a classic case of denial. And as any recovering addict knows, until you accept that your own actions are the cause of your failed marriage, estranged children, lost job, repossessed home, angry friends, wrecked car, etc. no change, no improvement, no turnaround can take place.

So we go on pissing off Muslims; killing them, destroying their homes, stealing their land and resources, and then we cry foul when they retaliate; thus setting ourselves up for more terror, death and destruction, which we again will take no responsibility for.

It is sickness.
3. Mitch Mulhall | March 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am

[Are you telling us that because you personally “have never killed a Palestinian,” you have no culpability in your government giving your tax money to the Israelis to kill Palestinians?]

Taking your activism out for a walk this fine day, eh G? Out of courtesy I will not answer your question with one of my own, but I will point out that under the premise of your question, not only were the murders committed on 9/11 warranted, any future act of terrorism against U.S. citizens is too. I cannot and do not abide this view.

In the 1989 film Field of Dreams, Kevin Costner and Amy Madigan play Ray and Annie Kinsella, a couple who grew up steeped in the Underground Press, Civil Rights protests, Woodstock, and Kent State... In one scene, Costner’s character tracks down Terrence Mann, a stereotypical 60s author played by James Earl Jones, and says, “You once wrote, ‘There comes a time when all the cosmic tumblers have clicked into place and the universe opens itself up for a few seconds to show you what’s possible.’” Terrence slams a hard back book down on a desk and bellows, “Oh my God, you’re from the 60s” and chases Ray out of the apartment with a bug sprayer.

If only there were something you could put in a bug sprayer that would eradicate the 60s—not the valuable lessons of its history, but the predisposition about all forms of authority, the Trotskyite yearning for constant revolution, and the blind adherence to pacifism…

Beyond my vote and arguably my pen, I have no power to stop any government from doing anything, and I’d be a fool to think my vote and my pen, singly or collectively, amounted to more than a measly little arsenal. While I commend your continued efforts to champion the Palestinian peoples, I do not share your belief that if the U.S. ends monetary support of Israel and paves the way for a Palestinian State, the tensions in the Middle East will go away. This is fallacy. It is the mistaken notion that if you can correctly identify a cause—a tall order to begin with—you can eliminate an effect by removing it. U.S. monetary support of Israel is neither a necessary nor or a sufficient cause of Middle East tensions. These tensions would exist with or without U.S. monetary support of Israel—the roots go back to the Byzantine conflicts of the 6th Century.

Cheers,
4. reckless G | March 19th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Mitch,

I thank you for your opinion. Respectfully, I have never claimed that if the US withdrew its monetary support of Israel, the tensions in the Middle East would disappear. My point has always been that US support of Israel was a direct cause of 9/11, and that by withdrawing our support of Israel (or rather making it conditional on Israel’s obligation to return to pre-1967 borders) it would reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks on Americans.

It’s ironic that you chalk up my attitude to 1960’s “Trotskyite yearning for constant revolution, and the blind adherence to pacifism…” while you harbor a stubborn blindness to the root cause of 9/11. As long as we continue to keep our head in the sand with regards to the relationship between our foreign policy and 9/11, we will never come close to “winning” the so-called “war on terrorism.”

As you know, I’m not a pacifist. I believe in defending myself and my country against attack. And if by our policies and actions in the Middle East, we are provoking anger, hatred and retribution, then defending my country consists of criticizing the provocation. That is not the same as saying the 9/11 attack was justified or warranted. The insistence of you and Michael and others in blurring the line between acknowledging and condoning the cause of the attack, is frustrating to people like Jimmy and I who make a distinction between understanding the reason for the attack and saying we deserved it.

So, one more time FOR THE RECORD: I would NEVER say the attack was justified or warranted or deserved (or any other term of appeasement you can come up with), but I do understand WHY it happened. And ONLY by understanding why it happened, can we take the necessary steps toward preventing another one.

[Beyond my vote and arguably my pen, I have no power to stop any government from doing anything, and I’d be a fool to think my vote and my pen, singly or collectively, amounted to more than a measly little arsenal.]

As citizens of a democratic republic, we have not only the right, but the responsibility to hold our government accountable for their use of our tax money in implementing dangerous foreign policies, and for any backlash resulting from those policies. If we don’t do it, then who will? And if no one does it, then what will become of us as a nation? I shudder to think of a government that uses our money in a way that endangers our freedom and security, while we meekly stand by shrugging our shoulders and even defending them against criticism. How then would we differentiate ourselves from Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Saddam’s Iraq?

However foolish you may think it is, we should try to do what we can to change the path our nation has taken when it is clearly the wrong path. But until we admit that we are on the wrong path, we’ll just keep marching merrily along waving our flag and wearing blinders. Anything to keep from having to accept responsibility. Which I guess for some people is just fine. But not for me.
5. Star Eagle | March 19th, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Speaking with a friend earlier tonight he spoke of the reasons given by Germans after WWII as to why they did nothing as the Nazi's ran roughshod over humanity. The two most popular answers were.."I didn't know" and "I was following orders". His point was that many of them damn well did know and they chose to wear the "blinders" of ignorance.

I, as well as more and more of our brothers and sisters are throwing off the blinders and saying NO to ignorance and YES to the greater good.

So Mitch, even though that old sourpuss of a man, Terrance Mann, chased Ray out of his place with bug spray, he changed his evil ways when he saw the magic that was the essence of the movie.

My point is that there is a bit more to this picture than most people are looking at. But once the begin to see, for example, what 9/11 is really about, they will understand that the truth lies between the lines.

Like Michael is so fond of saying..Keep the Faith!!
6. Mitch Mulhall | March 19th, 2008 at 9:27 pm

G,

[Respectfully, I have never claimed that if the US withdrew its monetary support of Israel, the tensions in the Middle East would disappear.]

True.

In fairness, your position has consistently been:

1) Stop vetoing UN resolutions requiring Israel to return lands gained during the Six Day War, and

2) Withhold monetary assistance to Israel until:

a) Israel complies with the International Bill of Rights, and

b) Israel re-aligns its borders to what they were before the Six Day War (June, 1967)

~Comment #45, Islamophobia Rising, July 11, 2007

You followed this summary of your position with the statement, “those actions alone won’t make the Jihadists cease their attacks.” You suggested that what is required to make Jihadists cease hostilities is an attitudinal shift that will take generations to foster--you can give them what they say they want, but it won't make a lick of difference. This reinforces my point that U.S. monetary support of Israel is neither a necessary nor or a sufficient cause of Middle East tensions. Rather, it is incidental.

You further suggested the measures I quote above were warranted because “they couldn’t hurt.” Please pardon me if I’d prefer to see something a wee bit more effective. I won’t get want I want, mind you, for that’s hardly a consideration.

Star Eagle,

The magic that you refer to as “the essence of the movie” was not the 1960s. As I recall, it was something no more complex than a boy having a catch with his dad. But when you get done reading between the lines, please pass along your conclusions to the rest of us.

Cheers,
7. Star Eagle | March 21st, 2008 at 7:02 pm

Sorry Mitch,

I guess you didn't notice all the MAGIC that went into "something no more complex than a boy having a catch with his dad". I hesitate to say, for some reason, that you couldn't see the MAGIC through the tears.

As far as any conclusions I may have on the Middle East morass, I can only say we are being played like so many fiddles. We are not the masters or the victims we like to believe we are. The puppets is the best I would call us.

But in that Mitch, the Mid-East is but one act in a far grander play being performed on a Global, no, at this point, I dare say inter-stellar stage.

Between the lines, out of the box, call it what you will. But what it is not, is the bloody bull most in this country think it might be. And when I say, "think it might be", it is because many are beginning to question how, and why, we are where we are. Because in reality Mitch, the lie is getting thin.

I believe you were just a tad too young, and probably still under too much parental influence, to have comprehended the shift this country went through in less than three years when it went from overwhelmingly reelecting a president to being on the border of impeachment.