Basic question?

Another problem with reform is media consolidation. With basically six conglomerations who have an interest maintaining the status quo controlling our media how can we put fourth an alternative narrative?

Reform, My Ass!

I'd like to think we can somehow take our democracy back via he current two party system but I fail to see how it could be possible. Average everyday citizens, the 99%, don't have the deep pockets it takes to influence most politicians. We now find ourselves with the finest democracy money can buy. Which is not a democracy at all. It is something more like this. As of this writing, we still have more or less freedom of speech (unless you talk about talking to so called terrorist groups and wind up in a cell at an undisclosed location as a guest of the US military, for example). There are other taboo topics where the punishment is not as obvious but still bad enough. Those who question the the on going War on Terror, invasions of other countries and bombing those we label rouge and or terrorist organizations often face ridicule, humiliation, job loss or marginalization.

The same can be said of anyone who questions capitalism or Neo-liberalism. "What are you, some kinda commie or socialist?" Try to get a job with this label. Hell, this may be worse than doing time in the American gulag. I think we still feed prisoners and let them have shelter which is more than I can say for our ever shrinking social safety net. But if you are a massive financial intuition who has paid BOTH political parties failure is not an option. Read 'em and weep; here here and here. How can average citizens compete?

Financial deregulation under former President Bill Clinton helped pave the way for mega-mergers and big banks gone wild. Did they really expect this industry to police itself? Those who say the market will weed out the dirty players may have been correct but some how they became "Too Big To Fail" and we the tax payers got stuck with the bill. Thus the cycle begins again. For an easy to understand explanation of what's driving the financial crisis check out the documentary, "The Greed Game". The super rich are building wealth on a massive scale while people in so called wealthy western countries are being stuck with "austerity". Those cashing in spend millions on our elections and rake in billions. That's a damn good ROI (Return on Investment)! Are the Republicans any better?

Republicans are all about pro business at the expense of the ever growing underclass. They confuse being a good business man with being a good political leader. Romney offers his business skills as a big qualification to be president but is a good businessman the right person to be president? I think business are two different things. Well duh! Business is all about making money. It is the whole point. Government should be about protecting liberty, providing defense (not an empire) and seeing to it every one's basic needs are being met. What happens when doing the work of good government clashes with making money? Now it seems money wins out every time, no matter the party in power. For a good objective article on Romney click here. Republicans play on people's fears to protect business interests. Government run health care is bad! The old lady on TV says "Big government stay out of my Medicare!" GROOOOAN. Death panels under your bed! They want to take away your guns! The Mexicans are taking our jobs! The list is almost endless but people buy in. Both parties do a hell of a job on selling us on war!

In the beginning George W. had me sold on the Iraq war but I started to listen to those opposed to it and woke up. "War made Easy" is a documentary which exposes the same script presidents use to sell us on war for more than fifty years now. "They are a grave threat to us.", "We must protect freedom." 'We must prevent genocide." Bla bla bla... Neither party questions the fact that a president can start a war and now has a private army in both the CIA and Contractors such as Dyncorp and Academi (formerly known as Xe, Formerly known as Backwater).

There are others who feel this way.

Stan Goff "Why I wont vote (and you shouldn't either)"

Ted Rall Blog

Chris Hedges "This is what revolution looks like"

Chalmers Johnson Read here!

I hope I'm full of shit and those who want to change the system / game from with in are right but how? If not, what are the possible alternatives? Let the dialogue begin! Keep it positive.

Reasons to Occupy...

Can our current system be reformed? I'm not so sure. Neither major political party looks out for those they were sent to serve. Rather, they look out for those who financed their campaigns. Almost from their first day in office, a new senator starts fund raising for their re-election. Yet, they will all say I'm not influenced by campaign contributors, which is a lie. How can they NOT be? So what has this best democracy money can buy system got us? Here are just four things to consider...

1. The soul crushing Earth raping system of neoliberalism that's never discussed, much less questioned, in mainstream media outlets. Businesspeople and their lapdog politicians talk about economic growth completely disregarding the facts we have limited resources and the environment is being destroyed. There's no room for even a discussion of alternatives.

2. The so called Health care debate. The recent reforms are not "socialist." In fact, they are opposite having been largely written by insurance and drug companies for the bottom line. 30 million new customers for health insurance companies courtesy of Uncle Sam will be great for the shareholders!

3. The bank bailouts cost in the TRILLIONS and counting. Meanwhile, congress argues over extending Unemployment benefits for the needy. (more on unemployment later...)

4. Ongoing wars generating disposable veterans while making defense contractors billions in profits. See here for some of the big players.

This list could go on and on. Reformers want to work within this system for positive change. I must concede the past is not without success, there has been progress on Civil Rights but where else has mass protest worked? There have been and are a few good people in politics. Time and time again the system fails to change from within. Can it be saved / reformed?

Your thoughts?

The emerging role of women in war and world conflicts

Dear reader,

The copy paste function in word does strange things sometimes. If it looks a little odd at the bottom, please forgive me.

Thanks for reading.

In war and conflict women have always been victims alongside men and children. They have been singled out for sex crimes such as rape and forced prostitution. They have also been made to be sex slaves of combatants. This rips at the heart of any given society leaving deep scars that can take generations to heal if they ever heal at all. In the last 100 years rolls women play in war and conflict has changed a great deal. In war, we are all victims. It is important to acknowledge this primary role in war and other ongoing conflicts. In popular culture we often forget about the victims and focus on the heroes, great battles and eventual outcome while unnamed hundreds of millions go unremembered. In just 100 years we have seen a dramatic change in the role women play. They have gone from being almost exclusively victims to now active participants, even in combat roles. In addition they have taken on the role of peace-maker and keeper. It is no longer only up to men to determine when and how a conflict will end. We will focus primarily on western society and also consider some of women’s roles from Russia and the Middle East as they mark some important milestones for women in war and conflict.

The role of women in society has changed dramatically in the last 100 years via the women’s liberation movement and changing needs of society. The Women's Liberation movements have given women unprecedented new opportunities in all aspects of Western Society from the right to vote to new opportunities for employment. Now women can choose almost any field to go into and under the law are now considered equal to men. In just over 100 years the changes have been dramatic. One area of great change has been women's role in war and conflict. Prior to World War I, women served limited roles in wartime such as caring for wounded. With the onset of industrialization and modern warfare, this started to change dramatically. In order to gain an understanding of what women's roles in conflict will be in the future, let's explore some highlights of their changing roles over the last 100 years. World War I is a good place to start because it set the stage for so much of what happened in the 20th-century and is considered by many to be the first “modern” war. The next major conflict, World War II, saw an even greater role for women. After the Second World War, women joining the military became a norm. But perhaps the greatest area change came with in resistance and rebel groups the world over. It was not uncommon for women to be directly involved in combat roles. Women have also become active participants in acts of terrorism, such as suicide bombings. They also act as peace-makers

During the First World War millions of men were mobilized and sent to the front lines in Europe. This left many production jobs vacant that had to be filled. For the first time the women left the home and went to work producing materials for the war effort. For many, this was an extremely liberating experience. For the first time, they had their own money and were no longer homebound. Women were not limited to the home front. Many served on or near the front lines. Their roles varied greatly. Many served as nurses caring for the wounded; others served as messengers and in military communications. A few managed to enlist in the Armed Forces (acting as men) and participate in combat. A notable exception was the Legion of Death; a Russian battalion may up almost exclusively of women. The officers and Non Commissioned Officers were men. They all took an oath to never surrender and supposedly carried poison capsules to take in the event of capture, earning them the name “Legion of death”. They fought and many were killed on the Eastern front. With Russia's withdrawal from World War I, many of the women soldiers fought on the side of the Whites during the Russian Revolution.(Eger unknown) World War I brought about many changes that last to this day.

After the war, many men wanted women to return to their prewar roles as only wives, mothers and home makers but this was not to be the case. In many countries that participated in the First World War, women soon after won the right to vote. Many women had to give up their production jobs after the war, but many continued to stay in the workforce in areas such as nursing and clerical jobs not returning to home life. Women were limited in the kinds of professions they could do and were most often paid far less than men for doing similar work. Most companies would not hire married women at all. This started to change during World War II.

In World War II women served many roles. The pattern was similar to the First World War. In The US prior to the war, women in the workforce were mostly single and paid far less than their male counterparts. With the war going on, companies lifted their ban of hiring married women and the number of workingwomen increased dramatically. According to Stephanie Coontz, in her Book The Way We never Were, the female labor force increased by 50% between 1940 and 1945. The US government greatly supported women workers. They set up free day care for many children, including those working various shifts. (Coontz 1992). Although they did the same work, they were still paid less (a trend that still continues to this day). Despite their contributions, many politicians and academics after the war criticized women leaving home for the work place. They still believed the woman's place was in the home and with the family. Women not only served as production workers at home but they also performed various roles in the military during the war.

Women were given expanded roles in the military from the previous war. They were no longer limited to just administrative, nursing and clerical duties. Each branch of the military set up women only groups, such as the army’s WACs. Women served in almost every aspect of the war effort except combat. They performed such roles as military police, pilots and spies. They also served as entertainers for male troops via the USO (United Service Organization). (National Women's History Museum 2007) After the war’s conclusion, many men thought women had no business being in the military and as a result, they did not get the same recognition or benefits their male counterparts received. Other cultures around the world see a greater role for women during wartime, including combat.

The Russians during World War II had female pilots who not only saw combat against the Germans on the Eastern Front but became fighter aces, meaning they had shot down at least five enemy air craft. The Russians had been using female flight instructors as trainers for some time. As their losses mounted and it became harder and harder to find male replacements women pilots were sent into combat. One was such pilot was Lilya Litvyak. She had a white lily painted on the side of her aircraft and her German adversaries referred to her as “The White Rose”. Lilia shot down 11 German Aircraft and a weather balloon in less than one year. She got the attention of the Germans and on August 1, 1943 eight Messerschmitt 109’s attacked and downed her aircraft killing her in the process. She was only 22 years old (Soviet Women Pilots n.d.). The role of women in war and conflict has expanded greatly.

Since the Second World War having women in the military is now commonplace. However, they are generally excluded from direct combat, at least in the west. Women now participate in almost every function of the military including leadership roles. It is not just in conventional militaries women's participation is growing. Women have been active participants in resistance movements, rebel groups and terrorist organizations the world over for at least the last 50 years. Women played an active role in the Cuban Revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power. The famous revolutionary Che Guevara, recognized early on the value women could add to resistance movements. Women could participate in traditional roles such as caregivers and also take on non-traditional roles such as fighters. In the Cuban Revolution, women also acted as spies and lookouts. Women were over all well treated within the insurgency having equal rights to their male counter parts. In some other parts of the world women took on an even deadlier role, the role of a suicide bomber.

Suicide bombers and been around for very long time, dating back as far as the 11th century. During the 20th-century America’s introduction the suicide bombing was the kamikaze pilots of Japan. They inflicted serious losses on the US military at a relatively low cost to the Empire of Japan. In the US, they were thought of as fanatics. Suicide bombing would later take on a different form. During the 1980’s Middle Eastern terrorist organizations would start the modern use of suicide bombers, including women. A “thinking bomb’ is an extremely dangerous weapon and very difficult to defend against. Unfortunately, it is also inexpensive. Different terrorist organizations have a seemingly endless pool of volunteers to recruit from and by including women the pool of potential volunteers has only grown dramatically. Recruiting is done in much the same manner for both males and females. Terrorist organizations look for people with little to nothing to lose and promise them “hero” status, rich reward in the next life and in some cases financial benefit for their families. The example of Wafa Idris (Bruner 2005) seems to follow this pattern. She had been married but unable to have children and her husband got a divorce. Living with her mother and void of hope she carried out an attack on January, 27, 2002 killing an elderly man and wounding 150 others in a Jerusalem shopping street. There is a question of that was her intention because prior to that point women had been only used for transporting explosives and there was no martyr video to follow. The explosives were also in a backpack and not on a belt further rising suspicions carrying out an attack was not her intention. Nonetheless, a Palestinian terrorist group al –Aqsa claimed responsibility for the attack and she was given “hero” status becoming known as a “Bride of Palestine”, a title bestowed later on more female suicide bombers. Wafa Idris also became a recruiting tool not only for other women who would follow her example but for men as well. The message being “if a woman can do it, why can’t you, young man?” The use of female suicide bombers is by no means over or limited to the Middle East.

On March 29, 2010 two female suicide bombers struck the Moscow subway system killing 38 people. There is not much background on the perpetrators yet, but from what is known, the story sounds all too similar to many such attacks in the Middle East. According to one story released by the AP Report: 2nd Moscow suicide bomber was teacher) one possible suspect was a young teacher recently widowed. Her husband had been an Islamic militant. The other suspect was only 17 years old and also a widow. (Berry 2010) According to a quote from Doku Umarov a rebel leader in Chechnya from a separate article in the UK Guardian more acts of terror can be expected. (Moscow metro bombs kill dozens)

“In February the Chechen rebel leader Doku Umarov warned in an interview on a rebel-affiliated website that "the zone of military operations will be extended to the territory of Russia … the war is coming to their cities". (Luke Tran 2010) There is no reason to believe female suicide bombers will not be used in carrying out these types of attacks. Taking on the role of suicide bomber does not necessarily greater equality for women living in these societies but some think so. Women participating in suicide bombings can viewed as either an indicator of greater equality or a further degradation of women. Women are now able to fight much like men and have a more equal status to their male counterparts. They are now given the same “hero” status as male suicide bombers. For example, female Palestinian suicide bombers are called “Brides of Palestine.” Another way to view women suicide bombers is they are far less valuable and so are more disposable. Men can serve as better fighters and should not be “wasted” on suicide missions. Women can better serve by staying at home and having children, lots of children. They will grow up to become fighters.

Not all roles played by women in war and conflicts are centered on participating in violence or being the victim. A vital role many

women play is that of peacemaker. Aung San Suu Kyi and her peaceful struggle for Burmese Democracy is well known example.

The role of peacemaker does not have to only be played by a head of state or even a famous person. One such person was Marla

Ruzika. She protested the war in Afghanistan but that was not enough. She went to Kabul shortly after the fall of the Taliban and

began doing work on the war’s impact on civilians. Using what she learned, she successfully lobbied the US Military and USAID

to give local civilians more aid. Ms. Ruzika also lobbied the US Congress through Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to provide

medical, vocational and other types of assistance for both Afghan and later Iraqi civilians impacted by war. Tragically, she also

became a victim of war. She was killed in Baghdad in a suicide bomb attack in 2005. The Non Governmental Organization she

founded, CIVIC (Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict). It is dedicated to helping civilians in wars all over the world (Civic

2009).

Women have accomplished much in the last 100 years, achieving greater equality than ever before. How they participate in conflicts and wars around the globe reflect this change. There is no question they have a greater impact than ever before and their influence over what goes on will only increase with time. As of this writing, women are still nowhere near as active participants as their male counterparts but this is changing steadily. As women continue to struggle for equal rights, hopefully this will spill over into other areas of inequality and reduce conflict.

References

Berry, Lynn (2010) “Report: 2nd Moscow suicide bomber was teacher” retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100404/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_violence

Bruner, C. (2005) Female Suicide Bombers – Male Suicide Bombing? Looking for Gender in Reporting the Suicide Bombings of the Israeli – Palestinian Conflict. Global Society, Vol. 19 No. 1. 29-48

Coontz, Stephanie (1992) The Way we Never Were American Families and the Nostalgia Trap New York, NY Basic Books

Civic (2009) retrieved from http://www.civicworldwide.org/index.php

Eger, Christopher (n.d.) “Russian Women's Legion of Death The Organization and Record of the Women’s Battalions 1917” retrieved from http://modern-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/russian_womens_legion_of_death

Harding, Luke Tran, Mark (2010) “Moscow metro bombs kill dozens” retrieved from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/29/moscow-metro-bombs-explosions-terror

National Women's History Museum (2007) “Partners in Winning The War: American Women in World War II” retrieved from http://www.nwhm.org/Partners/exhibitentrance.html

Soviet Women Pilots in the Great Patriotic War (n.d) retrieved from http://mysite.pratt.edu/~rsilva/sovwomen.htm