Pissed Off

Alright folks, today I’m going political in a big way and I’m probably going to piss a lot of you off. You may have heard the story about Jay Bennish, the teacher from Colorado who was suspended because he: “Called George bush Adolf Hitler” in front of his class. One of the students taped his lecture and played it for his father, who then complained to the school board, and this teacher was suspended. Well, I am always a big proponent of free speech issues and I’ve been doing some reading on this. What follows is a transcript of the actual lecture, with my own $0.02 thrown in for fun. The content here is controversial, sure, but I think this guy’s being railroaded for doing what he’s supposed to do as a teacher. Read along and form your own opinions, and feel free to call me an asshole in the comments if you so desire. (My comments in bold)

Bennish: Why do we have troops in Colombia fighting in their civil war for over 30 years. Most Americans don't even know this. For over 30 years, America has had soldiers fighting in Colombia in a civil war. Why are we fumigating coca crops in Bolivia and Peru if we're not trying to control other parts of the world. Who buys cocaine? Not Bolivians. Not Peruvians. Americans! Ok. Why are we destroying the farmers' lives when we're the ones that consume that good. Can you imagine? What is the world's number one single cause of death by a drug? What drug is responsible for the most deaths in the world? Cigarettes! Who is the world's largest producer of cigarettes and tobacco? The United States!
What part of our country grows all our tobacco? Anyone know what states in particular? Mostly what's called North Carolina. Alright. That's where all the cigarette capitals are. That's where a lot of them are located from. Now if we have the right to fly to Bolivia or Peru and drop chemical weapons on top of farmers' fields because we're afraid they might be growing coca and that could be turned into cocaine and sold to us, well then don't the Peruvians and the Iranians and the Chinese have the right to invade America and drop chemical weapons over North Carolina to destroy the tobacco plants that are killing millions and millions of people in their countries every year and causing them billions of dollars in health care costs?

--I have no problem with the logic presented here. Set aside nationalism for a moment and look at it from the standpoint of a farmer in any of these countries. Why is it acceptable for the U.S. to regularly destroy their lands and people to prevent them from growing crops, we are opposed to, on their own farms? Why do the people of this country have no problem with the idea of our government attacking other nations in order to enforce our own moral stance, yet have zero tolerance when anyone suggests reciprocating? I’ve read through any number of sites about this statement and Bennis is being universally hailed as a “nut-job” for “encouraging” attacks against the U.S. Sorry, but he said nothing of the sort. He’s pointing out an inconsistency in policy. Maybe you don’t like his simile, but it doesn’t make the point any less valid.--

Make sure you get these definitions down.
Capitalism: If you don't understand the economic system of capitalism, you don't understand the world in which we live. Ok. Economic system in which all or most of the means of production, etc., are owned privately and operated in a somewhat competitive environment for the purpose of producing profit! Of course, you can shorten these definitions down. Make sure you get the gist of it. Do you see how when, you know, when you're looking at this definition, where does it say anything about capitalism is an economic system that will provide everyone in the world with the basic needs that they need? Is that a part of this system? Do you see how this economic system is at odds with humanity? At odds with caring and compassion? It's at odds with human rights.
Anytime you have a system that is designed to procure profit, when profit is the bottom motive -- money -- that means money is going to become more important potentially than what? Safety, human lives, etc.

--Here is another “nut-job” section where a lot of people are accusing Bennis of being “communist”, “naïve”, and/or “a lefist/liberal”. Again, I disagree with that offhand judgment. Is he decrying capitalism? No, I don’t believe he is. I think what he’s pointing out here is the underlying fallacy that our economic system is inherently superior to others . . . more “moral” and undeniably “right” for everyone. Bennis’ point that pure pursuit of profit is never an acceptable moral standpoint and that it raises the pursuit of money above the needs of individuals, oftentimes making individuals “victims” to corporate greed, is not an unwarranted attack on our way of life: it’s a simple statement of fact. Corporations, the natural by-product of a capitalist society, have no conscience and take no note of individuals needs or rights unless forced to by rule of law.—

Why did we invade Iraq?! How do we know that the invasion of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction-- even if weapons had been found, how would you have known, how could you prove--that that was not a real reason for us to go there.
There are dozens upon dozens of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one of dozens. There are plenty of countries that are controlled by dictators, where people have no freedom, where they have weapons of mass destruction and they could be potentially threatening to America. We're not invading any of those countries!

--Yet again: I agree. Damn near every nation in the Mid-East has ties to al Qaeda, including the Saudi’s and Pakistani. Why invade Iraq? Hell, Pakistan has nuclear capability but we’re not looking to disarm them, despite the fact that half the terrorists on the planet have hidden in that nation at one time or another--

I'll give you guys another minute or two to get some of these down. I agree with Joey. Try to condense these a little bit. I took these straight out of the dictionary.
Anyone in here watch any of Mr. Bush's speech last night? I'm gonna talk a little about some of things he had to say.

...One of things that I'll bring up now, since some of you are still writing, is, you know, Condoleezza Rice said this the other day and George Bush reiterated it last night. And the implication was that the solution to the violence in the Middle East is democratization. And the implication through his language was that democracies don't go to war. Democracies aren't violent. Democracies won't want weapons of mass destruction. This is called blind, naive faith in democracy!
Who is probably the single most violent nation on planet Earth?!

Unidentified Student: We are.

Bennish: The United States of America! And we're a democracy. Quote-unquote.
Who has the most weapons of mass destruction in the world? The United States.
Who's continuing to develop new weapons of mass destruction as we speak?!The United States.
So, why does Mr. Bush think that other countries that are democracies won't wanna be like us? Why does he think they'll just wanna be at peace with each other?! What makes him think that when the Palestinians get their own state that they won't wanna preemptively invade Israel to eliminate a potential threat to their security just like we supposedly did in Iraq?! Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their sovereignty in the name of protecting us against a potential future--sorry--attack?
Why doesn't Mexico invade Guatemala? Maybe they're scared of being attacked. Ok. Why doesn't North Korea invade South Korea?! They might be afraid of being attacked. Or maybe Iran and North Korea and Saudi Arabia and what else did he add to the list last night - and Zimbabwe - maybe they're all gonna team up and try and invade us because they're afraid we might invade them. I mean, where does this cycle of violence end? You know?
This whole "do as I say, not as I do" thing. That doesn't work. What was so important about President Bush's speech last night-and it doesn't matter if it was President Clinton still it would just as important- is that it's not just a speech to America. But who? The whole world! It's very obvious that if you listen to his language, if you listen to his body language, and if you paid attention to what he was saying, he wasn't always just talking to us. He was talking to the whole planet. Addressing the whole planet!
He started off his speech talking about how America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed essentially by God to have the most civilized, most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the whole world like us.
Sounds a lot like the things that Adolf Hitler use to say.

We're the only ones who are right. Everyone else is backwards. And it's our job to conquer the world and make sure they live just like we want them to.
Now, I'm not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same. Obviously, they are not. Ok. But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very, very "ethnocentric." We're right. You're all wrong.

--Here is the kicker that lost this guy his job. Note: he does NOT say Bush is like Hitler, as the news stories claim, he simply compares their rhetoric. In truth, he directly states he does not think Bush is at all like Hitler. He’s right, the stance of “We are superior, we need to lead the world, and we will use force when and where we deem necessary without regard to how the rest of the world feel about it.” Is exactly the propaganda that propelled the Third Reich. If I recall my history, that stance by Germany was one of the reasons the U.N. was formed . . . remember them? The guys who said we DIDN’T have the right to invade Iraq?—

I just keep waiting. You know, at some point I think America and Mexico might go to war again. You know. Anytime Mexico plays the USA in a soccer match. What can be heard chanting all game long? Do all Mexicans dislike the United States? No. Do all Americans dislike Mexico? No. But there's a lot of resentment--not just in Mexico, but across the whole world--towards America right now.
We told--Condoleezza Rice said--that now that Hamas got elected to lead the Palestianians that they have to renounce their desire to eliminate Israel. And then Condoleezza Rice also went on to say that you can't be for peace and support armed struggle at the same time. You can't do that. Either you're for peace or war. But you can't be for both.
What is the problem with her saying this? That's the same thing we say. That is exactly the same thing this current administration says. We're gonna make the world safe by invading and killing and making war. So, if we can be for peace and for war, well, why can't the Palestinians be for peace and for war?

--This is simple logic. You don’t get to slam other folks for being violent when you’re violent yourself. Why is that acceptable? It’s alright when we’re the ones doing the killing . . . because it’s us? Sorry, that’s propaganda of the worst sort: “Some pigs are more equal than others!”--

Sean Allen: (Student who taped lecture) Isn't there a difference of, of, having Hamas being like, we wanna attack Israelis because they're Israelis, and having us say we want to attack people who are known terrorists? Isn't there a difference between saying we're going to attack innocents and we're going to attack people who are not innocent?

Bennish: I think that's a good point. But you have to remember who's doing the defining of a terrorist. And what is a terrorist?

Allen: Well, when people attack us on our own soil and are actually attempting to take American lives and want to take American lives, whereas, Israelies in this situation, aren't saying we want to blow up Palestine...

Bennish: How did Israel and the modern Israeli state even come into existence in the first place?

Allen: We gave it to them.

Bennish: Sort of. Why? After the Israel-Zionist movement conducted what? Terrorist acts. They assassinated the British prime minster in Palestine. They blew up buildings. They stole military equipment. Assassinated hundreds of people. Car bombings, you name it. That's how the modern state of Israel was made. Was through violence and terrorism. Eventually we did allow them to have the land. Why? Not because we really care, but because we wanted a strategic ally. We saw a way to us to get a hook into the Middle East.
If we create a modern nation of Israel, then, and we make them dependent on us for military aid and financial aid, then we can control a part of the Middle East. We will have a country in the Middle East that will be indebted to us.

Allen: But is it ok to say it's just to attack Israel? If it's ok to attack known terrorists, it's ok to attack Israel?

Bennish: If you were Palestinians, who are the real terrorists? The Israelis, who fire missiles that they purchased from the United States government into Palestinian neighborhoods and refugees and maybe kill a terrorist, but also kill innocent women and children. And when you shoot a missile into Pakistan to quote-unquote kill a known terrorist, and we just killed 75 people that have nothing to do with al Qaeda, as far as they're concerned, we're the terrorists. We've attacked them on their soil with the intention of killing their innocent people.

--Folks don’t wanna hear this but there’s truth in that. The terrorists really DO have good reasons for hating us. They’re not evil lunatics who just want to kill innocent people. From their side of the fence, WE are the crazed lunatics and THEY are the heroic freedom fighters. In a lot of ways we have been the cause of our own misery. We have consistently supported puppet dictatorships to further our own interests in the region at the expense of the people who have to live there. Does this justify their violent actions? No, it doesn’t, anymore than British despotism justified the IRA, but we need to pull our heads out of the sand and realize we are not just simple victims here. We DID play a part in starting this nightmare.—

Allen: But we did not have the intention of killing innocent people. We had the intention of killing an al Qaeda terrorist.

Bennish: Do you know that?

Allen: So, you're saying the United States has intentions to kill innocent people?

Bennish: I don't know the answer to that question.

Allen: But what gain do we get from killing innocent people in the Middle East? What gain does that pose to us?

Bennish: Let me ask you this. During the 1980s, Iran and Iraq were involved in an 8-year-long war. The United States sold missiles, tanks, guns, planes, to which side?

Unidentified student: Iraq?

Bennish: Both. The answer is both. Why would we send armaments to two sides that are fighting each other. That seems to be self-defeating. Don't we want one side to win? Not always! Sometimes you just want there to be conflict! The British -- this is one of the grand strategies of the British imperial system--was to play local animosities off each other. To prevent them is to divide and conquer. Do we really want the Middle East to unite as one cohesive political and cultural body? No! Because then they could what? Threaten our supremacy.
We want to keep the world divided. Do we really want to kill innocent people? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. I know there are some Americans who do. People who work in the CIA. People who have to think like that. Those kind of dirty minds, dirty tricks. That's how the intelligence world works. Sometimes you do want to kill people just for the sake of killing them. Right?
Listen, between the years 1960 and 1962, the United States through the CIA conducted over 7,000 terrorist sabotage attacks against the small island nation of Cuba. Over 7,000 terrorist attacks were waged against just one little country called Cuba in a two year period, intentionally, let me rephrase that, intentionally blowing up medical supplies, intentionally burning down crops that feed their country, thereby creating starvation, right? Intentionally trying to make that system collapse. And we're willing to expend however many thousands of people died because we just want to get rid of Castro. And the sad reality is that there are some policy planners who are willing to let people die in order to achieve their objectives.

-- This sounds a bit paranoid on his part, but there’s nothing actually untrue in what he says. I do not believe we acted with any malice toward individuals, but I’m not fool enough to think that’s going to clear the issue of killing children by mistake. If it was your kid caught in a bombing and the bombers said: “Oops, we didn’t MEAN to hurt any innocents. We were aiming for military targets” would you shrug and say: “Okay, it was just a mistake.” Or would you be the first guy in line for a gun to start shooting the bastards who killed your kid? I know where I’d be! Violence breeds violence and pretty phrases like “collateral damage” don’t change that.--

Now, do I think President Bush says 'I'd like to go kill some innocent Palestianians?' I don't think he thinks like that. But I also know that he's not the only one making decisions. I also know that after September 11, President Bush got on TV and he said, 'You will feel our wrath. You will feel the full force of the United States military. There will be paybacks.' He said it again last night. He said, 'We've killed a lot of top-ranking al Qaeda members. And for those who aren't killed yet, you're day will come!' Right? That kind of language to me is very obvious.
And when you go trying to kill one particular type of person, you know that you're gonna kill other people, too. And let me ask you this...

Allen: Later in that, he stated that he's trying to kill innocents...

Bennish: I understand that, but hold on, you have to understand something, that when al Qaeda attacked America on September 11, in their view, they're not attacking innocent people. Ok. The CIA has an office at the World Trade Center. The Pentagon is a military target. The White House was a military target. Congress is a military target. The World Trade Center is the economic center of our entire economy. The FBI, who tracks down terrorists and so on and so forth around the world, has offices in the World Trade Center. Some of the companies that work in the World Trade Center are these huge multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military-industrial complex in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.
And so in the minds of al Qaeda, they're not attacking innocent people. They're attacking legitimate targets. People who have blood on their hands as far as they're concerned!
We portray them as innocent because they're our friends and neighbors, family, loved ones. One of my best friends from high school, elementary school, and birth, lives in lower Manhattan. You know, he was right there, he was four blocks away from it. So, anytime it comes close to home, you begin to see things differently.

--Now, I know this pisses a lot of folks off. Doesn’t make me very happy either, I’m in Jersey and have my own tales of friends and family who were there on Sept. 11, 2001. Much as I hate to say it though, he’s right again. In the eyes of the terrorists, these were legitimate targets. Did a lot of “collateral damage” occur? Hell yes, but we shrug it off all the time when we do it. That’s a part of war, we say . . . but as a nation we refuse to acknowledge that these people are at war with us! They’re just criminals and murderers . . . WE are patriots and soldiers! Maybe so, but I don’t think it matters whose gun the bullet came from when it takes your head off.--

In no way am I implying, I don't know, you got to figure this stuff out for yourself, but I want you to think about these things--you know, think about this right here. Here's the real homeland security. Fighting terrorism since 1492! Ok. I mean, to many Native Americans, that flag is no different than the Nazi flag or the Confederate flag. It represents the people that came and stole their land, lied, brought disease, rape, pillage, destruction, etc. So it all depends upon varying people's perspectivesvarying. And of course, we're going to see ourselves as being in the right , at least the majority of us, because that's us.

--The statement above kills the technical stance that Bennis was propagating his “personal views” in a class environment. He was providing opposing viewpoint and asking the students to reach their own decisions on the matter. THAT is a teacher’s job! Or it is supposed to be . . .—

Allen: But we were the ones that were attacked first. On September 11, 2001, we were the ones that were attacked. We were not attacking anybody until that point. Then we said ok, we're going into Afghanistan. Then we said ok, the Iraqi government has ties with al Qaeda. We're going to go into Iraq. We were the ones that were attacked.

Bennish: In actuality, if you remember back to my first day, the Sept. 11 attacks were, according to bin Laden, a direct response to our support of the nation of Israel, which they consider to be a terrorist regime that does not have the right to control the land that the Palestinians lived on for over 1,500 years, and they also did it because of what George Clinton did--Bill Clinton, not George Clinton, they had a little documentary on him on PBS last night I was watching--Bill Clinton, when he launched the missile attacks into Afghanistan and Sudan and killed thousands of innocent Africans and Afghanistan people - Afghanis - that had nothing to do with al Qaeda or anything. In fact, in sudan, he blew up the country's largest pharmaceutical plant, which was producing medicines, alright, um, you know, that's as far as, in their eyes, that was retaliation for those attacks.
And so this whole idea of who attacked who first, how far back in time do you wanna go!? This is the whole thing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Well, who was there first? Well, if you believe the Bible, you say, well, God gave the land of Canaan to the Israelites. But who was in that land when they got there? The Canaanites, who some archeologists would argue are the ancient descendants of the Palestinians. You know. Other archeologists say the Hebrews didn't really come from Egypt. They were actually a group of Canaanites who decided they didn't like the other Canaanites and developed this story afterward to justify how they killed all their neighborsand took over the land.
Alright, and so this becomes very, very muddled. And I'm not in any way implying that you should agree with me. I don't even know if I'm necessarily taking a position. But what I'm trying to get you to do is to think, right, about these issues more in-depth, you know, and not just take things from the surface. And I'm glad you asked all your questions, because they're very good, legitimate questions. And hopefully that allows other people to begin to think about some of those things, too.
END

And once more, he’s encouraging his students to study and think instead of accepting the opinions thrust at them, not even his own! The argument that he was suspended for not teaching “both sides” of the argument is pure bull. He was addressing the common beliefs that these students hear daily and see on every news program each night. He made a specific point –not once, but twice- of telling them his opinion was not the “true” answer but merely encouraging them to think and be skeptical. Those are GOOD things to teach our children. Bennis’ suspension was a pure fear reaction to current government pressures and kowtowing to the gods of “political correctness”.

I have always had concerns about public schools being a “training ground” to teach the children of the unwashed masses their proper place in the world, and to snuff out any thoughts of resisting the “truths” that our beneficent government chooses to impart to us. A teacher should be encouraging his students to view all “truths” with a jaundiced eye, to keep an open mind in any argument, and to view all sides of an issue before taking a stand. That is exactly what this gentleman did, and he’s being punished for it.

Look, I’m the first guy in line to say we should turn the entire Middle East into a glass parking lot. I don’t give a crap if they have a just complaint or not, I see it as pure survival: us or them. I choose US. However, before making a decision like that we, as a nation, should have all the information available and have the necessary training for rational thinking and ethical judgment. That is what Mr. Bennish was trying to provide his students; the ability to work in rational rhetoric and debate, not just regurgitating the pabulum served to them by those in power. It is an abomination that he should be suspended for attempting to teach the children under his care to think. Disagree with what he said? Fine, feel free. He didn’t claim to believe it himself, he was playing devil’s advocate. For the conservative media and politicians to make him a scapegoat and accuse him of treason and corrupting the minds of our youth?

Shit, fellas, you’re just underlining the point he was making!!!! THAT is exactly what the Nazi’s would have done!!!!

Later.