By Saswat Pattanayak

“On his last day in CIA custody, Marwan Jabour, an accused al-Qaeda paymaster, was stripped naked, seated in a chair and videotaped by agency officers. Afterward, he was shackled and blindfolded, headphones were put over his ears, and he was given an injection that made him groggy. Jabour, 30, was laid down in the back of a van, driven to an airstrip and put on a plane with at least one other prisoner.
His release from a secret facility in Afghanistan on June 30, 2006, was a surprise to Jabour -- and came just after the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's assertion that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to prisoners like him.
Jabour had spent two years in "black sites" -- a network of secret internment facilities the CIA operated around the world. His account of life in that system, which he described in three interviews with The Washington Post, offers an inside view of a clandestine world that held far more prisoners than the 14 men President Bush acknowledged and had transferred out of CIA custody in September.”

Washington Post’s scathing analysis of CIA operatives and its secret prisons has not gone without notice. Definitely worthwhile attempts have been made to uncover the scandals after human rights commissions of all shapes and sizes and conventions of all possible dimensions have forwarded their resentments at the torture camps. However the irony lies therein. Is this as groundbreaking a story as it is being made out to be? Should it come as a shock? Or even much less, a surprise?

The Pax Americana Syndrome:
CIA’s activities are neither recent nor surprising. In fact CIA or any other such organization functioning on behalf of any ruling government in the world is meant to be a secret agency. They are supposed to be kept confidential, in large cases unaccountable, and they are required to report to few authorities, if at all. Not only in the functions of the secret agencies, in their nature of origin as well, intelligence agencies are created for the very reason to maintain the status quo of the government they serve and interfere in the business of those that they are meant to.

The idealistically driven would perhaps imagine of a world where there would be secret services that function without interfering with anyone, howsoever illusive such a possibility may sound, considering that this would then invalidate the purpose of having such organization, to begin with. From policing to maintain internal order (which is to say, to repress freedom of people on their own land), to conducting internal intelligence activities (which is to say, to create organizations like FBI that have historically been of the most terrifying nature for people that make up the land), to infiltrating external lands for the sake of maintaining supremacy (which is to say to facilitate formation of international secret services like CIA)—the system of power depends on its system of coercions.

Condemnation of President Bush on grounds of secret prisons is as naïve and uncritical as expecting that prisoners at secret prisons be subjected to some form of equal treatment with domestic prisoners. Only a lack of foresight and political wisdom can lead to such demands that are nothing but a bunch of wishful and/or populist thoughts. These presuppose, of course, the following:
1. That, Geneva Convention is the just world order
2. That, CIA is guilty of the crimes against the prisoners

Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, putting forth such arguments only stand to strengthen the conservative foothold on issues of terrorism. If United Nations and the existing international laws had any value worth a dime, there would have been no aggression and war on sovereign peoples to begin with. And this is not to indicate some recent flaws in the hands of the present world supremo, rather one can sketch back to the cold war period to trace the saga of “hot wars” on hapless people despite the existing norms. The sad reality is the convention to protect the interests of the war victims hardly enjoys punitive jurisdictions that can enforce its strictures. At the worst, it can be used to teach the warring African nations a lesson.

A just world order is not established through formation of norms of human rights that do not address the root cause of violations of those rights. That would tantamount to hypocrisy of the order that can be observed when one notes how big business houses conduct charity. This would mean that we would tend to the victims after causing the havoc. Nothing is more sarcastic than such a thought, and when such thoughts apply to human sufferings at a massive scale, it ceases to be merely sarcastic.

The forces of capitalism that reinforce war and military supremacism must be checked with due action plans. Then only a world order that is a larger dream of working people can be established. Until then Geneva or no Geneva, we will have a series of League of Nations to heed to a plethora of CIAs in their collaborative efforts at interfering with lives after damages have been done. That is the current pathetic saga. Its not a single news article. It’s a historical pattern validated by realities.

Secondly, one must acknowledge that some CIA officers are not the party that is guilty. We assumed the same when we looked in disgust at Hoover, some FBI officers and McCarthy during the Red Scare last century. It was as though these fallen guys were the crux of the problem and that following their ouster, we will have a safer world where people will be able to think freely without being followed.

What followed instead was that, this country, once a great site for labor union activism and farmers parties and international communists was reduced to a numbed down version where few “liberals” would substitute for alternative thoughts and become televised celebrities. This was possible because these liberals themselves contributed in furthering the notion that America had ultimately been rid of the vices of Red Scare after America became finally democratized (so from 1776 to 1976, admittedly there was no such thing as democracy) with the ouster of officers.

Let such illusive and sympathique understanding of international relations not dupe us one more time. It’s not the bad guys we need to be after. The problem is with the structural settings. As long as there is market economy, there will be need for security by the monopolists to safeguard their laundered money. To imagine a capitalist world without their lethal defendants would be commit to historical idiocy as guiding spirits of collective inactions.

Tags: Saswat, Capitalism, Bush, USA, Law, Afghanistan

By Saswat Pattanayak

The “liberal-bias” of the media has again come to light. In the recent Los Angeles Times report “Doubts About Taking On Tehran”, the bias is evident. Clearly it’s a headline that works for the liberals. The headline exhumes that “About half those polled support military action if Iran continues its nuclear activity but don't trust President Bush to make the call.”

Throughout the widely circulated article, the substantiated assumption is that half of Americans doubt President Bush’s decision making potential and sense of good judgment when it comes to Iran.

For all the findings, please click the larger story here.

The article clearly posits a sense of comfort among the liberals that the President does not have support of even more than a half of people in this country. Good for the Democrats and other opposition blocs, if any. And in my view, bad for the world.

Media are the agents of sustainable interpretations in any western democratic regime. By that I mean, they play the role of the necessary critic. The necessary criticism of the existing political power is a necessary ingredient to promote the existing system; and media houses (which are essentially big corporate ventures) are the best bets.

Just as in a majoritarian democratic model, everything appears to be ruled by the “freely” elected representatives, their fourth estate, the Press, also make it appear that the news selection, placement and interpretations are done almost as democratically. Hence the press, just like the government, never hesitate to proclaim that they provide the whole truth in an objective fashion, because they know what’s good for the society to know (just as the state knows what’s good for the society to be governed by).

And so all that we know about how we are being governed is conveniently decided by the governors of our lives (the government) by letting the knowledge providers (the media) be the disseminators.

The only catch here, is that unlike in an “authoritarian”/peoples’ regime, where the press has the sole role of working as the official agent for dissemination of governmental news (and hence people are aware of the role already and make up their minds accordingly regarding the news source as clear “party propaganda”—and rise up against it in case it disbelieves in anything), in western democratic model, the press plays the subverted role of a propagator. To the extent, that the government in such democracies refuse to have their own propaganda Media. Because only then, the power structure cannot be challenged upfront. It needs to be challenged only through a comfortable space it has created between it and the people: the press. And this press, in return creates an illusion that it is actually with the people, not with the government. So it acts as a platform for “buffer opposition”.

LA Times provides no surprise through such articles. And the modern-day press system in any democratic regimes also knows how to eliminate any doubt factor that may creep in when it comes to evaluate their strategies. So the smart way is to involve some of the people to validate what they have been trying to say. So the press then go ahead and involve some people’s voices! In this article, there were 1,357 people who were polled! So by interviewing less than 1500 people “nationwide”, the paper has come to a conclusion that half of the people do not trust Bush.

Serious Issues:
1. The method of deriving at such finding is notoriously wrong. The sample needs to be way bigger. At least 50% people need to be asked the questions about “Iran War”, before coming to a conclusion. Secondly, if a national newspaper has branches all over, they need to interview people from all the centers, representing people from all geographical regions and specify the details. Clearly a person in the east-coast is more liberal than the person from the rural America, simply because of the quality of interaction people have with multicultural environment. The Republican states are thus ignorant because of the phobia of Muslims they live by. The liberal state residents are more enlightened because of the reality of Muslim friendships they preserve. These reflect on the findings. We need to be told about the disparities and of the suggested remedies. Thirdly, telephone polls are always tricky. With all the collaborations with polling agencies, they need to hire more interviewers who can go door to door in diverse areas (white, black and immigrant settings) and “talk with” people—conduct in-depth interviews if needed, and not merely quiz them.

2. The investigations into how much one knew about a topic before answering on the topic needs also to be taken into account. There are people in this country who still think Canada is a smaller neighborhood country, let alone knowing where Iran actually is on the map. One of these people on a chat with me once asked me where I was from. I said Maryland. She says, “You sound so funny. Where exactly are you from?” Because she refused to believe there was a place called “Mary”land. In such an environment, it will help to “know”, if not to explain (that education cannot happen without a propagandist tool, you see!), how much the people knew about Iran before responding. After all, we don’t waste time asking a 5-year child about effectiveness of Durex condoms and publish a finding. Why to ask people who don’t know anything about why Shah of Iran fled in 1979 despite American support, regarding why American needs to bomb the country today?

3. The News factor: I remember in my journalism school, how I was also taught about the news factor. When a “dog bites man”, its no news, the professor used to say. When the “man bites dog”, it’s the news. I always wonder why it needs to be so. Why should we look for sensations/exceptions and portray them as news, all the while ignoring the everyday life journeys. Mundane as they are, issues like poverty, ignorance and helplessness of people in democratic regimes are not considered news, as they are not sensational. What sells for corporate media are the shock value, and they will go any extent to even produce some of them. The current news in my view, SHOULD HAVE BEEN, that Majority of those polled Americans actually are war-mongers, shameful chapters in the world history. Come to think of it, half of Americans actually want war! Wow…I think that’s news in every sense. The headline should have read: “We interviewed sick warmongers who want to kill innocent civilians through airstrikes”. Yes, one question asked if people would support military action, if Iran continued to produce materials that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. 48% said, yes they would want military action, and only 40% opposed it. That’s news for me. Because hey, we all know India has even tested nuclear. And all western European countries have the same material resources. Canada is vast. France is winner. America leads. Now the common excuse even does not work. That the elite countries don’t use the materials for weapons is also false. And that nuclear energy can be used constructively is also a reality. To assume that western countries are the responsible carriers of energy (considering the bombing of Japan, and history of interventions of conventional warfare nature—ALL initiated by these countries, and also considering the hoax excuse called WMD to wipe out Iraqi civilization), and the rest of the world are irresponsible, amounts to blatant racism. Yet, the news of the LA Times indicates the good, (that Americans doubt Bush), but omits the bad (that Americans want the war).

4. Fact checking and priority of news: I think news is in the question when it’s asked: “Suppose George W. Bush decides to order military action against Iran, which action would you support”? And the choices were a) Airstrikes/no ground troops, b) Combination of airstrikes and ground troops, c) Ground troops, d) No military action and e) Don't know. The responses. Only 20% say “No military action”. 44% want to see action in the air! 19% want both ground and air strikes. Sick and more sick. Come to think of it: 80% of people did not want a peaceful dialogue, a change in stance, a removal of bias--all these are facts…The American media clearly choose to ignore these.

What’s important is not if people trust Bush. Clearly it’s a misnomer. Because it hardly matters. He cannot contest another time anyway. His tenure will be done with. So, will they trust someone else with the weapons. Of course yes. Because what’s at stake should not be which political party should come to power in order to annihilate Iran, the question ought to be: should we allow such a draconic thought even to pass our mind. The question is why the poll didn’t ask some vital questions as they come to mind..: Do you love to kill fellow human beings whose flesh you cannot eat? Or do you love to kill humans who have never damaged your life in any way (Iranians don’t impose taxes, they don’t even impose health insurances). If the answer is NO (which is the most logical answer), then the next questions should be: Do you then need to support the idea of a war as a solution? Do you want your tax money to be spent on killing innocent civilians in a foreign country? Do you want to lay down your children’s lives fighting for an ideal they have no idea about? Do you want to live lives in misery in memories of your children who died while killing someone else’s children on the front of the war? Do you believe that war is natural and human beings are natural murderers? Do you know if only way less than one percent of population in the world has ever committed murder in order to be called naturally violent and on many occasions they have killed for a personal reason? Do you have a personal reason in murdering any Iranian citizen? If not, then go have a good meal and we will spread the good word on your behalf: love others.

Its not that we don’t know the answers…its just that we need to know the right questions. It’s high time we asked the questions that matter to us, not respond to questions that help the power structure continue to use our responses to further its ends.

Tags: Saswat, Media, Capitalism, War, Bush, Iran

By Saswat Pattanayak

“So what do they have to say?”

“Didn’t you read the paper? The American president visited us.”

“What does that mean?”

“Of course, it means we are finally making progress. In your days, only heads of the third world countries used to come to India.”

“But we are a third world country, my child. Don’t you..”

(Interrupting..) “Yeah that’s what you think. Come to Bangalore and you will see. Everyone is having a party”

“How many more parties do we need? I think the Congress and the Communists were two big enough parties..”

“Oh no..not those parties. Who needs ideology? I am talking about parties. The late night parties. India rocks. You have to come out of that village. Come to Bangalore. This time you really need to visit my city. It’s where the future of India lies.”

“Future of India? What’s that going to be like?”

“Of course, just like us. We are the future. We got the FDIs.”

“FBI? Are they now concentrating on foreign lands too? I thought it was only CIA.”

“Hell, no. FDI..Foreign Direct Investments.”

“Oh, it’s the same thing, I guess. By the way, why are they investing on us?”

“Well how else shall we make progress?”

“You mean, how else they will make progress? Because we never needed anyone in the history for our progress. They always came after us.”

“Oh come on. They are already developed. They don’t need to make any more progress. Now they want to take care of the entire world.”

“You mean like the way the Kings took care of the subjects, after they had conquered...”

“Yeah, whatever. But remember there are just 7 to 8 countries today who are helping the rest of the world. They have taken up the responsibility to save the world.”

“Like James Bond did in his old movies…”

“Well, even in new ones that you have not seen since some time now...”

“So what do these countries do in Bangalore?”

“Well they have set up big offices. They give us well paid jobs. We work night and day, and earn good money.”

“Do they understand your language? How can they work in Bangalore? I don’t believe you.”

“Come on…they don’t have to understand our language. We have mastered their languages and cultures already. I have a map of Maryland right here beside me. The weather is 37F. Feels like 28F…”

“You can feel Maryland weather? How so?”

“Oh, that’s a lie. But we talk in American English. So it doesn’t matter anyway.”

“So the world is being saved by training the poor people to become expert liars?”

“Don’t start off there again. I am not poor. I have everything with me. I have a car. A flat, a laptop and even an ipod.”

“Oh so, you mean you can actually afford to buy all that? How do you do that?”

“Simple, I buy everything on credit.”

“You mean there are money-lenders in Bangalore?”

“Yeah, but not like the ones in Mother India. So relax. I just pay some interests. At times they are a lot. But then, this government sucks too. They also charge a lot of taxes. But then, it’s ok. You know, I get to own. I have the visa power.”

“Power. You mean you actually have some power by going on debt?”

“Yeah that’s real power. Why else would President Bush have visited India?”

“You mean to make you more indebted?”

“Come on, didn’t you read the papers? If not, at least watch the TV. You should have seen our Manmohan Singh. He was so grateful. Actually we all are.”

“All are? Where? In Bangalore?”

“Hello”

“—Hello …”

“Darn..these Indian villages…they will never improve”

“Hello, my child…I think the line got disconnected. You know your village has a very weak telephone system. But our neighboring village is even worse. So don’t worry. Just send me a letter. Sounds very exciting. This visit of one president to another.”

-hung up—

Tags: Saswat, Economics, India, Capitalism, Bush

Do you believe President Bush talked about bombing the HQ of Arabic-language TV network al-Jazeera?
CNN asks this question in its Quickvote online survey.
Total of 127645 online readers vote. Overwhelming majority of 70% of all voters (88372 votes) say yes they believe that President Bush talked about bombing the al-Jazeera network.

Wanted to find out what did Fox readers have to say. Unfortunately, Fox is asking questions to its readers if they would buy a product if a celebrity endorses it (some journalists will never change..they will always remain public relations professionals!)

The surveys are some of the most unscientific tools ever devised. But how scientific are the claims of White House that the bomb story is 'outlandish'? At least such a huge majority of centrist people don't think much of White House assertions. Add to that the working class population of America who don't come online because they can't afford to (who darn well have an opinion nevertheless), and you got the country's verdict on this matter. At times, one has to use the master's tools to break the master's house. I mean, use mainstream media to understand popular conscience!

Tags: Saswat, Media, Bush, Capitalism, USA

Well, finally here is one lesson that Bush learnt from Chavez and he has adopted quickly. Sounds like trivial, but it is not.
Despite what the pundits say about impossibility of Global Warming, its right here and its to stay if we dont conserve energy.
On September 16, the communist model envisaged by Chavez in his country felt disgusted at the Capitalistic extravaganza. Associated Press writer Kim Gamel mentioned: Read More...

Tags: Saswat, Communism, Environment, Venezuela, USA, Bush

The party’s over. The cola war went well. All of them were proved wrong, especially those who thought I wont show interest in the polls since I dont have a stake!
Look who won the bet. In the god’s country, the devil is still fighting.
Of course I stayed awake the whole WHOLE night. Despite the fact that I had three classes to attend the next morning! My Professor pardoned the class and we did not have to make presentation. But boy! were everyone sad!
All kinds of exclamations and the university folks were mourning the arrival of the dreaded.
I thought I will write what I felt. To show solidarity with the good human beings. And then thought, being good was not going to be enough. One needed to be effective as well. And we could not mourn forever. We got to fight back as well. Not just the ‘others’ but our self too. Here is what I thought ....

The cola war is over!
I know we should be sorry. We did all that we could. And we still lost.
But hey, who is this “us”?
Some of us most certainly accepted the Pepsi on the campus. Even drank Aquafina and ate Lays because Pepsi was our choice. Of course all that’s Pepsi need not suck. But what sucked was why Pepsi did not make us win even when we did not allow Coke to enter the Stamp Student Union?
And why we feel lost still.
Was it because we sided with Pepsi over Coke and thought it was important that we support one over the other?
And what about those of us who thought at least Coke was red in color and was looking better than the blue Pepsi? And those of us who thought there were actually some independent health drinks available in market that were better, in content, even if not in taste? And have we counted those of us who thought all those drinks were anyway available in the markets because they tolerated each other on purpose and thrived because of their mutual agreed terms of the system and hence we did not have to drink any of them?
So, come to think of it, who is this “us” that we think we represent? And why should everybody be sorry about this?
Did we miss the bus if we thought that either Pepsi or Coke could do the job. And thought we did not have to look at the economics of the soft-drink industry to assess if they were legitimizing profits on behalf of our names? Or that they were simply unhealthy, made us fat and made us less energetic to fight?
Now we have coke reigning over the country. But not in the University of Maryland campus still. Because we wont give up. We will still play by the rules. Accept the contract and extend the contract. And fight Pepsi over Coke.
And we think we will win!


Think again!
Have we struggled enough? Well, first of all, no victory is possible without the required amount of struggle. And we have not struggled enough. We enjoyed the popcorn in air-conditioned theatres and watched Michael Moore making fun of Arabs and we assumed we had won the war. We let some publishers make huge money by fictionalizing Bush to a toon character and arranged the books neatly on the coffee table, and we thought we had won the war. We sponsored the Disinformation series by watching Outfoxed time and again to watch an obvious liar called O’Reilly and thought we now knew the truth and hence we had won the war.
We thought by defeating Bush, we will have won the war. Well, that’s what Bush also thought. By defeating Saddam, he thought he would win the war. And we did not still learn from such an assumption even from borrowed experience.
Its not Bush who is important. He is just someone people voted to power. In his place it could be anyone else. Because the post of the president is sacred and upheld. And in a certain style of democratic thought, its meant to be permanent.
Its not one person holding office who deserves such importance we confer. It’s merely a public office one holds just as anyone holds an office at a public university or one who recycles the garbage.
We have not won the war. Because there is none. In this country there is poverty. Poverty of public knowledge. Knowledge about the homeless, the uneducated, the unemployed and the marginal groups. What we need is not a reactionary war, what we need is an affirmative action to ensure that all of us at least know of the issues. The issue, that we all matter. That all of us, despite our nationalities, sexual orientations, economic classes, religions and perceived security threats, matter. That there is not a red state and a blue state. Just like we don’t need to fight with Pepsi or the Coke. This is just one country of misinformed public. A public which is not ignorant, but one which is controlled.
No war against Bush will ever work. It’s not his fault that he got elected. People deserve the kind of government they elect. And its not people’s fault if they genuinely thought that theirs is the only God’s land and that God has indeed said xy and z.
Its our fault, that we have not been able to reach out to each and everyone in this country. If there were half of people in this country who genuinely believe in the blue, they need to go and interact with at least one more red each and discuss issues. One person talking to one person will make two thirds know of the issues and be able to distinguish them from non-issues.
That is what we need to do. To talk of issues. To make a movement. To support the oppressed people and rise against the oppressors. Bush was voted to power by the poor, unemployed people who still think he is a supreme patriot (sic!). Underestimating it would call for doom. We have to respect the decision made by the people and then reach out to them to discuss issues which are important and find ways to solve them. Party-bashing is a silly game. Issue-raising is the call of the day.
Enough of the two parties. And their proclaimed representatives. People need to know why all this farce if both Pepsi and Coke do the same stuff. Both the drinks are already available in the grocery shops. They don’t walk out of the refrigerators to talk to people. Instead people go and spend on them.
Lets stop being consumers. And lets stop being the fans. Lets stop being feeling sorry.
We gotta know the power is in the people. Not in those that are meant to serve them.

Tags: Saswat, USA, Capitalism, Bush

I heard today is celebrated as the Women's Equality Day.
Frankly speaking, I have never heard of such a Day existing. Nor am I aware of the reasons behind any celebration.
Which women? What equality? Prez Bush said today that

On Women's Equality Day, we recognize the hard work and perseverance of those who helped secure women's suffrage in the United States. With the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920, American women gained one of the most cherished rights and fundamental responsibilities of citizenship: the right to vote.

But I wonder if Right to Vote has anything to do with equality? With dignity? With life?

Tags: Saswat, Feminism, Bush, USA

Since Blogger may not always keep it alive, try the link. or read the story below. I think it's revealing. And I view Cons as Cons. You know what I mean
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2004/06/continuing-triumph-of-neoconservatism.html

It has become very fashionable to believe that the neocons are on the run, and their hold over American politics has finally come to an end. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although Iraq isn't going well, and the torture issue is proving to be a bit of an embarrassment for certain Washington elites, the power of the neocons continues pretty much unabated. They are keeping a low profile until it is clear that oil prices will stay low enough for Bush to be reelected, but their ultimate plans for the Middle East and the world remain in place, and are quietly advancing. Americans who think that some fairy godmother - either the CIA, 'patriotic' U. S. generals, or the U. S. Congress - is going to rescue them are dreaming in technicolor. All kinds of terrible legal things are supposed to be in the works for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and all the infamous neocons from Wolfowitz on down. Just who exactly will be bringing all these people to justice? Read More...

Tags: Saswat, Bush, USA, Capitalism, Imperialism

Here is another news one can use.

Brenda Norrell (Southwest Staff Reporter/Indian Country Today) writes on how U.S. tortures elicit painful memories in Indian country.

American Indians said apologies would not erase the tortures in Iraq and President Bush should be held responsible for leading America into a groundless war.

"It seems like white people are the worst savages," said Bessie Taylor, Navajo from Ch'ooshgai Mountain on the Navajo Nation in New Mexico.

After viewing the photograph of a female soldier holding a leash tied around the throat of a naked Iraqi, Taylor said the female soldier should be dragged in the same manner. "She probably doesn't know what it feels like to be tortured."

After Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld apologized for the abuses in Iraq, Taylor said, "An apology is nothing. What does an apology do for you - nothing."

Taylor said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld should be held responsible for the tortures in Iraq. "They were so eager for this war, now look what has happened. President Bush is responsible for leading America into this war. He is responsible for this. This war was about oil and making Bush's friends rich."
Read More...

Tags: Saswat, Indigenous, Iraq, USA, Bush, War, Terrorism, History

|

Political humor always are this good. Subversive yet very well noticed. Like this stamp on Bush, which debates about why it would not stick. Sent via email, without any mention of the creator. Gnu effect?

Tags: Saswat, Humor, Bush

Matthew Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive discusses Bush, the performer.

A Scary Performance, and a Signal for Slaughter

George Bush's press conference on April 13 was a scary performance. Read More...

Tags: Saswat, USA, Bush

You know what did the President Bush say today about Diversity. Laudable. Commendable. Politically so correct.

I applaud the Supreme Court for recognizing the value of diversity on our Nation’s campuses. Diversity is one of America’s greatest strengths. Today’s decisions seek a careful balance between the goal of campus diversity and the fundamental principle of equal treatment under the law.

My Administration will continue to promote policies that expand educational opportunities for Americans from all racial, ethnic, and economic backgrounds. There are innovative and proven ways for colleges and universities to reflect our diversity without using racial quotas. The Court has made clear that colleges and universities must engage in a serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives. I agree that we must look first to these race-neutral approaches to make campuses more welcoming for all students.

Race is a reality in American life. Yet like the Court, I look forward to the day when America will truly be a color-blind society. My Administration will continue to work toward this important goal.

There are two types of George Bush here:
One speaking the bold letters (marked by me) who we know. The other languages are by who?

What bothers me is a wonderful concept called Color-blind. But why talk about it at this point, when the issues are so based on color. Some folks sure still have the privilege to get away with that!

Tags: Saswat, Bush, USA, Capitalism, Racism