Although we have been known to criticize 60 Minutes and its inability to put a decent report on TV, it does have its good days. Yesterday was one of those days and Bob Simon and his producers should be commended for reporting some of the reality in Gaza and the West Bank. The report, discussing the possibility of a two-state solution between the Palestinians and Israelis, shows details few in the western world get to see: The daily life of Palestinians in their occupied homes, Israeli settlers and their admitted stubbornness, as well as some of the more liberal Israeli population who yearn for the end of violence. However, as you’ll see, none of these individuals believe a two-state solution is really possible and I doubt the one unrepresented group in the story does either: Hamas. (In all fairness, Simon’s colleague Steve Kroft, reported on this possibility in a 2002 interview with one of Hamas’ leaders, Moussa Abu Marzuk.)

The most memorable scene in the report is Simon’s attempt to interview Israeli soldiers and the Palestinian citizens they routinely take hostage in their own homes, just so they can leverage the house’s high vantage point over the valley. The greater issue of occupation and violence on both sides is a complicated one, at best. Hopefully reports such as these will continue to be broadcast so that all sides of the argument are represented. If the warring factions cannot sort out this mess, perhaps an honest discussion in the court of public opinion might do the trick; we know it will at least help.

First of all, I hope to see the ceasefire in Gaza continue. It is much needed in order to relieve the suffering that has gone on there. In the meantime, let’s ask ourselves an important question: What do “terrorists” look like? I don’t mean to say that Israel is not killings members of a terrorist organization in Gaza, but with its warped rational for bombing civilian targets, it is creating something even more potent than Hamas’ Qassam rockets: future hatred that will continue to run deep for generations to come. Why is it that Israel and the majority of the mainstream western media seems to be insulated from this fact? If Israel won’t listen to its people, allies or the UN-mandated ceasefire, perhaps they will listen to their future foes:

A new era is approaching with the inauguration of a new President on Tuesday. Since watching Barack Obama speak in Boston five years ago, I have been excited by the possibilities of what lies ahead for this man and for our country. I was excited for the possibility of prosperity, a greater sense of equality and perhaps a realization that the American Dream was still possible in some form or another. Hope was a word I believed in, although admittedly with a healthy dose of reality. But sadly I have watched as Obama has become more or less just another patch in the convoluted quilt that is American politics. He is, in the same sentence, a refreshing reminder of what is possible and at the same time a reminder of what that proverbial quilt covers up: the indecency and lies of perverse and corrupted individuals existing for selfish reasons.

So, lets not get ahead of ourselves too much… things won’t be changing as much as we might like. Yes, we’re bound to be moving in the right direction on some issues from now on (our fragile climate, massive social injustice both home and abroad, and a few other areas yet to be determined by the windbags on network television), but overall you can expect the status quo; nothing more, nothing less. The same Congress is still in power, elected by the same populace and supported in their agenda by the same Media Slackers.

The Washington Post again did its part yesterday in its reporting of a new GAO report requested by Congress. Carol D. Leoonig wrote of the large number of “bailed out” companies with operations in foreign tax havens. Yet again, the Post failed to mention the double standard: As long as you don’t hold an American passport, the US is still the largest tax haven in the world.

How naive some people can be when it comes to the workings of the world. While the financial bailout has become the largest robbery in history, fully sanctioned by the media, the crew of thieves are now somehow covering it up with that dirty little term: tax haven. It is not as if there is anything new about “tax havens” mentioned in this article or the GAO report. It is not as if anyone writing or reading the article actually knows the true definition of a tax haven. If they did, there wouldn’t be such an outcry about its indecency (because then we would be criticizing our own actions). We, the general populace, continue to rail on small countries who’s only viable industry is to provide pina coladas to tourists and financial services to individuals and companies.

Just like the BVI, Caymans, Luxembourg or any other country involved in financial services, the US wants to attract foreign investment. Hell, we need it now more than ever. So we try and try to attract foreign investment by offering a very reasonable tax rate: zero percent, up to 100k the last I checked. Just one of many, many loopholes (often called tax breaks) used to encourage foreign investment in the US is somehow criticized as immoral or treasonous when other countries do the same thing. We love ‘em when they provide little umbrellas in our drinks, but God forbid they should compete for investment dollars. Ah yes, let the double standard live on…why is it that Americans who move our businesses abroad are still taxed wherever we are located? Yet the IRS doesn’t tax those who bring money into the US? The blindfold is being pulled over the eyes of so-called “innocent” taxpayers. (By the way, you can’t claim innocence if you don’t educate yourself on the system, and that includes all facets of our system.)

Speaking as a patriotic American (and yes, I feel the need to point this out because otherwise it might be pointed out that I’m not), this same double standard exists in US and our allies’ foreign policy. Why is it when a hotel in Mumbai is bombed it is called a “terrorist attack”, but when the Israeli military kills three of the daughters of a leading Palestinian doctor and peace activist in their home in Gaza, it is called “defending themselves”? Or when the US drops 30,000 ton bombs on a village in Somalia, it is part of the “war on terror”, but when a Sunni who has lost his entire family chooses to blow himself up, he is called a “terrorist” or worse, an “insurgent”?

Sheltering your money from increasing and perhaps unfair tax laws is as old as the cycle of violence in the name of freedom and neither one is acceptable behavior for any “civilized” society. But it is the most patriotic thing you can do to question both unfair taxation and violence in the name of anything justifiable. If we are unable to question these two pillars of our society, we will be worse for it no matter who our President is… But please don’t allow the mainstream media to take away your voice in this discussion and push the idea that tax havens are inherently evil, just as justifiable violence is at times acceptable. Continued discourse is necessary to determine the balance, not continued self-denial. Too bad some of our more courageous citizens have passed on: RIP George Carlin:

The issue of terrorism (state-sponsored or not) and which countries can get away with it, needs more discussion and exposure in order to hopefully stop it on all sides. It is true that definitions of war terms may change over time, but some things do not… Call it what it is, but don’t call a local fighting force rebelling an invasion “insurgents” (they are only insurgents if they don’t live there!) and don’t call bombing the shit out of children “defending the homeland” (that is always considered terrorism).

Even though Thomas Friedman has the backing of the New York Times, my money is on Glenn Greenwald if this fight gains some traction (and here’s to hoping it does). Read Greenwald’s post here for more, as I couldn’t have said it better. However, one thing Greenwald didn’t expand on this time, is the one-sided story (Israel’s side) most people are getting and how the NY Times, as we’ve recently mentioned, is the biggest loser of them all.

How about defining a new term in this time of war… “Media-Sponsored Terrorism” If the pundits say you’re in the right (and if one does, they all do), then nevermind the child who lost his sight while just trying to get some clothes from his house. How was he supposed to know Friedman was advocating the use of white phosphorus in Sunday’s paper?

“… Pay no attention to those Washington pundits cheering the fighting in Gaza as they did the bloodletting in Iraq. Killing is cheap and war is a sport in a city where life and death become abstractions of policy.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.