by Russell Cole

What is more dangerous to passenger airplanes, human breastmilk or Dell laptop computers?

It is a good thing that the security measures safeguarding passengers of jet airplanes against threats that are conceived on an ad hoc basis, only after they are learned from the intending terrorists themselves, are finally being implemented.

It is only natural to suspect that terrorists will deploy the exact same techniques that have already been discovered by Homeland Security. Therefore, it is a good thing that our safties are in the hands of officials who are more than capable of ignoring potential threats that might be actualized by terrorists in the future in order to exhaust their energies upon developing measures to guard against terrorist techniques that have already been attempted.

An excellent exemplar of this philosophy of law enforcement is the current security measures being institutionalized at airports. Since terrorists have already attempted to use liquid explosives, we can infer that they are going to use the same technique in furture operations. This is why it is so important that liquids such as human breast milk are being guarded against.

I have never personally seen breast milk explode. Then again, I have had few encounters with breast milk of which I am aware. On the other, the explosion of Dell laptop computers is something that might occur in the present and future, and, therefore, should not consume the precious intellectual resources of those who are commissioned with assuring our security on planes. Consequently, we can thank those in charge of Homeland Security for preventing against plots that have already been foiled while ignoring potential threats, such as the explosion of a Dell Laptop computer during a flight.

Tags: airport security, big brother, bill of rights, empire, flying, homeland security, liberty, National, power, Russell Coles Blog, Terrorism, TSA
Categories: Commentary, National, liberty, bill of rights, Russell Cole's Blog, Power, Homeland Security, Terrorism
2 Comments »

Sarah Boseley, health editor
Monday June 26, 2006
The Guardian
Drug companies are accused today of endangering public health through widescale marketing malpractices, ranging from covertly attempting to persuade consumers that they are ill to bribing doctors and misrepresenting the results of safety and efficacy tests on their products.

In a report that charts the scale of illicit practices by drug companies in the UK and across Europe, Consumers International - the world federation of consumer organisations - says people are not being given facts about the medicines they take because the companies hide the marketing tactics on which they spend billions. “Irresponsible marketing practices form a serious, persistent and widespread problem among the entire pharmaceutical industry,” says the report, which analyses the conduct of 20 of the biggest companies, two of which are British. It calls for tougher government controls and for the companies to put their house in order.Scandals such as the withdrawal of Vioxx, a drug to relieve pain and inflammation in arthritis, show that unethical drug promotion is a consumer concern, says the report. Merck withdrew the drug in September 2004, but allegedly knew it could increase the chances of heart attacks and strokes from 2000 and has been accused of manipulating study results to play down the risk. More than 6,000 lawsuits have been filed against the company in the United States by people who claim they suffered heart attacks as a result of the drug, or by their families.

Special reports
Medicine and healthUseful links
British Medical Association
Department of Health
General Medical Council
Health on the Net Foundation
Institute of Cancer Research
Medical Research Council
NHS Direct
Royal Institute of Public Health

Tags: manufactured consent
Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

Something we can Coalesce our Recollections around in order to create the Shared Sense of History necessary for a Collective Cause to take shape in the Present 

1776 LIBERTY FLAG

Per Library of Congress: “Fort Moultrie Flag, rectangular, a royal blue field with a crescent moon in the ‘north west’ quadrant & capitol block letters L I B E R T Y centered in the lower third of the body.???

In 1776, Rebel Colonial Colonel William Moultrie commanded the defenses of Charleston, South Carolina. He ordered and supervised the construction of a fortification on (then) ‘Sulivans Island’. This facility was located at the entrance of Charleston harbor and would later bear Colonel Moultrie’s name. Later yet, it would the site of the failed infantry charge by the all black Union Civil War Infantry Unit as depicted in the major motion picture ‘Glory’. On June 28th, 1776, British Naval and German Hussein ‘shock troop’ units attacked the peoples’ army. While the colonial elites argued over commas and semi colons in Philadelphia more average, every day folks repulsed the globe’s premiere sea and land combat units.

The primitive installation was mostly constructed of palmetto trees* and sand berms. The Royalist - Loyalist take over attempt ended in a crushing defeat. This populist victory helped to keep the English out of South Carolina until 1780. Until General Washington’s December 1776 victories in New Jersey, this stubborn resistance was the high light of the colonial effort for independence? * official flag emblem and state foliage of South Carolina….

Andy Jackson silently toils for the Democratic Party on the twenty dollar bill and ‘Honest Abe’ represents the GOP on every penny— Jefferson is an ubiquitous emblem, originally for the Dems and, more of late, for the Libertarians. But during the last decade the populist Citizens For A Better Veterans Home in California has also been bothered about the lack of using the Fort Moultrie Flag as an official third party banner.

As early as 1776 there existed this free, no cost, uncopyrighted, no fee, public domain completely unexploited by True Independents [“Decline To State???] and all third party types. The Fort Moultrie icon even has the word ‘Liberty’ prominently displayed. So much than the circle of stars or the ‘Don’t Tred On Me’ snake banner, the Fort Moultrie emblem is tailor made for non Dems and non GOP fighting for the nation and against the two party duopoly. And here it is, over half a decade into the 21st Century and over 230 years since that historic battle in Dixie, and this lost opportunity just stares back, unblinkingly, from the long, long wall of American History. Many Populist activists sign off their correspondence with ‘for Liberty’. Maybe we should wave the LIBERTY flag also! Could someone please explain this gross dioctomy to us?

Doctor Paul Wayne Snyder [PhD], John Dennis Coffey, Mary “Tish??? Firmiss, Philip Sawyer, Ivann Greene, Harry Martin, Jane Wagner and over a hundred other anti establishment patriots and veterans’ advocates have been fighting the corrupt elites of the sullied ‘Veterans Industry’ since May 1998. Citizens For A Better Veterans Home sincerely promotes the use of the Fort Moultrie Flag, the 21st Century Peace Symbol [the three bladed wind powered electric energy generator], Direct Democracy guru California Governor Hiram ‘Bull Moose’ Johnson, his 1912 running mate President Teddy Roosevelt, Theodore Bear stuff toys, and the before mentioned Bull Moose as icons for the 21st Century American Populist movement. In fighting the multi Trillion dollar Global Corporate Empire, we every day folk need easily identifiable historic symbols [how ever imperfect] to spread news of the resistance.

Citizens For A Better Veterans Home welcomes correspondence, comments and even criticism from other liberty loving residents of this once great nation. Feel free to log on to www.calvets.blogspot.com. Feel free to call at 619.420.0209 or 760.253.2371. [Call ahead for fax transmissions.] Feel free to mail at gpcaveterans@yahoo.com or 263 Eucalyptus Court, Chula Vista, CAlifornia 91910-3030.

For Liberty…

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

An Article by Ben Tanosborn

This last junket by Bush may have been considered a tour de force for US relations with Latin America, but it wasn’t much of a tour and definitely provided no feat; in fact, it was a total waste. Uruguay’s and Brazil’s heads of state, both in the opposite side of the political spectrum from Bush, were forced to appear diplomatically courteous, probably wondering why Condi Rice had cast them to play in this five-act farce. The stops in Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico did make a lot more sense since those nations are major suppliers for America’s top two illicit addictions: drugs and immigration. Uribe (Colombia) and Calderon (Mexico) have a good compa in Bush. Not the other leaders.

It was a meaningless trip for a meaningless dignitary to an already lost part of the world (in terms of special, neighborly relations). Latin Americans, at least the 80 percent who are dirt-poor, have realized that the US has never been their friend, only a detached stepmother; and that any future overtures probably carry price tags they can ill afford.

Why would the United States help Latin America? it never has! For a century all the programs and money invested in the Iberian Down Under have been either minuscule (programs) or have had exploitative results (investments). To hear Bush speak and say that the $1.6 billion sent last year went for ’social justice’ causes is going from the ridiculous (the small amount) to the sublime (stating that it was for worthwhile causes), back to the ridiculous (as most of those funds were used for military purposes to fight the FARC guerrillas in Colombia, or for the interdiction of drugs). In fact, Venezuela with a population one-twelfth that of the United States provided last year far more help to the people of Latin America, when you add the price breaks on oil to the direct aid, than the US. So stop the on-going deceit, Mr. President, social justice causes, you say?

But even if America of the North has never felt compelled to help the America to the South, it recognizes that the Latin folks play key roles in the USL: two great addictions. For better or for worse the Latin and Anglo parts of the hemisphere are linked in many ways; and that’s a fact that politicians there and here know quite well.

Politicians who proselytize supply-side economics have played working Americans for suckers for over a quarter of a century with their trickled-down economics. But, what’s just as bad is that politicians who refuse to acknowledge our demand-side realities have played all Americans for suckers twice that long. Republicans and Democrats, both!

We have been ‘at war’ with those who supply illicit drugs to our population for more than two generations, failing to admit that drug-addiction is mainly a demand problem, not supply. Having a Drug Czar and our war on drugs to defend our purity has been but a crock. If we stop being hypocrites and call a spade a spade, our level of success with this biological-social problem would be far greater domestically - at a much lower cost - and we wouldn’t have to cause so many problems to nations in Latin America that supply us. This is an issue where most intelligent people, capitalists or anarchists alike, would find total agreement: that it is nonsensical to treat the alcohol-drugs problem as criminality. But politicians have preferred to keep their eyes closed to this reality.

And, in a similar fashion, politicians have also decided to keep their eyes closed to the other domestic reality, one that now dominates the American landscape: undocumented or illegal immigration (adjective to be used depending on how you view the subject). Why? For the simple reason that this form of immigration is also an addiction, one that needs to be tackled from the demand, not the supply side. Again, just like the illicit drugs issue, it should not be treated as criminality. In both cases we need to quell or treat the demand with appropriate legislation that addresses all humane and social aspects, not just economic and political.

Americans’ addiction to undocumented labor is not just restricted to businesses but also the greedy side of the average Joe and Jane. Our anarchical state on the issue of illicit immigration is everyone’s fault, not just politicians of the right, or the other politicians of the lesser-right. The problem has been around for decades, was poorly addressed two decades ago, and now has become a monster that scares us all; a dragon that people demand be slain, calling for that knight, Jingo, and squires like Lou Dobbs and Patrick Buchanan to rid us of it once and for all, so that we may keep our whored virginity intact.

On his last stop in Mexico, Bush was admonished by that country’s recently elected (or not, according to his leftist challenger) mandatary that building a wall along the border is not the answer to stop his countrymen from crossing over. And Calderon is quite right about that. The US with its addiction has created an addiction for that country as well, as $20-30 billion are sent by the immigrants to their families in Mexico every year, the second largest source of revenue for that nation after the Almighty Crude.

A social worker friend, whose maternal grandparents had crossed the border illegally from Mexico in the 1950’s, told me last year - I assume it was in jest - that if the US really wanted to solve this crisis, not just for us but for the Latinos as well, we should round up all able-bodied undocumented workers and give them some Al-Qaeda type of training for six or eight weeks, then send them back to their countries of origin with an AK-47 in their hands, and a promise that the US would help once they mow down their corrupt governments. I didn’t have the heart to tell her that this nation neither funds nor gives its imprimatur to revolutions by the oppressed; it’s only the oppressors we help. It’s the nature of predatory capitalism - how many times must we be told!

As for America’s two great addictions, we’ll continue to do little or nothing, blaming - as always - the supply-side.

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn [send him email]
www.tanosborn.com

Tags: bush, Drug War, drugs, empire, foreign policy, Global, immigration, latin america
Categories: Commentary, Global, Empire, Foreign Policy, Drug War
2 Comments »

I have been a member of an organization for several months now, which operates on a national basis and performs the task of assessing the accuracy of journalistic content delivered over sources of mass media, such as newspapers, television, and radio, called Media Matters, which can be found at the following URI:

http://mediamatters.org/

I suppose this organization does a valuable service by rendering those who distort information accountable for their dissimulations. However, more fundamentally, I wonder: Does traditionally mass media matter, in the sense that it is something that should be the target of activist resources implemented for the purpose of making these corporate institutions who monopolize, currently, sources of mass communications and the discourse they distribute more accurate and non-partisan?

As empirical research repeatedly demonstrates, the content distributed through mass media that pertains to sectors of American society is - more often than not - supportive of conservative views. This, of course, is at odds with the political ideologies possessed with the majority of journalists who - according to the survey research that is conducted - possess leftist political leanings. Nevertheless, the actual products of their work, that make it through the corporate establishments responsible for rendering the news, are often endorsements of conservative policies; especially with respect to the economy and the proffered descriptions concerning the health of the economy; reports of which often only integrate into the analyses indexes that reflect the state of the economy for investors while neglecting to include aspects of the economy relevant to laborers, such as wage growth; or, contrarily, wage stagnation, which happened to be an aspect of the economy stretching back to the 1990’s that was, more times than not, omitted from reports and analyses introduced by sources of journalism.

Conservative elements in society have for quite some time complained that journalism in this country was liberally biased. In their self proclaimed effort to counteract this ideological slant, they have created institutions serving as media outlets, which are decidedly conservative, despite their professed devotion to the dissemination of journalism that is, ‘fair and balanced.’ In fact, for many of us, who suffered through the prelude to the war with Iraq, the conservative slant to journalism prevalent in mass media has become a matter that is increasingly noticeable and, even, vexing to the point of agitation.

Consequently, advocates for more responsible journalism - which fails to bow down to those in power; or ceases to understand itself, and operate accordingly, in a modality that reflects a particular sociopolitical ideology’s interests by reverberating talking points and other forms of communications that qualify as propaganda; certainly not journalism. Subsequently, major national affiliations, such as Media Matters, have been created by the Left in opposition to the present state of journalism, which seems to be increasingly the conduits for press releases by conservative institutions in society.

However, returning to the question originally posed in this brief essay - does media matter? - I have to question whether these types of strategies oriented toward affecting the corporate institutions responsible for the dissimulation of conservatively slanted journalism - in some instances, blatant propaganda - is the best use of resources. We, here, at the Populist Party of America have taken a different route toward publicizing our cause - differing from other groups that attempt to reform and penetrate through corporate mass media - that effectively bypasses the traditional institutions that serve as clearing houses for descriptions of sociopolitical reality permitted to be distributed through devices of mass communications. In fact, we have been doing it to some degree of success, as our Internet based forms of content distribution are growing rapidly and now bordering upon the quantity of audience members and contributors - a role that we attempt to encourage among all of our audience members in a strategy that has embraced Web 2.0 and social media - that rivals more mainstream sources of information and editorial.

Therefore, reflecting upon the success that has been garnered by Populist America’s refusal to submit to the authority of the traditional brokers of media space - spaces which would never have offered any coverage for our political sentiments with which to begin - we have cultivated an audience, whom we hope to make contributors, through opportunities to publish and distribute their thoughts concerning social and political events and issues; (after all, in a democracy we should all see our selves as participants, not merely consumers).

So, I suppose, in response to the question; does media matter? the following answer is best suited: It only assumes significance if you make it matter by continuing to treat it as though it has legitimacy and supremacy over all other forms of communications. However, if you attempt to make your own media matter, then - in this age of limitless potential for publicity, ushered in by the expansion of the Internet - you can acquire an audience despite your refusal to submit to the old guard of communicative forms that are quickly becoming obsolescent, anyway.

Russell Cole [send him email]

Tags: communications, Internet, journalism, mainstream media, media, media matters, Net Neutrality, politics, populist party, power, Russell Coles Blog, Social Change, society, web 2.0
Categories: Commentary, Society, Populist Party, Russell Cole's Blog, Web 2.0, Power, Politics, Net Neutrality, Social Change, Media, journalism
2 Comments »

I found this icon, which, apparently, is intended to be an identifier of sites that conform to the new Acid2 Test protocol, which is a best practices initiative geared toward standardizing the way webpages are rendered by Internet browsers. Although the development of the Acid2 Test is of little interest to most people, I could not resist making mention of it, due to its subversive figurative qualities. The icon that will be used to mark sites that do conform with the protocol, Acid2 Test, is embedded below:

I do not think it is must of a leap to conclude that something other than symbolic references to web design protocol is afoot in the use of this representation of Acid2 Test compliance.

For those of us - while in the throws of youth - who consumed hallucinogens - I think we can pinpoint immediately what is going on here. The dilated pupils, for instance, along with the unusually prominent smile, are clear give aways that the term, acid, here, has multiple semiotic significations. Whether the theme of tripping on LSD has symbolic value over and beyond merely expressing subversive content - such as a relationship it might possess with the individuals who are involved in constructing the Acid2 Test protocol - is something that is beyond my knowledge. However, it is refreshing to see that those who have been selected and have volunteered to contribute to this project are not in the conventional camp of corporate culture. In fact, the open source community, whom I suspect is involved in this project - since I have seen some names of people who participate in the Mozilla Foundation - continues to constitute a counter-culture - which can be inferred from the use of such subversive representations.

Russell Cole

Tags: Russell Coles Blog
Categories: Commentary, Russell Cole's Blog
No Comments »

Is the US a nation of laws, of conscience, or of a new manifest destiny?

An Article by:
Ben Tanosborn

Some Americans will proudly and faithfully proclaim that the United States is a nation of laws, of conscience and also of a divinely granted manifest destiny. At times, in my politically pessimist days, I grow afraid that it may not be just some but most Americans that feel that way. It’s then when my faith in democracy is shaken a bit and I have to dig deep in search of greater strength.

The recent trial - now a mistrial - of Lt. Ehren Watada brings to the forefront the fact that laws and conscience often coexist in disharmony, that society must of necessity find a way not to subordinate individual conscience to those laws; especially when they do not make allowances for relevant change. While laws remain static, often after becoming inoperative, inappropriate or just plain obsolete, our conscience continuously evolves within us in search for answers by way of constantly newfound truths.

Lt. Watada was not a conscientious objector (CO), or he would not have volunteered. Nor does he now claim to be one. He simply objects to following orders which go against the dictates of his conscience; specifically, being part of an amoral, criminal war waged against a sovereign nation and people: Iraq. However this case is resolved, it should be emphasized that this young man is not a conscientious objector, but an objector of conscience. By so doing, he displayed an uncommon courage at par with the most valiant acts that can take place at any battlefront.

Recently, after almost three decades, I renewed an acquaintanceship with a Spanish professor I met while he held a chair of International Law in a major university in South America. Now he’s back in Spain, retired and, to my chagrin, profoundly apolitical. But it’s his old political flame that I’d like to refer to. It was our first conversation that left a major political imprint in me, one touching on the triad of law, conscience and manifest destiny. Our conversation centered on Chile’s then military dictator Pinochet, and what an incredible mentor Franco had been to Allende’s deposer ‘ redemption of the dictator stigma, and protection by the US, had only required an advocacy of anti-communism.

In that first conversation, Jaume took me back to his childhood in Franco’s Spain during the 40’s and his formative education in a religious (Catholic) school; then the norm for a middle class which accounted for about one-fifth of the nation’s population. As mission statement for either the school or the system in which it operated, he vividly explained the visual display facing the students on the front wall of the study hall. Large signs hanged, he explained, in what appeared as a descending order of importance reading - ‘God, Country, Franco’ Piousness, Study, Action� Always do well and always strive to do better. That, Jaume told me was the mission, the rule of law, and the only frame of reference over which your conscience was expected to take shape during those pre-teen and early teen years.

As for the manifest destiny of those early days, Jaume humorously recalled how often the word empire became part of the lexicon; ‘Imperial Spain’ being the term de rigueur thrown around during the weekly visits made by the Falange’s political indoctrinators. Here was a make-believe empire, one which had ceased to be centuries before, being resuscitated via inoculation of a ‘wishful resurgence’ serum, to mentally transport a post civil war devastated country to those glory days which never existed for the population at large, only for the nobility, the Church and the military. According to Jaume, that was Fascist Spain’s own manifest destiny.

Are we, in the United States, being forced to become objectors of conscience to the laws of this nation as civilian counterparts to Lt. Watada? It’s evident that our elected politicians, most loyal to the two pro-war parties, refuse to bring America’s involvement in Iraq to a halt. Could it be that the problem is not one confronting law and conscience, but one that reaches much deeper than that? Have the neocons with their false but assertive patriotism convinced Americans that their manifest destiny lies beyond the continental aspirations of almost seventeen decades ago? Is there a new manifest destiny for an ‘Imperial America’ to rule from pole to pole?

Fascism can keep its core ideology intact throughout the ages, yet show itself dressed in the appropriate costume of the epoch. Old Franco supporters and American neocons could be said to be distanced by half a century, yet read from the same liturgy-book: government-corporate centralized authority, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of opposition via fear and censorship, and above all a policy of belligerent nationalism and, yes, racism. Only difference between Franco�s and Bush�s fascisms is that Franco had no choice but to keep the belligerence within domestic confines� while Bush’s sphere of operations extends beyond domestic economic pillaging to an arrogant stance around the world that makes it appear as if no nation in the planet can feel secure, or have its rights validated by respect for international law.

Have we in the United States forsaken laws and conscience in exchange for a new call, a new manifest destiny that allows us to rule the world?

Copyright 2007 Ben Tanosborn

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

The crux of the thesis developed in this essay is extensible to most aspects of the behavioral sciences and the research practices they implement in order to generate their generalizations and specifications regarding human behavior and how it can be manipulated. Essentially, what is argued here comes down to the following: Every time we answer a survey or participate in qualitative interviews where we assume the role of a subject, from whom information is extracted during the course of the ensuing dialogue, we are contributing to the development of techniques, qualifying as social engineering technologies; or, as Foucault would have it, Biopower. In other words, we are aiding the very people who are involved - although, in most occasions, unwittingly- in fostering the technologies required to regulate the existing social structure by forging interdictive techniques utilized for purposes of restoring behaviors that are in sycn with the way things stand currently; a state of affairs that relatively few of us have a stake in preserving. With that said, the following essay is, for all practical purposes, a summation of some of the insights offered by Foucualt’s geneology and the understanding of power he develops in opposition to its preemptive understanding, as it has assumed form in the more conventional sociological ideology introduced by Weber.

I believe the best way of revolting against the sexual identities that have been implanted into our bodies, such as homosexual, heterosexual and so forth, by the various medical community disciplines, such as psychiatrists, psychologists, demographers, and sociologists of the family, is to stop talking about sex as if it is a behavior serving as an indicator of some underlying psychic condition that, in turn, marks some deep and character defining identity; subsequently, coming to dominate the way we think about ourselves as well as the way - and these two dynamics are, of course, related to one another - others perceive us. All of this creates the context in which our actions; our abilities and penchants; our propensities; are interpreted. Consequentially, the ongoing undergoing of disciplinary treatment results in a condition where we come to defined ourselves in a modality that reflects the dispositions deposited in the discourse of disciplinarian institutions, which span through out all spheres of Modern society.

Essentially, what we can learn from Foucault - and what might be the most significant insight provided by Foucault - is the discourse we engage in regarding sex and the behaviors that we attempt to come to terms with by emitting descriptions of ourselves - consisting mostly of our private urges - and the associated behaviors and experiences that we have been taught to consider relevant to our sexual demeanors are not contributing to our sexual liberation; rather, the act of divulging intimacies of our selves, serves merely to proliferate the knowledge of disciplinarians who devise technologies - usually guised in the form of health-care - used to classify us and define us, as well as, to identify what courses of intervention enacted upon us can be used to normalize our conduct in society, so our existences conform to the established behavioral protocol, dictating the appropriate way for us to act.

If we attempt to reduce the ideology of which the preponderance of practitioners embody when correcting the social behaviors of those deemed to possess pathological perversions, we can probably use the following characterization quite felicitously: Individuals should be productive members of society, which entails working; sometimes having a family, according to the definition of a healthy family life developed by disciplinarians; we should avoid circumstances where we become dependencies of the state, such as welfare recipients; we should be prone to avoid criminal conduct; ect.; all of which can be understood - within the context of disciplinarian praxes - as the production of productive citizens.

However, such an existential transformation of our Selves into the standardized forms endorsed and implemented by disciplinarians, is by no means constitutive of a promotion of our own interests. Instead, we are simply re-tailored to conform with the expectations that have been developed and naturalized - into the realm of social knowledge that is taken-for-granted and rarely questioned - concerning the proper comportment of individuals belonging to society, which does not necessarily account for our own exploitations within the systemization of social relations comprising the society to which we contribute through our labors, (a term that expands to include most every aspect of our material beings; even child rearing and raising).

By means of our externalized expressions pertaining to, as subject matter, own behaviors and fetishes within the contours of the probing procedures that have been developed by practitioners of the behavioral sciences, we - inadvertently - contribute to our own regulation; a condition fostered by our own cooperation in the disciplinarian knowledge construction practices of those who make it their business to modify and, ‘correct,’ as well as appropriate the way we conduct our own businesses. In short, this compulsion to reveal the intimacies our of the private lives - a propensity that is undoubtedly, according to Foucault, a vestige of our Christian confessional tradition - is by no means an expression of a liberationist ideology; instead, it is symptomatic of our own cultural conditioning, which render us amenable to our own training by others; disciplinarians who seek to produce productive citizens.

Let us, after decades of subjugation by disciplinarian regimes such as psychology, acknowledge that sex is not the manifestation of a drive emanating from the invisible posit referred to as the psyche; rather, let us accept that the uses of our bodies to incite pleasures reflective of purely hedonistic calculations. There is no hidden logic to our sexual activities that needs to be teased out of us and rendered a spectacle for the appropriate quasi-health-care, behavioral specialists, who might treat us in order to correct what deviates from the established and entrenched normativity, which is associated in almost all respects to the Modern advent of Sexuality. How we should act as mothers and fathers - how we should conduct our sexual activities; not asking for compensation; nor providing compensation - the appropriate age we should be prior to inciting certain pleasures of the body through our own device or the devices of others - what sex should symbolically represent; and what it should not - and how much of our interests and pursuits should be driven by our sexual appetites - are all matters we can answer for ourselves without the interdiction of behavioral scientists, who implicitly premise all of their conclusions upon normative assumptions that represent values belonging to a social order to which they attempt to integrate the human objects of their practices.

However, to conclude that our indoctrination into the preemptive order of things is in our own interests speaks more of the interests that are vested in the way things stand now: An order that exploits some for the profit of others; an order that thrives off of the replication of the values with which we have been implanted - in order to be disposed toward a deferential posture in relation to the extant social structure - and those we are expected to instill in our children, in order to ensure progeny that will assume the same deferential attitude toward the complex of stratifications that organize our labors into a system of material production that benefit some while depriving others. Further this is a social structure that systematically identifies those who deviate from its prescriptions defining, ‘healthy behaviors;’ subsequently, labeling non-conformists with the encumbering baggage of social identities that are negatively interpreted and valued, according to the cultural codes that guide disciplinarians as they strive to identify social pathologies worthy of interdiction. This social intervention occurs in manifold forms, of which some salient examples come to mind: The dosing of children with Ritalin in order to adjust their modify and control their behaviors; The incursions made by social workers into the family affairs to private individuals, enforcing protocols for appropriate family interactions that the social workers deem as the, ‘Right,’ way to act. The positioning of these disciplinarian institutions in civil society makes them all the more deleterious to our personal sovereignty, because they fall outside the scope of our avenues for participating in policy formation; even though the activities conducted by the tribes of disciplinarians certainly have political consequences.

Therefore, there is nothing Authentic - a term meant to entail the connotative properties with which Heidegger endowed it - resulting from our introspective examinations of Self, in order to supply the data that become the property of behavioral scientists; to those who correct us and makes us conforming and docile; to those who make us deferential to the exploitation of our very selves.

Russell Cole

Tags: foucault, higher consciousness, labor, Modernity, psychology, sexaulity, workplace
Categories: Commentary
3 Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn

Nothing seems to have changed under the Capitol�s dome. Last November�s election results, although producing a small majority for Democrats in the House � but leaving the Senate at the merci of a hawkish Likudian, Joe Lieberman � were not a mandate to institute change; maybe some light investigative opportunities to keep legislators busy and in the public eye, but definitely not change. Not on the mess in Iraq; or the one in Afghanistan; or on a foreign policy that has set the United States too often apart from the community of nations, putting a country once liked and respected in great disfavor.

If the 107^th Congress proved to be a true bipartisan whoremonger for Bush�s White House back in October of 2002, the 108^th and 109^th congresses didn�t bring any form of redemption, remorse or sanity to the legislature in Washington; not even suggestions for the Decider to carry on his bad decisions more efficiently. And, to date, all appearances indicate that the 110^th wears the same red, yellow and blue colors that the others did. A bright canary yellow for cowardice replacing the white � mythically ascribed for purity � that alternates with red in Old Glory.

But why would anyone expect anything else when 90 percent of the legislators in the 107^th were renewing their vows in the 110^th exercising what they apparently believe to be their birthright to life tenure in politics? Just in case anyone has forgotten and needs a cheat sheet, in American politics citizens may cast the ballots but it is money, at times combined with public apathy, which ends up electing politicians to office.

Americans� confidence and pride in their government have always emanated from the trust imputed to just one thing: the existence of a system of checks and balances. That has been the source of reliable strength for the Republic, and without it the workability of the Constitution would be questionable at best. And that system of checks and balances has failed, clearly failed, leaving many of us to question whether such system can ever be made to work again in a political environment of self-perpetuation.

Our Republic�s form of government with its three divisions is not that much different from that of the other republic of two millennia before: Rome. But after what has happened to this nation under George W. Bush, one is tempted to conclude that maybe the Romans� collegial system � requiring at least two people for every office � might have worked better for America. At least the Romans had two consuls as chief civil and military magistrates to run the show � and they weren�t beholden to any party or group � who only during times of extreme emergency would appoint a Dictator, a veritable commander-in-chief (with just 6 months tenure) to cope with the existing crisis. Recent history seems to indicate that if Congress continues relinquishing its responsibilities to the Executive; America could easily be electing dictators from now on with tenures of 4 years a pop. As we have recently done� twice!

Of course, we could resort to impeachment to get these dictators ousted. But we don�t. No better time than the present for Congress to prove to the nation that they are in control, respectful of the duties and responsibilities assigned to them in the Constitution. But since the citizenry at large is filled with apathy, or resigned to wait until next election, Congress prefers not to act � as if in solidarity with a spiritual brotherhood of politicians that keeps this corrupt duopoly playing musical chairs. Why rock the boat when Democrats and Republicans hold the monopoly of the nation�s politics?

What�s happening in Congress, or rather what is not happening in Congress, defies the most basic political sense. It�s not just Democrats in Congress who should be asking for the political heads of the malicious-duo, Bush and Cheney, but Republicans as well.

It is not a political or ideological duel that is being fought; nothing that resembles right against left, conservatism against liberalism� it�s something far, far different from that. True fiscal conservatives and other traditionalists must be turning in their graves when they see their ideas and legacy being held hostage by an inept group of neocons whose objective is solely a redistribution of wealth from the working poor to the rich, doing so not just through unjust taxation but also war. A reality that comes home to roost: mixing money and politics, at the level reached in the United States, is a recipe for disaster.

There won�t be any punishment for this nation�s Scoundrel-in-Chief living in the White House or for his villainous consul-mentor. At least for now, Bush and Cheney appear to be safe from any possible impeachment by Congress� or any citizen-multitudes rushing after them with pitchforks. Americans have become civilized to the point of total indifference, absorbed by the apparent essence to their lives: consumerism.

Meantime Congress is already giving us a few candidates to the presidency for 2008, people who were derelict in their duties back in October 2002 when they shamelessly surrendered their votes and their souls giving their �ayes� on the Iraq war resolution to the most deceitful administration this nation has ever seen; people like:

Sen. Joseph R. �Joe� Biden, Jr. (D � Delaware)

Sen. Sam D. Brownback (R � Kansas)

Sen. John S. McCain, III (R � Arizona)

Sen. Hillary R. Clinton (D � New York)

Sen. Christopher J. �Chris� Dodd (D � Connecticut)

Rep. Duncan L. Hunter (R � California)

Rep. Thomas G. �Tom� Tancredo (R � Colorado)

The longer Bush remains in the White House the more convinced I am that it hasn�t been just Congress pimping for the president and his administration, but even those of us who knew better from the moment he was inaugurated but refused to set our speakers loud enough to really help make a difference� our voices drowned in our own courteous but misguided moderation.

� 2007 Ben Tanosborn

www.tanosborn.com

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

An Article by:

By Steve Hammons

The two recent films on the World War II battle for Iwo Jima and the war in the Pacific reminded us of that terrible conflict and looked at two sides of the battle.

In FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS director Clint Eastwood and producers Steven Spielberg and Robert Lorenz explored the Iwo Jima fight from the perspective of American Marines.

Then, in LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, Eastwood, Spielberg and Lorenz examined the battle from the perspective of the Japanese troops.

There is a unique third experience on Iwo Jima and in the battle in the Pacific – that of the Japanese-Americans of the U.S. Army Military Intelligence Service (MIS).

The top secret MIS was involved in intelligence and communications. MIS men translated captured Japanese documents, intercepted Japanese radio transmissions, tried to break codes, interrogated prisoners and conducted behind-the-lines and deception operations.

Maybe it is time to revisit the exploits and experiences of the MIS in the form of a major motion picture. The special roles of this unit in the Pacific during WWII are an amazing and exciting story.

A documentary film about the MIS was completed several years ago and has been shown on public TV and other media outlets.

That film, UNCOMMON COURAGE: PATRIOTISM AND CIVIL LIBERTIES, includes many of the experiences of the men of the MIS that are very important for us now.

It is a valuable resource today for those interested in WWII history, U.S. social and cultural history, civil liberties, military intelligence, cryptography, psychological operations and many other very relevant elements.

UNCOMMON COURAGE also recounts the experiences of some MIS men and their families – American citizens – who were forcibly relocated to detention camps within the U.S.

Can Eastwood, Spielberg and Lorenz find meaning in this important third perspective on Iwo Jima and the war in the Pacific? There is a clear and very interesting linkage between the story of the MIS and their other two recent films.

Can a feature film be financed, created and marketed that tells the complex story of the MIS?

Any future films on the story of the MIS would find rich and heartfelt material not only in the danger faced by the MIS men at war, but also the family love and community solidarity of their loved ones in America.

The racial prejudice at home, the frightening evaporation of basic Constitutional legal rights for Japanese-American U.S. citizens and the imprisonment in relocation detention camps tell a story of American families enduring extreme hardship while their sons, fathers, uncles, nephews, cousins and neighbors were fighting for America overseas.

TOP SECRET UNIT

Activities of the MIS were highly classified and to this day are not widely known. Information about the MIS and its operations was not made public until over 30 years after the war.

After the Pearl Harbor attack, America found itself in a massive conflict with the military of a culture very different from our own: Japan.

The Japanese military and Japanese society had, in many ways, a different social fabric, a different psychology, different spiritual traditions and was a different ethnic group in significant ways.

This MIS bridged this gap and conducted a wide range of intelligence, reconnaissance, psychological and information operations.

MIS personnel were active in nearly all major campaigns and battles in the Pacific as well as in Burma and China.

They performed intelligence and counterintelligence tasks such as intercepting radio messages, interrogating prisoners, translating captured maps and documents, infiltrating enemy lines, flushing caves – convincing soldiers and civilians to leave fortified caves on remote islands.

MIS interrogators used psychological and cultural understanding to help Japanese prisoners undo the indoctrination they had received at home.

Interestingly, in contrast to recent and current infamous U.S. interrogation and torture activities, MIS men treated captured Japanese prisoners with decency and dignity, according to many accounts.

Through these methods, valuable intelligence was reportedly obtained.

Any story about the MIS must also ask why these Japanese-American young men, mostly from the west coast and Hawaii, join the MIS?

Why did they side with America against the military of the land of their parents, grandparents and ancestors?

Although they were raised as American kids, they experienced significant racial prejudice and discriminatory laws. After Pearl Harbor, Japanese-American families were stripped of property and businesses, then forced into the infamous relocation detention camps.

Many MIS men emerged out of this environment.

Despite this treatment, the MIS men fought with courage and were crucial to success during the war in the Pacific. By some estimates, MIS missions may have shortened the Pacific war by up to two years.

During the occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952, over 5,000 MIS personnel were assigned to duties in the occupation military government including intelligence, civil affairs, disarmament, finance, education, land reform and helping in the development of the Japanese Constitution.

Men of the MIS also demonstrated intelligence and compassion both during the war and in the occupation. They helped win a military victory, then helped make peace and win friends for the United States.

They were key in rebuilding the nation of Japan and helping that society recover from devastating social, psychological and physical damage.

DOCUMENTARY FILM

The beginnings, development and deployment into combat of the MIS were described in much detail in the documentary UNCOMMON COURAGE. It used archived film, photos, documents and interviews with MIS veterans.

This documentary was written, produced and directed by Gayle K. Yamada and narrated by veteran broadcast journalist Ken Kashiwahara.

The film examines the pre-WWII awareness by military intelligence personnel in Washington, D.C., that more linguists in the Japanese language were going to be needed.

The efforts and activities recruiting and training these linguists from second-generation Japanese-Americans, called “Nisei,” are explored in the film.

The roles of other Japanese-American units such as the 100th Infantry Battalion and the 442nd Regimental Combat Team are also examined in the film.

The internment of Japanese-Americans at home is also addressed in this documentary. MIS vets tell about the mixed feelings as they fought for their country, the U.S., while that same government had placed their families in harsh relocation camps, surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards.

The value and fragility of our civil liberties today is brought home by this aspect of the film.

In the Pacific, as American and allied forces fought the Japanese navy and army, the film follows the MIS men who were attached to U.S. Navy, Army and Marine units.

Interpreting captured documents and enemy radio traffic, and interrogating prisoners are vividly documented through archived military film.

Details of the outcomes of this intelligence gathering are also presented, noting the contribution to many U.S. victories.

MIS veterans tell stories of harrowing episodes of clearing Japanese soldiers from island caves and using their shared ethnic heritage to accomplish other missions for U.S. forces.

UNCOMMON COURAGE follows the MIS during and after the Japanese surrender and in the occupation of Japan. MIS veterans explain their role in building rapport with the Japanese people.

This documentary is an excellent source of information in and of itself. It could also be a jumping-off point for future film projects about the war in the Pacific and the interaction of the MIS with their American comrades and their Japanese adversaries.

Maybe one day soon we will see a third feature film by Eastwood, Spielberg and Lorenz about Iwo Jima, the MIS, their loved ones and the battles that were won on many fronts then.

For more information on the MIS, visit the Web site of the Military Intelligence Service Research Center at: njahs.org/misnorcal

Additional resources are available at the Web site of the Go For Broke Educational Foundation at: www.goforbroke.org

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »