An Essay provided by:
 Lonnie D. Story
 
 I recently had a dream.  It was quite unusual for me.  First of all, most my dreams come at night while I am asleep.  However, this dream, although at night, wasn’t the solemn ground of deep silence and repose.  This dream came in short but in great length in a vision of sorts and short in time but long in impact.  Thankfully, it was in a waking moment because it has always been a constant in my life that my nights are spent in dreams that are quite horrid.  Plain and simply, I usually have one to three nightmares per night.  It is a part of my life that I have come to accept.  I know why, I know how and it isn’t worth discussing here.  This is for a different reason and purpose.  Why I have a “curse” of nightly nightmares is for God to explain to me when my last night turns to a day of eternal light.  In the interim, I have learned take no ill from them, they are common in place and out of time.
 
 This dream is a unique dream for all the reasons above and then some.  This was a flight of fancy and fanciful thought in a ponderous mood far removed in soul from body.  A conversation of sorts most unusual.  An enlightening moment and one that only the mind can play party to and believe to be worth investigation.  But I will share it with you and you decide what you can redeem, claim or repute from this simplistic scenario of mental dances in the moment of unknowns in a time framed by the world as we know it now, no matter our age.
 
 The dream is one of a conversation, simply put.  In this dream, I, I alone stood in a dark surrounding in a city-type environment.  Where I haven’t a clue.  It could have been the city streets of New York where I had been in October last, Daytona Beach, Florida where daily pass.  It could have been Pasadena, California, one of my favorite places on the west coast or Magnolia Street in Macon, Georgia.  Maybe even Belgium, Wisconsin where I will be in a week or so.  The only thing I know is this vision, this dream and this conversation and what it meant and what is left to discover.  I believe the later is far greater than the former.
 
 I bent to the lad and felt as though I were still far to over-pressing and daunting to impress the harmlessness of my closeness.  My only desire was to “connect.”  I wanted this connection that is so very rare and one that I have had in times past and treasured like a black pearl in my back pocket worth more than a year’s wages and only known to me but oh so carefully guarded with a sweated hand and fervent, frantic mind and darting eyes.  Eyes scouring the horizon for any intrusion that might even possibly or conceivably be a threat to the intrusted precious in my possession.
 
 As I leaned in, I knew I should kneel down and bend to bow for this conversation.  This was one of those moments when we get put “in our place” by wisdom so simple and so “upside the head” that we take weeks to decipher it and a lifetime to puzzle it. 
 
 “Hey there little buddy” I started as I knelt on the sidewalk face-to-face with this impressionable young man, all of maybe some five or six years of age.  I bent my body backward as far as I could and at the same time, I extended by right hand forward in a gentlemanly and manly manner full of strength, honor and trust.  Our hands grasped and we did the 1,2 and 3 shake.  Enough to say “let’s talk.”
 
 “So what’s your name partner?”  I asked.  “I’m Jonathan” came the answer.  “But everybody calls me “Jons.”  He finished.  “Well, Jons, it a pleasure to meet you.”  I replied.  It didn’t take us long to get directly into our impacting dialogue.  It didn’t take long for me to understand that “Jons” was a very enlightened, innocent and yet, very perceptive child.
 
 After the usual Q&A on my part mostly about the “what do you want to be when you grow up” stuff, we actually drifted into a genuine conversation and much to my delight, surprise and humiliation.  Jons knew more than I gave him credit for, even at his tender/tough age of five or six.  Jons knew a few things and then some.  He actually put me in a retrospect parachute on an inverted plain.  He had me spinning my mind wheels faster than an intoxicated ride at the county fair.  Jons had something that I had long lost.  A simple view of things.

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn

Can you picture Barak Obama held by the ear, Father Politics forcefully leading him to the confessional to be cleansed of all his foreign policy sins?  Those of us raised under the guidance of the Holy Roman and Apostolic Church, pre-Vatican Council II, are likely to appreciate best the meaning of telling “father” our sins at a time when the sacrament was known as Penance or Confession; and not the present day, socially and politically correct, Reconciliation.  But a little imagination should be able to transport us to the days of the Latin mass… and political mass hysteria.
America circa 1965 was really not all that much different from today.  It had already buried JFK (John F. Kennedy) and was preparing to bury MLK (Martin Luther King) and RFK (Robert F. Kennedy) in a couple of years.  Communism and Socialism were evil then as they are now, and we were fighting those windmills of social, political and economic thought (change) with true quixotic charge, idiotically fighting in Vietnam and shunning Cuba for being a rebellious Latin kid-nation trying to assert its independence, finding its way.  We were also grudgingly ready to consent to Israel’s war of expansion.  Four decades have passed, but in foreign policy little of consequence has changed.
On Monday, July 23, Barack Hussein Obama, the junior United States senator from Illinois, and declared candidate to the presidency via the Democratic Party, made some comments on foreign policy that some people found refreshing, but which had the party fathers reaching for the strongest possible mouthwash.  Sacrilegious talk, Obama!
It is sacred dogma to accept that only the United States is enlightened to know which nations – or their leaders – are renegade angels, and which have the true vision of God.  Willingness by an American president  to break bread with people like Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong II, al-Assad, and heads of state of the same ilk is verboten until a special dispensation is obtained… from the Pentagon… from Israel… from Predatory Corporate America… from the Cosa Cuban, or any of the other columns of power that sustain this nation.  For anyone to buck the system is naïve, according to Sen. Clinton; and such head-of-state meetings must be regarded as “a step-by-step process” if we follow the advice of former secretary of state Madeleine Albright. 
Repent young man, confess your foreign policy sins and you will be absolved, found to be in grace and ready to partake in the presidential-race communion.  And America promises not to give you a rosary, litany and all, as penance.  Join the other Democratic and Republican supplicants – candidates in Holy Grace – who want to keep the faith of our fathers, and the hope of our children, consumingly intact.  Kneel at the prie-dieu and when the sliding screen opens, just say: “Forgive me, America, for I have sinned.”   
Repent, Barak Obama!  It’s either a public confession showing unequivocal repentance, or you might soon be known by your middle name.  It may not be too long before a black, a woman or a Jew is elected to the highest office in the land, but given past and current poisoning of our minds – from all quarters – with anti-Arab, and anti-Muslim propaganda, it’s going to take a long, long while before our electorate is deemed ready to send someone familiarly referred to as Hussein to the White House.  Not a problem as a guest, but definitely so as a rent-free resident.
Many of us have held back making commentary or passing judgment on this politician that we acknowledge to be intelligent and articulate, a “Bush-antonym” in those two aspects, simply because his resume in the political arena is brief and uncontroversial.  Sen. Obama might be taking a calculated political gamble by being bold and refreshing, since old faithful moderation – of the stay-to-the-right variety – is unlikely to get him enough support from the Tweedledee-corrupt hierarchy of the Democratic Party and its seemingly already decided commitment to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.  Some of us will continue to withhold comment on this charismatic individual until we find what he is made of, both idealistically and politically.
America has many, many problems to solve in the domestic arena.  But none of those problems can be effectively tackled until we free ourselves from the present yoke in the foreign arena, and the policies that make this country an international piranha.  Solve that, and we’ll be mentally and politically prepared to solve all the domestic woes. 
Will Obama renounce his sacrilegious behavior, or will he have the mettle to resist the Democratic powers and accept possible excommunication?  Venture a guess?
© 2007 Ben Tanosborn
www.tanosborn.com      

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

I am rendering this an open letter since I seem incapable of soliciting a response from Barna Group, who were responsible for the publication of a study:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=272

The purpose of the study is to draw comparisons between Christians and atheists on a slate of behaviors and attitudes related to community interactions and relations. The reason I felt compelled to write to the group expressing my concerns over their presentation of the research they had conducted is I noticed it had been cited in op-ed pieces published by individuals arguing that believers are more likely to positively interact with their communities than non-believers. However, as I point out in the letter, the findings are misleading since there is an absence of any indication that standard tools of statistical analysis were used in order to determine, if indeed, the relationships pointed to between faith and one’s conduct in community affairs are reflective a relationship between these two variables, (faith or lack of in relation with community engagement).

Dear Editor, 

I am a bit confused about your disclaimer [copyright notifications]. However, I intend to use your findings under the provision of Fair Use, which you cannot simultaneously publish while prohibiting against. I do not mean to be combative. However, a Creative Commons can often command more respect from a savvy audience.I have some questions concerning your methodology when assessing the differences between non-believers and believers.

You refer to differences between believers and non-believers with respect to propensities to give to not-for-profit entities, citing the increased likelihood of believers giving to such foundations in juxtaposition to the decreased likelihood of non-believers giving to such foundations. However, you also cite a tendency for non-believers to be younger in age than believers. Do you control for age when comparing the likelihood of non-believers giving to charities in comparison to believers giving in to charities? I am left to suspect that you do not, since there is no indication that you even conducted any type of regression analysis upon the data you collected.

Further, since age is positively correlated to wealth, do you control for wealth when you compare the tendencies to give to charities instantiated respectively between believers and non-believers?

I think the potential problems with your findings are transparent from the two questions stated above. However, before rushing to any judgments, I certainly wanted to give you an opportunity to correct any of my potentially mistaken impressions.

On a final note, releasing these statistics without analyzing them according to appropriate measures can have the effect of providing rhetorical ammunition to partisans with respect to issues concerning religion, who certainly do not take it upon themselves to delve deeper into the veracity of the sources from whom they cite. Perhaps, this is your intention. However, once again, I wanted to give you the opportunity to correct any incorrect impressions I might have of the research you organization is conducting.

Regards,

Russell Cole

Tags: atheism, religion
Categories: Commentary, Religion, Atheism
No Comments »

Reading laws before voting to pass them is a simple act of responsibility. Congress has failed to meet even this most basic duty to you for a long time. To counter this trend, DownsizeDC.org has created the “Read the Bills Act” (RTBA), which requires, among other things, that all bills must be read in their entirety before a vote is taken.  Populist Party columnist Steve Osborn recently took action on this, and wrote a powerful letter to his members of Congress demanding that they introduce and vote for the RTBA. We strongly urge you to take action on this.  Learn more and contact your reps here:

http://www.populistamericacom/no_pork_no_side_issues_and_no_riders

We’ve all heard the true story of how Congress passed the Patriot Act without even reading that massive legislation. Sadly, this is not the exception to the rule, but the norm in Washington D.C. They’ve passed massive bills without even reading them. They make secret additions and deletions at the last minute.  They add unpopular proposals to the popular ones to get them passed. On top of all this, they vote on these laws without much public notice or debate. The Populist Party takes the position that those in Congress who pass bills they haven’t even read are not representing you.  They are doing just the opposite. Steve, in his article and letter, summed it up quite well:

“The Read the Bills Act merely restores what the original duty of Congress was. Somewhere along the line, as I understand it, the House and Senate yawned and unanimously voted that they no longer had to read any of these boring, convoluted bills prepared by staff and lobbyists, but merely needed the title read and a vote taken. I presume this included periodically yawning and voting for another end of session tax supported pay increase for the August Body.”

The time has come for this madness to end! The effects of this legislation will be far-reaching.  Congress will slow down, bills will shrink, secret clauses will no longer exist, and all bills will be posted on the Congressional websites for the public to review for 7 days before a vote is taken! Take Action Now. Read About the RTBA and contact Congress today!  

http://www.populistamerica.com/no_pork_no_side_issues_and_no_riders

The need for this reform is quite self-evident, and we strongly support its passing.  You can help pass the Read the Bills Act.  Simply click the link here, read the legislation, and contact Congress. “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”

-Samuel Adams

In Liberty,

Michael Boldin

Populist Party of America P.S. Our Readers are our primary source of funding. 

Make a donation today to help the Populist Party grow and stay active!

http://www.populistamerica.com/contribute

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

An Editorial By:
Chuck Adkins

It seems that in Washington DC there is a great disconnect from the American people and the Congress, Senate, and ultimately with the President of the United States. Today comes the announcement from the President of the new Iraqi Government that the United States can leave anytime that it wishes. Now conversely we all know that the President of the United States is not going to leave the country of Iraq, until he is ready to leave. I fact, I would dare to venture that the armed forces of the United States will not begin a full scale pull out of Iraq, until Bush is safely out of office.

The terrible disconnect is obvious, the America people, Democrat and now more increasingly, Republican alike, want this War in Iraq over with and done. However, what is congress doing about it? Playing paddy cake with the President, that is what!

I have heard many people ask; what about impeachment? Why is not the Senate impeaching the President? Well, I have an answer for that. At this stage in the game, an impeachment trial against the President and Vice-President could be potentially political suicide for the Democrats.

Because this President has made full use the powers of “Executive Privilege”, some would say abuse, but I shall not wade into waters of partisan opinion, most, if not all, of the hard evidence of any criminal activity has been either withheld or redacted out of any documents that the congress has in it’s possession. Thus making a case for impeaching the President of the United States a much difficult one.

I do not, be any means, defend the actions of this President, it is obvious to this writer, there is and has been, criminal behavior. In fact, I am going to say something in the vein of Ann Coulter. Brace yourselves this could offend. While I believe that, the shootings at Virginia Tech were a horrible and terrible tragedy, I am most horribly disappointed that it did not occur at the White House. It was such a tragic waste of good ammunition. That young man had such good intentions; He was just using them on the wrong people. This is, of course, political snark, please; do not fill my inbox with hatred.

Although, I do not think that Congress is totally cut off from the will of the people. I believe that they are playing a game of strategy with the President. Every time he veto’s a bill passed to him, his numbers in the polls drop a little further. I believe that they are allowing The President to hang himself, with his own rope.

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

A week ago Henry A. Kissinger was telling us by way of an op-ed that, “Whatever our domestic timetables, the collapse of the American effort in Iraq would be a geopolitical calamity.”

Another platitude from Henry! A master at giving questionable, and often ill-conceived, foreign policy advice, he always comes back years later spraying the pile of doo-doo he helped create with a spray, or two, from his bottle of Sapience No. 5. Great success at camouflaging the stink; however, we are not blind… and those fecal piles are still there.

It happened after Vietnam-Cambodia, the Indo-Pakistan War, Operation Condor, the Argentinean and Chilean coups, East Timor… and the list goes on. Dr. Kissinger has always provided well articulated reasons – which some of us view as excuses – why things may not have gone according to plan. It’s as if this reborn Niccoló Macchiavelli, serving all American presidents turned into princes, is here to remind us that, “Men are always wicked at bottom unless they are made good by some compulsion.”

Kissinger surfaces and resurfaces as America’s wise true and tried diplomacy expert. He is in foreign policy what Greenspan continues to be, post retirement, in economic policy. Here are two people who would have served mankind much better by choosing careers in other fields of interest, such as soccer and music. Instead, they ended up as colorful personages playing key advisory roles in foreign and economic policy. And for that turn of events we are paying, or will be paying, the piper for generations to come.

Whether is raw Macchiavellianism, some version of von Rochau’s realpolitik, or just a grown-in-America vision of galactic manifest destiny, Kissinger’s four decades of devout dedication to it has received mixed reviews in the short term; something which is bound to spell failure in the long term, certainly in the yet to be written history books.

America’s exit from Iraq will be a geopolitical calamity for the United States in its quest for regional dominance. But it won’t have to be a geopolitical calamity for the region itself other than perhaps Israel’s expectations, and even that is questionable if a plan for peace is quickly drafted and enacted for the region sans interference from the US.

The greater calamity will be for the US to insist in a continued presence there, including a prolonged military stay – regardless of stated reasons – whether in Iraq proper or any nearby Gulf locations, including Kuwait.

Just where was Dr. Kissinger during those six months preceding the invasion of Iraq? For all we know, he was probably advising our light-brained hierarchy at both the White House and Pentagon. And now he is writing an article giving “a political solution for Iraq”? Once again, just like all those other times in the past, he is taking all Americans for first-class chumps.

Iraq’s solution for coming out of this quagmire in which it was placed through criminal action of the US government does not reside in any Johnny-come-lately military options, such as Petraeus’ surge; or Senator Biden’s ill-conceived idea of partitioning Iraq; or the present course by Bush: “let me just gamble lives and money on this thing until I bust.”

Recently a paper by David Joseph of John Hopkins SAIS and Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institute promoted the same idiocy espoused by Sen. Biden. Apparently, these learned individuals failed to take a look at the sectarian-ethnic makeup of the many other Muslim nations, or they would not have recommended the lunacy of a Kurdistan, a Sunnistan and Shiistan for Iraq. What were they thinking, a model for the breakup of other Muslim nations? Did either think for a moment about Turkey, or the fact that it is our intromission that has instigated this sectarian chaos? Most importantly, doesn’t just the mere idea smack of unwelcome Western interference, the imposition of ideas by a new breed of crusaders?

The solution resides solely in the wise people in that region which extend from Turkey and Egypt to Iran, and all the nations in between. For Kissinger or anyone else in the US to formulate a plan, or even entertain the notion that America should have a primary role in bringing peace to the region is chimerical. We have done “our deed” creating the problem; let others with peacemaking skills solve it.

Heinz Kissinger might have made a name for himself as a player in Fußball-Bundesliga had he decided to stay in Germany after World War II. Instead, Henry returned to the States and the Halls of Harvard; and the world of adulation which resulted from peddling amoral and coercive advice – and influence – to the very attentive Washington political powers; and those in the corporate world, or even foreign states, willing to pay for it.

Just as Mr. Kissinger occupies a place of prominence and celebrity as a Nobel laureate, 56^th Secretary of State for the US, and bearer of knowledge and wisdom in international affairs, he also occupies a slot of infamy in much of the world as facilitator, if not outright instigator, of genocidal events. Judges R. LeLoire (French), Baltasar Garzón (Spanish) and other jurists in the international community are very much interested in interrogating him on his purported genocidal antecedents. And they would be interested in direct, to the point, answers to their questions; and not to professorial bullshit.

Yes, that would be a calamity for Prof. Kissinger… one of geopolitical proportions!

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn

www.tanosborn.com

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

By Steve Hammons

July 11, 2007

As many people have pointed out, there seem to be important similarities as well as significant differences when comparing the Vietnam War and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

That said, one of the similarities may turn out to be points in time when American public opinion gradually shifted from mostly optimism and support of these actions to serious doubts about them.

As we note current public opinion polls and listen to military experts, elected officials and others in 2007, it seems that we are now in a phase of serious doubt about the wisdom of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Back in 1970, it seemed like a similar turning point had gradually been reached after the bloody years of the Vietnam War from 1965 to 1969.

American troops were being killed and wounded at high rates. Innocent Vietnamese civilians (including children) were also being killed and injured. There was no end in sight.

DRAFT CARD IN 1970

I turned 18 in the spring of 1970, my senior year of high school, and the Selective Service System sent me a “draft card.”

Draftees went into the Army, unless they chose to volunteer for one of the other services or were disqualified for various reasons.

Shortly after I received my draft card, the second annual national “draft lottery” was conducted.

Just like today’s lottos, ping pong balls in a large bin were tossed and selected. The ping pong balls were labeled for the day and month of the 365 days of birth of the year 1952, when those 18-year-olds were born.

One by one they were drawn.

If your birthday was drawn first, second, third and so on, you had a good chance of being drafted. If your birthday was drawn 365th, you probably would not be drafted.

Looking back now, with more understanding than I had when I was 18, I realize that the tide had turned by then on the Vietnam War. It was generally realized that sending in more and more American troops probably would not improve the situation, only add more U.S. deaths and injuries.

It had become a bloodbath.

The U.S. secretary of defense at the time and his associates had been judged by many to be arrogant micromanagers who had shown significant incompetence in the conduct of the war.

Public opinion had gradually turned against the Vietnam War and people were talking about how we would get out.

At the time, I didn’t realize this.

When I went to college at a nearby state university the in the fall of ‘70 (and received the automatic draft deferment for students), I joined Army ROTC and participated in the “Counter-Insurgency Group,” modeled after Army Special Forces. Our advisor, a Special Forces captain, had recently been in Vietnam.

There were still Americans out there, such as naive 18-year-old Army ROTC officer trainees, who thought the Vietnam War was a good fight to get into and we, of course, would “win.”

But, that year, I started to learn some things and realize some difficult truths about the Vietnam War. Before 1970 was over, I had begun to see the situation in a different light. That was a painful and depressing time for me and many others.

GOING IN CIRCLES 2007

It seems that in 2007 we are facing another painful and depressing period. Many people are realizing that the invasion and occupation of Iraq may have involved deception, dishonesty, manipulation, greed, power, war profiteering … like the Vietnam War.

People lost faith in the recent secretary of defense and his associates, and there have been many comparisons to their counterparts during the Vietnam War.

The deaths of and injuries to our troops are also similar, though we have not neared the figure of the more than 58,000 American military personnel killed in the Vietnam War.

Still, each American killed or severely wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan has loved ones who experience traumatic and gut-wrenching grief over these losses. Decent and honorable Americans also grieve over these deaths and injuries.

Deaths of and injuries to innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, including many children, seem to be increasing.

We now realize that the intense desire of some in power to invade Iraq apparently compromised the initial dramatic successes in Afghanistan. Valuable resources that could have been used in Afghanistan were transferred to the invasion of Iraq.

Americans have lost optimism about not only these military actions but also about the leadership in Washington, D.C.

And there are now indications that a new generation of American 18-year-olds may be getting draft notices from the Selective Service System.

LESSONS LEARNED

While not ignoring the differences between the Vietnam War of the 1960s and ‘70s and current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, there do seem to be lessons to be learned.

It is clear that we have repeated some of the very same mistakes and we have been deceived in some of the very same ways. Our awareness of these problems is growing in 2007, just as it was in 1970.

For those of us who were around in ‘70, it might be useful to revisit our memories about those days. In fact, it is becoming difficult to avoid thinking about that very similar era. It is a disturbing experience of déjà vu.

For people who came along later, it might be very helpful to learn more about those times, and try to apply lessons learned to our current challenges and dilemmas.

It is going to be a painful and depressing time.

But, we must resolve things as well as we can, move forward and bring forth as much honor, strength and intelligence as possible.

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

An Article by:Ben Tanosborn

You know what… Ban Ki-moon might just be the right choice to lead the UN! 

Americans quickly identify with him as soon as they discover he is the first secretary-general in the six-decade history of the United Nations who doesn’t speak French; yet remaining sartorially correct.  And his likeability doubles as he pronounces himself an advocate for a strong partnership with the US.  Maybe, just maybe, the US won’t need to send one of Bolton’s Cerberean cousins to safeguard its imperial interests there; not with this affable South Korean at the helm.  

Could it be that a new era has dawned at the UN, and the organization can be “saved”?  The US is counting on Ban Ki-moon and the transfiguration he went through 45 years ago when he met America’s promising messiah: President Kennedy.  Just like so many other political and diplomatic children of the 60’s cold war – Bill Clinton among them – JFK became their role model, and Ban Ki-moon is quick to remind us he’s one of them.  

Still, while America waits for this transformation to take place in the UN, politicians and citizens alike continue badmouthing this august body as if it were a contagious leper. 

Americans have been so brainwashed about the United Nations that its mere mention often invites contempt and ridicule. I can’t recall the last time I heard something close to a laudable comment on any work done by any of its agencies; or the loftiness of its mission; or even the positive role that the United States had in its creation.  Not lately, for sure; not around the office water cooler, or any place of light political discussion.

My personal recollection places the maligning of this organization reaching maturity during the Reagan years; in a White House that saw it advantageous to diminish the actual or perceived UN role at a time when the USSR was imploding, thus allowing the United States to emerge as the only superpower.  And the vocal conservative media, ditto-heads and dittoettes, just feasted on it like vultures wearing bald eagle masks. 

For two decades the airwaves have been carrying a stridently poisonous anti-UN chorus from the far right of the political spectrum.  It has been fashionable and patriotic to dismiss the UN as a worthless, corrupt organization lacking any type of mandate, and institutionally serving double standards.  And to top it all, Americans have been led to believe that the US carries a financial burden far greater than a fair share for its upkeep.  Led to believe?  Heck, most Americans you talk to firmly believe it, regardless of social status, political affiliation or education.  Conviction through ignorance!

In the past, we have tried to demythologize in this column the popular notion that we are the great benefactors of the world’s needy and oppressed.  So it’s time we try to debunk the idea that we are also the rich uncle that’s keeping the UN fed and clothed.  The UN depends financially on the contribution made by member nations and, if anything, the US provides less than its proportionate share.  Its contribution of 22% is considerably less than its share of the gross world product of 27.5% (from data from the International Monetary Fund – 2006). If you care to do the computation, you’ll find that the seven first world economies – after the US – each proportionately contributed more than the US (Japan 167% more, Germany 80%, France 64%, Italy 59%, United Kingdom 56%, Canada 34% and Spain 24%) and that as a group their wealth-weighted contribution was 87% greater than that of the United States.  That leaves no room for doubt as to who is doing the subsidizing and who is being subsidized; at least among the wealthier nations of the world.

A better perspective would put our contribution to the UN’s annual operating budget at about 2 ½ days of war costs in Iraq! 

The United Nations doesn’t need to be saved by Ban Ki-moon or anyone else.  Instead, it needs to be restructured to accommodate a world that is far different today from that in 1945 when the UN Charter was adopted… then catering to the wishes and demands of those victorious in World War II.  Not only is the world different now, but it’s becoming more so as economics and other factors influence the behavior of nations and regions, creating new demands for rights, or better formulas for conviviality, now denied them.  In the next two or three decades, China, India, the Union of African States, a federation of former Soviet republics, and associations or confederations of Latin American, Middle Eastern and Asian nations will be sitting around the international table using exactly same-height chairs as the US, the EU, and Japan.  Not a question of if, but when.

One thing the UN cannot be, nor allowed to be, is an instrument of foreign policy for a dominant superpower: an imprimatur to injustice and even genocide via misapplication of sanctions.  Our most recent example was post-Gulf War I, when improperly executed sanctions cost the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children, perhaps more.  That is “legalized genocide” no matter how we try to mask it or justify it: humanely, juridically or morally.

Justice, peace, security, human rights and international development should not be left up to the dictates of any one superpower, nor any elite privileged group such as the G8. If Ban Ki-moon wants to do something worthwhile and heroic, he can do so by preparing the land to sow the seeds of change for a better all-inclusive world.  And no better place to start the restructure than with the symbolism that can be attached to a new seat, a spanking new headquarters. 

Instead of starting renovations next year on the New York enclave, why not break ground on a new headquarters located where it makes a lot more sense; such as in Madagascar, Sri-Lanka or a dozen other places geopolitically more adequate than the Big Apple.  Such move might even afford collateral economic benefits; for one, the possibility of transforming the UN building into a new world trade center.  At the very least one would no longer find city officials in New York frustrated in their inability to collect on all those parking violations cited to those smart-alecky UN diplomats.

The UN doesn’t need “saving”… it only requires “restructuring” to moderate a long-term peaceful, just world.  Non-imperialist Americans should be very eager to accept such restructure for we are always hearing people say, “we are tired of being the world’s policeman.”  Well, here is our chance to prove it.  So, Ban Ki-moon, do us a favor and don’t partner with us, just do right by the UN and, by extension, you’ll do right by us.

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn

www.tanosborn.com    

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

Despite the best efforts of the Luddite, Jim Crow bigots residing in the backwater town of Jena, Louisiana, the cap is about to burst on these white supremacists, who are in the process of committing what amounts to a lynching of several, young African-American males. This clinical lynching is being conducted under the veneer of a juridical canard. The African-American high school students presently face decades in prison for charges related to an assault that was committed upon a white student in the Jena, LA school district. The African-American students, who have been charged with attempted murder, allegedly assaulted a white student. However, if one is to learn about the circumstances under which these charges have been leveled against the African-American male high school students, a picture emerges that screams of injustice, resulting from a racism that is so severe that I was shocked when I became fully familiar with these insidious events.

Apparently, this whole incident began after African-American students, during their launch break, sat under a tree that had been the providence of white students. In reaction to this apparent affront by the African-Americans, the next day white students had tied lynching ropes from the trees under which the African-Americans had sat. Despite the fact that this symbolic gesture on the part of the young aspiring Klan members constituted nothing less that a direct threat of murder directed against the African-American high school students - where a bystander would be left only to assume that the lives of the black students were in immediate peril - the white students responsible for this unforgivable threat were given a three day suspension. On the days that followed, the assault, for which the Black teenage boys are accused, took place. The African-American adolescent males were arrested and charged, not with simple battery, but attempted murder and the reduced crime of aggravated assault. These hyperbolic charges are only applicable in instances where a deadly weapon is used, according to Louisiana statutes. The first of the Black males to stand trial was convicted for the lesser charge of aggravated assault. According to the jury, the African-American boy’s tennis shoes qualified as a deadly weapon.

To make this whole affair even more sickening, the jury was all white. Additionally, during the case, the judge preceding over the trial had issued a gag order on all witnesses. Consequentially, the parents of the African-Americans, who were to take the stand in defense of their children, were prevented under threat of contempt from making public issue out of this miscarriage of justice; consequentially, the parents were precluded from pursuing recourse through an appeal to the innumerable law professors who would have accepted this case pro bono!

To read more of this revolting affair, you can begin by visiting an article that someone has put up on Wikipedia. It has been marked as potentially biased, but from what I have gathered from other sources, including interviews that were taken by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, the account on Wikipedia appears to be, for the most part, spot on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_High_School

With the events that have taken place in Jena, LA, I am going to return to the issue of the Tenth Amendment and its properly conceived relation to the Fourteenth Amendment.

I had written three controversial essays focusing on the candidacy of Ron Paul. I had criticized Paul for opposing legislation and certain reforms, which could be implemented by Presidential Decree, that would effectively contribute to the alleviation of the discrimination faced by gays, lesbians, and cross-gender. Paul, of course, explained away his refusal to adopt platform positions in support of the establishment of measures contributing to the equal rights and opportunities by all members of society, via appeal to a Libertarian ideological tenet that embraces the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution over and beyond other Amendments that might lead to divergent conclusions with respect to the appropriate role of the Federal Government and its interventions into social affairs that might alternatively be left to the states in order to regulate. Using the Tenth Amendment and its implications as premises, Paul essentially concluded that the inclusion of gays in the military as well as the extension of Federal Hate Crime Statutes to include crimes motivated out of hate for gays, lesbians, and cross-gender were decisions better left to, in the case of the former, the Military - and its own independent deliberations regarding its Uniform Code of Conduct - and, in the latter, the States and municipalities, who, in the absence of Federal intervention, would assume full responsible for the prosecution of crimes against these sexual minorities.

In opposition to Paul’s stance, I had countered by contending that Federal intervention has been historically demonstrated as a necessary device to extend civil liberties and citizenship rights to marginalized minorities who suffer from persecution and exclusionary practices within the provincial affairs of certain states. In short, my conclusions came down to unavoidable inferences drawn from the brute raw fact that without Federal interdiction these vulnerable minorities might not have their rights protected. I further argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was at stake - which in my opinion is far more significant than any appeal made to the nebulously defined Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment - if one analyzes it with care - does not make specific references to the instances in which it should be prioritized over and beyond other possibly germane and applicable Amendments. In other words, rather than an Amendment intended to delineate specific rights, such as a clear and certain range of defined circumstances, where states should be deferred the sole authority when it comes to issues of civil liberties - the Tenth Amendment, according to my readings, appears to be intended only to limit Federal intrusions when the National Government is in the process of curtailing rights. However, in instances, such as hate crimes, the Federal Government is not inhibiting individuals from practicing types of social actions that fall under the extension of their own negative rights. Contrarily, the Federal Government is merely extending civil liberties by protecting the rights of vulnerable segments of society, who all too often are the deliberate and persistent targets of crimes, which impede the minorities from enjoying their own personal liberties, motivated out hate for the social minorities and the characteristics, which they embody, that make them socially different and identifiable as social outsiders.

This is not to say that the Tenth Amendment should not take on any significance and it should not be appealed to in instances where the Federal Government is in the process of extending its authority in a modality that is an affront to civil liberties. However, conversely, the Tenth Amendment should not be used as a juridical-politico artifice for what amounts to curtailing civil liberties by deferring the responsibility for protecting individual rights to the judgments of states and their provincial practices, in which the manifestation of racism and hate related crimes might be afoot, leading to the legalization of practices that only serve to curtail the rights of minorities. I think that most would agree that the Golden Rule - although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution - nevertheless, serves as a guiding post for the formation of our best conclusions regarding what social conduct is permissible versus actions on the part of individuals and groups that should be interdicted. Those who act upon others in a manner that prevents the enjoyment of liberties by those upon whom the actions are committed should expect no better by other agencies who might act upon them. I cannot put it any more succinctly.
Returning to the case in Jena, I cannot think of a more compelling example of why the Federal Government must sometimes be permitted to intervene in order to prevent the most egregious instances of the persecuting of disliked minorities. To reiterate, Ron Paul needs to go back to the drawing board, and thoroughly recalculate his position on Federal hate crimes as well as the rights of sexual minorities.
Russell Cole

Tags: bill of rights, constitution, decentralization, democracy, education, government, National, politics, power, Russell Coles Blog, social responsibility, society, sociology
Categories: Commentary, National, Society, Democracy, constitution, government, Russell Cole's Blog, Decentralization, Education, Power, Politics, Sociology, social responsibility
5 Comments »

For the past so many weeks, I have been publishing on the Midwest Populist site essays written by atheists in defense of atheism and in opposition to religious interpretations of atheists in less than flattering modes of conceptualization.

Although, if one peruses through the various articles posted in support of atheology, he or she will surely notice responses that have reacted adversely to this theme, I can, nevertheless, in all candor, happily report that the positive feedback has outweighed the negative responses by several fold.

Due to this initial positive feedback, I am going to extend this experiment another step. All too typically, as Americans, we shutter from criticizing particular religious denominations, as though they are outside the realm of acceptable social and political debate and discursive confrontation. However, if we are to look though the other side of the lens, religious leaders and public figures who operate under pretenses of religiosity, are all too quick to interject their opinions and religious interpretations onto the sphere of American political and civil activity.

For example, Boston Church officials publicly condemned John Kerry’s support of female reproductive rights, and publicly threatened to Excommunicate him. Such a mandate is not something I would normally think twice about. However, conventionally, Excommunications are private affairs and rarely involve, even, any ceremonial components to their execution. Rather, these affairs most usually consist of a private agreement between the Church and the individual who is being ‘condemned to eternal hellfire,’ when the individual is convinced that he cannot ask for forgiveness for a particular action that the Church interprets as a grave sin, because he or she is in irreconcilable conflict with Church Doctrine, since he or she refuses accept that Church Doctrine is correct in respect to this matter. Finally, if the banished member of the Church comes to interpret his suspect actions in accord with Church Doctrine and, indeed, as an instance of sinful behavior, then he or she can actually return to the Church, ask for forgiveness, and once again receive the Sacraments.

Therefore, John Kerry was treated differently than most every other member of the Roman Catholic Church. Rather than having his dispute with Church Doctrine treated as a private matter between Kerry and the Church, he was publicly castigated as someone unworthy of the Sacraments. I think the motivation for this atypical action on the part of the Church is more than transparent. Church Officials were attempting to impact the political decision-making of their followers, and, in this instance, it was willing to sacrifice the integrity of its procedures and protocols by addressing its dispute with Kerry according to a profoundly different mode of action than it would when treating another member of the Church. Kerry was, to speak, a human sacrifice.

Although I do not want to address this issue as a matter of Church versus State, where a religious institution risks lost of its tax exempt status if it bullies from the pulpit upon matters that are directly political, I do want to explore an even murkier issue that is illuminated from these types of controversies. Specifically, I want to ask, if religious institutions can voice their opinions regarding civil and political matters, then, why cannot the same scrutiny and evaluative judgment-making be recast upon religious institutions regarding their interpretations of the cosmic and the subsequent practices that they come to adopt in reflection of the metaphysics they intellectually embrace. As church leaders often say, one cannot be political without using his or her faith when coming to decisions concerning the affairs of state. If we are to deem this assertion as permissible, then, conversely, those who use reality-based reasoning when determining the correct course of action when confronting matters of political contention should be given the same latitude, and we should have no inhibitions impeding us from criticizing the form of faith from which an adversarial political position is formed.

Allow me to demonstrate what I am getting at through a concrete exemplar: The Church maintains that anyone who facilitates - and facilitate is used quite loosely in this discourse - a woman’s liberties when it comes to reproductive practices should be Excommunicated and, in terms that are civic, condemned to prison. Therefore, accepting my doctrine, one on the other side of this debate might counter:

The Church offers Sacraments that involved human cannibalism as well as the weekly re-enactment of a human sacrifice. Given this, why should this institution along with its bizarre cannibalistic practices have any credibility when it comes to adjudicating matters concerning what constitutes human life as well as who should make decisions regarding female reproductive rights?

I realize that this statement is provocative, but, nonetheless, it cuts to the heart of the issue; especially when the public debate is draped in the veneer of morality that finds its source in a particular religious institution. Surely, in these cases, the practices of the religious institution are more than germane to the debate, and, therefore, we should not feel that it is taboo to address these types of concerns.

Russell Cole

Categories: Commentary
1 Comment »