I have written this short piece – which is inappropriately posted in the context of this Website – for the betterment of my own psychic wellbeing; a therapy that is called for after a long day of hearing nothing other than the rebroadcast tape of the policeman’s interrogation of Senator Craig after the Officer had arrested the Senator for some, ‘Nasty…naughty…bad-boy,’ escapades in the airport toilettes.

I can say with all sincerity that I cringed during every second of the dialog between Craig and the Officer. The interrogation, of course, did not sound anything like what one might expect to witness if looking in on the processes of criminal justice. Rather, the back and forth resembled more of a situation involving an uptight dad questioning his kid over matters related to potty-training. However, even if this type of police activity - going undercover to breakup bath-houses - appears to be so extraordinarily petty and, indeed, authoritarian, we must keep in mind that this is the post 9/11 era, and we must expect police agents and members of DHS to be penetrating vastly more dimensions of American society than ever before in order to provide us comfort after being repeatedly reminded of the constant threat we are under. In this regard, we might think of those who look after us as our anonymous father figures, who are simply looking out for our own best interests.

I do not want to dwell too heavily upon the deleterious impact that this non-stop media recycling of contents - that qualified as one of the more discomforting parcels of human dialog to which I have ever been audience - had upon my own spirits and good health. However, I must admit that I have come to the point where all I feel for this hyperbolic hypocrite is immense sorrow and pity, and all that I want for this poor twisted, contorted life is for him to find some resolution to his dumbfounding cognitive dissonance. Therefore, I have no sardonic remarks to direct toward Craig.

I shall address, however, the most noticeable concern that should arise from one’s spectacle of the bath room incident and its considerable political fallout: Why the hell do we have undercover detectives infiltrating public rest rooms, in order to arrest individuals who are in search of a partner with whom to engage in ‘lewd’ sexual behaviors? For some reason, the ‘lewdness’ apparently attributable to this type of romance only seems to bother the people who are willing to sit in a stall waiting for it to happen.

Of all of the crimes for which resources could be designated in order to contravene and bring a secession to behaviors that are genuinely detrimental to public interests, for this type of crime - soliciting sex in a bathroom - to receive any funding over and beyond, perhaps, a yellow sign prohibiting against it, is demonstrative of a project in law enforcement that speaks worse of the people who are willing to execute it as well as those who deliberately sponsor it than it does of the people upon whom such investigations are targeted.

Russell Cole

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

An Editorial by:

Chuck Adkins

As I sit here this rainy, dreary, evening.  I feel compelled to write.  I do not know about anyone else, but it seems as if we are in some sort of bizarre political nightmare.  We have a President, who is, essentially, isolated from the rest of the World.  We also have a war, which is costing the nation billions by the hour, a war, that even the most hardened conservative, is beginning to concede is not winnable, in the traditional sense of the word.

At the same time, we have people running for the office, in which the current President holds, who are quite frankly, less qualified for the office, than the person who is in there now.  In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Progressive; I grew up in a union family.  My father retired from G.M. with 31 years under his belt.  I have never voted Republican in my life.  However, I have not forgotten my Christian roots and upbringing.  This is why I feel so conflicted about the Democrats and their agenda.

The Democrats want socialized Healthcare.  I personally feel this is a tragic mistake, and I feel it will bankrupt our Nation.  The quality of the healthcare will suffer as well.  My feeling is we could have Healthcare for the poor.  I feel that people that make less than thirty thousand a year or less should be entitled to Healthcare.  Except in some very isolated instances, usually someone who is making more than thirty thousand a year are covered under some sort of Healthcare plan.  I recently heard of a plan, that congress was trying to push through, that offered free health care to the children of those making up to sixty thousand a year.  Sorry, that is where I disagree.  If you are, making sixty thousand a year and you cannot afford to get healthcare for your kids.  You need to either quit living beyond your means, or cut out a drug habit.  Before anyone screams, I am writing this as someone who does not have any health insurance.  Having said this, I believe I am much more qualified to speak about this subject, than the Political hacks and goons in Washington D.C., who have more money, than common sense.

The lack of appeal to the presidential forerunners is this.  First, you have a black man, whose biggest claim to fame is, being the mayor of city of Chicago and a senator.  Other than this, he did some managing of Church programs in the Chicago area.  He is big on flash, lacking badly in substance.  Second, you have a woman, who claims she has quite a bit of experience.  She is running on the liberated woman ticket, she also appeals to lesbians, Birds of a feather, flock together, I always say.  I just wonder if anyone has forgotten about her husband.  It is because of his blatant incompetence, that we are in the mess we are now, and we want to elect his wife.  Has the world gone mad?  Thirdly, We have the trial lawyer, who claims to be the defender of the poor.  All the while, he is collecting the earnings from the sub-prime lenders, of whom he is associated.  Not only this, But I really have a tough time taking someone serious who uses his wife’s cancer and his son’s death as a campaign fund raiser and election winning strategy.

On the right, things are not much better.  We have a man who’s biggest claim to fame was being a Mormon missionary.  He says his sons are serving their country by trying to get their dad elected President.  Again, I ask, has the world gone mad?  This same man has flip-flopped on enough issues to make John Kerry seasick.  Then we have the one, who claims to have been at ground zero in New York as long as the rescue workers were, which of course, was proven to be a blatant lie, not only by the evil liberal media, but by the rescue workers themselves and by his own records.  Not to mention his own daughter supports another Democrat candidate.  Not to mention his many failed marriages, I will avoid that train wreck.  I will not even get into discussing the driver of the “Straight Talk Express”.  I mean, I really wonder, whose idea it was to walk a Baghdad street, with half the military with him?  Who was the idiot that thought that was a great idea?  Last I heard he was shining George W. Bush’s……Shoes.  I know, some of you are saying, “What about Fred?” one bad actor in the White House was enough, thank you.  Fred is not much better.  Have you read about his time as a lobbyist?

In closing, I wrote this article because I feel that the people that both parties are offering to us are just terrible.  What ever happened to the Statesmen with integrity?  It seems today that we are getting the bottom of the barrel. The people in Washington DC figure you and I, the average American really does not really care who is elected.  In some cases, that is true and it is a true sad state of affairs.

In the name of Liberty,

-Chuck Adkins
Detroit Populist Times

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

Pitch in.
Support Liberty!
Bush and his Congressional enablers in the Democratic and Republican parties seem almost drunk with power these days - protecting their interests, not your liberty. They’ve been running this government in such a way that it has almost nothing in common with the ideals of liberty that the Constitution was created to protect.
Here are some of the “low-lights” from the last few weeks:
The “Protect America Act” makes the 4th Amendment almost obsolete. [1]
Bush’s War Czar considers the draft (slavery) to be a viable option [2]
Gen. Petraeus is hinting at another 10 years in Iraq [3]
New declarations are bringing us ever-closer to attacking Iran [4]
Every day, the Populist Party works to support your liberty by opposing such actions through education and advocacy. It’s really important to continue these efforts. Can you pitch in $15 to make sure that we can continue working for the cause of liberty? It’s easy - just click the link below to make a donation in minutes:
http://www.populistamerica.com/donate/grassroots.html
In the few short years since the Populist Party was formed, we’ve seen some strong growth and buzz. July, 2007 saw over 295,000 people visit PopulistAmerica.com - up from just 40,000 in July of ‘06 and 9,000 in July of ‘05! We’ve still got a long way to go, and we have no delusions about making an impact in the 2008 elections, but these numbers are an indicator that the message of liberty and decentralized government is making some good headway!
It should be clear by now that the Republican Party does not have your interests as its goal. And, after seeing the Democrats repeatedly cave in to Bush’s demands this year, it’s become painfully obvious that they’re just another obstacle to your liberty as well. Populist Party contributor Dave Lindorff may have said it best [5]:
If Democrats really wanted to stop the accelerating slide into fascism, war and economic peonage for average Americans, they could do it, but only by behaving like a genuine opposition.
In order to put a dictatorship into place, and to further crush the American people into submission, Bush and Cheney need laws passed that increase their power ever further. Congress does not need to pass those laws
If, instead of passing bad legislation (and pretending that they’re going to “fix” things later), Democrats in Congress used their majorities in the two houses to simply refuse to pass bad legislation, the administration would be stymied.
This would have been true in the case of the war, it would have been true in the case of changes to FISA, and it would have been true for changes in the Insurrection Act and the undoing of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Through your ongoing readership and financial support, we’ve been able to grow the Populist Party into something that is showing long-term viability. We’ve already built 2 regional affiliates - in the Midwest and on the West Coast - and, as demand continues to increase, we’ll launch more affiliate parties in regions, states and cities around the country. You can help us achieve this - and help us bring the message of liberty to a much larger audience in the years to come.
Can you chip in $15 to support the message of liberty, ending the war in Iraq, and limiting the power of the federal government?
http://www.populistamerica.com/donate/grassroots.html
Thank you for all your support..
In Liberty,

Michael Boldin
Editor, Columnist
P.S. If you haven’t yet signed on to our Read the Bills Act petition, it takes just a couple minutes:
http://www.populistamerica.com/read_the_bills_act

Sources:
[1] “Greenwald: New FISA Law Means Admin ‘Can Listen To Every Single International Call That You Make’” Think Progres, August 07, 2007
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/07/greenwald-surveillance/
[2] “Bush adviser: Military draft worth considering” MSNBC, August 10, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20219330/
[3] “Petraeus hints at decade-long Iraq presence” The Hill, August 10, 2007
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/rep.-schakowsky-petraeus-hints-at-decade-long-iraq-presence-2007-08-10.html
[4] “US may brand elite Iran guards terrorists” Financial Times, August 15, 2007
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/555464de-4b62-11dc-861a-0000779fd2ac.html
[5] “Democrats Aren’t Wafflers, They’re Wifflers” Dave Lindorff, August 10, 2007
http://www.populistamerica.com/democrats_arent_wafflers_theyre_wifflers

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

I have never considered myself much of a Libertarian. I certainly do not possess a strong affinity for a free-market economy, and I do not believe that the free-market can serve as a conceptual paradigm that is deployable for the resolution of every and any social problem. For example, the horrific display of inhumanity that transpired during Katrina was bungled by the Government to say the least, and private firms would most definitely have done a far superior job; or, I should say, done a job, because the Federal Government did relatively nothing. However, I fail to understand how incentives could have been created for private interests to interdict during the humanitarian crisis, because as far as I can imagine no profit incentive could have been present motivating private firms to do what the Federal Government appeared either incapable or so apathetic that it failed to do itself.

I should mention, however, that I am a Libertarian in respect to Civil Liberties, and, for this reason, I am naturally inclined to vote for an individual such as Ron Paul, despite his failure to consider female reproductive rights to be an aspect of the female body that is subsumed under the extension of the Right of Privacy. Abortion, nevertheless, is a tricky issue, and I am well aware that feminist groups would be up in arms over my relegation of abortion rights to epiphenomena. I will say, however, that all too often abortion is positioned in the advocacies of civil libertarians in the front and center - over and beyond other issues that should assume equal if not greater significance among the interests of those who want to prevent the expansion of government’s intrusion into our private activities. Case in point, anybody who has ever listened to the painfully pedestrian questions posed by Senator Feinstein during the Senate’s Judicial Committees hearings on prospective judicial nominees will be well aware that her only concern, regarding civil liberties, appears to be the preservation of Roe v Wade.

She will ask a judicial nominee, “Are you going to overturn Row?”

The nominee’s response will invariably consist of something to the effect, it would be inappropriate for me to answer such a question since it might be a consideration that arises from the deliberations I might make when adjudicating a future case.

Feinstein will then respond, “Okay, but are you going to overturn Roe?”

These instances where Feinstein demonstrates her lack intelligence would not be so disheartening if her concerns for civil liberties extended beyond merely matters related to abortion. However, let us not forget that she not only voted for the Patriot Act and its renewal, she was an outspoken supporter of the legislation. I suspect why the Portrait Act did not register in the civil libertarian sensibilities of Feinstein as an incursion to American Civil Liberties is it possess no contents related to Roe v Wade.

There are, of course, Democrats who are authentically concerned with American Civil Liberties, and, in fact, there are too many of them to enumerate in this context. Additionally, there are many Democrats who are sincerely working to end the ongoing debacle in Iraq. Nevertheless, it appears that none of the Democratic frontrunners are in possession of the aforementioned dispositions. Well, perhaps, they are. However, from listening to their public pronouncements, one would not be led into making inferences that any of the frontrunners, such as Hillary Clinton, would end the war immediately, and withdrawal American troops from parts of the globe where they have no business occupying, unless we are to openly and unequivocally declare America an Empire with imperial interests that stretch around the world.

Clinton, for instance, has stated on occasion that she wants American troops permanently stationed in Iraq in order to protect American geopolitical and economic interests. Even as we speak, America is in the process of building the largest embassy in the word that is, of course, furnished with all of the amenities Americans would need who are stationed in this embassy for long periods of time, such as fast food, bowling allies, and all of the rest.

These considerations have led me to depart from my routines of vote casting for candidates on ballots. In fact, I have never voted for a Republican for anything in my entire life: State, Local, or Federal. Nevertheless, at this point in time, I am strongly considering registering as a Republican simply to cast a vote for the Primary Candidacy of Ron Paul.

This has nothing to do with Ron Paul coming from the same neighborhood as me in Pittsburgh. Nor, does it matter that my now deceased grandmother was friends with Paul’s in-laws, who - according to my grandmother - always said that Paul was a nice guy, but he had crazy political ideas.

I am voting for Ron Paul because he exudes integrity, and when he says that he will end the war in Iraq I believe in the veracity of his statements. I also find myself in agreement with Paul on matters related to the finance industry - the parasites who shoot craps while standing on top of the world that is carried on the shoulders of the less fortunate, whose sweet and labor contribute to our economy through the actual production of goods, not simply speculations - as is the case with the finance industry - regarding the successes or failures of those who tangibly provide for America’s material conditions.

As far as ending Social Security, Ron Paul is at least honest about his intentions, and I believe him when he says that such Libertarian reforms are the least of his concerns, and would not acquire attention until more pressing matters have been attended.

I am going to vote for Ron Paul because I think that democracy in America depends upon it. No other candidate in the Democratic Primaries, at least, has demonstrated to me that they have the character and courage needed to enact the reforms to which they allude. I shiver at the prospect of being a registered Republican. However, I will make the sacrifice just to cast my one - and to be perfectly frank, meaningless - ballot for Ron Paul.

Russell Cole

Categories: Commentary
14 Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn
 

It’s official; by month’s end, Karl Rove will be out of the White House.  And it will be of his own accord, not indicted and, most importantly, without having to ask his admired boss, and close friend, for a presidential pardon.  It’s time for the maestro directing the Washington Busharmonic to lay down the baton; take a midlife break; rest a bit; write a book; and, who knows, maybe even finish those few credits he still requires to get a long-postponed Bachelor’s in Political Science.  Let someone else direct the funeral music still being composed at the White House: Bush’s “Mess in B Minor.”   

One gets the feeling that this astute political machinator purposely never finished all the requirements to graduate from college so that he can be considered the eternal campus prankster that can be forgiven if suspected of political foul play, or even gets caught. Passing for the unlikely combination of prankster-nerd gives him the perfect cover-up.

His rate of success as primary strategist in statewide, congressional and national races would be a major fete in any sport, his 6 to 1 win-loss ratio in more than 40 races should be accepted as a reliable statistical sample to reach that conclusion.  However to many of us that doesn’t make him a political genius, or a great strategist, or even a dedicated idealist to a cause - in this case conservatism of the many shades and forms.  He’s just the ultimate scoundrel, always operating under cloudy skies but never rained on; often suspected but seldom caught in this unhealthy and undemocratic dirty tricks climate that permeates American two-party politics, bringing our much-touted democracy to the level of a routine in a comedy club.

Our “Rove Story” really got its start at about the same time as “Love Story” hit the movie screens in America circa 1970.  Americans were then being introduced by Ali MacGraw and Ryan O’Neal to a tearjerker, while in Illinois Rove was enjoying his baptism of fire in the political big leagues with his first ‘youthful prank’ (his self-portrayal) in that race for State Treasurer.  Political criminality that started then and never came to a halt.

Rove’s innate abilities in adult political trickery and deceit may have started in 1970, but it wasn’t until Richard Nixon’s 1972 Presidential Campaign that he came of age, literally and politically, under the tutelage of Donald Segretti (convicted Watergate conspirator).

This “Rove Story” may be politically long, but it really isn’t that complicated.  He spares nothing or no one to achieve his end which in the past decade has been to get ?his find,? George W. Bush, to the White House and keep him there.  His background with the College Republicans, followed by his involvement in Texas politics, and Bush Padre? before the Son, has been widely commented for three decades in the press, with some authors giving us some interesting and at times illuminating insights, such as David Kuo, James Moore and Wayne Slater.      

To investigative reporters he was an enabler, a source? but for the most part, seldom a target.  And that allowed Rove to get away with murder, of the moral and ethical variety.  Whether or not his exit from the White House will permit him to continue hiding evidence on the most recent and highly flammable issues involving the White House (such as the Plame affair, firing of US attorneys, and disappearance of emails) remains anybody’s guess, but his affaire with Lady Luck is not likely to end now.  Of course, one can hope!    

Karl Rove has been neither Bush’s brain - a good topic of conversation and book title - nor has he made Bush presidential, for this administration has shown a total lack of gray matter in everything it has done, and the embarrassing man occupying the White House has never looked presidential to those with some education and a reasonable IQ.  As for Rove’s architectural skills, we all build houses of cards that irremediably have to come down.  Trickery and deceit are no replacement for architectural CAD skills.

Unfortunately, America has had to endure that horrible mixture that takes place in politics when an unscrupulous schemer meets a fool, and a chemical reaction takes place. “Huge amounts of charisma, swagger, cowboy boots, flight jacket, wonderful smile, just charisma - you know, wow,” Rove recalls.  And for that Burns-Smithers relationship (”The Simpsons”) Americans are paying, and will continue paying, dearly.

And, just as in “Love Story,” Karl Rove will never have to say he?s sorry.

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

The need for direct democracy in America has never been more apparent than it is right now. We - the populace - are left impotent as the politicians whom we elected to office as representatives neglect to embody in their advocacies the will and interests that we - the American Public - possess, whose demands for a withdrawal from Iraq; whose oppositions to the advancing diminution of civil liberties; whose sentiments concerning illegal immigration; are all falling upon the unreceptive ears of the Congress and the White House.

It has become clear following the Democratic procurement of power in the two Congressional bodies that the people of America do not have a voice in the affairs of their government. Despite the lofty declarations of intent enunciated by the Democratic leadership during the campaigns leading to the expulsion of Republicans from Congress, the Democrats have delivered nothing.

For example, the marginal increase in the minimum wage successfully installed by the Democrats is absolutely meaningless, since most States have already passed legislation rasing their own minimum wages to levels that exceed the hike enacted by the Democrats in the House and in the Senate. Furthermore, the additional sum specified in the legislation fails to amount to anything approximating a living wage. Therefore, what is the point? since those unfortunate enough to be working for minimum wage will continue to need assistance from government services, and - despite the hours and frenetic intensities at which they toil at their occupations - they will fail to accumulate the resources necessary to reinvest in themselves - through education or entrepreneurial ventures - so that they might ascend to a higher stratum within the American socio-economic stratifications.

Another instance of Democratic ineptitude involved the abundance of time that was wasted in the legislator-deal-making charade of representative democracy, which only resulted in a stunning failure to pass immigration reform. This demonstration of astoundingly acute incompetences on the parts of the Democratic and Republican leadership in the Senate will always have a place in the recesses of my memory due to the gaspingly condescending and equally idiotic speech given by Harry Reid, where he quoted Dr. Sues at length in an ill conceived rhetorical ploy to make his enormously convoluted, internally contradicting, and substantively hollow piece of legislation appear to be a pending bill that even a child could recognize as meritorious legislation in need of passing by Congress.

Reid’s lengthy quotation from a children’s book even outdid his previous remarks in support of legalizing illegal immigration, where he alluded to the need of casinos in his own State of Nevada not to lose their workforce of Latino maids. Although I certainly have sympathy for the Latino migrants who are exploited by the Las Vegas gambling industry, I cannot imagine a sector in the United States economy for which I could possibly possess less concern.

It is a wonder how this self-righteous idiot - the Senate Majority Leader - not only obtained his seat in the Senate, but came to control the Democratic caucus in this esteemed deliberative body.

To push on beyond Reid, we can cite the Democratic concessions to the White House with respect to the funding of the Iraq War. In defiance of the campaign promises that propelled the Democrats into power in the Congress, the Democrats in the House and Senate have given the Bush Administration exactly what it has insisted upon in form of the supplemental funding bills needed to persist in the financing of this black hole that has formed in what was previously the sovereign state of Iraq.

And finally, to top things off, the Democrats have passed a bill that was advertised as the modernization of FISA, which, in actuality, had nothing to do with revamping FISA in order for it to adequately address new technologies; rather, the legislation merely dismantled and discarded with significant aspects of the oversight that was previously performed by FISA. In short, going over and beyond even what was requested by the Imperial Presidency, the Democrats gave powers to the Executive Branch to monitor the activities of citizens without any oversight or check by the Judicial Branch of Government.

It has become clear that the Democratic Party presents no alternative venue of political representation for those of us who had, heretofore, perceived the Republican Party as the real threat to American civil liberties and economic prosperity. I think, at this point, we should feel compelled to accept what has become ostensible: America is not a democracy in any sense of the word. Remember, the Soviet Empire had elections, as well. However, similarly to the condition of American politics, the mere casting of a vote in an election had little or no consequence because, ultimately, government and its administration of public policies would be entirely the same no matter who came to be elected in the various branches of polity.

Russell Cole

Tags: bush, congress, democracy, Democrats, direct democracy, economics, government, labor, political parties, politics, Russell Coles Blog
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Democracy, government, Russell Cole's Blog, Politics, Congress, Labor, Direct Democracy
No Comments »

Perhaps you caught a glimpse of Tuesday’s presentation at Soldier Field.  You know, the political fashion show displaying the Democratic presidential candidates to all the union bosses in order to determine who – if anyone – is to get the endorsement from the AFL-CIO for the run to the White House.  If you didn’t, perhaps you saw excerpts of the apocryphal debate in the news, and maybe even heard a 10-second bite where the junior senator from New York offered herself as Labor’s fighting hero: “I’m your girl!”

If you didn’t even know that seven of the eight declared Democratic candidates were having a get-together, it’s just as well.  Nothing much was said that’s worth repeating, with apologies to Congressman Dennis Kucinich and moderator Keith Olbermann.

An item in the news the day before probably drew a much larger audience if for no other reason than its catchy theme, stating that kids liked most any food better if perceived to come from McDonald’s as visually suggested by McWrappers.  It gave results of a study on obesity prevention, and how McBranding hooks preschoolers; also had Dr. Robinson of the Stanford University School of Medicine, and author of the study, saying how at McDonald’s “The majority of their marketing and reputation and brand is based on foods that are high in calories and fat and low on nutritional value.”  Health foods are for show.

Those two items in the news, a day apart, brought to the forefront what could be two of the greatest ills facing America today: obesity and bad governance; one affecting the physical health of the nation, the other dealing with the socio-political health of society.      

Unhappy about how the country is being governed?  Hey, cool off, don’t be upset.  For a nation of faith and monotheism, why not carry the idea beyond the realm of religion and into politics?  Americans worship one god, so why look beyond our homespun form of capitalism to determine the nature of America’s body politic.

Free from foreign impurities, this sacrosanct capitalism, whether dabbed socially-benign or predatory, must be provided with an all-American circulatory system.  And none better than McPolitics, a system designed to honor diversity of opinion via those two Golden Arches of thought, our two political parties: Republicans and Democrats.  Two arches that hold together, lock, stock and barrel, our entire body politic; that’s what Americans should desire to achieve, a unity-of-purpose doctrine for this land.  Lefties, liberals, populists, greenies and progressives of all types are simply relegated to just epithets that the greater-right can bestow on the lesser-right, in this incredible make-believe land of milk and honey… and two-party politics.

McDonald’s is about business strategies, public relations, advertising… and plain deceit.  But you know what? So is McPolitics!  The vast majority of Americans are uninformed, misled and tricked into thinking that they can have it all: health, taste, convenience and low prices; as McDonald’s, by chance or design, keeps health and culinary issues away from young and old, concentrating on what really counts in business: meeting people’s expectations with flying colors.  And so it is in politics as Republicans and Democrats, in their alternating governing roles, strive to keep Americans politically illiterate.

Homogeneity in American politics stays true behind the mask we put on to attend the biennial and quadrennial election balls.  It reminds me of a yokel from Vermont that did appear on a popular TV sitcom a few years back.  His repetitive character line was an introduction of himself and his two brothers, saying: “Hi, I’m Larry; this is my brother Larry; and this is my other brother Larry.” We all seem to be part of this bumpkin Larry-brotherhood, half addicted to unhealthy food, and most suffering the consequences of bipartisan politics which cater to special interests instead of the citizenry at large. 

But unlike McDonald’s franchises which have found success in much of the world, McPolitics is probably reserved for the American political palate and no one else.  One doubts that it meets enough criteria for export, even if aided by heavy subsidies from both the US State Department and the imperial peacekeepers at the Pentagon.  At least for now, America’s interpretation of “democracy and freedom” does not appear to have made measurable inroads anywhere else.

Be that as it may, there are two mission statements that could shed some light on what might be the problems behind obesity and bad governance.  McDonald proclaims in its mission statement, “McDonald’s vision is to be the world’s best quick service restaurant experience.”  No corporate responsibility, not even empathy for customers as people. And it’s fairly evident that “McPolitics wants to be America’s answer of a government that lets business take care of business without interference.”  So if there is neither corporate nor government responsibility to educate and protect people, who else can they turn to?  Somehow, carried to the extreme as ultraconservatives would have it, the answer is simple: it must be left in the hands of the economic marketplace.  That is a polite way to be told in historical terms that we are marching back towards slavery.

Unfortunately, obesity and bad governance are two issues Americans are yet unwilling to confront head-on, and fighting food addiction or recognizing political or governmental malfeasance are simply not in the cards.

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn

www.tanosborn.com

Tags: foreign entanglements, foreign policy, politics
Categories: Commentary
1 Comment »

As the Populist Party of America grows in size, we are faced with some challenging obstacles and difficult decisions to make regarding the future of the Party: i.e., What type of structure should be given to the Populist Party of America? Should we strive for a strong national organization? Or, contrarily, should we stress decentralization, choosing to focus on the development of state and local parties without any overbearing emphasis placed upon the integration of the various pockets of Populist America into a monolithic formation? Thus far, I have been exposed to two contrasting visions for the future organization of the Party, as it continues to grow in size.

There is an argument that maintains the necessity of an organization to possess some kind of integrated structure, which would include members who would participate in planning and problem solving. This managerial core would contribute to the development of different actionable plans that could later be introduced to the membership at large, providing some options that have already been delineated, from which the membership might select to adopt and implement as a Party platform. This proposal calling for the Party to possess a kernel, consisting of more active members, who would be inclined to offer centralized planning for the Party as a whole, stands in stark opposition to the other conception for the appropriate structuring of the Party, as it continues to expand.

This proposed design for the Party - which stands in opposition to proposals for centralization - would not provide for an organization with a centralized nervous system. Alternatively, the Party would be allowed to proliferated along lateral dimensions while failing to create an integrated hierarchy of offices.

To relate this ideology of decentralized politic to contemporary sociological literature, the jargon that has come into fashion, as a result of the studies upon the Informational Economy, which were initiated by Manuel Castells, uses the reference, Networked Politics, to designate instances of decentralized patterns of political praxis.

This new form of political mobilization often transcends the geographical boundaries imposed by states and governments. Furthermore, Networked Politics are understood as a by-product of what has been termed by Castells as Informationalism, which simply designates the technological paradigm underlying the expansion of Internet communicative infrastructures. However, the type of sociopolitical opposition that is formed through the networking of diverse agents and groups via the communication channels provided for by the Web - despite the transnational character of these network configurations - fails to negate the embodiment of geographical locality and the coalescence of interests among advocates who reside in physical proximity to one another; thus, allowing for embodied interaction.

This condition, where localized concerns are situated and understood in the context of larger geo-economic and geopolitical social forces, has been referenced under the neologism, glocalization. This concept fits in well with the social theoretical framework that has been introduced by Castells, who discards with the global democracy thesis propounded by Habermas and Rorty - which was founded upon the notion of a cosmopolitan culture - in favor of an understanding of the globalizing trends, facilitated by Informationalism, where multiculturalism will be preserved; only such cultural differences will become circumspect within a global forum of manifold cultural identities, who will participate in a world representational space in order to express their uniqueness as well as discover the peculiar attributes of others.

It is here, in the conception of glocalization, that I propose as a guiding post serving as an indication for the appropriate trajectory in which Populist America should transverse, as the Party enters into its future stages of development, as it continues to grow larger.

[Future installment: the concretization of glocalization in the praxes of Populist America]

Russell Cole

Tags: centralization, communications, community, decentralization, Global, government, National, politics, populist party, populist party america, Populist Party organizational structure, Social Change, society, third parties
Categories: Commentary, National, Global, Society, Populist Party, government, Decentralization, Politics, Third Parties, Social Change
No Comments »

For those of us who have had considerable doubts as to the veracity of the latest claims coming from the Bush Administration and the select members of the Military Generalship, who serve as the Administration’s proxies, regarding the current success of the “Surge,” in Iraq, I can assure you that your cynicism is well founded.

As was reported in the Washington Post on Sunday, August 5th * - the Bush Administration has been less than candid and, in fact, deceitful with respect to the current, “Surge;” not to mention every other aspect of their conduct in the Executive Branch of Government. As it turns out, the reduction of violence in Iraq, which the Generalship has attributed to the cooperation of local tribal leaders, is certainly not the consequence of the American Military forging alliances with organic elements in the Iraqi population; instead, we have merely been arming as well as bribing Sunni sections of the Baghdad population, in order to entice them into suppressing the violence in the neighborhoods in which they have influence, which I suspect to be a social dynamic comparable to the power wielded by a warlord, or something along those lines.

* http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080407A.shtml

—————————————————————-

As to whether the local tribal leaders are, indeed, turning against al-Qaeda is an issue that remains unresolved, due to the ambiguities resulting from the morphing semantics with which the lexicon, al-Qaeda, has been endowed on occasions involving various circumstances, in which the expression has been appropriated for purposes of political expediency.

Therefore, the banner, al-Qaeda, has been deployed in modes not keeping with conventions or standards of veracity or consistency; other than a congruency resulting from the Administration’s relentless introduction of the phrase, al-Qaeda, into public discourse every opportunity that the Administration gets. In fact, since the Bush Administration uses this label to depict nearly every instance of insurgent or terrorist violence, it is probably better at this point to discard with the term, al-Qaeda, altogether. The significance of the expression has been so depreciated that its continued invocation might result in an inadvertent contribution to the persistent and over arching disinformation campaign being waged by the Bush Administration upon the American public.

——————————————————————————————–

Interestingly, however, there is more to this scenario with respect to the larger political dimensions compelling these unruly and unpredictable flows and collisions of human interaction in Iraq. Assuming one has not been living in cave - or, to qualify: a cave that is unlike the one inhabited by Bin Laden, which, apparently, is furnished with the necessary technology to keep abreast of recent events as well as producing an occasional press release; not to mention the medical equipment necessary for kidney dialysis - he or she should be well aware of the parliamentary stagnation that is preventing Iraqi sectional reconciliation.

The indications of discontent among the Shiites in Iraq’s Parliament - who, despite the pressures placed upon it by the American Embassy, went on recess during the month of August - point to the fact that the American Generalship is actively arming Sunni sections of the Iraqi population. For the Shiites, this amounts to nothing less than an existential threat. We must not forget that the battles being waged by Sunni organic elements upon, ‘al-Qaeda,’ are occurring within the context of a lager conflict: the Iraqi Civil War, which amounts to a conflict drawn along the lines Islamic sectarianism - the Sunni and the Shiites.

——————————————————————————-

With the aforementioned considerations in mind, it is nearly unimaginable how the current policies in Iraq - which, granted, might be quelling violence to some degree in the streets of Baghdad - could possible lead to a larger political accomplishment, where the sections of Iraq came to a consensus, forming some treaty upon which the future organization of the country could be based.

Sadly, in my own opinion, this surge - similarly to every other strategy undertaken in Iraq and, let us be frank, in the, ‘War on Terror:’ another expression that is literally void of substantive meaning - is just another folly in a long chain of mishaps that are metaphorically comparable to the treatment of walking pneumonia with opiates: the pain might subside as the patient’s illness intensifies.

Russell Cole

Tags: foreign policy, Global, media, politics, Terrorism, war
Categories: Commentary, Global, Politics, War, Media, Terrorism, Foreign Policy
No Comments »

An Article by:
Ben Tanosborn

In most countries that come to mind, there seems to be a very strong direct correlation between being anti-war and being pro-peace. Not in the United States. In our America being anti-war has little correlation with being pro-peace. It seems that much of the anti-war sentiment is more an anti “how the war is being conducted” with little or no moral basis or consideration to the universal concept of peace. It was true during the Vietnam War years and it is true today, as America resolutely pursues its imperial destiny.

You need only visit some of the high-profile, high-traffic anti-war web sites based in the US and dig into their lists of contributing writers. Although you are unlikely to see any neocon names among them, and only a handful of Republicans (Pat Buchanan comes to mind) and Libertarians (Ron Paul heading the list), it’s a safe bet that the majority of these writers are in disagreement either with the economics of the war, or perhaps the way it is being run, or the casualties the military takes and the suffering of their families. There is a pronounced lesser concern expressed in their writings, however, about the destruction of other nations’ infrastructures, or the suffering of tens of millions civilians caught in the fray – with millions forced into exile – or the inordinately high civilian casualty count, or the repugnant militaristic nature of wars of choice declared by the bullyocratic powerful. Even more important, America’s fundamental foreign policy principles never seem to be questioned… only Bush’s style of implementation.

Americans may not support the results coming out of Iraq but their bipartisan support for the American wehrmacht has remained almost intact. And the politicians seem to have a keen awareness of that, so both Republicans and Democrats know that they must put on a hawkish mask to be elected. That applies to politicians at all levels, and it is a pre-requisite that cannot be waived for any candidate to the presidency. So it’s no surprise that Barack Obama this week came up with a plan for Pakistan after having denounced Hillary Clinton last week of her “Bush-light” approach to the conflict in Iraq. Apparently Obama realized that without paying homage to the hawkish, militaristic brotherhood in government you might as well declare yourself non-fit for political battle and call it a day.

At times when we visit history and go over the events that immediately preceded or that took place during World War II, we often ask why the German population consented, by default at

least, to the horrible crimes committed by their government on other nations and peoples, and even some of their own. The parallel situation these days in the US is even worse given the level of technology in communications that exists today. It’s a topic, however, that Americans prefer to keep silent about since there is no Nuremberg in the horizon for their leaders. The Axle of Shame (Bush-Cheney) will answer to no one, and any criticism directed at them will only get the critics dixie-chicked.

It is sad that we fail to heed the advice given to us 2,000 years ago by Hispanic-Roman philosopher Seneca when he wrote, “He who does not prevent a crime when he can, encourages it” (Troades). And we, the American people, have been encouraging such crime in Iraq… and may be prepared to add to it in Iran and elsewhere as deemed proper and necessary by the powers that control Washington’s Reichstag.

One cannot help but notice that the foreign press, particularly that in the Middle East, takes solace in seeing the popularity of Bush, or for that matter the war in Iraq, reach new lows as time passes. But their interpretation of the results given by Pew or Gallup or any of the other polling organizations is likely to be wrong, feeding on an overly optimism for an end to the war, or the possibility of a shift in foreign policy. It’s Pollyannaish in so far as a change in foreign policy, even after the next election regardless who gets elected Democrat or Republican; and it’s irrelevant as to the popularity of Bush. American military presence in Iraq is likely to continue for years to come.

Americans’ view of the world, and their place in it, makes the results of these polls meaningless when dealing in international affairs. And that is will stay uninterrupted as long as Americans consider themselves as the upholders of democracy and freedom in the world; and every four years they continue going to the voting booth not so much to elect a president who is right for the nation, but they remain convinced that they are electing “the leader of the free world.”

Only a successful impeachment of Bush-Cheney-Gonzales would show a shift in American public opinion, a true pro-peace voice. And that is likely to happen when hell freezes over… or there is a true economic bloodbath. There’s some hope for the latter.

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn www.tanosborn.com

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »