Five years ago Bush invented the “Coalition of the Willing” to wage war on Iraq; now he is creating the “Reunion of the Unwilling” to force peace on Palestine.  A mockery for war capped this time by a mockery for peace.  Will Bush ever learn?  Is this American president destined to fail in peace as he failed in war?  From here it looks as a sure bet.

Oh that Condi!  She has got to be the biggest jokester on political ice skates, even with that dissimulative sourpuss frown on her face.  The most articulate liar on the entire Bush team – five points ahead of Cheney, ten of most others and at least ninety ahead of her boss – Ms. Rice tells us that George W. Bush has now decided to enter the diplomatic Texas Holdem poker sweepstakes, and that on his first hand, he’s prepared to go “all in.”  She is assuring us that this time around Bush is playing for keepsies, with real peace chips; so that there won’t be any question he’s going all out to achieve reconciliation for Palestine.  And he wants every Arab leaguer to commit, fully cooperate in this Annapolis effort, promising that there will be an open-ended agenda. 

Open-ended agenda, yeah sure; but meantime Hamas, and any other “unsavory” representation need not show up at Annapolis, for the mid-shipmen may tag them as “enemy combatants” and Shanghai them on a one-way trip to Guantanamo.

Excuse me for bursting into laughter on such a serious and grave note.  But it appears that at the twilight of Bush’s administration his circus diplomacy continues to carry on.  Who is going to believe that Bush, or any other American head of state for that matter, would sit at a negotiating table – either as participant or observer – in matters dealing with foreign affairs, particularly if involving Israel… and with an open-ended agenda?  

After six years of missteps resulting in splintering to smithereens the nation’s standing in the international community, Bush now insists on capping his presidency with a place in Middle East history books; to be known, perhaps, as the reconciler-in-chief of Arabs and Jews.  Dreamers will always be dreamers… and clowns will perform under the Big Tent!

Congress has given Bush plenty of rope to warmonger to his heart’s content, but no one has taken the time to explain to this president that there are foreign policy issues that not even a president can challenge, bypass or even bring up for negotiation – only for the purpose of Show and Tell.  And the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and how it needs to be resolved, is at the head of the foreign policy list, beautifully scrolled in India ink.    

The unwritten, but ever present, preamble to America’s behavior with the rest of the world is clear and to the point: foreign policy issues are always debatable, but never negotiable.  It translates in most any language to simply “we dictate… you comply.”  So there; if you don’t like it, learn to deal with it!  

It’s both unfair and unfortunate, but nonetheless a fact to evidence in this 21st century global political life: American foreign policy is scribed on granite!  How can we tell when a nation reaches such a non-negotiable stage in foreign relations?  For starts, it helps when that nation has made a quantum leap in annihilatory capability over everyone else’s macabre assets; and, also, when that nation prefers not to engage in diplomatic fact-finding missions enlisting all parties that have issues in dispute… preferring instead that its diplomatic channels be restricted to sending envoys with doctrinal catechisms and a list of “required” steps to diffuse conflict; and, should it be necessary, become bearers of ultimatums.  Or, as with Annapolis, invite agreeable parties to a reunion that has as its ultimate goal to choreograph a makeshift political solution, even if it isn’t a solution at all.

But what else is new?  Greater and lesser empires have done this very same thing throughout the ages, no?  History keeps repeating itself, even as those warnings from George Santayana pop up from every conceivable nook and cranny to remind us of this incredible folly that allows such repetition; as if men, instead of being God’s creatures, were incarnated from the beast’s entrails.

In Judaism, the gates of the teshuva (return) are said to be always open, but it is up to the individual to align his will with that of God.  All requirements for reentry may be discussed, even contested, but none of them are ever to be changed.  Requirements are a priori, or by definition if you prefer, simply not negotiable.  And in like manner, neither are foreign policy issues in the United States; and our politicians, fully aware of “these requirements,” prefer instead to keep the critical part of these issues – sure to get them into trouble – out of their own political debates.

Give it a rest, Bush.  You are not a man of peace, but of war.  You have helped drown the reputations of Aznar (Spain), Blair (UK) and, this week, Howard (Australia); no need to add Arab heads of state to the list.  Annapolis will turn out to be another failure-notch in Bush’s revolver, but what else would one expect from a clumsy Texas gunslinger who is fast on the draw and even quicker at the trigger?  Annapolis will be but a photo-op for Bush, nothing more; a photo-op that later will serve as a sad reminder.
 
Anchors Aweigh, my sheiks, Anchors Aweigh,

Farewell to petro days, we sail at break of day-ay-ay-ay.

Through our last night on shore, drink to the oil,

Until we meet once more:

Here’s giving you an empty voyage home.

US position on Israel-Palestine is as immutable as it has always been and only Israel and the American-Jewish nation have any chance of changing it.  If our Arab brethren want the American public opinion to change – trying to reason their causes, humanity and culture into our hearts and minds – a simple appeal to fairness just won’t work; not even the spending of billions of petrodollars in public relations. 

The American hearts and minds Arabs need to reach, and change, are those of a small, special group of Americans: the American-Jewish nation.  Just forget about us gentiles!  The American melting pot, or rather the simmering cauldron of diversity stew that is America, has been so spiced through the ages with Jewish folklore and culture, that in a way we have all unwittingly attained a distinct Yiddish flavor, or as a friend expressed it to me long ago, “a coat of Jewishness.”  A Jew could easily be the doctor who treats you; your teacher; your representative politician; your favorite musician, actor, artist, or even your best friend.  Jews may be fewer than 3 percent of the US population, but their influence in our lives in most respects may run well beyond 30 or 40 percent, if such a thing could be objectively quantified.  They’ve reached the pinnacle of success in most fields by their bootstraps, overcoming many obstacles, and that is a fact that Arabs must cope with and understand, if not accept.

American-Jews run the gamut of the political spectrum, and most are fair and open-minded; more so than other people, perhaps for good and obvious historical reasons.  It has always come as a surprise to me that Arabs, foreign and not just Arab-Americans, have not engaged their peace efforts directly with the American Jewish community in a far, far greater way, lobbying for everyone’s peace: Israel’s, Palestine’s, and the entire Near East region – that by all merits and reasons should be a model paradise of Semite convivence and economic success. 

It’s not Annapolis or the good offices of the US State Department that hold the key to reconciliation and peace in the Holy Land; it’s American Jewry that has the final word, for they authored, de facto, American foreign policy in the region.  Only they can change the policy, moderate Israel’s stance and help create an enduring peace.  The alternative can only come from the beast in all of us.

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn

www.tanosborn.com    

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

An Article by

Russell Cole

I have studied the development of this political and social ideology [neoconservatism] to some extent, and its primary forebear is a political philosopher by the name, Leo Strauss. He was most affected by Plato, and, in particular, The Republic. I presume this is where Strauss gained his authoritarian worldview, which is seeded in the monolithic polis speculated by Plato, where the society is structured according to a corporatist regime, negating any differentiation between polity and civil society.

Authoritarians, such as Strauss, tend to be moral realists, similarly to Plato, which provides them with their rhetorical devices needed to justify their ethnocentrism, making it appear not as an ideology spouted by a faction that strives to impose it upon others, but as the natural moral order to which all humanity should aspire and, indeed, be pushed.

However, this belief in absolutes – a single moral order that exists apart from the men and women who speculate over its contents – has the impact of diminishing reality in favor of an impression of the world that is propagated through the contrivance of ad hoc explanations for all events that seem to run contrary to the idealized vision of human sociality articulated in the moral realist’s camouflaged ethnocentrism.

This is the point at which I am mystified the most by the neo-cons: Moral realism results in a negation of the saliency that should otherwise be attributed to contingencies that unfold in empirical reality, in favor of an adoption of a faith-based form of reasoning, where one’s beliefs will always be vindicated in the long-run. In the context of this type of thinking, we can meaningfully interpret the expression “moral courage:” a quality that is lacking in anybody who espouses uncertainty as to the veracity of the neo-conservative system of beliefs. Moral realism, in this instance, ironically, appears to be more of an underlying posit supported by convictions of faith rather than any reflection of reality.

What all of this has to do with Bush, specifically, I do not know, because he is not necessarily intelligent enough to grasp the neocons’ system of thought, such as the case with the intellect of hubris personified, Paul Wolfiwitz. However, I am sure that Bush’s absolute convictions regarding his born again stature in the eyes of his god might translate into the same type of empirically uninformed decision-making processes. Only, in Bush’s case, he has mistaken Chaney whispering in his ear for the Word of the Lord Almighty.

So, then, the question now arises: Why, even as the neo-conservatives – through their follies in Iraq and other ‘terror,’ related policy matters – have completely undressed themselves - Americans continue, as a population, to fail to mobilize in opposition to the Bush Regime?

As far as getting people off of their couches and politically engaged, I believe the problem is the deference we as Americans are socialized to possess and exhibit, beginning at a young age, whereby we are instructed to demonstrate respect and obedience toward our extant sociopolitical institutions. It does not matter what people might suspect or come to believe according to the conclusions reached in their own internal contemplations as long as they are encumbered with a habitual deferential posture that is assumed in relationship to sociopolitical institutions; fixtures that we are socialized to take to be transcendent of human interference and contamination. Even Tocqueville remarked that Americans displayed obedience to sociopolitical institutions, which prevented, according to the French observer, radicalized political behavior. He speculated that American democracy might be made possible by this willing subservience. Therefore, it is a matter of reinvigorating Americans with a sense of existential angst that is the key to unlocking radicalized currents of both thoughts and their associative social undertakings.

Returning to concerns related to religion: I would assume that Bush, indeed, during moments of cynicism, does use religiosity as a political artifice. Remember, the remarks made by Bush in the lead up to the War in Iraq, where he made mention of a “Great Crusade,” that we, as a nation, were about to undertake. Obviously, in retrospect, we can recognize this as a ploy to garner support from the war-mongering-religious-right that finds a place in our unfortunate society.

These remarks are not intended to be a denouncement of all instances of religiosity. I do make a differentiation between the dogma of fundamentalism and the personal spiritualism – associated with countercultural religious movements – which I suspect Jesus – the historical figure – to have proffered the latter in his sermons, because it is only with absolutism and dogma that religiosity manifests its deleterious qualities; what we witness in the Christianity that was tragically left to us by the sexually impotent, female loathing, and physically diminutive Paul, who knew nothing of Jesus other than Christ’s appearances in Paul’s own hysteria and its precipitation of fanciful delusions.

Russell Cole

Tags: corporations, democracy, foreign policy, government, imperialism, National, neoconservatism, politics, Russell Coles Blog, social responsibility, society, sociology
Categories: Commentary, National, Society, Democracy, government, Russell Cole's Blog, Politics, Corporations, Sociology, Foreign Policy, Imperialism, social responsibility, neoconservatism
No Comments »

Dutch teenager has been arrested for allegedly stealing virtual furniture from “rooms” in Habbo Hotel, a 3D social networking website.The 17-year-old is accused of stealing 4,000 euros (£2,840) worth of virtual furniture, bought with real money. Five 15-year-olds have also been questioned by police, who were contacted by the website’s owners.

The six teenagers are suspected of moving the stolen furniture into their own Habbo rooms.

A spokesman for Sulake, the company that operates Habbo Hotel, said: “The accused lured victims into handing over their Habbo passwords by creating fake Habbo websites.

“In Habbo, as in many other virtual worlds, scamming for other people’s personal information such as user names has been problematic for quite a while.

Habbo users can create their own characters, decorate their own rooms and play a number of games, paying with Habbo Credits, which they have to buy with real cash.

“It is a theft because the furniture is paid for with real money. But the only way to be a thief in Habbo is to get people’s usernames and passwords and then log in and take the furniture.

“We got involved because of an increasing number of sites which are pretending to be Habbo. People might then try and log in and get their details stolen.”

Six million people in more than 30 countries play Habbo Hotel each month.

Virtual theft is a growing issue in virtual worlds; in 2005 a Chinese gamer was stabbed to death in a row over a sword in a game.

Shanghai gamer Qiu Chengwei killed player Zhu Caoyuan when he discovered he had sold a “dragon sabre” he had been loaned.

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn
If you are part of a noble lineage, or so consider yourself, you can be hot-blooded, cold-blooded … or both things at the same time.  For the rest of us who are often told that we travel on this earth on borrowed time, put on this earth to give added shine to the star of the blue-blooded, we are also allowed to be hot-blooded or cold-blooded, but only to a point; what is unquestionably forbidden is to rub elbows with the blue-blooded.

Mr. Chávez… can we ask you where you left your manners?  The King of Spain can say “shut-up” to anyone that royally pleases him, but that doesn’t mean you can rub elbows with him, or for you to dare put him at the level of Bolivia’s “Indian” Morales.  The throne has always been placed higher so that we can all see the monarch, even if “pygmies.”  Well, let’s put aside our sarcasm and go on!

The truth is that it’s about time that we hang our cojones between our legs (males, that is!) instead of putting them in storage, replacing them for manners that are irrelevant, and which in this 21st century are archaic if not absurd.  Royalty has reached the end of that rope we call obsolescence and, truth be said, the memories are not very pleasant.  The Spanish people, in their variety of Iberian nations, already said what had to be said back in April 1931, when they gave King Alfonso XIII a hand in packing for good his royal luggage.  It was Franco who returned Spain to the monarchy with his drafted succession law put into a referendum of dubious validity in 1947, giving it a tone of fidelity and putting Franco as regent, regency that would add another 28 years to his dictatorship.

And, as truth would have it, Don Juan Carlos I, even if one of the Bourbon dynasty, for those who firmly believe that the monarchy is a political aberration these days, the Spanish sovereign is just Franco’s heir.  Although there are those who credit the king with helping maintain peace and democracy in Spain, be it true or not, it is something that is likely being way overplayed.  Let’s give Spaniards proper credit for both their humanity and intelligence.  Spain needs only to respect, and symbolically bow to, its constitution, and nothing or no one else.

But let’s get to the crux of the matter: what President Chávez said that dazzled the king so much, and by annexed-diplomacy, José Luis Zapatero, who governs in his name.  Chávez is by temperament warm and passionate, a Latin hot-blood in politics and, I would suspect in other things; it is his nature… something which bothers a lot of people, and that includes every politician in the US for telling it like it is; but that’s his privilege, a privilege he has earned.  That has been the case with Fidel Castro, and others in history, who have swam against the current to try to save their peoples from drowning.

Perhaps many will say that Chávez had no right to call the former Spanish president, José María Aznar, a fascist.  The word fascist is super-loaded, and it’s true that all too often we overuse it in our lexicon; but let’s be somewhat indulgent; if people like Bush, Blair and Aznar gave us a Mussolini-dosage in the Azores, opening up the terror gates and giving true reasons for vengeance, are not fascist, can anyone else be baptized a fascist?  If the King of Spain, as head of state, elected or not, is allowed to participate in political matters of those sister nations of Spain in America, those Latin-American heads of state can say whatever pleases them, if they are truly brethren.  Aznar is just a poor wannabe that never quite made it, one who cannot claim the respect that he sent to hell as he embarrassingly licked George W. Bush’s boots.

By Royal Respect, the last word always belonged to the King of Clubs.  And if you are playing poker and are going “all-in” with your pot, you’d better know what you are doing.  At the end of the day, in this Ibero-American summit for 2007, the president and elected representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had the winning hand.  And if Don Juan Carlos still believes he has the winning hand, I truly think that he needs to make amends with the Venezuelan head of state, gaining a lot of followers as a result… putting aside, once and for all, that crown of his.
Ben Tanosborn
www.tanosborn.com

Tags: democracy, economics, foreign policy, globalization, history, imperialism
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Democracy, Foreign Policy, History, Imperialism
No Comments »

Countdown towards an economic bloodbath has already started!  For those required by their religion to accept the mystery of the Holy Trinity, some wisdom should come from the unraveling of the other (financial) “holy trinity”: debt, price of oil and value of the US dollar.  Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct, different persons in one only God according to Roman Catholic dogma; while that god in doctrinal American capitalism is represented by debt, oil and a “fleeting dollar;” all distinct, different… yet, intertwined. 

A few contrarian-apprentices in Wall Street are beginning to question whether the sheer strength of our economy, and the globalization of our major corporations, will be able to sustain current Wall Street market figures, or even 2007 closings without any gains this year for the DOW, S&P 500 or the supremely and ever-volatile NASDQ.  Naysayers are still but few – or at least appear reserved in their comments – afraid they may be treated with similar disdain as those biblical prophets of doom who, although wise-appearing to generations in the future, often seemed as laughable goats to their contemporaries.  

Worry not, we are told; things are hunky-dory in every respect!  Yeah, we are surging in unstoppable ways, militarily and economically; if we don’t believe that, let’s ask the man who lives in the White House, our Soothsayer-In-Chief.  Things are just bushy-swell!  

Just four hours ago I was listening to Fed Chairman Bernanke giving Congress’ Joint Economic Committee another diluted version of things to come… from the same bucket of bullshit that his predecessor Greenspan often brought up from that Econophoria well during two decades.  Both always appearing so convincingly honest… except that what we are being fed by the Fed is nothing but a teaspoon of truth diluted in a large bowl of liquefied bullshit.  Bottom line: we are up to our waist in economic doo-doo; and making such declaration would be tantamount to a confession of persistent criminal silence and lies inflicted by our political leaders, and their advisers, for over a quarter of a century.  

All we seem to need is just another fix, or two, or three, or ten more… from that soother of pain, the Fed; another round of borrowing, or two, or three, or ten more… from our children, grandchildren, great-grandkids, and even those twice-great grandkids, so that merrily we may continue enraptured in our permanent state of blind Econophoria. 

Econophoria… the state of grace in which we, Americans, are born, naturalized into, or even “illegally” adopted.  Just as other poor souls are said to come into the world with an “original sin,” or all too often the curse of poverty, we’ve been born with an “original exceptionality” and blessed with self-multiplying wealth… as if manna from heaven. 

Now we are rolling the carpet of pain for the upcoming recession and putting the blame in the “sub-prime” problem of the housing market, and the inability of capitalism sans controls to police itself.  But that is only the beginning, the first layer of a putrid onion-market in housing and commercial construction that has added trillions of dollars of non-existing value to an economy that has cannibalized itself, or rather the future well-being of generations to come, asking them to pay for all the phony consumption-growth we’ve managed to have in the United States and, by imitation, in other parts of the world. 

We have been misusing most of the existing eleven leading indicators for domestic economic performance to the point of utter ridicule.  Does it make any sense to have our Gross Domestic Product overly inflated in terms of consumption?  Or, that the CPI and the way we measure inflation give not just an imperfect way to weigh what should be a representative bundle of goods, and a way to track rising prices, but an unfunny, crude joke?  Or, that the employment indicators measure raw numbers of ever lower paying jobs, instead of a change in payroll constant dollars relative to population?  Or, that the Consumer Confidence Index is totally meaningless for a population being kept ignorant, in the dark, or even lied to? 

And to top it all, we continue to live in the stupor of Econophoria! 

It remains to be seen whether or not we’ll be going into another series of rounds propping-up the economy, just keeping the faux façade for another year until the next presidential election is over.  But just how many generations can we enslave: two, three… a dozen?  Our good chairman of the Fed doesn’t seem to think there is any harm in shifting the wealth of the working class to keep the castles of cards of the super-rich from tumbling; or even switching corporate responsibility to additional government guarantees which would bankrupt this nation, leaving us with just one asset that we would fully, unencumbered, own: a nuclear stockpile to tempt us with mass suicide.   That brings up the question: would China be interested in buying this stockpile in exchange for all our treasury notes in their possession? 

Well, the sooner the economic bloodbath comes around, the sooner we’ll come to the realization of what this government is all about, bringing up the possibility of true reform: a true conservative domestic policy to march alongside a totally revamped foreign policy that can permit us to live in peace and harmony with all our global neighbors. 

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn 

www.tanosborn.com     

Tags: economics, economy, policy, politics
Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

Steve Hammons AmericanChronicle.com 

November 4, 2007  http://americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=42271  Will the people voting in the Democratic primaries and the Democratic Party as a whole once again sabotage themselves? 

Will they “snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,” as some of characterized it?  There seems to be a recent history of this, and by the looks of things, history may repeat itself. 

I am not a political expert, just an average, middle-aged American born and raised in the Midwest heartland and now a proud Westerner living in and loving the American Southwest.  Generally, I am centrist and moderate, if those terms have meaning. And, I also have some libertarian views about government not intruding too much on our freedoms. 

Although I try to be a warrior, I am not a “chicken hawk.” I turned 18 and was in college toward the end stages of the Vietnam War in the early 1970s. I was issued a draft card and a draft lottery number but didn’t get drafted.  Sometimes, I side with somewhat typically Republican views on some things and sometimes with typically Democratic views on other issues. 

Often, I see there is some kind of happy medium between polarized views of both extremes.  I also try to use common sense, my gut feelings, intuitive perceptions and my life experiences to guide me. 

And, I have become much less interested in politics and Washington, D.C. in recent years for a number of reasons.  Here’s my two cents in a simplified way. 

CLINTONS IN WHITE HOUSE AGAIN?  Hillary Clinton is reportedly leading in fundraising and popularity with Democratic primary voters. 

Well, leading in fundraising means, in some cases, that the candidate is leading in taking bribes of sorts doesn’t it?  Apart from claims that Hillary Clinton is somewhat deceptive and vague, and that she is trying to be a war hawk (possibly to please some of those political and financial backers), do we really want Bill and Hillary back in the White House? 

I give credit to Bill Clinton for the eight years of relative peace and prosperity with his centrist policies, though some of his official moves were questionable.  And though I am not a prude, his sexual activities in the Oval Office with a college intern were a factor that helped George W. Bush get elected, which, of course resulted in the invasion and occupation of Iraq and many other serious situations, with more possibly on the way. 

All things considered, I really wouldn’t feel very comfortable voting for Hillary Clinton.  READY FOR OBAMA? 

Then there is Barack Obama. He seems like a good enough person. Smart, likable and has his heart in the right place. He had an interesting upbringing that exposed him to many cultures and experiences.  He is somewhat inexperienced, but that can be a positive in some ways. 

I could vote for him.  However, it is questionable whether Americans are ready for a president who is half-black and half-white. 

And, opponents will attack him for having reportedly attended a Muslim school as a kid and the fact that his name is Obama … sounding so much like Osama.  Hey, I kind of like the guy and recently learned I am distantly related to him (not on the Cheney side of the family). 

But, is he electable in a general election?  EDWARDS ELECTABLE? 

How about John Edwards? He comes across as more mature than when John Kerry tapped him for his vice-presidential running mate.  Edwards is standing up as a voice of working people and the middle class, and advocating significant changes in the often corrupt way things are done in Washington. 

A lot of what he says sounds good to me. I could vote for him.  But, things like his baby face and his $400 haircuts could hurt him. 

Yet, as a southern white male, he has many, many advantages in winning a general election. That’s just how it is.  THER GOOD CHOICES 

If some of the other Democratic candidates made surprising moves in popularity, that would be fine with me.  Bill Richardson seems to have a lot of pluses. Part-Hispanic and somewhat of a centrist, he seems to have common sense and a moderate manner. And I like the fact that he is from the Southwest. 

You know, a lot of Americans in the West, South and Midwest just don’t want more New Yorkers and easterners in power.  That said, Christopher Dodd and Joe Biden would probably make good presidents too. 

In my mind, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd and Biden are more electable in a general election than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This is something for Democrats to think seriously about.  Dennis Kucinich – well, you have to like his nerve and his willingness to get out there and show guts in saying what he believes. And a lot of it is worth saying. But, is he electable? 

CHOICE FOR VP  Whoever is nominated, they should also take care to choose a good VP running mate. 

Al Gore, in my view, made a big mistake by picking Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Many people didn’t like Lieberman then, and fewer like him now.  This choice made many people feel that Gore lacked judgment and common sense. 

John Kerry’s choice of Edwards was not as bad, but many people viewed Edwards at the time as an inexperienced rookie, too young (or at least he looked too young) and maybe not macho enough.  Choosing a VP running mate is obviously one of the most important tasks of a presidential candidate. It says a lot about a person’s judgment and how he will staff the executive branch. 

Again, in my opinion, Gore could have done a lot better on this and Kerry could have done better too … nothing against Edwards.  COMMON SENSE 

Well, that is my two cents on a general overview of what seems to me are some of the dynamics in play with the Democratic presidential candidates.  The feelings, perceptions, gut instincts and psychology of the American people are in some ways very complex and in other ways quite simple. 

Many of us have learned that just because someone is a white male and are from the geographical heartland, it doesn’t mean that they are a good candidate and will make a good president.  It seems that the American people are really ready for a significant change, not business as usual in Washington. I know I sure am. 

Will the Democratic primary voters and the Democratic Party make some of the same mistakes they have made in the past?  Will they self-sabotage just enough to throw the election again? Or, throw it into doubt so that they lose the election even when slightly more Americans actually vote for the Democratic candidate? 

This seems to be very possible. 

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

As it turns out – similarly to every other glorious event publicly rendered to death by the Bush Administration in collusion with those professionals in government who have prostituted themselves in order to remain in favor with Bush and his cronnies – the anti-insurrgent field manual that was published by the esteemed military academics selected by Petraeus is a resounding instance of academic fraud (DAVID PRICE; Counterpunch 2007).

It appears that the field manual is primarily a conglomeration of unreferenced sources; previously published materials left completely unacknowledged in the field manual – consisting of extracts from anthropology textbooks and other sources of information originally designed to appeal to the intellectual penchants and dispositions of freshmen in college. Apparently, this is the level of intellectual contemplation from which our generaliship finds inspiration when codifying its practices as it contends with what must qualify as both the most pressing as well as the most complex series of interrelated problems associated with the defeat of an insurgency.  

When questioned over this prolific plagiarism, the Army representative claimed that the grammar for Army field manuals differs from ordinary scholarship, and it does not place importance on referencing as accurately and in as much depth as possible the sources from which it derives its contents. Further, since the primary audience for field manuals consists of army professionals, there is little reason to cite sources, because the readership is simply not interested. On a final and, perhaps, most significant note, the Army representative claimed that all of the extracts from exogenous intellectual sources fell under the provision of Fair Use.

Well, okay. However, the first problem with the Military’s explanation for plagiarism is that this is in no way constitutes an instance of Fair Use, because Fair Use does not cover instances of plagiarism. In other words, it is fine to use materials and sources of information that are outside of one’s own research and writings as long as there is some indication that the author, who is taking advantage of another author’s publications, is calling upon resources that are not his own. Nevertheless, since the Military Generalship appears to be operating on the level of first year college students, we might dismiss a significant amount of the culpability for this act of intellectual fraud.

Perhaps, what is more alarming is the fact that the generalship, who are responsible for the lives of so many young men and women – many of whom come from traditions of service to this country – and have already had their loyalties misused by a cynical Presidential Administration – are currently under the guidance of intellects who are on par with undergraduates.

Finally, let us not forget or forgive the triumphal oratory that the henchmen of Petraeus used when publicizing their prodigious achievement:  the Military anti-insurgence field manual. This action on the part of the Military is just as disillusioning as the type of conduct we have come to expect from the Bush Administration: Taking every opportunity to propagandize itself with little or no regard for honesty and the integrity of their own characters.  They seem to have no regard for the truth, and have minimized the importance of truth so that it is trumped by considerations springing from Public Relations.

Russell Cole

Categories: Commentary
No Comments »

Picking up on an implication within a statement from Casey, Reagan asks, “Are you telling me there are different races or species, as you said, visiting Earth at the same time?”

“Can you tell me how many different species have visited us?” Reagan asks.

The Caretaker states, “At least five.”

Reagan: “Are they all friendly?”

An advisor who is not named in the transcript reportedly says, “Mr. President, that is a very difficult question to answer. There are many parameters that we follow to evaluate the threat. However, we have little intelligence on four of the five.”

“We have plenty of intel on the Ebens … gee … they’ve given us everything we asked for! They have also helped us to understand the other four species. I’m afraid to say, Mr. President and please don’t misunderstand my words, but we think one of the species is very hostile.”

Reagan is clear about his position. “I’m the President of the United States. I should know if we are endangered by some threat from outer space. If you have something to say about a threat posed by this one species of aliens, then I want to hear it.

Casey explains. “Mr. President, we have intelligence that would indicate this one species of aliens have abducted people from Earth. They have performed scientific and medical tests on these humans. To the best of our knowledge, no humans have been killed.”

“We have captured one of these hostile aliens. This gets into some very, very sensitive areas, Mr. President. I strongly suggest we end this discussion and move on to any further questions you might have and then get back to this. I don’t think we are prepared to provide you with accurate answers to your questions about the potentially hostile aliens at this time,” Casey reportedly says.

Reagan: “OK, but expect this to be given to me as soon as possible. I want to know everything about these hostile creatures so I …. or I mean we should start forming policies on how to deal with them … do we have operational war plans on this?”

Presidential advisor (name redacted): “Yes, Mr. President, we have war plans on all potential threats to our country.”

The Caretaker explains further, “We call the hostile aliens simply that, HAV, meaning Hostile Alien Visitors. MJ-12 placed that code on them back in the ’50s.”

Reagan asks, “You mean to say, these H-A-Vs have been visiting us and kidnapping our people since the ’50s?”

Casey: “Mr. President, we have some indication that they might have been doing this for some time. But we really have to consider all of the evidence, listed in our reports, and compare that to some of the open source information.”

PUBLIC INFORMATION, DISINFORMATION

The Caretaker: “In order to protect all this information and the fact that the United States Government has evidence of our planet being visited by extraterrestrials, we developed over the years a very effective program to safeguard the information. We call it ‘Project DOVE.’ It is a complex series of operations by our military intelligence agencies to disinform the public.”

Reagan recalls stories from his days as a Hollywood actor. “I always knew there was some form of cooperation between our government and the motion picture industry. I heard rumors over the years … even during my acting days.”

The Caretaker confirms this. “Well, Mr. President, the first cooperative venture was the movie, THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. That was a cooperative venture with the United States Air Force and the movie industry.”

Reagan: “That movie, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, was that one of them? I guess no “Bonzo” movies were involved. (Transcript: “Loud laughter heard.” Moderator’s note in transcript: “Reagan played the character Professor Peter Boyd in the Sept 1951 movie, BEDTIME FOR BONZO where a chimpanzee named Bonzo was his costar.)

Regarding Reagan’s question about CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, The Caretaker responds, “Yes, Mr. President, we provided the basic subject matter for that movie.”

Reagan: “Was it based on a real incident?”

The Caretaker: “Mr. President, in 1964, we were able to have our very first controlled encounter with the Ebens. Let me first give you the background. EBE was a mechanic, not a scientist. He was still able to teach us some of the Eben language. Their language was very difficult for our linguists to learn because it consisted of tones, not words.”

“However, we were able to translate some basic words. EBE showed us their communications device. It was a strange looking device that had three parts. Once assembled, the device sent out signals, something like our Morse code system, although there was a problem.”

“During the crash in 1947, one part of this communication system was broken. EBE was unable to repair it until our scientists found some items that could be used in place of the broken parts. Once the communication device was repaired, EBE sent our messages. We had to trust EBE as to the contents of those messages.”

“You can imagine what some of our military commanders thought of this. EBE could be sending out a distress call that could result in some invasion. But that, of course, never happened. EBE continued to send messages until his death. But once he died, then we were on our own. We were able to crudely operate the device. We sent several messages out over a six month period (1953). But we did not receive any return messages.”

“Mr. President, EBE sent out six messages. One letting his home planet know that he was alive and his comrades were dead, another explaining the two crashes, the third was a request to be rescued, the fourth was a message suggesting a meeting between his leaders and our leaders. The last message suggested some form of an exchange program.”

After discussion about how linguists and other communications experts were able to establish communications with the Ebens, and the years of effort involved, The Caretaker gets to a main point.

“Over a period of a few years, we could send and receive information. We finally received a startling message from the Ebens. They wanted to visit Earth, retrieve their spacemen bodies and meet with Earthlings.”

“They provided a time, date and location. We figure that the Ebens were continually visiting Earth and had probably mapped it. However, the date was about eight years in the future.”

“Our military figured something was wrong and that maybe the Ebens were confusing Earth time with Eben time. After a long series of messages, it was determined the Ebens would land on Earth on Friday, April 24, 1964.”

“Our government, specifically, MJ-12 met in secret to plan the event. Decisions were made, then changed many times. We had just about 25 months from the time we finally received their message of the date to prepare for their arrival. Several months into the planning, President Kennedy decided to approve a plan to exchange a special military team. The USAF was tasked as the lead agency.”

“The USAF officials picked special civilian scientists to assist in the planning and crew selection. The team members’ selection process was the hardest to accomplish. Several plans were suggested and then changed. It took months for the planners to decide on the selection criteria for each team member. They decided that each member must be military, single, no children and a career member. They had to be trained in different skills.”

“Mr. President, a team of 12 men were selected.”

“When it came time for the meeting, we were ready. The landing occurred in New Mexico. We had everything prepared. We had a hoax landing location just in case it was leaked. The landing occurred and we greeted the Ebens. However, a mix up happened. They were not prepared to accept our exchange personnel. Everything was placed on hold.”

“Finally in 1965, the Ebens landed in Nevada and we exchanged 12 of our men for one of theirs.”

“Mr. President. Our team of 12 went to the Eben planet for 13 years. The original mission called for a 10-year stay, however, because of the strange time periods on their planet, the team stayed three additional years. Two died on the planet and two decided to stay.”

Reagan: “OK, this is just amazing! I can see, about that movie. The movie was based on a real event. I saw that movie. 12 men left, along with Richard Dreyfuss.”

Casey: “Mr. President, yes, the movie was similar to the real event, at least the last part of the movie.”

TRUTH, FICTION OR SOMETHING ELSE?

This section of the alleged transcript of an intelligence briefing to Reagan can be read in full at Serpo.org. The moderator has also provided additional background information on the Web site.

He indicates that more similar releases may be coming as part of public acclimation activities.

Is this transcript real or phony? Is it completely accurate, completely false or some combination of truth and deception? There is really no sure way for readers to know, at this point in time.

Like other information on Serpo.org about an alleged exchange program with ETs and all of the other reports out there about UFOs, it can be quite difficult to differentiate between fact and fiction.

However, sometimes truths can be told within fictional contexts. Fact-based fiction can provide good information and insight.

Did Reagan and our other presidents receive these kinds of briefings? Do the circumstances described in the alleged transcript actually exist, or something similar to them? Again, who knows?

Yet, we know these things are possible. And, deep down, we may have gut instincts and intuition about the situation that may make us wonder if there is quite a bit of truth in this kind of information.

If we look deep inside our hearts and minds, and into the skies, maybe we will find some answers.

Tags: censorship, government
Categories: Commentary
No Comments »