An Article by:Ben Tanosborn

If only you knew how much we miss your journalistic soft core bellicosity, the political satire and celebrated puns! If only you knew how much more there is to be done to right this ship-nation of ours listing to the right… and ready to sink!  But you know, yes you know… and had no recourse, accepting mortality just like the rest of us.

Today marks a year since you left us escorted by Eirene and Hypatia, as if to honor your fight for peace with intelligence, wit and wisdom.  No better escorts to heaven than the goddess of peace and that woman-scholar killed, not by breast cancer like you, Molly, but by a Christian mob of “fundamentalists”; Hypatia, the first martyr of science, greatest mind of her time, assassinated by religion almost sixteen centuries ago.

Right to the end you advocated peace, and just a few days before your death you wrote that last column fighting to stop the war in Iraq, as you had done non-stop for four years, telling us in that column: “We are the people who run this country.  We are the deciders.  And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war… We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, ‘Stop it, now!’” But unfortunately, dear Molly, too many of us seem to have abdicated our freedoms and decision-making to that man in the White House you called Shrub, a man who rules our lives with an empty “upstairs” and a fossilized heart.

I never met Molly, but deep inside I thought I knew her well.  And I yearned for approval from her on those articles I wrote during the time preceding the Iraq invasion, and over three years afterwards.  All my writing was, needless to say, relegated to “subterranean” print and digital publications, limited to readership living in the catacombs, a maligned “un-American” Left.  Molly’s long-standing professionalism and mastery of the political moment kept her mainstream to the end.  And Americans should feel good about that.

Starting in mid-2003, at just about the time Saddam’s TV-famous statue was toppled – lassoed down from a pedestal in Baghdad before a rent-a-crowd from Saddam City – I started sending Molly copies of many of my columns, mainly those which dealt with the war.  I felt that I was probably sending those copies straight to a cyber basket where tens of thousands of emails to Miss Ivins weekly found their way… like snowflakes reaching the warm ground, and deleting themselves.  Or so I thought!

It was in mid-February 2004 when I received an email from this great lady, brief and to the point, without the slightest Texas twang.  “Ben,” it said “stop wasting precious time sending me copies of your columns.  I read all your articles as soon as the ink dries.”  I was dumbfounded; staring at what was the most precious valentine I’ve ever received.

Personally, dear Molly, I’ll really be missing in the next few weeks and months your take on the upcoming elections, your critical political eye, and the truth that would emanate from the pounding of your fingers over the keyboard.  Musical sounds of satire to my ears, and the ears of many in the nation not plugged by the waspish-wax of the Right.

But your criticism wasn’t directed at the Right, or the Left for that matter.  You were a truly equal opportunity satirist, and always called them as you saw them, yielding only to two things: truth and compassion, or what many would call, love for humanity.  I wonder did anyone ever fool you in this masquerade of American politics?  I have my doubts.  I will never forget your keen perception of political reality as you de-iced the real Bill Clinton which ended with the statement: “Besides, no one but a fool or a Republican ever took him for a liberal.”  Do we realize how many fools we have around, particularly in the media?

There was another Mary Tyler [Moore] who for decades was America’s TV sweetheart.  You, Molly, were our Mary Tyler in political journalism, although we called you Molly instead of Mary.  Saint Molly… pray for us, and intercede with the Almighty to bring us peace in Iraq, Afghanistan; also our minds and our hearts.

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, government, Modernity, politics, religion, society
Categories: Commentary, government, Politics, Religion, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn
A yes answer to a question with such scary implications begs postponement ‘til another day… perhaps it is a question that should never be answered, not out loud.  Let’s just say that Uncle Sam has always appeared to the world as an affable, worldly relative that they never quite really knew, or understood; one who visited occasionally wearing fancy duds and displaying graying hairs – and cocky airs – exuding both stability and success; someone who made the world his oyster… and all the relatives envious.

Unfortunately, that uncle who visited his family during the last two decades was more of a jobless, penniless relative who had whittled away his fortune in fancy living and lousy gambling – warmongering and selective globalization may be more apropos – schemes.  And his visits started to be more frequent, now inviting one and all to share in his “good fortune”… apparently by investing in many of those schemes.

The reality of a recession is finally talked about by both imbecilic and sage members of America’s Hope Springs Eternal society, and that includes super-greedy Wall Street, a government in lying perpetuity and the amenable Fed.  Now, after all this time, when we know that we are already there… or, at least, at the entry way!

Actually it’s not the “R” word that scares me, but the possibility of the unmentionable capital “D” for depression.  An “R” with fair penmanship for much of the world, and a “D” with illegible calligraphy for the US of A!  Of course, there’s a chance that the White House and Congress might create enough hocus pocus – perhaps by “having” the Fed cut its rate 2 or even 3 points and throwing away another 150 to 200 billion dollars on the shoulders of future generations – to decelerate the economic bloodbath until past the November elections, but the observed (even if hidden by the government) rate of true inflation won’t allow smoke and mirrors to cloud reality, and America’s economy will appear buck naked before the world, directed behind curtains by the Wizard of Oz.

On Monday and Tuesday Asian and European markets gave us a preview of their own nervousness with the US, even if this nation’s share of the world’s GDP (now at just 28 percent) keeps, understandably, declining.  Combined losses averaged over 10 percent overseas, if mildly affected by Wall Street losses on Tuesday (1.1 and 2 percent for the Dow and NASDEQ), told us that America’s actions still weigh heavily in economic world affairs.  And it was also an icy reminder that the credit largesse by those creditor nations may soon be coming to an end.  Then, whose money will Americans be able to spend, er…waste?  Isn’t the US really following on the footsteps of Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and third world nations whose economic policies America has criticized for so long?

America, the should-be creditor nation par excellence, has become instead a parasite to the savings of the world, becoming the largest debtor nation in the planet with only two possibilities left: one, allowing America’s creditors to liquidate the paper for hard assets, permitting once-proud Americans to become vassals to foreign capital; or two, change America’s consumption habits… and learn to live within our means.

The precarious economic fix does not seem to be understood by most economists, and even the very elite in the profession make questionable statements which seem out of the ballpark.  Like Paul Krugman, whose judgment I usually respect, asserting how complex the US economy is, when the adjective should have been deceptive.  Weren’t derivates supposed to have disappeared after the dot-com fiasco?   Instead, additional crooked financial instruments were allowed to debut without proper scrutiny by a hands-off government happy to see capitalism run amuck in predatory ways to once again redistribute wealth from middle-class to rich.  Not complex, Dr. Krugman, just deceptive!

And all the while, those in the trade-brotherhood of economics in solemn silence!

As I am writing this article engaged in the thought of the applicability of physics’ laws of thermodynamics to the art-science of economics, I came up with what I thought to be a proper term to describe it: econodynamics (or movement in economics).  After googling the word, however, I discovered that it wasn’t for me to coin, that it had been used once before, probably in a different context to mine, or in its seriousness.

For our purpose here, let’s just say that it would probably be worth considering if our graduate schools of economics required their Ph. D. candidates to have an academic background in engineering, at least through the junior year, with at least knowledge of thermodynamics and quantum physics – I might add that it has helped me.  Certainly a more appropriate complementary background than that of politics!  Knowledge about conservation of energy, entropy and absolute zero temperature (the three laws of thermodynamics) can certainly prove insightful to the understanding of economic growth, and the treatment of production, consumption and savings… plus much more.

Perhaps Arnold Sommerfeld, the German physicist, had it right, if this attribution to him is correct: “Thermodynamics is a funny subject.  The first time you go through it, you don’t understand it at all.  The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points.  The third time you go through it, you know you don’t understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn’t bother you any more.”  Substitute thermodynamics with economics and you may understand what most economists are all about.

Religion, to have value for the human condition, must be much more than just faith.  In like fashion, economics should aspire to become more of a science, and its practitioners must be more than just charlatans, at someone’s service, with a fast sleight of hands.

Since both foreign policy and economic policy are thoroughly enmeshed in the US, an economic bloodbath coming sooner than later might give Americans a much needed push to finally clamor for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, the two men at the top who have brought this nation to such level of plight and misery; concurrently heralding impending exits from both Afghanistan and Iraq; and also giving credence to the idea, that in the future, America will only be solicitous with Israel when that nation brings to a halt its dominance over Palestinians and engages in true negotiations for territorial co-existence in peace; that Israel will remain a good friend and ally but will not be allowed to hold the key to US foreign policy as it has done up to now.

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, economics, empire, globalization
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Empire, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn

I no longer care how popular the voting concert is, I refuse to pay homage to those untalented, tone deaf rockers!  Every four years we are regaled with the very same quadrennial political tour, the same Evil Brothers, whatever names they may go by this time around, giving us the misconception that there is political choice in our lives.

Sorry, folks, but I have had it with those two brothers engendered by an incestuous relationship. Greater and Lesser, as far as this writer is concerned, although not twins, carry almost identical DNA’s.  And it is precisely our covering up for all of Lesser’s misgivings, election after election, that we are where we are – politically – today.  After the snow dust settled in Iowa’s caucuses and New Hampshire came undone, I finally made an irrevocable resolution, not just for the New Year but one to honor for a lifetime: Never again!  Never again will I be shamed into voting for that lesser evil candidate – or party; for evil, of any kind, does not deserve anyone’s vote, certainly not mine.

While America’s Fuehrer tours the palaces of his moneyed-buddies in the Middle East, ranting incessantly – and stupidly – about Iran… and the inconceivable and “personal” promise of regional peace, the present Democratic pretenders to the Pennsylvania Avenue domicile, who also anticipate dominance over a Reichstag just a short jog away, deliver soft blows at each other as if all these non-sense, non-issues really meant anything.  Anything relevant, that is, to the chaotic economic and foreign policies that define the sorry state of our nation these days!  And these babbling pretenders under the banner of change are throwing barbs at one another without the slightest clue as to what “change” should be.  Obama and Clinton, a total disgrace, yet it’s likely that one or the other, maybe even both, will adorn the Democratic ticket for this naught-eight.  Ugh!  Lesser evil, anyone… to whatever these Republicans will try to concoct in their wrongly rightist ways?

As in the past, it is America’s media “aiding” in the decision as to what politicians make the acceptability cut, and for Democrats, whatever the reasons, people like Biden, Dodd and Richardson never had a chance.  And the Press made sure that Kucinich’s peace message was kept as short as his physical stature.  So from the very start it was just a beauty contest with three semi-finalists: Clinton, Edwards and Obama.  And now, to make it more interesting – in the tradition of American Idol – it’s beginning to look as if the media judges have decided that Edwards is beginning to look too angry, maybe too controversial for our “centrist” politics.  So it’s down to Obama and Clinton, Clinton and Obama… the man who can deliver a spirited message from the pulpit, just like an emotive evangelical preacher, but who to date has not shown us any “beef”; and that warrior, bionic woman who could have the White House renamed the Clinton House if she were to add two terms to her husband’s.  America’s centrists both… from the center of America’s corporate money!

And the only hope and compromise for American progressives that Edwards’ candidacy might represent appears to be gone.  Edwards is by no means what many of us would consider a true progressive candidate, but he seems trustworthy enough to help change the direction of America, domestically and internationally, and not just talk about it.  No sacrilegious talk (on peace) like that expressed by Hillary, after her victory in New Hampshire that would have us leave Iraq only under the proper conditions… definitely the language one would expect from a transvestite Dubya.

Of course, Iraq has ceased to be Americans’ main concern, and now the headlines are starting to tell us that voters are far, far more worried about the economy than any war; naturally, as long as it is waged elsewhere.  And the economic bloodbath soon to come in snowballing fashion, unstoppable by any so-called economic stimuli – which would entail additional borrowing from our already bankrupted future generations and nothing but a temporary postponement of the inevitable – will uncover a third stage of a cancer that has been with American society for too long: we consume, or waste in unnecessary weaponry, far more than we produce… and we elect government leadership that enable us to do so.

Only thing that the Democratic Party presumably had going all these years, as stupidly as it sounds if you believe it, was having a “big umbrella” for diversity.  Except that when it came to the moment of truth, those who advocated social justice, domestically, and peace in the world, were never represented in the party.  They had neither voice nor vote.  Yet, at election time, the Democratic Party apparatiks would always come to that 5 to 10 percent of progressive voters, asking us with a sardonic smile to vote for them… the Lesser Evil!  And most of us have succumbed to that totally flawed rationale.

Had progressives stood firm to their convictions during the past quarter of a century, and had organized as a true “umbrella party” to the many advocacies for a better and more just and peaceful society – even if small in numbers – this 2008 presidential election could have turned out to be one to really change America.  Instead, we’ll have an election where our citizenry is insulted once again… with more of the same.

If anyone approaches me prior to the November 4 election sermonizing why I need to vote once again for “Lesser Evil” my answer will be fulminatory and terminal, and I will say it without fear of remorse: Go f… yourself!

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, big brother, democracy, empire, fascism, foreign policy, Global, government, homeland security, imperialism
Categories: Commentary, Global, Democracy, Empire, Homeland Security, Foreign Policy, Imperialism, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

An Article by:

Steve Hammons

also published in AmericanChronicle.com

Results from Diebold electronic voting machines used in New Hampshire’s primary are being questioned this week as apparent anomalies in voting patterns there are examined.

According to published reports, in areas of New Hampshire where Diebold machines were used, Hillary Clinton may have received significantly more votes than Barack Obama, compared to regions where Diebold machines were not used.

Despite repeated reports by experts that these types of voting machines can be hacked and voting results altered, the devices continue to be used around the country.

Questions were raised in 2004 presidential election about the accuracy of voting results in Ohio.

Some of these concerns were also related to Diebold electronic voting machines.

After the 2000 presidential election and problems counting Florida’s punch-card ballots, federal funds were made available for local jurisdictions to purchase different voting technologies.

Many of these funds were spent on electronic machines such as the Diebold devices.

DEMOCRACY AT RISK

Vote tampering in the U.S. and elsewhere is nothing new. But, reasonable efforts have often been implemented to attempt to minimize some of the more egregious activities regarding election fraud.

Now, with questionable electronic voting devices used throughout the nation, high-tech election manipulation is clearly a possibility, probability or maybe even established fact, according to some researchers and experts who have investigated the situation.

Because election and voting procedures vary around the country, there are not uniform and consistent standards for voting devices and other elements of election processes.

Although many people have called for increased universal standards to assist in maintaining the integrity of elections, little has been done.

In addition to questionable voting machines, other irregularities have been documented, reported and investigated. These include confusing ballots, inadequate numbers of polling places, polling places strategically located to influence voting patterns, removal of qualified citizens from voting eligibility lists and other concerns.

According to some observers, these kinds of circumstances may have significantly affected national and local elections in recent years.

CORRECTIVE ACTION

What can be done to improve the integrity and accuracy of our election processes? Experts and researchers of all kinds have made many valuable suggestions, based on extensive investigations of many aspects of current election problems.

Yet, there does not seem to be an adequate consensus about what steps should be taken.

Do we implement mandatory national standards or keep elections in local hands? And, how will decisions be made about things like electronic voting technology. Unwise and corrupt decisions can just as easily be made at the federal level as at the local level, as we know all too well.

Politically neutral organizations could create groups of experts to make logical recommendations about how to proceed. In fact, many such groups already have. But the problems persist.

In the case of Ohio’s 2004 elections, other similar questionable election processes and now in the New Hampshire primary, real or perceived irregularities are damaging American democracy.

If it is true that flawed voting machine technology is inadvertently making errors or allowing outright criminal voter fraud, we have a serious problem.

If other aspects of our election processes, inadvertently or intentionally, are also wrongly disenfranchising citizens, creating phony election results and helping put people in office who were not truly elected, our democratic system is truly damaged.

Tags: congress, constitution, corporations, democracy, economics, Elections, fascism, federal government, government, information technology, politics, privatization, self governance
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Democracy, constitution, government, self-governance, Politics, Congress, Corporations
No Comments »

An Article by:

Russell Cole

The purpose of this essay is to bring scrutiny to an alarming trend in American governance. This growing practice is propounded by differing groups in our society, ranging from the neoconservatives to the quasi-academicians occupying fellowships at the politically moderate Brookings Institute.

In a publication produced by members of the Brookings’ Institute, the emerging practice has been labeled with the following expression, “Governing by Network.” This philosophy of governance looks to institutions and organizations outside of government in order to outsource the work of government; thus, privatizing many of the functions that would, otherwise, be implemented by governmental agencies and the civil professionals who work under their auspices.

The purpose of this brief essay is to refocus this governing philosophy through the lens of an entirely different interpretative framework, in order to bring to the fore some of the alarming outcomes that might result from this practice of outsourcing government. I will make the case that governing by network is tantamount to corporatism, and, therefore, poses a threat to the already compromised democracy that we, as Americans, have historically struggled to enact and, presently, continue to enjoy; although in recent years our democratic system of polity has suffered a flurry of incursions made by the current Imperial Presidency.

At first glance, this might appear to be a sound policy. Looking toward corporations in the economy and NGOs in civil society might provide a means by which to rely upon organizations in society that are already specialized in particular types of operations, making them more efficient and effective agents for carrying out the missions underlying government initiatives. In the language of neoconservatism, privatizing the military, for instance, will make America’s war machinery subservient to the pressures of the market; subsequently, ensuring that America’s mechanisms for carrying out its foreign policies that rely upon militarism are the most fit for that purpose.

This whole arcade of mercenary contractors waging war in Iraq is by no means an ad hoc appendage to the military proper, whose idea and implementation were incited solely from the contingencies of the Iraqi campaign. Rather, the privatization of the military had been, from inception of the Bush Presidency, a guiding-principle for Rumsfield and his efforts to reform the American military complex. From the beginning of his tenure as the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfield had been working with his favored contacts in the private sector in order to facilitate the outsourcing of many of the functions of the military and the Pentagon; thus, increasing the role of private contractors in America’s military affairs. This protracted endeavor to outsource as many military operations as possible was part of a metaphorical war being waged against the military bureaucracy; a complex – according to Rumsfield, and in accord with neoconservative thought patterns – of obsolescent bureaucratic institutions, which burdened the American state with inefficiency, resulting in governmental waste.

There are, of course, manifold examples to cite when it comes to illuminating the concrete manifestations of the emergent doctrine, governing by network. To cite a more seemingly benign example, Bush’s policy of funding faith-based organizations for the purposes of providing social welfare services to the dependent and needy constitutes an instance of governing by network, because it involves integrating organizations that exist in civil society into the operations and functions of government; relieving the state from the encumbrance of constructing the institutional architecture required for it to perform these tasks on its own.

Although, prima facie, these uses of the private sector to facilitate the execution of public policies might appear innocuous and, even, pragmatic. Nevertheless, there is a more sinister dimension to these practices, which reflects a motivation possessed by the adherents of this public policy philosophy that needs to be rendered transparent, so that the full scope of consequences brought about by governing by network is apparent to the American citizen.

In the initial paragraph of this essay, I pointed out that the privatization of governance can alternatively be referenced under the term, corporatism. By this, I am indicating that the privatization of government will have the entailment of creating a political system in which the distinctions between polity and the economy are effectively blurred; resulting of the integration of the economy, along with the elites who control it, with the institutions and decision-making mechanisms of government. I say this because private entities in the economy can just as well affect the policy making processes belonging to the politic sphere of society - and will have a much greater incentive to do so if government is outsourced – through interventions such as their corporate lobbying and the campaign donations extended to politicos by corporate elites – as can the body politic impact upon the firms in the economy through the adoption of government policy.

Therefore, by privatizing governmental services, we run the risk of having corporations influencing what policies will be implemented by affecting political decision-making outcomes in an attempt to ensure revenue through governmental contracts. This networking of polity with the economy and civil society will precipitate working relationships among the agencies in all three of the affected social spheres:  polity, civil society, and economics.  Resultantly, the policies taken up by government might reflect the economic interests that stand to benefit from particular policies; rather than having government policy address the needs and desires of the populace; members of society who do not necessarily possess the wealth and influence to countervail the corporate interests that stand to profiteer through particular types of policy implementations. In short, the government and the economy will merge into a union whereby policy and the motivations that underly it will be identical with interests emanating from the economic sector and from the advocacies associated with NGOs in civil society; a collection of non-governmental agencies that stand to benefit by virtue of the contracts that will ensue from the networked administration of public policies.

There is an even more alarming aspect to the consequences engendered by governing by network: The constitutional protections that restrict governmental interference in the private and civic affairs of citizens can effectively be circumvented by implementing the policies of government through the employment of private institutions that are not beholden to the same limitations imposed upon government by the Constitution. This is what makes the discussion among neoconservatives so disconcerting, in which they are presently entertaining the prospect of outsourcing domestic intelligence gathering to private firms who will then be entrusted with spying upon American citizens.

This plan that is being advanced by the in-member ideologues of the current Administration in conjunction with their sympathizers and consultants occupying positions in various neoconservative think-tanks, if allowed to materialize, will result in more than the “soft fascism,” described by Ron Paul in his warnings about corporatism; it presents the possibility of effectively imposing a rather profound and extensive form of authoritarianism upon the American public. We will be subjected to the unfettered intrusions and spying eyes of private entities outside the constraining parameters that have been, heretofore, erected by Constitutional Rights. We will have to fear with whom we associate and with whom we transact communications – let alone indulgences in vice; or contributions to radicalized political advocacies – because we will have no expectation that we can maintain any seclusion of these activities in the sense that we will not be able to conceal information and curtail knowledge about our engagements, as private citizens, from institutions who might react punitively if presented with such renderings of our social activities. When in the hands of private firms conducting domestic intelligence gathering, what is to stop our employers from purchasing such information in order to assess our interactions outside of the workplace, so the firm can successfully impose a lifestyle – through the threat of occupational termination upon those who deviate – that they deem appropriate for those assuming positions in the ranks of their employment.

Consider, even, the current push to centralize and digitize our health records. Of course, they attempt to assuage our concerns by emphasizing the improvements to the administration of health care that will be actualized through the availability to health care professionals of an archive containing our complete medical histories that can be instantaneously retrieved via information technologies. However, what other possibilities will be enacted through the creation of such a repository of personalized information regarding matters of our biographies that we consider to be, oftentimes, sensitive and highly private? Might we be obliged by potential employers to permit their human resource agents to investigate for what we have received treatment by physicians and when that treatment was administered?  For some us, we risk even having to disclose out relationships with psychiatrists and other practitioners of mental health care. Additionally, through the nexus between the economy and polity that will be formed under the conditions depicted in the not so distant futurism that I am detailing, what recourse could we possibly have to prevent government agencies from obtaining the health records that will already be in the hands of corporations with whom government will have working relations? The rights to privacy that were referenced by the attorneys entrusted with the criminal defense of Rush Limbaugh will not be violated, they will simply be circumvented, bypassed, through the creation of cooperative enterprises involving both law enforcement and private entities in the economy or, perhaps, civil society, which might have access to personal medical records.

It is important to stress that the argument that I am making is not a polemic advancing a position in support of expanded government. However, I am quite explicitly warning against solutions to “Big Government,” that advance an agenda of privatizing government operations by outsourcing their functions to corporations and NGOs. The best remedy for inflated bureaucracy is the diminution of government and the services that it provides. The very worse trajectory in our social development would be pursuing the path followed by the ideologues in the Bush Administration, who are quite actively working to expand the powers of the Presidency; an expansion of authority that is leveled at the peril of civil liberties.

Tags: bill of rights, constitution, corporations, corporatism, democracy, economics, fascism, governing, government, homeland security, liberty, neoconservatism, politics, power, privatization, Russell Coles Blog, self governance
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Democracy, liberty, constitution, bill of rights, government, Russell Cole's Blog, self-governance, Power, Politics, Corporations, Homeland Security, neoconservatism
No Comments »

A note concerning the Dustin Brim story By

Lonnie D. StoryFreelance Writer/Author/Biographer

Tags: corporations, economics, government, human sciences, money, power
Categories: Commentary, Economics, government, Power, Corporations
No Comments »

An Article by: 

Ben Tanosborn

For this chronologically-challenged socio-political commentator, multitasking is severely restricted to a couple of things: one active, writing; and one passive, undemonstratively viewing sports on television.  Bi-tasking would probably be a more appropriate name.

So today, on this New Year’s afternoon, I am trying to write my first column of the year while watching the Rose Bowl on TV; reminiscing about New Year’s ‘63 when I was seating at that stadium wearing student body-white in what came to be known as the greatest Rose Bowl game ever – Ron VanderKelen, the legendary quarterback for Wisconsin, almost stealing the glory from Pete Beathard and the USC Trojans in those final 12 minutes. 

While the teams from Southern Cal and Illinois take to the field, I can’t help but think of the first political primary contest which is to take place in two days: the Iowa Caucus for 2008.  It’s been three decades since this middle-America state stole the thunder from New Hampshire’s primary by giving the spotlight to presidential aspirants while also keeping the limelight onto itself.  A state probably best known for giving the nation the time-tested standard in educational testing for basic skills, ITBS, has been now trying to add to that prestige, but this time in the dubious realm of American politics.

Unfortunately for Iowa, the reality of American politics might not even be worth minimal spinning efforts, for the US may be the only nation on the face of the planet purporting political diversity while sporting only one and one-half political parties: Republicans and quasi-Republicans wearing ID tags as Democrats; both attached to Corporate America by the same bi-forked umbilical chord that provides continual nourishment (money).

A caucus, presumed to be a North American Indian word of Algonquin origin, was a sort of official get-together for Native American chiefs who ruled before the White Man came and implanted his own rule.  Now, duopoly string players – career political bosses – use caucusing to make policy decisions and also select loyal party candidates to run for office… as it will happen this January 3^rd in Iowa.

It is difficult to make any sense as to the number of ways in which Republicans (11) and Democrats (4) select their delegates for the presidential conventions, but something is strange and different about Iowa.  For a state not even scratching 1 percent of the nation’s population, both political parties assign it a very “undemocratic” high share of political influence, based on the state’s percentage of delegates: 1.68 for the Republican Party and 1.41 for the Democratic group, which also tells us in an unmistakable way that Republicans consider Iowans at least 15 percent “more relevant” than do Democrats.  Democracy American style… from the very heartland!

Do we really care which candidate wins in Iowa in each of the two parties?  Aren’t all major candidates from both parties really painted in the many different shades of red (force, power, aggression and shame) as exemplified by the stated beliefs of Romney, Clinton, Giuliani, Huckabee, Obama, and McCain?  Edwards, more of a populist, may be the only major acceptable candidate outside of the red zone, and more into the purple domain (healing ability, dignity and compassion).  Needless-to-say, people like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, both proponents of peace and foreign policy change, are considered not to have the “right stuff” to run the nation, much less lead the empire.  Why would Americans want to give renewed hope to Palestinians or other people in the Middle East and South Asia!  After all, that’s Israel’s decision, not America’s!

As the game in Pasadena is coming to a close, I feel that those Trojans from USC are extremely gifted at playing our game of football (American football), and perhaps should have been made a contender for the BCS championship; besides, the team appears to be well-coached beyond the game itself, and familiar with the term “cruel and unusual punishment;” and probably made aware before game time that the statement is not only listed in our Constitution (Eighth Amendment), but also adopted by the UN (1948) in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article Five).  It was intended for individuals, but it seems valid to apply it to teams, peoples and nations; after all, everyone deserves to be treated with a modicum of dignity.

Pete Carroll’s team did not have to worry about holding back, for it was a very good Illini team they beat 49-17, and the final score is definitely not an indication of USC inflicting cruel and unusual punishment by running up the score. 

Entering 2008, I’ve come to the realization, for the umpteenth time, that both football and politics are played differently in our nation from the way they are being played in the rest of the world; and that the United States has neither mankind’s consent nor a divine mandate to establish, and then enforce, the rules of those games; and that trying to spread democracy forcefully, and gratuitously, in our own “American style” is certain to be considered by other nations and peoples as inflicting on them cruel and unusual punishment.

www.tanosborn.com     

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, democracy, direct democracy, government, political parties, politics, self governance
Categories: Commentary, Democracy, government, self-governance, Politics, Direct Democracy, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »