When will the Green Party ever learn?

When, finally, will the Green Party accrue the wisdom necessary for it to recognize the false prophets that come under the pretenses that they can transform the Party from its presently obscure and politically inconsequential status. Such charlatans publicly pronounce their affinity for Green Values. However, more times than not, the opaque agenda of such aspiring politicos incorporates the Green Party as merely a vehicle for personal political aggrandizement.

As it stands now, the Green Party suffers from a lustful wish to become a competitor in mainstream politics. As a result, the Green Party is always seeking to run candidates for high level governmental positions; political offices that any Green Candidate possesses a less than negligible chance for winning; or, for that matter, to even marginally compete with the candidates nominated by the two major business parties; and, more likely, the Green Candidate will either fail to acquire a slot on the ballot, or, under the remarkable condition that ballot access is obtained, the Green’s electoral success in the election will fail to pass the threshold for the Party’s automatic entry onto the ballot for forthcoming elections.

This impetuous disposition on the part of the Greens - whereby they shoot for the stars; a strategy reflecting their considerable lack of sociopolitical farsightedness - has engendered a condition were possible Green candidates who possess some notoriety are either courted by High Standing Party Members, or, contrarily, the Greens acquiesce to the prominent newcomer’s desire for the spot on the Green Party ticket.

As we observe the latest inner-organizational events occurring within the Green Party, as the Nation moves closer to a new Presidential Election, it appears that the impending quasi-celebrity to be embraced by the Greens will be no other than the former Georgia Representative, Cynthia McKinney. The only difference, however, between McKinney and other quasi-celebs who have used the Green Party in order to advance their own political aspirations is the fact that McKinney’s public persona - albeit recognized widely - is, more often than not, associated with feelings of contempt and annoyance.

McKinney’s public conduct has been one characterized by somewhat of a paradox. On the one hand, she advocates important issues about social problems that impact the most vulnerable members of American Society. In fact, she is one of the few politicians to publicly admit that the crisis in the Middle-East is primarily attributable to the Israelis and their violations of international law as the Israeli colonists strive to usurp more and more territory from the subjugated Palestinians.

Nevertheless, whatever goodwill might be garnered from McKinney’s tenacity for speaking forthright is obfuscated by her supreme arrogance and elitism. She is, of course, the Representative who assaulted a police officer, who had stopped her because she stormed through a corridor when entering the Capital Building that was reserved for members of Congress. McKinney’s reaction was to strike the police officer, as if he was out of line and he had no business even approaching her.

What is important to remember about this event is that McKinney was not wearing her Congressional Pin - which would have identified her as a Member of Congress - therefore, for her to suspect not to be stopped seems to rest upon an inflated ego that instructs her to presume she is pervasively known and recognizable to everyone, and therefore should not be subject to the same inconveniences as the rest of us, even if she neglects to have the alacrity of mind to wear appropriate identification.

This rather minor incident, however, could have been quickly resolved if McKinney simply apologized and explained her actions as being kneejerk and quite clearly inappropriate. Nevertheless, McKinney’s hyperbolic ego got in the way, and she elected to cry bigotry, going so far as to accuse the Officer, whom she had struck, as being motivated out of racism when stopping this Congresswoman who had decided not to wear the lapel required for her to be recognized as a Member of Congress. In other words, McKinney - overestimating her self-importance - was willing to ruthlessly attack the civil servant, who, in this context, was the actually vulnerable, underpowered party in the dispute; not the other way around, as McKinney suggested.

So, considering all of this, why does the Green Party - or, at least, quite a few of its notable members and supporters - seem to embrace McKinney and her decision to run for the Green Party’s ticket for the Presidency? I suspect the answer to this question rests in the fact that she has acquired national recognition, and among the leftist extremes in American political culture she is still looked upon with credibility and respect. Nevertheless, from my own vantage point, I am prepared to denounce McKinney as just another self-absorbed false prophet, who is less concerned with the incremental growth of the Green Party as she is obsessed with herself and her own ascendency to higher offices.

Russell Cole

Tags: congress, cynthia mckinney, government, green party lack of democracy, politics, third parties
Categories: Commentary, Politics, Third Parties, Congress
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn

Where are your friends when you really need them? Isn’t that time of need when true friends really surface, sharing their buoyancy as they try to help keep you afloat? Well, we really haven’t seen many of those friends around, not for America, although we have seen the traditional parasites – those who instigate our misguided foreign policy for their own ends, as well as those who either go along with America’s criminal government, or simply look the other way.

In some regions, such as Latin America, one would hardly expect to find any friends of the United States – of the non-servile kind, that is – given the long history of bullying and the oppressive hand this nation has had in that region… but what about Europe? All NATO nations should be America’s true and tried friends, right? But they aren’t… not when they are unwilling to strongly influence our government’s behavior.

For several years some of us have been asking just what this NATO outfit is all about! And no, we don’t seem to find the answer by looking at the baptismal records and its purported reinstatement as “a military alliance of democratic states in Europe and North America for a concerted mutual defense.” Its purpose might have appeared clear back in 1949: a mutual defense pact against the feared advances of communism. But that was then, and now is now. And the now is becoming rather obvious: NATO is just a military toy-tool for the policies drummed up at the White House and the Pentagon.

The United States was simply supposed to be another NATO member, just like Canada and the European members, regardless of size and economic-military strength. But if you believe that, you believe in fairy tales, particularly when Bush makes that reality clear time and again. His latest proclamation last week in Croatia made it clear once again when he delivered a mixture of mini-harangue and cheerleading chant to a crowd from that state, formerly part of communist Yugoslavia. Joining the organization, they were told by Bush, would mean their nation would be defended by “America and the NATO alliance.”

and NATO, you say? Was it yet another of Bush’s ignorant misspeaks? No, not really. America, or rather its present government, thinks of itself as a distinct and separate entity, all powerful and meritorious… the rest is the lesser NATO, a janissary pool of troops commanded not from Brussels but from the Pentagon.

Truth be said, NATO is an illusory relic that has served past its needs and now should be given a burial; or better still, it should be broken up to reflect a true world’s desire to achieve and maintain peace. If Europe, or more apropos, the European Union, feels a need to retain defensive military teeth, so be it; but its defense force must be its own without providing hegemony to, or be dictated by, anyone else. Can anyone just picture the proximity of the waters in the North Atlantic and the poppy fields of Afghanistan?

Shouldn’t Europe be more assertive in its dealing with the peoples of the Middle East, instead of sheepishly following the lead, or be under the leash, of the United States? A greater harmony would likely develop between the Muslim population throughout Europe and native European people who are hosting and/or assimilating them. If such were the case, one could foresee a greater probability of success for a quicker and long-lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which the United States has continuously served as a gully instead of a bridge.

Shouldn’t Europeans try to find more common ground with next door Russia, and try to secure stronger economic ties, instead of providing a source of friction and unnecessary confrontation by submitting to the forced military requirements of the US? Much of the existing divisive tribulations affecting the Ukraine and Georgia have been caused in no small part by US sub-rosa involvement. The Europeans should ask themselves, to what end is this conflict-seeding by the US beneficial to them?

One needs to ask, just what are the Europeans afraid of? Being, perhaps, cut off from energy sources unless the US remains on top? A less beneficial world trade situation for them as a result? Nonsense, the opposite would likely happen as a result. And one would think that tensions would lessen uninviting more cold wars, and offering greater prospects for peace throughout the Middle East.

And for America, the return of the prodigal European friends, as brothers tendering advice and help of the right kind – not just troops for a struggle in Afghanistan that will only be resolved via mediation with the Taliban – not just vassals and prostitutes for an empire that, if unchecked, will ultimately claim both peace and the economic well being of the American people. That’s what our European friends could do for America.

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, Drug War, economics, empire, latin america, military, neoconservatism, politics, power
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Power, Politics, Empire, military, neoconservatism, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

Monique Davis needs to resign from her seat in the Illinois State Senate.

Due to social journalism, the State Senator has been exposed as a rather outspoken bigot, who scorns religious minorities without pause or hesitation. When listening to testimony given to a committee upon which Davis sat, she erupted in an outburst directed upon Rob Sherman – an atheist who was testifying on matters relating to the separation of church and state – in which she screamed, “It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists,” among other things.

There are several extrapolations that can be drawn from such a bewildering statement. Most saliently, Davis has revealed that she believes free thought and expression to be dangerous and out of place in the various public spheres belonging to American civil society. She obviously thinks that some forms of speech – namely, those with which she fails to agree – should be curtailed, in order for such thoughts not to reach impressionable members of society.

There are, of course, other inferences to be drawn from Davis’ hate speech, but they all seem to reinforce a thematic congruency that can be reduced as follows: Monique Davis is not a good American.

In support this conclusion, consider the following: She is a bigot who wants to interfere with the religious practices that are predicated upon beliefs whose veracity she disputes. Further, since she obviously fails to possess the intellectual faculties necessary for her to produce arguments in opposition to a particular system of beliefs, she is reduced to cruelly shouting at those whose beliefs she denies, citing hysterically fabricated consequences that will ensue if her opponent’s abilities to publicize his or her arguments are not curtailed. Therefore, her only recourse is to fear monger in an attempt to illicit the censorship of her adversaries.

At the very least, Monique Davis must be censored by her legislative colleagues. The venomous hate that she spews must by rebuked, and she must face public humiliation. If there is anything dangerous to which children can be exposed, it is the bigotry and the hatred that Davis embodies. This does not indicate that we should curtail her ability to speak publicly. However, responsible members of the political body, in which she has procured a seat, need to clearly state that her speech – which is at odds with our most fundamental values as Americans – is not demonstrative of the guiding-principles that instruct the Illinois State Senate as it deliberates over public policy.

Russell Cole

Tags: atheism, freedom of religion, government, illinois, illinois legislature, journalism, monique davis, politics, religion, Russell Coles Blog
Categories: Commentary, Russell Cole's Blog, Politics, Religion, Atheism, journalism
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn

Four presidential elections ago Democratic political-carnivore James Carville coined the phrase, “it’s the economy, stupid,” to denote Papa Bush’s failure to properly address the 1992 recession. The senior Bush was the idiot then… but all of us, Americans, may be jointly the idiot now. And maybe we shouldn’t be talking about a recession, but a true depression. You know, like back in the 30’s, with our McMansions but without apples.

It’s a natural human instinct: to narrow things down, to simplify things. And even people with extensive education and high professional stature succumb to any facile answers to the most difficult and intricate questions. Right now in this United States we seem to have major trouble accepting the “R” word when it is really the “D” word that should be worrying us. No, the economy is not just simply slowing down; it is tanking!

In the past year I’ve attended more than half dozen banks-sponsored presentations for their business customers (my clients) about the state of the economy – international, national and regional/local. A long time ago I reached the conclusion that most bank economists are but meaningless window dressing with no other value; after my latter experiences, I am now totally convinced.

At these state-of-the-economy breakfasts, during the closing “questions and answers” set aside period, I have been posing for all of three years the same questions dealing with the out-of-control real estate “fake market” and the parallel “bubblicious” stock market based on a totally unsustainable consumption-through-credit rate of growth. Questions to which I have been receiving the same idiotic stock answers; answers that you get to hear monotonously and often from the blokes and broads at CNBC: “Heck, our real estate prices aren’t really that high, only 4 or 5 times the annual household income; and that’s really comparable or even lower than the ratios in most European nations, where they can get as high as 7 times.” Also, they dismiss an overvaluation in world stock markets, perhaps of 5 to 10 trillion dollars, by saying that it isn’t much when measured against a combined world markets’ valuation of around 60 trillion dollars.

Aren’t we able to see that grotesque rationalization by our cadre of not very bright economists, Wall Street bulls-on-steroids, and don’t-give-a-damn politicians? Our socio-political system, unlike that of Canada, Europe or Japan, does not cater to the well-being of people – or at least not as much, as we see other nations with free higher education, universal healthcare, great public transportation systems and many other perks we don’t have – so a housing ratio comparison is totally out of place, absurd. If the Europeans are putting 40 percent of their income into housing, we probably should be aiming at nothing higher than 25 to 30 percent.

And it isn’t the crookedness of the sub-prime fiasco that got us here, but a runaway upsurge in values that had less to do with the workings of a free economy – the forces of supply and demand – and much more to do with greed… in great part selfishly promoted by the real estate industry itself. So here we are 2 or 3 trillion dollars in overvalued housing, some of it already spent in past consumption (equity loans), the rest in the pockets of crooks, house-flippers and agents who benefited from unnecessary, unwarranted commissions. A properly structured capital gains tax on short term real estate profits would have prevented this second onerous tulip festival.

As for that present valuation of 60 trillion dollars for the world stock markets… what would that value be if earnings decline by 25, 50 or 75 percent (something which a depression would bring about in short order); 45, 30, 15 trillion dollars (using same price/earnings ratio)… what then? Haven’t we in the US come to the end of the road as we consume more than we produce? Our grandkids can no longer collateralize our borrowing, and China is not likely to go along banking our diminishing-value dollars.

Americans have taken Norman Vincent Peal’s power of positive thinking several degrees beyond rationality. The made in America “something for nothing” syndrome, which has given us multi-level marketing and other get-rich-quick schemes have seen their day… even with the spiritual backing of those Christian mega churches that promote the Gospel of Greed instead of espousing a Love Thy Neighbor doctrine.

Uncontrolled predatory corporate practices, untaxed individual greed, and unrestrained consumer gluttony, together, are bringing this economy to its knees. Now, after the fact, the partner-in-crime government wants to bring about the establishment of some market controls… overhaul the system, they say; that after lower- and middle-class America have been fleeced – although the final realization of “poverty” is a few months away.

Well, we could all ask Dick Cheney to summarize the state of this predatory economy. Of course, we should expect another of his customary in-your-face responses: “so”?

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, corporations, corporatism, economics, economy, government
Categories: Commentary, Economics, government, Corporations, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »