An Article:
Ben Tanosborn

It happens time and again as America’s quadrennial campaigns to gain residency at the imperial White House gather momentum.  Although our forever-cloned candidates, one for each of the two indistinct political parties, are asked to address each and every issue of the day, soft-hearted – or perhaps civically-ignorant – Americans that we are, we usually give candidates a free pass, not forcing them to commit to any specific color in their answers, true chameleons they are.  And the press, with its own corporate mission, self-preservation, plays the usual economic game in its key role of as a pleasing whore.

Progressives as well as many other change-clamoring Americans, particularly legions of young college students – many, first-time presidential would-be voters – volunteered to give this new political face of great hope, a man articulating change with a great amount of credulity, the reins of that sempiternal “lesser evil” party of peace-makers and lowly economy’s downcasts.  Of course, having reached that all important milestone which assured him the backing of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama had few options but to accept being placed in the waiting “golden stable” where he gets new handlers claiming to have magical knowledge with which to plot how the presidential race must be ran, not to place… or to show, but to win.

So now that face of great hope has been lifted, not to remove any wrinkles, young man that he is, but “to add” the necessary patriotic wrinkles required to be acceptable to what the new handlers consider to be the candidate’s initiation of trust from Middle-America, not a geographical location but a state of mind: that non-existing, totally equivocated middle of the road of an economically and morally decrepit, fading nation where the imperialism-cancer is already hovering around stage IV having spread to many, if not most, aspects of American life.  This while flags wave high in glory, and flag pins adorn the lapels of politicians and their brethren, our corps of elite corporate crooks.  Could it be that it isn’t change that Americans want… only a return, by whatever means, to easy credit, low oil prices and continuance of that fantasy dream of wealth as a birthright, or one created by motivational charlatanry, rather than the product of one’s labor?

Obama’s hundred-and-eighty-degree turn from progressivism and change should come as no surprise to those of us oft-scalded by American fraudulent politics; although we cannot help but feel deep pain for our idealist young people getting their initiation of fire.  Obama is in the hands of the handlers (visible and invisible) who require his adherence to flip-flop ambidexterity about Iraq, NAFTA (North America Free Trade Association), separation of church and state; and, recently, his unnecessary and obscene vote in the Senate favoring more federal surveillance on the citizenry.  One wonders how Obama might have voted in 2002 on the Iraq resolution had he been then a member of the Senate… with advisers; and not just an Illinois citizen unattached to the powerful.

If we add to all the above his ceremoniously recorded adhesion not long ago to AIPAC (Israel’s lobby) and his of-late windmill attitude to just about anything and everything, one must ask, is there really much of a difference between Barack Obama and John McCain?  Well, age for one thing; and, most definitely, brains.  But as for everything else, including critical foreign policy change, the two senators might have been birthed by the same mother as non-identical twins.

Some people, who have followed Obama’s political evolution since Hillary Clinton’s abdication to what she claimed to be her Democratic Party throne, are quick to give him the benefit of the doubt, saying that once he gets to the White House he’ll be his own man and his deeply imbedded progressive ideas will take root.  Fools we are… has that ever happened before…well, in recent memory?  Not a chance!

Even President Carter, as honorable a president as this nation has ever had, found it necessary to bend later on in his administration to the influence that the Miami Mafia (exiled Cubans) had on Florida politics.  Castro’s Cuba, or rather the apolitical Cubans in the Island, had to suffer the consequences of America’s WIR (Weapons of Ill Resort): embargoes, economic sanctions and other destructive, anti-people dirty tricks which are constantly being performed secretly.

There are three key issues for Americans which overrule everything else, issues that have been addressed with ignorance and/or triviality by both Obama and McCain.  They are: the complete overhaul of an economy in shambles; the imperialistic treatment we give to our presence in both the Middle East and Southwest Asia (Afghanistan, Iraq and the military-infested waters of the Persian Gulf, for which a more apropos name would be the Pentagulf); and our irreverent, imperialistic position towards Russia.  The latter, an issue which is not being played much by the American media… but an issue that will comeback for sure to hunt us… and hurt us.  Unlike Germany and Japan, Russia is not a defeated country… and to treat her with triumphal disdain and bullyism could ultimately exact too-high a price for the United States.

Arsonist Bush may be lighting up most destructive fires around the world, but no one hears either McCain or Obama speaking of putting them out.

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, democracy, economics, media, politics
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Democracy, Politics, Media, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

An Article by:
Lonnie D. Story

My eyes lift up from the road and see beyond the road ahead.
I brush my eyes with rough leathered gloves,
beneath the glasses that barely care my sight.
My mind is a million miles away,
as each hundred feet or so, at speeds at vary,
take me on this journey light,
and severely dangerous for my own lack of care.
My hands hold the placements of standard put,
Yet my heart is melted into a land beyond my foot.
I have lost all that is within me,
my days of past, my days that last,
the days that last are the days that passed.

I throttle through,
measured right hand at the bar I pull,
My hands numb with nerves diminished,
I shake each one to recover strength,
to ensure this ride finds a final finish.
How long I can take it, I don’t know,
I only cherish each moment as a mental gold.
I know my ride is sad and worn,
But my pride has no bearing,
my humility bears the burden,
knowing that my care lacks concern,
For all this ride, my life is determined.
Where I am and who I am,
where I’ve been and where I go,
on this ride of prayers,
My mind is miles away,
From this journey on a backwater bay.

The sweet smell of tides at low,
remind me of days when,
my heart was filled with love,
and empty of a love returned.
Yet, joyous pleasures, I had found,
in the shallows of that marshy ground,
A place where my heart, it’s dreams blew to sea.
My heart had found the place that I,
I had always been meant to be.

For words, they come and flow,
and time it certainly takes it’s toll.
I write at night my thoughts of mind,
of a time, so many, a time sublime.
A time today that I have had,
and remember times that make me sad.
For all the joys of a ride today,
I cannot forget the ecstasy of all the yesterdays.

Tags: fictional, poetry
Categories: Commentary, fictional
No Comments »

Following the Larry Craig arrest for lurid conduct in a public restroom, I had posted a sympathetic letter, expressing pity for someone so tortured, self deluded, and sensually deprived.  I contended that this uncover operation executed by a police officer reflected more poorly upon those who conceive and implement such a law enforcement plan than those who fall victim to its ensnarement.

Certainly, the authoritarian mentality responsible for these contraventions into such consensual activities is more alarming – due to its reflection of authoritarian tendencies by those who wield power – than the prospect of people having sex in a restroom. Disregard for civil liberties can be a slippery slope.

The more commonplace these authoritarian incursions into our private affairs become, the more precedents are established for these government-sponsored regulatory interdictions.  The accumulation of previous instances will inevitably change the backdrop against which we interpret the boundaries between government and the private conduct of citizens.  Future affronts to our liberties will appear passé and a matter of course.  Consequently, they will fail to register in our civil libertarian sensibilities; therefore, the governmental intrusions will not incite our condemnation, and we will neglect to call for their repeal.

Additionally, on a more practical level, sting operations in which undercover officers are stationed in bathroom stalls, posing as willing bath house participants, seems excessive for even the pettiest of people to insist upon, and such expenditures of resources can certainly be better directed in support of law enforcement designed to curtail crimes that are perpetrated against victims, who are injured in the process.To allocate resources, while we are supposedly conducting a ‘war on terror,’ toward the enforcement of these ridiculous crimes against morality is a disciplinarian excess that we simply cannot afford.

From the summation above, I hope it is fairly evident that I made a point not to direct criticism or judgment upon Larry Craig.  I sought to demonstrate that the pressing concerns related to this matter centered around the disciplinarian mentalities possessed by those who feel justified in legislating both morality and aesthetics.

However – and tragically – the Senator failed to learn from his experiences as the victim of authoritarian pettiness. I am not referring to any lesson to be learned regarding the precariousness of having sex in public restrooms.  Rather, I am referencing the need for social tolerance and understanding, which one would have hoped Larry Craig to have realized through his embarrassing experiences.  Nonetheless, Craig has decided to sponsor the latest ‘defense of marriage,’ bill that has been presented by the demagogic Religious Right panderers in the Senate. It appears that Craig continues to delude himself into believing that he is ‘heterosexual,’ and that other people are even willing to entertain the prospect that he has not engaged in ‘extra-heterosexual,’ relationships with anonymous partners.

For my part, I have realized that hypocrites of the most profound order probably do not  deserve sympathy and tolerance.

Russell Cole

Tags: liberty, Russell Coles Blog, self governance, Social Change, social policies, social responsibility
Categories: Commentary, liberty, Russell Cole's Blog, self-governance, Social Change, social responsibility
No Comments »

On This Fourth of July 2008

An Article by:
Ben Tanosborn

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with its own government, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the denunciation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, a new government must be instituted, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.  Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of the people of the United States of America; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their existing system of government.  The history of the Executive in this government, exemplified and accentuated by the current administration; together with a long history of a lobbies-corrupted Legislature and a politically-appointed Judicial, are histories of repeated injuries and usurpations, not acting as to balance power but jointly providing a unified corruptive government, all having in direct object the establishment of a world empire and a domestic ruling class able to exercise absolute tyranny over the people. The present and recent past administrations of the United States of America are hereby deemed non-responsive to the interests and well-being of the people of this nation while also acting as an imminent and constant danger to the cause of peace in the world.  To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

…That existing government has made itself a self-perpetuating tyranny where the channels to change and impeachment are de facto blocked by the duopolistic party system.

… That existing government operates under the auspices of special interest groups whose money influence the election of officials in such government, the enactment of legislation, and the way domestic and foreign policy are created and conducted.

… That existing government has not only permitted but promoted the ever-widening gap between haves (20%) and have-nots (80%), with serious wealth and income inequality.

… That existing government shows no concern for the well-being of the people as evidenced by the availability of healthcare, education and social welfare relative to other nations with similar or fewer resources.

… That existing government is responsible for instilling fear in the population, making terror the underlying reason for curtailing freedoms, spying or even lying to the people.

… That existing government maintains a military with a destructive capacity far in excess of that needed for self-defense; and to the detriment of public needs.  And that such massive destructive capacity only serves to paint the United States as a coercive, imperialistic and terrorist nation.

… That existing government by engaging in criminal wars, embargoes, blockades and other black-listing of foreign nations has made the United States not just an international bully but a piranha, world’s leading perpetrator of genocide and dislocation of people.

… That existing government has in fact misgoverned domestically in every facet of governing; while abusing its power to promote mayhem internationally which has gravely damaged the reputation of the people of this nation before the eyes of the world.

We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, in self-representation and joined   in mind and effort, appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name of one another with common joint interests, and self-exercising our authority as free people, solemnly publish and declare, that these United States of America are, and of right ought to be free from the tyranny of the existing government; that they are absolved from all allegiance to this existing Federal government, and that all political connection between them, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that the Fifty States making up this union immediately join forces to create and summon a Constitutional Congress for the sole purpose of enacting a new constitution and the formation of a new Federal government; representatives to that Congress to be judiciously chosen by the States in proportional numbers to population. The new constitution, and the government which will derive from it, to be exemplary models in morality and brotherhood; such government to have full power to work for peace and against war, to regulate all wealth-producing activities to guarantee a free but fair market, and to do all other acts and things which independent nations may of right do for the well-being of its citizens. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we, the people of these United States of America, pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Author’s note:  Rather than a plagiarization of the original Declaration of Independence this re-declaration is intended as juxtaposition to that great document of long ago… and the sad political reality we have today in a broken government which does not represent the citizenry; a reality that would bring dismay to its signers in their futuristic vision of the United States.  It took a revolution to free the Colonies from the English Crown… and it appears that it will take another revolution for this nation to retrieve both, its moral compass and true freedom for its people.

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, citizens, democracy, direct democracy
Categories: Commentary, Democracy, Direct Democracy, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

An Article by:
Ben Tanosborn

The Brits made an imperial mess of Iraq back in 1930, now it is America’s turn!

We followed the fate of the French in Vietnam; are trying hard to imitate the Russians in Afghanistan; and now, our emulation-in-progress is of our beloved European cousins.  Who would ever think that it was an American philosopher (by way of Spain), George Santayana, who stated just a century ago, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  And American government leaders always seem to be the forgetful ones, although as it happens in all these cases, it is the American people who are condemned to pay the consequences in both blood and dollars.

We are not even speaking of millennia ago, or even centuries; only the recent past.  How can we be so forgetful as to how the British bamboozled a timid Iraqi Parliament, where the true nationalists lacked a voiced, into signing an agreement in 1930 that would have Iraq in turmoil with coup after coup until Saddam Hussein came to power in 1979?  And we all know what has happened since then.  Seventy-eight years later here we are, cramming down their throats an illegal “strategic alliance” that is similar in both content and tone to that Great Britain “imposed” on Iraq almost eight decades ago.

And I say illegal for both Iraq and the United States.  For Iraq, it’s a non-valid agreement since it will be contracted under duress from an occupier’s demands, whatever excuses are brought forward to obtain legitimacy.  For the US, it’s also an invalid pact unless it is subsequently ratified by the US Senate.  We are told that the wording in this strategic alliance has been crafted so as to “avoid such ratification.”  Nonsense, if the provisions in such agreement or alliance have the underlying intent of a treaty, it is a treaty; and as a treaty, constitutionally, it must be ratified.

True that the American Executive Branch has been operating for decades outside of the Constitution in taking the nation to war (undeclared war) and entering into treaties (or agreements) thanks to a spineless Senate and the de-facto consent of Americans, who really care little, or are brainwashed by the White House, unless the conflict turns sour.
It is remarkable that the two senators who will be contending for the highest office in the land next November, McCain and Obama, aren’t exercising their duty as senators, making this issue one of national concern, one to be handled with both transparency and care.  Malfeasance in office by members of the Senate made Bush’s invasion of Iraq fait accompli; once again, it will be malfeasance if the senate remains blind, deaf and mute to this travesty.

It is interesting that Barack Obama claims that “had he been a member of the Senate back in 2002, he would have voted against granting Bush permission to invade Iraq.”  Well, he is a member of the Senate now… but one hears little noise from him on this important issue, one that could keep the United States involved in the Middle East until the area runs out of oil or Israelis, whichever comes last .  Time for deeds, Sen. Obama!

Iraq does not appear to be willing to have the U.N. mandate extended beyond its current expiration date, at the end of this year; and the US really doesn’t care whether its effective control is through a mandate granted by the U.N. or an agreement with a government which may not be of unity or consensus.  The US must have a tacit control of Iraq’s oil while maintaining a solid military presence in that part of the world to counter not just Iran and its nuclear aspirations, but any “problems” that may emerge anywhere in Southwest Asia.

Although the hush-hush negotiations on the Strategic Framework Agreement and the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) had reached an impasse by the second week in June – Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki referring the deadlock on what his government felt were critical sovereignty issues – both Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari and Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad (US) appear confident that an agreement will soon be reached since both countries are committed to a joint security pact.  Yes, we will have two caliphates out of Baghdad; one ran locally by Iraqis, the other ran by Americans as part of the Empire.

What remains to be seen, even if an agreement is reached, is whether the US Senate will once again capitulate to the White House, allowing its duties and responsibilities to be usurped by Imperator George W. Bush.  And whether the American people really give a damn now that they are paying over $4 per gallon of gasoline, soon projected to be $5, which when added to the other economic miseries the country is enduring calls for either a revolution or surrender.  My bet is on the latter.

Tags: american empire, Ben Tanosborn, colonialism, empire, Global, globalization, imperialism, military
Categories: Commentary, Global, Empire, Imperialism, military, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

The Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement has been kept largely hidden from public circumspection.  It is a working draft that is intended to culminate into the substantive body of an international treaty geared toward the establishment of internationally recognized laws and enforcement procedures designed to curtail IP, (intellectual property crimes).

Judging from some of the stipulations iterated in the few snippets of the working draft that have been leaked to the public, it is no wonder that American government officials are attempting to install these provisions through the circuitous route of an internation treaty adoption.  By bypassing the committees and deliberative procedures followed by the Congressional bodies when crafting legislation, the controversial measures will be less conspicuous to the public and will enter into law through a single ratification.

The writings currently contained in the drafts of the treaty call for ex parte searches of parties who are expected to be in possession of stolen intellectual property.  Further, the treaty calls for an ex officio authority that can take action against those accused of IP, even in the absence of any complaint leveled by the party from whom the intellectual property has allegedly been stolen.

To put it plainly, the current Administration, since it could never pass these incursions to American civil liberties through conventional legislative processes in which there would be more prolific debate and more abundant publicity, is attempting to bypass our normal and more sanguine procedures for passing legislation by instituting these laws and enforcement powers through the adoption of an international treaty.

Russell Cole:

I have pasted the contents of the leaked document below:

Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
The proliferation of infringements of intellectual property rights (”IPR”) particularly in the context of counterfeiting and piracy poses an ever-increasing threat to the sustainable development of the world economy. The consequences of such IPR infringements include (l) depriving legitimate businesses and their workers of income; (2) discouraging innovation and creativity; (3) threatening consumer health and safety; (4) providing an easy source of revenue for organized crime; and (5) loss of tax revenue.
Objective and Scope
Establish, among nations committed to strong IPR protection, a common standard for IPR enforcement to combat global infringements of IPR particularly in the context of counterfeiting and piracy that addresses today’s challenges, in terms of increasing international cooperation, strengthening the framework of practices that contribute to effective enforcement of IPRs, and strengthening relevant IPR enforcement measures themselves. 1
Vehicle
A plurilateral Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.
Parties
In the initial phase, it is important to join a number of interested trading partners in setting out the parameters for an enforcement system that will function effectively in today’s environment. As a second phase, other countries would have the option to join the agreement as part of an emerging consensus in favor of a strong IPR enforcement standard.
Provisions
Provisions could be organized into three main categories:
International Cooperation: Cooperation among the parties to the agreement is a key component of the agreement - including sharing of information and cooperation between our law enforcement authorities, including Customs and other relevant agencies.
Enforcement Practices: It is necessary to establish enforcement practices that promote strong intellectual property protection in coordination with right holders and trading partners. Such “best practices” would support the application of the relevant legal tools, as outlined by the Legal Framework.
1 Members shall provide for the provisions related to criminal enforcement and border measures to be applied at least in cases of trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. Members may provide for such provisions to be applied in other cases of infringement of IPR.
Legal Framework: It is critical to have a strong and modern legal framework so that law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, and private citizens have the most up-to-date tools necessary to effectively bring counterfeiters and pirates to justice.
As in all multilateral negotiations, appropriate flexibilities would be taken into consideration to accommodate the various basic legal systems in place in the potential ACTA members, without compromising the overall objectives of ACTA.
We have set out below examples of the types of provisions that could be included in the agreement.
International Cooperation
-     Recognition that international enforcement cooperation is vital and should be encouraged regardless of the location of the right holder or the origination of the infringing item;
Capacity building and technical assistance in improving enforcement, including training for developing country parties to the agreement and training for third countries;
International cooperation among enforcement agencies, including commitment to undertake cooperative enforcement actions where appropriate, and exchange of best practices and information for use in enforcement actions; Periodic opportunity for governments and public/private advisory groups to meet and share best practices.
Enforcement cooperation should be consistent with existing international agreements.
2. Enforcement Practices (provisions designed to foster a climate of active and effective enforcement of relevant IPR laws)
- Formal or informal public/private advisory groups;
Fostering of specialized intellectual property expertise within law enforcement structures to ensure effective handling of IPR cases;
Measures for raising consumer public awareness about the importance of IPR protection and the detrimental effects ofIPR infringements;
Publication of enforcement procedures and information relating to enforcement actions both internally and at the border;
Sharing of information with the public should be without prejudice to the need to protect investigative techniques, confidential law enforcement information, and privacy rights;
Commitment to sustain internal coordination among, and facilitate joint action by, domestic government agencies concerned with IPR enforcement through establishment of coordination bodies or other mechanisms.
3. Legal Framework (provisions designed to ensure that authorities and right holders have appropriate tools for strong IP R enforcement)
Criminal enforcement:
- criminal sanctions (in addition to civil or, where applicable, administrative liability) to be applied to IPR infringements on a commercial scale:
IPR infringements for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, significant willful infringements without motivation for financial gain to such an extent as to prejudicially affect the copyright owner (e.g., Internet piracy), II imports and exports,
II knowingly trafficking in counterfeit labels which are intended to be used on protected goods;
- ex officio authority to take action against infringers ti,e., authority to act without complaint by right holders);
- establishment and imposition of deterrent-level penalties and/or other measures to promote deterrence (e.g. non-binding guidelines);
- authority to seize and destroy IPR infringing goods and equipment and materials used to make them;
- destruction of IPR infringing goods and seizure of equipment and materials, used to make IPR infringing goods in criminal cases;
- authority to seize and forfeit illegal proceeds connected to IPR infringements.
Border Measures:
-     ex officio authority for customs authorities to suspend import, export and trans-shipment of suspected IPR infringing goods;
procedures for right holders to initiate suspension by customs authorities of import, export and trans-shipment of suspected IPR infringing goods; measures to ensure the seizure and destruction of IPR infringing goods; Allocation of liability for storage and destruction fees between the importer/exporter and the right holder, and/or the appropriate government agency, so as not to place unreasonable burdens on right holders;
authority to impose deterrent penalties,;
authority to disclose key information about infringing shipments to right holders;
measures to ensure that goods are not released into channels of commerce without right holder permission in cases where the goods have been determined by the competent authorities to be infringing IPR.
Civil enforcement:
- Authority to order ex parte searches and other preliminary measures;
- Authority to order preservation of documentary evidence;
- Damages adequate to compensate, including measures to overcome the
problem of right holders not being able to get sufficient compensation due to difficulty in assessing the full extent of damage;
- Provisions for judicial authorities to order the infringer to pay the right holder, in appropriate cases, reasonable legal fees and costs.
Optical disc piracy:
- Measures to address large-scale illegal optical disc (OD) production for countries that have large-scale illegal OD production.
Internet distribution and information technology:
- Legal regime, including safeguards for Internet service providers (ISPs) from liability, to encourage ISPs to cooperate with right holders in the removal of infringing material;
- Procedures enabling right holders who have given effective notification of a claimed infringement to expeditiously obtain information identifying the alleged infringer;
- Remedies against circumvention of technological protection measures used by copyright owners and the trafficking of circumvention devices.
Dispute settlement:
- Resolve implementation issues through oversight by committee of Parties and/or other cooperative mechanisms.
Other Provisions:
- Special measures for developing countries in the initial phase.

Tags: congress, constitution, corporations, economics, foreign policy, Global
Categories: Commentary, Global, Economics, Congress, Corporations, Foreign Policy
No Comments »

Insightful remarks on the nature of American politics and governance

“We’re not a democracy. It’s a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we’re a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy.”

–Ramsey Clark

“Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of plutocracy.”

–John Pierpont Morgan

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

–Thomas Jefferson

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour [endeavor] to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

–Abraham Lincoln

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

–Franklin D. Roosevelt

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.”

–Benito Mussolini

The compilation of quotations was derived from an email correspondence authored by Dennis Morrisseau: A Vermont politician, he was the first Republican to run for Congress on a platform that included the impeachment of both Bush and Chaney. His biography also includes an incident during the Vietnam War where he, when serving as an officer in the Military, as a protest to the war, refused to engage in combat, and was subsequently court marshaled.

I have included this brief biographic description because it evidences the differences existing among the various types of political conservatism and demonstrates that the two-dimensional framework used by the punditry to index political ideologies is woefully inadequate and, indeed, in some cases misrepresentative. There are undoubtedly a whole field of ideological commonalities to be discovered between and among all of us, irrespective of the Left/Right division we have been lulled into assuming to impose barriers between us.

Russell Cole

Tags: democracy, plutocracy, political ideology, politics, Russell Coles Blog
Categories: Commentary, Democracy, Russell Cole's Blog, Politics
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn

Like it or not, in agreement or in disfavor by the populace, our money politics has now entered the era of networking, multi-level-marketing and thorough ad-brainwashing.

Forget about democratic ideals, exalted social justice, or even the loftier proposition of brotherhood and world peace.  Forget about political party platforms that might spouse aspirations spirited with humanistic principles.  Remember, this is America, where the only beliefs held sacrosanct, beliefs which are expected to hold popular allegiance, are embodied in the duality of market economics and market politics.

Well, in truth, probably fewer than 10 percent of our citizens have a clue as to what a free market economy is, or should be; or that our existing economy is hardly guided by a free price system, much of it being expropriatory and corrupt.  However, that 90-plus percent of ignoranti in the art of economics are well aware of this nation’s unashamed commitment to market politics, accepting by default being governed by those with the purse strings.  Most everyone seems to be in conformity with the idea that “ours is the best government money can buy,” mocking ourselves to be proud and happy fools.

Money has influenced and often dictated, at least in our lifetime, how political elections are being conducted so as to optimize a candidate’s chances for election.  Our two-way stepladder politics has been for the most part a game played by the Knights of Capital, some siding with the Democrats, some siding with the Republicans, some straddling… placing their bets on both.

Now, since the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law went into effect (2002), there is little option but for the candidates to invite small donors, up to $2,300 each this year, to come and fill their coffers.  The fund-raising, to be effective, needs to tap a new breed of “venture capitalists,” a group that might be considered the Squires of Capital, those who not only donate the allowed max, but who pledge to collect from other donors from 10 to 100 times that amount.  Networking is called… MLM of 2 or 3 levels, if you ask me!  Enter the most successful – in obtaining financing – presidential candidate of them all, Barack Obama, who in a true effortless mode can just rake in $50 million in a single month, 80 percent via the Internet, with zero personal effort and barely cracking a smile.

And the why of that success should not be a secret to someone in my shoes.

A business plan for a political candidate should be no different from a business plan for either a start-up business, or a mature one in need of venture capital… whether for expansion or for survival.  The functional areas in politics that need to be addressed may be different from those of a profit-making enterprise… but the purpose is identical: to obtain necessary funding to achieve a set of goals.  And, in my counseling capacity to businesses for decades, I have been an integral part of that business plan process.

And guess what, for all the logically and beautifully presented data assigning a high probability of success in the plan, and minimization of risk, it has been my experience that, in eight out of ten cases, whether dealing with banks or in private placements, the ultimate success was achieved because of the personal talent and the inspirational, or entrepreneurial, skills of the person in charge.  At the end of the day, it is a person that defines for a venture capitalist whether a company or a project is viable.  And so it is in politics.  Barack Obama was/is that inspirational leader this year… turning him into a quarter-of-a-billion, maybe a half-billion dollar man before the Democratic National Convention in August.

So more than the political funding concept, success has been Obama himself… and his message, of course.  Needless to say, Obama needs to pay attention to the pre-printed pages that are de rigueur in any and all business plans presented by US presidential candidates: solidarity with the aspirations of the brass at the Pentagon (empire); at least a friendly attitude towards big business; total adhesion to Israel’s government; and an anti-Castro (Fidel, Raúl or any government of ideological continuity) position on Cuba.

A good politician that Obama is, he is ahead of schedule, having made the rounds at the synagogues as well as addressing the now dwindling Cuban Mafiosi in Southern Florida.  Of course, the hawkish duet in the trio, Clinton and McCain, had already done so.  But then again, foreign policy issues are pre-written in each candidate’s business plan.

Does anyone really believe that this country will change via political evolution?  I, for one, have my doubts.  Our elections are but an adventure in advancing the possibility of minimal change, but never give us an opportunity to really choose change.

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, democracy, economics, economy, government, market, politics
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Democracy, government, Politics
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosbor

Europeans live in a fantasy world if they think that this fall election in the US will change anything with respect to America’s military demands on NATO. Joseph Lieberman, the pro-war US senator, and chief advocate in Congress for Israel’s hawkish government, said as much a couple of months ago as he stressed the cross-party American position on Afghanistan. Europe, said the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential candidate, can be assured that either of the two Democratic presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have the same exact policy on Afghanistan. Of course, there is nothing we need to say about Bush-Twin, and Republican presidential candidate – short on brains and long on warmongering, John McCain.

American and NATO troops trying to keep Karzai’s regime alive in Afghanistan probably number four or five times the number of fighting Taliban, although foreign fighters from Chechnya, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and several other Arab-Muslim countries, add to the professional insurgency. And pro-Taliban part-timers, outraged by the helter-skelter attitude on Afghan lives by foreigners – such as the Shinwar Massacre committed by Americans in the Nangrahar province – are starting to make a measurable difference in the overall effectiveness of the insurgency.

Two weeks ago, Mingo, my European journalist friend, who had returned to Afghan lands in March after an absence of over two years, gave me a debriefing on how things measure up after this period.  “Ben,” he said, “America’s puppet, Karzai, continues to be for all practical purposes the Mayor of Kabul, and not the president of Afghanistan, exercising influence on his countrymen solely on the distribution of foreign aid to the provinces. The perception by Afghans, whether they live in Herat, Kabul or Kendahar, is that all these billions in purported aid have not improved their lives a bit, and most of them – other than those benefiting from the poppy trade – have a clear and nostalgic view of the Taliban regime.”

Mingo was in Kabul last month, and happened to be an eyewitness to the attempt on Karzai’s life. His local host made what appeared to be a prophetic statement: Afghans will likely be celebrating within four or five years, perhaps sooner, the liberation of the country from the US and its misnamed “coalition.” The celebration will replace, according to his host, the current April 27 military parade, where the attempt on Karzai’s life occurred; now the most important national holiday, it commemorates the nation’s liberation from Soviet occupation.

Last February, during the 44^th Munich Security Conference, Robert Gates, America’s mild-mannered, but just as hawkish as his predecessor Pentagon warlords, gave to the NATO members, in spades, the unmasked and bitter-tasting truth, demanding a “fair distribution of the burden” when it came to the propping up of military defenses in Afghanistan, referring to the resistance by some NATO members, Germany for one, to bear a proportionate share of the fighting and dying. America (or rather its ruling elite) just won’t tolerate a “two-tiered alliance.” Poor Jung, Germany’s Gates’ counterpart; he quickly learned that it was of little value that Germany had warned the US six years before of military adventurism. Yep, we all remember how the “criminal wit” of then US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was utilized to denigrate “old Europe.”

Since surrendering to American demands is not such a popular thing in Germany, but since such surrendering is a must, confidential discussions and negotiations must be done sub Rosa… and according to Der Spiegel Germany has agreed to increase its troop presence from 3,500 to 4,500. Not that it will make a scintilla of difference according to Mingo; nor will the additional British help.

A junior British officer summed up to my friend the ideological consensus of the NATO troops serving in Afghanistan: “The Yanks indiscriminately start all these wars, and then the bloody bastards expect us to help, always calling on that card without expiration that calls for a pay-back on the help they offered in WW’s I and II. One would think that that kind of rationalization would be stale by now. As it is the idiocy spouted by Washington that the American ‘war against terror’ is helping to keep Europe safe, as evidenced by the 2004 and 2005 bombings of Madrid and London… in both cases retribution for US war policies in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

And here we are on Memorial Day with the biggest Hun of them all, George W. Bush, telling the country that “America’s freedoms come at great cost.” But propping up Afghanistan, or Iraq, has nothing to do with our freedoms… or with theirs.

Tags: bandwidth, economics, empire, foreign policy, Global, government
Categories: Commentary, Global, Economics, government, Empire, Foreign Policy
No Comments »