An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn

This past Sunday another citizen of the world, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, started his walk in that never-ending pilgrimage we refer to as immortality.  And he did it, not just as a laureate man of letters, but as a man of well thought-out choices, conscience and true humanity; a man who proudly and joyfully accepted his Russian beginnings, but also conceded highest priority to dignity and humanity as inalienable rights for every man.

News of his death came to me over the Internet as I was reading an article by AP writers Charles J. Hanley and Jae-Soon Chang, “Seoul probes civilian ‘massacres’ by US,” that had just come over the wire.  Thoughts from those two pieces of news were running parallel in my then emotionally-charged mind: here is a man searching for truth (Solzhenitsyn) and, running parallel to it, here is truth searching for a man, some American great man acknowledging that truth… and finding no one.

While reading data of the horrific victimization, actually murder, of countless Korean civilians – as usual, mostly women, children and old people – at the hands of the US military during that 1950-1 period, I couldn’t help but think of the Gulag created by Joseph Stalin, “the whiskered one,” as described by Solzhenitsyn, and emulated militarily by followers of our own American empire: first in Korea, later in Vietnam and, these days, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

How many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, innocent civilians were strafed by bullets, or napalmed, in Korea?  Indiscriminately, yes, for our soldiers couldn’t tell “one gook from the next,” as they claimed… from the North, in flight to the South… or simply trying to find safety, refuge…anywhere.  Over 200 incidents; some, like the one that happened at No Gun Ri, where survivors estimate 400 Koreans died at American hands, have been kept under wraps from the American citizenry; all the military brass needed to do is just classify any and all the facts with the “secret” or “top secret” stamps thus letting the angry-radioactivity cool off, as if converting it to depleted uranium or denying it to be uranium at all, until two or three generations have passed.  By then, who will be charged with war crimes?  It’s not a cover-up since Americans pretend, and some actually believe, that we never engage in torture or cover-ups.  The White House has for decades given a free hand to the Pentagon… after all, crimes of war “just happen,” and the only crime Americans are not permitted to commit is one which may result in lowering the morale of the troops; or one bringing dishonor to the country.

Then I thought of Solzhenitsyn, and his recollection of being an officer in the Soviet Army, observing the inhumane treatment that the Soviets had inflicted on the Germans, military and civilians, in 1945 as WWII came to a close; perhaps crimes that many would excuse as retribution for what the Germans had done years earlier to them; a retribution that he would not find acceptable. 

Today’s counterpoint is simply the ease in which the American military accepts crimes of war, often candy-coating them and making them PR-acceptable, as simply “collateral damage.”  Our American military has gained vast experience at decriminalizing many repugnant acts of war during the past six decades, from No Gun Ri to My Lai to Fallujah, expecting future generations to be the ones passing judgment, if at all.  It will probably be three decades or more before we get to know the truth of what happened in Fallujah, Haditha and some of the other unresolved war crimes committed in the Middle East.  Documents will then be declassified as memories fade and many, or most, of the witnesses to the war crimes, as well as the perpetrators, are dead.  Also, after much of the anger in the victims’ families has subsided.

Solzhenitsyn was a loving son of Russia and its history; but his humanness made him a great citizen of the world.  He denounced what to him needed to be denounced in every facet of life, whether it pertained to the inhumanity of man towards man; or the way modern society was evolving, including such areas as music.  To his regret, and in spite of his desire for privacy, he was used in propagandistic ways by men he did not hold in high esteem, such as Ronald Reagan; and even criticized by many liberal-secularists who failed to understand that his acceptance of religion in the form of Christian Russian Orthodoxy had little to do with faith, and the inhumanity that faith may have caused, and much to do with history and tradition as basis for change.

Why is it that here in America we don’t produce notable figures, heroes of humankind?
Do we prefer not to be “snitches” to those who commit crimes, not to be “traitors” to the ugly face our country may show at times; this, when in truth we really are, maybe without realizing it, whitewashers of crimes… and traitors to our own humanity?
 

Tags: activism, empire, foreign policy, imperialism, military, religion, social responsibility, war
Categories: Commentary, Empire, Foreign Policy, Religion, Imperialism, military
No Comments »

An Article by:

Russell Cole

Bad for Democracy is scheduled for publication in September of 2008

In order to ascertain the significance of the thesis propounded by Dana D. Nelson in her manuscript, Bad for Democracy, it is useful to first characterize the way in which American democracy is perceived according to the collective representations, instructing the political understandings possessed by the preponderance of Americans.

American mythology instructs us that the composition and ratification of the Constitution serve as historical markers for the solidification of American democracy. According to this narrative, prior to the Revolution, there was a growing democratic fervor. Ultimately, this ground swelling of radical democratic sentiment resulted in a rebellion against Monarchy and colonialism. Following the independence of the American Colonies, the devotion to democratic ideals continued; albeit, in a form that was reckless and unsustainable due to its unmanageability. As a consequence, the Founders of the Nation saw fit to innovate a political structure that both manifested democratic principles as well as a state with a workable governability. From there on, as this orthodox history suggests, the Nation was set along a course leading to the continual improvement of its democratic fixtures.

In contradiction to this grand mythology, Nelson provides us with a concise – although thorough – counter-narrative that expresses aspects to American historicity that run in opposition to the premises underlying the standard master-narrative. Central to her thesis is the recognition that the historical trends in American politics have not conformed to a trajectory headed toward an increasingly enhanced democratic embodiment. As Nelson quite correctly indicates, the practice of radical democracy and the cultural attributes with which it is associated – those behavioral habits that dispose the citizenry so that they take an active role in the ongoing affairs of government – had a more complete expression during the Colonial epoch than in subsequent periods of American history.

With the ratification of the Constitution and the establishment of a centralized office wielding executive powers, a trend was set in motion that is comparable to the political transformation undergone by the Roman Republic during the Roman Revolution. That is, similarly to the Roman Emperor, whose ascendancy to power was associated with popular land reform, the Presidency in American governance has been interpreted as a political mechanism offering representation to the populous. Presidentialism, as Nelson terms it – which is defined as the stature that has been infused into the semiology attached to the conception of the High Office – has been, from its inception, increasingly interpreted as a vehicle for the realization of the popular will in the body of public policy.

Even more, the concept of Presidency has acquired a semantic value, adding to the concept a latent notion of paternalism. We, as citizens, are all too willing to submit to this parental authority; not only during times of uncertainly, peril, and calamity, but during times unmarked by social drama, because we see him as the personification of the democracy that we collectively form as Americans. When the President appears powerful and impacting, we relish his strong paternal presence because we conflate it with our collective contributions, as citizens, to American polity.

However, it is precisely this quality that is assigned to the Presidency – an attribution that causes the Presidential incumbent to be perceived not simply as the outcome of democratic process, but as the carrier of the vitality belonging to the body politic – that contributes to the cultivation of behavioral dispositions, rendering the citizenry democratically disinclined. We confuse our ability to engage in a ritualized affair – where we cast a single vote that infinitesimally affects the outcome of a Presidential Election – with the operations of a functioning democracy. This illusion is propagated by the growing authoritarianism of the Presidency – which reinforces the prejudice that voting in Presidential Elections somehow epitomizes democratic civic engagement.

As Nelson adeptly points out, democracy is more than mere electoral politics. For a political order to be democratic, public policy must be determined through the direct deliberative participation of the citizenry. The Republican Romans, for instance, indeed had elected officials. Furthermore, the aristocrats in the Republic formed the Senate. Nevertheless, only through passage in the House of Plebes could legislation be enacted. Although the Republican Romans possessed intermediaries between the state and the public, such as the Senate who could advise and consent, the commoners, whose votes were organized according to tribes, remained politically empowered through their ability to directly legislate.

Democracy, in order for it to exist in America, must take on similar attributes to those instantiated by the Roman Republic. Americans must learn to acknowledge that the unilateralism of the Presidency is antithetical to democratic organization. Democracy is a messy affair; one that involves an ongoing public dialog conducted in an effort to arrive at new compromises among shifting factions. Democracy is not a political condition whereby a “Decider,” as Nelson mocks, is endowed with solitary authority over pertinent matters of state.

The Populist Party of America has already adopted a platform that calls for political decentralization, with the intention to effect a condition conducive to what we have coined, localized democracy. We realized that through the political empowerment of local communities – a state of affairs that can be hypothetically achieved through the decentralization of government – the political influence of individuals can be amplified; thus, accentuating the motivations of ordinary people to participate in the dealings of their municipal polities.

People will become more politically conscious and politically engaged because, within the context of municipal affairs, their participations can have demonstrable consequences upon the public policies that bare the closest immediacy to the Lifeworlds that they inhabit. In other words, the impact that can be had through participation of people in localized democracy will seem more concrete and more relevant and, therefore, more worthy of their sustained interests and their persisting efforts.

In the prescriptions she lays out for a democratic revival, Nelson appears to have unknowingly joined Populist America’s activist chorus. She recommends political decentralization. Even more, Nelson introduces the verbiage, leaderless democracy, in order to designate an organizational state that is comparable to the networked politics that I had summarized in earlier writings that examined a developing theory of democracy, which has been labeled by members of open source software communities as Extreme Democracy:

http://www.midwest-populistamerica.com/articles/theories-of-extreme-democracy/; http://www.extremedemocracy.com/.

Despite the lack of originality marking the recommendations included under the breadth of the normative section belonging to Nelson’s work, she does provide a valuable survey of the various trends in Computer Mediated Communications that are not only leading to a new paradigm of democratic organization, but to a larger intellectual phenomenon that should be considered a new episteme.

The emergence of social knowledge – facilitated through the device of web based communications – is generally characterized as decentralized modalities of content authoring and editing. Wiki platforms, such as the Wikipedia, are demonstrative of this understanding of knowledge and the processes through which knowledge is most effectively constructed. In the spaces generated by the Wikipedia, anybody can contribute to the creation of content by either authoring original materials or editing the materials already published on the platform.

Although there lacks a sufficient amount of studies to draw generalizations with certainty, preliminary studies, such as the one conducted by Nature, have compared the Wikipedia with traditional reference publications, such as Britannica, and have found the rates of errata between the two respective reference materials closer than one would probably suspect. Additionally, the Wikipedia, in comparison to Britannica, possesses a far greater amount of materials devoted to a broader range of topics. Further, due to its decentralized editing process, it takes less time for the Wikipedia to correct its errata than it does for publications, such as Britannica, that follow a traditional workflow process.

All of these developing social formations fall under the extension of the concept, Web 2.0: web platforms that are devoted to collaborative knowledge building conducted by a community of interlocutors. This new form of sociability suggests that radical democracy – a state that is, oftentimes, embodied by Web 2.0 communities – is not only a deontological ideal – a social condition that we should strive to foster, because it is inherently desirable – but a form of social organization that is pragmatically endowed.

In order to understand why social knowledge produces knowledge constructs on a scale that supersedes in volume and quality the knowledge built from traditional social institutions, such as the Academe, it is illuminative to first explore the precepts that support the epistemic prejudices associated with High Modernity and the Academe:

Political centralization, according to its interpretation under the lens of the new social knowledge understanding of knowledge, is a relic belonging to the social condition marked by industrial capitalism: a myriad of interdependent industrial productions that require homogeneity in order for there to be the predictability that is necessary for the various manufacturing outputs to be interoperable with one another. What is more, industrial capitalism calls for cultural uniformity, in order to effect a state wherein the activities of labor can be integrated into the system of interdependent industrial functions that collectively comprise the modes of production; a social organization that requires social agents, serving a labor, to react in predictable ways when operating as cogs in the machineries constituting the modes of production. Following this logic, organizations must possess an executive authority, under which all other offices and capacities are integrated, in order to ensure their synchrony. In short, they must all fall under a unified command structure.

The paradigm of centralized organization continues to reign dominant in contemporaneity. Nonetheless, this centralized model of social organization is not necessarily the most efficient or effective. Whether we are to compare a starfish to a spider; Native American Apaches to the Aztec or the Incas - decentralized structures are proving to be more resilient and adaptable.

Nelson refers to the popular work, The Starfish and the Spider, authored by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom, who point out that leaderless organizations – similarly to the starfish and the Apaches – cannot be destroyed by annihilating a single component of their structures. Contrarily, in a case of spiders and in the case of the Native American empires, the organisms can be killed by simply targeting their central nervous systems – or, specifically in these cases, the head of the spider and the metropolises, belonging respectively to the Aztec and to the Inca.

The challenge for the reader is to understand how these properties, attributable to leaderless organizations, relate to potential democratic reforms enacted upon the American sociopolitical establishment. I would suggest that leaderless organizations – or, in the context of this essay’s ensuing sociopolitical considerations, what I shall call networked politics – possess a dual function:

Initially, networked politics can be used as an instrument of insurrection. The recent success of the popular uprising among the Filipino is evidentiary of the efficacy of networked forms of resistance. The insurgents relied upon a moblog – a server upon which contents derived from wireless gadgets can be published by a decentralized public – in order to coordinate their activities. Therefore, the Filipino revolution was not centralized, falling under a single command structure; rather, it was decentralized and voluntarily associational. Although networked politics have just now emerged as a topic of social scientific research, historical incidents, such as the historically recent Filipino revolution, suggest that they might be the optimal form of political resistance in a world where social actors are increasingly connected via the availability of Internet based forms of communication.

Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, networked politics are more resistant to the consolidation of sociopolitical power under any particular hegemony. If we look to traditional forms of popular insurrection – those that were guided and controlled, to a large measure, by van guards – we see a tendency for the elites, who orchestrated the successful revolution, to simply consolidate power themselves, forming another hegemonic faction in control of the society’s sociopolitical power.

As Orwell so brilliantly depicted in his Animal Farm, the revolutionary elites – which, in the case of Orwell’s short story, were comprised of the van guard pigs on the Farm – following the revolution, simply transform into the role that was assumed by the previous governing class. Consequently, the pigs, after staging the revolution, eventually morphed into an embodiment indistinguishable from the human farmer who had been expelled during the uprising.

However, in the case of network politics, there is no centralization, so there will not necessarily be any faction in a position to install an elitist governing structure, or hegemony, in the post-revolutionary social order. To translate the argument I am making into Nelson’s terms – the expressions she used when constructing an alternative American historicity – the emergent social condition will not possess a unified executive branch, and, therefore, it will be absent of Presidentialism: The cultural condition whereby Americans are disposed to conflate democratic processes with the presence of a strong, paternalistic Executive Authority.

Russell Cole

Tags: activism, constitution, decentralization, democracy, executive powers, government, populist party america, Russell Coles Blog, self governance, Social Change, sociology, sociology web 2.0
Categories: Commentary, Democracy, constitution, government, Russell Cole's Blog, Decentralization, self-governance, Social Change, Sociology, activism, executive powers
No Comments »

An Article by:
Ben Tanosborn

No gold watch for Alan Greenspan as he retired from serving the elite – we can hardly call it public service!  After almost two decades as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, this Robin Hood for the rich and powerful was bestowed, as he was about to step down, the highest honor in the land – now shrinking in prestige at about the same pace as the United States dollar – the Medal of Freedom.
Now, two and a half years later, as this nation is mired in a recession which is likely to turn into a prolonged economic disaster, something which Mr. Greenspan almost single-handedly brought about, the laudatory decibels for this low talker, and mumbler, have gone down considerably.  Of course, he’ll never lose the admiration and gratitude of those he ended up serving so well: the powerful elite and the aspiring affluentocracy.  Americans in those two groups, flag pins on their lapels, still consider him an economic wizard.  But more than a wizard, he should be dubbed as the rich man’s Santa Claus.

Wizard… what a crock!  An accomplished musician turned into a mediocre economist at best, but with the boot-licking capacity of a male courtesan to American presidents, from Reagan to Bush Son.  A prestidigitator with a facility for gentle criticism; a coiner of cute names for dire situations; misleader via inappropriate numbers and gobbledygook, Greenspan was not the economic genius Wall Street and government leaders portrayed him to be… far from it.  He was definitely no economic rainmaker for America, only a charlatan with a dowser!  Let’s just say that as inhumane as Shrub’s foreign policy has been towards Palestine and the rest of the Middle East, the former saxophone player’s economic policy has proven to be just as genocidal; something the American citizen is finally beginning to experience.  And they have barely let the lions out of their cages at the Coliseum!

Already six to nine months into the recession, government leaders are still telling us that it is just a period of slow growth, a pit stop in this economic race that we’ll eventually win, so worry not, my friend.  That explains to us what “garbage numbers” government is using to rose-color the state of the economy in terms of growth, unemployment and inflation.  We are probably the most lied-to people by their government on the planet, at least among presumably developed and educated nations.

Gullible us!

No matter what Bernanke, Greenspan’s successor, or Treasury Secretary Paulson tell us, we have already entered an epic bear global market the likes of which take us back three generations.  But then WWII was able to bail us out since our economy was half of the world’s… and we were the international creators of wealth and credit, our economic and social well-being then based on savings, not just spending.   Now we produce weaponry, and little else, in a planet which certainly doesn’t need it… and in a global economy where we appear to be an increasingly less important player.  Months we are told before things will start to turn around.  Optimists, you say?  Try liars!

And, please, don’t just point the finger at the sub-prime mortgage loans, house flippers and proverbial greed in the real estate industry.  That was just the catalyst, for our entire economy was out of control or, rather, lacking in proper controls.  Home-ownership as part of the American dream has always been a questionable policy before, and one completely foolhardy as our nation adopted globalization.  Sure, realtors and politicians gained by proclaiming such idiocy – and still do – but the reality is quite different as it only redistributes wealth via tax sheltering; creates a less mobile society, worsening unemployment; and really slams the brakes on economic growth.  People have been brainwashed to think this simple shelter should be equated to both savings and investment in a truly disproportionate way; and that’s the kind of mentality that got us to where we are today.  Not just the abandoned, foreclosed homes, but there still remains a multi-trillion dollar overvaluation in “normal” housing, pseudo-wealth, which because of owners’ psychological inelasticity to the “loss of wealth” will be either eroded slowly by inflation, or lost overnight as people are forced to sell… whatever the reason.

Even Britain has phased out in a two-decade period of tax-sheltering in housing… and we seem to be among the last in the world to accept its regressive concept.  Let’s face it, these misnomers of “ownership society” and “popular capitalism” are but the elite’s way to confuse and enslave an already servile society… simply with clever PR.

There were a few of us during the past decade who questioned Greenspan’s sanity in going overboard granting easy credit to stimulate the economy solely through housing; a good chunk of the money used: unrealized interest from savings seniors had faithfully accumulated during a lifetime; seniors de facto forced to be donors to an industry which turned out to be not just obscenely greedy but predatory as well.
I hope this to be the last time I write about Mr. Greenspan… he has proved to be all the negative things I always wrote he was.  That doesn’t make me a visionary… but makes him either a fool, or a practitioner of deception; or maybe both.

Can anyone fathom greater recent blunders than Paul Bremer’s disbanding of the Iraqi army as he was made “governor” of Iraq… or Alan Greenspan’s monetary policy during his last five years as head of the Fed?  Well, if you are an American and can come up with one, even if of lesser magnitude… there is a Medal of Freedom waiting to be bestowed on you.  At the Kennedy Center in Washington DC… by George W. Bush!

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, economics, economists, government, labor
Categories: Commentary, Economics, government, Labor, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

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, expor