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
1 Comment »

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 »

An Article by: 

Ben Tanosborn 

In my mind you don’t trot around the world creating havoc and taking peoples’ lives to defend your “envied freedoms.”  For all the shame we may rightly accumulate as we send young people to die for our elite’s lust for power and greed, we don’t have to lie to our enlisted military by mockingly making them martyrs and heroes when, sadly, they are just being played for chumps.  Our freedoms and rights need to be protected, but right here, not in some battlefield or neighborhood somewhere in the Middle East. And we, Americans, have done a very poor job in fighting domestically to preserve them.

A couple of mornings ago a thought occurred to me just as I was reading an article by H. Josef Hebert (AP) on how Bush rhetoric on energy strayed from the facts.  Of course, it wasn’t the headline that caught my eye; as I see it, Bush rhetoric on most everything has always been light years away from the facts!  But it was the mere thought of this persistent and hopeless liar, that went off like a flash – and just like there is a liar ready to divert any and all facts from a given story, or there is a vice for every virtue, or an antonym at the opposite end of a synonym, or even that science fiction idea of parallel universes, why can’t we come up with a set of anti-freedoms, one that can quantify the degree to which we, Americans, have become complacently enslaved?

During the six plus years since 9/11 and the passage of the pseudo-patriotic Patriot Act, we have slowly become aware of fundamental and diminutional changes to Americans’ constitutional rights under this embryo-fascist government embodied by the faith-based Bush administration, and a condescending, peoples’ unrepresentative Congress. 

Freedoms of association, information and unreasonable search; as well as rights to liberty, legal representation, and a speedy and public trial… all were confiscated and warehoused – only borrowed, ‘mind you – so as to relieve us from our heavy load of fear and make us all think we’re assisting in “terror investigation.” Notice that I haven’t included “freedom of speech” in the list although the government may prosecute librarians and other record keepers if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.  Actually the freedom of speech, or expression, had long been under attack almost two generations before George W. Bush came to the political scene… and it was done without the aid of any specific legislation.    

To journalists and commentators, the first freedom that comes to mind is an easy one: freedom of speech or expression.  For those of us left with the option of writing for our peers and a compressed audience of progressives, freethinking coreligionists, plus the occasional lost souls who might be reading us as result of boring curiosity or perhaps cyber-randomness, we know that freedom of expression is for the most part a cruel hoax.  No, it isn’t that we aren’t free to write (or say) what we please; it’s just that such writing means very little if it cannot be readily accessed, be available to a mainstream audience; and people must travel to the underground of verboten ideas that could never make it through the red-white-and-blue strainer of our nation’s unfree corporate press.

Soon after World War II, to keep our country uninfected from the diseases of that malignant world of foreign socio-political ideas, our freedom of expression was quietly modified without much planning or fanfare to include patriotic clarifications and purifications via a filtering layer added to the strainer, one capable of removing all foreign viruses that could challenge the “American way of life.”  These impressions have been very meticulously carved in the American psyche for almost three generations, and they render any deviation from capitalism or individualism – the way we define them – as sacrilegious; down and out heresy.  The Spanish Inquisition of 1478 had been de facto transplanted to America, in both cases to preserve the faith (Christianity for the Spaniards, and Americanism for the Americans) and with it the nation’s unity.  In fact, it isn’t just Socialism that Americans have been taught to hate and also to ridicule, but anything that is part of, or prefixed by, the word social; or another neutral word, welfare, which for no good reason has lost its primary meaning of well-being in the US.  

Our citizens must be guarded against all those foreign social remedies that seem to plague much of the industrialized world, particularly those Northern European countries; just how sick can those forsaken foreigners be when they exchange an indomitable and survivalist spirit for a system of welfare from cradle to grave?  Obviously Elitist America is willing to throw overboard half or more of Americans to the seas of the Third World in its globalization attempt.

Someone told me the other day that the Statue of Liberty should have Emma Lazarus’ poem on that bronze plaque welcoming the tired and the poor, re-inscribed with the new reality… “Welcome to America, Land of Human Recycling.”  Grotesque perhaps, but true!  And all because we have surrendered the free flow of ideas in our nation, our true freedom of expression, with the captivity of impression of an immutable Americanism unable to grow and transform.

Like birds in a cage Americans are free to flutter, but haven’t we been forced into economic and political submission with the control held by an elite few?
 

Tags: democracy, empire, Global
Categories: Commentary, Global, Democracy, Empire
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn

 Change… holy change!  If only we could be blessed with a light rain from the heavens that would wash away our prejudices, greed and dissipating wastefulness.  Cleansed, Americans could then become one whole people instead of the many fractions that now make up this nation of diversity; diversity not just in people but also in rights, hopes and expectations.
 

Let there be no mistake, ours is a nation where indignation and ill will run much deeper than we would like to believe, or dare broadcast for everyone to hear; and it is these real life-size grievances never addressed fully or with candor – not just imagined ones – that prevent us from attaining national cohesiveness.  Instead, all we have done from time immemorial is to lie to ourselves and to others… just by adding patches.  Ours has never been a Fourth of July America, the one that our state department sells to the world, but a nation which has provided both: opportunity for some to realize a so-called American dream and, for others, the condemnation to relive an American nightmare.
 

Patches that cover up the problems of race, economic inequality and wantonly obscene self-indulgence are constantly being affixed to the American psyche as if telling us all that everything is fine with no reason to worry or complain.  So truth is patched with lies time and again, as we are all asked to join in that proud chorus of “God Bless America,”  an America that really belongs to a few, although most of us are deceived into adopting it as our very own.  And the bullshit builds up, as do the patches, until the boiling cauldron overflows… then, the patches temporarily disappear and we come to blows.
 

Last week the media did its thing, and presented us with a reverend Wright made to look more like an irreverent Wrong exalting his black congregation with a blasphemous  “God Damn America.”  No American flag pin adorning his clerical garb, just words of anger and rancor coming from his mouth.  An embittered Christian pastor who tells it like he sees it… and that for tens of millions is really the America they live in and not the mythical America that we seem to be patriotically proud of.  By so doing, Rev. Wright created political problems for a member of his flock, Senator Barack Obama, and his quest for the Democratic nomination… and the chance to occupy the White House.
 

Obama’s denunciation of Rev. Wright was one of form as well as substance, but it did appear as a conditional denunciation to the existing racial problems that still afflict this nation.  And that is something that most conservative Americans just don’t tolerate… it has to be an unconditional denunciation, and total adherence to the philosophy that “America does no wrong,” or it’s no denunciation at all.
 

Even if one questions Obama’s path and ability to bring real change to America, he does appear as a person of reason and honor… unlike most other politicians; and that, of course, will hurt his chances of being nominated by his party; and, if nominated, of being elected.  After all, he’ll be portrayed as just a letter away from the founding father of Al Qaeda.  The lies and denigration against aspiring-president Obama will be in full force and the fascist bloodhounds will be combing the woods and the marshes looking for that half-Negro terrorist who dares tell us that we have racial problems to solve.  It has already started.  In this morning local paper, The Oregonian, an uncalled for salvo was dishonorably discharged by a reader: “Barack Obama stands by Rev. Wright with glee.  President he should not be.”  Jubilant delight not from Obama but from the Rovesque nincompoop who wrote such trash!  But that’s what the senator will get, non-stop, if and when he receives the Democratic nomination to run against John McCain.
 

Black rage in America is real, very real, even if it remains patched.  The American judicial-prison system is a disgrace, one which affects blacks uniquely and disproportionately, as do other institutions.  When Mainstream White America, the America that controls power, fails to address these problems, should people act surprised if criminal trials really become political trials, such as O.J. Simpson’s or Mumia Abu-Jamal’s?
 

We have only touched on racial resentment – which affects more than just blacks – but it applies with an ever increasing force to the broadening economic inequality and the accelerating disappearance of the middle class.  Racial and economic rage affecting the “Other America” is likely to grow in the next few years attaining super-majority status to demand drastic social, economic and political change in this land of ours.   
 

It is not double vision that makes us see two Americas… it is only political blindness that makes us see only one.  Distance between the two Americas needs to be dramatically narrowed or we shall continue to remain the United States of Resentment, and not the United States of America we should strive to be.

     

Tags: american dream, Ben Tanosborn, corporations, economics, Global, government, National, politics, Social Change
Categories: Commentary, National, Global, Economics, government, Politics, Corporations, Social Change, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

An Article by:

By Steve Hammons

As Barack Obama continues to move ahead in the Democratic presidential primaries, we note that ethnic background and gender still seem to be playing important and interesting roles.

The many domestic and foreign affairs issues we face, such as the candidates’ positions on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, are also key parts of the debates and campaigns.

According to recent surveys and demographic studies, Hillary Clinton’s support, in part, comes from white women and older Democrats.

Reasons for this seem obvious.

Some white women see one of their own and feel that giving her support is appropriate. They identify with her. This seems like a natural response.

Older Democrats may feel comfortable with “another Clinton” and, should we say it? – they might feel more comfortable voting for an all-white candidate. This may be a factor for some Democrats with lower educational levels, which is also a group supporting Clinton to some degree.

Obama gets support from younger voters and increasingly from men. Since Obama is a relatively young father of two young kids, these voters might naturally identify with him. His youthful manner might also be attractive.

Men probably identify with him not just because he is a male, but because he is a male who appears to be admirable and a “regular guy.”

INVASION, OCCUPATION OF IRAQ

Some of the main differences between Obama and Clinton, of course, are their positions and actions regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Many Americans now believe that intelligence information was inaccurate about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is significant evidence that indicates this was intentional on the part of some people within the Bush administration and those connected to it.

Many people believe that the Bush administration was willing to send our troops to Iraq, to die and be terribly injured, for access oil, to assist other governments in the Middle East and to “finish the job” that former president George H.W. Bush wisely did not undertake – invading and taking over Iraq.

Some researchers say there were those in and associated with the Bush administration who wanted to pour monies of the U.S. Treasury into war profiteering and those who wanted to establish permanent U.S. bases in Iraq to influence and police the Middle East region for decades to come.

It has been said that there were Bush administration people and others who wanted to show they were “macho” – the “chicken hawks” – even though few of them had ever served in combat environments themselves. Many even avoided military service in Korea and Vietnam.

Other aspects of the invasion and occupation seemed to indicate the huge egos and incompetence of those associated with the Bush administration.

The deceptive and dishonorable nature of some of these players also seems evident to many people.

We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This has been, in large part, borrowed money. There are many hidden costs as well.

The Bush administration’s Iraq fiasco has nearly broken our Army, Army Reserve, National Guard and has broken the bodies, minds and spirits of many good American soldiers, Marines and their families.

According to some research, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including children, have been killed as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Many more have been terribly injured.

Though she may not have intended all of these results, this is what Hillary Clinton supported when she voted to authorize military action by the Bush administration against Iraq.

This is what Barack Obama opposed.

STIRRING THE MELTING POT

Obama’s support includes African-Americans. This is not surprising since his father was from Kenya, Africa.

Obama’s father and mother were divorced when he was two years old.

After the divorce, his father went on to get a Ph.D. from Harvard in economics and then returned to Kenya to pursue a career there.

Obama spend formative childhood and teen years in Hawaii, and was raised by his mother and her parents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who were originally from Wichita, Kansas.

Obama has noted that his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, joined the Army in WWII after Pearl Harbor and served under Gen. George Patton in Europe. Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn, worked on a bomber assembly line during the war.

This reminds us that it can be fairly and accurately said that Obama is a mixed-ethnicity American. He straddles a sometimes wide divide of Americans from different ethnic backgrounds.

But, he is not the only one. Nowadays, after many generations of mixing the different ethnic groups of people in the U.S., there are millions of mixed-ethnicity Americans.

If your family has some Scottish, Cherokee and Swedish, you have a mixed-ethnicity. Are you part African, part English with maybe some Dutch in the family tree? Same thing. Was great-grandma half-Mexican and grampa Joe part-Navajo? Join the club.

Obama is in good company here.

Along these lines, Hispanics seem to be a swing vote of sorts in the Democratic primaries. Many Mexican-Americans and African-Americans sometimes compete for the same turf, whether it is access to decent blue-collar jobs or other resources. This can create friction.

It should, though, create teamwork. The “divide and conquer” strategy seems to be in play at times when wedges are driven between the Hispanic and African-American communities. They should be working together to obtain better jobs, educational opportunities, housing and health care.

Many Native American Indians have very substandard resources and opportunities too.

And, we might want to remember that the majority of poor and underprivileged Americans, adults and children, are white.

An interesting development in the ongoing discussions about Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigration is that two states with two of the largest populations of Native American Indians, Oklahoma and Arizona, have recently passed some of the toughest anti-immigrant laws in the country.

Isn’t it interesting that many Hispanic, Mexican and other immigrants from south of Mexico are of part-Native American Indians and part Spanish ancestry. They have darker skin, like Indians of North America. They have straight black hair and some of the facial characteristics of North American Indians.

And at the same time, Oklahoma and Arizona passed some of the most stringent laws against these immigrants. This just seems like an interesting dynamic.

After all, let’s not forget, amid all the talk about securing our borders and saving the English language from destruction, it is probably safe to say that some people just don´t like others who have different color skin, who look different, speak in a different way and have different cultural and social characteristics.

The ethnic factors in play seem to need a fresh perspective from many of us.

Whether the ongoing presidential race is focusing on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the multi- and mixed-ethnicity of Americans or the other issues of the day, it might be helpful to look carefully and objectively at all the elements involved.

Americans do face dangers from enemies, foreign and domestic. Our democracy, our freedoms, our Constitution and our peace and prosperity are at risk.

As we select our next president and other federal, state and local government officials, our wisdom and intelligence, or lack thereof, can have very serious consequences, as we have seen in recent years.

Tags: clintons, empire, Global, governing, government, imperialism, politics, Steve Hammons
Categories: Commentary, Global, Politics, Imperialism, Steve Hammons, clintons
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Being reflective; personally taking stock of a situation, or issue, seems to be antonymic to the nature of most people who prefer that matters be handled by leaders of groups they belong to.  Whether the issue is government, war, crime, drug-addiction, or most anything else, they are quick to pass the buck, determining that it really isn’t up to them to take stock… with that 50’s mentality that “father knows best.”  And as a year comes to an end, instead of personally taking stock and weighing what is happening to their nation, Americans’ choice is to keep the mind relaxed and let the President tell them in January’s State of the Union speech “how things really are.”  Let the lies and b-s roll!

My background as a business counselor compels me to help close this 2007 calendar year with a socio-economic and political statement of “profit and loss;” its bottom line soon to be incorporated into a balance sheet that will give us a snapshot of what we, the stockholders of the Empire, hold as equity entering 2008.

Before we look at the revenue and expense components of America’s P&L, we should take a look at that bottom line, which to no one’s surprise appears as the blood-spilling continuation of embarrassing failures for the seventh straight year, courtesy of the most incompetent management team ever to run the Empire.  Our nation has been piling up losses during this time in such a spendthrift and indurate way to the point all retained success built into the balance sheet throughout the years has been now wiped out, and the losses are already eating away into our investment, our until now untouched legacy of democratic capital.  Bush has succeeded not only in mismanaging the nation’s affairs but he is recklessly leading us into un-chaptered political bankruptcy… sure to happen by the time a new same-old-face president is inaugurated in January 2009.

Few years as this 2007 have brought the United States so little in political and socio-economic revenue, either foreign or domestic.  In the domestic front there was little the government would provide via judicial determinations by the tilted-right Supreme Court (evidenced by the partial abortion and a half dozen other rulings); or needed legislation from Congress; or any constructive leadership by the White House and its appendage, the Pentagon.  Although both houses of Congress were controlled by the lesser-evil party, they could not muster the votes to overrule a veto-happy Bush, whether on issues of war or even providing healthcare for the nation’s children.  It would be difficult to come up with just one significant thing that could be construed as something of value for the nation as a whole coming from any of the three branches of government.

As far as revenue from foreign policy investments, which have been mostly made in the currency of war and threats to other nations, one could hardly expect positive returns.  There was a lower count of dead Americans in Iraq – the only ones we care to count – attributed to the military surge, and little else.  One cannot think of any dividends from foreign sources that could add economic, military, social, or political value to the P&L.  Even in the area of global warming, we antagonized the entire world, losing at year’s end the support of the other Kyoto non-signer, Australia.  A final tally of foreign and domestic accomplishments (revenues) yields nothing but a big fat zero.

Ah!  But if our successes were few or inexistent, our failures can be measured in grand scale, both internationally and domestically.  Our expenses reached levels we would expect from a teenager at the mall having a credit car with “no limit” stamped on all four corners.  Monetarily, our insatiable borrowing, not only from the savings of people in other countries but from our own future generations, reached a level not only difficult to understand mathematically, but impossible to accept morally.  And our dysfunctional, make-believe, consumption-driven economy has brought the nation to the edge of the precipice, with overvalued assets in both real estate and stock market to a figure now approaching the nation’s entire annual GDP of over US$13 trillion.

Little needs to be said about our overseas failures, not just in the Middle East, where we have erred miserably in an unjustified and chimeric pseudo-protection of Israel, but everywhere else as well.  After seven years of trying, Bush finally succeeded in making Russia once again a potential enemy of the US, instead of a friend and partner in seeking harmony for the world.  And the tally of potential enemies, and disappointed friends, grows as nations in both Africa and Latin America no longer see a mutuality of interests between the United States and themselves.

One could easily conclude that the US government is not only coldhearted towards the peoples of the world, but cares little about its own citizenry, its interest being solely in self-perpetuating its power, and the financial welfare of a select-few who control the lion’s share of wealth and power, in America and elsewhere where capitalism flourishes.

This exiting 2007 was for me one more session for Bush et al to chisel at the shrinking equity that Americans have in America; a year in which a mendacious government continued  whittling away on those unalienable rights of man, stated in our Constitution as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

For years we have observed how social and political events have taken place in this nation clearly pushing it towards the path of fascism, American fascism; real fascism, but rooted in this United States; a fascism different from Hitler’s, or Mussolini’s or even Franco’s, but fascism nonetheless. These days, our own NS-Frauenschaft provides the nation with fascist whores who trot with impunity up and down Main Street, anywhere in this land of ours, dressed in vibrant, patriotic red-white-and-blue colors; dollar-stars in their eyes; silver crosses as pendants; and, yes, unabashedly toting bibles.  Our Lady Liberty has now been replaced by replicas of a fascist libertine; a libertine venerated as the immaculate virgin-mother of corporate, military and evangelical America.

Yet, with such clarity provided by this year’s socio-economic and political statement, Americans remain undeterred, meekly consenting to everything the government puts on their plates, eating their soylent green as if it were the greatest gourmet delicacy.

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn

www.tanosborn.com

Tags: congress, democracy, economics, empire, Global, government, history, imperialism
Categories: Commentary, Global, Economics, government, Congress, Empire, History, Imperialism
No Comments »

Time Magazine, in their annual declaration of the individual that qualifies as the most influential person of the year, cited Ron Paul, not as the most influential, but as a person worthy of mention. However, in the brief description of Ron Paul and his political advocacies, Time Magazine incorrectly portrayed Paul as an isolationist when it comes to foreign policy:

Booed by Republicans for his [bold face added to original text] isolationist foreign policy views and anathema to Democrats for his anti-government philosophy, the Texas congressman was proudly out of step with both political parties. But marching to his own drummer, the grandfatherly libertarian found himself leading an online parade. Millions of dollars poured into his quixotic presidential campaign, raising an inevitable question: What’s next for this free-thinking and strangely compelling grassroots crusader?

This characterization of Paul is patently false, and Time Magazine needs to correct its erroneous description of Ron Paul and his political positions.

In actuality, Ron Paul is a non-interventionist; which is certainly a marked distinction from the foreign policy philosophy of an isolationist. Ron Paul does not want America to look inward, not taking an interest and a role in geopolitical affairs. Rather, Paul is opposed to a foreign policy that is modeled upon an international activist programme, whereby America feels obliged to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries, even if through military force.

We have suffered – for the last 6 years – under a Presidential regime that has acted belligerently toward other nations, and has, indeed, militarily invaded non-aggressor states in order to install regimes that are favorable to the United States. It is precisely this militarism, which is the hallmar