An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Article by:

Ben Tanosbor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn

Last Sunday, at our annual family gathering celebrating the clan’s mothers, and their constant efforts to keep the men-folk firmly footed in reality, I assigned myself the task of counting happy and sullen faces at the reunion, excluding those of youngsters – all my grandkids are happy by default, what one might call by birth-fate.  Well, more than counting, I was trying to derive some obvious direct proportionality between happy faces and political conservatism.

Sole purpose of this exercise was a curiosity-check in my part, a sort of small sample verification of the recent findings in a scientific study funded by the National Science Foundation, which headlined as: Conservatives [Are] Happier than Liberals! 

Duh!  I could have told the two NYU researchers that; but, if scientific validation was the primary reason for the study… let’s just say that the money was well spent!

Well, the truth is that our family did not prove to be a good sample, being rather happy folks by their very nature… forget the politics.  And our politics are basically centrist; the extremists’ overflow divided down the middle.  Bottom line: there was nary a sullen face in the crowd… except for mine, but that is a given for this progressive head of the clan.

According to the results of this study, us-lefties are just a bunch of displeased, sad, discontent, sorrowful, depressed, dejected, joyless, miserable, gloomy, disconsolate, hapless, melancholy (plus a whole lot other adjectives) folks.  And that frame of mind apparently shows in our faces by being morose, sulky, gloomy, somber, glum, sour and moody among other things.  It seems, or so the study interprets, that we-liberals are truly bothered by the social and economic inequalities which prevail in this world.  And that because of biological or mental malformation, we were dispossessed of that magic gene that all conservatives have: the rationalization gene.  (That’s my take.) 

Results from many sociological and psychological studies tend to indicate that liberals succumb to the effects of inequality in such a fulminatory way that they feel impotent to counteract it by grasping for some measure of rationalization; while conservatives do not find a great problem in replacing any moral order with something more congenial to their needs or convictions.  Little surprise then that the Pew Research Center found in a 2006 survey that 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the United States described themselves as “very happy,” yet only 28 percent of liberal Democrats made the “happy” list.

When American conservatives claim adherence to family values, or to a certain moral order, they are not really coming down the mountain after having talked to the Creator.  Those values, and the moral order from which they are drawn, satisfy nothing but the permissibility of their desires, “their families”… values that are exclusionary as the very private reasons that created them; values that rationalize inequality in the crudest of forms, most particularly in social and economic aspects.  Thus, they may advocate the sanctity of life for an unborn child; yet neutralize, via rationalization, the genocidal killing of a million Iraqi children, or America’s warring involvement anywhere in the world.

Perhaps rationalizations which focus in the behavior of specific individuals can find eventual remorse and the return of one’s conscience in its original state, undamaged.  But group rationalizations, as those being used in society which permit the strong to abuse the weak in economic matters, or the subjugation of peoples, or the taking of human life no matter the circumstances; no, there is no return of the group conscience, not in its original state and, most definitely, not undamaged.

Aristotle said it well over two millennia ago when he wrote (The Ethics) that, “men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives.”  Perhaps we could add cultural to revolutionary to find greater applicability to modern times.  Indeed, it is their private lives that drive conservatives to modify their conscience and take the low road of rationalization when it comes to inequality or defining social justice.

As for me, I’ll remain long-faced to the world… trying to stay in peace, happy, within.

Tags: activism, Ben Tanosborn, government, power, reform
Categories: Commentary, government, Power, Ben Tanosborn, activism, reform
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Article by:
Russell Cole

Mukasey – the United States Attorney General – stated on March 28th that pirating of digital copy righted materials was funding terrorism. The statement by the Attorney General was made after he met privately with executives from the entertainment industry as well as software vendors, such as Adobe.

I do not have much to say about this announcement other than the fact that it appears to be another fabrication that has been injected into the Discourse of Terror: a type of speech that serves as a justificatory device lending support to public initiatives that might otherwise appear undesirable if not absurd. This rhetoric that has been developed by the Bush Administration consists of a linguistic operation in which a policy position – that if viewed independently, might be unpopular - declares the policy to be a subsidiary of the larger War on Terror, even if the connections establishing such a relationship are lacking in evidential support; after all, there is always a black box, States Secrets, to reference if an Administration representative is pressed for empirical substantiation for an alleged scenario in which terror and its prosecution are invoked.

We can observe this same speech pattern in the latest canard; this time attempting to offer credence for increased resources being devoted by the Department of Justice for the investigation of individuals and syndicates engaging in IP, (intellectual property crimes). Under normal speech conditions – since we are, after all, presently fighting a war against terror – such a proposition might be difficult to sell to the public. IP - although not victimless – is certainly not violent, and IP surely does not qualify as publicly harmful. It is damaging to major software vendors and movie industry moguls, not the ordinary public. Therefore, the initiative by the Justice Department against IP might appear, if not cloaked in the prototypical terror-inciting garb, as an allocation of resources that is directed to protect the interests of the few, and the wealthy, and it might seem as though it is a distraction from more pressing matters, such as the actual War on Terrorism.

Therefore, how better alter the public’s opinion of such a policy announcement than to reconstitute its semiology, so that the increased expenditures against IP are subsequently understood as an extension of the War on Terror.

Tags: economics, foreign policy, government, homeland security, justice department, political rhetoric, politics, Terrorism, War on Terror
Categories: Commentary, Economics, government, Politics, Homeland Security, Terrorism, Foreign Policy, War on Terror
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 »

I had never imagined that such a thing as Super-delegates could exist in the Democratic Party, until the media finally illuminated for the public this vile aspect of the Party structure; a component to the Democrat’s primary process that is exemplary all of the worse values and qualities that have defined the ethos possessed by the privileged factions in this country, who have endeavored – since this Nation’s inception – to monopolize its political institutions as much as possible while, nevertheless, maintaining a façade of democracy.

These anti-democratic patterns of political behavior – which spawn from ideological convictions that are so deeply entrenched that they qualify as genetic coding: the building blocks of American sociality – are embraced by a status that regards itself as uber-citizens: Those who possess self-alleged prowess and mental fitness enabling them not only to politically advocate their own interests, but to represent others in the process, despite the absence of any consent on the part of those for whom the elitist camp of surrogates will speak.

The core of elitist collaborators, who ultimately control, to a large measure, the American system of government, relish the opportunity to insert complexities into the political operations of this country. This amounts to a hierarchical inter-grouping of political decision-making bodies that distance – through the unnecessary multiplication of entities – the lowest common denominator of the American citizenry from the institutional spaces in which the final determinations, deciding the posture of American governance, are ultimately worked out.

Take for instance, the use of proportionate voting on the part of the Democratic Party. When analyzed in isolation from a detached perspective, this appears to be a relatively simple and straight forward reform that is designed to increase the influence of those who are not members of electoral majorities; providing an alternative to the more conventional American electoral practice in which the winner takes all. However, when purveyed within a scope that includes other provisions, such as the practice of valuating the votes of particular districts in some States higher than the votes cast in other districts in the same State: a device used to reward geographically defined populations that have demonstrated higher levels of electoral support for past Democratic Presidential Candidates – we are quick to fine that no concise and generally intellectually accessible description of the primary processes can possibly be constructed.

To cite another example of these excessively complicated processes, the State of Texas affords citizens the opportunity to vote twice in the Democratic Primary: once through a type of caucusing; the other instance by means of a primary ballot. I would endeavor to go on in further detail describing the primary selection practices, however, in order for me to do so, I would be pressed into conducting extensive investigations; a less than inspiring research project that would involve reading state party bylaws and state statutes as well as the National Democratic Party’s Bylaws, so that I could eventually interrelate all of the various stipulations, emanating from different bodies, when arriving at some sense of the applicable procedures that ultimately dictate how this ridiculous carnival is performed.

Because of this condition – what we can call political scholasticism – an inquiring layman, who is struggling to come to terms with the Primary selection process, will soon find himself lost in the convoluted mesh mash of procedures belonging to this social construct that is awash in a sea of obfuscation. In fact, I would venture to suggest that an accurate and precise conception of these complexities can only be rendered by the Party-hack-scholastics; some of whom were, in part, responsible for crafting this monstrosity. By extension, it surely is not spurious to suggest that there is a circuitous motivation inducing these insider-hacks into concocting what amounts to some kind of esoteric electoral alchemy: If one can monopolize the production of gold by virtue of a mastery of an arcane knowledge, then he would surely want his practices to remain opaque; or else, the precious metal could be produced by most anybody and it would fail to retain its special value.

It would be partially reassuring if the Democratic Primaries were an anomaly when understood comparatively within the full scope of institutions and practices comprising American politics and governance. Unfortunately, however, ranging back to the very inception of the United States, we can trace the same sort of Byzantine procedures, creating the same types of obscure and sometimes convoluted governing practices. To cite an obvious exemplar, consider the Electoral Delegates: super-voters entrusted with the capacity of choosing the President. Collectively, this body – which qualifies as an appendix in the sense that it is utterly extraneous to a democratic polity – counts as a democratically superfluous sub-aggregate, whose political Prerogative procedurally preempt the Popular Will of the Citizenry: The common denominator that could, otherwise, in a more authentic democratic environment, select the President independently and directly; whereby a majority or, even, a plurality of votes cast would act as the final adjudicator when selecting a candidate for the High Office.

The institution of the Electoral College, concocted by our Constitutional Founders, marks a latency in our sociopolitical history: a subtext that follows a pattern in which the uber-citizenry – those feigning the embrace of democracy while, concurrently, enacting political obstructions serving to compromise the Popular Will – has persistently committed to praxis a political philosophy that essentially boils down to a doctrinaire attachment to a Tory exceptionalness. Taking into consideration this pattern of elitist, anti-democratic conduct on the part of the privileged few in our Country’s history, one might ponder why there appears to be no resistance to this muffled, semi-tyrannical hegemony in our society.

First off, it should be mentioned that there have been popular insurrections against the American elites and the conditions they have endeavored to impose by virtue of the networked coordination of their economic and sociopolitical influences. The most salient instance of rebellion among American Plebes consisted of the formation of various Farmer Alliances and the People’s Party they would come to conjointly form.

However, despite the poignancy of the first Populist Movement during the final decades of the Nineteenth Century, this episode in American sociopolitical relations has been predictably left relatively untreated by our educational institutions. This lack of attention to an extraordinary event in American history is understandable, due to the fact that the Agrarian Revolt does not fit into the preemptive interpretive pattern organizing how we are supposed to conceptualize the course of American history. A thorough study and understanding of the People’s Party would expose contradictions to the Whiggish orthodoxy that enforces a dogmatic interpretation of American history in which democracy is in a state of perpetual improvement.

Therefore, the aforementioned question – why no rebellion to sociopolitical elitism? – is in need of reformulation: There have been a few, sparse uprisings to the old guard of American sociopolitical relations. However, why do we fail to treat these instances of American history hermeneutically? We neglect to come to an understanding of these instances according to their own terms and their own political self-understandings, along with the related complaints that they leveled against sociopolitical institutions that they regarded as oppressive; exploitative; unfair; or unfitting for a democracy to instantiate.

Rather, such incidents of insurrection find themselves excluded from the historical alacrity that is directed upon what are conventionally conceived as American sociopolitical accomplishments. In other words, historical events that are contrariwise to the established ideological order are treated as transient deviations; inconsequential digressions, diverting consciousness away from the core thesis embodied by the American Experience: An overall process that tells of advancement and ongoing maturation of American Society and of the American State, as they evolve into a more democratic condition. I would venture to assert that it is almost an Aristotelian metaphysics of political history: The American nation-state possesses an essence that is tantamount to its potentiality that it strives to actualize, which translates into a course of events where the essence of America protrudes and emerges; a process that parallels the advancement of perfecting democratic polity.

The Whiggish character of American historical orthodoxy, however, cannot be attributed with the function of the sole antecedent precipitating the compliant and obedient dispositions that have been all too pervasively exhibited by American Plebes. In order to understand the submissiveness among American Plebes, we need to direct our attention upon another factor; one whose presence is nearly ubiquitously represented by the portraits of our governing elites offered to us by mass media.  We are incited to a state of awe in relation to our institutions of political power by virtue of the fact that our media representations - due to the competition for ratings - are dramatizations of events; not objective reports of the events that have transpired that are of social significance.  From the epic framework in which corporate journalism is packaged, we are induced into believing that our politicos are heroes in the sense attribute to the term by the Ancient Greeks:  Apart from their mortality, they are godlike.  Consequently, we see the elites who govern us not only as competent, but as transcendent, as well.

This necessity is reinforced by the arcane procedures and practices that have come to litter – and, in fact, dilute – American systems of democratic participatory polity. By creating a situation whereby the elites are the limited few who actually possess an operational understanding of the processes through which political decisions are made – whether in the party primaries; or, to cite another example, the parliamentary conventions of Congress – they incite participatory reticence on the part of outsiders – who have neglected to pass through the socializing institutions through which the Power Elite transmits its esoteric knowledge and reproduces itself. Thus, we arrive in our analysis at the concept, wonkish: a self-congratulatory expression chattered in self-reference by the governing elite. This terminology’s meaning essentially boils down to the following definition: a state of public policy expertise.

The professionalization – (a concept that is most always predicated with the notion of expertise) – of politics resembles the historically recent trends in the rest of our society. Especially in the decades following the Information Revolution – which happened to transpire in a time span that overlapped with a movement in the American Academe toward the hyper-specialization of its professionalized disciplinarity – American governance has evolved into a condition that is sometimes referred to as technocracy. This political state can be characterized as one were the ability to formulate and administer public policy has become the province of technocrats in society; a form of plutocracy in which the common masses of citizenry no longer possess the knowledge and ability to fully participate in their political and governmental affairs. The task of governance has become highly compartmentalized, technical, and esoteric; whereas, seemingly, the only members of society who possess the necessary skills to govern are those trained in the specialized knowledge pursuits that are related to public policy concerns.

The propagation of this class of public-policy-technocrats – which includes the politicians who are trained in the lawmaking rituals from which earmarks and other benefits are procured for constituencies – is justified by the following chimera: In order to administer government, one must possess the technocratic specializations associated with being a Wonk; or else, he would buckle under the enormity of the intellectual, technical challenges he would face, and he will be rendered impotent, incapable of effecting the desired outcomes from participation in the processes of polity and public administration.

To quickly dispel such an polemic that insists upon the necessity of a technocracy in our society, we can refer to recent history: The FBI, following the 9/11 Tragedy and the scrutiny it incited – which was directed upon the agencies of the Federal Government that were previously thought to be protecting us from such calamities – it was found that the FBI possessed an antiquated information technology infrastructure; a partial explanation of the nearly unbelievable inability for the FBI “to Connect the dots.” In short, the FBI’s organization of information had yet to embrace mechanisms and processes associated with the informational economy and its digitalization of documents, that can, subsequently, be manipulated through computational machineries in order to find and establish relational values between and among the various types of information, which, subsequently, can be used in order to adduce inferences regarding additional parameters. Although this seems nearly inconceivable, the FBI’s manipulation of information was actualized, for the most part, in the deployment of pre-digital technologies, involving FBI employees sorting various document types, whose embodiment took the form of ink on paper, into filing cabinets.

It should be mentioned, there was some sort of computerization extant within the FBI. However, the dumb terminals provided to agents where practically left in their state of dumbness, because one could not use them to retrieve – through some effective search engine algorithm – materials relevant to the subject, or topic, that was being addressed by an FBI agent. As a result, the nodes belonging to the FBI’s informational networking – a system, which had, in some extensively qualified capacity, crossed the digital divide; or, at least, had attempted to accomplish as much – was never endowed with the intelligence – or smartness – that is associated with terminals that constitute the nodes belonging to an advanced informational network. It is only through the role assumed by a machine, acquiring a position within many linkages through which information is transferred in and throughout a network, that it becomes a useful tool for an agent looking to increase or intensify his knowledge and understanding of a topic by relating relevant information types to other information types.

As one can anticipate, the FBI, following the revelations related to the antiquated condition of its information management, set out to create an information architecture that was in line with contemporary technologies and procedures. However, the problem with the subsequent efforts made by the FBI, when working to modernize itself, can be characterized through the following: It was the FBI that was left in charge of the project. Consequently, after spending millions upon millions and expending valuable time and man-hours when attempting to install an information management system, the FBI finally had to report to Congress that the entire project had failed; could not be salvaged; and, therefore, had to be scrapped entirely.

Despite their follies, they persist in their arrogance, and continue to adopt a paternalistic posture in their relationship to the common citizenry. The present Administration –impervious to any scrutiny or oversight – continues to treat us like fools, constantly informing us of the attacks upon the domestic United States that it has thwarted; all the while refusing to disclose any convincing evidence to justify such fear mongering. Making it all the more ironic, the Bush Administration has failed to competently perform is duty to protect the American Public, not once, but on three occasions: the 9/11 Tragedy; the hyper-actively and impetuously devised invasion of Iraq; and the national shame and humiliation that was Hurricane Katrina. Nevertheless, despite their ostensible incompetency, these instances of failure are simply submitted through the ordinary propaganda assembly lines – where they are reassembled, packaged up, and refurnished – only to be publicized within the same garbled mess as all of the rest of the fear mongering and baiting with which we are unceasingly bombarded.

This audacity on the part of those who claim to know better than others know for themselves is justified by what amounts to a plutocratic apologia: The popular will of the unrefined and vulgar American people constitutes a threat to the vested interests of those who are endowed with the prudence and sound judgment necessary to advance not only their own interests, but, additionally, the long term interests of the nation as a whole.

This is the type of thinking that spawns absurdities such as “Trickle-down economics:” a theory of convenience, which Naomi Klein has revealed in some of her weblog writings to be a device deployed to obfuscate unbridled greed on the part of corporatists and, more generally, the ownership class in society; economic elitists who were in need of an intellectual diversion so that the swelling of class antagonisms, fomenting among those suffering under supply-side tax reforms, could be assuaged.

Although it might seem unfair to lump together, under the rubric of uber-citizens, elitist factions such as the Clintonian Political Machinery with the neoconservatives who currently control the Executive Branch of Government, we need to remember that the differences between neocons and neoliberals are all too scarce. There remains a thematic congruency between the two uber-factions; a convergence comparable to the opposing sides of a coin: The antithetical representations – where one side is emblazon with the head; the other side, the tale – that, despite their surface distinctions, continue to be of the same ilk; formed within the same mold; and made out of the same alloy.

In fact, both the Clintonian Third-way neoliberals – who feign empathy with the plight of American labor suffering from free-trade – and the neoconservatives – who do not even bother to express acknowledgement of such hardships – share in the same condescending rhetoric that is used to dismiss voices, emanating from the masses, that raise objection to American trade policies. The elitist corps have fashioned a rhetoric with pejoratives, such as neo-populism, that they use when disdainfully depicting the sociopolitical interpretations and reactions to socioeconomic conditions produced by the populace; which stand in contradiction to the uber-citizenry’s self-allegedly detached and rationally disposed estimates of current affairs and their overall significance within larger historical chains of events; narratives that are structured according to the Whiggish premise that American social conditions are always advancing toward a better state.

So, the final consideration that I shall make in this unwieldy chain of criticisms upon the conditions under which we, as Americans, suffer, can be put simply as follows: For how long are we to entertain this carnivalesque side-show hyper-real-democracy before we impose a realist aesthetic upon this charade and expose this chicanery for what it is?

Tags: clintons, corporations, corporatism, economics, government, neo conservatism, neoconservatism, politics, power, Russell Coles Blog, self governance
Categories: Commentary, Economics, government, Russell Cole's Blog, self-governance, Power, Politics, Corporations, neoconservatism
No Comments »

An Article by:
Steve Hammons
First Published on AmericanChronicle.com

The local newspaper reporter in Stephenville, Texas, who helped cover a UFO sighting case there is no longer working at the Stephenville Empire-Tribune newspaper, effective last Thursday, Feb. 7.

Journalist Angelia Joiner had been covering the UFO story which broke early in January and brought national and international news media representatives and researchers to Stephenville, other nearby small towns and the surrounding region.

Mainstream media such as the Associated Press, CNN and other major TV networks and newspapers covered the incident with great interest. The international press also paid special attention to the UFO sightings in Stephenville and towns in the area.

Media personalities such as CNN’s Larry King and NBC’s Today show host Matt Lauer explored the sightings on their shows.

In Stephenville, Joiner was a staff writer at the small-town newspaper there. She did an excellent job of researching and interviewing local residents who were surprised, curious and concerned about the very unusual objects they reportedly saw.

As national and international interest in the case grew in January, Joiner was contacted for information as the reporter on the scene with some of the best knowledge of the local community.

Her articles helped inform not only local residents who relied on professional reporting for their community, but also assisted other Americans and people internationally understand that Stephenville people and residents in the area were down-to-Earth, solid and of good character.

The factual and level-headed journalism Joiner provided helped the national news media understand and respect the citizens in these communities. This resulted in some of the most serious and credible reporting in the national media on such an incident in recent memory.

The AP article was carried in hundreds of papers and news outlets. People like Larry King and Matt Lauer talked about the subject with intelligence and open minds.

All these outcomes were related in part to the high level of credibility of local witnesses who were courageous enough to come forward and the professionalism of local reporter Joiner and her colleagues in the national and international news media.

However, some of these witnesses and Joiner seem to be paying a price for doing their civic duty and communicating about an incident that appeared to be very significant, and could even have affected the public safety of the communities in the area.

CENSORSHIP AND “NEED TO KNOW”

According to information obtained for this report, management at the Stephenville Empire-Tribune did not want further coverage in the paper of the sightings by local citizens of something that appeared to be highly unusual. Pressures may have been placed on newspaper management to discontinue articles on the subject.

According to the newspaper’s Web site, “The Stephenville Empire-Tribune is a mid-morning paper published six days a week by Erath Publishers, Inc., a Consolidated Southwest Media company which is owned by American Consolidated Media. The Empire-Tribune is a member of the Associated Press, Texas Press Association, West Texas Press Association and the Inland Press Association.”

Publisher Rochelle Stidham and Managing Editor Sara Vanden Berge were contacted for their comments for this report but did not immediately respond.

Did the paper’s management face pressures to end coverage of the UFO sighting by a local peace officer, respected businessman and pilot and reportedly dozens of other local citizens? Did they back away from accounts of local citizens who said they were apparently being threatened for talking about what they saw?

Is this a case of media censorship or self-censorship and political correctness? Is it about professional courage and moral integrity? And, can the newspaper now be trusted by the community to cover important aspects of public health and safety, local political activities and other sometimes sensitive topics?

These seem to be questions for the citizens who read and subscribe to the paper and advertisers who use that newspaper.

The corporate owners of the Empire-Tribune (Consolidated Southwest Media, American Consolidated Media) and the professional news and journalism organizations with which the paper is affiliated (Associated Press, Texas Press Association, West Texas Press Association, Inland Press Association) might also want to review developments there.

As for the former reporter Joiner who had covered the concerns and accounts of local citizens so professionally, life goes on.

She appears to be confident that she did the best job she could have for her community as a responsible local journalist who realized something important had happened to her fellow citizens, neighbors and friends.

“I appreciate the opportunity I have had at the newspaper,” Joiner said. “A story of this magnitude drained the limited resources a small newspaper has. I performed my other duties to the best of my ability.”

Even as the national and international media interest calmed down somewhat, other ominous developments were occurring in the Stephenville area.

A local resident stated he had been received threatening phone calls and threats of implied bodily harm or death for talking publicly about what he saw.

An intruder had also appeared on his rural property at 1 a.m., causing the resident to be concerned about the safety of his family.

See my Feb. 7 article: “Texas UFO witnesses threatened for talking to media?”

As Joiner was covering this more serious aspect of the UFO sighting case (in articles published Feb. 3 and Feb. 4) which appeared to be a law enforcement and criminal matter affecting public safety, she was reportedly told by newspaper management to back off.

“My directions were to move on to something else,” Joiner said.

The reason given to Joiner for this was, “because our readership had grown tired of the UFO stories.”

However, Joiner was still a contact person and resource for community residents, researchers, news media representatives and others.

While trying to obey management’s directives to cover topics other than the UFO sightings and related developments, Joiner said, “It was a difficult task to achieve. I was still receiving a surprising number of e-mails and phone calls on the subject.”

“I tried to direct those calls and interviews to after hours or during lunch hours. And I forwarded e-mails to my home so that I would not be giving newspaper time to the subject. I honestly tried to do as they had asked.”

The apparent irregularities and journalistic priorities of what was starting to emerge at the Empire-Tribune probably also started to dawn on Joiner as she realized things were not going in a good direction at the paper.

She gave her two-week notice, then was told to leave immediately.

“I had given notice when I realized my boss was unhappy with my performance, but was unexpectedly asked to pack my things and leave Thursday,” she said.

Joiner apparently felt that people in her community had “a need to know” about what was going on when respectable citizens came forward with their accounts and subsequent serious incidents reportedly involved the safety of and threats to a local family.

GOING FORWARD

The Stephenville UFO sighting incident is not the first and will not be the last. The responses by local and regional public safety officials to such incidents have also occurred before, and will again. Local, national and international news media professionals are also part of the picture, past, present and future.

Americans wearing the military uniform of our country and our intelligence professionals are certainly also parts of the puzzle involving UFOs and how our society deals with an apparently sensitive and complex situation. Their respect and support for good American citizens will remain crucial in the days ahead.

Many of the residents of the Stephenville region are just such good Americans. Reporter Joiner knew this because she knows the people of her community.

Local journalists typically work on topics involving all kinds of community activities: the local schools and hospitals, area peace officers and public safety personnel, businesses and employers, civic groups and organizations. And when they do, reporters often feel a sense of responsibility to do their best for their neighbors and their communities.

This works in reverse too, at the local and national levels. Our newspapers, TV and radio media, Web-based news and other similar information platforms are sometimes only as good as the standards we expect of them, and the support we give to honorable and ethical journalists.

Like the old saying, “In a democracy, citizens get the government they deserve,” the same can be said about our news media. We get the newspapers and news media we demand, deserve and support.

If we continue along a path of the “dumbing down” of Americans, as many have alleged, the fabric of our communities and our nation may deteriorate.

If we search for truth, integrity and honor within ourselves, our media and our government officials, we may just find that too.

The citizens of the Stephenville region, and all the rest of us, must decide about the directions we want to take. Do we want to continue being dumbed down? Do we want to stick our head in the sand and close our eyes?

Or, do we want greater respect as American citizens and intelligent human beings who have the ability to understand sensitive, complex and, yes, even highly unusual and unexpected situations?

When events occur that affect public health and safety, public information, our rights and responsibilities as citizens, what are our roles and those of our institutions such as local and national government and the news media?

These are questions that, it appears, must be faced and dealt with if our communities, our society and our nation will continue to thrive.

NOTE TO READERS: Hammons is a former reporter for newspapers in the San Diego area. He covered public health and safety, the “police beat,” U.S. Navy and Marine Corps topics, Pacific Ocean and beach area stories and other subjects. He studied communications and journalism at Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, home of the prestigious Scripps College of Communications and E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, recognized as two of the top such programs in the United States. Hammons is also author of two novels – MISSION INTO LIGHT and the sequel LIGHT’S HAND.

Tags: democracy, establishment, flying, government, journalism, Steve Hammons
Categories: Commentary, Democracy, government, journalism
No Comments »

An Article by:Ben Tanosborn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Article by:

Steve Hammons

also published in AmericanChronicle.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEMOCRACY AT RISK

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

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

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

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

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

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

CORRECTIVE ACTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: congress, constitution, corporations,