It is time for Harry Reid – the Majority Leader of the Democrats – to strip Joe Lieberman of his Chair on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

In the past week, Lieberman has made several outrageous comments, directed at Obama, that were malicious and dishonest. Lieberman, who apparently has assumed the role of hit man for the McCain Campaign, he slurred the kind of rhetoric we should expect a Fox peon, such as Hannity; someone who is utterly bankrupt when it comes to intellectual integrity and will say anything in order to defend any of his partisan positions.

Lieberman went so far as to accuse Obama of advocating a foreign policy of appeasement when it comes to dealing with terrorists in Muslim countries.

For clarification, Lieberman should, at the very least, identity to whom he is precisely referring when he uses the term, terrorists. Is he referring to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, whom this country has ignored for the most part over the past 5 years, in order to direct our military resources toward the invasion and pacification of Iraq; a country that had no connections to terrorism prior to our destabilization of the foundations of their society? Moreover, what ‘head of state’ – or, more plainly, what fictional leadership is Lieberman alluding to when he uses this vacuous terminology, using references, such as ‘appeasing terrorists,’ as though American is at war with an integrated, cohesive adversary with body politic capable of conducting diplomacy?

Perhaps even worse, Lieberman said that the fact that the supposed, according to the McCain Campaign, North American spokesman for Hamas has ‘endorsed,’ Obama raises justifiable concerns over Obama’s candidacy for President. No doubt speaking to the most uninformed and intellectual impoverished segments of America’s electorate, Lieberman asserted that Hamas actually endorses American candidates for President, as though Hamas is entirely oblivious to the fact that their public support of a candidate would probably have only negative effects for that individual’s campaign.

How stupid does Lieberman think that we are? and to what depths will he sink in order to propagate his militaristic vision for the United State’s role in the Middle East? a policy of aggression that is so unmistakably a reflection of right-wing Israeli colonialist interests; certainly not the foreign policy interests of the United States.

At this point, Lieberman, in my own assessment, is more a cartoon character than a statesman who embodies the prudence and judicious temperaments that one would expect of a Chair for one of the Senate’s most influential committees. It is time for Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of all of the privileges he has acquired through his accumulation of seniority as a Democratic, because Lieberman – judging from his performance when campaigning as Vice Presidential nominee to Gore’s Presidential bid – never was a Democrat with which to begin.

Russell Cole

Tags: american empire, congress, foreign policy, Harry Reid, homeland security, Joe Lieberman, politics, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Terrorism
Categories: Commentary, Politics, Congress, Homeland Security, Terrorism
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

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 »

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 hallmark of the Bush Administration, to which Ron Paul is opposed.

Please inform the Time Magazine associate responsible for writing this description of Ron Paul that you take exception to his erroneous characterization of Ron Paul’s foreign policy philosophy.

Please consider writing to the editor, in order to ensure that Time Magazine makes a correction to its incorrect portrayal of Ron Paul.  You can find the mistatement regarding Ron Paul at the following uri:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/personoftheyear/article/0,28804,1690753_1690758_1693558,00.html

Russell Cole

Tags: foreign policy, Global, government, imperialism, military, neoconservatism, politics, war
Categories: Commentary, Global, government, Politics, War, Foreign Policy, Imperialism, military, neoconservatism
No Comments »

An Article by

Russell Cole

I have studied the development of this political and social ideology [neoconservatism] to some extent, and its primary forebear is a political philosopher by the name, Leo Strauss. He was most affected by Plato, and, in particular, The Republic. I presume this is where Strauss gained his authoritarian worldview, which is seeded in the monolithic polis speculated by Plato, where the society is structured according to a corporatist regime, negating any differentiation between polity and civil society.

Authoritarians, such as Strauss, tend to be moral realists, similarly to Plato, which provides them with their rhetorical devices needed to justify their ethnocentrism, making it appear not as an ideology spouted by a faction that strives to impose it upon others, but as the natural moral order to which all humanity should aspire and, indeed, be pushed.

However, this belief in absolutes – a single moral order that exists apart from the men and women who speculate over its contents – has the impact of diminishing reality in favor of an impression of the world that is propagated through the contrivance of ad hoc explanations for all events that seem to run contrary to the idealized vision of human sociality articulated in the moral realist’s camouflaged ethnocentrism.

This is the point at which I am mystified the most by the neo-cons: Moral realism results in a negation of the saliency that should otherwise be attributed to contingencies that unfold in empirical reality, in favor of an adoption of a faith-based form of reasoning, where one’s beliefs will always be vindicated in the long-run. In the context of this type of thinking, we can meaningfully interpret the expression “moral courage:” a quality that is lacking in anybody who espouses uncertainty as to the veracity of the neo-conservative system of beliefs. Moral realism, in this instance, ironically, appears to be more of an underlying posit supported by convictions of faith rather than any reflection of reality.

What all of this has to do with Bush, specifically, I do not know, because he is not necessarily intelligent enough to grasp the neocons’ system of thought, such as the case with the intellect of hubris personified, Paul Wolfiwitz. However, I am sure that Bush’s absolute convictions regarding his born again stature in the eyes of his god might translate into the same type of empirically uninformed decision-making processes. Only, in Bush’s case, he has mistaken Chaney whispering in his ear for the Word of the Lord Almighty.

So, then, the question now arises: Why, even as the neo-conservatives – through their follies in Iraq and other ‘terror,’ related policy matters – have completely undressed themselves - Americans continue, as a population, to fail to mobilize in opposition to the Bush Regime?

As far as getting people off of their couches and politically engaged, I believe the problem is the deference we as Americans are socialized to possess and exhibit, beginning at a young age, whereby we are instructed to demonstrate respect and obedience toward our extant sociopolitical institutions. It does not matter what people might suspect or come to believe according to the conclusions reached in their own internal contemplations as long as they are encumbered with a habitual deferential posture that is assumed in relationship to sociopolitical institutions; fixtures that we are socialized to take to be transcendent of human interference and contamination. Even Tocqueville remarked that Americans displayed obedience to sociopolitical institutions, which prevented, according to the French observer, radicalized political behavior. He speculated that American democracy might be made possible by this willing subservience. Therefore, it is a matter of reinvigorating Americans with a sense of existential angst that is the key to unlocking radicalized currents of both thoughts and their associative social undertakings.

Returning to concerns related to religion: I would assume that Bush, indeed, during moments of cynicism, does use religiosity as a political artifice. Remember, the remarks made by Bush in the lead up to the War in Iraq, where he made mention of a “Great Crusade,” that we, as a nation, were about to undertake. Obviously, in retrospect, we can recognize this as a ploy to garner support from the war-mongering-religious-right that finds a place in our unfortunate society.

These remarks are not intended to be a denouncement of all instances of religiosity. I do make a differentiation between the dogma of fundamentalism and the personal spiritualism – associated with countercultural religious movements – which I suspect Jesus – the historical figure – to have proffered the latter in his sermons, because it is only with absolutism and dogma that religiosity manifests its deleterious qualities; what we witness in the Christianity that was tragically left to us by the sexually impotent, female loathing, and physically diminutive Paul, who knew nothing of Jesus other than Christ’s appearances in Paul’s own hysteria and its precipitation of fanciful delusions.

Russell Cole

Tags: corporations, democracy, foreign policy, government, imperialism, National, neoconservatism, politics, Russell Coles Blog, social responsibility, society, sociology
Categories: Commentary, National, Society, Democracy, government, Russell Cole's Blog, Politics, Corporations, Sociology, Foreign Policy, Imperialism, social responsibility, neoconservatism
No Comments »

An Article by:

Ben Tanosborn
If you are part of a noble lineage, or so consider yourself, you can be hot-blooded, cold-blooded … or both things at the same time.  For the rest of us who are often told that we travel on this earth on borrowed time, put on this earth to give added shine to the star of the blue-blooded, we are also allowed to be hot-blooded or cold-blooded, but only to a point; what is unquestionably forbidden is to rub elbows with the blue-blooded.

Mr. Chávez… can we ask you where you left your manners?  The King of Spain can say “shut-up” to anyone that royally pleases him, but that doesn’t mean you can rub elbows with him, or for you to dare put him at the level of Bolivia’s “Indian” Morales.  The throne has always been placed higher so that we can all see the monarch, even if “pygmies.”  Well, let’s put aside our sarcasm and go on!

The truth is that it’s about time that we hang our cojones between our legs (males, that is!) instead of putting them in storage, replacing them for manners that are irrelevant, and which in this 21st century are archaic if not absurd.  Royalty has reached the end of that rope we call obsolescence and, truth be said, the memories are not very pleasant.  The Spanish people, in their variety of Iberian nations, already said what had to be said back in April 1931, when they gave King Alfonso XIII a hand in packing for good his royal luggage.  It was Franco who returned Spain to the monarchy with his drafted succession law put into a referendum of dubious validity in 1947, giving it a tone of fidelity and putting Franco as regent, regency that would add another 28 years to his dictatorship.

And, as truth would have it, Don Juan Carlos I, even if one of the Bourbon dynasty, for those who firmly believe that the monarchy is a political aberration these days, the Spanish sovereign is just Franco’s heir.  Although there are those who credit the king with helping maintain peace and democracy in Spain, be it true or not, it is something that is likely being way overplayed.  Let’s give Spaniards proper credit for both their humanity and intelligence.  Spain needs only to respect, and symbolically bow to, its constitution, and nothing or no one else.

But let’s get to the crux of the matter: what President Chávez said that dazzled the king so much, and by annexed-diplomacy, José Luis Zapatero, who governs in his name.  Chávez is by temperament warm and passionate, a Latin hot-blood in politics and, I would suspect in other things; it is his nature… something which bothers a lot of people, and that includes every politician in the US for telling it like it is; but that’s his privilege, a privilege he has earned.  That has been the case with Fidel Castro, and others in history, who have swam against the current to try to save their peoples from drowning.

Perhaps many will say that Chávez had no right to call the former Spanish president, José María Aznar, a fascist.  The word fascist is super-loaded, and it’s true that all too often we overuse it in our lexicon; but let’s be somewhat indulgent; if people like Bush, Blair and Aznar gave us a Mussolini-dosage in the Azores, opening up the terror gates and giving true reasons for vengeance, are not fascist, can anyone else be baptized a fascist?  If the King of Spain, as head of state, elected or not, is allowed to participate in political matters of those sister nations of Spain in America, those Latin-American heads of state can say whatever pleases them, if they are truly brethren.  Aznar is just a poor wannabe that never quite made it, one who cannot claim the respect that he sent to hell as he embarrassingly licked George W. Bush’s boots.

By Royal Respect, the last word always belonged to the King of Clubs.  And if you are playing poker and are going “all-in” with your pot, you’d better know what you are doing.  At the end of the day, in this Ibero-American summit for 2007, the president and elected representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had the winning hand.  And if Don Juan Carlos still believes he has the winning hand, I truly think that he needs to make amends with the Venezuelan head of state, gaining a lot of followers as a result… putting aside, once and for all, that crown of his.
Ben Tanosborn
www.tanosborn.com

Tags: democracy, economics, foreign policy, globalization, history, imperialism
Categories: Commentary, Economics, Democracy, Foreign Policy, History, Imperialism
No Comments »

Perhaps you caught a glimpse of Tuesday’s presentation at Soldier Field.  You know, the political fashion show displaying the Democratic presidential candidates to all the union bosses in order to determine who – if anyone – is to get the endorsement from the AFL-CIO for the run to the White House.  If you didn’t, perhaps you saw excerpts of the apocryphal debate in the news, and maybe even heard a 10-second bite where the junior senator from New York offered herself as Labor’s fighting hero: “I’m your girl!”

If you didn’t even know that seven of the eight declared Democratic candidates were having a get-together, it’s just as well.  Nothing much was said that’s worth repeating, with apologies to Congressman Dennis Kucinich and moderator Keith Olbermann.

An item in the news the day before probably drew a much larger audience if for no other reason than its catchy theme, stating that kids liked most any food better if perceived to come from McDonald’s as visually suggested by McWrappers.  It gave results of a study on obesity prevention, and how McBranding hooks preschoolers; also had Dr. Robinson of the Stanford University School of Medicine, and author of the study, saying how at McDonald’s “The majority of their marketing and reputation and brand is based on foods that are high in calories and fat and low on nutritional value.”  Health foods are for show.

Those two items in the news, a day apart, brought to the forefront what could be two of the greatest ills facing America today: obesity and bad governance; one affecting the physical health of the nation, the other dealing with the socio-political health of society.      

Unhappy about how the country is being governed?  Hey, cool off, don’t be upset.  For a nation of faith and monotheism, why not carry the idea beyond the realm of religion and into politics?  Americans worship one god, so why look beyond our homespun form of capitalism to determine the nature of America’s body politic.

Free from foreign impurities, this sacrosanct capitalism, whether dabbed socially-benign or predatory, must be provided with an all-American circulatory system.  And none better than McPolitics, a system designed to honor diversity of opinion via those two Golden Arches of thought, our two political parties: Republicans and Democrats.  Two arches that hold together, lock, stock and barrel, our entire body politic; that’s what Americans should desire to achieve, a unity-of-purpose doctrine for this land.  Lefties, liberals, populists, greenies and progressives of all types are simply relegated to just epithets that the greater-right can bestow on the lesser-right, in this incredible make-believe land of milk and honey… and two-party politics.

McDonald’s is about business strategies, public relations, advertising… and plain deceit.  But you know what? So is McPolitics!  The vast majority of Americans are uninformed, misled and tricked into thinking that they can have it all: health, taste, convenience and low prices; as McDonald’s, by chance or design, keeps health and culinary issues away from young and old, concentrating on what really counts in business: meeting people’s expectations with flying colors.  And so it is in politics as Republicans and Democrats, in their alternating governing roles, strive to keep Americans politically illiterate.

Homogeneity in American politics stays true behind the mask we put on to attend the biennial and quadrennial election balls.  It reminds me of a yokel from Vermont that did appear on a popular TV sitcom a few years back.  His repetitive character line was an introduction of himself and his two brothers, saying: “Hi, I’m Larry; this is my brother Larry; and this is my other brother Larry.” We all seem to be part of this bumpkin Larry-brotherhood, half addicted to unhealthy food, and most suffering the consequences of bipartisan politics which cater to special interests instead of the citizenry at large. 

But unlike McDonald’s franchises which have found success in much of the world, McPolitics is probably reserved for the American political palate and no one else.  One doubts that it meets enough criteria for export, even if aided by heavy subsidies from both the US State Department and the imperial peacekeepers at the Pentagon.  At least for now, America’s interpretation of “democracy and freedom” does not appear to have made measurable inroads anywhere else.

Be that as it may, there are two mission statements that could shed some light on what might be the problems behind obesity and bad governance.  McDonald proclaims in its mission statement, “McDonald’s vision is to be the world’s best quick service restaurant experience.”  No corporate responsibility, not even empathy for customers as people. And it’s fairly evident that “McPolitics wants to be America’s answer of a government that lets business take care of business without interference.”  So if there is neither corporate nor government responsibility to educate and protect people, who else can they turn to?  Somehow, carried to the extreme as ultraconservatives would have it, the answer is simple: it must be left in the hands of the economic marketplace.  That is a polite way to be told in historical terms that we are marching back towards slavery.

Unfortunately, obesity and bad governance are two issues Americans are yet unwilling to confront head-on, and fighting food addiction or recognizing political or governmental malfeasance are simply not in the cards.

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn

www.tanosborn.com

Tags: foreign entanglements, foreign policy, politics
Categories: Commentary
1 Comment »

For those of us who have had considerable doubts as to the veracity of the latest claims coming from the Bush Administration and the select members of the Military Generalship, who serve as the Administration’s proxies, regarding the current success of the “Surge,” in Iraq, I can assure you that your cynicism is well founded.

As was reported in the Washington Post on Sunday, August 5th * - the Bush Administration has been less than candid and, in fact, deceitful with respect to the current, “Surge;” not to mention every other aspect of their conduct in the Executive Branch of Government. As it turns out, the reduction of violence in Iraq, which the Generalship has attributed to the cooperation of local tribal leaders, is certainly not the consequence of the American Military forging alliances with organic elements in the Iraqi population; instead, we have merely been arming as well as bribing Sunni sections of the Baghdad population, in order to entice them into suppressing the violence in the neighborhoods in which they have influence, which I suspect to be a social dynamic comparable to the power wielded by a warlord, or something along those lines.

* http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/080407A.shtml

—————————————————————-

As to whether the local tribal leaders are, indeed, turning against al-Qaeda is an issue that remains unresolved, due to the ambiguities resulting from the morphing semantics with which the lexicon, al-Qaeda, has been endowed on occasions involving various circumstances, in which the expression has been appropriated for purposes of political expediency.

Therefore, the banner, al-Qaeda, has been deployed in modes not keeping with conventions or standards of veracity or consistency; other than a congruency resulting from the Administration’s relentless introduction of the phrase, al-Qaeda, into public discourse every opportunity that the Administration gets. In fact, since the Bush Administration uses this label to depict nearly every instance of insurgent or terrorist violence, it is probably better at this point to discard with the term, al-Qaeda, altogether. The significance of the expression has been so depreciated that its continued invocation might result in an inadvertent contribution to the persistent and over arching disinformation campaign being waged by the Bush Administration upon the American public.

——————————————————————————————–

Interestingly, however, there is more to this scenario with respect to the larger political dimensions compelling these unruly and unpredictable flows and collisions of human interaction in Iraq. Assuming one has not been living in cave - or, to qualify: a cave that is unlike the one inhabited by Bin Laden, which, apparently, is furnished with the necessary technology to keep abreast of recent events as well as producing an occasional press release; not to mention the medical equipment necessary for kidney dialysis - he or she should be well aware of the parliamentary stagnation that is preventing Iraqi sectional reconciliation.

The indications of discontent among the Shiites in Iraq’s Parliament - who, despite the pressures placed upon it by the American Embassy, went on recess during the month of August - point to the fact that the American Generalship is actively arming Sunni sections of the Iraqi population. For the Shiites, this amounts to nothing less than an existential threat. We must not forget that the battles being waged by Sunni organic elements upon, ‘al-Qaeda,’ are occurring within the context of a lager conflict: the Iraqi Civil War, which amounts to a conflict drawn along the lines Islamic sectarianism - the Sunni and the Shiites.

——————————————————————————-

With the aforementioned considerations in mind, it is nearly unimaginable how the current policies in Iraq - which, granted, might be quelling violence to some degree in the streets of Baghdad - could possible lead to a larger political accomplishment, where the sections of Iraq came to a consensus, forming some treaty upon which the future organization of the country could be based.

Sadly, in my own opinion, this surge - similarly to every other strategy undertaken in Iraq and, let us be frank, in the, ‘War on Terror:’ another expression that is literally void of substantive meaning - is just another folly in a long chain of mishaps that are metaphorically comparable to the treatment of walking pneumonia with opiates: the pain might subside as the patient’s illness intensifies.

Russell Cole

Tags: foreign policy, Global, media, politics, Terrorism, war
Categories: Commentary, Global, Politics, War, Media, Terrorism, Foreign Policy
No Comments »

An Article by Ben Tanosborn

This last junket by Bush may have been considered a tour de force for US relations with Latin America, but it wasn’t much of a tour and definitely provided no feat; in fact, it was a total waste. Uruguay’s and Brazil’s heads of state, both in the opposite side of the political spectrum from Bush, were forced to appear diplomatically courteous, probably wondering why Condi Rice had cast them to play in this five-act farce. The stops in Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico did make a lot more sense since those nations are major suppliers for America’s top two illicit addictions: drugs and immigration. Uribe (Colombia) and Calderon (Mexico) have a good compa in Bush. Not the other leaders.

It was a meaningless trip for a meaningless dignitary to an already lost part of the world (in terms of special, neighborly relations). Latin Americans, at least the 80 percent who are dirt-poor, have realized that the US has never been their friend, only a detached stepmother; and that any future overtures probably carry price tags they can ill afford.

Why would the United States help Latin America? it never has! For a century all the programs and money invested in the Iberian Down Under have been either minuscule (programs) or have had exploitative results (investments). To hear Bush speak and say that the $1.6 billion sent last year went for ’social justice’ causes is going from the ridiculous (the small amount) to the sublime (stating that it was for worthwhile causes), back to the ridiculous (as most of those funds were used for military purposes to fight the FARC guerrillas in Colombia, or for the interdiction of drugs). In fact, Venezuela with a population one-twelfth that of the United States provided last year far more help to the people of Latin America, when you add the price breaks on oil to the direct aid, than the US. So stop the on-going deceit, Mr. President, social justice causes, you say?

But even if America of the North has never felt compelled to help the America to the South, it recognizes that the Latin folks play key roles in the USL: two great addictions. For better or for worse the Latin and Anglo parts of the hemisphere are linked in many ways; and that’s a fact that politicians there and here know quite well.

Politicians who proselytize supply-side economics have played working Americans for suckers for over a quarter of a century with their trickled-down economics. But, what’s just as bad is that politicians who refuse to acknowledge our demand-side realities have played all Americans for suckers twice that long. Republicans and Democrats, both!

We have been ‘at war’ with those who supply illicit drugs to our population for more than two generations, failing to admit that drug-addiction is mainly a demand problem, not supply. Having a Drug Czar and our war on drugs to defend our purity has been but a crock. If we stop being hypocrites and call a spade a spade, our level of success with this biological-social problem would be far greater domestically - at a much lower cost - and we wouldn’t have to cause so many problems to nations in Latin America that supply us. This is an issue where most intelligent people, capitalists or anarchists alike, would find total agreement: that it is nonsensical to treat the alcohol-drugs problem as criminality. But politicians have preferred to keep their eyes closed to this reality.

And, in a similar fashion, politicians have also decided to keep their eyes closed to the other domestic reality, one that now dominates the American landscape: undocumented or illegal immigration (adjective to be used depending on how you view the subject). Why? For the simple reason that this form of immigration is also an addiction, one that needs to be tackled from the demand, not the supply side. Again, just like the illicit drugs issue, it should not be treated as criminality. In both cases we need to quell or treat the demand with appropriate legislation that addresses all humane and social aspects, not just economic and political.

Americans’ addiction to undocumented labor is not just restricted to businesses but also the greedy side of the average Joe and Jane. Our anarchical state on the issue of illicit immigration is everyone’s fault, not just politicians of the right, or the other politicians of the lesser-right. The problem has been around for decades, was poorly addressed two decades ago, and now has become a monster that scares us all; a dragon that people demand be slain, calling for that knight, Jingo, and squires like Lou Dobbs and Patrick Buchanan to rid us of it once and for all, so that we may keep our whored virginity intact.

On his last stop in Mexico, Bush was admonished by that country’s recently elected (or not, according to his leftist challenger) mandatary that building a wall along the border is not the answer to stop his countrymen from crossing over. And Calderon is quite right about that. The US with its addiction has created an addiction for that country as well, as $20-30 billion are sent by the immigrants to their families in Mexico every year, the second largest source of revenue for that nation after the Almighty Crude.

A social worker friend, whose maternal grandparents had crossed the border illegally from Mexico in the 1950’s, told me last year - I assume it was in jest - that if the US really wanted to solve this crisis, not just for us but for the Latinos as well, we should round up all able-bodied undocumented workers and give them some Al-Qaeda type of training for six or eight weeks, then send them back to their countries of origin with an AK-47 in their hands, and a promise that the US would help once they mow down their corrupt governments. I didn’t have the heart to tell her that this nation neither funds nor gives its imprimatur to revolutions by the oppressed; it’s only the oppressors we help. It’s the nature of predatory capitalism - how many times must we be told!

As for America’s two great addictions, we’ll continue to do little or nothing, blaming - as always - the supply-side.

© 2007 Ben Tanosborn [send him email]
www.tanosborn.com

Tags: bush, Drug War, drugs, empire, foreign policy, Global, immigration, latin america
Categories: Commentary, Global, Empire, Foreign Policy, Drug War
2 Comments »

Copyright 2007 Ben Tanosborn
www.tanosborn.com

Thomas Gray’s maxim stating that ‘ignorance is bliss’ has been both, widely accepted and widely refuted. Proponents and opponents to what that gentleman said, or meant to say, back in 1742 seem to gather with equally opposing strength as centuries pass. Of late, however, the people of Latin America may have given us a replacement to that axiom, coining with their actions a true gem: Bliss is being ignored by the US!

And you know what? They may have come up with an irrefutable truism when we try to make sense of what they mean by that. However, what they are saying south of the border and what we get from America’s corporate press confound us as if originating in Babel. Commentary by so-called experts on Latin America, usually from think-tanks of convenience - those from where most propaganda germinates which serves the needs of both the White House and the State Department - seem to always give us a minority or dissenting view - something which would be acceptable were it not presented as the majority or prevailing view. And that’s basically what we get, minority-imposed views.

Recently I came across an article-commentary typical of what’s being written these days; it was penned by Alejandro Chafuen from Atlas Economic Research Foundation, under a catchy headline, Latin America won’t just sit still and be ignored - Our southern neighbors grow politically restive with U.S. inaction to their legitimate economic worries. What, you say! Is this individual for real or is he just a PR man for the Latin elite?

The fact that George W. Bush has ignored the breaking of political piatas south of the border - way, way south of the Rio Grand - might have made the powerful local elite, and their squire-class of enablers, politically restive in Central and South America; but as far as most of the people who live there, those best described as without a pied - terre in Miami or elsewhere in the States or Europe, these past six years have proven to be a true blessing, bringing a ray of hope for a true beginning of social and economic reform. It’s not an anti-democratic or anti-American trend that is taking place, as we are being led to believe by a shamelessly lying government and a conformational press. What’s happening in the Latin Down Under is not really about us, it’s about them; about people freeing themselves from us, the ‘corporate America’ that has kept the powerless in those nations as permanent beggars, at times mistakenly looking northward for alms.

At this point, all we have seen is nothing more than the unlocking of the gates to allow passage of both political reform and economic equity for hundreds of millions of Latin Americans. Whether or not these peaceful socio-economic revolutions succeed, and to what degree, remains an experimental unknown for now.

What the governments of Ortega (Nicaragua), Chavez (Venezuela), Correa (Ecuador), Morales (Bolivia), Lula (Brazil) - or the more acceptable, to the US government, political evolutions in Chile and Argentina - give us as a bottom line a decade or two from today, assuming the US does not intervene, will determine success or failure and not any ill-founded demagoguery pitting socialism against capitalism. Capitalism, defined as properly regulated free-enterprise, should be able to co-exist and thrive under almost any form of socialism. Only predatory capitalism will shrivel and die a natural death.

One thing we feel safe to bet on: results, no matter how dismal, cannot possibly be as bad as those obtained in the past under predatory capitalism, even if blasphemously camouflaged as free-enterprise; not for 70 percent of the people in the region, perhaps a much higher figure in some nations with larger indigenous population. The people are simply fed up, and have been saying so where it counts: at the ballot box. They are shouting to the four winds: enough!

For almost two centuries, Latin America has been Wednesday’s Child for the US. No sooner had the Iberian colonies asserted their independence in the Americas, that it was made known to them all new nations in the Western Hemisphere - British Canada excluded - were under the protection and foster care, of fair and wise Uncle Samuel. And for almost two centuries, the parasitic relationship between the Northern Giant and the Southern Lilliputians has not changed.

My own personal exposure to this Gringo-Latin relationship started at the tail end of the Alliance for Progress which had began a decade earlier by John F. Kennedy with little in the way of funds, but much hullabaloo and tear-jerking rhetoric to counter what was seen as a possible communist threat from Cuba to ‘US interests.’ An overall failure, since it was unable to meet even the pygmy goals stated in 1961 at Punta del Este in education, health, and economic well-being for most Latin Americans, it is symbolic of what the US had done before, or what has done since in Latin America. The US invested less than $1 per individual per year, and that insignificant figure was not even in net transfers of resources and development.

The Alliance for Progress was little more than a PR job that could not cut the mustard with even the simpletons among economists. Who could believe that the powerful elite would allow any land reform, or more equitable income distribution, or more restrain by the powerful in abusing those who lacked power; the powerful being the team of corporate Yanks and local-elite? Dictatorships multiplied during that period with our consent, and often with our direct help, and for all our freedom-talking rhetoric we helped hang democracy in every town square. As for anecdotes, I have dozens of them, many as an admittedly participant, and where the Agency for International Development (USAID) was but a sad joke. Can anyone fathom the US guaranteeing low interest funding for low cost housing which ended up being owned by top military brass and business elite (Bolivia) or similar projects having the rich as beneficiaries?

Enough! No more PR safety-valves for global exploitation by predatory capitalists and their supporting governments. Doesn’t it make sense that Latin Americans are ecstatic as America, under Bush, pays full attention to the mess it has created in the Middle East ignoring its Latin protege’ Can we, at least this once, let people in other parts of the world determine what’s good for them� instead of homicidally intruding in their affairs?

It would be most difficult to refute that Bliss is being ignored - by the United States!

Tags: bolivia, brazil, bush, cuba, ecuador, foreign entanglements, foreign policy, Global, latin america, middle east, nicaragua, politics, venezuela
Categories: Commentary, Global, Politics, Foreign Policy
2 Comments »