Does Voting Matter?

Within a two party duopoly it’s a common question to ask: does voting for one political party over the other make a difference, does it even matter?

The ideologues hear the rhetoric emanating from the both sides and proclaim that a substantial difference does exist between the two political parties.

The pragmatists see the actions of the two parties after they are elected into office and recognize a distinct lack of difference between them.

So the answer to the question depends on the measurements being used by the person being asked. To the ideologues the two parties are indeed different. However, in actual practice the pragmatists can demonstrate that the two parties are effectively the same. What matters more – words or actions? 03.05.08

U.S., India, Israel & Nuclear Weapons Proliferation

After working its way through Congress President Bush has finally signed approval of a landmark agreement with India, intensely lobbied for by his own administration, that opens the door for trade in nuclear fuel, supplies and technology between the two countries. It may seem simple but all is not as it seems.

"The United States and India are natural partners," Bush said at a signing ceremony in the East Room attended by lawmakers, diplomats and Indian Americans. "The rivalries that once kept our nations apart are no more — and today, America and India are united by deeply held values." [1]

What Bush really means by shared values is their official approval of the state of Israel – a recent change of direction for the Indian government. More on the significance of this in a moment.

"What's good for India is good for Israel," said Henry D. Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and a former Pentagon official under President George H.W. Bush. "And once you have Israel, can Pakistan be far behind? ... They have pretty much signaled the end to any benefit for following the rules." [1]

This means that Israel, a country with an undeclared nuclear arsenal, will now have a precedent to follow with the India example, potentially allowing them to come out of the closet so to speak and still retain international credibility.

This deal with India is easily one of the most short-sighted efforts to come out of the Bush administration. Friendly relations between India and the United States are great but this is definitely not the smart way to achieve that goal because, as the numerous critics have made very clear, this deal with India effectively shatters the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This deal gives the stamp of approval for India’s nuclear ambitions even though India has not signed the NPT and even though they developed and tested nuclear weapons in secret! It is grossly hypocritical coming from an administration that has repeatedly hammered Iran with allegations of developing nuclear weapons despite the fact that Iran has signed the NPT! Not only does this deal greatly damage efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world but it also greatly undermines the diplomatic credibility of the United States. *

Actually many Indians are less than enthusiastic about the deal. They appreciate the political recognition from the United States that they will gain but are unhappy about the details of the agreement stipulating that 14 nuclear reactors are civilian and can reached by outside inspectors. India’s other 8 nuclear reactors are classified as military and are off limits to outside inspections, but it’s the 14 that causes the concern since many Indians see no reason to give up anything at all to the U.S.A. It’s politics and one side has to attack the other. In practice the restrictions will be meaningless since the nuclear materials can be transferred between the two types of reactors.

Some opponents also questioned India's nonproliferation record. Although New Delhi has not been accused of giving significant nuclear technology to other countries, Indian firms and individuals have provided arms or aid to Iran. [1]

So if this deal trashes 30 years of carefully balanced counter-proliferation agreements, is likely to spark a nuclear arms race in South Asia, and even threatens to boost the nuclear ambitions of Iran, a country that the Bush administration hates with a white hot fury, then why is it getting the green light?

One half of the answer is money. Domestic corporations, like the mega-conglomerate GE, have supported this deal with India because they think they can make billions selling nuclear supplies and technology to India. Even though this may well be more wishful thinking than reality the promise of big money has a way of blinding the people chasing it.

The other half of the answer is politics and influence, in this case counter-balancing regional powers like China and Pakistan. The Bush administration and the ever present neo-cons, essentially one and the same, think they can build up India as an enemy to China thereby creating a very lucrative arms market in India. So it is also very interesting to consider the increasing volume of weapons sales and military training deals going on between Israel and India. In fact for Israel, a small county with a very large arms industry, India is about the best customer Israel now has. Much of Israel’s military technology is reverse-engineered from top-of-the-line American equipment they receive. A heavily armed Hindu India is also a strong counter-weight to a nuclear armed Islamic Pakistan.

Saint Bush

December 2006

So adding it all up American business' may make a few billion dollars off of this nuclear deal with India, or not. Israel is set to make major gains selling weapons to India while inflating a counter-weight to Islamic Pakistan. But the price to be paid is a major boost to nuclear weapons development and a major hit to international counter-proliferation agreements; in this case world safety is clearly the biggest loser. Remember the credo of the businessman: who cares about tomorrow when I can make a few dollars today.

Adding arrogance to myopia the Bush administration included a ‘signing statement’, that basically means the President can ignore all of the restrictions in the law that Congress built in. Of course that’s not Constitutional but the Bush administration has always maintained that whatever they do is legal until the courts prove otherwise … and then they find other ways. 19.12.06 

1. Bush signs legislation permitting nuclear cooperation with India, by Peter Baker, Washington Post via Seattle Times, December 19, 2006.

* Besides that India remains under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1172 that condemns India's nuclear weapons testing, the potential for a nuclear arms race in the region, reminds them of several treaties aimed at preventing testing and the spread of nuclear weapons, and even orders India (and Pakistan) to  immediately halt their nuclear weapon development programs. So much for that Resolution ever having any impact! 08.02.07

* * *

Update: U.S. official admits that India’s UN votes against Iran were coerced, in other words, the special nuclear deal between the U.S.A. and India was used as lever to extract votes from India favorable to the USA and Israel, specifically against Iran.

In January 2006, [current US ambassador to India, David] Mulford publicly warned that the Indo-US nuclear accord would “die” if India failed to support the US position against Iran at the upcoming IAEA meeting. [1]

Stephen G. Rademaker, a former US Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation and International Security stated in a speech on February 15, 2007 that,

India’s votes against Iran had “paved the way for the Congressional vote on the civilian nuclear proposal last year” ”—a reference to legislation adopted by the US Congress last December that amends the 1952 US Energy Act so as to facilitate the Bush administration plan to grant India “special status” within the world nuclear regulatory framework. [1]

1. US “coerced” India over Iran Former Bush appointee boasts, by Kranti Kumara, February 20, 2007.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. - Albert Einstein, 1949

Review: The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

Despite a concerted campaign to personally attack and discredit the two tenured academics, John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, that wrote this carefully researched report (over half of it is footnotes) it remains a remarkable document that is well written and very revealing. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a clear and concise evaluation of the causes and consequences of Israel’s hijacking of the United States government to serve selfish and narrow interests at the expense of the American public and their national well-being. It details stunning treachery of the highest magnitude by dual-loyalty advisors and elected officials all the way to the very top of the federal government, forming the basis for what is shaping up to be an unequalled national disaster for the United States and probably the rest of the world as well. 

This report is incredibly important for understanding world events and should be as widely distributed and read as possible, especially because it unambiguously demolishes many of the myths and highly flawed assumptions that form the contemporary view most Americans have concerning Israel, war, terrorism and international events.

A few revealing excerpts from the report:

To begin with, “terrorism” is a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups; it is not a single unified adversary. The terrorist organizations that threaten Israel (e.g., Hamas or Hezbollah) do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or “the West”; it is largely a response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [page 5]

More importantly, saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. U.S. support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question, for example, that many al Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. According to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, bin Laden explicitly sought to punish the United States for its policies in the Middle East, including its support for Israel, and he even tried to time the attacks to highlight this issue. [page 5]

It is AIPAC itself, however, that forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in Congress. AIPAC’s success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. Money is critical to U.S. elections (as the recent scandal over lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s various shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the myriad pro-Israel political action committees. Those seen as hostile to Israel, on the other hand, can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to their political opponents. AIPAC also organizes letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates. [page 17]

The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. [page 18]

Moreover, the Lobby’s campaign to squelch debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy. Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts—or by suggesting that critics are anti-Semites—violates the principle of open debate upon which democracy depends. The inability of the U.S. Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these vital issues paralyzes the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel’s backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them. But efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned by those who believe in free speech and open discussion of important public issues. [page 41]

You can read the report from the original source < here > or if that is unavailable, a local copy  < here >.

Once you read the report you will clearly understand the intense desire by certain persons to have the author’s discredited, for their conclusions are a damning portrayal of a profoundly destructive, one-sided, non-reciprocal and just foolish relationship, especially for the United States, but even for Israel in a strategic sense. And of course the first and most vocal charge thrown out is that of anti-Semitism, this despite the fact that one of the authors is Jewish himself! Nevertheless, no one can  deny facts with slanderous name-calling.

As was noted in a recent Wall Street Journal article on the report, the Israel Lobby's perception management campaign has to tread carefully on the issue because if they completely stamp out all criticism and debate about their influence then it will just be even more obvious how powerful they really are. On the other hand they don’t want it discussed too widely otherwise the public, that mostly doesn’t know anything about the issue, will be enraged and actually start to do something to take back control over their own country.

The biggest weakness with the report, if one wants to call it that, is the limited historical context it depicts, using only the most contemporary examples of war on Iraq and the neo-conservative clique that orchestrated it. Actually this same sad story has been repeated for decades, only becoming more overt and flagrant during the past decade under 'Dubya' Bush.

For decades the Israel lobby has relied on public ignorance, apathy and directed attacks intended to discredit and malign anyone and everyone that attempts to illuminate the truth behind their power. But increasingly as the American public becomes more aware of what is really going on the Israel lobby and its supporters will have to direct public animosity towards new and concocted enemies in order to mask the Lobby’s own culpability for the decline and defeat of the United States on the world stage. These false enemies will most likely be the very people that are concerned enough about the direction their country and their world is heading to challenge the Israel Lobby. We have already seen the fantastic damage to international oversight, diplomacy, public safety and even the credibility of the very war machine that is being used to do Israel's dirty work, that has been caused by the war on Iraq. Now with Iran next in line for direct American military assault the deleterious consequences of allowing the Israel lobby to dictate foreign, and even domestic policy, to the United States' leaders are simply inescapable. The margin for public apathy and ignorance on this crucial issue has evaporated. The time to act and speak out is now. 15.04.06

Believe me when I lie

September 2006

From conservative to liberal and beyond - forming a new political dimension in the 21^st century

What do the words ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ mean? These terms are typically employed to describe political views but they also apply to other values and views in life as well, even to such an extent that conservative and liberal, right and left, essentially arbitrary terms that mask substantive worldviews, are used to instantly categorize entire population segments.

Politics is about change, you either want it or you don’t, and this fundamental divide serves as the basis for classical political opposition. The conservative side is the easiest to explain because of its fundamental simplicity - it strives at all costs to preserve the current economic and political order as much as possible. Conservatism isn’t rocket science and it rarely has anything to do with objective, critical analysis, but instead it’s simply an expression of primal greed and fear. If you’re at the top of the socio-political pyramid then you have much to lose (it’s a long way down) and risk is more of a hazard to your personal well being than it is as a potential source of reward. Conversely, those in the bottom ranks have little to lose and everything to gain.

Then fear enters the equation and makes conservatives out of many that have much to gain and little to lose. It’s also true that being rich is a relative condition and this is why fear of loss is such a powerful motivation when used for political gain, there is always a class below to create a fear of falling, indicating just how much worse things could be if change goes awry, or occurs at all.

The conservative mentality is an expression of an intense need for stability and the comfort of routine and habit. This desire for safety is so strong that it intentionally seeks to expunge all challenges to tradition, established beliefs and rituals. Consequently, the defining characteristic of the conservative label is the inability to tolerate ambiguity. Conservatives want everything to be clearly defined; they see things in black and white, figuratively speaking. Reality to a conservative consists of good and bad, right and wrong, devoid of alternatives outside those binary poles and without recognition of anything in between. The conservative mentality forces nature, interactions and all events into one of two opposite categories. The nature of actual events is nothing like this, as anyone objectively analyzing human events quickly realizes that shades of gray are what define interactions and outcomes, not absolutes. But this is the point; the conservative worldview is an artificial one and the end result of a conservative mentality is a completely synthetic way of life; this is a world of corn syrup flavoring, bleached grains and American ‘cheese’, a world where control of nature, people and events becomes an imperative necessity because anything less inevitably leads to exceptions, shades of gray, and a sudden collapse of the simplistic, Manichean view of world events.

The conservative mindset allows for only one correct view and explanation of events at any given moment and refuses the legitimacy of all alternative views and explanations. This is a zero-sum mentality that sees everyone as either a winner or a loser and approaches life events accordingly. In the West, monotheistic religious beliefs magnify the influence of conservatism, and not surprisingly the majority of conservatives are church attending believers. Conservatism is characterized by a hierarchy of leaders and followers, of obedience and servitude. This simplistic order makes  the construction and coordination of large scale projects, like pyramid building and wars, much easier than without it.

Liberal is a more complex and nuanced package but it can be basically defined as the acceptance of ambiguity within human events. Generally the greater the degree of education and worldly experience, the more liberal the individual becomes because they begin to see all the shades of gray, the natural differentiations and differences that exist within alternate views, opinions and potential solutions. This is a world of whole foods and soy products, where spiritual problems are likely to be resolves through paganism and atheism rather than monotheism. The liberal mindset allows for the simultaneous legitimacy of multiple of views and explanations but still maintains that mine is probably better than yours because ego and culture favoritism are natural extensions of individual (and group) self-preservation.

By now we can begin to detect the appeal of the conservative viewpoint when considering the complexity that perceiving multiple alternate ideas and solutions creates. The more possibilities that are included in the decision-making equation the more complex and time consuming the decision becomes, but the more accurate that final decision will be.

So if we take these two primary views and extend them to logical extremes across a spectrum of variation, what do we get? A general depiction of the ultimate conservative social system can be found in the insect world, wherein every being functions as a separate organ to support a larger body or community, and where every worker is simply a genetic extension of every other worker. Independence is incomprehensible and no more possible than the left lung enjoying a separate life and consciousness from the right lung. In the ultimate conservative world nothing changes on a macroscopic scale, even as the cells and individual working components are continually living, dying and being replaced by functional duplicates. Individual purpose can never extend beyond the need to support the body, and the purpose of the body is limited by the need to support the workers. This organism seeks resources, consumes them, delivers the basic nutrients to the internal components, and continues this cycle as long as it can sustain itself. In this view the unit of scale is macroscopically measured. Significance is based upon the size of the pyramid, the gross profit of the corporation, or the amount of land and resources the nation controls. 

The ultimate liberal social system constructs significance based upon the gross influence of the component, the motive force and mental capacity of the individual. While the conservative order functions from the top down, the liberal order operates from the bottom to the top; the components influence the system instead of the system influencing the components.

When stated in extreme form the root views become evident. We can now see why liberals and conservatives can argue endlessly and still remain convinced that each side holds a singular truth. The error is in the belief that one sides holds an exclusive truth when in fact both liberal and conservative core views both have valid elements.

Both of these extremes exist within any unit; after all, every corporation has its individual workers just as every individual person has its own cells and organs. But what is the eventual purpose of it all? Since values are an extension of the goals, which value do we place at the top? Do we put people in primacy or do we put the body; the components or the system? Both sides need the other but only one can be in the lead, only one value can be held at any given moment.

Does one need the other more? Can a person exist without a society? Yes they can but not very well, and they have no purpose either since their life is devoid of social context with which to structure their values and existence. But can a society exist without people? No, not at all.

A contemporary example of the liberal versus conservative value problem is evident in the issue of corporate rights. Is the company more important than the people? Can one exist without the other? What rights does a business corporation have in comparison to an individual, especially considering that corporate entities are quick to usurp and negate the rights and values of the individual [Read Trained to Perform Evil  and Finding perspective in a mad world] Companies are notorious for immoral and unethical actions despite being composed of mostly moral and ethical individuals, just as states, both totalitarian and democratic, are notorious for starting wars of aggression and domination despite the peaceful and pacifist characters of the people that compose them.

So, although both the conservative and liberal views hold core truths the values characterizing the goals and aspirations of each side are very different. The two views are clearly in competition with each other. Nonetheless, when viewed from both sides this argument would seem to lack any functional resolution.

Fortunately, if we put the issue in proper perspective then it can be resolved. Corporations and states are purely structures of convenience, and indeed they are products of individual values and not the other way around. Corporations and states have no independent existence apart from the individuals composing and sponsoring them. Although corporate and state entities can protect the individual they can just as easily destroy them. Conversely, the power of the individual is noticeably proscribed by the powers of every other individual within a system that grants a greater degree of influence to individuals than to the corporate and state collections of individuals.

People aren’t biological organisms in the same form as insects. People have independent motive forces, goals and values apart from the collective. The individual with a separate consciousness and motive powers forms a practical and very versatile component capable of constructing systems and structures in a collective fashion that are much larger than any single contributor. Unlike insects that can only build one kind of hive society, humans can form collective structures in an almost unlimited shape and form. The form of that institution does not have to be one that exploits its constituents. The necessary solution will be a hybrid of both left and right, or more accurately, something that transcends the perceptional limitations of classic liberal and conservative views. We need a new hierarchal system, one that is a non-rigid, adaptable structure capable of growth and change while at the same time holding the contents together, like a balloon.

Despotic ‘conservative’ regimes can force people to cooperate just as capitalist ‘liberal’ democracies can trick people into cooperating, but can we build a system where cooperation occurs out of genuine personal desire? Just as state governments have given way to transnational corporations, and corporations are beginning to be challenged by NGOs, so will this progression lead to transnational collective entities that provide more than commercial needs but social needs as well.

Instantaneous worldwide communication technology means that physical location is no longer the limitation it once was. One day we will be able to pick our preferred form of government just as we can change churches or school districts today. The 21^st century can witness the advent of the voluntary state system. Capital need no longer reign supreme. Material support will no longer have to be paid in cash, like taxes, but can be paid in labor. Life shouldn’t be about what you own or the people you know, or how much money you have because all of these things can be gained without effort such as through inheritance, theft, or special personal connections. Neither do they necessarily reflect the true capabilities of the individual behind them. Life can be about what you produce and what you contribute to society. But the achievement of this new socio-political dimension will not occur instantly one day just as it will not occur without effort, because it is in direct competition and even opposition to the existing authority system. 12.11.05

Neo-Conned

August 2004

Too Dumb for Democracy?

Americans in general have a noticeable aversion to seriousness; they fear and avoid solemn discussions and situations because it requires thought and the taking of a position which inevitably means the possibility of being wrong. Americans are immersed in a culture that doesn’t like to be wrong yet Americans themselves are pointedly aware of their own ignorance and limitations of awareness so they seek situations where they need not fear recrimination or the need to stand and justify their position so they strive to avoid taking any serious position at all! 'Ah this isn't funny, change the channel.'

It's almost as if in America ignorance isn't a luxury it's a right! But this mentality has real-world consequences that can be seen in the character of the American political system. Americans will elect some of the most idiotic and incompetent people around because they generally believe that it is up to the leader to be informed and to make the decisions – not the public. Learning and making careful decisions is after all hard work! No, that’s what others are elected for! To their credit however Americans are quick to recognize a fool once they’ve elected him or her into office but unfortunately usually not until after they’ve thoroughly trashed everything and botched every job they were tasked to do.

For instance, it’s no secret that the Dubya Bush administration is increasingly unpopular and when the President is booted out of office by a disgruntled American public and replaced by John Kerry it will not be because Kerry is the more qualified candidate but because he is viewed as the only reasonable alternative to Bush! To the American public it’s not the fact that Bush has exacerbated Islamic terrorism and caused incalculable damage to American prestige throughout the world, but rather the fact that his war on Iraq didn’t succeed quickly and neatly, that will cost him his Executive office!

In an increasingly consumer oriented culture, where nearly all relationships are based on the exchange of money, America has lost the sense of public duty necessary for the maintenance of the classical democracy so cherished in traditional folklore. Effective leadership can never be bought; it can’t even be elected because it has to originate not from the top of the power-pyramid but from the bottom.

So it’s easy to talk about building community and increasing public involvement but the reality is that things have reached this point for a reason. Today’s paradox is that democracy in the 21st century requires a very smart and well-informed public in order to be effective but as we can now see America has neither of these critical components. The American public lacks the requisite patience and intelligence to comprehend the complexities of contemporary problems and to grasp the extended time-scales necessary to construct effective solutions. Consequently America finds itself staggering from one strategic failure to another, caught in multiple self-defeating, reactionary loops from the war on drugs to the war on terrorism. The American public is too busy blaming collective failure on the crooks and imbeciles they elect into public office to recognize let alone address their own responsibilities and culpabilities. American’s don’t even like to talk about their problems - serious discussions just create acrimony – why can’t we all just be happy and wish our problems away?

An all too typical American attitude is that responsibility is for someone else, especially leaders, but never the anonymous electors.

The American solution to every problem is to just get enough money to hire someone else to solve everything. But democracy can’t be bought and even if it could it wouldn’t be democracy. Similarly, sloppy use of the language often leads people to erroneously believe that intelligence can be bought - information perhaps but not intelligence. Fortunately there is a very simple solution to the democracy conundrum, indeed most all issues of public responsibility, and it’s quite common throughout the world and the public doesn’t have to worry about making tough decisions or about being wrong because someone else decides for them because they live under what’s called a dictatorship.

Is Freedom too Much Work?

Where freedom still exists the only alternative for a public that wishes to avoid subservience to a dictator is to get informed and involved. You have to work towards enacting what you want to see happen, not wait for others, elect them or pay them to do it for you. If you don’t have time then help fund an organization that does and if you don’t have money then use your time. If you don’t do it then someone else will and then all you can do is complain about the results. And if you don’t like any of those options then simply watch TV and avoid serious discussions like the plague and soon enough you won’t have to make any decisions at all.

Worldwide Web

Perhaps even more fundamental and wider in scope is the issue of government. The concept of the nation state has been decaying for decades, indeed one could argue that World War II was the last gasp of state power and by the end of that century states have been so undermined by other forces, especially economic, that in many cases they have little relevance anyway. The question becomes, what is a practical form of governance in the 21st century?

Artificial systems of ant-entropy that have emerged to undermine and slowly replace the nation-state concept are increasingly efficient at extracting and redistributing global resources be they human talent and creativity or natural resources. Wealth, resources and well-being are becoming more unevenly distributed not less and this is the whole point behind technological development as it drives economic and social progress in the 21st century. But the social cost of communication and transportation development means that millions are made redundant just as the inner social mass of the nation and state are eviscerated and re-categorized. South Africa has its townships, Brazil has its favelas and America has its prisons, all are answers to the question – what does society do with people it doesn’t need anymore?

The result is a highly bifurcated realm both in wealth and in space and as always this requires new boundaries and new walls to divide the two classes. So even as the traditional political structures remain to exert vestigial influence, be it in taxation or even representation, the new infrastructure of exploitation gradually usurps the old forces of state and redraws the boundaries with lines of invisible ink that will only become apparent as they gradually turn dark with time. 20.06.04

When the effects are personal the issue become political.

Who Pays The Piper?

You know, sometimes it's just too easy. Case in point - the August 22, 2003  appointment of the relentlessly pro-Zionist shill Daniel Pipes to the board of directors at the federally funded 'U.S. Institute for Peace'. An objective academic? This guy is about as objective as Rush Limbaugh; this is like putting Dr. Goebbels in charge of studying Jewish history, the fox is in the henhouse. Talk about a total loss of credibility for America, and then people wonder at the levels of anti-American violence around the world?!

Why not just put a big sign over America that says 'bomb us now, please!' because that's effectively what President Bush is doing.

But then again, maybe that's exactly what Bush wants. After all terrorism has been the most successful platform he has to run on and another high-profile terrorist attack right around election season 2004 ought to work wonders for his campaign.

Pipes presents us a classic example of how think tanks like the U.S. Institute for Peace, tasked with objectively analyzing very important issues and making critical decisions, can be packed with zealots and pseudo-experts to the point the institutions are nothing but shams put together to promote a narrow-minded agenda. Pipes uses his academic credentials (Harvard) to simulate objectivity and to appear as a legitimate and intelligent source of knowledge on issues of importance to the Israeli government, read 'Middle East studies'. His mission is to convince Americans that all Palestinians are terrorists, Sharon is a very righteous dude who needs more American support (read $$$) and that any attempt to try and view the conflict in the middle east from a standpoint other than that of the Israeli government is wrong and supports terrorism, among other things. This guy is no objective analyst, he's being paid to say what he does, he defines the word shill, a mouthpiece for Israel, a bought 'academic'. He's as one-sided as he is ubiquitous writing for every major newspaper from the New York Post to the Jerusalem Post.

I mean doesn't anybody ask, how come the terrorist always attack America and never Canada? The freedoms are about the same so it's not a hatred for freedom as Bush would have us believe. Canadians are all over the world doing business deals and many other things Americans do, but they don't get attacked and in fact many traveling Americans now resort to claiming to be Canadian to avoid being targeted overseas! Could it just possibly be that Canada has a safe record in world affairs due to the fact their government doesn't take flagrantly biased sides in the middle east?! Could it possibly be that the Canadian government is not packing 'Peace' Institutes with shills like Daniel Pipes?! Maybe because the Canadian's aren't pushing other countries around (military) or fomenting revolts and insurgencies around the globe (CIA). Nah that makes too much sense, it's gotta be that all terrorists hate America, they don't need a reason - they're all crazy anyway!

And where are the benefits to being so one-sided in support of Israel? Iraq doesn't seem to be one, Afghanistan is an ugly mess. The World Trade Center attacks don't seem to be an advantage. And you know, Toronto's CN tower seems remarkable devoid of similar attacks doesn't it, hmmm, I wonder why?

Israel is the single largest destination for United States foreign aid. Many radical Christians vote to support the most pro-Israel candidate, some Jews do too but it still seems like a very expensive way to buy votes. Regardless, no matter the dollar amount or the level of groveling it's never enough. Pipes' primary complaint with the same President that eventually appointed him to the Peace institute, is that Dubya doesn't act pro-Israel enough! Bush actually feigns an interest in the Palestinian side of things and that to Pipes is just going too damn far. Although Pipes' support for Bush seems ambivalent at best, he's perceptive enough to make the following conclusion:

Observing these contradictions through two years of the Bush administration leads me to one main conclusion: In key ways - sympathy for Israel's plight, diplomatic support, providing arms - Bush tends to ignore his own Palestinian-state rhetoric and stand solidly with Israel. His statements demanding this from Israel and promising that to the Palestinians appear to be a sop to outside pressure, not operational policy.

In short, look at what President Bush does, not what he says, and you'll find his usual consistency, this time hiding under a veneer of apparent indecision.

If this is accurate, then the road map is for show, not true policy, and U.S. endorsement of a Palestinian state remains remote. Bush on Israel: Heartburn for all, By Daniel Pipes March 6, 2003.

Other titles of Pipes' work include, The only solution is military; PBS, Recruiting for Islam; Muslims love bin Laden; Save the Temple Mount; ... you get the picture. Take a look for yourself < here >, read Pipes in his own words and next time when you see the news headlines about Islamic anger, remember, Daniel Pipes along with what he says and writes is being sponsored by the United States government.

"History teaches that what appears to be endless carnage does come to an end when one side gives up. It appears increasingly likely that the Palestinians are approaching that point, suggesting that if Israel persists in its present [militant] policies it will get closer to victory." Daniel Pipes in The only solution is military. 25.08.03

(untitled)

Headline: Constitution Suspended, Security Reasons Cited

Speech to America by President George W. Bush
September 11, 2003

My fellow Americans,
As we remember those loved ones lost and the horrific tragedies visited upon our peaceful nation we must also look to the issues of the present and our hopes for the future. For many Americans their hopes and dreams have been shattered, robbed by fringe lunatics and madmen bent on sowing fear and terror everywhere around the world that Americans live, work and play.

Many fanatics hate our way of life, they will stop at nothing to deprive us of liberty, prosperity, safety and well-being. And even though we have done absolutely nothing to deserve this intense and unjust hatred and terrorist attacks, nonetheless we as a nation must pull together to overcome these troubles and defeat terrorism and those implacable foes of all that we hold dear. Unfortunately under these times of trouble we need to make sacrifices to sustain our great nation but all of us will contribute equally in this regard, no one in America will be unfairly exempted from aiding our great cause. And we will stop at nothing to achieve our noble task for our mission is noble and righteous one while those opposed to us relish evil and destruction. It may take months or even years to complete our mission but we will be victorious. Freedom and peace can have no deadline just as justice should have no statute of limitations.

Evil elements have been taking advantage of our generosity, our freedoms and benevolence. They have stolen from you and I. This injustice can no longer continue. It is with great sadness that I am forced to sign this Executive Order to protect the American people as our great Constitution grants me authority to do so. As of noon today I have declared a state of emergency throughout America and it's territories worldwide. The adjustments made to the Constitution are only temporary, just until order and safety can be restored and the war on terrorism is won. I have granted the military Northern Command with the task of restoring internal order and protecting the safety of every law-abiding citizen in the United States.

Certain things now might not be as quick or even quite as convenient as before America was attacked by fanatics and terrorists. But don't worry, this situation is only temporary and with a little patience and public cooperation we'll all get through it together. I'm asking all American's to help out. If you see something or someone acting suspicious please report it to the police or call the FBI's 1-800 number. In a few places you might find checkpoints and searches - they are there to protect your safety and just remember - if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.

Terrorists have been using news and information to spread lies, propaganda and endanger the safety of American troops fighting for our nation. No longer will America's enemies be allowed to undermine our country with rumors and half-truths. The Department of Homeland Defense will work with federal and state police agencies to stop the spread of harmful information. All the major news networks have gladly agreed to do their patriotic duty and work with public safety agencies to bring you the truth while still protecting your safety and the safety of our armed forces around the world. Freedom of speech will be completely preserved, just as the First Amendment promises and our Founding Fathers intended - only harmful and hurtful slander will be dealt with.

Further, in these times America cannot afford to be led by weak, wavering or corrupt leadership. America needs stability and this is why all elections to the federal level of our government will be frozen, only as long as needed and no longer, until order and peace are once again restored to our wonderful nation.

Tonight I encourage Congress to pass the Freedom From Fear Act of 2003 to strengthen America and the law and order measures I've already taken. You may have heard some critics call it severe, others have called it too strong, but today we live in severe times, we need strong authority to restore the order and prosperity that America needs and deserves. Freedom from fear is not something your government can bargain with or quibble over but a right every American deserves - today. My fellow citizens, we have little choice but to pass this legislation and when it is passed your family and your sons and daughters will be that much closer to a new life free from fear, the fear or terrorist attacks the fear of war on our own soil, free from fear of dissident factions fomenting violent conflict over legal details simply to promote their own narrow agendas. With your help and the help of Congress tomorrow will be a brighter day for America and all her citizens.

Tonight, let us all pray that God will grant us the patience to endure and a quick return of peace to the world we all so fervently desire

Goodnight and God bless America.

***

Yes, this time it was only a test. I put the above text in red but in this case it was actually written by me in an effort to demonstrate how startlingly formulaic speech-writing really is - just code-words and platitudes. Everything in a speech is programmed to elicit an emotional response and stifle any sort of rational or intellectual consideration while masking the true intent. 04.04.03

Safety in Numbers

Under The Smokescreen of War

20.03.03 In a little known event the Bush administration has used the shameless, fabricated excuse of the emergency of war to deny a fair bidding process for the reconstruction of Iraq. "U.S. government officials are inviting companies to bid under rules that allow agencies to circumvent open, competitive bidding in the name of emergency preparations." [1]

Billions of dollars are at stake and little if any will be going to small companies. "While the Bush administration hasn't released reconstruction cost estimates, a report by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences puts the figure at $30 billion to $105 billion during the next decade." [1] Instead big-cash campaign donors and insiders like Cheney's Halliburton will be getting it all. The Bush administration is utilizing the pretext of a discretionary war to directly funnel American taxpayer dollars into the pockets of some of the largest (and least reputable!) corporations in the country. The questionable ethics involved in this action are especially poignant given the present administration that prides itself on being morally superior to the corruption and sleaze of the Clinton era. This sort of thing should be of concern to everyone given the ease with which it can be done and the surprising lack of mass-media coverage for such a blatant give-away enriching the few at the expense of the many. 1. Bloomberg Financial News, March 19, 2003.

If attacking Iraq is wrong Bush doesn't want to be right...

10.11.02 Look at it from the perspective of the Bush administration, staffed primarily with past (or present) energy sector big-shots (think Of Dick Cheney's Haliburton incorporated and Condoleezza Rice from Chevron). "We have to have a zero-tolerance view of the Iraqi regime this time," Rice said. "This is a regime with a very long history now of deception and deceit."

War on Iraq is a complete no-brainer to the Bush team and here are just a few of the benefits they can gain:

• Gets to be pro-military (another strong conservative constituency).

• Get to take a stab at all those wimpy international institutions and talk-shops like the UN in favor of brutal unilateral action under the waving stars and stripes.

• Gets to be a wildly pro-American force for democracy by 'regime-changing' and 'nation-building' Iraq into a democratic country; -er well, at bayonet point - but that's nitpicking isn't it?

• Gets to continue (and perhaps finish) a very personal family vendetta between Saddam and the George(s).

• Gets to be thoroughly pro-Israel both in rhetoric and geopolitics by decimating Israel's #1 military threat, as Ariel Sharon has repeatedly reminded us all. Oh yeah and if you missed it Iran and Saudi Arabia are number two and three.

• Gets to be pro-oil / pro-energy, well duh! Iraq has about the lowest lifting costs for oil anywhere in the world, and has the potential to become the worlds number two supplier right after Saudi Arabia. Iraqi oil is not only cheap, it's high grade and plentiful. So just think about it, every barrel pumped out and sold, our people get a percentage! And even before that our people get to build the wells and the infrastructure. Wow! Could it get any sweeter?

Now how soon until we get rid of the obstinate despot Saddam Hussein so that everything will fall into place? Remember, "This is a regime with a very long history now of deception and deceit."

Regime changes are only for the little people.

Practical policy means seeing how much your government can squeeze the public taxpayer before they start to squirm and fight back.

Le Pen's Nail in the Coffin of Politics

This is one election that didn't turn out like it was supposed to. "A newsreader on the state-owned France 2 looked pale and grave as he warned viewers to prepare for a 'huge upset' just before provisional exit poll estimates were announced..." Instead of Chirac versus Jospin, Jospin loses, immediately retires and Jean-Marie Le Pen of the anti-immigration, anti European Union National Front takes second place. And since neither of the two highest percentages are enough to win they go to a run off in May. The media blames the win primarily on low voter turnout, which in France apparently means anything less than 70%! Hell, you couldn't get that kind of turnout in America if you handed out ten dollar bills at the polling station, but I digress.

Every other political party switches into overdrive to discredit Le Pen, his political platform, as well as the health of the French electorate for their temporary insanity while simultaneously emphasizing the snowballs chance in hell of Le Pen actually winning the run off. So the crystal clear message is panic and don't worry at the same time. Nonetheless the protesters filling the streets of Paris shouting anti-NAZI slogans and thoroughly bloated on their own specious hyperbole wouldn't be there if they didn't think Le Pen had a chance. The papers wouldn't be making such a huge deal out of this election if they didn't secretly fear that he could actually win too.

This whole charade is completely reactionary because despite the apoplectic media's efforts the political right "extremists" have scored several notable victories in European politics just over the past year and much of it is due to the electorates natural response to being told how to vote and how to act. That's not the goal but it's a product of the plan - ignore it until it's impossible any longer then discredit, lambaste, attack, vilify at maximum volume.

So is Le Pen a valid political solution? Probably not, he's more a symptom of a very sick, dying political system, one that is so entrenched it can never change - it can only be replaced. This political machine is faced with a poignant reminder of its impending doom being unable to address and even less able to solve the crucial social issues of the 21st century and will do whatever is necessary to maintain its chokehold on the public. The left builds the social problems into a crisis through the fundamental inability of their platform or ideology to deal with the critical issues that continue to grow in significance. The left has no way of dealing with the fact that crime is more prevalent amongst immigrants than natives or the patently obvious fact that immigrants change the cultural character of the nation, so they just attack the right's messengers and the party leaders.

Remember Jorg Haider? You don't?! Hey, I rest my case. [See: Behaviorist Policies Within Political Debate] The rhetoric was nearly as heated and hollow then, oh the sky was falling and hell was opening up, Jorg Haider was nothing short of the antichrist heralding the end days! This dude was so profoundly evil that the rest of the EU in its infinite arrogance and self-righteousness immediately slapped sanctions on the entire Austrian nation (yes even the ones that voted against him) for choosing the 'wrong' leader even if it was a democratic election. But in the end it only served to make the EU into hypocrites while the dire predictions faded into simply outrageous accusations in comparison to the whole lot of nothing that happened. And again what's the first word the major news outlets and opposition party leaders use to describe Le Pen - an "extremist".

Most of the lefts anger, although directed at Le Pen himself is actually more visceral. They're upset because now they have to feign facile concern for these issues they don't want to deal with. Think of how much time Chirac will have to spend away from his womanizing and financial corruption just to quell the electorate over this flare up? 'Damn, why can't these xenophobic crackpots just leave us alone and quit crashing our party on the taxpayers dime!'

The democracy scam is tough to hold together anymore because maintaining the appearance of fairness necessitates allowing "extremists" to participate but the system cannot allow them to win. So far the media has been able to throw it's ideological weight into the debate with enough force to lock out the "extremists" but that power is rapidly eroding. The next step will be to legally lock out these "extremist" parties but that will be the last step because it blows apart pseudo-democracy.

How did Western politics get to this pathetic stage? Taboo topics and the ever narrowing range of 'acceptable' dialogue, it has the same pernicious effect wherever practiced. Le Pen said that Chirac and Jospin had monopolised the first round of the election and had by common accord avoided the two big taboos, Europe and immigration. It's unfortunate but very true that taboo topics have polarized politics.

The 21st century has already established itself as one of portentous change and surprising dynamics, a period of crumbling facades and growing public concern with fact over fiction. This is an inevitable consequence of ideology, of groups and individuals trying to force reality to match an idea set of preconceived notions instead of the other way around. Until honest leadership recognizes this flaw and strives to match ideas to reality, things will only get worse. It's an age of dying gods and now that theology has passed out of reasonable discussion, so is ideology on it's deathbed. The first death was a religious God, the second is a secular god but neither is any more misguided than the other just as Jesus was equally self-convinced as Marx was. Social change on this monumental scale requires time and gradual steps even as the transition from one to the next is fraught with turmoil and angst. 23.04.02

No situation is so bad that a committee of elected official's cannot make it worse.