Descredited Power

  remind people that it shows a real loss of perspective to highlight only a leader and movement’s errors and forget its important successes, such as those derived from Chávez’s taking power in the first place (at a time when that idea was somewhat discredited on the left),

From Chavez's Way of Doing Politics, by Chris Gilbert

I highlight that quote from this article for the second part of the quote.  That Hugo Chaviez achieved a position of power while 'that idea was somewhat discredited on the left'.  Since then, much has changed in the region, with left-leaning leaders also achieving power in Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay and other places.  The region is labeled as a 'resurgance of the left'.

Meanwhile, back in America, the idea of actually taking power remains more than somewhat discredited on the left.  Perusing the comments allowed up on left-leaning websites and articles, one hears a constant theme that voting doesn't matter and that all politicians are corrupt.  This leads to an American left that very rarely seems to even mount a campaign.  In 2012, there was no primary challenge to a pro-war, pro-banker Democratic President who can best be described as a moderate conservative, if not described as Dubya's third term.

Yet, no one in the Democratic party ran against him, and Rosanne Barr was as credible as any other leftwing independent candidate in the general election.

And you see the same pattern in lower level elections.  I live in the highly progressive city of Denver.  There have been 2, count them 2, decent statewide leftwing challenges in the 10+ years that I've lived here.  My representative in Congress is yet another pro-war, pro-banker, millionaire lawyer's wife who is never challenged in primaries and who's Green Party opposition treated his campaign as a joke.  When he paid any attention to it at all.

An reasonable question of logic is to ask "Cui bono?", which is of course Latin for "Who Benefits?"  When the left disappears from the electoral landscape, when there's not a bonifide grassroots progressive campaign in sight, much less a party or a movement, then 'cui bono?'

In the words of Illinois Senator Durbin, 'the bankers own the place'.  Corporate regulation and penalties are almost non-existent.  Corruption appears to be rampant, and I'm referring to the now legalised corruption where payments in the form of campaign contributions are answered by favorable votes and policies. If you want ROI (Return on Investment) in the range of thousands of percent, buying a politician is the best investment you can make. 

Meanwhile, the militarization of our police and the growth of a domestic police state runs rampant.  We are sliding down a slope where we are constantly told that we have to give up one right after another.  When I grew up, a DUI checkpoint was considered unconstitutional.  Now we see the police put entire intersections and neighborhoods on 'lockdown' and consider everyone there a suspect. 

Even when there are rules that are supposed to limit the government and protect our liberty, the government routinely ignores them.  The NSA has been caught in illegal spying on Americans.  This is ignored and nothing happens.  The NSA director openly lies to Congress while under oath at a hearing, and that is ignored and nothing happens. 

Then there is of course our national policy of continuous war abroad.  We've been told for 12 straight years that we are at war.  With no sign of it ending soon.  Since the enemy remains poorly defined, there's no real end in sight.  If the original Al Qaida seems to decline, we'll just shift the war to some other group who is usually happy to accept the role from the recruiting edge it gives them amongst their people.  One thing that 12 years of war has created is that almost every where in the world, anyone who stands up to America is locally a popular hero.

So, a question to the American Left .... how's this working for you?  While you've been off building community gardens, while you've been holding fake protests designed to be ineffectual, while you've been lazily supporting the Democrats as the lessor-evil to the image of the evil Republicans, what's been happening in the world around. you?  Are things getting better or does it seem that everything is getting worse? 

In America, it seems clear that the withdrawal of the American left from the battlefield of politics has been a disaster.  We've been steadily going backwards as a nation.  The trend seems to be accelerating.  And in addition to the old dogmas that argued to ignore politics, you can now add an genuine appreciation that perhaps we are already sliding too fast and too far down the slippery slope to make it even worth trying.

In South America, a renegade paratroop commander ignored the popular wisdom of the left and achieved power.  By doing so, he improved the lives of the majority of people in his country.  He build a political movement that survives his death, and he's sparked a series of other leftist victories across the region.

I wonder what would happen if the American left ever woke up and realized that in order to change anything, you have to first achieve a position of power? 

Share

Democrat Dilemma

The decision of President Obama to back down from his threats to unilaterally and unconstitutionally start hostilities with the government of Syria, and instead to ask for an authorizing vote from Congress has put Democrats into an interesting dilemma.

Lets take a look at my local Democratic Representative, Diana DeGette, (D-CO-1).  She represents most of the city of Denver.  Her district is generally far to the left of her positions, and in this case is almost certainly strongly against starting a war in Syria.  Remember, only 9% of Americans favor a war in Syria nationwide, and a progressive bastion like Denver certainly gives less support to this war than that nationwide average.

Diana DeGette is also a member of the Democratic Party House leadership.  She holds the position of Chief Deputy Whip in the US House.  Her job is to literally or figuratively whip votes into line with what the Democratic Party leadership and President Obama wants.  With President Obama asking for a Congressional authorization to bomb, kill and maim on the other side of the world, she is certainly going to be one of the people talking to the other House Democrats and doing her best to convince or force them to support the President's next war.

Of course, this is exactly the opposite of what the voters in her district would want.  And that reveals the dilemma of a Democratic Party which acts so very, very differently from what it tells its supporters what it wants.  During the campaign season, the Democrats come back to the districts and tell their voters tall tales like saying they are against these wars.  Back during the Dubya days, they all made hay by pretending to oppose Dubya's wars.  Actually, they just opposed the idea of Dubya holding power, believing that they should hold it themselves.  The wars that were growing more and more unpopular with the American people were a handy club to wield in their drive to take power into their own hands.  If you listened very closely, they were actually just critical of Dubya's conduct of the wars, which they portrayed as incompetent.  But they worked hard to blur this stance into a more general myth that the Democrats were against the wars.  This was of course revealed to be a lie when a voter noticed that the Democrats always lined up and voted yes to authorize Dubya's wars, but who can be bothered to pay attention to such details between episodes of American Idol. 

Sticker from Cafe Press

This is the dilemma of the Democrats.  Most of their voters are opposed to the wars.  And the Democrats got elected by pretending to support those same views.  Therefore, most Democratic voters today expect their elected Democrats to oppose the wars.  While at the same time the very war-like Obama administration will be trying to tell the Democrats in Congress that they have to support their party's President in his drive to escalate yet another middle eastern war.


At some point, sure the ability the Democrats to keep up this lie of Orwellian scope in the face of the reality of Democrats who constantly start, support, authorize and fund war after war after war has to fall apart.  Surely there is some limit to the ability of the pro-war Democratic politicians to constantly fool all the Democratic voters all of the time.  And a war in Syria, that almost no one in America seems to want, would appear to be a candidate for the time when this all falls apart on top of the Democratic politicians.

Below is a letter I wrote to Ms. DeGette.  I don't really even expect it to be read by anyone of any importance in her offices.  Probably some intern will open it, take a quick look, and then mark a tally on the 'against' side of the ledger.  They'll then make sure my email address is on their spam-send-list, and then probably just delete it.  They might keep a copy for records, but why bother when they know the NSA already has a copy stored for them.

But, what does seem to count is that those of us who oppose yet another war, yet more bombing, yet mroe wasted billions, and yet more collateral damage in killed and maimed innocent people, at least put our opinions on that for or against tally.  Someone in the office will know emails and calls are running 20-to-1 or 50-to-1 or 100-to-1 against.  If there are any real reporters still around within the US, they might call Congressional offices and ask how the calls and emails are running.  And Congresspeople might even tell the truth for once.  Or, even if they lie, they'll tend to just under-emphasize, so the 50-to-1 against might become 10-to-1 against when they answer the reporters question.   But, if we all speak up now, then there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the people of this country, that the voters in the districts, are strongly against this next war.

Now would be a good time to call or write your congressperson and let them know how you feel.  You can go directly to house.gov or senate.gov and quickly find email links and phone numbers for your Representatives and Senators.   Or many activist groups will be spreading one-click links to let your views be know.  Now is a good time to do exactly that.  Especially if you are represented by a Democrat.  Let them know with absolute certainty that if they support and follow their Democratic President into this next war, that this is exactly the opposite of what their voters want them to do.

And then, start to organize the campaigns for next year to challenge them.  Now is the time to begin to organize.  Especially if you are organizing a challenge in next year's primaries.  Remember that grassroots campaigns need more time to build and grow and to become the mighty accumulated force that can change the world.  Begin now.



Share

A letter to Congress

Since our Great Leader has decided  to allow our nation a slim glimmer of the democracy seen in our former motherland which denied us representation, I felt it was time to actually write my Congress-critter.  Since my general impression of Congress is that they don't listen to anyone who's not giving them a five figure (or more) check, I generally resist the temptation to send them my views.  But, since this is important, and since numbers matter, I hope the following is just one note in a massive flood of messages they are receiving.  Even if the only response it gets in my Congress-critters office is to say "add yet another one to the vote no pile", then at least that's something.

Dear Rep DeGette (D-Co-1st)

Please vote against any authorization to use military force in Syria.  The reports on alleged use of sarin gas by Syrian government forces are so unsubstantiated as to be laughable.  Especially when produced by a government that has a track record of being so wrong so often that it  is either an obvious liar or the so-called intelligence community is the biggest over-funded boondoggle of all time.

And, even if by some weird stroke of luck they happened to actually not be lying this time, then it still doesn't matter as its no threat to America. I don't really care whether Al-Qaida gasses Assad or if Assad gasses Al-Qaida.  And it certainly isn't worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to stop.  If nothing else, we can't afford it .

Why is it that whenever we talk about health care or social services or payroll tax holidays we are told that the deficit is a major problem that  must be addressed, but when someone wants to go start a useless and needless war on the other side of the world, then suddenly money is no issue?  Surely its clear to anyone with a brain, and presumably even to Congresspeople, that we simply can't afford this.  Don' t you dare come back pushing more austerity measures to make the bankers happy about the deficit  if  you start this war.  

Please vote No on any attack on Syria.  And if none of the reasons above don't convince you,  then picture  the killed and maimed innocent people, including women and children, that are an absolute certainty if this attack is authorized.  Do you want that blood on your hands and conscience?  Please vote No.

Share

Independence Day.

Happy Independence Day

If you are celebrating Independence Day, then you are a lover and supporter of America.  If you are celebrating "the fourth of July", you are a lover and supporter of calendars.

Do you notice how much effort goes into changing the name of the holiday?  Corporate ads are of course a main culprit.  Come celebrate the Fourth of July by going to visit a used car dealer.  Corporate media and 'news' adds in their own degree of this.  Why do they constantly say "Fourth of July" instead of 'Independence Day?

Think about how O'Reilly and Faux Fascist would object if we all took to calling Christmas "the Twenty-Fifth of December" instead.  They'd scream about how we are taking the Christ out of Christmas, and turning a sacred religious holiday into just a day of materialism and consumption.  So, what are the taking out of the Fourth of July?.

To be truly American, go give a King the finger, tell him to stuff himself, tear down his statues and fight his soldiers that come for you when the King wants to call you a traitor for doing the above.  That's America.  That's who our founding fathers were and what they did.  They were officially Traitors, and proud of it.  We celebrate the Independence Day on the fourth day of July in honor of the day they told a King to go stuff himself.

Be a proud American.  Happy Independence Day! Celebrate that we are a nation of Traitors, and proud of it.

Share

We Hold These Truths to be Self Evident

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Share

Rights

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Bill of Rights, first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution.

Share

A world turned upside down.

Whistle-blowing citizens who reveal massive surveillance programs that would certainly be viewed as unconstitutional by the writers of the Constitution now flee to Moscow to protect themselves.

 They are fleeing the nation that locks up more of its citizens than any other.
 They are fleeing the nation that conducts surveillance on its citizens.
 They are fleeing the nation that sends in undercover police to any opposition political movements.
 They are fleeing the nation that has massive, militarized police forces.
 They are fleeing the nation that sends in riot police to break up protests.
 They are fleeing the nation that sends agents abroad to kidnap people.
 They are fleeing the nation that operates secret prisons.
 They are fleeing the nation that supports, teaches and utilizes torture at home and abroad.
 They are fleeing the nation that blocks opposition political parties with a 2-party only political system.
 They are fleeing the nation that keeps hundreds of people indefinitely detained without even a kangaroo court military trial at Guantanamo.
 They are fleeing the nation that charges elderly priests and nuns with sabotage for protesting illegal nuclear weapons programs.
 They are fleeing the nation that claims the right to indefinitely detain its citizens.
 They are fleeing the nation that claims the right to murder its citizens.

 When I grew up, Moscow was the capital of the Evil Empire. How the world has changed.
 
 Ecuador has received asylum request from NSA whistleblower Snowden - FM Patino

Share

Been Distracted Lately?

Did you notice the way North Korea became less of a threat the day two disaffected children of immigrants set off a couple of homemade bombs in Boston?  One day, North Korea is a danger to us all, supposedly about to start both a war that would destroy North Korea and nuke the good ol' US of A.  Suddenly, the next day, poof, North Korea disappears.

If you were paying attention, this told you that the "North Korea Crisis" was a fake.  Theater for your benefit.  After all, a real international crisis wouldn't just end the day another 'big story' took over the headlines. 

The Romans used to have bread and circuses.  The idea that rulers might feed their people has now been derided as 'socialism' and of course banned from any humane debate about what a government might do when it isn't sending eight hundred million dollar bombers, that cost a hundred and thirty five thousand dollars an hour to operate, halfway across the world to fake a nuclear attack on another country.

And these days, you don't actually go to a circus.  You just tune your TV to one of the Circus Channels.  You even get to choose which circus you want to watch.  The FOX News circus, or the CNN circus, or the MSNBC circus.  Or you can watch Cramer the Performing Bear over on the CNBC circus channel.

But, if you occasionally stick your head back out into the real world and notice that what was supposed to be a major threat to our existence and a war that was about to occur suddenly disappears in a puff of smoke when 3 people die in Boston, that's when you realize its all just a circus.

Meanwhile, its been revealed that the Obama administration has been conducting widespread spying on journalists for the AP and FOX News.  And that Obama has also been using the IRS to go after political opponents in the 'Tea Party'.  This of course is no surprise at all to anyone who's been paying attention to the way protest movements like the AntiWar Movement or the Occupy Movement have been spied upon, infiltrated and had legal cases brought against them by federal prosecutors. 

Once, back when America was a nation of laws and had elected at least some people to office who felt they had a duty to live up to the oaths they took to defend the Constitution, we impeached a President for doing exactly that.  Article 2 of the articles of impeachment of Richard Nixon is about the misuse of government power to attack political opponents and journalists.  Today, we just watch the Circus Channels, which of course want to tell you that amazingly enough that there are tornadoes in America in the spring time.

Did this great economy lead to you getting a big raise and bonus this year?  Are you constantly evaluating new job offers that are better than your current job.  Does everything seem to cost more in a country where inflation is under control?  Do you feel like you have more rights and liberties than the generations before you?  Has this policy of constant police and military violence by our government made you feel safer and more secure?  Or can you not even now carry a backpack with some food and drinks and maybe a jacket in case it rains to a public event? 

Don't expect to find any of those questions even asked on any of the Circus Channels?  The whole reason for rulers having a circus is to make sure you aren't asking questions like these.  Of course, the whole idea of a democracy was that citizens would ask exactly these sorts of questions, then utilize their sovereign power to make sure the government was answering and doing what they want.  These days, Democracy and Freedom are a pair of Circus Clowns that arrive in their flag bedecked clown car, take a couple of pratfalls to entertain the crowd, then duck back offstage before the next main act begins.

And don't worry.  If you really liked the North Korea act, its sure to be back the next time there's the promoters need to fill a gap in the lineup of major acts.  Because, when a government rules by keeping its people distracted from what its really doing, then by all means, the show must go on.

Share

But you told us to vote for this ...

Obama in Plunderland

Link to an article by Norman Solomon, which is quoted below.

Norman Solomon has an excellent piece on the ways that President Obama shafts ordinary people in favor of his big corporate contributors.  This article focuses on the detail of how Obama's corporate fund-raisers are given key government posts.  When you just say 'corporate fund-raisers', it has a nasty ring to it, at least to my ears, but it doesn't really capture the essence of what damage is done when these people are named to key posts like FCC Chairperson or SEC Commissioner.

Barack Obama eventually has the money land in his various fund raising bank accounts.  But its these corporate fund-raisers who the corporate raiders have had on speed dial since at least the last campaign.  They are the ones on the front line.  Visiting corporate offices, wining and dining various wealthy corporate wealthlords.  Calling them up as much as they dared to ask for more and more and more money for the Obama campaign funds.  That's how they 'succeeded' in this American government.  By racking up tallies that put them at the top of spreadsheets of who raised the most money for Barack Obama.

The traffic is not one way, of course.  The corporate wealthlords (I started to type warlords before, but 'wealthlords' just seemed closer to the mark) of course get to use these contacts to express their opinions on exactly what the US government led by President Obama should be doing, or not doing.  Very rarely, their money gives the the ability to say this directly to the President.  But for most of them this is a hand-shake and a five minute conversation at a fund-raising dinner that their 5 or 6 figure contribution bought them.  However, they talk to their local fund-raisers all the time.  The fund-raisers are calling them, and probably doing so often in their quest for more funds.  But each of these calls is also an opportunity to say "hey, how come the FCC isn't letting us rape and pillage as much as we want to?" back to the fund-raiser.  When one of these corporate wealthlords sees a news story they don't like about President Obama hinting he might actually do something humane an decent, its the corporate fund-raiser who's number they have on speed-dial.

Now, they've got a Secretary of Commerce, the FCC Chair, and an SEC commissioner on speed-dial.

To nominate Penny Pritzker for secretary of Commerce is to throw in the towel for any pretense of integrity that could pass a laugh test. Pritzker is “a longtime political supporter and heavyweight fundraiser,” the Chicago Tribune reported with notable understatement last week, adding: “She is on the board of Hyatt Hotels Corp., which was founded by her family and has had rocky relations with labor unions, and she could face questions about the failure of a bank partly owned by her family. With a personal fortune estimated at $1.85 billion, Pritzker is listed by Forbes magazine among the 300 wealthiest Americans.”

and

But with countless billions of dollars at stake, the corporate fix was in. As Johnson pointed out, “Wheeler’s background is as a trade association representative for companies appearing before the Commission, a lobbyist in Congress for other FCC customers, and a venture capitalist investing in and profiting from others whose requests he’ll have to pass on. He has no record, of which I am aware, of challenging corporate abuse of power on behalf of consumers and the poor.”

But wait. There’s more. “Nor does Wheeler’s membership on the president’s Intelligence Advisory Board bode well for those who believe Americans’ Fourth Amendment privacy rights should be getting at least as much attention as the government’s perceived need to engage in even more secret snooping.”

To urge senators to reject the nominations of Pritzker and Wheeler, click here.

Those quotes are from Obama in Plunderland, the recent article from Norman Solomon.

I generally like Norman Solomon.  He tends to be on the right side.  But, I can't help but stop to think "Hey, you told us to vote for this guy!"  Norman Solomon not only used his public profile to tell us to support Obama in 2008, but he was a delegate for Obama and the 2008 DNC.

This is more important than just taking a cheap shot at someone for a bad decision they made.  And from his 2012 campaign to get a nomination to run for Congress, and what's he's been saying and writing for the last few years, I assume Mr. Solomon knows that it was indeed a mistake to support Obama in 2008.  He does such a wonderful job detailing the damage this has done.

The reason this is important is that there are more campaigns to come in the future.  And we are certain to see more Wall $treet funded fake progressives like Obama on the ballots.  Not only at the Presidential level, but also aimed at the Democratic seats in the House and the Senate ... as well as your Governor and to a lessor extent state legislatures.  American politics today is full of people who seem to have two characteristics.

The first is that they talk left to their strong Democrat or Democrat-leaning districts and states. Then they go to Washington and do exactly the opposite.

The second is that they seem to be or become personally wealthy and their campaigns are always very well funded.   Usually the most well funded campaign in the race.

If you want a general rule for politics and voting, it would be this.  Never, ever vote for the candidate who has the most money in the race.  Generally this information is released in campaign finance reports during the election.  There's a giant loophole, where the reports for the last part of the campaign aren't released until after the election, but you can still look at the last reports released before the election and know where the corporate moneybags have been dropping their bribes, uh, contributions.

For example, here in Colorado I refused to vote for John Hickenlooper, the supposedly progressive Mayor of Denver who has been Colorado's governor.  I looked before the last election and he had raised millions of dollars more than the other candidates combined.  That's a pretty normal situation when an incumbent governor is a huge betting favorite to win re-election.  Every corporate wealthlord with an interest in the state wants to be on his contributor list and make sure they have the Governor's fund raisers, and probable future cabinet officers and powerful state officials, on speed-dial.  But it was enough to tell me that I should not vote for him.  Today, my lefty and progressive friends in Colorado are sounding shocked that Governor Hickenlooper is taking the side of the oil and gas industry in supporting fracking over citizen democracy.  I have to try to put a fake 'surprised' look on my face when they tell me about this.

In the next election, there will be more well meaning progressives and lefties telling you how its important that you vote for the next wave of Wall $treet financed, fake progressive Democrats.  I bring up Mr. Solomon's 2008 mistakes as a reminder that we should not listen to them.  Mr. Solomon's excellent article, linked to in the sub-title at the top, is a reminder of the damage that occurs when we vote for these candidates.

Share

Bomb in Damascus kills 6.

A bomb exploded on a city street yesterday.  Six people died. 

Syrian prime minister survives Damascus bombing, six die

After the horrors of the Boston bombing, does this resonate with anyone?  The horror of a bomb exploding on a city street.

Except, this bomb was in Damascus.  It was set off by groups supported by the US government.

The target was a symbolic government official, Wael al-Halki, the Prime Minister of Syria.  In the 'news' article about the blast, he's described as wielding 'little power'.  But we are told that this bomb is a good thing because "the attack highlighted the rebels' growing ability to target symbols of Assad's authority"

6 people died in the attack.  The target survived, but one person traveling with him was killed.  The other five people who were killed were just 'passers-by'.  The news article does not bother to give any names.  They are considered unimportant.

Don't hold your breath for any 24 hour tv coverage of the bombing and the aftermath on the US tv networks.  You won't hear any descriptions of the victims, nor stories about how tragic it was that their lives were cut short by a bomb exploding in a city.

You see, this was an American bomb.  Or, if not assembled by Americans, nor paid for directly out of US tax dollars, the bomb was still the work of people our government supports.  Thus, the 'news' coverage of this bomb focuses on the strategy of how this shows that 'our' rebels can target people inside Damascus.

Just for an instance, think of the Boston bombing.  What would you think if you heard a 'news' outlet talking entirely about the strategy of how people were now able to target people in America's major cities.  What would you think if that 'news' coverage ignored the innocent victims of the bombing to focus on messages like that?  Would you think you've wandered by mistake on to some radical website that supports the killings of innocent people, as long as they died for the cause?

That's why its important to notice this bombing.  That's why its important to notice these differences.  Its important because people need to notice how similar events are presented to them very differently. 

Don't get me wrong.  The bombing in Boston was a tragedy that should never have occurred.  But, to me, the same can be said today about Damascus

And, its important to understand that at some basic level, there are people crying today for the dead in Damascus.  Those unnamed, un-pictured dead who's mourners we'll never see.  Five of whom were just as innocent and unsuspecting as the dead in Boston.

If you understand that.  And if you can still cry for innocent lives blown apart in Damascus as well as in Boston, then you are still a human being.  If you think of the dead in Damascus as some sort of victory for our side, then you probably watch too much American 'news'.  You should turn off your TV.  Because your humanity is in doubt, and you are well on the way to believing that its alright for some people to be blown apart by a bomb just because they were on the wrong street at the wrong time.

Be careful. Watching too much 'news' on American TV can lead to that sort of 'radicalization'.

Share

Explaining North Korea

 

Explaining North Korea by Justin Raimondo, April 03, 2013

If you are being bombarded by media claims that North Korea is a threat, and that the US is facing a major military crisis, then you should read Mr. Raimondo's article linked above.  But, here's the part that really captured my attention ....

North Korea’s “military first” policy, which puts military procurement ahead of economic development, has been costly: there are reports of a looming famine this month. As economic conditions worsen, the stability of the regime may be put at risk, in which case Kim Jong Un will need the military to back him up.

Doesn't that sound familiar?  Certainly, the US budget policy for over a decade now has been 'military first'.  The military budget has been guaranteed to rise every year. And right now, there are howls coming from the generals and admirals because finally, after four years of worsening economic conditions in the United States, there is actually talk of minor cuts in military spending.

Massively overspending on the military always puts a hurt on the economy.  Money is being taken away from the citizens and the civilian economy to pay for such excess.  That has to have an impact.  My description of the cause of the United States having the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression from 2008 to the present is that simply too much money has been stolen.   The bankers, the con-artists and the military have all had their hands deep in the pockets of ordinary Americans, and combined they have taken too much out of the economy to line their own pockets.

The inevitable result was an eventual economic collapse. And the reason why we can't seem to get out of our economic crisis has been an unwillingness to do anything to stop the thefts.  The bankers still run the economy, and with the Fed are manipulating the economy to pour billions of dollars every month into covering their bad debts.  And amazingly, military spending has continued to rise every year despite the lack of any real threat.

At the head of an empire, decisions are not made based on what some minor players in a little country like North Korea are doing.  Decisions are made based on the needs of the people who hold great power at the pinacle of the the empire.  Does it seem purely coincidental to you that a supposedly major military crisis happens to arise at the same time that for the first time in over a decade our nation is considering minor and sensible cuts in military spending?

Read Mr. Raimondo's article, and you'll find that this is all pretty normal on the Korean penisular.

The rhetorical hysteria coming out of North Korea is par for the course: this is, after all, the country’s chief (and only) export. Washington knows full well Pyongyang has neither the means nor the intention to attack the United States, in spite of the comic-opera threats – and yet we’re acting as if the threat is real.

And certainly, our ally on the penisula, whom we are supposedly protecting, realizes this.

In Seoul, they are so used to North Korean bellicosity that the response was practically soporific. A South China Post story headlined “Seoul Shrugs Off War Rhetoric from North Korea” reported:

“In Seoul, the Unification Ministry insisted the war threat was ‘not really new.’ The Defense Ministry vowed to ‘retaliate thoroughly’ to any provocation. The United States said it took the announcement seriously, but noted it followed a familiar pattern.”

A familiar pattern indeed: endless bombast, followed by … nothing of much consequence.

 Yet, the United States seems to have been doing everything possible to make the threat as serious as possible and to escalate the tensions and the crisis whenever possible.  The United States flew a flight of B-2 bombers right up to and along the North Korean border.  These are planes that are not only 'nuclear-capable', but who's only real purpose and reason for existing is to attack with nuclear weapons.

After weeks, or even years of threatening and bellicose rhetoric from the United States, what do you think the North Koreans were thinking while we did this.  Those are the sorts of situations that lead to the accidental starting of wars, when someone makes a bad decision.  Today, we can thank our lucky stars that the North Korean military didn't make such a bad decision, and that the only reaction from North Korea was more ridiculous bombast about starting a war.

North Korea knows they would lose such a war.  Not only does South Korea regularly fund the US arms industry by purchasing the equipment for one of the largest militaries in the world, they are of course backed up by America.  North Korea couldn't possibly win such a war, and they surely know this.

This means, the only way a war would really start on the Korean peninsula would be if the North Korea felt pushed back into such an inescapable corner that they felt that war was their only option.  And the United States seems to be doing everything possible to do exactly that.  This is a crisis that could easily be descalated.  But, the Obama administration has consistently been doing just the opposite.

Remember, the most important battle the United States military battle fights every year is the budget battle in Washington DC.  Hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake.  The military battles the rest of the country and the economy to claim more and more and more of our tax dollars every year.  And the branches of the military battle each other every year to put more money into their separate budgets at the expense of the other branches.

The 'Asian pivot' has always been about this.  The Terror Wars have been good for the ground soldiers.  But expensive ships and planes are of course useless when you are fighting a 4th generation foe who doesn't have an air force nor a navy.  The Asian pivot is the counter-attack of the Navy and the Air Force in the Budget Wars.  Oh my gawd, we have a crisis in the Pacific where we just happen to need to have a powerful Navy and Air Force to respond.  And of course they'll need lots of new and expensive ships and planes to counter this new crisis.  And of course, you, the American citizen and tax payer will have to pay for this.  Your taxes can't go down, and they quite likely will go up.  And you can't retire.  You can't have decent medical care when you grow older.  No way, we have to pay for new and expensive ships and planes.

The military first economic policy of the United States is one of the major causes of the current economic crisis.  The military first policy is facing its first real challenge in over a decade.  And in response, there is magically a seemingly major military crisis.  Its no surprise that it appears to be the United States that keeps escalating the crisis.  They are trying to hang on to billions of dollars of your money.  Your money that could be used to build mass transit and provide health care and improve schools.  All of which would not only improve your life, but which would also provide jobs here at home.  But, none of that can happen if we continue our military first policy. That's the war that's heating up right now.  The crisis on the Korean peninsula is just theater being created as a part of that bigger war.

Share

What Americans Don't Know

 My Lai 45 Years Later—And the Unknown Atrocities of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan

 by Nick Turse

In short, on this anniversary, I think of all the My Lais that most Americans never knew existed and few are aware of today. I think about young American men who shot down innocents in cold blood and then kept silent for decades. I think about horrified witnesses who lived with the memories. I think of the small number of brave whistleblowers who stood up for innocent, voiceless victims. But most of all, I think of the dead Vietnamese of all the massacres that few Americans knew about and fewer still cared about.

I think of the victims in Phi Phu and Trieu Ai and My Luoc and so many other tiny hamlets I visited in Vietnam’s countryside. And then I think of all the villages I never visited; the massacres unknown to all but the dwindling number of survivors and their families; the stories we Americans will likely never know.

I wonder if, 45 years hence, someone might be writing a similar op-ed about civilian lives lost these past years in Iraq or Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen; about killings kept under wraps and buried in classified files or simply locked away in the hearts and minds of the perpetrators and witnesses and survivors. Four and half decades from now, will we still reserve only this day to focus on these hard truths and hidden histories? Or will we finally have learned the lessons of the My Lai massacre and the many other massacres that so many wish to forget and so many others refuse to remember.

Sometimes, you come across writing that so clear and poignant that there's not much else to say.  I highly recommend clicking on the link above and read the whole piece.

Share

World View of a War Criminal

 

Kissinger Sees Little Hope for Mideast Peace, Arab Spring,  

from Bloomberg

One of the wonders of this age is that we get to hear alleged war criminals publicly state their views in interviews where they aren't challenged or asked tough questions.  And when I call Mr. Kissinger an alleged war criminal, its because he's one of several Americans who has to consult an attorney before leaving the country to make sure he's going somewhere he won't be arrested.  In 2001, Mr. Kissinger had to flee Paris in the middle of the night to avoid a court summons.

In the piece linked above, we get to see a war criminal's view of the chances of peace in the Middle East.  He says it won't happen, and don't expect much from Obama's visit.  Which is probably a pretty safe bet given the history.  But the reason he gives for 'why' is rather bizzare.

“I’m not optimistic” about reviving peace talks, in large part because of the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist parties in the region that aren’t inclined to support a “just outcome” with Israel, Kissinger said in an interview airing this weekend on Bloomberg TV’s “Conversations with Judy Woodruff.”

Of course, one problem is that the Muslim Brotherhood isn't that big of a force in Palestine, which is of course the main group the Israelis would need to reach a peace deal with.  There, Israel would be negotiating with the Palestine Authority and Hamas.  The PA controls the West Bank, mainly because they refuse to hold elections.  And Hamas controls the Gaza Strip.  There also, elections are infrequent, and the last contest for power there was a PA coup attempt backed by Israel and the US that was thwarted by the Hamas party that won the last elections held.

The PA has nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas, like the other groups that have actually achieved power, has shown that its willing to negotiate and reach deals with Israel.  There have been several cease-fire deals between Hamas and Israel, which are usually relatively well enforced by Hamas, but eventually broken by Israel.

So, the world's foremost alleged war criminal says there's no chance for peace, but he blames on a mysterious force that really has little to do with Israel's relations with either the Palestinians or the Syrians.  The one place the Muslim Brotherhood does rule is in Egypt, which has a peace treaty with Israel which has been maintained and enforced by the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt even at the expense of keeping the border closed or restricted between Egypt and Gaza.

Essentially, Mr. Kissinger is just echo'ing the Israeli talking point that there can't be peace because they don't have anyone to with whom to talk.  But that was always a one-sided view that ignores the Arab League peace proposals and the constant willingness of groups like the PA to not only talk, but also to adjust their views to meet Israel's pre-conditions on talking.  And, any side in negotiations that insists on pre-conditions is essentially saying that the other side has to give them what they want before the negotiations even begin.   The only way that moves to a real agreement is if that side was willing to agree to pre-condidtions in exchange.  Israel doesn't do that.  Instead, Israel in the Oslo Accords moved everything the Palestinians would want to final round of negotiations, which was when the talks broke down because Israel wouldn't give anything to the Palestinians.

What isn't mentioned at all is an Israeli government that refuses to commit to peace talks, always places 'pre-conditions' on any talks, which is steadily stealing more Palestinian land through expanding settlements and their Israeli Wall, and which is rather constantly attacking their neighbors.  No, that wouldn't have anything to do with the slim chances of peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Kissinger goes on to reveal his contempt for democracy.

Kissinger said he doesn’t have a rosy view of the so-called Arab Spring that has been widely portrayed as popular uprisings with democratic aspirations."

Of course, that's no surprise since he was a facilitator behind the coup that overthrew Chilean democracy when Mr. Kissinger held sway over Richard Nixon's foreign policy.  Mr. Kissinger assured the Chilean generals of support before the coup, viewed the coup as a good thing, and helped make sure the US turned a blind eye to the arrests, torture, disappearances and killing that was a part of the destruction of Chili's democracy.   (see also Ask Kissinger About Pinochet in addition to the link in the first paragraph.  Many other sources available if you search)

Note of course that the thoughts and musings of one of the world's foremost alleged war criminals is widely available and presented as respected opinion in America, while the alternative views are either in smaller alternative medias or from overseas press.  That tells you a lot about America circa 2013.

Share

Lies

Lies you were told on the way to authoritarian government.

Charles Krauthammer's false statement about the US Constitution, by Glenn Greenwald.  Of course published abroad in The Guardian because while the Krauthammer's of the world are free to spread lies about America to Americans, real American journalists have to be published in Britain these days. 

The Constitution does not apply to Americans when they leave American soil.  That's one that we hear often these days.  Apparently all of Washington DC was ok with using drone strikes to kill people from other countries in their country, as well as with using drone strikes to kill Americans who've left the confines of America.  It was only when it became clear that the Obama administration views it as ok to kill Americans in America that there began to be an outcry.

But the, whole notion of it being ok for the US government to murder an American citizen abroad is fundamentally anti-American and is in direct violation of precedents long settled by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled in Reid v. Covert in 1957:

"At the beginning, we reject the idea that, when the United States acts against citizens abroad, it can do so free of the Bill of Rights. The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land."

Mr. Greenwald illustrates how absurd it would be to have the law be anything else.

... does anyone think it would be constitutionally permissible under the First Amendment for the US government to wait until an American critic of the Pentagon travels on vacation to London and then kill him, or to bomb a bureau of the New York Times located in Paris in retaliation for a news article it disliked, or to indefinitely detain with no trial an American who travels to Beijing or Lima or Oslo and who is suspected of committing a crime? Anyone who believes what Charles Krauthammer said this morning - "Outside American soil, the Constitution does not rule" - would have to take the patently ludicrous position that such acts would be perfectly constitutional

 What we see today in America is anti-American statements and beliefs being presented as 'truth' to a public who's education is the result of 40 years of politician attacks and budget cuts towards public schools and teachers.  I guess somehow it sounds logical to people who watch shows about the zombie apocalypse that the constitution might not apply to Americans abroad.  But that is not the case.

And taking that position is a fundamentally anti-American position.  The whole concept of the American constitution was to try to limit the powers of the government.  The American people never wanted an all-mighty central government with the power to detain or kill at will.  In fact, that's exactly what they rebelled against when they told crazy old King George III to go stuff himself.

People who can't deal with a free America with a limited government really aught to go somewhere else and live.  Because that's what America has always been. 
Share

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays everyone!

That time of year when its probably best to just ignore the world and concentrate on the smile on the face of someone you care about.  Well, that's never a bad idea, but this seems to be a time when everyone agrees to  do it.

So, be safe everyone, enjoy the holidays!  And try not to blow a gasket when you find out they snuck through an attack on Social Security while you weren't looking.  After all, a lot of you did vote for these people.

Share

Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal

At various times I've heard Democratic Party propagandists compare Barack Obama with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  That's revealed as absolute hornswoggle when you start to learn about F.D.R.

In 1940, F.D.R. decided to run for a 3rd term, breaking a tradition that had begun with George Washington.  He also decided to name his Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace as his V.P. candidate.  Wallace had played a key role in the Agriculture department in implementing the New Deal.  His achievements included farm subsidy payments to help prop up both farm prices and farmers.  Note that this gives money to farmers, then mostly small farmers before agribusiness took over, and not to big corporations and banks.  Wallace also put in the Food Stamps program while leading the Agriculture department.  Again, payments to real people, payments that help people eat and survive, while at the same time helping the economy by spurring demand.

A far cry from Barack Obama's giving us a re-run of Herbert Hoover's policies of supporting the bankers while telling ordinary people to go get stuffed.  Barack Obama could have made the same decision on the housing crisis he faced.  He could have chosen to give payments directly to people struggling to keep up on mortgages to prop up a crashing housing market.  Instead, Barack Obama gave the money to the bankers.


There were those in the Democratic Party who didn't like Henry Wallace.  Just the same as today, there are those in power in Washington who won't lift a finger to help the American people, and who will oppose anyone who tries.  So, while the Democrats were happy that F.D.R.'s decision to run for a 3rd term made them favorites to keep the White House, there were some Democrats who were complaining and trying to prevent the nomination of Henry Wallace as their Vice Presidential candidate.

We know what Barack Obama would do in such a situation.  He'd quibble and compromise and the compromise would include ditching someone who actually helps people like Henry Wallace.  Look closely, and you won't find a Henry Wallace in Obama's cabinet room.  The last person even close that's been in the cabinet was probably Dr. Robert Reich in Clinton's marginalized Labor Dept. And he left after the first term.

So, what did F.D.R. do?  He called their bluff, and took the dramatic step of REFUSING the Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.

Wow.  Can you imagine that?  During the party's convention, the party's nominee by acclamation turns around and says, no, I won't take it if you won't nominate the guy I want as my Vice President.

And, he didn't even try to be gentile or diplomatic in doing it.  Here's the letter he wrote to the delegates of the Democratic Convention.

Franklin D. Roosevelt Letter to the Democratic Convention
July 18, 1940 

Members of the Convention: 

In the century in which we live, the Democratic Party has received the support of the electorate only when the party, with absolute clarity, has been the champion of progressive and liberal policies and principles of government. 

The party has failed consistently when through political trading and chicanery it has fallen into the control of those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of in terms of human values.

The Republican Party has made its nominations this year at the dictation of those who, we all know, always place money ahead of human progress.

The Democratic Convention, as appears clear from the events of today, is divided on this fundamental issue. Until the Democratic Party through this convention makes overwhelmingly clear its stand in favor of social progress and liberalism, and shakes off all the shackles of control fastened upon it by the forces of conservatism, reaction, and appeasement, it will not continue its march of victory.

It is without question that certain political influences pledged to reaction in domestic affairs and to appeasement in foreign affairs have been busily engaged behind the scenes in the promotion of discord since this Convention convened.

Under these circumstances, I cannot, in all honor, and will not, merely for political expediency, go along with the cheap bargaining and political maneuvering which have brought about party dissension in this convention.

It is best not to straddle ideals. 

In these days of danger when democracy must be more than vigilant, there can be no connivance with the kind of politics which has internally weakened nations abroad before the enemy has struck from without.

It is best for America to have the fight out here and now.

I wish to give the Democratic Party the opportunity to make its historic decision clearly and without equivocation. The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time. 

By declining the honor of the nomination for the presidency, I can restore that opportunity to the convention. I so do.

Found at ... http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/must-read/franklin-d-roosevelt-letter-declining-1940-democratic-party-nomination

"The party has failed consistently when through political trading and chicanery it has fallen into the control of those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of terms of human values."

Can you even picture Barack Obama saying that?  Well, maybe, the man will say pretty much anything as 'happy talk' in a speech.  But, he sure as heck wouldn't back it up by telling his party in the middle of their convention that the party had better change direction away from those interests or else he 'declining the honor of the nomination for the Presidency'.

That's Barack Obama.  He's very good at 'happy talk' sections of speeches   He's good at the 'feel your pain' schtick of Bill Clinton.  But, his speeches always end, or veer away into meaninglessness afterwards.  Barack Obama appears to understand the problems of America.  He just isn't going to do anything about them.

By the way, I highly recommend Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States.  I was watching episode 1 of that series, and that's where I found this little gem.  This example of F.D.R. standing up to the bankers and the wealthy and the powerful who objected to his policies that had eased crisis of over-supply by paying people directly both not to over-produce and to buy.  F.D.R. didn't use the power of his office to funnel money out to bankers.  F.D.R. used the power of his office to help people and help the country.  That's why Barack Obama will never be considered in the same breath as F.D.R.  Herbert Hoover and Obama in the same breath, that's easy.  They are both tools of the bankers who harm the country by kowtowing to the bankers interests.

America needs another F.D.R.  America is ready for another New Deal.  What's changed is that the Democrats have made the decision that F.D.R. fought against.  The Democrats are now solidly in the control of 'those interests, personal and financial, which think in terms of dollars instead of terms of human values.'

The Democratic Party appears to be locked down.  At this point, there seems to be very little chance at the statewide level and no chance at all at the national level of anyone as progressive as Richard Nixon, much less Franklin Delano Roosevelt, succeeding in a Democratic primary for President.  Oh, there's a segment of the base who would support another F.D.R., but the party rules were changed after McGovern to make sure such a populist uprising could never again succeed   During the Hillary v. Obama contest, Democrats became familiar with 'super-delegates' as they split between the two.  But the real purpose of the un-democratically selected super-delegates is to tilt the table so that a party (aka money) favorite only needs 40% of the rest of the delegates to defeat an insurgent populist who needs 60%.  The Democratic Party is an un-democratic party that sponsors a rigged game.

Thus it seems as if America is going to find its next F.D.R., its going to have to find him outside of the Democratic Party.

Share

The Collapse of Strikes in America

The Collapse of Strikes
as found on Progressive Review's blog.

Is it any wonder that American workers feel powerless?  More than anything, right now America needs a strong and vibrant labor movement.  The hard sad truth is that no one else is going to fight for workers in this country these days.

You can look right now at Washington and watch the Democrats making deals for the phony 'fiscal cliff' crisis that are going to dump the bill for a decades worth of tax cuts for the rich, a huge 'defense' budget, and a series of Terror Wars around the world squarely on the back of workers.  Did you get billions in federal banker bailout money to help you out when you were down? Have you made profits as a war profiteer?  Have you only been paying a pittance in taxes?  Well, guess what, the millionaire Republicans financed by the wealthy and the millionaire Democrats financed by the wealthy are about to 'compromise' and agree to stick you with the bill.

That's the political reality of today.  Maybe once upon a time, back in the days of FDR, and maybe even in Tip O'Neill's day, the workers of America might have once had a seat at the political table in D.C. as a part of the FDR Democratic coalition.  But not any more.  The Democrats sold labor down the river decades ago.

Workers have to organize.  Its become a matter of pure survival.  There aren't any other options left.

By organizing, I don't mean following all the rules and regulations and jumping through all the hoops that have been constructed in this country to strangle labor unions.  I don't mean following a bunch of millionaire labor bosses who cut deals with billionaire CEOs.  I mean workers talking to workers.  That's the basis of a union.  Workers talking to each other.  Invite each other over for dinner, then talk about what you can start to do to help each other out at work.

Some day, you'll have to stand together.  Someone will get fired.  Or the Boss will walk in and tell you that everyone has to take a cut in pay, or a cut in hours or generally less money and less benefits so the Boss can get his bonus and the owners can spend the winter in Tahiti on their yacht.  Some day, you'll have to stand together.

On that day, you can stand there alone, mad at what is happening, but powerless to do anything about it.  Or, you can look at your friends and co-workers with whom you've already been talking and by a look and a clenched fist know that everyone knows now is the time to stand together and fight back.  The difference between being in those two positions on that day is simply talking to each other.  Find ways to meet away from work.  Sit at a bar, invite each other over for dinner, meet in a park on a rare day off.  Find ways to talk.  Find ways to work together.  Figure out that together, you have a strength that you didn't have standing alone.

We have to climb back up to get to square one.  We have to do this again.  Americans once stood tall to build a labor movement.  Americans once beat off bosses and scabs and thugs and the national guard to win the right to have a union.  To win the right to a 40 hour week and overtime pay and paid days off and decent health care that didn't bankrupt them.  These things weren't just given to Americans on a silver platter with a note from the Boss saying that he was thinking of us and thought we should have these things.  These things were won in tough fights by tough American workers standing strong and demanding that these things were the bare basic minimum of a fair deal.

It may seem dark.  It may seem impossible.  But, we know that this has been done before.  Americans have come together before and won a decent life and some dignity in the workplace for themselves.  Its easier the second time, because we know it can be done.  We have to do it.  If we don't, then we just hand more of a messed up country and a truly awful work place on to our children and tell them to deal with it.  The least we can do is to fight for now for a better day tomorrow.  And try to teach them well the lesson that they'll have to fight themselves if they want to keep what we win, or if they want to do better than we can do.

Because, that's surely the lesson of the last 30 years or so.  American workers stopped fighting.  They rested on their laurels and the victories they won.  They stopped fighting.  That's what that chart shows.  American workers have stopped fighting.  And look where its gotten us.

It begins by you talking to the person who works next to you.

Share

Grover Norquist vs. the Pentagon

Grover Norquist vs. the Pentagon from The American Conservative

I must be getting old. Now I agree with Grover Norquist. Mr. Norquist is the man who first emerged in the 1980's and who's best known quote is that he doesn't want to eliminate government, just to

“shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Now I listen to him, and he's making perfect sense

GN: Conservatives should insist that defense spending be examined with the same seriousness that we demand in examining the books of those government agencies that spend taxpayer money in the name of welfare, the environment, or education. We laugh at liberals who declare that their favorite spending programs should be exempt because the spending is for a noble cause.

A Spanish socialist once declaimed: Spending too much money is not left wing—it is stupid. Ditto wasteful spending in zones conservatives tend to favor because they are actually mentioned in the Constitution.

Spending should be transparent. All spending by the Pentagon should be online. Every check. Exceptions should be made for legitimate national security issues. But military and civilian pay and retirement benefits are not state secrets. This has already been done in many state governments.

I agree with both the anonymous Spanish socialist who's name apparently can't be mentioned in the American Conservative, and Mr. Norquist.  Spending too much is just stupid.

We've literally have been throwing money at the Pentagon for the last decade.  We've been doing exactly what conservatives normally decry, throwing money at a problem.  In this case, the 'problem' was the terror attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.  I don't know the exact number, but I'd guess we've thrown something in the neighborhood of ten trillion dollars, that's $10,000,000,000,000.00, at the 'problem'.  We spend somewhere in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars a year on 'defense'.  It was less a decade ago, but you can also add in several hundred billion dollars a year in the wars that the Democrats and Republicans have both kept "off-budget".  So, ten trillion dollars from 2001 to 2012 is probably not a bad guess, and maybe a little on the low side.

What do conservatives normally think about trying to solve problems by throwing money at the problem?

GN: One should look at the charts that compare tax dollars spent per pupil on education to SAT scores, or high school graduation rates. Spending is not caring. Spending is what politicians do instead of caring. Spending more does not guarantee success. Politicians like to measure spending because it is easier than measuring actual metrics of accomplishment.

Then one should ask why defense spending is exempt from the laws of politics.

For a decade now, we've had politicians who have spent trillions of dollars on 'defense' in order to show they 'care' about 'security'. The one thing that Democrats and Republicans have agreed on consistently for the last decade is that we must 'show we are tough' by increasing defense spending. Obama and Romney both agree that the defense spending should continue to rise, even while they both agree that harsh austerity measures like those in Simpson-Bowles should be imposed upon the American people because of the 'deficit' that's come from spending ridiculously more on 'defense' than the rest of the world.

The Economist, hardly a left-wing journal, wrote in 2011, in a post called "Defence spending: Always more, or else"

All of which isn't to say that America's generals should rest easy, or that the president should disband the army. It is merely a plea to start viewing the defence budget in more realistic terms, where proposed cuts, or small increases, are not viewed as doomsday scenarios

Here's The Economist's chart of defense spending from that article.

Does it look like we spend too little on 'defense'?  Remember, that chart is only the official Pentagon budget, and not the other 30% or so that's hidden in other agencies that bring the total up to nearly a trillion dollars a year.

And also remember that from the stack on the right side of that chart, Turkey, Canada, Australia  South Korea, Italy, Germany, Japan, France and Britain are official allies of the USA.  And that Brazil and India could be considered friendly neutrals that would be very unlikely to attack the US.  That leaves Saudi Arabia, which is realistically the last country to attack the US, which it did on Sept. 11, 2001, and Russia and China.  And frankly, neither Russia nor China is saying a word these days about any sort of attack on the US.  The days of the Soviet Union having tank armies in East Germany aimed at NATO are long, long, long gone.

To understand how absurd this all is, try to picture this chart, but with the USA side some $300 billion (or approx 40%) higher, and then imagine the right side with only Saudi Arabia, Russia and China on the list.  Add a couple of small slivers for North Korea and Iran.  To spare your sanity, don't even try to think about that giant barrel of pork that is the Department of Homeland Security, or what might be in the NSA's black budget.

When was the last time you heard of an audit of the Pentagon?  If you are somewhere in age between myself and Mr. Norquist, you may remember the many stories in the past of over-priced hammers and toilet seats that inflated costs paid out to defense contractors.  But these days, you never hear those stories.  No one is taking a close look at exactly what we spend and how we spend it.  Asking that the Pentagon efficiently use the money that we the people provide to them is now considered "unpatriotic".  Somehow, what's become "patriotic" is to continually raise the defense budget and throw more and more and more and more money at the problem.  Romney and Obama are fighting during the debates about who can raise the defense bill even higher.

What have we gotten from all of this?  Back to Mr. Norquist.

GN: Ask advocates of the decision to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan after the Baathist and Taliban regimes were overthrown what their goal was. What would define winning or succeeding? How much did it cost? In dollars and in lives. And how much will continuing the occupations cost? When will they end? Someone sure of the virtue of his decisions will welcome answering those basic questions. Those who cannot answer those questions now should have been forced to answer them before lives were spent towards an unarticulated purpose.

Reagan asked in 1980: are you better off than you were four years ago? Are American interests in the world more secure today than before the decision to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan?

We've spend 10 trillion dollars on 'defense' in the last decade.  We're currently spending a trillion dollars a year.  Are you more secure than you were a decade ago?  Almost certainly not.  We are told now that we have to give up more civil liberties to be secure.  That the threats are so serious that the President and the Pentagon need the authority to lock up any American indefinitely on their say so.  You are currently so insecure that the NSA is building a massive center in Utah to monitor and store for later investigation all of your communications, and probably this blog post.  You are so insecure that you need TSA to expand their airport checkpoints out to trains, buses and even along the highways.  You are so insecure today that Mitt Romney wants to win your vote by spending an additional $2 trillion dollars over the next decade, and that's on top of the $10 trillion or more that's already planned.

Of course, this is the ultimate wasteful government spending.  Because if it ever succeeded, if it ever did make you feel more secure, then it would have to end.  And, in the world where the government takes your money and spends it, stopping that practice is simply not an option.  The people in charge of the programs, and the people getting rich from the programs both want the spending to go on and on and up and up.  Thus, the one thing that is absolutely certain is that none of this spending will ever make you feel more secure.



Share

Pakistani Family Wants Murder Warrants Over Drone Deaths

CIA chiefs face arrest over horrific evidence of bloody 'video-game' sorties by drone pilots
 By DAVID ROSE from the Daily Mail in the UK

The plaintiff in the Islamabad case is Karim Khan, 45, a journalist and translator with two masters’ degrees, whose family comes from the village of Machi Khel in the tribal region of North Waziristan.
His eldest son, Zahinullah, 18, and his brother, Asif Iqbal, 35, were killed by a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone that struck the family’s guest dining room at about 9.30pm on New Year’s Eve, 2009.
Asif had changed his surname because he loved to recite Iqbal, Pakistan’s national poet, and Mr Khan said: ‘We are an educated family. My uncle is a hospital doctor in Islamabad, and we all work in professions such as teaching.
‘We have never had anything to do with militants or terrorists, and for that reason I always assumed we would be safe.’
Mr Khan said: ‘Zahinullah, who had been studying in Islamabad, had returned to the village to work his way through college, taking a part-time job as a school caretaker.
‘He was a quiet boy and studious – always in the top group of his class.’ Zahinullah also liked football, cricket and hunting partridges.
Asif, he added, was an English teacher and had spent several years taking further courses to improve his qualifications while already in work.
Mr Khan said: ‘He was my kid brother. We used to have a laugh, tell jokes.’ His first child was less than a year old when Asif was killed.
Included in the legal dossier are documents that corroborate Asif and Zahinulla’s educational and employment records, as well as their death certificates. Killed alongside them was Khaliq Dad, a stonemason who was staying with the family while he worked on a local mosque.

To me, there's no difference in how a human being is killed. Killing an innocent human being by blowing them up with a missile with a high explosive warhead isn't any different from killing an innocent human being by shooting them. Or from killing an innocent human being by flying a plane into their building.
Its not the method that creates evil, its the act of killing an innocent human being that is evil.

According to the legal claim, someone from the Pakistan CIA network led by Mr Banks – who left Pakistan in 2010 – targeted the Khan family and guided the Hellfire missile by throwing a GPS homing device into their compound.
Mr Rizzo is named because of an interview he gave to a US reporter after he retired as CIA General Counsel last year. In it, he boasted that he had personally authorised every drone strike in which America’s enemies were ‘hunted down and blown to bits’.
He added: ‘It’s basically a hit-list .  .  . The Predator is the weapon of choice, but it could also be someone putting a bullet in your head.’

According to the article, we've killed somewhere between 2,500 and 3,300 people in Pakistan by our drone strikes. To put that number in perspective, just under 3,000 people died in the Washington DC and New York City terror attacks on 9-11.
The US and NATO claim that pretty much every person killed by a drone strike is a 'terrorist'. Its pretty much by definition, if you were killed by a drone, then you had to have been a terrorist.

Last night a senior Pakistani security official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that Pakistan’s own intelligence agency, the ISI, has always been excluded by the CIA from choosing drone targets.
‘They insist on using their own networks, paying their own informants. Dollars can be very persuasive,’ said the official.
He claimed the intelligence behind drone strikes was often seriously flawed. As a result, ‘they are causing the loss of innocent lives’.
But even this, he added, was not as objectionable as the so-called ‘signature strikes’ – when a drone operator, sitting at a computer screen thousands of miles away in Nevada, selects a target because he thinks the drone camera has spotted something suspicious.
He said: ‘It could be a vehicle containing armed men heading towards the border, and the operator thinks, “Let’s get them before they get there,” without any idea of who they are.
‘It could also just be people sitting together. In the frontier region, every male is armed but it doesn’t mean they are militants.’
One such signature strike killed more than 40 people in Datta Khel in North Waziristan on March 17 last year. The victims, Mr Akbar’s dossier makes clear, had gathered for a jirga – a tribal meeting – in order to discuss a dispute between two clans over the division of royalties from a chromite mine.

Do you really believe the generals and the politicians when they say that such a process is so perfect that absolutely everyone they kill is always a terrorist? Lets see what the people on the ground think. As part of a longer statement, one resident of the region says ...

He added that schools in the area were empty because ‘parents are afraid their children will be hit by a missile’.

We've created a world where mom's are too terrified of our drone strikes that they won't send their children to school.  How many mom's have you met who didn't want their children to be educated?  Not many, but in this region, the mom's of the region obviously feel that its better to have their children alive and at home.

Does that sound like the people who live in these areas can obviously see that the only people who die in these strikes are terrorists?

If you think this is wonderful, vote for Romney or Obama in this election, and they'll both continue and probably expand this facet of America's Terror Wars. If you think this is just plain wrong, try voting for someone else.

Share