Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Friday, 7 January 2005 at 1h 19m 28s|
Sorry Y'all. I've been mentally and spiritually on vacation. I will reappear
again in a couple of days.
|Wednesday, 15 December 2004 at 5h 21m 30s|
The crisis as a hoax
Okay, so now we have a plan to offer younger workers a small portion of their
paycheck towards private wall street accounts, as if this is a solution to the
problem of the system running out of money by 2052 (according to the
Congressional Budget Office.) That's 48 years from now.
Its what the letter of the law states which our congresspersons never read that
is important. All this hype is just the perfunctory ritual excuse that is
supposed to justify what they intend to write insidiously and esoterically into
the thousand page booklets that are called Congressional legislation. Most
Congresspersons (probably almost all) do not read the legislation over which
they vote. Some read what they need to and depend heavily on their staff to
cull and filter the enormous body of correspondence and legislation which
really is too much for anyone person to handle. Some persons know how to
create a staff, some persons accept the suggestions on whom to hire on their
staff to the extent that the staff sets the agenda.
So these fools have a great idea that is meant to be a show of decisive
action. You see, we have a "crisis." At least the corporate media outlets all
say so, blaring dramatic sounds and colorful, prominent banners. Follow the
parade. Borrowing one trillion dollars called "transition costs," the idea is
meant to offer younger workers the right to divert a portion of their payroll
taxes into private wall street accounts. But no one can explain how this
diversion of funds from the general insurance fund is supposed to help the long
term stability of the Social Security System.
Oh, but in 10 years the "efficiency" will more than pay for the initial cost
in "savings." Huhn? Where are these savings going to come from? The only
problem with social security is the need to secure a large stable source of
funds. The costs of having social security are only 2 percent. What the hell
do efficiency and savings have to do with this defunct, inert notion of
privatization? They mean profitization. Someone wants to make some more money
off you, and promise that you will make more money too.
People confuse insurance with profitable investments. The idea behind the
Social Security Insurance is to spread the costs of society over the entire
population. Unfortunately, political reality necessitated certain
modifications. All persons are taxed at the same rate of 7.5%. But this
percentage does not apply to the entire amount of income. Only the first
$87,500 is taxed. So if you have a collective income of 2 million dollars, you
only pay 7.5% on the $87,500 ($6562.50.) The rest of that income ( 2 million
minus 87,500) is not taxed!!! That is a difference of $143,437.50 in
Now you might say that is great. A tax savings of $143,437.50. But the choice
before us is not as simple as applying the same tax percentage. If the cap on
the percentage was raised, the percentage could be reduced. The tax on those
with more than $87,500 would increase but not by nearly as much, because the
tax percentage could also be reduced to say 4 percent. The vast majority of
tax payers would get a 3.5% tax break.
The idea of insurance is simple. If a large group of people each pay a small
amount of money into a general fund, all of the needs of the group can be met
because the averages will spread out over time. Thus if 140 million people
each pay 5 percent of their income into a general fund, we as a society can pay
for all of the needs we need. Despite the Neo-Hobbesian social-darwinists
belief in a society free of government meddling, mandkind has always taxed the
citizens to perform functions necessary for the whole. In primitive tribal
society, members had understood responsibilities and duties to the group. In
our polyglot, anonymous social order, we form a government to perform and
coordinate these necessary tasks.
Diverting funds to some other fee-based system removes from the pool those
citizens who feel economically secure. This defeats the ability to spread the
costs because since the numbers involved are reduced, the burden per person
What's more, because social insurance is not run for a profit, the overhead
(the expenses above the deposited funds) is only 2 percent of the total funds.
In private accounts, the fees and the services can run as high as 35% of total
funds. But you didn't think their is any altruism in private-minded investment
brokers. Greed can pretend to be mutually beneficial, but then, it is you who
provide the funds. The reality is that greed means little when beset by those
who have the upper-hand. You are just depositing money in an account and
trusting that the movers and shakers are gonna send you a fat check every
month. As history shows, there really is no guarantee. Through no fault of
your own, you could be the poor fool who suffers losses on his investments,
then goes bankrupt and winds up homeless at age 62. Or the sad one who loses
an arm in an accident, and can't work. Or the man who suddenly becomes blind
at age 31. Or the woman (man) with children whose husband (wife) suddenly
We don't want to leave the care of our children, the injury to our workers, and
the retirement of our older persons to chance. As a society we tax ourselves
to provide the funds for these services. We must get the debate away from one
that is either for or against the system as a whole, and start focusing on the
best way to spread out the financial burden on our taxpayers.
Don't be misled by the subtle propaganda of the profiteers who wish to
dismantle the system for their own gain, nothing else. What a shame that such
small minded fools even offer such a hoax and actually call it reform.
|Friday, 10 December 2004 at 5h 5m 50s|
The Bushites and the con game
It has been some weeks now since I last wrote a letter to the editor. I did
not bother to respond to the four or five letters of criticism that followed
that last letter. There was no need to defend myself to persons who would
never listen, given that how they responded was indicative of their ignorance.
You cannot reason with people who like to believe they've made up their mind
about something and cannot admit that they might not be accurate or correct in
They believe differently, and they can't explain how or why, but you who have a
valid disagreement are still wrong, simply because you don't believe the same
thing. It is really that simple.
One thing I have learned in the last 10 years : you do not have to respond to
criticism. The truth, wherever it may be, cannot be proven. That might be
hard to accept, but in the realm of ideology, proof is whatever you cling to
that justifies what you want to believe. Occassionally, the weight of evidence
causes the roof to cave in, but when the capacity to believe what you want
still exists, people will take the evidence that points in the chosen
direction. Some of us don't like the shit to stack too high before we start
cleaning house; the rest of us are just full of shit. Accept this, without
emotional reaction, and move on.
That being said, I am still amazed at the silly audacity of what suffices for a
rebuttal. One man, named Steve Smith lambasted me because I attached my public
title. He commented that he stopped writing letters but decided he'd make an
exception for me. Funny that Mr. Smith is actually a regular letter writer,
who only 2 weeks ago published another, in what was probably his tenth this
year (out of 52 issues, 20 percent.) Me, I've sent 2 all year, and both were
One fellow said I was a perfect example of why public schools are destroying
education, and then said that he would vote no the next time a public vote on
school bonds was held. I thought that was funny.
I was told how off base I was. One of the writers mentioned the Buffalo 6 in
rebuttal to my statement that "not one conviction" has occurred against any
terrorist despite being held in Guantanamo for 2 years. If only this writer
had done a google on the "Buffalo 6" and he would have found that the
conviction was thrown out. This writer no doubt watched the puffery on
corporate television and thought he got the real scoop. When the television
that brought him his reality stopped telling him the story, he kept that
initial vision of reality in his mind, frozen like a 2 year old steak in the
freezer. And still he wants to cook me that steak and call it substance.
The criticism I have concerns the way the Bush Administration is handling
these terrorists. Why do real terrorists like Saudi's get to leave the
country without inspection, but we quickly arrest 6 fools in Buffalo who happen
to be in a mosque that was used by a terrorist agent as a recruiting ground.
Why does the Bush administration blow the cover of 2 (yes, not one but 2)
undercover agents who are involved in rooting out terrorists? Why does the
Bush administration spend 200 billions on the Iraq debacle, but nothing, not
one cent, on beefing up protection in the United States? Why aren't the ships
and plane cargo inspected? Why aren't the nuclear plants guarded?
If indeed, this truly is war on "terror," how come the homefront is not
protected? Why are the FBI and homeland security using the Patriot Act to
investigate peaceful groups that have nothing to do with "terrorism" when that
was the reason why the Act was passed in the first place?
Remember those Anthrax letters addressed from Iraq. The entire Congress had to
vacate because of those letters.
Another man accused me of being mean and out of my mind. He couldn't believe
that what I said might be true, like it is somehow my fault that he is not
paying attention. All you have to do is watch the TV and believe your armchair
philosophy is applicable despite historical fact. But then facts are just
concoctions of the vast liberal conspiracy that owns 95 percent of all media.
This other man called me a mean spiteful person, and then said I called him
names when I said "this is stupidity and arrogance" while referring to the Bush
administration policy. The Bush con is that Iraq is due to a "failure of
intelligence" which is a pile of shit higher than a Haight-Ashbury hippie. The
Bush gang did what they wanted to do because they have a vast hubris of
infallibility, aka stupid arrogance. I was not referring to people in the
audience of readers as "stupid and arrogant." Anyone with a fair mind could
understand this, but this is just the ole subconscious ploy of moral
distraction. You can't handle the argument, so you castigate the appearance.
Or as I've heard on the Bill James show, "If you have the facts on your side,
you bang on the facts. If you don't have the facts on your side, you bang on
|Friday, 3 December 2004 at 2h 32m 19s|
Today's daily philosophical ramble
These days we live in a world of an arrogant and powerful aristocracy. There
are plenty of fawning followers who collectively make cconsiderably less money
than any ten of the dominant families. There are plenty of the less than
powerful who still hope for fame, wealth, or power but are content to merely
get by day after day. Sometimes power is obtained through psychological means,
whereby one person guilt-trips another, knowing there is line of control in
that small special domain. Wealth by itself is not necessarily the creator of
a baneful mentality, much as fame does not necessarily accrue to those who are
truly talented nor to those who strive -- although the loudspeakers of
corporate media do tend to fawn over those who are willing to inflate
themselves like bouncing balloons for the national cameras.
No it seems that mentalities are randomly dispersed among the panorama of
wealth and power. There are massive accumulations of interacting members of
the rich and powerful, but this is merely because those who are willing to
strive and sacrifice their integrity will tend to fill the ranks of the rich
and powerful, unless they are there by birth. Of course there are countless
exceptions, but the exceptions do not defy the averages. This is the inherent
state of mankind at this stage of population growth. This is the result of a
world in which anonymous people perform tasks and control aspects of life and
society in total ignorance of the lives of those whom they affect. A certain
perspective of one's rank and position becomes more relevant than the actual
reality of that rank and position, which is the breeding ground for hubris and
|Thursday, 2 December 2004 at 2h 39m 34s|
Steam that consciousness
Sometime in the future you should try this. Don't bother to think
words flow out of your stream of consciousness, and just allow yourself to
ramble. The point is to not care what words you say, and just let yourself
grab whatever words float to your mind.
The amazing thing is that your sub-conscious will innately create something.
Try it. Write down what words come to mind if you care to do so. Once the
mind is allowed to flow like an opened faucet, the mind is automatically
spilling what is quite natural to its existence. This is the idea behind
meditation. Your mind produces thoughts automatically. You don't have to try
to have a thought, because the mere process is itself a thought. What you call
yourself is nothing but a long history of compiled thoughts by which you have
come to understand both yourself and the world in which you exist, albeit
affected by the other phenomenom and people in your immediate environment.
So when you let it rip, the results can be rather interesting, and often
The blue coat was next to a bird which had nothing but songs to sway the abuse
of a hot sun that was the afterthought of some long extravagent winter when
everyone was next to impoverishment in their relationship with the ethos of
-- you see what I mean.
|Thursday, 2 December 2004 at 2h 25m 31s|
That word, socialism, why is it misused?
One thing that really irritates me occurs whenever I
someone of self-proclaimed conservative bent misuse the word "socialist." The
word is usually uttered in the pejorative sense, in order to disembowel
something they dislike by hinting about something akin to a government
bureaucracy . You talk about nationalized health care, and the idea is labeled
as "socialism" or "socialistic."
Honestly however, I don't think such a person really understands what the
word "socialist" means, or what "socialism" is -- and is
not. And what then, could the adjective "socialistic" be, in this already
That's why I think it is high time for a spotlight on definitions.
First, let's go look up the words socialism and socialist in a dictionary.
How about dictionary.reference.com/
1.)Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the
means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2.)The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism
and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the
dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
1.)An advocate of socialism.
2.) A member of a political party or
group that advocates socialism.
3.)Of, promoting, or practicing socialism.
4.)Socialist Of, belonging to, or constituting a
socialist party or political group.
so·cial·is·tic adj. Of,
advocating, or tending toward socialism
The key component here is the first definition, by which
"socialism" is a"social organization in which the means of
producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized
government that often plans and controls the economy. "
How is nationalized health care in anyway related to a centralized
government planning and controling the economy? Here we are just talking about
paying for the medical treatment of all the citizens of the United States with
taxes, sort of like a national insurance premium that pays the medical bills.
The only thing centralized is the bank account where the funds are kept. All
decisions are made by doctors and hospitals across the country. Government
regulators and auditors ensure safety and pursue fraud, not plan or control the
Calling nationalized health care "socialistic" is equally
flawed, because it is not "tending" towards centralized planning.
Local communities make these decisions in conjunction with the hospitals,
doctors, and government officials. This is how America works. People are
invited to discuss what is in the best interest of the community, and decisions
are made. Sometimes this simply makes economic sense. All of us, companies and
businesses and workers and citizens, all of us are held hostage by insurance
companies and the privatization of health care for profit.
If people want to say this is somehow
socialistic, then I think they really only indicate a certain disposition
favoring profit and individualism at the expense of the society as a whole.
People are not fully comprehending the meaning of the words they use. They
are reacting emotionally and using words like a philosophical salve for
|Wednesday, 24 November 2004 at 1h 33m 2s|
Martha Stewart, the scapegoat for herr Bush
One of the students in my 6th period class mentioned the name of Martha Stewart
when I was presenting them a problem involving 2 investments in securities.
Two unknown amounts of investment A & B purchase 2 types of securities ( 8% and
10%) with the intention of earning $30,000 in yearly interest, and the
restriction that the amount invested in the high risk 10% security is only 1/3
rd of the more stable 8% investment. While the students were copying down the
word problem I explained securities to the students as a contract where you buy
someone's promise to pay you a certain percentage of the investment every year.
So of course in the mind of said student, Martha Stewart was the image that
floated to the top. I think the comment was literally something like "you
mean, like Martha Stewart."
What I find to be a shame concerns how little people understand about why
Martha Stewart was sent prison, and also how ignorant most people are about our
current president's own rich 12-plus-year past as a CEO of three shady oil
In 1990-91, Dubya Bush was a chairperson of the finance board of Harken
Energy. During his duration at Harken, Dubya was privy to the various economic
shenanigans that came to be "Enron-esque" and "Anderson-like" in the financial
scandals summer of 2002. In order to conceal its losses, in 1989 ( attribution )
"The company's executives decided to sell Aloha Petroleum Ltd., a chain of
Hawaiian gas stations, for $12 million to a group of investors that included
Harken's chair and one of its directors. These Harken officials paid $1 million
in cash and gave Harken an $11 million IOU for Aloha, a transaction known as a
seller-financed loan. Although there were no payments scheduled on the loan for
years to come, the company — in an Enronesque move — posted a $7.9 million
current profit on the sale. "
Now Bush was a member of the finance committee, so either Bush knew, he wasn't
at the meeting, or he was absent -- but these were the years when Dubya was
supposed to have been a born again sober man.
You can consult the same site to learn about how Dubya himself was involved in
an insider trading deal.
In 1986, Bush borrowed approximately $96,000 from Harken to purchase 80,000
shares of Harken stock. This loan was part of a generous stock option program
that was available only to the corporate brass. Harken did not require
repayment on the principal for eight years and charged Bush only five percent
annual interest, well below the then-prevailing prime rate of 7.5 percent. You
probably could never secure such terms for your home mortgage or any other
loan. To secure the loan, Bush pledged the 212,000 shares of Harken he already
owned, in addition to the 80,000 shares he purchased. In 1988, Bush borrowed
another $84,000 from Harken to purchase an additional 25,000 shares of Harken
stock on similarly favorable terms.
In 1989, according to the New York Times, Harken released the original 212,000
shares as collateral from the 1986 loan and removed "any personal liability to
[Bush]" on that loan. So if the value of the 80,000 shares dropped to less than
the amount of the loan, Bush would not lose a dime, since all he had to do was
return the collateral — the 80,000 Harken shares he had purchased. Indeed, Bush
later returned the stock he had acquired through the insider loans, whereupon
Harken cancelled the indebtedness....
What exactly was the problem with Bush's sale of Harken stock?
The controversy centered around the fact that he sold the stock shortly before
the company announced major losses; after that announcement, the stock's value
dropped by more than half. Here is the chronology according to various reports:
June 6, 1990: Bush (who was at the time on Harken's board and a member
of its audit committee) received the company's "flash report," which according
to the Washington Post, predicted second quarter losses in the neighborhood of
June 8, 1990: According to the Los Angeles Times, Ralph Smith, a
stockbroker, placed a "cold call" to Bush offering to purchase his Harken
shares. Bush said he would reply within a couple of weeks.
June 11, 1990: Bush attended a meeting at which a representative of
Harken's audit firm, Arthur Andersen, warned of a loss that "could be
potentially significant." Although no amount was specified in the meeting, the
auditors indicated that the losses would surpass the $4 million forecast in
the "flash report." (In fact, Harken would ultimately report a loss of $23
June 22, 1990: Shortly after getting the transaction approved by
Harken's lawyers, Bush sold 212,140 of his 317,152 Harken shares for $848,560.
July 10, 1990: Under SEC requirements, this was the deadline for Bush to
publicly report his sale of the stock. He failed to file the report until March
of 1991. For reasons Bush has not explained, although he signed the form, he
did not date it.
August 20, 1990: Harken publicly announced second quarter losses of just
over $23 million. The stock, which had opened at $3 per share, closed at $2.37.
August 21, 1990: Despite the losses reported the day before, Harken's
stock price rebounded to $3 per share. However, the overall trend was
downwards, and by the end of 1990 Harken's share price had dropped to $1.
(Today, Harken's stock trades for about the price of a candy bar on the
American Stock Exchange.)
Bush was investigated by the SEC, but was handled with kid gloves. The final
report did not however exonerate Bush, despite his false claims that he
was "vetted." The final SEC report on the transaction merely notes a close to
the examination, and explicitly states that "it should not be construed" as a
statement that no wrongdoing took place. The SEC just stopped investigating.
Dubya's daddy was president at the time, and it was already bad enough that
Herbert Walker's other son Neil Bush was running away from a bank scandal
involving illegal loans at Silverado bank in Colorado. It was bad for the
party to have that kind of publicity.
So wait, Bush was a member of the CEO, with stock essentially given to him by
What about Martha Stewart? What did she do? One of my students asked me that
question, because the name Martha Stewart may be known, but not the details.
Martha Stewart sold 4,000 shares (not 212,140, a la Bush) on ImClone stock
based on a tip from a friend that the company was tanking. She only owned the
stock. She was not a member of the board, and so, unlike Bush, she did not
participate in the day to day financial operations of the company. No one
loaned her the stock. She was an independent investor, not an inside trader,
because she was not on the inside. Someone passed on a tip.
Interestingly enough, Martha Stewart was not even sent to prison for a year for
insider trading. ( from the
Cato Institute )
James Comey, the federal prosecutor behind the Stewart case, says he went after
Stewart "not because of who she is but because of what she did." But that's
hard to believe given the audacious legal theory Comey used to pursue her.
Comey didn't charge Stewart with insider trading. Instead, he claimed that
Stewart's public protestations of innocence were designed to prop up the stock
price of her own company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, and thus constituted
securities fraud. Stewart was also charged with making false statements to
federal officials investigating the insider trading charge -- a charge they
never pursued. In essence, Stewart was prosecuted for "having misled people by
denying having committed a crime with which she was not charged," as Cato
Institute Senior Fellow Alan Reynolds put it.
Did you get that? This is called burning the barn down so people won't notice
the burglars in the main house.
|Tuesday, 23 November 2004 at 2h 39m 40s|
The invasion to depose a despot in perspective
So how many places on planet Earth is the US military not located? Whether as
advisors, military base hands, or actively involved in brigades or regiments,
the US military is on every continent and every ocean of the Earth. The
French, Spanish, British, Portuguese, and Dutch all had "possessions" across
the globe. Britain, France, and the other European powers certainly carved up
Africa into slices and pieces of political ownership over a period of two or
300 years. The customary method of rule was to appoint local dictators or
strongmen supported by military police, but their were notable exceptions.
Africa since the colonial revolutions of the 1960's has been a sea of military
dictatorships, coup d'etats, and civil wars largely because of the way the
military history of the colonial era.
So why do we think a military solution will bring democracy now, while we try
to snuff out those scurrilous "insurgents" in Iraq? When the war is over, the
need to continue the use of the military means the war is not really over.
However, lets briefly analyze the history the last couple of wars.
In Persian Gulf War number one in 1991, when the US coalition pulled out,
Saddam was allowed to fly military helicopters fly over rioting Shiite and
Kurdish cities and kill the "insurgents." The war was officially over, but
the quelling of the populace was not, and thus the fight between the government
and the "insurgents" continued.
The 9 year Iran and Iraq war in the 1980s was never more than a bloody
stalemate that drained the resources and populations of both. The United
States decided to supply military weapons and biological weapons to Saddam in
hopes that he could agree to a pipeline to the Mediterranean. Members of the
Reagan administration were also making deals with the Iranians, selling them
arms and then siphoning off the funds into the drug market to raise funds that
were supplying the Nicaraguan contras. The Contras were paramilitary squads
trained at the school of the Americas in South Carolina. These were operatives
who assassinated nuns and priests because of their political involvement. They
would pose as ordinary citizens and wiggle their way into the bureaucracy. And
they were trained in South Carolina to do this in Nicaragua.
But Nicaragua was communist. Daniel Ortega became President after the horrible
dictatorship of Bautista as a member of the communist party.
But I veer off course. All these wars or military political involvement had a
beginning and an end. We are not fighting insurgents in Iraq because we
necessarily want a free Iraq. We are killing those people because we do not
intend to leave until Iraq has a government that we want. We got involved on
both sides of the Iran-Iraq war because it was in our best interest that the 2
nations fight each other. Don't be so naive if you think otherwise. The
members of the Reagan administration didn't like the government of Daniel
Ortega, and was willing to fund internal "insurgents" to destabalize the
Now if you take the tack that we were fighting "communism" or justifying our
involvement because we were ensuring freedom, those ideals are quite nobel and
you should be commended. They are not the results however of our involvement.
Daniel Ortega was a native historical figure responding to a historical event
in the wake of the fall of the Nicaraguan Baustista dictatorship. He is like a
Robert E. Lee rising to the occassion, except the American civil war was more
militaristic. What would Americans think if Britain invaded our country
because Lincoln won the Civil war, or if London trained and supplied guerrilla
units in the five years after 1865?
Can we really be so blinded by patriotism that we cannot see the hypocrisy?
Vietnam? when did it start? when did it end? The Vietnamese rose up against
the French after World War 2. The US gradually go involved since the mid-
1950s, getting to the peak of 1968 when "over half a million US soldiers were
deployed and US casualties ran at over 1,000 a week." (attribution) The
war never really ended, but rather gradually disentegrated as the South
Vietnamese were slowly left to implode into abject corruption from 1973, until
Saigon was overrun by North Vietnamese tanks in 1975.
After the Korean War, a fortefied barbed wire wall divided the country into 2
waring camps and 2 divergent economic systems. Once again, the response was of
native origin. It is arguable that the post-war boom in the South Korean would
not have happened had the Northern Communists not been beaten back by the
American troops. But now we have a country brutally divided for 50 years, and
no solution in sight. There are still 37,000 US troops stationed at bases in
To discover more about US troop deployment from 1950 to 2003, see the report by
the Heritage foundation here.
To read about the American military bases around the world, see the military's
own center here. At this time there are a lot less than there
used to be in the 1980s during the Reagan military buildup. The First Bush
administration and the Clinton trimmed the number of bases in the world, to
reduce costs and become more efficient.
The United States began obtaining bases when Hawaii was annexxed and the
Spanish-American War enabled the United States to form protectorates over the
Phillipines and Cuba. The civil war in the Phillipines against the American
soldiers were still killing American soldiers until 1914 or so, even though
the "splendid little war" (as it was called at the time) putatively ended after
only 3 months, when Spain surrendered. Yet in both Cuba and the Philipines,
both overthrew dictatorships created and abetted by the United States.
So what exactly is the history of United States involvement in the affairs of
other nations, save Germany and Japan ? In both those nations, we maintained
troops peacefully after the armistice to World War Two was signed. Yet both
nations had already created a native republican type government, albeit both
were hijacked by nationalist rulers bent upon using the military in pursuit of
global conquest. These is not a comparable examples. The armistice was signed
by distinct representative of 2 nations.
We are not repeating the noble creations of post-war Germany and Japan. We are
not fending off a Northern military from taking over the south. We are not
even kicking the butt of a weak European power, so that we can takeover and
promote the government of our choosing. We went in and took out the dictator
whom only 15 years earlier we supported while pursuing our national strategy of
foreign policy. We didn't support an internal milita to have a coup d'etat,
which has been done before by many nations.
We just did what Stalin did after World War Two, sending into East Europe to
ensure the political leadership of post-war Europe; or what Japan did in
Manchuria; or what Caesar did in Gaul. All the reasons were noble, yet
essentially militaristic. The security of the invading nation was at risk.
Those Eastern European nations could cause Russia to disentegrate into ethnic
pieces (as was eventually the case.) Japan could not have an unfriendly
Manchuria on its borders, and needed reassurance. And the Romans could not
afford a fiesty independent-minded Gaul on their Northern perimeter, and thus
they must be bludgeoned into submission.
Or perhaps the Hapsburgs battling the patriots of the Netherlands in the 1600s
would be a good analogy? The armies of the emperor invaded Holland and deposed
the government, because of the heresay of the protestant religion rising up and
creating a Republican monarchy.
If the issue is terrorism, it seems to me that there are better ways of
fighting and corraling the ability of terrorist groups to function. If the
issue is about oil, the invasion to secure the oil contracts is a poor response
to a problem that can only be handled effectively with conservation and
alternative energy sources.
|Friday, 19 November 2004 at 2h 17m 2s|
Killing them all
There was (or is) a group of tribes somewhere in New Guinea that had an odd
cultural ritual which occurred every 100 or so years, once the tribal
population outgrew the ability of the terrain to maintain their pig livestock.
After 2 or 3 generations the number of pigs that have to be maintained
gradually erodes the surface vegetation of the ground and the tribes go on the
warpath. There is a bloody war and then the tribes live peacefully again,
albeit with a reduced population.
I got this from an anthropological book I read about 12 years ago. Somewhere
in one of my 9 boxes of books, this one book is sandwiched in between many
other books, waiting for the day when I lift the book on top.
I wish I could remember more details, but the story struck me then, because it
was about the time of the first Iraq war in 1990-91. I was in college at the
time, reacting to the coming war. That was right after ole Herbert Walker Bush
sent the military to grab Manuel Noreiga before he opened his mouth and talked
about who was really behind most of the drug trafficking.
And now twelve years later we are in the midst of a much worse war. Our
military is now killing a lot of people who happen to live in a country that
has a lot of oil that other people want.
Oh don't give me that shit, yes, we are there because of the oil. There is a
dictatorship, or a semi-dictatorship in every hemisphere and every continent.
In North America, more closer to home, there is Cuba, Santo Domingo, Haiti,
Panama, Guatemala, and El Salvador. When we invaded or abetted the coup
d'etats in all of those countries, the goal was NEVER freedom or democracy, but
economic stability and profitability. Back then the motivation to save our
brown brothers was something akin to taking on the "white man's burden" --
having to kill the patriots of other lands in order to install a perceived
But how stable have any of those countries been in the last 100 years?
So don't tell me we are in Iraq because of freedom, or to get rid of dictators,
or anything but yet another in a long line of American invasions whose purpose
is to create economic and political stability. Although the ideology might be
righteous, the end result creates a chaos which renders an inevitable
negotiation about what is called stability. Sometimes you need an iron fist
who can put those insurgent patriots to rest, preferably an inside man who
knows the names and nooks and crannies of the invaded nation. You just pump
this man full of authority and cash, just like Great lords would nominate
princes and vassals in the medieval period circa 900 A.D.
This has already happened in the middle east as the result of American foreign
policy plenty of times over the last 50 years. In 1953, Iran's prime minister
Mohammed Mossadegh was pursuing the cancellation of the oil leases to foreign
companies and he intended to nationalize the oil industry. The history is
somewhat complicated but to make a long story short Mossadegh was eventually
overthrown by the CIA and the Shah of Iran was asserted. Iran created a
legislature in 1906, and "he abolished the multi-party system of government
such that he could rule through a one-party regime in autocratic fashion. The
Shah called into life the secret police force, SAVAK." (from Wikipedia.org
Over 20 years a virile bureaucracy viciously maintained the myth of the royal
Persian kingdom headed by the Shah, that ancient lineage dating back far, far
back to the 1950s when America gave him his crown. The sole resistence
possible was through religion, and it was in response to the brutal regime that
enabled the Ayatollah's to force the regimes collapse.
Would it that the US had just not interferred with Iran? Alas, the number of
countries in the middle east (and Asia, Africa, and South America) that have
been affected by active American foreign agents or funding is enormous.
Saddam was aided by the US and supported in his war versus Iraq during the
1980s. Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration sold Saddam his chemical
weapons. After the gasing of the Kurds incident, nothing was ever said by the
same Republicans who now bellow and holler about gasing his own people.
Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular. During Cheney's reign at Halliburton, he
used subsidiary businesses with addresses in the Bahamas to do business
illegally with both Iran and Iraq.
How can we have this degree of hypocrisy and still insist that we are creating
democracy and bringing freedom to some place halfway around the world?
|Thursday, 18 November 2004 at 4h 36m 28s|
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS