I suggest you visit the following website set up by the Center for Media and Democracy if you are at all concerned about the influence of moneyed and corporate interests in our state and federal legislatures. If you aren't quite concerned about the corporate threat, I implore you to visit the following website.
http://alecexposed.org/
The American Legislation Exchange Council, or ALEC, is an organization funded by and made up of some the biggest and most powerful corporations in the world, such as Koch Industries and Exxon, and numerous legislators. One of its primary purposes is to create "model bills" composed by its board and approved by its nine task forces, which are subsequently brought forth by involved legislators to their respective state legislatures as new public policy proposals. Public policy proposals which, of course, already have tacit approval by the corporate world, since it is the entity which literally wrote them, though there is no disclosure of such involvement.
Some of ALEC's accomplishments which benefit corporations at the expense of citizens (taken from the Center for Media and Democracy's website):
# Altria/Philip Morris USA benefits from ALEC’s newest tobacco legislation -- an extremely narrow tax break for moist tobacco that would make fruit flavored tobacco products cheaper and more attractive to youngsters.
# Health insurance companies such as Humana and Golden Rule Insurance (United Healthcare), benefit directly from ALEC model bills, such as the Health Savings Account bill that just passed in Wisconsin.
# Tobacco firms such as Reynolds and pharmaceutical firms such as Bayer benefit directly from ALEC tort reform measures that make it harder for Americans to sue when injured by dangerous products.
# Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) benefits directly from the anti-immigrant legislation introduced in Arizona and other states that requires expanded incarceration and housing of immigrants, along with other bills from ALEC’s crime task force.
# Connections Academy, a large online education corporation and co-chair of the Education Task Force, benefits from ALEC measures to privatize public education and promote private on-line school
Become aware. ALEC represents interests that reach far in the corporate world, from the health insurance industry to the prison industrial complex, and is in organically adversarial position to the working people of America. They are a symbol of the exploitative trend that the American right wing has been perpetuating since at least as early as the 1970's. Perhaps Reagan would be proud. Certainly Governor Rick Scott is. The sad irony is that organizations such as ALEC and their puppet-public-officials have a tight grip on substantial support of many working people who are unintentionally voting against their own interests and well-being. But with a reliance on an all-corporate media to inform us, what can you expect?
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Looking forward. (Vol. I)
(I want to emphasize that I don't consider myself anything close to an expert or an intellectual, I am merely just speaking my mind as someone who is learning and changing everyday...that's the point of this blog, anyhow)
In my life, I have tried very hard to do not be dogmatic about anything, including my political views and values. I do believe that consistency for the sake of consistency is irrational, one must always keep the eyes and the mind as far open as possible. With that said, my political views are fairly completely within the Libertarian Socialist tradition; more specifically, I have more of a sense of shared values with those under in the Anarcho-Syndicalist tent. However, in theory and practice, I do have some differences of opinion with most thinkers on the the Libertarian Left, and one of those differences is my preference of gradual and effective reform over revolution. In general, I believe that the transformation of the state-corporate-capitalist system into a Libertarian Socialist principled society can possibly be achieved through a series of political reformations sparked by popular movements using the tools of civil disobedience, protest and assembly, free association, community service, and(probably the main point of contention between me and many in the Anarchist tradition) participation in the existing political system including voting, public service, and every other way one can participate.
My line of thinking follows this direction because it is my belief that there is a need for government in the interim between today's political reality and the Anarchist ideal. Yes, this is somewhat of a Marxist thought, I do understand that. However, in this current state we(the people) do need a safeguard against corporate control. I believe, in a sense, the first step in making a more socially and economically just society is in the form of a sort of welfare state; a government that provides a social solidarity program and security against corporate tyranny. But let me be absolutely clear: the sort of welfare state I am proposing is unlike any currently existing examples; I only am using the term for lack of better one, or rather, my lack of creativity in creating catchy labels. In effect, I believe that the sort of welfare state I am proposing will be less like a state and more like a not-for-profit organization in which we all are benefactors and we all are beneficiaries; gradually, as the "state" becomes more and more democratized and take on more and more services focused on social justice, the authoritative function will dissolve and the "state" as we know it will cease to exist with the only remaining function being the administering of services.
This process obviously seems a bit far-fetched from the get-go without further explanation. The basic foundation behind it will have to be a real recognition, through reform, that the government truly is for the people and by the people. This will take reforms in campaign finance and the wider regulation of corporate culture, as well as reforms in how our public officials represent us(with all the innovations in communications via the Internet, I'm quite sure that there is an incredible amount of room for further democratization of our society). I believe that this sort of process would only require reformation, and not revolution, based on the fact that the US constitution, the ultimate law of the land, supports the basic foundation of popular control. Indeed, there is already a framework to build on within the Constitution, and though obviously the Constitution isn't close to a perfect document, in the beginning of this struggle it will be a weapon of great necessity. I have no illusions, however, of the reactionary nature of the two major American parties, and when push comes to shove, the Constitution will have no power. But no one is saying it won't be a struggle. Additionally, one cannot underestimate the power of popular movement. If there is a shift in the basic view of the responsibilities of government and a shift in the view of who really should control it, democratization will be inevitable.
Of course, even with the state essentially becoming a not-for-profit social insurer, it will be of great importance that it does not remain centralized. My view is that as the state becomes further democratized, however, it will automatically become more and more decentralized as more and more power will be allocated from the state to the individual. Indeed, as authority is taken from the state's power over the people it is given to the people's power over the state, and a reversal of roles will ensue. The power relations of our society will become a total opposite than what has traditionally existed. Today, regarding political power, the order of hierarchy goes: federal government, state governments, and then local governments (county, city, township, etc); all of which corporate influence has infiltrated to the utmost extent. At the bottom of the chain is the individual, who has the absolute least power, and above the individual, due to the sheer power of numbers, is his or her directly related community, whether it be geographically based, culturally based, or industry based, amongst other categories. However, this hierarchical chain will be reversed as the process of democratization continues, where the individual and his or her community will have the most political power regarding issues directly affecting their lives. Indeed, eventually the centralized entity known as our federal government today will have almost zero political power, as it becomes just the center of a vast network of federated autonomous communities.
The simultaneous political and economic socialization and decentralization, due the persistent democratization of the state, will create a more libertarian socialist society. I am not a Utopian, and perhaps the perfect end game of pure anarchy will never be achieved. However, every anarchist's goal should be to create the most libertarian socialist society we can possibly create. I am not completely naive, I do acknowledge that there are probably some errors of logic and assumption in this proposal. However, I do believe that the basic outline may be of some value in contemplating how we move forward. As for those who are followers of the reactionary school, the right wing of our country, I firmly believe that as our economy and our government becomes further democratized and socialized, and as everyone's standard of living increases (perhaps besides the wealthy exploitative class), those reactionaries will constantly be quelled. We can already tell by today's debate over Medicare that neither the left's base nor the right's base want it taken away, even though the right's rhetoric of class warfare is as strong as ever.
Well that's all for this volume. Occasionally I will be trying to propose my own theory for political progress in our country. This, I suppose, is the first in that series.
In my life, I have tried very hard to do not be dogmatic about anything, including my political views and values. I do believe that consistency for the sake of consistency is irrational, one must always keep the eyes and the mind as far open as possible. With that said, my political views are fairly completely within the Libertarian Socialist tradition; more specifically, I have more of a sense of shared values with those under in the Anarcho-Syndicalist tent. However, in theory and practice, I do have some differences of opinion with most thinkers on the the Libertarian Left, and one of those differences is my preference of gradual and effective reform over revolution. In general, I believe that the transformation of the state-corporate-capitalist system into a Libertarian Socialist principled society can possibly be achieved through a series of political reformations sparked by popular movements using the tools of civil disobedience, protest and assembly, free association, community service, and(probably the main point of contention between me and many in the Anarchist tradition) participation in the existing political system including voting, public service, and every other way one can participate.
My line of thinking follows this direction because it is my belief that there is a need for government in the interim between today's political reality and the Anarchist ideal. Yes, this is somewhat of a Marxist thought, I do understand that. However, in this current state we(the people) do need a safeguard against corporate control. I believe, in a sense, the first step in making a more socially and economically just society is in the form of a sort of welfare state; a government that provides a social solidarity program and security against corporate tyranny. But let me be absolutely clear: the sort of welfare state I am proposing is unlike any currently existing examples; I only am using the term for lack of better one, or rather, my lack of creativity in creating catchy labels. In effect, I believe that the sort of welfare state I am proposing will be less like a state and more like a not-for-profit organization in which we all are benefactors and we all are beneficiaries; gradually, as the "state" becomes more and more democratized and take on more and more services focused on social justice, the authoritative function will dissolve and the "state" as we know it will cease to exist with the only remaining function being the administering of services.
This process obviously seems a bit far-fetched from the get-go without further explanation. The basic foundation behind it will have to be a real recognition, through reform, that the government truly is for the people and by the people. This will take reforms in campaign finance and the wider regulation of corporate culture, as well as reforms in how our public officials represent us(with all the innovations in communications via the Internet, I'm quite sure that there is an incredible amount of room for further democratization of our society). I believe that this sort of process would only require reformation, and not revolution, based on the fact that the US constitution, the ultimate law of the land, supports the basic foundation of popular control. Indeed, there is already a framework to build on within the Constitution, and though obviously the Constitution isn't close to a perfect document, in the beginning of this struggle it will be a weapon of great necessity. I have no illusions, however, of the reactionary nature of the two major American parties, and when push comes to shove, the Constitution will have no power. But no one is saying it won't be a struggle. Additionally, one cannot underestimate the power of popular movement. If there is a shift in the basic view of the responsibilities of government and a shift in the view of who really should control it, democratization will be inevitable.
Of course, even with the state essentially becoming a not-for-profit social insurer, it will be of great importance that it does not remain centralized. My view is that as the state becomes further democratized, however, it will automatically become more and more decentralized as more and more power will be allocated from the state to the individual. Indeed, as authority is taken from the state's power over the people it is given to the people's power over the state, and a reversal of roles will ensue. The power relations of our society will become a total opposite than what has traditionally existed. Today, regarding political power, the order of hierarchy goes: federal government, state governments, and then local governments (county, city, township, etc); all of which corporate influence has infiltrated to the utmost extent. At the bottom of the chain is the individual, who has the absolute least power, and above the individual, due to the sheer power of numbers, is his or her directly related community, whether it be geographically based, culturally based, or industry based, amongst other categories. However, this hierarchical chain will be reversed as the process of democratization continues, where the individual and his or her community will have the most political power regarding issues directly affecting their lives. Indeed, eventually the centralized entity known as our federal government today will have almost zero political power, as it becomes just the center of a vast network of federated autonomous communities.
The simultaneous political and economic socialization and decentralization, due the persistent democratization of the state, will create a more libertarian socialist society. I am not a Utopian, and perhaps the perfect end game of pure anarchy will never be achieved. However, every anarchist's goal should be to create the most libertarian socialist society we can possibly create. I am not completely naive, I do acknowledge that there are probably some errors of logic and assumption in this proposal. However, I do believe that the basic outline may be of some value in contemplating how we move forward. As for those who are followers of the reactionary school, the right wing of our country, I firmly believe that as our economy and our government becomes further democratized and socialized, and as everyone's standard of living increases (perhaps besides the wealthy exploitative class), those reactionaries will constantly be quelled. We can already tell by today's debate over Medicare that neither the left's base nor the right's base want it taken away, even though the right's rhetoric of class warfare is as strong as ever.
Well that's all for this volume. Occasionally I will be trying to propose my own theory for political progress in our country. This, I suppose, is the first in that series.
Monday, May 23, 2011
The Ultimate Obstacle
Foreign Policy magazine's new feature, "The Ultimate Ally" by Michael Oren, is a hardly slick, and hardly new, piece of propaganda aimed at prolonging the US's blindly dangerous support of the state of Israel. Not the least bit surprising since Oren is Israel's ambassador to the US, but still, it is particularly offensive to those who have the courage to question this dangerous relationship between the USA and Israel, especially when considering the context of recent events in the Middle East.
The Arab world is in the middle of a great wave of change fueled by popular uprising in opposition to the authoritarian, in most cases, American-backed, regimes. It will not be long before Israel can no longer hold on to its claim of being the only democracy in the Middle East. In the eyes of the honest, this claim has never been substantiated in any case when taking into account of Israel's current Apartheid-like policies toward its Arab citizens and its obvious record of human rights violations in the occupied territories. Regardless, its obvious why Israeli government is in a state of complete and utter refusal to launch a new round of peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The wave of popular movement has made its way into the Palestinian territories, and with the recent unification of Hamas and Fatah, Obama's recent articulation of support for a resolution based upon the pre-1967 borders, and an upcoming UN general assembly vote for Palestinian statehood (backed by nearly all members of the international community except for the US), the Palestinian cause seems to be stronger than ever today. That is Israel's ultimate fear of course: a negotiating partner in a position of strength.
Not just because Israel is afraid of not having an upper hand in the negotiations particularly, but because any negotiations that would happen now are bound to actually bear some sort of fruit in general. It is against Israeli interest to end this conflict, plain and simple; any resolution is a bad resolution for the Israeli state and that is precisely why the conflict continues today. The continuation of the conflict allows an undefined amount of land grabbing for Israel, thus it is in the ultimate interest of the expansionists in Israel to block any peace process from ever resolving. With the continuation of the conflict, water resources, East Jerusalem, and much more are up for grabs and annexation for the Israeli government and elite, as well as a vast cheap, exploitable and indeed already greatly exploited, Palestinian labor force which is the fuel of Israeli prosperity.
The facts have always been clear in this conflict, and although much of the press has always made an effort to fog it all up with its claims that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex issue, the facts convey that this is and has always been a very simple problem with a very simple solution. Israel took and occupied land illegally and it must give it back. Israel expelled, whether directly or indirectly, many people illegally and it must allow them to return.
And let's not ever forget that this is not merely an Israeli occupation of the West bank and Gaza Strip, but a US-Israel occupation considering that the US has blocked all efforts towards peace and has funded Israeli expansion and atrocities since '67 and beyond. It was encouraging to hear Obama clearly articulate a policy in favor of pre-1967 borders, however, it is more disheartening that he expressed, not too long after that, to an AIPAC audience that the US will never support a UN resolution creating Palestinian statehood. Why Obama would make such a policy is clearly political, but he must know he is playing domestic politics at the expense of the suffering.
All the same sentiment goes for the US's current attitude towards the unification of Hamas and Fatah, which is obviously progress but cannot be admitted as such; indeed it is interesting enough that Israel's old excuse for not participating in previous peace talks was that they claimed it was impossible to make peace when the negotiation partner was so divided, and now that they aren't the excuse is that it is impossible because the negotiation partner is united. Obviously they are backed into a corner, and considering that, who can blame them for being so rejectionist...right? uhhh...
Still, times are changing, and that is why Micheal Oren's propaganda piece is particularly offensive, as it is insulting to any one's intellect who has been keeping informed with recent developments in the Middle East. Now's not the time to be beating that dead horse; for the propagandist its time to find a new horse to kill.
On a side note, when looking at the comments on Oren's piece, it seems that the Israel supporters who call anyone who criticizes Israel state policies anti-Semitic (which is a ridiculous claim obviously, but has been very effective at silencing dissent in this country) are just as quick to make sweeping negative generalizations about the Arab peoples. On that website, anyhow.
Below are some stats for all of you, just a taste of how many people have died in the overall Arab-Israeli conflict. Most of these are complete estimates because many Arab governments used to or still don't separate civilian casualties from combatant casualties, and because organizations such as the Palestinian Authority don't have adequate resources to count all casualties. Also, missing are the overall casualties of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon besides the two wars. Indeed, the Israeli death toll is far less than the Arab toll, which begs the question of who's a threat to who, especially when you consider how many of these conflicts came about. But that's not the point, because every Israeli human life is just as important as every Arab life and we should be very worried about this situation: people are dying. It's unacceptable, and especially for us here in the USA, we are not immune from blame since our tax dollars contribute to these deaths.
Casualties since 1987 in Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
Palestinian: 7,978 (including 1,620 minors)
Israeli: 1,503 (including 142 minors)
2006 Lebanese War:
Foreign Civilians: 51
Lebanese Civilians: 1,191
Lebanese military: 46
Israeli Civilians: 43
Israeli Military: 117
Amal Movement: 17
Hizbollah: up to 700
Lebanese Communist Party: 12
PFLP-GC: 2
United Nations Civilians: 1
United Nations Military: 4
Casualties of 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon:
Lebanese: 17,825
Syrian: 1,200
PLO: 1,500
Israeli: 368
Casualties of 1973 Israeli raid on Lebanon:
Palestinian and Lebanese: up to 100
Israeli: 2
Casualties of 1973 Yom Kippur War:
Egyptian: 8,000-15,000
Syria: 3,000-3,500
Israeli: 2,520-2,800
Casualties of 1967 Six Day War:
Egyptian: 9,800-15,000
Jordanian: 700-6,000
Syrian: 1,000
Israelis: 776-983
Casualties of 1948 War:
Arab: 8,000-15,000
Israeli: 6,373
The Arab world is in the middle of a great wave of change fueled by popular uprising in opposition to the authoritarian, in most cases, American-backed, regimes. It will not be long before Israel can no longer hold on to its claim of being the only democracy in the Middle East. In the eyes of the honest, this claim has never been substantiated in any case when taking into account of Israel's current Apartheid-like policies toward its Arab citizens and its obvious record of human rights violations in the occupied territories. Regardless, its obvious why Israeli government is in a state of complete and utter refusal to launch a new round of peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The wave of popular movement has made its way into the Palestinian territories, and with the recent unification of Hamas and Fatah, Obama's recent articulation of support for a resolution based upon the pre-1967 borders, and an upcoming UN general assembly vote for Palestinian statehood (backed by nearly all members of the international community except for the US), the Palestinian cause seems to be stronger than ever today. That is Israel's ultimate fear of course: a negotiating partner in a position of strength.
Not just because Israel is afraid of not having an upper hand in the negotiations particularly, but because any negotiations that would happen now are bound to actually bear some sort of fruit in general. It is against Israeli interest to end this conflict, plain and simple; any resolution is a bad resolution for the Israeli state and that is precisely why the conflict continues today. The continuation of the conflict allows an undefined amount of land grabbing for Israel, thus it is in the ultimate interest of the expansionists in Israel to block any peace process from ever resolving. With the continuation of the conflict, water resources, East Jerusalem, and much more are up for grabs and annexation for the Israeli government and elite, as well as a vast cheap, exploitable and indeed already greatly exploited, Palestinian labor force which is the fuel of Israeli prosperity.
The facts have always been clear in this conflict, and although much of the press has always made an effort to fog it all up with its claims that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex issue, the facts convey that this is and has always been a very simple problem with a very simple solution. Israel took and occupied land illegally and it must give it back. Israel expelled, whether directly or indirectly, many people illegally and it must allow them to return.
And let's not ever forget that this is not merely an Israeli occupation of the West bank and Gaza Strip, but a US-Israel occupation considering that the US has blocked all efforts towards peace and has funded Israeli expansion and atrocities since '67 and beyond. It was encouraging to hear Obama clearly articulate a policy in favor of pre-1967 borders, however, it is more disheartening that he expressed, not too long after that, to an AIPAC audience that the US will never support a UN resolution creating Palestinian statehood. Why Obama would make such a policy is clearly political, but he must know he is playing domestic politics at the expense of the suffering.
All the same sentiment goes for the US's current attitude towards the unification of Hamas and Fatah, which is obviously progress but cannot be admitted as such; indeed it is interesting enough that Israel's old excuse for not participating in previous peace talks was that they claimed it was impossible to make peace when the negotiation partner was so divided, and now that they aren't the excuse is that it is impossible because the negotiation partner is united. Obviously they are backed into a corner, and considering that, who can blame them for being so rejectionist...right? uhhh...
Still, times are changing, and that is why Micheal Oren's propaganda piece is particularly offensive, as it is insulting to any one's intellect who has been keeping informed with recent developments in the Middle East. Now's not the time to be beating that dead horse; for the propagandist its time to find a new horse to kill.
On a side note, when looking at the comments on Oren's piece, it seems that the Israel supporters who call anyone who criticizes Israel state policies anti-Semitic (which is a ridiculous claim obviously, but has been very effective at silencing dissent in this country) are just as quick to make sweeping negative generalizations about the Arab peoples. On that website, anyhow.
Below are some stats for all of you, just a taste of how many people have died in the overall Arab-Israeli conflict. Most of these are complete estimates because many Arab governments used to or still don't separate civilian casualties from combatant casualties, and because organizations such as the Palestinian Authority don't have adequate resources to count all casualties. Also, missing are the overall casualties of the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon besides the two wars. Indeed, the Israeli death toll is far less than the Arab toll, which begs the question of who's a threat to who, especially when you consider how many of these conflicts came about. But that's not the point, because every Israeli human life is just as important as every Arab life and we should be very worried about this situation: people are dying. It's unacceptable, and especially for us here in the USA, we are not immune from blame since our tax dollars contribute to these deaths.
Casualties since 1987 in Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
Palestinian: 7,978 (including 1,620 minors)
Israeli: 1,503 (including 142 minors)
2006 Lebanese War:
Foreign Civilians: 51
Lebanese Civilians: 1,191
Lebanese military: 46
Israeli Civilians: 43
Israeli Military: 117
Amal Movement: 17
Hizbollah: up to 700
Lebanese Communist Party: 12
PFLP-GC: 2
United Nations Civilians: 1
United Nations Military: 4
Casualties of 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon:
Lebanese: 17,825
Syrian: 1,200
PLO: 1,500
Israeli: 368
Casualties of 1973 Israeli raid on Lebanon:
Palestinian and Lebanese: up to 100
Israeli: 2
Casualties of 1973 Yom Kippur War:
Egyptian: 8,000-15,000
Syria: 3,000-3,500
Israeli: 2,520-2,800
Casualties of 1967 Six Day War:
Egyptian: 9,800-15,000
Jordanian: 700-6,000
Syrian: 1,000
Israelis: 776-983
Casualties of 1948 War:
Arab: 8,000-15,000
Israeli: 6,373
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Thoughts on the death of Osama Bin Laden
After reading reader-responses to a recent article in the New York Times reporting on Omar Bin Laden's (Osama's fourth son) condemnation of the US Government obviously for the assassination of his father, I was compelled to write my thoughts regarding this matter.
It should be noted that, as background information, Omar Bin Laden was not a terrorist like his father as he consistently publicly rejected his father's use of violence against innocent civilians. Omar Bin Laden's condemnation of the US Government, and specifically of US President Barack Obama, was based upon the lack of a due process for his father. In this sense, it seems that Mr. Bin laden has been consistent in his views; he was against the violence of his father and he is against the violence perpetrated by the US Government. Indeed, I happen to somewhat agree with his sentiment, to an extent; or rather, I would if I was positive that this was purely a targeted assassination. On the contrary, it seems that Osama Bin Laden's death was the result of an unpredictable-by-nature military operation, of which the main goal was to capture Bin Laden. That military raids are unpredictable by nature, of course, does not excuse anything, and in general the pretenses for the whole War on Terror is obviously deeply and fundamentally flawed in not only its means, but furthermore, its objectives.
However, the fact that killing an unarmed criminal, no matter who it is, was ever sanctioned as a possibility in the first place (i.e. "Dead or Alive") is disturbing. This must be stressed: No matter who the criminal is. Not because I believe that Osama Bin Laden deserves anything but a violent death in the same fashion he perpetrated on so many innocents, but because it sets a precedent. An extremely frightening precedent; that whoever is popularly believed to be a criminal or whoever is labeled as such by the government, without due process of law, can be assassinated. If such a practice continues to expand, you can say goodbye to free speech rights, and I don't believe I really have to tell you why; all you have to do is think about the nature of the state and it becomes clear.
Of course, this violation of human rights is not a new avenue for our government as the Terrorist Watchlist has been around for quite awhile: a list created by the executive branch of people they deem to be national security threats, which can be added to without any sort of proof of an individual's guilt, and gives the government the right to apprehend anyone on the list in whichever way they see fit. It's basically a way to bypass due process so the government can really just take out anyone they want to. We've already seen some of the blaring disgraces, as Nelson Mandela was only recently taken off the list; Mandela, a man of peace and justice who brought equality to South Africa was deemed to our government as a threat. Thus it is obvious that the list has been every bit about politics and power as about national security since the beginning. Did our government not take Sadam Hussein off the list in the 80's when he became an ally (you know, when he was committing the worst of his atrocities, all paid for by our tax payer dollars), and put him back on when he (politically) defied the US? Can it get anymore obvious?
We gave a trial to Milosevic. We gave one to Sadam Hussien. Trials were held for Nazi war criminals in Nuremburg, who committed atrocities far more immense in scale and inhumanity than anything Bin Laden could ever dream of. Yes, Bin Laden's death may have not been meant to be a targeted killing, but what about all those who are blown to pieces by our unmanned Drones flying over Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen? Right after the US's triumph over Osama Bin Laden, I heard on the news that US Drones were bombing locations in Yemen, apparently looking to kill a certain radical cleric, who also happens to be a US citizen. Now you can't say that those operations weren't meant to be targeted assassinations.
However, there is a certain confusion to all of this: apparently we are supposed to be considering this a war. But at the same time President Obama has conveyed his view that alleged terrorists should be tried in civilian courts. The fact is, this isn't a war, whether you call it such or not, and treating it like one will only end in failure of reaching any sort of peace. In any case, I never saw Congress ever declare this war. It would make more sense to view Al Qaeda as an international criminal organization, but even that falls short of the big picture, as we are dealing with something much bigger. You could say the enemy is the ideology, but even that is misleading, because the ideology of the Islamist terrorists is the result of ours and Britain's foreign policy in the region since the end World War I. The absolutely obvious only way to end the violence carried out by terrorists is by us ending our foreign policy of exploitation and conquest.
But that's neither here nor there as the issue at hand is urgent enough; the precedent of unproven condemnations of guilt is turning this country's founding principles upon its head. A free society needs due process, its the only way justice can ever be legitimate. I have no sympathies for Osama Bin Laden and I hope he rots in hell, but tomorrow it may not be Osama Bin Laden who is being killed by our government. It may not be a murderer at all. Rather, it may just be a hero.
It should be noted that, as background information, Omar Bin Laden was not a terrorist like his father as he consistently publicly rejected his father's use of violence against innocent civilians. Omar Bin Laden's condemnation of the US Government, and specifically of US President Barack Obama, was based upon the lack of a due process for his father. In this sense, it seems that Mr. Bin laden has been consistent in his views; he was against the violence of his father and he is against the violence perpetrated by the US Government. Indeed, I happen to somewhat agree with his sentiment, to an extent; or rather, I would if I was positive that this was purely a targeted assassination. On the contrary, it seems that Osama Bin Laden's death was the result of an unpredictable-by-nature military operation, of which the main goal was to capture Bin Laden. That military raids are unpredictable by nature, of course, does not excuse anything, and in general the pretenses for the whole War on Terror is obviously deeply and fundamentally flawed in not only its means, but furthermore, its objectives.
However, the fact that killing an unarmed criminal, no matter who it is, was ever sanctioned as a possibility in the first place (i.e. "Dead or Alive") is disturbing. This must be stressed: No matter who the criminal is. Not because I believe that Osama Bin Laden deserves anything but a violent death in the same fashion he perpetrated on so many innocents, but because it sets a precedent. An extremely frightening precedent; that whoever is popularly believed to be a criminal or whoever is labeled as such by the government, without due process of law, can be assassinated. If such a practice continues to expand, you can say goodbye to free speech rights, and I don't believe I really have to tell you why; all you have to do is think about the nature of the state and it becomes clear.
Of course, this violation of human rights is not a new avenue for our government as the Terrorist Watchlist has been around for quite awhile: a list created by the executive branch of people they deem to be national security threats, which can be added to without any sort of proof of an individual's guilt, and gives the government the right to apprehend anyone on the list in whichever way they see fit. It's basically a way to bypass due process so the government can really just take out anyone they want to. We've already seen some of the blaring disgraces, as Nelson Mandela was only recently taken off the list; Mandela, a man of peace and justice who brought equality to South Africa was deemed to our government as a threat. Thus it is obvious that the list has been every bit about politics and power as about national security since the beginning. Did our government not take Sadam Hussein off the list in the 80's when he became an ally (you know, when he was committing the worst of his atrocities, all paid for by our tax payer dollars), and put him back on when he (politically) defied the US? Can it get anymore obvious?
We gave a trial to Milosevic. We gave one to Sadam Hussien. Trials were held for Nazi war criminals in Nuremburg, who committed atrocities far more immense in scale and inhumanity than anything Bin Laden could ever dream of. Yes, Bin Laden's death may have not been meant to be a targeted killing, but what about all those who are blown to pieces by our unmanned Drones flying over Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen? Right after the US's triumph over Osama Bin Laden, I heard on the news that US Drones were bombing locations in Yemen, apparently looking to kill a certain radical cleric, who also happens to be a US citizen. Now you can't say that those operations weren't meant to be targeted assassinations.
However, there is a certain confusion to all of this: apparently we are supposed to be considering this a war. But at the same time President Obama has conveyed his view that alleged terrorists should be tried in civilian courts. The fact is, this isn't a war, whether you call it such or not, and treating it like one will only end in failure of reaching any sort of peace. In any case, I never saw Congress ever declare this war. It would make more sense to view Al Qaeda as an international criminal organization, but even that falls short of the big picture, as we are dealing with something much bigger. You could say the enemy is the ideology, but even that is misleading, because the ideology of the Islamist terrorists is the result of ours and Britain's foreign policy in the region since the end World War I. The absolutely obvious only way to end the violence carried out by terrorists is by us ending our foreign policy of exploitation and conquest.
But that's neither here nor there as the issue at hand is urgent enough; the precedent of unproven condemnations of guilt is turning this country's founding principles upon its head. A free society needs due process, its the only way justice can ever be legitimate. I have no sympathies for Osama Bin Laden and I hope he rots in hell, but tomorrow it may not be Osama Bin Laden who is being killed by our government. It may not be a murderer at all. Rather, it may just be a hero.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Revolutions at home and abroad.
We have hit a sort of critical mass regarding the status quo in recent weeks; the obvious ones are the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt which are direct attacks on the former regional status quo, enforced by the USA and its junior partner, Europe (and particularly France in the case of Tunisia). Indeed, the unrest has been spreading and people are inspired and frustrated, and it is a beautiful sight.
There is nothing more beautiful than to see the downtrodden and oppressed declare victory over tyranny. Unfortunately for us here in the US, we are on the wrong side of history, no matter which way you try to view it. Mubarak was part of vast system of subservience (or, as it is known in American discourse, "stability") in the Middle East, indeed he was one of our pillars. He supported him throughout all of his atrocities, and do not be fooled, there were many. We have supported the atrocities of Ben Ali all the same, though Tunisia was never as much of a priority. Indeed, it can be seen, without much effort at all, that these revolutions are, at heart, direct attacks against our foreign policy. This should come to no surprise to anyone who knows anything of our foreign policy in the Middle East, which is a policy that depends on the oppression of native peoples of resource (oil) rich countries; it is a policy that has supported repressive and violent regimes for the reason that they are just that, because one needs a brutal dictator to suppress and incapacitate its people if the exploitation of resources and labor is to be handled without issue. Democracy would ultimately mean that all of the vast benefits of the vast resources and strategic advantages of these countries would justly go to the people: Nationalizations of oil companies. Precedence of of the natives over foreign investors. Labor rights. These are things that run directly contrary with US interests, thus democracy runs contrary to US interests.
Of course, it easy to support Democracy in countries that are already enemies. Yes, the people of Iran and Libya have suffered far more than enough and deserve to be free and deserve to be supported in their noble endeavors. However, so do the people of Bahrain, Yemen, and Jordon, and whilst our State Department makes condemning statements aimed at Ghaddafi, and it should, they are much less clear on their position regarding the suffering people of Bahrain. Let's be absolutely clear: the people in Bahrain and Yemen are just as oppressed, if not more, as the people in Iran. And the same went for Egypt. The hesitance of our government to make statements calling for democracy in Jordon, Bahrain, Yemen and previously in Egypt from the get-go I'm sure send a very clear signal to the protesters in each and every one of these countries. They send the signal that Obama is not any different from Bush on the foreign policy front. They send the signal that he is part of the enemy. And he is. But it isn't too late to change, it's never too late to stop perpetrating oppression and violence against innocent peoples. If for no other reason than to save one more life, one more family. Where in the hell is the hope and change?
Obama has shown his true colors regarding the Middle East in the last few weeks; first by not immediately calling for the ouster of Mubarak, and just recently by vetoing the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. The latter is especially ridiculous, since it is official US policy to oppose settlement building in the Palestinian territories. But apparently it is not real US policy. As if the hypocrisy is not frustrating enough, the excuse given by Obama's UN ambassador Susan Rice was colossally stupid, saying that first the Security Council is not the right forum for this issue(just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard) and that this resolution would block future peace talks(there is absolutely no evidence for this statement). The resolution was vetoed, and obviously the US was the only member to vote against the resolution (14-1). This vote illustrated not only the hypocrisy of US policy regarding Israel but also the utter isolation of the US and Israel against the entire world on this issue and that Israel can no longer try to argue that a moratorium of settlements is an illegitimate precondition to peace talks. Of course, the following day there was a proclaimed "Day of Rage" in the West Bank, just another one of many protests in the Middle East by those sick of the satus quo. And just another instance where we were on the wrong side of history, very deliberately.
The instability is not just evident abroad however, as recent events in Wisconsin of have shown. And once again, Obama has not come out strongly for the people. Not in Bahrain, not in Wisconsin. And it doesn't even make any sense whatsoever, considering unions are really the last stronghold of the Democratic Party, the last advantage in terms of campaign finance over the Republicans. So, politically, Obama's passivity seems completely ridiculous, especially when you take into account that this attack on labor is really a political assault on the Democratic Party as a whole by Republicans. I never thought I would see the day that a Democrat President would be completely passive whilst there are threats to collective bargaining rights. It is more than disheartening, it is frustrating. You don't want to stand up for the workers in Egypt? What about in Wisconsin for God's sake? Is there anyone you will stand up for besides Wall Street CEO's?
We are not only seeing Obama's true colors. We are also seeing the left finally fight back against the anti-labor right wing and showing the tea baggers that the real salt of the Earth are not Reaganites. Finally we are seeing those who are fed up with the economic policies of the last 30 years, the policies of Reagan. The anti-working class policies. So where are you Obama? Where's this hope and change? It's certainly not in the Middle East, and apparently not in the picket lines in Wisconsin.
We are seeing revolutions abroad, and it is beautiful. Perhaps what we are seeing in Wisconsin is the start of a new revolution, a revolution of the workers who are sick of being screwed. A revolution pushing back against the economic policy trend and the corporatism of the last 30 years. Obama, I'm really beginning to question what your real intentions are, whether the weak, hole-filled reforms you've put forth are really just compromises or are they what you really believe. Whether you have been trying to be careful politically or just not really all that much of a reformer.
Now the world is changing, from the state workers in Wisconsin to the students in Cairo. You promised change, but you haven't delivered. Let's just hope you can keep up with what changes we've been making.
There is nothing more beautiful than to see the downtrodden and oppressed declare victory over tyranny. Unfortunately for us here in the US, we are on the wrong side of history, no matter which way you try to view it. Mubarak was part of vast system of subservience (or, as it is known in American discourse, "stability") in the Middle East, indeed he was one of our pillars. He supported him throughout all of his atrocities, and do not be fooled, there were many. We have supported the atrocities of Ben Ali all the same, though Tunisia was never as much of a priority. Indeed, it can be seen, without much effort at all, that these revolutions are, at heart, direct attacks against our foreign policy. This should come to no surprise to anyone who knows anything of our foreign policy in the Middle East, which is a policy that depends on the oppression of native peoples of resource (oil) rich countries; it is a policy that has supported repressive and violent regimes for the reason that they are just that, because one needs a brutal dictator to suppress and incapacitate its people if the exploitation of resources and labor is to be handled without issue. Democracy would ultimately mean that all of the vast benefits of the vast resources and strategic advantages of these countries would justly go to the people: Nationalizations of oil companies. Precedence of of the natives over foreign investors. Labor rights. These are things that run directly contrary with US interests, thus democracy runs contrary to US interests.
Of course, it easy to support Democracy in countries that are already enemies. Yes, the people of Iran and Libya have suffered far more than enough and deserve to be free and deserve to be supported in their noble endeavors. However, so do the people of Bahrain, Yemen, and Jordon, and whilst our State Department makes condemning statements aimed at Ghaddafi, and it should, they are much less clear on their position regarding the suffering people of Bahrain. Let's be absolutely clear: the people in Bahrain and Yemen are just as oppressed, if not more, as the people in Iran. And the same went for Egypt. The hesitance of our government to make statements calling for democracy in Jordon, Bahrain, Yemen and previously in Egypt from the get-go I'm sure send a very clear signal to the protesters in each and every one of these countries. They send the signal that Obama is not any different from Bush on the foreign policy front. They send the signal that he is part of the enemy. And he is. But it isn't too late to change, it's never too late to stop perpetrating oppression and violence against innocent peoples. If for no other reason than to save one more life, one more family. Where in the hell is the hope and change?
Obama has shown his true colors regarding the Middle East in the last few weeks; first by not immediately calling for the ouster of Mubarak, and just recently by vetoing the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. The latter is especially ridiculous, since it is official US policy to oppose settlement building in the Palestinian territories. But apparently it is not real US policy. As if the hypocrisy is not frustrating enough, the excuse given by Obama's UN ambassador Susan Rice was colossally stupid, saying that first the Security Council is not the right forum for this issue(just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard) and that this resolution would block future peace talks(there is absolutely no evidence for this statement). The resolution was vetoed, and obviously the US was the only member to vote against the resolution (14-1). This vote illustrated not only the hypocrisy of US policy regarding Israel but also the utter isolation of the US and Israel against the entire world on this issue and that Israel can no longer try to argue that a moratorium of settlements is an illegitimate precondition to peace talks. Of course, the following day there was a proclaimed "Day of Rage" in the West Bank, just another one of many protests in the Middle East by those sick of the satus quo. And just another instance where we were on the wrong side of history, very deliberately.
The instability is not just evident abroad however, as recent events in Wisconsin of have shown. And once again, Obama has not come out strongly for the people. Not in Bahrain, not in Wisconsin. And it doesn't even make any sense whatsoever, considering unions are really the last stronghold of the Democratic Party, the last advantage in terms of campaign finance over the Republicans. So, politically, Obama's passivity seems completely ridiculous, especially when you take into account that this attack on labor is really a political assault on the Democratic Party as a whole by Republicans. I never thought I would see the day that a Democrat President would be completely passive whilst there are threats to collective bargaining rights. It is more than disheartening, it is frustrating. You don't want to stand up for the workers in Egypt? What about in Wisconsin for God's sake? Is there anyone you will stand up for besides Wall Street CEO's?
We are not only seeing Obama's true colors. We are also seeing the left finally fight back against the anti-labor right wing and showing the tea baggers that the real salt of the Earth are not Reaganites. Finally we are seeing those who are fed up with the economic policies of the last 30 years, the policies of Reagan. The anti-working class policies. So where are you Obama? Where's this hope and change? It's certainly not in the Middle East, and apparently not in the picket lines in Wisconsin.
We are seeing revolutions abroad, and it is beautiful. Perhaps what we are seeing in Wisconsin is the start of a new revolution, a revolution of the workers who are sick of being screwed. A revolution pushing back against the economic policy trend and the corporatism of the last 30 years. Obama, I'm really beginning to question what your real intentions are, whether the weak, hole-filled reforms you've put forth are really just compromises or are they what you really believe. Whether you have been trying to be careful politically or just not really all that much of a reformer.
Now the world is changing, from the state workers in Wisconsin to the students in Cairo. You promised change, but you haven't delivered. Let's just hope you can keep up with what changes we've been making.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Free Speech Under Fire
I've already expressed what I think about the whole Wikileaks issue when the War in Afghanistan leaks were made public. However, I feel with the advent of the last information load exposed regarding the diplomatic wires, there has been a much more intensive and larger attack by certain "experts," politicians, and media figures on the principle of free speech. This, obviously, is no secret; everybody in the media has been discussing this for weeks.
It is quite apparent that those who are on the side against Wikileaks don't take the principle of free speech seriously, or at least don't understand why we have free speech and just what it is supposed to protect; indeed, what Joe Lieberman either doesn't understand, or more likely does understand but doesn't care because he is Joe Lieberman, is the concept that free speech is specifically existing to protect speech that unpopular or disliked. And when we take on the issue of Wikileaks, which has a lot of support, it isn't even a clear-cut issue of unpopularity since the public is divided on the issue; there isn't a universal dislike for Wikileaks unlike, say, the pedophilia handbook of which the author was arrested recently for, or Holocaust denial. Even in such cases, free speech should be protected, because no matter how vile, disgusting, distasteful, or disturbing it is, this is exactly what free speech is supposed to protect.
So it is clear that we are seeing an attack on free speech, led by the likes of Senator Lieberman and Mike Huckabee, who has done a lot to persecute Wikileaks. The laws on such matters on clear, as Wikileaks is a publisher and Julian Assange considers himself a journalist, there should be no reason why they should be charged with any crime, especially when we are seeing such establishment publications such as the New York Times and the Washington Post publishing the same material and are surely not going to be charged anything. And that's not even just because they are establishment, its because the laws are clear: you cannot charge a publisher or journalist for publishing leaked classified information, you can only charge the leaker, whom allegedly in this case is PFC Bradley Manning.
This is the same classic story of hypocrisy in politics we've come to know and hate, over and over again: Praise the Constitution and free speech when it is convenient and it is supportive of whatever point of view you are endorsing, and ignore or even slam the constitution when it is actually doing its job and becoming a pain in your neck. To call Wikileaks a terrorist organization is ridiculous on so many levels and shows this hypocrisy so clearly, since such calls are coming fro so-called constitutional conservatives. It is disgusting, to say the least, and it is even more disgusting that our President and our Attorney General are supporting this type of behavior. It has been clear for a while now, anyhow, that President Obama is deeply bothered by whistle-blowers due to his actions in the past couple years. Let's all hope that this isn't the start of a Woodrow Wilson-like persecution of free speech.
However, thus far, things are not going so well and we may as well be heading in that direction. The new attack of free speech by the world's political and economic elites reach almost a fever pitch just a couple weeks ago at the United Nations climate gathering in Cancun, Mexico, where several environmental activists were denied participation and subsequently silenced for involvement in peaceful protests and/or promoting worthy, but unpopular amongst elite, causes. Legitimate activists who were allowed to participate in such events in the past, and in some cases earlier in even the same event, were being denied access for giving voice to legitimate and relevant causes such as indigenous peoples' rights. However, officially they were being denied access for almost no legitimate reason whatsoever. All of this silencing and persecution, all of these attacks on free speech, all so certain political, economic, and corporate elites could discuss matters by themselves without any "distractions" from real people with real concerns; so they can construct whatever exploitative model they want in order to move forward with their profit margins and economic power.
There is, undoubtedly, a war with free speech happening as we speak. However, the main problem with this war is that only those against free speech are fighting in it; similar to the current class war in which only the rich are fighting it. This war may have huge negative implications for the general public. This country was founded upon the principle of free speech, it is the pillar on which the people of America stand above the rest of the world in the realm of freedom and opportunity, and if it gets slipped out from under us, we will collapse. Not the elite, not corporations or the political establishments, but us, the people, will collapse. All to the benefit of those who are fighting this war right now. It is time to stand up for Wikileaks, for all activists all around the world, for everybody; it is time to stand up and fight back.
It is quite apparent that those who are on the side against Wikileaks don't take the principle of free speech seriously, or at least don't understand why we have free speech and just what it is supposed to protect; indeed, what Joe Lieberman either doesn't understand, or more likely does understand but doesn't care because he is Joe Lieberman, is the concept that free speech is specifically existing to protect speech that unpopular or disliked. And when we take on the issue of Wikileaks, which has a lot of support, it isn't even a clear-cut issue of unpopularity since the public is divided on the issue; there isn't a universal dislike for Wikileaks unlike, say, the pedophilia handbook of which the author was arrested recently for, or Holocaust denial. Even in such cases, free speech should be protected, because no matter how vile, disgusting, distasteful, or disturbing it is, this is exactly what free speech is supposed to protect.
So it is clear that we are seeing an attack on free speech, led by the likes of Senator Lieberman and Mike Huckabee, who has done a lot to persecute Wikileaks. The laws on such matters on clear, as Wikileaks is a publisher and Julian Assange considers himself a journalist, there should be no reason why they should be charged with any crime, especially when we are seeing such establishment publications such as the New York Times and the Washington Post publishing the same material and are surely not going to be charged anything. And that's not even just because they are establishment, its because the laws are clear: you cannot charge a publisher or journalist for publishing leaked classified information, you can only charge the leaker, whom allegedly in this case is PFC Bradley Manning.
This is the same classic story of hypocrisy in politics we've come to know and hate, over and over again: Praise the Constitution and free speech when it is convenient and it is supportive of whatever point of view you are endorsing, and ignore or even slam the constitution when it is actually doing its job and becoming a pain in your neck. To call Wikileaks a terrorist organization is ridiculous on so many levels and shows this hypocrisy so clearly, since such calls are coming fro so-called constitutional conservatives. It is disgusting, to say the least, and it is even more disgusting that our President and our Attorney General are supporting this type of behavior. It has been clear for a while now, anyhow, that President Obama is deeply bothered by whistle-blowers due to his actions in the past couple years. Let's all hope that this isn't the start of a Woodrow Wilson-like persecution of free speech.
However, thus far, things are not going so well and we may as well be heading in that direction. The new attack of free speech by the world's political and economic elites reach almost a fever pitch just a couple weeks ago at the United Nations climate gathering in Cancun, Mexico, where several environmental activists were denied participation and subsequently silenced for involvement in peaceful protests and/or promoting worthy, but unpopular amongst elite, causes. Legitimate activists who were allowed to participate in such events in the past, and in some cases earlier in even the same event, were being denied access for giving voice to legitimate and relevant causes such as indigenous peoples' rights. However, officially they were being denied access for almost no legitimate reason whatsoever. All of this silencing and persecution, all of these attacks on free speech, all so certain political, economic, and corporate elites could discuss matters by themselves without any "distractions" from real people with real concerns; so they can construct whatever exploitative model they want in order to move forward with their profit margins and economic power.
There is, undoubtedly, a war with free speech happening as we speak. However, the main problem with this war is that only those against free speech are fighting in it; similar to the current class war in which only the rich are fighting it. This war may have huge negative implications for the general public. This country was founded upon the principle of free speech, it is the pillar on which the people of America stand above the rest of the world in the realm of freedom and opportunity, and if it gets slipped out from under us, we will collapse. Not the elite, not corporations or the political establishments, but us, the people, will collapse. All to the benefit of those who are fighting this war right now. It is time to stand up for Wikileaks, for all activists all around the world, for everybody; it is time to stand up and fight back.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
What is fiscal conservatism?
We've been hearing a lot of the deficit lately. It is what the tea partiers are apparently fussing about (though I don't believe that it was ever about that for a second, to be clear). Yes, there has been a great call for "fiscal conservatism." A call for "free" market principles. A call for a capitalist rebirth. But I question the wisdom of this call.
It may seem ridiculous to question the notion of fiscal conservatism at a time like this. It may be deemed inappropriate to question the push for austerity measures, here and in Europe, to tear down huge deficits. In fact, it probably seems outlandish to many to suggest that we should not focusing on the monstrous debt. But I am, and just because there is a popular wave that will most likely ride the Republicans to numerous and significant victories today and tonight, doesn't mean it's right and it's good. Just because it is now conventional wisdom, doesn't mean it's genuine wisdom. It doesn't mean history supports it; it doesn't mean the facts support it.
By the Ronald Reagan left office, this nation had hundreds of billions of dollars of a deficit. Chump change compared to the debt mounted by his vice president's son's presidency, but let's think about it. Reagan was apparently the champion of neoconservatism, the champion of the "free" market and "free" trade; Reagan was the champion of fiscal conservatism in the eyes of many today. if this is so, why and how did he wrack up such a huge deficit? And to be clear, it was huge at the time. No matter what conservative bloggers say, Reagan did NOT tackle the deficit during his term, not only the way he should've, but in the way that was expected by other fiscal conservatives. No sir, he left that monster for Clinton to deal with.
So, let's get this straight. The messiah of fiscal conservatism left a huge deficit for a liberal democrat to deal with. And on top of that, that liberal democrat turned that deficit into a surplus. Does this not raise any eyebrows, if not questions? Questions like: why are we voting in the republicans this midterm?
Now, we have to objective here. Reagan was not some sort of small government tea partier. His rhetoric was, but that's where it ended. Reagan expanded the government in huge ways, more so than anyone else had prior. The difference is that Reagan was so blatantly pro-corporatism and so anti-working class. Reagan was also hugely protectionist when it came to trade; just ask the Japanese automakers. But the thing is, the tea partiers today look up to him as the republican Christ (because we all know Jesus was a socialist), so how can we expect them to do anything differently? Their rhetoric is the same. And not only is it the same as Reagan's, but also the same as Bush when he first got elected. This may not be anything new.
However, if it is something new, if the tea party backed candidates are going to sincerely push further than Reagan and live up to the fiscal conservative rhetoric, we need to be worried.
If you want to peak into a country in which there are completely pure "free" market, "free" trade, and fiscal conservative (neo-liberal) principles, you don't need to look any further than Haiti. Or Jamaica. Or Bolivia. Or a whole slew of other third world countries in which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are involved in. The "free" market principles conservatives pride themselves so much on are predominant in these countries, and they are possibly the biggest factor of what keeps them in the third world; tax cuts for the wealthy, completely open "free" trade, very little (if at all) government services and welfare programs, massive privatizations, suppression of unions, zero labor laws, etc. Yes, Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere, is a conservative's dream. This why I put the word "free" in "free" market and "free" trade in quotations: in countries that follow such principles, there is no freedom.
And that is no mistake. The founders of such economic principles, such as David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus, amongst others, were very adamant to point out that there is no freedom for the majority of people in this type of system, only the freedom to either work, starve, rot in jail, or die. Freedom is only reserved for the rich. And indeed, that is one thing that they were right about. How can we reconcile this system with democracy? How can we reconcile this system with the ideas found in our Constitution?
We can't.
Thankfully, we've never really had a pure capitalist system, at least not in our modern era, the era in which we progressed to become a huge global economic and military superpower. We've been nothing less than a state-capitalist society. The amount of state intervention in the economy is huge, and largely unknown to the general public; everything from the subsidizing of agriculture to ensure that our potatoes are sold at the cheap in foreign markets to the entirety of our high-tech industry is on the account of the state. Indeed, for those who are pushing for zero government economic intervention, those who consider any government intervention to be evil socialism, just take at your computer, your internet, your cell phone. Take a look at all the different materials that make up our cars and planes. These are the products of government investment. These are all made by our government, paid for by our tax dollars. All of the the high tech industry is from the state sector. How is that socialism working out for you?
Yes, it is impossible to reconcile this current state capitalist system with democracy as well, but not to the extent that it would be irreconcilable if we had a pure capitalist system. We need to be realistic, we need to be genuine in our understanding. When many third world countries get in a disastrous economic crisis, the IMF comes in and implements the neo-liberal policies which our tea partiers are pushing today, in the midst of our economic crisis. These countries are failed states because of this. The people of the countries live in abject poverty, oppressive poverty; conditions we couldn't even imagine. Fiscal conservatism, as we know it today, keeps third world countries in the third world. It creates an environment in which corporations are allowed to exploit and essentially buy up the country.
When you hear conservatives discussing privatization of social security in our country, this is exactly the type of thing we are talking about. Corporations are for-profit institutions. How would life be if the institutions that directly ran our nation were for-profit? We need something, some institution to protect us, the people, from corporations. That is government. I am an anarchist through and through, I don't believe in the legitimacy of government along with any social hierarchy, but we have to be realistic here. We all know government cannot ever be truly for and by the people. But we know that, at least, they have to be somewhat accountable to the people in a democracy. We know that government can not to be blatantly for profit in a democracy. So the choice has to be made; corporation or government? For-profit or elected public officials?
Yes, we all want neither. But unfortunately, they both have power. It is matter of which do we not want the most to have a position of authority in our lives. Think about places like Haiti, where corporations run the country. Then think about 1990's. Make the distinction. Realize what terms like fiscal conservatism and socialism stand for in this society. This is the decision we have to make today, and unfortunately we are moving in the wrong direction.
It may seem ridiculous to question the notion of fiscal conservatism at a time like this. It may be deemed inappropriate to question the push for austerity measures, here and in Europe, to tear down huge deficits. In fact, it probably seems outlandish to many to suggest that we should not focusing on the monstrous debt. But I am, and just because there is a popular wave that will most likely ride the Republicans to numerous and significant victories today and tonight, doesn't mean it's right and it's good. Just because it is now conventional wisdom, doesn't mean it's genuine wisdom. It doesn't mean history supports it; it doesn't mean the facts support it.
By the Ronald Reagan left office, this nation had hundreds of billions of dollars of a deficit. Chump change compared to the debt mounted by his vice president's son's presidency, but let's think about it. Reagan was apparently the champion of neoconservatism, the champion of the "free" market and "free" trade; Reagan was the champion of fiscal conservatism in the eyes of many today. if this is so, why and how did he wrack up such a huge deficit? And to be clear, it was huge at the time. No matter what conservative bloggers say, Reagan did NOT tackle the deficit during his term, not only the way he should've, but in the way that was expected by other fiscal conservatives. No sir, he left that monster for Clinton to deal with.
So, let's get this straight. The messiah of fiscal conservatism left a huge deficit for a liberal democrat to deal with. And on top of that, that liberal democrat turned that deficit into a surplus. Does this not raise any eyebrows, if not questions? Questions like: why are we voting in the republicans this midterm?
Now, we have to objective here. Reagan was not some sort of small government tea partier. His rhetoric was, but that's where it ended. Reagan expanded the government in huge ways, more so than anyone else had prior. The difference is that Reagan was so blatantly pro-corporatism and so anti-working class. Reagan was also hugely protectionist when it came to trade; just ask the Japanese automakers. But the thing is, the tea partiers today look up to him as the republican Christ (because we all know Jesus was a socialist), so how can we expect them to do anything differently? Their rhetoric is the same. And not only is it the same as Reagan's, but also the same as Bush when he first got elected. This may not be anything new.
However, if it is something new, if the tea party backed candidates are going to sincerely push further than Reagan and live up to the fiscal conservative rhetoric, we need to be worried.
If you want to peak into a country in which there are completely pure "free" market, "free" trade, and fiscal conservative (neo-liberal) principles, you don't need to look any further than Haiti. Or Jamaica. Or Bolivia. Or a whole slew of other third world countries in which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are involved in. The "free" market principles conservatives pride themselves so much on are predominant in these countries, and they are possibly the biggest factor of what keeps them in the third world; tax cuts for the wealthy, completely open "free" trade, very little (if at all) government services and welfare programs, massive privatizations, suppression of unions, zero labor laws, etc. Yes, Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere, is a conservative's dream. This why I put the word "free" in "free" market and "free" trade in quotations: in countries that follow such principles, there is no freedom.
And that is no mistake. The founders of such economic principles, such as David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus, amongst others, were very adamant to point out that there is no freedom for the majority of people in this type of system, only the freedom to either work, starve, rot in jail, or die. Freedom is only reserved for the rich. And indeed, that is one thing that they were right about. How can we reconcile this system with democracy? How can we reconcile this system with the ideas found in our Constitution?
We can't.
Thankfully, we've never really had a pure capitalist system, at least not in our modern era, the era in which we progressed to become a huge global economic and military superpower. We've been nothing less than a state-capitalist society. The amount of state intervention in the economy is huge, and largely unknown to the general public; everything from the subsidizing of agriculture to ensure that our potatoes are sold at the cheap in foreign markets to the entirety of our high-tech industry is on the account of the state. Indeed, for those who are pushing for zero government economic intervention, those who consider any government intervention to be evil socialism, just take at your computer, your internet, your cell phone. Take a look at all the different materials that make up our cars and planes. These are the products of government investment. These are all made by our government, paid for by our tax dollars. All of the the high tech industry is from the state sector. How is that socialism working out for you?
Yes, it is impossible to reconcile this current state capitalist system with democracy as well, but not to the extent that it would be irreconcilable if we had a pure capitalist system. We need to be realistic, we need to be genuine in our understanding. When many third world countries get in a disastrous economic crisis, the IMF comes in and implements the neo-liberal policies which our tea partiers are pushing today, in the midst of our economic crisis. These countries are failed states because of this. The people of the countries live in abject poverty, oppressive poverty; conditions we couldn't even imagine. Fiscal conservatism, as we know it today, keeps third world countries in the third world. It creates an environment in which corporations are allowed to exploit and essentially buy up the country.
When you hear conservatives discussing privatization of social security in our country, this is exactly the type of thing we are talking about. Corporations are for-profit institutions. How would life be if the institutions that directly ran our nation were for-profit? We need something, some institution to protect us, the people, from corporations. That is government. I am an anarchist through and through, I don't believe in the legitimacy of government along with any social hierarchy, but we have to be realistic here. We all know government cannot ever be truly for and by the people. But we know that, at least, they have to be somewhat accountable to the people in a democracy. We know that government can not to be blatantly for profit in a democracy. So the choice has to be made; corporation or government? For-profit or elected public officials?
Yes, we all want neither. But unfortunately, they both have power. It is matter of which do we not want the most to have a position of authority in our lives. Think about places like Haiti, where corporations run the country. Then think about 1990's. Make the distinction. Realize what terms like fiscal conservatism and socialism stand for in this society. This is the decision we have to make today, and unfortunately we are moving in the wrong direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)