Ventilation

What's Up With MoveOn?

2008-01-31T21:49:00.000-05:00

I am a member of MoveOn.org. I believe that they do a lot of good work. I have even sent them a few bucks. But lately they have taken a direction that exposes some disturbing flaws. One current campaign is to mobilize members to ensure a "progressive landslide" in November. That sounds like a worthy goal, one that I would certainly get behind. Trouble is there is not a progressive candidate in sight that one can vote for. It seems that MoveOn chooses to conflate "Democratic" with "progressive". A very cynical ploy, in my judgment and one that is difficult to fathom. MoveOn leadership certainly knows what a true progressive is, so they also know that of the original slate of Democratic presidential wannabes the only one with real progressive credentials is Dennis Kucinich, and maybe Mike Gravel. Edwards is a populist trying to sound like a progressive but without the record to validate him. Clinton and Obama are certainly no progressives. So what is MoveOn up to? Progressives out here know we don't have a horse in the race. MoveOn is not fooling us. Is MoveOn trying to fool the rest of their membership? Is there not some risk in confusing people into thinking any Democratic candidate is a progressive candidate? Does that not subvert the meaning of "progressive"?

I am unpleasantly reminded of the activities of Lyndon LaRouche's U.S. Labor Party in the 1970's. A covert right-wing group with Fascist tendencies, its members posed publicly as socialists in an attempt to subvert and discredit real socialist and communist groups and their members. I really hope MoveOn does not have some hidden agenda but my gut is sending me a warning.

While thinking about that matter I had another realization. MoveOn boasts of being strongly pro-democracy ("Democracy in Action") and has repeatedly organized mass movements for good causes. But the way the organization operates is hardly democratic. In its relationship to it members this is a top-down outfit. I could find no forums on the web site, no place there for members to have open discussions on issues with the leadership or other members. There are MoveOn "groups" on Facebook but since I am not registered with Facebook I don't have access and therefore can't know what they are about. Why is this not available to me with my MoveOn membership alone? The only experience I have had with offering input to MoveOn is when they specifically solicit it. The leadership maintains strict control over the agenda. They decide what questions get put to the membership. In my book, this is not Democracy in Action.

Well hidden on the web site is a spot where one can make comments or suggestions. The following notice appears there: "We value your comments and suggestions. While we are unable to personally respond to your comments and suggestions all information coming to us, whether through email, surveys and other member driven communication, is shared with the staff on a regular basis." Not exactly an open invitation to become involved in participatory democracy.

The Superficial Media

2008-01-26T00:58:00.000-05:00

After watching the Democratic candidates debate on Tuesday, January 22 I was struck by the similarities to the genres of "reality" programs and "infotainment" shows. The geniuses who have handed us a two year presidential campaign season have handed the media, especially the broadcast and cable TV channels, a gold mine. Who needs news when one can air all "politics" all the time. However, after already campaigning for a year do these candidates actually have anything new to say? What is it going to be like from now until November? With their positions already well staked out all that is left besides repetition is muckraking and mudslinging. The TV pundits, commentators, analysts and consultants have their hands full. The challenge is to hold on to their viewing audience for the next nine months in the absence of anything new and of substance to talk about (actually, there are many substantive issues to be addressed but these are equally ignored/neglected by the candidates and the media folks). In order to do that, shows on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. have substituted Hillary, Barack, John and the others for Britney, Paris and Lindsay as subjects of their excessive scrutiny and superficial or misplaced analysis. Their view, or that of their corporate masters, is that serious, in depth discussion of issues that matter deeply to the American people is bad television. It won't sell their advertisers' products, or worse, it might expose the role of the parent companies in contributing to those very issues that are causing such grief to the country.

So rather than add fresh insights, accurate information and objective analysis to the unfolding events of the campaign, these shows tend toward the sensational as a means of attracting and holding viewers. They endlessly replay provocative sound bites, exaggerate or inflame candidates' comments that may (or may not) have some racial or ethnic edge to them and beat to death minor issues that have no significance to anyone but, perhaps, the commentators. They also encourage silly and pointless sparring between "liberal" and "conservative" commentators. All to fill air time. There are so many words being spoken about so little it is truly astonishing! These are the people for whom the term "talking heads" was invented.

The one program that I would cite as an exception to the typical news programming characterized above is Countdown with Keith Olberman. Although not completely exempt from the criticism noted above Olberman has been given a longer leash by the network bosses, allowing him to make more pointed criticism of the Bush Administration and individuals in it, including the President himself. NBC appears willing to take a calculated risk that it will attract more viewers. Presumably, an increase in viewers of a more progressive persuasion will more than offset a loss of viewers of a more conservative persuasion, resulting in a net gain. I am under no illusion that the continuation of the Olberman show represents a leaning to the Left by NBC. It is simply business. As long as the advertisers are pleased Olberman will remain.

VERIZON DID "STOP WORKING" FOR ME MONDAY AT 4:20 PM

2005-10-05T01:14:00.000-04:00

As I write this on Word at 7:28 PM Tuesday October 4, 2005 I have been unable to post to my blog, do anything on the internet or use my house phone since around 9 AM Monday morning. That’s a few minutes after a crew working for Comcast began trenching in the park strip in my cul-de-sac to lay new underground cable. Even though all the underground utilities had previously been “marked out” for them so they could avoid the existing electricity, telephone and TV cables, they promptly sliced through the telephone cable servicing the entire street. Encountering hard ground they, unfortunately, decided to use a pick-axe and did the deed.

They notified their office, who notified Verizon, who arrived on the scene in a short time and began work on the already located cut cable. Between 3 and 3:30PM, splice completed, the Verizon lineman left. But he apparently did not bother to check whether service was actually restored to the homes! The Comcast crew, who had suspended work and hung out pending the repair, quickly learned from the neighbors that the phones were still out. They again notified their office, who again notified Verizon and were told a crew would be dispatched. This crew never came.

I had arrived back home around 4PM and quickly got up to speed. Was I ticked!! I phoned the Verizon repair line to add some urgency to the matter. I managed to get them to have a repair foreman call me, which he did at about 4:20PM. I explained that many families were without phone service and how inconvenient and unsafe this was. I demanded that he send a crew immediately to fix the problem. Through his profuse apologies he steadfastly refused to do so. He claimed that he “had no one to send” and danced around my questions about their capability to field crews in an emergency. He assured me that he and a crew would be on site at 8AM sharp Tuesday morning.

So much for “We never stop working for you”, an empty refrain we see repeated ad infinitum on Verizon’s TV and in print ads.

As my neighbors began arriving home from work I filled them in, one by one, on the events of the day and Verizon’s refusal to dispatch a repair crew to restore service that day. The first one told me that in addition to his phone, the Comcast work detail had knocked out his TV cable as well! The second, a professional who operates a business from his home, was furious to find his phone line still dead. He conducts business on his DSL line via e-mail, as well as by telephone. His work was greatly impeded. The third has a second phone line dedicated to an alarm system which automatically notifies the police or fire department in case of an intrusion or fire. He too was quite frustrated and angry. I advised all three that I had also called the Washington Township Police Department to see if I could get their support in motivating Verizon to return to finish the job. I argued that the lack of phone service to so many homes constituted a public safety emergency—people would not be able to contact police or fire officials quickly should emergent situations arise. Police, after all, are responsible for public safety in the community. The officer I spoke to did not see a role for the police in this situation and could offer no help.

Eight AM Tuesday morning came and went. It was actually 9:04AM when the first Verizon truck rolled up. I was still so pissed that I was keeping close score. More and heavier equipment kept arriving throughout the day. It seemed that Verizon was relying on the Comcast subcontractor to do the actual digging in the effort to locate a second cut in the phone cable (the Comcast crew foreman confided to me on Monday that there was a good possibility that they had cut the line in another place). At one point during the morning there was some very lethargic hand digging going on by two young guys. No supervisor was in sight. Much of the day was devoted to locating the problem and excavating. It wasn’t until late afternoon that a lineman actually started splicing the second severed line together.

Darkness fell with the lineman persevering at his tedious task. Portable lights were now in place. I kept wondering: “They ended up working into the night today so why couldn’t they have done that yesterday and restored service sooner”. I saw it as Verizon’s blatant disregard for their customers, proceeding at their own convenience instead of giving us the service we pay them well for.

At 7:45PM my wife told me that the phone was now working. The activity out in the street continued well past 8, the last time I checked.

This kind of situation always reminds me of how little freedom and power we really have. Fact is, in many ways we are at the mercy of corporate America. Mundane activities such as banking, shopping and going to the doctor take place within a tightly controlled scope determined by the policies of the banks, credit card companies and HMO/health insurers that we are necessarily entangled with. Those companies make the rules to suit themselves. We are a captive audience. Participation in modern life is just about impossible without interfacing with those institutions. And to do so, we must do it on their terms. The corporations that control our lives have the enormous momentum of the “free-market” juggernaut behind them. That includes the sanction of our government for their anti-consumer behavior. “The customer is always right” and “customer service” are quaint, outmoded concepts. Corporations in these service businesses are aggressive and punitive in pursuit of their profits. They are also devious and deceptive. They know most people will give up out of frustration when trying to pursue fair treatment. The few outfits out there fighting on our behalf such as Citizen Action, NRDC and Consumer’s Union are invaluable.

DEMOCRATS + REPUBLICANS = 0 FOR AMERICA

2005-10-02T17:06:00.000-04:00

George Bush's numerous lies and blunders would seem to present the Democrats with opportunity after opportunity to weaken his and the Republican's choke-hold control of our government. The reality is, however, that the Democrats have not forcefully and consistently exploited those opportunities and there are two principle reasons for that. The first is that they have no compelling, agreed upon alternative vision to offer the American people. And the second (which, in part, explains the first) is that the power of the Democratic party is too much in synch with what the Republicans are doing to effectively distinguish themselves to voters. I have asserted before in my posts that we really do not have a two-party system because, in practice, the policy and program similarities between the two are greater than their differences.

For example, despite his rhetoric to the contrary, Bush has promoted "big government" in several areas, to the point of alienating true conservatives. Traditionally, big government has been identified with the Democrats. So, they can't take him on on that account. Moreover, with few exceptions Democrats in Congress voted to support Bush's war on Iraq. Even today, only a few lonely anti-war Democratic voices can be heard. All the Democratic noise criticizing the John Roberts Supreme Court nomination turned out to be empty bluster. Time after time, when the opportunity to offer a different, hopefully better, position on an issue has presented itself the Democrats have abdicated their responsibility as an "opposition" party and simply conceded to the President and the Republican majority.

So who in government now represents the majority of Americans who want an end to the war? In truth, no one. Once again, the people are out ahead of their so-called representatives and are resorting to mass action to drag their Senators and Representatives forward to do their will. The reluctance of those elected officials, of course, is tied to their own self-interest--they place their chips on the colors they believe will get them re-elected, regardless of what is in the public interest.

Since the Katrina tragedy/Bush travesty the buzz has been about the large opening it has given the Democrats to make hay for the 2006 elections. There is lots of talk about impeachment. Ramsey Clark has collected over 600,000 citizen signatures on his www.ImpeachBush.org website. Though there is no chance now for initiating impeachment with this Republican controlled Congress, some can taste it with the possibility that the Democrats may be able to wrench control in 2006. The bad news for Republicans keeps coming: DeLay indicted, Scooter Libby decides to reveal himself as the second White House leak in the Plame case, Delay's replacement, Blunt, looking like he too has skeletons in his closet, and so on.

I suppose even a mindless backlash in 2006 would be an advance. Hopefully, it would serve to contain the remainder of the disastrous Bush agenda. Of course, I would prefer that Republicans (and fellow-traveling Democrats) get dumped because progressive politicians running on platforms favorable to the real needs of our people and our country simply beat them on the strength of their offerings. Alas, this is but a fantasy. Even if the Democrats take control of one or both houses all we can really expect is a continuation of the ping-pong, tweedle-dee tweedle-dum pattern of American politics every 4 to 8 years going back forever. Unlike science, technology and medicine, which continually progress and improve, American politics and government only moves laterally--two steps forward, two steps back. It is built into the system. The system needs an overhaul!

A HEARTLESS AND BANKRUPT WHITE HOUSE

2005-09-27T00:38:00.000-04:00

Is there not a single person in the Bush White House or Cabinet who has a clue, a heart, the sense, the honesty, integrity or courage to say "Enough is enough"? To break ranks? To quit in protest? Are they a cult? Brainwashed all, with no will of their own, marching in lock step? Is there not a single compassionate human being among them? What kind of person, whose sworn duty it is to defend the Constitution and to serve the American people, could observe the disastrous national and international results of four years of Bush policy and remain silent and committed? Does Karl Rove have them under some hypnotic spell? What explains this lemming-like, headlong rush to crash and burn?
How can Condoleeza Rice say with, a straight face, that she could not believe for a minute the inept Federal response to the victims of Katrina had anything to do with racism? She is an African-American woman with a Ph.D. She certainly knows the score. What possesses her to put loyalty to an exposed George Bush ahead of that to her brothers and sisters, for whom she could be a very valuable asset? What a betrayal! Something tells me the people she abandoned will remember this come next election.
And Chertoff, claiming not to know about the victims and their situation at the New Orleans Convention Center! Is that disinterest or simple incompetence? What is he saying to himself? Do these people sleep at night?
And Bush, responding to Paula Zahn's question about the delayed and chaotic Federal response, with "What went wrong"?
In my lifetime there has not been a more arrogant, bankrupt, dangerous and dishonest Administration in Washington than that of George Bush. He and his henchmen and women have brought shame on our country and promoted the perception throughout the world of America as an outlaw nation as a result of his aggression and occupation in Iraq.
We deserve much better than this bunch of unprincipled lowlifes. Since Congress is in Bush's pocket, impeachment, though deserved, is unlikely. The Democrats are still nowhere to be found. So it falls to the American people to put up and elect independent and progressive candidates in the mid-term congressional elections in 2006.

PUBLIC WORKS: REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS

2005-09-25T18:03:00.000-04:00

Bush can kill two birds with one stone if he put the New Orleans' unemployed, poor and homeless to work in a massive public works project rebuilding that city. Such projects were used during the Depression to sustain many families who suddenly lost everything and to build vital infrastructure and National Parks. Since the President has promised to rebuild the city and address the poverty conditions that existed prior to Katrina, using this approach seems like a no-brainer. Rather than lining the pockets of the already wealthy major contractors who would ordinarily get the job, pursuing the task as a Federal public works project would save us taxpayers considerable money, minimize the inevitable corruption and rebuild lives as well as the city. It is a unique and awesome opportunity to do something that has great meaning as well as value. Those New Orleanians would have a special interest in the work since they would be making a tremendous contribution to their town and may even have valuable insights and ideas to add. It would provide lifelong skills to the participants and make them more employable once the project was completed. It would also eliminate the need to expand the existing welfare bureacracy or create a new one to service the displaced New Orleans poor.

Fight to Defeat John Roberts

2005-09-18T19:14:00.000-04:00

DEFEAT THE ROBERTS NOMINATION!

URGE YOUR SENATORS TO VOTE NO OR USE THE FILIBUSTER

AFTER APPOINTEES LIKE JOHN BOLTON AS UN AMBASSADOR, MICHAEL CHERTOFF AND MICHAEL BROWN TO HOMELAND SECURITY AND FEMA AND NUMEROUS OTHERS UNLEASHED TO DISMANTLE DECADES OF PROGRESS IN THIS COUNTRY,
CAN WE TAKE THE CHANCE THAT JOHN ROBERTS IS REALLY DIFFERENT?

THE RISK THAT HE IS AN IDEOLOGICAL TROJAN HORSE IS TOO GREAT.

GO TO WWW.TROTN.COM TO SEND AN E-MAIL TO YOUR SENATORS
OR CALL THE US CAPITOL AT 877-762-8762 TO VOICE YOUR POSITION TO YOUR SENATORS.

QUESTIONS FOR OUR PRESIDENT

2005-09-12T22:53:00.000-04:00

Just because the President rarely answers journalist's questions (and never ours) directly or honestly, that does not mean we should not pose them and share them with each other. So here are some of mine:

Mr. President:

Just how did you make your decision that the Federal Emergency Management Administration did not require managers with emergency management experience at its top levels?

Today, you told the press that you and the government can do two things at once. Which two are they?

Are you disappointed that the religious fundamentalist state that you are creating in Iraq is Islamic and not Christian?

When you were a kid did you like to take things apart? You seem to have a real knack for it. For example, you have done that really well to Iraq, to US constitutional democracy, to formerly well functioning government agencies, to the UN and to the awesome good will the international community had toward America after 9/11.

I saw you on TV riding around a desolate Gulf Coast town today in an open truck. Why don't you do that when people are around?

Does Cindy Sheehan have BO?

When you were in the National Guard (heh, heh) would you have volunteered to go to war if the President had not yet called up your unit?

Do you share your mother's view that being crammed into Camp Astrodome is "working very well" for the evacuees, who have lost everything, are separated from family and displaced from their homes, and who are now sleeping on cots next to thousands of others, "since they were underprivileged anyway"?

WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE BIG PICTURE

2005-09-10T22:02:00.000-04:00

Michael Brown is a symptom, not the disease. Addressing symptoms alone allows the underlying disease to flourish. Sure, symptoms need to be identified for it is in the identification of particular group of symptoms occurring together that the disease itself is recognized. Let's say our movement succeeds in driving Brown out of office. Bush would inevitably replace him with a like-minded minion. What have we really accomplished? I am not at all sure that incompetence played a big role here, so much as the Administration's studied approach to demonstrating that we should no longer expect "big government" to take the lead in disasters. It is no secret that Bush favors turning over government functions to the private sector and faith-based organizations. It is the free-market philosophy applied to disaster relief with the predictable chaos that ensues. He stepped FEMA down from its former Cabinet level status. He made it subordinate to the head of the Department of Homeland Security, increasing bureaucracy and all the extra SNAFU that entails. The Katrina disaster was a deliberate withholding of leadership from Washington. A test case that failed and forced Bush to belatedly jump in, all the while denying and minimizing the government's culpability. Perhaps Bush and Co. even cynically hoped or believed that the American public shared their dismissive attitude toward the desperately poor victims, primarily black and marginal, and would not express the outrage that has, indeed, been immediately and powerfully forthcoming.

Progressives cannot succeed in moving the US forward using the fire-brigade approach, one conflagration at a time. Progressives must consistently put forward a political analysis which takes each symptom or issue--Brown, the Iraq war, Haliburton, GITMO and Abu Graib, homelessness, 48 million without health insurance, 7 million more people living below the poverty line since 2000, the highest rate of incarceration in the world, the obscene concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, to name only some examples--and draws the links to all the other issues and uses each to support and "prove" the analysis. We must identify the "disease" and offer treatments. The "single-issue" approach has never had more than limited value. Reforms have been achieved that way but in the absence of structural change those reforms are subject to changing political winds. Gains made through the New Deal, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, gay rights, etc. have either been eroded or are under serious attack. Democracy itself has been seriously compromised by the Bush-neocon cabal in Washington.

I find it rather amazing that despite the fact that there is no light of difference shining through the purported space between the Republican and Democratic parties, the American people are incredibly polarized along party lines. They seem to buy into a mythology that significant party differences exist and feel so strongly that they resort to trashing each other on radio call-in shows and on-line discussion groups and fora. This superficial bashing serves to distract people from the real issues and from their real enemy--capitalism and the corporate elite. The media tends to support and encourage this meaningless squabble, which, deliberate or not, keeps the public from having its eyes opened to the truth. It could not be more obvious that the Democrats have offered no substantial pole of opposition to the Bush presidency. It is incumbent on Progressives to help discouraged people to understand that swapping a Democrat for a Republican in the White House is not the answer to their problems. Sure, their are small differences. Social needs may get more attention. But the enduring issues that impact quality of life: a living wage, decent housing, quality, affordable healthcare, will not improve without structural change.

For too long Progressives have shied away from making public, principled criticism of capitalism. We need to get over it and get on with the work. Commit to the long haul. Open the discussion. Develop an analysis. Design an alternative system that suits this society and organize, organize, organize.

KATRINA AND THE FREE MARKET: A DOUBLY DEADLY COMBINATION

2005-09-05T19:58:00.000-04:00

Let me say that the Bush White House is only a particularly toxic example of American Administrations that have always represented a system that consistently puts profit before people, before the environment (our HOME) and before the future. This so-called "free market system" is far from free. As we all see from Katrina it is very costly to regular folks, especially the poor. White House Administrations (regardless of party), Congress and their corporate patrons share goals and objectives that are often at odds with what is good for the American people in general. The free market system by nature, and its boosters, are amoral, unconcerned with right or wrong. Its goal is to maximize profits without regard for consequences. By not spending the money that was known to be necessary to protect New Orleans the Administration could better afford to conduct an illegal war in Iraq and pass tax cuts for billionaires. The free market philosophy is what directs car companies to aggressively market gas-guzzling SUVs in an era of proven declining crude oil supplies. Scoop up big bucks today, the hell with tomorrow. Its what's behind pharmaceutical companies rushing to market potentially dangerous drugs that have not been fully tested. Drugs that earn them billions but have human casualties along the way. Deaths that they have already calculated and consider "acceptable losses".

Of course, the free market system also promotes "individualism" and "self-reliance". On the Gulf coast that translated into "you folks with no way out, you are on your own". Bush and them call that getting government out of peoples lives. I call it criminal. It may not be too far fetched to understand Bush's delay in sending help and getting himself down there as his way of underscoring his view that government's role is one of backup, rather than first responder. His remark this weekend, referring to the Red Cross as the nation's primary giver of comfort, seems to support this notion. As does his initiative to get his father and Clinton to shake the corporate tree for disaster relief money. Put it on volunteer agencies and the private sector.

Nature brought the hurricane but the decisions and policies of Bush and former Administrations are responsible for the failure of the levees, the lack of a coordinated emergency management plan and the resultant increase in loss of life and devastation. The neglect and incompetence become even more of an outrage when one learns that last year, when a very powerful hurricane hit Cuba, the Castro government, in coordination with neighborhood citizen committees and local Communist party cadres, evacuated 1.3 million people without a single loss of life!

PEOPLE'S PETITION TO IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH

2005-09-03T00:19:00.000-04:00

That George Bush is incompetent is not a new idea. Now, his handling of the Gulf Coast catastrophe demonstrates once again how dangerous his incompetence really is. Directly as a result of his decisions and actions tens of thousands have died in Iraq, including nearly 1800 American soldiers. Directly as a result of his decisions, poor judgment and inaction probably thousands more have died in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.
The American people need to adopt a Zero Tolerance policy for Bush's incompetence!
Congress, observing the Emperor's New Clothes up close, simply looks the other way! How can it be that in all of Congress they cannot muster the courage to plug the judgment gap in the White House?

WE ARE BEING MISLED.

A People's Petition to Impeach George Bush is intended to influence Congress to finally do right by the American people.

Many Americans have felt duty-bound to support the President, even despite a nagging feeling that he really does not have our interests at heart. Now, his mishandling of the human tragedy wrought by Katrina is likely to tip the balance for those people who have thus far given Bush a lot of rope. It caps the list of dissatisfactions that has accumulated over five years. It brings his incompetence home even more than the death of our troops in Iraq. We realize it could have been us down there on the Gulf Coast. That it is us, our family, our friends. We ask, "How could this happen in our own country?" How could this happen with our shiny and well funded Department of Homeland Security in charge? Where was the security for our citizens on the Gulf Coast? Katrina was no surprise, like 9/11. We all saw her coming and our government sat on its hands! Evacuation orders were given and the fact that hundreds of thousands of people had no means of evacuating was ignored! Our government telling the people to Sink or Swim!! Outrageous. Criminal.

Impeachment requires the commission of high Crimes and Misdemeanors. There is no shortage with Mr. Bush. Check out www.votetoimpeach.org. He is waging an illegal war on a sovereign nation. He lied to Congress and the American people. He was criminally negligent in his handling of the Katrina disaster.

Sign and distribute this petition demanding that Congress impeach George Bush. We must capture the attention of the American public and unleash their initiative to take our country back.

THE UNDERSIGNED FORMALLY DEMAND THAT THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES DRAW UP ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH.

Dr. Max Mastellone
Marie Mastellone

The Phony War on Terror, Part 2

2004-12-24T17:00:00.000-05:00

Terrorists are the new Communists. For about 50 years US Administrations, Democrat and Republican, held the threat of Communist world domination over the heads of Americans as a way of frightening us into submission and acquiescence with all of their harebrained military adventures from Korea to Vietnam, to Nicaragua, and as a justification for regressive domestic policies that would control protest and maintain a submissive population. All this because those in power have always had a private agenda to play out that served only themselves and their corporate sponsors. Their exaggeration and exploitation of the Communist threat served as a cover for their efforts to expand US military and corporate economic domination around the world. They have been incredibly successful. Ironic that while they perpetuated the notion that Communist world domination was a serious threat, they were actually scheming and working their own form of domination. Among magicians the technique is called "misdirection". I get you to look at my left hand while my right hand is quickly tucking the silver dollar out of sight. Undetectable to many when done by a skilled practitioner.

Then came the fall of the Berlin Wall, followed by the historic (and devastating to the people) collapse of the Soviet Union. In an instant the bogeyman Communist threat evaporated and along with it a secondary fear bludgeon, the threat of nuclear war. As the world's sole superpower, the US now had no serious challenger. While publicly cheering and taking credit, the powers that be secretly lamented the loss of their fear leverage. What would they do now to prevent their control over the masses from slipping away? But not to worry. Some astute reactionary got the idea to latch onto terrorist acts as the great new fear. Not that terrorism itself was new to the US, we have known it since the birth throes of the war of independence. Later, the US Cavalry, as well as civilians, terrorized Native American populations as the country expanded westward. In more recent times we have seen white racist terrorism in the South, black terrorism, revolutionary left terrorism, Puerto Rican terrorism, Jewish Defence League terrorism, Cuban emigre terrorism, anti-abortion terrorism and the terrorism of ultra-right, survivalist and anti-government groups. No, terrorism had been going on here but only became a subject of interest to the fearmongers when, having lost the Communist angle they needed a replacement. That need became particularly acute after 9/11 when the Bush Adminstration saw what for them must have been a wonderfully seredipitous opening, the opportunity to roll out a plan to invade Iraq that had been ripening on the agenda of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) for years. PNAC is a neo-conservative Washington think tank whose principals became key members of the Bush White House, Pentagon and Defense Department. The names Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle will be familiar to most. Part of their strategy to dupe the American public into backing their absurd adventure was the terror fear card, and it worked brilliantly! Even today, after the charges have been totally discredited, a significant percentage of Americans still believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and had a working relationship with Al Qaeda.

The strategy worked so well that now all things that the US Administration doesn't like and wants us to hate too are conveniently labeled "terrorist". They have even reprised the old nuclear threat bludgeon, suggesting the real possibility that Al Qaeda might be capable of putting a nuke in a suitcase and detonating it in one of our cities. Communist revolutionaries in South America and liberation fighters around the world are suddenly renamed terrorists in the belief that this term arouses more fear and antagonism in us than the emasculated "leftist" or "Communist". The very Iraqis who are defending their country against an unprovoked American invasion are called terrorists by this Administration and the news media here when in fact, they are simply Iraqi people (some might call them "freedom fighters") trying to repel a powerful occupying force. So the label "terrorist" as used by Bush and Co. doesn't really mean terrorist. It is code for any group that they consider the enemy and even some who simply disagree with them. In a cynical effort to gain our support for it's radical and wrongheaded policies this Administration attempts to manipulate us through fear and false patriotism, boldfaced lies and other deception. They want us to see terrorists everywhere just as former Administrations wanted us to see Communists everywhere, in order to soften us up and have us agree to their plan.

The Phony War on Terror, Part 1

2004-12-01T01:05:00.000-05:00

I'm still waiting for even one element of the mainstream media to have the honesty and integrity to expose the grand "War on Terror" ruse being perpetrated on the American public by the Bush administration. To understand why it is impossible to wage a war on terror one needs to be clear on what terrorism actually is. Terrorism is not war. Terrorism by itself cannot and is not intended to accomplish goals such as the capture of territory or the political/military conquest of a nation. Politically motivated violence is a tactic that serves a concept or an ideal. This tactic is typically aimed at accomplishing a specific political goal or goals. Terror is not a group, a state or a military entity that could be the target of warfare. Terrorism is used by groups around the world to address their particular political grievances. It is not a unified worldwide phenomenon. The IRA used terrorist bombings in England to force British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. The US government asserted that the Oklahoma City bombing was meant to avenge the deaths of the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas. Palestinian terrorism against Israel is motivated by a desire to end Israeli occupation and oppression of Palestinians and to facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state. None of these groups that have used terror had any association with any of the other groups. Efforts to suppress one such group would have no effect on the others. Their political goals are independent of one another. What they have in common is the tactic of terror.

One cannot wage military war on a tactic, or on an idea. Thus, the War on Terror is nothing but a fiction. Ideas outlive people. One can kill a terrorist but not the idea that motivates him. One cannot kill terrorism. As long as a people harbor a grievance so powerful that it moves them to resort to a campaign of violence, as long as that grievance is not satisfied, there will be those who are willing to sustain that campaign at the risk of their lives. Recall that the American Revolution began with acts of terrorist violence by the Colonists against the British. The British were again the target of terror, this time at the hands of Menachem Begin and his Irgun in their struggle to establish the State of Israel. Throughout history terror has frequently been directed at the perpetrators of Empire. And it is no surprise. Empire, whether in the old form of conquest and political colonialism, or the new form of economic colonialism, nevertheless involves domination, oppression and exploitation. Not things that a population suffers passively.

President Bush asserts that al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. and continues to threaten us because they “hate freedom” and our way of life. I find it hard to believe that no one in the media (not that I’ve seen) has looked carefully at this notion. The idea is absurd on its face. What can he possibly mean? That they think they can destroy our free society with a few bombs every few years? That they are going through all this trouble to punish us for being free? Please!

His assertion means nothing. It is blather meant to distract us from demanding an understanding of what really is motivating this terrorism. People don’t go to these extremes frivolously or for sport. Bush’s people want us to believe that the terrorists “do not value human life” (including their own?). They don’t want us to wonder deeply just why someone would sacrifice his life for an idea. We might then want to know what that idea is. And if we actually found out we just might start having some doubts about American foreign policy. But we have a head start. We already understand and accept the sacrifice that our troops are making. In reality, war is calculated suicide. By consenting to go to war a person knows that there is a real chance that she will not survive. In this regard, the difference between an American soldier and a suicide bomber is merely a few degrees of certainty. If we hail the bravery and sacrifice of our soldiers as noble, how can we not believe the same of a terrorist? After all, it is only the motivating principle behind their acts that differs. Truth is our government has a dual standard when it comes to terrorism. When the violence is perpetrated against us it is terrorism. When our country perpetrates or pays for violence against others it is “defending freedom” or “supporting democracy”. When we pick up weapons to defend an idea we are acting in the proud tradition of America. When others with whom we disagree do the same they are subhuman, demonic fanatics.

Democracy Perverted

2004-11-26T00:00:00.000-05:00

The alleged two party system that we have in this country is hardly democratic, in that the Republicans and Democrats have much more in common than not. What we have is de facto only one party with factions that represent different segments of the wealthy/corporate power elite. The recent presidential election only underscores the point. There was so little daylight between Bush and Kerry's positions on Iraq that people reasoned that they would stay with the "original" rather than risk going with a Bush's war wannabe. Is there really any other way to view the evenly divided electorate than that it represents two nearly indistinguishable candidates?

When I studied in Canada years ago I was struck by the fact that built into their parliamentary system was an Official Opposition led by the ranking minority party. Most important is that they are not a nominal Opposition but a real one that engages in serious struggle over important issues. I observed a qualitative difference in the way political differences were played out there as opposed to how the Republicans and Democrats do it here. There, one had the sense that real work was being done. Here, its hard to take Congress seriously. Our Congress in action resembles political theater.

The sitting House of Commons in Canada is made up of representatives from four of the country's 10--yes I said 10 registered national political parties (this does not include numerous other registered, so-called "third" parties) as well as two Independent members. There is a lot to say for diversity--in biology, culture AND politics. It only stands to reason that the more diverse the input into the governing process the better and stronger the product will be. Inbreeding yields defects both in organisms and ideas.

The recent Republican rout left that party in solid command of the White House, both houses of Congress and a majority of state governorships. It left the party so emboldened that they now believe that retaining this control permanently may be possible! So here we are in "democratic" America with one of our political parties drooling over the chance that they may be able to lock in their control over Washington, and thus the nation, indefinitely. These supposed champions of democracy are eagerly poised to install themselves as rulers beyond effective challenge as though it were OK. As though it didn't smack of totalitarianism. As though it wouldn't make the existing system an even greater mockery than it already is. Terms like chutzpah and cojones are too mild to describe their intent. Were that step to be accomplished even the charade of a two party system could not be upheld. Now I am not singling out the Republicans here. I have no doubt that if the Democrats saw the opportunity they too would jump on it.

Too many Americans are uninformed and complacent when it comes to how they are governed. To that extent, they deserve what they get. Trouble is, those of us that don't deserve it get it too. The uninformed and gullible voting in the people and policies that will damage us all. Now that's democracy perverted!

First Post

2004-11-24T20:20:00.000-05:00

I began this blog, perhaps like others, as a way of dealing with my powerful reaction to Bush's reelection. This included my discouragement, considering how much more damage he can do in an additional four years; my disappointment with all those misguided good folks who actually voted for him and my embarrassment at being part of an America that would elect George Bush twice despite the fact that he is sending the country down the toilet.

I was a pretty radical activist for social causes in the 70's and 80's. I guess I burned out over inadequate results considering the level of commitment and effort I sustained. Although my direct activism ended, my political sensibilities remained as acute. The cliche about how youth give of themselves and older people give money sort of fits. But now no amount I would give can salve the burning I feel when I think about the situation and what we are in for. That 70's and 80's part of me wants to get out into the streets again and take them on. Another, stronger part, to my shame, says no. Older people than I manage to take action. The resulting feeling of impotence is difficult to tolerate.

I have never kept a journal. Over the years, I have had a few commentary pieces published in newspapers and magazines but for every one of those there were many, many more that I wanted to write but did not. I have always believed that I had something worthwhile to add to the public conversation but self-doubt usually sabotaged that impulse. I have literally struggled with the "to write/not to write" issue for decades. As I am writing this now the struggle continues, albeit with a desirable outcome today. The question is will I be able to sustain it?

Taking these first steps feels very good and satisfying.