Far-Left Socialist--Obama?

Ralph Reed's Faith & Freedom Coalition sent me a "survey" to "To Stop President Obama’s Far-Left Socialist Agenda for America." FFC announced that it was sending this out to five million "American taxpayers," to send a message, and to raise money. Their goal: $30 million.

The first two questions (on how Obama is doing his job, and what you perceive his ideology to be) might seem fairly standard, except that the second question's answers range from conservative to communist to fascist.

Then the "survey" gets down to its main business. Before question 3 there is an "issue summary" that creates an "issue" almost out of whole cloth: claiming Obama wants to impose a "fairness doctrine" on right-wing talk radio in order to shut it down. The question is then asked (Question 3), whether the respondent thinks Obama will succeed in shutting down Beck, Limbaugh, et al.

The next issue summary states that Obama is as hostile to anyone questioning his agenda as Soviet leaders, and that he marshaled "union thugs" to beat up opponents at Town Hall meetings on health care! Where does this stuff come from? So Question 4 asks: Do you think President Obama respects free speech, or did union thugs act on their own "without any coordination with the Obama political machine?"

After question 6, there is another "issue summary." It states as fact that Obama and Congressional Democrats are "determined" to "loosen up" the border with Mexico, to enroll millions of Mexicans as new citizens as fast as possible, "so as to increase their voter base and cement their hold on political power." The question: how concerned are you about this "development?"

This is Ralph Reed's latest vehicle for raising money from right-wing know-nothings, as well as propaganda--of the Goebbels variety: repeat big lies often enough: people will take them as truth.

Reed turns ("Anti-American Communist Dictator") Chavez's joke about "Comrade Obama" to the left even of Fidel Castro into a serious issue ("issue summary"): do you think Obama is an ally of theirs? How much danger do you think "liberty" faces with Obama's Socialist agenda: More serious than World War II? More serious than the threat from the Soviet Union in the Cold War? More serious than the Civil War? Respondent can check more than one.

Question 12 asks the respondent to pledge to vote in the Congressional election and to bring three friends. Question 13 asks for his email address!

And then he is supposed to send his "emergency freedom-saving donation," to the Faith & Freedom Coalition.

Americans actually think like this!

Most Romans did in the fifth century, because of Imperial propaganda at least as blatant. If the US really goes in this direction, if this kind of Right-wing wins, then I fear for any reality-based politics at all.

Then we can really have an Emperor!

Nixon's Stroke of Genius

militarized our foreign policy: he abolished the draft. Sounds like a paradox, but it actually makes sense. The common wisdom is that democracies are not warlike. Yet, the US is the most warlike country in the world, although Americans think we're so peaceful. Now, that's a paradox that Nixon's stroke of genius created.

Instead of the draft, we have a professional army. This is no peacetime army like the one we had before WWII; this is a full-time army, with almost continuous wars, even if far from the "homeland."

Because it's a professional army, opposition to the wars is not visceral, the way it was during Vietnam, Korea and before WWII. "Our boys," (and "girls") don't have to go over there. The only ones who go are those who choose to enlist, which means people disproportionately poor, without other prospects, or from "military families," mostly Southern, or from minorities. Endless leftish commentaries have pointed this out, of course.

So, opposition to the escalation of the war in Afghanistan is muted: people aren't afraid that they, or their children, are going to have to go. Opposition is much more theoretical. The money we spend on these wars is only a part (a large part) of the taxes we pay, and we may object to that, but "our boys and girls" are not on the line.

We may object to the senselessness of the war, the needless killing, and the hopelessness of the enterprise, but we have a president who won the Nobel Peace Prize. So, if he can't get us out of Afghanistan, well, maybe we just should be there. His strategy sounds sort of plausible, but only if you accept certain premises.

For example: al Qaeda can't be allowed to set up camps in Afghanistan, from which they could train to attack us. So, we have to control Afghanistan--but we don't. I pointed out April 5th that the effectiveness of the "drone war" has demonstrated that al Qaeda wouldn't dare set up open camps in Afghanistan: we could cream them with drones. Furthermore, the Taliban wouldn't let them; they wouldn't want us to have a pretext to attack them. Ergo, we don't have to stay in Afghanistan, at all.

Furthermore, even Karzai wants to negotiate with the top Taliban, but the US says 'No.' Isn't Karzai the (more or less) elected President? And we're there to bolster Afghan government institutions? And defend them from the Taliban. Karzai has even made preparations for a loya jirga, the national assembly of elders that has venerable political legitimacy. He had wanted the Taliban to attend. So far, the US has said "No."

Do you get it yet? We have a professional military, courtesy of Nixon. Like the Roman legions, it MUST have wars--and bases in most countries in the world. We the People just get to pay--and deprive ourselves of services--until the US is bankrupted by its wars.

The Long Counter-Revolution

I missed the signs, going back to the Rehnquist court. Like most people left of center, I railed against the pro-business bias of many court decisions by the US Supreme Court.

But even Rehnquist held that corporations were artificial entities, not corporate "persons" with the rights and privileges of citizens. With the Roberts' Court decision, Citizens United v FEC, that personhood has now been enshrined in the supreme law of the land, no matter how flawed, transparently political and shattering of all precedent that decision was. It was authored by "Justices" who had claimed in their confirmation hearings that they would be bound by precedent, and would not "legislate from the bench." In Citizen's United, that's exactly what they did, more brazenly, more outrageously than any liberal Justices (like Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren and William O. Douglas), who were accused over the years of creating law not out of precedent, but out of their personal biases.

It was a judicial coup, and has the potential to wipe out any populist impulse or movement. It was possibly a direct response to Obama's apparently populist movement and electoral victory.

In "The Rise of The Corporate Court" by People For The American Way, the authors point out: resources available to corporations to influence elections are at a scale never before encountered by our already corrupted "democracy." Exxon collected about $1 million in its PAC for the 2008 election, abiding by campaign finance laws before the Citizen's United case. However, it amassed $85 billion in profits that year. With all limits on direct corporate spending thrown under the bus, it could now easily spend 10% of its profits--$8.5 billion--to elect the officeholders it wants. $8.5 billion is more than the 2008 campaign expenditures of Obama, McCain, plus all senate and congressional candidates and all state legislative candidates combined. Yet, Exxon is just one corporation!

Back in the 1890's, people joked about the Senator "from Standard Oil," or "JP Morgan." It won't be a joke!

What's worse, there are corporations like Goldman-Sachs, setting up some clients to fail so that Goldman--and other clients--can profit. They can use those profits to protect themselves politically! Three point three billion dollars profit just last quarter.

The real question is: how can ordinary citizens reclaim their democracy? There is a movement to ban corporate personhood by amending the Constitution, but the amendment process is much more difficult than passing healthcare in the Senate: required are two-thirds majorities in both House and Senate, and then passage by three-fourths of the states.

Citizens United is the culmination of a long-running counter-revolution. Corporations (and their principal owners) have become the Roman Senators, the honestiores, of our time. The rest of us are being reduced to humiliores.

Even before Rome's downfall, the humiliores had descended into serfdom.

Retrospective: Earth Day 2010

It's so beautiful out! But, Spring is a month early.

There was a radio show detailing some of the alternatives scientists have begun to discuss because no political solutions appear possible. The alternatives: bio-engineering to "cool" the earth, to counteract dangerous climate change.

There was some hope, when Obama was elected, that he would reverse US opposition to action to slow climate change. After all, the US was global polluter par none until last year (when China surpassed us). Also, the case that global warming is happening and that humans are largely causing it keeps on getting stronger, despite DC's "snowmageddon."

Further, that we are getting nearer and nearer to major climate tipping points. We may already have surpassed some: for example, massive releases of methane as Arctic permafrost thaws (methane is 25 times more potent than CO2 as an agent promoting global warming). All the predictions of even two years ago have proven too low; the high range forecasts (faster global warming) appear to be the low-range of what has already occurred.

Yet, the meeting on climate change in Copenhagen, in which the US was supposed to lead the world in a global response, was an abject failure. It was in large part because Obama offered only the limp-wristed cap and trade and low-ball cut to emissions that has apparently foundered in the stalemated US Congress. Republicans and corporate Democrats reject even that inadequate response.

So, what to do? Bio-engineering? Will the US unilaterally spray the atmosphere with various additives to make clouds more opaque, or to reduce ocean reflectivity, or…?

If not the US, then who? Russia? China?

Put this way, perhaps you can see the problem: if we can't agree on reducing CO2 emissions, how on earth are humans going to agree on something that is still highly speculative, that might cool the earth, but might just screw up the climate even more?

Parenthetically, the scientist on the above-mentioned radio show let drop that 2 billion people depend on the monsoon rains in South and Southeast Asia. What would they do if the US unilaterally sprayed clouds and the result was that the monsoon rains failed? They'd have to leave, or starve! Two billion desperate people. Oh, and they have nuclear weapons: we're talking about India, Pakistan and southern China.

No wonder US intelligence rated the threat from global warming/climate change as greater than al Qaeda!

Perhaps humans are incapable of cooperating globally. Instead, oil and coal (and other) interests must safeguard profits: they have a lot of money to buy policy-makers: vested interests always do.

Perhaps this will be the epitaph of global civilization: vested interests trumped common sense.

We still have time to redeem Earth Day 2010, but not much time. Forget about the American Empire. We can't replace Ephesus with Constantinople as the Romans did. Some humans may survive, but it might be in caves.

Angry, Not Just Tea Partiers

People are angry, and have good reason to be. But right-wing commentators and media like Fox are successfully diverting their ire. Meanwhile, would-be reformers find little support for substantive reform in policy areas in which there are substantial vested interests.

Health reform had to be limited to get past insurance company and provider interests, hence no "public option," and no negotiated Pharma prices.

Financial reform has to pass muster with banks, which are again riding roughshod over the economy: posting huge gambling profits, foreclosing on homeowners and ignoring mortgage re-negotiation programs, instituting new credit card fees, borrowing from the Fed at virtually no cost, and using the money to speculate, instead of loaning to businesses.

Republicans make the false claim that finance reform proposals will perpetuate public bailouts, so any reform must be killed. Meanwhile, Democrats are too craven to re-establish the needed boundaries between depositors and gamblers (like the repealed Glass-Steagall law), or to create a consumer protection agency that isn't answerable to the bankers first.

Why? Because banks and bankers have bought the GOP and enough of the Democrats to forestall meaningful reform.

Tea Party activists are angry, and others, too, but instead of venting their ire against the corporations exporting their jobs for profits, or against bankers, or AIG, they rant against "socialistic" Obama, Muslim, foreigner, against illegal aliens and against "those people" who don't pay income taxes (they pay as much in other taxes).

Noam Chomsky noted the similarities between the violent rhetoric of right-wing Americans and the Nazis before Hitler's takeover, and pointed out that the Nazis had only negligible support two years before they took control (through a democratic election).

The Weimar Republic was democratic, moderate and ineffectual; its reformers were pusillanimous. Nazis boasted they knew what to do. Germany's largest corporations supported them. The fascist system Nazis instituted, merged the power of the state with that of big business. The military in Nazi Germany was fused with both. Is that where we're headed?

Can moderate, centrist, half-reforms mollify enough of the people, stabilize the economy, prevent dangerous climate change, establish peace and maintain democracy? Given the violent response of the crazies, the power of the status quo institutions, and the military's interest in pursuing "the long war," it doesn't seem likely.

I take the Tea Party seriously. They may have all the facts wrong, they may be as ignorant as Sarah Palin, but they have energy. Faced with right-wing populists like Father Coughlin, FDR campaigned against "the economic royalists of our time." He won big for reform in 1936.

Our democracy needs an FDR, or Obama to become one, if it is to survive. Otherwise, we'll face the twilight of empire, like Diocletian's, more totalitarian than Hitler's, but declining nonetheless--before climate change destroys civilization as we know it.

Trained to Kill

An Afghan bystander asked plaintively, after US troops shot up a bus in Kandahar, "Why didn't they shoot out the tires? Why did they shoot the people?"

It's a good question.

When I was in Basic Training back in 1961 (Yes, the Dark Ages), our cry as we lunged at stuffed dummies with our bayonets was: "Kill, Kilo, Kill!" It was Kilo Company, you see.

Since 1961, since the Vietnam war, and then the wars since (quite a few), American soldiers (and marines) have been trained to be more and more lethal killers, it seems. With their weaponry, American troops are probably the most deadly military on Earth.

But in wars of counterinsurgency, killing is counterproductive most of the time. As both military and civilian leaders keep on saying, the American mission in Afghanistan is to win over the people to the established Afghan governing institutions. Killing ten civilians here and 5 there, is not going to win their hearts; shooting pregnant women and then gouging the bullets out of their bodies to hide their crime isn't cool, either: it's going to drive them into the hands of the Taliban.

With the Joker we foisted on them (Karzai), what other choice do they have? We prevented them from naming a stable head of state (their former King), which was the Afghans' first choice in the loya jirga, the one in which they finally were persuaded/pressured (by our Ambassador) to pick Karzai, instead.

Yet, it seems clear, from sources like the Wikileaks video of a helicopter gunner, and this report of the bus killing (four or five dead and 30 wounded?) that American soldiers may be there to win hearts and minds, or to "clear, hold and build," but what they seem to be trained to do best is to kill lots of people--very quickly.

Don't get me wrong: American servicemen and women aren't evil. Most of them probably think and hope they're doing good. And many try hard. But the military-industrial-security complex is evil; it drives people to do evil, whether they know it or not.

When I was stationed in Turkey (1962-3), I worked and bunked with fellow Traffic Analysts, and drank with them, too, occasionally. I liked them, and they all meant well. But the common opinion they held of the local Turks was appalling: dirty "abies," who will always cheat you, or kill you if you so much as look at their women.

I doubt that American soldiers in Afghanistan are as well disposed towards the locals as my friends were. After all, none of the Turks were trying to kill us.

We don't belong there; we end up killing civilians--and being killed. Afghanistan could bury the American Empire as it buried the Soviets in the 1980's; it could weaken us as decisively as Goths debilitated Romans when they beat Emperor Galen at Adrianople in 378, beginning Rome's slide into oblivion.

US Empire, Inc.

My previous blog dealt with a video released by Wikileaks. The importance of a service like wikileaks has been underscored by the denials of Pentagon and pro-defense bloggers about the meaning of the Iraq helicopter video. Wikileaks' crucial role has also been demonstrated by the recent Appeals Court decision that the FCC doesn't have the power to enforce net neutrality.

Comcast, AT&T and Verizon all claim that net neutrality will not fairly recompense them for their services, that they need to be able to charge more for high band-width users, in order to adequately invest in continued improvements in the Internet.

Gee, 80% profits (for Comcast) aren't enough?

What really is at issue is: who controls the Internet. The FCC has been like the cop in the patrol car; nobody controls where you go, but you have to abide by the speed limits. In the case of the Internet, the FCC was attempting to insure that everyone had equal access.

The companies want control. Their spokespeople claim they wouldn't charge more except for high-bandwidth users, but if there is no cop on the beat, why wouldn't they charge more? After all, a corporation's officers are legally required to maximize profit.

So, if there is premium access, then those not paying the higher fees will end up getting lower quality (lower cost) services, or they could be blocked unless they pay more.

Providers could also block users if their content promotes ideas or policies that could threaten their bottom line. This brings us back to Wikileaks: the Iraq video would not be in the interest of any corporation which makes profits from our war efforts, since it has profoundly anti-war implications. With no cop on the beat, it could have been blocked.

The same might be said for certain candidates: anti-corporate positions could therefore become even more difficult to bring to public attention. Not only would they be handicapped by receiving no corporate money now that corporations can spend unlimited money directly on elections, but in addition, the carriers could block meaningful access to a campaign.

There are two ways out: one is for the FCC to find another way to regulate the Internet to insure net neutrality: it's exploring its options. The other is to pass net neutrality laws in Congress, but the opposition of the large cable providers meshes with anti-regulatory zeal, largely Republican, though other corporations, like Google and Yahoo might encourage pro-regulation Congress-people if they push back.

The Appeals Court decision is like the second of a one-two punch, the first being the Supreme Court ruling that corporations have free speech rights as "corporate persons."

This looks like a silent corporate coup. Forget about Democrats and Republicans: corporations are gaining control--unless we stop them. Goodbye democracy, goodbye the United States. Hello US Empire, Inc. Is Augustus waiting in the wings? Is her name Sarah Palin?

Just Looking for Targets in Baghdad

The helicopter gunner was "looking for targets." What he saw was 8 men gathering on the ground, so they became targets. He justified shooting because two of them were carrying something. He decided they had weapons, although in fact they were carrying cameras. Almost all the men were killed in one burst of his machine gun. One struggled to rise on an elbow, the gunner watched. A van came to "gather the bodies," so he shot up the van.

The man in the van had come to rescue the injured, and had two children with him on the way to a tutor. The man he tried to rescue, the photojournalist's assistant, was killed; the children were seriously injured.

There is only one reason why this video was shown on the Internet: Wikileaks leaked it. The photojournalists were a two-man Reuters team, both killed, the photographer's body actually run over by an investigating US Bradley vehicle, his assistant killed when the helicopter returned to shoot up the van; the gunner chuckled when he saw the Bradley run over the body!

Reuters had tried to find out what had happened to their photojournalists and had filed an FOIA for the video; the military claimed there had been a firefight and the helicopter gunner had followed the "rules of engagement." You could see there was no fight; the men were relaxed, paying no attention to the helicopter overhead. This was casual murder, carried out as just another daily patrol, "looking for targets."

The Military refused to release the video. Now we can see why. From the video, we can see, vividly, that the military are out of control and can go on murder sprees with impunity. Reuters had "followed procedures" in trying to find out what had happened to their team; the military stonewalled and insisted on a lie. Only an illegal leak, "conveyed" to Wikileaks, revealed what really happened.

This is how Americans really fought the war in Baghdad (the video was shot in 2007), and probably how they are fighting it in Afghanistan now. Why would any Iraqi, or Afghan, want American military in their country if this is how they operate? This was, after all, simply a daily patrol "looking for targets."

Helicopters fly over me daily. If people here were shot like this, I'd get a cannon and start shooting at them the minute I saw them!

It's likely that the stories told Congress, and even the President, but certainly the media, are similar distortions and lies. The military aren't fighting for freedom; they're terrorizing the people they were sent to "liberate."

This is proof, if proof were needed, that the American military sow terror. We need to stop the terrorists--our troops. They need to come home.

Dismantle the Empire!

Drone War Explodes Afghan War Rationale

The drone war in Pakistan appears successful, in the sense that it has the Taliban, the Haqqani network and al Qaeda on the run in North and South Waziristan. They've had to jettison ATV's for travel on public buses in ones and twos, they can't have large training exercises, AQ operatives have dug themselves into mountainsides, and "camps" are no longer available: Taliban, etc. have to find shelter in local people's homes, often using coercion--not a good position for an insurgency. Their tribal hosts are only being pragmatic: hosting foreigners, especially (the Arabs), could risk their families to drone attacks. Even sleeping in pine forests is no longer safe: drones patrol in pairs 24/7.

Now, note this: officially, Pakistan has not approved of American drones commanding their skies, but they're tolerated. While the drones do take off from Pakistani airfields, they are controlled remotely from places like a base near Denver, Colorado.

When all else is going badly in Afghanistan, what is the ultimate rationale for staying there: to prevent the Taliban from returning and setting up an al Qaeda haven with training camps.

Even though parts of the Taliban and the Haqqani network remain allied with al Qaeda, is it realistic to assume that they would allow Qaeda training camps in a "new" Taliban Afghanistan (i.e. if the worst came to fruition and the Taliban regained dominance in its government)?

First of all, the strongest Taliban faction has taken the nationalist position of denouncing all foreign influence; they pointedly included al Qaeda. In addition, however, all the insurgents are experiencing the reality that there are no refuges in this age of drone warfare.

Would a newly resurgent Taliban be so stupid as to admit al Qaeda camps on its sovereign soil, either openly or covertly, after such an experience? With the aerial surveillance the US has now, there would be no hiding place. The US would be able to intensify its drone attacks on any Afghan camps, since Afghanistan has no air force to speak of, and would be unlikely to afford one. American drones could continue to use Pakistani airfields, or airfields in other nearby "allied" countries.

The point is: the very success of the drone war demonstrates that we could easily destroy any large-scale terror establishments. So, where is the rationale to continue fighting in Afghanistan? Even President Karzai, whom we have supported with billions of dollars and 100,000 troops, has denounced the troops and has often said that the US is in Afghanistan to control it.

We could prove him wrong and withdraw, but threaten drones to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a "terrorist haven."

We won't because of the money our war-makers, civilian and military continue to reap from imperial war. Ultimately, imperial wars like Afghanistan won't maintain the empire: they will bankrupt it.