The rabble looks on

I recently re-watched all episodes of Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister. The show feels tantalizingly close to the truth about how the world works, and it offers a brief glimpse at the puppet masters. Much (if not all) can be explained if interpreted in the context of garnering votes (politicians) and maintaining power (politicians, bureaucracy, corporations) -- with multiple factions within these power structures vying for larger and larger portions of the pie (ad nauseam). They're all uniformly nefarious, but what's scarier long-term is that they are predominantly dumb and greedy creatures (the mountain of evidence just keeps piling up). They aren't the least bit concerned about the very distinct possibility that the entire planet could go down in flames, as we hurtle unaware towards our inevitable Götterdämmerung.

The Trilateral Commission may have tried to establish a New World Order (hell, giving them the benefit of doubt, there is a minute possibility that they may even have had our best interests at heart, in their own twisted way), but all we got was Full Spectrum Disorder. The Military-Industrial complex must surely be completely psychotic;only that can explain the production of cluster bombs and other assorted weapons that the military beast mercilessly wields in order to subjugate, maim, or murder the unfortunates.

The rabble is just expected to watch the show in awe -- vote and sacrifice when called upon to do so.

Investment Theory of Politics

Thomas Ferguson is an American political scientist and author who studies and writes on politics and economics, often within an historical perspective. He is a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston.

Thomas Ferguson has written an interesting book titled "Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems" (1995). In this book, Ferguson breaks completely with traditional voter centered accounts of party politics. In its place he outlines an "investment approach," in which powerful investors, not unorganized voters, dominate campaigns and elections. In effect, Democrats and Republicans are merely the left and right wings of the "Property Party".

Few snippets from the book:

.."This does not mean that voters never influence public policy or even that they do not constantly do so. It does imply, however, that their influence on state policy is highly variable and uncertain. In a political system like that of the United States, the costs associated with the control of the state effectively screen out the bulk of the electorate from sustained political intervention".

and

The policy agenda is attuned to the concerns of the investors and it is distinctly one-sided resulting in "increasingly radical versions of "laissez faire" economics...demands for tax "relief," freedom from regulation, cuts in social welfare expenditures, labor cost reductions and tighter control of increasingly decentralized production systems"

and most telling:

"..on all issues affecting the vital interests that major investors have in common, no party competition will take place"

For those interested, a preview of the book can be found here

Endless Democracy Inaction

First, take a moment revisit my previous blog entry: MoveOn.org and The Nation Magazine (Democracy Inaction)

Its been frustrating lately: Everyone I talk to buys into the Lesser Evil rubbish (i.e. McCain is terrible, but Obama is not as evil and can create "change"). As soon as I suggest that they should vote for the platform they support instead of candidates who are far to the right of public opinion, they almost fly into a rage accusing me of wasting my vote on candidates who'll never win. By voting for a valid platform instead, I persist in my argument, we make a statement that being a Democrat is no guarantee of getting votes and more importantly, we take a stand that bogus anti-war, health care etc. stances (as co-opted by the Democrats) cannot be condoned at any cost. I've commented on the pathetic Lesser Evil insanity (and I continue to refer it to you ad nauseum) here.

More recently, John Walsh commented on the latest silliness of The Nation magazine in their "open letter" to Obama. Read about it here at counterpunch. Try not to clench your teeth.

For thoughts on voting for a platform, see an excellent article by Manuel Garcia,Jr here. He says we have the following choices:

"So, you have three choices: 1, vote for the empire led by John McCain with a lumbering regressive politics; 2, vote for the empire led by Barack Obama with sophisticated regressive politics; 3, vote against the empire."

Coming Soon

... to a theater near you. It's all rigged to blow.

Martial Law Threat is Real

by Dave Lindorff

Candidate Obfuscation

It should come as no surprise that it is virtually impossible to figure out where Presidential candidates stand on any issue. The presidential debates won't help either and neither will the mainstream media.

For example, consider this poll result and accompanying comments that appeared on bloomberg.com (Obama, Thompson Gain on Clinton, Giuliani, Poll Shows)

Even if you look really hard and pore over the poll results, you'll be hard-pressed to find why people are really in favor of or against any particular candidate or what the candidates think about specific issues. Another peculiarity is polls often tend to emphasize issues such as immigration and abortion rights.

However, it's impossible to get a broad idea of the candidate's stand on any issue.

For example, what does Obama think about Universal Health Care ? Defense Spending ? NAFTA ? Tax Cuts ? Iraq ? How many times did Obama vote in favor of the war ? What is his record on social issues ? Who exactly is donating to his campaign and WHY ?

What does Hillary Clinton have to say about Iraq ? Health Care ? Is she a war-monger ? Does she hire expensive PR firms to fine-tune her image ? What exactly does she mean by moral issues ? Does she mean gay rights ? poverty ? genocide ? Which one exactly ? Who are her campaign donors ?

And so on for each candidate (Republican or Democrat or whoever), you could ask the same set of questions and get no answers.

Instead, if you look at the bloomberg article, you'll see outright obfuscation. Here are but a few meaningless snippets as to why people favored (or disliked) particular candidates (also note the focus on making the elections sound like a sporting event). Abortion rights and immigration are mentioned often.

"A majority of Democrats say they favor ``a candidate who can bridge partisan divides'' -- a central theme of his campaign -- over a candidate ``with long experience in government and policy making,'' "

Obama is ``a new breed and I think he can work with other people better than she can,'' said John Bryan (new breed --- wonder what that means ?)

"A strong majority of poll respondents say national security is more important than social issues, such as abortion, where Giuliani's pro-choice position puts him out of sync with the majority of his party's voters. Giuliani does better with women voters than the other Republican candidates."

Thompson, 64, a former Republican senator from Tennessee, may also benefit from his fame as a film and television actor. ``When I watch him on `Law and Order' I've always loved him,'' said Al Pepe, a 79-year-old retired electronics manager from Jacksonville, Florida.

Penny Crider, a 44-year-old bus driver from Livonia, Michigan, says she opposes abortion and likes Thompson partly because he has consistently opposed abortion rights. ``His core beliefs have never changed,'' Crider, a Republican, said in a follow-up interview. ``He doesn't flip-flop.''

``He reminds me of Reagan,'' said Pepe, a Republican who favors Thompson. ``You want to listen to him.'"

Yes, corporate-sponsored candidates are toxic waste products of the PR industry.

The Futility of Lesser Evilism

When I posted on Lesser Evilism after the mid-term elections, I was hoping against hope that I would turn out wrong. But, 6 months later, turns out, its even worse I imagined. The Democrats have completely folded in the worst way possible. When are people going to realize that there isn't a "dime's worth of difference" between the 2 major parties ? Millions more Iraqis and thousands more Americans are going TO DIE due to the incredibly naive belief that voting for Democrats will create change. Both parties are accountable solely to corporate power.

Here is what the dastardly Democrats have been up to recently:

Dastardly Act I: Iraq Funding Bill: This mockery of a bill will essentially give another blank check for the war. Democrats will use this in a typically scheming way. When the Democrats want to look like they support the war, they'll say "we voted for the bill". Then some other pathetic Democratic (for example, obama, clinton) will try to look anti-war (fake -- its only to get votes) and say they voted against the bill. The Democrats as a party KNOW that the bill will get passed. These guys are incredibly two-timing and devious. Oh, by the way, no deadlines on the war. And lots and lots and lots of MONEY to kill, kill, kill. See Not a "Compromise," It's a Blank Check

Dastardly Act II: Top-secret Free Trade agreement. The Democrats are colluding with the Republicans to enable the passage (more like ramming it down the public throat) of another ultra-secret "free trade" agreement. The Democrats are basically going to trample over progressives and not give a damn. Oh, if its not obvious, the bill is secret and written by lobbyists. Goodbye ...worker protection, human rights, environment. See Dems Driving Triangulation "Over the Dead Bodies" of the Progressive Movement

Dastardly Act III: Oil Price Gouging Bill: The original bill by Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) -- HR 1252-- would have made it unlawful to sell crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates at a price that "is unconscionably excessive" or "indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage unusual market conditions (whether real or perceived) or the circumstances of an emergency to increase prices unreasonably." However, there was too much pressure from big oil. And guess what ? The bill was changed so that the FTC can enforce this only during presidentially-declared energy emergencies (never). See House Democrats Buckle Under Pressure from Big Oil, Strip Down Price Gouging Bill

This is all a bit too obvious for anyone with their eyes even slightly open. Utter disregard for public opinion by the Democrats and Republicans. What a travesty of democracy.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini

"There ain't a dime's worth of difference between 'em". --Waylon Jennings

Illusion of Democracy

By now, you're probably rejoicing over the fact that the Democrats are doing better than usual and those Republicans are getting what they deserve. And your natural instinct would be to expect things to change for the better. So lets look at the following example issues and contemplate the possibility of any substantial change actually being made by the Democrats.

• Oil
• Iraq/Afghanistan
• Defense spending (apparently someone thinks defense spending is going to slow down. US defense stocks take a hit
• Anyone with less than a billion dollars in their bank having a fair shot at being a senator/congressman
• Health Care
• Military Commissions Act (OK, torture, martial law, whats not to like ?)
• National Space Policy 2006 (aka renewed Star Wars, aka America's war on the Universe)
• Patriot Act(s)
• Prison Population (closely related to War on Drugs)
• Income inequality 
• Organized labor (I mean lack of)
• Gun Control
• GWBs signing statements
• "Tax Breaks"
• Global treaties on Global Warming, Nuclear Non-Proliferation and international law in general
• Apocalypse Soon
• Corrupt Lobbyists
• Corporate financed electoral candidates
• Elections being essentially an exercise in Public Relations (did you think democracy ?)
• Media Concentration

What are the chances that any of these (vital) issues are going to be tackled seriously (other than lip service) ? If you believe things are going to change significantly within the existing power system, keep dreaming. You think your vote counts ? Democracy as it exists currently is just an illusion. An election that fields candidates hand-picked by corporations isn't my idea of a democracy.

Will the real thugs please stand up ?

Recently, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president made some comments at the UN General Assembly referring to George Bush as a racist, imperialist "devil" who has devoted six years in office to military aggression and the oppression of the world's poorest people. Bush administration officials dismissed Chavez's remarks as the ravings of a reckless political leader. Here is the article

"I'm not going to dignify a comment by the Venezuelan president towards the United States," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said. "I think it's not becoming for a head of state."

"Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar but all he is an everyday thug," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference, referring to Chavez' comments in a U.N. General Assembly speech on Wednesday.

To determine who the real thugs (and reckless political leaders) are, consider the following acts on both sides and make your own judgment.

Nancy Pelosi & Unites states policy
Here are the positions of Nancy Pelosi which are more interesting because she is known as a "liberal".

• Supported a Republican-sponsored resolution calling for increasing military aid to Israel (supporting Tom Delay, a confirmed thug)
• Signed a letter that says that there should be no pressure on Israel to conform to International Law 
• Spoke to American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a right-wing lobbying group with close ties to the Sharon government (praising the Israeli government and condemning the Palestinians)
• In the past, she has opposed all congressional efforts to set any date for the withdraw of troops from Iraq, and has repeatedly supported full funding for the continuing occupation. She voted against a modest proposal offered by Congresswoman Woolsey that would eventually remove the U.S. military from Iraq. Only after public pressure did Pelosi finally endorse Murtha's withdrawal resolution (Murtha's resolution has it's own set of problems though).
• Pelosi Defends Assassination as a Political Tool 
• Pelosi is a major player in a completely spineless, clueless Democratic party.
• Is Pelosi democratically elected ? In the context of the finance driven, corrupt, 2 party election system in the Unites States, the answer is a resounding no! This applies to most other "elected" leaders.

Hugo Chavez & Venezuela policy

• Hugo Chavez is the democratically elected head of state (a real democratic election in this case). 
• Chavez uses multi-billion-dollar oil revenues to fund social projects that help the poor. These programs include literacy, health care, job training, land reform, subsidized food, small loans etc. 
• Chavez subsidizes cheaper oil for his cash-strapped Latin neighbors.
• In 1998, Chavez stood on a platform of sharing the nation's oil wealth with the poorest
• According to government figures, unemployment has dropped by 7% since the start of Chávez's presidency 
• During the winter of 2005, various officials in the Northeastern United States signed an agreement with Venezuela to provide discounted heating oil to low income families.
• Chávez worked closely with other Latin American leaders following the 1997 Summit of the Americas in many areas—especially energy integration—and championed a decision to adopt the Anti-Corruption Convention 
• Chavez is pushing full speed ahead with land reform
• Chavez signed an agreement to build a two-way gas pipeline to provide discounted natural gas to Colombia, and created unique barter arrangements that exchange Venezuelan petroleum for cash-strapped Argentina's meat and dairy products

Now I'm sure it's not all rosy in Venezuela and Chavez has his fair set of criticisms such as corruption and crime, but Chavez's social democratic approach is certainly changing the face of Latin America in a very positive way. And Nancy Pelosi is not all spineless either in that she has finally taken an anti-war stand and has urged the White House to stop using Social Security Administration as Propaganda Tool

However, anti-Chavez sentiment is so rabid that several American public figures have even gone so far as to call for the assassination of Chávez, most notably US Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson.

So will the real thugs please stand up ?