The Bailout: Corporate Socialism?

I'll be posting an essay soon (later tonight or tomorrow). In the meantime, check out these pieces on the bailout:

Watch this informative report ... I had imbedded it, but it would continuously play automatically... quite annoying.

Then watch Nader below!

Nader on the Corporate Bailout

Here is some interesting insight on the corporate bailout plan from our good friend, Ralph Nader:



What do you think?

Religion: Update and Reflections

UPDATE AND REFLECTIONS on Religion Post (9/08/08):

This post certainly stirred some debate and controversy, which I believe is part of healthy discourse. After several days of reflection, however, I'd just like to bring my thoughts back to earth.

Let me be clear: the fact that I find religion silly, does not mean that I don't respect an individual's choice to subscribe to a particular belief. I was a believer for a long time, and I am far from certain that there is nothing out there. But I will say that even if there is a higher being of some sort, is there not some point where everything just is? In other words, even if there is a god or Flying Spaghetti Monster, isn't there a line where there is nothing higher, and everything just exists for existence's sake?

Who knows, really?

Furthermore, while I am happy that I shared my opinions on religion, I should have emphasized the more important and vital aspect of it: that religion is being used by the powerful to influence the masses into going along and supporting their plots for increased (albeit short-term) power and wealth. The masterminds of the Bush Administration are not motivated purely by zealotry (though they may be in part), but by gaining strategic power and economic supremacy in the world.

Why Obama? Answer: Ending the Empire

Those who know me, know that the presidential candidate whom I supported has long been out of the competition. I'd say that I now align mostly with Ralph Nader (on the ballot in 45 states, by the way), but despite my inner urges, I will not be voting for him come November.

First, however, allow me to give an overview of how broken our electoral system is. First of all, 2 presidential elections have gone against the popular vote--in other words, the minority electoral college decides who wins, not the people. But the most important aspect of any election is the visibility of the debates. When Jesse Ventura was polling in the single digits during the race for governorship of Minnesota, there didn't seem to be much hope for the former pro-wrestler. Then he got into the debates, and bingo! Ventura connected with voters and ultimately won the race. Why was Nader forbidden to be a part of the debates of 2000 and 2004? Because the Commission of Presidential Debates is run by former Party heads--the Dems and Republicans. If you get into the debates, you have a real shot at winning, and the 2 party monopoly is not going to allow that to happen.

Despite Nader's efforts, I am confident that he will not be speaking at the debates, which is why I turn to Barack. As his public platform currently stands, Obama will be another status quo president who sold out to the military-industrial complex, which Eisenhower warned us so direly to avoid. His plans to increase military spending, grow the armed forces, and revamp efforts to develop new military technology simply feed into the United States Empire, and will be our downfall.

It is my hope that Obama is lying that I will be voting for him. That sounds really sad, actually ... that we are in a situation where we vote in anticipation for deception. Watch this video from early on in the Obama campaign (before he started going "centrist"):

This is promising, but I don't hear that anymore. If you check out his website, you can read all about his imperial policies. But I get it.  He has run with these kinds of policies.  After all, candidates who try to appeal more to the left tend to lose elections (though I would argue this is not a 'left' issue).  But I just pray that Obama has not lost himself in this campaign.  That he won't be like the others, and will scale the empire back.  The American people did not feel the Iraq War, but they are starting to.  And they will feel the next one.  If Obama is like the others (i.e., almost every president after WWII), I will be done with this sort of politics.  I will not throw my vote away ever again, and I will go the other way.

Americans will start to get it eventually.  The responsibility for change lies in government and the people.  When government fails, the Founding Fathers charged the people with fixing it.  Let me remind you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

--The Declaration of Independence, 1776

The Conclusion: Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003 part 7

For those of you who have been following this paper, thanks! It took a long time and a lot of research. If you'd like to read the whole thing, or to look at my Works Cited, go HERE. Also, I'd like to know how people liked the essay. Was it interesting enough? Did it help broaden your understanding in any way? Give it a rating and a comment if you want! Well here it is... the conclusion:

...With respect to the United States’ position towards Iran and its affairs with Iraq, the situation is quite complex. The neoconservative mission to establish regime change in Iran is certainly coming to odds against the idea that Iran is going to be a prolonged and even vital part of the future of Iraq. It seems as though the neoconservatives did not anticipate that the regime change in Iraq would drastically change the regional situation and make Iran more of a necessary force. Whether or not this fact will put a hold on the agenda is another matter.

It seems that Iran would not have much of a purpose to support insurgency efforts directed at undermining the Iranian-backed Iraqi government, no matter what U.S. officials may say—there is no solid evidence, and it is not a reasonable assumption. It is true that Iranian weapons are being used by people outside the “circle of Iranian and U.S. allies, but that doesn’t prove people’s loyalities. Saying that al-Sadr is loyal to Iran because his militias had some Iranian missiles is equivalent to saying that … [he] is loyal to the Soviet Union because they had some AK-47s.”[41]

But even if the Iranians were supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents, on what basis does the United States have the right to criticize? The U.S. preemptively invaded a sovereign nation, and is now an occupying force—Noam Chomsky says that in that situation, “you can’t have a serious discussion on whether or not someone else is interfering.”[42] It is a matter of imperial arrogance that drives this policy—the neoconservative belief in a new Middle East that is pro-United States. As a neighboring country, Iran certainly has more at stake in the future stability of the region—and that is a fact that should be respected. Iran will continue to be a vital presence in the future of Iraq, and the United States can either maintain its drumbeat towards another war, or it can turn to Iran for help in re-stabilizing the region that it so disrupted.

Not Ready

By this point it should be quite clear to voters that Sarah Palin is severely out of touch with the issues. Her record of fighting the pork-barrel spending of Congress has been grossly exaggerated, her statements regarding the War on Terror suggest that she simply does not understand what is going on in the world, and the fact that she had no idea of what the Bush Doctrine is proves it.

Sarah Palin did take on the Republican machine in Alaska, which is certainly commendable, but we should be more cautious when it comes to deciding the person who could very well be in control of the country's nuclear launch codes. Have you heard some of the things this lady has said? That the war in Iraq is a "task that is from God" ... "that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." Umm... that's some scary stuff.



Here is a fundamentalist Christian who believes that by fighting 'terrorists' in Iraq, we are serving the will of a supreme being... and she is seriously a candidate for the second most powerful job in the world? What will happen if President McCain dies in office? What course will she take if we are attacked again on her watch? A person so out of touch and with such radical views has no place in our government... I thought we had learned our lesson!

UPDATE: The McCain people believe that women will vote for gender; that they will turn their backs on values just to get a woman in the White House. I think McCain is in for a big surprise from the gals of the USA come Nov. 4. Hopefully.

The Choice

I'm going to let y'all in on a little secret of mine; it's the thing that keeps me going ... keeps me positive ... but above all, keeps me working to, for lack of better cliché, make a difference. It is the idea that no matter how messed up things are, many things have been improving. It's the essential belief that society makes a lot of mistakes, but that people learn and evolve in their sense of humanity.

Take, for instance, the idea that just less than fifty years ago segregation was an accepted aspect of American society. For those individuals who were born after that era, the idea of having a 'black' drinking fountain and a 'white' drinking fountain is absolutely inconceivable. It was just 88 years ago that women were granted the right to vote in this country, and only 55 years before that, people legally owned slaves. Your great or at least great great grandparents lived through that. Our social evolution has seen us change from individuals who kill for gain, to ones who view the act of murder with utter disdain; though I should point out that we still have a ways to go. We continue to kill as punishment for killing—as we justify killing in the ‘just’ wars; perhaps the distinction between people and governments ought to be made in this respect.

Of course I am generalizing to an extent. Many societies--primitive, advanced, and industrialized—have displayed desires to be more humane and tolerant communities, but the social advances of developed nations in the 21st Century are astronomical in comparison to the ways of yesteryear. To use the obvious examples: a black man may be President this year, and a woman may be Vice President. There will be a woman President, and soon there will be a gay President of the United States. And with the revolutionary development of the Internet, people everywhere are connecting and learning about each other and their plights like never before in all known history. The Internet will continue to grow, the world will continue to shrink, and tolerance will spread faster than we are able to conceptualize.

However, we must not constrain ourselves to the promises of tomorrow. A large part of the world does not have the wealth and prosperity that citizens of developed nations have been blessed with. Will Africa ever be able to catch up with the rest of the world? Or will there forever be a continent of suffering masses? Even more important are the negative implications that have come along with our advanced technology--the prime one being the ability to split the atom.

The world is now in a position where one false move and a series of bad decisions will obliterate all that we know. This unfathomable potential for doom is the one thing that could undo all of the progress humanity has made, and will prevent us from ever discovering what kind of people we could have become. Humanity will one day be faced with the choice: we will either continue the traditional route of aggression and nuclear politics, or we will realize that this struggle can be overcome. The day we realize that having enemies (and thereby making enemies) is no longer an acceptable or survivable threat, will be a great day.

How will the world change? What will the status of the traditional nation-states be? How will we fix broken government? Will world government become a reality?

It will likely take a true disaster for us to reach that point…

…but then again, humans have been known to be unpredictable buggers.

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 6

Okay, here is part 6 of my paper on the Iran-Iraq-U.S. situation post 2003. This is actually the first half of the conclusion... so only one more part to go! Oh yeah, and if you want to catch up on the previous installment (or just want them available for reference) check'em out: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and part 5.  Also, if you just want to read the whole thing (plus the Works Cited), go here.

....The fall of Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime in 2003 marked a new era in the relationship of Iran and Iraq. A once conflicted and even hateful affiliation as a result of territorial disputes, diplomatic breakdown, and aggression, has become something entirely new. Iran is now a key player in the inner-dynamics of Iraqi politics, and is being looked upon as a key stabilizing force. In fact, the stabilization of Iraq is in the best interests of Iran—especially if the resulting Iraqi leadership is friendly to Iran.

Iraqi fears of an overly influential Iran are also at play. Certain secular forces are concerned that an Iranian-style theocracy will be harbored within the walls of Iraqi government, and some Sunnis are also worried that a Shiite “crescent” is being created in the region. Though Iranian influence within Iraqi politics is undeniable, it is worthy to note that Iraqi groups maintain their independence from Iran. Muqtada al-Sadr, for example, said in an interview that he told Ayatollah Khamenei (the Iranian Supreme Leader) “we share the same ideology, but that politically and militarily, I would not be an extension of Iran, and that there were negative things that Iran was doing in Iraq.”[40]

It is important to remember that while Iranians and Iraqis may share ideology, they are still ethnically diverse. From different lineages and with different languages, it is difficult for me to imagine that Iraqis would be willing to be controlled by Iran—there is still a strong sense of nationalism among Iraqis that I believe would prevent an Iranian-based, theocratic government in Iraq. That is not to say that Iran’s influence is irrelevant, because it most certainly is not. As we saw in the Basra situation, Iran holds a considerable amount of sway over the various forces in Iraq.

RELIGION: part dos

Not too long ago one of my old buddies from the "Evangelical Students-having-fun-while-proselytizingonthebeach Club" asked if I'd follow up on one of my very early posts dealing with how fucked religion is. Here goes.

Religion is the biggest bullshit mankind EVER CREATED. If you seriously believe that an invisible man lives in the sky and talks to people via talking bushes, you are severely lacking reason. If you believe in snakes that speak, I hope you aren't in a position of power. If you think that a "merciful" god is one who sends "sinners" into the fiery pits of eternal damnation, you are nuts.

Judgmental? Sure it is. But let me put it to you this way: it's "non-believers" like me who are the minority; we are the ones who are shamed by society for not believing in the Supreme Being. We are the ones who wonder if the President would be as willing to get our soldiers killed if he didn't believe they were going to heaven.

But I'm not a "non-believer", I'm just a rationalist. There is no God, there are no virgin-births, divine sons, or giant arks. Talking bushes are simply ridiculous, just like Humpty-Dumpty and Little Red Riding Hood are only fairy-tales.

Oh yeah: Jesus and Santa are the same guy. You were duped. I was duped. It's okay.

UPDATE AND REFLECTIONS (9/24/08):

This post certainly stirred some debate and controversy, which I believe is part of healthy discourse. After several days of reflection, however, I'd just like to bring my thoughts back to earth.

Let me be clear: the fact that I find religion silly, does not mean that I don't respect an individual's choice to subscribe to a particular belief. I was a believer for a long time, and I am far from certain that there is nothing out there. But I will say that even if there is a higher being of some sort, at some point everything just is. In other words, even if there is a god or Flying Spaghetti Monster, at some point there is nothing higher, and everything just exists for existence's sake.

But who knows, really?

Furthermore, while I am happy that I shared my opinions on religion, I should have emphasized the more important and vital aspect of it: that religion is being used by the powerful to manipulate the masses into going along and supporting their plots for increased (albeit short-term) power and wealth.

State of Affairs

Did you know that if you and I had a conversation that was critical of the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq, that we could be labelled as "conspirators" according to an Executive Order dated July 17, 2007?  Our assets can be frozen, our homes can be seized, and we can be rendered as "non-persons" by the U.S. government.  Habeas Corpus has been thrown out the window; we are a nation that tortures; the U.S. government defied international law, and illegally invaded a sovereign nation based on a false premise -- oh yeah, and they are listening in on your conversations --and cutting health care for kids... and the media is totally complicit.

I hope you are upset.  

Iran, Iraq, and the United States Post 2003: Part 5

The next part on my essay dealing with the geo-political aspects of the relationship between Iran, Iraq, and the U.S.A. post 2003 (see the others in the recent archives):

Though much emphasis has been put on some of the more friendly aspects of Iranian-Iraqi relations, there are those Iraqis who oppose Iranian influence. The underlying fear is that Iran will take advantage of Iraq in its weakened state—attempting to instill its own theocratic government. In July 2004, “Iraqi interim Defense Minister Hazem Sha’alan proclaimed that Iran remained his country’s ‘first enemy’, supporting ‘terrorism and bringing enemies into Iraq … Iran interferes in order to kill democracy.’”[34] Sha’alan added that the Iranians “are fighting us because we want to build freedom and democracy, and they want to build an Islamic dictatorship and have turbaned clerics to rule in Iraq.”[35] In addition to this fear, “King Abdullah II of Jordan warned that repercussions of Iran’s influence in Iraq could be felt throughout the region and could lead to a ‘crescent’ of dominant Shiite movements or governments stretching through Iraq and into Syria, Lebanon and the Gulf, altering the traditional balance of power between Shiites and Sunnis and posing new challenges to the interests of the U.S. and its allies.”[36]

Accusations of Iran sending over a million citizens across the border into Iraq in order to vote in the Iraqi elections have also been made. King Abdullah commented, “I’m sure there’s a lot of people, a lot of Iranians in there that will be used as part of the polls to influence the outcome. It is in Iran’s vested interest to have an Islamic Republic of Iraq … and therefore the involvement you’re getting by the Iranians is to achieve a government that is very pro-Iran.”[37] Similar concerns from some of Iraq’s Sunnis have been voiced—accusing Iran of “actively seeking to create a Shiite satellite regime through intelligence operations, financial support and propaganda campaigns.”[38]

Though Iran favors a Shia-led, independent, and democratic Iraq, it would be foolish to ignore their caution to the enormous threat that the United States poses to them. Naser Chaderchi, head of Iraq’s National Democratic Party, said:

The Iranians believe that if there is stability in Iraq, the Americans would consider moving against Iran next. I don’t think the Iranians want to create uncontrollable chaos in Iraq, though. They want a manageable chaos, and they share this approach with other neighboring states.[39]

However, I am curious to know if this viewpoint has changed since Iran has gained considerably more influence within Iraq. If leading elements of the United States government are beginning to suggest that Iran has a crucial role in the stabilization of Iraq, then perhaps the Iranian fear of invasion is moot.