Surrealpolitic for surreal times.: August 2006

8.31.2006

Loansharking with the IMF

Like any good mob boss, they'll tell you the best way to keep anyone in line is by employing two methods: the first is the threat of violence and the other is by making them dependent on you financially. And then threatening them with violence if they don't pay it back. Such is the philosophy of the IMF with the muscle of the Pentagon and they are making offers some are refusing.

The IMF was formed near the end of World War II when America saw that it was going to be the predominant economic global power. Forty-four nations met at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to design a system that would establish a stable economic standard by which all nations could agree. In short they wanted to set a standard for the price of gold to which every government could affix their currencies, make sure that no nation would place restrictive tariffs on trade and control devaluations of principal rates. All good things. Until you read the fine print. The IMF would also loan money to poor and developing nations to promote infrastructural programs aimed at returning short term dividends to the IMF. And let's be clear on what the IMF is: it's an extension of the U.S. Treasury and Washington's political will.

Basically, what the IMF does is work with Washington's client states, a good example was Suharto of Indonesia, one of the bloodiest dictators to ever wear a sash. We loaned him, through the IMF, millions of dollars to help "develop" Indonesia. What did that mean exactly? It meant that Suharto let American and European corporate interests into his nation to grab whatever raw materials they needed while he purchased a new palace and whatever military hardware he needed to keep the sash from disgruntled citizens (it is estimated that he killed nearly a million - all under Washington's watch). This would be a dispicable enough policy if it weren't for the deep and unabiding hypocrisy that followed. If Suharto himself were responsible for the loan that would be fair and adhering to the rules of capitalism which the IMF purportedly promotes. Instead, however, Suharto "socialized" the loan forcing his people pay it back through taxes which drove his population into deeper poverty while providing no social services such as hospitals, public transportation or roads. And don't think because you're an American you're exempt. In the 1990s, when Mexico defaulted on its IMF loan, the American goverment was there, with your tax dollars, to make sure they stayed solvent. We did this to show the world that no one is getting out of their debt even if it means we loan you more money. Not exactly the way a normal bank operates, but then again most banks, after making a loan, don't come into your house, sell your furniture and clothes and then your youngest daughter into slavery.

Things are changing however, and that means Washington is getting nervous. Argentina, after suffering its worst economic disaster in their nation's history had the comforting words of U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill to assuage any fears: "... the key factor underlying recent financial crises is not a failure of capitalism, but an 'absence of capitalism'." What he failed to mention was that the IMF was the reason why there was an "absence of capitalism". If Argentina were free to export their own goods and keep the money for themselves to reinvest in their own growth, that would be capitalism. So, Argentina said enough to the IMF and now is looking at an economic recovery of about 8 percent annually. And they're not the only ones. Brazil has done it, Bolivia is following suit by nationalizing their petroleum industry and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is leading the anti-American/IMF cry for all to hear.

But Washington isn't lying down. Like any mob, if they can't use the threat of violence (as in the failed U.S. coup of Hugo Chavez) they'll actually use the real thing. Already military training is being shifted from the State Department to the Pentagon where there is no Congressional oversight. This only happens when the American Goverment is about to break some kneecaps. They are also sending "military advisors" to the region to train a new breed of contras. We've seen this all before, but this time it might be different. There are no communists to blame anymore and no one is going to believe that Latin American terrorists are going to attack us. Who knows? Maybe the American people will stand up and tell their goverment to leave Latin America alone before Hugo Chavez wakes up with a severed horse head.

8.30.2006

Everything Oil Is New Again.

In a speech August 30th at Purdue University, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar said that Russia, Iran and Venezuela's adversarial "regimes" (quotes mine) threaten U.S. energy supplies and that these three countries' use of these supplies as leverage against their neighbors increases the chance of future conflict over diminishing supplies. Thank God we're not any of their neighbors or we too might be drawn into conflict.

It comes as no surprise that nations go to war over diminishing resources since it has been the cause of every major conflict ever. What should come as a surprise is that our nation has all the resources it needs to completely kick dependancy on foriegn oil and we still can't. Politicians will tell you it's a complicated geo-political situation and that it simply can't happen overnight and they are right. It can't happen overnight. It should have happened in 1973 when we all knew this was going to be a problem.

When Richard Nixon was still in office (our oil problems began before Carter although many Reagan campaign managers would have you think differently) the energy 'crisis' truly began in this country and coincidentally when many Americans first learned their oil actually came from somewhere else. At that point, when America first realized that we were no longer in control of our most important resource, did we do the smart thing? No. We did not. In fact, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, our dependence on foreign oil nearly doubled since that year. In 1972 the U.S. imported 28 percent of its oil versus the 55 percent it does today and projections show that 25 years from now, we're looking at 70 percent. And guess where that oil is coming from? Not Canada, my friends.

"So maybe this Iraq war was a good thing, Mr. Surrealpolitic. If we set up a puppet regime in one of the richest oil producing states in the Middle East, our problems are solved! It's like a pipeline right to our own gas stations that will never ever end." You might say this and, on paper, it would probably look good. So how is it working for you now? Not so good I'm thinking. We must realize by now that not only has our mishandling of this war emboldened our enemies in the region, but it has now elevated Iran to the dominant political force in the Middle East and if you think they're not going to pull the strings in Iraq once we leave, please take a look at a map. And if Iran is going to influence the Middle East, you can bet they're going to have something to say about the price of oil and who gets it.

What we should do is look at Brazil who has, since the 1973 oil crisis, weened themselves off foreign sources of oil by about 40 percent. 20 percent of that comes from ethanol, a product we can easily make in this country. So why don't we? Well, I believe Vice President Cheney (who held an 'energy policy' meeting in which the biggest American oil companies were invited to attend but not the press) said it best for this Administration: "Conservation is a personal virtue." Meaning that if you want to conserve, go ahead my friend while I guzzle this bottle of WD-40 for lunch. Besides, why should we conserve when we have the greatest military on Earth to get whatever resources we need whenever we need it? That plan seems to be working well enough.

Not to be glib, the world oil production is projected to increase by about 65 percent in the next 30 years; three quarters of that from OPEC countries. Here's another fun fact from the International Energy Agency I'll bet you didn't want to know: "Since most OPEC reserves are located in the Middle East, by 2030, Middle Eastern producers will supply 50 percent of U.S. oil imports, 50 percent of Europe's, 80 percent of China's and 90 percent of Japan's." So, Senator Lugar, I suggest you who drive a Prius (he does, actually) should maybe talk to your friends up there in Washington and see what you can do about a different energy policy. After all, we only have so many troops.

8.28.2006

Got a Light, Mexico?


Today the top electoral Mexican court discounted presidential candidate Obrador's allegation that massive fraud handed his opponent, Calderon victory. The judges, all seven, voted unanimously to reject the leftist candidate's suit for a total recount of every ballot. Takes you back, doesn't it?

What is very different in this case, is that their population isn't lying down and being told what to do. They are demanding democracy and no, democracy isn't clean and doesn't end when you cast your ballot. Obrador's followers are demonstrating nationally, threatening to shut down services and even suggesting armed, civil resistance. They are asking the question we should have asked in 2000: "If we call our government a democracy and our president isn't democratically elected, what are we?" Well, they asked that question and didn't like the answer, so they took to the streets and are fighting for a government for and by the people. Not one handed down by seven judges with their own motives.

Whether Obrador is actually in the end the winner, his claims need to be addressed: Each ballot box starts with a certain amount of ballots that get handed out to voters, so when you get that box back, there should be the same amount, only there weren't. But it wasn't just a few areas that this discrepency existed; it was for a majority of the country. A majority. That means that over 50% of the ballot boxes, and by extension votes, are not accurate. That alone is reason for a recount, but there's more. When the judges did manage to authorize a recount for one precinct, they found that Calderon lost nearly 13,000 votes or about 1%. Obrador didn't lose any. If you did just one box and found this to be true, wouldn't you press for a full recount? Finally, and to me the most damning reason why Obrador's voters (and really all Mexicans should be angry), the judges won't release the recount for the precincts that followed. If anyone reads this blog, does any of this sound familiar?

In America after the 2000 general election debacle, no one took to the streets, the media refused to defend our democracy and the country rolled over and said "who cares"? If you were a Republican happy with the outcome of the 2000 election, consider this: It doesn't matter what party you belong to if no one counts your vote and there may be some day when you actually want your vote counted. If, however, you are an American first, take a good look at to your neighbors to the south. Hopefully they're relighting the torch we extinguished six years ago.

8.25.2006

Winter Wonderland: Diagnosis for Murder!

In an effort to not sound like the most boring political blogger, I will once in a while write a personal essay on anything I feel strongly about. Today, it's the lyrics of "Winter Wonderland" and the sinister undertone I believe the song represents. This has nothing to do with politics or history. This has to do with it being Friday and not wanting to share my thoughts on anything but a Christmas song's dark metaphor. Read this, it could save your life!

In the lyrics to "Winter Wonderland" by Richard B. Smith, do we hear the delights of Christmas and a deliriously joyful snowtopia or do we hear the whisperings of a brutal slaying in the Florida Everglades by two insane, oversexed, drug-crazed clown freaks? I'll let the lyrics speak for themself. "Sleigh bells ring/are you listening?/In the lane, snow is glistening./A beautiful sight, we're happy tonight/walking in a winter wonderland." Here we establish that there are two people walking in what would appear to be a snow covered lane in the evening. But when we strip away the veneer of lies, and exchange "sleigh bells" with police sirens (a common euphimism among cocaine dealers - so I am told) and "snow" with the obvious nose candy, a more frightening image arises. Instead we have a picture of two coked-up junkies in a fetid apartment. They lift their heads from the coffee table only when a police siren rings in their neighborhood, like animals listening for a predator at a water hole. Once satisfied they are safe, they continue shoving line after line of sweet white powder up their eroded nasal passages. And it only gets worse from here.

"Gone away is the bluebird here to stay is a new bird./He sings a love song as we go along/walking in a winter wonderland." This is where we find out the female coke fiend is already married to their coke supplier or as he is later referred to, "the snowman". "Gone away is the bluebird, here to stay is the new bird" is simply another expression for "my husband is gone and I now have another lover". Unfortunately, for the blue bird, it's going to get worse. A lot worse.

"In the meadow we can build a snowman./Then pretend that he is Parson Brown./He'll say: Are you married? we'll say: No man/But you can do the job when you're in town." At this point we are introduced to "Parson Brown" and it gets seriously ugly. Parson Brown is probably the scariest character in a song lyric I have ever come across and no, Virginia, he is not a real Parson. Simply put, he is a vicious murderer who will kill you as soon as put on shoes. These two coke-addled adulterers turn to Parson Brown to assist in killing "the snowman". Parson then asks if they are married to each other, and they reply, "No, but we'd like to be, if you know what I'm saying." Parson Brown understands very well what they are saying and promises to murder the unsuspecting husband the next time he's in the neighborhood, so casual is his relationship with the value of human life.

This next stanza is fairly cut and dry: "Later on we'll conspire/as we dream by the fire./To face unafraid, the plans that we've made/walking in a winter wonderland." Here we have the image of the two waiting for Parson Brown to return with news of the killing while burning all evidence of their connection in a fire. It is a respite from the horrors of the song as the listener is taunted with images of these two quietly imagining their life together once they collect her husband's insurance money.

The last two stanzas are some of the most disturbing and terrifying lyrics I have ever heard. Read, if you can: "In the meadow we can build a snowman and pretend that he's a circus clown./We'll have lots of fun with mister snowman until the alligators knock him down." It is implied that Parson Brown does not return with news of the murder, but instead with the living person of her husband. They bring him to the swamp and, for some reason maybe only Mr. Smith is privy, they "pretend that he's a circus clown" or dress "the snowman" (husband/coke supplier) up as a clown. After all, why not humiliate the guy by first dressing him up as a clown before torturing him? That's when the real party begins.

Conjure in your mind's eye being at the mercy of two violent coke gremlins and a professional killer and all that their imaginations can give birth to in a swamp while they 'have lots of fun' with a helpless clown. What would fun look like to those three? I don't want to know. Afterwards, they leave his tortured and almost lifeless body as food for alligators. It's perfect. If the police ever find his chewed up body, it'll be dressed as a clown. It'll look like he went insane, put on a clown outfit and ran through the Florida Everglades until his untimely demise in a crocodile's intestines. And now, the taunting end: "When it snows ain't it thrilling./Though your nose gets a chilling./We'll frolic and play the Eskimo way,/walking in a winter wonderland." I don't know if anything needs to be said here. The two, once they've fed the husband to the swamp beasts, now embark on a sickening display of cocaine usage not seen again until the 1980s.

I understand a lot of people will view this as nonsense, but the facts are there, right in front of your eyes and they've been there all along. If you choose to view this song as a brainless tribute to the delights of winter, be my guest. But for those of you who will "face unafraid" this song's true message, I encourage you to learn from this morality tale. Don't do cocaine. Don't conspire to kill your coke dealing spouse in a humiliating, clown related death and don't EVER turn to Parson Brown. He is one bad man.

8.24.2006

Newt, Gore and Pluto.

Today the International Astronomical, an organization of 2,400 astronomers demoted Pluto to a "dwarf planet" thus stripping it of all rights and privileges a full planet enjoys. Revisionism it would seem, isn't relegated solely to our celestial bodies. Right here on Earth we are witnessing some orbital redrawing in the American political solar system. Planets Newt and Gore, two bodies that at one time orbited each other are now reclassified and ready for another name.

Planet Gore, who hasn't declared his political ambitions yet, has released his film An Inconvenient Truth in which he discusses the dangers of global warming and the steps we need to take to avert the coming disasters. Al Gore is now casting himself as the number one Eco-Politico. (We have to discount citizen Nader because his unwelcome presence in the 2000 race helped put George, The Toxic Avenger, Bush at the helm. He couldn't have done more to harm the environment if he had raped and killed a thousand baby seals with his own hands.) As a Congressmen, Senator and Vice President, Gore served each office for eight years and in all that time, Al Gore, wasn't the Jolly Green Giant he is now.

Gore supported a "breeder" nuclear reactor (a reactor that breeds fuel) which was so perilous a project that it was ultimately killed in 1983 during the Reagan Administration. Gore also had about a half a million dollars invested in Occidental Petroleum at the time it was drilling on the sacred lands of the Colombia's Uwa tribe. That is all dwarfed, of course, by the passage of NAFTA and GATT during his tenure as Vice President. You want to talk about ecologically unfriendly legislation? These bills, which were drafted outside of our democratic institutions and by international corporations, mind you, were passed without hardly a peep in the media. These bills make it impossible for developing nations to enforce or even draft laws establishing safety regulations, unions or even the most basic environmental standards. NAFTA and GATT have both done more to gut environmental standards across the globe than anything Gore could fix in Kyoto.

Meanwhile on planet Newt, who has declared his political intentions for '08, there is also a rush to reclassify. This is "You Will Forget" Newt. The Newt that appeared on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, speaking on the Iraq war "...when I look back and I think about what we felt ... I think it was the right war, it was the right decision." and then, when YOU didn't like the war "You Will Forget" Newt said at the University of South Dakota, "It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003." This is the Newt that was so appalled over President Clinton's indescretion that he compared the subsequent coverup to the worst "obstruction of justice ... we have ever seen in American history" but the "You Will Forget" Newt played hide the gavel with his own aide, Callista Bisek. And it's also the Newt that divorced his wife because "She isn't young enough or pretty enough to the President's wife." (Truth be told, he divorced her because she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery and chemo is hell on a lady.) But even the "You Will Forget" Newt probably wants to forget that one too.

Does "You Will Forget" Newt really think we're going to forget? Not to mention that when his indiscretion started to unfold, he resigned so fast you didn't even know he was gone and replaced by another Speaker of the House who also resigned because of sexual indiscretions. (Remember Speaker Livingston? Neither do I.) At least Clinton took his punishment like a man. Gingrich didn't even take off his belt.

So, back on Earth we have one less official planet revolving around our glorious sun, but we have a multitude of political stars with which to gaze.

8.22.2006

They Gambled and Lost.

It comes as no surprise that Washington has backed Israel from the start. We needed a client-state in the region and Israel needed a patron. They keep their mouth shut when we torture Arabs and we keep our mouth shut about their nuclear weapons. Everyone needs a pal who knows their most intimate secrets and who won't go blabbing to the press at every little indiscretion. So why did we gamble so freely with Israel's future?

While Israel was laying waste to Southern Lebanon, the Bush Administration waited to call for a cease-fire or as Ms. Rice claimed "... we have insisted that a truly effective cease-fire requires a decisive change from the status quo that produced this war." Meaning that the Administration won't do anything until Hezbollah is destroyed utterly. It's no secret that this is what they wanted. Can you imagine Bush waiting a month to call for a cease-fire if Hezbollah invaded Israel? He would have put on his unused Air National Guard flight suit himself to defend their borders. So when Ms. Rice referred to the "decisive change from the status quo that produced this war" I think she was hoping for a different change altogether.

What the neo-cons had in mind was a new Isreali supremacy over Southern Lebanon with a greatly reduced Hezbollah force. As the war raged on however, it became increasingly obvious that Hezbollah was a lot more trained and prepared (thanks in small part to the British) than anyone thought. The Administration once again gambled on a war and lost. Only this time, it's going to cost a lot more than anyone's letting on.

Israel, whether you like them or not, protect U.S. interests in the region. They may be the single greatest asset we have politically, intelligence-wise and militarily in the Mid-East and the Administration has almost single-handedly put all of that in jeopardy with their stupid "change from the status quo" policy. One of Israel's greatest bargaining chips was military force. Every year that Israel faced an Arab force (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982) they won and this therefore allowed them to put pressure on their Arab neighbors to sit down and negotiate. After this last war, everything has changed. No, Israel did not lose, but neither were they able to destroy their opponent and that will be heard throughout the region. Anyone who has ever wished to spill Isreali blood (and by now there are multitudes) will be waiting in line to join the only force in modern history capable of doing so: Hezbollah. Right now Israel looks like a surfer to a hungry shark.

While Bush and Rice were waiting for what they believed would be the ultimate outcome, they should have been dealing with Iran and Syria to get Hezbollah to stop the war. Yes, it would have been hard. Yes, it would have meant talking to people the Administration disagrees with, but maybe it's time to gamble on diplomacy instead of a game that apparently Bush and Rice have no idea how to play.

8.21.2006

This Round's On Me, Mr. President!

Who gave the President Truth Pills? Well, maybe not "entire truth" pills. Karl Rove is still in control of the medicine cabinet to which Mr. Cheney presides. But there is a whiff of honesty coming from the President and it smells like Eau de Strategy with just a base note of desperation. The President did something today that, to my knowledge, he has never done in a press conference. He spoke to the American people as though he respected them. As though he had that elusive political characteristic: "someone you could have a beer with".

After 9/11, The Bush Administration had a free pass for several months to make a case against any nation it found responsible. They chose Afghanistan, which was the right country because the Taliban (Afghanistan's then ruling party) were harboring Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, we had more than one enemy abroad and the Administration had perhaps another year to start a war before the national elections. So out came images of mushroom clouds and anthrax vials in the U.N. General Assembly. Out came falsified documents and punitive outings of C.I.A. agents. Out came the hew and cry of the "un-patriot", the "like it or leave it" jingoist slogans. And out came the arrogance of an Administration that didn't just refuse to listen to polls, but also their generals, their intelligence agencies and the international community. And then, out came the war.

What I find so odd about the Administration's failure to listen to anyone or to concern themselves with what other people thought, was the great possibility that if they were honest in the first place, we would have actually supported the endeavor. Not everyone, of course, but a lot more than 40%. I don't think anyone with even a fourth grade education believes that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, yet that's how the Administration spoke to us.

I will be honest. I was for the invasion of Iraq. But I wanted it done correctly. I wanted the United States to overthrow a dictator (who we installed, I know), and to threaten anyone in the region from ever attacking us again. And I believe that's what the Bush plan was. (Of course Dick Cheney's friends who have made untold profits had their own agenda, but in war, the vermin feed especially well.) The Administration wanted to threaten Iran, Syria and anyone else who wanted to assist in attacking our cities. And is that a bad idea considering what we've gone through? I say it is not.

So now, instead of hearing sixteen blatantly false words about Iraq and nuclear proliferation in the State of the Union, we have a press conference in which the following exchange occurs:

Bush: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were ...

Reporter: What did Iraq have to do with ... The attacks upon the World Trade Center?

Bush: Nothing. Except for it's part of - and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. ... The lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize. Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. Now I said, going into Iraq, We've got to take these threats seriously before they full materialize. I saw a threat.

Okay, so the prescription for truth got mixed a little with the "revisionist history" medication. "I saw a threat" is a hell of a lot different from "We know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." And to say that nobody's ever "suggested in his administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack" when Dick Cheney was reportedly said to have asked the C.I.A. to provide him with evidence linking Iraq with 9/11 is just silly. I still think his Administration has broken more laws since, well, anyone. But at the very least he's admitting, finally, the truth as to why we invaded Iraq. It's not much, but it's a start. If he keeps this up, I may have a beer with him.

8.17.2006

Democrats: What War?

There was a time when making fun of the Red Sox's losing streak was an even bigger past-time than baseball itself. But then it got old and the Red Sox were released from the icy death grip of Babe Ruth's curse. There is another past-time that is almost as old and it's called "let's see how those wacky Democrats will to screw themselves next?" Will it be a trip on the Monkey Business? Maybe a ride in a tank? A liason with an intern? Or how about attacking Wal-Mart while we are engaged in one of the most ill-advised conflicts since Vietnam? Yeah, that sounds about right.

While our boys are fighting and dying for reasons that still have not been made clear, the Democrats just can't seem to find any moral backbone to help them stand upright. So they attack the largest employer in America. Why not just take a stand against cancer or child abuse? Hey! Democrats! It's the WAR stupid!

George Bush's approval ratings are in the twenties and the Democrats refuse to take on his biggest failing: foreign policy. This war can be connected to foiled terror plots, rising oil prices, Iran's nuclear proliferation and the latest conflict between Isreal and Hezbollah. And if they're not comfortable dining at the banquet of the President's lack of foreign policy vision, please, help yourself to heapings of domestic dishes such as the failure to act while hundreds drowned in New Orleans, or while his Veep's friends are raping thier pension funds he has done nothing to strengthen laws against white collar crime ... my GOD, the list is endless, and what do they choose to attack? Wal-Mart.

If you really want to show people you are against Wal-Mart, why not pass some laws making it illegal for a company to pay so little that their employees STILL have to depend on Medicare and food stamps? Or how about enforcing laws that prevent companies from union busting or refusing to pay overtime? But that would mean actual legislation and, let's face it, the Democrats are not going to put a bill before Congress that would ever dampen the bright sunshine of Wal-Mart's stock price. After all, the business of America is business.

Senator Clinton, who recently refused to accept a $5,000 donation to her campaign from the conglomerate, still has to explain why it was okay to be on their board when many of these callous and theiving policies were drawn up. And I'm sure she's not the only one who's slept with the big, soulless yellow smiley face. Are these the people who are going to protect us? I'm not buying it and neither will the American people.

But the Democrats do have an issue they can sound sincere about: the war. So, instead of attacking the Republicans where they are weakest, namely their leader, they are villifying a company that is the result of poor legislation, failed enforcement and, basically a bully who everyone already hates. Go Sox!

8.16.2006

Hezbollah Offers New Orleans' Victims Assistance

As soon as the recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel ended, a responsibility vacuum was created. Without roads, foods or medical supplies, Southern Lebanon has become a humanitarian disaster area. It has also become an opportunity for any of the major players to build relations with the war victims. And it looks as though the American administration is once again, going to wait until it's too late.

How strong Hezbollah remains militarily will depend largely on these next few weeks. As of now, the Iranian-backed militia has offered a years rent to anyone who's lost their home during the war. Not only that, but they are literally building new homes, they are providing food, water and disbursing money to the people in the region who need it the most: the war victims. So why isn't this Administration leaping to action to win "hearts and minds" of those who are looking for assistance? After all, this administration has done everything it could to wipe Hezbollah out using Israel as its muscle. Well, we are, but we're working with the wrong people: the Lebanese government. The one who has absolutely no control of what occurs inside its own borders. We are sending them upwards of $50 million dollars to spend as they think necessary and their priority isn't going to be rebuilding a poor, war torn area first. They're going to build the areas that will create the wealth; ports, bridges and factories. And it is this short-sighted, unimaginative logic which is the real reason we have no footing in the Middle East.

America has an opportunity to turn this region around by showing people what we are capable of building, not just bombing. With a few simple acts of charity this administration can undermine the loyalty of Hezbollah's constituents by showing them that America is not just a fist smashing down on the region indiscriminately robbing any nation we see fit of its natural resources. We now have the opportunity to show up, as heroes, but with sacks of grain, piles of lumber and a few thousand hammers, not with two six-shooters blazing.

Given our current administration, this seems unlikely. Whether you agree with Hezbollah or not, they are busy creating a base of supporters by providing kindness to a region that is their home. Back in the United States of America, the wealthiest (for now) nation on the planet, we have a President who can't even cut his vacation short while a thousand of his own citizens die needlessly in a hurricane. If you were in Southern Lebanon, with whom would you side?

8.12.2006

France determined to spread monarchy to New World.

Paris, FRANCE - Today the French Monarchy declared that "French troops would stay in the former British colonies until a monarchy is formed and able to defend itself. It is our devine right to spread monarchy to the world."

This decision brought much concern and anger from the leaders of the American resistance to the British occupation. General George Washington, the most likely King of the newly formed nation was irritated saying "We appreciate the French assistance in our affairs and would now like the opportunity to set our own national goals. We would ask that our nation is permitted to practice self-determination as is our right as a goverment. As a people."

Although colonial leaders such as General Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton have all agreed to work with the governing French Monarchy, many colonists have decided to take up arms to drive the French presence from their newly birthed nation.

One of these, Aaron Burr, a highly successful leader of the colonial militia was ready to fight again. "They [The French] have helped us gain our freedom from a tyrannical, and unjust governance, and now we must heed their word as law. We've simply replaced one King for another."

Over four-hundred French soldiers have been killed in 'hit and run' attacks by armed colonists since the British withdrawal and the violence seems to be spreading. General Washington, who is not in favor of such attacks, certainly understood the mounting frustrations of his constituents. "I do not condone the killing of French soldiers. Soldiers who aided us in the overthrowing of the yoke of our oppressors, but when they [the French] police our streets speaking a foreign language and begin to export our lumber, grain and other raw materials for their own profit, then I too begin to wonder of the sincerity of their presence."

Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes, the French Ambassador to the Americas, was calm but spoke gravely. "We must continue to hold the course here in the Americas and fight the insurgency. It is too important strategically for it to fall into anarchy. We will remain here until we feel confident that the American leadership can govern itself with a stable monarchical bloodline. Until then, we will endure."

8.11.2006

We're Still Smelling that Abramoff Stench.

When Congress tried to shut down your right to live the way you want to, who was there to defend you? When those government bureaucrats were going to break into your house and prevent you from doing what you want to do on your own computer, who was there to say "Thus far and no father!" And finally, who was there to tell the long arm of the Washington politician to mind his own business so you could be robbed the way you want to be robbed? It was Jack Abramoff - defender of the American Gambler!

On July 11th, 2006, The House approved a bill to curb online poker games, sports wagering and other Internet betting. Why? When gambling is for the most part legal in this country. There are currently 11 states that allow commercial casinos in some form, but almost all allow lotteries or some other, more regulated version of chance games including riverboats. Riverboats aren't considered a permanent fixture and so therefore are free from state regulations. So why the government's fixation on internet gambling?

For three reasons, one a structural, one protective and the other: surrealpolitic.

The first reason is because the I.R.S. simply haven't the resources to monitor online winnings. Nearly 6 billion dollars (Congressional Research Service) pass between suckers and owners so you can understand why Washington is salivating at getting their share. After all, like any good gang, if you don't get a cut, you have no reason to let some other mug muscle in on your action.

The second reason is that terrorists may or may not be setting up online casinos to gain finances to blow us up. This isn't a fact, but it's worth investigating.

The third and most probable reason, is that Jack Abramoff (and Tom Delay) are no longer there to protect the American gambler from the Grinches in Washington. You see, when Jack was taking those millions of dollars from Indian casinos he was also the point man for the online casinos. Many conservatives said, with a straight face, that they were shocked when they realized who was behind the lobbying for online casinos. After all, who bothers to investigate such matters? If Osama Bin Laden was lobbying to dismantle the FAA, I'm sure no one would notice. Also, Republicans were fulfilling their natural instincts, like that scorpion stinging the frog taking it across the river saying as it drowned, "It's in my nature." They were just instinctively protecting personal freedoms.

Until, of course, they had to run for cover while Abramoff self-destructed leaving parts of his gooey center all over K Street. Then, goodbye personal freedoms and hello new prohibition! Only six days (Washington is known for many things, but not subtlety) after a similar measure was defeated, the House, with great fervor, approved HR 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, a bill to curb online gambling. It passed 317 - 93. Of the 93 nays, 76 were Democrats and 17 Republicans all of whom most likely had nothing to fear from the Abramoff stench. So now you have a majority of Democrats voting against governmental intervention on our personal rights. That's right, It's surrealpolitics.

Republican Robert W. Goodlatte, one of the legislation's chief sponsors said, "This is the opportunity to expunge a smear on this House done by many lobbyists. Now is the time to set the record straight." It's a good thing Jack Abramoff wasn't a lobbyist for the Fireman's Union or, judging by Congress' rush to cleanse itself, we'd be all be running around with flames on our backs.

8.10.2006

Afghanistan! Senator Hatch's Proud Achievement.

The terror plots thwarted in the United Kingdom attempting to cause "unimaginable mass casualties" was a victory for all peace-loving individuals worldwide. We were prevented from waking up with hundreds, maybe thousands, of bodies strewn over England and floating in the Atlantic Ocean.

This signals a great, short-term success because either a member of this operation gave Scotland Yard information or Scotland Yard has highly effective intelligence sources. It also signals that perhaps Al-Qaeda is leaking more secrets than it knows which may, in turn, lead to a complete disruption in all European cells. All good news.

And now the failures. But bear with me for a minute to make sure we're on the same page.

It is now an undisputed fact that, during the 1980s, our C.I.A. operatives were training Osama Bin Laden and the mujahideen (Afghan 'freedom fighters') to destroy the Soviet Union using camps known in Washington as "terrorist universities". Tom Carew, a former British SAS soldier who fought for the mujahideen in an August 13th interview to the British Observer said, "The Americans were keen to teach the Afghans the techniques of urban terrorism - car bombing and so on..." What they also taught the mujahideen was to hijack commercial airliners and fly them into civilian Soviet targets.

Once the Soviets were driven from Afghanistan resulting in the Taliban take over, the American troops settled into the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia. Osama Bin Laden stated his opposition to this sacriligious invasion and called for the overthrow of the client Middle East regimes (Iraq being one of them) and vowed to turn the United States into a "wasteland". Senator Orrin Hatch, a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee which openly approved U.S. operations with the mujahideen, said he would "make the same call again". Unfortunately, that thoughtless quote came after the September 11th attacks.

And there, my readers, is the first major failure. We have Senators such as Orrin Hatch who think nothing of training mass murderers to kill civilians. Who believe that their ideology somehow excludes them from decency both in war and in peace and, who believe, that the death of 3,000 innocent civilians on American soil is worth setting up a failed and dangerous fundamentalist Islamic state in Central Asia. Maybe you agree with this too. If so, perhaps you should travel to Afghanistan and see how well Senator Hatch's policies have worked. Bring some Kevlar.

The second major failure is this: How many terrorists are we training today? In our "war on terrorism" (a war in which we presumably win when everyone loves us?) who are we training to kill who will then kill us? Or maybe the next wave of terror will come from those we've tortured, or the families of the disappeared? After all, can you imagine someone you love being tortured for years on end without hope of release? In treating the world as an enemy, we become nothing but a target. Our successes should be celebrated, but our failures should be remedied. And soon.

8.09.2006

Joe Lieberman: Man of the People. If that people is named Joe Lieberman!

In September, 2000, on a heated and very competitive campaign for the opening seat for the Presidency of the United States, Democrats were facing two fronts from the Republican right and their own left. During that campaign, Senator Joe Lieberman stated, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." And it was Nader's appearance in that national election, just another vital component, that cost the Democrats the Presidency. So is it a surprise that Mr. Lieberman would turn around and potentially send another Republican to Washington by splitting his party? If the history of this politician is any indication, you bet.

You see, when Justifyin' Joe was tapped for the Vice President position in '00, he could have resigned his seat in Connecticut to allow the attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, to win (there are no guarantees, but many political analysts clam this to be true). That way, the Senate would have been 50-50 with a Gore/Lieberman win, letting Vice President Lieberman break it in favor of a Democrat victory. Since, however, the Governor of Connecticut in 2000 was a Republican, the empty seat vacated by a victorious Lieberman would have been appointed to a Republican making the Senate 51 - 49 in favor of the Republicans.

And this wasn't the first time Geronimo Joe went against the party grain. While President Clinton was under intense attack for his peccadillo (remember the good old days when that was our national nightmare?) Joe was there to make sure he stood for family values decrying that sex in the Oval Office was part of a "mind-set that has helped to threaten the integrity and stability of the family". So where is his "deep disappointment and personal anger" at a President on perennial vacation while his nation watches the Middle East burn to the ground? And when Mr. Lieberman said: "Except now these feelings have gone beyond my personal dismay to a larger, graver sense of loss for our country, a reckoning of the damage that the President's conduct has done to the proud legacy of his presidency..." was he referring to the body bags flown home daily of our soldiers? Was he referring to a war he voted for and to which we still have no clear understanding of its misleading origins or potentially disastrous end? Was he referring to the failed response to Hurricane Katrina? Illegal wiretapping? The scandals surrounding Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff or Tom DeLay? When Mr. Lieberman read that vicious diatribe was he referring to the indictment of "Scooter" Libby or the Valeria Plame affair or the fact that this administration hired a gay porn actor to pretend he was part of the press corps? No. He was referring to illicit oral sex.

I'm not saying that President Clinton had a right to hold prurient doctor exams in our nation's executive suites, what I am saying is that Lieberman's priorities are short-sighted, egocentric and pointless. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or Republican. It's a matter of character and Joe Lieberman's character is merely an exercise in expedience. The DNC will of course attempt to dissuade Mr. Lieberman from running but that won't stop Jumping Joe from leaping to the Independent ticket to make sure that he gives it one more shot at putting his flawed, myopic goals over his own party's.

8.08.2006

Thank God B.P. is Looking Out For Us!

British Petroleum has just announced it will be shutting down one of its pipelines sending oil prices up an estimated $2/barrel.

For the first time in memory - maybe history - an oil company has shut itself down for maintenance crippling its own output and, consequentially, its revenues. This decision will have a ripple effect for months including the government's possible decision to open oil reserves in an attempt to manipulate prices.

Yes, high gasoline prices are a terrible inconvenience and probably other companies will join in the latest price gouging, but that's not what I find worrisome. What's scary to me is that we are now depending upon companies to self-regulate. Where was the E.P.A.? Where were the agencies that are supposed to uncover these potential disasters? Why are we depending on BP to shut itself down? Oh, that's because we decided to place in the Environmental Protection Agency those who are beholden to petroleum interests, coal interests and automobile corporations. It all comes back to surrealpolitics.

Since 2000, George W. Bush, Republicans and a handful or Democrats have nearly dismantled all the protections that provide clean water and air and furnished a safe haven for polluters. What amazes me is that no other legislation has a more direct impact on its constituents health and well being and yet if you were to ask who the E.P.A. Administrator is, maybe one in a million could answer correctly (as of now, Steve Johnson). So is it any surprise that the parts of mercury and dioxins in our water and air have skyrocketed to poisonous levels? This isn't about hugging trees or saving owls, this is about corporations recieving huge tax breaks, poisoning you, and having absolutely no care in the world.

I suppose we're lucky B.P. caught the potential disaster and is now correcting the problem. If someone from the E.P.A. were to stumble upon this, I have a hard time believing this administration would enforce any action. Then instead of just a $2/barrel raise, we'd also be looking at untold damage to the Alaskan wilderness.

8.07.2006

Surrealpolitic just got lapped by the pros.

You want to know what Surrealpolitics is all about? Here you are.

Remember when the Democrats were the ones who were concerned about the average worker and the Republicans were the ones who backed corporate interests? Let me give you a quick quiz.

Which party voted against an amendment to raise the minimum wage over three years and which party voted for it? No, silly-head, it was a trick question. The Democrats voted to kill it and the Republicans voted for it.

What is this? Opposite day? No, it's just politics as usual, only it's politics with your life, isn't it fun? You see, while the average political representative makes over $100,000 a year, not including speaking fees, they find it hysterical when you work for $5.15 an hour and pay for their health care, vacations and salaries.

Here's how funny it is. You see, the Democrats wanted to give you a raise, but the Republicans attached an amendment that they knew the Democrats wouldn't allow. Those nutty Republicans wanted to give their rich buddies a permanent tax break knowing the Democrats would kill it. And here's the really funny part. The Democrats never intended to get this passed. They knew they didn't have the votes to pass a bill raising the minimum wage, they just wanted more ammunition to bring home to their districts and say "See! The Republicans won't give money to the working people of this country."

Aren't politics fun when people, whose salaries you pay for, turn around and decide that you're not worth two dollars over a three year period? Welcome to surrealpolitic.

My Wacky Mid-East Pilot Pitch

So there's this guy, his name is Lebanon, and he owns an apartment building. He's a very dignified man who loves his building and wants to protect it from being destroyed. And that's where it gets funny because he's got this insane cousin named Hezbollah who makes crystal meth. in the basement. Sort of like Monk meets The Odd Couple. You see where I'm going? Now, Lebanon knows about the meth lab, but Hezbollah is tied into this whole gangster scene and Lebanon can't do anything about it or Hezbollah might turn on him.

Okay, so now, there's this neighbor. Israel. They hate the Hezbollah too, because of his loud music and crystal meth, and they also hate Lebanon because they're competing for renters and because Lebanon has a much nicer building. So, whenever Hezbollah plays his music too loud or throws rocks at Israel's building, Israel gets an excuse to destroy a part of Lebanon's apartment complex. Sort of like, Three's Company meets Natural Born Killers.

Follow me on this because this is where it gets confusing. Israel has this friend named Sam, who will kick the shit out of anyone who messes with Israel and Hezbollah has his crazy friends, Iran and Syria, who also hate Israel. Now, even though Iran and Syria can't directly attack Israel or vice-versa, Sam, Iran and Syria each give their friends weapons to attack each other. Screams, I tell you. Screams! Think The Mary Tyler Moore Show meets Straw Dogs.

Now, that's just sort of the background. Here's the actual show: Hezbollah starts a fight with Israel by stealing some of Israel's pets and shooting into their apartment. Israel is so pissed off that it just starts throwing all kinds of crap into Lebanon's building and eventually, MOVES INTO Hezbollah's apartment! Iran and Syria are so pissed now that they are giving their buddy Hezbollah more weapons to fight Israel. All the while Lebanon is screaming 'get out of my building!' and grabbing his hair as his beautiful complex he's built for the past twenty years is being torn apart.

Now, remember Israel's friend, Sam? This is a great character. Very scary. Just punches people in the face for no reason anyone can figure out except Sam. Very unstable and very strong. So guess whom they all turn to for a peaceful solution? Right! Sam! The audience is going to lose its mind. It's like The Sopranos meets Judging Amy.

If you're not looking for a comedy, I've got another great show called Quagmire. It's like Apocalypse Now meets Lawrence of Arabia.

9/11 the new JFK

A recent European survey has stated that 42% of Americans now believe the government either knew about or was directly involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 terrorist plots. Why is it that whenever a tragedy occurs we immediately suspect the government? Some have put forward the notion that it's because we feel so powerless and the people who have the ability to protect us failed, so it only stands to reason that those with power must have had some part in the event. Compound this with an administration's inability to answer even the most basic questions of what happened and it begins to stink of conspiracy.

In the case of the J.F.K. assassination (I'll leave R.F.K. for now, but that's worth looking at too), there are so many glaring omissions, so many mysterious deaths, so many missing pieces that even those who aren't conspiracy buffs (like me) start to ask - how was the investigation into the murder of the world's most powerful man so incompetently handled? (The last poll taken regarding the J.F.K. assassination says that nearly 75% of Americans now believe that their government knew or was directly involved in the President's murder.) The same ugly questions are starting to emerge with the 9/11 Report and I would like to share my reasons why I both believe and don't believe the government was involved. You decide for youselves.

Here's why I think the goverment wasn't involved.

1. This administration is easily one of the most incompetent in recent memory. Can you imagine them pulling something this incredible off in total secrecy? They couldn't even do illegal wiretapping without getting busted.
2. I still can't get around someone piloting those planes via remote control. What happened to the passengers? Did the government kill them? Again, I don't think it's possible that this administration (or frankly any) could pull that off.
3. The Pentagon as a target? I have a tough one with that. If the government were planning on targets, sure, civilians are obviously people they don't care about, but I have a hard time believing that they'd single out their own.
4. Isn't it merely Occam's Razor? I mean, given the two equally reasonable theories the simplest is probably correct; that being the goverment was just inept and failed to see the attacks coming.

And now my reasons why I think the goverment let it happen on purpose or was directly involved:

1. Those puffs of smoke coming out of the WTC buildings as they collapsed are something. They sure look like tiny explosions to me. Also, when the first building "collapsed" it exploded from the top. Look at the footage. That is not an implosion at all. It looks as though the top is literally exploding outwards.
1A: I have heard several architects claim that it was physically and structually impossible for the building's core steel to melt that quickly and that there simply wasn't enough material to continue the intense heat required in bringing down the WTCs. And if this were the case, why did the second tower hit fall first? And why would an internally collapsing building fall that quickly? Wouldn't it sort of collapse a little at a time?
2. Have you ever tried to make a cellphone call at 30,000 feet? Yet the passengers of flight 93, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania, were able to have prolongued conversations with loved ones. How the hell did they do that?
3. What happened at the Pentagon defies all logic and physics. A plane that hit the first floor did not leave skid marks on the lawn? It was pristene. Look at the photographs.
3A. Where was the fuselage? There are no engines, no tail section or bodies. How can this be?
4. Why are the black boxes missing? This to me is the single most suspicious piece of non-evidence that points directly to government conspiracy. Never in the history of modern commercial aviation has a single black box failed to be recovered. Also, if the plane that hit the Pentagon was liquified, how come they recovered that black box and not the ones at the WTC? And why was there no investigation by the NTSB which has reviewed every single accident in the history of American aviation. Except these four.
5. Building number 11, I think it was, at the WTC merely collapsed from stress yet was never hit by anything, and it looks as though it was part of a controlled demolition. I've seen the ones in Vegas and that's exactly what it looks like. But why?

And that's what we're left with. Why? To invade Iraq? To provide the President with broader authority? Perhaps. But I just can't wrap my mind around the scope of it all. That Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld could mastermind this when they can't even figure out how many people it takes to invade a country. Maybe that's one of those questions that will make itself apparent in time, but if the population starts demanding answers and it was a conspiracy, the administration better start making it apparent soon or there'll be another 9/11 commission in front of a jury.

8.06.2006

The Only Real Choice in '08

On September 15th, just four days after the terrorist attacks, America was still reeling from the horrors it had witnessed on their soil. While both congressional Republicans and Democrats stood in lockstep formation behind the President fearing being branded unpatriotic. While the Administration cunningly played the tragedy of that day to expand its political powers by placing before the Congress a resolution authorizing President Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11. There was only one elected official who kept a cool head and stood alone against abrogating the rights granted by our Constitution.

This person wasn't named Clinton or McCain. It was Lee. Barbara Lee, Representative from California.

She voted 'no' to granting the use of unrestrained force for an administration which has clearly demonstrated it can not handle the responsibility. She said no to writing a blank check to a government which promised to reign in spending, but has now created deficits so large our grandchildren will be paying it off. And she said no to lies which brought us to war, which covered up the death toll of countless Iraqi, emboldened our enemies, isolated us from our traditional allies and sent our troops, underprotected and without an exit strategy, into the jaws of an unimaginable hell.

I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, but surely by now every American has to realize that dismantling the Congressional oversight of a President is not only wrong, it's stupid. The nature of power is to expand, which is why our constitutional framers created checks and balances. Once you remove that, it is inevitable executive power will be abused. And it has.

I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. I am a realist. And the only person who stood up for their beliefs and voted, on principle, to retain the powers of their office and by extension to preserve the greatest democracy on Earth, was Barbara Lee. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton taking that courageous stand? Can you imagine John McCain? No, nor can I. And yet we think of them as 'serious contenders' when they lack the conviction to maintain the very government they purport to uphold.

So I say let's vote for someone who cares about preserving our democracy and give me a "Lee in 08" button!