Monday, April 30, 2007

Responible research and cannabis

Ok, so I was just reading an article on the BBC website about how "cannabis disrupts brain centre" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6606931.stm. Basically it tells how recent research has shown that THC in cannabis have a direct correlation with increased activity in "area of the brain called the inferior frontal cortex, which keeps inappropriate thoughts and behaviour, such as swearing and paranoia in check." This is contrasted by the substance cannabidiol (CBD), which has the opposite effect of dampening the potential for psychotic symptoms.
So far so good right? Well here is where we run into a problem. The BBC sites rises in the THC content in cannabis in recent years, going from 6% to 12%. This has the affect of canceling out any positive benefits from CBD. So ok, fair enough. It seems like there has been enough research done to back up this conclusion. The report in itself doesn't bother me so much as an analogy that is drawn at the very end.

Professor Murray also warned that the high potency cannabis now widely available was likely to pose a much bigger risk to health than the significantly weaker formulations of previous years.

"It is similar to comparing the effect of drinking a glass of wine at the weekend with drinking a bottle of vodka every day."

Is that really appropriate? I have seen a person who drinks a liter of booze a day and I know plenty of people who smoke the 'new potent pot' regularly. I have to say that makes no sense to me if the goal is to compare the effects of smoking pot 15 years ago with smoking pot today. It makes perfect sense if the goal is to distort scientific findings and scare people. Just think for a second, a glass of wine = 100 ml total with about 10g of pure alcohol. A bottle of vodka = 1000 ml total with about 330g of pure alcohol. So right there 330/10 is 33 times the alcohol. but we aren't done yet. Notice its a glass of wine once a week compared to a bottle of vodka everyday, so lets just multiple 330 by 7 to get 2310. Now lets divide 2310/10 and we get 231. So, according to the professor interview by the BBC the rough doubling in THC content in cannabis over that past couple decades is similar to upping a once week drink 231 times. (By the way I got all my drinking statistics from the good people at www.alcohol.org.nz)

This concern about rising levels of THC in cannabis have been echoed elsewhere in the media in recently, most notably and predictably on Fox news. It is certainly something to be studied and examined, but without the filter of rhetoric that almost always surrounds the issue. I think people can handle the truth on this issue and make a reasonable decision for themselves without facts being misrepresented, don't you agrees?

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Ecuador's New President

Ecuador’s new president Rafael Correa has been taking a lot of heat in the media, both in Latin and North America, for his supposedly authoritarian tendencies. Let’s all take a deep breath and a step back from this one so we can look at it with a somewhat clear head. The main charge against Correa is that he is showing similar tendencies to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia. This is based on the fact that Correa has plans to, as he promised in his election campaign, to set up a constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution. Left at that I would have to agree that it seems a bit shady. Unfortunately for his critics all one has to do is take a closer look to see the reality of the situation.
First of all I would like to note that Correa has only been in office for a few months, so any charges of authoritarianism leveled against seems a bit premature to me. Secondly he is following in the footsteps of Chavez and Morales. Here’s the thing though, those footsteps have a distinctly democratic pattern to them. I will explain. Ecuador just held a nation wide referendum on whether or not to call a constituent assembly to rewrite the existing constitution. It passed with about and 80% yes vote, while only 12% voted against. The next step will be for the Ecuadorian people to vote locally for representatives to be seated in the assembly. The assembly will then have a set period of time to draft a constitution, which will have to again be approved by a majority of the Ecuadorian people before it is ratified. This is the same exact process that was followed in Venezuela and Bolivia.
Hum, that doesn’t seem very authoritarian to me. In fact it actually seems like the people are having a say (and with an 80% vote more like a demand) in their own governing. Far from the power grab it is being presented as in a lot of the media, just as the popular reforms in Venezuela and Bolivia were/are, this is clearly a case of a leader letting the people of his nation have the loudest voice as to which direction the country should take. Let us not forget that Ecuador has had 8 presidents in the last 10 years, a country where corruption at governmental levels is an expected reality. The fact that a president is trying to make a radical change from his countries checkered past with the massive support of the people should be taken as a sign of democratic and social progress, not an ‘authoritarian power grab.”
Time will certainly tell which direction Correa’s presidency will take. At least in my opinion it seems to be starting out on the right foot.

Monday, April 16, 2007

U.S. versus Al Jazeera

I was recently watching a video clip from Fox News about the recent trip of the U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria to meet with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. First of all let me explain that I like to check in on what fox is reporting in a bid to keep in touch of what the main stream right in the U.S. thinks and is being fed. I can usually only take a couple of minutes of ‘news’ Fox style before I feel like I am going to throw up, but on this particular occasion I noticed a somewhat interesting point that was raised.
The pundits predictably took their turns bashing Pelosi for defying the President’s stance on relations with enemies, with undermining the U.S. foreign policy, by making herself a tool of anti-U.S. governments, and a long list of other complaints. Then Sean Hannity, the Fox News commentator, went on to say that groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and Al Jazeera all had voiced their support of the Pelosi trip, only further proof that she was making a mistake. I was taken aback at the list of he names provided. To the casual viewer of the program I am sure that all the names sounded familiar enough. A sinister group of organizations with what the U.S. has labeled as terrorism that have all engaged in militant action against Israel at one point or another, all that is except for Al Jazeera.
Al Jazeera is the Arabic language satellite news station that operates out of the Arab country of Qatar, an ally of U.S. I was intrigued at the inclusion of the news channel’s name with the groups that are so often called terrorist organizations by the U.S. government and mainstream media. What justification could be given for such an erroneous association of independent foreign media outlet and groups known more for suicide bombings in the West than anything else? I decided to look into the matter a bit further to see what I could find out.
It turns out that the hostility towards Al Jazeera isn’t limited to the good people at Fox News, but it also extends to the Bush Administration and neoconservative circles (surprise surprise). The station has been the target of much criticism from the current Administration and multiple strategies have been employed to weaken or destroy the capabilities of Al Jazeera to provide a voice in the region and the world that is different form the official byline emanating out of Washington. It is interesting to note the US has ‘accidentally’ bombed Al Jazeera stations 2 times now in different locals around the world, permanently detained Al Jazeera personal without charge, and contemplated attacking Al Jazeera Headquarters in Doha, Qatar. HUM, what is going on here?

Prior to Sept. 11 the U.S. government had been supportive of the role al-Jazeera played as an independent media outlet in the otherwise autocratic Middle East. This all changed after the terrorist attacks on the U.S. when Al Jazeera played videos featuring Osma bin Laden and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith defending and justifying the attacks. The U.S. government claimed Al Jazeera were engaging in propaganda on behalf of the terrorists, while Al Jazeera claimed it was simply making information available without comment or endorsement. Several western TV stations followed Al Jazeera'a lead and later showed the videos.

On Nov. 13, 2001, a U.S. missile strike destroyed the Al Jazeera office in Kabul. No one was killed but the office was destroyed and employees’ homes were damaged. This was followed on April 8, 2003, with a U.S. missile strike that destroyed the Al Jazeera office in Baghdad, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub and wounding others. In both instances the U.S. military had precise information of the coordinates of the stations prior to the attacks, provided by Al Jazeera itself in order to prevent such destruction from happening. Both strikes have been dismissed as accidents by the U.S. government.

Al Jazeera cameraman Sami Al Hajj, a Sudanese national, was detained in Pakistan on transit to Afghanistan in Dec. 2001 and remains to this day to being held without charge as an 'enemy combatant' at Guantanamo Bay. The reason for his detention remains unknown; he simply falls into the same category as all other detainees that they constitute a 'security threat'. Although Al Hajj had a valid visa to enter and work in Afghanistan at the time of his detainment his documentation was disregarded.

On November 22, 2005 the British publication the Daily Mirror printed a story stating that the U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair had persuaded Bush from conducting bombing raids on Al Jazeera world headquarters in Doha, Qatar and other locations. The information reportedly is a record of a meeting between the two leaders that took place on April 16, 2004 at the height of the U.S. Marines and Iraqi Security Forces assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Both governments have denied that the conversation ever took place but the British government refuses to publish the memo and has threatened to prosecute anyone that does. A civil servant and research assistant have thus far been charged in the U.K. for unauthorized disclosure of the memo and wait trail. The unwillingness to make available the information contained in the memo to the public is not a very convincing means of backing up the line that the conversation never took place.

Meanwhile the U.S. government in 2004 founded Al Hurra, literally 'the free one' to be a competing Arabic-language satellite TV station. This was to counter the 'bias' of al- Jazeera against the U.S. Al Hurra is forbidden to be broadcast in the US. This is because it is simply a tool of propaganda by the U.S. government and as such as it falls under the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. The act prohibited domestic distribution of information intended for foreign audiences. This measure is included in the act for a specific reason. Information intended for foreign audiences in necessarily of a propagandic nature and it is therefore dangerous to allow the Executive Branch to have its own propaganda station operating within the U.S. At the same time this leaves the U.S. citizens in a situation where they have no idea about what kind of slanted information and content is being funded and produced by tax dollars. This originally was the focus of the VOA or Voice of America during the cold war, but has since been extended to other propaganda campaigns such as Al Hurra.

When the facts have been examined in greater detail it becomes clear why Fox News lumped in Al Jazeera with the other groups mentioned above. The U.S. government feels that Al Jazeera is a threat to it aims of conquest in the Middle East and the establishment on friendly client states in Iraq and across the region. Fox News has clearly aligned itself with the far right on many issues ranging from religion and the environment to war and terrorism. The fact that they are jumping on the government bandwagon in an attempt to incriminate and silence all voices of opposition to the brutal realities of the U.S. war machine certainly is not a surprise. What it does represent is a deliberate attempt to control and distort information for both U.S. citizens and the world in general. When media distorts what is really happening in the world and at home we are all in trouble.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Not So Blue Skys


I knew there was a reason why so many people have a negative view of the U.S. around the world. At first I thought they were all just jealous of us because we stand for life, liberty, and freedom. Then I realized it probably has something to do with all the people the U.S. has killed, injured, displaced, or repressed over the past half century. Of Course killing and repression are not only limited to last 50 years, but the rate and range of this period is of unprecedented scope. Its pretty simple logic, for all the people that were killed or adversely affected in some way they were survived by family, friends, and loved ones. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that those survivors might harbor some resentment towards the U.S. Take a close look at the following list. It represents the air strikes of U.S. war planes, just part of the larger military assault on humanity.

List of Countries the U.S.A. has bombed since WWII


China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-2002
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998 (airliner)
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-2007
Iraq 2003 - 2007
Somalia 2007

Saturday, April 7, 2007

Iraq Study Group

Iraq Study Group
James Baker, Lee Hamilton Report on the situation in Iraq.

The report consists of two parts: the assessment of the current situation, and the proposed way forward. The report, while not having much in the way of proposals, did contain some interesting features. It is towards these that I will turn, for I feel they demonstrate the situation that we are facing, not just in Iraq and in the Middle East, but in the U.S. itself.

The report contained some opinion poll figure from Iraqis, including Kurds. The U.S. Government and U.S. polling agencies keep pretty good records on these areas. Recent polling in Iraq showed 79% of Iraqi had a mostly negative view of the influence the U.S. has in their country, 61% approve of attacks on the U.S. forces. This is bad news for the U.S. Supposedly it calls for a change of tactics to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, to show them we are on their side and against those who hate freedom or something to that affect. Then they will stop attacking us….Ok, I am not really sure that I buy into that, but that’s what the report suggests. But lets take a step further. The same polls that were cited contain some other interesting findings not reported in the Iraq Study Group. About 2/3 of Baghdad citizens want foreign troops out immediately and 3/4 of country, again including Kurds, want a firm timetable for withdrawal. But since when did what the people want really matter when the U.S. is doing its mission to spread democracy and protect the world. If the U.S. Government is not prepared to listen to what the people want of a country it just invaded “to bring democracy” why should it be expected to listen to what the American people want either. And indeed the American people are receiving the same treatment. A majority wants the troops to be withdrawn and have for some time. A timetable has been favored even longer. And yet the people are not being listening to. I am just going to briefly go over the concept of Democracy just if case someone forgot. It’s a very simple principle to grasp, the governing of the people by themselves. When we have the word democracy thrown in our faces constantly by those in charge it’s probably a good signal to examine if democracy is being carried out. Well the people in the U.S. and Iraq are against what is going on, so clearly democracy is not being carried out.

The report also deals somewhat with the Arab-Israeli conflict. It places the issue as the cornerstone of a lasting peace for the Middle East, in my opinion correctly. It calls for the U.S. to engage in a more active roll with Israelis and Palestinians, but only those who accept Israel’s right to exist. This has been a key demand of both the U.S. and Israel but it worth a closer examination. No one seems to be mentioning Palestine’s right to exist. The term ‘right to exist’ itself is indeed somewhat unique to this case. Do states have rights to exist as they are today? Where does this concept come from? It is certainly worth taking a minute to think about a bit more. This is simply an attempt to legitimize the seizure of land and the expulsion of the Palestinian people. No people should be expected to accept terms on these grounds, just think of numerous historical examples. Should Austrians, Danes, Czechs, French, and Poles have accepted Germany’s right to exist in the same parameters of former Reich’s after their countries were occupied and colonized by the Germans? I would certainly think not. How about another example a little closer to home. In the Mexican - American war, a war you probably didn’t learn too much about in school. The U.S. conquered about half of Mexico, all that land that now makes up of the southwestern U.S. Today Mexico recognizes the U.S. but certainly doesn’t recognize the legitimacy the conquest. I would think you would be very hard pressed to ever find an official Mexican declaration declaring the U.S.’s right to exist where it now does. So, even if the issue is reduced to just recognizing Israel, does anyone even recognize Palestine? The U.S, or Israel? No, these countries do not recognize Palestine. Peace in Palestine and any justice for the Palestinian people are clearly not in the plans.

The last point I will touch on is what the report has to say about Iran. It says that we must somehow engage Iran, but this will be problematic because of the current state of US-Iranian relations. The report is in favor of opening a dialogue with Iran in the reasoning that the U.S. can only gain from an exchange and does not have to give anything up. The current problem in relations stems back the to 1979 popular revolution and overthrow the Shaw, a dictatorship that the U.S. supported. I can see why the Iranians could be a little agitated towards the U.S., since they were repressed for a quarter century due to direct U.S. support of the regime, but it is the U.S. that has apparently taken greater offence to the 1979 overthrow of the dictatorship. A popular uprising of the people against a repressive regime friendly to the U.S. interests is not something to be forgotten. I say this because it has become known recently that Iran offered and actively sought out a reopening in diplomatic relations, cut off between the two countries since 1979, in 2002 and 2003 before the Iraq invasion. Washington rebuffed them. Today the same polls as above indicate 75% of U.S. citizens favors diplomatic engagement with Iran as a means of settling any disputes as opposed to using military threats, the exact opposite of the current US policy. In fact the policy of using military threats of attack and invasion is a central long-term strategy of this administration. This just further illustrates my point about the absence of democracy. The system we have in place now is certainly called democracy but that term does not seem to appropriately reflect the reality of the situation.


Its time to start paying attention people; demand a change. Sitting around and being passive about it isn’t going to work. We are going to have to stand up and take what is ours. As John Lennon once said, ‘Apathy isn’t it and we can do something.’ Solidarity is the key; we need to come together to do this

Thursday, April 5, 2007

Hugo Chavez en vivo


I attended my first South American political rally a few days back. Hugo Chavéz, the president of Venezuela, was here in Buenos Aires meeting with the president of Argentina, Nestor Kirchner, before holding a large rally in a football stadium in the city. The purpose of his visit was part of a larger tour of Latin America in direct opposition and protest to a similar tour the president of the U.S., G. W. Bush, was undertaking of allies in the region. I will get into the details a bit more later, first let me tell you how I found myself in the middle of such an interesting spectacle.
There I sat, sharing a beer with Fede and talking politics at some street side parrilla, the local grills found everywhere in Buenos Aires. It doesn’t take much to get Fede going on politics; he always has something to say no matter what the topic is. A local Porteño with a passion for politics, revolution, history, beer and grass, Fede has become a good friend of mine in the few months that I have been here in his city. He is incredibly involved within the local scene, an avid activist and member of the MST (Socialist Workers Movement); he is pretty much my window into the world of Argentine political movements. Eventually our conversation turned to Bush and his pending visit to Montevideo, Uruguay on Friday. As we took turns seeing who could come up with the best criticisms of Bush’s failed and failing policies around the world and domestically, Fede suddenly had a question to ask of me. “Che, what are you doing on Friday?”
“Well I am moving into my new pad in San Telmo around 5. Do you want to come check it out?”
“Oh at 5, that’s to bad, Chavéz is coming to town to hold a big rally, I was going to see it you wanted to go.”
“You mean Hugo Chavéz? What is the rally for?”
“It’s, you know, a big rally. He is going to speak and people will be there to support it.”
The vagueness of Fede’s description only left me more intrigued. I have followed the Chavéz story for some time now with a great deal of interest. His path from former military man attempting to topple the government of Venezuela in 1992, to his subsequent conversion to democratic means, to his winning of the presidency, to himself being ousted in a coup supported by the USA, to his subsequent regaining of the office is a story filled with all the drama and suspense of Hollywood movie. And that’s just one side of his story. An incredibly charismatic leader, his own brand of populism has gained him the support of a majority of the Venezuelan people and has allowed him to begin to implement radical reforms in what he calls the ‘Bolivarian Revolution’. To top it all off he has been a constant thorn in the side of the Bush government and has been a vocal critic prompting harsh responses from Washington.
I wondered what was going to happen when all those people converged on a stadium to hear the very popular president of a foreign country give a speech? I mulled it over in my head and decided that this was an opportunity not to be missed. To read about the exploits of a government that has been condemned by the Bush administration as a ‘threat to democracy’ in the U.S. is a tough proposition. Whether you like it or not most news coverage is going to be heavily jaded against Chavéz and his program, if you even want to call it coverage. The chance to see him for myself in his own environment would hopefully provide the perspective I had been looking for. I told Fede I would try to postpone my move until Saturday.

A few phone calls and a couple of days later I found myself waiting to meet Fede on the corner of Avenida Avellaneda y Segui in the Barrio of Caballito in central Buenos Aires. Fede had made it very clear beforehand that I had to meet him at 4 pm sharp so that we wouldn’t be late. Chavéz was due to speak at 7 pm so I wasn’t quite sure why we needed to be three hours early, nonetheless I made sure I was there on time. Now for all of you who don’t know the Argentine conception of punctuality, let me just make it clear that I had made a mistake in showing up at the agreed upon time. This was far too early, as I should have known, and I found myself alone in a continuously growing crowd of demonstrators, drummers, chanters and communists (as displayed by the various emblems and logos on their respective clothing). I don’t have anything about communist, its just that you often see large crowds of them in the U.S. and its only natural to be a bit apprehensive about the unknown. Not really knowing what to expect from the crowd and speaking shaky Spanish, I was feeling a bit out of place to say the least, but I soon realized that the vibe coming from the crowd was a positive one and I had nothing to fear. I simply had to bide my time and watch as the spectacle grew until Fede showed up.
After 45 minutes and a couple of cell phone calls in vain I was beginning to contemplate heading into the melee on my own, when I finally saw Fede approaching from the opposite direction.
“Che, you made it,” he said followed by the mandatory kiss on the cheek and slight embrace.
“I made it? I was getting worried that you weren’t even going to show up,” I replied. Fede simply looked at his watch and made a face as if to say he didn’t even realize he was late. I decided not to pursue the matter any further. He led me over to a group of youths that were busy unrolling banners and signs under the direction of a middle-aged man in sunglasses. I was to find out from Fede later that the man in the sunglasses, nicknamed ‘Maradona’, was part of the central committee of the political party that Fede belonged to, the MST, and that the youths were all members of the party as well. The MST itself is broken into 3 different divisions; youth, workers, and unemployed movements all coordinated under the banner of the national MST party. Fede introduced me to the party members as his comrade form the U.S. Everyone received me with a kiss on the cheek and went back to what they were doing.
I took the moment to glimpse around to see what I was getting myself into. More and more people were pouring into the street from all directions and a constant flow of buses seemed to bring bringing more people towards the stadium and me. Wait a second, towards the stadium? A few minutes ago the traffic had been going away from the stadium and this was a one-way street, what was going on here? I quickly found the cause. The street was being blocked by the police and being used as one of 3 main corridors heading to the stadium. “Police lending a helping hand in a demonstration, that certainly is a novel idea” I thought. It suddenly dawned on me that these buses that kept coming in where bringing people from the partidos, the areas of Buenos Aires that fall outside the Federal Capital limits. It is in the partidos that most of the Greater Buenos Aires residents live, about 9.5 million or more than 80% of the total. It is also where the poorest of the people live. Chavéz’s appearance was clearly a big deal for these people; he was a hero and inspiration to them and they were coming out in droves to show support.
Meanwhile the MST crew had got most of there signs set up and were beginning to stake out strategic positions in the street close to the lane carrying all the buses. Fede had taken up the central pole of the main MST banner and beckoned me to come over. Noticing that I was still trying to figure out what was happening all around he said, “Che, this is time when you ask me the questions.” So I did. I asked him about what was going to happen exactly, what his party stood for, what the other parties stood for, what he thought of Chavéz and so on. Basically I gathered that the streets would eventually fill with parked buses and people gathering into different groups. We would then commence to march to the stadium and take our places on the field in front of the stage, each group having its own little space sort of like a delegation at a convention. The MST is a communist party that follows the ideas of Trotsky and advocates revolution, a radical change of the system, not a reform from within it. Fede and the MST both supported the Bolivarian Revolution begun by Chavéz in Venezuela, but were not necessarily for Chavéz himself. “It’s important to show solidarity”, Fede explained to me. “The process that’s going on in Venezuela is a true democratic revolution and we have to support that even if we don’t always agree with what Chavéz is doing. If the revolution continues as it is going now it will soon be beyond any one persons control.” The various other groups came from the left and central spectrum of Argentine politics. Even supporters of President Kirchner’s party were there, although strongly at odds ideologically with many of the groups. It just goes to show the kind of appeal that Chavéz has here.
All of a sudden the call ‘vamos!’ ran out among the people and the procession started to march forward. It was already about 6:30 at this point and we weren’t even in sight of the stadium yet, but having just learned my lesson about Argentine punctuality I wasn’t too worried if we didn’t make inside by 7:00. I had a sneaking suspicion that although Chavéz was Venezuelan he probably wouldn’t be a stickler about being on time either. As we marched down street the people joined together in various chants such as ‘Bush facista, vos sos un terroista’ – Bush you fascist, you are the terrorist, and ‘out of Iraq, out of Palestine, and especially out of Latin America!’ ‘No to terror, no to imperialism, forward with socialism, power to the people!’ Of course the were all in Spanish, you are just going to have to trust me that it sounded much better in the original than in my translations.
The march periodically stopped and started as we waited for different groups to enter the stadium and take up their place in their designated position. The MST members seemed a little annoyed about the wait but I didn’t mind. This way I got to see all the different groups as they walked by. The atmosphere reminded me of a parade of sorts, the feelings of outrage and anger directed at imperialism were easily overcome by the feelings of jubilation and solidarity in support of giving power to the people. In this sense it was different than any sort of large rally I have ever attended. The essence of the spirit wasn’t one of protest; it was one of support and approval. I can’t remember the last time there was such a public showing of support for government actions in the U.S.
As we continued to wait to enter the stadium Fede explained to me why seemingly everyone was entering before us. “We are the trouble makers for the government,” he said with a smile, “We don’t agree with them and we stick to our principles, for that they disapprove of us. Che, just watch, we will go in last and get the worst spot, of this I am sure.”
Sure enough the MST contingent was the last group to enter the stadium and our spot was at the very back of the field. It was going to be impossible to see Chavéz through the sea of people and banners in between the stage and us. If the music blasting through the speakers was any indication though, we were certainly going to be able to hear him. As I looked around the stadium I thought that this could easily be a rock concert instead of a political rally. The stands were filled with people standing, clapping, dancing and singing. Huge banners in front of the sections indicated where the people had come from and I realized that this was more that just Buenos Aires affair. Certain sections had come from hours away and they were determined to enjoy themselves. Vendors walked through the crowd selling roasted peanuts, coke, and beer. People sat on the ground in small circles and brought out their mate gourds and thermoses of hot water. “Hey man, we should come to more of these, this is kinda fun,” I said to Fede.
“Chavéz is a showman,” he said, “that’s part of the reason people come out to see him.”
The crowd reached a fevered pitch when the loudspeakers began to play the Argentine national anthem. Behind me in the stands people were shooting off fireworks and had flares going and were literally bouncing up and down in unison. ‘This isn’t a rock concert,’ I thought, ‘this is a goddamn football match, these people are going nuts.’ (That’s soccer for all you back in U.S. by the way.) The Venezuelan national anthem came next, followed by a role call of all the political groups in attendance. The MST got snubbed by the announcer and was left out of the role call. Some of the members around me took it as badge of pride. “They don’t want to recognize us, but they can’t ignore us forever,” Fede confidently explained. “We are here and nobody can deny us that.”
Finally all the festivities came to an end and just like at a boxing match a speaker came on stage to introduce the main event for the evening, President Hugo Chavéz. The crowd erupted once again as Chavéz made his appearance and greeted the crowd. “Hola y buenos noches mi hermanos y hermanas,” he roared and was greeted back by the enthusiastic crowd. He proceeded to speak about the similarities and connections of the Argentine and Venezuelan people, emphasizing his close relationship with President Kirchner. This went on for a good 15 minutes, and to tell you the truth I really wasn’t that impressed. Where was the fiery orator that had captured the admiration and hatred of millions around the globe? I mean was this really the same man that hosts his own 6 hour-long TV show in Venezuela every single week? I was feeling a bit disappointed in the whole affair when Chavéz switched the topic from Latin American brotherhood and cooperation to imperialism and Bush. Building in a slow crescendo Chavéz worked himself and the crowd into a wild frenzy. Now I don’t profess to understand all or even most of what he said, but just by listening to the man speak I could feel the immense attraction that his voice held. This was clearly a man born for stage and public arena.
He was careful not to but at blame the American people, but rather made a quite clear distinction that the ones to blame were in the government, namely Bush and his followers. Chavéz denounced the policies of war and imperialism that Bush favors, the long standing history of U.S. imperialist involvement in Latin American affairs, and the failed social policies of the U.S. There were more than a few jokes shared at Bush’s expense. Luckily I had Fede close by to translate for me. One of the better ones was saying how Bush must have the lowest IQ of any president ever. Chavéz also brought up that Bush had recently compared George Washington to Simon Bolivar, the liberator of South America from Spanish rule. I think Bush was somehow trying to equate a common history and ideal in U.S. and Latin American history, one that is and has always been at the heart of U.S. actions in the region. Chavéz took particular offence to this seeing as Bolivar is a personal hero of his. After ridiculing Bush about not following the ideals of Washington, let alone Bolivar, he uttered his one and only phrase in English during the whole night. “Yankee, go home!” The people loved it and I have to say so did I.
The entire speech lasted a good hour and a half, well into the darkness of a late summer evening in Buenos Aires. I left the stadium with a new understanding about Chavéz, Argentina, and the Americas in general. The Bush administration has repeatedly criticized Chavéz, calling him a threat to democracy and stability in the region, a ‘negative force’. Well that certainly wasn’t the man I saw. If calling for greater social justice and inviting the masses of poverty stricken people to have a say in how they are governed is a ‘negative force’ it only makes me wonder what is considered positive. The solidarity I saw on that night between people from all over the social spectrum, young and old, poor and wealthy, white and native, city and rural, foreign and local, was unprecedented in my experience. Never have I seen so many people come together to support something so positively. It begs the question, whose stability is Chavéz a threat to? Is it that of the peoples of the Americas or is that of the narrow band of leaders in Washington? You can decide for yourselves, but I am confident that I now know the answer.

U.S. Politics and Democracy - 26.03.07

A few observations about recent dealings involving the U.S. Government. The Out of Iraq Caucus, a small group of Democrats in House of Representatives, decided to support a spending bill for the continuing of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that would appropriate $124 billion more dollars. The bill also included the restriction that a timetable be set for the withdrawal of all American combat troops by Aug. 13 2008. The Out of Iraq Caucus had initially been opposed the bill saying the funds were to much and that withdrawal date to far in the future. The bill had enjoyed the support of Democrats in general but they did not have a majority of the votes need to get the bill passed. Opposed by the republicans because of the timetable restriction, the bill now has enough votes to pass through the House to the Senate where it will likely end up on the President’s desk. Bush has already said he will veto the bill if it reaches him saying that congress should pass a spending bill with no ‘restrictions’ on it.
` First of all, a bill with no restrictions on it of any kind? How do Bush or his Republican supporters justify this? I am sorry Bush, but this is a war that an ever-growing majority of citizens disagree with, one that you do not get a free hand to wage and expand without ‘restrictions.’ You are not an autonomous King answerable to no one, you are answer to the Legislative and Judicial branches and most importantly to all of us. Most people around the world have understood that the two wars that are being waged for the various reasons of fighting terrorism, spreading liberty, and establishing democracy have always stood on shaky ground. It is ironic that as a majority of people in the U.S. are finally coming to the same opinion that they find themselves in the vary condition that they were supposedly fighting to prevent, the circumvention of democracy but authoritative governments.
Secondly, what are the Democrats in Congress doing? $124 Billion dollars more to continue destroying the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, to continue to the fill lives of their citizens with daily suffering? The voice of the people is clear, put an end to this war, not in two years, right now! There is only one way that Congress has an ability to affect foreign policy, withhold the funds needed by the Executive branch to carry out a war. Stop giving Bush money to kill people and the war will have to stop. If they really feel the need the pass a spending bill of some sort I can personally think of numerous better ways to spend $ 124 billion dollars so I can only assume that they can as well.


Meanwhile the U.S. troop level is to reach it’s highest to date at 173,00 by July, as reported by Newsweek.


The Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to authorize subpoenas for Karl Rove and other White House officials to testify about the Bush administrations dismissal of 8 U.S. Attorneys. All the attorneys were dismissed at the same time and under highly suspect conditions. The administration has been reluctant to give reasons and has released records of email logs that are miss the entire two-week period preceding the dismissals. It remains unclear why these sections of the email logs have continued to be withheld if everything that transpired with the dismissals did so in proper manner, unless of course people in the administration have something to hide. Bush has vowed to fight the subpoenas. The position of the administration is that it will only allow talks behind closed doors with no public record or oaths of any kind.
Once again, what is happening here? How can this kind of behavior be justified or even attempted? To hold closed door meetings and not be accountable to the people for anything is not democracy. The simple act of being accountable and open about your actions, taken on behalf of us, in the relatively mundane area of U.S. Attorneys should be a no brainer, I men if you can’t give us open info about this what are we to think about more important areas with much larger implication, are we suppose to trust you then?


Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, has urged the President to close down Guantanamo Bay military prison and move the detainees to the U.S. where they will fall under U. S. law. He was supported in his call by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice among others. Bush has thus far rejected the idea, sharing the support of Vice President Cheney and the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.


John Bolton, the Bush appointed former ambassador to the U.N. and hence the top diplomat in the U.S., admitted in an interview with the BBC that the U.S. resisted calls for a ceasefire during the war in Lebanon this past summer. The reasoning behind this was the desire to give Israel more time to conduct their campaign against the Lebanese, something that was widely believed at the time but continually denied by the U.S. Bolton went on to say he was “damned proud” about the policy and it was only abandoned when it became clear that the Israeli campaign was not having the desired effect. During the war over 1,000 Lebanese civilians, 43 Israeli citizens, 116 Israeli soldiers, and an unknown number of Lebanese fighters were killed.


Some things to contemplate here are the general circumvention of the democratic process by officials elected to represent us and the savage wars of pillage and destruction that they are waging in our name. The must be held accountable for there actions and we must stand up and demand that they change now!

Hello, Hola, Willkommen


So this is my foray into the world of blogging; a way to share my thoughts with you people and hopefully interact a bit. My goal here is to create an exchange of information and ideas in the hope that it opens some minds, including my own, about actions and possibilities in our world. Part of me is doing this simply to get some of what I write published in one way or another, but the main objective is to engage in democratic participation and to encourage others to engage themselves. Too often in the U.S. and other countries people take a back seat and passively watch as events unfold around them, events that have grave consequences not only for them as citizens, but for millions of people around the world. The first step in becoming involved is to become educated about issues and ideas, something we will attempt here. With that said, lets get down to business.