The coming War

A new war is coming and its coming soon. The question is where. The answer is easy enough: Gaza. The aggressor: Israel. It will happen within a months time. The justifications will be to prevent the rise of "Hamastan" on Israel's southern border; a belligerent state committed to the destruction of Israel. Of course in reality it will be the other way around, a Jewish state committed to the destruction of a Palestinian prison territory. Not even a state. More lie a cage that people are kept locked in without any chance to for employment, peace, or safety. Israel will strike hard after their defeat last summer to Hezbollah in Lebanon. They want to reestablish the perception of Israeli military dominance in the region and what better place to do it than in Gaza. It should be like shooting fish in a barrel. There is an X-factor in all this, when people have nothing to lose (and those in Gaza literally have nothing) what is to stop them from fighting to the last even if their families and homes are destroyed all around them. Hell, they are use to it by now, bomb the shit out of Gaza and it probably won't look that much different than it does today.

The new defense minister for Israel, Ehud Barak, will be the one to demand it politically and he will not be disappointed. The US will back the war and the US media will give little to no coverage, certainly less than the Lebanon war last summer. Why? Because its against the Palestinian people and the democratically elected Hamas, because the Palestinians have been confined in the Occupied territories for over 40 years now, by far the longest running military occupation in the world, because these people are somehow considered not to be worthy of the standards given to Israelis and US citizens in their countries. Mark my words this war is coming. And when you wage a war with a completely modernized army against a lightly armed impoverished people, people who are forced to live in continual poverty, people who have no place to escape to because they are fenced in, you aren't just waging an aggressive war, you are waging a genocide.

Venezuela and RCTV

So what is happening in Venezuela? A private TV station did not have their broadcasting license renewed by the Chavez government and all of a sudden democracy, freedom of speech and press are all under assault. We have heard this story before about Chavez, but this case needs to be given a closer examination before we pass judgment on it. The major media outlets in the U.S. and Europe have been doing a pitiful job in covering this event. Any semblance of objectivism was long ago disregarded as ‘irrelevant’ when it comes to discussing Chavez. Nevertheless the facts are there for all to see, it simply takes a small amount of effort to uncover them.

Lets begin with a brief overview. RCTV (Radio Caracas TV) did not have their broadcasting license renewed on the 27th of May by the government. This was not an unexpected or rash act; Chavez had made it perfectly clear he did not intend to renew the license for many months. It its place a public TV station Tvez would be set up allowing literally thousands of independent producers access and a platform in which to broadcast to the country. RCTV would not lose its cable or satellite licenses, nor would it be subject to any penalties or criminal charges.

Chavez decided to shut the station down because of its role in the 2002 coup the temporarily ousted him from power. Indeed RCTV is an opposition-aligned company but there is a difference between supporting the opposition in a democratic country and supporting a military coup to overthrow a democracy. RCTV, along with the other privately owned media companies, launched a propaganda effort backing the coup and timed to coincide with it. RCTV failed to report on the mass popular demonstrations that brought Chavez back to his elected office, failed to report that Chavez was back in power after the coup failed, and later portrayed Chavez supporters as killing peaceful anti-chavistas, which was in fact later disproved. RCTV actually went as far as supporting the military coup before it became apparent that the people of Venezuela would not stand for it.

Chavez has sited all this as the reason for not renewing the license. It is worth noting that Chavez has waited 5 years until the current license expired before acting, in complete accordance with Venezuelan law. He refrained from punishing not only RCTV but also other supporters and even members of the military that were complicit in the coup once he was swept back into power.

Can we imagine this happening in the U.S.? If a leading general overthrew the president for a few days and NBC was completely backing the military in this, could we expect that the president would just let NBC be after he regained power? The answer is no. I would expect some sort of treason trials to be initiated or perhaps something to a lesser degree. In Venezuela this did not happen although Chavez clearly had the power and mandate to do such a thing.

So where does that leave us. The Chavez government has acted accordingly in regards to Venezuelan law by removing a private company from public broadcasting frequency for actively supporting an attempt to overthrow the democratic government and establish a military dictatorship. It has left the company free to have its programming on cable and satellite channels.

There has been a lot of coverage of the protests in Caracas against the move by Chavez, but what often is not mentioned is that the pro Chavez rallies taking place at the same time are many times the size of those protesting against. Once again popular support is on the side of the government. Perhaps that is what is the most threatening to the U.S. and Europe is that there is an elected leader actually doing the bidding of the vast majority of the population in his country and not the other way around. In this context in is not surprising to see these countries denounce the move as an attack on democracy and freedom. For example lets look at Condoleezza Rice’s recent statements.

"Freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience are not a thorn in the side of government... Disagreeing with your government is not unpatriotic and most certainly should not be a crime in any country, especially a democracy."


She also described the move as “undemocratic.” Never mind the fact that Venezuela has NOT charged RCTV with any crimes, and that RCTV supported the overthrow of a democratically elected government. Rice seems like she is a character straight out of 1984, Newspeak and Doublethink come out of her a bit to easily for comfort.

We only have to think of one simple example to see how hypocritical this all this, although we have many to choose from. Just imagine if tonight on the news NBC or CBS or ABC (take your pick) said we all should support Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace and help him overthrown the government. That’s it, nothing more need to be said, that station would be finished instantly. It’s as simple as that people.

Why the Democrats will continue supporting the War

It has become very apparent in the last month or two that the Democrats who took control of Congress in the last election cycle have no intention of putting a stop to one of the wars the U.S. is currently fighting. I am referring of course to Iraq, but let us not forget there are still troops and combat operations going on in Afghanistan and even less mentioned is the situation in Somalia, a country that has been attacked by the U.S. on at least three occasions in 2007.

But I digress; the focus of this article is the situation in Iraq. It was widely recognized that the elections of the Democrats was a in its essence a demand of the people to put an end to the war. Political analysts and people on both sides of the political spectrum acknowledged this. The voters were not asking for a Democrat version of the war, rather they were saying we want to stop this and bring the troops home as soon as possible.

I remember the feeling excitement and the expectation for change that many felt on that night in November when the Dems won control of both Houses. I remained very skeptical about the situation and I feel, unfortunately, that I have been proven right. The Democrats are not taking any steps to end the war. They are funding it without restrictions. This is nothing more than a week capitulation to Bush and the Republicans and a complete disregard for the will of the people. It doesn’t come as a surprise to me, business as usual one might say, but it seems to many others that it has come as a shock. I continually read about the failing of the Dems of the dashed hopes that people had. All I can say is “Wake up people”. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people are dying, not to mention thousands of Americans (whose lives seem to be worth the equivalent of a hundred lives of people of color) doesn’t come into consideration in the minds of politicians.

How can I say such a thing? Simple, look at the situation and draw the only reasonable conclusion you can from it. Political consideration and comfort are the most important thing most of these elected leaders. This war could be stopped right now if the Dems hadn’t provided the funding. So why did they? Here is my answer. They don’t really want to end this war just yet; they need to get closer to Election Day in 2008 so they can use it as an issue against the Republicans. Is this a cynical view of things? Of course it is, but I don’t see how one can’t be cynical these dark days we are living in.

The Dems say, “we want to stop this war and bring the troops home”, and yet they do otherwise with their actions. Let us not forget this when it comes time to vote in 2008 and they position themselves as antiwar and say they will put a stop to it if elected to the presidency. This war will certainly still be ranging on at that point and the reason why is because the Dems will have allowed it to. They do not deserve our support anymore than the Republicans do. In the politics of war it’s not the people suffering and dying that come first in the considerations of the politicians, nor is it the supposed safety or protection of the American people. Rather it is their own political survival that holds the supreme place in their thoughts and considerations.

Mayor of Buenos Aires Part 1

Well the election is drawing ever nearer here for the Major of Buenos Aires (Jefe de Gobierno). Voting day is on June 3rd and the campaigns have all kicked into overdrive. Although this is only a local election there is the potential for national ramifications.
The mayor of Buenos Aires is a national figure and the post can be a springboard for a future presidential run. That is of course if the time in office was a success, which is by no means assured. The Federal Capital of Buenos Aires is a city within a city; in the States the closest comparison would be D.C. This is where all the big decisions get made for the country, the seat of the national government, the most technologically advanced area, the most populous and the wealthiest. It is home to about 3.5 million people, but it surrounded by a huge sprawl of mostly less well off Argentines totaling all together about 13 million. This election is just for the Federal Capital though and that’s what I want to talk about.
The one major difference that strikes me between campaigns here and in the U.S. is the dearth of candidates. There are literally 10 or 11 people that are running for Mayor. It’s an important position and national figures have been throwing support behind their favored candidates. Even the President, Nestor Kirchner, has stepped in on his party’s behalf. Despite the size of the field I think there are only 3 or 4 with a real shot of winning, but with that many people running you never know what the results will be.
With all the differences between Argentine and U.S. politics there seems to be one common factor, most of the politicians here are pompous assholes. I guess some things just transcend any cultural barrier. It didn’t take me long to figure this out after listening to a few of them speak or reading their platforms. They talk a lot but they aren’t saying anything. Wait a second, is that a Talking Heads lyric? I don’t remember for sure but if it is its spot on.
Not that all of the Candidates here are full of it, there are a few bright spots to speak of. One of these is Patricia Walsh, the MST candidate. I say this because the program she is advocating is a departure from traditional politics and policies. I don’t have the space to lay it all out here, but one point I find very encouraging is her willingness to listen to the people and give not only a voice in the governance of Buenos Aires, but rather the voice. The whole MST party is structured this way; it’s a bottom to top approach that is a very refreshing departure from what I am used to coming from Minnesota.

Wolfowitz Isn't A Lone Soldier

Does it seem a bit ironic to anyone that Paul Wolfowitz resigned as president of the World Bank earlier among charges of corruption? I mean this is the man who upon taking up his position at the bank declared an anti-corruption campaign. Does it really surprise anybody though? Just look at where Wolfowitz came from before heading to the World Bank, the Bush Administration. Granted just being a member of the Administration doesn’t automatically qualify a person as corrupt, incompetent, or dishonest, but it certainly doesn’t help your case either.

Corruption is nothing new when it comes to politics and indeed one would be naïve to think otherwise. The pomposity of this Administration lies in its hypocrisy. The example of Wolfowitz is just one example, but there are plenty more. Of course there is the recent example of Luis Posada Carriles, one of the most notorious terrorists in the Western Hemisphere over the past 25 years, walking freely in the U.S. Another example is the infamous No Child Left Behind policy,

“President Bush's No Child Left Behind law requires public schools to lower the number of dropouts. Failure to do so results in unfavorable actions being taken against local schools, school districts, and individual teachers.

In his latest budget, President Bush cut the federal money for dropout programs to ZERO. The requirement stays in place. The punishments stay in place. The money to help schools reach the goal and avoid the punishments no longer exists.”1

Do I even dare get in the nuclear proliferation debate? Yeah, I have to. This Administration loves to pretend it is against it with a lot of tough talk to Iran and North Korea, yet at the same time the Administration has pulled out of or weakened every major international arms agreement. Meanwhile they tell Iran that they cannot have the technology while India, Pakistan, Israel (all U.S. allies and not signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) as well as Russia and China surround them with thermonuclear weapons.

So the policies are obviously hypocritical to a large extent. Now lets move on to the people. Randall Tobias, former AIDS Czar, got busted patronizing the services of an escort service. Or course he was only using it for the ‘massages’ and I could really care less what he does in his free time, except that the program he was in charge of wouldn’t give aid organizations that help prostitutes and made much of the aid available only if they went to abstinence programs. What a jackass. I believe the appropriate word in Buenos Aires is boludo.

Since we are on this topic we might as well bring up Ted Haggard. While not a member of the Bush Administration, he was a staunch supporter and powerful evangelical preacher who spoke with Bush or his advisers on a weekly basis. I say was because it came to light that Mr. Haggard also used the services of an escort service, this time a male one, as well as dabbled in methamphetamines on the side. This coming from some one who preached against homosexuality and drug use.

The list goes on and on, but I think the point is made. It has gotten so bad that when I heard about Wolfowitz’s problems at the World Bank my response was, “Yeah, that sounds about right”. Being surprised or shocked at how low these people can sink is no longer even an option, it is just taken for granted.

bio fuel/bio foe

A new report by the US Department of Agriculture has projected that the growing biofuel industry will use 27% of this years U.S. corn crop. Even though it is also projected that the crop will be a record 12.46 billion-bushels there is significant concern that stockpiles will be running low going into next, when biofuel demand is expected to continue its rise. Who cares right? I mean you don’t even really like corn so we might as well use it instead of buying oil from those pesky Arabs. Well let me lay out what is wrong with this picture, because there is definitely something wrong.

First of all biofuel itself is a tricky thing. It sounds so much better than petroleum and yet when you burn it, especially when it is made from corn, it isn’t cleaner. So there goes your ‘its better for the environment’ theory.

Well it might not be that green but at least it reduces our dependence on foreign oil. This is indeed true, it puts the U.S. in a more strategically secure position, at least as far as energy supplies go. When you can grow fuel instead of importing it from potentially hostile regions you are, at least in theory, spared from having to fight wars for control of resources. Of course in practice it is advantageous for the U.S. to control as many resources around the world as possible, regardless if it consumes them or not.

So a point for and a point against. Here is what tips the scale. Turning corn (food) into a fuel when people go hungry everyday in that same country doesn’t seem right to me. In the richest society in the history of the world many millions of people go to bed hungry every night. And it doesn’t stop there. Much of U.S. corn has, since the implementation of NAFTA, been exported to Mexico where it is turned in to tortilla. Tortilla is the staple of lower classes in Mexico and the main source of calories for many millions in that country. With more and more of U.S. crops been set aside for biofuel purposes the price of tortillas has been on the rise in Mexico, sparking widespread protest earlier this year. The Mexican government was forced into the position of setting a price cap so people could afford to eat. Is this really something we should be powering our cars with at the expense of so many peoples lives?

And here is the real kicker, cleaner and more efficient biofuels can indeed be made, not from potential food crops, but from others such as sugar cane or even switch grass. Look at Brasil for more encouraging approach to biofuel. It is developing the sugar cane option, I see no good reason why the U.S. should not as well. Of course I would prefer no biofuels at all and a move towards a much cleaner technology, but the U.S. seems incredibly reluctant to do this. And by the U.S. I mean the government. The population in general is clearly behind reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but since when does it matter what the people want?

Beware of those touting biofuels as some sort of response to global warming. We can and should do much better than that.

Not all terrorists are created equal

The U.S. is often accused of double standards and hypocrisy in its foreign policy, human rights, and pro-democracy hubris when it comes to pursuing its own interests. This can easily be seen when one of the justifications for the Iraq war was to bring to democracy to the people of Iraq, while at the same time the U.S. enjoys rather cozy and lucrative relations with China. The fact that China has horrible human rights record and an authoritarian government doesn’t seem to matter when it boils down to the ‘important’ issue: trade. The China case is just one of a number of hypocritical stances taken by the U.S. and for that simple reason it doesn’t even stand out that much.

One recent case though seems to me to go head and shoulders above a lot of this hypocrisy, the situation surrounding Luis Posada Carriles. Some of you have heard of him before, others have not so I will give a little background information. Carriles is an anti-Castro Cuban militant that was once employed by the CIA. He has been tied to numerous bombings and terrorist plots over the years, most often funded by the CIA (this was apparently before the U.S. considered terrorism a bad thing, how the tables have turned). The most notorious crime he is connected with though is the 1976 bombing of Cuban plane that resulted in the death of all 73 people on board.

Sounds bad right? Well unfortunately it gets worse. He was jailed in Venezuela and was undergoing trial for the bombing when he escaped in 1985. After trying his hand in a few more plots over the years he ended up being jailed in Panama in 2000 for plotting an assassination attempt, but he received a Pardon and left the country 4 years later. He made his way into the U.S. at some point after that and was rightly detained by U.S. authorities.

But not on terrorism charges, rather on charges about lying to immigration officials upon his entry into the country. Both Cuba and Venezuela demanded that he be extradited to them to continue facing trial for his alleged crimes or that he be tried for them in the U.S. as is laid out in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, a UN international agreement.

Pretty straightforward, right? Well the U.S. has refused to hand over Carriles or try him on terrorism charges, preferring to simply pursue the immigration charges in blatant disregard for international law. The fact that international law is being ignored is of course nothing new to the U.S. but the fact that a world recognized terrorist is the beneficiary of it should something rather disturbing to all U.S. citizens.

And to top it all of the judge in Carriles’ immigration case dismissed yesterday leaving Carriles a free man within the U.S.

At this point the question has to be: why? Granted the U.S. certainly doesn’t like or approve of the governments in Cuba or Venezuela so I can at least understand the reluctance to hand Carriles into their custody. But why let a known terrorist walk free in U.S., I mean at least give him trail here. Perhaps I am being cynical, but the only other reason I can think of is that in for about a year, from Jan 30 1976 to Jan 20 1977 George H. W. Bush served as Director of the CIA. If Carriles was brought to trail on terrorism charges he would inevitably bring to light many details of that agencies policies and secrets, probably putting George senior in a bad light. The fact that his son is in the White House and this administration has repeatedly rejected bringing Carriles to justice is just a bit too much for me.

It brings me to the conclusion that the U.S. hypocrisy only continues to spread. Terrorist are evil and bad when they come from the Mid East, but when they come from Cuba and are anti-communist not only do they escape punishment, they get a welcome into our country. Don’t think the rest of the world isn’t paying attention. They certainly are. This Orwellian double-speak can only go on for so long before it catches up with us.