As we approach the mid-term elections an unseen force begins to exert undue influence over our political process. This force, money, is not new to the political process nor is it new to undue influence over said process. However, what is now new is that moneyed interests now have a legal right to attempt to buy the outcome. Legal precedent established in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission case now make it lawful for corporations to put as much money as they desire into elections. Unlike individuals, corporations are able to donate as much as they would like and can even directly air advertising.
The Citizen's United ruling hinges on an even greater misrepresentation from the 1886 ruling in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, in which corporations were granted personhood (see link elsewhere on this page for a review of the court case). As is commonly known, the case did not actually rule on that issue, but rather the clerk scribbled it after the fact on the document.
Of course it defies logic that corporations are people, but what defies logic even more is the ruling in Citizen's United that removes limits on political spending by corporations. Logically it would seem to follow that if limits can be placed on individuals who are actual people, then limits could also be imposed on corporations, which as people are legal fictions.
Beyond this egregious idea that corporations are people with the rights of individuals, is the other idea to emerge from the Citizen's United ruling that these groups can give money without identifying the source.
On Sunday, speaking on Face the Nation, presidential advisor David Axelrod stated that foreign corporations are involved in donating money through Republican groups to influence the election. The Democrats apparently are even rolling out an ad campaign around this idea.
"Foul!" cry the Republicans, "you can't prove it." Well obviously not. It is impossible to prove who anonymous donors are. That is completely the point. As long as donors are able to remain anonymous it will be impossible to know who is trying to buy our democracy. What is really strange is that the holier-than-thou Tea Party seems completely silent about this matter. Could it be that they are using this to their advantage? Witness Art Robinson, global warming denier and Oregon congressional candidate. Mysteriously, ads critical of Robinson's opponent have appeared allegedly without his knowledge as to the source of funding.
Back to the issue of foreign money. To think that corporations are giving money and there is no foreign involvement strains credibility as to how corporations are organized. Corporations, those large enough to give money on the scale that influences elections, are rarely single nation entities. Transnational corporations are the norm rather than the exception. Many of these global behemoths have financial resources greater than most nations, yet are treated as if they are individual American citizens. Is there anyone who believes that these entities are above trying to influence an election, or for that matter, all elections?
Without limits on corporate spending and without disclosure laws there is absolutely nothing to prevent foreign entities, corporate or state, from clandestinely providing resources in an attempt to buy a government. Our representatives are already beholden enough to moneyed interests. Without disclosure and limits, the government is up for auction.
Follow the money. Notice who defends this state of affairs that would allow for the unlimited flow of dollars from foreign companies, governments and individuals to influence U.S. elections. Will Exxon, China and Bin Laden decide who we elect next?
Showing posts with label Osama bin Laden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Osama bin Laden. Show all posts
Monday, October 11, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
All For Naught: Don't Believe the Hype
Y2K. Ah, back when the world was simple and all we had to worry about was catastrophic shutdown of everything on the planet. Or so we were hyped. Then nothing happened. The good old days.
Then came the election of 2000, featuring the contrast of wooden Al Gore versus good ole boy George W. At least that was the hype, that was the coverage. Overlooked was that one candidate had rigorously prepared himself for the office, and as it turns out, was the man most suited to tackle the continuing task of confronting global warming. The other man was George Bush, the most unprepared candidate for office in memory, possibly history.
The election, mired by more problems than any democracy should tolerate, ended in a vote of 5-4 by the Supreme court. Democracy prevailed, or so was the hype. Problems concerning voting machines, voter disenfranchisement and overt political meddling in the process continues even as we assure that we can produce fair elections in other countries.
On his first day in office, George W. Bush was briefed by Richard Clarke that a Islamic jihad group led by Osama bin Laden was a threat to the U.S. The USS Cole suffered an attack with explosives in Yemen.
September 11, 2001 was a day that changed the world. Everyone bought the hype. Nothing had changed, terrorists had already hit in the U.S. and al-Qaeda was already fully operational. It's leader, bin Laden, we were told would be caught, "Dead or Alive". He was on the run, his operation was in shambles. Or so was the hype.
Fear of continuing attacks was fanned. Two wars began in quick succession. Domestic spying, suspension of the very rights of which underpin our country, phone taps, email interceptions, all followed in rapid succession. We began to abandon our own principles, jailing without trial, creating Guantanamo, justifying torture, all in the name of security. Alert levels became the measure of our fear.
Richard Reid made us all take off our shoes every time we fly. The TSA began confiscating nail clippers and key chains. This was supposed to make us safe. The whole security apparatus of the United States was reorganized.
Christmas Day, 2009 a 23-year-old Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmuttallab, attempted to blow up a flight from Amsterdam as it descended into Detroit. Abdulmuttallab, schooled and radicalized in Britain, had recently traveled to Yemen. His own father, a prominent Nigerian banker, had personally gone to the U.S. embassy and reported that his son had become a radical jihadist.
Muttallab's attack involved the use of an explosive known as PETN, the same as Richard Reid. The new solution has already been proposed - full electronic body scans. Profiling is also being trumpeted as a necessary element in preventing any new attacks. These things will make us safe, we are told.
The last decade has taught us exactly what we should have expected from a decade that began with a zero and an irrational fear of computers crashing: Naught.
Then came the election of 2000, featuring the contrast of wooden Al Gore versus good ole boy George W. At least that was the hype, that was the coverage. Overlooked was that one candidate had rigorously prepared himself for the office, and as it turns out, was the man most suited to tackle the continuing task of confronting global warming. The other man was George Bush, the most unprepared candidate for office in memory, possibly history.
The election, mired by more problems than any democracy should tolerate, ended in a vote of 5-4 by the Supreme court. Democracy prevailed, or so was the hype. Problems concerning voting machines, voter disenfranchisement and overt political meddling in the process continues even as we assure that we can produce fair elections in other countries.
On his first day in office, George W. Bush was briefed by Richard Clarke that a Islamic jihad group led by Osama bin Laden was a threat to the U.S. The USS Cole suffered an attack with explosives in Yemen.
September 11, 2001 was a day that changed the world. Everyone bought the hype. Nothing had changed, terrorists had already hit in the U.S. and al-Qaeda was already fully operational. It's leader, bin Laden, we were told would be caught, "Dead or Alive". He was on the run, his operation was in shambles. Or so was the hype.
Fear of continuing attacks was fanned. Two wars began in quick succession. Domestic spying, suspension of the very rights of which underpin our country, phone taps, email interceptions, all followed in rapid succession. We began to abandon our own principles, jailing without trial, creating Guantanamo, justifying torture, all in the name of security. Alert levels became the measure of our fear.
Richard Reid made us all take off our shoes every time we fly. The TSA began confiscating nail clippers and key chains. This was supposed to make us safe. The whole security apparatus of the United States was reorganized.
Christmas Day, 2009 a 23-year-old Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmuttallab, attempted to blow up a flight from Amsterdam as it descended into Detroit. Abdulmuttallab, schooled and radicalized in Britain, had recently traveled to Yemen. His own father, a prominent Nigerian banker, had personally gone to the U.S. embassy and reported that his son had become a radical jihadist.
Muttallab's attack involved the use of an explosive known as PETN, the same as Richard Reid. The new solution has already been proposed - full electronic body scans. Profiling is also being trumpeted as a necessary element in preventing any new attacks. These things will make us safe, we are told.
The last decade has taught us exactly what we should have expected from a decade that began with a zero and an irrational fear of computers crashing: Naught.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Ronald Dumbsfeld
The Senate Foreign Relations committee has just released a report in which it is revealed that the military had Osama bin-Laden cornered in Tora Bora in the immediate aftermath of the invasion in 2001. It is also noted that then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, apparently feared that to capture or kill bin-Laden would produce a backlash. An absurd fear given the backlash that happened anyway.
Of course, the report from the Senate committee provided little information about the facts on the ground, i.e. that bin-laden was cornered. It seemed inevitable at the time that he would be captured. There were even questions about whether he had been killed or not. It only added to his mystique and elevated him to some quasi-hero status to those we most wanted not to follow him. Then suddenly, we didn't "think that much about him," to quote W.
But was it really that Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush (mis)Administration feared a backlash if they caught bin-Laden. If they had perchance caught him or killed him, again, as seemed inevitable at the time, that might have really disrupted the momentum to invade Iraq. If bin-Laden were gone, the public would have likely been satisfied that 9/11 had been avenged.
Could they really have been this incompetent?
In retrospect it can be seen that Iraq was far more important to the Bush-ites than Afghanistan. Saddam is gone, executed. Most of his inner circle is dead. Osama bin-Laden, Mullah Omar, and others, still in charge.
When satellites can read license plates from space, how do you miss a 6'5' guy on dialysis traveling around in the rural mountains? Answer: You try very hard.
Of course, the report from the Senate committee provided little information about the facts on the ground, i.e. that bin-laden was cornered. It seemed inevitable at the time that he would be captured. There were even questions about whether he had been killed or not. It only added to his mystique and elevated him to some quasi-hero status to those we most wanted not to follow him. Then suddenly, we didn't "think that much about him," to quote W.
But was it really that Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush (mis)Administration feared a backlash if they caught bin-Laden. If they had perchance caught him or killed him, again, as seemed inevitable at the time, that might have really disrupted the momentum to invade Iraq. If bin-Laden were gone, the public would have likely been satisfied that 9/11 had been avenged.
Could they really have been this incompetent?
In retrospect it can be seen that Iraq was far more important to the Bush-ites than Afghanistan. Saddam is gone, executed. Most of his inner circle is dead. Osama bin-Laden, Mullah Omar, and others, still in charge.
When satellites can read license plates from space, how do you miss a 6'5' guy on dialysis traveling around in the rural mountains? Answer: You try very hard.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Liars at the CIA?
Likely the most credible part of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) story about her briefings by the CIA is the claim that they misled her. Why does everyone seem to find this so hard to believe? I have always thought that deception and misdirection were at the very core of the CIA's mission.
Was it not the CIA that provided the fabricated yellow cake uranium trail from Niger to Saddam? Was it not their faulty intelligence, distorted at the direction of Dick Cheney, that falsely created the case for the Iraq War? Has it not been abundantly clear over the past seven or so years that the truth was being concealed from the American people?
There seems to be concrete evidence of their efforts to mislead both the Congress and the people and cover their trail (and tails) with misleading memos. Former Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), known for his overly detailed personal notebooks, has refuted that he was briefed on at least three of the four occasions that the CIA claimed. Records of another briefing indicate the presence of a Congressional aide who had already left the job. There is already a court case involving the destruction of videotapes of torture. Obstruction of justice is hardly a character reference to inoculate the agency against charges of lying.
The CIA is indignant about accusations of lying? Are we really supposed to pull the wool over our own eyes and act as if this is beyond their moral boundaries? If you are not already aware of the following incidents and the CIA's part in them, please research the following (please note that a general search involving "CIA" and any of the terms below should give you enough to sort through for hours):
1. The murders of the duly elected South American leaders, Salvadore Allende and Jacobo Arbenz.
2. The murder of Che Guevarra.
3. The Bay of Pigs
4. Cocaine smuggling (please refer to Gerald Hossenfuss, check spelling, in search).
5. LSD experiments on unsuspecting members of the public.
6. Initial funding of Osama bin Laden (he was their boy when he was fighting the Soviets).
7. Manuel Noriega, drug smuggling and political repression.
8. Vietnam: drug smuggling to assassinations.
9. Iran-Contra.
10. "False Flag" Operations.
These were just ten examples off the top of my head on a Friday afternoon. If you get through all of this and you still have any delusions about the moral character of the CIA please do not open any emails asking you for your help in claiming money that is being held in another country.
The mission of the CIA seems centered around deceiving the public and operating in secret. Spies are people who must be willing to do egregious things. Believing that they would not lie is naive or self-deluded. Continue your own research into this matter, look for more of the damage left in their wake. Just whatever you do, don't look into Dallas '63.
Was it not the CIA that provided the fabricated yellow cake uranium trail from Niger to Saddam? Was it not their faulty intelligence, distorted at the direction of Dick Cheney, that falsely created the case for the Iraq War? Has it not been abundantly clear over the past seven or so years that the truth was being concealed from the American people?
There seems to be concrete evidence of their efforts to mislead both the Congress and the people and cover their trail (and tails) with misleading memos. Former Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), known for his overly detailed personal notebooks, has refuted that he was briefed on at least three of the four occasions that the CIA claimed. Records of another briefing indicate the presence of a Congressional aide who had already left the job. There is already a court case involving the destruction of videotapes of torture. Obstruction of justice is hardly a character reference to inoculate the agency against charges of lying.
The CIA is indignant about accusations of lying? Are we really supposed to pull the wool over our own eyes and act as if this is beyond their moral boundaries? If you are not already aware of the following incidents and the CIA's part in them, please research the following (please note that a general search involving "CIA" and any of the terms below should give you enough to sort through for hours):
1. The murders of the duly elected South American leaders, Salvadore Allende and Jacobo Arbenz.
2. The murder of Che Guevarra.
3. The Bay of Pigs
4. Cocaine smuggling (please refer to Gerald Hossenfuss, check spelling, in search).
5. LSD experiments on unsuspecting members of the public.
6. Initial funding of Osama bin Laden (he was their boy when he was fighting the Soviets).
7. Manuel Noriega, drug smuggling and political repression.
8. Vietnam: drug smuggling to assassinations.
9. Iran-Contra.
10. "False Flag" Operations.
These were just ten examples off the top of my head on a Friday afternoon. If you get through all of this and you still have any delusions about the moral character of the CIA please do not open any emails asking you for your help in claiming money that is being held in another country.
The mission of the CIA seems centered around deceiving the public and operating in secret. Spies are people who must be willing to do egregious things. Believing that they would not lie is naive or self-deluded. Continue your own research into this matter, look for more of the damage left in their wake. Just whatever you do, don't look into Dallas '63.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Bush: The Legacy
The legacy tour continues, as Bush, Cheney and their minions attempt to manipulate memories and reality. "It all went well, really. History will vindicate us, you'll see." Bush even claimed in his press conference that the response to Katrina was "pretty good." Delusion or lie.
A complete litany of the failures of the Bush Administration is too long to begin. Even the list of major debacles has grown so long that it becomes impossible to recite them without leaving out something obvious. The threats to our rights, and the acts of utter disregard for the Constitution and our ideals, are surely even more numerous.
The legacy of the Bush Presidency though, can be summed up by the intersection of a number of the various domains of failure perfected by this thoroughly incompetent administration. To begin, in the final week of his presidency, Osama bin Laden releases another audiotape, continuing to taunt Bush. The hunt for bin Laden, marked by all the swagger and hubris we have come to expect from the Decider, serves as a symbol of the utter incompetence of this administration.
The inability to capture bin Laden was accompanied, over the years, by an ever frantic effort to ramp up fears of future attacks, and to justify all manner of acts antithetical to the professed ideals of this country. Torture was justified and denied at the same time. The moral authority of the nation was destroyed here and abroad.
Now that Judge Susan J. Crawford, who oversees the military trials at Guantanamo, has stated unequivocally that torture has occurred at that facility, the legacy tour will continue to point out there have been no attacks since 9/11. Forget that 9/11 occurred on their watch and the anthrax attacks occurred soon after. Know that the torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib ended serving more as a recruitment tool for al-Qaeda than it made anyone safe.
Finally though, the legacy of the Bush Administration can be seen in the complete lack of regard for which America is now seen in the world community. Rather than making the world or America safer, he has inflamed the very soul of the world. His eight years of dogmatic, ideological imperialism have confirmed the worst suspicions about America for its detractors. His incompetence has compounded the multitude of errors. Here we are, more than seven years after 9/11 and he still hasn't caught a six feet, five inch guy on dialysis who is one of the most recognizable figures in the world.
Bush's narrow minded view of the world fostered an "us vs. them" mentality that ultimately made us all less safe. He had furthered the likelihood of violence and confrontation in the world. A strong case can be made that the current actions in the Gaza Strip are occurring precisely because Bush is about to leave office. And remember, he was going to bring peace to the Middle East.
Incompetence. Torture. World Stature Destroyed. Quite a legacy. Oh, and I forgot the economy.
A complete litany of the failures of the Bush Administration is too long to begin. Even the list of major debacles has grown so long that it becomes impossible to recite them without leaving out something obvious. The threats to our rights, and the acts of utter disregard for the Constitution and our ideals, are surely even more numerous.
The legacy of the Bush Presidency though, can be summed up by the intersection of a number of the various domains of failure perfected by this thoroughly incompetent administration. To begin, in the final week of his presidency, Osama bin Laden releases another audiotape, continuing to taunt Bush. The hunt for bin Laden, marked by all the swagger and hubris we have come to expect from the Decider, serves as a symbol of the utter incompetence of this administration.
The inability to capture bin Laden was accompanied, over the years, by an ever frantic effort to ramp up fears of future attacks, and to justify all manner of acts antithetical to the professed ideals of this country. Torture was justified and denied at the same time. The moral authority of the nation was destroyed here and abroad.
Now that Judge Susan J. Crawford, who oversees the military trials at Guantanamo, has stated unequivocally that torture has occurred at that facility, the legacy tour will continue to point out there have been no attacks since 9/11. Forget that 9/11 occurred on their watch and the anthrax attacks occurred soon after. Know that the torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib ended serving more as a recruitment tool for al-Qaeda than it made anyone safe.
Finally though, the legacy of the Bush Administration can be seen in the complete lack of regard for which America is now seen in the world community. Rather than making the world or America safer, he has inflamed the very soul of the world. His eight years of dogmatic, ideological imperialism have confirmed the worst suspicions about America for its detractors. His incompetence has compounded the multitude of errors. Here we are, more than seven years after 9/11 and he still hasn't caught a six feet, five inch guy on dialysis who is one of the most recognizable figures in the world.
Bush's narrow minded view of the world fostered an "us vs. them" mentality that ultimately made us all less safe. He had furthered the likelihood of violence and confrontation in the world. A strong case can be made that the current actions in the Gaza Strip are occurring precisely because Bush is about to leave office. And remember, he was going to bring peace to the Middle East.
Incompetence. Torture. World Stature Destroyed. Quite a legacy. Oh, and I forgot the economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
