Neoliberalism: The Driving Force of Inequality

   Neoliberalism is the defining political and economic model of our world today. Yet, most people really can't define it, nor do they know the results of it on the world because the world-elite, its advocates, have put a scientific and scholarly veil over its true consequences. Originally adopted during the Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher era, neoliberalism refers to the policies and processes in which a relative few large private interests are encouraged to control vast resources and influence over the world in order to build extreme wealth for themselves and a few others. Advocates come from every side of the political spectrum and the US pushes these principals on the entire world.  In reality it does not matter whether we get Romney or Obama or Gingrich or Paul (well maybe a little :) ), they all serve the same interest. Bush did, Clinton did, Obama does, it really isn't their choice, they are puppets.
   On the surface and in the political rhetoric, neoliberalism is characterized as a free-market system, that encourages private enterprise and maximizes consumer choices. The system claims to reward entrepreneurs and professionally responsible businesses. In its most exaggerated state, neoliberalism claims to help the poor, the needy, the environment, and everyone else while in reality it is only advancing the interest of very few. But this is all bologna. It is a line of bull.
   Realistically, neoliberal policies feed the public a bunch of petty issues to argue over, acting as if they are truly important to the individual, while both sides are actually pursuing the same pro-business policies. Politicians talk about gay marriage, abortion, entitlement systems, political scandals and the such as if those things truly matter. They don't. Gay marriage is not the cause of poverty, or war, or starvation, or advances in technology. But if the public is arguing about trivial nonsense, then the parties can advance businesses interest in the background.
   The other result of these trivial debates that are headlined on every TV station is that people just don't care, voter turnout plummets. And what demographic doesn't vote? Disproportionately the poor don't, the people most affected by the pro-business policies. This affect is sought for and encouraged by the machine. Policies  that would unveil the truth or actually help people in need are quickly suppressed by the large interests in Washington. Policies that would excite people to get involved and informed are not offered. Long, boring legislation is passed that we cannot read nor even start to understand the implications of, usually because it doesn't have any real implications for the individual. And if it does, it usually isn't good. Which is why we are not involved. Too much b.s to weed through to get the truth.
    Governments, and specifically the US government, are central to the cause of neoliberalism. Not only by distracting our attention but also by lavishly subsidizing big corporations. The corporations take this tax-payer money and spend it on what benefits their board members and partners interest. You saw this in the bailout in 2008 on a major scale, but this happens every year, with hundreds of corporate subsidies. Corporations cross boarders to steal other country's resources with tax-payer money. Think of corporations like Monsanto, Halliburton, Bechtel... they have all been subsidized many times by the US government. Subsidized to exploit the poor.
   This crossing of borders by big business, is part of what is known as globalization. In reality, it is the main component and driving factor. As I have put in other blogs, this is the US forcing huge loans on countries through the huge economic institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, and WTO. This allows huge corporations to essentially control the world's resources and populations without owing anything to the people of that country. Because of capitalism, the only thing that matters is that companies bottom line and not the welfare and safety of the large majority of the world. In Indonesia, the Philippines, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, the United States, Iraq, everywhere in the world, corporations exploit the resources and people of the world. Indonesia, the Philippines, and Ecuador pay over half of their government's budget to these economic institutions in the repayment of loans and interest. How is a country supposed to develop and provide essential needs for it's people? And why don't we hear about this?
   That's where big-businesses alliance with the media and academia comes in. The corporate media, the PR industry, academics and intellectuals play a central rule in advancing the illusions of neoliberal policies. They serve as forums to make this situation seem necessary, rational and benevolent. Using institutional mechanisms, these ideas are passed on to journalists and intellectuals as the best possible way things can be. These institutions give no room for improvement because the policies are accepted and the direction of the research and reporting goes toward advancing the interests of those who already benefit from the status quo no matter the consequences for the rest of us.
    The economic consequences of these policies have been disastrous as we have seen in the examples all around the world. There has never been so much poverty and desperation in the world. Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes. That is horrible yet it is accepted as the best possible system. There is a massive discrepancy between rich and poor in almost all countries and in the world. The environment is being destroyed and extreme wealth is running rampant for the greedy few. We all know the stats. The richest 20 percent control almost 80 percent of the world's wealth. Almost 2 billion people live under 730 dollars per year while there are while one family is worth 75 billion dollars.
    This wealth has total control over the implementation of social and economic policy. If we look solely at the United States, the stats are hard to ignore. Rarely is a President elected that had raised less money than his competitor. Total campaign contributions almost always dictate who the President is going to be. In the US, the richest one-quarter of one percent make 80 percent of campaign contributions. Corporations outspend labor 10 to 1. This makes a true electoral democracy impossible. Only those who can raise money and spend money in elections will see their interests advanced. Participatory democracy and capitalism do not work together, they can't. It doesn't make ideological sense.
   This is true for social and economic equality as well. Markets are almost never competitive. The ones with the power just garner more power. This is one of my main disagreements with Ron Paul, and everyone knows how much I like him. But this is a major issue. Most of the economy is being controlled by very few massive corporations, therefore they are ensuring that there will be no competition. If you control a huge part of the market, you are able to drive prices lower then any other small company that cannot afford to do so, weeding out competition. This is fact even though our economic textbooks and literature may argue differently.
   I just want to have an A.D.D moment for a second and talk about Gross National Product (GNP). These textbooks and politicians always point to the rise in GNP as economic growth. But they always fail to ignore 2 major factors on GNP; inflation and wealth of one. Inflation may go up, which reflects in peoples income but that does not mean the country is getting wealthier, it actually means the opposite most of the time. Second, if one person is to double their income, then GNP rises for the entire country. If you use this model on the US, you see that huge corporations and the wealthy few getting even more wealthy is characterized as economic growth for the nation, but it isn't. The poor could be getting poorer but as long as the rich are getting much richer, it will always show a growth in GNP.
    So back to a democratic nation. For a democracy to be effective, it requires people to feel a connection to each other and the political process, neither of which the US has. Neoliberal democracy takes dead aim at eliminating non-market organizations and institutions intended to bring people closer to each other and the process. It only advocates market organizations and institutions. Instead of communities, the market economy provides shopping walls, wall-street elitists, and Hollywood millionaires. Instead of citizens of a political society, it creates consumers. People more interested in what their buck will get them then how to benefit the world. The result of this process is a disengaged population that feels disconnected and powerless.
   The world elite and corporate board rooms know that this is happening as a consequence of their benefit. They know this and they feel that they cannot be questioned or challenged. That is why they are so ruthless with their drive for extreme wealth. This business community spends endless amounts of money, funding a PR apparatus that has convinced most that this is the best possible world we can have.
   This notion that this is the best possible world that we can create is more far-fetched than ever. With all the advancements in technology, medicine, and communication. There are so many of these advancements that could be used to benefit the human condition so significantly but they aren't. They aren't because most feel it is too hard, that we are too ingrained in this system, or that this is the best we can do. This is simply wrong. Every major advancement in human society has had to face the same obstacle. From ending slavery to the establishment of the first democracy, each had to conquer the idea that it was impossible because it has never been done before or that we are doing our best.

Iran: Lies and Propaganda

Oil standoff: Iran, West on the Brink of War?

   America continues to instigate a war with Iran while attempting to demonize the Iranian government and population. The situation with Iran is the most dangerous situation in the world since the Cold War. What is the reason for such hostility? Some will suggest that it is about oil because Iran has the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world behind Saudi Arabia and Iraq but it is much more complex than that. I will try to explain the history and foundation of this problem. Above is a link that discusses the potential for a war between Iran and the West, led by America. The turmoil between the US and Iran has historical roots dating back to 1953. Since 1953, other factors have affected the relationship including the NPT, the Iranian Revolution and the War on Terror.
   "Terrorism" is defined by the US Department of Defense as "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies as to the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." If you really dissect this definition, it includes actions made by the United States as well as the many "terrorist" groups.
   9/11 was seen as an opportunity for America to regain control of the Middle East. The neo-conservatives and the Project for the New American Century, which includes Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, say this opportunity as a way to expand US global domination. Not only the neo-cons but also the Democratic party leadership saw that 9/11 gave them a perfect reason to implant pro-US leaders in many of the countries that had escaped its grasps. With pro-US leaders in power in Arab nations, US companies could be ensured that oil industries would be exploitable. Along with oil companies, construction companies were also lobbying heavily to make sure the US took action in the Middle East. They would be rewarded with huge re-construction projects that would prove to be very lucrative. The main targets of these global powers were Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya. So the propaganda machine went to work.
   There are a few steps to military action employed by the United States and they manifested themselves in all of these countries. First, the US demonize the enemy through lies. Like the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, the US used the threat of WMDs and nuclear programs to demonize both Iraq and Iran. In Syria and Libya, they just presented a picture of their leaders as massive human rights violators. Second, the propaganda machine must exaggerate the threat. Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons and Iran is not close to having nukes as I will show. By telling mistruths, the US is able to gain public support for their "moral" cause. Third, the US fakes diplomatic attempts to address the "problems". Once diplomatic measures have been exhausted, they must establish a pretext for invasion. This happened in Iraq, Syria, and Libya and I believe that Iran is next. The parallels are too evident. We do this every time we want to remove a leader that is not favorable to our interest. But let's go back to the beginning.
   In 1951, Mohammad Mossadegh was the first democratically elected President of Iran. That same year, on March 20th, the National Front Bill was passed by the Senate. This bill nationalized the oil industry. The result of this was that the Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company (owned by British Petroleum) was kicked out and the oil profits would go to the people of Iran. This, of course, could not stand. The US sends in Kermit Roosevelt, the nephew of FDR, to orchestrate "Operation Ajax". This was an American sponsored coup to overthrow Mossadegh. He promoted a coup through bribery. It was successful. If you want more details on the coup read All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer or the link below is a shorter article.

1953 Coup D'etat in Iran by Mark J. Gasiorowki

    The United States injected Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, known to most as the Shah. The Shah was a servant to the elite and to US interest. Immediately after he took power in 1953 he privatized the oil industry, handing the control to US and British oil companies. Mossad, the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate and the CIA helped the Shah to create his own secret police to suppress dissent. SAVAK was created and began to repress dissenters through jailing, exile, torture, and murder. One of the men that was jailed and then sent into exile was the Ayatollah Khomeini. He was in jail for 2 years and then sent into exile for 14 years. The Shah would remain in power for over 25 years, stuffing his pockets with dirty money and suppressing dissenters. By the late 1970s the US had established full control of the oil-rich states. The US had put the Shah in power in Iran, Saddam led a coup in Iraq and was rewarded with being the leader, and the US had the Saud family under their thumb. All the major oil producing countries were aligned with the US. This all changed in 1979 with the Iranian Revolution.
   Major protests began in the mid 1970s in Iran. They were calling for the return of Ayatollah Khomeini and the establishment of an Islamic Republic, mainly one that was not the servants of the US and their interest. The Shah cracked down, he proclaimed martial law. Protests were no illegal and SAVAK was working overtime. But the dissent was too large and too powerful. Ten million people poured into the streets, two million in the capital city of Tehran alone. One quarter of the population was in the streets protesting for the removal of the Shah and the return of the Ayatollah. Ayatollah Khomeini returned, the Shah fled the country, and an Islamic Republic was established. US and British companies were kicked out again but Iran wanted more.
   Students stormed the US embassy, ironically, the very same building that Kermit Roosevelt had orchestrated the coup out of and took Americans hostage. 52 Americans were held for 444 days in Iran. The students demanded four things. First that the Shah be returned to Iran so he could be put on trial for all the crimes he had committed. Second, they wanted the Shah's fortune - an estimated one billion dollars - to be returned to the Iranian people. The US had access to all of his bank accounts. Third, the students demanded that the US stop interfering in Iran. And finally, they asked for an apology and admission of guilt. In the end, the students did not really get any of these demands. The hostages were all returned but the Shah did not return to Iran until many years later, he was sent into exile instead of prison, kept most of his wealth and the US continues to interfere in Iranian politics.
   In the 1980s, turmoil between Iran and Iraq began to escalate. Saddam wanted to control the oil in Iran and the US was not opposed to this. They actually instigated it. The war lasted from 1980 to 1988. An estimated one million people died in this conflict. The US had their hands all over it. The US actually aided both sides of the war. By doing this, the US ensured that neither would prevail stronger than when they went in to the war. Supporting both sides ensured the destabilization of both countries which played well to US interests. The US could exercise more influence in the region. The US was giving Iraq intelligence and weapons and also gave Iraq loans to build and develop more weapons. Iraq destroyed Iran's oil infrastructure. The US continued to support the Saddam regime even though they knew that he was using chemical weapons on Iran and on his own people. The US also provided weapons to Iran, though not directly, which was known as the Iran-Contra scandal.
   President Reagan could not get Congressional approval to go to war in Nicaragua to fight the Sandinistas.  Since he could not get Congressional approval, he needed to find a way to fund this war against communism in Nicaragua. He needed to fund the opposition in Nicaragua which was famous for its death squads and mass murders. These groups were created and funded with dirty money. Since there was a UN arms embargo on Iran, which was supported by the US, Reagan decided to use Israel as a courier to deliver weapons to Iran. Israel gave Iran weapons in exchange for payment, the US replaced the Israeli weapons that were given to Iran and the payment was given to the US. Reagan went against his own policy, behind the backs of Americans, in order to fund the mass murder of Nicaraguan civilians. The US was actually convicted of illegal use of force by the International Criminal Court (ICC) but of course this ruling was ignored by the US. No reparations were paid, no consequences for our illegal actions. The US support of terror is forgotten while we ridicule Iran for supporting terrorism in Palestine.
   Iran may be supporting some of these groups in Israel but they at least they have very legitimate grievances. The Palestinians want their land back that was taken from them. Before 1940 and the creation of a Jewish state, the territories had a population that was almost 98 percent Palestinian. Not only were their lands stolen but now the state of Israel is terrorizing their lives with occupation. Since the same time casualties in Israel because of the conflict are 8 to 1, Palestinian to Israeli. Israel has a powerful army, with the most technologically advanced weapons, they occupy Palestine with tanks and blow up neighborhoods. Too much to get into but here is a little clip of Noam Chomsky talking about it.

The US does not want resolution here. They actually vetoed a UN decision to restore the borders to pre-1967 conditions. Essentially, giving the Palestinians quasi-sovereign rights to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But US politicians are loyal to APAC, the Israel lobby. We don't want to acknowledge that these people are fighting for their freedom, they are not terrorists, they are desperate.
   Look at South Africa. Nelson Mandela and his followers were labeled as terrorists at first but they were really fighting for justice. Look at how much terrorism the US has supported. The US supported terrorist groups to fight popular uprisings in Mozambique and in Angola. These were horribly brutal conflicts. The US supported terrorism all over Latin America to fight against the establishment of socialist states in the region. The US supported the Mujahideen, which is the foundation of Islamic terrorism, in order to fight the Russians in the Middle East. US funded militants in Libya just last year. They also supported terrorist groups in Syria, Iran and Iraq. Only terror that the US determines is just is allowed, anything else should be demonized and not listened to.
   I am going to switch gears a bit and re-focus on Iran. One of the things we always hear about in the news is the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This was a UN treaty, signed in the late 1960s, that prohibits any non-nuclear state from acquiring nuclear weapons. The states that had nuclear weapons at the time were supposed to engage in a process of disarming their entire nuclear arsenal. And lastly that countries are allowed to pursue a nuclear program if it is for energy. Here is a link to the NPT.
Non-Proliferation Treaty

   Iran has been consistent in their rhetoric about the nuclear weapons program. First, that the US has no right to ridicule their program because they are not honoring the treaty by decreasing their arsenal. The US has thousands of nuclear weapons and continues to make many more. Iran has zero. The Supreme Leader of Iran has said consistently that they do not intend to build weapons, that nuclear weapons have been banned as sacrilegious, and that Iran promotes a nuclear-free Middle East.
   The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has released many reports on the Iranian nuclear weapons program and they results have been very consistent.  They have found that there is no clear evidence to suggest that Iran is trying to develop weapons. IAEA General Director, Mohamed El Baradei reported that no hidden plants exist, they are not attempting to build weapons, nor are they close to having the capabilities. Shortly after these reports were released, Baradei was replaced as General Director. The US manipulates the UN, its member states and its agencies to work for American interests. The US told India they would not provide them with weapons that had been promised if they didn't vote with the US.
    Under Article 6 of the NPT, nuclear states are supposed to disarm. The US is not disarming. Non-nuclear states are not supposed to be able to get weapons. But since the treaty was signed, Israel has received more than 200 nuclear weapons. India has received 100 to 140 nuclear weapons and Pakistan has received over 60. South Africa has also been sold nuclear weapons by the US through Israel. The US is dictating nuclear policy and because they have demonized Iran, Iran is not even allowed to pursue nuclear energy. The President of Iran is not quiet about these contradictions and lies by the US.
   The US media machine focuses on the radical President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He speaks out against US imperialism and is very anti-Israel. This slight of hand works well because the US media takes his statements out of context and makes him look like a bad guy. The media is very good at this. The part they leave out is that the President of Iran does not have much power. The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Ayatollah is the man who makes decisions. And the Ayatollah is saying very different things. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei replaced Ayatollah Khomeini after his death. Ali Khamenei makes the decisions regarding foreign policy, military policy, and the nuclear program. He signed the Arab Peace Initiative which would re-establish diplomatic relations with Israel if they stopped the occupation of the Palestinian territories. The Ayatollah also tried to make a deal with Washington in 2002 and this offer still stands today. Iran would allow full nuclear inspections, cut off all support to Hammas and Hezbollah, and would normalize relations with Israel if they stop the occupation. In exchange, the US would have to promise not to attack Iran and lift all sanctions allowing the world to invest in Iran. Washington declined and continues to decline this offer.
   The sanctions have extreme consequences on the country. After the Iran-Iraq war, the oil infrastructure in Iran was destroyed. The US coerced Europe, India, Brazil and Turkey to support all economic sanctions on Iran. This prohibits countries from being able to fully trade with Iran. As a result of these sanctions, Iran is not able to use its wealth to develop industry and support its population. The US acts as if these sanctions are diplomatic measures but they are not. Sanctions are an act of aggression. Without being able to develop their infrastructure, Iran has no option but to aspire for nuclear energy to power the country. That is why they are going forth with their nuclear program.
    Another deception led by the media is the relationship between Iran and Venezuela. The US portrays this as an evil conspiracy to develop nuclear weapons in order to attack the US. This is not the case at all. Like Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez is very anti-America. America attempted to overthrow Chavez in 2002 but were unsuccessful in the end. He was overthrown for a day, but the Venezuelan people flooded the streets and demanded his return. In reality, this relationship is a peaceful one. I will attach a link below that discusses this further. In my opinion, the relationship is developing because Iran and Venezuela see a way to make an impact on American hegemony. If they can develop nuclear energy to power their entire country, these two oil rich companies can inflate the price of oil which would negatively affect the US. This impact would be enormous and they know this. But let's be clear, they are not trying to attack the US militarily.
Iran-Venezuela Relationship About Peace

   I believe the US is posing itself for a war with Iran. All of the signs are there. The US is encircling Iran. Look at the US military bases in the Middle East. This is a map of US bases in 2003 and the US has put many more in place since.

   Iran is that white country in between Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, Pakistan. The US continues to build more bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. With the current war in Pakistan, the US is setting themselves up to put more US military presence on the southeast border of Iran. Mossad and the CIA are bombing nuclear scientists in Iran today. The US is currently sending troops to Israel along with all the weapons that have already been sent. I will put two links at the bottom of the blog about US and Israel. The US is attempting to set up a puppet government in Syria so the US has a presence there. In the Persian Gulf, the US has aircraft carriers, sitting and waiting for their orders to strike Iran. Just across the gulf from Iran is Qatar. The US used the Qatar army in our coup led in Libya last year. So the US knows they can get the support of Qatar. The US has bases all over the Persian Gulf in Saudi Arabia and in Turkey. The US has bases in Kuwait as well. Iran is completely encircled with US military presence, no wonder they are worried about what the US is going to do. We are giving them pretty good reason. With the "end" of the Iraq war, which is not really true, the US posing themselves for a war with Iran. The only way this can be prevented is if we as the population stand up and say "not again".
   The US government breaks so many international laws, threatens people, and establishes military presence all over the world. No wonder some leaders are hostile towards us and worried for their lives. The elites are trying to expand their domination over the world and we cannot let that happen in Iran. The implications of a war in Iran could be devastating. China and Russia are saying that they will side with Iran and I think it will lead to a World War. Let's not blindly support this insanity. Howard Zinn said that "there is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people." If we go to war with Iran, that is exactly what will happen, innocents will die. The war in Iraq saw 90 percent civilian casualties and this is unacceptable. Just like Iraq, the US war machine is using propaganda and lies to establish a pretext for war. As the population, we cannot let this happen. Do not support this nonsense again. If Iran wants democratic reform, the population itself must make it happen. Our intervention will only destroy any democratic foundation in that country. We are not better and we do not know best. Our government is a bunch of liars and thieves. Don't believe them, it is all lies.

Thousands of US Troops Deploying to Israel

Mossad It Again: 4th Iranian Nuclear Scientist Bombed

Thanks for reading my blog, sorry it was so long. This is just a very important issue. Please remember to subscribe to my blog. In the right hand column, become a member. Thanks again
  

  

Buenos Aires: Crime and Poverty

                Argentina was labeled by the US media as a model of democratic transformation in Latin America. Argentina has a total population of forty million but almost 13 million live in Argentina’s primate city, Buenos Aires. The city is consumed by poverty, but it also has extreme wealth. There are walls built to separate the slums from the middle-upper class neighborhoods.  Countries with large gaps between rich and poor tend to have much higher crime rates. This epidemic exists horribly in Buenos Aires. Crime and poverty are Buenos Aires’ largest obstacles. So why is this “model of democratic transformation” facing such serious problems? Many reasons persist but US policy and influence seems to be the most impactful on these problems. Specifically, the War on Drugs and neo-liberalism coupled with a conservative police state.

                Over half of the country’s population live below the UN declared “poverty-line” and a government study found that in 1998, 58% of the total population had been robbed the previous year. In 2000, the country suffered total economic collapse. Since the collapse of the economy, the issues of unemployment, poverty, and crime have only gotten worse. In 2010, the Global Post reported that crime was the most important issue facing Argentina.  

                In 1976 the government of Argentina was overthrown in a coup d’etat. The US was quick to put in a dictator that was favorable to its interests. According to a human rights commission, 458 political assassinations occurred from 1973 to 1975. The same old story in South America. Isabel Peron was overthrown by paramilitary forces, death squads were roaming the country. America was all over this coup just as it has historically been. We have to be sure that our economic interests are safe. The main targets of these death squads and political assassinations were the left-wingers, the socialists, and the nationalists. Didn’t matter what you believed in, if you were on the left, you were a communist. The military put down the opposition through intimidation and death.

                Following the coup and the injection of a pro-US dictator in Argentina, came huge loans from the international economic institutions. The country was given huge loans in order to allow US companies to come in and “build infrastructure”. These US companies were essentially handed the money from the loans and built things that would help their company prosper, not what was best for the people. Huge pieces of land were bought up by large corporations, forcing the rural population to move to cities in order to look for work. The barrios developed quickly. None of the money from the loans was given to build homes for the new workers, so people did what they could to build homes for themselves on the outside of the city. The city expanded. No more jobs were really created. A few but not as many as had been destroyed. The economy tanked. The country couldn’t pay back the loans. A bill was forced on the people that they couldn’t support. Corporations were stripping the country’s wealth from its people. The collapse was inevitable.

                But I want to take a step back and look at another factor, Reagan’s “war on drugs” and Plan Columbia. It’s like the “war on terror”, what does that even mean? No clear enemy, just feeding the machine. Going around killing a bunch of innocent people because we are morally superior and know what’s best. Reagan declares this war on drugs so the US military starts fighting drug crime in other countries. Plan Columbia was created by the Clinton administration. They come up with this great idea. Let’s just fly over the country and spray pesticides. US military planes essentially repeat what they did in Vietnam just with a different chemical. This time the intended targets were drug crops. You can imagine the repercussions of this. There is a link to a doc called “Plan Columbia” in the right column of my blog. It is too much to get into now. But there have been deaths and birth defects. The chemicals are destroying much more then drug crops. The chemicals make it so nothing can grow after they kill the plants. The land is no longer arable. This is destroying a lot of the country’s agriculture. The result of all this is that instead limiting the drug problem, the US is creating the need for it to manifest itself in other places, closer to major airports and ports. Drugs have infested the major cities of South America, including Buenos Aires. And not drugs like we have here. Drugs like Paco, or cocaine sulfate, which is the combination of the drug that proceeds and is left over after production. It is very cheap.

                The drugs are cheap and there are a lot of them. With no jobs in the slums, what choice does a person have. This industry forms naturally in a slum. There is cheap labor and hard workers. There is a huge demand for cheap drugs in the US and Europe so a lot is produced. People need work, children have much more access to drugs and no education. There are reports of 11 year olds that are addicts. Desperation is a drugs breeding ground. With drug use comes more crime. The poor are the perpetrators and the victims of crime.  It’s a viscous cycle and becomes all one knows.

                During the coup, the police were ordered and encouraged to be violent and repressive. The attitude is established within the Argentine police system. And since the government is basically a slave to US interest, the US rubs a little more salt in the wound. The Conservative think-tank named the Manhattan Institute (Rudy Guliani is a major contributor) is paid by the Argentine government to assist with penal policy. The conservative answer to crime, as displayed so beautifully in the United States, is to put more boots on the ground. You put a bunch of officers on the ground and you arrest a bunch of people. That is how you appear to be tough on crime by raising arrest rates. “Crime prevention” becomes political rhetoric.  These neo-conservatives tell Argentina it needs to put more money in the penal system, hire more officers and arrest more people. Who gets arrested? I think we can all answer that question pretty easily. The poor, the child-addicts, anybody that is desperate enough to commit a crime. The war on crime becomes another war on the poor.

                A couple of big corporations and their cronies in the government have put these people in this place. It is so sad.  The US calls Argentina a model for democratic transformation and all is forgotten. The US doesn’t acknowledge the people who were killed to make sure their economic interest was safe. The US, with the help of its biggest lackey, the media makes all the real news disappear. No one talks about why there is extreme poverty or crime in the slums of Buenos Aires. Our answer is to put up a wall between the rich and the poor. To secluded them from society and blame them for their plight. This horrible system and leadership that wants to reap all the benefit and take no account for all the wrong they have done. They just use economics and statistics to dismiss it as an inevitable human condition. It’s all bs. And they get away with it. No more. People are waking up, I feel it. Out

Something Better

   What is it gonna take for it to be over? A system of exploitation and destruction so that a small percentage of people can prosper well beyond any reasonable means. It is justified through economics and is hardly challenged. People continue to work and be taxed so that this small percentage of people can use military force and economic desperation to exploit the world of all its resources. Crossing the borders of sovereign countries- claiming moral superiority- and killing many innocent human beings. Children, doesn't matter as long as it feeds the monster. As long as we are spreading democracy through utter destruction.
   We elect these monsters and allow them to appoint there buddies to other influential positions. Men like Robert McNamara, who sat as the president of the World Bank and Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson. First, he has a major role in deciding the creation and use of the biggest loans in all of history and then he decides where we are gonna use our military to fight for "our interest". His interests. Cheney, Bush Sr, George Shultz. These men walk through this revolving door. Institutions as enormous as the World Bank, IMF, and WTO decide economic, military, social, political, and historical realities. These economic systems dictate who get's money and for what. They decide that Bechtel gets to go into a country, get paid to build oil industry infrastructure, and steal that oil from another country for their boardrooms benefit. How backward is that?
    This is insanity. Trying the same thing over and over, expecting the same results. We keep electing these criminals. They keep finding themselves in positions of major influence. Imagine if all that abundant wealth in the world were to go to the world's interest. What is best for the majority of people. Imagine how much suffering could be alleviated. Our government spends more than a trillion dollars a year, just in military costs. That doesn't include all the other throw away or hoarding. People are billionaires! They give huge loans to countries in order to benefit corporations. Imagine if that went to the people. If that money was used to pursue new technologies, better technologies. All the brilliant inventions that haven't been funded or have been suppressed because they don't help the few fill their pockets a little more. The impact of that change in this world would be so powerful. These people have been murdering social change leaders, stealing money, committing horrible atrocities, and rigging elections. They choose 10 people and then let us decide which robot we want to be President. I am not advocating a conspiracy. No, I am merely suggesting that we need some new leadership.  There is too much brilliance in the world for something so crooked. There are a lot of really good people on this planet, we are the large majority.  Let's have a real discussion about change.

A Wall? Really, A Wall?

    I was listening to a little news radio today. I sometimes listen to Fox News or CBS or any of the mainstream news sources, just to hear what they are saying. Lars Larson comes on the radio and says that he is visiting Israel and "our friends in Israel" have an answer to our immigration problem. He is joking, right? I can't believe that there are people who are actually advocating a wall.
   Lars goes on to talk about the effectiveness of the "separation fence" in Israel. It only cost the government $2 billion to construct thus far. It has prevented many "terrorists" from coming over into Israel to suicide bomb and kill Israeli civilians. Lars points to the building of the wall having caused a decrease in the number of terrorist attacks by Palestinians on Israel. This is simply false and poorly researched.
   First, like Americans, the supporters of the wall are completely ignoring the reasons for the "terrorist" attacks. Why are Palestinians attacking Israelis? The answer to that is much too long for this blog but it is a result of how Palestinians have been treated since there lands were given away and stolen by the Israelis. It has as much to do with that as terrorist attacks against America have to do with our constant killing and occupation of the Middle East. Also, if you look at the statistics, for every 1 Israeli that has been killed since the 1930s, 8 Palestinians have been killed.
   Okay, now parallel this too the illegal immigration problem. Why are they coming here? Well first because there is much more opportunity. We all know this. But let's not ignore the fact that huge corporations, specifically in the agriculture and construction business, have been actively recruiting people from Mexico and bringing them in to the US for cheap labor. Also, the same sorts of companies welcome immigrant workers because they can be exploited. Then these workers are treated like criminals, no matter how long they have been producing our food, building our homes etc... We still propose walls, and throw them out of the country. We don't even consider that they made it possible for us to have cheap goods and allowed CEOs to stuff their pockets full of cash. Why are they held to account for this problem? Why isn't the system? If you put up a wall, then these companies will just find another population to exploit or they will outsource.
   Capitalism, has caused most of American jobs to be sent to other countries. In the strive for money and power, companies have found populations that can be exploited so that they can maximize profits. These populations are mostly oversees. And as a result of the system, Americans are losing jobs. We want to blame the immigrants, but come on, how much impact has that had? All of our production jobs, manufacturing and agricultural jobs have been moved or changed so that they can be done in factories which employ cheap labor. A wall will never change that problem. That is a problem of the system and our priorities.
    Let's look at Israel again. Does Lars Larson think that the military occupation of Palestinian territories has anything to do with the decrease in attacks? The constant surveillance and destruction of Palestinian culture and life. Does Lars think that Tanks in the street, blowing up homes, killing civilians acts as a deterrent? Probably not. And it is that type of ignorant that would suggest a wall between us and Mexico to fix our jobs problem. This is straight insanity. The machine of politics has turned a terrible, a monstrosity of an idea into a possibility. We again have ignored the causes of "the problem" and only looked to search for ways to eradicate "the problem". There needs to be a serious discussion about the systemic practices that have caused the severe problems in America and the world. Putting up some barrier to shield us from the truth, from reality is just an insult to us that really care.

Panama: Canal Negotiations and the Death of a President

   The construction of the Panama Canal began in 1881. This huge venture by the French is known in history as being one catastrophe followed by another. In 1889, the project to build the Panama Canal ended in financial disaster. A decade or so later, Teddy Roosevelt demanded that Columbia (which included Panama) sign a treaty that would hand over the unfinished project and the area around it to the United States. Columbia refused. In 1903, Teddy Roosevelt sent in the US warship Nashville. The US soldiers landed and seized the area, killing local militias and declared Panama as an independent nation. The US put in power a puppet government and wrote the first Canal Treaty. The treaty established an American military "zone" on each side of the future waterway, legalized US military intervention, and gave Washington control over the area. To no surprise the original treaty was signed by then US Secretary of State, John Hay and Philippe Bunau-Varilla, one of the original French engineers, and no representative from the newly "independent" nation of Panama.
   From then until 1968, Panama was ruled by pro-US oligarchs which gave troops to help the CIA fight communism in the hemisphere. The government of Panama also made huge deals with Standard Oil and United Fruit Company, allowing these corporations to come to Panama and exploit her resources. The US military intervened twelve times before 1968 to fight off a revolution and ensure that those in power stayed in power. This all changed in 1968 with the election of Omar Torrijos.
   Omar Torrijos was the first democratically elected President of Panama. He stood for the rights of the people of Panama and especially the poor. Torrijos wanted to prove to the world that Panama was a strong country, rich with resources and that Panama stood with the United States, not against them. Torrijos felt very strongly about the rights of the poor, that people of Panama should be thriving because of all the natural wealth in the country. Torrijos knew that the exploitation of Panama and the wealth of very few was in the way of his vision for Panama.
  Torrijos was a champion of human rights, he turned Panama into a country that would grant anyone political asylum, no matter which side of the political spectrum they were on. All that was required was that they were seeking to free themselves from political persecution. Torrijos attempted to reconcile the differences between Latin American socialists and military dictators in order to achieve a more cohesive, prosperous Latin America. Many Latin American scholars believed that he should have been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. He was simply saying that Panama had it's own rights, rights to sovereignty over its own land and people and that these rights were as valid and as "divinely bestowed" as those rights enjoyed in the US. For the first time in it's history, Panama was not a puppet of the US.
   Torrijos never aligned himself and his country with communist Russia or China (even though the American media may say differently). He believed in social reform and helping the destitute, the sick, the impoverished. But Torrijos' principles often conflicted with the strategic interests of the US. Torrijos objected publicly to the School of the Americas and to the US Southern Command's Tropical Warfare Training Center, both of which were located in the US controlled "Canal Zone". For years, the US used these centers as a place to train death squads and torturers that have murdered so many in the region. The US would invite military dictators and officers, even their sons, to these schools to receive training. The main issue that put the US at odds with Torrijos was the Canal. And for the first time, with the election of Jimmy Carter, Panama had the opportunity to take back control of their land.
   The "Canal Zone" was an interesting sight for those that visited it. On the borders of the jungle is a fenced in city. Everything in the zone was the property of the United States. This included all the businesses such as supermarkets, barbershops, beauty salons, and restaurants. Being United States property also ensured that the behavior of US citizens in this area was exempt from judgment of Panamanian laws. It was a little US, military city on Panama's most important piece of land. And Torrijos, being the President of Panama sat in a very important position.
   In 1977 Jimmy Carter was the President of the United States and he intended to have serious negotiations with Panama over the control of the canal. Torrijos and his officers were bribed by the US intelligence and business communities in order to undermine the negotiations for control of the canal. This was clear sabotage. But before the end of 1977, Jimmy Carter and Omar Torrijos finished the negotiations of the new canal treaty. The treaty handed over the canal and the areas surrounding it to the Panamanian government. This was a huge victory for Panama, for Torrijos, and for all Latin American countries that were being enslaved by US policy and military might.
   In November of 1980, Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in his bid for re-election. Jimmy Carter, a president who was dedicated to reducing US dependence on oil and his main goal was to achieve world peace was replaced by a man who believed that the US had a right to be in control of the world, because the US was superior in all facets. A man that believed military might gave us this right and that controlling natural resources was part of our "Manifest Destiny". Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the White House roof, Reagan removed them. Concerns about social welfare, the environment and other quality-of-life issues took a back seat to greed motivated issues. Reagan would advocate for an America that controlled the world and all its resources, a world that answered to American desires and a military that enforced and ensured those desires. He would also push a financial, banking and international trade system that supported America as CEO of the world. This change would prove to be fateful for Torrijos and Panama.
   With Panama now in control of the canal, they began negotiating for the reconstruction of the canal. They envisioned a new canal without locks on it. One that could handle bigger ships. The reconstruction was viewed as the largest and most profitable construction project in recent history. But there was one little problem, the US and its business elites were used to having a monopoly on such projects. And now that Torrijos was in power, this was no longer the case. Torrijos had been talking to Japan about providing the financing and the companies to design and build the new canal.
   The Reagan administration was severely threatened by the Japanese having control over this future construction project and US companies stood to lose billions of dollars if the contract was given to Japanese companies. The US Corporation Bechtel, in particular, was the company that had the most to lose. With a US-controlled Panama, Bechtel easily gets the job. Reagan's Secretary of State, George Shultz (also served as Secretary of the Treasury under Nixon) was the president of Bechtel. Casper Weinberger, the Secretary of Defense, was a Bechtel vice president and general counsel. The implications of this new construction project were huge and the players in the game, powerful. Reagan's administration looked like a Bechtel board room and Torrijos was entertaining different and better offers. The administration needed to do something.
   On July 31, 1981, two months after Jaime Roldos (President of Ecuador) was killed in a plane crash, Omar Torrijos died in a plane crash. The military chiefs, business men, and intelligence men of the Reagan administration had a few options. They could try to find a way around the new treaty or they could dispose of Torrijos and renegotiate with his succesor. They chose the latter. In the words of Torrijos' head of security, Jose de Jesus Martinez, "There was a bomb on that plane. I know there was a bomb on that plane". Torrijos was killed and the murder was covered up, just as the US has done many other times.
   But there was still hope for Panama. Colonel Manuel Noriega, Torrijos' protege, became the President. Though Noriega did not have Torrijos' wit, intelligence, or charisma, he seemed to be loyal to the ultimate goals of Torrijos and Panama. He continued talks with the Japanese over the construction of a new canal. Noriega was the head of the Panamanian Defense Forces G-2 unit, the Panamanian equivalent and liaison of the CIA. So he knew well how the US operated to achieve its interests. Noriega, in his memoirs wrote: "Shultz and Weinberger, meanwhile, masquerading as officials operating in the public interest and basking in popular ignorance about the powerful economic interests they represented, were building a propaganda campaign to shoot me down".
   The Reagan administration set out with a very familiar propaganda machine intended to vilify Noriega as an evil, murderous dictator and as a Soviet puppet. The same old story, paint an incorrect picture of a leader in order to render public support for military action. On December 20, 1989, the US attacked Panama. The attack was considered the largest airborne assault on a city since World War 2. The attack was unprovoked and was taken out on a civilian population. Panama posed absolutely no threat to America or any other country. All Panama had done was insist that the Canal Treaty be honored, discussed social reform, and had consulted with the Japanese about building a new canal.
    The US army did not allow the press, or the Red Cross, or other observers come in to the heavily bombed areas for over 3 days. Soldiers were busy burning and burying the bodies. New Secretary of Defense, under President George H.W Bush, Dick Cheney estimated the death toll to be in between 300 and 500 people. But human rights organizations estimate the death toll to be between 3,000 and 5,000 with another 25,000 left homeless. President Noriega was arrested, flown to Miami, and sentenced to 40 years in prison. This was the first time in our country's history that the military invaded another country, took its leader, and put him on trial for violations of American law committed (or made up) on the leaders sovereign turf. This is a grotesque violation of international law. Peter Eisnar, a scholar and journalist, wrote that "the invasion principally served the goals of arrogant American politicians... at the expense of unconscionable bloodshed".
   After the invasion, the Arias family and the oligarchs that ruled Panama before 1968 regained leadership of the country. The new Canal Treaty became an invisible document, one without any merit. America once again controlled the canal even though "official documents" may say differently. Construction has been done on the canal and I assure you that American corporations such as Bechtel and Halliburton got a large piece of that pie. Panama's strive for national sovereignty and independence was thwarted by greed of a few a-hole American leaders. Torrijos was murdered and Noriega put in prison to await his death. Peter Eisnar speaks really well to the whole situation that unfolded. He says "the death, destruction, and injustice wrought in the name of fighting Noriega - and the lies surrounding that event - were threats to the basic American principles of democracy... Soldeirs were ordered to kill in Panama and they did so after being told they had to rescue a country from the clamp of a cruel, depraved dictator, once they acted, the people of their country (the US) marched lockstep behind them."