Showing posts with label The People. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The People. Show all posts

Thursday, March 22, 2007

WHY WE NEED THE "WE THE PEOPLE" ACT (H.R. 300)

By Tom DeWeese

March 21, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

The United States of America was created to be a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. A Constitutionally limited republic is restricted to the protection of individual rights. As outlined in our Constitution, the role of the federal government is strictly controlled in well-defined responsibilities. According to the 10th Amendment, all other powers and responsibilities are assigned to the 50 individual, sovereign States, which also are Republican governments.

A democracy is ruled by a majority of votes. Under such a system, no rights may be guaranteed since a simple majority can overturn them. The result of a democracy is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights.

Today, judges in federal courts are handing down decisions that many times over turn specific State laws that should be protected by the 10th Amendment. The assault on our Republican form of government by the use of such judicial powers affects all aspects of our society.

The common term is "activist judges." Many believe a more accurate term is "Constitutionally-defiant" judges. So great is their power that school boards are literally banning everything from voluntary prayer in schools to wearing a tee shirt with a Christian message, for fear federal courts will take action against school officials. Now even state and local courts are making identical rulings from fear of being overturned by higher courts.

Problem:

1. Federal judges are using their bench power to effectively make laws that have not been Constitutionally created by Congress.
[Read: Imperial Judiciary]

2. In recent years Federal judges regularly have struck down State and local laws in subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education and abortion.

3. This "government by Federal judiciary" causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on Federal Power.

4. Further, when Federal judges impose their preferred policies on State and local governments, instead of respecting the policies adopted by duly elected legislatures, city councils and county commissions – bodies duly elected by – and thus accountable – to the people, our republican form of government is threatened.

5. The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has issued decisions that, in effect, have overturned abortion laws of all 50 states.

6. There is looming danger that Federal judges with political agendas will use their bench powers to overturn voter-approved ballot measures and legislative efforts in such issues as the definition of marriage.

As a result of this abuse of judicial power, the federal government grows ever more invasive, as the states become ever more subservient.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has said, "Congress has a responsibility to protect the states from threats to their republican form of government, whether by a foreign power or one of the other two branches. Government by judiciary is incompatible with republican government. Therefore Congress must act to rein in the out-of-control federal judiciary."

Solution:

To that end, Congressman Paul has introduced the "We the People" Act, (H.R. 300)

1. Congress has a constitutional duty to act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual States. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can't place manger scenes at Christmas.

2. The "We the People" Act prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from making decisions on any claim, or relying on previous judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

The Act is specifically designed to insure federal judges observe the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which assigns to the States any powers not specifically assigned to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution.

3. The "We the People" Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage.

4. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by Congress.

Specific points to consider:

1. Attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public domain increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of State and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of citizens of those jurisdictions. Under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas (for example) should have the same polices regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.

2. Unless Congress acts by passing legislation such as the "We The People" Act, a State's authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further Federal usurpation of the States' authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of Federal courts.

3. Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the States, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on State recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having Federal officers, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.

How to Pass the "We the People" Act:

ACTION TO TAKE: There is only one way the "We The People" Act will get a fair hearing and a vote in the Congress. It needs co-sponsors – lots oof them.

1. Call or write your Congressman and tell him/her to take a stand against activist judges by supporting the "We The People" Act (H.R.300). Most importantly, urge them to sign on as cosponsors of the bill. The bill needs at least 100 cosponsors, to get a fair hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.

Phone calls and letters are the most effective way to contact Congress. E-mails and faxes are many times ignored. Members of Congress have been changing their e-mail addresses and fax numbers when we send out alerts. You can send an e-mail by going to each member's website at http://thomas.gov.

How to call:
Place a call to the U.S. Capitol Switchboard:
(202) 225-3121.
Ask for your congressman by name and the operator will connect you to his/her office.

How to Write:
Congressman ____________ United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

2. Call or write Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to let him know you support the bill. He is the one who will determine the fate of the bill in committee.

Committee on the Judiciary Phone:
(202) 225-3951
Address:
2138 Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, D.C. 20515-6216

3. Talk to your friends and neighbors and urge them to call Congress in support of H.R. 300.

4. Post or distribute these talking points at your church, club or office. Help spread the word that there is a way to stop activist judges from usurping our constitutional rights.


Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center and Editor of The DeWeese Report , 70 Main Street, Suite 23, Warrenton Virginia.
(540) 342-8911

E-Mail: apcmail@americanpolicy.org

Website: www.americanpolicy.org

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Official politics in the west ignores public opinion at will

The government crisis in Italy over US bases and Afghanistan reflects the increasing gap in Europe between rulers and ruled

Tariq Ali
Tuesday February 27, 2007
The Guardian


The states of western Europe continue to resist harmonisation. On the same day last week that the chicaneries of every antiquated careerist vying for the New Labour deputy leadership were made public, each justifying his or her grotesque decision to support the war and occupation of Iraq, the centre-left Italian government - not yet a year old - fell after a debate on foreign policy in the upper chamber.

It was not Iraq that was at issue here. Unlike New Labour (protected by undemocratic electoral laws and MPs unmoved by the suffering in Iraq), all of the Italian left and 80% of the population opposed that war. The dispute concerned two issues: Operation Enduring Freedom - the satirical self-description of the Nato occupation of Afghanistan - and the expansion of the US military base in Vicenza in northern Italy.



Two leftwing senators voted against the government in the Italian senate after the prime minister, Romano Prodi, and his foreign minister, Massimo D'Alema, had made the vote an issue of confidence, arguing that Afghanistan was a legal war because it was supported by the UN. Prodi's arguments failed to sway the two dissenting senators. He might still have won, but three of the seven octogenarian life senators abandoned him as well. One was in bed with flu. Giulio Andreotti (a former prime minister and one of the most corrupt) abstained because he was unhappy about gay marriages, and Ferrari designer Sergio Pininfarina, transported to the senate from the airport in a government limo, also abstained, possibly by mistake since he is a rare visitor to the senate.

As a result, a weakened Prodi, prudent spokesman of an immoderate bourgeoisie, resigned. His popularity was already on the wane, as was that of his neoliberal finance minister, Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, whose attempts to increase short-term contracts for workers have also divided the government - indeed, many of its supporters and a few ministers participated in the protests of last November in defence of universal, publicly financed social services.

Could it be that they wanted to be defeated so as to rejig the coalition by attracting a moderate centre-right party to join their ranks and dumping the Refounded Communists? It's a risky operation, especially as the RC leader, Fausto Bertinotti (drunk with happiness at becoming a dignitary of the state) has kept his principles under heavy wraps.

When Prodi was asked to form a new government last Friday, he insisted all the constituent parties of the centre-left Union should sign up to 12 points, which included neoliberal "reforms" and unconditional support for his foreign policy, but, mysteriously, not gay partnerships. Bertinotti signed without hesitation and instructed his enforcer inside the Refounded Communist party to remove the dissenting senator Franco Turigliatto from the party without further ado (ironically, the same enforcer, Guido Cappelloni, expelled the dissident "Manifesto group" from the old Communist party in 1969).

And all this in the face of endless intrigue against the ruling coalition's policies by elements from Prodi's own centrist political base. Only a week before the crisis erupted, Prodi had explicitly forbidden any member of the cabinet from participation in the mass protest at the extension of the Vicenza base. Now the crisis within the left is out in the open. Sixty-two per cent of Italians and 73% of the government's supporters want to withdraw all Italian troops from Afghanistan. Like centrist politicians elsewhere, Silvio Berlusconi, Prodi and D'Alema are united in ignoring public opinion. Were it not for factional divisions on other issues (especially patronage and corrupt commissions) the opposition would have voted with Prodi.

It would be mistaken to imagine that hostility to US imperial adventures comes only from the left. The positive response to the European parliament's report denouncing 1,245 CIA flights from Europe included figures from the centre-right. Gijs de Vries, the EU's anti-terrorism tsar and, till recently, staunchly pro-Washington, will resign in March because he has "lost faith" in his US partners. Sergio Romano, a leading centre-right figure, publicly declared he was opposed to all US bases on Italian soil. Why? "We know very well that the Americans used their bases in Djibouti to attack al-Qaida in Ethiopia this year ... If they decide to attack Hizbullah, God forbid, they'll be using Italian bases to do it. And we won't be told beforehand. We'll learn the next day. And you become complicit in such things."

Prodi's 12 points notwithstanding, Italian politics remains volatile: Prodi faces a new knife-edge confidence vote tomorrow and another vote on Afghanistan next month if he survives that. Grandees of the centre-left and centre-right exude the stench of putrefaction.

Nor is this just an Italian disease. The fact that the leaders of the Refounded Communist party cave in to the Washington consensus in return for government posts reflects a far wider problem. Increasingly, official politics in the west ignores public opinion at will. Britain is a striking example. Mass hostility to Blair's wars and the replacement of Trident barely finds an echo in parliament. The BBC had to be neutered and only 12 Labour MPs managed to vote for an inquiry into British involvement in Iraq. It is the increasing distance between rulers and ruled that threatens the functioning of democracy and leads to desperation.

· Tariq Ali's latest book is Pirates of the Caribbean: Axis of Hope. tariq.ali3@btinternet.com

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Keep hope alive

Despite their vote of confidence in Democrats this November, voters doubt Congress' ability to lead. Swift reforms could prove them wrong.

By Joe Conason

Dec. 22, 2006 | By ending Republican hegemony in the midterm elections, the nation's voters were expressing hope that Democrats could change the direction of a government that has forfeited public confidence. Such hope is highly perishable and must be nourished with principled action early in the coming year. It isn't easy for people to believe in politicians.

For the moment, at least, the Democratic Party is still riding on post-election political momentum (while the Republican Party remains stuck in negative terrain). Although many mainstream commentators continue to claim that Americans dislike both parties equally, their shorthand cliché is badly out of date. A substantial plurality of voters now say they expect to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, and that partisan preference remains especially strong among the young.

But in the current political environment, the opportunity to rebuild a governing majority of the center-left could evaporate without being realized. National opinion remains angry, apprehensive and volatile. Having turned sharply against George W. Bush within months after his second inauguration -- initially reacting to Social Security privatization, then to the Katrina disaster, and finally to the failure of the war in Iraq and the stunning pageant of corruption on Capitol Hill -- disappointed voters could just as easily discard the Democrats in 2007. If the newly empowered opposition fails to honor its commitments, that is exactly what will happen.

Many if not most Americans have repeatedly expressed an underlying doubt that either party can still serve the public interest. Those feelings are especially prevalent among the independent voters whose support was critical to the recent Democratic victory. To dispel such cynicism and fulfill the expectations raised by their anticorruption campaign, the new Democratic congressional leaders must quickly deliver real government accountability as well as substantial reorganization of their own institutions. While voters may understand that major changes in healthcare, education and environmental stewardship will be difficult to enact under this administration, they will not have much patience for any evasion on reform of Congress.

Whether Democrats can overcome the old habits that have often made them inarticulate and inert, however, remains to be seen. To put it kindly, the signs are mixed.

Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., first displayed her deafness to the reformist vox populi when she tried to foist Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa. -- a courageous antiwar convert but an ethics scofflaw -- on the Democratic caucus as majority leader.

Pelosi seemed equally obtuse when she pushed aside Jane Harman, D-Calif., the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, to name Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, as the committee's new chairman instead, after considering Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a former federal judge whom she voted to impeach for corruption. Rather than replace the compromised Harman with a truly independent and competent figure such as Rush Holt, D-N.J., a scientist and former State Department intelligence officer, she heeded the dictates of old-style patronage politics.

That decision boomeranged on Pelosi almost instantly, when Reyes gave an interview to Congressional Quarterly correspondent Jeff Stein that revealed the congressman's embarrassing ignorance of the most basic facts about al-Qaida, Hezbollah and Islam. (She should have suspected that Reyes was a dubious choice simply because of his curious attraction to the conspiracy theories of Curt Weldon, the wacky Pennsylvania Republican who lost his seat last month.)

More encouragingly, both Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid, the incoming Senate majority leader, have indicated that they will support a broad package of ethical and procedural improvements next year. The most important proposals for best practices would require that "earmarks" in appropriations bill be identified by the sponsoring members' names; that members and staff stop taking gifts, meals and free travel from lobbyists; and that conference committees, where much midnight skulduggery has occurred, be open to public and media scrutiny. Certain members of both parties will no doubt resist or undermine those changes, which would represent important progress toward honest government; if the leaders enact such stringent reforms they will deserve great credit.

But lobbyists and politicians -- and the money that sustains their relationship -- inevitably find ways to get around the rules. For that reason, the leaders must also reform the dysfunctional ethics enforcement procedures. The House Ethics Committee is a sinkhole of the worst kind of "bipartisanship," with both sides cooperating to thwart effective monitoring and sanctions. The most promising solution is an outside Office of Public Integrity that would operate as a watchdog over Congress, with investigative authority, just as inspectors general and integrity monitors oversee government agencies. Not so long ago, Pelosi herself sponsored legislation that would have established such an office. In response to protest from the ranks, she has backed away from the proposal and asked a "task force" to report on its feasibility and advisability by next March. This is a waste of time and, worse still, a potential compromise with discredited Republican leader John Boehner. Again, Pelosi appears not to quite grasp the potential consequences of her actions. If she fails to institute this new policing mechanism, then whatever credit she and her party earn for other reforms will be diminished. That would be too bad for the Democrats and the country.

Pelosi and Reid should receive the benefit of the doubt, despite early stumbles and hesitations. But when the new year begins, they must swiftly distinguish themselves from their soiled predecessors -- or they will confirm voters' cynical assumptions about them, their party and their vocation.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

People's Revolt in Lebanon

by MOHAMAD BAZZI

[from the January 8, 2007 issue]

Beirut

Ever since Hezbollah and its allies began an open-ended protest against the US-backed government on December 1, Beirut's gilded downtown--built for wealthy Lebanese and foreign tourists--has become more authentically Lebanese. Where Persian Gulf sheiks once ate sushi, families now sit in abandoned parking lots, having impromptu picnics, the smell of kebabs cooked over coals wafting through the air. Young men lounge on plastic chairs, smoking apple-scented water pipes, and occasionally break out into debke, the Lebanese national dance.

Most protesters are too poor to afford $4 caffe lattes, but men hawking shots of strong Arabic coffee for 30 cents apiece are doing a brisk trade. Nearly all businesses are shuttered, but a few enterprising store owners have figured out how to cater to the crowd. One hair salon converted itself into a sandwich shop, selling cheese on bread with a cup of tea for $1. The smiling cashier works behind a counter filled with L'Oréal hair products.

"I never came to downtown before these protests. I can't afford to come here. If I ate a sandwich here, I'd be broke for a week," says Emad Matairek, a 35-year-old carpenter from the dahiyeh, the Shiite-dominated suburbs of Beirut. "It's well-known that this area was not built for us."

The protests are being portrayed in much of the Western media as a sectarian battle, or a coup attempt--engineered by Hezbollah's two main allies, Syria and Iran--against a US-backed Lebanese government. Those are indeed factors underlying the complex and dangerous political dance happening in Beirut. But the biggest motivator driving many of those camped out in downtown isn't Iran or Syria, or Sunni versus Shiite. It's the economic inequality that has haunted Lebanese Shiites for decades. It's a poor and working-class people's revolt.

In Riad Solh Square, amid dozens of white tents erected for Hezbollah supporters to sleep in, there is a stage with a huge TV screen and rows of loudspeakers mostly positioned toward the Grand Serail, the Ottoman-era palace where Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his Cabinet are hunkered down. Between the tents and the palace, behind eight-foot-high coils of barbed wire, there are hundreds of Lebanese soldiers toting M-16s and sitting atop armored vehicles. Every night thousands of people gather in front of the stage, within earshot of the Serail, demanding that Siniora either resign or accept a national unity government that gives Hezbollah and its allies greater power.

A major theme highlighted by the protesters is that Siniora is backed by the Bush Administration--and that alliance did little to help Lebanon during last summer's thirty-four-day war between Israel and Hezbollah. A few days into the sit-in, Hezbollah hung a large banner from a building showing Siniora embracing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, over a collage of dead Lebanese children Photoshopped onto his back. It reads, "Condy--Thanks," a reference to Siniora's meeting with Rice during the war, when US officials refused to endorse a quick cease-fire. "Thank you for your patience Condy, for some of our children are still alive," it reads.

But in most conversations with people at the sit-in and protests, economic concerns quickly emerge: Siniora's government is corrupt, has failed to reduce Lebanon's crippling $41 billion public debt and has done little to improve people's lives. Shiites are especially forgotten in the country's economic planning. Many at the sit-in have been out of work for years, or lost their jobs after the recent war.

"Our country is getting poorer, and Siniora's government is not talking about it," says Hadi Mawla, a 22-year-old graphic design student who came from the dahiyeh on the protest's first day, which drew hundreds of thousands to downtown. "Our standard of living is falling, while other Arab countries are improving. We Lebanese used to make fun of other Arab countries. Now they have great big cities like Dubai. And we're going to end up like Egypt--with a very poor class, a very rich class and nothing in between."

The economic dimension to the protest can be seen everywhere. Around the square there are hand-drawn posters of Siniora sitting on a chair made of stacks of dollar bills. From the stage, a projector shines slogans highlighting economic demands onto a building that houses the ultra-chic Buddha Bar, with its two-story Buddha statue inside. The swirling projector makes its point: "No to the government of VAT" and "No to the government of seafront properties."

This class battle transcends sectarian boundaries. Hezbollah has formed an alliance with the Free Patriotic Movement, led by Maronite Christian politician and former army commander Michel Aoun. With this coalition Hezbollah is trying to prove that it's not a purely sectarian party, it's not seeking to impose an Islamic government and it's willing to ally not just with nationalist Sunnis but also with Christians. Because Aoun stresses honest government, accountability and economic equality, he and Hezbollah seemed like a natural fit. By playing up its alliance with Aoun--and downplaying its partnership with the notoriously corrupt Shiite Amal party--Hezbollah can reinforce the reputation for honesty shared by many Islamist movements in the Middle East.

Hezbollah's charismatic leader, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah--ever skillful at tapping into the Shiite tradition of empowering the dispossessed--often highlights the class dimension of his group's campaign. "They will hear us in all the palaces of the ruling coalition," Nasrallah thundered on December 7, in a speech via video-link to the protesters downtown. He was calling for a huge turnout at a rally three days later, where crowd estimates ranged as high as 1 million. "From the homes of the poor, from the shantytowns, from the tents, from the demolished buildings, from the neighborhoods of those displaced by war, we will make sure that they hear our voices."

There's a long tradition of the Lebanese state leaving Shiites to fend for themselves and waiting for religious or charitable groups to fill the vacuum. This happened over decades, long before Hezbollah emerged in the early 1980s. Hezbollah's "state within a state" was possible only because successive governments willfully left a void in the Shiite-dominated areas of south Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley and the dahiyeh.

"The central government always liked outsourcing the problems of the south. First they gave it to the Palestinians, then they gave it to the Israelis, and they gave it to Hezbollah from 2000 to 2006," says Khalil Gebara, co-director of the Lebanese Transparency Association, an anti-corruption watchdog group. "Hezbollah does what every political party does: They went and created a dependency network."

In the 1960s and '70s, when Shiites were first making the migration from the rural south and Bekaa to Beirut and other cities, the central government left their fate to the clans and feudal landlords who held sway in the agricultural hinterlands. By 1970, when the Palestine Liberation Organization began creating bases in southern Lebanon, the Shiites were on the front line of a conflict between the PLO and Israel. A Shiite cleric named Musa al-Sadr created Amal, the first Shiite political party, which later turned into a militia. To an extent, Amal supplanted the feudal lords as protector of the Shiites.

After the Israeli invasion of 1982, Hezbollah emerged to fight the Israeli occupation. It was more disciplined and less corrupt than Amal, although Hezbollah was always dependent on Iranian funding and support. When Hezbollah's grinding guerrilla war forced Israel to end its occupation in May 2000, the militia was hailed throughout the Muslim world for achieving what no Arab army had done before: force Israel to relinquish land. With the Israeli withdrawal, Hezbollah moved into the vacuum in southern Lebanon, opening clinics and schools and providing small-business loans.

To many Shiites, Hezbollah's ascendance put them on the political map. There's a word Lebanese have used to put down a Shiite: mutawali, which roughly translates into "country bumpkin." It's a term freighted with meaning--of dispossession, prejudice, deprivation. But Shiites have appropriated it and now use it with pride. "During the civil war, we mutawalis were insulted and put down. Hezbollah gave us a new sense of dignity, and that's the most important right we can have," says Mawla, the graphic design student. "Hezbollah made it possible for us to stand, without fear, and shout from the rooftops that we are mutawalis."

In 1990, at the end of the fifteen-year civil war, Lebanon's political class chose to continue its sectarian system. The current crisis is rooted in that choice, which began with the 1989 Taif Accord, brokered by Saudi Arabia and Syria. The agreement called for all militias to disarm--with the exception of Hezbollah, whose militia was labeled a "national resistance" against the Israeli occupation. Leaving traditional warlords in place, Taif enshrined the political partition among the country's rival sects: Power must be shared between a Maronite Christian president, a Sunni prime minister and a Shiite speaker of Parliament. Each of the major players in the war seized a piece of the government and extended the sectarian system to the lowest rungs of the civil service. This arrangement was ripe for exploitation by outside powers, especially Syria, which dominated Lebanon from 1990 until last year.

One man had a chance to change the economic underpinnings of this system, and perhaps eventually cast aside its entire sectarian basis. He was Rafik Hariri, a billionaire construction tycoon who served as prime minister for most of the 1990s and until late 2004. But Hariri failed at building a healthy postwar economy. He rebuilt downtown Beirut at the expense of the hinterlands, and he focused on luxury sectors--banking and upscale tourism--instead of Lebanon's productive sectors, agriculture and small industry. Hariri was trying to return to the prewar economy, which was driven by Lebanon's role as a transit center for oil money from the Persian Gulf. But by the 1990s oil producers no longer needed the Lebanese banking system; they had Dubai.

"Everything that the government built around here means nothing to us," says Matairek, the carpenter at the downtown protests. "What they should have done was strengthen the Lebanese army. All the money they spent to fix this downtown--what's the use of it, if the Israeli warplanes were able to bomb us, and the Lebanese army wasn't able to stop it?"

The gleaming downtown became a symbol of Hariri's reign and his failed economic policies. By the time he left office Lebanon had a $36 billion public debt, or 170 percent of GDP--one of the highest debt-to-GDP ratios in the world (it's now 190 percent). For much of Hariri's term, he relied on Siniora, an old friend, as his finance minister.

Siniora's biggest triumph as finance minister was the 2002 Paris II Donors Conference, which netted Lebanon $4.4 billion in soft loan guarantees. In return Siniora promised a raft of neoliberal economic reforms: He would privatize state assets like cellphone contracts, reform the country's civil service sector and balance the budget by 2006. Nine months before the donors conference, Siniora imposed Lebanon's first value-added tax (VAT): a 10 percent surcharge on most goods except food and medicines. One of his main arguments for staying in office is to shepherd a Paris III conference scheduled for January, in which international donors are expected to contribute toward rebuilding the infrastructure devastated by last summer's Israeli offensive.

"Because of Siniora and his economic programs, we have a very flawed tax system, based on indirect taxes. Statistically, it has been shown that this system recycles money from the poor to the wealthy," says Fawwaz Traboulsi, a political science professor at the Lebanese American University. "We have a 10 percent flat income tax, but most state revenues come from indirect taxation: the VAT, fuel taxes, utility surcharges. Salaried people pay the bulk of these taxes."

Throughout his tenure, Hariri clashed with the Syrian-backed Lebanese president, Emile Lahoud. In February 2005 Hariri was assassinated in a massive bombing as his motorcade drove through Beirut's seaside corniche. Widely assumed to have been carried out by Syria or its agents, the killing shook Lebanon and cast a harsh light on Syrian hegemony over the political system. Under internal pressure and mass demonstrations, the Syrian-backed prime minister resigned and Damascus pulled its 14,000 troops out of Lebanon. After elections in June 2005, the new parliamentary majority--a coalition of Christian, Sunni and Druse parties--appointed Siniora as prime minister. For the first time, Hezbollah joined the Lebanese Cabinet, securing two seats in Siniora's administration.

Until last summer's Israel-Hezbollah war, Siniora continued with the economic policies he had begun under Hariri. Morality aside, there's one major problem with these soak-the-poor economics: They strengthen Hezbollah. In a country divided drastically between haves and have-nots, a large proportion of the have-nots happen to be Shiites, and they rely for social services not on the government but on Hezbollah. In their view, the government takes, while Hezbollah provides.

After the latest war, with Israeli bombs targeting Shiite-owned factories and businesses in the south and in the Beirut suburbs, the Shiite middle class was devastated. This has made Shiites even more dependent on Hezbollah, as evidenced by the group's handing out up to $12,000 in cash payments to everyone whose home was destroyed. The money--most likely provided by Iran--was intended to pay for a year's rent and new furniture while reconstruction begins.

Locked in a state of perpetual conflict, Lebanon today faces the same choice it had in 1990, when the civil war ended. It can replicate the political system that it had before--based on corrupt sectarian warlords dividing up the spoils of the war they perpetuated--or it can try to produce a stronger and more egalitarian system, one that isn't based on religious divisions and that won't consign its largest sect, the Shiites, to the care of an Iranian-funded religious party.

"How can we still accept this government that steals? This government that built this downtown and accumulated this huge debt?" asks Matairek, the Shiite carpenter. "Who's going to pay for it? I have to pay for it, and my son is going to pay for it after me."

Monday, December 18, 2006

What Happened To Will Of The People?

Dec 18, 2006

By J. Maccabee,
JMaccabee@hotmail.com

We. Do. Not. Want. This. Damned. War.

This entire country is overwhelmingly against this war and the Bush Administration acts like we have no say so in it. He’s keeping America’s kids over there dying in this mix of quicksand and blood and faux patriotism. Why don’t we count? Why is this entire Congress of millionaires and elitists not listening to us? Why doesn’t our Emperor know that we could care less about his legacy? We don’t give a rat’s ass about what history books will say about him because we already know how posterity will cast him and there is nothing he can do to change that. We are goddamned tired of seeing Americans falling behind, losing our rights and our healthcare while he and his advisors spend our tax dollars in Iraq and give each other medals.

I hope the incoming Democrats know this.

Two. Billion. Dollars. A. Week. Would. Go. A. Long. Way. At. Home.

We don’t care about Bush’s legacy. We want our tax dollars over here paying nurses and taking care of veterans and paying teachers and filling potholes and supporting our failing bridges and rail system. By the way, go send your own children to die in the desert. In fact, it would be great of a few of your flag waving Bible thumping patriots had worn a uniform beyond Cub Scout. None of this administration has done anything harder than an Outward Bound trip but you all spew international military advice like you’re Johnny Quest.

Stop. Torturing. People.

This embarrasses us. It shames us all. We, that means us, the opinion of the majority of Americans, want prisoners given rights and protections. We are not scared shitless or terrorists like Republicans. We are not buying into this idea that we should shit on our own Constitution to fight this bullshit war. Let the armchair generals who listen to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News and asshats like Josh Trevino and Jonah Goldberg play Risk by themselves. All prisoners deserve a fair chance at representation. It has always been the American way and always will be.

Our. Healthcare. Sucks.

As Americans we are used to having the best in the world. Now our healthcare reeks. Why? Because the Republican 109th sold our healthcare to the highest bidder. To Republicans, money trumps everything. They made sure that pharmaceutical stockholders were serviced while our parents and our veterans and our children pay out their asses for the same service that 25 of the top industrialized nations give out for a fraction of the cost. You’d have to have your goddamned head in your hands to get Codeine in an emergency room in America. You could be dying of asthma in a hospital in America

Stop. Censoring. America.

It’s OK to watch bombs fall on the heads of Iraqis, but we have to bleep out words like damn and shit. It’s OK to sell video games called Convert or Die where infidels get killed if they don’t become Christians, but god forbid we actually see one of the 3000 caskets of American soldiers. You can also stop letting idiot uneducated political operatives tell scientists that their research is invalid because it might upset a GOP donor. Let scientists decide for themselves by their own reasoning what they can publish and what they can’t. By the way, we would all rather see Janet Jackson’s gorgeous Tit than hear Donald Rumsfeld’s pathetic lies. I mean why is it a major fine to show two people making but it’s OK to show someone getting their head blown off?

Join. The. 21st. Century.

Evolution is the basic operating function of biology. If you think the world is 6000 years old, please keep it to yourself. By the way, you are a fucking idiot. The rest of us believe in SCIENCE and REASON and LOGIC. Global warming is a fact. Hell, even the Alps are melting. The Bush Administration sounds like Monty’s Python’s Black Knight in the search for the Holy Grail. He is armless and legless after a fight, still claiming that we are all wrong and he is ready to fight.

Reality: "I just cut your arm off..."

Bush : "No you didn’t. It’s a FLESH wound..."

Stop. Hiding. Facts.

Stop classifying information bought and paid for by our tax dollars. You’re doing exactly what the Nazis and the Communists did to stay in power. Stop using terrorism to explain why you’re hiding public domain information. It’s embarrassing to people with three digit IQs.

Stop. Ruining. Institutons. Made. To. Protect. Us.

The FDA once had 600 inspectors. Under Clinton they did 34,900 random inspections a year. Under the Emperor, there are 59. Consequently we are getting poisoned at our own restaurants. Taco Bell, Olive Garden. Why? Because you appoint your idiot cousins to important positions because they helped you steal an election. You’ve ruined FEMA, the EPA. The Army. You’re like a giant fucking jinx.

Put. Money. Back. Into. Schools.

Latvian 7th graders know more math and science and American history than American 12th graders. Our kids cannot afford college anymore. Why do we pay $258 million for ONE F-22 Raptor, but there is n o money for our children to get better educations? Because Republicans know that educated people vote Democratic. The fatter and dumber we are, the more we vote Republican.

Attention Democrats. Please don’t be the Republicans you just replaced. We elected you for a reason.

Friday, December 15, 2006

It’s Not Just Bush: We’re Accountable Too

HEATHER WOKUSCH

Blaming everything on a handful of people at the top, no matter how destructive and abusive they've been, misses a critical point. Systems tend to self-perpetuate. Remove one player and the next comes in to ensure business as usual.

Remove Rumsfeld, a man who helped prop up Hussein in the 80's and skewed intelligence towards war, and who do you get? Robert Gates, a man who helped prop up Hussein in the 80's and skewed intelligence towards war.

Replacing those in power won't help if the power structure itself doesn't change. And that means addressing how our own actions maintain this dysfunctional system.

Decades ago, Rumsfeld and Cheney hoodwinked the American people with fearmongering lies about Soviet military capability, and set the country on a path of paranoia and weapons build-up. 911 let them pull the exact same trick again, with a public more focused on macho vigilantism than on facts and diplomacy.

But the dirty little secret remains: a combative foreign policy requires perpetual conflict. After all, tough-talking cowboys and weapons manufacturers have little value in times of peace, so it's in their interest to foment never-ending strife. Maybe that's why top Pentagon strategist Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark O. Schissler recently warned Americans to prepare for a 50-100 year "generational war."

The Democrats also seem to be hunkering down for a long-term battle against evildoers; their "Six for '06" goals call for doubling the size of "Special Forces to destroy Osama bin Laden and terrorist networks like al Qaeda." An October 2006 report from the Democratic Leadership Council's Progressive Policy Institute additionally noted: "America needs a bigger and better military ... Democrats should step forward with a plan to repair the damage, by adding more troops, replenishing depleted stocks of equipment, and reorganizing the force around the new missions of unconventional warfare, counterinsurgency, and civil reconstruction.

The wild card in this march towards military domination remains Iran. Bush has already promised Israel protection if it bombs Iran's alleged nuclear facilities, and just this week, Congress voted to double the US stockpiles of military equipment in Israel (turns out that Israel had used much of the US equipment during its war with Lebanon this summer). Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert's recent admission that Israel possesses nuclear weapons is not expected to impact the billions in aid the country receives each year either, even though the US officially bans funding to those producing weapons of mass destruction.

While US involvement in an attack on Iran would invite Armageddon, Bush is backed into a corner domestically and may feel he doesn't have a whole lot to lose. Leading Democrats (including Clinton and Obama) have also called for the "military option" to be available for Iran, and would most likely push for troops/weapons to protect Israel from retaliation.

Some consider war with Iran as inevitable, but it isn't. The results would be catastrophic and the diplomatic options have not been adequately explored. More to the point, one must consider how the very legitimizing of perpetual conflict is devastating our national security. The Pentagon's budget currently runs over $430 billion per year, not including the roughly $140 billion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Democrats are expected to increase the military budget next year. Meanwhile, domestic social programs are being slashed to compensate for war spending and our military has become severely weakened.

The upshot? We the people need to retire the tough-talking cowboys in both political parties and dump the idea that perpetual conflict is a given. We have to hound members of the 110th Congress to pursue every possible option for peace in the Middle East and we must confront the fear of faceless enemies legitimizing rollbacks in our own civil liberties. Above all, we must hold ourselves accountable not to be fooled into war again.

Action Ideas:

1. To learn more about the lies leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq:

2. To explore peaceful approaches to foreign policy:

3. To identify the cost of the Iraq War to U.S. taxpayers:

Note: Originally published: December 15, 2006

It’s Howdy Doody Time...

Dec 15, 2006

By Gary Corseri


"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

--John F. Kennedy


They’ve done it again.

They flim-flammed and bamboozled us, got us marching, got us hoping.

We manned the phones, wrote letters to editors, herded ourselves to Diebold ballot machines, held up our purple thumbs for all the world to see—all 45% of us.

We done our civil duty, paid our biennial dues, and now we can go home and watch the A-team beat the B-team on our HDTV. Spectator sports and spectator politics. An elephant never forgets. Pin the tail on the donkey!

And what’s the result? They kick out that nasty popinjay Rumsfeld. The 76-year-old sycophant-warmonger takes his millions and jockeys his Hummer into a Montana sunset. He’s replaced by a younger, less abrasive, more managerial, Bush-41-minted Robert Gates.

Boys and Girls, let’s hear it for Buffalo Bob and Clarabelle! They got to us in our Frosty Flakes years, and they’ve kept the game going ever since.

Diogenes and Zeno’s Paradoxes

Actually, I did not vote.

I didn’t vote not because I wanted to be in the majority of non-voters (!), but because of two ancient Greeks: Diogenes of Sinope and Zeno of Elea.

Diogenes lived in the world’s first democracy in Athens. He saw it rise, expand into the imperial Delian League, and he saw it fall. (Actually, by the time he arrived on the scene, after the good citizens of Athens had poisoned Socrates, it was much more a matter of falling.)

Diogenes hated pretense. He was a “street person” with attitude—and brains. He liked dogs better than people. (Hence his philosophy of “cynicism,” from the Greek kyon, for “dog.”) Dogs don’t bullshit. Dogs make lousy politicians.

There are many stories about Diogenes’ outrageousness. Or, maybe he was just clear-headed. (Asked in public how a man might avoid the temptations of the flesh, he masturbated then and there. “Would that I could as easily assuage my hunger by rubbing my belly,” he said.)

One day, Alexander the Great shows up in Athens. (Odd that we still call this barbarian “the Great.” He was off to conquer the splendid civilization of his day—Darius’s Persia, a prosperous empire that was more like a federation of equal sovereigns, living in peace with its neighbors.) Diogenes is living in an old tub at the time, and Alexander, who has heard about him from his teacher Aristotle, out of respect for philosophy, pays him a visit.

Alexander says something like this: “Dude, I’m bad … I’m the most powerful bastard in the whole wide world. Emperors piss in their Depends when they hear my name. I can make and break people like clay puppets. But just because Uncle Ari says you’re a notable dude, I’m going to grant you whatever you wish.”

Diogenes looks up from the old tub and he sees the sun glinting off the top of Alexander’s helmet. Alex casts a wide, long shadow and Dogman feels a chill in it. “Don’t stand between the sun and me,” he replies.

And that’s pretty much how I feel about the Republicrats now. I want what they can’t or won’t give me—the world’s best antiseptic. Sunshine. Warmth. And truth.

The second reason I didn’t vote has to do with Zeno’s paradoxes and the Iraq Study Group.

Zeno preceded Dogman by about a hundred years. That was during the heyday of Athenian democracy when “citizens” got to vote directly on shards and there was a shard trail, if you will. Of course, there were more than a few paradoxes in this “democracy,” including the fact that women didn’t vote and the class depended on the labor of slaves.

Zeno was one of those philosophes who saw the limitations of human thought and logic.
Eight of his “paradoxes” are extant. My favorites go something like this: A body in motion is actually a body at rest at any particular moment. (It’s only in the past 100 years or so, since Kodack, that the average person can actually see what Zeno was getting at. Think of stop-action photography capturing the moment Jack Ruby’s bullet enters Lee Harvey Oswald’s gut. In the next few moments, everything will change. No trial for Oswald, no leaks. Kaput. Finished business. A moment frozen in the amber of time. Like this one, say—like every moment, containing all possibilities within it.)

A related paradox having to do with time tells us everything we need to know about the Iraq Study Group’s 79 “recommendations.” One of those recommendations is, basically, to cut the number of U.S. troops in half, and train the Iraqis to take up the slack. This is how we’re supposed to get to a point where the Iraqis will be able to sustain a democratic society which will join us in our Global War on Terror.

But Zeno tells us it’ll never work. If you keep moving halfway to your goal, you never get there.

It’s like one of those other “recommendations.” Start up the Peace Process again, the one between Israel and Palestine.

Hello? Haven’t we been down this road a hundred times already? There was Oslo, Camp David, even a Bush 43 “roadmap.” Lots of feints and jabs and jaunts and taunts in the past 60 years, but what “Peace Process”? Did Tolstoy write a book called “War and Peace Process”?

There is either peace or no peace—i.e., war or cold war or preparations for war. We have lived with war, cold war or preparations for war for about 100 years now and the Iraq Study Group will not get us out of this imbroglio.

Managers love crises—makes them feel important. This Group of Ten is providing us a quarterly report about managing the crisis in our foreign relations. They emphasize “moving forward” because they dare not look back at how we got into this mess. Call it the No Blame Game. But if we don’t understand how we got here—the lies and complicity of Republicrats—how can we “move forward” without committing the same crimes? The Iraq Study Group’s report is a recipe for recidivism.

The Study Group earnestly requests that their recommendations not be “cherry-picked”; i.e., take all 79 as a whole. And, ah, who exactly elected these seers to tell us how to run the Superpower’s foreign policy?

And who are these seers? The Bush family’s consiglieri, Jim Baker, the guy who strong-armed the Supreme Court into appointing Bush Jr. president in 2000. Then there’s co-chair Lee Hamilton, who also co-chaired the 9/11 Commission hearings, behind closed doors, which basically whitewashed the appointed president’s responsibility for 9/11.

There’s Vernon Jordan and Leon Panetta, Clinton administration operatives, whose presence ensures that criticism will be deflected from the nearly full-fledged Democratic support for this now “Long War,” (soon to metamorphose into the “The Interminable War.”).

There’s Sandra Day O’Connor, Madam Justice, who, questioned by Margaret Warner on PBS about the “recommendation” that the U.S. engage in talks with Iran, responded: We spoke to Stalin during World War II and he was our enemy, wasn’t he? (Ms. Warner may have been overly polite in not pointing out that Stalin was one of our two principal allies in that revisionized conflagration.)

So, working in secret, these suspect characters present the nation with their fait acompli, expecting our plaudits and full compliance.

Just as surely as they have removed the citizenry from the process of their deliberations, they have attempted to remove from the citizenry the process of review and oversight—the real work of democracy.

A clever ploy which Zeno would have foreseen in the timing. Wind the reel back nine months and you’ve got a very worried Republicratic elite kavetching to itself: “Holy Shit! this war is going bad. We’ve got an idiot in the White House, scary Cheney behind him, and a lot of bloody hands in the House and Senate. And the People are waking up. They’re reading the Internet and they’re getting ideas.”

So, a Baker type comes along and he says, “Let’s move forward. Yeah, there’s going to be an election in about 8 months. We’re gonna send out the Cheerleader to do his shtick, and maybe our puppets Maliki and Talabani will hold things together in Iraq long enough to fool the schlimazels again. But, if we don’t succeed, if our Democrat allies actually move forward, we’ll boot out Rummy and put everything on hold. We tell the schlimazels we need another month for the Iraq Study Group’s report, and then we come out with 79 impossible recommendations to be take whole-cloth. More confusion. Instead of clear-cut proposals that everyone can agree on, we plow the debating ground for the 2008 election. Obama? Hillary? McCain? It doesn’t matter. So long as the schlimazels never lose faith in the process!”

Hannah Arendt put it this way: “What convinces masses are not facts, and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system of which they are presumably a part. Repetition, somewhat over-rated in importance because of the common belief in the masses’ inferior capacity to grasp and remember, is important because it convinces them of consistency in time.”

The show must go on.

What now?

Eighteen months ago, I wrote an article called "25 Reasons to Impeach George W. Bush." It appeared at CounterPunch and a few other sites around the world. It was posted at Representative John Conyers' website.

Eighteen months ago was the time to push for impeachment, the time for Dems to show backbone--if they've ever had any--, to make a clean break from the Republicrats.

It's not going to happen now. The Dems will concentrate on 08--pushing H.C. and Obama, diverting us with the sideshow until it becomes the main show.

I heard Representative Cynthia McKinney, Ray McGovern and Chris Hedges speak a few nights ago at a World Can't Wait meeting. I’d never heard any of them speak in person before and they and the other speakers were impressive.

I voted for McKinney in Georgia two years ago. (Yeah, I’ll actually vote if I think there’s a real choice. Most of the time, there isn’t.)

World Can't Wait is pushing for impeachment now. I think it's a waste of time, sapping the energy of the Left.

We need new paradigms.

Soon after the Cold War ended, that was the catchphrase of the day. Even Gorbachev got in on it. New paradigms.

Then King George Bush 41 came along and said, To hell with New Paradigms! What we need is a New World Order.

I respect McKinney’s call-it-like-it-is, no-holds-barred, feisty style. We don’t live in an age of niceties—not when we’re blowing up children and wreaking havoc for the sake of Big Oil and the Military Industrial Complex.

I respect Ray McGovern, who was 27 years with the C.I.A., and, basically, a year or so ago, had the guts to tell Rumsfeld he was full of shit, we weren’t winning in Iraq and weren’t going to win in spite of Rumsfeld’s obscurantism. We need to listen to insiders like Ray McGovern and Paul Craig Roberts, who have seen the light and made their 180’s. They write for some of the best sites on the Internet. They write lucidly, and they’ve got the creds.

That said, let’s understand: we’ll never get anywhere on the Left if we don’t start thinking out of the box.

Gabriel Kolko, whom CounterPunch’s editors characterize as the best historian on wars in the 20th century, posted a recent article in which he claims, “We can rule out the Left, that artifact of past history. Socialism ceased being a real option long ago, perhaps as early as 1914 … I need not say more than that it is no longer a threat to anybody.” Perhaps Mr. Kolko has been so focused on wars in the 20th century, he has missed the narrative line of socialist development in Latin America. Perhaps he has missed the story in France where Segolene Royal is set to become the next Prime Minister, and in Spain, where President Zapatero pulled Spanish troops from the Bush-Blair fiasco nearly three years ago. Perhaps he missed Prodi’s success in Italy—and much more.

This is not the time to write the Left’s epitaph, but it’s certainly time for some new thinking.

The Right are always going to outspend us. Since the Supreme Court declared (in Buckley v. Valeo), the equivalence of money and free speech, the Right have been buying the biggest megaphones and calling it democracy! Is this what the Bill of Rights means by freedom of speech? It appears that some of us have a hell of a lot more of it than others.

The media consolidation of the 90’s—let’s thank Michael Powell, Colin’s boy for overseeing that—made it still harder for the Left to be heard. The Right can outspend the Left ten bucks to one—and these are roadblocks we can’t get through.

We can’t get through, but we can go around. We go around by out-witting, out-thinking, out-imagining the Right. They have their billion-dollar think tanks, and we have people who can think for themselves and meet around the hearth of the Internet.

Old strategies must be re-examined. Voting in meaningless elections is intolerable. Rubber-stamping rubber-duck candidates lends credence to a system that is losing credence daily. (Kolko writes in that same article: “The system has become increasingly vulnerable … since about 1990, and the formal demise of ‘communism.’”)

Communism, that kind of centralized, authoritarian planning may be dead, but the Left and Socialism are not. Communism is a closed system with orders originating from the top, carried out by minions upon a disenfranchised populace. In its basic structure it’s like Fascism, which accounts for much of the confusion in the minds of Sandra Day O’Connor and “patriotic” Americans. The U.S. has had Fascistic elements from its inception. How else account for the Alien and Sedition Laws, the genocide against Native Americans, slavery, etc.? How else account for a war to seize the resources of the Middle East for the sake of Big Oil’s profits and our Defense establishment?

Socialism depends on a feedback loop. It has to be decentralized to work right. Information is fluid, transforming and transformative.

A major problem with the Left today is that it doesn’t seem to know who or what it is.
Hence, it gets lost in the Republicratic maze.

In that maze, someone suggests a demonstration—“make a lot of noise.” After I attended the 200,000-strong anti-war demonstration in D.C. in September, ’05, I asked a Leftist acquaintance, “What now?” He shrugged. So, essentially, did everybody else. Then half of them went out to vote for Republicrats.

The Republicrats have a stranglehold on this system and we’re not going to change anything unless we hit them where it hurts—in their wallets.

We can make all the noise we want, demonstrate and clamor for impeachment, but we’ll never change anything because Karl Rove and the “grown-ups” are already planning the next show-stopper for some eight months or more down the road. They understand what Zeno understood: all forward movement consists of a series of frozen moments, any one of which they can “spin” off in totally new directions.

The American Left needs to re-think its options. I don’t think we use boycotts nearly enough. O’Reilley, Limbaugh, Hannity say something stupid on their shows. Make a list of their sponsors. Disseminate that list. Refuse to buy those products.

We need to reach out to Leftist parties and organizations in other countries. They need our support and we need theirs. The Canadian health care system, one of the best examples of “socialized medicine” in the world, is under assault by the privatization junkies. That affects all of us. We need to think out of our box, beyond our borders. The French award working mothers 3 years paid maternity leave and the guarantee of a job to return to. The U.S. awards unpaid leave of 12 weeks. (But we allow the invidious Rupert Murdoch to post chicken heads on French ministers when they prudently warn us against military adventurism in Iraq! Did any Republicrat call down Murdoch for his blatant warmongering propaganda?) Mexico’s Lopez Obrador refuses to cede ground to an election swindle by Felipe Calderon. That’s our struggle, too.

How much can we sacrifice? Live in a tub like Diogenes for the sake of our principles, to make a point? Unlikely.

Can we burn up our credit cards, live more simply, create our own creative communities, turn our backs upon this gluttonous, zero-sum game culture? Why not?

Once I lived in a middle-class neighborhood of weekend lawn-cutters. Every weekend, my neighbors were out there on their 1,000-2,000-dollar tractor mowers, trimming their mowing their lawns. “Couldn’t we all just chip in and buy one mower for the block?” I once asked and got lockjawed responses.

Hit’em where it hurts. Educate people about money. We need to re-birth the counter-culture and re-establish alternative communities. We need to re-imagine the Arts. (Didn’t they used to be about people? We’ve always had a fair bit of fantasy-art in America, especially in our cinema. But wasn’t there once more than the slick and the sick?)

Frankly, in the long run, we need to call a Constitutional Convention. A Republicrat candidate in Maryland, a law professor-vanity candidate for Governor, who just wanted to show his pretty face and exude professorial style, told me that the Constitution was “deeply flawed,” but, nevertheless, we had to support it.

And I answered, the Bill of Rights, yes, and some of the amendments which advance human rights, yes, but must I really support the Electoral College and a bi-cameral system that awards citizens in Wyoming some 70 times the voting power in the Senate as citizens in California? Can we not use referenda, as they do in other countries, as is built into the new Venezuelan constitution, to re-call an unpopular president, one who has violated his oath of office repeatedly, as has Dictator/Decider George 43? Isn’t a document that defines slaves as 3/5 human—something of which to be ashamed?

We need to think in new directions, out-think, out-imagine these devious Republicrats.

Fabian and fabulist George Bernard Shaw could see the world in a grain of sand. “Nothing can save society,” he wrote, “except the clear head and the wide purpose.” And, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”


Gary Corseri edited the MANIFESTATIONS anthology. His articles, fiction and poems have appeared at/in DissidentVoice, CounterPunch, CommonDreams,AxisofLogic, the New York Times, Village Voice, Redbook and elsewhere. He has published two novels and two collections of poetry; PBS Atlanta has broadcast his dramatic work. He can be contacted at corseri@verizon.net.