Let Money Speak Freely

In a 5-4 ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court overturned two of its previous rulings designed to limit the amount of money that big business can funnel into elections.

The majority, led by Chief Justice Jon Roberts, are claiming it as a victory for political free speech. Those who dissent worry about the flood of corporate capital that will inevitably ensue.

Perhaps you're the type of person that thinks so what big business runs everything already. That may be so, but it doesn't make the self-righteous way that Roberts et al wrap themselves in a garb of anti-censorship any less nauseating. It’s also a slap in the face to an American public that’s becoming acutely aware of just how limited it’s influence is.

The question that springs to my mind is just when did corporations become American citizens? And what entitles them to the same protections guaranteed by our Bill of Rights? As far as I can tell it ain’t in the constitution.

Let’s be honest shall we? Corporate “free speech” is not about expressing dissent, it’s about buying off or attempting to buy off those necessary to get what is desired. That might be a bit hyperbolic, but it’s the way things generally play out isn’t it?

The whole affair really brings up a larger issue I have with the way that government is conducted these days.

Unless I’m thoroughly mistaken, our founding fathers intended our government to be a special kind of entity; one beholden to its people. Not in the sense that a company is beholden to its share holders (although that’s much closer to our current situation), but in the sense that its very existence owes to those who’ve entrusted authority in it. This would seem to mean looking out for the populace even at the expense of profit (e.g. who would you rather have inspecting your meat, someone whose top priority is turning a profit for shareholders or someone whose top priority is public safety?).

Unfortunately during the 20^th century the US government’s relationship with its people began to change from one of responsibility to the interests of those who grant it authority, to one of a client/server nature. (The problem with this being that obviously those clients with the biggest accounts are of primary importance.)

This change was a subtle process that unfolded over several decades*. It really took flight though, during the reign of the younger, dumber Bush, whose administration, in its race to prove the incompetence of government, couldn’t privatize itself fast enough.

It’s really difficult from here, to see how this money-corrupted system is going to fix itself. Remember when Obama promised an end to the unfettered influence of corporate lobbying? Well this decision just means more money will be thrown around; so more big energy, more insurance, more Wall Street, etc.

But hey who am I to criticize the free speech of others right?

*there's an excellent book called Downsizing Democracy that lays this out in painstaking detail.

We're America ...we do not F$*#in' Torture!

Well, it looks as if the flood gates are opening. The Obama admin. is releasing a slew of Bush era memos that authorized the use of “enhanced interrogation” practices. Among these are sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation/overload and various forms of humiliation… and of course the one we keep hearing about: water boarding. Before I go any further, a couple of definitions:

Torture - the act of inflicting extreme pain/damage to a person as a means of coercion, for punishment/revenge, or out of shear cruelty.

Water boarding - the act of immobilizing a person on his/her back with head inclined and pouring water over the face. Through the forced inhalation of water, the gag reflex is almost immediately excited and the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment. Water boarding can cause extreme pain and damage to the lungs, brain damage (due to oxygen deprivation), and injuries (possibly broken bones) due to struggling against restraints.

There have been murmurs about this since at least 2002, but they’ve been summarily glossed over by the Bushies who’ve declared, “we don’t do it, but reserve the right to if necessary.”

A cursory glance at anything resembling actual research data, will make it emphatically clear that torture does not produce valid actionable intelligence. Obviously, anyone enduring that kind of suffering is going to say whatever it is they think will make it stop. Water boarding in particular was developed for the Spanish Inquisition as a means of obtaining false confessions. Sleep deprivation as well has the effect of making those who suffer it highly suggestible.

So why would the Bush administration, which repeatedly denied these practices, be so adamant about reserving the right to conduct them “if necessary”?

It is now common knowledge that Bush was intent on finishing the job his dad started in Iraq, from the outset of his presidency. After 9/11 he marshaled all the resources available to identify some connection between Saddam those who attacked us. Put in this context, a disturbing realization begins to materialize. A false confession or two would be all that was needed to link Saddam to the atrocities of 9/11. It’s disgusting, but really, are you that surprised?

The release of these memos has set off a firestorm of indignation. First by those aghast at the reality that America,self proclaimed upholder of the moral status quo would stupe to torture. (Among them, in a strange twist of fate, Fox News’ Shepard Smith who went so far as to drop an F -bomb live on the air)

Then of course, by those, incredulous that we would tip our hand to the terrorists. You know how this well worn argument sounds. The invoker usually makes reference to how dangerous the post 9/11 world is and includes something about how Bush kept us safe from attack for seven years. If he’s feeling extra polemical he’ll throw in something like “liberals want to befriend terrorists”.

This rhetorical dispute has changed very little since Bush The Uniter first proclaimed you’re either with us or with the terrorists.

As much as I’d would like to see retribution against those who’ve exploited national fear for personal gains and subsequently run roughshod over our principles in the dash to loot this country; this is a moral issue. I’d hate to see it conflated with politics, as it surely would be, should any attempt be made to try those responsible for this. I’ll settle for outrage, a resolution(s) and more vigilance on the part of the public. I mean torture? WTF? That’s what terrorists do.

Blackwater's Iraq contract not renewed!

Remember when our government felt like this. When those people who claimed Bush was going to declare martial law and rule as el presidente for life seemed believable?

Well we're probably still effed-in-the-a, but at least the Obama admin. is doing a couple of positive things. Refusing to do business with a company like Blackwater definitley falls into this category. In case you didn't know, six Blackwater employees were charged with the voluntary manslaughter of 17 innocent Iraqis back in 2007. Only one has plead guilty, but the company's infractions have been serious enough that the Iraqi government has refused to renew their operating licence. Although they are still employed elsewhere, the Iraq contract made up "1/3 - 1/2" of Blackwater's business so this is a critical blow to the company.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/30/us.blackwater.contract/

Blackwater has also changed it's name to Xe (zee). Changing one's name is a popular PR strategy for an entity whose reputation has been ruined (read: School of the Americas).

And as a bonus, this asshole has left the company.

CEO Erik Prince, a rich conservative-christian who's father, a rich conservative christian in his own right, co-founded the Family Research Council. Prince the younger is a homophobic zealot and former Bush cronie, who once complained that the administration was not socially conservative enough.

Arrevaderchi douche-nozzle!

(Oh and if you're interested in finding out more about Blackwater, there's an execellent book by Jeremy Scahill called Blackwater: Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army)

ZOMG!!!

There's a black man in the White House. That even sounds strange...

and awesome!

Even better than the destruction of the tacit understanding that, to be president one must be an aging white man; is that this milestone comes on the heels of a president that will probably be remembered as the most inept man to ever hold the office. Worse than Grant. Worse than Johnson. Worse than Nixon (who at least was a skilled politician).

Bush, although he may be a decent enough man personally, is a stubborn, intellectually-lazy simpleton. And while this combination of traits makes for a good fratboy it makes for a terrible leader. Bush was unbelievably under-qualified for the office of president; a quick look at his history as failed entrepreneur clearly shows his deficiency as an administrator. It's amazing he ever got that far, to say nothing of the fact that he was re-elected in 2004.

The events of today seem especially dramatic to me because of my age. The first election I ever participated in was the stolen election of 2000. So Bush has been the Commander-in-Chief all of my adult life. It seems strange to think that the focus of so much of my ill-will for so long is finally gone. And that I never have to listen to his ridiculous pronouncements again.

I doubt he, or anyone else for that matter, will ever be tried for basically shredding significant portions of the constitution. But, it does bring me some satisfaction that Bush will most likely live a good while longer (maybe 20 years?) and endure scathing criticism from all sides without a mouth-piece to defend himself. It's telling that the last couple of months have found him making a desperate PR blitz in an attempt to salvage his "legacy" (Cheney hasn't backed down from anything he's ever asserted, including the fiasco in Iraq).

Anyway, as the picture suggests, this post is supposed to be about our first black president. It's just that one must factor in Bush and his unprecedented incompetence to understand why we're so elated.

OK. This country faces some enormous challenges to be sure. But If Obama comes through on even a fraction of what he is talking about doing, it'll make it all worth-while. Even just lifting of the ban on stem-cell research. Or real funding for alternative energy. Or closing Guantanamo. Or submitting to the Geneva Convention.

I like that although Obama touched on defense, he spent most of his time talking domestic affairs.

And as I've said before, even just as a symbol his ascendancy is enormously important. It smashes the one-dimensional caricature of American leadership internationally and signifies so much for minorities here at home.

Of course I don't think he's going to solve all of our problems and some of his appointments are a little troubling...

but I'm willing to suspend my judgment.

And right now I feel hopeful that at least we may be heading in a different direction.

The Folly of Israel

Man, I guess it’s that time of year again. The bloodshed in the Holy Land has been spilling over into news publications for the last two weeks.

I’m not here to take sides as the title to this post might suggest, this he started it / she started it shit is the problem. I’m just pointing out that for all of Israel’s bluster and brute military strength, they’ve really accomplished next to nothing in the last 60 years. Though countless militants have met violent ends, the rockets are still raining and the radical Islamic ideology is as strong as it has ever been.

Which begs the question; after employing the same strategy to solve a problem again and again over the course of 60 years without lasting success, at what point do you admit that it’s not working and try something else?

Hawks instantly fly off the handle when anything other than force is suggested to solve a violent situation. They accuse the diplomatically inclined of being apologists or even terrorists if they’re feeling hyperbolic. If they could hold the Ad hominem attacks and conduct a civil discussion they would learn that of course we all deplore terrorism, any rational person does. The argument is that, in this case, force as a strategy isn’t cutting it.

Look there's is a quick way to gain the moral high ground in the Muslim world and invalidate the Jihadist rhetoric. It’s what the rational voices have been calling for for decades: moving back to pre-1967 borders. The standard argument by Israeli hawks is that conceding this would only embolden the terrorists. What they don’t realize is that their approach lends these radicals credulity in the Muslim world.

I mentioned this in my post about terrorism, but I’ll say it again, it doesn’t matter how sophisticated your arsenal is, you can’t bomb an idea. It must be discredited. We’ve made the same mistake in Afghanistan. It’s employing the wrong tool- if a saw is what’s required for the job, but you have a hammer, it does’t matter how hard you hit the thing you’re not going to get the results that you are looking for. But really that metaphor doesn’t do this situation justice. A better parallel would be trying to extinguish a grease fire with water, thus spreading what you hoped to suppress. Israel’s attacks on a UN run school and a mosque, regardless of the validity of their claim that they were targeting militants, has done nothing but harm their case in the long term.

There’s ample evidence to support the ultimate futility of this strategy. Take Lebanon. In 2006 Israel invaded Lebanon in retaliation for rocket attacks by Hezbollah. In the 33 day war that ensued heavy civilian casualties were sustained. And as a result, now Hezbollah controls the government.

“You can’t solve a problem with the same consciousness that created it”

-Albert Einstein

Some one needs to rise above the tit-for-tat or this will continue ad-infinitum. Now, realistically, who do you think that's going to be; fundamentalist militants whose moral code is 1000 years out of date or a first world country.

edit: It looks as though Israel is acting unilaterally as is their custom. They've declared a cease fire, but refuse to leave Gaza. Well, I guess we're just going to have to wait and see how long this lasts. You can be sure however, that nothing has been accomplished in terms of the PR war. And that this has only fanned the flames of resentment. The prospect of further violence is a matter not of if but when. Unfortunately, this is a situation in which we all lose; the US, moderate Arabs, moderate Jews- pretty much everyone except for Likud the Jihadists.

Prop 8 the Musical

This is pretty good.

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... by Jack Black

Proposition 8

The cultural shockwave created from the passage of California's Proposition 8 is still reverberating over a month later. For anyone that has been living under a rock, Proposition 8 was a ballot initiative proposing a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. Obviously, here in San Francisco, people are still really upset. And there has been quite a bit of finger pointing; at the African American community, at the Mormon Church, and even at the apathy of homosexuals who took their tenuous mandate to marry as given- apparently unaware of its fragility.

I’ve even heard people declaring that we're moving backward culturally, though I find this claim rather hard to digest. The popular vote split 52-48% (This decision is being challenged now as I type). A pretty slim majority that suggests we’ve come quite a way from where we were even a generation ago. I mean, look at this in proper historical context. Take the slur faggot, for instance, which comes from the British word for a bundle of kindling i.e. something you burn! It’s not even acceptable to use the term in mainstream discourse.

So my thoughts are that we’re almost there. That is, homosexuality is almost, but not quite. This being said, I’ve always rejected the validity of the argument that homosexuals somehow endanger marriage.

The argument against same sex marriage usually goes something like this: marriage is a sacred union of man and women ordained by God. It’s obviously been eroded, as the divorce rate makes clear. This is (usually) attributed to something like removing God from our schools or public buildings or government. Then it is claimed that the acceptence of homosexuality, which is a sin, will further exacerbate this already dire situation. It doesn’t take a logician to spot several large holes in this argument.

Now, beside the fact that I fail to see a connection between the tiny demographic of gays who wish to marry and the vast numbers of straights who make bad decisions, it’s more or less common knowledge that the rate of “successful” marriage in this country has been hovering around 50% for the last forty years. And there is scant evidence, of its decrease inversely proportionate or otherwise to the rising visibility of homosexuality.

Furthermore, I would like to propose that the sacred institution of marriage is not even what it seems. For instance, if you go back and look at early civilization. You will find that marriages were mostly arranged; not by God, but by families. More financial agreement than “sacred union”, as the concept of a dowry will attest to e.g. your daughter for 1 goat and 3 chickens.

And how many marriages are a direct result of out of wedlock pregnancy. Or, as Tina Fey (channeling Sarah Palin) so efficaciously put it, “I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers.”

And what about all the misery endured by countless people locked in toxic, abusive and joyless marriages by their sense of moral duty.

What I’m essentially driving at here is that what cultural conservatives love to point to as the corner stone of civilization is really an idealized one dimensional caricature of a phenomenon as varied and rich as the nature of romantic relationships between human beings.

Luckily, like John Meacham from Newsweek said, these folks are on the wrong side of history. We as a society have become ever more tolerant of different races, creeds, and customs (this includes sexuality). The people who oppose same-sex marriage now are the same kinds of people who opposed interracial marriage a generation ago. The same people who opposed single parents, oral sex and before that the right of women to work and vote. These types of changes in cultural moors are gradually accepted as they become ever more visible in the public consciousness. By this measure, the “Gay 90’s” have already blown this issue wide open. The proverbial tide is shifting and the old guards frantic attempt to stop it is a sisyphean task.

Tangentially, one of the most curious aspects of this debate is the popular narrative, articulated by people like Newt Gingrich, that fascist homosexuals are forcefully imposing their beliefs on hapless Christians. The irony here is simply breath taking. {We demand tolerance of our right to be intolerant!}

And honestly I do have some empathy for cultural conservatives. They must feel as if they've been under assault from every angle, since the 60's. To add insult to injury, every four years they vote for someone who manipulates their deep seeded convictions to garner votes only to turn around and promptly ignore them once the elections' been won. I pity them, but I categorically disagree with the invocation of God to impose judgment or restrictions on minorities who are vulnerable to the tyranny of mob rule (which, incidentally, is one of the main reasons we have a bill of rights). The twisting of spiritual principles to justify fear and hatred is one of the most tragically enduring corruptions of the perennial philosophy. And though I can’t claim to speak for God in my estimation it’s blasphemy.

OK, Obama is NOT a friggin Socialist.

Lemme preface this with the statement that "I don't even know who I'm gonna vote for yet." Obviously not McCain but not necessarily Obama.

Alright, Moving on. First, a definition:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. [wikipedia]

Next, I would like to point out the men advising Obama on financial issues; there's Paul Volcker and Warren Buffet. The former, the chairman of the federal reserve under Reagan; and latter, the richest investor/business man/philanthropist in the world.

Then, I would say that "spreading the wealth" is really just an end to the Bush tax breaks which made no fiscal sense what-so-ever, considering we were mired in two resource depleting wars. It basically amounts to quiting your job and putting your bills on the credit card because you don't have enough money to pay them.

But, I'll let John McCain explain...




And finally, just to be clear on this whole "spreading the wealth" hysteria, I present to you, a quote.

"It is not very unreasonable, that the rich should contribute to the public not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

The source of this quote? The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. That's right folks, the Old Testament of capitalism, as conceived by the granddaddy of modern economics. Smith is basically god to the profits Hayek and Friedman. And even he saw wisdom in the graduated tax now vulgarly characterized as "spreading the wealth"

Ugghh!!! If I have to hear one more thing about Obama'sencouraging voter fraud I'm gonna go postal. First the relation between Obama and A.C.O.R.N., who is supposedly perpetuating this fraud, is tangential. Tangential in that he represented the organization once back in the 90's. And secondly A.C.O.R.N. is guilty of voter registration fraud, not voter fraud. This means basically they signed up a bunch of people that do not exist or will not be able to vote. It is not a calculated effort to steal the election. Say it with me, voter registration fraud is not voter fraud.

Voter registration fraud is not voter fraud.

Voter registration fraud is not voter fraud.

Voter registration fraud is not voter fraud.

Voter registration fraud is not voter fraud.


Of course the people that are perpetuation this misinformation are the same that claim Obama is a defacto terrorist/traitor/what ever by association.

It's really pointless trying to correct these people, as they're percieving only what they want to.

Failin' 08 and beyond? (Sarah Palin)

OK, it's about time for this woman's 15 minutes to expire. Honestly, is this really the direction that the Republican party wants to continue in? Here is a woman who's world view has all the sophistication of a beauty queen. Who revels in her astonishing ignorance of almost everything outside of Alaska, and derides those with a better understanding of any sort of complex issue- geopolitics, economics, even science for christsake- as elitist. I understand the need to energize the conservative base, but c'mon this woman is a blithering idiot who's fear mongering makes the Bush administration look nuanced by comparison.

"Pallin' around with terrorists"? Really? You don't just flippantly throw the "T" word around in post 9/11 political discourse. This goes beyond hyperbole. It's akin to claiming your opponent is treasonous, an enemy of the state, evil, etc. And people are genuinely surprised at the vitriol on display at campaign rallies? Seriously. This woman appeals to the most base aspect of the American psyche. Just once can we please refrain from accusing those who don’t agree with us as being anti-American? I’m really frustrated with this tactic which although employed by democrats, seems to be a republican staple these days.

This women is the definition of polemical and the resulting strain on the Republican party’s coalition is really becoming apparent. We’ve already seen a litany prominent conservative voices, Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Buckley, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, Colon Powell, even Charles Fried a former McCain advisor, come out against this woefully inept women. The wheat is being separated from the chaff so to speak.

Maybe the coalitions of both major parties need some realignment. The fundamentalist, socially conservative element of this country, who've made clear through their undying support of Palin how contemptuous they are of ideas and the people that have them, make up around 30% of the population. Their influence in politics in the last thirty or so years has been greatly disproportionate to their numbers. I think maybe it’s time this changed. These are the people that fret about gay marriage and American flags as the economy crumbles and our rights are stripped away. The intellectual ideologues of the right never really thought much of them beyond a means to office, as clearly demonstrated by their pattern of promptly abandoning wedge issues once elected.

The last six or seven weeks would almost be laughable if so many didn't take this preening, pontificating, attack dog "with lipstick" so seriously. I mean McCain is a joke and everyone knows he’ll be off to the glue factory in another couple of years. But people are talking about Palin's incredibly bright political future. Don’t get me wrong, I think she would make a fine pundit for Fox News- dye her hair blond and she’d fit right in with all the other women who manage to look pretty and read a teleprompter at the same time. But president? This women is even more sheltered than Bush. She couldn't even handle an interview from Katie Couric. Katie Couric for fucks sake!

Although it really irks me when someone's ambition is so disproportionally out of whack with their intelligence/capability/etc., I might even be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and declare her as just out-of-her-league; the republicans trotting out another token women regardless of her qualification. But from what I've gathered of her behavior as governor of Alaska, she’s petty, and vindictive as evidenced by her willingness to violate state ethical regulations just to exact revenge on a personal adversary (read troopergate).

And she's also corrupt. The fact that she would bring along her kids on business trips with Alaskans footing the bill is somewhat understandable as she is a working mother. The fact that she altered the expense reports to cover her tracks, however, speaks volumes about her ethics. Couple this with her resolute faith in God and you have a cocktail for disaster. Someone willing to bend the rules in the name of divinity (this being the reasoning that justifies Islamic terror). And, really, I don’t believe for a second that she didn’t know exactly what she was doing at all those rallies, whipping up anger and misconception into a frothy hateful fury.

This cancerous strain of anti-intellectualism need to end now! We need leadership that can exercise reason and restraint. Please Governor Palin, for the sake of this country, fuck off back to Alaska and take your divisive myopic bullshit with you.

The War on Trrrsm

As this seemingly endless reign of unprecedented incompetence that is our current leadership finally reaches twilight, one can only hope for better days ahead. I’d love to believe that this is the nadir of American political discourse, but the way both candidates are framing foreign policy seems to suggest continued biligerence. McCain who claims we are winning (can win) the war in Iraq, easily wins the award for outstanding achievement in the field of cognitive dissonance, thus making him the rightful heir to Bush Et al.

News Flash: the ‘war’ in Iraq ended 5 ½ years ago with the fall of Baghdad!

What we are now engaged in is a protracted counter-insurgency campaign. And according to Thomas E. Ricks' incredibly informative Fiasco we lost in the first year. The goal of such a campaign is hopefully to avoid an insurgency altogether by convincing people that you understand their plight and are here to help. Trust is achieved by living amongst the populace, observing local mores and customs when ever possible and generally demonstrating respect for their culture.

If an insurgency does in fact bloom this becomes all the more crucial as what you have now is basically a P.R. battle. Not that you would know this by the conduct of our men (this is no fault of theirs of course, they are just doing the job they were trained to do). By protecting the oil fields while leaving national museums to be pillaged of priceless artifacts from the earliest of civilization, we definitely did not do ourselves any favors P.R.-wise.

Furthermore, building a fortress-like green zone with modern amenities such as cable TV and air conditioning, while leaving much of Baghdad without electricity or even running water sends a clear message- unfortunately directly contradicting our stated mission. Where we really dropped the ball though, was when we disbanded the military and barred Ba’ath members from holding office (thank you Paul Bremer). This insured that a quick and orderly transition to stable government would be nearly impossible. Training soldiers and police takes time after all, as does grooming politicians. Ricks, who is a non-partisan military reporter with no ideological ax to grind, plainly says something to the effect that if the goal was to create an insurgency, we could hardly have done a better job.

And yet, we (well the people that pushed for invasion ASAP), from the initial planning stages, failed to entertain even the possibility of an insurgency because our troops were supposed to be recognized as liberators and the reconstruction was supposed to pay for itself.

As for McCain’s claim that the surge is working (the surge being his idea according to him), I have only this to say: violence has decreased, because the country has been more or less cordoned off into districts of Sunni, Shiite and Kurd. And many of the Sunni insurgents are now part of militias that are financed by guess who, the U.S. In my estimation this is amounts to bribery. What is going to happen when we do eventually draw our forces down and stop throwing all this money at Iraq? We can’t be certain until the day actually arrives. But I would be willing to bet that the idea of Iraq as model for the rest of the mid-east has been a wee bit over sold.

What about the proposed refocused effort in Afghanistan and tribal Pakistan to root out the Taliban and “smoke him [bin Laden] out of his hole”? Well, besides the glaring fact that the biggest breeding ground for anti-western terror (Saudi Arabia) is propped up by our addiction to oil, and those very oil dollars that go almost exclusively to the corrupt royal family only exacerbate the situation further; the war on terror is is basically untenable by definition. Why? Because an entity has to exist to have a war fought against it.

Terrorism is a tactic. A tactic cannot be defeated because obviously any one can come along at a later date and employ it. You might as well declare a global war on fishing. Israel has been fighting a 'war' on terror for forty fucking years and where has it got them? It's just as bloody as it's ever been and they've lost credibility with the rest of the world (except the US of course) for their heavy handed approach..

If you really want to do something about terrorism, perhaps the U.K.'s approach to the I.R.A. should be heeded. They used the criminal justice system to prosecute these people as the murderers they truly are. But really the most effective course of action in combating terrorism is to undermine it's root cause- in this case the radical fundamentalist branch of Islam.

You don't eradicate an ideology by bombing it, especially if it's adherents are readily willing to sacrifices there lives-- this being eloquently captured in the carnage that continues to plague Israel. No, you defeat an ideology only when you thoroughly discredit it. Our knee-jerk reaction in Afghanistan has been about as effective as throwing water on burning oil in the hopes of extinguishing it. The evidence that these people despise us is everywhere. We’ve twice abandoned them now- first in the 80’s, and then again when we moved our focus, barely a year after toppling the Taliban, to Iraq.

But then, was 'winning' even what this was all about?. Some people, who would surely be derided as paranoid in mainstream thought, think that the ‘war’ on terror is more about keeping the populous in line with the threat of immanent danger, than any vaguely defined benchmark for victory. And I won’t disagree that the Patriot Act and all the sweeping new powers it has granted the executive branch in ‘war time’, are a worrisome precedent.

The mere fact that it was given the inane title "Patriot Act" and not something more suitably descriptive like oh I don’t know - the homeland security act, sounds a lot like Ministry of Truth irony. Censorship of the press, spying on the public, torture of detainees/enemies of state (especially dangerous for the vague definition of an enemy of the state/terrorist) are all on the books and ready to be implemented by some future administration.

Essentially these ‘paranoid’ America haters see the war on terror as an open ended conflict used to fuel the military industrial complex and keep the populace in line against an enemy that can be defined as anyone to fit the situation as necessary. Given the evidence of the last eight years, this idea doesn’t appear that implausible to me. Of course I guess it’s possible that this is just a coincidental side effect of a larger campaign to keep America "safe".

It also seems a little too convenient that the people who have made a killing in the last eight years with no bid contracts, companies like KBR and Blackwater have deep ties to this administration. I was recounting this to a friend recently who informed me that this is just the way that business is conducted i.e. businesses hire people they know. This to me highlights a pretty big problem with with the way our government has come to be viewed. Namely as a business that provides service to those who make the highest bids, rather than a co-op that is accountable to it's participants (at all times not just every two or four years). The money being pissed away in these contracts is yours and mine, and shouldn't be given out willy-nilly to cronies --i t should be allocated to those best suited to perform the task at hand.

To summarize, our war on terror is/will be no more effective than our war on drugs because the very act of calling it a war, frames the situation in the wrong terms creating a false dichotomy that will at best perpetuate this incredible waste of our time and resources and at worst exacerbate things.