Hey look…another Occupation Rant…

The biggest problem with something that matters to people, is that sooner or later it is going to have to mean something real to all of them. And while it may be easy to whip people en mass into a frenzy with just the right words and syntax, the ambition to hold them there and channel their collective rage into a single constructive or destructive force is not only bold, it is almost outright mad. But it can be done. It has been done and will, provided the right pieces fall into the right places, be done again.

A mass movement. A populist uprising against a faceless institutional oligarchy, where one’s collective dollars can suit the will or whim of a select handful of people at the expense of everyone else. One where the popular political factions of the true republic stand against those to whom they are held captive, and a system which is engineered to not only divide them, but own them entirely beneath a faux intellectual veneer of “left and right.” And yet, despite its commonalities and despite its internal divisions of ideology, it thrives in an underground network of popular dissent.

The media, being a simple tool of this corporate state, delivers nothing by skewed hyperbole, calling it wasteful, disrespectful of property, liberal communist and even racist in some circles. All deny the true and diverse nature of this thing that has begun. All dismiss it as a fad. I for one, do not.

Some time ago, before writing this, I used to be an organizer. That was the last title I held. Union organizer. Prior to that, it was political consultant or political contractor. Either way, it all meant that it was my job to persuade the general public, as much of it as I could, to come together beneath the banner I presented them with.

“Save our schools!” “Save the environment!” “End the war!” “Give us healthcare reform!!!” Etc…you get it I’m sure. I not only worked on such campaigns, but most times ran them. Most came in the forms of contracts from political action committees (PACs,) Unions or when I could find the work, commercial political contracting firms, who specialized in field campaigns and “voter outreach.”  At one point, I even literally spied on another private contractor’s operation and ran my own ops to kill it. All in all, they were sometimes grand experiences that I’d never give back and sometimes, awful wretched things I’d wished I’d never done. But one thing I know how to do is organize.

In my tour through the occupation, despite my attempts to take literary license with the tale (and all of that actually happened. I just made it sound more interesting than it was in parts…) I told the truth of my observations. Beyond merely watching how they functioned and what they thought, I sought, in part, to organize them as best as I could. To my surprise, most of the conclusions I came to on day one, they had already come to, or were in the process of doing so. Things like multi-city delegations to convey GA wills and communications, rotating volunteer committees to manage logistical and operational aspects of the occupation protests and even to a slight extent, ideological and factional delegations within camp sites.

What many fail to realize in watching the news or passing by their local Occupations, is that these are not hippy camps, festival sites for Phish heads, compounds for communist revolutionaries or the home of the black flag. These are truly broiling melting pots of what is generally regarded as fringe philosophies and ideologies. By “fringe,” I mean of course not orthodox democrat-progressive or republican-conservative…whatever those might be at time. But rather the true rooted, multi-faceted, admittedly arguable political philosophies that make up this republic. The Libertarians, believing in individual sovereignty over government rule, as well as the Socialists, who are committed to seeing a robust and healthy system of public services, serving the needs of the masses, possibly at the extent of the few. There are Anarchists, who believe it is time to tear the entire broken system down and allow an organic, natural regrowth of human order from the topsoil and there are Constitutionalists, who swear so long as we adhere to the words of the document, we as a nation will be restored to our ‘god given majesty,’ or whathaveyou.

The point is that its a pot, filled with volatile but flavorful and necessary ingredients which are bound to compete with one another, as well as the environmental toxins of established PACs, Unions and DNC affiliates trying either take over or ride the coattails of this thing. So what is an organizer to do?

Well, I listened. Intently, for days on end. Talked a great deal, can’t help but do that, its just what I do. But I listened. I listened to tales from travelers like myself, devoted activists who’ve been in the fight for decades, curious press crew, the homeless…whoever would talk to me. And so far as I can tell, the one uniting factor is the rage. But again, what is an organizer to do with such things? Perhaps, I thought, discover the core of the thing.

To which I now come to this…again. Election reform. Lobbying reform. Not the sexiest issues, but one everyone can get behind.

The truth is, THIS MOVEMENT WILL NOT LAST FOREVER. It simply won’t. It can’t. Between the internal divisions of philosophy and ideology, to the very nature of popular politics, it simply cannot last indefinitely. And when it crashes or breaks up or whatever, it will be its message and its impact on popular discussion which will matter most.

My union organizer friends often give me hell about my enthusiasm for this thing. They keep asking what is the point? Without politicians paying attention and without the media, what is the point? But the point is this; Its not what politicians discuss that they’re seeking to speak to, its what you and I discuss. Its what average working people who would never, despite our possible untapped brilliance, ever have a chance to have more than a voice in a sham election in this world the way it is.

We’re dominated by interest groups. We’ve known it for a long time. We still know it now. Why haven’t we spoken about it?

Been round the way on flag burning. Made high and holy the sanctity of marriage in our various means and definitions. We’ve argued endlessly over whether or not our broken healthcare systems are indeed broken. (Little hint…they actually are.) We’ve gone up and down and around on every issue but these. The essence of influence, the machinery of power.

When I as a billionaire super corporate person as such, bankroll an electoral campaign, I’m doing to because I’m the only one with the money to do so and I know I’ll get what I want when I do it. If one of my “competitors,” (whom incidentally I am close friends with, attend trade groups and lobbying firm sessions with and probably play golf with at least once a month to discuss “trade issues and personal business”) happens to be funding one candidate, I’ll fund the other. We’ll both know we want the same things out of him generally, unless its a contract fight…

After I elect this sell-out, my industry and company lobbyists will own him from top to bottom by the end of his second week. Beyond simply reelection cash promises, we can threaten or sweeten job levels in his district, run PAC and SUPERPAC campaigns for or against him and even happen to have the perfect positions in Government Relations for them should they decide to leave office. I mean really, if that was me, I wouldn’t have a question in my mind as to what all of those rabble in the streets of my cities were out there for. Its because I kept them from ever having their voices heard.

And thus do we come back to the voices. So many different voices, with so much to say. And they’ll all scream it at the top of their lungs at these Occupations. We need to “End the Fed,” “Redistribute Wealth!” or any manner thereof in between while ending wars, global warming, taxes and the ban on pot. This mishmash of ideas which if brought in any measure to considerable power respectively, would simply piss off the opposition.

If MY ideas were carried out in full I’m sure that they would be wholly effective in making a perfect world. However enough people would disagree with me to such a point that it would never be possible anyway. Instead, my arguments must carry weight and win over those who might oppose out of reflex. And that is the true nature of this fight.

This is not a struggle to see a particular vision brought to power. It is no more communist than it is “free market.” It votes no more for Dennis Kucinich than it does Ron Paul. It is multi-factional and without specific ideology. What it represents is the fury of an entire subset of popular ideas and the general desires for security and stability of those who are not politically or socially science oriented, manifested in a collectivist, communal series of autonomous mass demonstrations.

The culmination of a population no longer satisfied to eat the bullshit lines of those who have sway and power. The fight is to level the playing field. To establish a new environment where new/old ideas can be argued freely, without interests from the corporate, PAC , interest or labor sectors buying out the debate. Elimination of private financing in American elections is the first step. The second is simply reforming the procedures of lobbying public officials to become an immediately available part of public record. For if we eliminate the incentives to play their bullshit ballgame, there will be less to worry about for everyone should they approach an elected representative with a particular grievance.

For just as it is important to observe and record law enforcement in this fight, it is equally important to hold our elected representation and executive officials to the same standard in terms of how they carry out their duties.

For more information on where YOUR elected representatives get their campaign cash, visit http://www.maplight.org and be sure look over their records. Short of that, get back out into those parks, tents, streets…make this worth the effort and show me that my professional orthodoxies don’t mean a thing in the world we’re looking to create.

Of species, nation and tribe…

Tonight, while driving home, a radio news show came on the air discussing how the Chinese were sending parts into space for construction of their own space station. With the booming economy and nationalist pride on the line, China is now looking to develop and expand its space program, hoping to surpass the US and Europe. Plans were mentioned for the moon and Mars with an exuberance and (possibly just the appearance of) a groundswell of public support.

My first reaction, mirrored my third reaction, but conflicted with my second and forth.

At first, I thought “how wonderful! Human beings returning to active space exploration on a national level! This could take us into the stars!” It was a great feeling. Thinking that I was alive in an era where I may be seeing the continuation of the very beginning of our spacefaring age, where we took offworld travel and exploration seriously and spread the wonder of our impossible existence elsewhere. A pleasant dramatization of theory perhaps, but pleasant all the same.

However as I listened and heard the foreign, unusual name to the rocket carrying the parts, heard the words “leading” and “determined” applied to a nation other than my beloved(?) America, and listened as a foreigner spoke with honest joy at the achievements of his nation, while mine remained a once(?) great society in honest decline. I thought of ancient empires at the heights of their glory and then on them now, selling themselves as tourist destinations, passively observing events in the world now greater than their control.

But then again, I thought of how simply ignorant it is to think on the accomplishments of one’s species in a hostile and impossible universe such as this, in terms of the nations and cultures which push them forward. Should it be Chinese, Americans, Indians, Russians or (should the world of the future look entirely different than I imagine) Mexicans who bring us off this world and into the stars, where I personally think we’ll one day belong, than so be it! Besides, the formality and individual humility of Chinese culture very well could make a better interstellar ambassador than some brawny American with a high-and-tight offering beef jerky and classic rock records.

However again, I came back to a nagging personal sensation of loss. I was raised with “greatest nation on Earth” repeated to me ad-nauseum, and for a long time, I really believed it. I had always imagined that should a nation exist to carry the world into the glorious science-fiction future I’d imagined, it would be my home country. My America. And now, it seemed that this was not the case. For such great and massive advances in the past, for such power and progress, our empire days are over. Our days of being the cock of the walk are though and its time to let this new global multi polar paradigm take shape. Sad, but a sign of progress nonetheless.

Human is human is human. Language and culture and nation are meaningless in the dark and cold of space. Life has no reasonable place in this universe, save for the places that are perfect and particular and those we create ourselves. Nationalism is a dying tradition in the long run and so should it be the Chinese, who I’ve been somewhat indoctrinated to fear as a tribal adversary with a different culture and competitive goals, who bring us as a species into the future than so be it. The “west” did not invent sailing, but it explored and “discovered” the entire world as it tells itself. It did invent space travel and now the next successor of things in the world adopts the practice to be the next bold leader on the global stage.

We will retain our cultural value and even our innovation and brilliance. Our productivity and contributions to the world have only begun. But our time as an imperial powerhouse, leading the way is coming to a close. It is sensible to feel odd about such things as this in my eyes. To have one’s home and one’s kind surpassed after such a run of dominance, but looking at things in the bigger picture, I welcome progress and achievement no matter where it comes from as each giant step draws the world together just a little more than it was before. And taking steps forward is more important than one’s tribal pride.

Notes from a wandering radical

I’ve been traveling for quite some time. Running really. While not advisable generally for one whose past refuses to die, I’ve been running for a long time. When it started, ages ago it seems, on my first venture out, I picked up a journal in a traveler’s shop. I’d always wanted to keep one, but until being cast out of a life I was up-to-then certain was meant to last forever, I simply never did enough that warranted such. But beginning with that first run out to the seacoast, which itself was a mix of whim and frantic distraction, the journeys have been of an epic quality, worthy of record and remembrance.

I do still keep a journal. On volume two now. Flipping through the pages, it becomes a veritable atlas of the eastern US. This year alone I’ve been to NOLA twice, New York a half dozen times, Philly over a dozen, New Jersey, Atlantic City, Baltimore, DC, Potomic, Hartford, Miami, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago and even managed to spend a few days in upstate NH by the Canadian border. A couple weeks ago, I took a tour through the occupations to learn what I could and lend a professional’s hand in their organizing. Three cities in four days. Started by camping the night in Boston down on Dewey Square. The protest there is more than a simple campsite I found, but practically an outright village. They have their information tent, a logistics and supply tent filled with every odd and end you can imagine. A pantry and kitchen, dish station, religious services section, library, media and IT tent, medical station…everything to keep the village running.

As I made my way through the camp, I found a mishmash of ideologies, philosophies and issue groups, ranging from Libertarian Ron Paulogists, to The American Communist Party, with smatterings of anti-war, anti-federal reserve, environmental, social justice and economic issue advocates in between. Social-Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists, Anarchists…everyone and everything you can think of in terms of ideas, short of pro-corporate conservatives and evangelicals. These groups, generally so diametrically opposed to one another, sleep and eat and speak and dance together even in the freezing rain day and night, all in support of this single movement. Whenever I’d engage them, by group or individual, they’d begin by discussing their pet cause or central philosophies.

“End the fed,” “protect the planet,” “end the war,” “end corporate greed,” etc… But, and this may be me plying my old tradecraft, the conversations would soon turn to the general. The question of why they would join with those who are their otherwise political opposites. As we would continue to talk, no matter if it was under a Dont Tread On Me flag, or through the black masks of the American Anarchist, the conversation would progress to one of corruption and influence and the broken nature of our current systems. By the end, the point would be recognized or adopted, that despite the validity or strength to their arguments, that it was the corrupting influence of money in our elections and by way of it, the influence peddling of secret lobbying and horse trading that kept such arguments from being held anywhere other than the protests and the internet. By the end, all accepted that this movement must be about curtailing the power of private interests, be they political, corporate, religious or even those of major unions, by eliminating their ability to fund campaigns and reducing their lobbying power to those of the average citizen, who is best heard according to the strength of their argument and not the size of their billfold.

As I continued along that night, hecklers, generally wealthier, suburban college grads and ignorant “meatheads,” would stroll or drive by shouting “get a job! Take a bath! Get off my streets!” If one was simply walking by, I would ask what would become my standard opening question “Do you have a specific problem, or do you just feel the need to be an asshole?” They would generally accept my challenge, issuing a litany of pedantic talking points about why such dirty hippy liberal communists had no reason to be upset, etc, etc. I would listen, then ask if they could look me in the eye and tell me the system was not broken. They would admit they could not and soon a discussion would begin as to what and why and how is broken, ultimately leading to a discussion as mentioned above and more often than not, end with them walking off expressing genuine support for the effort.

After spending two days and one night on these conversations, along with literally fixing broken tents and stations throughout the camp, I boarded a Chinatown line to New York and set out to find the original occupation, down in lower Manhattan. There, I found no tents or shelters, as structures were illegal. Instead, it was simply a sea of radicals, young and old, beneath sleeping bags, emergency blankets and tarps. The same pantry, library, medical and logistics centers were there, but were instead tables, where all that was present was free to all. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. As in Boston, hecklers, many of whom were young wealthy terks who literally worked for Goldman Sachs or Merrill Lynch, would stroll by drunk and issue the same lines. One time, a group of them wandered by shouting “one percent and proud,” almost coming to blows with a young socialist contingent who emerged to confront them. With the help of another drifter I met on my way to Zucotti park, we diffused the situation, bringing the socialists and Wall Street goons together into a discussion of overall common goals, such as clean government and sound regulation. By the end, they were backslapping one another, the socialists wishing the wall streeters well on their night out, the streeters telling them “keep it up man! I was wrong about this…”

That night, contented I had done my part, I slept on the concrete, my wool coat serving as a fine blanket and my pack, a pillow. The next day I rose and continued the conversations over coffee and cigarettes, and shortly after, bidding my farewells, set off across town to catch the final Chinatown line in my trip, to Philly. My stop there was, in honesty, not entirely occupation related. Over the summer, I had a romance with a beauty from South Philly. One who I had traveled back from NH many times to see. Some time ago, after a bout of frustration and depression in her had migrated from personal finances to our relationship, she asked me for space and sent me back north to Manchester. We had remained in touch, she expressing continued affection, while I misinterpreted just about everything. Arriving there that day, haggared and tired, hoping to see some spark still alive, I found her instead to have moved on and generally disinterested in any renewal of our former relationship.

Leaving her apartment dismayed, I made my way to one of my old South Philly watering holes, O’Jungs. A seedy sort of corner bar, with cheap drinks where one can smoke, filled with old timers who would come to tell tales of their times at war, their work at ports along the river or what the city was like in times gone by. The bartender, who had grown to take a liking to me over the summer and who hadn’t seen me in some time, expressed her sympathy for my breakup and coupled it with several glasses of Jameson on the house, having come to known my drink of choice. As the whiskey and Yuengling flowed, my mood soured further, forcing me to issue my good-byes and leave before it was too late. I walked then. Miles and miles, from South Philly, to Center City, where the protests had ringed city hall.

Unlike New York, theirs was a city of tents and hooches and unlike Boston, there was no need for the People’s Microphone (wherein when a speaker, denied the ability to amplify through a microphone or bullhorn, would have their lines repeated by the crowd who listened, sending the message throughout the camp in a wave of monotone popular droning.) Arriving just as a speaker was finishing, my discontent after my encounter downtown growing, I listened as the question was asked; “Does anyone else have anything to say?”

I shouldered through the crowd and approached the stage, taking the microphone. Hopping up onto the platform, I dropped my pack and turned to face the crowd of around three hundred or so. Between the haze of the drink and the mild heartache which nibbled at my sense of self worth, I began with the Occupation’s standard opening line. “Mic CHECK!”

The crowd remained largely silent, looking at me with interest and curiosity. “I’m sorry, I thought I was occupying Philadelphia. So again…Mic check!” This time, they replied in kind, their voices echoing my words in chorus. Mic check! From there, knowing I had their attention, I improvised a speech of solidarity from Boston and New York, spoke with passion about the unity between factions in pursuit of the single goal of attacking corruption and restoring popular sovereignty and issued a warning to those who would seek to corrupt or co-opt the people’s movement to further their own political agendas. I couldn’t tell how long I spoke. Could have been a minute, could have been ten. But finishing to applause, I handed over the mic to the musician who was scheduled to follow and hopped down to my pack, strolling out into the back of the crowd. As the songs began and the dancing commenced, young activists and radicals approached me to give thanks for my words, asking if I had written or rehearsed them. I simply shook my head and told them that when one speaks the truth, preparation is unnecessary.

After some brief conversations, I looked around at the same midtown area I had previously worked in for SEIU. What had once felt so familiar, now felt like a shell, filled with ghosts to me and I knew then, that not only could I not stay the night with them, but that it would most likely be my last time in Philadelphia. Logging into the Megabus website from my phone, I purchased a one way ticket back to Boston and began the long walk up Market Street to the 30th Street transit station. It wasn’t until I was a block away from city hall, that I realized I was being followed.

Generally when in Philadelphia, late at night, this feeling is accompanied by a readying of one’s self for trouble. An urchin looking to roll you, a homeless person looking for a handout or perhaps just a curious mad person identifying a person of interest. This time however, it was simply a blond. Young, with the wide eyed look of an aspiring activist seeking to change the world on a spiral notebook. I stopped and allowed her to catch up to me. She asked where I was going and why I wasn’t staying, seeing as how I’d just arrived. I told her that it was just time for me to go and that my business in Philly was complete. With a look in her eye, she asked then if she could accompany me to the bus station.

I knew right away what it was as I’d seen it before many times. This young, possibly naive do-gooder, who’s mind was positively brimming with solutions to all the world’s problems, had me speak and imagined a kindred nature between us which simply wasn’t there. Had I stayed, the all too familiar pattern would again restart itself and I’d find myself again with an unwanted protege, seeking a insight I simply didn’t possess, to carry onward and change the world, as well a possible infatuation with a revolutionary character which would dissolve as soon as my natural human flaws became apparent. Seeing little harm in allowing the company for the ten or fifteen blocks which remained, I agreed.

As we walked, we spoke of what the life of a political or union professional was like. The endless hours, unpredictable workload, the constant struggle to reach the masses with whatever message one was paid to convey and the personal costs to those seeking to maintain a life outside of the game. We spoke of the potential and the perils faced by the occupation movement and the mixed bag of ideologies which comprised it. And then, towards the end of our walk, the troubles of her love and sex life, as I had known it would come to eventually. I tried to assure her that for all the pain and problems involved in balancing the carrying of a romantic flame and a social cause, that in the end, even alone, she would in time, find it all well worth the while. Then, arriving at the bus, we exchanged contact information, despite knowing we’d likely never speak again, and said our farewells, one stranger to another.

I boarded the bus with mixed feelings. An adventure so grand as this, tainted slightly by mild heartache, was as so many before, now over. Awaiting me was the long ride back to the closest thing to a home I had left, and the adventures I was sure were still to come. As I scribbled the details in my journal beneath the dull yellowish glow of the overhead reading light, I tallied the personal benefits and cost to my venture and with something of a chuckle, decided that overall, it was a grand experience. Because short of the misguided encounter with my former lover, the positive ratio of my Occupation excursion was an easy 99%.

A Time to Talk and a Time To Listen

Anything worth doing is worth doing right, unless you can afford not to. Nowhere is this adaptation of the old adage more appropriate than in the discussion of American government. Rife with powerful interests both industrial and social, the American political landscape is one of peaks and valleys, with those of means upon the peaks and the mass of the American population in the valleys.

Now as far as what is right, who is to say? Ideas and beliefs held throughout the ideological continuum almost all have points of validity to be sure, and when discussing the concepts of lobby and influence, there is a great deal of positive things to be said about the ability to redress grievances and promote particular values within government. Moreover, the Constitution guarantees us the freedom to say what we please and to promote the causes which are dearest to us. However, in our century’s long experiment with government by popular consent, this nation has lost something in the way of its proper function and has in turn, given rise to a new breed of activists and insiders which to our profile, stands to pose the gravest threat to our popular sovereignty since the days of King George.

As our economy, technology, multi-nationalist business presence and internal wealth have grown, so have the efforts to secure controlling interests in the bodies which govern them. In times gone by, a simple visit to the home of a government official by an interest for a chat and a handshake was often enough to secure their desires. Modern influence peddlers however, have stepped up their game, using the massive fund raising and marketing tools at their disposal to sway elections and buy legislative preference after the fact. While there are countless examples to choose from, none goes as far as demonstrating the modern practices and inherent dangers in this than the military industrial congressional complex.

While this moniker is at least familiar to most, the specific wording posed here presents one of the first steps taken to secure the power of the complex against public rebuke through the use of clever politics. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower issued a stern warning against the continued establishment of what he dubbed the “military industrial complex.” While this is well known to any who pay attention, what is less discussed is the drafting of the address and the changes made for political purposes.

Initially named the “military industrial congressional complex,” Eisenhower was met with apprehension by his staff for the inclusion of the term “congressional.” Stating that such a reference could endanger the party’s chances of holding onto power and could alienate the legislature for future administrations, the word was removed from the final version of the address. For decades to follow, the true dangers of collusion between the defense industry and government went both passively acknowledged by those who understand what this means and completely misinterpreted by those who don’t.

Much akin to other industries which have grown around civic needs, such as prisons, medical care, telecommunications and energy, the defense industry has made an art form of lobbying and influence. From stacking the regulatory deck with industry insider appointments to lucrative employment offers made to various government employees who play ball, the temptations of wealth and power are but the tip of the iceberg in regards to what drives the influence in Washington. However as Defense is an industry entirely built around an element of the state, the means they’ve devised to secure their will are outright brilliant.

Having diffused their labor and production bases throughout the country and various congressional districts, their ability argue for expensive projects which often serve no practical purpose in light of modern security threats, are enhanced by their ability to control employment figures in the respective areas they operate in. When this is then coupled with the enormous amounts of money both donated to current campaigns as well as that promised for reelection efforts, the comprehensive scope of dependency which the industry creates within government and individual politicians becomes clearer.

When one proposes a cash cow weapons platform which is to be built in separate parts throughout the country, or demands a no-bid contract to provide logistical services to military elements in theater, the efforts to secure these desires are aided by the ability to threaten the economic stability of a district through “necessary down-sizing,” as well as exert the always productive pressure that campaign funding arrangements can create. Between these and countless other strategies which the titanic industrial forces use to exert their will in government, it is no surprise that the very nature of the very contracts themselves operate in such a curiously generous manner. Enter the no-bid, cost-plus-fee contracting system.

Imagine you decide to tile your kitchen floor. Now the average sensible person would take bids from given contractors, determine the best value presented and award the job to whichever company or professional posed the most attractive offer. This is not only a sensible business practice, but one of the more virtuous aspects argued in favor of capitalism altogether. The biggest bang for your buck.

Now consider the following in contrast. Instead of bidding out the job, you instead give it directly to a company who previously helped you out in the past, whether financially or in some personal endeavor. Such arrangements are not totally outlandish, or ethically questionable, but then add to this the demand by the company that you pay for every cent spent by the workers during the tiling of your kitchen, up to and including their wages, the price of their lunch, insurance for their private vehicles, the rent or mortgage they pay and reimbursement for every mile driven while under contract, in addition to the fee they’ve demanded for their service. Then consider what it would mean if the tile company had the final say on what tile would go in and how. Starting to sound bit like the only decisions you have to make regarding your own kitchen is what is for lunch tomorrow.

This is but one small part of a larger problem we face. With this gaming of the system rooted in the support structure which corporate America provides for elected officials and the stranglehold they have on the US economy, the very serious matters of, in this case war and in other cases medical care, communication, energy production and so on, all become marketplaces in which the benefits and risks posed are not measured to fit public good, but rather that of the profiteers who run the game. But the corporate world is not entirely to blame for slanted policies or narrow minded legislation.

Quite to the contrary, its traditional opposition, the grassroots activist, also has a hand in this perversion of popular sentiment. While activism was originally the core method for a redress of grievances or a call to action by the population to the government, its modern form is more akin to commercial public relations and marketing than that of action born of civic virtue or proper cause. As the ever increasing entrenchment of the partisan divide continually plays out in the media and popular discussion, many issues of concern ranging from taxation to environmental protection, have been co-opted by private firms in the efforts to convert them from valid causes to simple political ammunition.

Throughout our modern history, social interests pushed by entities such as organized labor, antiwar movements and various groups promoting social values such as traditionalism or social justice, have often made up the bulk of political activism in the US. While these same groups and messages still do exist in mainstream debate, the manner in which they are promoted has changed dramatically since the days of flowers being placed into trained rifle barrels. With countless public relations firms and political consultancies having opened nationwide, many formerly organic grassroots style movements have now become professionalized campaign and lobbying strategies, implemented using the same techniques at work in the corporate sector, which the core supporters of popular movements once decried.

And while the successes of progressive social legislation under Democrats and the steps to institutionally preserve traditional social values under Republicans do stand as a testament to the effectiveness of these new strategies, the end results of these actions within the voting blocs themselves, have only served to further enhance the phony popularized political differences. Voters are by manner of popular association, cast in one of two absolutist camps politically, which in turn both make single issue voters out of many and serve to bolster the bipolar nature of their political options. Then media then steps in and the explosive and generally hyperbolic fringe differences of opinion then become the norm, leading not only to a loss of intelligent discourse, but a challenge to up the ante regarding the controversial and vitriolic.

These polarizing, professional marketers carve up the body public like a Thanksgiving turkey and make out like bandits for doing it. Through vicarious self associating policy demands, slanted polling, an intentional blurring of contexts and focus group tested rhetorical argument, these professionals have turned what was once the only effective avenue that average citizens had to challenge their government with, into just another commercial marketplace, with the political equivalent of Walmart drowning out the sounds of ma and pa activist, who are screaming for help. The options are scaled down until elections are nothing more than the Pepsi challenge, just short a blindfold and a refreshing beverage.

So now, constructs and political machinery have taken over. The often absurd fights between activists come to embody willful popular debate and America’s national business interests dictate the uses and needs of our collective resources. Once every two years, the public is given a set of options and once every two years, they fail to recognize the players at work who are dictating what those options will be.  If they do recognize it, they either throw their arms up in surrender, figuring there is no real fighting it, or scream at the top of their lungs until their voices mesh in with countless others and are promptly shouted down by the privatized establishment.

And so what can be done?  Some would say nothing. The machinery is too powerful, the people too divided and the game too well rigged for anything to effectively counter the problems which plague our system.

Others would say we must fight with every ounce of strength and with every breath we take, lest we passively approve of what we know to be wrong. They’ll cite the rights of redress and the US Constitution as all we may need to protect ourselves, but what if a true solution lays in a violation this very doctrine in pursuit of a greater good? What if what we need is a time to talk and a time to listen?

It’s a dangerous idea and a potentially slippery slope to be sure, but it is still one which demands honest consideration. Our elections are how we establish our government. Our government is what establishes our law. Our law is what keeps and protects us from the savagery of anarchy and the oppression of tyranny.

In light of what we face today, amidst the evolved corruptions and throws of power, we must consider reformatting of our elections and political system entirely. The special interests have cheated their way to the heights of power as weeds overtake an untended garden, and it is now time to dig out the roots once and for all.

To start, private political election campaign financing must be eliminated completely. From the major corporate donors who bankroll both sides of given elections, to the individual contributions made via internet, telephone, check, money order, cash and credit, every private cent donated detracts from matters of policy and backs the matters of flash. And while pomp and bluster will always have their place in politics, the abilities they have to distract us are solely dependent on the financing available.

A standardized election financing scheme utilizing set dollar amounts of public funds deters this and when coupled with mandates that election advertising and debate structure maintain a policy orientation with fact checking made available prior to and after given ads and debates, it provides an environment where as opposed to career politicians, true statesman have a chance to win the day. Added again to this, a more defined primary period in which any registered party with a certain number of active registered members, can qualify for ballot status. In this, the United States will for the first time in decades, have a genuine chance to abandon the intellectually dishonest bicameral partisan system and its limited options regarding her future.

But what then of the PACs and issue campaigns which infest our airwaves, mailboxes and doorsteps constantly during each and every election and in some bizarre way, sway the body politic towards whichever candidate has the most pizzazz? What is to be done with them? Herein lies the true problem, for in addition to curbing the monitory expression of individuals and private enterprises, this proposal also requires a direct prohibition on public free speech.

In order to restore popular sovereignty and return power to the people from the hands of the interests described in this essay, sacrifices will need to be made. In this case, the sacrifice is the near absolute freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment to the US Constitution. For in this proposal, it is would be required that at no time during the designated federal election periods, which themselves are to be standardized into four year increments, thereby reforming the terms of congressional offices, that no PAC or private political campaign may promote specific goals or ideas by use of the postal service, public airwaves or solicitation of citizens at their homes, so as to ensure the validity of debate and statesmanship in given elections.

These groups and campaigns will of course be free to hold demonstrations to promote their ideas, so long as they are not held on public land and will not be restricted from internet campaigning, as this remains a private endeavor. Furthermore they will also be free to solicit and campaign at their will freely, during anytime other than the designated campaign and election season for federal or state offices. The freedom to express one’s grievances and concerns is both a basic natural right and a fundamental necessity to a free society, and it must be protected.

However as the inequities which exist between the free people of this nation and powerful interests have pushed the balance of power out of the hands of common citizens, our statesmen have become nothing more than television spokesmen. Steps must be taken to ensure that this imbalance is corrected. In light of these facts, there appears no real alternative but to take into serious consideration the radical actions such as are proposed here.

Though highly controversial, these proposals would not only give further legitimacy to our elections by ensuring a policy oriented debate, but would also effectively eliminate all outside election season influences from the narrowly focused interest lobbies, who skew public debate into absolute hyperbole. While questions about endangerment of free expression are unavoidable in the most honest and objective thinking on this, the greatest danger posed by a proper and thorough adoption of regulations like these is really only boredom in the absence of an expensive dog and pony show.

Between a complete elimination of private campaign funding, a regulated and transparent election process and a careful management of interest lobbying efforts, this nation can once again become the land of government by popular consent which it was intended to be. While the Constitution was drafted to protect popular political sovereignty, it is the popular will of people of the present day to govern themselves as they see fit, which truly defines the concept. For as the alternative is to do nothing but complain, blame our partisan counterparts and to allow inaction to remain our default disposition, real political change will remain the as much a pipedream as transparent government and functional democracy are today.

The Death of American Conservatism

In their constant efforts to revive the mythical ‘good ol days’ of early America or the phony bologna golden age of the 1950’s, I’ve noticed some rather interesting changes in the way dime store conservative “thinking” seems to approach matters…that is to say, changes from the times that they seem to want to return.

In early America, what we might consider ‘conservative thinking’ meant a variety of things in a very short time. Initially, at the very beginning, conservatism was loyalty to the crown. In this sense, the claims made that most of our founding fathers were conservative is correct, to a point. The Adams (both John and Samuel), Mr. Franklin, Mr. Washington and for a short time, even Mr. Jefferson all demanded, as statesman, not liberty from mother England, nor independence as a nation, but simply what they viewed as their rights as Englishmen.

The wanted representation in parliament, fair trade and the right to claim land in the west without immediate need for approval from the Crown. Washington especially, given that he had been a soldier and commander in the King’s army originally and was in his private professional life, a land surveyor and speculator. But then the tides turned and loyalism was no longer politically fashionable…or realistic given the rising tide of insurrection in the population.

However its important to note a few interesting things. Samuel Adams did not lead the Boston Tea Party, nor was he the legendary rabble rouser he is painted, for these were both British lies published and promoted through propaganda. Much in the way Yankee Doodle Dandy was a song written in mockery of colonial insurrectionists, much of the legend surrounding Mr. Adams is a British lie taken on by historians to sex up a prominent figure who in reality, rode (as opposed to lead) the wave to independence.

But the long and short of it is, original American conservatism was loyalty to the crown despite maltreatment by great Britain. And yet modern conservatives look to what were essentially loyalists, as their heroes, thanks largely to the popular mythologizing of their character and the romantic notions now associated with them. Still, in either case, one school of thinking would say that loyalists would be the modern nationalist-conservatives biggest historical enemy, despite their views having been conservative for the time. Likewise, were they true revolutionaries seeking an abandonment of the old ways and adoption of new ideas, they are by definition, liberal. Moving on…

Another stark change in conservative “republican” thinking, is the view of the military as an essential and fundamental part of American culture. The militarization of our history and the military band tattoos which accompany most civic patriotic activities these days, is not truly rooted in our real national history, as much as it is implanted in our popular historical mythology. Original republican philosophy not only declared that a standing army was unnecessary for a civilized nation, but that it was a threat to popular sovereignty and the soul of a republic.

Throughout history, standing armies played not only a military role in societies, but political ones as well. In times of crisis, be it real or manufactured, the military would often assume control, either partial or total, of the country they served and if not a direct coup, would be used as an instrument of imperialism and authoritarianism by whoever sat atop the political food chain (or whoever wished to.) Early Americans with any degree of education in political history or philosophy were aware of this and in their forming of a free republic, most found the concept of maintaining a military when not in time of war antithetical to the dreams and aspirations to create a true democratic republic.

It was largely General and later President Washington who pushed to maintain said military after the surrender of Cornwallis and the withdraw of British forces from American territories. This was not entirely without reason of course. Cornwallis was but one general in the King’s army and the total forces still in country during the time of his surrender could have easily overtaken and eliminated the revolutionary forces, however as America was not the only active conflict zone at the time, but rather one of almost a dozen world wide for Great Britain, an end to hostilities here was taken on by the crown as a strategic and intelligent move. Afterwards, Washington remained wary of British presence in Canada and at sea and also desired a military force with which to capture further western lands, should the native tribes and nations not relent to colonial demands.

However, despite the President/General’s desires to continue westward expansion and his mistrust of the British army still nearby, many political thinkers and activists of the time often demanded that the standing army of the new republic be disbanded and that state militias maintain responsibility for national security. Essentially, by modern standards, conservatives of the day advocated for nothing more than national guard units, while calling for the US Military to be disassembled in the name of popular sovereignty and true republicanism.

In our modern world, ardent support for the military in almost any endeavor or aspect is a hallmark of “conservative” thinking. In a manner of temporary abandon to their small government, reasonable taxation and spending philosophy, the modern conservative sees the military as something that can do no wrong and can never be too big. To them, the concept of any nation without a standing army is absurd and despite the now long history of the US military being used generally for imperialist efforts to secure foreign resources and American interests abroad, the steady beat of the war drum never fails to rouse the cockles of the new conservative heart.

Now, for a third and final example in the shift of right wing thinking, its best to look modernly and historically to wall street. Now granted, wall street did not exactly exist in its modern form in post-colonial America, however among the great debates of the time was the nature of American economy and what roots it should hold.

Conventional, conservative thinking of the time called for production based economics which was more centered and rooted in individual colonies and localities, while on the flip side, their political opposition at the time sought a debt based multinational economy with trade and exchange being largely centered in the north. The latter got their way to a respectful degree and the banking and lending industry in the agriculturally disparate north came to dominate the economies of the rich and bountiful south, much as it does today.

In modern times, Wall Street and the financial industry dominates almost all aspects of the American economy with the stock market now becoming like a tempermental pet which must be tended an appeased to regulate its often bizarre behavior. And while recent partisan political developments (the election of Democrats) has turned the right wing in part against the banking establishments, the free-market conservative minds of today and the “business friendly” conservatives of recent decades have traditionally been Wall Street’s best friend. And rather than laying blame for economic turmoil on the banking industry and its endless collusion with government officials, generally via campaign donations and support, the modern conservative instead generically blames the government and ignores the classic arguments against the centralized debt and credit economy once decried by their forefathers.

So in essence, it is my position that modern partisan conservatives are not actually conservative, nor republican in any conventional aspect. They beat the drums of war with a frothing excitement whenever possible, they support with reckless abandon, anything with the label of “free enterprise” regardless of its potential pitfalls and problems and in their considerations of historical precedent, they are all too often so keen to revise and relabel the classic philosophies at work throughout time to support their modern ideas.

To me, the label of “conservative” or “republican” is at best, reserved for only the mildly libertarian thinkers, while the Sarah Palin, George Bush style “thinker” can really only be described as militant ultra-nationalists. Add to this the single concurrent theme of racial and ethno-centrism which not only fought to preserve slavery and segregation, but modernly focuses on Latino immigrants as the bane of our society as a whole and the threats from foreigners as cause to hold fast and stay armed and one might be tempted to say that the only legacy adopted by modern right wing advocates is a somewhat racist ethno-centric world view.

American Mythology

(Note: This piece was first published last July in an online political forum I frequent.)

When discussing politics or national affairs with someone, it isn’t uncommon to hear arguments which use the “founding fathers” and the original 1787 version of the Constitution as the basis for their positions. Many take these arguments on face value or will often counter with their own quotes and articles from the later half of the 18th century, but is this really a good and proper way in which to discuss contemporary America? Whereas the old adage of “those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it” does carry a valid notion about historical consideration, the modern popular hisotries and points of interest used in debate should not be without due consideration about their total implications.

The first and most obviously pressing matter regarding historical contexting, as many of you will likely agree, is inevitably the validity and relevance of hisotrical quotes, assumptions of character and association to modern matters. Recently, historical researchers and portions of the academic community have begun a “debunking” of sorts, regarding many of our national legends. The ride of Paul Revere, Molly Pitcher’s heroic deeds and even the revolutionary character archetype of Samuel Adams have all begun to wither in the face of new historical data.

We are now beginning to see that much of our historical understanding regarding revolutionary times and the heroes we idolize is largely rooted in simple myth. Much in the tradition of religious texts, our history and heroes come not from contemporary works which last through the ages, but a progressive series of afterthoughts, some made as much as a century after the events and persons involved are all but memories.

As these myths and legends from our past begin to give way to the true, widespread social democratic nationalist movement and revolution that was our founding, the reference of romantic quotes such as “O’ what a glorious morning for America,” become less relevant. So it may be fair to say then, that to try to contextualize modern events through the prizm of what we are learning to be a largely romanticized series of epic fables, perhaps it is time that we consider ourselves for a moment and remember that we ourselves are capable of coherent political thought which we can filter through our own understanding and experience.

Another point, which works off of this first one, is that in our consideration of our heroes, we should remember that Mr. Adams, Hancock, Warren, Jefferson, etc…did not carry either the movement, nor the leadership alone. Countless of other brave patriots, many of whose names are lost to history, aided equally, if not to a greater degree than the icons we celebrate publicly. Beyond this as well, we need to remember that even prior to many of these men’s direct efforts, thousands upon thousands of noble patriots, dressed not as gentlemen, but as farmers and peasants, rallied with their neighbors to create the true backbone of the revolution.

In our idolization of a select handful of men, we do a great disservice not only to ourselves, but also to the true founders and forefathers of this nation, the organized masses. We need also remember that it was through their combined efforts, working together, that they were able not only to throw off a foreign oppressor, but to build the very nation and it’s Government. When considering our places in society, our passions and positions and how we come to our conclusions, it should be considered that it was people more akin to ourselves than any of our leaders, who, working together truly found, took and held the power to make change in their country.

When asserting positions and invoking the “founding fathers” as the backing for it, it is also important to remember that even prior to the Declaration of Independence and event prior to the 1st Congress, that the politicians, merchants, activists and pre-revolutionaries all, like today, had different agendas, opinions and even parties. This being the case, the very invocation of “the founding fathers,” or reference to their “liberal” or “conservative” stances on matters in essence only reaffirms the inevitable political divides which exist today. As such, the justification or line of reasoning designed to support a given point in essence is only a comparison of situations, in that while an argument is going on now, one was going on then as well.

Likewise with the Constitution, we need to remember that this was not the perfect work of a body of men seeking to enshrine forever a series of eternal and unchanging commandments, but rather a document forged of compromise, to set up a general framework for the Government and legislation to come. Rather than an order given to their children, it was a project framework handed down continuously throughout generations, to be kept relevant and purposeful as times change, while at the same time establishing a clear record of general intent for government. As many of the signers were initially unsure of the wisdom of creating a constitution in the first place (for fear that one generation would continually rule the next and remove the spirit of Democratic self government for the society as a whole) the document was left open and adaptable, so that we as a people may govern ourselves, as opposed to living according to the will and wisdom of centuries ago.

And so here we meet the crux of historical revisionism and vicarious modern associations. While learning lessons from history is a valuable consideration, we must not forget that this is our country and always has been. It was not Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, Warren, Washington or any of them who began the revolt, met and talked of matters of state as the mattered at the time or began the true founding of this country, but rather the contemporary everyman, united under the general principles of liberty* and sovereignty**.

It is up to us now as citizens of today’s America, to take our ques, not from the legends of centuries past, that we find to agree or support our position, but on the logic and facts of our time.

* – To be a free people in a free and civil society

** – Not only the national soverignty of a free nation, but also that of a free people who rather than following the leaders as legend tells, took their local and regional self Government as seriously as the national government.

“Common Sense”: The Moron’s Panic Room (a short op-ed on conversation)

Are you having trouble selling stupid ideas to people by using the words “constitution” and “founding fathers” in rapid and pointless repetition? Do you encounter difficulty at convincing those around you of the impending communist plots at work to kill grandma? Does it seem sometimes as though all those smarty pants with their educations and their critical thinking skills just can’t stop oppressing you with valid argument and credentials?

Have no fear…for now there is common sense! Thats right, common sense! With “common sense” you can make any one dimensional logical fallacy into your own common knowledge, just by dropping the words in periodically throughout a discussion.

“Well I have a degree and years of experience in the field and frankly, I think you’re just wrong.” “Well fuk dat, I’m gonna go to college one day and I’ve got common sense!”

Or,

“GAO reports show that the program is working rather effectively with limited amounts of waste since the new oversight reform measures have gone into effect. So why do you think government needs to be eliminated?” “Cuz they’re lying. Its so obvious. Its common sense.”

Common sense might just very well be most overplayed, poorly used term in modern conversation.

Beyond the pedestrian applications of ending every persuasive sentence with “it’s just common sense,” there is a far more sinister use in play which is eroding the value of basic human intellect. This is, what I have affectionately come to call, the moron’s panic room. The Moron’s Panic Room is a safe and inscrutable place tucked somewhere in the moron’s mind just between “the Jews did it” and “Ron Paul for President.”

This “panic room” as I call it serves as the self defeating cheat code for political enthusiasts who talk before they bother learning. Whenever backed into a corner about their credentials, knowledge base or intellect, they are able to whip out “common sense” and regardless of whether or not it applies, provides them with a further level of self delusion with which to continue pretending that an absence of an education and an opinion is equal to an informed and enlightened perspective.

Land of the who and home of the what?

Land of the free, home of the brave. Sounds good doesn’t it. Sorta stirs images of bold, steely eyed patriots looking off into the horizon as though awaiting the grand destiny that Americans are all entitled to. But when one super-imposes this admirable set of ideals onto our current culture, its hard to see things as any less than just a little off the mark.

At the risk of sounding overtly libertarian, our freedoms seem to have taken a vacation recently and have left a police state to house sit our once great society.* With an increasing level of required documentation for even natural born citizens, social controls which seek to regulate individual behavior down to simple communication and more recently a veritable police state clamp down on many civil liberties, all in the name of “protecting our freedom,” it would seem that our freedom is more of a slogan or tagline to reinforce our preconceived notions of national superiority in the world.

And yet regarding our “bravery,” this too seems to be out to lunch as from nearly every angle and every side of any given political standpoint there are cries for protection from boogey men. Be they the ever present terrorists who lurk in the shadows waiting to kill us and forcibly convert us to Islam,** the sex offenders who lie in wait around every corner waiting to snatch our young and molest them to death or even the undocumented latino workman who despite seeking only to build home additions so as to feed his family, is generally regarded as a drug dealing criminal who hates America, these constant fears and paranoia have driven many Americans completely batty.

No longer do we boldly look to the future, but rather now we insist on limitless “security” and seem willing to sacrifice nearly anything in our national character to achieve it. We trust no one, believe everyone to be a potential threat, insist on continuing the arms buildups which have gone on since the cold war***. There seems to be no end to lengths we’ll go to protect ourselves from threats that we personally have no direct knowledge of and threats which we presume via often faulty logical leaps.

Yet despite these failings and faults in our adherence to national principles, we still seem apt to wave the flag and stomp on the terra while we declare ourselves the freest, bravest, best people in the history of mankind. So…does anyone else see problems with these assumptions?

FOOTNOTES:

*regarding the “once great society,” it should be noted that much of our idealized past is little more than a self ingratiating fantasy. In truth our history has since our founding, been beset by many overreaching and often irrelevant trespasses upon individual freedoms ranging from religious, racial and ethnic persecution to authoritarian moral code enforcements which ultimately served little to no real beneficial purpose.

**regarding Islamic terrorists, it should be noted that while the simple bomb in a public waste bin in downtown Main Street America would be far more terrifying than yet another airline hijacking or bombing, this has yet to happen, even though it happens around the world on a regular and daily basis. Additionally, modern concepts of Islam by the more fear mongering of us are wildly off base as the religion itself shares more in common with the mainstream egalitarian Judiasm or Christianity than it does with Al Queda.

***regarding arms buildups, it is important to acknowledge that the proliferation of small arms and military technology has created greater security and stability threats throughout the world than any other natural or man made phenomenon in history.

Defense Industry Influence and Corruption of Policy: An Analysis of The Political Money Train

When conflict and war become an openly and unabashedly lucrative private marketplace, we as a nation have a problem. In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower in no uncertain terms outlined the perils of an unchecked military industrial complex[1]. Acknowledging the need for a strong defense, he issued an eloquent yet stern warning against the merging of private, profit driven industrial forces with the newly created international superpower and it’s mighty military forces. Yet less than fifty years later we find that this warning has gone unheeded as the influence of the United States defense industry has saturated nearly every aspect of our government and policy.
Until the United States involvement in World War One, her military forces were primarily defensive in nature, with limited influential combat deployments overseas, however upon recognizing the gap between the German war machine and their own offensive capabilities, an effort to bolster the armed forces went into effect. By the beginning of World War Two the US’s military forces had grown considerably and with America joining in the fight against the Axis powers in Europe and Asia, it became obvious that a greater system would be required for adequate military hardware production. Looking to the private industrial and manufacturing base which had been in serious need of assistance after the troubles of the stock market crash and dust bowl depression, the government reached out and formed a bond which would last for decades to come.
Beyond the Springfield Arms company who in large part produced the bulk of the conventional small arms used, other companies that one would not often think of as “military contractors” assisted the war effort as well, with La-Z-Boy halting production of recliners and instead making seats for tanks and air planes. Though a great deal of patriotism was involved in the corporate efforts to support America’s fighting forces, another prime factor was the profit potential that a constant and urgently needed production request would garner. As the war came to an end and the Cold War tensions began their half century lifespan, the arms buildup experienced during World War Two would soon be dwarfed by the arms race which was to come.
Seeking to battle back the Communist Russian empire and establish an unquestioned dominance in the world of it’s own, the United States began expanding it’s weapons and defense programs to cover not just the present threats but any potential threats lurking in the future. As this desire for blanket security and universal military superiority continued, the collusion of the military and it’s private sector industrial support base flourished. By the nineteen sixties the billions of dollars being spent on national defense got yet another boost when the United State’s presence in Vietnam escalated into full on war.
As the business of the defense industry increased, it soon found as many industries do, that a certain level of influence comes with top dollar government contracting. Between the billions of dollars appropriated federally, the massive labor and production bases they created as well as the increasing intimacy with elected officials, the military industrial complex is a political creature born of bloodshed, corruption and good wholesome capitalism.
Today at the dawn of the twenty first century, the reach and influence of the defense industry and it’s peripheral support industries is greater than ever. Eisenhower’s worst fears have become reality, as the United States of all other precedents, currently holds as one of the world’s most prolific arms dealers. On a daily basis missiles, strike fighters, bombs and small arms are sold to foreign nations through the United States government and produced by way of cost-plus-fee-award[2] contracts to the very defense contractors who broker the requests in the first place.
CIA documents and declassified foreign affairs records show that these such foreign sales can be made and finalized regardless of political, regional or humanitarian issues and unless an active state of war is declared, they can and often are also brokered with enemies. The first Iraq war, known as Desert Storm, officially began it’s military operations in theatre on August 2nd, 1990 and came as little surprise to those paying attention. However what was less apparent during the run up to war was that the United States had continued selling Saddam Hussein weapons, including helicopters with chemical weapon delivery systems, short and medium ranged missiles and even surplus Soviet hardware purchased on the open market after the fall of Communism in the Eastern block of Europe.
As it was, Hussein had previously been an ally. Set up in the midst of Operation Gladio[3], Hussein had previously worked for the United States as a secular military power block set in a region populated by unfriendly Islamic nations. After assisting him in the seizing of Iraq by way of a coup, the United States began flooding Iraq with weapons technologies for the proxy war with Iran. Turning a blind eye as Saddam turned those weapons on his own people, these considerably arms contracts continued throughout the nineteen eighties, until the beginning of the United State’s war in Kuwait and Iraq.
In a region with as much conflict as the middle east, one would wonder why in the midst of over three decades of attempted peace negotiations, that the United States would see fit to flood the area with so much military technology, yet still in addition to Israel, the US continues to sell weapons to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, many of whom have less than sterling human rights records.
Now it is widely known that in American politics money is the root of influence and with the millions of dollars forked over by major industries for the funding of political campaigns, the power and influence of those whose industries are tied to national interests becomes greater with every dollar. Currently Congressman Thomas Davis from Virginia’s 11th Congressional District is being billed as one of the top defense industry campaign contribution recipients with over $165,280 having been accepted from the defense aerospace, defense technology and other defense related industries for an incumbent congressional campaign in a district of 444,234 registered voters. Of the companies contributing, BAE Systems stands as both one of the largest contributors, as well as one of the largest employers in the area, with more than eight facilities statewide. Among the others who were likely donors were undoubtedly Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Boeing.
Though it could be argued that the participation in our democratic process and the providing of stable, high paying jobs within American industry are the actions of good corporate citizens, the fundamental quid-pro-quo aspects of the defense industry’s relationship to government and the means in which these jobs and contributions are used as a manner of securing corporate interests can also be seen as a great deal less than ethical. This is best demonstrated in the way in which their research and development (R&D) and production bases have been broken up and the labor diffused throughout the country. For nearly every contracted developmental weapons technology program put into production, each corporate contractor who participates will generally break up the work which they are given and spread it out among numerous facilities nationwide.
This broad based industrial labor force would be a wholly beneficial nuance of the defense industry, were it not for the manner in which it is used. As a great number of jobs depend on the industry’s ability to keep production running, the amount of leverage that an individual defense contractor can exert on a member of congress when the question is jobs in his or her district, combined with the financial dependency which campaigning politicians have for soft money assistance, speak strongly as to whether our elected officials see the production of arms and weapons technology as a matter of civil interest or simply big business.
It is by way this balance of political capital and soft money that a good number of defense industry proposals are fast tracked. From international sales of aircraft, missile and small arms technology, to the funding and perpetuation of wasteful multi-billion dollar pet projects, such as the V-22 Osprey Gunship, billions of dollars are sunk into the pockets of executives for what is often sub-par performance.
With missed deadlines, cut corners and sometimes even outright fraud on behalf of the developmental research teams, many times defense industry projects will become embattled when brought into the light of public discussion. Often times the projects themselves will come under scrutiny simply for their effectiveness and usefulness. A recent debate over the purposed missile shield in Europe has begun rehashing an old debate within the guided weapons R&D crowd as to whether or not multiple kill vehicles and kinetic energy interceptors are even feasible. Many of the detractors will point out that with anything less than a one in four hit rate for missile to missile testing usually denotes a broken system and a money pit.
Now up until this point the focus has been primarily set on the more conventional aspects of the Military Industrial Complex, however since the events of 9/11, a considerable amount of fear has driven the nation to passively accept and in some cases even actively support an enormous expansion of the private sector role in America’s national defense. Whereas once the military industrial base was relied upon primarily for R&D and production, it has more recently adopted a new role providing on the ground logistical support for military forces in theatre. As yet another new war arrives, so does yet another new war profiteer.
From delivering supplies to out of the way outposts to the very bathing and feeding of the troops, nearly every non combat support role has either already been privatized or is in process of doing so currently. And while US soldiers and marines risk and often lose their lives while safeguarding KBR or Halliburton cheesecake convoys, the US State Dept. currently relies on contracted, civilian para-military security teams for the protection of their diplomats and employees. In essence the current, unspoken position of the US Government is one in which the “heroes” of our armed forces are brave and respected enough to guard corporate commodities, yet either regarded as either lacking in the skill or the trust required to protect US State Dept. envoys.
Now though once again on a theoretical level, much of this would seem a prudent approach to assisting the military in streamlining combat support operations, the depth and diversity of controversy and sometimes downright corruption surrounding these emerging enterprises causes one to stop and ponder the nature of outright profiting from international conflict. With the recent controversy and resulting media scrutiny of Blackwater USA, a private contract security firm whose methods and personnel amount to what many feel is a mercenary outfit, questions regarding the government’s vetting of military support contractors and beginning to enter popular discussion. Yet even these questions and concerns only serve to scratch the surface as it is the type of contract and manner in which they are awarded which leaves the impression that the overall vetting process relies mainly on reviews of who scratched who’s back during a given election season.
But with such corruption, or at the very least with such exertion of influence, one must not look solely at the elected federal government alone. With a rather extensive list of retired or otherwise separated military officers serving as corporate executives and board members, the defense industry carries significant clout within the armed services themselves. Often time weapons platforms or other proposals for new defense projects are made to congress directly by the pentagon. Many times such proposals are floated initially from the private sector through the military by senior officers or even commanders, who after receiving final approval for funding, will often abruptly retire from the military and accept civilian jobs making millions of dollars as executive advisors to the same companies who are awarded the development contracts.
Duty, honor and service not withstanding, in the Army’s 2008 budget appropriations request, over half a billion dollars has been requested for the aforementioned V-22 Osprey (p. 256 – House 2008 DoD Appropriations Bill), while at the same time requesting zero dollars for laundries, showers and latrines (p. 199 – House 2008 DoD Appropriations Bill). It would seem that in their haste to support the very troops who fight the wars, they found an overpriced, aerial gunship which in test after test has been shown to neither shoot, nor fly straight, to be more valuable than a soldier’s ability to stay clean and sanitary. In addition to the Osprey, a whole host of expensive and often baffling project proposals were submitted in the request.
Among them are;
• $75,754,000 for High Energy Laser research and development (laser guns), which was awarded in full.
• $78,704,000 for Advance Military Spacecraft (space fighters), which received twenty million more than the initial request.
• $3,035,222,000 for classified DARPA projects, the most recently declassified of which includes remote control moths and neural implant impulse control technology. (Mind control and remote control bugs.)
These are but three of hundreds of long term, cutting edge productions contained within the House DoD Appropriations bill which serve no immediate purpose and yet still no contracts have been secured for the procurement of Dragonskin body armor, which has been shown in conclusive tests to be both more tactically wearable as well as greatly resistant to the standard 7.62 mm rounds fired by the AK-47. Nor for that matter has the military begun mass scale production requests for the new Barrett M468 assault rifle, which though retaining the technical and structural aspects of the M4 and M16 rifles, has been shown to has greater stopping power, accuracy and range as it uses a 6.8 mm round as opposed to the 5.57 mm round used currently.
As these billions of dollars in defense contracts are brokered, additional millions are spent in operational costs for the Air Force and Air National Guard training exercises in which F-22 and F-35 advanced strike fighters are sent to do battle with imaginary Soviet bomber wings and Mig-21 escorts. Though the intense training of our airmen is how we maintain dominance in the air, the long distance engagement of phantom Soviet threats could seem almost as wasteful as the Pentagon’s expensive desire for laser guns and space fighters, and as we send soldiers to fight what is unanimously referred to as a “new kind of war,” we send them out lacking the innovative and cutting edge technologies offered by the smaller manufacturers like Pinnacle Armor, largely as many suspect, due to their outsider status in the realm of mainstream industrial defense contracting. In essence, while missile projects which are still in development are bought multi-million dollar tech upgrades, the upgrading of rifles and body armor for the actual troops are put on the back burner.
Ultimately the issues surrounding the Military Industrial Complex are those of priorities and values. As the leading superpower in the world, we do have an inalienable need to maintain a strong defense and with the threat of international terrorism looming on the horizon, this is even more so. However as the business of warfare and war machine technologies has changed from a vital national interest to financial one, the motivations of those at the top remain highly suspect and given the close ties to legislators, military brass and even the intelligence community, the potential for a corporate push to war to increase market shares is something that must be examined closely. As a matter of principal, war should always be a nation’s last resort when in conflict with other nations, yet as long as there are those in power who’s pockets grow fatter as innocents die, the influence and power of this industry will remain frightening at the very least.

Cabalena, Juan. “Congressional Contact Listing.”
November 27, 2007 http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/downloads/ContactingCongress.txt

House of Representatives. “Alphabetical Member Listing.”
November, 2007
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

Pinnacle Arms. “Dragonskin Body Armor”
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/dragon-skin.php
© 1998-2007 Pinnacle Armor. All Rights Reserved.

Barrett Arms Co. “M-468 Assault Rifle”
http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_468.aspx
©2006 Barrett Firearms

Why We Fight. Dir. Eugene Jareki
BBC Storyville. 2005

Specialist Sorensen, Jared. United States Army – Interview with Nicholas Goroff. 29 Nov, 2007.

Wikipedia. “Military Industrial Complex.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex
27 Nov, 2007
House of Representatives.
“2008 House of Representatives Department of Defense Appropriations Bill.”
July 30, 2007

Maplight.org. “Congressional Campaign Contributions.”
http://www.maplight.org
28 Nov, 2007

Borgen Project. “Comparitive Spending Data.”
http://www.borgenproject.org/defense_spending.html
18 Nov, 2007.

________________________________________
[1] Initially written as military-industrial-congressional-complex, the term was reduced in an effort to placate the legislature.
[2] Cost-plus-fee-award – A style of government contract wherein the net profit expectations of the contracting corporation(s) are paid in full in addition to cost expenditures which are also paid for in full with tax revenue.
[3] Operation Gladio – A massive CIA operation which promoted foreign regime change by way of false flag operations, political and military coups and even on occasion assassinations.

Regarding conservative opponents of single payer or public health care…

Seems the arguments against nationalized care are still solely in the “government is bad” and the poorly informed “it’ll cost me too much money out of pocket,” arguments. Its almost as though they draw obtuse lines between costs and expenditures. They’d rather pay more for a service they can imagine is their own private property, they’d rather sacrifice others in order to maintain this illusory feeling of self reliance, they ignore the basic concepts of health care coverage plans and support systems that limit access and service in the name of profit maximization and worst of all, they use xenophobia, nationalist superiority, a presumed and hostile classism and a faux moral highground to support them. All the while waving the flag, pretending like the cold war is still on and spouting talking points devised by insurance industry lobbyists to try to distort the raw facts regarding health care in this country.

Its as though every man thinks he is an island, with only himself and those close to him to consider. They ignore and actively disregard the inherent social pacts which make us a nation and civilization as well as the affects that the injustices and inequities faced by others have on them vicariously. If they bother to notice these, it is simply to gripe and moan about what lower orders of citizen they are for having not achieved the same level of personal mediocrity and illusory security that they did.

As it is, private health care systems not only leave millions without recourse when faced with illness and injury, but they exploit the needs of our people as a whole by choking off and commercially rationing the care available. Those who receive but cannot afford treatments for medical issues not only drive up the costs of health care for everyone, but also suffer significant personal injury by means of the credit rating and reporting affects that massive unpaid medical costs can create. If the societal danger in this is not enough, it is in due course of reason then to consider what a nation faces when grand swathes of their populations are not only sick and without care, but in debt and impoverished with an increasing amount of obstacles in their way.

People who cannot afford health care or who cannot obtain it through their employers are not lazy, nor are they stupid or immoral or any other manner of description which the modern “holier than thou’ attitude which permeates the self important conservative right wing can come up with. Life and success is not merely a matter of grit, but a combination of circumstance, determination, luck and yes, hard individual work. One cannot pull ones’ self up by their boot straps when they haven’t shoes to begin with. Your horatio alger fantasy of life in America, while apparent perhaps to yourselves, is not a universal truth and while poverty and social-economic inequality is something that can never be completely resolved, the active ignorance of the matter on the part of those against single payer health care or public option reform measures will only make things worse. And if the call for concern over society cannot trump the limited and short sighted self interest which dominates the thinking of some, than they would do well to consider the bigger picture anyway, if only in terms of the rippling affects that continued exploitative inequity can have, which in time will lead right to their own front door.