Gender and Society: Nature versus Nurture

“Gender roles are taught. How wonderful it would be to have a genderless society…” This was the position I was presented with from a less than informed, former colleague of mine, made while discussing the place of gender roles in society. I found this exceptionally odd, especially considering that it was coming from one of the staunchest gay/gender rights activists I’ve met in recent years. I say it’s odd because typically the gay rights community is the first to jump out of their seats and proclaim that gender identity and sexual orientation are something a person is born with.

The conversation arose when discussing the matter of a couple in Europe who have decided that they will raise their child without gender recognition. With all of the toys, activities and interactions they will obtain or participate with for their child, they have taken intentional steps to eliminate gender differentials in an effort to give their child the “opportunity to grow without being blinded by gender identity.” While many may see this as a progressive and almost enlightened approach to parenting in the modern world, I do not. In fact, I’d go as far as to call it dangerous and irresponsible.

Now I’ll point out that I firmly believe that matters of gender and sexuality are in fact natural to a person, be they gay, straight, trans-gender or some variation on any of them and that I also firmly support equal rights for all people regardless of their sexual orientation or lifestyle. I believe that homosexual couples should have the same rights to suffer the burdens and enjoy the rewards of marriage and family as any other consenting adults. Furthermore, I am even inclined to hold the belief that polygamous marriages should be legally recognized, although I will point out that I believe this all to be true, while also holding the position that tax incentives and such should be removed for all marriages and that the matters should be personal and/or religious in nature, according to the individual’s particular preference.

Regardless, the discussion of gender identity and gender roles left me with the feeling that something very wrong is going on within the ranks of the gender equality advocacy base. Much akin to the way early feminism gave rise to the modern femtocracy and womynist movement, which seeks equality through preferential treatment of women in matters of law and business while also advocating for an almost total teardown of classic societal family structures, it would appear that many of the modern calls for equality have given rise to implied calls for societal preference and a total social restructuring. These calls of course are made despite the natural state and evolution of gender and sexuality in society, however in what I can only assert to be a shortsighted and emotionally driven ideological fight, these fringe elements of our modern civil rights movement seem to be all to eager to ignore the scientific and cultural realities which govern our norms and relations.

Though women’s suffrage and the inequality faced by homosexuals in the United States is a matter which does strike right to the core of our national identity as a free country with equal protection and respect for all citizens, the fringe elements which seem to be claiming that family unit paradigms such as the classic ‘dad goes to work, mom stays home with the kids’ are fundamentally corrupt, are in my opinion making short sighted arguments rooted in zealous emotionally driven ideology. These elements, which claim that women should not have to face a choice between a career and a family seem to be seriously overlooking very fundamental matters of sociology and basic biology in that whereas denying women professional success is counterproductive to both business and social progression, the needs of children and families are in themselves, too great to be properly maintained, should they need to compete with the “go-go, get yours and win at all costs” mentality needed to succeed in business or industry. Throughout history, men have typically worked to provide for the families that women care for. While this has been institutionalized by society and while the institutionalization thereof has created environments where women have become second class subjects to a male dominated world, the core matter of the family dynamic cannot be thrown aside so readily if true equality and social benefit is to be realized. In this, I mean simply that while women should have all of the same opportunities as men and are entitled to equal pay and treatment, the assertion that there need be no choices made between family and career are outright false.

A family requires a great deal of hard work and time. Children need more than parents who park them in front of the television or drop them off with sitters. Children need stable, loving, nurturing environments where they can grow and learn. Most of all, they need parents who are both around and active in their lives, beyond merely attending recitals, games or activities.

By nature, women are more nurturing and emotionally available. They take to the raising of children with a more passionate enthusiasm than that of men. This is not because they have been taught to be so, nor is it because society demands it (although this last point does factor in, but just not in the ways many in the feminist lobby would like to claim,) but because by basic biological makeup. The human being, in its most fundamental biological sense, is in reality, simply a vessel by which to reproduce, as this is the natural core purpose to any living creature.

Biological organisms are survivalists, be they the grand and intelligent humans who build the homes, drive the cars and listen to the iPods we all appreciate or simply the viruses that spread and infect other living things and mutate whenever possible to increase their ability to carry on their existence. However as humans, with our rich history of socialization and technological advancement, we often forget that we are not the homes, cars and iPods we strive for, nor are we as a society entirely the products of our own choices and desires.

Social structures, especially family structures, are not solely the product of our own design. The institutions which have sprung up around them may be, but at their very core, the dynamics of the human family are more biologically inspired than emotionally. Recent theories regarding human sexual evolution have proposed that love itself and our capacity for emotional devotion are themselves tricks of evolution. As we discover the bio-chemical and neurological triggers, we find that beyond basic physical attraction that draws two people together and often gets them in bed with one another, that other triggers such as serotonin rushes inspire two who have bred together to remain together, which with the exception of a handful of other mammals, is an almost exclusively human phenomenon.

The theory states that as the early humans began walking upright, the birth canal and female reproductive organs shrank and shifted in the body, causing the human infant to be born weaker and more venerable than most any other mammal and through the process of natural selection, those infants whose parents remained together after their birth were given a greater chance to survive. As such, their increased chances of survival contributed to an increased chance of breeding and thus the grand and often cliché cycle of life continued. At any rate, I’m getting off topic.

The point is that the development of the classic family archetype wherein mom raises the kids full time while dad hunts, gathers, works or fights to provide for them is not rooted in the modern ideas about male dominated society, but rather are products of our natural and evolutionarily inspired breeding and reproductive processes. Males by design are generally larger, stronger and more inclined to engage in physically demanding manual or technical activities, while women, by the product of physiological makeup and hormonal inspiration are generally more naturally inclined to emotionally rewarding matters such as the raising and teaching of children. The male dominated work force is not dominated as such due to a piggish, chauvinistic mentality, but rather due to a long and well traveled road, paved by our biologically inspired, social evolution, (although said mentality does and has developed as something of a side affect of this evolution.)

In the ancient world, while male domination was in even greater force than it is today, other social norms were accepted which are not presently. In the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, love and sex between two people of the same sex was commonplace and commonly accepted. In ancient Sparta, relations between husbands and wives were more a matter of protocol, with the homosexual relations between men being seen as virtuous and pure and those of straight people being seen as lustful and impure. And while we in our modern “enlightenment,” may see these behaviors as antiquated or outright silly, they too had their roots, not entirely in chauvinist mentalities, but in natural biological impulses.

Sex and sexual attraction between human beings did not evolve for our leisure. The pleasure humans derive from sexual activity exists not to fulfill or gratify us, but rather to add incentive to reproduction, which as we’ve already determined in the course of this piece, is the core purpose to our existence. As we grew more intelligent and began intellectually considering the different parts to our nature as human beings, we, as we have with all other needs, desires and impulses, developed structures to promote and manage our habits. The original roots of homophobia and hetero-preferential social consideration for example, are not really rooted in theological mandates or matters of morality, though they have been framed that way throughout the centuries. In reality, when Emperor Constantine of Rome implemented the first social tax incentives for heterosexual married single unit families, his aims were not as much religiously inspired as socially inspired, seeking to increase the raw numbers of Rome’s citizenry as any good old world leader would while utilizing the existing religious fervor as a means for public marketing of the ideas.

In reality, almost all of our social structures and developments have been made in an effort (be it consciously or subconsciously) to create a more suitable environment to survive in so as to reproduce and multiply. As we’ve already discussed the obvious advantages that family units provide to our species over the habits of other species, it is only fair to acknowledge the benefits that social structures have provided to our species as a whole. The developments of agriculture and social networks within cities and states are in their most fundamental purposes, social constructs by which we improve our abilities to survive and in turn, reproduce.

Essentially, all efforts made by mankind throughout history can be linked back to the needs to improve conditions for reproduction and proliferation of the species. From the individual desires for prosperity, to the social frameworks such as the family unit and the gender roles which have played into them, all of humanity’s advances have their roots in this most basic and fundamental human instincts for survival and replication. And despite what our philosophical objections or considerations may be regarding this matter, the old adage that “he only has the nice car to get laid” is in reality one of the truest and more human truths to modern sexual dynamics.

And so this brings us back the matter of gender identity and its place in society. While issues with an individual’s gender and sexual identity can vary greatly from person to person and while many of the old conventions regarding women’s places at home and men’s places in the workforce are rather antiquated, the modern efforts to address them are all too often disregarding of some very basic and elementary aspects of science and human nature. Women, by nature can better serve children emotionally, while at the same time men, by nature, are better suited to provide for the family.

Though this dynamic can be and often is inverted quite successfully, the calls to abandon the natural order which both preceded and developed the framework for the modern gender based family structure are both dangerous and irresponsible. The psychological affects that the creation of endless gray zone in regards to gender dynamics can have on a child can be destructive in both that they leave the child in the dark regarding the established social norms in society, as well as leaving them even more confused as to their own naturally occurring gender identity. In times of development such as puberty, these frustrations and confusions can be overwhelming, especially when the social norms of the society of young people (such as peer pressure, teasing, taunting, bullying, etc) are considered. The analogy of throwing fuel on a fire in a room full of petrol soaked kindling and newspaper clippings may be fair in this case and as such, in our efforts to create a more just and verdant society, we should…no, we must keep the natural order of things in mind and take to matters with caution and comprehensive consideration.

While the fight is a just one and while equal rights and treatment should be afforded to all people regardless of their sexual, racial, ethnic or gender identities, the efforts by some have become overreaching in their applications. A “genderless society” is not only a social impossibility, but the efforts to create one can in many instances, such as the case originally discussed, create greater social problems than they seek to address. As with so many well intentioned efforts by social interest groups, the modern gender rights movement seems to have come off the tracks just a bit and I can only hope for their sake and the sake of those they seek to support, that they find their way back to common sense and societal reality, lest we find the very fabric of our society torn asunder and the replacement met with conflicted confusion by the masses we have created.

Smoking my Liberty

Lets talk about liberty for a moment. And before anyone starts in on Ron Paul or some Libertarian claptrap about the inherent evils of Government, I’m going to ask that we direct our attention to our prisons. According to NORML the United States has arrested and imprisoned twenty million people since 1937 for marijuana, as of the 2008 election season.

According to their stats, over 99.6 marijuana arrests are made every hour by federal, state and local authorities in their endless and futile “war on drugs.” And for those of you hoping for the change that our dear President/Sell-out in Chief (who has admitted to smoking pot and despite it, is still President) promised in regards to this fundamental corruption of law, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Gil Kerlikowske, the new White House Drug Czar has already made it clear that “decriminalization” is not in his vocabulary. Though he’s called for an end to the war on drugs, a close examination of his statement and position shows that he appears to favor a rebranding of the war, rather than an outright end.

Why could this be though? A quick Google search of Kerlikowske shows an interesting history in terms of his past relationship with the Seattle police and public in general. Already having having a no-confidence vote against him and an investigation regarding his interference with internal departmental investigations, we really need to wonder who Obama has placed in charge of this, one of our most expensive national endeavors. Then again, given the hordes of other interested parties, its no wonder that the machine seems primed to keep chugging along.

With a majority of prisons and jails in the US actually being privately owned by prison corporations, its an easy leap to assume that the prison industry itself has a vested interest in the continuation of record setting incarcerations. And with the hardcore authoritarians in the law enforcement and legislative community who simply love mix the words freedom and values into discussions about needless social controls, it should be no curious matter as to why the development and influence of our prison industrial complex continues to grow, even in this our time of “newer, smarter government.”

Now many may accuse me of having a bias as I regularly enjoy marijuana whenever possible, however is it not fair to say that my bias is one in the interest of my own liberty, while those against me are set to maintain either ideological traditionalism or outright profit? Forgetting for a moment the hardline law and order hawks, one must consider the pharmaceutical industry. With billions of dollars being made from everything from pain medications and anti-depressants to sleep aids and anti-anxiety drugs, is anyone so blind as to not recognize that this billion dollar industry with its countless lobbyists and endless influence, might just be feeding the anti-marijuana efforts in Washington? I certainly hope not, for if they are, I’d say the should stop taking so many of those drugs and come back to Earth for some raw common sense.

So what can be done? With every effort or statement made against the growing and frighteningly militant police state being shot down with a slogan about being “soft on crime” (or some variation thereof,) it would seem that the majority of public opinion is supposedly on our side and the mass appeal of decriminalization or legalization of marijuana is almost universally ground beneath the wheels of the “law and order” authoritarian moralist set. Add to this the plethora of other pressing issues, and those which are not so pressing but championed by those obnoxious enough to be heard, and it would seem that the issue of drug law reform, specifically regarding marijuana is bound to remain on the back burner (or possibly even in the freezer awaiting defrosting.)

The need for drug policy reform is, in my opinion, one of the most pressing issues facing the United States. We are home to around five percent of the global population, yet our laws and our justice system currently incarcerate over one quarter of the world’s convicts. The effects of an overreaching law enforcement and prison-industrial complex present the United States with a question of civil liberties which strikes at the very core of our national identity.

As there has never been a solid Constitutional authority which allows the Government to regulate what an individual may consume privately, the ideological and industrial interests who have come to benefit from the blanket prohibition of drugs and marijuana demand an intelligent and aggressive opposition. But where is it?

With groups like NORML and the MPP having stepped off from outright legalization in favor of the easier and more publicly palatable measure of medical marijuana, we find our champions sorely lacking in this area. And with almost all celebrity and political support being sidelined by the opposition as either cliche’ stoners or outright wack-jobs, we find the increasingly pressing matter of reclaiming our liberty sidelined as well.

Even if one doesn’t smoke marijuana, the arguments regarding the legal status of alcohol and tobacco versus marijuana and their detriments to public health and safety are abundantly evident and too logical to discount. It is time then friends, to take a real and comprehensive look at ourselves and our laws. We can shed blood to spread freedom and democracy across the globe, yet where is the fight for it here at home?

I remain waiting friends, for the time when we can say as one that we will not tolerate the restriction of our freedom to do with our bodies as we please. I remain waiting for the silly partisan divisions to fall away, even if just for a moment, so that we may recognize that “freedom” and “liberty” are not just about getting McDonalds and Starbucks into foreign countries and holding showpiece elections, but actually still mean something here at home. I’m waiting friends and I’ll be here waiting until you are ready to join me in this fight.

A Coyote in the Chicken Coup

Would you ask a vegetarian the best way to cook a steak? Of course not. Would you leave a coyote in charge of a chicken coup? No…thats just stupid. But why then, with this pattern of logic being so obvious, do we continually trust wealthy pedigree elites to watch out for the common man?

Be it our elected officials or the champions of social issue PACs, the leadership in almost every case is generally comprised of wealthy, well to do elites who having generally had their way paid for them by a generous benefactor (usually mom and/or dad) haven’t a leg to stand on in terms of sympathizing or empathizing with the middle or lower classes. In every election season (especially this one) the sloganeers and marketing specialists of political campaigns go to great lengths to paint a divisive “Wall Street versus Main Street” picture for the public in an effort to bring about the appearance that they truly understand the plight of the working class, yet despite the apparent victories for the champions of the common man it seems that the plight of real people is conveniently forgotten once the polls have closed. And then, with a stupendous hurrah the status quo is preserved for yet another term, with yet another perfect smiling face carrying on the same game as the one who came before.

So why do we continue to look to the rich to take care of the poor? Certainly it isn’t their track record. Despite their supposed “best efforts” we still find ourselves in the midst of an economic depression, where the hard working and honest Americans are finding basic survival more and more difficult, while those at the top continue to reap the benefits of our labors, even when their stewardship and leadership is shown to be sorely lacking. Our cost of living continues to rise as wages remain stagnate and for every measure taken by Government to supposedly help those in need, two steps are taken against it in the endless compromises and back scratching that our elected officials engage in with narrow minded ideological and industrial interests.

We find our health care continually laid upon the altar of profiteering industries with the only suggestions for reform being a Government corporatization scheme wherein they become yet another insurance company who can bleed us dry for limited assistance. We find trillions of dollars being borrowed against our taxed labors and blindly thrown at the failing industries and banks who through poor stewardship and shortsighted profiteering, have brought this once mighty economic powerhouse to it’s knees. And despite all the promises made, we still find countless pervasive inequities both financially and legally which reward the crooked and punish the upright.

In this the “greatest country in the history of the world,” we still have malnourishment, homelessness and skyrocketing unemployment. Average Americans need to work two, sometimes three jobs just to get by, all the while being told by those in power, that they’re fighting to lighten to the load. Yet at the same time, we also continue to host some of the most wealthy individuals and trillion dollar industries all of whom still thrive from the desperate labors of those beneath them, while throwing meager wages and limited benefits like scraps from their tables to beggars in the streets.

And through all of this, the economic, legal and political inequities, through it all, once the votes have been cast and the offices attained, we have only the PAC and advocacy groups to look to when seeking a real voice. Yet even these are beset by the clubhouse mentality of the wealthy and pedigreed. With wided eyed idealism, they file into their partisan lines and follow the leader whenever possible, ignoring the true facts of what needs to be done and instead taking ques from the sellouts they whole-heartedly support. With staff comprised of other ignorant elites, they too set out to “help the common man” all the while, not even realizing they know little to nothing about the problems they seek to address.

So why then, do we the real Americans, seek leadership from those who know nothing beyond classroom academia when it comes to real political reform? Why do we tolerate the same old club of insiders who have shown time and time again to be clueless about what suffering and struggle is like while having thrived solely from the efforts and labor of others? Why do we expect real change when we continue to keep these coyotes in our chicken coups? And why has it taken this long to do anything about it?

The Death of American Liberalism

Liberalism is on the march! Or is it? With the election of Barack Obama and the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress in 2008, I found myself feeling momentarily optimistic about the future of this country. I found in myself a hope that things very could actually improve and that the mistakes and disasters that the previous government had brought upon us could be undone or at least effectively managed. Yet this moment was short lived, as the hopes I had held for real change were  soon replaced with the troubling question; what happened to American Liberalism?

Well, to be honest, its not much to wonder about, especially when the modern equivalent of liberalism is examined for what it is. Recently, the word “liberal” has existed almost solely on the lips and minds of the conservative right, who having lost in terms of electoral power, still retain significant political leverage in that their opposition seems hell bent on pandering to them. I’m speaking of course of the modern “progressive” political mindset.

Never before has such a detrimental compromise been made in terms of American philosophical or political division. Now whereas the term “compromise” generally entails a certain meeting of the minds, the Progressive version of compromise is not one of meeting half way, but one of caving in the face of stiff opposition at every turn, while keeping the appearance of disagreement bubbling softly on the surface. Where once there was an opposition which stood boldly in the face of ideals which were counterproductive to social good, we now find ourselves beset by a weak and timid club of insiders, all of whom are generally more interested in self promotion than standing for real principles.

This is most evident in the very adoption of the new label itself. Once upon a time there were two sides to this coin. Liberal and Conservative. Yet now, due largely to the left’s acceptance of right wing criticisms and a complete lack of backbone, the term “liberal” has become a dirty word in political discourse. Likewise, the principles of equality, consideration of fact, intellectual honesty and a devotion to open and effective government have all but left and in turn, have been replaced it seems with those of political expediency, interest and industry pandering and an inability to stand up and say to the opposition that they are simply wrong.

What happened to the debate? Where is the opposition? Whereas the right, to their credit, will never hesitate to fight over matters they feel strongly on, the left seems to be intentionally lacking in champions of cause. But is this due to a lack of intelligent, forceful voices, or could it be that the left has given into the lures of political marketing to such a degree that polls override principle?

While working for a DNC friendly PAC organization a while back, I, in the course of conversation with one of the senior staff, made the mistake of using the term “liberal” to describe what I presumed to be our side. No sooner had the word left my mouth than a direct and intentional correction spilled from the lips of the staffer. “No, not liberal. We’re Progressive,” he said, with as much strength as his little voice could muster.

It was here that I first came to actually consider how and why the left would fail, despite the recent victory for what I would come to consider “lipservice hope and change.” Though a desire for real change existed in one form or another in the hearts and minds of the Democratic party base, the left itself could never be capable of delivering on these ideas if the operatives and activists who promote it are too timid to stand up for a simple word. With decades of slanderous and baseless attacks on the principles of Liberalism being promoted by the conservative right, the continual lack of real pushback has created an environment where one side has given all power over the course of debate to their opposition. When the right began treating “liberal” is an insult, the liberals ended up passively agreeing with them through adoption of the new term “progressive.”

As the term itself took root, the philosophy of caving in the face of their detractors and critics became commonplace. The promises of transparency in government have seemed to have been conveniently forgotten and the apparent cult of personality that has sprung up in it’s place grants a passive permission that continues to hand all power in the argument to the minority opposition. Political expediency rules the day to such a degree that almost all classic liberal policies and positions have either been augmented to placate opposition or abandoned entirely.

With healthcare, single payer has been replaced by a pandering market solution which allows the health care industry to continue gouging the American people for a basic need. On matters of defense, no mention of the military industrial complex or the continued profiteering from global warfare is made, but instead a four percent increase in the defense industry’s blank check budget is now called a cut. And while our civil liberties are trampled upon and our prison and law enforcement industries continue incarcerating millions for crimes such as drug possession, not a single voice rises above the cacophony of legislative debate to question this, for fear of appearing “soft on crime.”

So where, I ask, is the opposition to the conservative and neo-conservative political machines? How long will Liberal ideas remain absent from popular discussion? When will the directors, presidents and chiefs of staff of supposedly leftist PAC organizations finally take their jobs seriously and stand up for the issues they claim to advocate for, rather than playing follow the leader in this, the Obama era?

I am still waiting for change. I am still looking for hope. But neither seems to be in the cards for this, our “new America.”

Why arguments against gay marriage fail.

An argument against the argument against “the gay agenda”… If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married…its pretty simple. Otherwise, how about holding your nose and tolerating something you have a personal feeling of ‘icky’ about and standing up for those real American principles of free to do as you like so long as it doesn’t affect the freedoms of others.

The argument about plant/dog/object marriage is a failure because none of those things can consensually enter into a legal/social pact with another consensual mature adult. The argument against pedophilia is a failure because once again the matters of legal mature consent still stand opposed to it, as well as the matter that it is already codified law that sexual activity with children is a crime, whereas sexual activity of most any sort between adults is not. Therefore from both a legal and rational perspective, comparisons between homosexuality, which is a personal matter and pedophilia which is a criminal matter are a failed argument.

The endangering of traditional unions doesn’t hold water because any danger posed to heterosexual married couples comes not from outside influences really, as much as from whatever destructive underlying conditions that exist within that specific union itself. The fact that gays can marry will not stop Jon and Jane Doe from falling in love and marrying, nor will it in any realistic way contribute to their splitting up.

The argument about it costing money and hurting the economy is a rather silly argument as these family units that will be created will strive to work towards the same upper or middle class standing as the straight couples will and will in essence have only a marginal beneficial impact on the economy overall, if any at all. The GOD argument fails because the pious have no greater right to stop me from blasphemy than they do to affect the behavior of any other free individual. Furthermore their judgment and condemnation of homosexuals and the unions they seek, by the tenants of their own faith, contradict their lord’s word, as only god may judge a human being and by the words of Christ is it not the duty of a good Christian to love and respect even the lowest of their neighbors?

The only practical question I see arising in terms of the legislative argument about gay marriage is one of the religious institutions and how they are to handle them. Obviously it would not be proper for Government to dictate to said institutions as a whole who and what they must do and respect, however on the same token, were Churches allowed to discriminate against homosexuals on the basis that their lifestyles are antithetical to the church’s respective faith, would this not be a violation of said homosexual’s civil rights? If it is reversed and the church is obligated by law to respect and accept the homosexual union or lifestyle, does this not constitute a violation of the religion’s constitutional right to free practice?

In summation, I would say that the only legitimate concerns or arguments against gay marriage are those of the specific legal implications and limitations therein. No realistic social detriment exists, nor is there any “slippery slope,” nor as some on here may claim, are there any public health risks (that has to be the dumbest anti-gay argument I’ve heard). The arguments posed by those opposed to gay marriages are simply bigotry, religious orthodoxy, personal emotional revulsion or any combination of the three, none of which have any practical or legal standing in the eyes of US law, nor should they.

The Roots of Partisanship: Arguments within arguments

One of the core arguments throughout political history has been that of the role of Government. Is it a defender, provider, enforcer, breadwinner, lawmaker, all of these things and more or just one or none at all? Currently this debate is again rearing itself along partisan and ideological lines as it is in many cases the fundamental issue which draws these lines in the first place, yet thanks largely to popular media applications and the inherent love of sensationalist, bombastic claims, theories and proposals, the lines drawn this time seem to branch in many more directions than they have in times past.

I’m talking of course of factionalizing. The formula is one of individuals’ ideas bringing them together under separate banners, while others rally to oppose them. In the past, the two major parties of Democrats and Republicans have generally served as umbrellas, under which these factions can find symbiotic support, with the party adopting their positions on matters formally, and they adding general support to the party platform.

For the Republicans, the factions (or interests in this case) are primarily those built into a coalition by Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan. With moralist and evangelical Christians, who opposed liberal social policies and industrial support from corporate and industrial entities seeking to maintain a low level of regulation and taxation, the Republican Party for a long time stood as the party of small Government with a conservative tendency to stick to tradition and existing social norm.

The Democrats find themselves also taking on both social and industrial interests, between the special activist groups such as gay rights and feminist groups as well as labor unions and organized state employees. They have taken on most every liberal cause in the last century all in the name of progress and equality. However neither of these parties or their factions are without inherent contradiction, and if one looks with the right kind of eyes, it can often be seen that the arguments presented on the surface in regards to the role of Government are far from accurate when the real objective policy goals of a given faction may be analyzed.

As the classic conservative doctrine goes, smaller Government and less public spending is the best way to maintain a stable and secure nation. The individual’s liberty is preserved, business is free to fuel economic growth and the right to self government for towns, counties and states throughout the United States is ensured. Yet when the practical application of conservative Government is analyzed as it has been throughout modern history, one finds distinct trends which are in many ways counterintuitive to real conservative thought.

If for instance, religious values from a mainstream faith are taken into consideration in matters of law and civil code, the Government is acting in a proxy fashion as a religious institution. This means social controls, moral code enforcement and the public endorsement of a particular religion. History is full of examples of just what direction a Government with religious influences goes in and it is anywhere but towards a smaller, less restrictive system.

Likewise so-called “conservative” Republican Governments have generally presided over the largest arms buildups and foreign military sales figures in history. While many argue that it was Reagan’s oratory gifts and statecraft which won the cold war, it can just as easily be argued that he simply spent the Soviet Union to death as when all was said and done, we sat atop a larger pile of weapons while they were bankrupt and without resources to continue. To this day, defense spending continues to climb most voraciously under Republican administrations who while promising for smaller government usually deliver not only a more massive military than they arrive to command but a greater and more powerful authoritative law enforcement system.

But to say that law and order as a matter of political hypocrisy is an exclusively right wing phenomenon would be dishonest, as the left and its Democratic party are equally as guilty of talking out of both sides of their mouths. No greater example of this exists than the gender, race and sexually biased legislation they’ve fought hard not only to pass but to maintain. I’m talking of course of the Violence Against Women’s Act and modern hate crime legislation.

Whereas calling these items into question after having slammed the right wing on their policy contradictions will inevitably bring down the label of abuser or racist, I will take this moment to assure you that I am no such thing and that my objections are rooted in the legal practicality and fairness of such pieces of law. Having said that, the reason that hate crime and gender/sex/race/ethnically based legislation is hypocritical is that they are all enacted in the name of fairness and equality.

Since the first organized civilization we have had laws against murder and assault. In our modern times, we’ve taken legal science to great heights in our defining and specific redefining of law to address matters of violent crime. Yet despite these laws, there now are on the books, special laws which create protected classes of people who, if a crime has been committed against them, are entitled to see the accused prosecuted for additional charges based on what the defendant may have been thinking during commission of the crime.

I am no fan of racism friends, by no stretch of the imagination. I am the third generation born after the Nazis wiped my family and our history from the world in the Holocaust. But to punish criminals for criminal acts and then again for what become in essence criminal thoughts is not only un-American, its an outright Orwellian nightmare. Likewise, the other piece of liberal social engineering known as the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) is also stretching and blurring the boundaries of what is fair and what is gratifying to an interest group.

Under VAWA, should a woman simply register a complaint against a man with the state, he is subject to have his home searched without warrant and any weapons he may own confiscated. He is subject to automatic arrest should in the time prior to his hearing date the plaintiff register another complaint of contact, even without evidence. On simple statement alone, a man can be placed under arrest, jailed and held without bail until set by a judge.

Should he go without said complaint until the hearing date arrives, he will walk into court with the deck still stacked against him as unlike an actual criminal proceeding, criminal charges can be leveled at a man with only the civil burden of proof being required as evidence. This means rather than needing to find that beyond a reasonable doubt that XYZ act may or may not have occurred, the plaintiff simply needs to meet the preponderance of evidence level, in which they simply have to argue convincingly, without evidence actually required.

After the order is issued, which the courts are incentivized to do under VAWA, regardless of the hearing, the rights to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to due process and equal protection under the law are all thrown out the window, while a restrictive set of parameters are placed on the defendant, even though no evidence may have been presented at all. After issuance, another unfounded complaint with no evidence at all can still have a man thrown in jail and held until a judge rules. This can result in misdemeanor and even felony charges all based often, simply on a woman’s word.

But I’m no chauvinist. This is not my intention. However in the pursuit of fairness and equality, creating special protected classes of people is far from the best means to achieve it. So here, despite the best of intentions, the road to hell is still paved.

So where does the proper level of Government action lie? Can we really tell? As it is now, the conservative movement and the coalition of interests which make it up is fracturing. With Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Neo Conservatives, Evangelicals and the paleo-conservative groups who worship the ideals of Jefferson, all either grabbing for what they can get in the remainder of the Republican base or attempting to strike out on their own, the champions of small government are all clambering for attention from the American public and quite often, they are talking over each other to such a degree, no one can make out clearly what they are saying.

Inversely the left wing liberal/progressive movements are beginning to show like signs of the very early stages of fracture, with the greens, the social justice movements, the anti-corporate groups, organized labor and various social interest groups all demanding that the new Government put their plans into action. With the deeply entrenched interests from labor, civil rights, anti-war and environmentalists rooted deep in the left wing of American politics, the ability for governments they support to promote and push forward their agenda often become embattled, not against right wing opposition, but from the inherent natural contradictions and conflicts which exist between these interests.

Add to these conflicts, contradictions and outright hypocrisies the additional matter of public ignorance and there lies the surest way toward ruin. As we’ve all seen, the explosion of information technology and IT communications have allowed everyone to voice their opinions and, just as with this blog, many are capable of doing so very directly. Analysis and perspectives come from every angle these days and most of the time it’s impossible to get past the bias. With ideological catch phrases, talking points and all of the other new tools of mass media political theatre, the once dusty trails of partisan division are now outright muddy waters, with hyperbole and ad-hominem being used not only to supplant weak arguments but to sell air time. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, take your pick, but each is endlessly guilty of using sensationalism and spin to sell ad space.

Now only a fool would say a nation can survive without government as only a fool would say we can only survive on government. For something like that, a society would need to be universally enlightened, lest it be one engulfed in total anarchy or should the inverse latter part be true, we would all need to be docile likeminded creatures, which we are most certainly not. In terms of domestic and foreign action alike, it can be argued evenly that too much or too little action by government can be disastrous as matters of social and diplomatic natures require responses one way or the other.

So, should the two parties fracture in the coming decades and should we find ourselves surrounded by new factions and parties all promising a road to national paradise, what should we do to prepare? The answer is simple. We must study.

We as a nation and as a people must learn to move beyond not only what the talking heads on televisions and radios trumpet as their holy truth, but must move beyond our own biases as well. We must learn to study laws and political matters for what they are and how they are written as opposed to what our pundits and partisans might claim them to be. It is of paramount importance that we do this and do it quickly, for as  in this age every moron can have a soapbox, we must make sure not to gather round the wrong one simply because we may consider it to be our side.

The Leader, The Charlatan…

Show me a leader and I’ll show you a charlatan. I’ll not come out and say that men who rise to power are all inherently evil. Just that the power they assume is often so corrupted that they find themselves without as many choices as they’d like. One might think that the root cause to the development of a civil society is a basic need for order and prosperity. Man always achieves more when he works within a group, but when those ideas and groups become institutions, they seem to take on an entirely different practice altogether.

A single person can, if given enough time, form an opinion on anything and everything and can even work to rationalize all of their opinions even when the inevitable conflicts and contradictions to them become apparent. However if there is one thing, one specific issue or problem or cause or purpose that they feel is of the utmost importance, the only way for them to gain any traction on it is to attract the aid of others. Likeminded on the topic or topics selected, they will come together and will try to attract more.

Yet for every two or three or more of these likeminded individuals who come together, the same kind of naturally occurring contradictions or conflicts of opinion multiply, but for the sake of the core common interest are often set aside or compromised. As the rallying spreads the ideas and opinions themselves at some point give way to a general common philosophy which, once adopted by an individual, becomes an almost automatic process of opinion making and claim staking.

So now you have an ideology; a general principle under which positions and ideas are predisposed to a somewhat specific arraignment for the core purpose of supporting the general philosophy and the movement which represents it to the masses. The idea has become an institution. Yet as with all opinion and thought on matters social or political, it is not a universally accepted institution and as such is perpetually bound to face opposing institutional philosophies and ideologies on a constant basis.

This is of course due in part to the naturally occurring contradictions which develop within any given ideology such as; pro-life supporters of wars and capital punishment, or those chanting for freedom while willingly sacrificing their civil liberties. Or for another example a party of free speech advocates who also pass censorship and ratings laws. The lists go on…

However beyond the individual contradictions and hypocrisies themselves, the formation and organization of an ideology or philosophy will almost always end up polarizing people, if for nothing more than they offer so much to disagree with. And so out of this disagreement, a single issue or argument can in effect add support to both sides of a bigger fight. The worse the fight the greater the spoils for the victor.

Now it has inevitably been said by smarter people than myself that the worst part of any revolution is the revolutionaries. Generally the hardest of the hard liners from a given side in a political or social issue fight, these leaders usually serve one of two destinies. The first is reserved for the true believer. This young pup usually arrives with chips on both shoulders and an admirable spirit. Their eyes wide, they look to the future and marvel at the potential power of their ideas.

But usually the true believers end up being face men. Puppets, either knowingly or unknowingly of a small group with a specific agenda usually tuned to the specific interests of specific parties. These parties can represent special ideological tenants, philosophic or societal mentalities or even industrial private interests. Whatever they are, the power the leader finds themselves in is usually supported by such a vast ideological umbrella, that the likeminded have managed to factionalize under the leadership’s nose and have now began mini-coalitions to influence the direction of the party, or movement or revolution. If they play along, they are continually hailed by the top leadership behind him as a great leader and is rewarded well for his participation. Should he start to dissent, an easy martyr may be made of him or a marginalization with whatever name recognition that exists used to perpetuate the core goals of the real power. In either case, the charlatan is exposed in that for all their leadership and charisma, they are but a cog in a machine whose place in power is brought not by the virtue of their ideas, but by the weakness and exploitable nature of their character.

The second fate of a charlatan leader is that of the player, the manipulator, the power hungry narcissist who longs for their own legend to live on so bad that ends can always justify the means. These types usually do everything in their power to blend in with the scenery. They’ll pick up lip service causes and throw themselves before the public as champions of the common man, exemplifying this claim with the great steps and efforts they’ve put in to supporting this or that cause. For these men, achievement is but a stepping stone to further personal exaltation.

Often beginning with true beliefs, the machines which function within parties and factions to promote specificity within a veritable grab bag of causes and ideas will often grind out the idealism in the true political player, making them a symbiotic partner with the often narrowly focused causes that give them the capital to reach for higher offices. After enough time or enough concurrent successes in rising to power, the charlatan player will take the narrow middle road on issues as often as possible as once the power and influence is maxed out in one party, there is nothing left but to court the opposition. If successful, they become a uniter and hero to all, despite their ultimate failure to actually win any victories or make any changes.

In this the charlatan is exposed in that the player stands for nothing but themselves. The attaining of power, the adoration of the masses and the preservation of their name and legend in history takes precedence over the true dynamic of the individuals actual thoughts and opinions. So for all their legend and all their glory they serve as but processor mediocre half hearted measures designed to keep people generally complacent while the established mechanisms set up by previous powers and the real powers that be continue rolling along.

Health Care Reform: A New Spin on a Bad Joke.

When asked what the number one domestic issue is, the general response from the public usually includes health care reform. As it is both an economic and social matter of concern, and as there is a growing sentiment that the current system is no longer feasible or practical, or at the very least, requires a total overhaul on both the public and private ends, its a wonder that in the debate currently going on currently, there is not but a mention in Washington, about single payer healthcare. Am I a single payer advocate? Absolutely.

A few years ago, while I was working for Fidelity Investments in their customer service call center, I was given intense month long training and education in the specifics of health care plans and processes. I learned about the HMO, the PPO, the POS, the HSA, indemnity and all of the other standard health care benefit plans available. I learned about HIPPA, COBRA and various state medical privacy laws which I was required to abide by.

The one thing we didn’t learn in training was how to rationalize what we were doing and justify how much we were making. At a starting wage of thirty two thousand, five hundred USD annually, with full medical, dental and life insurance benefits, my job was to act as a third party administrator/liasion between over a dozen fortune five hundred companies, their employees, the doctors and insurance companies and at times, the surviving families of deceased customers.

As a third party liaison, it was my responsibility to process annual and special enrollments, update and maintain personal account data and deliver general customer service to dozens if not hundreds of people daily regarding their health and life insurance. I would explain co-pays, deductibles, fees and restrictions as well as set up primary care physicians for new enrollments or in the event people may move.

Strangely enough however, despite the fact that the issues customers would face regarding the complex and intricate facets of their health and wellness benefits were often complicated and time consuming, there were specific corporate metrics we were expected to live up to. The most important it seemed was our average handle time, or AHT. Standard company metrics dictated that health insurance calls should be on average, no longer than seven minutes.

Initially believing this was a rational request for the the duties involved, I quickly discovered that most times, serious customer issues required far longer than that to resolve. Often, simply finding the specific cause of a given problem, be it a claim discrepancy or enrollment problem, could take upwards of twenty minutes to determine. Add to this the endless bureaucracy that is corporate health care and insurance, and sometimes customer issues would take days, even weeks to resolve.

On one such occasion, a man from upstate New York called regarding the medical bills he was receiving for his newborn son’s delivery and care. There had been a previous call regarding the same matter which had been put into a hold/review status, in which technical experts would analyze the initial enrollment to see why it had not processed. Ultimately the matter was an error on the part of the processing staff. However the real clencher came when just as I was about to congratulate him on the birth of his child, I noticed in the initial report that the infant had died shortly after birth and that the bills being issued were for the emergency care and post mortem processing, plus all administrative costs.

The initial issue had been raised almost two weeks prior to our conversation, and swearing to the gentleman, who was obviously doing his best to keep himself together, that I would solve the issue, I promptly took his information down and proceeded to make new calls. First to Boston, then Texas, ultimately placing a call to the processing administration offices in India, I demanded immediate action to help the customer, who by no fault of his own had slipped into a cruel and terrible crack in the administration system.

Ultimately, I resolved the issue and prevented further billing from occurring. However that very day, I received a stern tongue lashing from my manager for taking too long on a single caller. I attempted to explain the situation, but it was as if the human element was completely forgotten and the adherence to micromanagerial metrics was all that mattered.

Later still, when a client company decided to transfer all of its retirement benefits to AARP, a potential health care nightmare was created for the hundreds of retired people collecting retirement insurance benefits. Letters were sent from the company to their retirees, stating that their health insurance would no longer be carried by the company. The letter said nothing about benefit transfers to AARP, but instead, assumed that AARP would be communicating with the retirees themselves. AARP did plan on notifying the retirees of a delay in the transition, but instead provided us with information to relay simply stating that it would be ok.

With no information other than this and corporate liability restrictions keeping us from discussing the matter with the retirees who called, frantically thinking their insurance had been canceled, our job became one of reassuring scared senior citizens that, despite our total lack of information and the total silence from both AARP and the client company, everyting would be alright. It was less than simple. And yet still, this was not the end of the inefficiency I witnessed in the supposedly competitive and inherently efficient market based health care plan.

Countless claims denials stemming from data incongruities on Fidelity’s end. Drug benefit augmentations coming out fast and furious, leaving seniors in the dust. Program and enrollment costs that would climb regularly and seemed without any motivation but to squeeze consumers dry and then the COBRA programs which cost the consumer up to 102% of the premium for the same health plan, should they lose it due to layoff. The challenges and roadblocks placed before the customers were unending and for every answer, came an additional two questions without.

The offices of course were quite expensive and the cost for third party outsourcing, though cost effective to the client companies, still appeared to simply be a black hole in which money fell into. The countless perks, matched with the endless corporate bureaucracy led me to wonder how efficient the private system really was. However it was not long before I fell through a crack myself and found my own health care nightmare coming to fruition.

In 2005, I obtained an Associate’s Degree from a local community college. After my transcripts were processed and my application complete, I was accepted to Saint Anselm College  for their political science BS program. After jumping through a dozen hoops, I was assisted in my tuition by the financial aid department and business office. However after only one semester, it appeared that despite a stellar academic track record and even publication of political analysis, my healthcare situation and its affect on my credit, would mean I would be unable to complete my degree.

Years prior, I had been hospitalized due to a crippling chest pain. I sat in the ER lobby for close to two hours and after being given a shot of lidocaine, an Rx for percocets and no diagnosis as to the cause, I was billed thousands of dollars. However I never received the bills. Moving from place to place as I was, they never caught up with me and soon the whole mess went on my credit.

Having never taken out a loan, credit card or financing of any kind, my credit had already been destroyed to the point where I wasn’t eligable for student loans. Having never had insurance and having almost never been to the doctor as a young man, the opportunities to obtain health insurance were limited due to the lack of benefits being offered by employers. I still find it ironic that my inability to advance my education and therefore my economic standing is rooted largely in my economic standing and lack of education. Despite what I had been told growing up, it apparently took more than just hard work to get ahead in America.

During the 2008 election cycle, I worked for a number of non-profit isssue advocacy campaigns. Starting with education, I soon got a contract working for social justice and urban renewal. Shortly after that, I joined with SEIU and their New Hampshire for Healthcare Campaign.

This was a canvassing job initially. Working door to door in specific neighborhoods all over New Hampshire, targeting undecided and Democratic leaning voters for basic voter identification and persuasion. We would show up on the doorstep and palmpilots in hand, advocate for the health care proposals of Barack Obama. Some would like it, others would not, but over those months, we canvassed and called over ten thousand people.

Though better than Senator McCain’s reform proposals, in my opinion, I continued noticing something disturbing that I had noted during the primary. The discussion of single payer healthcare was non existent on the debate dias. Nowhere, unless raised by a private citizen, was the mention of single payer insurance made.

Having worked for idealistic issue campaigns before as well as being intimately familiar with both the system and perils of American health care, I was and am simply astounded with how effectively the opponents, primarily those of corporate interest, but also ideologues who still peer over their shoulders expecting the cold war red menace to pop up, had been in silencing the debate over single payer healthcare.

Beyond the practical examples overseas and to our north, the theory behind single payer is as solid as granite, being that as private health care operates by pooling the resources of paying members and paying out when individual members need it, the concept of a larger, single pool into which everyone contributes with no profiteering or needless for profit administration would be sound. With arguments over social good and public health aside, the raw effectivity of a single system versus smaller systems with regional or corporate partnership dominions, all of whom have been repeatedly exposed for attempting to root out and deny legitimate claimants so as to protect their bottom line is self evident…

…except to the ideologues.

To many, primarily on the right, the concept of social or societal contribution is almost offensive. Whereas the specifics of this philosophy could spring volumes of text from me, I shall leave that for another day, however I must and will note that while this is the position of some, the opposition seems largely silent. The Obama support base and Democratic party loyalists seem at odds, not only with the right who wishes greater freedom for insurance corporations, but with themselves.

As socialized single payer health care is traditionally considered a liberal ideal, it is time the matter come back to the table. No more market solutions which preserve the systems which put us in peril. Its time for those with enough backbone and intelligence to stand up for what is right and make their voices heard once more.

Single payer health care is the only means in which we the people, may take power back from the corporate interests and corrupt politicians in regards to our health care. Do not be fooled by the lies about totalitarian health care dictation by government or a lack of choice in doctors. These are lies purpotrated by the health insurance industry, their partners such as Fidelity and the ideologues who refuse to see past the partisan conflict to the real issue at hand.

Stand up and be heard.

Terrorism and Blowback: An International Cycle of Violence

With any given international superpower, there exists and underlying system of smaller states, over which the superpower maintains dominance. These nations often find their destinies controlled, if not at the very least greatly affected by the will and actions of greater powers. Though the old practices of economic manipulation or imperialist annexation still thrive on the international stage, another more subtle, ancient form of statecraft continues to steer the fates of millions, often to everyone’s detriment.

Espionage is the act of obtaining secrets for political or military purposes and so it has always been officially defined as. However in addition to this, intelligence services are often used in other ways, for even more potent forms of control. Such methods may be the incitement or quelling of civil insurrection, the instilling or deposing of leaders, and even the creation or destruction of armies and militias. Tactics such as these are often popular tools of spies and intelligence operatives, working for fast or revolutionary political change, but their actions are seldom without consequences. Referred to by the CIA as “blowback”, these consequences often result in prolonged wars, violence and more recently international terrorism.

After World War 2, Britain’s MI6 Intelligence force and the newly formed CIA were scrambling to secure interests for their nations from the Soviet Union and its KGB operatives. The remaining superpowers were laying claim to resources, lands and important figures as “spoils of war[1],” and worked furiously in an effort to maintain their edge on the competition. In 1953, Iran’s democratically elected President Mohammed Mossadeq was ousted from office and replaced by Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, as part of the British and American intelligence efforts to secure the countries oil fields for BP (British Petroleum co.)

The efforts themselves where the culmination of what is now known to have been called Operation Ajax, wherein a series of terrorist attacks were staged in Iran and blamed on Mossadeq’s government. Though the majority of the civilian level effort such as those failed, the president was eventually ousted by way of a military coup, bringing the young Shah Pahlavi into power. Relations with Iran normalized until the inevitable blowback came in 1979, when the Pahlavi dynasty was overturned by Islamic Revolution.

Many feel this was a detrimental change in Iran, spurred ultimately by the foreign involvement which brought the secular Pahlavi government into power. The Islamic revolutionaries felt furious with their country and more so with the west, leading to the occupation of the U.S. Embassy, a hostage crisis and the long term severing of diplomatic ties. Today as the United States and Iran face off over nuclear missiles and defense shields, many attribute the international animosity to Operation Ajax and the fallout which came from it.

In the same year (1979) the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in an effort to support the waning power of then Prime Minister, Hazifullah Amin. Amid protests from the Muslim majority, Amin had begun attempting to westernize Afghanistan, by pushing out the religious cultural heritage and replacing it with western, communist policy. It was under this rule that the Afghan “Mujahadeen” was born. These guerilla fighters, many of whom came from Arab states, were summoned by a Fatwa[2] put out for the protection of Islam within Afghanistan from what was then called “the evil empire.”

Leading the charge in this militant uprising was a southern tribe that would later become a household name in the United States. The Taliban, whose radical religious interpretations and reputation for violence was well known by the local Afghan tribes as well as foreign intelligence services, soon found a friend in the American CIA. Seeing an opportunity to continue the perpetual fight against communism, CIA officers, with the blessing and assistance from Washington were soon flying into Bagram (now Bagram Air Force Base) with crates of weapons and cash. These “aid packages,” as they were officially documented as, were bound for direct delivery into the hands of both the anti-communist guerillas and even the Islamic Jihadists (radical religious fighters).

In addition to the Taliban, other foreign fighters were also recipients of U.S. aid, including one fundamentalist Islamic militia headed by a man named Ayman al-Zawahiri. Prior to fighting in Afghanistan, Al-Zawahiri was tortured while in prison for his suspected role in the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Al Sadat and for the illegal possession of weapons. As part of the radical group The Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Zawahiri also held a position of power in the Islamic Jihad movement, which promoted the use of horrific violence as a means to bring about an Islamic revolution.

Once released into Afghanistan as part of a prison liquidation ploy, Zawahiri met a young Saudi from an oil rich family, whose connections had become a valuable asset to a small Mujahadeen base. An idealist who had seen little actual combat, the young Saudi and al-Zawahiri shared a similar vision of Islam, in which its duty was not only to rule the Arab world, but to destroy all other ways of life, leaving only the purity of the Koran. The Saudi’s name was Osama Bin Laden.

Together the two used advanced guerilla warfare tactics along with sophisticated weapons technologies (provided by CIA) to continue the war against the occupation of Afghanistan, until the Soviets finally withdrew in 1991. Though they would remain on the CIA’s radar, it would be a full decade before their names were again spoken outside of a shady, pentagon intelligence briefing. For in that time they, using their training and remaining weapons would combine their efforts again in the forming what would eventually be known as Al Qaeda.

It is estimated that after the initial shipment of Stinger missiles (a sophisticated weapon systems which is highly effective against aircraft) in 1986 that 2,000-2,500 such surface to air missiles where distributed to the Mujahadeen during the 1980s. In 1996 intelligence reports stated that of those, six hundred were still unaccounted for and thus did the CIA offer bounties of eighty, to one-hundred-thousand dollars per missile, every penny of which went straight into the pocket of whichever warlord was in possession of them. Today the U.S. government still expresses concern over the exact location of many of those very same Stingers, as the war effort against a new threat continues.

Though the Soviet Union failed to conquer Afghanistan and all efforts in Iran had lead to only further divisions between Persia and the west, the United States continued fighting its proxy war against communism on every front it could. In 1986 Lebanese news papers published a story which claimed the Regan Administration and the United States CIA had become involved in a covert operation involving Iran, Nicaragua and the sale of powerful weapons technologies. The deal later exposed (by western media as well as declassified testimony) and dubbed “The Iran Contra Scandal,” was an operation undertaken by the Regan Administration and directed by National Security Council (NSC) staffer Lieutenant Col. Oliver North. As part of this covert enterprise, long range missile systems were sold to Iran and the funds generated from these sales were then sent directly to Nicaragua to support the contras[3] in their fight against the socialist Sandinista government[4]. Though these deals had already been opposed and forbidden by congress, by way of the Boland amendments[5] the will of the Regan administration and intelligence operatives soon circumvented the law and proceeded with the deals.

In addition to selling weapons technologies to Iran, their southern neighbor Iraq was also the recipient of U.S. support. In 1963, with the support of Britain and Israel, the United States, through use of intelligence forces and clandestine intelligence assets, staged a coup in Iraq, overthrowing the regime of President Abdel Karim Kassem and replacing it with that of the secular Baath party and it’s chairman Saddam Hussein. As an ardent and militant anti-communist, Hussein was seen as the perfect choice to head Iraq’s new government and in addition to his western backing during the coup, Hussein was also given weapons with which he would later use against Kurdish separatists in the northern provinces, as well as in the war with Iran which lasted from 1980 until 1988.

Defense Dept. documents from the 1990s show that the United States, under the express wishes of President George H.W. Bush and the CIA, continued selling high power weapons components to Iraq until August 1^st, 1991. Of these, SCUD guidance systems, chemical weapons and long range targeting equipment were found to be the most common procurements, falling just behind Kalashnikov assault rifles and surplus soviet tanks. On August 2^nd, 1991, Iraq invaded Kuwait and thus began the first US Gulf War.

After operations “Desert Shield” and “Desert Storm”, relations with Iraq ground to a halt and the diplomatic breakdown, previously observed with Iran, began gaining speed. Despite numerous admitted attempts to assassinate him, the CIA and Dept. of Defense were unable to effectively “neutralize” the situation with Saddam Hussein. Economic sanctions and strafing U.N. sanctioned air strikes were soon imposed upon Iraq and would last until 2003.

In September, 2001 the largest terrorist attack in United States history was perpetrated by elements of a terrorist group named Al Qaeda. Hailing from Afghanistan, the U.S. soon learned that many of Al Qaeda’s top leaders were former Mujahadeen, who had chosen to turn their CIA training against the west inspired by radical religious ideology. Upon the invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. troops were forced to battle with Taliban fighters, many of whom fought with the very same weapons and tactics learned during their battle against the Soviets.

Shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, the United States, utilizing doctored intelligence assessments, invaded Iraq, claiming that Hussein was constructing weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorists. Later it would be uncovered that the weapons in question did not exist. Additionally, it would not be until after the toppling of his regime that terrorist elements and sectarian insurgents would begin moving into Iraq.

Today the situation in Iraq is headline news, with the country rapidly descending into a bloody civil war, with the US arming militant factions on both sides. Afghanistan remains a “wild west” scenario of religious extremists battling against western coalition forces, with no sign of ending and Iran’s nuclear ambitions has become the grounds for what many believe may be a new cold war. Each of these situations are not mutually exclusive, nor are they developments within the normal evolution of a state. They are byproducts of foreign policy decisions and intelligence operations directives which continually fail to take the people of the nation into account.

In Afghanistan, the unfettered training and equipping of Islamic radicals gave birth to Al Qaeda. In Iran, the secular supreme authority of Shah Pahlavi, inspired the Islamic revolution and in turn gave rise to the current sentiment of animosity for the west. In Iraq, every step taken by the US since 1963 has proven to be disastrous, from the installing of Saddam to the failure of the current war policy. Events such as these are perfect examples of the failure of  U.S. foreign policy and the even greater failure of covert intelligence operations.

Until these covert operations are brought out into the light, there is no telling what the future holds in terms of the “blowback” from recent events. The war on terrorism will continue unabated and for every operation seen on the nightly news, there are likely untold numbers of secrets not yet known about what lies beneath. The fears that the current wars will be inherited by America’s children can only be compounded by the fact that we inherited them from our parents and as it is now, there is no end in sight.

---

[1] A term used to describe goods or resources seized by the victor of a war.

[2] Fatwa: An Islamic religious edict

[3] Guerilla fighters formerly based within and outside of Nicaragua.

[4] Sandinista Government: A leftist regime who in later years took on Marxist/Leninist policy by nationalizing Nicaraguan resources.

[5] Boland Amendments: Laws prohibiting the President, Defense Dept., CIA or any government agency from providing direct aid to South American contras

————————————————————————————————

Morris, Roger. “A Tyrant Forty Years in the Making.”  Global Policy Forum. 14 Mar. 2003. 14 Jun. 2007. www.globalppolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/2003/0314history.htm

“Iran-contra affair.” The Free Dictionary by Farlex. 2005. Columbia Free Dictionary. 11 Mar. 2007. <http://coulumbia.thefreedictionary.com/Iran+Contra&gt;

“1953 Iranian coup d’etat.”  Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 2007. Wikipedia. 13 Jun. 2007. <http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax&gt;.

“Ayman al-Zawahiri.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 2007. Wikipedia. 12 Jun. 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri

Coll, Steve. Ghost Wars. Washington, 2004. 09 Jun. 2007. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3853553

“Afghanistan.” History Learning Site. 2000-2007. Historylearningsite.com. 09 Jun.2007. <http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/afghanistan.htm&gt;

“About the Author.” History Learning Site. 2000-2007. Historylearningsits.com. 09 Jun. 2007. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/about-the-author.htm.

Chossudovsky, Michel. “CRG – Who Is Osama Bin Laden?” CRG – Centre for Research on Globalization. 2001. 13 pp. CRG. 09 Jun. 2007. <http://userhome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/sschaar/Who_Osama%20htm&gt;

Beckett, Andy. “The making of the terror myth.” The Guardian. 15 Oct. 2004. 09 Jun. 2007. http://guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html

“Statement of Principals.” Project for the New American Century. 1997. PNAC. 09 Jun. 2007. <http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm&gt;

A Preface To The Following…

You might not agree with everything here, but I implore you to at least consider objectively, the concepts and ideas presented here. You never know…maybe you could be wrong about something.