I was listening to the news last night, and it was reported that congress is going to defer voting on the tax cuts till after the election. This is the Democratic Party essentially conceding the election. Their absolutely best campaign material would have been forcing the Republican Party to vote against tax cuts for the middle class.
In protecting the interests of their masters, the wealthy elite, they are working against their own self-interest. Sounds a lot like the Tea Baggers, right? You would expect a little more intelligence from our elected representatives. OK, maybe not. Or perhaps there are promises of well paying lobbying positions for those committing political suicide.
This means, of course, that after the election, the wealthy will have their cuts extended, perhaps indefinitely. They have handed a majority to the Republican Party who, while they may lack a veto-proof majority, will nonetheless attempt to dismantle the few protections for the American people that have been enacted during the prior two years.
Boy, do we need a strong Green Party in this country to counterbalance the Republican and Republican Light parties.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The other September 11th
If you live in Latin America, then September 11th has a very different meaning than it does to those of us living in the United States.
Between 1932 and 1973, the Republic of Chile had a vigorous democracy. They had a well informed electorate, and turnouts of 80% of the registered voters. That all changed on September 11th, 1973. On that day, a military coup, led by General Augusto Pinochet led to somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 being killed, and up to 40,000 being detained, many of them tortured. A reign of terror that was to last for many years fell over what had been one of the few stable democracies of Latin America.
In 1970, Salvadore Allende, a Marxist, had been elected president of Chile in a three way race, despite U.S. attempts to defeat him by providing financial support to the opposition candidates. When they were unable to defeat him, the U.S. resolved to have him overthrown in a military coup. One major obstacle in their way was the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean army, General René Schneider.
General Schneider had publicly reassured the nation that it was not the role of the army to overturn legal elections. He stated that "the armed forces are not a road to political power nor an alternative to that power. They exist to guarantee the regular work of the political system and the use of force for any other purpose than its defense constitute high treason". He also said "there were no options that would invite the armed forces to undo what the politicians had wrought in Chile", adding "the only limitation is in the case that the State stopped acting within their own legality. In that case the armed forces have a higher loyalty to the people and are free to decide an abnormal situation beyond the framework of the law".
Needless to say, having man in charge of the Chilean military who believed in the rule of law did not sit well with the Nixon administration. On October 22, 1970, General Schneider's car was attacked by men who had been armed and paid by the CIA. Their goal was to kidnap him (this was their third attempt) but he drew his own gun and attempted to resist. He was shot, dying in the hospital three days later.
He was replaced as the commander of the Chilean military by General Carlos Prats. General Prats was later replaced by General Augusto Pinochet, and we all know where that led.
In order to protect the interests of Anaconda and Kennecott Copper companies, and ITT (International Telephone and Telegraph), the United States destroyed a democracy, condemned thousands to torture and death. Yes, we had some serious disagreements with many of his policies, including his recognition of Cuba, and his improving relations with China and the Soviet Union. All of those are legitimate reasons to for the United States to have serious disagreements with the the government of Chile.
At the time, the Chilean constitution limited a president to a single 6 year term. So although he could seriously impact US commercial interests in the country in that time frame, any long term changes to the countries foreign policy would require the continued consent of the Chilean population. So essentially, he was no long term threat.
Chilean presidents had been trying to extract a larger percentage of the profits from the foreign corporations that controlled the majority of Chile's natural resources for a generation. Finally one was succeeding. That could not be allowed to happen. This was US and multinational businesses exerting the kind of pressure on our government that they have been asserting for over a hundred years. Thousands of people had to die so a few companies could continue to extract wealth from Chile unimpeded by a government that was looking out for the interest of its people.
This view is of our actions against the Chilean government is not confined to some radical few. The main architect of the US involvement of the overthrow of Salvadore Allende, Henry Kissenger, can no longer travel freely throughout the world. He must consult with an attorney, to determine if he risks being arrested before making his travel plans, as there is a warrant against him for crimes against humanity in a number of countries.
When the jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center, there was an outpouring of sympathy from around the world. We had an enormous amount of international good will at that time. And we had a president who willingly just pissed it all away with a senseless invasion of Iraq, and a network of secret prisons around the world, where suspects could be tortured free from the prying eyes of those who believe in the rule of law.
We did not become a world leader on the basis of our military and economic might. Oppressed people around the world did not look to the United States because we were powerful. They looked to us because they thought we stood for something. Standing for something, that is what matters.
So every now and then, we need to acknowledge our dark side, how we have allowed truly evil things to be done in our name. Then we have to remember what it is we stand for, and resolve to be more vigilant about what we do allow to be done in our name.
Between 1932 and 1973, the Republic of Chile had a vigorous democracy. They had a well informed electorate, and turnouts of 80% of the registered voters. That all changed on September 11th, 1973. On that day, a military coup, led by General Augusto Pinochet led to somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 being killed, and up to 40,000 being detained, many of them tortured. A reign of terror that was to last for many years fell over what had been one of the few stable democracies of Latin America.
In 1970, Salvadore Allende, a Marxist, had been elected president of Chile in a three way race, despite U.S. attempts to defeat him by providing financial support to the opposition candidates. When they were unable to defeat him, the U.S. resolved to have him overthrown in a military coup. One major obstacle in their way was the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean army, General René Schneider.
General Schneider had publicly reassured the nation that it was not the role of the army to overturn legal elections. He stated that "the armed forces are not a road to political power nor an alternative to that power. They exist to guarantee the regular work of the political system and the use of force for any other purpose than its defense constitute high treason". He also said "there were no options that would invite the armed forces to undo what the politicians had wrought in Chile", adding "the only limitation is in the case that the State stopped acting within their own legality. In that case the armed forces have a higher loyalty to the people and are free to decide an abnormal situation beyond the framework of the law".
Needless to say, having man in charge of the Chilean military who believed in the rule of law did not sit well with the Nixon administration. On October 22, 1970, General Schneider's car was attacked by men who had been armed and paid by the CIA. Their goal was to kidnap him (this was their third attempt) but he drew his own gun and attempted to resist. He was shot, dying in the hospital three days later.
He was replaced as the commander of the Chilean military by General Carlos Prats. General Prats was later replaced by General Augusto Pinochet, and we all know where that led.
In order to protect the interests of Anaconda and Kennecott Copper companies, and ITT (International Telephone and Telegraph), the United States destroyed a democracy, condemned thousands to torture and death. Yes, we had some serious disagreements with many of his policies, including his recognition of Cuba, and his improving relations with China and the Soviet Union. All of those are legitimate reasons to for the United States to have serious disagreements with the the government of Chile.
At the time, the Chilean constitution limited a president to a single 6 year term. So although he could seriously impact US commercial interests in the country in that time frame, any long term changes to the countries foreign policy would require the continued consent of the Chilean population. So essentially, he was no long term threat.
Chilean presidents had been trying to extract a larger percentage of the profits from the foreign corporations that controlled the majority of Chile's natural resources for a generation. Finally one was succeeding. That could not be allowed to happen. This was US and multinational businesses exerting the kind of pressure on our government that they have been asserting for over a hundred years. Thousands of people had to die so a few companies could continue to extract wealth from Chile unimpeded by a government that was looking out for the interest of its people.
This view is of our actions against the Chilean government is not confined to some radical few. The main architect of the US involvement of the overthrow of Salvadore Allende, Henry Kissenger, can no longer travel freely throughout the world. He must consult with an attorney, to determine if he risks being arrested before making his travel plans, as there is a warrant against him for crimes against humanity in a number of countries.
When the jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center, there was an outpouring of sympathy from around the world. We had an enormous amount of international good will at that time. And we had a president who willingly just pissed it all away with a senseless invasion of Iraq, and a network of secret prisons around the world, where suspects could be tortured free from the prying eyes of those who believe in the rule of law.
We did not become a world leader on the basis of our military and economic might. Oppressed people around the world did not look to the United States because we were powerful. They looked to us because they thought we stood for something. Standing for something, that is what matters.
So every now and then, we need to acknowledge our dark side, how we have allowed truly evil things to be done in our name. Then we have to remember what it is we stand for, and resolve to be more vigilant about what we do allow to be done in our name.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Sharing the Wealth
One of the things that Sarah Palin has been know to speak proudly of, is how every man, woman, and child in Alaska receives a check each year, proceeds of the oil revenue. I find that a little odd, as I am sure if the discovery of oil had occurred while she was governor, there would be no such payment.
It has always been the Republican philosophy that when natural resources are extracted from public lands, the company doing the extracting pays minimal fees. The idea is that you do not want to place any conditions that might discourage a business from exploring and extracting resources, anything that would effect the bottom line. The concept that the nation's natural resources, even those on public land, should be for the benefit of the nation as a whole is foreign to the right.
It has also been our policy that those we do business with live by the same rules. Our current problems with Iran can be traced to our complicity in the 1953 Iranian coup, where a democratically elected government was overthrown for having the temerity to expect to demand a larger (50%, what Saudi Arabia was getting at the time) share of the oil revenues. When the British company (predecessor to BP coincidentally) refused to negotiate, the Iranians nationalized the oil industry. Although President Truman refused to participate, Eisenhower was more than willing to aid the British in the overthrow of the only democracy in the Muslim Middle East. The fallout from that plagues us to this day.
Closer to home there are many cases where the US intervened in Latin America to protect business interests. In Nicaragua alone, we intervened 7 times between 1894 and 1912, the last time being an occupation that lasted until 1933.
So, is it any surprise that corporate profits are up, wages are stagnant, and unemployment remains high? This is just how it is. You are not important, you never have been. What is important is that the businesses that buy and sell the politicians maintain their profit margins.
So when Sarah Palin speaks proudly of the oil revenues shared by the Alaskan people, remember, if she had been in charge when they built the pipeline, the Alaskan people would be getting squat, except perhaps toxic waste dumped into their rivers. And it is not just the Sarah Palins of this world. A lot of the administrations that aided in the looting of Latin America were Democrats.
So don't feel bad that you are getting screwed. It is not just you. They do this to everyone.
It has always been the Republican philosophy that when natural resources are extracted from public lands, the company doing the extracting pays minimal fees. The idea is that you do not want to place any conditions that might discourage a business from exploring and extracting resources, anything that would effect the bottom line. The concept that the nation's natural resources, even those on public land, should be for the benefit of the nation as a whole is foreign to the right.
It has also been our policy that those we do business with live by the same rules. Our current problems with Iran can be traced to our complicity in the 1953 Iranian coup, where a democratically elected government was overthrown for having the temerity to expect to demand a larger (50%, what Saudi Arabia was getting at the time) share of the oil revenues. When the British company (predecessor to BP coincidentally) refused to negotiate, the Iranians nationalized the oil industry. Although President Truman refused to participate, Eisenhower was more than willing to aid the British in the overthrow of the only democracy in the Muslim Middle East. The fallout from that plagues us to this day.
Closer to home there are many cases where the US intervened in Latin America to protect business interests. In Nicaragua alone, we intervened 7 times between 1894 and 1912, the last time being an occupation that lasted until 1933.
So, is it any surprise that corporate profits are up, wages are stagnant, and unemployment remains high? This is just how it is. You are not important, you never have been. What is important is that the businesses that buy and sell the politicians maintain their profit margins.
So when Sarah Palin speaks proudly of the oil revenues shared by the Alaskan people, remember, if she had been in charge when they built the pipeline, the Alaskan people would be getting squat, except perhaps toxic waste dumped into their rivers. And it is not just the Sarah Palins of this world. A lot of the administrations that aided in the looting of Latin America were Democrats.
So don't feel bad that you are getting screwed. It is not just you. They do this to everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)