Post Debate Analysis

I am in Texas. I drove from Washington state. Long drive. Very long. However, it's (relatively) warm outside right now where I am here in Eastern Texas, and I can hear crickets chirping. - So I'm not complaining!

Anyway, I want to mention the U.S. presidential debates. Last night, during the third and final presidential debate, I was crossing the border from Colorado into Kansas. Reception was fuzzy, and I missed some, but I was able to listen to a good portion. I had better reception from about a third of the way until the end.

America is under stress. The people and economy of America are both under duress. There have been so many changes, major and minor, over the last few years and decades. So many changes so fast and we really haven't taken stock of how these changes are affecting people (much less the planet.) So it is with that context that I listened to the debate. Knowing how this society is harming the planet. Knowing how people are hurting. Knowing that there is so much potential and promise - such possibility for such an awesome, nurturing and stable - peaceful and prosperous world - for all.

So I am sad! And it is made all the more acute because I don't have more choices than Obama and McCain. More choices like I would have, for example, if McKinney and Nader were to appear on a preferential ballot. But what came across quite clearly to me was the distinction between these two men, Obama and McCain. What stood out to me, what I noticed in particular were what I perceived as McCain's cheap shots - the falsifications, distortions and even obfuscations.

The reason I will vote for Obama is not that I believe an Obama Administration will likely be the herald of the changes that would be necessary to heal America. The reason I will vote for Obama is more because of John McCain. That said, maybe I am being too harsh on Obama... Obama might actually be a step in the right direction. But I am not sure. And I want more. For example, I want real change on foreign policy. So - it's too bad that my choices are essentially limited by a system that has arbitrarily decided to exclude and discriminate against legitimate third party candidates. This has all the markings of corporatism.

[The media has completely hi-jacked this discussion, which should be front and center for any political discussion in America. American foreign policy is not about defense from terrorists, as the media and too many Washington D.C. public officials / politicians (and an astounding number of public officials / politicians elsewhere) would have me (and you) believe. American foreign policy is about imperialism; it is about dominance and hegemony. The public infrastructure of the U.S. military is being used to pursue this policy. The military is not being used to keep the peace in an altruistic sense. The military, all 700+ foreign military base installations (plus the various fortress flotillas) is being used to prop up a foreign policy of interventionism - a foreign policy of inserting "American friendly" people into strategic locations within governments.

So the media has all but completely hi-jacked this discussion. And what will come of it? Benefit for the American people at large (or the people of the world at large?) I don't think so. We need people in government who can, and will, stand up to this new media tyranny...(But how can we get these people into government when the media controls the government, and the debate? - Maybe it's hopeless to seek change at that level? We need a public interest coup!)]

Tax cuts. McCain's tax cuts would be an escalation of the Bush years. And look what 8 years of Bush have brought us. Financial and economic instability. The rich are richer (and their numbers multiplied), and the poor are poorer. Massive inequities are causing social tension. People are losing their jobs and in danger of losing shelter. Meanwhile, vested interests are benefitting - and influencing government to do more of the same - to promote their benefit at the sake of others' wellbeing. Obama wins on tax cuts. Tax the wealthy. It's not "class-warfare." It's called "just compensation." It's called social interest, and public interest. It's called good-government. Tax the wealthy. Especially the biggest corporations.

There was a lot from the debate. A lot to respond to. It's overwhelming at this point. I guess they succeeded if that's there goal. It just pushes me away really. Makes me want to look toward more localized solutions... It was frustrating at times to listen to the debate. And I wanted to call in to a post-debate public radio show. I probably would have if I wouldn't have forgotten my cellphone battery charger.

I wish Nader would have been allowed to debate!

It was frustrating to hear both Obama and McCain speak against Venezuela - considering all of the positive social reforms that have taken place there. The poor people of Venezuela are being lifted up by their government. They are being provided with the basics for a better life: food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, and work. What's so bad about Venezuela; is it the socialism? If that's the case, then what's bad about socialism in Venezuela, and good about socialism on Wall Street? What's the difference? Or is the distinction just an arbitrary one - is it just a matter of "mine is okay, when yours is not."

I am frustrated because I think it will take more than Obama's chanting "Hope" and "Change" to actually affect meaningful changes within the system. The powers that influence government are deeply entrenched. Does Obama really mean what he says when he talks of advocating reform, or are his words just empty rhetoric, and only designed to boost him into a position of power? What are Obama's true motivations for seeking the presidency? Is it to serve the best and highest interests of the American people - or is it simply to attain power as a manifestation of personal desire, of selfish egoism? America would do well with having, rather than a "politician" as president, having a public service president - a servant to the highest needs and loftiest aspirations of the American people and future generations. The people need health. Healthy food, air, land, water - healthy and stable ecosytems - sustainability. The people need meaningful work. The people need to fit into a sustainable society. The people need to belong to a community. The people need education. The people need justice. (I could go on and on - but people - all people - do have the same needs, a basic set of needs that is common to all people.)

Perhaps most importantly: The people need the truth.

The people do not need to be living, and taking, at the sake of the planetary (human and ecological) community - nor is it at all desirable for the people to do so. The people do not need to be living in a way that is causing harm to other people and the planet.

This planet Earth is a tremendous "gift" - really it is not a gift. It doesn't belong to any of us, nor any group of us, nor all of us collectively. It is of its own. It is a tremendous and wonderful being all on its own. - It is its own. - All of its own, on its own (except for the sun and moon, and other planets, and stars, etc.). It was here before humans came into being. It may likely be here long after humans have faded into the past. The Earth is full - full of such wonder and beauty. There is so much potential. - So it is sad to see so much of it wasted and trashed and abused. I lay this culture of destruction squarely at the feet of politicians and vested business interests, notably in the entertainment and media and military sectors.

Back to the debate and the post debate call-in show. One of the callers to the after-debate public-radio-show mentioned the possibility of war over energy resources. She said it as if there was the future possibility of this happening. Honestly, I think she was being sarcastic or facetious or perhaps just explicitly understating the obvious.

I mean really people! - The Global War on Terror is a facade for active and ongoing wars over energy resources: resource wars - people killing people over things (minerals).

The front line of the United States government's foreign policy of global dominance, aka "hegemony," as it is promoted by big business corporate hegemons - seems to be evinced quite clearly in the obvious efforts to control foreign energy resources. We see this in both Iraq and Afghanistan (the latter being home to a major pipeline.) We see this in Georgia, where fighting recently broke out in a separatist area. Georgia is home to a major pipeline for transporting Caspian sea fossil fuels to the West.

And we also see this developing, most alarmingly, in a posture of belligerence, and in the use of bellicose rhetoric by U.S. officials, toward Iran. About Iran, I will say this: neither the state nor the people of Iran (including the Iranian Revolutionary Guard) are terrorists. If Iran wants to pursue nuclear weapons, why shouldn't it be able to? Shouldn't individual nations have the right to self-determination? What gives the U.S. the right to deliberate which nation can and which nation cannot pursue nuclear power, or nuclear weapons? Forgive my digression. But a U.S. (or Israeli) attack on Iran would have truly devastating economic consequences. Your $10 gallon of gasoline? That would likely do it. America and Americans, and indeed the world, would possibly be pushed into an emergency disaster scenario. All because of political posturing. All because of an attitude of belligerence and a drive for hegemony. It's sick.

These foreign wars over resources, certainly in at least the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, can rightly understood to be aggression, and these wars are illegal and immoral. My government, your government, our government - of the USA - is attacking countries, bullying them. What it's doing is, essentially, to take without asking. It's not much different than what happened a couple hundred years ago with the "Manifest Destiny" when Europeans thought themselves to be superior and rightful in their conquering of the North American continent, much however to the detriment of Native people and culture.

It doesn't have to be like this. There is a better way! Violence is not the solution. People, as individuals and as collective societies, must be treated equally and fairly.

We must ask ourselves what kind of a world we want to leave to future generations: scorched and barren, or healthy and fertile?

We have the power to effect change. We need healing. The planet needs healing. It would be a benefit to have a healer - one who seeks to reconcile, who seeks to achieve mutually beneficial solutions, who seeks to find a balance in the best interests of future generations and in the holistic best interests the whole planet - elected to president. Sadly for America and the World, I do not think that either of Obama or McCain is just such a healer.

###end of rant###

G'Obama

Go Obama! It's official. Although I have much love for Ralph Nader, and I think that he would serve America very well as President, I have decided that I will now support Barack Obama for President. I have supported Obama in the past, I served as a precinct delegate for Obama, here in Thurston County, Washington (at the county convention/caucus.) But I am disillusioned to the reality of the two party political system and the influence of big business in over government. When Obama started making noises about threatening Iran, I jumped ship. I put the bulk of my support toward the Nader Campaign.

Now don't get me wrong. I still support Nader and the great and important work that he does. But this is the time for realism and pragmatism. Nader is not going to win. Yes - it is an injustice - in a campaign filled with unfairness and injustice. Nader should have been warmly invited to participate in debates...

But I have been tipped. Tipped toward pulling for Obama. What happened?

Yesterday I met with Wayne Smith, director of the Civil Liberties program for the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee. Wayne made me realize the importance of the (relatively) small differences between McCain and Obama. I say relatively small differences between the candidates because I do believe they are both pro-big business influence establish government politics.

Basically, the "small" differences (really they are not small), are very important. To illustrate, McCain recently had to defend Obama against the words of one of his supporters, who labeled Obama as an Arab and a Terrorist. McCain said no no, that's not true - Obama is a good man and no one should fear him or the spectre of an Obama presidency. McCain never made even the effort - nor did it appear that it occurred to him, to defend Arabs against the racism of his supporter. He could have said - "Arabs are not bad people." He did not.

I will vote for Obama. I love what Ralph Nader has done, and continues to do, for this country. But the stakes are high in this election. A McCain presidency would be devastating and tremendously harmful to the cause of civil liberties in America (and the world.)

Thank you Wayne Smith, for opening my eyes wider to the reality of the contest between Obama and McCain.

Thank you Ralph Nader, and don't give up! I still support you (and other third party candidates like Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney) who are working to move America in a truly progressive and life-serving direction.

But my vote will be for Obama. It's kind of sad. But that's reality. That's the decisive pragmatist in me.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Been kind of quiet here at In the Course of Events. I have been posting a lot of blog entries at OlyBlog recently. Lots going on with the proposal to change zoning regulations on the Isthmus. OlyBlog Bert

I also uploaded some photos recently, including photos of a talk by Richard Hayes Phillips, whose recently released book, Witness to a Crime chronicles how Republicans stole the 2004 presidential election in Ohio. His story was an amazing account of election fraud. Fraud that brought America 4 more years of George W. Bush. photos: Richard Hayes Phillips at Media Island in Olympia, Washington

Democrats and Republicans: Good Cop / Bad Cop?

I just wrote this in an email response to a group of people who were sharing their support for the Democrats. Damnit. It's time for truth-telling. Corporatism is hurting people, it is hurting the planet. We can do better. A better world is possible...

So read this:

Hi,

I don't know where all of your political leanings are, so I hope not to offend. But I have had it. And it's time for truth-telling.

I am pulling for Ralph Nader.

Obama and McCain are too similar in their corporatism (willingness to drill for oil, go to war against Iran, prolong American empire.)

I've had enough.

I won't be badgered or kowtowed toward the lesser of two evils. Yes. It can rightly be argued that Democrats do less harm than Republicans. Democrats are the lesser of two evils (at least from the liberal perspective). That's how they (both D and R) stay in power.

Divide and Conquer.

Sow fear and watch the masses flock.

Gore Vidal said in 1981 that two parties are really just two wings of the same party. It's still true 27 years later.

We need something better. We deserve something better.

Let Nader Debate (link to campaign issues).

I am disappointed in Obama. I even served as a precinct delegate for him at the local County Democratic Convention/ Caucus.

But I am disillusioned after his recent bows to American foreign policy belligerence.

I might vote for Obama if it close between him and McCain here in Washington State (and given the pathetic condition of the establishment mainstream media - which is, in itself, just another symptom of the big business corporate power two party duopoly - that's a possibility.)

[added here: I might vote for Obama out of sheer pragmatism. But even my belief that the solutions - the path to a better world - might be attainable via baby steps is in doubt. The Democrats are not speaking truth to power. And we need the truth. I support Ralph Nader.]

I support Ralph Nader and it will be just another example of the sham government and political system if challengers like him, and Cynthia McKinney, are disallowed from participating in the election (open debates in particular) as legitimate and credible candidates.

With Love,
bert

McCain v. Obama on Iran

What's the biggest issue for me in US politics? Foreign Policy. I believe that the foreign policy of the USA has a trickle down effect over domestic society, and I also believe that the foreign policy dictate and subsequent actions of my government have tremendous and profound impacts upon the whole of human society around the world.

The most important issue for me in the coming months, and as it relates to the presidential race between John McCain and Barak Obama, is the issue of Iran and its alleged clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Both candidates offer similar rhetoric on Iran: that it cannot be allowed to possess WMD in the form of nuclear armament. But is there credible evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program? Or is the rhetoric bellicose and belligerent and tending towards provocation and aggression? Already, a 'silent' act war has been declared in the desire to enact and erect a military blockade against Iran.

In the fierce desire to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon device, many in positions of power have embraced the far-flung opinion that Iran should not have the right to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear technologies - as it has expressly stated is its only intention - that of the creation of nuclear energy.

So, this position on Iran is dangerous. It says, we don't like you and we don't trust you, so we say that you can't have nuclear technology. Ours is okay, but yours is not. We are good and you are bad. This is the wrong type of thinking if we want to create a peaceful world. The position on Iran of both McCain and Obama is belligerent and tends toward aggression.

Iran has expressly and officially and repeatedly denied its interest in obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran is party to multiple international anti-nuclear weapon agreements. There is no evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program as of now, when I am writing this. So can we attack a foreign country just because we think it has weapons that we don't want it to have?

The position of the USA is so weak on this front for a number of reasons. One of which is that the USA is not party to many of the currently circulating nuclear weapons anti-proliferation treaties in the world today.

But basically, this policy toward Iran reeks of the global dominance manifesto. This is a policy where the supposed 'national interest' (i.e. as in it relates to energy policy, remember oil is the foundation of the economy) justifies bullying and taking without asking. The "Take without Asking" foreign policy is unworkable.

When deciding between McCain and Obama, I have no choice. Both are bombers. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" - Let it rain (reign?) John McCain"

Obama is, apparently, prone to bombing in order to entertain foreign policy, as well.

This is belligerent hostile rhetoric, given the absence of clear and present evidence of a nuclear weapons program; it is just plain wrong.

The right thing to do is to talk. Enter into dialogue with Iran. With all of the connected interests. Increase understanding. Increase trust. True and lasting Peace can only be attained through nonviolent means - through the promotion of mutual respect, cooperative efforts, respect, altruism and mutual interests.

So, tell me, who should I vote for in three months?

- signed by me, feeling disenfranchised in America

[p.s. Further, even if there was credible - undeniable - evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt of an Iranian clandestine nuclear weapons program, there must be further reason to believe that Iran poses an imminent threat of offensive use of those weapons, in order to justify any adversarial military action.

It is not enough to have evidence of a nuclear weapon, to justify attack. There must also be clear and specific intent to use the weapon in an offensive and physically harmful capacity. - And even in that extreme scenario, there must be UN Security Council agreement to legally (and morally) wage what would then be a "pre-emptive" attack.

Just because a foreign nation (like Iran) might possess weapons that our government (speaking of the USA) doesn't like doesn't give our government (USA) the right to attack it.

To attack: First there must be evidence of a weapons program beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Second there must be evidence of a specific imminent threat that said weapons are to be used in an aggressive, hostile / offensive manner. Third, there must be Security Council approval prior to any initiation of "pre-emptive" action.

Otherwise, in the absence of those prerequisites, it is clear - that it is the USA that would be the aggressor.

read something supportive and similar:pull the plug on the war state by charley reese]

Obama and AIPAC: Moving Right?

[June 7, 2008: The question for me is whether an Obama Presidency would signify a break with the foreign policy of global dominance. The answer may be that it even if an Obama Administration would maintain the basic tenets of a, United States of America, foreign policy of global dominance and hegemony, that the improvements in other sectors (energy and tax policy for example) would make a vote for Obama the obvious pragmatic decision. However, I think that the foreign policy of global dominance runs counter, and is not complementary to the goal of true economic and geo-political security, if that is even the goal (though it is the professed goal, I have my doubts.).

AIPAC is the American Israel Political Action Committee. AIPAC is known for denying the "Palestinian Holocaust," which occurred as a result of the 1948 advent of the state of Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced, forced to flee their homes, neighborhoods and villages as Israel made a mass military and violent expansion into traditionally Palestinian areas.

AIPAC is a brand that seeks to whitewash the horrors intrinsic to the violence of militaristic zionism (aka "gun zionism.")

Additionally AIPAC (link to AIPAC website) calls itself "America's Pro-Israel Lobby". But is AIPAC truly pro-Israel? Does promoting violent annexation of Palestinian areas, does the promotion of violent zionism qualify as "pro-Israel?" - I simply think that it does not. Violence does not, and will not, ultimately, benefit Israel, or the people of Israel. /end July 7, 2008]

Senator Obama meets with AIPAC. Aijaz Ahmad:



permalink [includes more information]



here's a permalink to video 2

McCain Unprepared for Office

John McCain has demonstrated a careless, callous, and negligent attitude in regard to the important issue of the occupation of Iraq.

From the NYT:

go to source

[...]

One of the chief concerns of the pragmatists is that Mr. McCain is susceptible to influence from the neoconservatives because he is not as fully formed on foreign policy as his campaign advisers say he is, and that while he speaks authoritatively, he operates too much off the cuff and has not done the deeper homework required of a presidential candidate.

In a trip to the Middle East last month, Mr. McCain made an embarrassing mistake when he said several times that he was concerned that Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq. (The United States believes that Iran, a Shiite country, has been training Shiite extremists in Iraq, but not Al Qaeda, a Sunni insurgent group.) He repeated the mistake on Tuesday at hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The worry about Mr. McCain is centered among a group of foreign policy realists who have long been close to him and who lost out to the hawks in the intense ideological battles of the first term of the current White House. The group includes former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the first President Bush.

[...]

Rulers of Iraq Need US Troops to Maintain Power

go to original video

100 Years of War

"bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..." John McCain.

100 years of war is enough reason for me to exercise pragmatism in this year's presidential election. That said, I vastly prefer Obama to Clinton, for a number of reasons. One, he demonstrates a decidedly lesser degree of indebtedness to special interests relative to Mrs. Clinton. Other reasons include that he has a positive attitude, and that he seems less inclined to be deluded into the status quo. He has less time in Washington D.C., which may allow him to bring a truly fresh and renewing energy to the national political scene.

That said, here's a good reason not to vote for McCain:


link to video

War is Key Election Issue

After Super Tuesday, both candidates claim victory. There was no clear victor. The quest for the nomination by Barack and Hilary continues.

A Good Laugh: Hilary and Barack, "the lesser of two Elvises"

go to original


Mr. Fish

The News is What is Not in the News

One of the biggest news stories these days is everything that doesn't make the mainstream news headlines. The threats to ecological systems and the environment in general; The massive and unwarranted disparity in wealth between the rich and poor; The mindless enabling of a wasteful military industrial complex that seems to be bent on sowing the seeds of destruction, etc.

We hear stories of corruption occasionally, but these stories are not linked to each other. The overall patterns of corruption and abuse of power are not clarified and held up for public scrutiny. It's the job of the press to connect the dots.

One way to clean up the problems in our political system would be to provide mandatory and full public funding for elections. This would eliminate the unfair advantage of candidates who are more friendly with the financial-elite than with the public at large.

A photo to share (in contrast):