In Line with US Foreign Policy Joe Biden Says Mubarak is not a Dictator

Yesterday Joe Biden stated that he did not think that President Mubarak of Egypt was a dictator. He proceeded to explain how Mubarak has been a good ally to US interests in the region:

Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things that he’s been very responsible on relative to geopolitical interests in the region, Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with Israel. And I think that it would be—I would not refer to him as a dictator.

Based on this, the Vice President's definition of a dictator is predicated on compliance with US interests. The US government backing true dictators that consent to helping US business and strategic concerns is not a new revelation. You can go back throughout US history to find this sort of thing. For instance, it is common knowledge by historians now that the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile by Augusto Pinochet was backed and some even argue led by the US. Pinochet turned out to be a brutal dictator. Pinochet's government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973. The list of support for dictatorships is long. Here is a website I found that posts a good portion of these dictators:

http://www.bluebloggin.com/2008/01/11/history-of-us-backed-dictators-redux/

Most infamous and infuriating of these in many people's minds is Saddam Hussein. Wikileaks cables that were released recently suggest that the US encouraged Saddam to invade Kuwait only to turn our back on the dictator using it as a catalyst to micromanage the region for the next 20 years. We see the results today.

Ron Paul actually had the courage to bring this up in congress this week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JANYT8FCik&feature=player_embedded

Although I disagree with Paul on most domestic issues, he is a champion of exposing US atrocities abroad. Representative Kucinich is more to my liking as an overall politician, and these are the two eccentric US politicians that come to mind. Now, Joe Biden may be notorious for saying stupid things, but what he said here is exactly in line with the US foreign policy stance for decades. Paul and Kucinic are marked as loonies or radicals for their dissidence. Meanwhile, the President has sidestepped his way with much prowess to encourage dissidence, but to not upset his ally Mubarak who also happens to be a brutal dictator that is being challenged by a wave of protests in Egypt. My hope is that Egypt and the other Middle East countries that are going through revolution right now do not get trapped by US style imperialism. That imperialism shows up as privitization of resources, backing dictators that systematically kill dissidents, and horrid sectionalism. That imperialism is what creates terrorists. Not religion. Not a hate for freedom. It is the western stranglehold on that region that has produced the terrorist ideology we see today. As long as a few people profit from this we cannot rely on our government to do anything to stop it.

Investing in Education in Corporate Owned America

Last night the President spoke of investing in America's future. As an American I don't care. As a global citizen I am terrified. For politicians, investing in our future means that they are investing in the growth and consolidation of the giant corporations that have our elected leaders in their pockets. This means more foreign conflict, aggressive economic sanctions against third world people that do not comply with American privatization, and more unregulated destruction to the environment. That last one is caused by the industry that profited the most last year, big oil. I will address that in a moment, but first one thing Mr. Obama said really stood out to everyone was his sputnik reference. He stated:

"Half a century ago, the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik. We had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs. This is our generation's Sputnik moment."

This is quite true. The Cold War brought tons of money to the universities in order to beat Soviet technology and create more advanced weapons. Our university’s and likewise our economy flourished. Investing in higher education and government projects like NASA certainly played a large role. My issue with the President's reference here is that this will not happen again. Not only because it is impossible to get any significant change through our inept political process, but also because using artless patterns in history for making important policies today is frustratingly short sighted. Indeed the Cold War competition motivated the government to invest in these programs, which in turn created jobs and a new class of intelligent Americans, but this is not 1957. This is 2011, and corporate America has its grip on every decision of the government especially in education and scientific innovation.

The most promising new industry that we should invest in is green energy. I cringe when I say “new” because green energy has been trying to make a revolution in America since the 1970s. To give you an idea of how much progress we have made take a look at this clip:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future

(Note: I know it's a comedy show and all that, but honestly who doesn't agree that the Daily Show is a better source of news than anything else on cable?)

The most striking point is at the end of the clip. Richard Nixon set a goal of getting America off foreign oil by 1980, and since then each administration has set more timid goals when it comes to energy. Why? Because the oil companies make more money than any other industry in the world (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2010/).

We can't invest in America in the same way we invested in the 1950s and 1960s when more and more money is thrown at our politicians by greedy companies seeking less rules and more profits by any means necessary. Those means include starving third world countries, assassinating foreign leaders that get in the way (see CIA assassinations in Latin America and overthrow of the Shah of Iran). They also include destroying the air, forests, and oceans.

The investment in education starting in 1957 was a major success at creating the critical thinkers and mass student movements of the 1960s and 70s. Since then, as colleges privatized and demanded more and more money from students and focused their resources in financial and business arenas, straying from social sciences, we have become an apathetic and politically unaware nation. My generation fails to question any of this treachery by corporate America, and our universities backed by our corporately owned government have played a major role. This is outlined wonderfully in an article by Terence Ball entitled The Politics of Social Science. He states:

“Survey researchers discovered that most Americans are politically ill informed, inactive, and apathetic. By “traditional” democratic lights, this was cause for considerable alarm. Yet, according to the newly emergent “elite theory” of democracy, it is widespread political participation that poses the greatest danger to democracy. Fortunately, an antidote is readily available. That antidote is apathy. Widespread apathy allows well educated and affluent “democratic elites” to have a disproportionate say in the shaping of political possibilities.”

In other words, a government controlled by corporate money (which many define as fascism) is not interested in critical thinkers capable of changing the world. It wants universities to produce obedient workers in the financial and service sectors, not innovators that will challenge the energy giants. They don't want critical thinkers that criticize the way our economic system works. The corporate owners that control the politicians (less than 1% of the population) are the ones that benefit enormously from that system, while the rest of us are given less education, lower paying jobs, pathetic benefits, and longer hours of work. Meanwhile, we are told by the mainstream media that we should feel bad for complaining, and that if we are not rich then we have no one to blame but ourselves. The president's sputnik reference was a nice poetic display, something Mr. Obama is great at, but it is nothing more than theater. It is the false idea that our government has our interests in mind and that it is not motivated by the pistols to their heads held by big oil, the banks, insurance companies, and all the rest.

The Business Puppet President We Can Believe In

Every time President Obama makes a new appointment to his staff, particularly the economic staff, the left is outraged and puzzled at this clear breach of his campaign promise to change how Washington works and to punish those responsible for the financial disaster. The newest array of such appointments are as follows: William Daley from JP Morgan Chase as White House Chief of Staff. Gene Sperling from the Goldman Sachs payroll to be director of the National Economic Council. Eileen Rominger from Goldman Sachs named director of the SEC's Investment Management division. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt is going to be chair of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. Immelt’s appointment has come under scrutiny just as many of the others. He’ll retain his position at the helm of GE, creating a potential conflict of interest. As one of the nation’s largest corporations, GE has a variety of business and issues before the federal government, including media mergers, military sales, environmental cleanup, and a $16.1 billion bailout in 2008. While Immelt is being introduced to us by Obama as someone who can create jobs, the United Electrical Workers Union says GE has closed 29 plants in the United States in the past two years, laying off around 3,000 workers.

This is not surprising to me at all. His business friendly appointees were never surprising to me. It seems to me that the people that voted for Obama fall into these categories: Group A thought he would create a magical world of love, peace and flowers. Group B voted for him because he was a democrat and they compulsively vote for that party no matter what. Group C did not want someone as dumb and out of her mind batshit crazy one heartattack away from the Presidency. And group D, which is the group I fall under was the group that thought maybe this guy will actually enact some of the change he promises. Group D really got the bare minimum of what we expected. An eventual and painful repeal of DADT, the most watered down, nearly insulting piece of health care reform, watered down financial reform, a timid stimulus that was almost half tax cuts and didn't help to create sustained growth, and the list of mediocre achievements goes on.

The Obama supporters say give him a break he's done a lot with the Republicans saying no to everything. I agree, the right made it hard for him to accomplish anything meaningful. But this is not an excuse for his staff appointments. His business oriented staff is a slap in the face to all that voted for him, and there is no excuse. There is only explanation: Both parties are made up of businessmen and lawyers, or puppets of such men. No one represents the working class, that is the overwhelming majority of the people. Whether you are a republican or a democrat, if you belive in public services or not, you are NOT being represented by anyone that has your interests in mind. Democrats ally with businesses to make regulation rig the game for whichever lobbyists spend more money. Republicans do the same, but then try to lower taxes for the wealthy too. It is a giant club of businessmen that 99% of the people are not in. We have corporate owners, and for us to be shocked by Obama's appointees is unbelievable. We shouldn't be shocked or surprised, we should be outraged that this is still going on. Outraged that we are still accepting these chains, even willfully putting them on and locking them, while our corporate icons drag us from one side of the town to the other, stealing back any of the scraps they gave us that we desperately clasp. I believe that the disparity of wealth in our world is a perfect example of this. I welcome argument and calls for hyperbole.

The Endless Fruits of Development

I was reading a book called "Deep Economy" and I came across a quote by FDR while he was running for president in 1932 and it relates perfectly to some of the debates going on today:

"Our industrial plant is built... our last frontier has long since been reached...our task now is not discovery, or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand... of adapting economic organizations to the service of the people."

I think this shows so many lessons that we can take from the Great Depression, the end of World War II and the rise of mass consumer culture at the start of the Cold War. Interestingly enough, during that campaign Hoover argued just the opposite of FDR: "we are yet on the frontiers of development, a thousand inventions in the lockers of science... which have not yet come to light."

As we all know FDR won the election by a commanding margin. To me, this points to the mentality of the Great Depression American who was fearful of overproduction and consumption. It also drastically differs from what political leaders were telling the public during the Cold War. Cold War era politicians were telling people, like Hoover did in 1932, to consume more and more and that the fruits of capitalism were endless.

Further, I think it shows how when the system is shown to be vulnerable, as it was from the Great Depression, a culture of saving is generated and even sold to the public. In contrast, during times of economic prosperity culture is shaped by consumption. The boom of the 1990s created a culture of Americans that were so caught up in spending money, which also spilled over into the early 2000s. Buying bigger and bigger houses while the size of families decreased, buying all the new expensive digital technology, Iphones, LCD TV's, bigger gas guzzling cars all defined the middle class American of the last twenty years. Once the economic crisis hit, the government started telling the people to be more careful with their money and getting into debt. This is typical of our country and its history. Most social and economic problems are not addressed until it becomes a huge problem. During times of prosperity the leaders who get elected are those who want to expand that prosperity by deregulating and ignoring any future consequences (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush). In 2008, Obama was elected on a similar platform that FDR ran on in 1932. As a country, we need to be educated about the past and learn about the cycle of the economy, and how to assuage recessions. We also need to know how politicians of the past responded and understand that what we do in the present can have an incredible impact on the future. Jimmy Carter, although had several of his own failures, did warn the country about its excessive spending. He was really the first president since FDR to depart from encouraging mass consumption... and lost reelection to someone who supported complete unregulated capitalism and "advancement." The first president since low and behold Herbert Hoover to be defeated after one term.

Total growth and technological advancements are not always signs of progress. In fact, they often lead to distracted individuals, greater divisions and gaps between classes. It may provide better lives for the 1% on top, but that kind of thoughtless growth can ultimately depreciate the masses and causes the so-called middle class to be pushed out on to the streets.

If You Won't Get Rid Of Our Economic Enslavement, At Least Reform It

As the country is divided on and debating the health care bill in congress, little attention has been given to the real problem of our country. “It is not about whether the government is too little, or too big, it is about if government works,” Barack Obama cleverly put it during his inauguration speech in January. I completely agree, but unfortunately our government cannot work unless we rid money from politics. It is possible, but would take a huge grassroots effort. Nonetheless, money in politics is not the prime focus here. In my wonderful world where money is eliminated from politics, and the laws are not given to favor big corporations, banks and insurance executives we could not only have a functional public health care system for all, but also a banking system for all that would simplify our economy and create more time for social and as well as scientific progress.

This may come off as being incredibly Marxist, but the whole idea of banks, loans and interest is absurd. Banks make a profit off of collecting interest. This contributes absolutely no wealth in real terms to the economy: Nothing is produced, nothing is bought or sold. It does not take very much research to understand how the banking system has caused, or exacerbated recessions and depressions. In fact, our entire financial system was at the heart of last year’s economic meltdown. Maybe it is the result of greedy individuals trying to manipulate the system, but if we are all inherently greedy in some ways how could this crucial aspect of our economy ever be a function of social good?

Maybe capitalism is the root of the problem. I am personally not prepared to go that deep. I suppose I take a strict Keynesian approach to this issue and will suggest that there are certain functions of our economy and society that should be run by the public. This is not to propose that the federal government run our banking system. Instead, I believe local public institutions can effectively provide the essential services that banks do. In this way, people who need loans and have decent credit can get loans from these public institutions without any interest and a reasonable payment plan. This would allow people to spend their money on other things, which would in turn stimulate the entire economy.

One of the biggest reasons the United States got into so much trouble last year were subprime loans. These were loans given to people who had horrible credit, but given to them with enormous interest rates that they would never be able to pay off. A public banking system would prevent loans to people who have such bad credit, but would allow room to improve easily. Therefore, we would be smart with the treasury stored for these loans, and also set up some support for those with bad credit. Since it would also boost the entire economy, those with bad credit would have more opportunity to build up their funds and improve their credit situation.

Furthermore, a public system would help create a less volatile economy. It would lessen the effects of big recessions. For instance, India’s Congress party, which had previously denounced their public banking system, praised the institution and said that nationalization was one of its greatest achievements. Congress president Sonia Gandhi argued “Public sector financial institutions have given our economy the stability and resilience we are now witnessing in the face of the economic slowdown.” (http://www.stwr.org/india-china-asia/the-importance-of-public-banking.html) Banking, and the entire financial institution for that matter has become an increasingly complex sector that as a private profit seeker does not serve any practical use for society. All it does is further our enslavement to the current economic system.

Where would the money for this program come from? Well our federal government recently gave the private banks over $750 billion dollars because they were about to collapse (from their own incompetency I might add!). Thus, we can assume that with a public system, there would be an elimination of a middle man and there would be little need to increase taxes.

Our economic system is large and complicated, but most of it is needlessly intricate. The financial institution is one of those structures in our society that only benefits the few who have been in charge for a long time. I write this to merely provoke some thought. Many people have protested the bank bailouts. In fact, most people on the left and right opposed the bailouts in some way. Yet, they continued, under the guise of “too big to fail” Indeed, they might be too big to fail. So why should we continue placating a system that in the end screws over the mass population? I don’t think we should, I think we need to drastically reformat that system. Unfortunately, if we do not get money out of politics we won’t be able to successfully reform anything.