"McCain Antoinette"

Students of history recall a critical event in history said to have been a primary incendiary spark that ignited the French Revolution: Marie Antoinette of the French aristocracy responded to reports that the peasants were starving – Why then, let them eat cake!

John McCain will accept the mantel of standard bearer for the GOP aristocracy in his bid for the Presidency of the USA next week. By most reports, McCain seems as out of touch with reality and the circumstances on the street as was Antoinette. McCain states that the country has made “great progress” under the George W. Bush administration. He says that the economy is strong, despite the fearful commentary by the great majority of economic experts. McCain’s chief economic advisor, former Sen. Gramm, called the nation a “bunch of whiners” in a mental recession rather than an economic one. McCain stated that he defined “middle class” as someone earning less than $5 million per year, and he could not even recall how many homes he owns with his multi-millionaire wife.

At the same time, news reports surface everyday that remind us that the world we actually live in is not as rosy as the view from McCain’s windows. Today comes a report of a proud 80 year old woman who, after health setbacks, is forced to do something she had never dreamed of doing, file for bankruptcy. Hundreds of thousands of families, including a disproportionate number of single women with children, are forced into foreclosure and ejection from their homes. Food prices are escalating to levels that force many families to choose which of their standard 3 meals per day to forego. An unprecedented number of children in the country are without even the most basic health care insurance. College loan sources have dried up substantially forcing families to scramble to find alternative financing to keep their children in college. Too many will have to inform their children that they will have to take at least a year off from school because the family can no longer afford higher education.

At the same time, the US budget has sunk into a 2-3 trillion dollar deficit that does not even include all the funding committed to the Iraq conflict. More than 60 percent of that US foreign debt is held by China. The US voluntary military forces are stretched so thin that soldiers with documented mental conditions and physical infirmities that would usually make them unfit for combat duty are being sent back for third, fourth and even fifth tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia engages in undeterred aggression in Georgia, presses for annexation of former satellite areas and threatens Poland with nuclear attack knowing that the US is currently powerless to do anything other than bluster disapproval.

Next week in the Twin Cities, McCain and the GOP elite will gather with Bush and Cheney to pat each other on the back about what “great job” they have been doing for the country. We are reminded of Bush's congratulatory pat on the back to the former FEMA agency head - "Great job Brownie!" - after the Bush administration's disgraceful response to Hurricane Katrina New Orleans is still in shambles and currently threatened by Hurricane Gustav with the levees still not adequately repaired three years later. Great job indeed! One thing is fairly certain, there will be as many dissenters inside the GOP convention as were rebellious peasants inside the French palace where Marie Antoinette made her political commentary. The local police have engaged in a series of pre-emptive raids on protest groups to harass and intimidate them, lest they seek to disrupt the RNC festivities.

Logically, it is obvious why such clueless and uncompassionate remarks by Marie Antoinette touched off a bloody rebellion that resulted in angry beheading of much of the French aristocracy. A government that is so out of touch with and unresponsive to the needs and concerns of the public does not deserve to stay in power. But much of the last eight years have been spent cultivating a culture in which education and an understanding of the lessons of history are considered “bad” or “elitist.” So by playing to largely irrational fear and distortions of fact the McCain campaign has maintained a relatively close race with Obama for the Presidency. As PT Barnum proclaimed, however, “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public!” In other words, the American public is stupid enough to buy anything. When Americans are swilling gruel these days, we will see how well the GOP message next week proclaiming cake and candy for all goes over.

Historians will recall another lesson. Nero is reported to have been happily fiddling while ancient Rome and his entire realm fell into destruction. While they do garner a measure of fame, history ultimately has not been very kind to clueless and unresponsive leaders. Fortunately for the Bush-Cheney-McCain aristocracy, the American form of removal from power is less physically challenging than was utilized in the French Revolution.

No Such Thing as a “Clean War.”

The Bush/Cheney "Shock & Awe" team seems to think that war can be conducted from a distance and with “surgical strikes” that cause damage only to the designated “enemy.” Most rational people know that this thinking is seriously flawed and dangerous. There is no such thing as a “clean war” and the risk of “collateral damage” must always be considered by any military force clinging to any sense of morality. Collateral damage is a military euphemism for describing innocent victims that get injured or killed, or homes of innocent people that get destroyed in a military mission.

Recent investigations by the United Nations, as reported in the French Press, detail hard evidence of how US forces conducted a tragic raid in Afghanistan on August 21 that resulted in a massacre of more than 90 innocent civilians:
A United Nations team has found "convincing evidence" that 90 civilians, including 60 children, were killed in US-led air strikes last week, the body's representative in Afghanistan said Tuesday. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) human rights team was sent to the western province of Herat after local claims that scores of civilians were killed in Friday's strikes.

The basic military decision to strike back against Taliban or other insurgent militia forces is not what is being challenged here. There is legitimate evidence that many average Afghani citizens and villages would prefer not to be dominated by Taliban extremist factions and simply live their lives in peace. Unfortunately, living in border territories contested by Afghani and Pakistani government forces and by Taliban militia has left these villagers no such option. The Bush policy of “combating terrorism” and "exporting democracy" by financing often fundamentally undemocratic leaders has helped keep the conflict raging.

The strategic and moral questions at the heart of contention here involve the tactics used by the US military and the US government to pursue such policies. If there is a strategic and policy justification for intervention in Afghanistan [not a given when there is no actual threat of Taliban attack in the US], then the choice of tactics to be employed for such purpose should reflect positively upon the character of the intervening party and mission goals.

The strategy and tactics should be designed to be effective and expeditious in achieving the intended result. Planning should include the optimal assignment of proper resources and should also anticipate the level and type of resistance to be expected. In addition, the strategy should consider the risks and the level of collateral damage, both in human mortality and property damage, which is likely in order to determine whether a given strategy is worthwhile and effective. We have all heard of the apocryphal story of the rescuing force that destroys the village in order to “liberate” it. Unfortunately, the Bush team strategists have failed on both counts and are looking a lot like the aforementioned foolish and misguided “rescuers.”

“War is hell” is not just a cliché. It is a fact and a reality that must be faced by any honest military leader. Commanding officers with actual combat experience, something Bush and Cheney regrettably lack, know that any military mission risks property and people’s lives beyond the designated target. The more remote the military attack strategy from the site, the greater the risk of error and risk of collateral damage. The level and precision of laser guided missiles and “smart” bombs aside, something always turns out somewhat different than the details of any planned offensive. Complete precision and control is a fantasy and a dangerous delusion. Some aspect of intelligence will be flawed, some aiming mechanism will operate outside the expected margin of error, some person on the ground will unexpectedly change plans or some unexpected third parties will enter the area of attack. The variables are simply too great to control.

Experienced military commanders know this. But it seems that the only military commanders that Bush and Cheney are willing to listen to are ones that are spineless, incompetent or immoral, willing to sacrifice sound military judgment for career advancement or political favor. Scores of competent and experienced high ranking military commanders have been summarily dismissed when they objected to the whims and demands of Bush and Cheney. When this happens, the result has been thousands of US military men and women dead, tens of thousands of service men and women injured, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians maimed or worse and millions displaced.

When, as in the case of the August 21 attack in Afghanistan, 2/3 of the victims of the attack are innocent children, the military mission was unquestionably a fiasco. We may never know whether the main flaw was poor planning, poor execution or simply a wanton disregard for the safety and lives of those poor children. Whatever the reason, any moral justification that the US government may have advanced for undertaking the mission immediately evaporated. The Taliban, like other extremist armed groups, are not above using human shields as a defensive strategy. [There is no repported evidence that such tactics were used in this recent event.] However evil the Bush administration may seek to portray the Taliban, the manifest results of this massacre of innocent children outstrips any effort to seek a moral high ground.

What is the alternative? It really is not that complicated. If the designated target is hiding in a nursery school, you do not bomb the school and kills tens or hundreds of innocent children. You attempt to isolate the site and wait until a more effective and morally justifiable strategy can be employed. If an enemy leader is identified to be located in a populated town, you do not send in bombs from many miles away from the ground or air and bomb the entire town. If there is strategic urgency, you send in Special Forces to take out the target while minimizing risk of collateral damage to persons or property other than the targeted enemy leader and his or her direct accomplices. You weigh the costs and benefits, you act rationally and you act with a sense of a moral compass consistent with a larger purpose.

While any act of war is inherently "dirty," in the sense that there will be risk of death and destruction, there is such a thing as ethical and morally justifiable use of military force. How can the Bush administration ever expect the people of the bombed village who lost at least 60 innocent children to believe that the US government action was intended to help them? Why should they, or other Afghanis who learn of the tragedy, ever believe that supremacy of force by the US government is better than the fate they suffer at the hands of the Taliban? The Bush administration labels the Taliban or Al Qaida as evil “terrorists,” and yet behaves in a morally reprehensible and monstrous manner as did the forces that massacred these children.

This moral bankruptcy is not isolated. The same flawed moral judgment is at play when the Bush administration expressly approves the use of illegal and inhumane torture as a tool for “expedient” interrogation. The use of the tactic is not effective in achieving the intended result; and the consequence of using the tactic undermines any moral authority the US government might otherwise have for the interrogation. Moreover, the subsequent loss of respect and confidence in the US government taints future actions, no matter how justifiable or well planned. That the way the US conducts itself is a critical facet of both diplomatic and military policy effectiveness is a lesson that the current administration apparently has not learned. Simply put, the ends DO NOT justify the means. There is no such thing as clean warfare. And unless the Bush administration is willing to listen to sound military strategic advice [instead of whispering in their own ears and substituting political ego for intelligence], the former reputation of the US military as the most respected fighting force on the planet will continue to decline and may be irreparably tarnished.

Dumb & Dumber; or Diving in the Shallow End of the Pool

Many of us laughed hysterically at the antics of Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels in the movie “Dumb & Dumber” as they engaged in a slapstick series of mishaps that celebrated cluelessness and stupidity. The US public loves to be entertained. And it seems that being entertained by characters of weak intellect and lack of direction appeals to a very large market segment. Both Jim Carey and Jeff daniels are talented actors. Carey clearly is not the fantastical moron that he has played in numerous movies like “Dumb & Dumber,” “Ace Ventura” and “Liar, Liar.” Most viewing audiences can distinguish fantasy from the real thing. However, the voting public will be faced in November with a test whether it can distinguish fact from fantasy in perhaps one of the most important decisions it will make this century, selecting the next President of the United States.

A nationally recognized political commentator recently noted the celebration of “know nothingness” that seems to be running rampant in US politics. It is being touted by GOP campaign managers and old school politicians. The idea is that it is somehow good to be ignorant or anti-intellectual. If a candidate speaks in articulate phrases and deals with complex issues, he is accused of being "out of touch" with average Americans. Even Hilary Clinton allowed her campaign strategists to lead her into the trap of referring to Obama's articulate speeches and preference for thoughtful deliberation as “elitist,” and it backfired. Now the McCain campaign seeks to brand Obama as out of touch with average Americans because he sometimes uses big words and careful reasoning. The critical question is whether the US electorate really want or need someone who is clueless, inarticulate and of mediocre intelligence in the White House at this critical time in history.

The current state of affairs is largely a result of eight years of failed leadership by an “average” guy with a poor academic record and an even poorer track record in every position of leadership he has held. This is not hyperbole; one need only look at the historical record of George W. Bush in each company or enterprise he has led since his “Animal House” days in the Ivy League frat house at Yale. Ignorance of material facts and a lack of comfort with complex issues and higher order thinking skills are often associated with arrogance and stubborn resistance to self-examination. George W. Bush has shown himself to be a prime example of a person with limited intelligence that refuses to examine his own actions and decisions, and who changes course only when forced to do so. A more intelligent person examines the facts, arguments and nuance and then makes deliberate decisions that are calculated to achieve optimum results with lasting benefits.

The US electorate has a clear choice in November. Barack Obama is an admittedly deep thinker and active intellectual challenger. He questions the status quo, based upon careful analysis and intellectual curiosity. John McCain is a candidate of undistinguished intellect, a traditionalist willing to follow doctrinaire policies without thinking through the implications of decisions. McCain has taken very contradictory positions on issues based upon the need to pander to constituencies. All candidates shift positions to appeal to varying constituency demands, but the more intelligent candidates are able to provide a logical and persuasive rationale to support the differences beyond simple pandering.

Obama, a former law school professor with distinguished post graduate credentials, has employed his intellect in both the classroom and on the streets of Chicago’s disenfranchised communities. Obama worked in the finance sector for a time doing research and writing for a publication providing sophisticated market advice. Obama has a record, not as long as McCain's, in legislative work. He has shown the ability to translate inportant governmental and social issues into legislative initiatives.

In contrast, John McCain graduated number 894 out of 899 from the US Naval Academy after getting admitted based upon connections of Admirals in his family. His primary claim to fame is as a Navy pilot getting shot down during the Viet Nam conflict and spending years as a prisoner of war. McCain divorced his wife and married Cindy Hensley, heiress to a Beer distributor fortune, and entered politics with that financial backing. Thus, McCain went from the bottom 1% of his class at the Academy to the top 1% of the wealthy class in this country. While publicly professing to be a "maverick" in Congress, he has a rather consistent record of backing corporate intests and initiatives favoring the extremely wealthy [like his own family] over initiatives that would support middle and lower class families.

McCain’s military experiences may show service and patriotism, but they are hardly examples of intellectual depth or qualifications for leadership in high office. There are tens of thousands of veterans of the Iraq conflict who have been injured in action. They are stolid patriots and many are fine men and women. Yet most voters would agree that more is expected and required of a capable Presidential candidate than just honorable military service. Indeed, many of those veterans have far superior academic credentials than John McCain.

And lest strength of character be presumed from military experience, we need only examine John McCain's history after returning from the POW experience in Viet Nam. He abandoned the loving wife who had courageously waited for him, suffering through a near fatal car accident that left her with a permanent limp. Rather than stand by this woman, McCain got involved in an affair with a legislative aide–lobbyist while still married,and then divorced his loyal wife. Even McCain now says that his actions at that time were an example of moral weakness in his past. McCain then married this much younger and beautiful woman, who incidentally was from a very rich family. It proved a great boost to his political career. But Nancy and Ronald Reagan never forgave McCain.

Few would or should condemn McCain for living a cliché life of a typical shallow politician. Most average guys would jump at the chance to marry a beautiful woman who controls a business with a 2/3 market share that earns her more than $5 Million every year. And if the price of that opportunity was to go into politics to champion the interests of the hand of large corporate business that provides that wealth, the average guy would consider it a small sacrifice. But the question is: Do such “average Joe” experiences represent the kind of credentials that are needed in the Oval Office of the White House in the next term?

The United States has suffered through eight years of “leadership” by a President who is an "average guy" with relatively weak intelligence. The stakes involved in what type of person sits in the White House are immense. Bush leadership has gotten the US into a quagmire in Iraq that is costing US taxpayers billions of dollars every month, which McCain wants to continue indefinitely. The stature of the United States has been irreparably tarnished by the authorization of torture by the White House, Justice Department and Department of defense. The US economy is in serious decline or recession. Lack of enforcement and removal of regulations have led to corporate scandals robbing millions of pensioners and shareholders of billions of dollars. Unemployment has reached levels not seen in decades. Fraud and mismanagement in the housing and finance sectors have led us to the point of unprecedented government bailouts at taxpayer expense. Failed management in critical emergency preparedness agencies have left New Orleans and the Gulf Coast areas in shambles that the areas may never recover from. Criminal misconduct and violations of the law have been found or linked to virtually every major federal government agency, including the Office of the Vice President and other offices in the White House.

Now the GOP and McCain campaign are asking the US electorate to continue with another US President who shows the same lack of intellectual depth and moral fiber as George W. Bush. The voters need to ask whether they really want to take that risk. Perhaps they should put the movie “Dumb & Dumber” on their DVD players, watch it very carefully, and then decide whether they want such mentally deficient characters running the country for the next four years, or would they rather confine their entertainment to the movie screen.

Before making a choice of the person who will lead the US for the next four years or more, I would want to carefully examine their credentials and intellectual capacity. It will take someone much smarter than the average guy to dig us out of the terrible mess that the current administration has created. I, for one, would prefer to check to see if there is water in the pool before diving in. And even then I would prefer to dive into the deep end of the pool. It is safer and there are far more options for success than diving into the shallow end.

Hush Money

The Bush administration and hawkish supporters of indefinite continued involvement in the Iraq conflict [eg. John McCain]have been touting the drop in violence in Iraq as evidence of “success” of the “Surge” strategy. The Bush administration pushed through a deployment of 30,000 additional US troops with the goal of pacification. The media and PR spin was that a massive show of force would send the insurgents packing or force them to put down their arms and embrace the new Iraq regime.

Whether that media representation was self-deluded or a product of fraudulent propaganda, the facts coming to the fore now show the real situation in Iraq to be much different. Less publicity was given to another program implemented by the US government, at the same time as the Surge, that involved paying Sunni militia members a stipend of approximately $300 per month to resist the insurgency.

The insurgent problem itself was created, or greatly increased, by a misguided decision by the Coalition Provisional Authority [read this as Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld] to disband the existing Iraqi security forces that were predominantly Sunni and force hundreds of thousands of young Iraqi men into unemployment and unemployability in the new regime. This action fueled anti-US resentment among former trained soldiers as well as desperation to feed their families, and caused a swelling in the ranks of the insurgency. The combination of being unemployed and the natural inclination toward allegiance to local tribal and religious leaders created a ready pool of talent to be exploited by anti-US and anti-Shiite organizations and militias. The nearly complete breakdown of civil law also provided a logical role for these former soldiers and security force members to act as local community defense teams.

Some of these displaced soldiers, who had been associated or allied with Al Qaida or the insurgency [these are different entities despite Bush administration hype], accepted pay from the US to participate in these anti-insurgent militias. For many, it simply meant being paid to stay home and stop fighting or agitating – “hush money.” The US taxpayers have footed the bill for this “hush money” program, to the tune of more than $300 million over a period of less than two years. Critics of the program complained that making “bribes” to local Sheiks and tribal leaders and militia members to pacify them would backfire when the payments ended. The Bush administration public response was a broad promise that these militia would be given jobs in the Iraq security forces in the future. However, the actual closed door deal with Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki of the Shiite led Iraqi government contemplated actually hiring only about 20%of these Sunni militiamen. Now the ball of yarn is starting to unravel, with potentially devastating consequences.

The false promise by the Bush administration has been publicly exposed as the Iraqi government now refuses to employ more than a handful of these Sunni militia. Confirming that the Iraqi government never promised to employ all of the Sunnis in the national security forces, and that doing so is neither economically nor politically palatable, a current member of the Prime Minister's party stated:

"All the Americans are doing is paying them just to be quiet," said Haider al Abadi, a leading member of Maliki's Dawa political party and the head of the economic and investment committee in the parliament. The Iraqi government, he said, can't "justify paying monthly salaries to people on the grounds that they are ex-insurgents."

In response to a suggestion that the current Shiite led government forces would set a deadline for the unemployed militias to turn in their weapons or be subject to arrest, a Sunni tribal leader of one such militia group with more than 24,000 members declared that he would NEVER turn over the weapons. This leader of one of the “Sons of Iraq” militias in the crucial Diyala Province stated that, if unable to deal with the government, his group would again take up those weapons against the Maliki government. Consider that about 11,000 of his members had been on the US payroll, and that his group alone represented a number nearly equal to the size of the “Surge” US deployment forces. One need not be a genius to conclude that a major force behind the reduction in violence was this program of hush money rather than being primarily based upon the US show of force.

Now that the bribery money is drying up and the false promise of future employment has been exposed, the prior conditions that fueled the insurgency return. Reliable reports on the ground have been telling us for years that Al Qaida has been only a relatively small fraction of the insurgent problem, despite Bush administration propaganda. The recent reports that many Al Qaida leaders are moving to Afghanistan is significant for Afghanistan, but unlikely to mean any significant drop in the risk of violence in Iraq. The real problem has been a low-to-moderate grade civil war between tribal and religious factions vying for control and economic power. That smoldering problem seems ready to break into open conflagration again in the near future unless some diplomatic and economic response to the teeming mass of unemployed and disenfranchised Sunni militia members comes forward.

Since diplomacy is a primary weakness of the Bush administration, and intransigence is the strongest characteristic of the current Shiite led Iraqi government, the picture is indeed bleak.

Who Is This Corsi Guy, And Why Is He Saying Such Bad Things About Obama?

The author Jerome Corsi is currently in the news these days as he trots about his whirlwind tour to promote his new book attacking Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Most will recall his prior opus attacking John Kerry in the prior Presidential Campaign, “Unfit for Command.” But too little is known generally about the background of Corsi. His public protestation of “scholarship” is suspect, in light of the immediately apparent false and unsubstantiated charges that he makes in the book. His history provides a better context in which to evaluate and accept or dismiss his book, and his motivations for writing. In this regard, motivation and the forces behind publication of such a book are perhaps more important that the content of the book itself.

Corsi is 62 year old and has a record of several careers. Hi first career was as an undistinguished academic for about a decade after receiving a doctorate in political science from Harvard University. He reportedly taught and conducted academic research in three different states over that period. It is not clear whether he was in any institution of higher education long enough to merit tenure as a professor. No such scholarship or academic distinction is reported. He then left academia for a career in financial services.

During that stint in financial services, Corsi and a partner Rockefeller he met in Las Vegas approached a group of Minnesota investors about amassing a mutual fund to invest in Polish companies. About 20 people lost over $1.2 million in the deal that resulted from Corsi’s “investment project.” The failed deal resulted in lawsuits and judgments against Corsi, so there is some record of what transpired. Corsi guaranteed $250,000 of the investor’s money. During a trip to Poland to pursue the investment project, Corsi split off on his own and began dealing directly and separately with Polish contacts. Money subsequently wired to Polish partner that Corsi had been involved in connecting with the group mysteriously disappeared. Despite the obvious earmarks of a confidence scheme, the full facts are still not established.

To avoid being accused of the same type of irresponsible authorship based upon unsubstantiated facts used by Corsi, it is sufficient to say that the judicially accepted evidence presented in the legal proceedings led the court to enter judgment against Corsi respecting his dealings with Minnesota investors. They were not able to collect from Corsi, as he had moved all of his assets in his wife’s name. That action may speak volumes as to Corsi’s integrity.

Corsi switched to a career as a writer in 2004. CORSI approached John O’Neill, founder of an anti-Kerry organization called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. With O’Neill’s support and encouragement, Corsi wrote and published “Unfit for Command.” That book was filled with proven lies, distortions and malicious innuendo that attacked Kerry’s record during the Viet Nam War and his celebrated anti-war activities afterward. The publisher was Regnery Publishing, a Right Wing publisher that is a subsidiary of Eagle Publishers. Last year, Corsi and others writers sued Eagle for alleged wrongfully reducing royalty payments. The suit alleged that the company had improperly given away copies of the book to subscribers to its periodical publications and to members of its Conservative Book Club. The suit was dismissed.

To show an idea of Corsi’s mindset, the following is a quote from a Boston Globe Article is instructive:
Among the commentaries he has since acknowledged writing, Corsi falsely labeled Democratic Senators Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy and former president Bill Clinton as communists, suggested without any evidence that Hillary Clinton was a lesbian, called Pope John Paul II "senile" and Arabs "ragheads," and asserted that Islam is "a peaceful religion as long as the women are beaten, the boys [sodomized], and the infidels killed." [Corsi now claims that these statements do not represent his real beliefs....]

Corsi’s screed against Kerry proved an important factor in the election, not because of its intrinsic merit but rather because it caused Kerry to spend valuable time and resources responding to its reprehensible lies and distortions. The mainstream media was more focused on a public sideshow in the Presidential campaign that sold papers and airtime that upon responsible and ethical journalism to inform the public. This coverage gave undeserved weight or credibility to Corsi’s book. Clearly, if the book had been on any other topic, its lack of substantiation and poor writing would have banished it to obscurity in the context of a more professional journalistic climate.

Now Corsi comes forward with a similar attack book against Obama, “The Obama Nation.” Despite his public protestations to “scholarship,” Corsi stated to the Boston Globe reporter his intent regarding this book about Obama as follows: "I set out to prevent an Obama presidency from happening."

A scholar researches and examines the facts and writes his material based upon where those substantiated facts lead. A polemicist and a fraud first decides upon his or her agenda and then finds or manufactures “facts” to support that preconceived agenda. It is not difficult to see which category Corsi falls into.

The more surprising event, however, is that this new book could wind up on the best seller list when it is clear that it is written with the same motive and the same lack of professionalism and integrity as was “Unfit For Command.” Why would the New York Times allow itself to be used in such a manner a second time?

Certainly, conservative groups could buy up sufficient copies to place the book in “best seller” category. Doing so would be a cynical and effective way for the McCain campaign to gain advertising and publicity for a smear campaign without direct attribution. While $1 million might only buy production and airtime for a single television ad campaign, using the same amount to purchase enough copies of Corsi’s book to place it on a best seller list ensures weeks of unethical and negative publicity against Obama for which the McCain campaign need not take the credit or blame. The mindless pack dog mentality of the media is unlikely to understand or care about how they are being used.

So now we know who this Corsi guy is. Why is he writing these bad things about Obama? The simple answer is that he is an opportunist who believes, with good reason, that unscrupulous campaign backers and mindless media executives will pay him handsomely for being an “agent provocateur.” Regardless of his actual beliefs or his level of ethics or professionalism, he believes that he is in for another big payday. These days, that seems to be the recipe for the “American Dream” in politics.

Chickens Come Home to Roost

Malcolm X was criticized heavily as "insensitive" for using an old cliché with respect to the assassination of President Kennedy. He said that the policies, attitude and actions of the US government promoting indiscriminate violence and clandestine attacks should yield no surprised when a covert plot results in an attack on the US government even at the highest levels. He said that America's "chickens had come home to roost." He did not condone the assassination, but merely observed that actions have consequences. In retrospect, such a statement was not very “radical” at all.

Now the Bush administration is faced with a problem that brings to mind the same cliché in the former Soviet state of Georgia. The Russian military invasion in response to a Georgian attack on the separatist region of South Ossetia calls for a credible response from Georgia's “ally,” the US government. President Bush wants to scold or admonish Russia for a “disproportionate” military response to the Georgian military offensive, but he has no credibility or standing to criticize Russia in light of US policies and actions, especially in Iraq.

Russia is acting in a very cynical and calculated manner in Georgia by supporting the separatist movements in South Ossetia and Abkhazia provinces. The provinces are part of Georgia, but have enjoyed a measure of independence. In both cases, Russia has granted Russian passports to a large number of citizens of these provinces, perhaps as a prelude to annexing those provinces should they effectively secede from Georgia. When Georgia took concrete steps to reassert its control of South Ossetia, Russia used the pretext of protecting its “citizens” [passport holders] and peace keepers stationed in the region to launch a major military offensive against Georgia. The degree of the response, including seizure of critical parts of Georgia, was more than necessary to halt the Georgian offensive and has led some to speculate that Russia is attempting to reconstruct a Soviet Union. Two factors support this conjecture. Georgia has been pushing very hard to become a member of NATO, a step that Russia sees as a direct threat it would never accept. Secondly, the US is stretched so thin as a result of its adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that it is perceived to pose no serious or credible threat of a military response to counter the Russian incursion in Georgia, or any other muscle flexing by the Kremlin.

Consider also the following quote from an Associated Press story:

In a report released Friday, Human Rights Watch said it has collected evidence of Russian warplanes using cluster bombs against civilian areas in Georgia. The international rights group urged Russia to stop using the weapons, which more than 100 nations have agreed to outlaw.

One might recall that Israel used cluster bombs supplied by the US in Southern Lebanon. After the cessation of hostilities, horrific reports of children picking up unexploded fragments of cluster bombs that resemble broken toys and being killed or maimed by them were widely broadcast. Israel not only failed to accomplish its declared mission, but it lost considerable sympathy among the members of the international community for the inhumane tactics it employed. Expedience does not justify every means to an end. Critics of Bush policies involving torture, for example, have repeatedly warned that such conduct limits or destroys the right of the US to complain about torture of US military personnel and civilians.

One of the most serious and disturbing side effects of the US escapade in Iraq is the destruction of credibility and moral authority that the US formerly had to “jawbone” other nations into behaving in a more moderate and responsible manner. When the Bush administration flaunted international law with what could legitimately be characterized as a unilateral invasion of Iraq or illegal pre-emptive war, it lost the ability to criticize any other nation for similar conduct. The actions by Russia, while deplorable, do have a more credible pretext than did the US invasion of Iraq. At least it can point to the deaths of civilians and peace keepers resulting from the Georgian attack, even if Russia's true agenda is more sinister. But what right does Bush have to criticize Russia for seeking control and regime change in Georgia when Bush has committed the same wrongs in Iraq with even less pretext or foundation?

What it will take for the US to regain international credibility in order to be able to effectively constrain or deter other nations from excessive military measures is unknown. Like trust, it is an asset that is more easily lost that it is regained.

At present, Bush can only offer the meek admonition that Russia risks losing the goodwill of the US in the future if it does not moderate its actions now and respect the sovereignty of Georgia. Having completely disregarded the sovereignty of Iraq by the initial invasion and by its policy of indefinite occupation against the will of the majority of Iraqi citizens, Bush might just as well be spitting in the wind. His words carry no force and no concrete significance.

Russia is in a far better economic situation than it was during the cold war. Its petroleum reserves and other resources make it less dependent upon the US or the international community. Maintenance of the role as a leader among nations has seldom been as important for the US than it is now. But the Bush administration has abdicated that role. Despite playing the role of a lone wolf and refusing to work sincerely and cooperatively with multinational groups, including the United Nations, the only real option for Bush at present is to borrow the legitimacy and moral authority of other nations to attempt to force a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Georgia. Any credibility or moral authority that the US President had to pressure Russia to back down has been squandered by Bush during the past 5 years or more.

Thus, “chickens come home to roost.”

Sweet Payback? Cheney’s Hidden Treuhand?

This article is pure speculation. Well not entirely, it is actually more like an “educated guess.” For years people have been scratching their heads and wondering about the huge non-competitive contracts awarded to Halliburton in connection with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. The company was formerly headed by Vice president Dick Cheney, who now claims to “own no stock in the company.” His strong influence as VP in the Bush administration pushed through no bid contracts worth TRILLIONS of dollars to Halliburton and its subsidiaries. What was in it for Cheney, one might ask? Suppose that millions of dollars in cash or assets could be transferred to Cheney from a Halliburton subsidiary without any public record of ownership in the company or any public record of contract for services directly linked to Cheney?

Consider the “Hidden Treuhand” that is used in Europe to conceal corporate assets and activities. This form of entity operates like a Swiss bank account, only more powerfully and more actively. A bank account only holds assets in secret and allows for wealth to grow without attribution of its ownership to public eyes. A Hidden Treuhand operates actively as a corporate entity to acquire and sell assets and to distribute money or assets without publicly disclosing the identity of persons involved in the transactions. Cheney was CEO and Chairman of Halliburton during the time it has held European subsidiaries with Hidden Treuhand capabilities. Current Halliburton CEO’s, most selected by Cheney, are unquestionably aware of these tools for concealing assets and payments.

In a new book being published on Hidden Truehands, the author notes*:

The noncompetitive contract awarded Halliburton was orchestrated by Vice President Dick Cheney and backed by the Bush administration. This contract has afforded an estimated US$1.4 trillion to US$3 trillion of US taxpayer money to flow through the coffers of Halliburton, virtually unmonitored and fraught with accounting irregularities. The receiver of much of this US taxpayer money is Halliburton USA, its affiliates and subsidiaries. One of the subsidiaries, the Austrian subsidiary, is capable of dispersing any money sent to it to unknown persons, without a hint of transparency.

Another interesting twist on this subject is the relationship between the “War on Terror,” Halliburton and Cheney. International law enforcement authorities and anti-terrorist agencies have been investigating and battling Hidden Treuhand entities because of their obvious capabilities to finance terrorist organizations and operations from funds generated in the free global capital markets. Assets sent to the Hidden Treuhand entity could be divested, invested or traded with any country or entity without regard to international restrictions on funding of terrorist organizations. The proceeds of such transactions could then be transferred anonymously to entities that directly support known terrorist organizations or activities.

Halliburton, a company receiving BILLIONS of dollars from US taxpayers to support the “War on Terror,” is engaged in business activities using tools and entities that are designed to avoid transparency and are unique devices that facilitate terrorist financing and other potentially illegal activities.

The strong support from the Bush administration for contract awards to Halliburton, the millions of dollars worth of documented cases of fraud and overcharging by Halliburton under those contracts and the seeming recalcitrance by the Bush administration to do any effective auditing and oversight enforcement against Halliburton and its subsidiaries certainly seems to fall outside the reasonable range of “coincidence.”

Whether Dick Cheney is receiving rewards or kickbacks from his old firm and from his former protégés is unknown and unproven at this time. Cheney and the White House have proven adept at concealing information, untruthfulness in information that is disclosed and destruction of potentially material evidence relating to investigations of inappropriate conduct. However, payments to Cheney based upon both loyalty and assistance to Halliburton in its extremely fortunate experience in gaining lucrative government contracts would certainly not be illogical or unreasonable speculation.

[Shelley Stark is the author of a forthcoming book, "The Hidden Treuhand: How Europe Offers US Corporations and Individuals an Opportunity to Hide Assets, Identity, and Income."]

Present Day Prophets

In early July 2008, The US senate followed the House of Representatives in passing a controversial bill revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [“FISA”] that contained a provision granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies that turned over information about private telephone conversations at the request of the White House and other government agencies.

Three proposed amendments sought to strip the immunity provision, or at least to delay immunity until more actual information was available about the nature and extent of abuses that occurred and were being effectively legalized, all were defeated. GOP Senator Arlen Specter proposed to invalidate the immunity if the NSA program were judged to be unconstitutional, hardly an unreasonable position. His amendment was defeated 37-61. What this means is that at least a dozen Democrats chose to support the President’s wiretapping program and grant immunity to the telecom companies even if their conduct was proven unconstitutional in a court of law.

Sen. Russ Feingold [D-Wis.] stated on the Senate floor that he, as a member of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, had been briefed on the FISA and NSA programs and had as much information as the White House was willing to disclose. Based upon his current knowledge, he warned the senators:
"Mr. President, I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new president, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation."

Flash forward to mid-August 2008, after the bill granting immunity has been passed and signed. The telecoms have been granted a “get out of jail free card,” and now information sought by the proponents of amendments to delay or eliminate blanket immunity begins to surface. The FBI publicly announced that it had improperly obtained the records of confidential phone conversations of journalists from the Washington Post and the New York Times. These conversations were turned over by the telecoms in response to blanket requests by the FBI under the NSA that evaded the congressionally approved procedures that were designed to prevent just such abuses.

Only time or a change of leadership will more fully reveal, as suggested by Senator Feingold, the extent of the abuses under the domestic wiretapping program of the George W. Bush administration.

The Congress tried to justify passage on the earlier FISA revision legislation granting immunity based, in part, upon the more than 40 lawsuits pending against the telecoms. However, Congress seemed to ignore the fact that those lawsuits were largely a result of the refusal of the Bush Administration to disclose information about the operation of the NSA program and to conduct any credible investigation to determine the level of abuses that were occurring. To date, there is still no credible factual basis for believing that the NSA program is effective in reducing the threat of terrorist attacks in the US. That is the supposed justification for the infringement on the fundamental Constitutional Rights that the President’s NSA program asserts. [ As Feingold and others noted, however, the President’s domestic wiretapping program began prior to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.]

Instead, the information that is slowly surfacing lends sadly prophetic credence to the warning by Sen. Feingold that subsequent revelations would show that granting immunity to anyone involved in the domestic wiretapping program that circumvents judicial and congressional oversight was a grave error. Most prophets are not appreciated until after they are dead. Let us hope that someone will take greater heed of the warnings and advice of knowledgeable Senators like Feingold and Specter while they are still able to help us protect the fundamental freedoms the country was founded upon.

Waste Not, Want Not

Two interesting reports came out recently regarding the expenditure of funds in Iraq to rebuild infrastructure. Neither report reflects very well on the US management of the process. In a report by the French Press [wonder why it did not get equal play in the US media] the recent audit report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq found that as much as 1/3 of the money on a $900 Million government contract has been wasted. Projects were started and never finished. Some projects were partially built and then handed over to the Interim Government of Iraq, which abandoned them as neither needed or wanted. And projects that were completed were done with such poor construction quality that they are marginally useful. This is but one of the many contracts in which waste and fraud were revealed.

The second report revealed that the Iraq government is spending less than the US government on reconstruction projects. The Iraqi budget surplus continues to rise while the US fiscal situation worsens and falls deeper into deficit. The rise in the Iraqi revenues from oil is understandable due to the rise in the market price of crude oil. Even with reduced production capacity because of the US invasion and resulting conflict, Iraq still produces large quantities of oil for export. The question is why the US continues to pump money from its strained economy for projects that are inherently the responsibility and in the interest of the Iraq government and people.

This suggests a continuation of a chronic problem of US officials failing to adequately consult with Iraqis concerning their needs and desires regarding the governance and operation of their country. Far too often, the Bush administration has proceeded with projects and initiatives with the idea that they were going to "rebuild Iraq in the image of America" and that the US government knows what is best for the Iraqi people. Such arrogance and ignorance easily led to the wasted expenditure of millions of dollars for projects that Iraqis never requested and never wanted.

The US may have some obligation to help the Iraqi government and its people rebuild the thousands of buildings bombed during the "Shock and Awe" invasion. Colin Powell declared, before leaving his post as Secretary of State, that the US was responsible for reconstruction based upon the ethical principle,“you break it, you fix it.” However, much of the resulting destruction and degradation of government buildings and infrastructure was from Iraqi looting. At best, then, the responsibility should be shared. However, if the current mission of the US in Iraq is to stabilize the country so that it can establish democratic self governance, then US expenditures ought to be limited to security and technical assistance.

This latter point has two elements that both favor greater Iraqi involvement. Experts have observed that one of the greatest barriers to stabilization of Iraq is the rate of unemployment. The invasion put many businesses and government agencies out of operation. The looting and anarchy resulting from the invasion and subsequent discharge of the police and security forces disabled even more businesses. Add the immediate unemployment of hundreds of thousands because of the US ordered “De-Baathification,” the firing of all employees who were associated with the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein. These misguided actions by the US run Coalition Provisional Authority raised the rate of unemployment to more than 40% and fueled resentment against the US that greatly increased the ranks of the insurgency. Thus, involving Iraqis more in the planning and actual construction of infrastructure projects to benefit the Iraqi people would reduce unemployment and build goodwill toward the US. Most construction work involves a great deal of manual labor led and directed by a few specialists. The US could supply the special expertise needed and apprentice many Iraqis to do the majority of the actual work.

The second element is that the Iraqi people are more likely to take pride in and to protect projects that are built with Iraqi money and which the Iraqi people have requested. One of the difficulties faced by US contractor construction crews is security and attacks by insurgency groups. Logically, an anti-US Iraqi is not going to think twice about destroying a facility built by Americans with US money. If, on the other hand, the project is being built by Iraqis with Iraqi money and supplying paycheck for hundreds of Iraqi families, there might be more reluctance to attack or damage the facility. Regardless of internal factional differences among Iraqis, there is a distinct difference between a facility constructed by and for the forces of occupation than a facility constructed specifically for the benefit of Iraqis. And just possibly, the Iraqis might do a better job of managing the expenditure of funds coming from their own pockets than the US has been doing. Certainly, they could not do much worse.

How Gullible Are You?

Here is an interesting riddle: How can a middle class couple consisting of an office manager in a New York company and an Amtrak foreman afford to donate over $61,000 to John McCain and the Republican National Committee?

The couple drive a 1993 Chevrolet Cavalier and live in an apartment in Queens. They SWEAR that the money that they contributed came solely from their own personal funds. They joined a group of Hess Oil executives at a posh New York fund raiser in which the group donated more than $300,000. Oh, did I forget to mention that the Office Manager Alice Rocchio works at the headquarters of Hess Oil? Might that be significant? Coincidentally, the contribution happened only days after McCain switched his stance to support off-shore drilling. Surely just a coincidence, right?

The Campaign Money Watch group uncovered the contribution and suggested to the Federal Elections Commission that it may be evidence of a corrupt and illegal scheme to funnel campaign contributions. The FEC, while stating that the donation could theoretically have come from the Rocchio's own assets, acknowledged that it was concerned about the potential circumvention of campaign contribution laws by Corporate executives routing the funds through employees. If the investigation into the matter reveals that the funds actually came from Hess Oil, there will be a long list of possible criminal charges.

Perhaps more significant is that the climate of corruption fostered by the current administration has encouraged such action with the promise that there will be no serious consequences or accountability for the misconduct. The scheme is so transparent that it could be considered a taunt to campaign funding regulators. When they engaged in behavior so obvious and transparent they almost dared the FEC to catch them, and perhaps also daring the FEC to do anything about it.

In a climate of economic decline, significant inflation and job losses all around, what rational family would donate an amount that must have been equal to half their annual income for a GOP fund raiser. This is just one example that was discovered. Hess is by no means the biggest player in the oil industry, although they may be the most reckless and audacious. An examination of all contributors is not feasible. But an examination is ppossible of large contributions that are 1) disproportionate to thye donors income and assets and 2) are employed by a company related to a major policy issue. Regardless of party affiliation, such practices are illegal and undermine the fairness of elections.

Blaming the Victims -Again

Oops, we did it again. A very recent announcement in the medical world received too little attention in the public generally. The implications of the discovery carry important health care and disease prevention consequences. In addition, the announcement should cause reconsideration of public attitudes.

The announcement indicates that medical researchers involved in AIDS detection and treatment have discovered what seems to be a genetic anomaly that affects a person's vulnerability to the AIDS virus. What the study found, which is undergoing additional review and has prompted additional research, is that there is a genetic marker among people of African genetic descent that makes them more likely to contract the virus that those who lack the specific genetic characteristic. Additionally, the study found that related gene characteristics seemed to slow the progression of the disease in those who carry the marker.

On a medical basis, this is treated as relative good news. People who are at greater risk of heart disease, breast cancer and other health issues can be advised of their added vulnerability in relation to the general public. Those of African descent who do contract the disease may have a relative advantage because of the slower progression of the disease, in terms of treatment options and the hope that a cure can be discovered. Far too many have died already awaiting a cure and awaiting additional support for AIDS research.

On a broader social level, there is need to rethink the negative stereotyping that is all too common regarding the spread of AIDS. Recent reports of the near epidemic rise of AIDS infection in the southern United States can probably be explained, not by promiscuity among African Americans, but because there is a higher susceptibility to the disease among the population concentrated in those areas. Negative stereotypes have suggested that the spread of AIDS in Africa is caused by cultural factors and promiscuity. In other words, there is an implied accusation that the people suffering from AIDS in Africa deserve their plight.

The same treatment does not attend the Jewish population who genetically are at higher risk of Tay Sachs Disease or to Northern Caucasians who are more susceptible to certain skin cancers due to their genetic characteristics. The rapid spread of AIDS is a calamity of the highest order. The spread is also certainly fueled by unsafe sex practices. The study suggests, however, that there may be no significant difference in the levels of sexual activity or promiscuity among people of African descent. The higher rate of infection could be explained in part by the higher genetic susceptibility [the study suggested 22% higher] and the lack of access to health care for screening and detection. It raises the important question of what response is appropriate when you have a population group that is disproportionately at risk of contracting a deadly disease and is also disproportionately lacking in access to quality health care.

FOLLOW THE MONEY [STUPID]!

Sometimes a strange revelation hits like a flash of lightning with an acute clarity that one wonders why it had not been noticed earlier. One of those "Ah-Hah" moments came to me as I read the latest report about the drop in consumer spending. The report details how consumer spending had been negatively affected by the run up in prices over the past few months. Of course, it is no startling news that consumers would become more guarded in their purchases as inflation begins to hit hard. The revelation came in a kind of connect-the-dots understanding that arose from the background facts in the article.

The consumer behavior was artificially boosted by the $168 Billion "Stimulus Package" passed by Congress. The receipt of stimulus payments put more cash in the pockets of consumers and, as was predicted, the majority of the public chose to spend the cash rather than put it in savings or pay down existing debt. The glitch in the process was that over the same period of time that these stimulus payments were being received, the price of gasoline skyrocketed to an average of more than $4.10 per gallon. Now that the receipt of the stimulus payments has tapered off and is ending, the price of gasoline at the pump has come down. In effect, the petroleum companies rose to the surface like fish in an aquarium at feeding time to gobble up the government largesse intended to provide economic support to average consumers. The effect of the economic stimulus is that the consumer was able to obtain roughly the same economic status (in terms of goods purchased for the family)as before the stimulus payment. With the stimulus payment spent, the consumer now has to reduce spending to the level of resources currently available. There was no "real" benefit to the consumer because the additional money received simply went to cover temporarily increased costs. The stimulus is spent and the costs now settle back down toward pre-stimulus levels.

This process of exploiting government subsidies is not unique, isolated or surprising. When the government opens the faucet to put money in the hands of consumers, there will be "enterprising" businesses ready with plans to fleece those dollars from the pockets of the recipients. Usually, the payments and the fleecing are not done on such a grand scale. For example, when government programs made educational loans available for post-high school technical and vocational training, a number of less than reputable "schools" began encouraging drop outs and other "target" students to secure government grants and subsidized loans to pay tuition for substandard or non-existent professional training. However, the recipients of the $168 Billion Stimulus Package payments number in the millions and every one of them needed to purchase gasoline.

If there were any doubts about what happened, one only needs to take the advice of an old mantra investigators use, "follow the money." Exxon Mobil just reported record profits in the billions of dollars at a time when the public pronouncements from the petroleum giants is that prices had to rise to respond to lower oil supply and increased costs of production and delivery. If those public relations gambits held any truth, then the profit margin for their operations would have been reduced rather than enlarged over this period. In fact, the enormous profits that the oil companies have been raking in, and will continue to skim, are largely the result of the governmental handout intended to help the average citizen. The economic stimulus might have had a greater impact, perhaps, if the government had given each taxpayer a share in Exxon along with the stimulus payment. And we might expect to see a portion of those profits funneled back into the campaign coffers of members of Congress so eager to press for such stimulus packages.

There was an additional push to suspend the gasoline tax for the summer months. Some in Congress and on the campaign trail contended that the proposal was just a political gimmick. Others who supported the proposal argued that it was the humane and necessary thing to do to help consumers pay for gasoline during the summer vacation period. In retrospect, the suspension of the gas tax would have only made the large oil company profits larger while robbing the Transportation budget of badly needed funds to repair and rebuild the crumbling infrastructure [roads and bridges] in the United States.

Some still predict that the stimulus funds will help the economy in the coming quarter. It is difficult to see how that will happen on the basis of a single payment that has already been largely spent to cover the run-up in gas prices that occurred. Only if you define bolstering the economy as elevating the stock price of the large oil companies can a credible prediction of any significant benefit to the economy-at-large be advanced.

Quick fixes and shortcuts are almost always very attractive and almost always a failure in retrospect. Use of government funds, that same $168 Billion, to secure projects to rebuild the nation's infrastructure would have directly resulted in more jobs for construction workers, more sales for the suppliers of materials needed for such construction and an influx of cash to the local merchants and establishments in areas where the constructions was being done. If equitable distribution were a concern, the unfortunate truth is that bridges and highways in every state are in serious need of reinvestment and repair. The drawback of using the money in a more effective way is that such use is not as "sexy" and does not result in perceived benefits that each taxpayer can actually see and feel. When election time is coming, the age old practice of "walking around money" seems to surface. And as in old times, schemes abound to fleece the voters of the dollars that they get to temporarily hold.

Nothing to Fear but the Fear Mongers

Everywhere that you go in the United States, and on almost every form of broadcast media you encounter, the message is the same. "You have to be afraid, and you have to be vigilant – terrorist are out to harm you!" On an intellectual level, most of us know that this is not entirely true. The risk of a terrorist attack may exist in various parts of the world, but the danger is not omnipresent. If one tries to approach the issue rationally, the accusation of naiveté or lack of patriotism is quickly launched. To look at the issue rationally and on the facts, risks losing the value of capitalizing on visceral and irrational fear. Not only has intellectual response failed to carry the day, it has been driven underground as "politically incorrect."

The message of the fear mongers defines the elusive "enemy" against which we are at war – terrorism – as an attack by extremist Muslims against innocent civilians. By extension, these fear mongers would have us categorically suspect anyone perceived to be an ethnic Arab as being Muslim, and thus a potential "terrorist." There is so much wrong with this fallacy that it is difficult to know where to begin.

The New Yorker Magazine recently lent strong assistance to the fear mongers by publishing a reprehensible cartoon depicting Barack Obama and his wife as allied with Muslim extremists and as terroristic. While presenting the lame excuse that it was intended as "parody" or satire, the image played directly to the fear, ignorance and bigotry in the general populace that the fear mongers desire to inflame. Had the cartoon truly been intended as a glib poke at the uneducated and unwashed general public, it would have been put in context inside the magazine for the enjoyment of regular subscribers. Instead, it was emblazoned on the cover and attended with great media fanfare assuring that only superficial attention would be given to the supposedly more subtle intent. The cover was at best a loud call to ethnic bias and bigotry. It exemplifies the problem.

In fact, Muslims can be found throughout the world and come in virtually all colors and a race, so labeling Obama as a Muslim because of his appearance or name is simply hysterical bigotry. Obama is not a Muslim, and his opponents have even attacked him for his association with his former Christian Protestant minister Jeremiah Wright. The FACTS are clearly in the public domain for those who would exercise the care to look at them. Given the millions, if not billions of Muslims in the world who live daily in peace despite economic and political conditions that could drive anyone to the breaking point, labeling Muslims generally as "terrorists" is untrue, unfair and morally wrong. But the fear mongers would give the public some target that they do not understand and is not like tem to fear and hate.

If we wade a few steps further into the world of facts, we find that the greatest risk that the average United States citizen faces in daily life comes not from a Middle East extremist, but from a deranged individual [usually WASP] invading their school or place of worship. The attack on the World Trade center was horrible and devastating, but an equal number of innocent people have been killed or injured in the last decade by attackers in churches, schools and universities.

Snipers terrorizing the public on the west coast and in the District of Columbia area were not Muslims. Timothy McVeigh who was responsible for the deadly terrorist attack on the federal building in Oklahoma City was a white United States citizen. The presumed sender of terroristic mail letters containing deadly anthrax was neither Arabic nor Muslim. While we cannot forget what happened on September 11, 2001, a rational person would have to reconsider whether to place that event at the core of risks that are likely to threaten our daily lives. Certainly a rational person would not allow such emotions to eclipse concerns about threats that are more credible and perhaps more likely.

The sad truth about the American society is that it is much easier to invoke fear, hatred and irrational disregard of self-interest based upon an "enemy" who is non-White than to inflame such rage against an "average white guy" like Timothy McVeigh. This unfortunate reality is a sorry commentary on the progress of the US populace, but shows that the fear mongers know their target audience very well. Perhaps even more regrettable is the failure of those who recognize what is happening to step forward and reject the irrational ethnic based fear mongering. History has shown us that a mindless crowd can be whipped into a frenzied lynch mob by a cynical and eloquent spokesman. But we also know that a single clarion voice of reason can silence hysteria. It can cause members of that crown to examine their own misguided actions. Each of us who has a mind to reason with and a voice to express those rational thoughts ought to be speaking out.

As we go about our daily lives and try to lead examples for our children, we might try harder to be conscious of "right and wrong." We must try to examine what is true and what is false in the messages fed to us and acknowledge each upon it merits. It is wrong to tell our children that they live in a constant state of "Orange Alert" as that condition of "High" risk is defined in the Homeland Security world. There is not, in fact, an imminent risk of a hostile attack every time we walk out the door. In fact, consider the following quote from the DHS website: "There is no credible, specific intelligence suggesting an imminent threat to the homeland at this time."

Bank robbers do exist and attempts are occasionally made to rob banks using lethal weapons. But it would be ludicrous to post constant warnings that a person is at immediate risk of personal danger from armed bank robbers every time they walk into a bank. Yet that is the equivalent of the conditions we and our children are subjected to every time we go to an airport, bus or train terminal. No one is suggesting that personal safety should be disregarded, but irrational and unsubstantiated fear is also dangerous. There is a fundamental change in the character of the nation and its culture when we cede fundamental civil rights to an abusive governmental authority based upon irrational fear and cynical fear mongering.

When that transition takes place, as is currently happening, and dissent is silenced through threat or intimidation, then the objectives of true terrorists are advanced more effectively than any bomb could accomplished. The destruction of the United States comes not from the death of victims in a bomber's blast. It comes from the deterioration, degradation and abandonment of the fundamental principles upon which the society was built and which have sustained it. The fear mongers who trumpet the "war on terror" as an excuse for grabbing power and curtailing basic Constitutional rights and freedoms are the real danger. Their disregard of fundamental building blocks in our system of justice is doing more damage to our daily existence than any action by Osama Bin Laden or any Muslim extremist could imagine.