knockemdown

OK so I’m really writing this as a feeble attempt to be constructive outside of my regular job. Nevertheless my topic is an issue I was thinking about on my way in to the daily grind. It’s a question really. What can we really expect from any political candidate? Forget that they’re mostly derived from an elite minority of the American social demographic. What I am saying is that any candidate that has a chance of winning is doomed from the start at making real change for the larger part of American life.

First of all, they all have to operate in a political environment that refuses to be altered without all those parties involved making some headway toward their own agenda, and if they’re towing the line of a major party….you get the point. Its a symptom of a government that has built upon a system of reciprocity between two major parties. And, if some candidate (assuming they get elected) decides to go it alone, they will find opposition at every turn. Just look at Jimmy Carter. The man tried to push agendas that are still pertinent today (foreign policy in the middle east, environmental conservation, energy policy reform) but without giving way to his political counterparts, he was almost completely ineffective…just another single term president. Many people say that Bill Clinton had such success because he was a moderate more than a liberal. I think this is true. His ability to compromise served him well. But, on the other hand, compromise often erodes the integrity of an agenda or political plan and this was also evident during the Clinton years. And so I think anyone who campaigns on the platform of drastic change (i.e. Barack Obama, Ron Paul) is setting themselves up for failure despite their good intentions.  But then it occurs to me that they of all people should know what I am talking about. So are they under the impression that they can do what other Presidents have failed to accomplish? Or, are they just lying to us again? It is more sensible to believe the latter (in my own opinion of course). Ralph Nader at least was able to admit that if he was elected he would be unable to do much change to the current political system because it’s been fortified over such a long period of time. The candidate I would vote for would have one or two things (important things) that they would change. The rest would be as it has been. That way, there would be something to judge their efficiency by, and any other positive change that came about during their presidency would simply be an added bonus. However, the American public could really hold that candidate to those promises instead of getting the age-old “I need more time in office” routine. I’m just saying…Knockemdown

It’s Sunday at about 11:22 am, and already the temperature has reached 90 degrees. Thank goodness for my electric air conditioner at home and the one in my carbon gas emitting car. Otherwise, I’d be sweating and that’s uncomfortable. The problem is, global climate change is happening. Furthermore, scientists almost unanimously agree that it’s a result of the gigatonage of greenhouse gas we emit due to fossil fuel consumption. Unwilling to acknowledge that this danger is a result of natural resource consumption however, corporations (and thus politicians) continue to maneuver around the issue, never addressing it with any real intention of correcting, or adjusting to, the crisis of global warming. Instead, Congress and the social elite submit petty versions of Europe’s cap-and-trade system to stem the rising demand for energy policy reform. So my question is: What is it going to take for U.S. leaders and lawmakers to initiate a major change in energy usage and production? Another Catastrophe perhaps?

It makes me sick to think of how the Corporate-controlled media convinced America into believing that Bush won the election before it was even over and assured us that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction without producing any evidence to anyone. Yet, global climate change is so apparent that you can see it with your own eyes but still our government and the media continue to downplay the issue. It seems that government leaders are more concerned about  producing cheap products than they are about the source of all life as we know it. How fucked is that reasoning? Not to mention selfish. But, when it comes to the environment, most Americans are not adverse to paying more for renewable energy in an effort to reduce carbon emissions. So why aren’t we moving more rapidly toward greenhouse gas reduction? The answer, as usual, is profit.

Corporate America makes a killing on finite resource consumption, especially given our dependence fossil fuel energy. As any econ. 101 class will teach you, the key to capitalist profit making is scarcity. Therefore, renewable energy is not in the best interest of the richest and most influential corporations. These corporations also control the private, advertising-based media that now dominates American journalism. They filter out what they consider to be damaging to their advertisers and corporate sponsors, effectively dictating what is “newsworthy”. Additionally, these corporations are the primary funding agencies for major political party campaigns. Their reach is so extensive and integrated into our society, that I fear only a cataclysm could produce enough support to produce any major reform. Even Hurricane Katrina’s destruction of the Gulf, increased temperatures in arctic regions and erratic weather conditions have been marginalized as “typical weather events” despite what scientists say about their increased frequency.

So here I am sitting at my computer trying to think up ways to deal with this problem and I must admit, my mind wants to abate toward a more pleasant subject. Growing up around the Florida Everglades, I have always admired the power of environmental advocates like Marjory Stoneman Douglas and their ability to curb development in the name of ecological preservation. However, given America’s dependence on fossil fuel, I don’t see the environment as a contending factor in the face of famine and energy shortages as we continue to deplete natural resources. As always, I urge anyone reading this to post a comment about what they think needs to transpire in order to avoid the bleak future that seems to be presenting itself. One thing is for certain though, it will take a global effort and global contiousness to change this course of events 50 years in the making. - knockemdown

Please gleam over this article about our latest defense system against the evil space invaders before reading on…… Gosh, I’m sooo happy that we finally crafted a solution to catching all those illegal immigrants crossing our boarders. Never mind that they used “multi billions” of dollars to protect a mere 28 miles. Come on, we need the immigrants. Everyone knows that. Who’s gonna do all the shitty work nobody else wants to do? Ok, so they take a large portion of the unskilled labor work. But who cares? Can’t we be a little more resourceful in dealing with this problem? I don’t see why we should continue to support cheap labor abroad, if we aren’t able to accept it here at home. There’s got to be a better alternative to high tech phallic symbols of American insecurity. Don’t get me wrong though, I’ve had a few before writing this. I just think that if they are going to build spy towers in the name of national security, they should have a little style. How about giant middle fingers with speakers that blare “fuck you, get away!” in the corresponding language?- knockemdown

I have always perceived free trade as an ambiguous concept that can act as a catalyst for either global economic cooperation or global domination. However, given that the most of the world operates in a capitalist framework, the outcome can easily be predicted. Those who have the capital to leverage are well positioned to rule, and those who have nothing but their labor to sell will be enslaved under the constant demand for more excess capital. NAFTA, CAFTA, and various other trade agreements have already demonstrated the effects of this exploitative practice. What’s more is that America would expect nothing but the same as the last two, and accepts it.

The recent visit by Vietnamese President Nguyen Minh Triet yesterday, was reported as a positive step toward international relations and human rights. Now at first, I thought that perhaps this was just another lame attempt by the Bush administration to divert negative attention from the Iraq war toward another desperate situation where America lacked a part. But once I read that the purpose of the visit was really to begin talks on a free trade agreement, the visit made perfect sense.

I don’t know why I continue to be surprised at the nerve exemplified by our president, after all, he’s been one-upping himself almost every year. This time it’s a complete contradiction though. The headline of the story highlights a push for human rights in Vietnam, but the whole underlying purpose of the meeting was to orchestrate another breeding ground for human rights violations. I suppose it’s a nice gesture, kinda like that of a mobster hugging or kissing his victim before sticking a knife in his back.

In a recent blog I wrote about the unwillingness by the United States to finish what they started in Iraq. And so I have argued for a complete withdraw. I think that we are doomed to fail in Iraq, much like we were in Vietnam, because we were lied to about the war’s justification. But, we decided to believe and perpetuate that lie once the truth was revealed to us. One of the primary differences between the wars we win and those we loose is our conviction in our motives for fighting, and our determination to achieve victory. How do we define success and victory in a war where we don’t know what we are fighting for. Who, exactly, are we fighting? Terrorists? Who are the terrorists? Define them, otherwise we are fighting ghosts, no? Well, the war effort continues despite its lack of defined purpose. Today I ran across an article with compelling evidence that the U.S. is  doing someting other than nationbuilding.

Here is a news article about the rebuilding effort in Iraq. Now, in most situations, we would have beaten the enemy before starting reconstruction. But given how confusing and frustrating it must be to fight in a war without knowing it’s purpose, I’m not surprised at the backwards operation. The article highlights a recent inspection of reconstruction projects that have been deemed a success for at least six months. What the inspectors found was machinery that was broken or misused, poor construction and maintenance, and looted facilities. One of the reasons for this situation was well cited by Rick Barton, co-director of the post-conflict reconstruction project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mr. Barton noted that failures like this are common with reconstruction projects because locals are not part of the planning process. To me, its just another example of how the Iraq war looks more like colonialism than a mission to neutralize or civilize a country. In fact, Mr. Barton makes that exact correlation.

My point here is, if we went into this war saying that we are going to colonize Iraq so we can retain our lifestyle of massive resource consumption, we would be winning this war. For quite a while, corporations have used the American military as their arm of power while pandering to a noble cause for the people, and Iraq is the epitome of such utilization. In fact, I’m not sure the United States even wants the cooperation of Iraqis. Here is an article that shows a promising reconstruction development in Ramadi Anbar Province. There, the Iraqis are joining police forces, car bombs and sniper fire have dropped considerably, and people are working with the U.S. military against Al Qaeda. Yet the U.S. military and the Bush administration quickly suspect that it could all be a ploy to infiltrate American forces, and so they keep willing Iraqis from participating too closely with the development of their country. The situation shows a distrust in the people the U.S. purports to help. And why not? Would you trust someone you were trying to rob? I don’t think people are duped anymore, they know this war is all about oil and strategic positioning to gain control over that region of the world. Of course, we don’t say that, we can’t plan for that and perpetuate the lie at the same time, so we are doomed to fail in our efforts. - knockemdown

You may have heard by now, but up until 45 minutes ago, New York’s JFK airport was completely shut down. I only know because I knew someone that was in the security line before entering the terminal. According to my source, a man or woman ran passed the security checkpoint, and into a crowd where they blended in and seemed to have escaped capture. They shut down one of the most busiest airports in the nation to capture this guy. And, they called back all the planes that took off during the minutes after the security breach. Everyone in the airport was detained, and every piece of luggage searched. Finally, they caught the culprit (or whomever they thought was the culprit) and service resumed. However, for almost five hours, no one came in or out of JFK. So why am I telling you all this? Because there was no news coverage of the event.

I just saw a news report on the growing conditions of strawberries. Surely they could make time to mention a National security breach. But, no such report has appeared on any network TV station. So what’s the deal? Are they trying to keep people calm and comfortable about air travel? According to my reporter, TSA and the airline had no idea what to do with the situation. They became flustered when someone actually had the balls to test their strength, and now they had no idea what to do. The fact that they breached the tough and through facade of TSA security, and even shut down the airport, is a major embarrassment. Frankly, I find it downright scarey that someone was easily lost after simply running through the gauntlet of prying hands and a sub-machine gun carrying Homeland Security officer. What’s more scarey however, is that nobody reported the incident. It just goes to show that you can’t trust corporate-owned media to report the truly news-worthy stories. Some will say that reporting such a story at the time of the incident would incite a riot. I say, take responsibility for your shitty security, TSA. I’m surprised the culprit wasn’t streaking - knockemdown

Well I would just like to wish all those who read this blog a happy St. Patrick’s day. Like most American holidays, St. Patrick’s day originated as a religious holy day. It marked the end of Lent, lifting the prohibition on eating meat. It was traditionally celebrated by eating bacon and cabbage (not corned beef) in Ireland, and this day was typically an alcohol-free event. In fact, many of the provinces closed its pubs in observation of the saint that brought Christianity to the shamrock nation. Nevertheless, Americans have come to recognize the day as another reason to inebriate themselves, paint the town and rivers green, and claim the small percentage of Irish heritage they know nothing about. There’s even the mythology of the pot o’ gold at the end of the rainbow. Not unlike the “American Dream” the story entails a delusional search for treasure at the end of a rainbow, only to be fooled out of it by a tiny little leprechaun. Well, if for no better reason, St. Patrick’s day serves as a day of nationalistic pride for those people maintaining their Irish roots in America. So to all those with a little Irish in em’, bless your little Irish heart…..and every other Irish part. - knockemdown

Today’s press release by Russia regarding its cooperative effort with Iran to develop nuclear capabilities raises some interesting questions about Iran’s motives. For the last couple of years, Iran has insisted that it is trying to develop nuclear technologies for peaceful applications rather than a military arsenal. In many respects, I have commended their efforts to find a viable source of energy besides fossil fuel. It has been reported, despite it being its largest export, that oil production is slowing in Iran due to the exploitation of the natural resource. So their desire to achieve a nuclear program for energy is justified. In order to accomplish their goal, they teamed up with Russia, a known expert in nuclear science, and began a successful program with the Bushehr Plant in Tehran. Only, the Iranian government has refused to comply with the demands of the IAEA, and now Russia says that Iran has not fulfilled its end of the bargain. Iran has failed to pay for the Russian-built Plant, and so the two countries are at a standstill on the issue. Russia says that it will not deliver the fuel needed to run the plant until Iran coughs up the cash. Meanwhile, Russia continues to urge Iran to comply with the IAEA, and convince them that their plans are peaceful.

Iran’s move in disregarding the IAEA and the financial obligations with Russia shows me that they may have bad intentions after all. A country in such a dire situation, like Iran, wouldn’t ignore such obligations if they didn’t have an alternate motive. The middle eastern region of the world is in enough turmoil without a nation like Iran possessing nuclear weapons. In a way, Im glad they were delinquent on their commitment with Russia. If they fulfilled their end of the agreement, Im not sure where Russia would stand on IAEA compliance. The fact that the Iranians are dead beats however, slants the Russian factor in our favor. - knockemdown

Hard and soft power are the two main ways to coerce international agreement. On the one hand, hard power is immediate, and forces one party into submission by the other’s (usually military) dominance. It was this kind of tactic that the Bush administration used when it declared that the mission was accomplished in Iraq. However, like most situations involving instant gratification, the desired result was short lived. The only way to perpetuate the domination, is to perpetuate the use of hard power. The same is true for soft power, only soft power is easier to live with. Negotiations, often beneficial to both parties, and the influx of trade and business often result in a long-term solution.

To succeed in our effort to stabilize Iraq using hard power, we would need a much more intensified effort with much higher troop levels. This means that we would need to build, and maintain, a dominant military force that would stay there for several decades. We are not prepared to do that and so, we remain in Iraq as the situation continues to get worse. Our military presence there is quickly becoming unwelcome by the populace, and we continue to loose support from other nations, resulting from our misuse of hard power. Bottom line, we are not prepared to do the job right. And so the situation in Iraq is now a conflagration that we are stuck with. For quite a while, I have been supporting the cut-and-run strategy. Feeling duped as an American (although I never thought there was WMDs, or any other viable threat present in Iraq), and spiteful toward the shit-kicking cowboy that is president Bush, I just wanted out of there. I really don’t want to see any more of our men and women die for the precarious reasons of this administration.

My position was mainly due to the various issues that need our attention. For instance, Europe is concentrating on slowing the affects of global warming, and as the primary contributors to the problem, I feel we should be focusing on the issue as well. Additionally, China may have finally produced a working model for Communist governance but is doing so at a great cost to the environment. Also, while I think their economic progress is great, I’m concerned about how their military capabilities might affect the United States. I feel that we need to concern ourselves more with the implications of what China may become, and how we can acclimate our own economy to an inevitable paradigm shift that will take place. Another constant worry is nuclear non-proliferation. Iran may be currently working with North Korea to obtain nuclear power. Although we are not sure what kind of nuclear power Iran wants to possess, we do know that they are in need of it for both types of applications.

When I think of all of the above, I am enraged when I think about the War On Terror debacle. What was our rush to use hard power? It was President Bush with his big red, white, and blue stick, saying “do what I say, or else”. Our use of soft power, on the other hand, has produced a better relationship with North Korea in a much shorter span of time. North Korea has decided to comply with US requests to disarm. So it would seem that despite the Bush administration’s position of no negotiations with terrorists (or those powers on the axis of evil list), just this latest use of diplomatic power has produced the desired result we were looking for with Iraq. So now US is finally talking with Iran, and I think that soft power will prevail again. So has Bush become a big boy, and learned his lesson at the expense of 407 billion dollars, 3,109 soldiers and perhaps 30,000 civilian lives? Maybe he has, but we still have to finish what we started in Iraq.

So here’s my problem. Although I hate the war in Iraq, I must concede that it may not end with us pulling out and allowing two warring factions to fend for themselves in a state of civil war. Ted Koppel made the point on Meet The Press this morning, that leaving Iraq now would spread a national civil war into a regional civil war. Given that the world relies on this region for so much of its oil, obviously we cannot let that happen. So we are stuck with this situation in Iraq, and no way out except to stabilize the country. So what now? Some say that we need to separate the country into three segments or provinces, allowing each faction representation in governing a religiously segregated state. Im not sure that people will give up their olive trees though. I don’t think they will take leaving their homes lightly. Additionally, the Kurds will have a beautiful region in the North while the other two factions will have a barren war zone to rebuild, which won’t be ignored. Finally, given that the source of conflict is religiously based, Im not very confident that they will be cooperative with each other in government. They each feel entitled to the land and its resources, and they will each fight for a larger piece of Oil revenues. We have to find a way to end sectarian violence. That is the only answer. But what if the root to the violence is American occupation? Would that mean that once the Americans withdraw, the violence would end? I can’t help but think that both the Suni and Sheite factions are saying “fuck you Americans, we don’t want your help. We know what you do with countries you “help” and we don’t want your corporate domination here”. It would explain why they blow up everything we try to build, and sabotage every program we initiate. Is it possible that all this could be over if we leave and stop feeling as though we need to be babysitters to their people? Could it be true that our Western philosophies are the primary source of this conflict? If you say no, your fooling yourself.

I have been a supporter of the Cut-And-Run policy, but I don’t pretend that it’s going to be that cut and dry. I support a withdraw to see what will happen, because everything we have tried to do up to this point has failed. I don’t know if it is right or if it too will fail. I just think that a pull-back will allow us to regroup, assess the situation a little better, and then we can decide what to do. I mean, let’s be honest, the resources there are important to industry in America. We cannot lose that region to civil war. If we do, the global demand for oil will rise and we will be in a world of hurt. If a reduction in American military presence causes the Iraqi people to calm down and rebuild their state, great. If it ends in more civil war though, at least we could rule the option of leaving out. At that point, if we do decide to go back in, at least we will know what to expect and maybe we can be better prepared. I think it is obvious to everyone that our current effort in Iraq is going nowhere. We need an option, and at this point, giving the Iraqi people a chance at self governance is the only option we have. -knockemdown

So I wake up Friday morning, late for work as usual, and I race to take a shower, get dressed, and get out of the house drinking some type of caffeinated beverage. After a long conversation over the internet with my buddy, I finally get ready to go when I get a new e-mail. It’s from this person I’m selling a 1987 Pontiac Trans-am to over Autotrader.com for $1900. They tell me they have sent me Postal Money Orders via UPS in the amount of $3800. I am further instructed to cash them, and send $1800 to an “auto shipper” in Orlando via Western Union. I walk out the door, and there it is, a UPS sticker indicating that the package is at the office of my apartment complex. I jump in my truck, and anxiously cruise faster than normal toward the office, when suddenly I catch a glimpse of bright pink in the corner of my eye. I slow down, and I see a three year old girl with a pink sweat suit standing alone in the middle of the street. I don’t know what I thought was worse, the fact that a parent would allow such a thing to happen, or the fact that a passing car merely swerved around her as if she was a lifeless obstacle. I, being the hero that I am, got out of my car and proceeded to walk toward the little girl. At first I was going to try and goo-goo ga-ga her, but I didn’t want to come across as a weirdo if anybody came out and saw me. So I decided to walk calmly toward her with an expressionless face, which scared the living shit out of her. However, terrorizing her had a positive effect. She ran straight home and I was spared having to knock on several doors before finding the rightful owner of this child. I give her a big smile as I reach her desperately trying to open the door to an apartment. “Where’s your mommy? Is your mommy home?” I ask with a Cheshire cat smile. “My daddy” she says smiling back. I crack the door open and say “Hello?”. Suddenly, a small rumble slowly grows louder as a large black dog comes into sight at the top of the stairs. The dog creeps slowly down step by step, snarling at me as I hold this little girl by the arm. Then, as if she recognized the dog, the little girl pushed on the door to walk inside, but I quickly restrained her from opening the door so I don’t get attacked by the dog. “Wait! What am I dong to this little girl” I think to myself as I keep her from going inside. For a brief moment, I ready myself to shove her in and quickly slam the door closed. However, if she chose the wrong house and didn’t even know the doggy, that might not end well. “YO!” I scream as a man finally appears. “GET INSIDE!” he screams at the little girl, and she finally breaks down screaming and crying as he approaches me at the front door. “I was just passing by and she was there in the street” I explain to the man. Shocked, he shakes my hand and thanks me. I tell him “have a nice day asshole”, but leave the asshole part out, and go to the office. Inside the UPS envelope there are four Postal Money Orders. “Great!” I think to myself, “good as gold”. So I go to my bank and walk up to the teller inside. I hand her the four money orders and ask her how I deposit them. “Do you know the people who gave these to you” she asks. “No” I tell her, “they’re from a person Im selling a car to online”. She asks me to sit in the lobby while she checks on them. I sit down and watch her through the glass cubicle. Eventually another person shows up, and then another, and then a woman comes out and says “you didn’t sell the car yet, did you?” They were fake money orders, and thanks to the folks at my bank, I was not victimized by a scam. After filing with the FBI and the Postal inspector, I finally made it to work. Walking to my desk I hear “DAMN BOY! BOUT TIME YOU MADE IT “. I tried to tell him the whole story, but he said I was full of shit. It was a crazy morning.