10 Steps Towards War

by Ali-Asad

• 1. Regimes exist that the US has branded as “hostile” or “sponsor of terror”.
  
  
• 2. US releases “intelligence” that regime X has been trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
  
  
• 3. Regime X denies any link to nuclear activities or dismisses their activity as “peaceful” and within the rules set by the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
  
  
• 4. US accuses Regime X of “hiding evidence”, engaging in “illicit activities” or “deception”.
  
  
• Regime X denies all charges as “false”.
  
  
• 6. US launches UN initiative for sanctions.
  
  
• 7. Regime X denies any “wrongdoing”.
  
  
• 8. US seeks security council resolution to take action against Regime X.
  
  
• 9. Diplomats and well-known personalities push for a last ditch effort for peace.
  
• 10. US goes to war with Regime X.
  
  

The Binary Insanity

The fault lines in the Democratic-Republican debate over policy issues have been well demarcated. On social security the Democrats oppose private accounts and raising the retirement age while the Republicans oppose higher taxes to keep the entitlement program solvent. On abortion, the democrats support abortion rights while the republicans are either morally outraged or believe the states should decide the issue.

Over the whole spectrum of policy issues the Democratic and Republican parties have identified their policy ideas which are based on their philosophical approach to governing. The Democrats want government to help the sick, needy and old while the Republicans think this big government approach only increases the incentives for people to stay unhealthy and jobless. Republicans believe in a small federal government with states having rights on all issues that the constitution does not allocate to the federal government. Democrats feel that this approach undermines the concept of the United States of America.


Over the last 50 years both parties have strived to twist the important issues of the day to their own advantage in order to seek a bigger majority for their party. But congressional elections are held every two years and presidential elections every four; a President can not even serve more than two terms in office. This quick turnover rate makes continuity and consensus impossible on the important issues of the day. It just depends on which way the pendulum is swinging in a given generation, decade or electoral cycle. Therefore, the political process is only destined to half-measures and compromises that satisfy neither parties nor intellectuals on both sides. And neither political philosophy succeeds in establishing a system based on its own coherent principles and ideals.

No wonder the healthcare system is broken.
No wonder social security is bankrupt.
No wonder no one sees a better future for the war in Iraq or the ‘war’ against terror.

There is no consensus. If only the electorate would be mature enough to think long term. Does a liberal really think that drastically lower taxes will turn out worse than the current complicated tax regime? Does a conservative really believe that withdrawing from Iraq in the near future will cost more American and Iraqi lives than staying in Iraq for 100 years? Does a Republican really think that a government mandate for universal healthcare would be worse than the current broken system? Does a Democrat really believe that a free market innovation-oriented approach to solving climate change would be worse than the current muddled inaction? In the end, any coherent solution is better than the current situation or a muddled compromise.

Senator Obama calls for a ‘politics of common sense’. I’d rather people wise up to a politics of common sanity.

And that's jus' the tip.

Comment below.

Clinton, Nader & Obama: The Real Choice

by Clint Johnson

Barack Obama, 46, is an egomaniac. Consider this: He's already written two entire books about himself. And, after a long, distinguished career of two years in the US Senate, he decided that he should be the most powerful man in the world. Running on the theme of change, his Senate record is so astounding that his supporters often fail to name a single one of his legislative accomplishments. I have one for you: He voted repeatedly to fund the Iraq war (which he says must end).But that's not all.He linked his vanity campaign with Abraham Lincoln's. The audacity! Barack Obama, do us all a favor. Stick to making speeches. Go home.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 60, is a corporate Democrat, a triangulator and, like her Democratic opponent, an imperialist. Worst of all, she's a spoiler. The darling of the military industrial complex, Hillary will stop at nothing to guarantee her coronation as president. Right now, it seems clear that her insistence on sticking in the race is dividing the Democratic Party, perhaps paving the way for a McCain victory. But, Mrs. Clinton, don't you know the odds are against you? Hillary Clinton, do us all a favor. Stop being a spoiler. Go home.

Ralph Nader, 74, is the only legitimate candidate in the 2008 presidential election. Clinton and Obama spew empty rhetoric about change, but Nader has decades of real experience changing this country for the better. He's made your cars safer. He's made your water and your air cleaner. He's made your job safer to work at. He's made your government more transparent. He's made the products you buy less dangerous. He's made your food healthier. He was instrumental in the formation of more than 50 organizations that foster citizen power and protection, such as Congress Watch, the Clean Water Action Project and the Center for Auto Safety. He opposed the Iraq war from the start. He's always opposed the Patriot Act. He's always supported the worker's right to a living wage and to organize in unions. He supports single-payer universal healthcare. He opposes the War on Drugs. He opposes NAFTA. He supports a two-state solution – not AIPAC. He opposes the increasing control corporations have over our daily lives. Unlike Clinton and Obama, he stands in line with the majority of US public opinion (see below). Unlike the Democrats, he represents the best interests of the Peace movement, the labor movement, the gay rights movement and the environmental movement. But, you know, if democracy means anything, it means choice. So I'll take it back.

Clinton and Obama (and McCain for that matter), even though you don't represent majority opinion or real change on healthcare, Iraq, the Patriot Act, the living wage, corporatism or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I think you should still be allowed to stay in the race. It's true that you'll be stealing votes from the only legitimate candidate, but he's not entitled to those votes; he has to earn them. And maybe if you say "please," Nader will give you a good Cabinet position come January. Best of luck.

And that's jus' the tip.

Comment below.