Why Politics, From Me?

I'm 58 years old! I am a Veteran of the U.S. Navy who worked in Top Secret communications! I am a Recovering drug Addict with over 13 years of clean time, after having used drugs for nearly 30 years! I have been incarcerated many times and am a convicted felon! I am a Certified Drug and Alcohol Abuse Counselor! Does this mean anything? Not in itself, but if I may, let me try to qualify! My primary presence on the Internet has been as the WebMaster of my Addiction Recovery site! I have had over a dozen articles pertaining to Addiction and Recovery from this disease, published on the Internet. I have had one article published regarding my Political views. I thought to myself, recently, why should anyone care what I think about politics? Well, just what does qualify someone to make public commentary? Surely, some of the commentators regularly on television don't seem to know anything special! So, I'll take a shot at making my case...
My family migrated from Missouri to California in 1958, when I was 9 years old. This move in itself most certainly changed my future and that of my entire family. Missouri is a conservative area. California is liberal and trendy. They are two very different places in our Society. Thus, ingrained midwestern values and beliefs were the root of our family, and over a lifetime, we have melted into the West Coast lifestyle and have become Californians. Thus said, on to my life as it pertains to my political views...
A teenager of the 1960's, I'm sure that I am a typical baby-boomer in many ways. But, in many ways I'm not a typical or average citizen, at all! Only about 1% of the U.S. population succumbs to drug addiction. I am one of them! I am also a Veteran of the Armed Forces, also a small percentage of the population, since the WWII Vets are passing in great numbers. I am also a convicted felon. Would it surprise you to know that 1 out of 99 Americans is incarcerated over the course of a month? I don't know the stats on those who have ever been incarcerated. Currently 2,300,000 Americans are incarcerated. That said, let's move on to my individual case...
When I was 13, John Kennedy was assassinated. That event had a prominent effect on me as a person, as it did many Americans. The mystery of that incident brought politics into the lives of people who had previously basked in the luxury of the robust American lifestyle that followed WWII. Before that most citizens of the U.S. took it for granted that we had the best, most honest government possible. It has never been the same since. The Vietnam War added to the questionability of our undaunted faith in Government and it's many agencies. When President Richard Nixon was branded as an outright liar, a little more confidence slipped away. Average American belief systems were challenged by the Civil Rights movement, the Women's Rights movement, and concerted efforts on the part of our citizenry, as a united front, to force an end to the Vietnam War.
As I approached the age of 18, it was a safe assumption that I would be drafted into the military. Every boy who was not wealthy and able to find an exemption of the privileged, got drafted. That part has not changed. The poor still fight the wars for the rich. The poor still do the dieing for the Capitalists. Having had many friends die in Vietnam, I reached the conclusion that the only way to avoid being drafted into the Army Infantry was to enlist, which I did. On November 17, 1967 I took the Oath to defend my country in the U.S. Navy. I was just a kid. I had no idea how prolific an effect this would have on my life. The worst thing that happened as a result of serving was that my recreational experience with drugs would turn into an Addiction lasting nearly 30 years.
Politics came head on into my life as a Navy Radioman, working in Top Secret communications at the Commander-In-Chief of the Pacific Fleet Headquarters, Naval Communications Station, Message Center Makalapa, across the King Kamehameha Highway from Pearl Harbor, several stories underground. As a result of my security clearance, I became privy to all communications to the Pacific Fleet, including operational information between CINCPACFLT, the Pentagon, and the White House. I will not now and never have discussed any details of this information, as I took an oath not to. The only exception was in protected confidence with my Counselor in drug treatment at the VA Hospital program in Fresno, California. Even then, many details were omitted, and limited to a couple of sessions. The point being, that I found out many things that obliterated my trust in the Government. During this period, President Richard Nixon was forced out of office for basically deceiving the public and abusing his power, for political gain. I couldn't avoid politics even if I had wanted to.
I re-entered civilian life skeptical of government, spiritually bankrupt, and severely addicted to drugs. My dependency started in Navy schools, with Benzedrine, an amphetamine. I eventually used drugs as psychological self-medication, also. Once addicted you use drugs for any and every reason you can think of, avoiding confronting the problems that they actually mask. The first year I was out, I didn't work. I grew my hair out, and lived outside the norm, not desiring to be a part of anything, especially Society. I did get involved in the fight to stop the War in Vietnam, helping people beat the draft, and participating in demonstrations. In my mind, the government was responsible for everything that was wrong with the World and me. Though my thinking was very distorted, I became extremely politically aware, keeping up with the daily news, and being able to factually defend my positions as an anti-social personality developed in me. Marriages failed as a result of my Addiction. I lost and quit jobs as a result of my drug use and abuse. I went back and forth from a functional addict to a dysfunctional addict. I was in and out of jail. I became a pipeline welder with my own tools for the independence and high demand that made changing jobs easy.
This lasted until drug testing became a regular part of the job market. I had chosen selling drugs as my profession, which made using that much easier. But, in the end the law caught up with me. After many incarcerations and many ups and downs, I just could not stay out of jail. My arrest on January 21, 1995, and a radical spiritual experience while facing a prison sentence, allowed me to acknowledge that I had hit my bottom. I had lost the will to live and broke down mentally during my detoxification from Meth, in jail. I resorted to prayer and my prayer was answered. I used drugs for the last time at the beginning of that jail term. I took my last drink on March 24, 1995. As a result of a plea bargain, my prison sentence was suspended on the terms that I serve one year in jail and one year in a drug treatment program. I would actually only serve four months in jail and remained in the program for six months. I entered the VA Hospital, Fresno, California, Chemical Dependency Treatment Program on April 11, 1995. As it turned out the very government that I had blamed for my problems for nearly 30 years, became my saving grace. I had to seriously re-assess my political views after that. At 50 I began my quest for Certification as a drug counselor at a State University.
Little did I realize how politically dependent the profession I had chosen, was. After 7 years of Counseling I had a serious health crisis that took me off of work for 8 months. During this period of time the failing economy under the Republican administration, resulted in a major cancellation of Grants. Drug treatment depends hugely on Grants as treatment is a financial impossibility for most Addicts. Having lost my job and my health insurance, I found myself approaching 60, in a scant job market, competing with people half my age. I am now living on unemployment insurance compensation, with no real prospect for a job. Politics are again very crucial to my life. Republicans fund wars and big business. Democrats fund social programs and middle America. I fear it will take a robust economy and major funding for drug treatment before the market become great enough for the job competition in my field to accommodate my demographic. Meanwhile, I contribute meekly to the Democratic Party and depend on my Spirituality to get through, one day at a time. I sponsor a needy child through Children International, and have several family members, also in financial distress, living with me. I have developed a totally non-profit Addiction Recovery website, and use it to keep me sane and as my way of still being able to help other Addicts. I feel that my experiences with the military, the criminal justice system, and my Recovery from drug Addiction, have shaped a well-informed, highly aware political position and very well developed political opinions. Of course the key word is "opinion"! I feel very qualified to comment...
You be the judge! I will quote this article as a reference in all future political articles that I submit.
Thank you,

CounselorDave!







David R Carroll, CADC is a certified substance abuse counselor, in California. He has served as a treatment program Director (started a new program). He developed the curriculum for that program that required approval from the California Department of Corrections Substance Abuse Services Coordinating Agency, and the California Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs. He has also worked going into California prisons recruiting inmates for Aftercare treatment for addiction and alcoholism. Counselor Carroll is also WebMaster of the site, Addiction: Why Me? The goal of the Site is to become self sufficient enough to support itself and to expand to "Live Chat" for confidential, help for addicts and their victims (family, friends, etc.).

The Legal and Organized Political Power

The components of national power of the state, qualitative and quantitative factors of economic, political, social and military power are needed to interpret the same state as a dynamic social relationship, which necessarily interacts with all facets of social behavior.

The combination of these optical multidisciplinary appreciate the history and present of nations, as part of social and institutional contents of the country, under the deposit of state powers in the government figure, defines the policies to follow. This statement is of particular importance as it cannot be separated from the external to internal power, and in many ways, the way state acts have to do with the image it has of himself, that reaching out and that others have of it.

Schematically, the assertion that the national and international power means "... The power or ability of the subjects of international society to impose its own will on others, based on the preparation of its population, as well as the quantity, quality and use of resources at their disposal, in determining the degree of organization and development they have attained in all spheres: political, economic, legal, social, cultural, scientific, technical, military, etc.. as well as the objectives of its foreign policy, and supported by the ability of its armed forces and the complexity of their arms. Therefore, power is a complex global power that determines the specific weight of each actors of contemporary international society.

The ability and willingness to exercise ( power) reflects the degree of cohesion and direction in national policy and have given concrete expression in the international arena. In this perspective is the conceptualization of Raymond Aron, external action is not only diplomacy, in the narrowest sense of the term... but also influences or pressures, voluntary or otherwise, brought by the country on other countries, both because of what it is, and because of what he does, and both its multinational companies as their diplomats.

National Power reflects possibilities and limitations in it. National Power flows from state power, the exercise of delegated to the nation state, which has the power to establish and implement the political-legal process. Thus, the State, such as monopolizing the use of force, avoiding anarchic violence between individuals and gives the government the means to enforce the institutional comprehensiveness of the National Power is the result of the agglutination of all means available to the nation: political, economic, social (psychosocial) and military. National Power serves the domestic and foreign policy externally is surety instrument of sovereignty, aimed to conquer and preserve national objectives relating to international relations.

These are called the sovereign independence of states, the absence of a higher power, the detachment from all external brake, which attaches to relations between states his peculiar sense of anarchy. There are three powerful imperatives: the prestige, fear and interest, as it is natural that the weak law is dominated by the strong. Power has formed an indissoluble part of the study of relations between states and ways in which power became the main catalyst for the evolution in the forms of political organization.

Without explaining the power it cannot be explained the historical evolution of the social community clustered in the political, from the primitive commune to the supranational schemes today. Hence the use of power in relations between states was analyzed also as a synonym of "power politics", generally from the perspective of "realpolitik". The power in international relations is the ability of a nation to use its tangible and intangible resources, so that they can affect the behavior of other nations.

According to a more specialized, the politics of power are a system of international relations in which groups regard themselves, as the ultimate goals, employ at least vital purposes, the most effective means at their disposal and are measured according to their weight in case of conflict.

Power politics generally are interpreted from the perspective of interstate and as sources of power have their own internal conditions of which becomes its capacity. Hence, National Power, Foreign Policy and Political Power as communicating vessels are the sources of power and capacity.

Thus we can summarize these power politics as a means to achieve the purposes of the nation, and also view internal policies (or domestic), and in foreign policy, because in all these are seeking for power.

The effectiveness of power and significance of their policies is measuring and valuing power, played by objective basis for defining and quantifying multidisciplinary sectors, e.g. - In the effective and efficient use of national power. While power is a relative term, the capabilities are not.

Often it is stated that the power of a nation is simply the sum total of their abilities but always entails power capabilities, is also related to other dimensions. It is important that, while the skills can be delimited objectively, the power must be assessed in every case in terms of psychological and subtle relationship.

In the same vein, Kissinger said that "most of history has shown a synthesis of military, political and economic, which has generally proven to be symmetrical. The sheer will is not enough to the satisfaction of interests; you need the ability to do so. In this summarizes the genesis of power: to prioritize the satisfaction of the interests that man needs to use available means and resources and ensure that they can impose their will, so you can secure control over the obstructions to the achievement of their interests reflecting the possibilities and limitations of National Power.

So does the ability by the end of this century and millennium, a financial institution charged with the uncompromising defense of the principles of neoliberal and monetarism emerged from the Chicago school in the eighties, the World Bank, the state role revalues and emphasizes the full use of state capacities, under the sign of efficiency.

An effective state is essential to have the goods and services - and the rules and institutions-that allow markets to flourish and people to lead healthier and happier life. Experience taught us that the state is central to the process of economic and social development, but not as a direct provider of growth but as a partner, catalyst and initiator of this process. The world is changing and with it also changes our ideas about the role of government in economic and social development.

http://sites.google.com/site/cliptheschoolbeginning/
http://sites.google.com/site/arturvictoriasite/

Rape As a Political Weapon

Politically motivated sexual violence directed against women is an issue that is seldom the subject of widespread media coverage yet it profoundly affects millions of women in communities worldwide. Organized rape is a tactic used to denigrate and repress political prisoners and victims of war and it is often under reported due to the stigma attached to being a victim of this crime in many parts of the world. Rather than existing as a side effect of war, in countries such as Darfur, Pakistan, Peru, Serbia and Rwanda mass rape has been systematically used as a tool for ethnic cleansing, to spread HIV, extract information and to terrorize rival tribes, movements and dissidents.

In the Rwandan genocide of 1994 is it calculated that approximately half a million women were raped by the Hutu militia in an effort to ethnically cleanse the Tutsi minority. It is estimated that seventy percent of the survivors are living with HIV/AIDS today and this legacy has had a devastating effect on the populace. In Serbia rape camps were used as a methodical instrument of ethnic cleansing to demoralise and disperse the Muslim and Croat population, the Karadzic leadership used a sports complex in the town of Foca to systematically rape women from these communities for two months in 1992. In Sierra Leone the United Nations reports the widespread institutional abduction of girls and women by militias for rape and sexual slavery. In rural India sexual violence has been used to suppress poor communities who defy the elite to demand land rights and higher wages, it has also been used by the police to silence activists who uncover corruption. In Tibet, China has orchestrated unsanctioned mass sterilization and organized rape against Tibetan women, imprisoned female political activists and nuns are repeatedly sexually assaulted as a tactic to break the spirit of the dissident community. In Iran there is a 30 year documented history of sexual violence used as a torture method to humiliate prisoners and victims often remain silent due to the cultural stigma attached to speaking about such incidents. In some cases both children and women are reported to have been raped in front of their husbands, relatives and communities as a barbaric strategy to quash resistance and break down society to achieve military aims.

The true scope of the problem can only be estimated as rape is often used as a precursor to murder in many cases. For the most part sexual assault goes unpunished due to the attitude of indifference towards many forms of violence against women and the implicit acceptance of rape as an unavoidable consequence of war. Victims are often afraid of reprisals if they pursue prosecution and in many parts of the world legislation omits rape in times of war as a prosecutable offence. Unfortunately some peace pacts provide amnesty for the perpetrators and in many cultures a woman who has been raped is considered "unmarriageable" or may be rejected from her community if she is known to be a victim. As a result these crimes frequently go unreported and accurate figures of how pervasive the problem is are often difficult to obtain.

Only now are some countries taking steps to ensure women's rights are protected in conflict zones. Two weeks ago the Philippine government enacted legislation which calls for specialized training to be provided to military, police and civilians to protect women during armed conflicts and post-conflict reconstruction. The new legislation promotes the participation of women in the peacekeeping and conflict resolution process and also calls for a monitoring and reporting system to ensure that violations of women's rights are evaluated and dealt with accordingly.

Recently the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) declared that rape is a form of genocide, The commission stated that "sexual assault formed an integral part of the process of destroying the Tutsi ethnic group and that the rape systematic and had been perpetrated against Tutsi women only, manifesting the specific intent required for those acts to constitute genocide" The tribunal set a precedent in designating rape as a war crime rather than a "trophy of war," to date it has completed 21 trials and convicted 29 accused persons whilst another 11 trials are in currently in progress.

As the issue becomes more accurately documented there is hope that awareness will breed action in the international community. Activists are terming this form of violence against women "sexual terrorism" and the United Nations Secretary General praised the ICTR's recognition of this issue, stating "in a number of contemporary conflicts, sexual violence has taken on particularly brutal dimensions, sometimes as a means of pursuing military, political, social and economic objectives." Hopefully more initiatives will be taken to help evaluate vulnerable communities and take steps to prevent sexual violence against women in conflict zones in the future.

by Naomi Pattirane

About the Author

Naomi Pattirane is an Indonesian American human rights journalist and activist. She is the founder and editor of the online magazine World Women International and an author of slipstream fiction. Her work has been featured on the United Nations site Stop Rape Now to promote action against sexual violence in conflict zones

http://www.worldwomeninternational.com

Support the United Nations campaign against sexual violence in conflict http://www.stoprapenow.org/

The Drawbacks of Canceling Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986

For military personnel who had served the United States with utmost dedication and service, it would be very difficult for them to recognize the issues that are more serious to the "national security" than how the men and women of the U.S. armed forces will benefit from military retirement.

In the U.S., military retirement plans are one of the best gratifications these people should have by the time they have reached their retirement age. Considering the services and dedication that the military personnel have offered, military retirement is the best reward to compensate their performances.

Today, under the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986 (REDUX), military people are enjoying a 50% compensation based on their "basic salary" while they were still on service. This is after they have opted to retire upon accumulating 20 years of military service. This is applicable to any military personnel who have joined the service on or before July 31, 1986.

Consequently, based on REDUX rules, anyone who was able to join the military after July 31, 1986 is expected to receive 40% of his basic compensation upon completion of a 20-year service in the military.

However, with the perilous weaknesses of the government, the compensations that military retirement plans are expected to provide becomes a threat instead of a reward.

On its current state, the Federal government is presently considering the cancellation of REDUX. As a result, military retirement benefits will be fixed on a 50% compensation upon completion of 20-year service for all the personnel.

Sounds good? Think again.

While military retirement benefits may increase upon the cancellation of REDUX, many people still say that it is not advisable that the government should take drastic changes on important matters like the proposed REDUX cancellation.

Statistical reports show that abolishment of REDUX will charge the government a whopping $6 billion for the following 6 years and approximately $1.5 billion a year after that.

This may not sound like a disadvantage at all considering the fact that the military personnel are the ones who will benefit from such action.

However, what the opposition would like to say is that making significant changes in the military retirement plan is critical based on the following reasons:

1. Effect not clearly determined

The effects on maintenance of the military funds brought about by such major changes in the military retirement are hard to uncover in a snap. In fact, many people claim that the objectives of canceling REDUX were not even clearly put into details.

2. Changes like this are rare

Political and military analysts say that changes in the system like that of the military retirement plans are "politically" hard to establish. In essence, changes like the proposed REDUX cancellation are very uncommon.

For this reason, one can simply understand that people, especially those in the military, can still do away with what they have now. That means they can still survive for years without having to change the military retirement plans.

All of these things are boiled down to the fact that in a matter of serious change in an ongoing political system like the military retirement, important considerations must be made and taken into account before even thinking of drafting the proposal.

All sides of the coin must be well considered, both pensively and on purpose. Changes to be made in military retirement should not be dealt with as of the moment but more on the long-term effect.

The complexity of choices and issues concerning military retirement should not propose a threat on the personal growth of every individual who have served in the military.

Keep in mind that retirement is something that every worker should enjoy after his or her retirement age. The war is over. Why prolong the agony of the military people?

retirementdotcom.com is a free information site that offers articles and resources on Retirement Planning. If you want to read or share information on Finance:Personal-Finance [http://www.retirementdotcom.com/2006/05/31/military-retirement-reform/], you're always welcome!

What Is The Best Suitable Form Of Government For Nigeria From Year 2007

What can prevent this country from political unrest that we are going to witness in the year 2007?

What type of government can give this country of political stability? What can save this country from bloodshed election 2007? Nigeria politicians are prepared for war, which is verified to the fact that "two rams want to drink from a pot" at a time.

The North are saying that they are born to rule, and the South says that what is good for the goose, is also good for the gander". That they also can rule this country. Then what can we do to prevent this country from war, because the South was rumored to have imported sophisticated weapons.

There are three major types of government and one can prevent this country from war, they are unitary system of government, Federal system of government, and confederal system of government. As of now Nigeria is practicing Federal system of government in which the president is the executive head of the country and head of state, Furthermore, federal system of government could be defined as one in which all government power that exist in the country is shared between the Central government and the component regions. The north and south are fighting to this presidential office thus federal system of government may lead this country to internal war, if care is not taking.

The military brought unity to Nigeria country by using unitary system of government, The word Unitary is define as one in which all governmental powers are concentrated in the hands of a single authority or central government, this single authority does not share governmental powers, with any other body, but delegate power to other subordinate bodies, this type of government is usually used by military system of government.

Both Federal and Military system of government is not suitable for Nigeria as of what we are experiencing now, if that should be the case the third form of government should be taking into consideration, Therefore the best suitable form of government that can give this country a political stability and that can ensure faster development is CONFEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT which can be defined as a one in which there is loose political arrangement in which autonomous, on sovereign, or republic state comes together to form a union in which almost the major functions are reserved exclusively for the component regions with a weak centre. The central government gets its moral and financial and human support from the components regions.

The United State of America as practice this form of government between year 1783 to 1789.

Confederal System is not common in these day, but it exist when geo political zone is fitting for a political office, Confederal system of government is the best system of government that Nigeria can adopt from the year 2007, perhaps let every each region go back to his/her state and specialized on their exclusive power list. The features of confederal system of government are that she has a weak centre, flexible constitution and right to secede which means each component regions can withdraw from their membership.

In federal system of government independency of the Judiciary is one of the feature of the Federal System of Government but Nigeria denied it, as a result it cost us nothing to deny right to secede.

If the Centre is weak there will not be a region that would be fighting for presidential office again because it will just be like a councillorship office which will not bring along violence or political crises.

Written and rigid constitution is one of the features of Nigeria Federal system of government which has been violated and said do be unwritten and flexible constitution, which means Nigeria has indirectly adopted a confederal system of government. For example Nigeria written and rigid constitution does not go along with the impeachment of Governor Ladoja of Oyo State because the Constitution states that before a political office holder can be impeached two third majority of the house must support this procedure, Ladoja was impeached despite the fact that they were not up to the required No, hence is it true that we are practising Federal System of Government?

Moreover, Nigeria adopt federalism because of the following reasons:-

- Tribal differences

- Fear of domination

- Fear of Inter ethnic rivalry

- An even development for security reason

- Desire for Union

but all this aim is nullified by Nigeria politicians since all this aims is render nullified why can't we adopt a confederal system of government that will favour each and everyone of us.

Furthermore, Nigeria adopt Federal system of government so as to create more employment opportunities, 60 percent of Nigerian graduates are unemployed due to political unstability. Nigeria citizen in and DIASPORA are looking for Job as a result Nigeria is witnessing NEOCOLONIALISM. Nigeria citizen are afraid of coming back home because lack of security and we still insist in practicing federal system of government.

In my own view as a political thinker, Confederal System of Government is the best form of Government that can ensure Unity, Security, Rapid and faster development, Employment opportunity and political stability for the citizen of Nigeria.

Eventually, Nigeria politician, Masses, Pressure groups let us try and adopt confederal system of government in order to enjoy all the benefits listed above.

The Politics Behind the Candidates in Iran

As you know, prior to election in Iran, I wrote in our blog that I did not believe that anything good will come as a result of the current election. Looking at the Guardian Council's decision of selecting Ahmadinejad for president, I would have preferred a one candidate election. Why put all these old revolutionaries who have profited from the Islamic regime on the stand to run for president, when at the end of the day the average Iranian has no say in the election?

Unfortunately, absolute power corrupts absolutely under any regime. This is evident in today's Iran more than ever. As the election debates took shape the week before the election, the profiteering of Muslim ex-revolutionaries became obvious. In the debates Mr. Ahmadenijad accused the reformers of systematic theft and looting of nations wealth by reform candidates and its supporters. I was surprised that why a sitting president that had this information for 4 years while being in office did nothing about it until election night. Why Aytolah Khamenai would give these men the right to run for election if they or the immediate family had done some of these looting. For the average Iranian it has been obvious for years that Rafsanjani and Karubi had enriched themselves with public wealth. Still for many this was an awakening to see beyond the mask of religion and billions that these folks have taken from the Iranian nation's wealth. It is clear that ideologies are served for the masses while mass looting of country's wealth has taken place over the past 30 years under these old guards.

For folks that are not familiar with the Iranian factions, let's be clear that all these old men do not represent anything new. The two main characters in this battle are not Mousavi and Ahmadenajad, but Rafsanjani and Khomeini who are old guards of the revolution. Since they are old, they are no longer fighting for power for themselves. They are guarding the nepotistic ideals so that the sons and daughters of these revolutionaries can benefit from continued control over the government and its resources and maintain the nepotistic lines of governance.

Iran's hope for theological democracy under Islam was put to rest under the previous leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khatami, the president of Iran prior to Ahmadinejad. Unfortunately because of the divisions within the reform movement at the time the reform movement was put to rest at the voter level. After the first four-year term of president Khatami, the same revolutionary guards insured that the reform in Iran politics does not happen. How did this happen? They simply banned sitting member of the parliament from running in subsequent terms. They became disenfranchised. These parliamentary elected officials no longer met the needs of the Islamic Republic ruling dictators Rafsanjani and Khomeini. They got forced out of politics.

In his second term, president Khatami used his executive power to open news papers and magazines, and soon hundreds of news papers flourished in Iran. With the selection of Ahmadinejad as president, these magazines and voices again became disenfranchised and were quickly shut down. Many reformers got barred from journalism. As I have stated in my book, the supreme leader and the clergy system in Iran controls who is allowed to run based on a selection of old revolutionaries and mullahs out of Qom. This is effectively a one party system.

As I was watching the election, I thought what must have been shocking to the viewers from the West was the absence of a forum for a challenger to regroup and be able to mobilize its base. Mr. Mousavi and his supporters could only go to the streets to voice their opposition towards the election in illegal rallies. No political party in the parliament was visible to voice a challenge, or unite and plan for the next election. By the design the government has placed an executive judicial and parliamentary system that is full of yes men, and that follows the orders of the regime. No other voice can be heard in Iran, and even if it could, it would be dealt with brute force.

This video shows how the current leaders 20 years ago supported each other and to the opposition of senior clergy at the time sidelined Aytollah Montazeri. Grand Aytollah Montazeri in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war was always expected in the 80's to replace Aytollah Khamanei. Montazeri spent 5 years in jail himself. He was sidelined because he did not believe in Islamic republic that did not represent democratic ideals of the masses. He also protested against the wave of execution that the Islamic republic committed against the voice of opposition views in Iran.

Now as the same Guardian Council and mullahs have reclaimed power at the expense of the current generation of youth in Iran, the question is- Where does Iran reform movement go from this point?

The options are clear. First, the nepotistic revolutionary leaders will not give up the wealth that their families have made. They will not surrender the thrown or loose respect for the crimes of looting that their daddies did in the country. They will continue to fight each other as the losing party may end up hung or expelled from the country. The last real leader Iran had after the death of Ayatollah Khomeini was Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. In the 80s when I attended the Friday prayers with my parents and I remember the laud orchestrated chants that Ayatollah Montazeri was the hope of Iran. He had lost three kids as martyrs to establishing the regime and was the Ayatollah Khomeini's exiled partner. He was quickly sidelined by Rafsanjani and Khamenei at the time, and after the death of Ayatollah Khomeini, he was no longer a figure in the Iranian government and was put under house arrest and silenced. Even though he was a great revolutionary responsible for carrying the torch since he believed in open government with each Iranian having a voice, he was sidelined for the strict conservatives to rule.

This was fine for the neoconservatives in the White House at the time since they wanted a fundamental religious government in Iran. Remember that it was during the Reagan years that the Iran-Contra scandal broke out and the CIA funded sales of guns to Iran by importing cocaine into the U.S. The Reagan's neoconservatives even negotiated with the Islamic regime to keep the hostages for 444 days so that it would kill President Carter's chance of reelection and they got conveniently released when Reagan took office.

The fact is that the neoconservatives and the religious conservative government in Iran are not after ideologies. They use ideologies for the masses only to mold the public opinion. As the end goal is power, no amount of power is sufficient for these folks. They are happy to change ideologies and viewpoints in order to reach the end goal. For the conservatives in the white house at the time the end goal is dominance over nation wealth.

Before the election the neoconservatives hoped that Iran would select Ahmadenijad. Why? Because it would create the next war for them to be engaged in and control a population rich in culture and resources to create more military bases and to have the next war to fund the military industrial complex that relies on its base of support. The neoconservatives like senator McCain do not have the interests of the people of Iran in mind. They are encouraging actions that would help Ahmadenijad. They are OK with the concept of Iranians killing Iranians indefinitely, just like they have been OK with funding both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. Additionally, it gives a reason to the hawks in Israel to buy more guns with the U.S. tax payer's dollars and use them in Iran. That will draw the U.S. into a fight with Iran and send my fellow Iranians back to the dark ages, very similar to what happened in Iraq. Remember that in Iraq, after the first war, the same neoconservatives told the Shiite majority that they would support the uprising and at the end they sat by the sidelines while Iraq military crushed the Shiite majority in the south in the most brutal way possible. Besides the next war and a permanent military base in Iran they have no other agenda. With that base established, they can run heroin out of the golden triangle all the way to Afghanistan, Iran and Kurdistan to fund the next dictator for another war. Therefore the cycle of violence between nations continues and they all profit from it.

Iranian government has used this to its full advantage to clamp down on its own people. You see for the Iranian revolutionaries it is better if the Israel does attack the nuclear development infrastructure. The conservative government can again consolidate power by reminding of the great evils outside of Iran's borders. By having Israil attack they can continue to use the military to suppress all opposition.

Civil disobedience is the path to Iran's future:

In Iran the concept of civil disobedience to this regime must take hold. You cannot bring a change in government with setting buildings on fire or throwing rocks. At the end, this level of violence only hurts the Iranians. In this regard I refer to the Iranians in the Basij, the revolutionary guard and the student protesters who are all mostly under 30 years of age. These young men and women represent the next generation of great Iranian minds that will be lost in such protests. The sons of the elite that rule with an ironed fist will not be impacted as they have taken the wealth of the nation to offshore bank accounts. We will only lose the poor, the middle class and other valuable Iranians to street protest.

The leaders who can possibly lead the country out of this mess such as Khatami or Mousavi are sidelined and it erodes the base of support for them if this violence continues. Continuation of violence is not what these leaders are asking for. What course of action should the average Iranian take?

The one course is the logical path for the resistance to any oppressor and that is nonviolent civil disobedience and resistance. For this we should only look at how the French are able to shut down the government by taking on peaceful strikes. Recently the union of Iranian bus drivers went on strike. This form of disobedience is the best form of resistance against tyranny. If doctors, city employees, nurses, lawyers called national strikes it would bring the ruling regime to its knees. National strikes combined with the shouts of Allah Akbar on rooftops will force this government to change without the need for another stone being thrown or innocent protester being shot in a violent act. This form of unrest is the course for all Iranians.

The demand for these protests needs to be clear: to establish political parties in Iran, open access to media, and stop filtering of election candidates by the religious theocracy. Non of this can happen without having fair elections held in the country. If the Iranian Majles (parliament) members that are still have some allegiance to the reform movement need to make the above issues and the fair elections its daily priority. See the latest video from the Iranian parliament.

In regards to the U.S. politics towards the region, I hope that President Obama continues with the current stand offish approach, as any sign of threat by the West will only be used to again consolidate power by the Islamic regime, commit mass genocide by purging the anti revolutionaries, and create the next wave of exile of war refugees in Iran. Of course this is the course that Israel would love to see since they would then be able to receive the green light to attack Iran. See the videos attached on the site link bellow.

As I watched the Shell and Chevron clean energy commercials in between broadcasts of CNN and Fox on Iran, I wondered how the media will portray things in Iran over the next few months. I have been going through the latest videos on YouTube each night looking for new materials that I could post on our site. To my amazement hundreds of new videos appear each night on YouTube. When I look at these gruesome images, my heart melts and I am deeply saddened to see them. The fact is that many new posts are not new but recycled from previous days and cut over with music and revolutionary slogans in order to increase the passion of the youth of Iran to continue the street fights and protests. The LA Iranians that left as part of the old regime all want to portray the current government as more violent than the Shah so they can put Mr. Pahlavi to rule once again and repaint him as a less violent king than the religious conservatives.

The U.S. news coverage has been amazing in regards to this election with no coverage of Haiti or the Moroccan election that took place. They keep recirculation of Iran videos as new footage. Is this because the oil companies are now buying more advertisements on these media outlets since they would be the first to benefit from the next war? Are the advertisement sales department and the editor's desk in cahoots to serve content that they can get large corporate sponsors for? I am sure that is the case. This is similar to the case of the war generals and analysts working for the media who remained on the U.S. government payroll. The media did not only look the other way but acted to pass the war propaganda to the masses on behalf of the government. Are they now getting extra advertisement dollars from the oil companies when they keep running the same footage of carnage again and again on TV? Or is it because of the heavy hand of the AIPAC Zionists and the religious conservatives with the help of the U.S. tax payers' money that is funding these continues reruns of the violence in Iran. So I would expect that over the next few months as the public opinion is shaped by these broadcasters on how evil Iran is they hope to force President Obama to change course and give Israel permission to attack Iran.

In the above scenario, the Ahmadinejads are victorious since they can once again claim power and say -- I told you so, this reform movement is from the expatriates and Israel so let's all rally around the flag, country and god and defend the nation. Finally, millions of Iranian lives will be lost defending the country but to the benefit of the neoconservatives and the nepotistic kings and princes of the region.

While Iranians die to drum beats of another war, the military industrial complex benefits from selling guns, and the oil companies from looting the Iranian wealth. The sons of these current leaders will than take residence in friendly countries with the wealth that they looted from Iran.

A site dedicated to social justice from around the globe. With the single focus of helping to build similarities from different races and cultures. By helping to highlight the plight of humanity by our collective shared experience of dealing with poverty, war, racism and social injustice. Iranian-American author Vahid Razavi and his dedicated team from Belgrade Serbia covering global issues from Iran, Middle East, US and the Balkans.
http://theageofnepotism.com/2009/07/the-politics-behind-the-candidates-in-iran/#more-786

E-mail Comment Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Furl

Military Intelligence: A True Oxymoron if not a Dangerous Blend

For some reason, the average American citizen is awed by the presence of high government officials, especially those reputed by executive department sources and the media to have been privy to state secrets as spies or intelligence agents. They are said to have such honest eyes and believable faces. I suppose that modern movies, which portray exaggerated and propagandized renditions of fictional federal intelligence operations and the heroic paramilitary agents who go about saving the world from disaster, are responsible in large part for the public's favorable impression of professional spies. Porter Goss is one of those individuals about whom a curriculum vitae has been officially written and circulated by highly talented government propagandists who have recently regaled the impressionable U.S hoi polloi with stories about Goss's forty-year service with the federal government. Little, however, is actually known about the real Porter Goss, and other people like him, who have done the clandestine bidding of the Central Intelligence Agency, the federal spy corps with the annual three billion dollar budget.

All we actually know about Goss is that he graduated from Yale in 1960, joined the U.S. Army, and was later recruited into the CIA in 1962. After that point, Mr. Goss became a shadowy professional prevaricator, in the ambiguous name of national security, and assumed a trail of pseudonyms and aliases which accompanied him on his exploits in espionage throughout the world. What Mr. Goss officially did as a CIA operative has been classified regardless of whether or not the particular operation was, or was not, sanctioned by Congress. If the covert operations were properly sanctioned by the House and Senate oversight committees, they, in most cases, were correctly classified as top-secret. If the operations weren't sanctioned, and were illegal rogue activities (which in many cases they was), they was conveniently classified in order to obfuscate the devastating truth.

One of the more curious aspects of Porter Goss' federal career was his continued under-cover employment with the CIA clandestine services during the time he was supposedly a newspaper publisher and a Florida congressman. Official sources say Goss retired from the CIA in 1970 due to health matters, but other much more reliable sources report that he didn't actually retire, but assumed cover as an ex-CIA member when he began publishing a Florida newspaper, The Island Reporter, with two other former agents.

In 1974, Goss was formally appointed to the City Council of Sanibel, Florida and was later elected as the city's mayor. Time passed while Goss assumed a prominent Republican Party status in Florida politics while still on the CIA payroll. In 1983, Goss was abruptly appointed by Florida's Governor, Bob Graham, to be on the Lee County Commissioner Board. By 1988, Goss had attained so much political popularity and leverage that he declared himself a candidate for Congress with Republican Party approval, and subsequently won a seat in the House of Representatives while still employed by the CIA. This premeditated failure to disclose his professional association and alignment with the CIA to the Florida electorate was in violation of federal election law. What Goss has done in Congress since 1988 to advance the conservative Republican and CIA-NSA agendas may only be a matter of speculation. Yet, his appointment by Dubya as CIA Director, in 2002, came as no surprise to those who were aware of Goss's continued association with the agency. His immediate confirmation by the U.S. Senate was quite laughable, with those senior committee Senators, who knew about Goss' ongoing association with the CIA, pretending that he actually retired in 1970. The truth about the Goss merger, of the intelligence community with the military and federal politics, is certainly appalling, and begs the question of how many more active spies have been elected to Congress as senators and representatives?

The stark reality about the CIA is frequently difficult to handle, especially by those who elevate its leaders to high positions on the morality pedestal. What we do know as facts about the CIA, after its inception in 1948, comprises a litany of corruption, deceit, and false representations to the American public. Remember that it was the CIA that covertly used American soldiers and marines in Vietnam, in 1968 and later, as guinea pigs in horrible experiments to determine the effects of LSD and other hallucinogenic chemicals on the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese regulars. As many as 200 young soldiers and marines unknowingly suffered permanent neurological damage as a result of the illicit experimentation, of which the Executive Branch has, of course, summarily denied any knowledge.

In 1947, after the Army's Office of Strategic Services was transformed into the CIA, there was a regular secret flow of Nazi scientists and Gestapo agents, genuine war criminals, into the ranks of the military Intelligence corps, which was the vanguard of the newly organized CIA. This utter hypocrisy practiced by the CIA, and the later-organized NSA, under the nose of Congress, was kept away from the American public through a thoroughly refined Executive Branch propaganda ministry. This well-oiled Machiavellian tax-financed government machine was the later means of keeping the facts about the illegal onset of Vietnam away from the American public. It was before, and after, 1962, that the CIA controlled most of the operational strategies used in Southeast Asia by the U.S. military commands.

It was the CIA that grossly misrepresented the general elections in Saigon, in 1964, in showing that American intervention was favored by a majority of the South Vietnamese people. The U.S. news media reflected in print, and on television, the manipulative efforts of the CIA and NSA to deceive the American voters. Lyndon B. Johnson knew, however, that the majority of the South Vietnamese wanted the American military to leave Vietnam, but exhibited unrestrained hubris and continued to escalate the fighting, which resulted in the eventual deaths of over 58,000 American warriors. In 1968, Porter Goss was among the CIA operatives who were ultimately responsible for the implementation of operational military policy in Laos, and Cambodia. In all likelihood, he was one of the prime movers of the political strategies that exacerbated the military confrontation against the North Vietnamese people, which lasted fourteen years and ended in humiliating defeat for the United States.

The diastrophic effect which has resulted from using military personnel to provide intelligence operations for the CIA and NSA, has proven to be almost fascist in nature. Any military service thrives on an austere implementation of an effective dictatorship, where the dogface GI is strictly required, at the threat of death or other severe punishment, to follow orders, whether or not the orders are moral and legal. The U.S. military is governed under such a set of regulations known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

By enlisting in the U.S. military, a person, in most cases, unknowingly signs away his constitutional rights and becomes military property. Most military commanders will assert that the average enlisted soldier or marine does not have the mental capability of determining whether or not a direct order is lawful and moral. The subordinate warrior is expected to follow orders without asking questions. This factor is what makes the grunt warrior expendable when orders are issued requiring that immoral and illegal acts be committed in the amorphous name of national security. Therefore, by putting the military in charge of intelligence gathering and the implementation of subversive executive orders (which currently have all the force of statutes), the overall result is inevitably aversive to the maintenance of the constitutionally mandated separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Porter Goss is the perfect example of the many paramilitary GS-14 civilian spies who have routinely put on the uniforms of field grade military officers in order to deceive and manipulate military units into following their orders. A career spy officially impersonating a military officer is, to me, the height of ignominy.

In and of itself, the U.S. Armed Forces has become a self-perpetuating and autonomous system within a republic and under the total command of one executive official, the President. This is basically why the President, Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff totally resent constitutionally mandated congressional oversight. This condition has resulted not from the application of law, but, rather, from the indulgent allowances offered by the Congress to the chief executive ever since George Washington issued the first presidential decree without congressional consent. Though strange, unchallenged traditions can eventually be claimed to possess the effect of settled law, even if they clearly violates the letter of the U.S. Constitution. I personally believe that what is clearly unconstitutional cannot be made constitutional by capricious declarations of the U.S. Supreme Court. If this be so, a higher law should appropriately intervene to reverse such a ruling. And such a higher law should only be a vocally dissenting majority of the U.S voting age population, which unites to oppose and abolish such an illegality.

It may be presumed that George W. Bush's recent nomination of Michael Hayden, an Army general and former head of the NSA, to head the CIA as Director of Central Intelligence, is a major step toward a fascist military approach to intelligence gathering and covert unsanctioned operations. It is a matter of record that our sitting president has already, under a banner of national security, secretly ordered the establishment of secret foreign CIA prisons and an extensive program of spying on the American public. In an effort much more technologically sinister than J. Edgar Hoover's covert tape recording of public figures around the world, which the deranged man found sexually arousing, the NSA has spied on and recorded millions of American telephone conversations. Dubya has used clandestine executive orders since early 2001 to authorize the CIA and Department of Defense to engage in highly unscrupulous, if not illegal, activities. Case-in-point, a high-level CIA officer's secret meeting with Osama Bin Laden at a French hospital where Bin Laden was undergoing renal surgery. This meeting was in August 2001, immediately prior to 9/11, while an existing order for Bin Laden's arrest had been in effect since late 2000, signed by President Clinton. This particular CIA officer left Bin Laden resting comfortably after a suspicious two hour dialogue and immediately returned to Washington to report to his superiors at Langley. Why wasn't Bin Laden surveiled at the hospital and subsequently taken into custody? Was the CIA somehow involved in the subsequent 9/11 WTC and Pentagon bombings? These questions were not posed by the 9/11 Commission for investigation. Why do you suppose this was so?

From the dawn of recorded history, the failure of developing governments to heed the lessons taught by the mistakes of previously fallen regimes has invariably resulted in sad replays of calamities perpetrated by deviously conspiring men and women of political and financial means. Most of these mistakes have been derived from the misuse of the military in aggressive foreign policy entanglements. The tragic Iraq War debacle is but a replay of the awful Vietnam saga, and the prevailing illicit machinations of the Bush administration are but a revisiting of the deceitful Nixon and Reagon years multiplied by a thousand. So when will it all stop? When will our supposedly wise and intelligent leaders begin to learn from sad experience? By placing the military in charge of the already semi-fascist U.S. intelligence community, the resulting effect will be like putting the insatiable fox in the henhouse, and will only make existing matters worse. The American republic will be unable to continue withstanding the continued and resisted umbrage against its already wounded standard, the Constitution of the United States. As Thomas Jefferson sagaciously wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." His words are as true now as they were then.

Norton R. Nowlin is a published free-lance writer and essayist residing in northern Virginia. Mr Nowlin holds M.A. and B.A. degrees in political science and psychology from the University of Texas at Tyler, completed a successful year of law school at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, and holds an ABA-approved advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington.