I just bumped into your site.  It is several months after the election but I must say that enjoyed your very rational essay.  I think you are right, we need to think about not alienating the moderates who could swing the other way next time.

Interestingly, there is a sociological theory of “social change” that suggests that for significant social change to take place (say public sentiment against a war) there always needs to be a “vangard” that brings attention to problem which is then resolved by the moderates (maybe that’s like the mother outside Bush’s ranch in Texas the other month).

On that note, let me suggest that the great Sociologist C. Wright Mills explained in his 1950’s book “The Power Elite” that the economic elite (the grandchildren of the robber barrons plus the newer wealthy owners of the military industrial complex) – recognized by no less a conservative republican then Dwight Eisenhower – would use that power to take over the political system.  One of the ways they do this is to groom some of their children to become politicians (the political elite).  Usually, at an Ivy League University, like Yale, where they belong to a secret society, like Skull and Bones. 

The theory is given great credibility by the remarkable exchange of letters between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in their later years regarding the “aristocracy” (see Pulitzer Prize winning history by Joseph Ellis – The Founding Brothers – last chapter “the friendship”).  There are also numerous facts to support the theory, such as the very demonstrable and incredible accumulation of wealth within 1/2 of 1% of the U.S. population.  I won’t belabor the point, though I surely could.

So, where is the vangard?  Where are the leaders in our time comparable to Tom Paine, Adams, Franklin, Washington, Madison, Jefferson etc.?

John Kerry? Here is a paraphrase summary of an interview of Kerry by Charlie Rose a month or two before the elections:

So John, I believe you went to the same University as George W?  Yeah that’s right Charlie, we both went to Yale.

An I understand it John you were also in the same secret society, Skull and Bones, as George W., is that correct?

Well yes Charlie we were.

Well tell me John, what was that like?

Well Charlie, that’s why they call it a secret society.

No more questioning along those lines by Rose.

Unless we can take back our political system from the grip of the elite, I am a little concerned about our ability to deal with the very real and very serious global environmental catastrophe that is looming in the background.  I highly recommended visiting globalwarming.com and exploring the links to the input from the “real” scientific community. 

Globalwarming.com is a “virtual” march on Washington to conslude on earth day April 2006.  I want a “real” march starting on Lexington green (the site of “the shot heard round the world”) April 19, 2006 and marching to Washington D.C. by July 4th (with all the media attentio we can get) and camping on the public space until the legislative and executive branches deal with the problem.  Or, we begin the process of throwing all but the few lwft that have any integrity out of office in Novemwber 2006

We need to do this for our children and grandchildren.  I’ll be on Lexington Green at the minuteman statue April 19, 2006.  Democracy is coming!

William Prince

Thanx, I appreciate the straight answers.  I can see your point of view, although I don’t necessarily agree in that I put a higher priority on UN world scandal for the very reasons deadscot said:  “The difference being when the corruption occurs in the UN, it … generally … has a more widespread impact due to the global nature of the organization.”  But I would disagree that it’s more visible.  People report what they like & few people want the UN to look bad, whereas no one cares about Enron or Halliburton’s reputation except the CEO’s & investors.  I differ in that I put a higher priority on UN corruption because it is not a business, & there is no agency to police it as our government can corporations.

This is a place where only opinion can be attached to the discussion by me. In an earlier post I made the statement that it was a view of event. I feel that ethnic cleansing is wrong. It is as wrong now as it was 5ooo years ago. The taking of a mans life is wrong, especially when it is for the pushing of an economy when the policy makers see wealth over the peoples best interest in humanity. Back to the view, Its kind of like a car crash from two sides of the street. one sees the car coming from the right and one from the left, both see the crash differently. I am an American that does not like dung in my home. Its not that I like dung at all it is just that I talk about what I feel is effecting me more. On a global scale and if I was there I would be more knowledgeable about the effects of the action/actions there. The whole thing is wrong and the keeping with an oil base economy is out dated. Just keeping those that do not know another way to keep in the living style that they have become accustom to by ruining the earth and killing people on it is what upsets this simple man. Global warming is being ignored, people being headed through society to create a funnel for the military, bombing innocent, the theft of a nations political structure overall thanks to people like Tom Delay and the hypocrisies of money over humanity while we suffer just has the smell of a dung pile. I just hope that by my writing people know that not all Americans like the way thing are.

  Best regards,

  KRRJR

Sorry I didn’t respond to your original question as I was only originally responding to this thread to correct a few overlooked errors.

Do I think the UN is corrupt and has blood on its hands?  Yep.  In the same way that US congress is corrupt, UK and French Parliaments are corrupt and so on.  The difference being when the corruption occurs in the UN, it is generally more visible and has a more widespread impact due to the global nature of the organization.

Enron was (by comparison) 600 million on paper that didn’t exist to blow up their worth & therefore non-existent, not stolen, & a measly 14 million from investors.  (How many people do you know who are wealthy & can afford to invest in the stock market?) I can’t even find an amount for Halliburton because their critics keep spitting out the cost of the whole war.

Not sure what you’re after here.  I know of quite of few people that lost their retirement investment because of Enron and are know back in the labor force.  Enron didn’t just exaggerate earnings.  Cooking the books and money shifting is little more complex than that.  Are you looking for an amount that Halliburton has recently bilked the US for?  I believe the number is around $600 mil.  But I digress.

Why are we allies with Israel? Ever since the Israel was reestablished following WWII, the United States, along with its NATO allies, vowed to protect and defend her.  It’s not a relationship maintained for economic or political benefit so much as a relationship of obligation.  Obviously, over the years that has changed to become more of a relationship with severe diplomatic influences.

To make it simpler, do you see Halliburton as equal, better, or worse if guilty of planning to get oil through Azerbaijan in spite of ethnic cleansing?  I guess Saddam isn’t that bad, he murdered people of all ethnicities who disagreed with him.

I see Halliburton’s behavior equal to that of the European leaders and the UN in the oil for food scandal.  Traditionally, Halliburton has done everything in their power to bend the law with total disregard for the intent.  This has resulted in their style of predatory capitalism providing for and creating more terrorist organizations throughout the middle-east for the world to contend with.

To speak to the issue of Azerbaijan directly.  Remember, in 1997, Dick Cheney himself lobbied congress to remove sanctions against Azerbaijan stating they were not doing anything to violate human rights.  As it turns out, all he wanted to do was open the doors for Halliburton.

To make it simpler, do you see Halliburton as equal, better, or worse if guilty of planning to get oil through Azerbaijan in spite of ethnic cleansing?  I guess Saddam isn’t that bad, he murdered people of all ethnicities who disagreed with him.

I shouldn’t have used a science analogy, since I only know the basics.  I was taught in physics that there is no anti-matter, & I lack the interest or sophistication in science to grasp that theory.  It doesn’t change the basic principle of rhetoric that while we may not know the facts and there are differing perspectives of them, there is no such thing as non-facts unless you can prove lies. I ascertained that you do not thing allegations of corruption against the U.N. & European corporations are lies.

Once again you’ve demonstrated an ability to ignore my question to drone on about something I don’t care about.  To be fair, I’m sure me being angry about the murder of innocent people sounds the same to you.  So let’s say (for the sake of argument, truth, if you insist,) that Halliburton is guilty of, uh… squeezing out the competition to charge our military more than they had to to make a reasonable profit, I guess.  & sure, blah, blah, blah, our government or this administration or whatever has unfair/corrupt policies toward Azerbaijan. (Which my friend who grew up there agrees with, BTW.)  I’m not asking you to believe our government is fair or good.

I’m asking if it seems in any way possible that European countries are likewise corrupt, to the tune of 22 billion dollars & as yet uncounted deaths.  The U.N. doesn’t even have the excuse that Clinton did.  These lies aren’t about sex.  They are ACTIVELY blocking the investigation.  Enron was (by comparison) 600 million on paper that didn’t exist to blow up their worth & therefore non-existent, not stolen, & a measly 14 million from investors.  (How many people do you know who are wealthy & can afford to invest in the stock market?)  I can’t even find an amount for Halliburton because their critics keep spitting out the cost of the whole war.

I know you may not care, I just want to know WHY Enron & Halliburton make you so much angrier than the French, Germans, Russians & the U.N?  I know the reason for my bias is that the U.N. isn’t even SUPPOSED to be a company for profit.  They’re supposed to PROTECT lives, not destroy them for profit.  I may be wrong, but the European companies involved KNEW Saddam was killing people & hoped to get WMDs.  Enron officials took $ from investors & employees.  $ can be replaced, lives can’t.  As for Halliburton, even if the worst alligations are true, (& I may be wrong) I don’t see how it costs lives.  The life of a terrorist is to me a negative-sum “black hole.”  It’s not that a terrorist is not human, but if s/he lives, numerous others die.  I’m glad our soldiers have the equipment to kill terrorists & protect themselves.

& while I’m at it, I guess I’ll go for broke.  WHY are we allies with Israel, who has NO oil, & against Iran & others who do have oil?  God forbid, in no way am I asking you to consider that our country is anything less than the scourge of the earth & the only remaining cause of pain & suffering therefore inhibiting a European Utopia…okay, I’ll stop with the sarcasm.  I actually want to know what you think of these things…PLEASE NOTE I AM AWARE THAT ENRON IS CURRUPT & UNDERSTNAND YOUR ARGUMENT THAT HALLIBURTON IS AS WELL.  COULD YOU PLEASE CLEARLY ANSWER REGARDING OIL-FOR-FOOD & ISRAEL???

*cough* um, That ‘ABC that you’re incorrectly referencing happens to be governmental library link to the ABC’s of Nuclear Science.

Now I can see how you missed those articles about Halliburton’s Fraudulent Behavior.

Oh, China is actually Third in import consumption, with imports approximately half that of the United.

Truth is one of the things I care about most.  No, not simply for the sake of argument.

Are you sure?

Now Ellie, tell me just how much time did you spen in China? Did you talk to any of the oil exporters there? Admittedly it has been awhile for me but the plans have not changed, as I see them, Maybe you can shed some light on the subject at this point.

Right now there are sanctions on Azerbaijan. We’re not allowed to spend any U.S. government dollars in that country. That’s not a response to what we perceive to be sound foreign policy in that part of the world. It’s more specifically a reflection of a desire by Congress to respond to the concerns voiced by the Armenian-American community, which is bigger than the Azerbaijani-American community. As a result we currently have a prohibition against U.S. government money being spent in Azerbaijan….The problem in part stems from the view by my former colleagues on Capitol Hill that sanctions are the low-cost option. It is the cheap, easy thing to do. You don’t have to appropriate any taxpayer’s money. You don’t send any young Americans into combat….

An example that comes immediately to mind has to do with efforts to develop the resources of the former Soviet Union in the Caspian Sea area. It is a region rich in oil and gas. Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action, both in terms of opportunities that develop with respect to Iran itself, and also with respect to our ability to gain access to Caspian resources. Iran is not punished by this decision. There are numerous oil and gas development companies from other countries that are now aggressively pursuing opportunities to develop those resources. That development will proceed, but it will happen without American participation. The most striking result of the government’s use of unilateral sanctions in the region is that only American companies are prohibited from operating there.—Dick Cheney, head of Haliburton, June 23, 1998.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12525
http://www.harvardwatch.org/
http://www.john-loftus.com/enron3.asp
http://www.itsallpolitics.com/viewtopic.php?t=482&start=0

Then maybe this will help:

Published on Thursday, August 10, 2000 in the Chicago Tribune
Cheney’s Black Gold:
Oil Interests May Drive US Foreign Policy
by Marjorie Cohn
What do the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and the Balkans have in common? U.S. domination in these areas serves the interests of corporate multimillionaires such as Dick Cheney. As George Bush’s secretary of defense, Cheney was chief prosecutor of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Humanitarian rhetoric notwithstanding, the bombing of Iraq—which continues to this day—was primarily aimed at keeping the Persian Gulf safe for U.S. oil interests. Shortly after Desert Storm, the Associated Press reported Cheney’s desire to broaden the United States’ military role in the region to hedge future threats to gulf oil resources. Cheney is CEO of Dallas-based Halliburton Co., the biggest oil-services company in the world. Because of the instability in the Persian Gulf, Cheney and his fellow oilmen have zeroed in on the world’s other major source of oil—the Caspian Sea. Its rich oil and gas resources are estimated at $4 trillion by U.S. News and World Report. The Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, voice of the major U.S. oil companies, called the Caspian region, “the area of greatest resource potential outside of the Middle East.” Cheney told a gaggle of oil industry executives in 1998, “I can’t think of a time when we’ve had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian.”

But Caspian oil presents formidable obstacles. Landlocked between Russia, Iran and a group of former Soviet republics, the Caspian’s “black gold” raises a transportation dilemma. Russia wants Caspian oil to run through its territory to the Black Sea. The United States, however, favors pipelines through its ally, Turkey.

Although the cheapest route would traverse Iran to the Persian Gulf, U.S. sanctions against Iran block this alternative. Cheney has lobbied long and hard, as recently as June, for the lifting of those sanctions, to lubricate the Iran-Caspian connection. This is consistent with his position, described in a 1997 article in The Oil and Gas Journal, that oil and gas companies must do business in countries with policies unpalatable to the U.S.

Cheney also favors the repeal of section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act, which severely restricts U.S. aid to Azerbaijan because of its ethnic cleansing of the Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh, a mountainous enclave in Azerbaijan. Why would Cheney choose to ignore Azerbaijan’s human-rights violations? Because Azerbaijan, key to the richest Caspian oil deposits, is, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “in fact, the focal point of the next round in the Great Game of Nations, a dangerous, hot-headed place with a Klondike of wealth beneath it. It is Bosnia with oil.”

Cheney’s oily fingerprints are all over the Balkans as well. Last year, Halliburton’s Brown & Root Division was awarded a $180 million a year contract to supply U.S. forces in the Balkans. Cheney also sits on the board of directors of Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense contractor. Replacing munitions used in the Balkans could result in $1 billion in new contracts.

War is big business and Dick Cheney is right in the middle of it.

Meanwhile, our energy and gasoline prices continue to soar in many parts of the United States. OPEC controls the oil production in the Persian Gulf. Cheney, worried about a falloff in investment, spoke in favor of OPEC cutting oil production so oil and gasoline prices could rise.

Cheney is ineluctably invested in keeping the world safe for his investments.

Although he stepped down as CEO of Halliburton, he still owns shares of stock in the conglomerate and his financial interests in the Persian Gulf, the Caspian region and the Balkans will invariably continue. Chosen by George W. Bush to bring foreign-policy expertise to the GOP presidential ticket, we can expect a Republic administration to increase U.S. intervention in regions when it suits Dick Cheney’s oil and other corporate concerns.