November 07, 2006

Foleys Bergère: Political Entertainment al’Americain

by Ben Tanosborn (Vancouver, Washington (USA)) --- Yes… come to Washington’s Capitol Cabaret. Whether your preference is for a morality play or a musical, that’s where’s at; running the entire gamut in popular taste from stupidity to prudishness. And now the cabaret is running this pre-election play, a well choreographed Foleys Bergère, with the entire Republican chorus line in drag.

Although all the reviews are not yet in, this musical parody turned into a morality play may influence the outcome of the upcoming election more than any substantive issue dealing with political sanity – and the bottom line need for a foreign policy capable of diffusing an entire region of the globe: the Middle East – one that will choose life over death.

It’s one of those Anglo-Saxon traits we have inherited; one that we honor with probably more fervor than our cousins across the pond. Apparently three centuries ago those Brits took biblical passages that dealt with death [“the way of the earth”] and quickly reinterpreted them as “the way of the flesh.” Our obsession of enmeshing morality with sex has made American society gyrate to sexual impulses in a mentally unhealthy, prudish way. And that’s what many of us are, puritanical quacks… sporting moral values that condone breaking “mortally” some commandments, such as “You Shall Not Murder”; while being totally intransigent to the “veniality” in some side issues, such as the implication of lust in “You Shall Not Commit Adultery.”

Not that ex-congressman Mark Foley deserves support or pity for the persecution that has befallen him. He should have known better, and not allowed his sexual impulses walk hand-in-hand with risk; for that’s the price you pay in this prudish society. So he is now being verbally stoned and, ignorantly, called a pedophile. No, you are not going to find many people going to his corner, even in the veniality of any crime that might yet be uncovered. In America you are free to do most anything you desire, but promiscuous behavior, or any sexual desires, must always be kept in check. It’s the way American politicians are expected to behave… sexually-restrained, even if criminally-loose.

So now we have congressmen and senators, of both parties, wearing their inquisitorial duds in defense of the great chaste virtue exhibited by our over-16 youth. Wow! These are the same people – most of them, regardless of party – who for years have been giving Bush the go-ahead to go and kill; or who continuously promote socio-economic inequality to benefit the powerfully rich; or who have sold out the entire middle class of this nation to a program of globalization without first finding a prescription to alleviate the enormous transitional pain. These are the same puritanical folks that will not allow the “love thy neighbor” theme to take hold… for it may have some sexual connotation. Who knows, the neighbor may be under age or, suspiciously, of the same gender.

Americans want the world to know that they honor virtue and virginity, and that even the mere idea of possible sexual transgression, whether or not it breaks the law, is strictly frown upon. In our model society, innocence [real or imaginary] of the young, or the not-so-young, must be defended at all costs. That’s why our prisons have two to three times the recluses of prisons around the world; or why the capital crime rate is also three to four times that in the world; or why we are so constitutionally eager to arm our people with guns. Chastity, not unlike property, must be defended at the point of a gun.

Democrats are salivating over this play at the Capitol Cabaret. Not just as a form of payback for what the Republicans did to their poor Clinton, and his adventures with the well-traveled 23-year-old intern, but with the prospect that this salacious move by an indiscreet gay congressman may have provided the Democratic Party a checkmate in the midterm election, allowing the retaking of the House, and maybe even the Senate. This powerful potion of sex-acidity may even melt down both the extensive Republican gerrymandering and any possible Diebold-ical vote count.

Amazing! All those “Iraq Fiasco” books couldn’t drown that constant pounding by the Energizer-in-Chief on the issue of phony security… but this morality play, now on its second week, may do the entire Grand Old Party in. Of course, there are still four weeks to go; so, much can still happen to Tweedledee, which will allow Tweedledum to remain in charge of the legislative branch.

© 2006 Ben Tanosborn
www.tanosborn.com

Posted by Administrator at 09:43 AM | Comments (0)

September 24, 2006

“Shock and Awe” Diplomacy Confronts American Exceptionalism

by Ben Tanosborn (Vancouver, Washington (USA)) --- Forcing American media to give front page coverage to what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez had to say this week from the podium at the United Nations – a very appropriate political closing to the summer – could be described as “shock and awe.” Truth was dispensed via a large syringe instead of an eyedropper and to many people that represents shock and awe.

If not the measured remarks on the unfairness of the UN by Iran’s president, what Hugo Chavez had to say certainly had a “shock and awe” effect domestically. Americans are raised in the belief that they are the possessors of unquestionable moral authority for the entire world because of their “original virtue” – American exceptionalism – in total contrast to the rest of the world who are born with the “original sin”… out of grace simply for not being Americans. Yes, it all started back in 1831 with Alexis de Tocqueville.

But “American exceptionalism” has been debunked as nothing more than a 21st century attempt to globalize the 19th century Manifest Destiny – a pseudo moral authority to annex much of Western Continental US, which resulted in kicking Indians and Mexicans out of both their cultures and their lands. Unfortunately, such Manifest Destiny, even with its Monroe Doctrine addendum, only covered “our rights” to the Americas, a puny hemisphere for a nation with an apparent galactic appetite to govern or influence.

Down to the nitty-gritty, American exceptionalism, whether a few generations ago or today, is not an iota different from what European imperialism was centuries past. And the idea that America sets the norm for human rights behavior, or even adheres to it, has proved to be presently, if not always, wrong. America’s behavior since the end of World War II has shrunk the idea of American exceptionalism to that of a self-centered, chauvinistic justification for Americans to portray themselves as a people they are not. Yes, Americans are different, powerful in many ways, but definitely not superior.

The bottom line as to what Messrs. Ahmadinejad and Chavez brought to the table is simple and to the point: peace and tranquility in the world are unlikely to be achieved with present international structures, such as the UN, which are unfair to a majority of nations and peoples in this planet. A product of the WWII conflict, the United Nations has only catered to the desires of the victors in that conflict – those already powerful – and not to the needs of emerging peoples – those who lack any power – and who are most in needs of institutions that can give them a fair hearing in their political, social and economic struggles. To these two gentlemen, whose thinking probably parallels that of most nations, the US brings forth a behavior counter to peace and tranquility… or even social justice. And driving that behavior is President Bush.

The preppy squatter living in the White House may not be the devil, as portrayed by Chavez, but indeed the trail he leaves behind, in both domestic and international deeds, stinks of sulfur and hydrogen sulfide. Infinitely more important than the odor, however, is the pain, death and destruction caused by his myopic decisions.

One surmises that Hugo Chavez spoke in jest to get our attention, and his point across.
The reality is that George W. Bush does justice to a common definition of the Prince of Darkness, and the association we have made with some horrendous historical people. Even a benign idiot crowned with an office of tremendous power, such as the US presidency, can cause insurmountable damage to mankind… become a he-devil. [I am convinced that if a devil does exist, it is not a she-devil, nor gender-neutral.]

Americans, whether members of the media, politicians of both fraternities, government officials or the public at large, have for the most part become irate to what they consider the impudence of these two people, branding them with demeaning and highly insulting names. [American exceptionalism is alive and well, and bipartisan in political affairs.]

Whether or not the truth made a dent in Americans, Ahmadinejad and Chavez gave a moment of glory to the disenfranchised many, whether nations or peoples, who aren’t offered a podium from which they can voice the iniquities they suffer. Mahmoud and Hugo, if for a moment, became their voice to the world… whether anyone listens or not.

Did these speeches bring diplomatic “shock and awe”? Not really, not when those who have the reins of power are heartless and shock-proof. But hope springs eternal.

© 2006 Ben Tanosborn
www.tanosborn.com

Posted by Administrator at 11:45 AM | Comments (0)

July 20, 2006

Bush’s “wimpification” of the UN (or, St. Petersburg’s G-8 summer outing)

by Ben Tanosborn (Vancouver, Washington (USA)) --- It’s both remarkable and incredible how Bush treats and demeans the United Nations. Of course, things wouldn’t have to be that way if the head honcho there – Kofi Anan – consented to have the United States call all the shots. It would certainly make things more pleasant and bearable for Mr. Anan.

Heck! If all these incompetent parasites, as this institution is painted to the American citizenry by the ruling neocons, stayed docile and understood this nation’s lofty mission, Americans wouldn’t be badmouthing them. In fact, Bush might even be willing to retrieve Ambassador Bolton and put him back in the kennel; or, at the very least, keep him muzzled… perhaps even forcing him to shave that menacing, comical mustache.

Which brings up the questions… isn’t this G-8 self-declared elite encroaching on the stated mission of the United Nations? Shouldn’t any business that matters to all people in the planet be conducted under the auspices of the UN? Just who made these people kings and the rest of the world their vassals?

If it’s a question of photo-ops for some of these power and vanity-holders, that could be easily arranged with whatever pomp and ceremony their egos demanded, at whatever resort locations suited their fancy. But let’s separate the perks associated with their positions from the nitty-gritty of getting things done for the betterment of mankind. Bringing this elitism to create the impression that these heads of state can “personalize” things and thus achieve greater results is total nonsense, pure poppycock.

Besides, the G-8 is really G-(1+6+1) with six nations gyrating to the whims of one… and Russia just added for good measure because of its nuclear arsenal and energy resources. Some of those economies have already been surpassed by the economies of other nations; and in a decade or two all, with the exception of the US, will have GDPs trailing those of several other nations, or blocks of nations.

Inviting China, India, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil to the shindig in St. Petersburg didn’t validate or add luster to this G-8 gathering; it only underlined the need for all issues of concern to the peoples of the world to be discussed and negotiated under one roof: the United Nations; or, if this institution is broken, an appropriate replacement.

Whether it is poverty, and the gulf that exists between rich and poor nations; or the planet’s environment; or the world’s health issues; or the subject of education; or human rights; or peace and security… we already have the venue and much of the framework to negotiate whatever needs to be negotiated in order to bring about a better and more just world. Other avenues we take are an exercise in condescension and/or deceit… most often, deceit.

These annual “board meetings,” if you wish to so name these fanciful outings, seem to fail in the most basic and first step of any board meeting: reading the minutes of the prior meeting and judging whether pending issues have been resolved. Few of the projected things really get done. Much of what was promised last year at Gleneagles will remain as unfulfilled promises… like so many others in the past. On the thirty-second meeting, the key issue affecting poor agrarian nations trying to trade their way out of poverty remains unresolved, as it has for three decades. I will repeat a paragraph of the comments I made after last year’s thirty-first meeting, which is just apropos today:

“Poor nations deserve not alms but the dignity of fair trade. Rich nations do want poor nations to come out of poverty, to succeed… but only by sharing from a larger pie. Giving up part of the existing pie, which may represent as much as $600 bn annually for African and Latin American nations in fair trade value, is not in the cards. Not for the US; not for other rich nations. Better to give the poor nations $10-15 bn annually in alms, and have them kiss your hand in gratitude, than to let them have what’s theirs.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel made a point on the last day of this meeting that poverty will have top priority at the next meeting, which she will host in Germany. But good intentions have remained 180 degrees apart from good deeds all these years. What makes us think that the nature of wealth holders will ever change?

Putin closed the proceedings he hosted by saying: “All the goals we set ourselves have been achieved. Not a single issue arose which we failed to agree upon.” As I see it, either there were no goals of substance, or the measuring stick for achievement is suspect… or a combination of both.

This celebrities’ reunion certainly appeared as the least productive in the past five years. I am sure that the conflict involving Hezbollah and Israel [with Lebanon as the pounding bag] will get the blame for the lack of accomplishments. In truth, there was little in the agenda at the start of the meeting anticipated to be accomplished, so the outcome had already been cast.

As for the invited non-players, super-powers in the making most of them, there was a great deal of opportunity to play bilateral, trilateral and even quadrilateral games among them (Brazil, China, India and Russia). It was diplomatic on-the-job training for this cast of pretenders. Manmohan Singh (India) led the way in showing his talent in diplomacy skills, demonstrating that even the Sino-Indian territorial dispute would not stop him from cooperating with Hu Jintao (China).

Biggest losers among losers: the poor nations of Latin America and Africa [as always]. Notwithstanding the remarks just made by World Bank president, Paul Wolfowitz, while in Abuja (Nigeria)… as he spoke of the dramatic changes for the better taking place in Africa. Same accuracy, I am afraid, as he displayed in 2002 with his planned invasion of Iraq. His level of malfeasance couldn’t get any higher than that.

But if anyone needed to learn a lesson, it should have been Bush. He may treat the UN as a pariah and a wimp, but by so doing he is making a fool of himself, showing a lack of leadership and putting at risk the diplomatic well-being of the United States. Bush may feel that the wimpification of Anan and the UN is the emperor’s prerogative, a way of telling a joke… but people around the world aren’t laughing. Not laughing at all.

© 2006 Ben Tanosborn
www.tanosborn.com

Posted by Administrator at 11:09 AM | Comments (0)