EGYPT IN REVOLUTION: Which Way Will It Go?

The word ‘revolution’ has been overused and misused for decades. It has, for instance, become almost a commonplace of political journalism in Britain to talk about the ’Thatcherite revolution’ when referring to the assault on the post-war consensus, the dismantling of the country’s manufacturing base and the privatization spree that started in the 1980s. In the 1990s and into the first decade of the twenty-first century, the emergence of microchip technology became referred to as the ‘IT revolution’ or the ‘communications revolution’. There is nothing particularly wrong with this and it may be argued that an over-zealous resistance to etymological flexibility denotes nothing more than a conservative mindset. However, it is important to demand greater clarity of thought and analysis when considering the use of the term in relation to significant instances of social and political change involving the mobilization of thousands and even millions of people. The drama unfolding in Egypt now is clearly such an event. It is being widely described, by both participants and observers, as a revolution, and such a description seems appropriate.

Unless we are to argue that any and every instance of the removal of a government by means of force, including military putsches, palace coups and the like should be regarded as revolutions, then we need more careful terms of reference. If by ‘revolution’ we mean the transfer of political and economic power from one section of society to another, involving the dismantling of the old apparatus of state, including crucially the apparatuses of repression, and the creation of a new state apparatus based on the hegemonic power of a formerly subordinate class, then the last 250 years have seen very few revolutions.

In Europe there have been only two such seminal examples: the French revolution of 1789-92 and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917. Outside Europe, the Chinese revolution of 1949 and the Cuban revolution of 1959 are similar instances. According to this criterion other cases are more problematic. Two cases come to mind: the American revolution of 1776 and the Iranian ‘Islamic revolution’ of 1979. In Britain, where the term ’revolution’ still causes problems for many historians, there is a deep reluctance to admit that the 17^th century Cromwellian civil war against the monarchy was a revolution. The ‘American revolution’ is usually referred to as ‘the war of independence.’ The Iranian ‘Islamic revolution’ of 1979 also poses problems. In one sense it was a classic example of a ‘Leninist’ type revolution. It involved the mass mobilization of millions of the most oppressed people, a general strike leading to the complete collapse of the Shah’s regime, the triumph of a new ideology and the purging of the apparatus of the old state. But, it did not lead to a completely new socio-economic system resting on the hegemonic power of the formerly exploited classes. It produced instead the rule of a reactionary theocracy that kept, and still keeps, the people in thrall.

How then, should we regard the events unfolding in Egypt? It is immediately apparent that we are witnessing what may without hyperbole be described as a rising of the masses. The importance and significance of this cannot be exaggerated. A whole people, until recently cowed and powerless, have found their feet and their voice. This is ‘people’s power’ and it is a spectacle breathtaking to behold. On these too rare occasions the realities of power relationships are stripped bare. The corrupt despot and his cronies skulk in their moral bankruptcy and powerlessness before the unfolding spectacle engulfing the city. The millions they have exploited and oppressed are taking to the streets and demanding with one voice that he and his abettors leave the scene forthwith. The die is cast. The people are not prepared to go on living any longer as despised underlings; the despotic regime is unable to continue to rule. This is a revolutionary situation and it is both exhilarating and also fraught with danger. It is exhilarating because it expresses the very best in humanity. People in their tens and hundreds of thousands co-operate with each other in a festival of solidarity. They are no longer isolated monads but members of an autonomous, self-sufficient community. They stand together, secular and religious, men and women, children and adults, fired with democratic fervour. They are no longer afraid. The bonds of solidarity have conquered fear – even fear of death.

But their situation is extremely dangerous. A revolutionary situation is not a successful revolution and, in one form and another, the odds they face are formidable. The old power elite have reached the end of their road; they cannot carry on as before. But Mubarak refuses to go. Getting him out is like trying to remove a crumbling, rotten cork from a wine bottle. You can’t drink the wine until the cork is out, but the act of removing it could break the bottle. The suppression of all democratic forms of expression for thirty years has meant that there are no organized political forces capable of guiding this outburst of popular democracy. The Mubarak regime has relied upon the Egyptian army and the security forces to keep the lid on the cauldron but it is by no means certain that the army is willing to suppress the mass movement should it be ordered to do so. Nevertheless, the forces of reaction are mobilizing and, at the time of writing (04.02.11), it is still possible, even likely, that the regime’s thugs will be unleashed to wreak their revenge on the unarmed masses presently holding Cairo’s Tahrir Square. The regime possesses the fire power to crush the uprising if it orders the army to do so. The question is, would such an order be obeyed. So far, in the violent confrontations that have occurred as a result of vicious attacks on the demonstrators by armed thugs and plain clothes policemen, hirelings of the regime, many have been killed and hundreds injured. Within the next day or two it should become clear what the outcome of this uprising will be. The overwhelming popular demand is that Mubarak should go now. At the moment, there is little sign that he intends to do so.

The revolt in Egypt follows the toppling of the of Ben Ali regime in Tunisia in mid January and there are increasing signs that the movement for democratic change and self determination is spreading throughout the Arab world. But Egypt is pivotal. The Mubarak regime has been for thirty years the bedrock of U.S. and Western policy in the Middle East. Should Egypt’s accord with Israel unravel, US policy would go into a tail-spin. The crisis, which was unimaginable just weeks ago, has exposed the fragility and the hypocrisy of Western policy. For decades Israel has been presented as the only democracy in the region with the clear implication that if only the Arab countries were democratic it would be possible to resolve the conflict with Israel through sensible negotiation. There would be ‘partners for peace’. The truth is that the US and its Western allies have armed and sustained repressive, autocratic regimes - in the case of Egypt to the tune of £1.5 billion a year. Mubarak has been the closest ally of the West since he took power in 1981. Successive US presidents and British prime ministers have turned a blind eye to his torture chambers, rigged elections, crushing of dissent and rampant corruption, because, though son-of-bitch he may be, he is ‘our SOB’.

But now he poses a dilemma for them. Realising that his game is up with the Egyptian people, they would ideally like to see him go quietly to be replaced by another group of ‘trustworthy’ cronies who may be able to pass themselves off as acceptable to the people while agreeing to pursue exactly the regional policy they inherit from Mubarak. This would guarantee ‘stability’ in the region. The problem is that fully democratic elections might produce a result that is unacceptable to the US and its allies. The fear that stalks all of them is the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood might emerge as a powerful player in the game. Actually, there is little evidence that the Brotherhood has very much influence at all over the democratic popular movement. But, as the Mubarak regime has suppressed all political dissent, his US and other backers can hardly now dictate the terms of any post-Mubarak settlement. They must, even if only to maintain the appearance of championing democracy, agree to fully democratic elections. Having committed themselves to ‘a peaceful transition of power now’, which means getting rid of Mubarak, it is difficult to see how they can renege on that demand. They cannot put the genie back in the bottle, much as they might like to do so. Clearly what they are anxious to avoid at all costs is that the despot digs in and unleashes a bloodbath against the opposition. This would result either in a bloody counter-revolution that they could not support, or in the collapse of the regime in a fury of revolutionary fervour, with sections of the army siding with the people. This could end in civil war in Egypt which, in turn, could set the whole of the Arab world alight.

As of today, the initiative seems to be with the courageous Egyptian people. We will see what tomorrow will bring.

Super Bowl Sunday: How Wonderfully More Secular Than Sabbaths of Old

In the first part of the last century and even more so before that era, laws limiting activities on the Sabbath were the norm. The religious forces, far more powerful than today, did not cotton to frivolity on Sundays, or anything else that kept the population from showing up for church services.

n the first part of the last century and even more so before that era, laws limiting activities on the Sabbath were the norm. The religious forces, far more powerful than today, did not cotton to frivolity on Sundays, or anything else that kept the population from showing up for church services.

In a book entitled, "Fifty Years of Freethought" (Vol. II, 1929), George Mac Donald described how preachers tried to shut down the Super Bowl of the time, namely, the Chicago World's Fair, from opening on Sunday, the sabbath.

“The Chicago World's Fair having been decreed, the kind of church people who adopt meddling as a means of grace saw that now was their day of salvation. Hitherto, with their fussy restrictions on Sunday work and amusements, they had been obliged to function merely as local nuisances. Now they would close the World's Fair on Sunday and make themselves felt as pests by all nations. . .The meddlers resolved to memorialize Congress to pay no money, make no appropriations in behalf of the Fair, save on the promise that the key should be turned on the exhibits every Saturday night, with no relief until Monday morning. They circulated petitions to this effect, and did such a business in collecting names that in some places they claimed more signatures than there were people.”

This Sunday before, during and after the Super Bowl, the people will have a day to enjoy, Those who wish to attend churches are free to do so and many will, and many more will spend some part of the day in prayer. Maybe a few fundamentalists will sacrifice a goat or something, but they will not attempt to discourage others to have a good time or do what they like on this Sabbath day, as once was the case in America and around the Christian world. 

Robert Green Ingersoll, the famous lawyer, politician, and orator, once told a reporter in Cleveland that the ministers wanted every place closed on the Sabbath except the churches. He said this was a terrible imposition. He favored Sunday baseball, adding that it always gave him pleasure to see the Sabbath broken. He continued: "On that day, I love to hear the violins and see the boys and girls dancing. I love to hear the music in the parks, love to see the bathers in the surf, love to see people on their wheels, love to see little children gathering flowers, love to see people sailing, love to see them playing golf or ball. All this is so much better and sweeter than going to church, hearing horrible hymns in horrible tunes, horrible sermons about the harps of heaven and the tortures of hell. Away with the sacred Sabbath, say I. Man was not made for the sabbath." (Source: Frank Smith, "Robert Green Ingersoll: A Life," Prometheus, 1990, p. 378.) 

Ingersoll told a story to illustrate what would happen if the ministers got their way: "The people will go to church as the man went staggering home at two o'clock in the morning. His poor wife said, 'John, how could you come home at such a time?' And John replied: 'Mary, the fact is every other place is shut up.'" 

So enjoy the Super Bowl, if that's your pleasure and/or all the other wonderful things you can choose to do in a secular society. In this country, everyone, devout and secular, is free to do as he/she likes on the sabbath and every other day. Let's be grateful that people like Mac Donald, Ingersoll and so many other freethinkers came before us. As the Great Agnostic observed, "Man was not made for the sabbath."

Is Religion A Mental Handicap?

Play a parlor game with me for the moment. Which of three choices about religion comes closest to reflecting your point of view on this topic?

1. Religion is the foundation of civilization; while some forms are better than others, only one is true. Yet, just about any religion is better than having none at all.

2. Many if not most religions do more harm than good, but one religion is the way, the truth and the light leading to everlasting salvation. If everyone followed its precepts, we would have heaven on Earth before eventually getting to enjoy the real thing in the Hereafter.

3.  Religion is a pox, a pestilence and an unmitigated fraud that represents a mental handicap for all caught up in belief systems all of which are preposterous, vapid and insane. 

I personally embrace the third option. I have considerable company amongst the best and brightest, living and dead who are or were the wisest, kindest and most luminous of humankind

Daily do I read of horrors inspired by religion. Today's religious news in America includes the story of a bible-devoted woman in South Carolina who tied a dog to a tree and burned it to death. Why? The animal had chewed on her holy book. This pales with the murderous act of a suicide bomber in a Russian airport, almost surely an Islamist motivated by anticipated sex acts with virgins and countless other religion-driven crimes against humanity and nature. Still, the dog story makes my point that religion is a mental handicap. 

We are early on in the 21st century. Great strides have been made in human consciousness. Science, particularly theoretical physics, relativity and quantum mechanics, has given us more knowledge about the cosmos than the greatest minds of earlier times could have imagined. Yet, most people today, educated and not, embrace fairy tale explanations about the origins of life, the nature of existence and the rules for living that religions explain were revealed by one god or another. It would be comical if not so deadly. Actually, it IS comical - and deadly. 

In many Islamic countries and even in the West, religion is privileged. In the former states, blasphemy is a serious crime; in the West religion is simply privileged - protected from criticism by media outlets and in other ways. 

Those of us who can do so without fear of prosecution should reject the idea that  religion merits any privilege - and do so at every opportunity, as I am doing by writing this essay. Any challenge is a contribution to society - and a mental health gift for anyone who might listen with an open mind.

Begging Your Indulgence . . .

. . . While I indulge in a bit of possibly relevant personal history.

I started writing a column here in September 2008, near the ignominious end of the criminal enterprise known as the Bush administration. Back in those now-forgotten days, TPJmagazine was still “The Political Junkies,” and I adopted the pen name, “Reluctant Junkie.” I chose that nom de plume because politics was not something I had ever wanted to obsess over. I simply was not a political junkie at heart, and over many years I rarely paid more than average attention to politics. Then the “Unitary Executive” and his henchmen took over the government and began systematically deceiving the nation and undermining the foundations of our constitutional democracy.

Now don’t scoff: I always knew full well that politicians lie more than, say, bus drivers, schoolteachers, or members of most other professions. It’s just that the inherent dishonesty of high-level politics had never grabbed my attention with such urgent, gut-wrenching force. Day after day I read or watched the news with jaw-dropping astonishment and rising anger as official and unofficial right-wing liars spewed out the most brazen disinformation. I remember on several occasions calling to my wife, “You’ve got to hear what they’re saying now – you won’t believe it!” And after 9-11, the administration’s treacherous propaganda machine, abetted by a timid and complicit mainstream media, ramped up to a truly spectacular level as our neocon rulers made their false case for invading Iraq, and George Bush got the war he craved to build his political capital. From there things continued to deteriorate, and for probably the first time I felt personally threatened by my own government. I’m not saying I shouldn’t have felt that way earlier, only that the threat signal never broke through all the noise with enough force to distract me from my preoccupations.

And I sure resented the hell out of feeling that way about my government. Call me an idealist, but I hold the quaint view that our Federal Government should uphold the highest standards of honorable and ethical conduct in all areas. (And in truth many government agencies seem to do pretty well, considering the uncertainties and constraints they work under.) Yet here was this purportedly elected administration operating in secrecy and running the people’s government in the style of an organized crime cartel. By the end they had run up an unconscionable debt, destroyed the economy, alienated most of the world, passed some abominable legislation, and made a travesty of a number of federal agencies. In the latter case, they appointed inexperienced political hacks to run federal agencies and obstruct the regulatory apparatus wherever it conflicted with the goals of their various constituencies. Essentially, Bushco politicized everything they could get their bloody hands on, turned the government into a spoils system to advance their political goals. I haven’t researched this, but I remember reading that even if the Democrats manage to stay in power for another election cycle or two, they will not be able to dislodge those career right-wing apparatchiks that Bush appointed.

At this point a moderate might say I’m overstating the case, coming down too hard on an administration that just had a different political philosophy. To any such suggestion I would reply, “Overstating, hell! If anything, I’m being far too generous.” For eight years I paid close attention to what those bastards were up to, and I can give you chapter and verse on many of their crimes and scandals. But as this is only an overview, I’ll refer you to Google: try entering “Bush administration crimes/scandals” and spend an hour or so refreshing your memory, as I did. And maybe you’ll come to the same conclusion, that Bush and his cronies should all be vigorously investigated, charged as appropriate, and arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced. They did nothing less than run our government like a criminal enterprise, and they should be held accountable to the full extent of the law.

Of course I know that nothing close to that is going to happen. But when the Democrats won in 2008, I hoped that maybe the wheels of justice might begin to grind, however slow; instead, under a president who only wants to ”look forward,” the wheels have ground to a halt. It galls me that Democrats are so intimidated by the rabid right in this country that they won’t even investigate obvious crimes.

Anyway, the dozen columns I wrote as a reluctant political junkie were personally rewarding and also somewhat therapeutic, providing me with a modest opportunity to feel like I was fighting back against the outrages emanating from the right. I can’t recall ever writing with such passion. But then real life intervened and I had to suspend the column for personal reasons. A year later TPJ agreed to take me back; so here I am again, this time with a new pen name – Science Junkie – that reflects a new focus on science, particularly as it relates to human nature rather than the discouraging topic of U.S. politics. Of course, given the right’s belligerent and well-financed opposition to any science that conflicts with their goals, politics is inescapable and will rear its head to some extent in almost every column. But my primary emphasis will be on my first love, science and related issues, not partisan politics, which never was my forte.

During my year-long absence from TPJmagazine, the Obama administration has repeatedly disappointed its progressive supporters on several fronts. Speaking for myself, I have been especially incredulous regarding Obama’s unjustified efforts to promote the fantasy of bipartisan cooperation. Who besides Obama thinks this is possible? The very idea that reasonable, pragmatic people can work with the power-hungry “Party of No” or the incoherent Tea Party is absurd, utterly pointless. Considering the nature of fanatical right-wing extremists, their express and implicit goals, and their recent, barely disguised endorsements of violence, the only rational course of action for those in the reality-based community is to do everything possible to keep power out of their hands. Which is main reason I support Democrats these days rather than joining the call for a progressive third party. I wouldn’t feel that way if we were talking about a situation closer to normal politics; but victory at this time for Republicans and their Tea Party comrades could very well mean the reversal of all the progressive gains of the past seventy years. These new conservatives are even more radical than Bush’s cohorts and could make us yearn for the calm rationality of the Bush-Cheney administration. Their success would be nothing short of a disaster – for us and quite possibly most of the world. Hence, my very practical, lesser-of-evils, reluctant but necessary support for the Democrats.

That’s why, as much as I respect Ralph Nader, I could not vote for him or any progressive third-party candidate at this time. I agree with Mr. Nader that elected Democrats are almost indistinguishable from Republicans in many ways, and we can no longer count on them to protect and defend the rights and interests of the vast majority of working people and the disadvantaged – but at least they offer a fighting chance. If we follow Mr. Nader’s advice and vote our conscience, as he recently recommended, we’ll be throwing the next election to regressive fanatics who very likely have no intention of ever relinquishing power. So I would remind him that if he thinks the previous administration posed a threat to our democratic institutions, this generation of reckless ideologues will turn that threat into a living nightmare.

So on that happy note I take leave of writing about partisan politics to focus on the fascinating world of science, especially as it impacts crucial human issues now confronting us. I am especially excited about discussing findings in relatively new fields like cognitive neuroscience that now have much to contribute to our understanding of human nature (for want of a better term). I would like to report on recent findings that might help to explain, for example, why people cling to patently false beliefs and ideologies that defy reality. Or how large numbers of otherwise intelligent people can be so easily manipulated by quacks, charlatans, and demagogues. I contend that the new sciences of the mind may be yielding some truly useful findings – not speculative theories but genuine facts that could force us to reconsider all the old assumptions about our “true nature.”  

Dancing with the Tar Baby (While Waiting for Santa Claus to Come) Part I

A week ago I sped up a bit on a country two-lane East Texas county road I had travelled for over 3 decades. I was passing another car. There was plenty of room, but you know how it is when you speed up to pass another vehicle, and I did, and after clearing and veering back into my lane, the red and blue lights of an oncoming white vehicle in the distance began flashing. I was busted. The colored lights were hidden inside at the top of the windshield. Clever. “Speeding.” the officer said as he gave me the ticket from a glassy eye and ashen face. He walked disinterestedly away from me back to his car. 

I was furious with myself, you see, for I had been giving myself pep talks and mental warnings about how with all the broken budgets and mammoth debt in local, state, and federal government, they would be out there like Gang-Busters waiting for you with all the empathy of a Cottonmouth.

I had picked up an old friend from high school to show him my new home site on a small lake with Wood Ducks and Lesser Scaups landing in the middle to raft and raise up splashingly and remind us of when we went up the Intracoastal Canal near Port Arthur, Texas and out onto Keith’s Lake to hunt waterfowl and be with the mysteries of the marsh as young men. 50 years had passed, but the feeling was still there. Each time we would go out in those days of our youth, it was like waiting for Santa Claus to come. The great anticipation of what first light would bring as you trudged through the deep cow licked marsh grass, a backload of decoys in your gunny sack, afraid you would step on a grunting alligator, was a priceless adventure. Stars smiled on you, and the faint high-pitched (wing-wing-wing-wing) metallic flight echo of low-fliers, unseen, but just as good as calendar ducks on the refrigerator magnet, made you smile inside.

I digress. I just want to say that before the deputy sheriff encounter, I was up and going home again with an old friend when up jumped the Tar Baby, all dripping black and wanting to dance with me again. “I’ll lead.” his unrelenting demeanor told me. Well this little speeding infraction was my fault. I was projecting, I know, my feelings about life and good and evil onto the officer who was just doing his job catching speeders and taking big money for the county. I should have known better I tell you. It was my own fault and nobody else’s. But I kept thinking and doing a slow burn. Why couldn’t he go catch the criminals who had just stolen copper from 6 houses under construction in my new paradise subdivision with the Cormorants, the Mallards, and the Ospreys? Yes, and hovering Ospreys at that. I hated the Tar Babies and having to dance with them so often, these days.

But wait. Maybe it was my ancient eye, all clouded with logic that seems hardly rational to anyone but me. I began to feel like I was crazy, talking about dancing with Tar Babies and all.   Maybe I need to see a shrink. But how would I know if they are secretly crazy or not before wasting a few grand on their own hidden agenda and craziness? 

Perhaps my disease is one of accumulation. See, each bit of news these days seems so black and gooey with tar to the human senses. Know what I mean? 

Life used to be simple. I cry out for the passion I used to feel from the flower, the Carolina Wrens, the Red Fox, the rooting Armadillos, the Bluebirds, and the Brown Thrashers, thrashing the dark leaves of the forest floor. In my mind I can still hear the other-worldly “galoop,    galoop,       galoop of the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo, hiding among the thick high leaves and boughs, flitting about as he flashes his white and black polka-dotted bottom tail feathers, if you are lucky. Where have they gone, these Rain Crows of the forest that made the heart leap? Think maybe Sarah Palin shot them all?

Accumulation. I just heard the news that Tom DeLay was sentenced to 3 years in prison for his criminal conviction of money laundering and breaking a Texas Law about what campaign money was to be used for. And not. The smart money says DeLay will never do any time due to slick lawyers and legal delays. Even though DeLay blew the money on redistricting Texas congressional districts that would change forever the way House members were selected in Texas. And yes, somehow the GOP seemed to have gained at least 6 new seats in Washington, thanks to old Tom.

I was shaken when Valerie Plame, a CIA undercover terrorist agent was likely offed by someone in the White House. Her husband, Joe Wilson, had investigated Bush’s contention that we needed to attack Iraq because Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy Uranium Yellow Cake from Niger. Wilson called bull on Bush and Cheney about the necessity to attack Iraq based upon the bogus intelligence Bush used in his state of the union address to scare Americans with images of mushroom clouds in our very own cities. When special prosecutor Fitzgerald’s investigation and subsequent trial saw Scooter Libby, Cheney’s man Friday, convicted of lying under oath, I felt great exhilaration. Then came the day for sentencing, and President Bush stepped in and commuted Libby’s sentence. “May I have this dance?” asked the Tar Baby.

The nation suffered 8 years of dancing with the Tar Baby under Bush II. The National Debt grew by 4 Trillion Dollars! Bush told us we needed to borrow and spend 4 Trillion Dollars in order to keep Iraq from setting off Weapons of Mass Destruction on our shores. Add that little addition to Ronald Reagan’s borrowing and spending spree of 3 Trillion dollars to bring the Evil Empire (Russia) to its knees, and you have a total of 7 Trillion Dollars of debt. That is HALF the present National Debt! Attributable to just 2 American presidents! Both Republican. So, how ‘bout them big-spending Democrats? Where did they all go? Out dancing with the Tar Baby?

Representative Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin said, after Obama’s state of the union address Tuesday night, that Obama was responsible for the ongoing massive spending and debt facing our children and grandchildren. Say what?!! It is always most noticeable how these rah-rah Republicans never mention all the Bush II borrowing and spending that shoved us over the cliff of National Debt. Neither did talking head and former congressman, (Morning Joe) Scarborough. He said Obama’s speech was tepid and boring. He also lauded Paul Ryan as an up-and-coming force in the GOP. But Joe Scarborough didn’t mention all of Bush’s borrowing and spending to attack and occupy Iraq either, so what is Morning Joe thinking? Did he pass Arithmetic in the 3rd Grade or what? Did he have a memory lapse over Bush II’s massive borrowing and spending? So in my world why do these Tar Babies keep on appearing like ugly genies from a bottle? And how can they lie so eloquently? Golly Gee Whiskers!

For months I felt that good things might be just around the corner for all Americans. It appeared that Congress would pass our first National Health Bill. I was as exuberant as I was on the day of American’s first moon landing. It felt like Santa Claus might be coming after all. The bill passed and Obama signed it into law. But guess what? Before the ink dried good, the new Republican majority in the House voted to repeal the National Health Plan! If it would ever pass the Senate and Obama’s presidential veto, there would be no more coverage for millions of Americans. Pre-existing conditions would be a reason for insurance companies to deny coverage to all Americans once again. We would be right back where we started. Where over 45 million Americans would once again be without insurance coverage.

One of the biggest Tar Babies I ever had to dance with was when I researched many states for a possible business venture idea I had. I have been passionate about building and producing electricity from my own solar farm for years. I studied how to build on and bring it online to produce electricity as real, usable power. I sought to produce many more KW, even MW of electricity to sell back to the electric companies for profit. I researched the laws and regulations of several states, including my own here in Texas. No soap. Texas utility companies did not want to buy back excess electricity you produced even if it were engineered by professionals who specialized in hooking up solar panel systems to the grid. All the baloney we always heard about how the electric company had to pay you back for excess energy your system generated was just that. Bunk. See, the electric companies (Big Brown) want to generate all their own electricity, and they do not want to pay individuals for any excess power they might generate. And the Texas Lege backs Big Brown up. So do most of the other states in the USA. The electric companies have a giant lobby that works well. So basically all the excess power an individual or company generates and routes back to the electric grid is the property of the electric company. Wow, what a Tar Baby to dance with. I spent 2 whole years only to discover that a private businessman could not make a solar farm profitable. Why not? Because you cannot sell (net meter) it back to Big Brown. They want it all. Some land of opportunity, eh?

In Part II we will explore one of the biggest Tar Babies of all, one that will determine the future of the human race. And everyone, every human alive must dance with him. Unless we all suck it up and drive him away.

KILL THE MESSENGER

A manager in a nearby town had been harassing and seducing female employees for years but never faced reprimand. It seemed he brandished a Teflon defense. In his late 50s and married, the man had behaved the same in three prior facilities. On all counts management did nothing but give the guy a better position with higher-pay. Somehow he impressed his superiors so, any charge was dismissed outright without any form of discipline or verbal chastise. He was likened to the pedophile priest transferred to a better parish plus promotion after getting caught with little altar boys.

And the harassment was blatant. While at work, Dick (alias) whispered in the ears of attractive young women, “Go with me tonight to the club and hotel and I’ll make sure to make it worthwhile at work.”

If the female resisted his advances, he would retaliate – either issuing severe discipline on trumped-up charges or denying a promotion. Unmistakably, Dick was a sexual predator – with impunity.

One young lady – married with two kids – decided to take matters into her own hands. Upper management in the district office 200 miles away had ignored written statements from 12 other women (not including the dozens of others unreported).

So Lydia (alias) decided to record the bastard at work as he spoke softly in her ear. Lydia concealed a voice recording MP3 device and documented Dick saying, “Hey babe, let’s you and me go out for a drink after work, then relax in a hot tub at the hotel where we can work up some real fun. You’ll get that promotion if you say yes.”

With recording in hand, Lydia turned her evidence over to district officials.

A few days later, she received a certified letter informing her she was being formally removed from the firm due to her violating company policy and state regulation prohibiting recording devices in the workplace.

So Lydia got fired for blowing the whistle on the jerk that was harassing and threatening her. Next week, Dick got promoted again – this time to management over the entire facility.

Lydia finally got her job back, but only after her grievance went through the 8-month process, finally landing before an arbitrator. But she only received backpay – no compensation for stress and late house and car payments due to no income during the interim. And no punitive charges against the system that wrongfully discharged her. Of course, she felt violated. Who wouldn’t? It was an absolute miscarriage of justice.

This true story is told to illustrate the desecration of justice infecting all facets of the current American system.

The late-2010 movie, FAIR GAME, about Ambassador Joseph Wilson blowing the whistle on George Bush – which motivated Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby to out Wilson’s CIA wife, Valerie Plame – reveals how Bush’s people (including the Justice Department) covered up for an Administration that lied America into war costing trillions and then carrying out a vendetta against the guy that exposed the lies by going after his wife. But more than his wife, the Bush administration seriously damaged the United States, because she was no low-ranking clerk in an obscure Langley office – a story Rove and Cheney tried to spin post-crime. She was a covert op specializing in nuclear-chemical-biological proliferation, specifically Iranian and Iraqi WMD, and was head of a CIA front company based in Georgetown with global connections. In this capacity Valarie Plame was dispatched to dozens of countries by the CIA.

The movie is par excellent. Sean Penn plays Ambassador Wilson and Naomi Watts plays Valerie Plame. The title of the movie is taken from Karl Rove’s statement to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “Wilson’s wife is fair game.”

Instead of being locked up for life, the quartet of evil are honored and protected by their successor, Barack Obama. That outrage, above all else, angers the Democratic base. Wilson and Plame were made to suffer, lose their jobs and businesses, and experience hundreds of death threats just because they were patriotic enough to tell the truth to the American people.

What the movie fails to elaborate is the source of the mushroom-cloud lie that Bush-Cheney-Rice-Rove blasted around the world – the reason Ambassador Wilson was dispatched to Niger in 2002 in the first place.

It began after the stolen Election 2000. A majority of President-Elect’s cabinet (including the VP) were charter members of a conservative think-tank established in 1997 called “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC). PNAC had posted several policy papers pre-2001 openly stating Saddam Hussein must be taken out and Iraq invaded. Bush’s administration-in-waiting did not wait for the Clinton people to vacate; it was busy preparing for the new team concentrating on Bush’s targeted agenda, which included tax-cuts for the very wealthy and the invasion of Iraq.

Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, stated on 60 MINUTES that Bush was focused on invading Iraq soon after inauguration, January 20, 2001. Other insiders report Bush was talking invasion as early as 1999.

Richard Clarke served as Bush’s counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. Security Council. In an interview with Leslie Stahl, he revealed Bush was intent on attacking Iraq immediately after 9/11. Other of his writings indicate Bush was determined to go after Iraq from the beginning of the term – 9 months prior.

So, Ambassador Wilson’s New York Times article of July 6, 2003, WHAT I FOUND IN AFRICA, was not first in exposing the colossal treason committed by the Bush people. The plot is thicker than the simple lie of Saddam’s purchase of uranium from Niger.

There remains the foundation question, “Who forged the letter on official Niger letterhead and who stole the stationery and government seal at the onset? And when was the burglary?” The timing is amazingly relevant to the plot.

It started with a break-in on the morning of Jan. 2, 2001, eighteen days before Bush’s inaugural. Much like the 1972 Watergate Burglary, the thieves were dispatched by anonymous politicians for unknown reasons. Mysteriously, they confiscated official stationery and government stamps while ignoring highly-visible valuables and jewelry. Italian officials discovered that the Niger Embassy in Rome had been pillaged but were puzzled why nothing of value was missing.

A few months later, Italian intelligence obtained a stack of official-looking documents from an African diplomat. Signed by officials of the Niger government [who had actually retired in 1989], the papers revealed what purported to be an agreement between Iraqi Agents of strongman Saddam Hussein and Niger officials. The forged letter revealed Iraq was supposedly negotiating the sale of 500 tons of yellowcake from Niger, the type uranium used to build nuclear bombs. The Italians quickly notified the CIA which investigated and immediately determined the letter to be forged.

Circumstantial evidence strongly suggests – the embassy burglars, like the Watergate plumbers, were connected to and employed by the U.S. President (“elect”) and his people before being sworn in office to build a case for war against Iraq. Information further suggests the burglars were operatives of the neocons and members of the PNAC. Like money-laundering, they were probably hired through several layers to conceal the source. Conspiracy? Yes. The evidence, of course, is circumstantial yet so formidable; there is no doubt about ties to the Iraq invasion and “fixing the intelligence around the policy” (as Bush put it in July 2002 when meeting with British intelligence – recording in the famous Downing Street Minutes).

However, Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger over a year later was, indeed, just a corroboration of the CIA’S initial analysis of forgery – the fake letter that Bush had already endorsed and been using as an excuse to invade. But since America’s own CIA had discredited the letter, Bush deferred to British intelligence in his 2003 State of the Union with his 16-word lie: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The lie was deliberate. It was treasonous. For it led America down the path to war and financial ruin.

Again, the timing of these events suggests more than coincidence, but criminal intent. Every person that attempted to blow the whistle on Bush and his people became “fair game” for vengeance, in Rove’s words.

WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange opened a whole other can of worms. If he survives, it’ll be a miracle.

Unfortunately, the culprits remain protected, crimes go unpunished, while the whistle-blowers suffer. This is American justice. Just like the young lady that turned her boss in for sexual harassment, America has been pillaged and raped – yet the rapist relaxes in impunity because of his economic and political rank.

Had there not been a stolen Election 2000, there wouldn’t have been an embassy burglary, a forged letter, a deliberate lie of WMD, a 9/11, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and an economy bordering on Depression. Only the innocent go punished.