The Rise of the Americophiles Posted by T. Greer in Untagged

A case in point, Silvio Berlusconi's Italy has an increasingly negative view of America. The percentage of the public who has a "favorable" view of the United States has dropped from 70% in 2002 to 53% in 2004. Likewise, the percentage of Italians who hold a "very favorable" view of Americans dropped by 50%. [1] This surge in anti-Americanism among Italy's public is sharply contrasted by the views of the Italian President. A staunch ally of American ideals and policy goals, Berlusconi has referred to anti-Americanism as "pure ideological trash."[2] His support of American foreign policy is aptly summarized by Slate magazine:

"In the lead-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Italy was one of the first nations to grantWashington permission to use its ports, highways, and airspace and to offer landing rights at Italian bases. Berlusconi has kept 3,000 soldiers in Iraq (currently the third-largest contingent behind the Brits and the South Koreans). He has played up his visits to U.S. military cemeteries and installations in Italy, linking the GIs' sacrifice to the battle for Fallujah. He has also never missed an opportunity to wrap himself in the American flag."[3]

"Now is an opportunity for a historic effort in co-operation, a new dawn in collaborative action between America and Europe," he said in his hour-long speech at the JFK presidential library, adding that "America's leadership is, and will be, indispensable". The message was clear - the days of unilateralism should be behind us and the post-Iraq war tensions across the Atlantic are water under the bridge. Throughout his trip, Mr Brown seemed keen to play up the close ties between the US and the UK, telling CBS television that he is "very pro-American and I've always been". [4]

ACCORDING TO his opponent, Canadian Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper exposed "an agenda really drawn from the extreme right in the United States." He favored the Iraq war, opposed the Kyoto treaty on global warming, and is a social conservative to boot. He might just become -- heaven forbid -- "the most pro-American leader in the Western world." His victory would -- O, Canada! -- "put a smile on George W. Bush's face." Despite all those scary warnings, Mr. Harper and his party won Canada's election on Monday. That put an end to 12 years of increasingly incoherent and corrupt rule by the Liberal Party -- as well as the cynical and irresponsible attempt of its leader, outgoing Prime Minister Paul Martin, to use anti-Americanism.

Mr. Martin becomes the second G-8 leader in four months to exit from office after discovering that anti-U.S. demagoguery is no longer enough to win an election. Gerhard Schroeder, the former German chancellor, also tried to rescue his political career last fall by parading his differences with Mr. Bush; the result was the victory of Angela Merkel, who has moved swiftly to repair relations with Washington. Interestingly, both Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Martin won previous campaigns by playing anti-American cards, in 2002 and 2004 respectively. While it's not clear that the level of ill feeling toward the United States or its president has changed much in Germany or Canada, it's obviously not the foremost concern of voters fed up with domestic mismanagement -- or, perhaps, political venality.[5]

[Sarkozy] has been scornfully nicknamed "the American" or, even worse, "the neocon"--now a common epithet among the French. In a country where anti-Americanism is a national sport, his adversaries are quick to point out his pro-American views. .... Sarkozy was content to be labeled as pro-American. In fact, during his latest visit to the United States, on the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Sarkozy asked and obtained a photo-op with President Bush at the White House. Then, in a landmark speech on September 12, 2006, Sarkozy underlined his attachment to the United States: "My dedication to our relationship with America is well known and has earned me substantial criticism in France. But let me tell you something, I'm not a coward. I embrace that friendship, I'm proud of the friendship between France and the United States and I proclaim it gladly." [6]

By all accounts, Bush -- who has never met Lee -- is more in sync with his views on North Korea than he was with the two previous South Korean presidents, Roh Moo-hyun and Kim Dae-jung ... "Especially in comparison with visits by President Roh, the United States is very enthusiastic about Lee Myung-bak," said Heritage Foundation South Korea expert Bruce Klingner. "They welcome his emphasis on repairing the strained relations," he added. "There is clearly a difference in tone from a president that says the U.S.-ROK (Republic of Korea) alliance is the bedrock of South Korea's security and from a president who said what's wrong with being anti-American."[7]

Ruling party elder and political moderate Yasuo Fukuda is expected to win today's contest for the presidency of the Liberal Democratic Party, a victory virtually certain to make him the next prime minister of Japan in a parliamentary vote Tuesday. .... Fukuda is hardly the most charismatic or dynamic politician in Japan. The son of a former prime minister, he prefers gray suits, classical music, and moderate pro-American policies. [8]

I could go on like this for hours- but I think you get the idea. From the Czech Republic to Indonesia, vocal anti-American majorities across the world have chosen leaders with clear pro-American positions.

This all leads to the question: does world opinion of America matter that much anyway? I would suggest that (at least in modern democracies) it does not. While many have suggested that America's negative image makes it harder for American policy goals to succeed, there is little evidence to support this stance. To be fair, I admit that America needs allies to get things done. Yet despite America's dive in the opinion polls, America's allies are holding strong to American leadership. The European Union, the United Nations Security Council, the G-7 -all are led by this new group of pro-American leaders.

 

The free world has chosen its course: today is the age of the Americophiles.

[Note by the Author: This was orginally published on my personal Blog, The Scholar's Stage. If you enjoyed this post, I suggest you read the other articles I have posted there.]

 

[1] "Pew Global Attitudes Project: Spring 2007 Survey, Survey of 47 Publics: FINAL 2007 TRENDS TOPLINE" Pew Global Attititudes Project. July 27, 2007.

 

http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/256topline-pastyears.pdf

 [2] "10 Questions For Silvio Berlusconi" Time Magazine. July 19, 2003. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,465796,00.html

[3] Zach Mesitte. "What the Democrats Can Learn From Italy's Election." Slate Magazine. April 2007. http://www.slate.com/id/2139369/

[4] Kim Ghattas. "Brown's speech looks beyond Bush." BBC NEWS. April 19, 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7355834.stm

[5] "A Defeat for Anti-Americanism." Editorial. Washington Post. January 28, 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701447.html

[6] Oliver Guitta. "Sarkozy the American?" The Weekly Standard. April 2, 2007 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/599dliqj.asp

[7] Arsad Mohammed. "South Korea's Lee to get warm welcome from Bush." Boston Globe. April 17, 2008. http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/ articles/2008/04/18/south_koreas_lee_to_get_warm_welcome_in_washington/

[8] Joseph Coleman. "Fukuda favored to win party race, be Japan's prime minister." Boston Globe. September 19, 2007. http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia /articles/2007/09/23/fukuda_favored_to_win_party_race_be_japans_prime_minister/

Global Warming: Hoax, Hype & Hidden Agenda Posted by gregjaye08 in Untagged

 http://polzoo.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,Global-Warming-Hoax-Hype-amp-Hidden-Agenda.html/Itemid,41/

 

Earlier this month 500 people attended the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City. The conference was virtually ignored by the biased main stream media and the cadre of global warming alarmists. The attendees  ... were some very well respected (many retired) scientists, researchers, academicians, policy makers and business people. 

 

 The purpose of the conference was to contest the notion put forth by the main stream media and academia that the global warming debate is over. It also was intended to contest the apparent mandate of the global warming alarmists that drastic measures must be undertaken immediately to avoid global catastrophe, end of discussion.

After an intense 2-day conference with 100 presentations one of the chief results of the conference was the following declaration. I have added bold lettering for emphasis. If you don't read anything else read the words in bold to garner the gist of the insightful declaration, which says in part . . .  Go here to read the entire Declaration.

 

The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

Global warming is not a global crisis . . .

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life; . . .

Hereby declare:

. . .  THAT THERE IS NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT CO2 EMISSIONS FROM MODERN INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY HAS IN THE PAST, IS NOW, OR WILL IN THE FUTURE CAUSE CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE.

. . .  That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis . . .

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008. [End of Declaration]

 

... Myron Ebell told Tony Perkins on the Family Research Center's Washington Watch Radio Show recently that among conference participants were many scientists, economists, policy makers who do not agree that there is a consensus on global warming. In fact, there are two distinct camps on the question of global warming or climate control, the skeptics and their opponents the alarmists.

The global warming alarmists, with the aid of the main stream media, have declared that there is scientific consensus on global warming. This is similar to what academia and the scientific community say about another flawed theory, evolution. Ebell indicated that the alarmists were invited to the conference, but all declined. As Glenn Beck's video shows, few reporters or journalists covered this important conference ...

 

... Ebell summarizes it this way, "The first step in this debate is that we have got to limit our use of burning coal, oil and natural gas." Next, he says we will have to do with a lot less energy resources, "We are going to have to live more like people in poor (and) developing countries." "The next thing which you now see coming out of radical environmentalism as part of the grant-coalition supporting global warming alarmism is POPULATION CONTROL and they are very clear about it. There are way too many people on earth and we have got to radically reduce the number of people."

 

Is Reverend Wright Running for President? Posted by BalaamsAss in Obama, Democratic Primary, debates, Barack Obama, Barack

The Reverend's sudden political fame stems from a number of sermons (and particularly one connected with the September 11, 2001, attacks) delivered in his Chicago church. Excerpts from these sermons have been widely aired in the media, particularly on talk radio. Reverend Wright does not appear to have aimed at anything more than an advisory political role - something we will return to later. The main target of criticism was his friend and congregant, Senator Barack Obama.

Let me say first that the quoted speeches in no way represent my feelings towards the United States, and it is not the purpose here to defend or excuse them. But if the Reverend Wright's meaning and intention had been to encourage subversive or seditious acts, he should long ago have been prosecuted for it, particularly in the charged atmosphere which followed the World Trade Center attacks. If he was not (and this under the administration which pursues the "war on terror") then it must be concluded that his speech was political, and therefore, however insulting and hurtful it might have been, protected by the First Amendment.

It would not have been the first such occurrence. During the Vietnam conflict, stronger words were spoken, and much more was done by the war's opponents, even while American soldiers were fighting a ruthless and determined enemy. Yet the only ones singled out for arrest and prosecution were the few who clearly engaged in destructive and/or illegal acts.

The show hosts of talk radio, and their counterparts in television and the press, enjoy the same protection and the same freedom. But one may wonder whether Senator Obama's loyalty to his church and pastor is really the main issue here.

The many groups  and persons collectively referred to as "the media", have shown little interest in the candidates' positions on issues of far greater importance than their church affiliation. Why aren't these questions being asked: What the candidates intend to do, beyond "staying" or "leaving", about Iraq and the other wars; how they intend to assure America's energy supply; what their plan is (beyond hand-outs and bail-outs) to revive and redirect the economy; how to cut medical costs, beyond squeezing doctors and hospitals; and so on.

All three, Obama, Clinton and McCain, should be asked these and other hard questions, so that we know, before the vote, what they are committed to, and how they intend to discharge their commitments. The one question concerning his pastor Senator Obama should be requested to answer is whether he intends to retain Mr. Wright as a political adviser. I believe he already answered that in his recent speech, but it wouldn't hurt if he said it again.

http://polzoo.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,The-Iraq-War-A-Case-Study-in-Political-Elitism-and-Deceit.html/Itemid,41/



The Iraq War: A Case Study in Political Elitism and Deceit
Posted by Bacchus in Untagged

The rhetoric of election season is here again. I pay attention to the newsletters issued by each campaign. Despite the differences in policy, the tone is the same. The word "we" and "you" are in constant usage. With every primary victory, the message broadcasted to each base contains the phrases "We did it!" or "You made the difference!".

Perhaps some may chide my cynicism, but I cannot but help be amused by the sheer and blatant condescension so obvious in political rhetoric. Who exactly do these politicians think they are fooling when they seek to create an illusion that you are winning with them? Who are they fooling? The public, that's who. May I add, they may be forgiven if they believe they can get away with it. When the masses votes for an individual, who comes to bask in unparalleled glory, we are being told that "we made it"? Patronism at its best. When I examine the history of political behavior and the psychology of power, and compare this to the naivete of the masses, a wide chasm of perspective and understanding appear. The rhetoric that politicians utilize towards the masses are no different than the smooth talk of a car salesman to a shopper. If one is not aware of the selfish motives of those in power, you risk playing the role of the fool.

Those in power do not share the same psychology or vested interests with those that they rule. Perhaps in the initial stage of their ascendancy, idealism and a common bond with regular folks may truly strike a cord with some politicians. But in order to continue their ascendance and preserve their power, politicians are forced by necessity to become shrewd and calculating. In order to maintain power, humans are capable of every form of rationalization in the belief that their own prestige would translate to a selfless act on behalf of the common good. When you are in power, you depend on the behavior of the masses underneath you to act in a manner compatible with your goals. You can either convince them to do this through persuasion or through force. However, because the majority of the population lacks the perspective to truly understand policy goals in its most sophisticated form, the use of political rhetoric becomes important. The message must be simple and easy to understand. Some politicians are more honest than others, but all use these tactics to some extent.

As a case study, let's examine the War on Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was a plan concieved before 911 as a specific goal of the Project of the New American Century, primarily composed of Bush's neocon cabal. The interests of those involved for entering into this act of war were diverse, but primarily coalesced around personal profit, the advance of Israeli interests, American nationalism and the promotion of corporate hegemony. After the September 11th attacks, Bush's neocon cabal had the perfect cover to execute their plans. However, in order to sell it to the American people, the true purpose of this war could not be revealed. Instead, in the rush towards war, fear mongering was at its height, with the American public convinced that Iraq had WMD, and posed a great threat to them and their families. The power of this propaganda was quite effective. The citizens of the United States, a superpower with a $12 trillion dollar economy, a population of 300 million and a territorial empire which spanned the Atlantic to the South Pacific to the North pole, were scared out of their wits of Iraq. An Iraq of 20 million, ruled by a tinpot dictator who was strapped down by countless UN sanctions, a nation divided into three ethnic spheres where American warplanes roamed freely in its Northern and Southern skies. The propaganda was so effective that Americans believed that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had the power to determine the life and death of themselves and their loved ones.

After the invasion, when the WMD was proved to be non-existant, the Bush administration changed its rhetoric. Now, the war was not about WMD or a grave threat to US security, but it was about spreading democracy to the Arab world. Iraq was to be a grand project, a selfless American gift to the Arab people, a flourishing democracy in a region of tyranny. American troops were told that they were now fighting for the liberation of the Muslim world, at the same time that Dick Cheney was stuffing his already bulging pockets with the profits of Halliburton. The American people were told that their country was a crusader for justice, a beacon of light in the darkness, while pseudo intellectuals and armchair generals in the likes of William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz salivated at the humiliation of the Arab world and ratcheted up the hostilities with Iran. It is ceaselessly amazing to me that these individuals, who lack even the courage to cut their lip in a schoolyard fight, can willingly send thousands of American troops to their deaths for their own selfish interests. These troops, often from lower middle class backgrounds, are human beings with families to support and loved ones back home. True, many enter the military as a profession and as a choice. However, they also serve a profession in which they are asked to give selflessly in service of their nation. It is the minimal responsibility of those in power to reward this service with a foresight and moral backbone that would only promise to send them into harm's way to face dire threats to their nation. Instead, American troops were sent blazing to their deaths under a blizzard of lies and deceit.

Rarely do I break with my academic reserve, but when I think of the death of young lives that held so much promise, and the anguish of families who will never see their loved ones again, my entire body shakes with unbridled anger. When you speak to regular Americans about the war in Iraq, most are only aware of it being a supposed "War on Terror" or that it may be about "Freedom and Democracy". You would never hear references to the academic language utilized by the pseudo intellectuals who brainstormed and created this war. It is quite telling that Bush and none of the architects of the war have their own children fighting this war. These cowards are more than happy to have the children of the poor and underprevileged suffer and die for their endlessly selfish greed, while they continue to live lives of previlege and banter intellectually, well, perhaps not Bush, but the rest of them, would banter intellectually around cocktail parties of the continued threats of "Islamo-fascism".

The other month, I was reading the newspaper, and the observations I picked up were quite telling. On the front page was the picture of a soldier whose appearance had been badly deformed due to severe burns from a roadside bomb in Iraq. Standing next to him was his young fiance, with the expression on her face, lifeless, as if she was attending a funeral. Now, I imagine that this girl was probably his sweetheart and they probably got engaged soon before he went to war. Now, this soldier comes back deformed and practically disabled, the life that he and his fiance were supposed to share is now filled with gloom and uncertainty. The very picture I saw was a picture of shattered dreams and the realization of a nightmare. I turn the page. A contrast between night and day. On the very next page was an article about the engagement of George W. Bush's daughter, Jenna. There was a photo on the page which showed a similing president with a glowing daughter, and a very optimistic looking future son-in-law who was marrying into the most powerful family in America. This was the very picture of happiness and joy, and a complete contrast with the picture of gloom from the front page. I thought to myself, this man, this coward, who enjoys a life of luxury and ceremonial honors, has destroyed the lives of countless hundreds of thousands of people. The lives of countless Iraqis, but also of countless Americans through his sham of a war. If someone should be experiencing the utter depths of despair, it should not be the innocent soldier on the front page. Instead, it should be the architects of war and death. This incident demonstrated to me the utter reprehensiveness of our current administration, but also of the possible extremities of the gap between political rhetoric and political reality. Although I fully believe that none of the candidates this year are as despicable as our current leadership, it is important to spread awareness of the driving motives of politicians and the true nature of their interests. However, all of this effort may be futile on my part. For as long as humans have been humans, heirarchies have existed. With every heirarchy, chains of control and power have been preserved. Perhaps political manipulation are a necessity to human society, perhaps political deceit is a necessity to the common good.

Perhaps the common folk will always be fodder, expendible in the great game of the political elites.

The Iraq War: A Case Study in Political Elitism and Deceit Posted by Bacchus in Untagged

http://polzoo.com/component/option,com_myblog/show,The-Iraq-War-A-Case-Study-in-Political-Elitism-and-Deceit.html/Itemid,41/

 

The rhetoric of election season is here again. I pay attention to the newsletters issued by each campaign. Despite the differences in policy, the tone is the same. The word "we" and "you" is in constant usage. With every primary victory, the message broadcasted to each base contains the phrases "We did it!" or "You made the difference!".

 Perhaps some may chide my cynicism, but I cannot but help be amused by the sheer and blatant condescension so obvious in political rhetoric. Who exactly do these politicians think they are fooling when they seek to create an illusion that you are winning with them? Who are they fooling? The public, that's who. May I add, they may be forgiven if they believe they can get away with it. When the masses votes for an individual, who comes to bask in unparalleled glory, we are being told that "we made it"? Patronism at its best. When I examine the history of political behavior and the psychology of power, and compare this to the naivete of the masses, a wide chasm of perspective and understanding appear. The rhetoric that politicians utilize towards the masses are no different than the smooth talk of a car salesman to a shopper. If one is not aware of the selfish motives of those in power, you risk playing the role of the fool.

 Those in power do not share the same psychology or vested interests with those that they rule. Perhaps in the initial stage of their ascendancy, idealism and a common bond with regular folks may truly strike a cord with some politicians. But in order to continue their ascendance and preserve their power, politicians are forced by necessity to become shrewd and calculating. In order to maintain power, humans are capable of every form of rationalization in the belief that their own prestige would translate to a selfless act on behalf of the common good. When you are in power, you depend on the behavior of the masses underneath you to act in a manner compatible with your goals. You can either convince them to do this through persuasion or through force. However, because the majority of the population lacks the perspective to truly understand policy goals in its most sophisticated form, the use of political rhetoric becomes important. The message must be simple and easy to understand. Some politicians are more honest than others, but all use these tactics to some extent.

 As a case study, let's examine the War on Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was a plan concieved before 911 as a specific goal of the Project of the New American Century, primarily composed of Bush's neocon cabal. The interests of those involved for entering into this act of war were diverse, but primarily coalesced around personal profit, the advance of Israeli interests, American nationalism and the promotion of corporate hegemony. After the September 11th attacks, Bush's neocon cabal had the perfect cover to execute their plans. However, in order to sell it to the American people, the true purpose of this war could not be revealed. Instead, in the rush towards war, fear mongering was at its height, with the American public convinced that Iraq had WMD, and posed a great threat to them and their families. The power of this propaganda was quite effective. The citizens of the United States, a superpower with a $12 trillion dollar economy, a population of 300 million and a territorial empire which spanned the Atlantic to the South Pacific to the North pole, were scared out of their wits of Iraq. An Iraq of 20 million, ruled by a tinpot dictator who was strapped down by countless UN sanctions, a nation divided into three ethnic spheres where American warplanes roamed freely in its Northern and Southern skies. The propaganda was so effective that Americans believed that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had the power to determine the life and death of themselves and their loved ones.

 After the invasion, when the WMD was proved to be non-existant, the Bush administration changed its rhetoric. Now, the war was not about WMD or a grave threat to US security, but it was about spreading democracy to the Arab world. Iraq was to be a grand project, a selfless American gift to the Arab people, a flourishing democracy in a region of tyranny. American troops were told that they were now fighting for the liberation of the Muslim world, at the same time that Dick Cheney was stuffing his already bulging pockets with the profits of Halliburton. The American people were told that their country was a crusader for justice, a beacon of light in the darkness, while pseudo intellectuals and armchair generals in the likes of William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz salivated at the humiliation of the Arab world and ratcheted up the hostilities with Iran. It is ceaselessly amazing to me that these individuals, who lack even the courage to cut their lip in a schoolyard fight, can willingly send thousands of American troops to their deaths for their own selfish interests. These troops, often from lower middle class backgrounds, are human beings with families to support and loved ones back home. True, many enter the military as a profession and as a choice. However, they also serve a profession in which they are asked to give selflessly in service of their nation. It is the minimal responsibility of those in power to reward this service with a foresight and moral backbone that would only promise to send them into harm's way to face dire threats to their nation. Instead, American troops were sent blazing to their deaths under a blizzard of lies and deceit. Rarely do I break with my academic reserve, but when I think of the death of young lives that held so much promise, and the anguish of families who will never see their loved ones again, my entire body shakes with unbridled anger. When you speak to regular Americans about the war in Iraq, most are only aware of it being a supposed "War on Terror" or that it may be about "Freedom and Democracy". You would never hear references to the academic language utilized by the pseudo intellectuals who brainstormed and created this war. It is quite telling that Bush and none of the architects of the war have their own children fighting this war. These cowards are more than happy to have the children of the poor and underprevileged suffer and die for their endlessly selfish greed, while they continue to live lives of previlege and banter intellectually, well, perhaps not Bush, but the rest of them, would banter intellectually around cocktail parties of the continued threats of "Islamo-fascism".

The other month, I was reading the newspaper, and the observations I picked up were quite telling. On the front page was the picture of a soldier whose appearance had been badly deformed due to severe burns from a roadside bomb in Iraq. Standing next to him was his young fiance, with the expression on her face, lifeless, as if she was attending a funeral. Now, I imagine that this girl was probably his sweetheart and they probably got engaged soon before he went to war. Now, this soldier comes back deformed and practically disabled, the life that he and his fiance were supposed to share is now filled with gloom and uncertainty. The very picture I saw was a picture of shattered dreams and the realization of a nightmare. I turn the page. A contrast between night and day. On the very next page was an article about the engagement of George W. Bush's daughter, Jenna. There was a photo on the page which showed a similing president with a glowing daughter, and a very optimistic looking future son-in-law who was marrying into the most powerful family in America. This was the very picture of happiness and joy, and a complete contrast with the picture of gloom from the front page. I thought to myself, this man, this coward, who enjoys a life of luxury and ceremonial honors, has destroyed the lives of countless hundreds of thousands of people. The lives of countless Iraqis, but also of countless Americans through his sham of a war. If someone should be experiencing the utter depths of despair, it should not be the innocent soldier on the front page. Instead, it should be the architects of war and death. This incident demonstrated to me the utter reprehensiveness of our current administration, but also of the possible extremities of the gap between political rhetoric and political reality. Although I fully believe that none of the candidates this year are as despicable as our current leadership, it is important to spread awareness of the driving motives of politicians and the true nature of their interests. However, all of this effort may be futile on my part. For as long as humans have been humans, heirarchies have existed. With every heirarchy, chains of control and power have been preserved. Perhaps political manipulation are a necessity to human society, perhaps political deceit is a necessity to the common good.

 Perhaps the common folk will always be fodder, expendible in the great game of the political elites.

Censor, Regulate and Tax the Internet? Posted by Glennsopinions in Untagged

 I'm sure all of you are aware by now of the infamous emails circulating the dark corners of the internet accusing Barack Obama of everything from being a Muslim, to swearing in on the Koran, to being a one man Al Qaeda sleeper cell. I won't even waste the bandwidth debunking these ridiculous and xenophobic lies, but if you are that gullible and need to be reassured otherwise, click here, here, and here. In addition to the emails, the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio now routinely refers to him by his full name: Barack Hussein Obama, as if this somehow disqualifies him or makes him too dangerous to become president. Recently, it has gotten to the point where one of the official speakers at a rally McCain was appearing at repeatedly referred to Obama by this moniker,which actually means "blessed good" when translated.

Although the fear mongering against Obama has been completely discredited, I did learn some very disturbing facts today about his future opponent. Confidential sources have informed me that John McCain's middle name is actually "Sidney" and that he was born in PANAMA!!!! Yes, it's true. I nearly fell out of my chair in disbelief when I learned the shocking news.

***Sarcasm Alert On*** Is it any wonder Sidney McCain from Panama is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and for letting all those illegal foreigners have amnesty??? How do we know Sidney isn't a sleeper cell for Manuel Noriega or for those guys from Qu-eer Eye for the Straight Guy for that matter?***Sarcasm Alert Off*** And by the way, isn't it unconstitutional for a person born outside the United States to even become president? Otherwise, wouldn't The Governator be the likely GOP nominee?

Of course I'm not surprised that the mainstream media chooses to ignore these facts, but how can the all knowing blogosphere not have ferreted out this crucial bit of information already, flooded email boxes, and made it known to the entire internet community? The American public deserves to know the truth! Otherwise, we just might end up electing Sidney McCain that crazy old belligerent Panamanian with the girly sounding name!

-Vox "Hussein" Populi

 

Have you had your ‘Polzoo’ today?

 

By

 

Jared Colby

 

New generation grassroots political editorial and social network gathers attention

 

As sparks continue to fly on the political stage during this eventful primary season, the cyber world of the pundit blogosphere is pulsing with activity following every debate, election and every piece of gossip. In the past two years, the politicized internet has been dominated by blog sites such as Dailykos.com, popular with the Liberal crowd, and Townhall.com which serves the needs of the Conservative blogger. Other large budget news blogs such as Politico.com and Huffingtonpost.com also cast a long shadow over their share of the blogosphere.

 

It is in this shadow that a small but tenacious grassroots blog seeks to stake a claim. Polzoo.com bills itself as ‘a social networking center for political participation, debate and action’. Despite a long winded and seemingly banal self-description, the site itself actually offers quite a bit of entertainment for your average political junkie. Launched in early February of 2008, owner Frederick Kuo envisioned a non-partisan site where bloggers of all stripes and colors can come together to discuss and debate issues. “I wanted to combine the traditional online political editorial and blog with the functions of myspace”, says Kuo, a local Sacramento crepe shop owner, enthusiastically of the project. Despite only being in operation for a mere three weeks, Polzoo already has a group of regular contributors who act as featured columnists on the front page. True to form, the political affiliations are divided evenly between three liberals, three conservatives and one independent. The featured columnists were hand picked from the blogosphere by Kuo who reveals, “I was looking for columnists who represented the average joe, rather than those who already had connections… and they also needed to be passionate”. And passionate they are, already some blogs have generated fiery reactions from other members. In response to a liberal columnist who writes that adherence to diversity was what historically made America great, a conservative member argues the opposite and charges “and the Liberals keep fiddling while Rome burns… they were the ones who let the Huns in”.

 

Free advertising for social causes

 

In addition to being a full fledged grassroots political blog and social networking site, Polzoo has also begun a program to help non-profit organizations by permanently giving free advertising on the front page for a different cause on a weekly basis. “My goal was to use this site not only to spur political thought and debate, but also to allow important social issues of our day to gain greater exposure”, says Kuo of the Polzoo non-profit organization program. Although clearly, no organization has yet to apply, the program statement advises organizations to submit their banners to be featured and to create a blog detailing the importance of the cause they are involved in.

 

Navigating throughout the site, I found the setup intuitive and easy to use. However, it is clear that as a young site, there are still a few kinks here and there to work out. The profile function could be refined a bit more in order to create an easier flow for those who want to surf portfolios. The private messaging system is not very intuitive, and could be integrated better with the community database. I am told, however, that these bugs are to be worked out in the coming months as the site continues to grow. “I am focusing on providing quality content and substance first, and then everything will come together”, asserts Kuo confidently on the direction of the site.

 

So have you had your ‘Polzoo’ today? Perhaps not, but as interest in this grassroots political site grows, growing numbers of individuals will increasingly have Polzoo with their morning coffee.

Time for Hillary to Go Posted by Grassroot Vizir in Untagged

 It is really time for the Clintons to end their campaign. They have no chance of winning. Every new poll shows Obama closing the gap in Texas and Ohio, and some even show Obama overtaking Hillary in Texas. In order for Hillary to even have a slim chance of winning this election, she would need to win Texas and Ohio decisively, generate a tsunami of momentum and excitement of her campaign within days, and have Obama come out in public declaring that he is the long lost cousin of Osama Bin Laden. In other words, unless we are no longer on planet Earth, she does not have a chance.

The longer the Clintons stay in this race, and the more negative their campaign becomes, the more tarnished the political goodwill towards them would be in the Democratic camp. If Hillary was to bow out gracefully and endorse Obama for president, she would appear classy and selfless. If Obama was to lose the general election, Hillary would've set herself up for a strong campaign in 2012. However, by going negative, the Clintons do not smear Obama, but smear their own campaign, public opinion of themselves, and their own political legacies.

 Hillary, get some class, it's time for you to go.

Freedom for Kosovo, but not for Palestine? Posted by mash in Untagged

I think the Kosovans deserve their indepedence. They were mistreated by the Serbs, and were subject to attempted genocide. This is one of the issues where I support the US govt. But I have to wonder why it's ok that Kosovo gets independence, but when it comes to the Palestinians, the US just doesnt care?

 Israel has been conducting a policy of ethnic cleansing on the territories for decades. I mean, the entire country of Israel was Palestine, the whole existance of Israel is based on ethnic cleansing. So why can't Palestinians have their own state yet? Why is it that there is one standard for one country and another for the other?

Maybe if the Serbians had a strong lobby in the Washington, Kosovo would never have seen the day of its freedom. Just a thought.

What is the electorate thinking? The AP tried to find out... Posted by CenterLeftLiberal in Untagged

Ideology:

• Very liberal: 5%
• Liberal: 17%
• Moderate: 42%
• Conservative: 25%
• Very conservative: 10%
• Refused: 1%

To see the survey for ourselve, see this article and click on "Full Poll Results in the box on the upper right-hand corner.