Change in Politics -- Status Quo Remains

Regardless of the shift in the political climate within the United States, the American Position in the world is still as troubled as it can possibly be. The Damage that the Current Administration, along with Congress has already done to this point, cannot be untangled in a few years, much less a decade. The unfortunate thing is that the damage has been ongoing for over 50 years now, because the United States, against its own constitution, does not owe its allegiance to Americans. America, whether it's Republican or Democrat, rich or poor, subconsciously supports the Israeli regime. It's not some grand conspiracy on the part of Jews, or some imaginative source, but rooted in Christianity and the Bible.

Most people who are raised in a Christian environment, whether it be direct (as in Evangelicals), or indirect (as in Secular Europe), own a wealth of repository knowledge to the Bible. One cannot escape from the Bible, merely because they are non-practicing. The stories of the Bible interject with popular culture throughout all Christian societies. Noah's ark for example, even in highly secular circles, is well known. The story of Adam and Eve, in fact, is so well known that even evolutionary scientists must adopt the names to apply them to the genetic ancestors of modern human beings. Mitochondrial Eve, or the Y-Chromosome Adam, exist because the Bible has interjected and rooted itself so deeply in culture, that even science, as secular and rational as it can be, cannot escape from using names and stories to make principles easier to understand. Why not use Ancestral Mitochondrial Female, or Ancestral Y-Chromosome Adam instead? The truth is that fewer people would show interest because those scientifically descriptive names would not evoke the emotional responses that Adam and Eve can.

The Bible is in fact, the mythological legends, histories, and stories of people in the Middle East. The Jews of the Bible owe a lot of their stories to Mesopotamian Legends. Noah's Ark, although popularly attributed to the Bible, actually existed in many different stories recounted from Ancient Sumerian Legend. Those stories were borrowed, compiled, retold, and evolved through numerous conceptualizations until they were recast as the Bible we know today. The Hebrews, Israelites, and general Jews that make up the Bible by proportion are the root basis of Modern day Christianity (which in fact existed in Egypt predating Judaism...but that's another blog). Therefore, in most people who come from a Christian culture (whether secular or not), there's a small soft spot for Judaism. By criticizing the State of Israel today, most Christians feel that they're doing a disservice to their own religion. What people must realize however, is that the Jews of the Bible are generally not the flesh and blood Jews of Today. Judaism is ultimately a religion, not an ethnic group. Like all religions, it's a philosophy, a form of belief, an "-ism" if you will. One could be ethnically Chinese, African, South American, Indian, or any ethnic group, but as long as they follow the rules and customs, they could become Christian, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or any of the religions. Just as there are blonde and blue eyed Muslims in Albania, along with fair haired Muslim Converts in the UK, there are also Asian and African Jews, such as in Singapore and Ethiopia respectively.

The Jews of today, who are claiming Israel as their own are not ethnically related to the Jews of the Bible. The dirty little Secret is that the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs are more closely related to the Jews of the Bible then the Eastern and Southern European Jews. The Eastern European Jews known as Ashkenazi have brought with them ideologies and values that are reflected in European culture (such as socialism, fascism, communism), and have used those tactics to brutally control and oppress the Palestinians. These people are Ethnically European, having very little genetic relations with ancient Canaanites (the ethnic group that once occupied what's called Israel, Palestine, and Southern Lebanon of today). Yet, they claim the land as theirs, and with a brutal military force, backed by the military and financial might of the United States, enforce their own brand and rule of law in the region.

Now, these militant Israeli's, who would rather prefer other's to do their dirty work for them (such as the United States did with Saddam Hussein's regime), continue goading Iran into war. They Instigate Iran into reacting and then Instigate the United States into Responding, thus destabilizing the region and leaving discontent in their wake. The proof of this is in a recent news article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_iran_nuclear

Naturally, if Israel, as a leading politician claims, will attack Iran for "preventative measures", then the United States will have to support this decision. More soldiers will have to die to feed the Israeli-American War Machine, and fascism will survive into the next decade. The constant threats, instigations, acquisition of land and "pre-emptive warfare" philosophies help perpetuate this Fascist Doctrine. The American Government will continue being subservient to Israel, regardless of a Republican or Democrat controlled agenda, because open criticism relates to political death. In the "land of the free, and home of the brave" any person who attempts to openly criticize Israel over it's policy against Palestinians, it's reaction against Lebanon, the continued threats on Iran, will be severely punished. Money is the driving force of politicians, and those who control money, mainly those Sympathetic to the Israeli cause, are those that control policies and politics. The General Public on the other hand is lead to believe that criticizing Israel is un-Christian and should not even be thought. It has reached a point where even thinking about the power that these groups with Israeli Sympathies have should be illegal.

The problems that arise throughout the world aren't just related to the Bible alone. Even the Koran has influence over how cultures think of the Middle East. The stories and legends in the Koran are based on the Arabic culture of Mohammed's time. At the time, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and many other wide-spread beliefs were vying for control. It just happened that Muhammad created something that lead to what we now know as Islam. Just as American's generally don't criticize Israel, many Muslim Asian countries conversely don't criticize Saudi Arabia. Indonesia for example, will always hold a soft spot for Saudi Arabia, because that's where Mecca and Medina are (the core of Islamic Culture).

Ultimately, with all these measures of control over how one must react, there is an escape route. There is always a way out of such strict and confining thought, and that is Reason.
Reason is the life raft in the middle of the ocean; it will provide a mode of survival and navigation through charted and uncharted areas of thought and philosophy.
Reason will develop naturally, once the ideals that we hold are not a product of being force fed, but a product of our own accord. How different would the world be if there were no clergymen? If every single person chose to read the Bible (or other religious texts) themselves, instead of having to go and listen to someone with "spiritual authority" tell them what they should gather. A simple exercise to illustrate this point is to read a transcript from a news analysis show, and then actually watch the show. Upon reading the transcript, one projects their own thoughts and images, their own ideas, and ultimately, deduces one's own analysis because those words being read are being read based on personal experience, based on everything else that's been read. However, when one listens to the program itself, they are unconsciously forced to feel what the analyst feels. We are ultimately empathetic creatures, and the nuances and subtleties of someone talking effects our thinking. The inflection in a person's voice, and where they emphasize their points will differ if one reads a transcript. Even if the program holds views completely opposite, watching it is very different from reading it, and finding holes in the reasoning. It becomes easier to look at things objectively, and avoid being influenced by the emotional inflection of someone's voice.

Seeking Answers: The Search for Universal Truth in Science

Of all the human traits that separate man from the other animals on the planet, the inquiry as to Why we are here has to be one of the most fundamental. Many highly intelligent and mentally sophisticated animals can reason quite profoundly, yet, the higher cortical functions that attempt to discern an individuals place in the grand scheme of things are largely absent in those creatures.

Regardless of whether an individual's belief is based on science, religion, or an amalgam of both, the common thread that's shared is the attempt at answering the most fundamental question of all. The Question of origins -- as to how and why we are here resonates deeply across cultural and historic lines. Until the era of Industrialization and the Scientific Method, the attempts at answering a question of origins was based largely on religious, mythological, and mystical thought. A safe grouping would be to include those early tools as philosophical ideas developed to grasp the vast unknown and gain a measure of control over the universe. The belief that beings more powerful then man were involved in helping shape (whether positively or negatively) the direction of our lives was extremely pervasive.

Since the advent of the Scientific Revolution, the order of the questions we ask has changed. Those who have embraced the Scientific Method have come to realize that the question of why we are here cannot be readily answered until more pertinent information can be gathered. Primarily, one must first try to understand the universe in it's physical state. Questions such as How does the Sun glow so bright? What makes the oceans salty? Why do camels have such large eyelashes? Why are other galaxies so far away? What prevents us from floating off into space? Why are Human and Chimpanzee genes so similar? All of these questions start with a curious inquiry and open a vast door into the astonishing world that we live in.

It's highly unfortunate to realize just how many people in the world could care less about many of the most fundamental questions. The curiosity present in children is often lost to the detriment of the human condition. Perhaps to many, the love of science has been destroyed by apathetic teachers, religious extremists, and closed minded individuals. Having a deep seeded love and respect of science is treated by less inquisitive minds as a threat. Because of the intimidation of those who are ignorant, scientists are maligned and especially during the budding years of primary and secondary education, the scientifically minded are often ostracized by their peers. Derogatory names such as Nerd, Geek, Dweeb, Poindexter are used excessively to dissuade the passion of science, and ease the threat that those who are ignorant feel.

When Trillions are spend yearly on the War Machine, and yet, conflict arises because budgetary constraints prevent certain scientific projects to be undertaken, the loser is always humanity. There are countless fundamental questions to ask, and perhaps begin to answer, yet, politics and bureaucracy collude to prevent the dissemination of knowledge and advancement from taking hold in the general population.

If one looks at the self absorbed politicians of the world, regardless of political ideology, an interesting truth emerges: only a handful have any background in the sciences. It has been proven without a doubt that a greater educational level results in more moderate and rational thought. A scientific debate, although sometimes highly charged, has a self moderation mechanism. Scientific theories can constantly be refined and reorganized based on gathered observational evidence. Just as the wheel, evolved into a cart, a horse drawn carriage, and eventually a car as we know it today, so does science through its constant search for answers evolve to include more complexity. At first, we were the center of the universe, then with more and more information, we came to realize that not only are we not the center of the universe, but that there is no center of the universe. Religious belief however, cannot be refined through observational evidence. As I've mentioned in previous blogs, religious refinement is based on political independence. The reason for the various branches of Christianity for example, are rooted in political autonomy. Rome did not want to be governed by the Byzantine empire, so they branched separately resulting in the great Schism between Orthodox and Catholic.

Therefore, with all the problems of the world created by incompetent politicians, there are many solutions to avoid planetary catastrophe. I propose all elected officials to have at least a crash course in the general sciences, regardless of religion, personal belief, or any other constraint. As an elected official, it's one's duty to have a better understanding of the world around. Whether those officials carry any of that knowledge is a different matter, but having the fundamentals can be enough to jump start a trend that embraces free thought and expression. Science cannot function freely and efficiently under constraint, and neither can the human condition. It's an absolute shame that ultimately, politicians and politics involve lawyers instead of scientists. It's my belief that to have a rational world, every head of state should have a PhD.

Destructive Puppet Masters

The biggest threat to the United States and the World in general isn't Iran's nuclear ambitions or North Korea's nuclear tests, but a small group of people influencing the most powerful elements in the world from developing a sound strategy for dealing with possibly dangerous nations (aka rogue states).

The poisonous elements currently exercising their will over such a large segment of the world population can generally be categorized as Neo-Fascists. They are willing to risk the annihilation of the world for profit, power, and influence. The worst of the current perpetrators are Zionists, both Jewish and Christian alike. One must ask ones self and others; who has the most to gain in the current state of affairs that we have in the world today? The answer, not surprisingly, are those currently in charge of the United States Government.

As an example of the sheer influence and will bending power that the Neo-Fascists (particularly Zionists) are currently undertaking, one need look no further then the situation with Iran. As I have mentioned in previous blogs, Iran is attempting to develop nuclear technologies, that they insist are for powering nuclear reactors. The West however, believes that Iran is scheming to develop nuclear weapons and threaten the world. Naturally, the truth inevitably falls somewhere in between those two examples. Most disturbingly for the West however, is the fact that a nuclear capable Iran is a dangerous threat to the world; not because they may develop nuclear weapons, but because Iran's economic output and competitive advantage may overshadow the rest of the Middle East. This advancement in Iran's position would reduce the influence that countries such as the United States may have in the region. Thus, instead of developing a strategy with Iran that may avert a potential nuclear crisis, the current US administration, along with its Israeli apologists and backers are engaged in an international game of taunting and infantile behavior. This idiotic strategy of verbal intimidation cannot lead one away from conflict, but instead directly towards it. If the US, Israel, and the rest of the West were serious about disengaging from these dangerous and potentially globally destructive games with Iran, a simple solution would be to open diplomatic channels and dialogue with the current Iranian regime.

The only way diplomacy with Iran will resume under the watch of the current administration is either the people of Iran decide through popular vote to elect a more moderate leader, or the US succeeds in an assassination attempt against Ahmedinajad. In other words, only under a change in Iran's regime will the world be saved from such a dangerous precipice. Such a change in regime cannot be bloodless, and will instead destabilize the entire already precarious region. The reason bilateral diplomatic talks with Iran have not been implemented is because of the Influence that the Neo-Fascists, primarily in this case, the Zionists, have over the administration. Many things could be accomplished if there was dialogue with Iran, yet, just because Iran believes that Israel is not a valid nation, our so called leaders are willing to jeopardize our safety, security and future. If Iran, for example, held the belief that Poland was not a valid nation, there would be some opposition, but not nearly enough to actively obstruct diplomatic channels and avert a potential nuclear crisis. The benefits of engaging with Iran are far more numerous then the drawbacks. By engaging Iran however, the US and especially Israel fear legitimizing the Iranian regime. These fears are unfounded when compared to the potential war that may result. The people of Iran, through popular and democratic vote elected Ahmadinejad as their president. It can be argued that the true leader of Iran is the Ayatollah, yet, the Statesman, and the man most likely to interact diplomatically is Ahmadinejad. In fact, by sending a letter to President Bush, Ahmadinejad extended a bridge of communication which subsequently fell on the deaf ears of the Administration of Incompetence.

Diplomacy with Iran can have many advantages that are being purposely overlooked (to perpetuate worldwide hatred, fear, and subservience). First, having open dialogue would allow for effective nuclear negotiations. Iran can be a stabilizing force in the Middle East, but when pushed and isolated, it can also be extremely disruptive. Therefore, any nuclear talks must directly involve the United States, and must be based on a platform of initial cooperation and trust. Building trust takes a tremendous amount of time and effort, yet the dividends are a stable world, a surging economic market, and an example of cooperation between a polarized world. Second, open talks with Iran will allow for easier withdrawal and stabilization of Iraq. With Iran's and subsequently Syria's influence, Iraq can become peaceful and stable a lot sooner then with brute force and occupational tactics. Finally, the potential economic benefits to establishing relations cannot be overlooked. With Iran's economy improving and providing a valuable addition to the global market, a mutual atmosphere of trust and participation will emerge.

The Here and Now

I woke up this morning, looking outside the window, something just didn't seem right about the day. I couldn't quite put my finger on it, was it the weather -- no, not really, the sky was clear, and there were hardly any clouds in the sky. I wondered why the air had a strange tense atmosphere about it, something was definately out of place. Thinking the vodka I had the night before was playing tricks with my mind, I drove to work, singing along to a little diddly called Wake Up, by Rage Against the Machine, in my car. Upon getting to work, there was a strange cloud of confusion and pallor upon my colleagues. "What's the matter", I had inquired, why the pale looks on your faces. "Don't you know", they replied, "this morning, we went to war". Thinking that it was old news, "I know, we've been at war for years now, Iraq, Afghanistan, hell, if you want to stretch it out, against Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Drugs, Prostitution..." "No, I was told, we just went to war with Iran, it's big news, apparently, we've just released a nuclear weapon".

A nuclear weapon? How could it lead to this? What possible road have we taken that resulted in another catastrophic act of nuclear death upon civilians?

Well, as it turned out, Israel had taken it upon themselves to launch a pre-emptive strike upon Iran's Nuclear Facilities, and as an act of retaliation, Iran had launched missiles towards major Israeli populated areas. Considering the devestation this had caused, the United States had in turn, launched "low-yield" nuclear missiles against multiple Iranian targets. We were fully entrenched in WWIII, and the war was just beginning. With our resources stretched thin as it is, and the apathy the world had garnered towards our aggressiveness, we were on our own (save a few dependent nations).

Think this scenario is impossible? Don't hold your collective breath. This is indeed the direction we have been headed in for the past 6 years. The plans to dominate the Middle Eastern region aggressively and forcefully, were in place before 9-11. These are acts of Tyrranical rulers, believing their God would protect them against the heathens. I am not talking about fundamentalist Islam, but in this instance, fundamentalist Christians and Zionists (no, not Jews, but fundamentalist Zionists, yes, there is a distinction). The belief that through the strength of God's/Christ's Will, the victors will fight the moral victory, there is very little rational reasoning that could possibly supplant these fanatical thoughts. When faith overtakes reason, people suffer. As simple as that.

Perhaps the apathy we have garnered through all these years of complacency, has resulted in our weakened perspective in the world. We take many things for granted, believing that our elected officials have the best interest of the public, thinking that democracy will protect us. We don't realize the wool that's been pulled over our eyes, because we refuse to understand implications of our actions. A wise man, 2300 years ago, by the name of Plato once warned about the pitfalls of Democracy. In the Republic, Plato states that if citizens in a Democracy become complacent, the leaders they believe they've elected will become tyrranical under the apathy of the collective public.

Pessimists may say, what's the point of all this conjecture, the seeds are sewn, and it may all be too late. The fact is, perhaps the gears in the watch have begun to move, perhaps WWIII is inevitable, but that doesn't mean we must stand by and allow it to happen in full force.

At the very least, we must understand the possible scenarios of our actions and attempt to dissent against tyrrany.

The way I see it, what we need is a transparent government, that doesn't hold closed door session, and I don't care how Democratic we think we are, we must have true choices in our elected officials. Elected officials should not receive salaries, but should rule based on merit and honor. They would of course be provided with housing and food, but no corporate jets, no million dollar estates. If they are true representatives of the people, they must commit to the terms they were elected for. True leadership would still emerge under these guidelines, and we can only hope that our course of action would become based on critical thinking and rationality, instead of faith and emotional overreaction (based on fear and anger).

One final food for thought; the wars we don't speak of, were the wars that were prevented before they started. During the Cold War for example, as recent Soviet and American Classified documents have attested, many instances of near nuclear annhilation or at the least a new World War were narrowly averted. As humanity continued it's future march, those potential wars were never mentioned again. Countless wars have and will be prevented through the course of human history, let us hope this upcoming one is among those.

The Grand Neo-Conservative Irony

Political ideology has always been an integral part of any national movement and direction. Without ideology to guide thought and action, politics would be an emasculated structure, devoid of progress and growth. The difference in ideological success and failure lies in the thorough understanding of the ramifications specific to the ideological structure involved in shaping opinion and discourse. There are no perfect platforms of thought and action, but with critical thinking, open mindedness, and a malleable belief that can change with added knowledge and insight, it's possible to successfully transition into a beneficial policy that encompasses many key values and decisions leading into further refinement and enlightenment.

The Neo-Conservative ideology that has evolved in the past two decades is certainly not one of the ideological successes to have been embraced in recent years. In fact, neo-conservative thought and policy has become an absolute failure, with very few positive outcomes to speak of. The current application of this failed ideology to world politics is a disaster that will take decades to sort and repair. Such abject ideological failures are a result of lack of foresight and narrow-mindedness. I shall endeavor to illustrate examples that have resulted in wounds running so deep in the current global environment, that only through many years, if not generations of hard work, can we finally extricate ourselves out of the mess that has surrounded us all.

During the Communist containment policies that were exercised throughout the Western World between the 60's and 80's, many ideological branches developed to deal with specifics of countering Soviet influence, and buffering the possibilities of Communism and Soviet style Socialism from spilling over into the West. Whether the policies involved backdoor diplomacy, stalemates, buffer regions, and proxy wars for control of influence, the tide finally turned in the late 80's, resulting in a general success over communism and its influence on the West. In fact, even the early 80's showed promise towards the goal of containment and influence, with the Soviet policies of Glasnost (openness). Those forays into some level of openness, as we now know, was the chinking in the armor that eventually lead to the Reunification of Germany, Collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Democratization of Eastern Europe. Those that were deeply involved in the containment policies knew no other ideology. Their success would be their eventual failure, because they were too far enmeshed in their given ideological agendas to change direction. Thus, the failure of the Neo-Conservative agenda as we have now.

Most of the Principle Spear headers of Neo-conservative thought, came from the School of Soviet Containment. Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, et al. were significantly and obstinately influenced by containment ideologies, and were thoroughly indoctrinated into those beliefs. Their training and experience, which were largely beneficial at the time for Soviet Containment, are now outdated, and severely hurt progress in the current global society. Containment policies, though they worked for Communism, cannot work for Islamic Fundamentalism. Although superficially, it may seem like a good application, upon further reflection, isolation strategies will not work with cultures, whose values and ideologies are so inherently different (from inception), that any policy without taking into account for the ideological variables and cultural ramifications, will be doomed for failure.

The Irony of the situation is that Islamic Fundamentalism strengthened due to the isolationist policies of containment exercised by the West. The overthrow of the Shah of Iran was mainly orchestrated by the CIA, through incitement of Islamic Fundamentalists. The thought at the time was that Islamic Fundamentalism, like the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Khomeini's Administration in Iran could be a useful tool in destabilizing the Soviet block. Since Soviet Central Asia (Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, etc) was Muslim in majority, perhaps, as the policy leaders in the West mistakenly thought, the populace in those nations would become aware of their religion, and fundamentalism would sweep through Central Asia with a force so strong, as to slowly degrade Soviet influence. As any moderately well versed individual understands, the Islamic Fundamentalist ideology backfired on the West. Instead of freedom from Communist yoke, those nations reverted to religious authoritative rule. Non-secular entities began popping up like mushrooms, some through Democratic Rule (electing Khomeini and other hardliners Democratically in Iran), and others through authoritarian dictatorship. The collapse of communism released the lid that was so tenuously held preventing the clash of civilizations as we see now.

The Neo-Conservatives, in their arrogant belief that the broad brush of containment could be applied to the modern Islamic Fundamentalist Menace (as they saw it), were too stubborn, ill-informed, and inflexible to apply new methods of diplomacy and selective Economic Pressure (not all-encompassing economic sanctions). Further elaboration on policies, such as pre-emptive war, and propaganda unseen since WWII, only further buried the neo-conservative agenda in the ground. Unfortunately, it will now take many years of struggle, trying to dig ourselves out of the hole we fought so hard to prevent.

As a further insult to the failed policies of the Neo-Conservatives, South America is now headed in a completely leftist direction, as the populace has had enough of the bullying tactics they see, by the United States Government. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has had moderate success in checking the balance of American power in South America, and because of the optimism generated by the population (especially the significant amount of poor and working class households), other countries, such as Paraguay, and now Chile have also elected leftist leaders, with socialist policies and agendas. Not only has America become isolated from the Middle East and Central Asia through terrible foreign policy, but South America has also become a bastion of containment against American power and influence. Even Europe, with historic ties to the United States has distanced itself from the grip of American influence. When Bush visited Europe, speaking of European values, his ideas of what constitutes those values were completely misunderstood and ill informed. Europe has abolished capitol punishment, they have moved ahead in scientific progress, and haven't allowed Religious fundamentalism, for the most part, to take a foothold in the region. Sure, there are conservative leaders recently elected, such as the Prime Minister in Germany, but even her stance is leftist compared to Bush's policies. Europe has retained its secular nature for the most part, which cannot be said of America today.

With a final, yet fitting cosmic Irony, those of us in America now find ourselves with far less freedom then we thought possible. Spending decades fighting the cold war, and sinking trillions of dollars into deficit spending to prevent authoritarian ideology such as communism from overtaking our notions, we now find ourselves being monitored and treated nearly as oppressively as those regimes we fought so hard to overcome. Religious fundamentalism and fervor has now overtaken American ideology. The erosion of education, and expansion of ignorance has reached epidemic proportions. Those in power have never, in the history of the United States, had easier control over the population as they do now. They have artificially divided the middle and working class, perpetuated outdated notions and fears about race, and blocked every attempt at critical thinking and the true freedom that the framers of the constitution had in mind. With all this in mind, one must not forget notions of hope and optimism. Broken political ideologies and systems are not like eggs, they can be fixed, and improved upon. It may take a great deal of hard work, dedication, and especially EDUCATION, but it is possible to rise above the torrent of failure, and benefit productively and efficiently. In a future blog, I will attempt to illustrate possible methods that can negate the downhill slide we're now experiencing, and hopefully, improve on concepts and ideologies that are beneficial.

Fear of the Unknown -- Iran

Reading through the myraid negative media coverage of Iran, one wonders what specific details of Iranian Domestic and Foreign Policy lead those of us in the West to label the progenitors of the once mighty Persian Empire in strongly negative terms, such as evil, terrorists, rogue elements hell-bent on the destruction of our very notions of freedom and justice.
The truth of the matter, as is often the case, is far too complex for simple analysis, but through some objective thinking, leaving empty rhetoric behind, and emotional fallacies at bay, it's quite possible to digest the true nature of the fear that drives the Western World rabid with paranoia at this nation of 68 Million.

To most of us in the West, Iran is a mysterious force we cannot even attempt to understand, let alone predict in terms of political or military actions. As I've stated before, one cannot attempt to dissect the culture, politics, or military infrastructure, if one cannot understand the underlying psyche of a given group of people (in this case, Iranians). Iran does not have a secular government, separating religion from the State. However, Islam is not the sole singular quality that is shared by Iranians, because they've had thousands of years of history before Islam ever reached the borders of the Persian Empire. Preceding Islam, there was Zoroastrianism, and before that, there was an Indo-Persian Pagan element in the religion. As in most groups, Islam (for Iran, in the Shi'a form) is the current unifying trend among the Iranian Masses. This fact alone, not only isolates Iran from the Western World, but also from the Sunni Muslim majority, especially in the neighboring countries and general regions.
Because of this isolation, the internal political movements are unlike those of any other country. Iran in general is an experiment in the making. Can a non-secular Islamic country, compete with the West, as well as the rest of the Muslim world, with a system unlike any other? Not only in the political sphere, but also economically and socially. Can Iran Modernize without cultural or political help from the West? Thus, this is the inherent fear that strikes the general world politics. A fear, that a possible Success in Iran can lead to a Domino effect among other non-secular entities.
When the 13 British colonies of North America decided to break away from the British Yolk, and establish a political system that was unlike any other operating at the time, there was also a great deal of fear in Europe. Subsequently, the French had a revolution of their own, throwing off the Tyrrany of Monarchy, and having the populace determine its own future. This was an experiment that was unprecedented in its time, and as it turned out, became quite successful. In fact, it was so successful, that the experiment itself became a victim of it's own success. We now have a government that is not representative of the People, and an administration that does not differentiate between the Church and the State. Thus, as Americans, we would be hypocritical to judge non-secular entities, when our own back yard is not exacly free of religious domination and thought.
What helped the United States during its infancy was the natural resources and economics that made it a veritable economic cornucopia to colonize in the first place. Thus, we now have Iran, also abundant in resources, attempting to break away from the mould, and establich a system on their own terms. Not on terms based upon the bullying tactics of those in the West, or for that matter, any other regional system.

Currently, Iran is attempting to enrich Uranium to fuel their nuclear power plants, and usher in a new age. It's understandable for the West to view Iran's motives with skepticism, and distrust, but one should also pause and think logically. In order for Iran to accumulate enough weapons grade Uranium (not reactor grade, mind you), there must be many inherently difficult technological steps that must be overcome, before the possibility can even exist. As a conservative estimate, Iran would be at least 10 years away from accumulating enough weapons' grade Uranium to be a threat. This possibility is not to be discounted, but should be seen in the same light as other nuclear nations. India and Pakistan are no less stable places for Nuclear weapons, let alone Israel, with the 200 or so nuclear warheads in possession. As much as the Media likes to vilify Iran as a rogue state, its status is dependent on how the West contends with Iran in a fair and diplomatic manner. If the same draconian tacts towards Iraq are also used in Iran (pre-emptive strikes, misleading weapons of mass destruction information, or ties to Al Qaida), the fear that a rogue state will emerge would be actualized. Iran is in the process of competing with the west in several spheres that have been ignored. Stem cell research, for example, is one of the many technological achievements that Iran has attained. Iran is also hoping to become a technological hub in the Middle East. There are thousands of software designers working closely with IT companies to fully modernize the telecommunications grid, and infrastructure.
Moreover, one must realize the copious resources; such as oil, natural gas, and mineral wealth so needed in the current world, present in Iran. Russia and China, especially, are hoping to capitalize and cooperate in the energy sector with Iran. Thus, Iran can develop the power to set oil and natural gas prices as they see fit, just as in the case of Venezuela.

What actually runs the world is Economics, and Iran is attempting to build an infrastructure that can compete at the same level as western countries in the Global Market. The major difference is that Iran is attempting to do this, with a non-secular political system. For Iran to have the capacity to compete, Nulcear Power is one of the many technologies that must be embraced. The West of course, will attempt to prevent Iran, through economic sanctions, if not all out war (I wouldn't put Israel and the US gov't above taunting and rhetoric to start a war) from ascending into the elite, and becoming a major contender.

In conclusion, this essay is not meant to support or oppose Iran. It's an unbiased, objective analysis of the facts at hand, and attempts to uncover the underlying details so often overlooked in world politics. Granted, it's presented less well organized then it should be (and many details can be further elaborated upon, which I may do on later entries), but considering the many tangents that can take one easily off topic, this is about as succinct as it gets.

Subjective Democracy and Indoctrination

Looking back at the past few months since the last blog entry, the world has gone through many pivotal changes. Falsified science in Stem Cell Research, the pending avian flu epidemic, the continuing presence of US forces in the quagmires of Afghanistan, Iraq, and what soon looks to be Iran. The list of monumental events directly applicable to our lives is as boundless as the length and breadth of the Universe itself. Unfortunately, the filters that authority (whether it be the educational system, goverment, culture, religion, politics, etc.) have indoctrinated upon us has become so burdonesome that our understanding, and analysis of the current world is skewed near permanently.

One of the largest filters that has been instilled upon those of us in the "free world" is the philosophical concept known as Democracy. As with other broad philsophical concepts in today's world, the idea of democracy has been oversimplified into language that even three legged lemurs can understand. We have been indoctrinated to believe in one monolithic form of Democracy, without accepting the possibility that there are multiple sub-categories and branches. The Electoral College, for example, as faulted as it can be, is only one fundamental category of Democracy. There are various systems that operate to allow the individual some small immesurable quantity of control over those they elect.

Subjective Democracy then, is the perceptional perspective of an individual based on their indoctrinated concept of Democracy. In other words, the brand of one's own Democracy, being thought of as superior to any other form. The Palestinian election of Hamas for example, being feared and villified in the Western Media. Given democratically elected government in Palestine, the people opted, legally, and under democratical elections to give the Majority of seats to Hamas. Of course, the outrcry from the Western world was predictable and fierce, but those rabid critics never paused to consider the multiple ramifications as a result of democracy upon a people who's culture and ideology is vastly different. Most so called "think tanks", pundits, critics, politicians, and especially the neoconservatives, setting the agenda these days, are at the very least too naive, and at worst, highly manipulative in leading the population into thinking that any country embracing democracy will automatically lean towards the West. The will of the people is rarely taken into account when attempting to forecast elections. Without understanding the subtle nuances of a culture, it is impossible to determine the will of the constituency. Those who are at rush to assume that embracing Democracy is the same as embracing the West, have little regard for understanding the subtle intricacies of a given culture; which can in turn, determine the psyche of the people. The invasion of Iraq is another example of this near universal myopia. Without attempting to fully understand the possible outcomes in Iraq, the US "coalition" (if coalition means 2 major countries, with a handfull of handout seekers) decided to invade, expecting the dissatisfied factions to jump on the bandwagon. As we have come to realize now, simple thought, once again, lost out to thorough understanding. Shiites, it turns out, are no less likely than Iran to Embrace the US forces as liberators. The Kurds, having been manipulated for decades by the US State Dept have now become rightfully distrustful of their so called "ally". Of course, in Iraq's special case, no developing civil war is as intriguing without the final Sunni glitch in the mechanism.

Looking at the criticism from the outcome of the Palestinian Elections more closely, it's not difficult to laugh at the hysterics and overreaction of so many. From discussion of cutting 700 million dollars in funding, to a possible military option by (who else) conservative pundits, it becomes apparent that Democracy is an Old Men's club. As soon as someone young and brash decides to attempt to reformulate it, to their own perceptions and experiences, the old men decide to kick and scream, throw their dentures, swing their canes, and rattle their sabres. It's easy to forget that Europe had hundreds of years of warfare to achieve the current state of Democracy (Yes, even European Socialism is still under the umbrella of a Democracy). The United States, long renouned for spearheading the modern movement, considered African Americans as second class citizens until the middle of the last century.

Iran, no less a stranger to criticism from the West, can also be included in the villification and hysterics of so many critics. Just because a population, unabashed in its dislike for globally dominant entities, decides to freely and democratically elect a president openly hostile to a Subjective Democratic movement (a movement predicated on conditional terms), does not render the election any less valid then those of the Western World. Many can argue that both elections of George W. Bush were also frought with so many voting irregularities, that under certain conservative criteria, it can be deemed invalid as well.

Beyond just Indoctrination, a Subjective Democracy works on people's naivity and especially fearfulness. Through certain xenophobic tendencies, the authorities inprint terror and fear among the population. For further and much thorough analysis of these phobic tendencies, Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" documentary can highlight the manipulation through fear that American especially are indoctrinated towards. As an example of the current Phobia trend, one need not look further then Iran and it's advancement towards a nuclear economy. Given Iran's polarizing nature in the West, some apprehension in Iran's development of Nuclear Power is warranted. However, the modern economy requires a movement away from the dependence on fossil fuels. Iran's attempt at Modernization, is frought with multiple challenges. Not the least of which is the increased energy output expected in the economy as the populace reaches a level of industrialization and progress. To compete with wealthier nations, one cannot disregard nuclear power as a cleaner and more efficient energy option. Naturally, Iran's motives will be distrusted in the Western world, and spun in so many negative ways by the media, that some measure of truth will be overshadowed by hyperbole and rhetoric. Just as scores of people were mislead about the presence of WMD's in Iraq, the same is currently occuring with regards to Iran. We are all being mislead about Iran's intentions and motives. Somehow, within the next few years, the situation will be manipulated into a new war front in Iran, and as usual, WMD's, or even the possible future intentional use of them will be used as a pre-emptive motive for war.

Through filters both of our own doing, and those externally implanted, our whole population at large is indoctrinated into certain core beliefs, that on the surface, appears to allow society to function at an optimal level, but deeper probed, reveals the possibility of abuse and manipulation through the same institutions that have installed and maintained our perceptions of reality. Filters are meant as a protective mechanism, but when used incorrectly, and corrupted with so much useless (dis) information, become a burdon. Like most concepts in life, when analyzed deeply, Democracy cannot be considered a singular entity. Even a concrete concept like a Tree is not just a singular entity. There are many different types of trees, all categorized under a broad label, but inherently associated with certain similar characteristics. Thus, Democracy cannot be Subjective, but must be looked at objectively. There are many different forms, dependent upon culture, and social perception, yet no form is superior to another. True democracy can only occur when people break the bonds of imposed indoctrination and embrace true free thought. As it's often said, Democracy is not just in the head, but in the heart. We all know what freedom means, but one person's freedom is not necessarily the same as someone elses. If one is willing to allow all people, from various backgrounds and cultures to have the same rights as those of us in the West, me must respect their decision to exercise the rights which we hold so sacred. On who's terms should Democracy be utilised is a valid question that should always be on the mind. However, this when the truth of the matter is realized, the question is baseless because there is no certain term, but many different ones. Just as a Maple is no less a tree then an Oak, one Democracy is no less a Democracy then another.

More Posts Coming Soon

Once again, life took a busy turn, preventing me from posting in the last few months. With so much occuring in the world, it's unfortunate the posts are few and far between. However, each article stands on its own, and should not be read as current news, as much as information providing a tool that will be relevant to assess and disassemble the world we live in.

The Fascist Wolf and his Democratic Disguise

Now that George Bush has placed one of his puppeteers in charge of the World Bank, Tyranny has become absolute.

For the last 5 years, the Executive Branch of the United States has become hostage to the Neo-Conservatives and their reprehensible agendas. One of the main pseudo-intellectuals in charge of developing this Neo-Conservative Ideology has been Paul ”comb licker" Wolfowitz. Behind any of the major Tyrannical plans that have recently been implemented, such as the Invasion of Iraq, Axis of Evil rhetoric, the Patriot Act, and the countless hypocritical lies advanced through greed, lust for power, and attempt at the unilateral domination of the global Economy, Wolfowitz has been captaining the helm of the fascist vehicle the world has come to know. Now, Bush has rewarded his chief captain-in-arms to an even more powerful position in charge of World Bank monies and the entrustment of the finances effecting Billions of people worldwide. Thanks in part to the growing strength of the Euro, the weakening of the dollar, and the downward spiral of US debt and economy, the downfall of the US as a world power is eminent. In order to swindle and launder billions of dollars from an organization enshrined to help Developing countries and fight World Poverty and debt, the Neo-conservatives have decided to intervene and funnel funds away from those who disagree with the New-conservative viewpoint. The World Bank also allocates money to the IMF (International Monetary Fund), thereby giving an increase in power and control by those supporting this Tyrannical attempt at a new world order.

In order to fully comprehend the massive impact that Wolfowitz and his Neo-conservatives can have on the world, it is important to look at his track record of lies, deceit, and hypocrisy that has plagued this current administration. As I write this article, Wolfowitz is attempting to convince others of his own benevolence. Perhaps he assumes that most people are either stupid, ignorant, oblivious, forgetful, or too high to learn from previous experiences. Any intelligent creature learns from negative experiences and attempts to prevent those from occurring again. A rat, knowing that receiving a food source will result in electrocution will eventually end up starving in order to avoid the shock it knows to expect. Yet, countless people, through their own ignorance will believe every honey encrusted lie that comes out of a Neo-conservatives mouth. Find yourself disagreeing, and depending on where you live, you are labeled negatively. If one lives in America, attempting to better the political climate, and striving for a time when the resources and power is used efficiently, as well as accountably, they are deemed un-patriotic. Unpatriotism is following a government that is clearly not in the best interest of the people, and only works for greed, corruption, and the domination of the world. The politically charged labels don't stop with domestic criticism, but extend to the foreign arena. When others in the world, look at the Tyrannical Behavior of those few in power, and show it for what it is, they are deemed as unfriendly, anti-democratic, and anti-American. When the powers in charge, affect the lives of others, whether directly or indirectly, they too should have a forum to voice their concerns.

So far, any country that has even remotely succeeded at stifling the unilateral growth and domination attempted by the Neo-conservative movement, has been labeled in a negative light that can be so harsh at times, as though it seems purely evil and vile. When Chavez, the Venezuelan President, decides that US intervention in its own political environment must come to an end, he is labeled a Communist, a hater of Americans, and if left to Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Bush and others, would be assassinated in a heartbeat. It seems as though the Neo-conservatives are achieving their ultimate goal of an Israeli Approach to their opposition. They view any criticism as hateful and take it so personal, that if left totally to their own devices, they would assassinate anybody who questions their goals, and the lies they feed to others. Just as the Israeli Defense Force razes hundreds of homes, considers collateral damage a past-time, and pretty much mirrors the tactics used by Nazis (such as condoning torture, belief in extreme nationalism, and constantly pulling the underdog card at every turn), Neo-Conservatives in turn have adopted many of these strategies to deal with their own "dissidents".

Ignorance has been the single greatest weapon of those imposing Tyrannical rule on a populace. As of today, the countless misinformation that has been obtained by chiefly, the American public is baffling. Ask a cross-sectional group of people if Persians are Arabs, 8 in 10 will agree. Ask another group of people if the majority of Arabs in America are Muslim, and 97 in 100 will agree. Yet, when one takes the time to look at the world objectively, and attempts to shed years of misinformation and all out lies, one can arrive at a better understanding, and perhaps empathies with others.

Some recnt facts that are now widely known (easily suspected beforehand though), which few in the mainstream Media correct, are the following: Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction; Saddam Hussein Never had ties with Osama Bin Laden; The Invasion of Iraq was a technical and logistical gross miscalculation; Much more money has been spent on securing Iraq then ever proposed; More troops were needed then ever originally calculated; and behind all of it, lies one of the main perpetrators -- Paul Wolfowitz. After all this, we are now supposed to trust that this same individual, that cavorts as a patriot, yet swears his allegiance to a foreign country (Israel)? In truth, Neo-conservatives should not be confused with moral and religious people. Moral people do not lie and disseminate misinformation at a rate that would shame the Amazon River. Hiding behind religion and belief in the sanctity of life, they control the agenda of billions of people. How is life supposed to be sacred, when hundres of soldiers, not yet drinking age, die every year (yet, none of these pseudo-intellectuals ever fought in an actual war?), countless innocent lives are lost and maimed from weapons that are produced under this "morally rich government", and capital punishment is a growing industry? How Hypocritical is it to fight for the sanctity of life, opposing abortion and one's right for euthanasia, yet supporting capital punishment, collateral damage, and a war that barely differentiates an innocent civilian from an insurgent?

Wolfowitz, why don't you collect your earnings, obtained through greed and manipulation, and leave the political arena. As for all the other neo-conservatives, you are not patriots, Christians, or Americans; you are part of a Tyrannical machine helmed by greed, power-politics and corruption (If history, or the analysis of politics in history was ever an indicator, few have ears for it). It's not as though the populace was never warned that one of the main pitfalls of Democracy is that it can lead to Tyranny. I am not advocating Communism though, far from it, but treading cautiously through Democracy is important, in order to avoid the pitfalls. For further reading, I suggest looking at a work written 2300 years ago by Plato -- The Republic (Before it's banned for subversion). Some of the material can be so concurrent, one wonders if Plato had psychic powers.

Effective revolution is not through the gun, the Bible, or economics, it's through knowledge. Reduction of ignorance is the greatest tool in one's arsenal against those who seek to control our thoughts (at least, they are ours at the moment). In the end, we are left with only the freedom of our thoughts, which given a cursory glance, may not seem like much, but in the end is far better then full uncontrolled domination.

***UPDATE: 5/17/07 -- Paul Wolfowitz will resign effective June 30th, ending 2 years of cronyism and destruction. Few will be sorry to see this bastard shill of Neo-Conservatives leave.

First Iraq, now Iran -- Global Domino game succeeding

Now that the truth has come out regarding the lack of weapons of Mass destruction in Iraq, and the Benefit of all the chaos reaching oil companies, the "Coalition of the Greedy" (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Blair, Howard, etc.) have turned their eyes towards Iran. It's not enough that Iraqi oil is now being exploited, not to mention the Iraqi populace, but that's not nearly enough for the Greedy. Seeking Natural gas, and a government that will bend over to allow itself to be exploited for the benefit of Western Imperialism, the Coalition of the Greedy have decided that Iran's time has come. What does it matter to them, that the current state of affairs in Iran, can directly be attributed to manipulation. When the Shah of Iran was overthrown by the US, and replaced with a weak, pro-Western leader, the resentment built to revolutionary levels. Ayatollah Khomeini took advantage of the growing dissatisfaction, and ever since, Iran has been dominated by religious clerics. What was meant to be a grand scheme of exploitation backfired, and now, thanks to the added push by Israel, Iran is in the crosshairs. The Domino effect does not end with Iran -- Syria and Lebanon are also on the agenda. There are three main reasons why such bold and reckless behavior, endangering the world, and driving us to the brink of WWIII, is being practiced. First, the ever expanding need for resources by a machine exploiting capital and resources from nations that cannot defend themselves is applied as though generously painting a house. Second, the security of Israel, thanks to their influence in Western Politics. As soon as one reveals the global dominance that Israel has, they are branded anti-Semitic and a threat to peace. Yet, the truth is in front of everyone's eyes. With Israel claiming that Iraq is just the first to fall, and Iran, Syria, as well as Lebanon are also on the agenda (as long as it's American troops, and American youth that have to die), is not only criminal, but extremely reckless. It seems at times, that they are forever inviting conflict, but it's no surprise that a fascist state must be run as a war machine. Ever expanding borders, claiming to be defending their territory, using the resources of others for their malicious purposes, is not something that has been buried with Nazi Germany. Israel today is very much like the fascist state that Nazi Germany was. A government that is always militarily ready, thirsts for warfare and conflict, and oppresses minorities is present in this day and age, not to mention the Propaganda that is globally present, showing a picture of peace and stability. The worst part is that most people, being uneducated, believe the lies they are fed, and actually think that every Muslim is waiting to commit Jihad. This is the single greatest propaganda that has befuddled us in this generation. Without knowing any Muslims, many are misled towards a faulty premise. Every group has extremists, whether it's Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or Hindus. This does not mean that the majority of the people support those views. For those who don't know, the bridge between Greek advances in the sciences to the modern times was bridged by Muslim Arabs. It was the Arabs that translated and preserved many of the documents that the fanatical Christians destroyed during the Middle Ages. Considering all non-Christians as heretics, and their advances as devil's work, science stagnated for centuries in Europe. However, science was advancing in the Arab world. Just because currently, many of the fanatical Muslims seem to adopt non-modern ways of living, does not mean that this will always be the case, or that most progressive Muslims (which are definitely the majority in the world) also believe this. But I digress, the Third reason why the world's being endangered by the war machine I call the "Coalition of the Greedy" is the fanatically conservative belief of those in charge. They, called Born Again Christians, or Right Wingers, believe that they can only be saved spiritually, following extremist Biblical Destiny and Dogma, if they allow Israel to become a powerful state, with control over the Middle East. Thus, with Exploitation of resources, Israel's ability for Propaganda and Fundamentalist belief by the Architects of this Domino effect, the world is rapidly headed towards a very chaotic Epoch.

Going back to Iran, the saber rattling we currently hear, regarding Iran's development of a nuclear program is unbelievably hypocritical. Just because a nation, struggling to incorporate nuclear power as a cleaner and alternative source of energy is marginalized and isolated, does not mean their goals are malevolent. Do Western Imperialists actually expect Iranians to go on burning coal and wood for the rest of this century? And what is wrong in Iran defending themselves (definitely not by Nuclear weapons, which are just a propaganda tool to exploit Iran) from such aggressive neighbors? Iran would not endanger its status with Russia or any of the other economic partners, without a pre-emptive strike first. Now that North Korea publicly admits to having Nuclear Weapons, there is no chance an invasion will take place. Nuclear Weapons are deterrents, and one would be suicidally stupid to invade a country that can defend itself. Knowing that Iraq did not possess any WMD's made the invasion seem that much easier, although with typical lack of foresight, never realizing the fact that the dissatisfied would not fight a direct war, but would blend into the crowd and fight a Guerilla war, as they do now. Guerilla wars have been fought since time immemorial, and for those who have no other option, who can't match troops, or technology, can only retaliate in one way. Sometimes, from a military standpoint, it's better to allow yourself to be captured/occupied, knowing that you can inflict higher casualties later, as time moves on.

In short, all the prodding and forcing that the US and Israel is pushing on Iran will not stop, until the goals of this global domino effect are reached. Having direct control of the Middle East, is just one step towards a larger solution to the global domino players. What does it matter to the power Elite if other's children die for a cause that cannot be ethically justified.
Hopefully things are now clearer, with Fascists and Crusaders presently abound, unilaterally acting on a self-righteous belief in their dominance and superiority. What those people do not realize is that Earth is an extremely small place, and in the long run, their petty grappling over land, and resources means little to the grand scheme of the Universe. They are ants, struggling over ant-hills, without realizing that existence is more then material possession and greed. Stepping outside one's self, and looking at things objectively, with an open mind willing to accept new ideas, flexible enough to embrace that which makes universal sense, should be the ultimate goal, not greed, politics, or power.

Corporate Greed and the Synonymous Nature of the Pharmaceutical Industry

The underhanded behavior of the Pharmaceutical Industry has only recently reached the forefront of mass media. For at least five decades, these greedy and ruthless corporations have been hiding important information that would require extreme caution on behalf of the consumer. They have blocked research data that would reveal the true dangers and nature of the very drugs that they vehemently push upon the American public. Only through recent widespread news, has the truth come out on the manipulation exerted upon the Physicians and Patients that have been tricked into a false sense of security regarding the effects of their products.

The recent news that Vioxx and Celebrex, touted as the "next generation anti-inflammatory drugs", are over prescribed and have had a large part to play in recent heart attacks was known for many years. Further research and unbiased data reveals the damage that these products can do to the heart muscle, resulting in an increased rate of heart attack and stroke. There are a number of reasons these drugs were prematurely pressed on the public, and few outside the industry understand the reasons. Many physicians were pressured to switch to the "new generation", because Aspirin, used as the primary anti-inflammatory, often had the side-effect of stomach and intestinal distress. As many know, Aspirin is not the friendliest drug on the stomach, and can lead to bleeding ulcers, and pain. Another reason for the proliferation of "next generation" anti-inflammatory was the dependence of patients on opiates such as Vicodin and Codeine. Physicians are split between different treatment methods to joint and body pain. For example, when a patient with a chronic history of lower back pain is examined, some physicians prescribe a combination of Anti-Inflammatories and Acetaminophen (Tylenol) for the pain. Others, especially physicians who have lower back pain themselves, and can sympathize with their patients, prescribe opiates for the pain. Since the advent of the Next Generation Anti-inflammatory, more of the latter physicians were encouraged to switch treatment methods, because of the reduced side-effects by the new medication (remembering the stomach problems that the previous treatment, Aspirin, had on the patient). As it happens, all this prodding and encouragement was a result of manipulated data on the safety of the "new and better" treatment method. (http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/overview.htm?topic=Celebrex).

Many may question how Physicians, an intelligent and trusted group of people can be manipulated into dumping their time tested medication, to new and rather experimental drugs. This is where the Pharmaceutical Representatives come in. Physicians, being trapped in their offices all day, seeing sick and infirm patients not on their best days, light up when a very well dressed and attractive woman arrives selling a pharmaceutical product. They come with "free gifts" and expect to eventually receive some recognition of their product. The amount of money spent on advertising and marketing by these corporations is much greater then the national product of many countries around the globe.

Not only do pharmaceutical companies manipulate data, but they function as any ruthless corporation would. First, their research labs are fortified with security barriers, electric fences, and thick concrete walls. Further, they have their employees sign confidentiality agreements, with no right to privacy if they are suspect on leaking data. This means that they can tap phone lines, and have private investigators intrude upon their private lives. The prices for the products they sell are hyper inflated, and only with significant monetary resources can one take the recommended treatment offered. Another method of generating great income is through expanding an existing disease to include "new" standards. The current trend in prescribing drugs on children for various "diseases" need not be fully elaborated upon. Any learned person knows the over prescription of Ridalin and Prozac because the parents and educators of these children do not have the patience to deal with the issues. There may be a few individuals who are truly in need of such medication, but they are highly outnumbered by those that do not need these drugs. Recent news has also revealed the increased rates of suicide that results from adolescents taking anti-depressants such as Paxil (http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/news.htm?story_id=9004&topic=Paxil).

As one scans through the isles at the store, it's hard to avoid the large amount of space devoted to pharmaceutical products. Many of these are typical treatments, which do not aim to cure the underlying ailment. This is where alternative medicine, often times used in conjunction with contemporary treatments, works. Alternative medicine, such as acupuncture and herbal remedies, aims to cure and soothe the ailment in a natural and homeopathic way. Even if the treatments don't work chemically, the placebo effect they invoke of those that use them is instrumental in a patient's recovery. Building and acquiring immunity is not solely based on chemical means, but also, on a stronger immune system. As long as patients believe in the treatment or cure, the process itself, goes a long way in recovery. These are not attributed to magical means, but the natural act of one's immune system strengthening based on a suggestion from their mind.

The best way to counteract the dominance of Pharmaceutical companies is first, to realize when it's important to avoid taking medication (such as antibiotics) for simple things as the flu, and limiting the amount of relief obtained through drugs. Further, it's important to realize that some medicine, such as those involved in Chemotherapy, are important, but can be used in conjunction with alternative sources (as long as they don't counteract each other). And of primary importance is Preventing, and not just treating an illness. A good diet, exercise, and a healthy lifestyle are important ingredients for prevention of most illnesses.

Religious Evolution due to Politics

It can equivocally be stated that throughout history, the search for Political Independence has shaped the Religious direction of a given group. The belief in Religion so often attributed to singular faith, would have no basis if it wasn't for the intervention of Politics. I can list dozens of examples, but I shall endeavor to concentrate on one specific Religious Group, only because I know more about its political history then I know of others. Christianity, as we know it today, is not the same entity that emerged at first, as a branch within another religious philosophy (Judaism as we've been told). During the first few hundred years after Jesus, there was great chaos in deciding how best to represent the growing movement. There were thousands of different views on the matter, each influenced by some zealot, clergy member, or philosopher with ties to political groups and power.
Before I continue further, I would like to make a few statements and provide some background information that should help in better explaining the whole situation. I am working on the assumption that there was a man named Jesus (although this is the Hellenized version of his name), who had numerous followers, starting a movement within the Jewish population towards the inclusion of non-jews. Some religions, or even intra-religious branches, are highly exclusive. What this means is that these groups do not actively proselytize, trying to convert or accept new members. As a rule, Judaism is a highly exclusive religious, with the belief that the Jews are superior to other ethnic groups, and that they are the true Children of God. Some did not agree with this presumptively arrogant and exclusive viewpoint, and decided that why limit acceptance to heaven on one ethnic group? In other words, why be bound to religion through blood, and not through other means such as plain faith? Thus, Jesus and his followers traveled around, trying to spread the movement Within their religion, for inclusion. They didn't set out to start a new religion or even new branches, but they disagreed on a philosophical basis with the Dogma of Judaism at the time. Aside from this, I have purposely left out identifying the region that lead to the movement which eventually became Christianity. The reason for this is the loaded nature of naming a given place, especially one that has been involved in numerous political and ethnic conflicts throughout its history. Generally, it is better to refer to most places geographically then politically. Thus, I will not use modern political names, or even ancient ones of the region. I will not refer to Israel, Palestine, land of Canaan, or whatever else may be. I can say Western Middle East, but this is an awkward and broad geographical term. From here on, I will use Southern Levant when I refer to the region. Geographically speaking, the Levant is the Eastern Shore of the Mediterranean that stretches from modern day Syria, through Lebanon, to Southern Israel and Gaza.
In order to better explain the shaping of Christianity through Politics, it is important to understand the reason for the Major divisions within Christianity. Generally, there are three main branches, the First, being the Orthodox, the Second the Catholics, and the Third branch consisting of Protestants. The fundamental Division between these beliefs was a result of the search for Political Independence and Dominance.
During the early Chaos of Christianity, it was decided by the various leaders, that a council must be convened to decide on a solid and stable platform. A philosophy was intent on being found that would unite the various factions and result in a substantial foundation. Thus, in the year 325, the Council of Nicea was convened within Constantine's Empire, to attempt at an initial reconciliation. Many philosophies were discarded at this time, charging those who practiced them as heretical. Christian Gnosticism (Various branches) for example, was one of the discarded beliefs, and those who tolerated, and especially practiced it, where persecuted to their eventual deaths.
The Adoption of Christianity by Constantine was not a religious miracle, but a move for greater political autonomy and independence. At the time of Constantine, Roman power and might was fading quickly, and in order for some remnant of the once might empire to remain, Constantine decided to Settle on the Bosporus, in what we now call Istanbul, previously known as Constantinople. By Adopting Christianity, Constantine solidified his power and dominance, binding the Eastern end of the crumbling Roman Empire together.
By the year 451, Christianity had not only taken a hold, but was flourishing in an ever expanding empire. The only problem was although many different groups had adopted Christianity, Constantinople was pressuring them to lose political independence and become a fully integrated member of the Empire. When the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) was convened to decide on the true nature of Christ, many of the politically autonomous groups decided to solidify their autonomy and avoid gradual assimilation into the ever expanding Byzantine Empire. This is when the first major division occurred, with the Oriental Orthodox church, moving away from the main branch on theological grounds (but in reality, based more on political autonomy). The main subject of this division was on whether Christ had a dual nature, being both fully human and fully divine, or on a single nature of Divinity, called Monophysite. This first division led to the Armenian, Syrian, Coptic (Egyptian), Ethiopian and Indian Orthodox Churches.
As the Byzantine Empire grew Stronger, Rome was invaded by incoming nomadic hordes, and the whole Western region of the Roman Empire had become disorganized and Chaotic. As the years went on, Rome and the Western end of the once former Roman Empire eventually recovered and prospered. While the Byzantine Empire put political pressure on Rome, many of the rulers resented these "Eastern Overlords" and slowly drifted away to retain their political identity. Finally, after centuries of simmering tension, the Great Church Schism of 1054 occurred. In this, Rome made the decision to break away from Byzantine Religious superiority, and instead develop and strengthen what we now consider the Catholic Religion. Thus, the Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholics emerged from the political division that Rome sought.
Turks and Mongols eventually conquered the Byzantine Empire, but since the political strength of Christianity had once again shifted, this time from Constantinople to Rome, Catholicism finally retained religious dominance over Orthodoxy.
With Catholicism being such a dominant force, a new line of friction emerged with the Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the Roman Empire). The Holy Roman Empire (which was neither, Holy, Roman, or an Empire) was a conglomeration of political regions within what are now France, Germany and Austria. As Southern Europe increasingly felt the threat of Muslim Power, religious dominance once again shifted. By the 1500's, the Protestant Reformation was under way, resulting in the 3rd and last major split of Christianity. In this, the many regions within Central Europe decided they had enough political pressure from Rome, and in order to avoid assimilation and dominance, decided to adopt a new belief separating them politically from Rome. If one looks at the further divisions within the Protestant Church, it's again possible to see the political overtones. The Anglican Church, Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, among many others decided to further attain political autonomy and adopt these beliefs.
As can be seen from all the examples, and a small amount of Church History, religion retains divisions not on personal belief structures but on political autonomy and independence. It's not as easy adopting a new language or alphabet, as it is adopting a slight religious difference to retain autonomy. I am not stating that it's not possible to adapt a new alphabet, because all one has to do is look at Cyrillic (the Russian Script) to realize that religious in not the only method of independence. However, Religion is far more effective then an alphabetical or linguistic change.
Finally, with all the previous information one has in mind, how can anyone be sure of the original intent of a particular set of beliefs? These beliefs were shaped by ecumenical politics, linguistic shifts and violent transitions. The bible for example, is often thought by many Christians as the sole unaltered Word of God. How is it possible, that a document can remain unaltered through so much change in the course of its given history? Aside from the numerous linguistic translations that are nowhere near to the original in connotation and meaning, one can also understand the politics that have shaped and molded the belief into what it has become today. To summarize, Religion cannot be taken literally, either as the word of God or written in its original form, because even if that was the case, which I highly doubt, the original meaning and intent would have shifted greatly due to politics, language, and the passage of time in general.

Hypocracy and the Absence of Public Outcry (WMD's)

Now that the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction is over, where is the outcry from the same community that was screaming for the blood of Sadaam Hussein and every Iraqi that would not cooperate with the Western Overlords?
The US State Department, Media, as well as various instiutions had been tearing their hairs out accusing Iraq of stockpiling, producing, as well as even the distribution of WMD's. Since the search has so quietly ended, all these groups are responsible for the death of soldiers, innocent Iraqi civilians, and the resulting Chaos that we see today. Where are the Nuremberg trials during circumstances such as what we've currently experienced. Milosevich was accused of far less then these "responsible" bodies were. How is it that these people in charge of the various intitutions can just walk away from such a quagmire, with neary a scowl exhibited in their direction?
The whole notion of a pre-emptive strike has just been proven to be a bloody power struggle for regional dominance (Western Imperialism), as well as the exploitation of a sovereign nation. Manifest Destiny was not just a 19th century doctrine, but in fact, has been present, and exceeding any bounds originally intended.

Aside from the catastrophic failure of the invasion of Iraq, we now find ourselves in a Quandry. Another important story that will very soon be buried under mountains of BS news (such as Michael Jackson, etc.) is the recent kidnapping of an Iraqi Christian Priest.
Where is the outrcy from the Neo-conservatives, as well as all the Right Wing Christian groups regarding this matter? It's obvious at some point, they will use this story for their advantage, to prove how evil the Iraqi insurgents are. Instead, what should be seen is the invasion of a sovereign nation, setting off an escalating civil war involving ethnic groups, religious minorities, as well as many other elements. Althoug Iraq was an oppressed society under Saddam Hussein, at least the internal conflicts (aside from those supported by Special Forces, such as the exploitation of the Kurds) were kept to a minimum. The society had a rigid structure, specifically preventing the escalation of such ethnic differences. In order to better equate Iraq's treatment of Minority Christians, one should look at the power Christians had during Saddam's regime. Tariq Azziz, the second in command under Saddam was himself a Christian. How often has this fact been ignored by the media? Only 2% if that, of the Iraqi population is actually Christian, just as about 3% of the American Population is Muslim. Can one imagine a Muslim Vice President, or Secretary of State in the United States? Now, thanks to the invasion and subsequent occupation, Christians are being summarily executed, kidnapped, and even forced to leave their homes and relocate outside of Iraq. Whether Sunni groups win during the Iraqi elections, or Shiies instead, does not make the situation any better for Christians and other minorities. The kidnapping of the Catholic Priest, bombing of Christian Churches, and random killings will only get worse with time.

I will now post some links that will futher illuminate the situation, and hopefully reflect the true nature of the Iraqi Occupation.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=5&u=/ap/20050118/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2129-2005Jan11.html

The Paradox of Modern Warfare in Central Asia and the Middle East

Modern warfare as we know it today, cannot possibly be as effective as it once was during World War II, especially when applied to the countries within the Middle East and *Central Asia. In order to be efficient in warfare, once must know the enemy as well as one's own self. It is impossible to commit to an escalated conflict, without realizing the psychology and social organization amongst the people recognized as the Enemy. Particularly difficult in assessing such situations, are conflicts that are not fought against a particular state, but a select few who have chosen a different path towards self-rule.
The current "war on terror" is not as delineated as the populace is lead to believe. What actually defines a terrorist as opposed to a freedom fighter? Terrorist is such a blanket term, that these days, can be applied not only to a group that sets the stage of fear on an international scene, but to groups that fight within their own ethnic soil to retain their land and values. When the American colonies decided to defy the British Crown by any means necessary, they were not viewed as terrorists today, but as Freedom Fighters, or Revolutionaries who struggled to retain self-rule and autonomy. When a group of Bostonians decided to dump tea into the Boston Harbor, they were revolting against what they saw as oppression by the British Crown. If Iraqi "insurgents" decide to explode oil pipelines and conduits that fuel what they deem as foreign oppression on their own soil, how is that action different from those of the American Revolutionaries? When Palestinians feel oppression through walls, barricades, constant humiliation, and checkpoints at every turn on their own soil, how can one not react to such external threats? The very fact that only a small minority of Palestinians or Iraqis actually rise to break the bonds that have resulted in exploitation and humiliation is constantly glossed over by the Western, and particularly American media. The fact is, in terms of the general population, many people resent oppression, but few actually feel so dissatisfied and inpatient, that they decide to turn to violence in order to achieve their goals of autonomy. By watching and listening to Media coverage, one is lead to believe that the threat of insurgency comes from every single individual, but in truth, that is not the case. If one looks at the actual figures, those that wish for peaceful means and resolution FAR outweigh those resorting to violence to achieve their objectives.
The borders of the countries that are found within the Middle East and *Central Asia are just lines drawn by Western Imperialist during the heights of their territorial extent. Afghanistan for example, should not be considered a unified sovereign nation as the United States, Germany, France, or any number of examples. Similarly, the borders of most of the African countries was demarcated by Imperialists establishing colonies, and not based on common ethnicity or values. When one looks at the extent of civil war and social upheavel in Africa, one must understand the range of exploitation and division that was thrust upon the many different people by European Impersialism. I will not dwell on the African situation too much yet, that will a seperate post, but it's helpful just as an extended example of the similar situation in Central Asia and the Middle East.
The fact that borders are recognized by cartographers, does not mean that the indegenous populations, especially those that are nomadic, also accept those "paper" lines drawn by others. Going back to the example of Afghanistan, all Afghans are definately not of one ethnic tribe or shared values. The Pashtun, Tajik, Hazaras, Uzbek, and Turkmen amongst many others do not share all the common values or goals between themselves. Each group would prefer to have their own leaders to that of the other's. When one speaks of warlords, it's a battle, both figuratively and literally, between the different ethnic groups (and in many cases, within one ethnic group) to provide a leader that can best succeed at the goals shared by the community. This unrecognized border is the reason for the porous nature between the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's not as though there are fences or other obstructive structures through the whole extent of the territorial lines. In fact, there are countless passes, and caves, that provide a ready made conduit between the two nations (as we recognize them in the West). It should be no surprise that Osama Bin Laden, or any other person has such an easy access between the two regions. It's unbelievably stupid and naive for one to know this information, and still believe it's an attainable goal to capture everyone sought after, especially deemed so highly within a region. Of course, many have been captured, thanks to modern technology, but just as many have evaded detection. Further, it would be extremely difficult to convince an ethnic group that share a border, and live between both regions, to decide and recognize the international lines.
Similar to the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq also has various ethnic groups vying for dominance, and hoping to either control their own region, or the whole of the nation. Generally, Iraq has three main divisions within it's populace. There are Sunni Muslims, generally living within the central region of the country, Shiia (or Shiite) with ties to Iranians, living within the Southern third, as well as the Kurds, found within the Northern extent of Iraqi territory. Hearing the leaders of the United States, as well as the vocal media, assuming that the Shiia would accept American forces with open arms seemed like an insane notion, especially when one understands the social intricacies within Iraq. How could the Shiia, with ties to Iran, an "Axis of Evil" nation, readily accept invading "Coalition of the Willing" (an interestingly stupid term) forces, when the Iranian leaders look to the West, particularly America with such animosity and contempt? It is impossible to win the hearts and minds of a people that don't want to have anything to do with the values and interests of the occupying forces.
One cannot win a "War on terror" or succeed in an occupation (even if it's labelled as a transitory democracy) with a people that are so divided, that their only common thread is the hatred of the foreign occupiers. Even the Kurds, with all the friendliness and help that they provided to the West, are constantly left to their own defense. They are used and discarded so often, that even a recycled bottle would be surprised at the extent of abuse.
With all this in mind then, how can one work to better the situation? What does one have to do under the current situation that we're presented with? Personally, in terms of Iraq, I believe a form of Confederation should be instituted. No central rule should be forced upon the Iraqi people. I think Iraq should be divided into three semi-autonomous republics, Kurdistan in the North, Central Iraq, and Southern Iraq (within the Shiia governance). This would be the fairest, and least conflict prone method of solving the situation. I realize it's far too late now, to suddenly pull back the occupying forces, because a civil war will ensue. Therefore, what the current forces should attempt is to allow the Iraqi's semi-autonomy within the regional powerhouses. This of course will never happen, because the resources would also be divided, and exploitation cannot occur at the extent to justify the conflict.
The same Confederate solution should also be applied to Afghanistan. Provide each region with ethnic majorities semi-autonomy, and allow the populace to vote. I realize the semi-autonomous republics would argue over the borders drawn, but that is what the United Nations along with the indegenous population could work out.
A detractor might say, where is the evidence for such a Confederate nation to succeed? I would like to point out Switzerland as an example. In a previous post, I've already discussed the Swiss configuration, so I'll try to keep it summarized. Switzerland is divided into 7 semi-autonomous cantons, with a rotating president among the different regions. The central government is generally weak, and presides over such bodies as the military, education, transport. I think a similar situation in Iraq would work, as long as there is international backing for such an endeavor. The same can be said for Afghanistan, and many of the countries within Africa.


*When I refer to Central Asia, Afghanistan is not the only conflict prone region. The fact is many of the former Soviet Republics, such as Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan are also under a similar ethnic compositional difference as Afghanistan. The only differnce is the fact that those Central Asian nations have Authoritarian rulers, brandishing the laws of governance and commerce with an iron fist when applicable.

New Posts coming soon

It's been quite a while since my last blog, thanks to the vicissitudes of life. Things ended up quite busy, getting fired from one job, juggling for another as it came along, and just scratching by the skin of my teeth. I had originally intended to update some of my previous blogs, as I had many questions left unanswered. I had intended to post new blogs regarding the imperialistic invasion of the Middle East, the exploitation of countries regarded as friendly, as well as many other new topics. Further, there's a lot of support for previous blogs that I had intended to supplement (support such as links to books, and other information that can lead to further ones knowledge on the subject).
Also, I would appreciate any criticism, and thoughts, even antagonistic to my posts. Only through skepticism and critical thinking, can we begin to unravel the truth. Some things I may say may seem inflammatory, and certain people may get offended, I would appreciate to hear any and all comments, as long as it's put forth in an educated and contrite manner.
Updates should be coming along shortly. I would also like to post other topics, and interests that I may have. Look for new subjects coming soon.
--AgnosticTruth