Syria: Too Little, Too Late (But Necessary)

President Barack Obama has spoken to the American people regarding his decision to strike Syria's Assad regime. By the time, I finish writing this, President Obama will have told the world the U.S.'s decisions regarding military action, and as commander-in-chief he is seeking it. President Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. According to some polls the majority of Americans do not support action against Syria. The Congress is also largely against this action. Who can blame us? We have been involved in two wars since 2001 and still struggle with keeping control of the situation in Afghanistan. Those actions were largely unilateral actions (with the exception of Afghanistan - and yes, overthrowing the Taliban was the right thing to do). But America is tired and war-weary. 

I have always argued for massive air strikes against the Assad regime and his Ba'ath Party since the very beginning of the Syrian regime's violent crackdown of its citizens. Since the beginning of the civil war, I have believed the international community has been pitifully weak. The United Nations has continued to not disappoint by its farcical inaction. The People's Republic of China's and the Federation of Russia's existence on the Security Council has only exasperated the U.N.'s ineffectual existence. Russia and China have obstructed any serious response as tens of thousand of Syrians have been killed in action, assassinated, butchered, and poisoned by a regime led by an insecure man obsessed with his own political existence. We should not solely blame China and Russia, however, and put some blame on the democracies of the world. Action will occur, but it has come very late for so many people. Regardless of U.N. membership, many nations of the world have agreed through international treaties that human rights abuses and the use of chemical weapons is intolerable. This has been allowed to go on since 2011; it is shameful. 

I have briefly watched FOX news and their commentary and noted their hypocrisy. The American people should not be mistaken; Syria is not Iraq. The evidence of human rights abuses and chemical weapon use have been broadcast live. The footage and evidence is undeniable. The United States and its allies would, in this case, be acting legally under the guidelines of intentional law. The world also has the evidence it needs to know that weapons-of-mass destruction have been used. Regardless of the use of chemical weapons, the Assad regime's brutality should have been forcefully addressed by the international community two years ago. I will not get too much into this, as I have posted an earlier article on this:

Syria: Inaction in Practice

President Obama has put himself in a politically difficult position as he had stated that the use of chemical weapons would be "the red line" which could not be crossed. It is as if the Syrian regime has decided to test the resolve of the U.S. president, and this may have been inevitable. President Obama has put more legitimacy in his decision for military action by bringing the decision to the Congress. This is politically smart and altruistic with respect to the will of the American people. My concerns with this decision are that Congress will continue to not act and vote against Obama's decision for military action, and more time will be wasted and more lives lost.

My hope is that the American people can see the need to defend human rights internationally and also understand the need to oppose, in all forms, tyranny and religious fundamentalism. The American Right should recall its blind support for President Bush's actions against Iraq under false pretenses and the support for rightly deposing the Taliban regime. Already,the pundits are suffering from amnesia, and I feel it is time for reflection. President Obama has actual legitimacy under international law.

For the American Left, who in a knee-jerk reaction will most likely oppose military - your opposition to military action (in the form of air-strikes) against the Assad regime and the Syrian Ba'ath Party is naive and hypocritical. If you oppose action against Assad and his regime then how can you say you support and believe in internationally recognized human rights? You would join the ranks of China and Russia in obstructing justice and civilization. 

The end game of this military action is of course for the collapse of the Assad regime and the dissolution of the Ba'ath Party. Also, it is the hope of the international community (particularly Syria's neighbors) for a new Syria to be rebuilt with a representative model of government without religious fundamentalism. Of course military pursuits are unpredictable; I urge the world community to understand the need to have resolve in protecting international human rights and defeating fundamentalism wherever it appears in the world. 

Zimmerman: "Not Guilty" But Still Culpable

George Zimmerman

(Image from NPR)

This is a case that no one wanted to handle. Florida's Stand Your Ground Laws and the Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. United States (1921) is ambiguous at best and used as a scapegoat for vigilantism at its worst.

Florida's Stand Your Ground Law

Brown vs. United States (1921)

What is significant about the Supreme Court case is that the decision (to summarize) states that if you feel you cannot retreat then you have the right to use force - deadly or not. A person cannot be held accountable for their actions even if it is found that there could have been an opportunity to take oneself from a dangerous situation. Under circumstances when your very existence is mortally threatened I can understand this perspective, but it also leaves plenty of room for for individuals like George Zimmerman to take a life without consequences.

According to various amounts of evidence (also provided by Zimmerman) this situation should have never happened, and it is very possible that a presumably innocent human being, Trayvon Martin  would still be alive. Zimmerman was told by a 911 operator to stay away from the suspicious individual (in this case a young black man wearing a hoodie) and wait for law enforcement officers to investigate. He did not take this advice, and this suspicious individual was shot in the chest - dead on the scene. The events that were reported by the media were the events of the truth that George Zimmerman created, although there is evidence that Zimmerman himself was assaulted. I wonder if it is even worth asking the following question: if Martin, feeling threatened by an unidentified stranger coming from behind reacted the same way and had killed Zimmerman, would he too be found "not guilty"? I try to avoid hypothetical questions, but I feel this should be asked.

Multiple reasons doomed this case from the very beginning: ambiguous laws, a media interested in ratings, and racism (institutionalized and externalized).

I have briefly summarized the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Stand Your Ground Law. The Florida statute leaves more wiggle room; you may not use deadly force if you are under the belief that you are under unlawful assault (all assaults are technically unlawful). The statute goes on to say, however, that you may use deadly force if you feel you are under the belief that your very life is in peril from unlawful assault. Again, this can be understandable if you are in a life-threatening situation. Zimmerman, however, may have instigated a violent reaction from Martin causing him to shoot Martin to death. Are there any laws that prevent people acting like vigilantes? In Florida, there are no laws that cover Zimmerman's impersonation of law-and-order. Zimmerman's testimony and pictures of his bludgeoned nose, completely adheres to Florida and federal laws. This does not, however, explain the psychology of Zimmerman; a man who was told to stay-put, but decided he was tough enough to investigate this suspicious character. I would make the case that once you use guns to settle a fight - you may not be strong enough... But, my dear readers - please be aware that if you fire warning shots in Florida (and possibly black and in an abusive relationship) you will be arrested and charged with a crime:

Fla. Mom Gets 20 Years for Firing Warning Shots

The nation has been made acutely aware of these Stand Your Ground Laws, and some broadcasters like NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS have done a good job trying to give balanced and objective coverage to this case and its implications. The rest of the press however, from the left and the right, jumped on this like sharks to a blood-soaked seal in chum- filled water. The pundits on the right spouted their vitriol about the sanctity of the Stand Your Ground Law and the 2nd Amendment, and the left immediately shouted about racism creating more reactionary responses from the unorganized left. Now, somewhere among those talking heads were reasonable voices who spoke some truth on both sides of the political spectrum. Certainly, assuming that a black teenager walking in your gated neighborhood is suspicious activity is inherently racist. Protecting your home from unwanted entry or yourself from unwanted or unprovoked harm or death is certainly justifiable, but the hue of your skin should not determine how unsafe you should feel. The ratings inspired press sucked in their target audiences, bleeding the nation with this story. The NRA went into damage control, and figures like Al Sharpton jumped in immediately demanding justice for Martin before knowing the full extent of the case (and certainly justice, in the end, has not been done). These groups and individuals certainly have a right to exist and have their views, but should keep a steady head - particularly when dealing with issues of race and gun violence. The press acted as judge and jury presenting Zimmerman with the potential of an unfair trial. One must be impartial to be on a trial, but how can one be impartial when you are being bombarded by the press telling you how to think, as well as opinion pieces masked as news? It is the job of the news to report the news, not speculate on what the news should be. The jury in this case was damned if it did and damned if it didn't convict Zimmerman of anything short of manslaughter. It is fairly impossible to stand on trial juries with cases that are so sensationalized like this, and the abuse of the press puts the jury system (an ideal form of justice before 24-hour news) into further scrutiny. The press, the 4th estate, no longer serves its purpose; the vast majority of Americans have been seduced into this quasi-informative entertainment/infomercial we call news. 

What the press has largely glossed over is the the inconsistency of the Florida prosecutor's office in making sure justice is done in regards to the Stand Your Ground Law; this inconsistency is evidence of racism inherent in the justice system - both juries in certain geographical areas of the U.S. as well as individuals in the DA's office. Zimmeran's suspicions and actions can only be described as racist. When you have someone who does not look like you walking in your community, and you become suspicious... that is prejudiced behavior. Think about the time you have seen somebody or if you yourself have actually crossed the street because you saw a group of black teenagers walking towards you. That is racist behavior - the presumption that because they are black they will give you trouble. Trayvor Martin is dead because of the grossly inappropriate actions of a violent and racist individual; these two elements, as American history has taught us, are deadly. It took weeks of growing public pressure before the police arrested Zimmerman; this is proof of their reluctance to take action. "What is one dead thug anyway?" Above, I posted the link of Marissa Alexander's story of being convicted of firing a warning shot to defend herself from an abusive husband, who already had a restraining order out on him to protect her and her three children. Her defense attorney used the Stand Your Ground Law to prove she was justified in pulling out a weapon to warn her husband against brutally beating her anymore. Under the same state's judicial system, the jury in Alexander's case dismissed the use of the Stand Your Ground Law and convicted her of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Apparently, she had the gun in her hand when she was trying to defend herself against her abusive husband. This is a felony... no questions asked. Shoot a black kid who does not belong in your neighborhood... not guilty...

People who say we have become a post-race America, are ignorant or conveniently lying to themselves. Race is a concept to justify slavery and imperialism. This concept, like the concept of blood as culture (my Mexican blood, our Chinese blood, etc.) is completely unacceptable in the 21st Century, but alas this concept will continue to haunt the United States as it has done on this day. Only by honestly facing our prejudices, history, education and poverty problems will we be able to eradicate this scourge on our society. If not, then the United States of America reaps what it sows. 

The NSA and American Complacency

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Americans, since the inception of the United States have been aware that the government has the right to investigate individuals who would be deemed a security threat. Americans should also be aware that there is due process, which involve search warrants, reasonable cause, and a right to privacy. It has not been the known custom for Americans to have their phone calls or their online life monitored. I do accept that what we put online is public in many cases or have the potential to be made public. The last time the United States experienced the hardship of domestic federal spying would be in the 1960's by the FBI under the stewardship of J. Edgar Hoover and our beloved President Richard Nixon, who would use the executive branch to spy on his slimy cabinet and political enemies, as well as the two-faced Henry Kissinger. Americans reacted with this violation of privacy and abuse of power with outrage. This abuse of information and power sullied the name of the executive branch and discredited the FBI.

Now, ideally the United States should be a land of laws. Many Americans, and non-Americans have said we should not be so surprised, and that if we have nothing to hide then we should not worry. Well, if we have not conspired against the United States, or called for an uprising against the government on Facebook or to friends, then we should not worry about government intrusion. If we have, then the government has the right to investigate and take action, but there is still due process.

Government also has the responsibility to protect its citizens from domestic enemies and abroad. In general I believe the National Security Agency in many ways have been much more effective and efficient than, say the CIA in protecting American lives from another terrorist attack such as September 11, 2001. Maybe... The major problem I have with the NSA's monitoring of online activity is that a line has been crossed for the American people. How far are the American people willing to go sacrifice their right to personal privacy to be safe from whatever threats may exist - real or otherwise? Also, according to a Pew Research Center Poll posted on June 10, 2013, 56% of American support the NSA's monitoring of phone and online activity without public scrutiny, although it is now a very open and blistering secret.

By crossing this line, the United States government has thrown out the most seemingly unique trademark of our democracy... the right to privacy. This monitoring is a possible violation of the 1st, 4th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Currently a court case is being drawn up against the Obama Administration regarding the constitutionality of these practices by the NSA.

This monitoring is the practice of totalitarian regimes, military juntas, paranoid one-state countries, apartheid states, and insecure governments. Although the United States has struggled in its role as a superpower after World War II, the U.S. has had a confidence problem manifesting itself after the Vietnam War. Maybe it was after U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher told Americans to "cheer up" in 1987, we were finally able to by the mid-1990s until 2001. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon left America reeling, angry, confused, and seemingly vulnerable. Instead of a steady response like the one of President Franklin Roosevelt in reaction to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, the administration of President George W. Bush helped create the national security state. Fear was pushed into the American masses, sweeping internal domestic security measures were pushed into law with very little resistance and ignorance of the American people, and instead of persevering and preparing for a struggle - ideologicaly and militarily - we were told to continue our lifestyle. Spend your money! Go to Disneyland! Buy your expensive home! Buy your expensive car! Take out more credit cards! Cut taxes! Deregulate! No - instead the U.S. government led the American people into two wars - one to rightfully overthrow the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, and the other to overthrow the dictator of Iraq with the idea to forcefully export democracy. Unlike any other war America has fought - there was never any clear strategic exit strategy for victory except for the grand designs of bringing democracy to the beleaguered citizens of those countries. With a murky strategy and unrealistic expectations, Americans largely believed that they could continue to pay for two wars but not sacrifice individually and financially. They have, however, sacrificed the one thing that Americans have traditionally held sacred: personal privacy.

My fellow Americans: where did we go astray? How is it that we have allowed two administrations, a Republican and Democratic one, to pervert and abuse the power of the executive branch? How is that many of you can sit back and say, "I have done nothing wrong, so let them monitor me"? When do we say this is too much? How can we trust a government to handle our private information and not manipulate its people? What if we come into conflict with the government and our personal online habits, or uncouth conversation with a friend are used against us? If the majority of Americans are satisfied with this, then this a great betrayal of the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, and a nation that has been built through the courts, a civil war, and the righting of various wrongs throughout our history. Perhaps this will be seen as a gross violation of the Constitution and will be another chapter of our nation's history, where this will be seen as a wrong that was corrected.

So, I ask you, my fellow Americans: Do you care anymore? Are you satisfied working to make ends meet every week while the government and its cronies run amok with your wallets and rights? Would you sacrifice your rights for threats that may or may not exist? The only way that we can show ourselves and the world that we are strong, is to be willing to sacrifice, compromise, defend our traditional freedoms (even the 2nd Amendment to a point). and to stand up and say enough is enough. Let us show the world that the United States is a government that can trust its people and depend on its people to protest openly when it has done wrong. That is supposed to the beauty of the United States. Now, we are an international joke, and we have a whistle-blower who has knowingly broken the law and has run to Hong Kong in the faith that the Hong Kong courts will give him more protection than the American courts! We have a whistle -blower who has been given an invitation of asylum by President Putin of Russia. The whereabouts of Edward Snowden are unknown as I write this. This person seems to believe that what he has done is right, but cannot trust the American judicial system, knowing that what he has done was clearly breaking the law - perhaps even treason. 

I will leave you with this question: Are you really comfortable sacrificing your liberty for perceived safety?

Syria: Inaction in Practice

(Image by Dallasnews.com)

On March 15, 2011, peaceful protests around Syria called for the ouster of the Ba'ath Party and President Bashar al-Assad. Al-Assad's family has controlled Syria's government and economy since 1971. The protests were met with extreme violence by the Syrian military forces under the current president and regime. The Syrian regime's tactics are not new, but a continuation of President al-Assad's father's rule. Also, the response from the outside world has been met with the same international response: outrage and condemnation. This reaction has been consistent. although the international community currently has increased its actions through limited arms trade with the rebels. This is not enough. According to the British Broadcasting Corporation, the al-Assad regime has also been given the support from the Islamic militant group Hezbollah:

Hezbollah leader Nasrallah vows victory in Syria - BBC

Although action should have occurred earlier from democracies around the world, this should definitely be the red line so many world leaders have said existed even with the use chemical weapons by the regime. A victory or even peace settlement by or with the al-Assad regime is unacceptable and will create further human rights' abuses and legitimize Islamic fundamentalism in the region.

Before creating the argument for more aggressive action against the al-Assad regime, a quick background into the history of the Al-Assad regime  and explore the growth and nature of this murderous regime. The rise of the Assad family was established by a military coup in 1971. Al-Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad (as prime minster) arrested the legitimate prime minster, his political opponents, and dissidents. He then declared himself president and would hold this post until his death in June 2000. Although taking power through a military coup d'etat, al-Assad could be considered secular (even if he went through the motions of being a good Muslim) and even changed the constitution of Syria to give equality to women. Due to pressure from the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Assad retracted this provision in the constitution. Al-Assad's legitimacy, however, would be boosted by his various economic initiatives such as modernizing and improving economic infrastructure.

In contrast to his successful economic policies of the 1970's. al-Assad was most likely an insecure leader with immense power. Before his ascent to power, he would be humiliated by Israel's victory and occupation of the Golan Heights during the Six-Day War in 1967 as Secretary of Defense. These challenges and defeats would also contribute to the way al-Assad would see himself as a leader and mark his particular style of rule. Political opponents and dissidents would be jailed. dissapeared, murdered, tortured, executed, or assassinated. In 1983, the Muslim Brotherhood would stage a rebellion in February 1982, and al-Assad ordered in air-strike which would, butcher between 10,000 to 40,000 men, women, and children due tyo various sources. These atrocities would be denounced by the Arab world, the intelligentsia and even Ba'ath Party members; his government was seen by many as illegitimate. Al-Assad also used the excuse of Islamic extremism and the Muslims Brotherhood to arrest, torture, disappear, and kill those who opposed him.

Notably Syria attempted to court both the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. After the demise of the Soviet Union, Syria would eventually grow closer to the Russian Federation. The relationship between the United States has been rocky at best, violent at its worst. Al-Assad would try to gain financial support from the United States, but due to Syria's support of various terrorist organizations, war with Israel, and complicity with the attack on U.S. and French servicemen in Beirut, Lebenon in October 1983, this support never materialized to anything substantial and eventually cut-off from American loans.

Hafez al-Assad would die on June 10, 2000 of a heart attack, leaving his unprepared son Bashar al-Assad to lead Syria. Al-Assad would be seen by some as a reformer, but these hopes would be dashed because of his reaction to protests against him and his Ba'ath Party.

Hafez-al-Assad

Bashar al-Assad

The protests, commonly seen as a part of the Arab Spring, reached its zenith in April 2011. The protesters wanted the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad, and his Ba'ath Party.There was also major discontent by the majority Sunni population who have been controlled by the minority Alawite sect, which makes up the majority of the power structure of the Ba'ath government. - an apartheid government. Much of the protests would also begin in struggling communities and would be inspired by the Arab Spring which would see the ouster if dictatorships in countries such as Algeria, Egypt, and Libya (with NATO support). The Arab Spring in Syria would turn into a civil war with tens of thousands dead, and the number rises daily. Also, the civil war in Syria has been marked by the bombardment of Turkey, the risk of destabilizing a shaky Lebanon, and attacks and counter-attacks by Israel. Iran's and Hezbollah's open support for the al-Assad regime threatens the region with even more instability as well as creating an existential threat to Israel, jeopardizing a solution to the question of Palestine, and a military threat to Turkey, a NATO ally and secular nation which will not tolerate Islamic extremism within its borders.

The civil war in Syria has marked a strategic change of attitude from the West, particularly NATO which helped oust the Gaddhafi regime in Libya using its air-force and strategic arms allocation to the appropriate parties. I do not believe that the West should solely carry the burden of assisting the Syrian people in its rebellion against the Syrian regime. All nations who value the principles of democracy, human rights, and self-determination should do their part in assisting the Syrian people. Although the United States, France, and the United Kingdom are providing weaponry to the rebels and the European Union is in the process of beginning debates about lifting the embargo of weapons to rebel groups (which does include Islamic rebels, but the means may justify the ends), much more is needed. The fall of the current al-Assad regime would stabilize the Middle East and continue the reforms that have been occurring in the region, giving more freedoms to individuals. Even the conservative nations of the Arab League has had enough of al-Assad and has subsequently been banned from that organization.

Nations such as the United States seem to be wary of armed intervention in another Middle Eastern country. This excuse is weak, and history has proved that geopolitical inconvenience has lead to disaster. The United States' inaction in Cambodia during the Killing Fields' genocide was mostly fueled by American distaste of another conflict in the region, according to former President Jimmy Carter. Belgium's inaction (and other former European imperialist powers) and perhaps its guilt of its imperialist past made them complacent in the massacre of at least 500,000 Hutus and their sympathizers by Tutsis in Rwanda (an ethnic differentiation exasperated and fabricated by Belgian colonial policy). Another excuse used is that nations like the United States should not be the world's police officers, a worn out and obnoxious cliche. President George H. W. Bush showed this willingness to avoid this label by not intervening in Bosnia/Herzegovina by openly stating that the United States had no interest in intervening in the affairs of Eastern Europe, a throw back to isolationist America in the 1920s to 1941. This is a result of inaction:

Approximately 26,000 Dead in Bosnia/Herzegovina 

What should be noted in all these tragedies is the failure of an organization created to keep peace and prevent human rights abuses: the United Nations. Although the United Nations has worked to try to bring comfort to refugees of the Syrian civil war, it has failed miserably in preventing further bloodshed within Syria. The Security Council, made up of the Russian Federation, a close ally of Syria, and China, led by a paranoid communist party obsessed with internal stability, has made the United Nations almost obsolete and a relic of the Cold War.

The international community has failed the Syrian people, but there is still time and hope. NATO forces have spent more than ten years in Afghanistan. The American people are tired of entanglements in the Middle East with no clear exit strategy. The United States is only one member of NATO. Syria's exit strategy may be a lot more simple: the resignation of al-Assad and his close political allies, even if that means going into exile (I am sure Iran will be happy to take him in as a guest), and international support for democratic transition. This exit strategy can be achieved by the easing of weapons' embargoes to rebel soldiers (with a limit of what sort of technology is given), military intervention through the Arab League, NATO, and other countries who respect human rights and self-determination without having to put boots on the ground. Also, these nations do not need to be under the leadership of the United Nations which has shown little to none of this in this tragedy.

Of course it is not in the interest of Syria and the international community to have one regime to replace another one. As in Libya, Algeria, and Egypt (with a president forced to modify his extreme social views due to public pressure) the process of creating a democracy can be fulfilled, but there should be no illusions that it will be easy. The Syrian people began these protests to reject a dictator and a totalitarian ruling party; they will not tolerate another dictator or a group of religious extremists.

Lincoln: A Reflection on Hero-Worship

I have just finished watching Stephen Spielberg's Lincoln. Spielberg does sometimes gets carried away with patriotic fluff and playing to America's heart strings, but he does capture the frailty of Abraham Lincoln and takes away some of the varnish off of Lincoln's divinity in U.S. classrooms. Spielberg introduces us to Daniel Day Lewis's fascinating and remarkable portrayal the 16th President of the United States talking to two black soldiers about the needs of black soldiers experiencing the birth of state sanctioned discrimination in the form of lower wages. The audience is then interrupted by two white soldiers who are able to recite his Gettysburg address up to the end. The black soldier who openly complains to Lincoln finishes the address as the infantry is called into formation. This patriotic manipulation by Spielberg does speak truth to the fact that millions of American school children home and abroad would have to memorize and recite that famous and historically important speech marking a major transformation in the Civil War and American history Lincoln would of course touch on his Emancipation Proclamation, an unenforceable and irrelevant decree regarding the northern states. Official U.S. history textbooks would mark this as a turning point for human rights in the United States which it is, but this is where reality and history become blurred. The Emancipation Proclamation was a military strategy meant to take away vital labor away from the slave owning South. Unfortunately this part is usually left out of history lessons, particularly for elementary school children. It is at this point in a young person's life where hero-worship and nationalism come together. Children, not knowing that Lincoln, a very respectable man, eventually come to that point in their lives where they realize that Lincoln was not just your small-town folksy man who would check up in your ailing grandmother in a snowstorm, or somebody who could rattle off amusing stories, but a cunning and calculating politician who could bring people from different political hues together. This realization that the hero who freed the slaves did not do this for altruistic purpose, but for military advantage causes shock and the symptoms of mourning.

This recognition of historical truth is a good thing. When history takes away the faults of the human character, hero-worship and personality cults exist. It is important to note that President Lincoln through self-education, persistence, and luck was able to gain the presidency through several unforeseen events. His road to the presidency was also marked by political naïveté, personal turmoil, and suicidal despondency, but his historical legacy would omit much of this. The 20th century offers up an excellent comparison in the form of Eva Peron the First Lady of Argentina. Although Lincoln's hero-worship did not reach the excesses of Peron's, there is a clear correlation of what can happen when intellectuals are suppressed or controlled by the state in the guise of education.  When history mixes with state policy facts become omitted or glossed over.

Eva Peron, known affectionately as Evita would be best remembered for her state-sponsored philanthropy and her shunning of the oligarchs. Her ability to inspire the descamisados or the "shirtless ones" allowed her husband Juan Peron to carry out massive nationalization campaigns against foreign-owned industries as well as secure political power. Even though the economy began to crumble under state inefficiency, money taken from these nationalized industries would be put into the hands of the poor through charitable donations for food banks, schools, and hospitals. This sounds very good and altruistic, but the Argentinian government would neglect the infrastructure. Also by usurping the market for inefficient state control - mass inflation and unemployment would rise. Juan Peron would remain popular, however, because of his wife's charismatic and defiant speeches. She was to many the hero of the poor and even today, there is a drive to make her a saint although it is difficult to recall what miracles she created. Perhaps it was the miraculous appearance of new money fresh off the press? The Argentinian people are still divided about Evita's legacy. Certainly her true rags-to-riches story would fuel her passion for the poor, but her ends sometimes did not justify the means. Political dissidents would be arrested or disappeared and her charitable contributions would contribute to higher levels of unemployment and poverty (as well as her ever expanding wardrobe). It was her death of ovarian cancer that would shatter Juan Peron's hold on power. Her body would even be preserved so that she could remain in her seemingly divine beauty for eternity. (After the collapse of the brutal military junta, Evita's body was eventually returned with her nose crushed in.) Evita would empower an entire class of people, who would eventually begin to achieve social mobility in the late 20th Century, though her actions of doing so would not have any place in a 21st Century democracy.

Certainly Lincoln did not perpetrate this sort of personality cult and there is very little proof, according to his biographers that he enjoyed the position. Nor did the U.S propagate him as a religious symbol in the traditional religious sense. They did, however create hero-worship by omitting in textbooks what the true intentions of his Emancipation Proclamation were and avoiding any criticisms or reflections on his character. If one wants to look at the life of President Lincoln's life, then Doris Kearns Goodwin's Lincoln: A Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln truly captures Abraham Lincoln as a complicated historical figure. He was not a bad man, and nor is his nickname  "Honest Abe" appropriate. He was a shrewd politician who through scheming, bribery, strategy, and endurance reunited the United States.

As the United States today becomes more polarized - it will not take much to distort historical truths
and create monstrous realities in the guise of hero-worship. The 21st Century Republican Party (a party Lincoln would barely recognize) in its feeble attempt to recapture the spirit of the good old days of the 1980s under President Reagan would resurrect the Old Gipper. The only problem was the Old Gipper was, well, old. He was a product of the Cold War. His presidency also was marked by the very things the Republican Party loathes. His administration would see the ballooning of the national debt at the expense of the working class in his efforts to bring down the already ailing Soviet Union. They also omit the Iran-Contra scandal and conveniently blame dementia on President Reagan's economic and diplomatic scandals when it is brought up. Reagan would oversee and reward greed which would play itself out in the cocaine addled Wall Street party known as the S & L Crisis.

Ultimately hero-worship is bound to fail. It is best to just hear the truth, because history will eventually spit idols' bones out of the closet. All nations must resolve what is truth and what is fiction, but the process is not easy - but necessary in bringing a greater understanding of what really
drove the people who have shaped history.

Welcome!

Growing up in the state of Maine in New England in the United States, I was expected to have opinions. These opinions would revolve around local goings-on such as who would have burned down the chicken farm, and what was the motivation? Also I was expected to have an opinion on why I liked or disliked Governor McKernan (R- Maine 1987-1995). My reasons were quite simple - my parents seemed to like him because their alternative was no better. Nevertheless, this would begin my love-hate relationship with politics. In my understanding of politics, I had to learn some history. And this was achieved through my mother's purchase of the Encyclopedia Britannica a subscription to Time Magazine, and our Time/Life Series on World War II. Here is one of the Time magazine covers that was forever etched into my memory:

Now, I do not want to start a huge debate about this cover, and perhaps I have just jeopardized every opportunity I would have of going to China in the future. When I teach about the fall of the Soviet Union or teach about Tienanmen Square June 1989, I remember this cover. I was a 9 year old, sitting on my bedroom floor in our mobile home reading the articles and awakening my curiosity about the outside world.

I must say, by American standards my family grew up quite poor. My mother did her best to provide for four children by working multiple jobs so that we could have food, shelter, clothes, and pencils and paper for school. As a child, I was  embarrassed by my family's poverty. Sometimes I would put on airs or dress in khakis and collared shirts to look like I came from a family from worth. It was only as an adult, that I realized how lucky I was to have grown up in poverty, and we actually had great intellectual and practical worth. I also realized how much my mother had to sacrifice to make sure we had the Encyclopedia Britannica and Time. This year, I asked my mother, "With all the financial stress and responsibilities, why did you still order Time?" She replied, "Because you were interested in history and politics, and that is why you ate hot dogs and macaroni and cheese a lot."

With this basic background on my early Dicksonian childhood, this blog will be a way to pay my mother back for her generosity and instilling in me the principles of curiosity, gratefulness  and personal responsibility and integrity. This blog sums up her 18 years of helping me become the person I am today, and why my passion for politics and history has not subsided.

Some of the topics will be chosen from the news, or musings I have had throughout the week on matters of politics, religion, and poverty - things that should never be discussed at the dinner table. I may also talk about a book I have read or observations on contemporary life.

So, please enjoy. It is safer than being de-friended from Facebook because you put your political views there!