The Politics of Star Wars

The Politics of Star Wars
By Daniel G. Jennings
Nothing shows how inane and insipid political debate in America has become than the silly attempts to read political meaning into the latest Star Wars film “Revenge of the Sith.”
On the right some conservative groups have denounced the movie as left wing propaganda and its creator George Lucas as a blue state elitist. On the left, the moronic activist group called Moveon.org has created an idiotic TV commercial portraying federal judges as Jedi Knights and Republican Senator Bill Frist as the Evil Emperor.
Our society has become so divided and politicized that we see political meaning everywhere even where it doesn’t exist. We can’t even enjoy a good movie without some idiot attacking it because it isn’t propaganda for his or her cause.
Nor can we evaluate a work of art or entertainment without resorting to the simple minded political definitions of our age. Despite the efforts of both conservatives and liberals to portray it as for or against their respective causes, “Revenge of the Sith” can’t be pigeonholed as conservative or liberal. This movie has something sorely and desperately lacking in our political culture: ambiguity.
The plot line is that the once free and democratic Galactic Republic has become corrupt and degenerate and is slowly morphing into the oppressive and militaristic First Galactic Empire. Is this a left wing warning about the dangers of militarism and imperialism or a right wing warning about the dangers of big government or both? I can’t tell it can be read both ways. Is George Lucas a liberal Democrat or an old school conservative? I can’t tell either by looking at this movie. The plot about the Republic becoming an empire evokes the writings of isolationist firebrand Pat Buchanan more than any liberal politician.
Politically, Sith is a complicated movie that provides no good or satisfying answers. The democracy of the Galactic Republic turns out to be a shallow sham easily brushed aside by the arrogant Chancellor Palpatine who like 19th Century French Emperor Napoleon III (the 1850s politician not the great conqueror) proclaims himself Emperor after launching wars of conquest and winning an election. The oily Palpatine’s proclamation of the Empire is greeted by cheers from the supposedly democratic Senate.
Palpatine practices the dark arts of the Sith a banned ancient religion that teaches its practitioners how to conquer and oppress. An allegory for Communism or Marxism and the arrogant intellectuals who adopt those ideologies. Palpatine’s words are more reminiscent of arrogant intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and the Neoconservatives who promise power and paradise through their ideology but deliver war and oppression than those of George W. Bush. The film’s chief villain, Palpatine looks and acts more like Bill Clinton than George W. Bush, Palpatine is always smiling and friendly (until he turns into the evil emperor) and constantly prattles on about peace. Although the words of the misguided Anikan Skywalker evoke Bush.
To seize control Palpatine tricks a race of alien scientists to create an army of cloned soldiers (the Stormtroopers of the classic Star Wars films) from the genetic material of the feared soldier of fortune Jango Fett (father of Jabba the Hutt’s chief hitman Boba Fett). When war with terrorists called Separatists who employ robotic armies erupts Palpatine unleashes the clones who conduct a ruthless but very effective military campaign against those areas of the Galaxy that don’t acknowledge the Republic’s authority.
Here’s where things get a little complicated the Separatists are businessmen seeking economic freedom. They are also aliens who might not want to live in the human dominated Galactic Republic. They are led by a rogue Jedi Knight named Count Duku who is described as a political idealist and their revolt is inspired and advised by the shadowy Sith Lord Darth Sidius. The problem is that the Sith Lord is also Palpatine who has inspired the rebellion in order to create a pretext for the creation of his military machine. Nor is the Separatist cause so bad, when Anikan Skywalker’s wife, Senator Padme, complains about too much power in the Chancellor’s hands and talks of democracy Anikan, the future Darth Vader, accuses her of being a Separatist.
Caught in the middle of this complicated war are the Jedi Knights the regal, aloof, arrogant, self righteous, self appointed guardians of democracy in the Old Republic. The Jedi who are apparently a heretical sect of the Sith or perhaps the Sith are heretical Jedi. It’s hard to tell, but one thing is clear the noble Jedi are almost as bad as the Emperor and in a way worse than the cloned soldiers who after all are just doing their duty. The Jedi certainly have totalitarian impulses like the Communists and the Nazis they take children from their parents and train them in the Jedi ways. The Jedi enthusiastically join in Palpatine’s campaign of repression, to the point of leading his armies against the separatists never do the Jedi question Palpatine’s orders. At least two Jedi go bad: Count Duku the terrorist leader of the brutal Separatist forces and Anikan Skywalker who becomes the Empire’s chief enforcer Darth Vader.
In an interesting complication the Sith philosophy is shown to be somewhat libertarian and the Jedi totalitarian. The Sith encourage their students to follow their passions and develop their full potential, while the Jedi emphasize mindless discipline and restraint.
The Jedi like many of today’s Christians are obsessed with apocalyptic prophecy they are waiting for the chosen one, a promised Messiah who will restore balance to the Force and usher in a golden age. The chosen one is Anikan Skywalker who turns out to be an antichrist who betrays the Jedi to their worst enemy. A timely warning for all the good Christians waiting for the Rapture and the Second Soming. The Separatists also view Anikan as a sort of savior their leadership gathers in a hiding place to await his coming. When he arrives Anikan proceeds to kill them all just as he killed the Jedi.
Eventually, the Jedi leadership decides that the Chancellor has too much power and rise up against him. They first try to arrest Palpatine in order to turn him over to the Senate but Palpatine tells the Jedi commander Mace Windu that he is the Senate. Windu responds to this by trying to assassinate a defenseless Palpatine apparently in cold blood. Only Anikan Skywalker’s intervention saves the elected leader of the Republic from murder at the hands of the self-appointed guardians of democracy.
Nor is the Democracy the Jedi are defending all that great, it is shown to be a hollow sham. All the Senators do is rubber stamp Palpatine’s fascist agenda. When they aren’t legislating, Senators go to the theater where entertainment consists of meaningless light shows.
The people of the Galaxy don’t appreciate the Jedi and their democracy very much either. When Palpatine orders Anikan Skywalker to lead an army of cloned storm troopers into the Jedi Temple in the Galactic Capitol and butcher all the Jedi inside none of the citizens of the city lifts a finger to help. Nobody comes to the aid of the Jedi even though many of them are children, except for Senator Organa played by an overweight and mustached Jimmy Smitts. Out in the galaxy only the Wookies help the Jedi when the clones start shooting them in the back., then they only help the aged Jedi master Yoda who is their old friend.
The movie ends on a downer, Yoda and Obi Wan Kenobi, a regal Jedi who bemoans the loss of civilized behavior (that sounds familiar), go into hiding. They also hide the last two remaining Jedi children Luke Skywalker and the Princess Leia. Padme the one person who seemed to believe in democracy dies of a broken heart. Anikan Skywalker is resurrected as Darth Vader the Emperor’s pet killing machine. Senator Organa flees to a remote planet to lay the ground work for the rebellion that will bring down the Empire.
The people of the Galaxy have learned a harsh lesson if they want their freedom they’ll have to fight for it themselves. They can’t rely upon droids, clones, Jedi Knights, Sith Lords and self-appointed saviors to fight their battles for them.
In the end there are no simple answers or easy solutions in that Galaxy Far, Far away. Just as in our world simple political categorization is impossible and that is perhaps the real lesson George Lucas is trying to teach us. A lesson that will be undoubtedly lost upon the inhabitants of a nation conditioned to think in terms of easy answers and political absolutes.

Castro and Racism

Racism: The Ugly Side of Cuban American Relations
By Daniel G. Jennings
There’s an ugly factor in Cuban American relations that’s long been ignored: racism, both American and Cuban. Racism has poisoned relations between the neighboring nations and formed the basis of the career of one of the world’s most loathsome dictators – Fidel Castro.
Race affected Cuban American relations from the beginning during the 19th Century slaveholding Southerners often dreamed of invading Cuba so they could expand their peculiar institution to that nation. Unfortunately Americans didn’t need to export slavery to Cuba, the island’s Spanish settlers had been running plantations using African slaves for centuries. Once the Civil War destroyed American slavery, American interest in invading and annexing Cuba disappeared.
Then came the Spanish American War of 1898, American forces fought Spain for the cause of Cuban independence. Unfortunately, Cuba wasn’t ready for independence the island’s administration was in the hands of largely incompetent Spanish immigrants. The result was American occupation but not annexation of Cuba as an American territory or Commonwealth.
American annexation of Cuba would have led eventually to American statehood for Cuba something that would have been of immeasurable value to the Cuban people. Unfortunately American racists wanted nothing to do with the racially mixed Cubans who were mostly Catholic. American racists afraid that Cuba would pollute America with racially inferior mulattos (people of mixed race) and Republicans who were afraid that Catholic Cubans would vote Democratic scuttled that idea. What could have been a valuable addition to the American Union was allowed to become a Banana Republic because of mindless prejudice.
In the first five decades of the Twentieth Century Cuba underwent incredible economic growth and unbelievable political turmoil. The government was weak and inept even as the economy was vigorous. Cuba’s economic growth was staggering over one million people from Spain immigrated to Cuba as did 65,000 Americans that’s right at one time Americans moved to Cuba in search of economic opportunity. By the 1950s the average income of Cubans was double that of Spaniards and Japanese.*
This astounding economic situation was marked by political turmoil and incompetent government particularly that of Fulgencio Batista, Cuba’s dictator of the 1940s and 50s. Batista, a former army sergeant was black the son of former slaves who had worked in the sugar fields, much of his backing came from the largely black Cuban army. Although he was no democrat, Batista was hardly an egomaniacal tyrant. His rule was limited he allowed a great deal of economic freedom, refused to resort to death squad tactics to deal with his political enemies (something a lot of Cubans today regret, bullets in the brains of Fidel Castro, his brother Raul and Che Guevera back in 1956 would have spared their nation a lot of suffering), allowed a free press and even pardoned his worst enemy, Castro. Castro himself described his time in Batista’s prison as a vacation. Batista was also very friendly to the US allowing large amounts of US investment and respecting the property rights of American business in Cuba.
Yet Batista was disliked by both Cuba’s Spanish European elite and the United States. Even though he was Cuba’s president and very respectful of their interests Cuba’s good old boys network wouldn’t let Batista into their exclusive Havana Yacht Club. Even though he protected US interests and property, the United States refused to help Batista in his war against Fidel Castro’s guerrilla movement. The US refused to provide Batista with weapons or military advisors or American officers to lead his army. There are even claims that in the late 1950s the CIA may have helped Castro with money. Even though Castro was obviously a Communist, both US ambassadors to the Cuba in the 1950s warned Washington that Castro was a Communist sympathizer (but not a party member) his brother Raul was an open party member who had received training in Eastern Europe. At the same time the American press including The New York Times glorified Castro and portrayed him as a modern Robin Hood.*
So why did Uncle Sam hang Batista out to dry and give a green light for Castro’s takeover of Cuba? Here’s a disturbing and reason, Castro is white and Batista was black. So ingrained was racism in the minds of 1950s Americans that many of them favored a white man over a black man, even though the white man was America’s sworn enemy. National interest and national security took a back seat to American prejudice, the media portrayed Batista as a vicious bloodthirsty tyrant (he was not) and Castro (who was and remains a vicious bloodthirsty tyrant) as Robin Hood. Castro, the son of a millionaire who had attended law school and once applied to Harvard, was portrayed as the man of the people. Batista the self made man as the enemy of the people.
The media didn’t seem to notice that Castro and his revolutionary army were almost all white. Castro had strong backing from the white Spanish elite in Cuba, he was after all one of them. There was a strong element of putting the blacks back into their place in Cuba in Castro’s revolution under Batista blacks served as president, president of the Senate, commander of the army, and minister of agriculture.* Today the highest ranking black official is the chief ideologist, a ceremonial position. Meanwhile 80 percent of Cuba’s prison population is black,* even though only 11 percent of the island’s population is black.**
Obviously a lot of Americans including a great many self-proclaimed liberals who claim to believe in racial equality sympathized with this development. In the years since Castro’s “revolution,” this hypocrisy is compounded by prominent American liberals black and white who troop to Havana to sing Castro’s praises. They did this even after Fidel allied himself with America’s worst enemies and pointed nuclear missiles at American cities. Many talk about the wonderful way Fidel treats Cuba’s black population (notice that American liberals talk of Cuban blacks as if they were Castro’s property or slaves). They sing the praises of black cultural figures in Cuba but fail to notice that the only black face at Fidel’s table is on the man clearing the dishes away.
If Americans persist in believing that Cuba is a paradise for blacks ask them this? Why do black Haitian immigrants take a long and dangerous boat ride to reach the racist USA even though Fidel’s wonderland is only a short trip away? Could the poor black working people of Haiti know who the real racist is?
Now just imagine how American liberals would react to a right wing regime that removed a black leader and replaced him with a ruthless white dictator who suppressed the rights of blacks? They’d be up in arms demanding that embargoes be established and the Marines sent in, the hypocrisy here is disturbing and disgusting.
Until Americans of all beliefs acknowledge the way in which racism has poisoned their nation’s relations with Cuba we’ll never have a realistic picture of Castro and his regime. In particular, American liberals need to learn that not all racists drive pick up trucks with shotguns in the back window. Some racists wear military fatigues, smoke cigars and have shaggy beards, others sip lattes and hold professorships at universities and claim they are enemies of racism. Nor will we be able to deal with the Cubans as human beings rather than stereotypes. Perhaps then we can learn that the Cuban people black and white alike, deserve freedom and dignity rather than the b movie antics of a pompous buffoon in a silly costume.

*For a realistic view of Cuba before Fidel’s revolution and see the Cuba Before Castro chapter in Humberto E. Fontova’s excellent book “Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant” Washington DC Regnery Publishing, 2005. This is also the source of the figures about Cuban prisons.
** According to the CIA World Fact Book found at www.cia.gov Cuba’s racial composition is as follows 36 percent white, 1 percent Chinese, 11 percent black and 51 percent mulatto (mixed race). Note these figures are one percent off, so presumably there is another 1 percent of the Cuban population that doesn’t fall into these groups, who they are I don’t know. Native Americans, perhaps?
*** I don’t use the term African to describe Cuban blacks because the majority of non-black Cubans are of partial African descent.

Anonymous sources

Newsweek & Anonymous Sources
By Daniel G. Jennings
Hopefully, recent events at Newsweek magazine will convince the America new media to end the dangerous and despicable practice of using anonymous sources in their stories.
Newsweek got itself into trouble by running a story in which an anonymous source claimed that American officials at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba had desecrated the Islamic holy book the Koran and even flushed a Koran down the toilet. There was apparently no truth to this story which sparked outrage and riots in which innocent people died in the Moslem world. These moronic claims will undoubtedly inspire terrorist attacks against US interests and military forces in which more innocents will die.
Newsweek was able to get away with this slipshod journalism by quoting an anonymous source a shadowy individual identified as a high government official. Note: we don’t know who this source was or if they are an important official we have to believe Newsweek on that too. Since the source wasn’t identified there was no way other journalists could check out the story and verify its authenticity.
This reliance upon anonymous sources has created a terrible culture of deceit in Washington DC, so called sources can make the most outrageous of claims and have them repeated in the media as if they were fact. People are able to get away with saying anything because they will be anonymous. They won’t be held accountable for their claims.
Reporters conditioned by the media and the liberal arts colleges to think of the government as evil are willing to believe American officials and military personnel capable of anything. Media outlets overseas - which boost their ratings and sales by anti-American propaganda - are only too willing to pick up this garbage giving these gutter level journalists a global audience.
To make matters worse, politicians and others can only attract media attention in Washington by leaking information to reporters which is often done anonymously. To be a recognized Washington player one must play the game of being a source of juicy news for the media.
This means the major Washington media outlets are now using the tactics of the supermarket tabloids and the methodology of Joe McCarthy, and they’re getting away with it. Virtually no one questions the anonymous source cult even though it is destroying media credibility.
There is only one answer to this dilemma: our major national media outlets must go cold turkey on anonymous sources. They must say if a source is not willing to come public and take responsibility for their claims then they won’t use that source.
Reporters will undoubtedly read this and complain that sources won’t come forward out of fear of retaliation. My response to this is simple, is there an American death squad going around murdering sources who talk to the media? Where are all the bodies of media sources floating down the Potomac? The answer is there is no American death squad except in the minds of liberal elitists and those who talk to the media face no threat of death or violence. So there is no good rationale for anonymous sources.
Yes, some sources might loose jobs or reputations if they talk. Well if a person isn’t willing to risk their job or reputation on a claim, why should a journalist publish it and risk their reputation and job on that claim?
The public has a right to know, in particular the public has a right to know where their news is coming from and whether it is accurate. As long as our media relies upon anonymous sources the public’s right to know is being trampled.
Will, the deaths of those innocent people in the riots in the Middle East inspire some major media outlet to take the courageous step of saying no to anonymous sources? Probably not but maybe it’ll get them to think about it.
Still, if some major news outlet were to say we won’t use anonymous sources anymore they’d get a tremendous boost in credibility and public trust. The editors at Newsweek and its brethren in the media world should think about that.

Hard Traveling Heroes

“Hard-Traveling Heroes”
By Daniel G. Jennings
Once upon a time, American comic books were a true form of mass entertainment that reflected popular tastes and aspirations rather than collector’s items for nerds or avant-garde literature for urban elitists. And once upon a time American comic books, especially the top level superhero titles, contained some of the finest examples of the cartoonists’ art ever published.
Those who don’t believe me should take a look at DC Comics’ Green Lantern-Green Arrow collection. These fine editions reprint a wonderful series of stories created by two masters of the comic craft writer Denny O’Neil and artist Neal Adams. In these volumes, O’Neil and Adams re-imagined and recreated super hero comics as adult entertainment and created some great stories in the process.
Charged with revamping two second tier DC heroes, Green Lantern and Green Arrow, O’Neil created a sort of super hero buddy story similar to the buddy pictures of the era. Lantern, a conservative traditional super hero a cosmic lawman similar to a Star Wars Jedi Knight, and the Arrow, a costumed rebel who dressed and acted like Robin Hood traveled across America. Along the way they encountered social problems and began questioning authority while fighting with each other. Hence the term Hard Traveling Heroes.
None of the stories are that earth shattering, the leftist propaganda in some of the stories looks like a Soviet movie producer’s of the evils of American capitalism. Or the efforts of 1970s movie and TV producers to make their entertainments socially relevant by featuring stories about social issues and political controversies. Yet they are thrilling and entertaining if not thought provoking.
The art is absolutely incredible, Neal Adams is one of the great American illustrators, he could make super heroes seem real and produce pages of electrifying action. In particular, Adams could make the bloodless fisticuffs of 1960s and 70s comic books seem as thrilling as anything in a modern action movie. Violence is kept to a minimum but when it does occur it’s all the more effective because Adams style is utterly electrifying, every punch and gunshot is an earth shattering event. The art has a quality and energy to it lacking in most modern comic books. The realistic style based on comic strips is far more effective a storytelling medium than the Japanese manga or the cartoony high art look favored by cutting edge artists.
Despite the mandatory left wing propaganda O’Neil’s stories are effective because he didn’t let politics overtake the story telling. Character development and conflict come first and no ludicrous conspiracy theories are injected into the stories. Lessons modern comic, movie and TV writers should take to heart.
Interestingly enough, “Hard-Traveling Heroes” was a failure when it was first published it attracted a lot of attention but didn’t sell enough comics to keep DC from canceling the series. Yet, the series established the style of storytelling and art that would define American comics in the 1970s and 80s. A mix of realism, hard hitting action, social criticism, high satire, soap operatic character development, fantasy and science fiction. Adams’ art became the house style at both major American comic book companies, Marvel and DC. O’Neil’s brand of storytelling, deconstructing and reconstructing heroes while making them relevant to modern social and political situations, became the norm.
Oddly enough what failed in 1970 would a decade later become standard in comics. In the late 1970s and early 80s, Marvel’s X-Men which mixed realistic art, strong characters, social and political criticism and cosmic plot lines about aliens became the best selling comic book.
For those us who remember the great comic books of the 1970s, Green Lantern-Green Arrow is a wonderful trip down memory lane. Those unfamiliar with American comics or worse yet with contemporary American comics will find a wonderful example of what comic books can and should be.

Green Lantern-Green Arrow Volume 1 by Dennis O’Neil and Neal Adams copyright 2004 By DC Comics.

Juries

Juries
By Daniel G. Jennings
It is time that we took the jury system back to what it originally was a system by which informed citizens oversee the administration of justice.
Today’s American jury system is an abomination because the courts have fallen under the control of lawyers. Modern lawyers consider anyone who doesn’t possess a juris doctorate an ignorant child and treat them accordingly. Thus they have hijacked the jury system and made it little more than a bad joke.
Through the jury selection process attorneys are able to weed out any potential juror who is intelligent, independent or informed. For example any juror who expresses any sort of independent opinion or view or who knows anything about either or the law or the case is removed from the jury. Meaning that only those who know nothing of the case are passing judgment on life and death matters concerning others. Worse, juries are sequestered jurors are locked into hotel rooms and stopped from doing everyday things like reading newspapers and watching TV news. The reason attorneys fear the jurors might be exposed to everyday people with ordinary opinions, they’re afraid that common sense might invade the courtroom. This is why we get cases in which juries refuse to convict blatantly guilty suspects or worse cases in which a jury convicts a person of murder even though no body and no proof that a crime has been committed has been located.
The present day jury system is a far cry from the original jury system of Medieval England. There the jury was of peers, equal informed members of the community. Today the jury is supposed to be composed of ignorant dolts who are completely unaware of the world around them, the kind of people who would have a hard time getting a job operating a cash register (operating a cash register takes basic intelligence something serving on a jury does not).
Some basic reforms could fix our jury system, first it should be illegal to move the jurisdiction of trials. If a suitable jury can’t be found in the community then the defendant has the right to waive his right to a jury trial. Second, the only reason for removing a juror should be that the juror has a proven connection to the victim or defendant or is disrupting the court procedures. The jury will be picked from a pool of community members who meet basic criteria, lawyers wouldn’t be able to question potential jurors or challenge them unless they could prove conflict of interest.
These changes wouldn’t guarantee justice but they would make the courts more efficient and just. Civil juries, grand juries and federal juries which operate along these lines seem to function just fine. At least then we could get juries capable of rendering intelligent decisions.
If we’re not going to do this then it’s time to deal away with the farce we call the jury system all together and have judges administer the law. Either that or go to a system like a courts martial where a panel of citizens renders legal decisions. Or just try to educate a class of lawyers who consider their fellow citizens as equals and human beings.

What?

What Are We Spending Our Defense Money On?
By Daniel G. Jennings
What I wonder will it take for our military to start devoting the vast majority of its resources and manpower to fighting or preparing to fight our nation’s primary enemy: Islamic terrorists?
I ask this question because recent news stories indicate that the Pentagon is spending billions of dollars on questionable projects while our troops in Iraq sometimes lack such basic equipment as body armor and armored vehicles. These projects involve massive high-tech weapons systems that will be of little or no use in the war on terror and waste money and resources that could be used to make our forces more effective.
The most questionable weapons program the Pentagon is wasting money on is missile defense. That is high tech means of shooting down ballistic missiles fired at the US. There is little evidence that such a missile shield would work and even if it did there are many other ways of delivering weapons of mass destruction to American shores. Nor is there evidence that any credible enemy is developing nuclear missiles capable of hitting the US. Billions are wasted on strategic missile defense, billions that could better spent eliminating the threat from missiles abroad either through diplomacy or preemptive military action.
Then there is the latest US nuclear submarine, the USS Jimmy Carter, the last ship of the Sea Wolf Class. Since no other nation on Earth has a large scale ocean going navy there is little or no need for a fleet of submarines to sink enemy ships. To make the Carter useful in today’s world the Navy has reportedly equipped it for the war on terror.
The Carter can tap into undersea cables and monitor communications. A very useful capability if we were still fighting Kaiser Wilhelm II and the German Empire in World War I. Wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier to have our agents or allies overseas simply tap into the cables in one of the world’s cities? It’d also be far easier to deny. Gee we don’t know who that guy in the telephone company uniform who put the tap on your fiber optic cable was. Of course, if the bad guys use wireless communications the Jimmy Carter and its expensive electronics will be useless.
The Jimmy Carter can also deliver about fifty commandos to the world’s trouble spots. That’s about the same number as a cheaper and more versatile transport plane could deliver. The plane of course could drop the commandos as far inland as necessary. The Carter’s commandos would only be useful if the bad guys are considerate enough to place their base within walking distance of the ocean. Nor could commandos from the Carter bring the heavy weaponry and firepower they would need to support the ground assault. Remember Black Hawk Down in Mogadishu, lightly armed commandos were sitting ducks for Third World Goons with heavy weapons? The same tribesmen couldn’t run off fast enough when Pakistani soldiers attacked with thirty year old tanks.
So I have to question the purpose of the Jimmy Carter is? There’s no enemy navy to sink, its use as a delivery platform for commandos or a communications interception vehicle is limited. Other than providing lucrative contracts for defense contractors, jobs for shipyard workers and jobs for naval officers the Carter has no purpose. In other words, the Jimmy Carter is little more than a questionable public works project. The money and resources used to create it could be better used on weapons, vehicles and training our troops could use in the field against today’s enemies. How much battle armor, how many armored Humvees, improved rifles and how many fighter bombers could be purchased for the billions spent on the Carter?
If we need a high-tech public works project to provide jobs and money for contractors. Wouldn’t a high-speed rail line between two major American cities like Las Vegas and Los Angeles make a lot more sense? That’s something that would enhance the lives of average Americans and decrease our dependence on foreign oil? It’s also something that would actually serve a purpose.
It’s time we took a hard look at the Pentagon and the way it allocates money and resources to our military. Especially since that money could be better spent elsewhere to improve our ability to defend ourselves, improve our quality of life and maintain world peace.

New Political System

New Political System
By Daniel G. Jennings
Here in the United States our legislative system seems to be completely ineffective. Congress is failing to address the nation’s problems: healthcare, transportation, energy, the budget deficit, immigration, trade etc. Our state legislatures are equally ineffective; several of our states including Colorado and California, are bankrupt and impotent.
So perhaps it’s time to reform our legislative system to something more effective. Especially since our legislatures Congress in particular don’t seem to represent the society they are not elected by majorities and controlled by extreme minorities not interested in the basic problems facing society. Increasingly they ignore all too real crises while posing for the media and engaging in meaningless political squabbling.
One solution might be to replaced elected legislatures with something new. We could start making laws through referendums of voters a system used in many of our states and Switzerland. Another possible solution would be to adopt the system used by the Ancient Athenians. In ancient Athens legislators were chosen by lottery much like our juries today. Average citizens were selected at random to serve as legislators.
Under such a system modern computers could simply chose a legislature that reflects the city or state’s population. Then this legislature would vote on the issues facing society, bureaucrats and lobbyists would propose legislation as would citizens and others. The legislators would be paid a large salary say $100,000 to serve for a few months a year. Congressmen could get paid $1 million year, the vast majority of Americans would jump at a chance to serve for that kind of money.
Punishment for legislators caught taking a bribe would be the death penalty.
Such a system might work because like jurors the legislators would not be beholden to any political group or interest. Would such a system work? I don’t know but maybe we should try it in one of our states or large cities.
The problem is such a system won’t be tried unless our country faces complete disaster because too many people have a vested interest in the political status quo. The media views it as entertainment and politicians are easy to influence, business benefits because politicians are easy to buy, special interest have an easy time influencing the status quo. Professional politicians and their hangers on of course fear the end of the status quo because it will be end of their wealth, influence, power and affluence. They fear they might have to actually go out and work.
Okay, I don’t know if this would work but it might be worth a try. Anything might be better than the mess we call our present system of government. It would certainly be better than the other alternative which is dictatorship.

Poster Girl of Abu Grahib

There is no more tragic figure in modern America than Lynndie England, the army private who is the poster girl for the Abu Grahib prison abuse scandal.
Private England is both the victim of a witch hunt conducted by the media and its allies in the peace movement and the scapegoat for the military’s bungling and wrong doing. The media in its almost blind hatred of the military went looking for American atrocities in Iraq, it didn’t find any all it found was the fun and games at Abu Grahib. An embarrassing interlude of humiliation and bad judgment but hardly the Mai Lai Massacre, nobody it appears was actually hurt or tortured at Abu Grahib.
Yet now, Private England will go to military prison not because she committed any sort of crime but because she appeared in those embarrassing pictures. The reason she is going to prison is because somebody had to be punished for the crimes at Abu Grahib which weren’t crimes at all.
The military brass afraid to stand up for its people and take bad publicity and media criticism is punishing Private England and other soldiers simply to keep the media happy. Yes, the soldiers at Abu Grahib were ignorant, immature and undisciplined dolts who should be drummed out of the service, but they aren’t criminals. They didn’t actually torture or kill anybody. They simply had prisoners pose in embarrassing positions or strip naked.
Yet the Army is now prosecuting a group of soldiers because they did something embarrassing that was caught on camera. Which is odd because there has been no hue and cry among the American people for action against the Abu Grahib criminals. The only outrage has come among media elitists in New York, Washington and Los Angeles. Unfortunately those people have influence and they can make the military do stupid things by writing articles that are published in second rate magazines.
In the middle of all this is Private England, a victim on many counts. She is poor and white and rural and from West Virginia, a member of one of America’s poorest and most despised minorities. A minority that the nation’s leadership on both sides of the political divide pretends doesn’t exist. She is also apparently retarded or mentally ill or at least not very bright.
England joined the army like many rural whites because it was the only job around. The Army took her because Congress doesn’t give the military enough money to offer competitive wages that would attract first class recruits. Then they shipped her and a group of largely uneducated and poorly trained rural whites over to Iraq to run a prison full of Arabs even though they apparently had no training or preparation for such a role. The Pentagon which has plenty of money for high tech weapons designed to fight the Soviet Union had no preparation for dealing with large numbers of Arab prisoners. So Private England and company got shipped over there and quickly got into trouble.
And what was the response, reform or legitimate criticism. No the media branded a group of average Americans as vicious war criminals and the military agreed and organized a show trial to justify the moronic crimes.
So what will happen to Private England? My guess is like Eva Takamuri the young woman tried and convicted of being Tokyo Rose (a fictional character) in the late 1940s. Private England will go to prison for a year or so, get out and return home and live an ordinary working class life as a cashier or janitor. Then sometime in the future some journalist, writer, or lawyer will take up Ms. England’s cause. The case will be reviewed and sometime in the future Ms. England will be given a full pardon and have her military rank restored. As happened with Eva Takamuri, she spent time in jail, was released and worked in her family’s store in Chicago for two decades until President Ford pardoned her in 1977.
Thus a very average person, Lynndie England, will become the perfect symbol of a confused war and a confused age.

President Bush's Energy Policy

Like most Americans I listened with interest to President Bush’s press conference on Thursday, April 29, and I suppose like most Americans I was both heartened and disappointed by Mr. W’s discussion on energy.
I was glad to hear Bush admit he has little or no control over energy and particularly oil and gasoline prices. That’s refreshing honesty that indicates moral courage on the part of our president. I was also glad to hear Bush not to say that there is any sort of magic solution no hype about hydrogen cars, conservation, fusion, solar power or god knows what else. That was refreshing instead we heard our president discussing real solutions using existing technology.
I’m glad that the president is trying to increase our energy supply by trying to build nuclear power plants. We need more energy and nuclear power despite it’s dangers is the best way to do that with present day technology.
I was also glad to hear the President’s plans for oil refineries on military bases. We need increased oil production and oil under the control of the military. We need to keep some oil in reserve to keep the tanks rolling, the jets flying and the ships sailing. Bush’s plans will ensure that our fighting forces have something in their gas tank in the next war.
Bush has resisted the moronic demands of John Kerry and others to dump our strategic oil reserves on the market. This would drive down oil prices briefly for the purpose of gaining a few points in the polls.
Despite Bush’s refreshing candor I was disappointed by what he didn’t talk about. The president didn’t mention electrification of the railroads especially the mainline freight railroads. A policy that would give America a ground transportation system not dependent on oil. Nor did he mention mass transit which would move people around city without increased car use. Finally, he didn’t mention high speed rail which could give us a fast electric powered alternative to air travel that doesn’t burn oil.
The common sense and honesty about energy coming from the White House is refreshing. The failure to discuss rail and mass travel is all too familiar. Yes America has taken a few steps on the path to energy independence but it has a long ways to go.
Our president is in a unique situation to take America there. He has the bully pulpit, the respect of the American people (but not that of the chattering classes) and majorities behind him in both houses of Congress. More importantly, he has a nation staring into the abyss of a new energy crisis that desperately needs leadership were he to come out for rail electrification, high speed rail and a massive increase of mass transit right now Bush could probably get it through both houses of Congress.
History has given George W. A unique opportunity. The question is will he grasp it or wimp out?