ADDENDUM: PALIN, GOING ROGUE OR BEAUTY CONTESTANT?

By
Joseph Chez
For sometime, my wife has argued that beauty pageant contestants are no less than floozies walking around showing their software but lacking a hard drive. She opines that for any beauty pageant contestant to believe their looks are unique or above the norm, must truly be a veil to conceal their personal inequities. However, like most men, I have argued that beauty pageant contestants are not vetted for analytical skills or intellectual prowess but simply for their looks, which brings me to the issue of whether former beauty pageant contestant, Sarah Palin has truly gone rogue, or is simply trying to do damage control in hopes of getting back on stage as a future contestant?

However, it has not escaped me notice that conservative fox noise interviewers have been drooling when interviewing Sarah Palin. They claim that while they are discussing critical policy issues, the liberal media has been preoccupied with the salacious and inconsequential episodes of Sarah’s misunderstood persona. Although, when Sean Hannity asked “Governor” Palin if she believed President Obama was a socialist, she glossed over the question with a scrambled illustration of confusion. Did she really even understand the concept of socialism? Oh my god, I now understands my wife’s argument about beauty contestants; Sarah’s second coming is not a make-over of her body and mind, but simply, a Miss South Carolina Teen USA contestant revisited.

Notwithstanding, Sarah Paling appears to be gaining her confidence and it’s no longer about promoting her book as much as is to retake the political runway once more. Further providing her a false sense of accomplishment, is the tremendous following from her conservative base which seem oblivious to her simplistic view of the world. But she continues as if she was to become the crown jewel of the political pageant. And she will be, for the Grand Old Party and to the evangelical right-wing. However, having viewed a number of her interviews, I do not see Sarah Palin any different than how she was during the last election; she is intellectually poor, with a narrow view of the world, and with panache of a beauty contestant – nothing more. And while a great number of the conservative faithful are lined up for the circus, it should not translate into a belief that the gospel according to Sarah will be relevant in the end times. For I have seen the divine beauty contestants, including Carrie Prejean, and while there is a lot to look at, there is little, if any, intellectual discourse.

GOING ROGUE: AN AMERICAN PROFILE

By

Joseph Chez

Just like the legendary phoenix, Sara Palin is rising from the ashes, after having suffered a major defeat in the last presidential election and was further eviscerated by the media, rightfully so, or not. But, even after her crucifixion, Sarah continues to raise enthusiasm and support by a great portion of the American population. Surprisingly, despite having taken head-butts, left hooks and near knock-outs, inexperienced Sarah Barracuda appears to be staying in the political arena and keeps on punching.

In what appears as her resurrection, Sarah Palin has begun her comeback through a barrage of media interviews as well as promoting her new book, “Going Rogue: An American Life.” Her new book is now a hot seller and conservatives welcome its release akin to the advent of a new gospel, while liberals chuckle and deride the entire spectacle. Nonetheless, Sarah uses her scripture as a means to shore up her image but also to spread the conservative message for the faithful. However, most in the media see Sarah Palin’s book simply as a tell-all book that points fingers at others for her seemingly amateurish political performance during the election. And yet, the gospel according to Sarah is without a doubt, an affirmation and determination to “fight for America.”

Still, to like Sarah Palin or not, she should not be discounted nor surreptitiously vilified, as she is unquestionably the darling of the conservative movement in the heartland and perhaps, the leading republican candidate for 2012 or the 2016 presidential election. Moreover, despite current polls showing her having low percentages in her support for the presidency, there is the fact that 67 per cent of conservative republicans support Sarah Palin and see her as the hope of the Grand Old Party. Furthermore, Sarah Palin excites the passion of many in the Christian fundamentalist movement, the strong national defense crowd, the Tea Party movement, anti-government militias, 2nd Amendment supporters, the state right’s movement, the pro-life movement, the anti-environmental movement, proponents for government deregulation in business and industry, immigrant haters, the Joe six-pac(s), Joe the plumbers, John Birchers, Glen Beckies, and every jingoistic scoundrel which purports to love the country. In essence, Sarah Palin is just the girl next door; she is not the consequence but the symptom of the American profile. What is disconcerting however, is that Sarah is making a comeback, and as her fathers says: “she is not retreating, she’s reloading!”

THE BERLIN WALL DID NOT TEAR DOWN, IT CRUMBLED BY ITS OWN ILLEGITIMATCY.

By
Joseph Chez

November 9, 2009 marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. However, it is befitting to note that while we celebrate the downfall of this shameful wall of tyranny, existing walls of oppression are being built today –with little or no opposition from western democracies. One glaring example is the concrete wall that the Israelis have built surrounding the West Bank, shamefully enclosing Palestinians and depriving them of basic living standards and freedoms. Ironically, the Nazis in WWII walled a Jewish quarter in Krakow Poland under the same pretext of security for the homeland, but, history has determined otherwise.

So what were the reasons of building the Berlin wall and why did it crumble? As History now chronicles, in post WWII, Berlin became a divided city, mainly under the control of Western powers and the Soviet East Block. In East Berlin, the Berlin Wall was erected beginning August 13, 1961 under the decree of East German leader, Walter Ulbricht, in order to keep its people protected from the West, its influences and its freedoms. The decree for closing the border for travel restrictions between East and West Berlin was intended to last until 1989.

In 1985, a new Soviet leader rose to power in then, Soviet Russia. Mikhail Gorbachev successfully rose to power because of his own political credo of bringing change to the nation’s economy as well as his wish to bring an era of openness. Hence, the Soviet Block began a period of Perestroika (open market concepts) and Glasnost (freedom of expression). Soon Poland requested a waiver from the Kremlin to open its borders with the West for the exchange of goods and services. The Soviets saw that as an opportunity to test Perestroika and allowed it. What resulted was a massive and frenzied flood of Levy jeans, Nike sneakers and Beatles music records that began to pour into the Eastern block. However, profiteering became rampant as jeans were being sold in the black marker in Russia for up to $500.00 and there was no end. Thus, Mikhail Gorbachev decided to implement Perestroika through out the East Block.

In June 12, 1987 President Ronald Reagan was visiting Europe for a summit to discuss with other European leaders the American vision of a missile defense for Europe, the so called Star Wars Missile Defense System. However, part of his trip also included a visit to Berlin to give a speech about the virtues of Western democracy. We now know of course of his famous statement he made, asking Soviet Russia’s Chairman Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.”

In November 9, 1989, the Easter German government’s decree for closing the borders had come to and end and Mikhail Gorbachev did not interfere, and instead, allowed it to happen. Perestroika at last!

Thus, we celebrate with the German people on this historic reminder of shameful acts invoked in the name of security. But we should not forget that the human spirit does not recognize any legitimacy in walls of tyranny, but will find ways to make perpetrators conform to human decency and freedom. Martin Luther King Jr. once said: “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever.” A true statement guaranteed by history.

I SMOKED A DOOBIE WITH YOUNG BARACK AT OXY. IT’S WHERE WE BEGAN OUR PLAN FOR CHANGE – SO WHAT’S HAPPENED?

By

Joseph Chez

Barry, do you remember when life was just basketball, music and shooting the bull with our friends? Who can forget the good times we had at Haines Hall at Oxy, right? In fact, I still remember nights at the dorm in which music blared and the sweet smell of you know what, lingered up and down the hall. I also remember the day we were on the high, you took a bite of your favorite Hawaiian pizza from Casa Bianca’s and with a mouthful, you said; don’t call me Barry, my name is now Barack. You really looked so serious, but all I could do is laugh. Perhaps it was the high. But I don’t supposed you have forgotten your vigorous debates that started in professor Boesche’s Political Thought class, in which you robustly made your views for change? Something changed at Oxy alright –and you were never the same since.

Yes, you still played JV with the Tigers, but I knew that in your mind, young Barack was now interested in political discourse and philosophical thought. From there on, you began vigorous debates at the dorms, with brothers, Chicanos and young republicans like your friends – “J” Boyers or Ken (S). But I could never understand why you stopped calling the girl from Brentwood and you never said why. Yet, I knew your future was at hand. And as the smoke cleared in the dorm hall, it was still fun, but you truly began to take things to heart.
Yes, you became active for divestment of American public funds to end apartheid in South Africa - and you worked so hard. The day Nelson Mandela was released from jail, I believe we celebrated and it felt so right. And yet, many other things were on your our mind. For one thing, you did not like the war in Afghanistan and you used to argue that the Russians had no right to have invaded Afghanistan. You simply used to say, that the sovereignty of nations should not, for any reason, ever be compromised. And yes, you wanted to rid the world of hunger, poverty and to boot - get rid of all of nuclear weapons and bring proliferation to an end.

So Barack, I am proud to have stayed by your side, from Oxy, to Columbia, to Harvard and to the streets of Chicago, Illinois. But friend, Barack, the narrative of your story seems to have changed. You got to the White House and the world rejoiced, but the world questions what has happened to those principles that you said should never be compromised?
Mr. President, since you are now in charge, why are so many of the former president’s policies still in place? Much of the Patriot Act which diluted our constitutional rights continues to be in place. You were overwhelmingly elected by the American people to end the war, and yet, you have given your generals the leeway of determining the course for the war. Rendition of foreign nationals continues in foreign soil and frankly, such policy does nothing to RESET our moral goal. Guantanamo remains open in ghastly opposition by nations of the world and so we question; why you do not use your presidential pen for a presidential order to close Guantanamo and give justice to those who have not been tried or been convicted in a court of law?

Today the economy is showing signs of life, and yet, almost 10 per cent of the population remains unemployed, while Wall Street stock and securities pimps continue to rake in the dough. Yes, derivatives and shadowy hedge funds in the banking and securities market continue to thrive without meaningful government regulation. Bush’s privatization of the government continues unfettered; today, there are more private contractors in the war theatre of Afghanistan and Iraq than DOD personnel - with limitless funding and working only under an MOU (good faith agreement) for guidance. Thus, billions of tax dollars are being paid to these private contractors without taxpayer scrutiny. Moreover, the faith base funding, as envisioned by J.W. Bush, bless his soul, is currently funding much needed religious church buildings – which truly do not help those homeless who live under the bridge. The worthless “No Child Left Behind” left by the Bush administration remains almost intact and the humanities are out the window, while teachers only teach students standards that pit students against teachers and teachers against school administrators. However, the worst indictment Mr. President is your naïveté belief that you must build consensus in a bi-partisan fashion in order to bring about change. You must truly understand that republicans are just not into you, and that their main objective is to stand in the way - so democrats and you will fail. So I respectfully remind you sir, that you were overwhelmingly elected to lead and implement a democratic agenda, and that means: bringing the war in both Iraq and in Afghanistan to an end; instituting universal health care (a public option) for all and not succumbing to pressure from the health industry; completely ending the Cuban embargo without any preconditions (we do business with other totalitarian and communist states) ; strengthening environmental protection; decisively closing the Guantanamo gulag and returning the land to Cuba; pushing for strict governmental regulations on industry and commerce for the sake of consumer protections; reduce the war machinery and start investing in renewable and environmentally friendly energy; reduce the Pentagon’s limitless funding and start investing in higher education; and last, if we truly wish to end world terrorism, we must be forthright and take an even-handed foreign policy towards the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and abide by the United Nations mandate calling for a two state solution consistent with the 1967 borders.

In sum, I am still your friend and supporter Mr. President, but as the world remains hopeful for change, you must do your part and stand for principle and not political expediency. Wake up Barack!

U.S. DIPLOMATS RESIGNED IN PROTEST PRIOR TO THE INVASION OF IRAQ. IT CONTINUES TODAY OVER THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.

By


Joseph Chez

Current U.S. military presence in Iraq is not for the purpose of cleaning up after a whoop-tee-doo party or a mission accomplished. We remain in that country to forestall the inevitable; a civil war that will be the mother of all wars, as Saddam Hussein was known to say. However, many government officials also believe that the same fate waits for Afghanistan. So is anybody listening to the experts in foreign policy, the very same individuals who work with the nuts and bolts of what formulates and sustains our government policies?

Prior to the Invasion of Iraq in 2003 a large number U.S. government officials were sounding the alarm opposing plans by the Bush administration for the invasion of Iraq. In March 19, 2003, Ann Wright, a deputy chief of mission at a foreign U.S. embassy, a career Foreign Service officer and Army Reserve colonel, submitted her official resignation before Secretary of State Colin Powell. In December 2001, the deputy chief had been assigned to reopen the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, and it was there that she learned of the Bush Administration’s preoccupation with Iraq, rather than putting emphasis in the failed nation of Afghanistan – the point of origin for the 9-11 attack on U.S. soil. However, Bush was extremely confident and dogmatic about his pursuit of the war in Iraq. Later that year, May 1, 2003, in spite of world condemnation and internal government official opposition to the U.S. incursion, President Bush declared that the U.S. had fought for “the cause of liberty and the peace of the world.” In further denial, in his mission accomplished speech aboard the USS Lincoln, he unequivocally stated that, “the United States and our allies had prevailed” and that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. Regrettably, President Bush’s mission accomplished is yet to be realized. Nonetheless, the world laments the “smoking gun” argument and the premise that the invasion of Iraq was necessary. Further, with the exception of the political right-wing in the country, a large number of government officials forewarned the Bush Administration of an impending foreign policy blunder.

Thus, Ann Wright was correct in her convictions by pointing out that the country was on the wrong path with its foreign policy in the Middle East. In her dramatic explanation for her resignation, she simply stated that after serving her country for so many years, she could no longer represent the policies of an administration of the United States. In fact, she told Sec. of State Collin Powel, that she believed that the country had lost sympathy from most of the world because of our push for war against Iraq. And yet, she was not the only government officials who resigned in protest and in opposition with government policy. Several high ranking officials had previously resigned for similar reasons, although, their resignations had not been made public. But as Ann Wright broke ranks, many other senior diplomats followed. This was important, as Foreign Service officers never before used public resignation as a means to attempt to influence the government’s foreign policy or as a means of protest.

But going back to the future, after President Obama’s premise that the war in Afghanistan was not a war of choice but a war of necessity, an air of dissent is being felt once again amongst government officials. As casualties mount and a call for more troops is being asked by the Pentagon, many government officials in the State Department, DOD and various other government entities, are beginning to sound the alarm – publicly.

In a more recent situation just released to the public, another U.S. Foreign Service official, Mathew P. Hoh has once again, publicly resigned in protest over the war in Afghanistan. This former Marine Corps Captain and Senior Civilian Representative for the U.S. Government in Zabul Province in Afghanistan submitted his resignation – giving a critical and analytical narrative of the Afghan war - as a failed policy for a country on the edge of chaos. His resignation dated September 10, 2009 truly sent chills through the State Department and all the way to the White House. And with good reason, as these diplomats have immeasurable understanding of foreign policy, and in the case of Afghanistan, they are the analytical workhorses on the field: they are cognizant of the fragile alliances in the region; they understand what has not worked in the eight year military incursion; and they are the first to recognize a failed policy with no end. So, how can the U.S. honorably exit this war?

Foreign Service officer, Matthew P. Hoh put it best: “I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan.” “I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.” “To put simply: I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties in support of the Afghanistan government in what is, truly, a 35 year old civil war.”

Honorable Mathew Hoh was offered several promotions by the high and mighty mucky-mucks, in hopes of averting his resignation, but this Foreign Service officer simply chose honor and love of country over personal gain. He has sounded the alarm once again and it is hoped that President Obama learns from our past mistakes. And this is critical at this point, as President Obama will soon be announcing his decision as to whether he will increase troop levels or if he will bring an end to the ever-expanding conflict. The President must realize that our presence in that part of the world is the spark for conflict and not the seeds for liberty or democracy, as President Bush vehemently believed. Let’s remember that a mission accomplished can truly become a mission impossible.
///

ROYALTY must abdicate their archaic throne and get in line for the use of the commode.

By Joseph Chez

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the human race to dissolve the myth of the oldest political bandits who have assumed wealth and power over their subjects - under the phony declaration of divine providence. Neither nature nor God entitles any one person special descent or privilege.

We are at the door step of the 21st Century and it is self evident that all men are created equal. We have now mapped the genetics of many living species and we are close to mapping the entire human genome. Thus, there is irrefutable scientific evidence that all human beings are 99.9% biologically the same, with the remaining amount of variance accounting for regional and ongoing genetic mutations. Accordingly, the existence of monarchs and other royalty in today’s society is simply incongruent with reality. So we must ask: why royalty and monarchs remain with the privilege of governance or hold privileged and distinguished social titles, when they should also get in line with the rest of us, for use of the latrine?

Royalty or devoted followers may argue that such social titles are determined by special lineage. In the past, royals claimed direct lineage from “a” God. However, the Universal Creator has not publicly given notice of such royal preference. There is also the argument that royals have special bloodlines. Although, 21st Century science empirically shows that there is no blue blood in human beings, despite the fact that royal bloodlines do come close to genetic degeneration. And just like the horseshoe crab which truly has blue blood, royalty and the horseshoe crab are both living fossils. Notwithstanding, others would argue that present day monarchies exist at the pleasure of its subjects. Yes, but must society continues to accept the concept of special privilege in today’s egalitarian society? Must society accept such concept, when royalty was the building blocs of intolerance, colonization, social casting and slavery?

We know of course that much of the Western Hemisphere was claimed as property in the name of European monarchs. Christopher Columbus claimed the new world in the name of Spain’s Queen Isabella, which led to the decimation of indigenous peoples, their culture and religion. For English America, the Jamestown peninsula became the staging ground for the first English colony to have slaves brought from Africa by ships owned and operated by the “King’s men.” In the British dominion of India, a social caste system was established as a way for the Indians to understand and accept the concept of British royalty. In colonial Africa, the British Kingdom laid the ground work for separate social and economic relations that were based along racial and ethnic lines. These insidious practices culminated into an apartheid social system which now shames the conscience.

Written in stone and blood, history reminds us of European monarchs leading crusades into the land of the bible and saving the faith at the cost of foreign blood. When the British Kingdom replaced Turkish rule in 1922, one of its lasting ills was to divide the Arabs along ethnic lines by simply exploiting minor differences in their religious practices. To this date, conflict plagues the area between Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims with yet untold consequences.

However, it is fair to say that today, few monarchs and so-called royals hold any governance in existing “kingdom” states, but they do play roles in ceremonial post. Nonetheless, the royal families in those countries continue to thrive with public funds such as in Spain and in the British Kingdom. However, even holding or being a ceremonial figure, is no longer acceptable in today’s world as it constitutes a de facto recognition of privileged labels and supporting a caste system. Royals today are supremacist in semi or official public roles and they have no place in this 21st Century.

For those royal fans and apologist, if you still believe Royalty deserve their self-appointed social titles or a privilege lifestyle at public expense, think again; ask yourself if royalty is biologically different or descend from divine providence. If you still do, I urge you to take a big whiff after a royal flush of the king or queen’s throne, and if you still think it smells divine, you probably are insane, believe in magic or you are royal fool. Wheeoow!

BALLOON FAMILY UP IN THE AIR BY MEDIA HYPE

By Joseph Chez

Hype but not felonious I would say. In fact, it’s the American Way. Yes, as the world was watching President Obama speak before an audience in the State of Louisiana, the live broad cast was suddenly interrupted by CNN to give coverage to a run away helium balloon, which it was thought, was carrying a minor child on board. As the hullabaloo continued, the dramatics were hyped by the tense situation being presented by the media. Did the child fall, as it was reported or maybe not?

This was great news on the go; tension, drama unfolding and life hanging on the balance. By now we have all seen on TV the 50 mile or so chase by military planes and helicopters, the media flanking the helium balloon, plus the hundred or so rescue personnel trampling the Colorado soil. But if anyone thinks it was live TV coverage, it was not. CNN decided to insert a 10 second delay on the broadcast to protect the public from potentially watching a human tragedy unfold. Fortunately, and to the surprise of the peering masses, as ground personnel reached the partially deflated fiasco, there was no child on board. Darn, this would have been Nielsen's top ratings. But, the story is not dead yet and the media was not about to let it go. Thus, the media continued the story with gut instinct - that there was more.

By evening, prime time questioning began and the prosecution interviewed the Heene family with determination and leading questions - which lead to much speculation that the Heene family had in fact, created a publicity stunt, staged and produced by a set of unlikely characters wanting to achieve the American Dream.

Originally the Colorado, Laramie County Sheriff, was only contemplating filing misdemeanor charges for filing a false police report. However, with such de minimis (inconsequential) charge, the story would have ended, if not for the economic consequences. Thus, the relentless media pressed for more: what about child endangerment; whose going to pay for public sources used in the chase; and what about potential danger to air flights in nearby corridors? Feeling the media blitz, the sheriff sort-of changed his mind and is now reporting to the media, that there may be more - felonious charges that is.

We now understand that the Heene family may have concocted the hoax, perhaps in hopes of cashing-in. Maybe, as the entire issue is still undetermined and has not been adjudicated by a court of law. But, why is there still so much hype about this story? As a participant-observer, it seemed to me that CNN and other media sources were milking the story with much gusto and bottom line - for ratings and the profit margin, right? So let's be honest; are we not enthralled with media hype and their juicy stories? Just about every product out in the market: movies, books or even public personalities, are known to create eye-catching, or gossip-laden hoax situations that in the end, translate into mucho dinero. Have we forgotten the vulva on TV from a Hollywood starlet who, we were told, wanted to attract media attention? And who is to forget the octo-mom and the eight helpless little babies? Did the Media not demonize the mother, while at the same time, fill in add space in their programming? And last, we must not forget the Pentagon’s in-bedded media which reported to us many false heroic scenes from the war, which in reality – never took place.

Yes, the Heene family may have concocted a phony story, but isn’t it the American Way? Are we all not part of the economic sub-plot? Not only do we observe, but we all participate in the scheme of making money. Thus, the media must back off and give it a rest. Furthermore, the Heene family should be commended for their innovative stupidity, but they do not deserve the media circus which wants blood, or a police force with self-serving desires, and much less, the children taken away by CPS.

In sum, the question remains as to whether the Heene family has committed felonious acts and must they be relegated to prison life because of their unlawful acts? NOT. Of course, there ought to be a statute which covers moronic situations such as this – in which needless time is spent on superfluous speculation and damnation. For the co-conspirator, the media, it should BACK-OFF. Who the hell’s Wolfe?