J.A.K.’s OpenSalon Site

MightyFag’s OpenSalon Site

“…we know for sure that the big spending programs of the New Deal did not work. In 1940, unemployment was still 15%. And, it’s widely agreed among economists, that what got us out of the doldrums that we were in during the Depression was the beginning of World War II.” (1)

First of all, when we look at history there is very little that we can say we know for sure.  Historians argue virtually everything from the widest of generalities to the most minute of details.  Indeed, scholars frequently look at the exact same set of data and manage to extrapolate completely different theories, interpretations, and policy implications from the data in question.  So at the outset, I would warn anyone who may read this to be wary of anyone who claims to know anything for sure, without a doubt.  I am about to tell you what I know for sure based on my reading of history and you probably should believe me either.

The reality is that while we do know that the New Deal and its spending programs did end the Great Depression, evidence that big spending in general did is so overwhelming that we actually might be able to say that we know for sure big spending ended the Great Depression.  Right off the bat, McConnell is not only stating absolutes that he can’t back up, but he is twisting the truth into lies in hopes that most Americans will never know the difference.  PROVE HIM WRONG!

We can go further in criticism of this statement than simply refuting absolutes.  We can easily call into questions the things he claims to know for sure and expose them as statements that, while containing grains of historical fact. are meant to mislead and create false truths to be fed to the masses who are not so well versed in the details of the nations economic history.  First McConnell states that, “In 1940, unemployment was still 15%.”  While it is true that in 1940 unemployment was around 15%, what McConnell fails to qualify his statement with is the fact that the unemployment rate had fallen some 13% as a result of the New Deal.  In 1933 when the First New Deal was implimented, the unemployment rate was at 25%.  Because of the jobs created by New Deal spending, between 1933 and 1937 unemployment fell to as low as 12%, then moved up a bit to around 15% prior to the U.S. entrance into WWII. (2)  In addition, not only did the New Deal help to drastically reduce the unemployement rate during the Great Depression, but it also helped increase GDP consistently between 1933 and 1937.  During that time period, the heart of New Deal spending, GDP increased by over $250 billion from around $600 billion to over $850 billion by 1937,

 Senator McConnell’s attempt, by citing an unemployment number almost twice the current rate, to paint a picture in which the New Deal failed to solve the nation’s unemployment problem and stimulate the economy melts away like sugar in water upon even the most casual exploration of historical records.  McConnell’s statement and intention regarding unemployment and the New Deal is shown as a half truth at best, and at worst one that is meant to deliberately mislead the American people in an attempt to dissuade them from supporting President Obama and his political party.  McConnell, the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate, is playing politics with our nation, with our economy, with our future prosperity.  He is despicable and should be exposed for the obstructionist that he is.  He should be promptly voted from office at the earliest opportunity.

The next and final portion of this statement that must be addressed is his assertion that the majority of economists agree that was WWII that got us out of the Great Depression.  The implication being made is that it was not the big spending programs of the New Deal that got us out of the Great Depression and that therefore history shows us that big spending, such as that currently being proposed by Congressional Democrats and President Obama, is proven to be ineffective at pulling our economy out of dire economic straits.  Again, if we actually take only casual glance at historical records we can see this assertion for the misleading statement that it is.

The statement all by itself is true, just as is the statement made regarding the unemployment rate in 1940.  However, the implication being made by McConnell is easily shown as false.  Economists do largely agree that while the New Deal went far in alleviating the suffering of the Great Depression by creating jobs for the millions who were out of work and hungry, it did not end the depression.  The New Deal was not a perfect package that solved the problem no questions asked.  McConnell is misleading because while correctly stating that it was WWII that ended the Great Depression, he stops there leaving us with implication that New Deal big spending failed.

What McConnell leaves out is an explanation of how WWII brought us out of the Great Depression.  Did the war cause so much consumer confidence that banks started lending and consumers starting spending?  People began investing again becuase the war brought them such a sense of security, safety, and confidence?  No.  This is not what happened.  The reason that WWII brought us out of the Great Depression is because the U.S. government, in order to wage war against Germany and Japan on a global scale, had to pump more money into many different segments of the economy than was ever done through the New Deal.  That’s right, it was BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING that ended the Great Depression.  The U.S. government spent some $341 billion on its involvement in WWII. (3)  The equivalent in todays terms, taking inflation over 60 years into account, is $3.5 trillion dollars. (4)  Compre this to the $32 billion that was spent on the New Deal, the equivalent today of around $500 billion. (5)  So what our government is proposing to spend today could be said to be roughly about what was spent during the New Deal, a bit more, when adjusted for 60 years of inflation.  That didn’t work, but not because the stimulus does not come in the form of tax cuts, as McConnell and his Republican Party would have us believe.  Rather it didn’t work because it wasn’t enough spending.  It took seven times the amount of spending that took place in the New Deal to pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression.  When viewed from this perspective, we can safely predict that the current stimulus plan may fail because it does not spend enough.

True, the money spent during WWII was not spent on roads, bridges, unemployment benefits, or food stamps.  It wasn’t grants to the National Endowment for the Arts, grants for scientific research and development in green energy or aid to sorely underfunded and grossly over-mandated school districts.  It wasn’t spending on these things that ended the Great Depression.  However, the stimulus provide by WWII that did bring that economic crisis to a close also did not come in the form of massive tax cuts as the Republican Party and its leaders would have us have us believe we should impliment to solve the current crisis.  It was MASSIVE spending on bombs, textiles for uniforms, paychecks, planes, ships, bullets, rubber, oil, food, and everything else that goes into supplying and equiping a military for a global conflict.  In fact, it was spending more than three times more than what congress is currently proposing be spent to stimulate the economy.

The exposure of this misleading and false interpretation of history begs the question of whether massive spending similar, if perhaps not quite so generous, to that seen during WWII could bring us out of our current and deep recession.  Republicans have tried to make the claim that the stimulus proposes to spend too much money by comparing it to The New Deal and showing that this bill proposes to spend even more.  But when we look at history objectively, we can see that during the Great Depression and the New Deal, even more spending was exactly what was needed.  While the big spending of the New Deal didn’t solve the problem, it turns out that this is because the spending wasn’t big enough.  It was not until even more massive spending, equivalent to some $3.5 trillion today, was undertaken to prepare for and fight WWII that enough stimulus was provided to the economy to jolt it out of the depression.

Once again, Republicans are lying to the public in order to create fear.  Only now the great menace is not the terrorists, but the Democratic Party and big government spending.  The boogeyman big spending will further damage the economy and Americans will suffer.  Unless we put massive business tax cuts in place we are all doomed!  Don’t buy into their fear mongering.  Don’t take their lies at face value.  Look at the history, look at the numbers yourself and it becomes clear that big spending ended the Great Depression and big spending can pull us out of our current recession.

The Courage Campaign – an organizing group for progressives – is leading a political action to contact the Supreme Court of California called “please don’t divorce us” that puts a real face on the issue of gay marriage.

“Fidelity”: Don’t Divorce… from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

It has become perfectly clear that the case against gay marriage in California isn’t about protecting the fundamental instution of marriage, or any of the lies that the pro prop-8 campaigns spread. The fight against gay marriage in my opinion, is a clear case to marginalize gay and lesbian citizens, obliterate any chances that they can enjoy the same rights and protections as straight citizens, and to legally categorize them as second-class citizens. Personal judgments, discrimination and religiously-supported bigotry are the motivating factors behind this and we need to organize and solidify our counter-attack. We need to speak to minorities and those who have a cultural bias against gays and lesbians and help them to understand that this is an issue of fundamental rights, and not about sex or morals. Those of us who are gay and lesbian need to come out to our friends, coworkers and family and put a face on this issue – so they will see that their voting behaviors directly affect people all around them. And finally, we need to make a concerted effort to take political power away from these mega-churches and remove their ability to meddle in politics and still maintain their tax-exept statuses.

The gloves are off, and I’m swinging back!

The GOP, largely thanks to the Reagan/Bush legacy and their cronies, are left with the biggest P.R. problem since Watergate. How do they bring people back to their party? How to they define themselves and their values when the last 30 years have proven that their approach doesn’t work? Three different approaches are emerging in the face of this identity crisis.

Hold Fast!

The first, held by most of the old timers, is to dig deep into the trenches of conservatism and continue to hold the line of “less government is good and leave business to run itself”. These folks think that the best response to a country that’s leaning left is to lean further right.

For example, in President Obama’s first major piece of legislation (the economic stimulus package, or “Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending 2009″) the minority Republican portion of the House of Representatives, led by John Boehner voted completely in opposition to the package. That’s right… ZERO (0) votes in favor of the resolution. President Obama reached out, trying to get Republican support for the bill even though he didn’t need it, in an effort to have bipartisan support for the recover of our nation’s economy. They didn’t budge, and voted in a block – classic Republican voting strategy. The measure passed thanks to the Democratic majority in the House even though some Democratic Representatives voted against the measure.

From the Washington Post Article: Republicans continued to press to have more of their proposals included. Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the House minority whip tasked with rounding up the opposition, said the vote delivered a message to Obama: “Tell Speaker Pelosi to begin to work with us.”

How very truly ironic. When the Republicans were in the majority they never worked with the Democrats. They just steam-rolled whatever they wanted and went ahead with their agenda of corporatocracy. This technique of holding fast to the Bush/Reagan platform is not going to garner any public support in the near future. It simply paints the Republican Party as a party of negative attitudes in a sea of hope.

We’re Young and Cool Too!

The second approach the neocons are taking is to ride the wave of Obama’s well-sown hope and rejuvination by presenting young and vibrant minority candidates that are part of the Republican Party. It’s the “we’re cool and we aren’t just white guys” approach that clearly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding around why Obama was so well received by the American populace.

Sarah Palin

This whole current started with the nomination of Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate under John McCain. Most people responded with a “what?” to her nomination, but Republicans everywhere were thrilled with her. She was deeply conservative, a woman and young – CLEARLY a competitor for Obama, right? Wrong.

Sarah Palin proved to have the eloquence of George W. Bush combined with the looks of Tina Fey and the agenda of Charlton Heston. Her public gaffes were legendary and she only succeeded in showing the world just how old John McCain really was, and just how clueless about politics and economics she was.

Ms. Palin continues to make a public fool out of herself by criticizing the media for prodding into her family and personal life (after she paraded out her children and family as a political tool), and for mocking her on shows like Saturday Night Live (free speech, darlin’ – we still have it in this country, and satire is the oldest form of it). She doesn’t seem to understand that the more she stands in the spotlight, the more people are going to notice her flaws.

Her latest endeavors include SarahPAC – a political action committee dedicated to: “building America’s future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation.” (Source)

Bobby Jindal

Then there’s Bobby Jindal, the governor from Louisiana. Hey, he’s young, he’s of Indian descent (dot, not feather) and he’s Roman-Catholic, AND REPUBLICAN! Perfect, right? (Notice how being a Catholic isn’t a big deal because his other minority statuses make him a perfect match for their quasi-racist perspectives on this whole thing.)

There’s talk of him being slated to run on the 2012 presidential ticket, and that his youth and charisma will make him a shining star. The problem is that his politics are more of the same. That, coupled with the exorcism he helped with on his friend Susan, makes him a bit of a questionable candidate. An exorcism? What? Read for yourself.

These candidates and others are being touted as the great hope for the Republican party who mistakenly look at Obama’s victory as being one of race. Obama didn’t win because he’s African American. He didn’t win because he is a minority. He won because he presented a campaign of hope in dark times, he is incredibly well spoken, a constitutional scholar and thus understands the way our country SHOULD work, and he was a non-insider running for office to get in there and scrap away all of the awful damage done by George W. Bush. But the Republicans are blind to this fact because they see no fault with what W. did.

More of the Same

The Third Option the Republican Party has been taking is, sadly, more of the same. A negative, smear campaign to erode away the popularity of the president and his party. The previous propaganda-spreading devices of conservative talk radio and conservative television opinion shows are now being used to foster distrust and attempt to paint this administration in a negative light.

Rush Limbaugh

Enter good old Rush Limbaugh. This oxycontin-chugging talking hole has done plenty in his career to discredit himself and present himself as nothing more than a “shock-jock” who spouts hate and sows distrust in our country. His gaffes included accusing Michael J. Fox of faking his Parkinson’s Disease and the latest is stating publicly on the radio that he “hopes Obama fails” at what he is doing. He has never had the country’s best interests in mind, just his own. He takes advantage of those who don’t have access to good sources of information and fills their heads with talking points handed down directly from the Republican Party and passes them off as if they are facts. This man, simply put, should be taken off the air and forgotten forever.

Matt Drudge

Then there’s Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report. Claiming everything from Global Warming being a hoax, to the Obama Stimulus Package giving money to illegals, to misquoting information as if it were “facts” about the federal funding to prevent STD transmission in the latest stimulus package.

News flash, having a big website that LOOKS like a newspaper, doesnt’ mean you’re actually toting news or facts. It just means you are using CSS styles obnoxiously. Check out a simple search on crooksandliars.com on Matt Drudge and see the extent of his misinformation campaign for yourself.

My Advice

So where does the Republican Party go from here? Well, I’m not an advocate for a one-party system, no matter what party is in control. I think there needs to be balance and debate to hone the best legislature out there. I like the problem that the Republican Party is facing is one of religion versus politics, and that a separation of the two will greatly assist them in recovering some validity in the eyes of the public.

First, they need to ditch the radical evangelican Christian platform. The evangelican agenda is one of intrusion into personal lives and a legislation of morality – these go against classical “Goldwater Republican” values that uphold privacy as paramount. This will eliminate the abortion issue, gay rights issues and issues around any religious or spiritual practice. Allow the evangelicals to evaluate their own values and form their own party apart from the Republican party – eject them right out of the GOP.

Next, go back to a classical “stay out of my personal life” platform – one where small businesses can start up with minimal government intrusion, where personal freedoms (like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press) are guaranteed, and where certain things that are currently viewed as priviledges are instead embraced as rights (education, health, a living wage, etc.) This will allow them to pick up some of the progressive leaning Republicans who went Democratic.

Finally, they need to cut themselves away from the corporate apron strings. Their blatant and transparent actions that cowtow to corporate interests are making them lose traction in the greater populace. Stand for FAIR trade and FAIR business practices, instead of laissez-faire business that merely leads to economic bubbles that burst into depressions (like our current economic situation.) Stand up for the working class and support the middle class and you’ll regain some followers.

For the first time, an openly gay person will be at the head of a nation’s government.  How much, if at all this will affect the gay rights movement in the United States or anywhere else in the world is not known of course.  This may be something of a small victory.  But it is a victory nonetheless and one that should celebrated.

Bush issued massive tax cuts, mostly to the wealthy of America, and it did nothing but hurt our economy in the end by leaving nothing in government coffers amidst massive war spending and corporate deregulation.  Now in spite of the fact that tax cuts, which are relatively ineffective at stimulating an economy and encouraging spending, make up a full 1/3 of the stimulus bill as it currently stands, Republicans are still not satisfied (most likely because those tax cuts are for normal Americans who are not rich).  So now we are seeing all over the news Republicans up in arms and threatening to vote against the package because they say it spends too much money and does not include enough tax cuts!

Did Republicans miss the fact that they lost the election?  Not just the presidential election mind you, but also elections in the House and the Senate.  YOU LOST!  THEY LOST!  The American people spoke in favor the Democratic solution and yet we are being subjected to a watering down of that solution because our supposedly liberal politicians insist on being bipartisan and appeasing what is now nothing more than a small, pesky, outdated minority party.  What is bipartisan is not what we need right now.  What we need is what will work and massive tax cuts have been proven over and over again to provide very little economic stimulus in such dire times as these.  At best such tax cuts do nothing more than slightly increase spending during times when the economy is already strong and the consumers confidence is already high.  At the very least, the Democratic government needs to put together a package that is mostly comprised of infrastructure spending, aid to the unemployed, and alternative energy investment in order to truly stimulate the economy from the bottom up, create millions of jobs, and create a transformed, new green economy that currently does not exist, but needs to exist. 

I think perhaps Democrats have no courage.  I don’t know how else to put it.  During the Bush Administration, particularly when he had Republican majorities in the House and Senate to back him up, the debate over compromise between the two parties was consistently framed in terms of Democrats, as the minority party and the party not in the White House, being willing to give in to Republican philosophy and policy demands.  Somehow, in spite of the fact that the tables have technically turned and Democrats now hold large majorities throughout the government, the nature of this debate has not shifted.  Democrats are still acting like they are a minority party who must bow to the will of the Republicans in order get anything accomplished.  This is not the case.  Democrats do not need Republican votes and playing politics by watering down this legislation to virtual ineffectiveness in order to be bipartisan and share any potential blame is playing games with our country’s future.  Compromise is not synonymous with Democrats giving in, it does not mean Democrats creating a stimulus bill that looks like it was written by Republicans.  It is time for Republicans to compromise, to give in.  That is what the American people demanded when we fired the Republican Party and swept Democrats to huge victories and majorities in the last two elections.  Democrats need to shut out the whining and complaining of the failed Republican Party, vote to pass the package without them, and move towards fixing what has been broken, mostly by Republican administrations, over the last few decades.

And so what does stimulate the economy the most?  Infrastructure spending has already been mentioned.  The graph below shows that the three types of spending that provide the most stimulus and create the most additional spending are increases in food stamps, the extention of unemployment benefits, and infrastructure spending.  Let’s look at these briefly, how they stimulate the economy, and how these three areas have been watered down in the current package in order to make room for massive tax cuts that will do little to stimulate our dying economic system.

We can see from the graph above that for every $1 spent on food stamps and additional $1.73 in spending is generated, an additional $1.64 in spending is generated for every $1 in extended unemployment benefits, and for every $1 spent on infrastructure an additional $1.59 in spending is generated.  On the other hand for every dollar in tax cuts you have anywhere from only $.30 to around $1 in additional spending generated. 

If this is the case, why does the current stimulus bill look the way it does?  Right now infrastructure spending accounts for only $90 billion out of $825 billion, only 10% of the bill.  Only $43 billion is slotted for extending unemployment benefits and only $20 billion is set aside for increased spending on food stamps.  All in all, the three most effective economic stimulators account for only a measly 18.5% of the current stimulus package while tax cuts account for a full third, 33.33% of the package! (1)  Are we supposed to expect this package to truly stimulate our economy and create jobs? 

Briefly, we must also ask if the size of the stimulus package in general is really enough to jolt our economy back to life.  This question is all the more important in the face of Republican pressure to further slash the bill’s spending provisions in favor of more tax cuts.  Our annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for 2007 was roughtly $14 trillion. (2)  That is $14,000 trillion.  To give you an idea of how much money that really is, if you make $50,000 per year it will take you 16.5 million years to earn $14 tillion.  With a stimulus package of $825 billion (only 66% of which is actually spending) the stimulus package amounts to only 5.8% of our total annual GDP.  Can we really expect that such small change, relatively speaking, is actually going to stimulate the economy?  Perhaps it will, but in light of the massive amounts of money generated on average by our economy each year, I think the question is an important one that should be addressed with all seriousness by those in our government who are working to solve this problem rather than simply using it as an excuse to provide the wealthy with more tax relief.

If we are trying to “get the most bang for our buck” it seems clear that tax cuts are not the direction in which our government needs to be looking.  This does not necessarily mean that there should not be any tax cuts included in the package, but this information does force us to question whether the current package already leans too far in the direction of tax cuts and sells America short when it comes to truly effective means of spending and economic stimulation.  If this is the case, then we must ask whether or not our government is doing the right thing by heeding the cries of a party that has done nothing but fail us both politically and economically for most of the last decade and beyond.

Today, Republican politicians are urging each other to vote against the stimulus package if it is not watered down further, if Obama and Congressional Democrats do not weaken the package even more by ejecting spending and adding even more tax cuts that will benefit the wealthy more than those who truly need the help.  I call on Democrats to take Republicans at their word.  Let them vote against the package.  Who cares!  Their votes are NOT needed to pass the bill.  I would go even further and encourage our Democratic leadership to change the package to include fewer tax cuts and more infrastructure spending, more spending to help those who have lost their jobs, more spending to create a green, clean economy for the future.  Let Republicans take a backseat, let them push themselves further into fringes of American political philosophy and policy where they belong.  Then, finally, the rest of us can get busy doing the important work that needs to be done to fix this nation’s economy.

At a crossroads on gay unions

By John Lewis 10/25/03

From time to time, America comes to a crossroads. With confusion and controversy, it’s hard to spot that moment. We need cool heads, warm hearts, and America’s core principles to cleanse away the distractions.

We are now at such a crossroads over same-sex couples’ freedom to marry. It is time to say forthrightly that the government’s exclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from civil marriage officially degrades them and their families. It denies them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It denies them numerous legal protections for their families.

This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.

Some say let’s choose another route and give gay folks some legal rights but call it something other than marriage. We have been down that road before in this country. Separate is not equal. The rights to liberty and happiness belong to each of us and on the same terms, without regard to either skin color or sexual orientation.

Some say they are uncomfortable with the thought of gays and lesbians marrying. But our rights as Americans do not depend on the approval of others. Our rights depend on us being Americans.

Sometimes it takes courts to remind us of these basic principles. In 1948, when I was 8 years old, 30 states had bans on interracial marriage, courts had upheld the bans many times, and 90 percent of the public disapproved of those marriages, saying they were against the definition of marriage, against God’s law. But that year, the California Supreme Court became the first court in America to strike down such a ban. Thank goodness some court finally had the courage to say that equal means equal, and others rightly followed, including the US Supreme Court 19 years later.

Some stand on the ground of religion, either demonizing gay people or suggesting that civil marriage is beyond the Constitution. But religious rites and civil rights are two separate entities. What’s at stake here is legal marriage, not the freedom of every religion to decide on its own religious views and ceremonies.

I remember the words of John Kennedy when his presidential candidacy was challenged because of his faith: “I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source — where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials — and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

Those words ring particularly true today. We hurt our fellow citizens and our community when we deny gay people civil marriage and its protections and responsibilities. Rather than divide and discriminate, let us come together and create one nation. We are all one people. We all live in the American house. We are all the American family. Let us recognize that the gay people living in our house share the same hopes, troubles, and dreams. It’s time we treated them as equals, as family (source).

Today is a truly momentous day.  I am a white, straight, middle class man – as little a part of any minority group as a person could be.  Today is a truly momentous day.  It does not, or at least should not matter what your background is be it by birth or by choice of socio-political preference and affiliation.  Today is a truly momentous day.  Today Barak Hussein Obama, son of an African immigrant and a white American mother, who lived as a boy in the predominantly Muslim country of Indonesia, a man who truly represents African Americans, Americans of European decent, Americans of mixed heritage.  He is a man who represents both the majority and the minority of this nation through the very blood that runs through his veins (sorry women, I suppose you are still left out in this physiological sense).  It is a historical moment.  President Obama is not only the first black President of the U.S., a nation that actively endorsed and engaged in forcing the African people into slavery as recently as only a few generations ago, he is also the first minority president in the history of any western industrialized nation.  That makes this a momentous day not only for Americans, but literally for people all over the world.

Do not misunderstand.  I have many reservations about President Obama.  There are a number of issues on which I sit nervously at the edge of my seat, unsure of whether or not I will end up approving of and supporting his decisions and actions.  I did not vote for President Obama (in fact I have never voted for a Democrat or Republican presidential candidate).  Yet this is still a momentous day and regardless of whether I approve or disapprove of Obama as his term as President unfolds into the future, today is a day of celebration.  It does not matter that I did not vote for him, that I was not a supporter who helped elect him to office.  It does not even matter what my opinion of him is tomorrow.   It is still a day of celebration.  I could not help but feel a sense of pride, joy, hope as I watched him fumble through the oath of office and give a somber, but inspirational inaugural speech. 

This is not a perfect country.  We still have much to learn.  We have a tremendous amount of progress that still needs to be made.  Today, however, we showed ourselves as a nation as well as the world at large that we do have the capacity to grow, to change, to progress, to overcome the faults and mistakes of a dark past and move forward into a somewhat brighter and more inclusive future.  Today is truly a tremendous day, a day of celebration, joy, and hope for a better tomorrow.

At the same time it is a day of celebration for another reason entirely and yet related.  Today was the end of the Bush presidency.  Today was hopefully the end of an era of Bush presidents, both of whom have helped drive the world into war and economic peril over the past two decades.  I am almost 30 years old.  If you include the eight years that George H. W. Bush was Vice President under Ronald Regan I have lived 66.6% of my life under the rule of the Bush family (and I won’t even begin to try and wonder of the unlikely yet mystically possible implications of the above number in relation to the current thought process).  And so, after 20 of my 30 years of life having little choice but to live under the leadership of this inept family dynasty, today we celebrate the end. 

When Bush Jr. was introduced at today’s inauguration and millions of people booed.  I felt happy.  When he and his wife left in the marine helicopter and millions of people sang, “Na na na na, hey hey hey, good-bye!”  I was proud of this nation.  I know it was rude, but he deserves it and I sincerely hope it makes him seriously ponder his last eight years and the nothing but disastrous effect he has had on this nation and the rest of the world.  A leadership based on fear and divisiveness, warlords and corporate interests, secrecy and lies has finally come to an end.  It is truly a day of celebration.  America and its people can once again hold their heads high.  We can once again say, “I am an American” without feeling a sense of utter shame and humiliation. 

Today we can celebrate.  Bush is gone.  We can, perhaps, have pride in our government again.  As President Obama said so passionately in his inaugural speech, “Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ouselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.”  And so today we celebrate.  Tomorrow President Obama goes to work, the nation goes to work as we try and rebuild our reputation, our place in the world, our economy, and our way of life in the wake of the catastrophic event that has been the George W. Bush presidency and the Bush era in general.  I truly cannot express my jubilation.  Thank goodness he is fainlly gone! 

One of the things that stood out for me as the new president took his oath was how the Chief Justice stumbled in his administering of the oath. It was as if this puppet justice, appointed by Bush and his corporatist cronies, knew that the jig was up. We can only hope that in addition to his promises of energy independence, a revival and preservation of civil rights, a restoration of our country’s reputation around the world and a revitalization of our economy, that President Obama will also remember that part of defending the Constitution includes holding those who have broken its laws accountable.

I know we are all elated about the new president and the hope that he brings, but I firmly hold that in order to move forward, we need to mend the wounds of the past and make amends where we can. The time is NOW to hold former president George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of the amerofascists, accountable for their war crimes, their illegal wire tapping programs, their negligence in handling of federal disasters like Katrina, lying to the American people in the face of counterintelligence about weapons of mass destruction, breaking habeas corpus, and the multitude of other crimes they commited.

We need to remember, and make visible to the entire world, that the United States of America is a nation of laws an that NO MAN is above the law.

Let’s assume that this is all fine and well. Charles McArthur Emmanuel has been convicted of torture, he has done horrible things, and he should get a heavy sentence, right? I have no problem with that. I will assume he did commit egregious crimes that should carry a heavy punishment. What I do have a problem with is the hypocrisy that flows like a powerful, raging torrent through the heart of this request from the DOJ.

The DOJ is part of the executivebranch of the federal government. The job of the executive branch, as laid out by the U.S. Constitution, is to enforce the laws that are passed by the legislative branch of the federal government. The U.S. Department of Justice is one of the many departments (others include the DHS, the FBI, the EPA, etc) within the executive branch that have been created to help facilitate the carrying out of this Constitutional task. So we could easily say that the DOJ is doing in job in making such a request.

The hypocrisy lies in the fact while the DOJ is seeking such a harsh penalty for a non-American citizen convicted in an American court for crimes committed in another country, Americans who have been convicted torture and prisoner abuse in Iraq, under U.S. jurisdiction have been given nothing more than slaps on the wrist. Where were the calls from the DOJ for heavy sentencing for Private First Class Lynndie England? She was only sentenced to three years in prison. What about Specialist Charles Graner? He received the heaviest sentence of any of those accused for torturing and abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib. He was given a hefty 10 year sentence at Ft. Leavenworth military prison. Have there been any trials related to the use of water boarding by the U.S. military?

Not a new method, this photo shows American soldiers using waterboarding during the Vietnam War.

Recently the Senate Armed Services Committee, which includes 12 Republicans, issued a report from their investigation into instances of torture on the part of U.S. military personnel. In their report they accuse top ranking officials from the Bush Administration, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, of being responsible for the “abuse of prisoners” that has occurred at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba (source). Of course “prisoner abuse” is our slanted way of saying torture so we can still feel good about ourselves and our place of moral superiority in the world. Not only did top administration officials encourage the use of torture but they are trying to redefine American law in such a way that allows them to argue that they have done nothing wrong or illegal.

In an interview with Jonathan Karl, Dick Cheney himself says the U.S. openly uses torture and that top level administrators, including himself, were aware of the torture programs. He just doesn’t use the word torture. He admits to the use of tactics such as water boarding to elicit information from prisoners such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. However, he justifies such tactics on the basis that the Bush

Dick Cheney

Administration sought legal opinions from the DOJ on the matter of interrogation techniques and were given the go ahead (source). So basically, “Our own legal team said it was okay to torture and so we do. Since our lawyers said we could, it is legal and since it is legal it is not torture.” Does that about sum it up Cheney?

Token sentence were given to U.S. military personnel convicted of war crimes and “prisoner abuse.” The DOJ has sanctioned water boarding of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Bush Administration officials at least as high up as the Vice President were aware of and at least complicit with the use of the tactic. We’ve heard nothing from the DOJ about prosecuting Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney or anyone else in the Bush Administration. It seems that even President-elect Barak Obama may be balking at the idea of trying Bush Administration officials on war crimes charges. Meanwhile the DOJ is requesting a sentence of 147 years in prison for a crime committed by non-American citizen in another country.

American Exceptionalism

Does this not speak the worst of the American fantasy of exceptionalism? We’ve gone from the dream of being a city on a hill to the reality of being the world’s bully in the name of our shiny pillar of democracy. It is not enough that we invade other nations upon our own whims and fabricate evidence to support those actions. It is not enough that we violently dispose of foreign leaders who don’t tow our political line. We go even further. We punish people who aren’t Americans for crimes they commit in other countries. We are applying our laws to people in other places, people who are not even bound by our national laws and at the same time we are unwilling to prosecute, let alone sentence our own citizens, those in our government who are accused and most likely guilty of committing the same crimes. We are America, we are special, and we can do whatever we want. We don’t have to follow the same laws, rules, or codes of conduct as the rest of the world because we are better than the rest of the world. We are the superpower. We are the shining example of democracy and freedom. Everything we touch turns to gold and our excrement smells of a fresh spring bouquet.

It is a crock. However, this is the worldview of the Bush Administration, many others within the Federal government, and of a great many of this country’s citizens. It is a dangerous worldview that has helped throw the world into chaos over the last decade, but which reaches much farther back into history in its role as a global destabilizer. This same sense of American perfection, rightness, and exceptionalism runs through the history of the Cold War and our battle against the “evils” of communism. It even runs as far back as our quest to dominate the western frontier, a war with Mexico and the genocidal path that was cut through Native America in order to achieve that aim. American exceptionalism is nothing new and it runs as strongly through the themes of today’s “war on terror” as it has at any other point in our short history as a nation. It is a worldview that will continue to wreak havoc on the world until we the people ourselves realize that we need to work in equitable cooperation with the rest of the world if we are all to live in a free and peaceful world.

We need to come to the realization that forcing others to follow our lead is no way to lead. It is no way to create a better world for Americans or for anyone else. We need to drop our sense of entitlement, our sense of being better and superior to the other people’s of the world. This sense that we are right and everyone else is wrong, a belief suckled and matured in the arms of the nation’s churches, must go. This idea is virtually bred into our children as they are taught that Christianity is right and all other religions are wrong.  How easily that sense of superiority has been transferred onto patriotism and blind obedience to a flag.  If this worldview is not rejected, who knows to what dark place America will next take the world. The particular hypocrisy in the incident of the requested sentencing for Charles McArthur Emmanuel is only a small manifestation, the latest example of this problem of American exceptionalism that stands at the doorway to many of the worlds geopolitical problems.

(source)

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/11/21/christmas/index.html

The neo-conservatives who have been dismantling our economy since the era of Reganomics, deregulating financial systems, destroying any government agencies that were put in place during the last Great Depression to prevent economic collapse, and systematically vilifying and disempowering unionized labor have come to the end of a 30 year reign where trickle-down economics have proven once again to be less about economics and more about being “trickled on”. When their “free market” system ran amok and they ended up losing billions of dollars, what did they do? They attempted to nationalize the debt of failed irresponsible corporations, but privatize the profits thereof. (Can we say national-socialism, a.k.a. corporatism, a.k.a. FASCISM!?!)

Bailouts for Buddies

The biggest bailout (i.e. chunk of federal tax-payer money thrown at an industry with no accountability on how it is spent) went to the investment banks and debt insurance companies – the largest being AIG. The Federal Government gave AIG (a bank that insures other banks’ loans and lines of credit) $85 BILLION dollars for a 79.9% equity stake in the form of warrants called equity participation notes. The two year loan carries an interest rate of the London interbank offered rate +8.5%. (source) Effectively, if AIG does well, the taxpayers will regain what was given to AIG and more. Seeing how the housing market is continuing to collapse and foreclosures are still growing around the nation, AIG will have to payout on the loans they promised to back – many of which were highly unethical subprime mortgages with variable interest rates that homeowners are finding themselves unable to keep up with as their home values plummet and the economy worstens. Instead of forcing banks to restructure mortgage loans for consumers, or offering direct support for homeowners (helping Main Street as well as Wall Street – as President Elect Obama likes to say) these Neo-Cons who are in bed with these large bankers and investment corporations padded their buddies’ accounts and managed to further monopolize the banking industry by letting other large banks (like Leighman Brothers) collapse or be bought up by pennies on the dollar (Washington Mutual being bought by Chase – one of the original architects of the first Great Depression).

The infuriating thing about the bank bailouts is that they continue to go on with little to no oversight, no prerequisites, and essentially put the burden of financial liability on the backs of taxpayers, but don’t really put any profits in our pockets in the end – or rather, promises us profits at the end of a very bad gamble that’s highly in favor of the house. You can see a graph of what financial institutions received federal bailout money on the New York Times site here. These companies do not create any tangible products. They don’t keep their business in this country – often financing foreign countries’ debts or backing them in the case of debt insurer. And they received carte blanche bailouts from the goverment.

Bridge-Loans for Auto Manufacturers

In light of the economic depression, the big three auto manufacturers in the U.S. came to Washington in order to seek economic assistance to survive. In contrast to the above mentioned financial executives and their begging for money, these executives and their companies have been receiving extraordinary criticism, negative press and mocking from the media in general. This time around, the auto manufacturers wanted a loan to bridge the bad financial times. These loans were a fraction of the $700 billion that congress has given the green light to give to financial institutions without oversight, but suddenly, they are being held to a different standard. Congress is insisting that they make fundamental changes to the way they do business. They are being forced to retool their plants, dedicate their efforts to making fuel efficient and low-emission vehicles, or to give up executive wages, etc. The image of the “big three” executives coming to Washington on private jets was the culmination of their apparent lack of financial prudence; flushing money down the toilet while asking for more. (No one mentioned that the investment bank executives probably took private jets to Washington as well.)

Now, don’t get me wrong. I think American car manufacturers are way behind in the times, they are out of touch with what consumers want, and they are VERY hesitant to innovate or change. At the same time, they are one of the largest employers in the country and their work force is unionized, guaranteeing living wages and a pension for the dedication of their workers – one of the oldest parts of the “American Dream.”

Most recently, these loans were approved by the House of Representatives, but they failed in the Senate (source) mainly due to Republicans from the South who are hellbent on two things. 1) Destroying organized labor – something Republicans have been trying to do ever since it came about and 2) Destroying competition for the foreign automobile plants that have been built in their home states that run with non-unionized labor (source) and were subsidized with tax incentives at a per-capita burden higher than the current proposed auto bridge-loans for U.S. Manufacturers. Basically they are covering their more expensive investments to bring business to their states at the expense of the greater U.S. economic well-being.

Another force being vilified in this fray is unionized labor. The Republican talking-point distribution network of radio talk shows and televised opinion shows have already begun to spout the propaganda that the reason the U.S. auto manufacturers are failing is due to the United Auto Workers and their high demands in terms of wages and benefits. (source) Senate Republicans are demanding that the U.A.W. make concessions and cut back on their wages and benefits to fall in line with foreign auto manufacturers. Union workers are not the cause of these companies having problems. U.A.W. workers have a two-tier pay structure (something normally unheard of in unions) where longer-time employees receive (as of 2006) $32.32 per hour for straight-time labor, where newer employees would receive $27.81 per hour of straight-time labor. These are good paying jobs – not extraordinarily over-paid positions. Additionally, the labor costs per vehicle come out to approximately 8.5% the price of a vehicle. (source) This is not a bank-breaking operation, and U.A.W. workers are already making concessions (like reducing health coverage as part of their contract, etc.) as they don’t want the auto manufacturers to go out of business either.

When I hear every-day Americans blaming the unions for bad business or in other ways vilifying unions, I always remind them that they aught not complain about someone having a better wage than they do, when they too could unionize and fight for a fair wage for the work they do. And let us not forget that the unions were what helped build up the Middle Class in the 50′s, one of the most prosperous times in our nation’s history. The more that organized labor gets beat down or disempowered the more of a decay of the middle class this country experiences, and the separation between the richest and the poorest grows wider and wider.

Additionally, there’s one thing these Republicans never mention: foreign auto manufacturers are intimately tied to their own governments and are seen as a nationalized or partially nationalized industry, and their workers have benefits given to them (like nationlized health care) that American workers are not, thus driving up the costs of labor in the “Free American Market”. Make no mistake about it, where Hyundai goes, South Korea goes, likewise, Toyota and Honda are intimately intertwined with the Japanese government and receive subsidies, tax breaks and more to assist in their success – these are things the U.S. car manufacturers don’t get. And the huge burden of health care, should it be nationlized like ever other social democracy in the modern world, would be a big economic boon to business in the states.

What to do?

Where I stand on this issue is that I think the bridge loans should be approved for the auto industry, but with caps on executive pay and with a requirement for worker positions and wages to be protected and maintained. Additionally I support the requirement for them to invest a certain percentage of the money into fuel efficiency and alternatives. But in doing so, I think we should nationalize the auto companies and use them as a way of revitalizing our economy. Reinvent the car, build plants across the nation wherever the unemployment figures are worst, and drive up demand for these newly engineered vehicles. By nationalizing the industry, we can better support organized labor, steer progress in automobile ingenuinty and also make real and effective change in vehicle emissions, carbon dioxide emissions and tie the industry into effective environmental reform as well. If you’re going to nationalize the liability, then nationlize the profit as well.

These days however, an education may be one of the few things geared towards the survival of American natives. It could be said that a college degree may be the key towards not just the well being of the individual, but also to the community as well. In the last fifty years, many things have changed for the betterment of Native Americans. Yet it is not nearly enough. Still mired in poverty, resources are relatively few. And one of these missing resources is access to formalized and decent education. Out of almost all recognized minorities, Native Americans find themselves on the bottom rung of the ladder where access to education is concerned. In this small article, I will attempt to show the reasons why this is so. The subjects to be touched upon will be general issues that many minority students face, such as poverty, the availability of educational resources, and the ultimate goal of attaining a degree. We will then examine how they apply to Native American students. In addition, through the gathering of this information, I have been surprised to find one more additional issue which doesn’t seem to be mentioned in many reports on minority students. And that is the issue of culture as it applies to societal norms, and the general behavior of students and faculty on school campuses. From what I’ve observed, the issue of culture is a very large problem when it comes to Native students and learning institutions. We will examine these problems and hopefully be able to shed some light on the road towards possible solutions.

Purging The Culture Away

When discussing Native Americans and education, we must take a brief look at the history concerning these subjects. It does shed some light upon current issues. In the conquest of America, the Natives were considered a problem by those attempting to colonize the continent. Before 1870, the Natives were initially forced to reside on reservations. Yet new ideas began to surface with the concept of assimilating the Natives rather than segregating them. This led to the legal abduction of Native children, forcing them into schools with the distinct purpose of re-educating them. The goal was to make them civilized or “white”. The only other option was to become trained as a domestic servant. Yet, to hang onto their own unique cultures was strictly forbidden. We can see this in the methods used to transform these children. They were punished severely for speaking in their indigenous tongues. The same thing applied when practicing their tribal customs as well. Their hair was forcibly shorn and they were forced to wear westernized clothing. The goal itself was the loss of cultural identity while creating new and acceptable one, at least according to what white society considered to be acceptable. And as terrible as this may sound, it may be even more shocking to understand that this practice continued until the 1960’s. With the understanding of all of this, we can deduce that a bias probably exists due to the fact that these crimes against Native culture occurred up until only a few generations ago. Yet as negative as learning institutions may be viewed by members of the Native population, we cannot deny the importance of an education in America today.

Along with formalized education comes the promise of the idealized American dream. The idea is that anyone in America can make it to the top and fulfill the goal of attaining an upper class lifestyle through hard work and dedication. The puritan work ethic is still alive and well. Unfortunately, current statistics say otherwise. In fact, with the contemporary stratification of the lower classes, we may actually be watching history repeat itself in that the drastic income inequalities of this day and age have not been felt since the 19th century. However, a solution was devised in the past which changed a great deal of the situation. The answer was education. Not only were large amounts of money invested in education but ladders were created so that bright young students from all walks of life could receive a purposeful and useful education to better themselves. Stratification began to occur again however among the educated as they married and produced children who were born into an elevated status. Today, only 1 in 30 of lower class children will be selected for elite universities. What we can conclude, in this brief examination of the past, is that college graduates have received better opportunities and improved access to decent paying jobs. In addition, education may be the answer to income equalities. Yet what is the situation of stratified children today?

Social and Economic Stratification

When making an examination of those who fall under the classification of stratified individuals, we can divide them into two groups; minorities and the poverty stricken. Let me make it clear however that a good portion of the stratified belong to both groups. And since this article revolves around the Native Americans, who are considered to be a minority, let us take a look at the situation minorities face in general when it comes to elite learning institutions. Even in our modern times, racial tension can still be felt in many of these schools. We can also claim that the transformation of white genteel schools into pre-eminent universities has been slow. To put it bluntly, the numbers don’t lie. Let’s take the University of Virginia for example, who only began to promote changes in the 70’s. Taking a look at just a few years ago, it may be a bit surprising to discover that out of a student population of 13,000 that there were only 1,594 black students. In general, the number of white graduates when compared to minority graduates are just as one-sided. For example, 83% of white students graduate high school, while only 55% of Native students do the same. The numbers are just as staggering when looking at college graduates. Where 23% of whites graduate college, only 6% of Native students achieve the same goal. One more time, we can see an obvious leaning in the numbers. Yet why does this situation exist? Does the problem exist within the student population? The numbers seem to paint a different picture. Instead, we can probably conclude that a problem exists with the colleges and universities instead. In fact, we could probably go so far as to say that when it comes to Native American students, these institutions outright fail. And since we have examined the stratified, focusing in the issue of minority, it is now time to examine the issue of poverty.

It quickly becomes clear that the privileged or children of wealth have better opportunities when it comes to access to quality education. Granted, good financial means could make the purchase of an education easier. However, when it comes to the selection of students, an obvious bias exists. As before, quite simply the numbers don’t lie. In recent times, 60% of students at elite universities came from wealthy or alumni parents, with children of alumni constituting 40%. Upon further examination we can find even more bias leaning towards advantages for the wealthy. It has been shown that the children of very high donors are helped at a substantial rate. Another example is what is called the “Z list”. This is a deferment list for students to catch up when they have fallen behind. Overwhelmingly, this list is dominated by children of the wealthy. Unfortunately, the situation doesn’t seem to be improving for children who come from poor families. As of today, they have only a 40% chance of becoming students at these same universities. Upon examining statistics, we can see that the situation may be getting worse. From 1980 and 1982, the number of poor children in universities and colleges dropped 1%. However, the number of wealthy children rose from 55% to 60%. As we can see, inequalities do exist from the poor to the wealthy, with the wealthy having more advantages, while the poor are left to feed on scraps from a very rich table. Now having examined stratification from both a means of race and wealth, let us now turn to Native Americans, of whom a great portion fall into both classifications.

Hitting One Bird with Two Stones

The majority of Native Americans have it pretty rough, especially when it comes to life on the reservation. It can be said that life on the reservations can be nothing short of squalor, with very few opportunities to construct a life outside of it. Generations of Natives have been trapped in this environment without the financial means of escaping it. In this, it would seem that the segregation of the Native Americans continues to exist. Most are mired in poverty and it could be argued that Native Americans on reservations are of the most stratified. For example, the Pine ridge reservation of South Dakota has been compared to the poorest of third world countries. There are some houses with no electricity, no running water, nor any sewer system. The unemployment rate is staggering measuring at 85%. And yet, this is the third largest reservation in America. In general, life on the reservation is of the poorest quality. A great deal of the populace do not even possess a high school education. Yet, as we have seen, education, could quite possible be the road to freedom, not just serving the individual, but also the community as well. Upon taking a look at the Red Lake reservation in Minnesota, we can see that this condition exists outside of South Dakota as well. 40% live below the poverty line. Crime runs rampant at Red Lake, mainly drug and violence related. As we can see, the brutal living conditions do not apply to just one reservation but many. In examining the condition of most Natives, and reviewing the bias of universities towards whites and the wealthy, there seems to be very few opportunities to get a decent education. However, out of most minorities in the United States, Native Americans rank the lowest as far as receiving an education goes. Knowing that other minorities also suffer from poverty as well and yet are able to achieve more, might there be another factor other than ones previously discussed? As we shall see, the answer may be cultural.

When taking a closer look, we find that one aspect may have been overlooked in the majority of studies pertaining to Native Americans and education. Upon examining the culture of Native Americans and their history, we find more answers. We have already discussed a possible bias towards “white” learning institutions due to the history with Natives and forced re-education. Another aspect of the cultural problem may be in the hands of instructors at most colleges and universities. Most of these instructors experienced college life in a sort of homogeneous environment rather than one based solely on one cultural perspective. A good portion of Natives only get the experience of one culture due to the inability of being able to escape from it. In essence, they instead become dependent upon this culture to sustain them. Since most instructors, come from a more unified cultural experience, they may not have the ability to understand both the importance and impact of this cultural experience as it applies to Natives. This would possibly create a divide between the instructor and the student, which may ultimately lead to feelings of alienation in a very foreign environment. However, it can also be argued that school counselors can help in this capacity and ultimately enhance the development of a Native student. It is essential that awareness of culture, and the traditions surrounding it, be understood. This awareness could bridge this gap. Yet awareness is not enough without this information being placed in the context of the school at large. Colleges and universities may become places where the Native student is made to feel welcome rather than alienated from. And yet, as much sense as these ideas may make, with the exception of very few instances, these policies are currently not in place. It can be argued that accomplishments in school are the responsibility of the student. Yet it would be foolish to state that none of the responsibility falls on the shoulder of the staff and faculty of the university as well. In some ways, these institutions cater to the student to help them excel. However, we must ask if these same institutions have the willingness to cater to the Native student. Unfortunately, I must conclude that the answer is no. Yet where is the proof for my claim?

Tribal Colleges

The answer can be found in Tribal colleges. In 1978, Congress passed the Tribally Community College Assistance Act. It was created to ensure that there were opportunities in place and the expansion of these opportunities for American Indian students. Because these institutions are tribally controlled, students can find the cultural experience that they may be missing in other institutions. Not only are their cultural needs met, there is an understanding of aspects of the stratified life that most Natives are forced to live. Things like family and home life are understood, financial problems are catered to, and with unemployment being so staggering a factor, when a student does have a job, these colleges attempt to work with the student to help them stay employed. Therefore, I think that it is fairly easy to claim that tribal colleges do meet the unique needs of their students. Some have actually made claims that the creation of tribal colleges may be the most significant development for Native Americans in history.  This is not to say that these institutions do not have problems of their own, which in themselves are almost reflections of problems with reservation life. These institutions are horribly underfunded and their facilities are very inadequate. In addition, they are also increasingly understaffed as well. Yet having knowledge of these problems, this lends more credence to my point of culture being a large factor. It is obvious that the funding, facilities, and staff are probably of better quality at larger and more recognized institutions. Yet as we have seen, the number of Native students is incredibly low at these elite schools. However, upon examining the problems with tribal schools, it is surprising to discover that most Native students are completely satisfied with the education they received from tribal colleges rather than the education they received from other institutions. It could be argued that it may possibly be the familiarity of poor conditions in school to poor conditions in life that may create a means of comfort. However, offer an individual a choice between five dollars or fifty. I think it’s fairly logical which one would be taken. One more time, the obvious solution is the understanding of Native culture and it being implemented into the larger context of the school itself. Therefore, we can conclude that if other learning institutions were to attempt to satisfy the cultural needs of the Native student, the attendance of these institutions would probably improve. And not only would attendance improve, I think it’s quite possible that they would excel.

In examining the issue of Native American students and the lack of education among these individuals, I hope that I have been able to convey a few reasons as to why it may be occurring. In taking a look at the larger scope of the stratified, we see that there is an obvious bias towards those that are both white and from wealthy backgrounds. And therefore, since Native Americans are burdened by stratification, we can see problems occurring when Natives attempt to receive a quality education. Yet there is another factor which may add to the reluctance of these same individuals to attend universities of quality education, even if it was available to all. In asking the question as to why Natives are satisfied with an education from a substandard yet tribally influenced school rather than that of a well received and quality school, one conclusion that we can reach is the importance of a culturally influenced experience in education. Yet this is not intended to deny the burden of being a member of a minority or being financially stratified. These are obvious and troubling factors as well. Yet I cannot stress enough that more attention needs to be placed on the cultural aspects as well as the financial and minority aspects as well. The cultural solution may be one of many. We have examined other aspects as well. But there may be more. I argue that only through research will we find these missing pieces of information.

Our indigenous cultures deserve more than the paltry sum of attention they have received. Realize that these people are the descendants of the First Americans. After all the atrocities committed to them, from attempted extermination to the death of cultures through re-education, wouldn’t it seem reasonable to meet them halfway? Wouldn’t it seem reasonable to recognize the possible special needs and circumstances that they now find themselves in? Wouldn’t it also seem reasonable to do whatever possible to allow these folks to improve their condition and lives as they see fit? As we have seen, one of the key ways to improve our lives is through the attainment of an adequate education. From what I can see, we have no other course of action but to do what we can to bring this to fruition. Granted we may not have had a hand in the crimes committed by our forefathers. Yet as their descendants, the responsibility falls on our shoulders to heal what may still be some open wounds. Remember that crimes were still being committed in what could have been just one previous page in history books. These words cannot be erased. Yet, the future has not been written yet. Hopefully, we can write a book worth reading.

These definitions leave the observer a lot of wiggle room. They are quite broad. There is any number of people that I could claim to be terrorists and based on these somewhat loose, but clearly accurate definitions I may have a sound argument. Many of these people would not be ones who would automatically jump to mind when considering the evolution of the term over the last decade or two. When we think of a terrorist we are most likely thinking of a political or religious terrorist. We are thinking a person who straps bombs to their chest and blows themselves up in the middle of a crowded market. We think of bombs being planted on buses and inside of federal buildings. We think of attacking civilians and innocent bystanders. We think of people who are rogues, not associated with any nation or legitimate military, using illegal methods of war to attack rightfully established governments and societies. Usually, although not always and even if we should not, we think of Arabs or Islam.

What we do not usually think of is a murderer or serial killer, a rapist, an abusive family member, or a school bully who so scares a poor child that they are afraid to walk to school. However, based on the definition presented above all of these, perhaps even our own President and military can be deemed terrorist. The point of this article though is not to declare George W. Bush or the U.S. military as terrorist, although compelling arguments have been made by others. Rather, the purpose is to show how the word terrorist is a political term used throughout the 20th and 21st centuries to justify wars and constantly shifting alliances. As we will see, if you are our friend or ally you are called a freedom fighter. If you are our enemy, with no change other than a shift in that simple friend versus enemy dichotomy, you become a terrorist.

Osama bin Laden

One of the most relevant examples of this is the relationship between the U.S. and Al-Qaeda and its leaders such as Osama bin Laden. In the mid-1980s Osama bin Laden went to Afghanistan to join the mujahideen, the Afghan resistance movement against the occupying Soviet military force (source). The Soviet Union had invaded in 1979 and the war would last until the Soviet withdraw in 1989. Throughout the Soviet-Afghan war the U.S. provided extensive and covert support by way of weapons, money, and training for the resistance, of which Osama bin Laden was a part. By the end of the war we had given the mujahideen some $2 billion dollars and a host of lethal weapons including heavy machine guns, mortars, anti-tank grenade launchers, and rocket launchers with a range of eight kilometers (source). But it was okay. They were fighting against the Evil Empire, the Soviet Union. These mujahideen were freedom fighters, they were our allies. Who would question our assistance to them?

Of course, we are well aware of how the rest of this story goes, at least up until the present day. The mujahideen will eventually morph into groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In 1991 the U.S. invaded Kuwait by way of Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden’s place of birth and the birth place of Islam as well. Osama bin Laden saw the U.S. stationing troops this most holy of Islamic nations, as well as U.S. support for Israel, as an abomination. By the next year, 1992, bin Laden was claiming responsibility for attacks on U.S. soldiers abroad and would claim responsibility for a number of attacks on U.S. soldiers, ships, and embassies over the next decade and a half leading up to 9/11. Over that time period Osama bin Laden, former friend and ally of the world’s most powerful nation, would become known as a terrorist as he made the shift from ally to enemy. Libya was the first nation to issue a warrant for his arrest through Interpol in March of 1998 and a few months later the U.S. would indict him for seven deaths in a 1995 truck bombing that took place in Riyadh at a U.S. run Saudi Arabian National Guard training center. The following year bin Laden was placed on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list and in October of 2001 bin Laden appeared on the U.S.’s first Most Wanted Terrorists list (source), though it would not be until the next month that he would be pushed to the top of that list as result of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Osama bin Laden was and is now a household name in the inimical sense. He has made the shift from freedom fighter to terrorist, not because he changed his tactics or his overall outlook on the world, rather because he chose to be our enemy.

Saddam Hussein

Another example that is relevant to current events is Saddam Hussein. Like Osama bin Laden, it was during the 1980s that the U.S. befriended Saddam Hussein, who had recently become the leader of Iraq in July of 1979 and was engaged it what would be a decades long war with neighboring Iran. Our alliance with Iran had run its course and that country’s new revolutionary, Islamic government, also taking power in 1979, had declared the Shah’s puppet master (The U.S. government) to be the Great Satan. The U.S. government, looking for new ally against anti-American, Islamic government in Iran, was more than happy to supply Saddam’s regime with weapons, including biological and chemical weapons. These weapons were then used by Saddam Hussein not only against Iran, but against his own citizens (source). These were the Kurds living in north who, in conjunction with Kurdish citizens of southern Turkey, were seeking to break away from these two nations to the form a new and independent Kurdistan. Saddam Hussein was officially a friend and ally, one whom the U.S. government would prop up and help stay in power amidst his own people’s growing hunger and dissatisfaction (source).

Today, the end of this tale is well known. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait and the U.S., feeling its oil supplies potentially threatened, began Operation Desert Shield in Saudi Arabia which was a build up of troops near the Saudi border with Kuwait. In January of 1991 the air raids, followed by a U.S. ground invasion of Kuwait began. As we have seen, This was followed by a decade of economic sanctions in Iraq which, when added to death toll of the Gulf War, aided in the death of over 1 million Iraqis and estimates place the number of child deaths as high as 500,000 (source). Once George W. Bush was in office and 9/11 was very recent history, accusations began flying against Saddam Hussein.

Suddenly he was a terrorist. He supported terrorism, trained terrorists, supplied them with WMDs, and probably even help plan 9/11 We know now that these claims were not only false, but were lies (see my article “The Liar or The Denier: How Will History Judge President George W. Bush?” for proof that these claims were not only false, but that the Bush administration knew they were false and still presented the claims as factual evidence to the American people in making the case for a new war with Iraq). However, the nation was on the move and before long Saddam Hussein was behind bars and Iraq was thrown into chaos with the occupying U.S. military at the helm.

Saddam Hussein after being captured in 2003

As with Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein was our friend and ally so long as he cooperated with us and towed the American line. Once that cooperation ended the U.S. government decided he was a threat to our national security (read oil supply) and over the ensuing decade the shift in which he went from being labeled ally to enemy and terrorist was made. Again, during that decade Saddam Hussein did not become a different person. He was a ruthless dictator during the 1980s when he was our ally and he continued to be so during the 1990s and early 2000s while the shift to terrorist was taking place. As with bin Laden, the only thing that changed was Saddam’s standing via that same friend versus enemy dichotomy. As he was now our enemy, it was clearly only a matter of time before it would impossible to see his name without the title Terrorist following right behind.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin

The final example I wish to present of this use of the term terrorist as a political tool is the example of various leaders of Israel including Menachem Begin, Benjamin Netanyahu, and perhaps even David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding leader. Surely they are not terrorists. Israel is our friend, our ally, a stalwart democracy in the midst of a sea of Middle Eastern dictatorship and Islamic terrorism and these men are the founding leaders of that nation! That is the point. Once friendly to the west they were just that, a friend and ally aiding in the fight against despotism and Islamic extremism. However, this was not always the case.

In the 1940s Begin was commander of an underground military organization called Irgun Tzva’i Leumi (ETZEL). Benjamin Netanyahu, who would also be a future Israeli Prime Minister and western ally, was also a member. This military organization, with Begin at its head, declared war on the British Empire, which at the time occupied Palestine, and carried out attacks against the British in the land that Zionists hoped to make their home once again after some 2000 years of living in the Diaspora. The British, in response to this guerrilla war being waged against them, declared Begin and others like him terrorists and a reward of £10,000 for Begins capture, dead or alive, was announced (source). There are even accusations that David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister and the man who publicly declared Israel an independent nation in 1948, was involved with Irgun terrorism in the 1940s. The accusation is that as head of the Jewish Agency, Ben-Gurion personally approved of the Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946. The attack killed 92 Britons, Arabs, and Jews (source) and was only one of many attacks carried out by the organization.

Mug shot of Menachem Begin, 1940

Whether or not this particular accusation against Ben-Gurion is correct, the point is clear. Various future leaders of Israel, men who would be deemed staunch western friends and allies in war on terrorism, were at one point in their own history considered terrorists. Why? Because they were enemies of powerful western nations, in this case Great Britain. Just like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein when their friendships with the United States turned cold, these Jewish leaders found themselves labeled as terrorists when opposed to powerful western nations, and they found themselves labeled as allies and freedom fighters when they towed the line of western political civilization.

Clearly the term terrorist is not a word with a clean and static definition. Who will be declared a terrorist is not dependent upon whether or not a particular individual fits some dictionary definition of the term. One is deemed a friend or an enemy, a freedom fighter or a terrorist not based on particular tactics, doctrines, or definitions, but rather based on the nature of their relationship to those nations whose military might places them at the top of the global political and military food chain. Play nice with us and we’ll make you a friend and patronize your leadership regardless of whether you are kind or ruthless. Posture against us or turn your back on us and you will be vilified and eventually forced into war, arrest, and perhaps even execution as Saddam Hussein so poignantly learned.