By now the latest deaths of war correspondents covering the crisis in Syria is old news.  It does not take much to know there will be more deaths in the future. These latest followed the equally unfortunate death of Anthony Shadid as he was leaving Syria during an unauthorized trip to cover the story. Review what takes place in the Philippines, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, and in other repressive and autocratic regimes. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, including the aforementioned three, 14 journalists in the world have already died in 2012. By the time I post this column, that number could well increase. Forty-seven journalists were killed in 2011. Since 1992, 909 journalists died doing their job.

Unfortunately, foreign correspondents, and even those journalists working in their home countries, are targets of anyone who opposes the truth and tried to keep it from surfacing. Reporters are now the enemy. Sadly, they die unnecessarily. They die more frequently than in the past. If they do not die, it is worth repeating that they remain targets of those they hope to expose for doing wrong.

The nature of the burgeoning civil war in Syria give me the chance to reflect on my days as NBC’s bureau chief in Saigon, during the Vietnam War, from early 1966 through late 1968.

It was a different war, a different time. I usually had five TV correspondents and one full-time radio reporter. I had at minimum five full TV crews composed of a cameraman, a soundman, and a correspondent. With the freelance cameramen at my call, I might, on any day, have as many as nine or ten cameras in the field covering the war.  It means that I could have fifteen or twenty people covering the war, not including staff drivers who got the crews to the ever changing front, where the troops were fighting, or to the airport for helicopter and fixed wing flights to cover the action.

We covered combat about 90 percent of the time.  I sent the crews into the field every day. Their lives were almost always in danger, especially when the fire zone they were in was hot with incoming enemy fire. But journalists were not targets.

With as many as 500,000 troops in Vietnam and usually upwards to 100,000 Americans in the field doing battle with the Viet Cong or main force North Vietnamese troops, it was not difficult to find the action that the producers in New York wanted for their news shows.

My staff knew the risks of being in combat. We often discussed what I called “ a considered risk.” In other words, know where you were, act accordingly, and do not do anything foolish that would endanger you or any member of your team. Especially be careful never to endanger the unit you were covering by doing anything irrational, always possible in combat. More importantly, always try your best to get out safely.

Though 63 journalists died in the Vietnam War, they did not die because they were targets of “enemy” troops. When in the field, unless one did something stupid or outrageous, you soon learned what you could or could not do in combat or under fire. That helped keep you alive and did not give the other side an opportunity to shoot your way. Terror was a frequent tactic of the Viet Cong, but that terror was usually directed against the South Vietnamese, and usually confined to the villages. Yes, terror made its way into the cities, but the Vietnamese troops and their allies – mainly American, Korean, and Australian troops – were the enemy of the Viet Cong, not the journalists who covered them.

Except for Iraq, when in full bloom, and in Afghanistan where troops still regularly patrol the country and frequently engage the enemy, most other conflicts around the world are of a different scale and type. Unfortunately, journalists will keep on dying. Unarmed, they are easy to kill. The true stories that journalists tell are necessary for freedom to flourish, and freedom is the one thing that terrorist groups and oppressive governments fear most.

Thirteen is not a lucky number by any measure. It never has been. It will never be. Ask any gambler who plays the horses or the slots. Ask anyone who fears a black cat crossing his or her path. Ask anyone who walks around an open ladder instead of walking under it. Superstition is powerful. It often guides people in how they lead their lives. With hardly a yelp, today the number 13 is popping up everywhere and, as usual, it is impossible to ignore, especially knowing that 13 plays a big role in the fight that will continue between the confrontational Congress and the White House.

Ratings for President Obama’s State of the Union were down 13 percent from the last State of the Union he delivered. There is no question that the 112^th Congress is the worst ever. At least in my memory it has no competition for that accolade, and if things keep going the way they are now, its only competition will be when the 113^th Congress comes along on January 3, 2013. There it is again, 13 attached to 2000. Thirteen is an inescapable number and concept.

Here are some statistics from a recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll.  Eighty-four percent disapprove of the job Congress is doing.  Of Democrats, 67 percent disapprove and only 33 percent approve. That compares with 75 percent of Republicans who disapprove and only 21 percent who approve. When the Republican-dominated House of Representatives fights President Obama on everything he proposes, do most of its members who thrive in negativity heed the voters back home, or are those Republican members so arrogant and tone deaf that they have lost their hearing? They have certainly lost their bearing, at least for someone who does not think like a Republican. But here is the real problem. When added together, the figure from that poll leave us with, you got it, 13 percent in total who approve of the job Congress is doing.

I worry about that 13 percent. They must be living under a rock or maybe in a hermit’s cave if, for whatever reason, they think America is getting decent results from its elected representatives. Come out, come out wherever you are and smell the roses of reality, please. I understand, too, that the 13 percent could change. It could be higher. It will probably be lower. No matter. Today 13 percent rules the bottom of the heap.

Consider too, the haughtiness of those in Congress who ignore the 84 percent of the public who believe it is doing a terrible job. Congressional leaders on the right try to convince us they are doing what they call “the people’s work.” They try to convince us that what they are doing is in the interests of all the American people. There is such a sharp split between some American people and those who disagree with them that it makes me wonder if we should call those who disagree “the un-American people.” That idea does not resonate in my community.

Are you as tired as I am of hearing the politicians we sent to Washington claiming they are doing our work? I can tell you they are not doing my work. Did people vote our representatives in Washington into office to do their personal bidding or those of the people who voted for them? Obviously, the politicians in Washington are incapable of reading real tea leaves. Obviously rhetorical, so I will let it go with the idea that the members of Congress believe they know better than those who sent them to Washington do. If our sitting representatives believe that 13 percent is all they need to foment their kind of change, this country is in worse trouble than anyone can imagine. But it is common among elected officials everywhere for them to believe the few over the many. The authority of official office does weird things to the inside of a politician’s head. Those men and women do not care for their constituents. They only care for themselves. Power is everything for them. I believe their concept of power is rooted in a sense of righteousness, the worst quality that they bring with them into office.

I worry all the time about the 13 percent. I find those who make up the 13 percent confounding. Who are they you may ask. Rarely does a pundit consider what is going on inside the minds of the 13 percent. All I know is that they are the ones who approve the job Congress is doing. But wait. Of the 13 percent who indicate they approve Congress, only 3 percent strongly approve its work while 11 percent only approve somewhat, whatever that means. It seems those who are the 13 percent cannot quite make up their minds about how badly Congress is serving its constituencies, doing what a fumbling John Boehner and his clueless Republican minions call the work “the people sent us to Washington to do.”

Congress has a long way to go before we see the bright lights of success. If the public managed to trust and accept Congress for the work they do even more than 50 percent of the time, this country would be better off, especially if that 50 percent was center, left of center, liberal and progressive. 

Of all the contenders in the GOP line up, Mitt Romney is getting the most support from the Republican establishment – Senator McCain today- and has strong support from big businesses. The real problem for Mitt Romney-in the likely case that, ultimately, it will be a contest between Obama and Romney in November-will be the evasive Christian conservative voting block. For conservative voters Romney is too “liberal” on “value” issues, but the real sticking point is, of course Romney’s “Mormon church problem”. Romney’s “Mormon problem” is likely to keep Evangelist voters from casting their votes for him in his likely contest with President Obama.

American politic is usually a spectacle, a meaningless ego driven charade, a circus similar to a poorly scripted  TV reality show, but meanwhile, the real decisions are made behind closed doors by non-elected players. American citizens have never been more dissatisfied with politicians, and rightly feel that an overwhelming majority of politicians, Democrats and Republicans combined, are more concerned about maintaining the status quo of their oligarchy than serving the interests of the people. This is precisely why a candidate like Ron Paul could be the wild card in this election. Ron Paul is a  political odd ball vocal about what he thinks and sticking to it.

Will Ron Paul Run as a 3rd Party Candidate?

It is almost certain that President Obama will be reelected for a second term, by easily defeating Mitt Romney. But Ron Paul could be the game changer if he becomes the leading figure of a 3rd party coalition ticket. Paul’s  pro-legalization of marijuana, anti-war and anti-US interventionism  positions are getting him support from the left. It is not a coincidence that Ron Paul’s campaign supporters were canvasing Occupy camps across the country. Paul is in many regards a “blast from the past” within the Republican party. From his stand on going back to the gold standard, his non-interventionist position, and his concern about privacy and liberty, Paul is one of the exceptions in the American political landscape.

If Ron Paul decides to run as a third party candidate, with a Libertarian undertone, he is likely to win votes from both Republican and Democrat registered voters. Many Democrats on the left are dissatisfied with President Obama, and could end up voting for Paul in a three way contest between Obama, Romney and Paul. In order for Ron Paul to become a credible national challenger, he will have to explore soon a run as an independent 3rd party candidate. If Paul makes this decision, his most critical decision will be then to pick a running mate. Needless to say, the decision which would get a Paul candidacy a lot more traction would be to pick someone with credibility on the real left such as Representative Kucinich, Senator Sanders or Alan Grayson.

Even so the United States is usually described as a two parties political system, it has been in the reality of policies, both foreign and domestic, a one party system, with minute nuances between Democrats and Republicans, for the past 30 years. In this uniform political landscape, there are really only two worthwhile exceptions which do not belong to what has morphed a democracy into an oligarchy/plutocracy: Senator Sanders and Representative Ron Paul. Ron Paul is tracking remarkably well in the GOP primaries, but even so his campaign is actively trying to tap into a potential Occupy voting block, he is unlikely to get any real momentum going in his attempt.

Some view the Occupy movement, both in the United States and Europe, as “vague and lacking focus, despite good intentions”. Indeed the scope of the Occupy movement is wide in its critics of neoliberalism, war, inequality, corporate controlled globalization, and concentration of wealth. But the wide scope of Occupy shouldn’t be confused with a lack of focus. The Occupy movements is a “big tent” encompassing a lot of causes, but the essence of it is rather simple. Ideologically Occupy can be defined as an anti-neoliberalism and anti-corporatism movement fighting for the rights and interests of the 99 percent.

But Occupy can not be simply reduced as a movement debating ideologies. Instead, the Occupy movement is about redefining moral and ethical principles. Philosophically and morally it is a fight for equality and social justice against oppression. The Occupy movement is not trying to re-invent the wheel either. Occupy gets its core direction from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which fundamental principle is non-discrimination. Human beings, where ever they are, shouldn’t have they rights denied based on class, race, gender, disability and religion.

Occupy is about leveling the global playing field in human affairs to give the many real say and power over the few. Occupy is about defining a real democracy where the long forgotten and mainly never applied  motto of the French revolution “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” would be implemented and not just mere lip service and make believe. Occupy is about challenging the failed world order of corporatism and neoliberalism. For the Occupy movement, we are all Egyptians, and we are all the 99 percent fighting to define a better world without oppression, war, famine, inequality and gross mismanagement of our collective resources.

By Ron Steinman

Death is the operative concept that defines the United States Congress, how it works and, frankly, how lately it mostly seems to fail.  It is almost as if it wants to fail. Failure is better than softening one’s ideology. We rarely hear that something emerges from Congress that we can describe as healthy.  Congress invokes death. Once something arrives in Congress, its life is very short, despite what may seem to be endless debate. What it was originally will not survive the machinations of partisan politics. All we hear from Congress is that something died. A bill dies. A congressional committee fails, yet again, and thus the work it did, if it did any real work, dies. Ideas die all the time in Congress. Lately, that is the case more than ever. In this season of giving, without sounding naive, it is fair to ask of our duly elected officials for something that is life affirming instead of leaving us with the sour taste of death. Think, too, that because nothing lives for long, especially in our Congress, death lies in wait for the right moment to pounce. That could be in the election of 2012.

We the people who dutifully send men and women to Congress to do our bidding are the ones who suffer because those who enter the hallowed halls of our nation’s governing body are deaf to reality. Living mostly inside the Washington Beltway, and even though the representatives return home periodically to so-call recharge their batteries, the pull of isolation that the Beltway provides easily wins. This is about that messy governing body that is fouling our lives in Washington.

It is also about a phrase that galls, one that politicians of all stripes frequently use and one you hear all the time – the American people. I am tired of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell continuously invoking the American people as the excuse they use for their failed policies. Every chance they get, and the Washington press corps obliges them at every opportunity by repeating what they say as if by rote and not thought, they intone that “The American people” want this, that, or something else, but rarely do these rag dolls in Washington who represent us understand what the American people really want. Take some time and ask me and other people like me what I think. In return, we might summon a scorched earth policy against those who sit in comfortable offices in the nation’s capital. Life these days in America is about putting food on the table. It is about paying the rent and paying off the mortgage. It is about keeping your children healthy, putting clothing on their backs, and getting them an education. It is about the freedom to choose and not suffer because what you choose may be different from what someone else chooses. Life in America should be about what is necessary, not what is often faulty immobile ideology.

Members of both houses of Congress refuse to understand that they face extinction because they are ineffective and useless. Sure, the Tea Party revolt threw the Congress off course because the Republican majority in the House thought that new rump wing actually made sense. All the Tea Party did was throw a spanner into the works by applying that code phrase, the American people as its operating mantra. It did not work. Most of the latest opinion polls have Congress coming in around 7 percent favorable. That means that as much as 93 percent of the people polled believe that Congress is doing a terrible job. And they are right. You would think that because the real American people are speaking to the pollsters in such negative ways, that members of Congress would react and try to raise their favorability ratings, even if only by a few points. That is not the case. Members of Congress live in the land of the deaf.

Because we the people, collectively and individually elect these officials, they believe they know what is best for the country. They are obviously wrong. It is clear, though, that our elected officials, especially those on the right would rather see the country go up in flames for their failed ideology than find a way to solve its problems.

Allowing people to sleep better at night is not how the far right thinks. Fanatical belief is destructive to any cause. These officials, who are as blind as they are deaf, do not understand that real people voted them into office.  Real people can and will vote them out. I do not think that even the thought of losing his or her seat will make a currently elected official move or change a position he/she believes in. I wonder how much more arrogant our elected officials can be? Are we so immature that we assume that those who represent us are aware of who they really are and to whom they owe their current position? Is there anything that Congress can do to show the people they understand their pain? Without self-awareness, I guess not.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Glyn Lowe.

By Ron Steinman

The Iowa Straw Poll conducted Saturday, August 13, in Ames, Iowa, was not all the press is making it out to be. The day after the poll, The New York Times buried the true lead of the story deep inside the paper. This is what it said: “It was hardly a perfect laboratory of democracy.” I have not read everything about this bizarre ritual in Iowa, but The Times is the only place I saw that reference.

Here, then, is a small cheer for The New York Times. Before I go further, some perspective is necessary. The final vote count was 16,892. Sorry, pundits, despite your math, that is not enough to draw future conclusions. The event was only for Republicans by Republicans. The campaigns that could afford it, and Michele Bachmann’s was a leader here, bought people the $30 ticket they needed to allow them to vote. Shades of shady politics. Tammany Hall in New York anyone? Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s?

Individual campaigns also provided free lunch. Not bad with all the fun and games added to amuse the children. Corn dogs and popcorn anyone? According to all reports, many of the candidates spent hundreds of dollars on entertainment as well.

This event in Ames was a carnival fundraiser for the Republican Party of Iowa. It was a festival that completely pulled the wool over the eyes of the press. Not a bad deal for a day of play for the diehards in the Republican Party. This is hardly what I would call democracy in action. I saw the event listed as “a pep rally for Republicans,” whose only aim is to defeat President Obama in 2012.

The day after the poll, on Sunday, August 14, major newspapers and TV news lead with the results of Iowa Straw Poll in Ames. Fair enough, but only to a point. As we now know, the winner was Michele Bachman — Tea Party social conservative and an excellent campaigner despite how she leans– with less than 29 percent of the vote or 4823 supporters. Second was Ron Paul — who I am sure with his minority Libertarian views thrives happily on some distant planet — with fewer than 28 percent of the vote’s cast or 4671 votes. Third was Tim Pawlenty at fewer than 14 percent and only 2293 votes. Rick Perry, who that Sunday declared for president, was not on the ballot but, as a write-in candidate, received 718 votes, his presence already felt, but who he really is is unknown. Except, we do know he courts, and has the support of, the evangelical community in America and especially in Texas. Mitt Romney was not present nor on the ballot, but he managed 567 votes anyway. Is he still the front-runner among the staid faithful who support his campaign? Newt Gingrich pulled 385 votes and Jon Huntsman had only 69 people willing to stand for him. Others in the race had numbers that meant even less. I wonder why they remain in the race, except that it may guarantee big speaker fees down the road. These numbers say that almost anyone could have received votes in that atmosphere.

Tim Pawlenty looks at his votes, surveys the scene and decides to end his campaign that Sunday. Was it money, a lack of heart, or generally almost no enthusiasm from the public? We may never know why he made such a quick exit. Watching Pawlenty announce he was ending his long and futile campaign it was easy to see relief cross his face that it was finally over. He gathers his family, gets in a car and heads home.
The press, with nothing else on its mind but Republican politics — and here I feel sorry for my former colleagues –, decided the event in Ames set the tone for the whole of next year. Having done no campaigning except appearing at prayer breakfasts whenever he could, Rick Perry was suddenly sharing front-runner status with Ms. Bachman. At least this was the case according to our overworked political pundits. Michele Bachman sits in front of more TV cameras than anyone knew existed. Dutiful, fawning TV reporters did nothing to challenge her views on everything, yes, everything. She looks good on camera. She sounds almost as good on camera but she says nothing, espousing a far right creed that I am not sure she understands.

Rick Perry, Michele Bachman and Mitt Romney will now have to fight it out for the Republican nomination. No one else seems to be on the horizon, unless we perpetuate the fiction, as does Karl Rove, of Governor Christie of New Jersey and Representative Paul Ryan of budget cutting fame jumping into the fray.

Will any of them still stand in six or nine months? Romney still tests better among most of the party faithful. No one has yet challenged Rick Perry on any of his ideas and their results, especially in employment, education and immigration, and the controversy surrounding them in his home state of Texas. Michele Bachman, who never answers a question directly and is a marvelous dissembler, is fast becoming the latest in a series of Teflon candidates who seem to thrive on presidential politics. A

ll politics is selective. One from column A, one from Column B. Mix and match until someone gets it right. Hope for the best, which is what the Republican Party will be doing to see which formula, if any, works for it. No matter how we parse it, and despite the paucity of pure votes, each candidate is seeking legitimacy. The Ames County Fair does not come close to helping them out, unless you are a member of the press and need a column for the next day.

What gives, I mean what is going on with our political reporters in this time of high unemployment, partisan disaster in Washington, and a near failing American economy? That is what they should be writing about – as many do — not about some silly, the-fix-is-in straw poll in one of the smaller states in the country.

Now that the press has set its own parameters for political coverage, I am sure reporters and editors will dutifully report on the sniping between candidates as they try to do everything he or she can to capture the brass ring, the White House in 2012. The sniping will be the story. Sadly, substance will be an also-ran because there is a belief that for the electorate, substance takes second place to presentation. And for these Republican candidates, presentation leads the pack. Yes, Ames, Iowa “was hardly a perfect laboratory of democracy.” What a way to run a railroad. Nevertheless, the games are already beginning.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Are Flaten.  Ron Steinman is executive editor and a columnist for The Digital Journalist and The Digital Filmmaker. An award-winning producer for NBC News and NBC’s Today Show, he served as bureau chief in Saigon during the Vietnam war, and later as bureau chief in Hong Kong and London. At ABC News Productions, he produced documentaries for A&E, TLC, the History Channel and Discovery. He is currently an independent documentary producer, director and writer through his company Douglas/Steinman Productions. He is the author of eight books, including “Inside Television First War: A Saigon Journal”, that details how NBC News covered the war in Vietnam.

There is a deep crisis of confidence between the people and the political class in America today, and this reality cuts across all ideological boundaries. Further, this growing mistrust between politicians, business leaders and ordinary citizens is a global problem, which brings some serious questioning about the core principles or our democracies.

This questioning can be brought down to one main question: Is corruption an inevitable consequence of power?

The latest case of this confidence crisis in the United States is the one of New-York’s Congressman Charles Rangel. The powerful politician had to resign from the House Ways And Means Committee after an admonishment by the House Ethics Committee over accepting corporate funded trips to the Caribbeans.

However and sadly, Congressman Rangel’s ethical problem is far from being the exception in Washington and other world capitals, but as matter of fact it is more the norm which allows lobbyists for private interests to buy favors from politicians very easily and on a regular basis.

General De Gaulle was an “accidental” politician. De Gaulle was put into the fray of politics, which he quite often regretted, not because of personal ambition for power but instead purely by historical circumstances.

“I have come to the conclusion that politic is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians,” said De Gaulle once. The General was famously difficult, full of himself and showing an unwavering conviction of his historical role as France’s “providential savior” due to his role during World War II. But “Le Grand Charles”, despite his flaws, was always incorruptible, and had some of the highest ethical standards for what he viewed as the mission of a public servant

“You start out giving your hat, then you give your coat, then your shirt, then your skin and finally your soul,” said De Gaulle about political compromises  on an ethical stand point. And because De Gaulle was talking about the deep flaws inherent to our human nature, the validity of his point remains in effect universally.

Political leaders such as Gandhi, Mandela and De Gaulle are, in our sad state of ethical standards, the exception confirming the rule. While the three men put the public interest front and center of their preoccupations, and not their own private interest, it is not the case for most politicians.

Most elected officials pretend to share such commendable moral principles as their motivation to become public servants. However, they usually end up not serving the common interest at all, but instead they choose to serve the interest of their political patrons, campaign main contributors, families and ultimately their owns.

On the other end of the political morality spectrum from Gandhi, Mandela and De Gaulle, we have such politicians as Italy’s Prime Minister Berlusconi and Haiti’s former dictator Baby Doc Duvalier. In between we have the like of Congressman  Rangel. In any case, this is not a pretty picture overall. Citizens, either in the US or elsewhere, should not be complacent and assume that corruption and greed will always be a key determining factor in politics and public life. Voting is just not enough, as long as politicians are not held accountable for much higher standards than ordinary citizens, and to quote General De Gaulle again: “Politic is too serious a matter to be left to politicians”.

Editor’s Note: Please follow The News Junkie Post on Twitter.

Palin "handy" Tea Party Agenda

The Grand Old Party and the so called Tea Party movement have become a strange hybrid. A political body with a vague agenda, a distorted torso harboring many harms, with many legs, moving in different directions, and a few talking heads and some silent ones.

The Architects And The Megaphones

The only GOP member which can have legitimate claims to be the inspiration behind the Tea Party movement is Ron Paul. The Congressman is by essence more a Libertarian than a Republican. His agenda of small government, lowering taxes, reforming the Feds and pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan might be Utopian, but at least it is genuine and ideologically consistent.

The left and their favorite talking heads of the moment, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman, are missing the point with their constant and obsessive attacks on the two biggest megaphones of the right/tea party movement: Glen Beck and Bill O’ Reilly. By keeping the two political clowns of Fox News in the limelight, Maddow and Olbermann are not doing the left any favor. But of course and in more than one way, the pseudo political debate on cable news is not about advancing the political discourse of America but, more prosaically about ratings.

If they were more real political analysts and journalists as opposed to entertainers, Maddow and Olbermann would not focus their attentions on the megaphones/clowns Beck and O’ Reilly, but instead exposed the ones pulling the strings behind the scene; The puppet masters of the so called Tea Party movement.

When the Bush administration left Pennsylvania Avenue a bit more than a year ago, they decided to move to Fox News. It was the best place for them in their attempt to regain power in 2010 and ultimately in 2012. The two men orchestrating the propaganda and responsible for cleverly hijacking the populist movement are shrewd political operatives. They are, of course, former Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush’s “brain” himself, Karl Rove.

The Cover Girl Serving The Tea

The Tea Party has its media talking heads in the person of Beck and O’Reilly, and it has also a “political star” in the person of Sarah Palin. The former Alaska Governor is now part of Fox News’ line up, she has a wide appeal with “common folks”, and would be, if elected in high office, even easier to manipulate than George W. Bush.

Palin represents also the huge advantage to have around 20 percent of American voters behind her. Sarah Palin’s core electorate is of course the hard core white Christian conservatives. When it is time for Cheney and Rove to plan 2012′s “dream ticket”, she is likely to be on it. It would not be surprising at all if the other component on this ticket is GOP’s “rising star”, which successfully used the Tea Party movement in Massachusetts to beat a Democrat; it is Scott Brown. Brown/Palin or Palin/Brown? The order would be purely optional because the puppets masters Cheney and Rove would be the ones in power regardless.

White Only Protestant Brew With A Flavor Of Triple K

This is the dangerous dark side of the strange brew that is the Tea Party movement. Rove and Cheney have successfully managed to harvest the  populist angers of some Americans. The anger against government and politicians is fully justified, but it has a noxious racist undertone, which could explode at any given time. The racist ideology of this “white only” movement will surely manifest itself if the Obama administration decides to tackle the much needed immigration reform.

The Ku Klux Klan, which just a couple of years back seemed static and even moribund has experienced a surprising and disturbing resurgence due to the successful political exploitation of “hot-buttons” issues such as immigration, gay marriage and urban crimes.

The KKK, in the last year, has not only substantially increased its membership, but also its geographic reach across the land. Of course if Cheney and Rove managed to get back to power in 2012 by proxy of Palin and Brown, they will quickly try to make this dubious side of the “Tea Party coalition”, which could be called the “muscle” of the Tea Party movement go away, to maintain the corporate fascist status quo so dear to their hearts.

Editor’s Note: Please follow The News Junkie Post on Twitter.

Since the election of Scott Brown to take over the Senate seat of Teddy Kennedy, the tone has sharply changed in Washington; especially the rhetoric coming from the White House. President Obama is now using a more aggressive almost populist language such as denouncing the “fat cats” of Wall Street, and vehemently attacking the Supreme Court’s decision to unleash the full blast of corporate money, which could potentially be the final nail in the coffin of our electoral system.

It seems that most Democrats, at least on the left, are welcoming the drastic change in the President’s discourse. However, a critical question  remains unanswered: Will President Obama act on his renewed combativeness and, by doing so get back his political mojo?

The art of politics, not unlike the art of war, requires ruthlessness, some time diplomacy but always an intense power to focus on everyone else next moves. Barack Obama displayed all those qualities, and than some, during his 2008 masterful Presidential campaign, but somehow since he became President his unstoppable edge seems less sharp. Sharpness, and the ability to switch gear are the qualities President Obama and the Democrats should rely on now. In the balance is not only the 2010 elections, but also a better chance for the President to be reelected  in 2012.

This photograph of the President (from the official White House site) was taken before his inauguration speech January 20TH 2009. The President had a quick reflective moment before accepting the enormity of his task at hand. As a “thinking man”, President Obama was a good change from the impulsive George W. Bush, but what the former President had was the ability to be incredibly stubborn, blunt and forceful when he wanted something done. In other words, President Obama should think less and act more otherwise his first term will be the only one. Action, in this case, could translate into a fairly substantial reshuffle within the Obama administration not only in term of people, but also in regard to key domestic policies.

Up to a couple of weeks ago, the position of  Chairman of the Federal Reserve seemed secured for Ben Bernanke. But now, with his term up and the anger from Americans towards  financial institutions on the rise again, an easy confirmation is less likely. Democrats from the left such as Senator Boxer and Senator Feingold are expressing a strong frustration over Bernanke’s refusal to completely open the books on the 2008 giant bailout of companies such as AIG. Another man could see his current position in jeopardy: Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Geithner is perceived, for very good reasons, by America’s public opinion as someone in bed with Wall Street.

Three days ago, a giant of the economic world  made a comeback in the forefront of the political scene. It is Paul Volker, and he could replace, on a very short notice, either Ben Bernanke or Tim Geithner. Another possible contender for Geithner’s job could be a woman of great intelligence, integrity and deep knowledge of finance: Her name is Elizabeth Warren, and she has quite an expertise on the giant financial swindle which took place in the last few months of the Bush administration, known by the  name TARP. Midterm reshuffles are common in Americans politics; in the case of the Obama administration it could happen before that.

It might come as a shock to Pat Robertson and other conservative Christian nuts who have recently blamed the quake in Haiti that killed over 100,000 on devil worship, but Voodoo is a blend of French Catholicism and African religions. It has also been recognized as a part of Christianity by Pope John Paul II.

It has been said that Haiti is 90% Catholic and 100% Voodoo. Indeed, it is a religion that has a long history and is legitimate in it’s own right. According to Tyler’s definitions, a religion is a belief in spiritual beings based on speculation about death and dreams. Clifford Geertz defined it simply as a “cultural system”.

According to Wikipedia, “A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Aspects of religion include narrative, symbolism, beliefs, and practices that are supposed to give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life. Whether the meaning centers on a deity or deities, or an ultimate truth, religion is commonly identified by the practitioner’s prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things, and is often interwoven with society and politics. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.”

Regardless which definition one choses, Voodoo is a religion. It is recognized as such around the world, despite heavy prejudice based on its practices. The US Supreme Court even recognized it, although not until the 1960s. Voodoo is a syncretic religion, where Catholic saints and African gods joined and have become powerful spirits called Lwa.

What is relevant to ignorant conservative Christians like Pat Robertson however is this: Voodoo has been recognized as a legitimate Christian offshoot by the Vatican. During a trip to Benin on 10 February 1993, the late Pope John Paul II said it contained the “Seeds of the Word”.

According to one account: Pope John Paul II on his 10th African tour in 2/93, told about 75 “colorfully garbed voodoo worshippers [in Benin] that they would NOT have to forsake all of their culture [nor their voodoo faith] in order to convert” to Catholicism (2/13/93, World). The conciliatory pope noted that even as Africans look to their ancestors as objects of worship, Catholics also revere “ancestors in the faith, from the Apostles to the missionaries.” “I have never seen God, but today when I have seen the pope, I recognize that I have seen the good God, who prays for all the voduns,” said Sossa Guedehoungue, head of Benin’s vodun community. Voodoo leader Senou Zannou gave a formal speech in which he announced his son was becoming a Roman Catholic priest. But he also offered a defense of his faith: “God knows that the vodun has nothing to do with the devil or Satan.”

The full transcript is as follows (translated from French):

Dear friends,

I am pleased to have this occasion to meet you, and I very cordially greet you. As you know, I came to Benin principally to visit with the Catholic community, to encourage it and confirm it in the faith. However, I have always thought that contact with persons who belong to other religious traditions is an important part of my ministry.

Indeed, the Catholic Church is favorable to dialogue: dialogue with Christians of other churches and ecclesial communities, dialogue with believers of other spiritual families, and dialogue even with those who do not profess any religion. The Church establishes positive and constructive relations with persons and human groups of other creeds for a reciprocal enrichment.

Vatican Council II …. recognized that there are truth and good, seeds of the Word, in the various religious traditions ….

These provide the foundations for a fruitful dialogue, as the Apostle Paul said to the first Christians: “Everything that is true, noble, just, pure, amiable, honorable, whatever is virtuous and deserves praise, let all these things be the object of your thinking.” From this comes our approach of respect [toward you]: respect for true values wherever they are, and overall respect for the man who looks to live these values that help him set aside fear.

You are strongly attached to the traditions which your ancestors transmitted to you. It is legitimate to recognize the ancestors who transmitted to you the sense of the sacral, faith in a one and good god, your tastes for celebrations, and consideration for moral life and harmony in society.

-La libertà religiosa è un diritto inalienabile, L’Osservatore Romano, 06 February 1993