Beyond Shit and Shittier
Wouldn’t it be nice if putting a new president in office really changed things? Wouldn’t it be nice if things were so simple? Think of it: you step into a voting booth, mark a piece of paper and - VOILA! - you’ve got yourself some change.
Well sure that’s a nice thought now isn’t it? But anyone who thinks anything happens that easily is probably trying to lose weight on a pop-a-pill, eat-what-you-like-and-don’t-exercise diet. Things just aren’t that simple.
It says something that lots of us think it is this simple. Clearly, we’re a nation of quick fixes and wishful thinking.
How did it come to this? Why do we think we can do next-to-nothing and achieve a result worth having? Why do we think that sticking a new body in the White House will change anything? Furthermore, why do we assume that electing someone who thinks he can win votes by adopting the incumbent’s asinine policies will get us anywhere? Why?
It’s called stupidity.
We must face the issues that transcend which fool is president. We have to care less about crap versus crappier and more about the underlying structure of power in this country and how it obstructs change. One of the biggest obstacles is the military-industrial complex. In 1789, George Washington told us to “avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
Did we listen?
In a piece published this past January, historian Chalmers Johnson indicated the extent of what he calls “America’s Empire of Bases.” According to official documents, “the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.” These bases are peopled by “some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and [employ] an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.” And that does not include outposts in Kosovo, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, and some key former Soviet republics such as Uzbekistan (whose strategic value, like other states in the area, has to do with oil). And, of course, we’re only talking about what’s reported.
According to the Department of Defense, the projected (“official”) budget for fiscal year 2005 is roughly $450 billion, up considerably from the $276 billion of fiscal 1999. To put this in perspective, let’s look at what some other countries are spending. China, for example, spent roughly $56 billion in fiscal 2002, and its TOTAL expenditures for 2003 were $300 billion. With nearly 1.3 billion people, China is still the world’s most populous country.
In short, in terms of gross expenditures, the U.S. outspends EVERYBODY when it comes to “defense”. On a per capita basis, only Israel and Singapore spend more – Israel spends about $1500 a head; Singapore and the U.S. about $950. The U.S. ranks second only to China in the number of people it employs in arms production (some 2.3 million, as of 2001).
These are our tax dollars. Our tax dollars supported the invasion of Iraq. Our tax dollars filled the suitcases that CIA operatives handed to “Northern Alliance” warlords in Afghanistan to win them over to “our side”. Our tax dollars subsidized Ahmed Chalabi’s lobbying campaign for a war in Iraq (in other words, at some level, we paid to be convinced to go to war). Our (parents’) tax dollars outfitted Afghanistan’s Mujahadeen in the 1980s, and helped train one of the CIA’s finest recruits, Osama bin Laden. Our (parents’) tax dollars sent Donald Rumsfeld on a diplomatic mission to Iraq to tell Saddam Hussein that we were on his side. Our taxes pay for the Pentagon’s “black projects”, top-secret research and development programs resulting in ever more lethal weapons to use in the wars we finance. And, whether we like it or not, we paid for every death in Iraq – military and civilian - in cold, hard cash.
If voting won’t change this, then voting – I am sorry to say – DOES NOT MATTER. Sure there are differences between Bush and Kerry. Contrary to what Kerry says sometimes, I still believe they are distinct people. But the question we have to ask ourselves is this: Are these differences – whatever they are – enough to radically change the status quo in America? Is the difference between Kerry and Bush – to the extent that there is one – going to make any difference when it comes to entrenched structures like the military-industrial complex? Kerry, after all, is a military man. Bush, on the other hand, may or may not have been. But the discussion is still happening within the dominant framework. Nobody is challenging the status quo.
Can there be change now? I don’t know. We need to ask ourselves what our country is and what we would like it to be. If the house is falling down then we have to rebuild it from the ground up. We must declare our independence again. We can’t afford anything less.
Statistics used in this article are from nationmaster.com and the venerable CIA World Factbook.
Well sure that’s a nice thought now isn’t it? But anyone who thinks anything happens that easily is probably trying to lose weight on a pop-a-pill, eat-what-you-like-and-don’t-exercise diet. Things just aren’t that simple.
It says something that lots of us think it is this simple. Clearly, we’re a nation of quick fixes and wishful thinking.
How did it come to this? Why do we think we can do next-to-nothing and achieve a result worth having? Why do we think that sticking a new body in the White House will change anything? Furthermore, why do we assume that electing someone who thinks he can win votes by adopting the incumbent’s asinine policies will get us anywhere? Why?
It’s called stupidity.
We must face the issues that transcend which fool is president. We have to care less about crap versus crappier and more about the underlying structure of power in this country and how it obstructs change. One of the biggest obstacles is the military-industrial complex. In 1789, George Washington told us to “avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
Did we listen?
In a piece published this past January, historian Chalmers Johnson indicated the extent of what he calls “America’s Empire of Bases.” According to official documents, “the Pentagon currently owns or rents 702 overseas bases in about 130 countries and has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories.” These bases are peopled by “some 253,288 uniformed personnel, plus an equal number of dependents and Department of Defense civilian officials, and [employ] an additional 44,446 locally hired foreigners. The Pentagon claims that these bases contain 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals, and other buildings, which it owns, and that it leases 4,844 more.” And that does not include outposts in Kosovo, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, and some key former Soviet republics such as Uzbekistan (whose strategic value, like other states in the area, has to do with oil). And, of course, we’re only talking about what’s reported.
According to the Department of Defense, the projected (“official”) budget for fiscal year 2005 is roughly $450 billion, up considerably from the $276 billion of fiscal 1999. To put this in perspective, let’s look at what some other countries are spending. China, for example, spent roughly $56 billion in fiscal 2002, and its TOTAL expenditures for 2003 were $300 billion. With nearly 1.3 billion people, China is still the world’s most populous country.
In short, in terms of gross expenditures, the U.S. outspends EVERYBODY when it comes to “defense”. On a per capita basis, only Israel and Singapore spend more – Israel spends about $1500 a head; Singapore and the U.S. about $950. The U.S. ranks second only to China in the number of people it employs in arms production (some 2.3 million, as of 2001).
These are our tax dollars. Our tax dollars supported the invasion of Iraq. Our tax dollars filled the suitcases that CIA operatives handed to “Northern Alliance” warlords in Afghanistan to win them over to “our side”. Our tax dollars subsidized Ahmed Chalabi’s lobbying campaign for a war in Iraq (in other words, at some level, we paid to be convinced to go to war). Our (parents’) tax dollars outfitted Afghanistan’s Mujahadeen in the 1980s, and helped train one of the CIA’s finest recruits, Osama bin Laden. Our (parents’) tax dollars sent Donald Rumsfeld on a diplomatic mission to Iraq to tell Saddam Hussein that we were on his side. Our taxes pay for the Pentagon’s “black projects”, top-secret research and development programs resulting in ever more lethal weapons to use in the wars we finance. And, whether we like it or not, we paid for every death in Iraq – military and civilian - in cold, hard cash.
If voting won’t change this, then voting – I am sorry to say – DOES NOT MATTER. Sure there are differences between Bush and Kerry. Contrary to what Kerry says sometimes, I still believe they are distinct people. But the question we have to ask ourselves is this: Are these differences – whatever they are – enough to radically change the status quo in America? Is the difference between Kerry and Bush – to the extent that there is one – going to make any difference when it comes to entrenched structures like the military-industrial complex? Kerry, after all, is a military man. Bush, on the other hand, may or may not have been. But the discussion is still happening within the dominant framework. Nobody is challenging the status quo.
Can there be change now? I don’t know. We need to ask ourselves what our country is and what we would like it to be. If the house is falling down then we have to rebuild it from the ground up. We must declare our independence again. We can’t afford anything less.
Statistics used in this article are from nationmaster.com and the venerable CIA World Factbook.
