barriomulas.com

There is debate on whether or not Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons activities. While the West claims so, Iran alleges that its nuclear program is only for peaceful means. But even if Iran was developing nuclear weapons, I believe that it has every right to do so. Not only does it have a nuclear-equipped Israel to its west, but it has a nuclear India to its east and a nuclear Pakistan as its neighbor. With Pakistan's political uncertainty, mass protests, and its hosting of hiding Taliban forces, one cannot blame Iran for having its own nuclear deterrent.

I don't see as to why Iran shouldn't have the right to have its own nuclear weapons program. How many countries has Iran gone to war with during the last two decades? One. And during that war, both sides were funded by the U.S. On the other hand, how many countries has the U.S. gone to war with during the last two decades? (Boy, I loose count.) The last thing Iran wants is to set off a regional sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

Hell; Iran's parliament has representatives from its minority groups. Its democracy is probably the most advanced and genuine of the entire region. While puppet governments, dictatorships, and monarchies stench their neighbors, Iran has had over twenty elections during the last twenty years. Though it does have its democratic limitations, in comparison to its neighbors, Iran's political system is quite advanced. The country has also obtained an acceptable standard of living in face of international and diplomatic sanctions.

Interestingly enough, 67% of Muslims according to the Economist state that they believe that Iran has every right to pursue its nuclear activities. Another poll notes that 42% of Lebanese and 46% of Jordians view Iran as a threat to their country while 74% and 81% of the same populations believe that Israel is a great future threat. Another study states that only 38% of Iranian Americans believe that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism and 60% believe that Iran is not a threat. Meanwhile, according to the Economist poll two thirds of Muslims consider America "aggressive".

Hezbollah is a political and resistance movement in Lebanon. It is a formal political party and maintains an armed wing of the organization meant on opposing foreign colonialism and Jewish occupation. The organization receives its operating funds from donations and from the Iranian government (the U.S. too pumps millions of dollars into Lebanese politics and military (USAID, Washington Post). The group is quite popular as 87% of Lebanese support Hezbollah's fight with Israel. Hezbollah maintains a television channel, a radio station, a telecommunications network, and a large number of social programs in a country where welfare is almost non-existent.

In recent years Hezbollah had belonged to a parliamentary coalition which wielded 45% of the seats. The coalition had requested a national unity government and requested a little more than 1/3 of the cabinet posts (a demand I don't think is far fetched). The request was denied by the American University-educated, former Citibank-employed President (Washington Post). This has caused during recent years a deadlock tension in Lebanese politics.

The recent unrest comes from the government's attempting to close down Hezbollah's telecommunication network. The organization took this as a declaration of war and violence between both sides ensued. The Lebanese army finally agreed to withdrawal the government's shutdown of the network (Reuters) and Hezbollah agreed to formally back down (AP). Despite the truce by official players, civilian supporters of both sides continued fighting.

It's during such a sensitive moment that "The US is prepared to help strengthen Lebanon's army so it can disarm Hezbollah" as President Bush said in an interview with the BBC. According to Bush, Hezbollah "acted against its own people". I think he is failing to see how much of a part of everyday political and cultural life Hezbollah represents to its population. Whether or not you agree with them, they are a force to recon with. I am simply dumbfounded at how stupids American foreign policy is. Really. I can't think of any other word to sum it up.

I have been quite reserved on the issue in previous years but I must say that American policy makers are truly stupid. In 2006 64% of Americans still thought that Saddam had connections with Al Qaeda (New York Times). Hillary said on the Senate Floor that "He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members" (Official Senate Page). 33% of Americans in 2007 thought that Iraq carried out 9/11 (CBS). John McCain recently expressed that he "was concerned that Iran was training members of Al Qaeda in Iraq" (New York Times) Fucking Christ, these people voted to go to war in a region where they are obvious to the fact that Al Qaeda, Saddam, and Iran are mortal enemies. 74% of Iranians view Osaba Bin Laden negatively and 53% consider Al Qaeda a threat (World Public Opinion) and Saddam went to war with Iran for almost a decade. Ironically, both sides of the war received funding from the U.S. Government.

Shame on Americans for electing people of such caliber, and most of all for being so oblivious towards these things. I don't expect every citizen to be an expert on every hot spot in the world but if you are to elect politicians who invade countries, pay taxes to fund a foreign war, and watch family members fly off to battle the least you can do is fuckin' Wikipedia the country. Though 76% of Americans supported the War in Iraq during March 2003 (AP) 87% of young adults can't locate Iraq on a world map (CNN). 63% couldn't locate it on a map of the Middle East (National Geographic News).

(Current song: "Watch Out Now" by Beatnuts. Feel free to open the links in a new tab and jam away)

I have refrained from making posts on the Presidential elections. In fact, I'm pretty sure that this is my first one. Due to the coming Democratic Presidential primary I have been stopped in the halls of my office building with frequent questions concerning who I endorse. (Song changes to "Fruta Fresca" by Carlos Vives)

People seem to be confused when they hear that my preferred primary candidate was actually a Republican - Ron Paul. (Song changes to "Pass that Dutch" by Missy Elliot") I have a thing for traditional conservatives like Ron Paul and Patrick Buchanan. Most of all, as a resident of a U.S. colony it's of little concern to mine what his - or anybody else's - domestic policies are. I believe that Ron Paul would be the best candidate in terms of how the U.S. Presidency has traditionally affected the rest of the globe. Though he has not dropped out of the race the Republican Party of Puerto Rico will not be planning to hold a primary race. (Song changes to "It's Been a While" by Staind)

Realistically speaking, the candidates of the race are limited to John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. McCain's foreign policy is an instant turn off, thus I'm obviously bent towards a Democrat candidate. Though I had a preference since the very beginning, I am not a member of any political party but the Puerto Rican Partido Popular Democratico. I look at both the Republican and Democratic parties in a very negative light and when comparing them to their Puerto Rican and Latin American counterparts they represent very little differences between each other. (Song changes to "Remeber Me" by Blue Boy) I view both parties as appendages of the grandes intereses. I don't plan to affiliate myself with a stateside party anytime soon.

As an autonomist who seeks sovereignty from the U.S. I see it as counterproductive the participation of our population in what I understand to be a foreign Presidential primary. Most autonomist leaders of the Popular Party have also stated that they will boycott the primaries. (Song changes to "Ready For The Floor" by Hot Chip) Neither do I believe in the position of Resident Commissioner - the non-voting representative of Puerto Rico to the U.S. Congress. I would very much prefer to send Consulates to foreign nations instead of sending a Resident Commissioner to Capital Hill. Their non-voting status, their assimilation into stateside parties, and their membership to caucuses dilute their ability to represent their community. My good friend Jesus Hernandez once said that "Puerto Rico's best representative is not the Resident Commissioner but the Representative of Puerto Rican communities in Chicago." In fact, during the previous election I voted for the Independence Party's candidate for Resident Commissioner partially as a protest vote. The PIP represents my views concerning the position more than my own party does.

Earlier this evening I was approached by a fellow popular and was asked to work on either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama's Puerto Rico campaign. Many populares are eager to have their fellow party members partake in the primaries careless who wins simply to demonstrate their capacity to mobilize the electorate to popular leaders higher up in the party hierarchy. (Song changed to "She's Looking Like a Hobo" by Malcom McLaren) Though I have my preference, as I've said before, I choose not to participate in the process.

"OK, so who's his preference?" you guys are probably asking. Barack Obama. Why? Well,

1. It has nothing to do with his Puerto Rico platform. I am aware of the U.S. Executive Branch's limited ability to act on the Puerto Rico question (the U.S. Congress is the entity with dominion over the island and their relationship with us.) (Song changes to "Historia de un Condenado" by Joe Quijano)
   
2. He's Black. Yes, I'm aware that it sounds like a very ignorant and shallow reason to vote for someone due to their race, but I believe that this fact has much significance in U.S. society. I believe that it is beneficial for such a large, poverty-stricken minority to finally feel as if they are actually in charge. I believe that it would not only be empowering but productive as well considering Obama's lack of the stereotypical "woe is me" complex that I believe keeps many of us minorities "down". (Song changes to "The Hollow" by A Perfect Circle) It is true that Hillary is a woman and that women too have been subject to inequalities as well but it is in my position that Blacks have traditionally been in a worse position than women. Women have exercised their full right of voting long before Blacks and are better represented in Congress. (Song changes to "Desire" by Pharoahe Monch", "10" by Cafe Tacuba, and then "Flap" by Eumir Deodato)
   
3. The fact that he's Black and was raised in places such as Hawaii and Indonesia sensitizes him to foreign cultures. (Song changes to "Rock Creek Park" by The Blackbyrds) The majority of the problems arising from U.S. foreign policy have to do with cultural ignorance. The January/February 2008 issue of The Atlantic quotes Giuliani's Middle East adviser saying "What's a Kurd, anyway?" Condoleezza Rice has stated that "Iraqis - whether Kurds or Shia or Sunni or the many other ethnic groups in Iraq - have demonstrated that they really want to live as one in a unified Iraq." (Song changes to "13.6.35" by Belleruche) Interestingly enough, 80% of Iraqi Kurds have signed a petition calling on a vote for independence.
   
4. He is anti-war. Obama's foreign policy would prevent domestic terrorist attacks. Overall, the world will be a better place without a unilateral preemptive strike super power. (Song changes to "Indifferente" by Serge Gainsbourg and then "Stand On" by Jehro). I am actually hoping for the day that Iran, China, and a unified Latin America reach superpower status so to provide choice and option for smaller countries who will naturally slip into a regional power's sphere of influence.
5. Jeremiah Wright is a pretty cool guy. I agree that 9/11 was a response to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East (Osama Bin Laden's fatwa outlined it clearly) and I believe that it was a mistake to allow the Jewish diaspora to settle in Palestine without expecting widespread opposition (though I believe it is too late to reverse it). (Song changes to "Obsession" by Hanif Jamiyl) Though Obama has distanced himself from his former pastor, it says a lot about Obama that he sat through 20 years of Wright's teachings. (Song changes to "Do You Think..." by Kittie and then "Cannon" by White Stripes)

During the chaos and anarchy that characterized the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 arose the soviets; popular organs resembling community boards and neighborhood councils. These soviets took hold in each town as common everyday citizens joined them in hoards. In moments where a centralized state had fallen apart such popular organizations were much needed in order to maintain order and the continuation of public policy.

Hanah Arendt in "On Revolution" (read my review) discusses how similar organizations arose during the French and American Revolutions. Much like in Russia, these groups were hi-jacked by proponents of traditional legislators and representative government. The same occurred in even the Spanish War for Independence - which I recently researched in a previous posting. Ever since I was exposed to the Bolivarian Circles of Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and the community cells of Salvador Allende's Chile, I have been fascinated by the organic democracy of pro-active popular groups. It was Arendt's book and the writings of Thomas Jefferson that led me to believe that such groups could minimize the need for a centralized state. Though the Venezuelan and Chilean experiments were products of a personalized revolution, their more natural counterparts that arise during moments of anarchy have never been allowed to continue functioning. Those raised in the comfort of liberal democracy are often apathetic towards the study of revolution, but I argue that one can learn a lot about democracy in general by studying its pattern.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was one of the few instances where soviets were allowed - and even partially encouraged - by the professional revolutionaries who were to hi-jack the state. Despite such, they were eventually infiltrated and corrupted by the desires and visions of few. It is for that reason that I had decided to read "The Soviet Political System: An Interpretation" by Alfred G. Meyer to identify the exact causes of the degeneration of the soviets.

These soviets arose by surprise and were the product of sporadic grass-roots organization. They represented the "most simple and direct form of democratic rule yet devised," (p. 39) and allowed for even "kitchen help to have a turn at running the state" (p. 41). Professional full-time bureaucrats were no longer necessary and the division between rulers and ruled was to be eliminated (pp.78, 208). The revolutionaries were so sure that that state was to forever wither away, that they eliminated courts, law schools, and even laws themselves (p. 302).

Community soviets would elect members to regional soviets, who would in turn choose delegates for a higher up soviet, until creation an national soviet composed of representatives chosen organically in a pyramid-like fashion (pp. 39, 267.) The book refers to this as a "multiple screening process through various levels of administration."

At any time soviet members in either of the levels of government could be recalled - something that occurred quite often (pp. 42, 265). Thus, these organizations were quite sensitive to the public opinion (pp. 42, 268) and there existed as many moods and opinions as imaginable (p. 265). Also, once the soviet system was to become organized by the new Bolshevik regime, elections for different levels of soviets were to take place at different times, thus creating an environment of frequent elections (p. 269).

Up until now, the soviets reveal a very empowering and democratic spirit. Despite such, let us look at the problems that plagued it:

With too many members representing too many opinions it was almost impossible for the soviet or organize itself in an efficient manner. These organizations began to operate more and more through committees, commissions, and executive organs (pp. 40, 267). These committees would then further delegate executive power to cabinets (p. 267). "More meaningful debate," as the book states, "and decision making could be carried on by a smaller body meeting more frequently" (p. 40). Bureaus would be created, composed of full-time bureaucrats (p. 267) and a chairman of the soviet would be appointed, acting much like the prime minister of an executive branch (p. 40). Soviets resembled U.S. corporations where their members acted like stock holders who chose the presidency and directors (like  corporate management) (p. 198). Though the legislatures of modern day democracies also specialize tasks through commissions and committees, this habit of boards naming boards and so on was contradictory to the very democratic purpose of the soviets.

The soviets were easily swayed by the manipulation of a few key members (p. 268). The Bolsheviks would utilize the recall mechanisms to push out unfriendly deputies and replace them with members of their movement (p. 267). A caucus of the Bolsheviks also existed (p. 43) thus compacting possible differences in opinion among their many members into a sole party platform. Upon consolidating power, non-Bolsheviks were harassed and eventually outlawed (p. 43). The soviets were quickly tamed by the party (p. 269).

The soviets took up the roles of all government branches and represented a tyranny of the majority (p. 268). They often disregarded the rules of politics and legislated with little concern or respect towards  present norms (p. 268). Few ideologies will debate the danger that existing within a governing body that legislates, executes, and judges at the same time.

Though the Bolsheviks' aided the revolution with their calls for "all power to the soviets", the Bolsheviks have never seen the masses as instruments for public administration. Even prior to the revolution they pressed the need of a small, closed centralized revolutionary class. They stressed the "need [of] a government staffed with experienced administrators and not kitchen maids or semiliterate representatives of the masses" (p. 166). A "government of wise legislators," states the author (p. 166).

By the time Bolshevik officials were in total control, soviet candidates were nominated by a number of party-controlled organizations and finally screened by the party itself (p. 270). Elections for soviet positions were stocked with only a single candidate and limited to a simple yes or no vote (p. 271).

The soviet's primary weakness was found in the relative ease that manipulators and professional revolutionaries could infiltrate it. These characters would eventually eliminate the soviets as a democratic organism and replace it with a party dictatorship. The constant delegation of authority from committee to committee was also a problem, leading to the centralism and bureaucracy that brought down the previous regime to begin with.

Taking these things into consideration I wonder: the soviets obviously lacked the ability to survive by itself, but what if such a popular democratic pyramid were allowed to exist alongside the traditional three branches of government?

"The poor man has always a precise view of his problem and its remedy," states John Kenneth Galbraith, "he hasn't enough and he needs more. The rich man can assume or imagine a much greater variety of ills". Galbraith continues by referring to the rich man's woes as "the luxury of misunderstanding." Throughout his book "The Affluent Society", the author's concept concerning Conventional Wisdom is laid out before the reader.

While the topic was not necessarily my favorite in Galbraith's book, his observations lead me to ponder whether or not they had anything to do with the fact that most "developing nations" feature states identified with either the extreme left or the extreme right while the dominating political parties in post-industrial states tend to share more similarities than differences. The spotlight and importance of issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and environmentalism tend to be limited to "developed" nations. Rarely would either make or break a Latin American election. It's simply not a major political concern.

An example can be seen throughout Latin America, where the differences between the Communists and Socialists within any given left wing coalition are many more times larger than the U.S. Democrats and Republicans. Neither of the later really push for a complete destruction of the current system. States tend to be ruled by either a firebrand socialist or a neoliberal businessman, with rarely any truly moderate candidate arising. Electors can also elect one radical only an election after choosing an opposing radical. It seems as if the poor have no room for patience or process.

<br>While not living up to the expectations of its title, "Primitive Government" by Lucy Mair did succeed in bringing up a primitive concept that is often forgotten in the face of modern political debate; that of lineages. Mair states that "Lineages have corporate rights in property; they consider themselves to be injured as a body if one of their members is injured, they support compensation, and the compensation is shared among them." (p. 37) Later, Mair discusses the "right of revenge for homicide... cases of homicide were discussed between the lineages involved, and the killer was handed over by his kin if they admitted his guilt." There existed "diplomatic settlement of disputes by agreement between heads of lineages on the payment of compensation" (p. 155) The concept is fascinating, for due to the absence of a formal state or ruling power, order was maintained by an invisible rule of lineage compensation.

At one time or another, the state stepped in and - in a sense - nationalized the role of victim. Prior to this, "all accusations were made by he individuals who consider themselves injured." (p. 157) No longer were crimes exclusively committed against individuals, but the wrong doings of law breakers were considered to be offenses against the collectives. In turn, it was the response of the state to implement some sort of punishment. Mair continues, "Primitive societies had very little idea of offenses against the collectivity which cannot be made good by restitution but must be deal with by the infliction of punishment."(p. 156) The role of the state as the collective victim can further be seen in the fact hat "many of our crimes are acts of disobedience to the government but are not in themselves very heinous."(p. 157)

Of course with the rise of white collar crime, terrorism, cyber crimes, vandalism of public property, intellectual property disputes, and piracy it is increasingly difficult to identify the individual "victims", the concept of allowing the victim or their family to partake in the decision making process on what type of compensation is to be requested or what type of punishment is to be dealt is indeed interesting. Otherwise as Mair notes that it is not true that "certain actions wrong the whole of society, but rather from the specific claim of rulers to assert their powers." (p. 160)