Comedy and Tragedy

I haven't had time to really digest tonight's State of the Union Address, but at times, didn't Vice President Biden and Speaker of the House Boehner kind of mimic the ancient comedy and tragedy masks?

And maybe that division is appropriate? We're going to build railroads, we're going to cut spending, we're going to invest in education, we're going to cut spending, it's our generation's Sputnik moment, but we're going to cut spending.

I don't know how we can talk about cutting spending without talking about cutting the defense budget, but that topic never seems to come up. Well, President Obama did mention it -- "The Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without" -- but I dread the fear-mongering that will ultimately prevent that move.

The energy independence thing is a really cool idea though. Of course, it was cool when Jimmy Carter talked about it... and every president since then.

I know President Obama's speech was supposed to be a bit of a pep talk for our nation, but for whatever reason, I'm feeling overly cynical tonight. At times I felt like Obama was groveling to the teabaggers. At times I thought he was trying to make John Boehner cry.

Sacrificing an Acorn

The attacks on ACORN began last year when Republicans accused the organization of voter fraud. This month, however, the opposition has turned into a full assault after a few low-level ACORN employees were caught on tape giving some really stupid advice to a guy in a badass pimp costume.

Well, tally another win for Fox's Glenn Beck. Apparently he can set the agenda for the entire country and swiftly take down a community organization whose mission is to advocate for affordable housing, affordable healthcare, higher minimum wages, and better schools. ACORN was also against predatory lending before it was cool.

In other words, ACORN's mission was staunchly against the interests of big business, and that's why nobody wants to be friends with them now. The media hates them and Congress hates them too.

So last week, while Congress was busy defunding ACORN for their transgressions, I stewed over all the other corrupt government contractors who have defrauded tax payers and are accused of rape and murder. Why can't we defund them?

Oh wait... We are?!

When our government shoots fish in a barrel, they like to use a bazooka:

The congressional legislation intended to defund ACORN, passed with broad bipartisan support, is written so broadly that it applies to "any organization" that has been charged with breaking federal or state election laws, lobbying disclosure laws, campaign finance laws or filing fraudulent paperwork with any federal or state agency. It also applies to any of the employees, contractors or other folks affiliated with a group charged with any of those things.

In other words, the bill could plausibly defund the entire military-industrial complex. Whoops.

Hysterical! I don't mind sacrificing an ACORN if it means we also defund the likes of Blackwater and KBR.

In a sane country, the Defund ACORN ACT would be declared unconstitutional as it is clearly a bill of attainder. But these days, the insanity doesn't end at Fox.

Deadly Serious

I'm not sure how much longer we can look forward without looking backward. After years of following the criminality of American CEO's and politicians, I should be drained of any outrage. But then my outrage is suddenly refueled when I read this report by Jeremy Scahill, an expert on the private military contractor Blackwater:

A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company's owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life."

You should really read the entire article and the two sworn statements linked within. However, I'll summarize some of the allegations against Blackwater founder and owner, Erik Prince:

• Operated a web of companies to obscure money laundering and evade taxes.
• Smuggled illegal weapons into Iraq for profit.
• Destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents.
• Did nothing to stop the excessive and unjustified deadly force against civilians.
• Views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe.
• Ignored the assessments done by mental health professionals and deployed "unfit men" obsessed with killing "ragheads."
• Knowingly hired two persons previously involved in the Kosovo sex-trafficking ring to serve at relatively high levels in the company.
• Failed to stop the ongoing use of prostitutes including child prostitutes by his employees.
• Murdered, or had murdered, one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information, to the federal authorities about the ongoing criminal conduct.

Is it just me or does that list get weirder and weirder? The first couple of crimes are what we've sadly grown to expect from war profiteers, and then we get to the murderous Christian crusader and sex-trafficking parts...

Our government wants us to believe that they're simply outsourcing and privatizing military security, but the UN says it's a new form of mercenary activity. However, the U.S. is not under any law or treaty barring the use of mercenaries. I think that makes us look like some kind of banana republic.

We gave a 1.2 billion dollar contract to a company that operates with impunity and is run by a greedy, neo-Christian crusader in a volatile region that wants us out. At first I wanted to add Blackwater and Erik Prince to the long list of idiotic mistakes made by the Bush Administration, but Jeremy Scahill believes that Bush and company considered the crusader element a definite plus in the decision to hire Blackwater:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Probably because of all the bad press, Blackwater changed their name to Xe -- which looks like a word I'd try to get away with in Scrabble. I have no idea what the name means, but I'm guessing it's short for "xenophobia."

Military-Industrial Complex

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Those were the noble goals stated by Dwight D. Eisenhower in his famous 1961 speech on the Military-Industrial Complex. I think it's important to revisit history to understand what is happening now. What was new to the American experience 47 years ago is widely accepted and rarely questioned today:

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Thanks to the Internet, we can easily track the costs. So far this month, 255 publicly-reported defense contracts have totaled $40,916,778,410. The total so far this year is $164,176,189,156. And don't foolishly believe that these contracts are all being awarded to American companies. Bahrain Maritime and Merchantile International is being awarded a maximum $2,801,334,120 contract for supply and distribution of food and non-food products.

Of course the money spent is the easy part to measure, but our liberties and our democratic process have also been sacrificed. See my posts on domestic spying, habeas corpus, airport security, proxy wars, terrorist watch list, politicalization of the DoJ, and the cavalier attitude towards war with Iran...

And on this last topic of Iran, maybe we are finally coming to our senses. A recent RAND Research Brief presents the evidence that terrorism groups are rarely defeated by military might:

By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory.

In another positive development, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is starting to sound a little bit like Eisenhower. Yesterday, Gates renewed his call for more spending on U.S. diplomacy and international aid, saying the U.S. government risks “creeping militarization” of its foreign policy by focusing its resources on the Pentagon.

So that's what we're calling it now? Creeping militarization? I suppose I don't mind the new wording. Just uttering the phrase "military-industrial complex" makes me feel like a radical tie-dyed hippie.