Obama has issued 4 executive orders. One states that Gitmo will be totally shut down within one year. Red cross will be allowed in, we'll see what they do with the prisoners. Another officially condemns torture, US military code must be followed by CIA. A third disavows the use of secret prison and rendition programs. This represents the reversal in policy I was hoping for, lets hope it keeps moving in that direction.



++George Mitchell, former Senate Majority Leader, was chosen as envoy to the Middle East.


++Richard Holbrook, former Ambassador to the UN, has been appointed envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Commission in 2000 Israel/Palestine. North Ireland negotions during Clinton

++Dennis Blair is in hearings to become director of national intelligence.

Stockholms syndrome on the societal level

Great idea mined from William Gibson's Spook Country an awesome post-cyberpunk novel about the post-911 atmosphere of fear, surveillance, blurring of lines between corporate and government intell. The idea is that the phenomenon of patriotism (nationalism) displayed by Americans after 9-11 was a collective form of Stockholm's syndrome. Stockholm's is a psychological condition developed by people in captivity and involves sympathizing or identifying with ones captors. Patty Hearst with the Symbionese Liberation Army is the classic example.

The implications of this observation are obvious, but will be misunderstood and denied by most. This is because people have a hard time seeing that the US government doesn't serve them, in fact it serves corporate interest which wants people to behave a certain way. We're free so long as we keep buying what their selling and don't rock the boat to much. People aren't aware that they are captives because the walls have such pretty wallpaper.

But we are captives of an economic and political system (hard to draw a line anymore) that we don't have an option of participating in our not. By participation I don't mean the democratic kind, the kind that forces the government to obey the people. I mean the passive participation by which the people obey the government and the corporate capitalist economy.
Slavery never ended, we just gave slaves a new name. We call them employees.

The supposed symbolic relevance of Obama's election

There is much talk about Obama's election being the historic moment showing how far we've come from our racist past, our country now entering a so-called post-racial period. Lets all celebrate a quasi-democratic election of a quasi-black man and pat ourselves on the back for not being racist. This is dangerous stuff, this idea that racism is over because we elected a black president. He's not even Black, he's rich.

By saying Obama is not black what I mean is for an African-American to become successful in American politics, he must to some degree lose his blackness. He has been be educated to speak like an educated person which essentially means learn to talk like a white person.

Obama wasn't a powerful black man talking about racial issues, like Jesse Jackson did. Powerful black men can instill fear in white people, and Obama somehow avoided creating these fears. He did this by downplaying his race, and not bringing issues of race to the forefront. On the completely superficial level that is somehow relevant to many, his skin is not very dark. This is unfortunate and I only bring it up to show how shallow our politics have become and that fact that racism is still alive and well in the US of A.

This election will be used as convenient symbol people can point to and say, "see, we are become less racist with time because we elected a black man".
People think this is the only form of racism we have to address, that after we right the wrongs of slavery we can consider ourselves no longer racist.

I point to Ward Churchill's observation that all American forms of domination, subservience, and imperial ambition are rooted in the subjugation and attempted extermination of the Native Americans. Until we address this original act of of racism and acknowledge that this country is founded on notions of racial superiority, we will continue to be a racist imperial nation.

So if we elect a Native American as president, then maybe we can have this conversation again, but I don't see that happening. It is easier to simply deny the original sins of this nation and not address the underlying racism that this country is founded upon on and which still exists today. Indeed, our whole visage of liberty, democracy, and humanitarian ideals would be shattered if we admitted to the actions and justifications used to obtain this country we call the United States of America. Therefore, this idea of a post-racial society is hogwash, a pretty window dressing for further imperialism which is always based on a notion of racial superiority. The hypocrisy could not be more obvious, and our population could not be more oblivious.

Farewell to Arbusco

The eight years of George W. Bush's administration have come to an end. If one good thing came from these eight years, its the bringing of people from my generation to political consciousness. I stood by without much interest as Bush became president and appointed his cabinet selections. Not until the invasion of Afghanistan in Nov. 01 did I begin to become interested in the foreign policy of this administration and the phenomenon of neoconservatism. By the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I had become informed through the countless books, articles, and documentary films documenting the dangers of the course we had set upon and the history of American involvement in other countries, much of it covert.

So if one good thing came from the Bush years is a scepticism of the promises of politicians hopefully combined with an interest in listening to our elected leaders and holding them accountable. Obama is picking his cabinet and this time I'm paying attention. I'm looking out for the involvement of his picks with various think-tanks and organizations, a web of which stretched through Bush policy-making and makers. I'm aware of the historical record of how presidents manipulate public opinion and play off fears and insecurity. Because of this awareness I can see that Obama is playing off the overwhelming public sentiment demanding a fresh start in Washington. His rhetoric of change is being bought up by the public without the kind of critical thinking that is needed. We can't simply cheer when Obama says he has change we can believe in. We need to demand that he spell out what is change is and how he will implement it.

The inauguration took place yesterday and it was the biggest spectacle I've seen since the rallies at Nuremberg, or the Olympic opening ceremonyif the Nazi comparison is too much for you. I plead with the American public to not get caught up in the fanfare, lets keep our attention on the shape his administration is taking in these very important first days. I will be just as critical of Obama as I was of Bush, I'm not celebrating any victory because I know neither Democrats nor Republicans represent my political ideals. I will be critical of Obama because I'm not partisan, I don't bring a home team mentality to politics, I don't identify myself with the nation or its unique form of nationalism. I stand outside that with my own beliefs, many of them coinciding with the foundational values of the American democracy that have been subverted. I'm trying to perform my role as an informed citizen in a superficially democratic society.

Obama has chosen Leon Panetta to run the CIA. The news reports concerns that he has no experience with Intelligence. I would respond to this criticism the same way I responded to claims of Obama's lack of experience: good. The lack of experience means the chance that these men will be able to effect actual change, that they possibly will not play by the book. The CIA is a secretive organization that is wary of outsiders like Panetta, they've served their function for a long time and don't wish to change. (The function being not intelligence gathering, but covert action to keep markets open for US business.) Obama wanted to pick a more experienced person with CIA experience, but couldn't find one that hadn't been involved with the Bush administrations extra constitutional interrogation/extradition/surveillance schemes. So the fact that he picked an outsider is a signal to the CIA that it will not be business as usual.

I'm not letting Obama off the hook for the steps he took to grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies involved in the NSA wiretap program. (This was a sign he would not oppose the intelligence community, at least while he was still running for president.) I also still have qualms with the fact that he gave a heartwarming speech before AIPAC guaranteeing his concern with Israeli security, insuring he wouldn't interfere with its role as an offshore US military base. In some sense I suppose any Democrat needs to have a solid chunk of the Jewish vote, but I'm reversing the logic of the argument that a candidate reneges on campaign promises. I'm hoping he does renege on promises made not to the voters, but to these powerful institutions and lobbies that he needed to court to ensure election.

I know people are becoming disillusioned with Obama, I'm not because I never believed the illusion. How can I believe in something I know to be the equivalent of a circus sideshow?? I want to see a radical revision of American politics as much as anyone, but we have to ask what kind of change do we want, we can't just place all our hope in one man talking vaguely and rhetorically about change. It doesn't mean I have no faith in electoral politics, it means I can overlook the things Obama said to get elected, and take a serious look at the people and policies he puts into action. I didn't and I don't expect the next or any president to be the author of the change we need. I do sincerely hope he can at least slow if not reverse the dangerous trend of expanding executive power and the use of intelligence for political ends. We need the CIA to be held accountable for its actions, to be operated under the norms of Constitutional law.