The Stinking Boot Below the Alps

While most of the news media and political commentators are looking at the recent Italian court decision against Google from the freedom of expression angle, the more accurate analysis of the Italian court decision is the power of Silvio Berlusconi, politics and money. As recent events in Italy have undoubtedly shown, the changes to the judicial system that Berlusconi and his cronies in government have pursued are not based on issues related to democracy, the rule of law, or good government but on protecting the financial interests and political power of Silvio Berlusconi and his allies. For people knowledgeable on how Italian society functions, the latest court decision against three Google executives is more about protecting the business and political interests of Silvio Berlusconi and his friends in government than it is about Google and the Internet.

As in most news stories involving Italian politics and society, the real story is not in what is reported but in what is not reported. Supporting this analysis is the omission of the former head of Google Italia, Massimilano Magrini, being named in the lawsuit, and the acquittal of Google Italia senior product marketing manager Arvind Desikan. While most people who heard the news of the lawsuit may understand the general framework of the case, far too many do not know the personal history of Silvio Berlusconi and how much power and influence he has in the country. The omission of Massimilano Magrini and Arvind Desikan offer an insight into how Silvio Berlusconi may have helped these two men avoid being named in the lawsuit as was the case for Magrini or facing the trial as was the case for Arvind Desikan.

While it is unclear why Desikan was acquitted, the reasons for Massimilano Magrini not being named in the lawsuit even though he was Google Italy’s country manager are easily to surmise. This is most likely due to his prior employment at Silvio Berlusconi’s very successful and profitable ad agency, Publitalia, part of the Mediaset Group of companies in Italy. As in most other country’s, in Italy, personal connections and a well-connected network is more important than job qualifications or the rule of law.

All of the media coverage on the recent court ruling is missing the fact that Google is a main challenger to the financial interests of Silvio Berlusconi’s Media Set and his de facto control of the state television stations, RAI1, RAI2, and RAI3. It is no coincidence that Italy has one of the lowest rates of Internet connectivity in Europe and the amount of time watching television as compared to other European countries.

In addition to the interesting story of why these two men were not convicted in the recent trial against Google, the recent lawsuit also appears to have the goal of suppressing and limiting political opposition on the Internet. It is highly certain that Berlusconi and the entire political establishment in Italy understand the power of the Internet. The latest lawsuit is another example of the political establishment in Italy taking steps to protect their power through legislation attacking the Internet.

Although the political establishment in Italy may try to use laws and legislation to stifle freedom of expression on the Internet, as Beppe Grillo has shown with his Five Star Movement gaining momentum in Italy before the March regional elections, people will still find ways to subvert the government.

In Italy, this is a national pastime and a necessary way of life.

The latest court ruling against Google is another example of why Italy is considered the Sick man of Europe and the Stinking Boot Below the Alps.

Click here to view the Google statement released through their blog.

Department of Defense Sponsorship of NASCAR and NHRA helps support militarism in America

A recent death of a spectator at a National Hot Rod Association (NHRA) race in Chandler, AZ caused by the Matco Tools/U.S. Army dragster loosing control, is an example of the subtle yet continuing incursion of militarism into American society and culture. Although the average American would not have made the connection between militarism, out of control military spending and a death at a NHRA drag race event, the recent incident demonstrates how the inconspicuous sponsorship of NHRA and NASCAR contributes to the plight of militarism in America. While the money spent on sponsoring NHRA and NASCAR teams may seem insignificant to some readers, tell that to the soldiers who deployed to Iraq in 2003, who did not have enough Individual Body Armor Systems (IBAS), which contributed to unnecessary casualties and deaths of American service members.

As Nick Turse details in the chapter, Pimp my Pentagon in his book, The Complex how the military invades out everyday lives, the sponsorship of NHRA drag racing coincided with the end of the unpopular Vietnam War and like today, was used primarily as a recruiting tool to entice high school seniors and college bound young men to join the military. Starting with Don “Snake” Prudhomme in the 1970s, who raced in a red-white-and blue funny car with the U.S. Army painted on its side, the Matco Tools Army dragster is the latest chapter of Pentagon dollars sponsoring privately owned race teams. Like Don “Snake” Prudhomme in the 1970s, the Pentagon has recruited Tony “The Sarge” Schumacher to be the latest NHRA spokesperson with U.S. Tax payer dollars to sell an increasingly unpopular war to the latest generation of hot rod enthusiasts. On the Pentagon payroll since 2000, “The Sarge” is an honorary sergeant in the U.S. Army and is unabashedly not shy about his role as an Army recruiter. In addition to the top fuel dragster driven by Schumacher, the Army has a NHRA Pro Stock Bike racing team, to also reach the two wheeled speed addicted youth demographic of 18-24 year olds.

Not to be outdone, all of the other military services each have a NASCAR team racing in the NEXTEL cup series. Even the two smaller Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Marine Corps reserve, and Air National Guard/Air Force reserve have NASCAR teams. In 2004, the Pentagon’s efforts aimed at the 8.5 million NASCAR fans between the ages of 18-24 resulted in 30,000 qualified leads for recruiters. With the economy continually to suffer through a recession, those numbers will surely increase as more young men and women try to find employment.

While politicians of both political parties continue to say there is little money for mass transit and other infrastructure projects, these same politicians have no problem rubber stamping defense bill after defense bill to fund unneeded Pentagon slush funds like sponsoring NHRA and NASCAR teams. Like any government bureaucracy, the goal of expanding their bureaucracy and the self-serving needs of the bureaucracy is evident with The U.S. Navy Racing Junior Dragster Team driven by the young female driver, Shannon Brown. Following the successful business model of using video games to entice future military recruits at increasingly early ages, the junior U.S. Navy Junior Dragster driven by Shannon Brown looks to be a recruiting tool in support of the recent news of women being allowed to serve on U.S. submarines. Like most things though, the decision to allow women to serve on submarines is most likely to benefit the defense companies who will be paid to modify the living quarters on the already cramp under water vessels.

In addition to the death highlighting the prevalence of how the military industrial complex invades our everyday lives with the sponsorship of NHRA and NASCAR races, the subsequent coverage of the accident at the NHRA race also bore evidence of censorship in the American mass media. While researching this story, most of the news coverage of the incident excluded the information the Matco Tools/U.S. Army dragster caused the accident that killed the woman spectator. While it may seem insignificant in relation to the story, the omission of naming the U.S. Army dragster in the accident has the appearance of censorship and damage control by the Pentagon.

The Socilaization of Credit Risk in America

While the socialist movement in the Unites States saw its heyday in the late 1800s and early 1900s with the election of only a handful of mayors and congressmen, it would take members of the Republican and Democratic Parties of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s to enact the kind of class-consciousness and privileged sponsorship the socialist leaders at the turn of the 20th century were seeking. Although many modern conservative political pundits and media personalities like to call Obama a socialist, a review of contemporary American history reveals that Wall Street as opposed to Main Street has been helped by the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury a dozen times over the last thirty years. A close analysis of which party holds the most responsibility for this Wall Street Socialism reveals that Republicans are principally responsible for what went wrong over 25 years of financial greed and complicit Washington regulatory negligence. In party terms, the GOP gets 70 percent of the blame and the Democrats 30 percent.

Below is a list of the Financial Bailouts by the Federal government with American tax dollars between 1980 and 2000 published in Kevin Phillips books Wealth and Democracy- A Political History of the America Rich and published in Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism.

Financial Bailouts in America - 1980- 2010
The End of Moral Hazard

1982-86..............Mexico, Argentina Brazil Debt Crisis

Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury arrange relief package to avoid domino effects on major U.S. Banks

1984 ...................Continental Illinois Bank

Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury orchestrated U.S. aid, including an FDIC purchase of $4 billion of the bank’s troubled loans and extension of deposit insurance to the 85 percent of Continental deposits over the $100,000 insurance ceiling.

Late 1980s.......... Discount Window Bank Bailouts

Federal reserve gave unpublicized loans to 350 banks that later failed, giving big depositors time to flee.

Oct. 1987......Support Operation after Stock market crash

Federal reserve flooded the system with liquidity after the one-day decline, and some have charged U.S. authorities secretly manipulated the futures market to prevent further declines.

1989-92............. Savings & Loan Bailout

At an ultimate cost of some $250 billion,Washington sets up the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) to see off the assets of hundreds of S&Ls bailed out after reckless lending and management practices made them insolvent.

1990-92 .............Bailouts of Bank of New England

Treasury deposited $1.8 billion in Bank And Citibank of New England to allow big and foreign depositors to exit, and then U.S. government stepped in with a $2.3 billion bailout; in Citi’s case, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates relentlessly to allow all the major banks, Citi most of all-to rebuild their balance sheet and stock prices.

1994-95............ Mexican Peso Bailout

U.S. Treasury tapped a little known departmental resource-the Exchange Stabilization Fund to help Mexico support the embattled peso and to secure U.S. investors in high yield Mexican debt (tesobonos).

1997 .................Asian currency bailout

U.S. government-treasury and Federal Reserve-pushed for $200 billion IMF bailout of East Asian nations with embattled currencies, although many of the East Asian excesses grew around perception, fed by Mexican rescue, that the U.S. would use the IMF to bail out foreign lenders.


1998............... Long Term Capital Management bailout

Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, supported by Treasury Sec Rubin, orchestrated a private sector bailout of the giant hedge fund, ostensibly to avoid the threat to markets from an unwinding of its huge positions, but also because of LTCM’s old-boy network and close involvement with other central banks (Italian,Taiwanse).

1999 ...............Y2K Liquidity Surge

Federal Reserve liquidity created to safeguard banks from any Y2K crisis winds up fueling the final stages of the Nasdaq bubble.

2001-5 .............Post –Stock Market crash

Fed cuts U.S. interest rates to 46-year rate cuts lows to reflect U.S. financial and real estate assets and protect the U.S. economy’s newly dominant Financial Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector

2008-2009..........Troubled Asset Relief Program

Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury purchase $700 billion dollars of "troubled assets" from Wall Street firms and financial institutions.

From Nixon to Bush Jr- The continual embrace of Mercantilism by US Leaders as a Political Economic Ideology

Mutually benefiting and growing more powerful from the geo-political and economic policies their countries pursued together in the Cold War era, the United States and Japan appear to be experiencing many of the same economic and political problems associated with the political economic model of mercantilism. The recent financial meltdown in America and the recent recall by Japanese car manufacturer Toyota, are vivid examples of the dangers associated with the geo-economic strategy of mercantilism that creates wealth for private corporations through mercantilist and financial mercantilism methods. Although most conservative readers of the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times would never admit it, since the beginning of the 1970s and the Nixon Administration, the United States has continually moved away from a capitalist economic model and pursued more of a neo-mercantilist and financial mercantilist developmental market model.

Starting in the 1970s when the Nixon administration took the United States off of the Gold Standard, the popular rhetoric of many American politicians of both political parties who claim to support free market capitalism is exposed to be bogus. American history has numerous examples of political leaders pursuing a partnership between public and private institutions; where the state manages a market or industry, in order for a strategic industry to become more powerful.

The state is able to do this for select industries and corporations through subsidies, tax cuts, and other forms of trade protection. Some of the most popular trade policies that the United States and Japan have pursued in becoming a world economic power included legislation that maximized exports, minimized imports through select subsidies, created import barriers, and allowed a foreign country to dump its cheap products in another country’s economy. Some examples of American leaders who have embraced the mercantilist economic development model include, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The latest TARP legislation passed by George W. Bush in 2008 is the latest example of a state helping the private sector.

Following the economic model of their new post war masters, the new Japanese government in 1949 created the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). This agency would be the most powerful government agency in post World War II Japan and would coordinate international trade policy with other groups within the Japanese government, such as the Bank of Japan, the Economic Planning Agency, and the various commerce-related cabinet ministries. Japanese car manufactures such as Toyota, benefited from government loans and other financial help from the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI).

While none of the conservative and pro capitalist think tanks in Washington D.C. like The American Enterprise Institute or Heritage Foundation would admit it, the Reagan Administration, pursued a mercantilist trade policy ,known as the Voluntary Export Restriction, to help protect American car manufactures. This legislation passed by the Democratically controlled Congress and Republican Executive Branch, passed restrictions on the amount of cars Japan could export to the United States. Ironically, this legislation pushed Japan to build more vehicle assembly plants in the United States, to avoid the export restrictions passed by the American government.

In addition to the mercantilist trade policy passed in the early years of the Reagan administration, the Reagan administration started to employ rather than disestablish federal power. As Kevin Phillips writes in his book Wealth and Democracy,

Conservatives of the 1980s, for their part, rarely balked at using authority to promote economic goals, even if many changes required a new role for government. The most important new functions and layers involved the collectivization of financial risk. Liberals, for their part, had built much of the their 1932-1968 politics around collectivizing the risks of old age and indigence through programs like Social Security, welfare, and Medicare. Conservative government, especially in the 1980s, undertook to collectivize a different set of risks, this time the perils to investors of seeking high returns by putting money in precarious financial institutions, currencies, or overseas investments.

For political analysts with a good understanding of contemporary American history, it is amusing to hear Republican Party members and tea party activists denounce big government, considering the role the Federal government has played in the last 30 years when reckless private financial investors have needed the government to help them.

An Empty Suit Analysis of how to fight a Counter Insurgency War

The recent Op-Ed article in The New York Times “Empty Skies over Afghanistan”, by intelligence analyst Lara M. Dadkhah contained misleading statements and false information regarding a Sept. 8 battle in Afghanistan that killed five U.S. troops and nine Afghan soldiers.The author tries to support her thesis that if more air power was used in the war in Afghanistan, the lives of soldiers like the ones killed in the September 8th battle, may have been saved with more air power. Contrary to what the graduate student in Security Studies at Georgetown University wrote in her Op-Ed article however, the real reason is a bit more complex. The more accurate reason that caused the deaths of five U.S. Marines and nine Afghan soldiers was not due to a lack of air power, but rather due to an absence of experienced senior leaders and inadequate action by officers in a tactical operations center responsible for the area that was under attack. While this cannot be summed up in a nice little Op-Ed title like “Empty Skies over Afghanistan”, perhaps a better title for the flawed analysis by Ms. Dadkhah should have been called “An Empty Suit Analysis of how to fight a Counter Insurgency War”.

An official report by the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division which was seen by a McClatchy news reporter who was embedded with the troops on that day, found that the failure to provide adequate artillery support wasn't due to a tactical directive issued by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal that was designed to avert civilian casualties, as Ms. Dadkhah tries to argue in her article.

Although the lack of air power played a factor, contrary to what the intelligence analyst proclaims in her flawed analysis, tactical confusion and poor command decisions by officers on the ground played the most significant factor in the deaths of the five Marines. Backing up this assertion and analysis is the official report by the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division, which was seen by a Jonathan S. Landay, a McClatchy Newspapers correspondent who was embedded with the troops on that day.

Contrary to the academic argument presented by Ms. Dadkhah in her article, war is chaotic, brutal, and is anything but academic and systematic.

Ms. Dadkhah in her apparent partisan attack on the Obama administration’s strategic decision to limit the loss of civilian deaths by setting conditions on the use of air power is fully debunked when the report showed that a human mistake in the field played the most significant role. In addition to the human error, the bureaucratic maze of military command also played a significant role in the deaths of five U.S. Marines in Afghanistan on September 8, 2009 in the Ganjgal Valley. As the article from the McClatchy newspaper writes:

“An unidentified officer denied requests from the battlefield to send a helicopter gunship that was minutes away because the requests weren't sent through his brigade headquarters and the aircraft was assigned to another operation.” The "probability is high" that Marine 1st Lt. Michael E. Johnson of Virginia Beach, Va.; Marine Gunnery Sgt. Edwin W. Johnson of Columbus, Ga.; Marine Staff Sgt. Aaron M. Kenefick of Roswell, Ga., and Navy Petty Officer James R. Layton of Riverside, Calif., were killed during the more than an hour that it took for air support to be properly authorized and arrive on the scene.

The information in the report fully discredits the analysis presented by Ms. Dadkhah and the assertion in her Op-Ed article “ they (U.S. Marines) radioed for artillery support, a request that was rejected on the ground that civilians be injured”, was disproved by the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division report investigating the combat deaths of the five U.S. Marines.

According to the McClatchy reporter who saw the report and who was embedded with the troops that fateful day, the report stated,

“Another major factor, was the operations center officers' failure to provide "effective" artillery fire on the insurgents, despite repeated requests from the battlefield. The acting commander and "all commissioned staff officers" failed to "monitor a rapidly degenerating tactical situation," the report said. That mistake "prevented timely supporting fires in the critical early phases of the operation and ensured that higher headquarters did not grasp the tactical situation.”Only four artillery salvoes were fired in the first hour of the operation; three were ineffective and no more salvoes were authorized from 6:39 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. One of the majors (responsible for the battle) told the investigators that he denied further requests for fire support "for various reasons including: lack of situational awareness of locations of friendly elements; proximity to the village; garbled communications; or inaccurate or incomplete calls for fire."

The report by the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division further goes on to report that

“The base commander was on leave, his deputy was deployed elsewhere and the response to the ambush by the officers who manned the tactical operations center in their absence was "inadequate and ineffective, contributing directly to the loss of life," . Two majors, the senior officers there, "were not continually present" in the operations center. They left a captain who'd been on the overnight shift in charge of the center for more than four hours after the fighting began". The absence of senior leaders in the operations center with troops in contact . . . and their consequent lack of situational awareness and decisive action was a key failure,”

Further exposing the analysis presented by Ms. Dadkhah in her article as being naive and from someone trapped in the bubble of the national security state apparatus and the chicken hawk Beltway Logic of Washington DC defense analysts, is her use of Pentagon data showing “the percentage of sorties sent out that resulted in air strikes has also declined” and other statistics involving the amount of people killed by Afghan government forces.

Perhaps the latte drinking crowd in New York Soho’s District and Washington D.C.’s Georgetown area will enjoy these kinds of articles, but for anyone wanting a much clearer and incisive analysis on the Af-Pak War and the combination of military power and political strategy, I suggest you read TomDispatch and some of the regular contributors like Andrew Bacevich and William Astore. Both of these men are retired members of the military who know what it is to serve in the military and who are also members of the academic professional community holding teaching positions in Boston University and The Pennsylvania College of Technology. In addition to these academic professionals, Pratap Chatterjee, the author of two books about the war on terror, Iraq, Inc. (Seven Stories Press, 2004) and Halliburton's Army (Nation Books, 2009) and Pepe Escobar a roving correspondent for Asia Times has proven to be excellent sources of information on the Af-Pak War.

Like the mercenary soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, who do not have an interest in ending the war, defense analysts like Ms.Dadkhah depend on war and conflict just like the mercenaries of Xe, DynCorp, and the scores of other defense contractors fighting for profit in Afghanistan.

The ghost of Seth Bishop haunting Congressman Delahunt of Massachusetts

Although Opinione does not often tread on the domestic political social wedge issues like gun control and lets the blogger Mikeb302000 discuss the numerous stories in America related to gun violence, the recent story of an Alabama professor killing three people warrants the Grand Prince to weigh in on the issue.

While reading the latest update to the story, before it fads from the radar of the 72-hour news cycle, it was interesting to read that the Congressman, who represents the district where the shooter had grown up, was out of the country and in the country of Israel. The location of the Massachusetts congressman at the time of the killing exposes the role the NRA and AIPAC political action committees have in the American political system and how these big lobbying groups ultimately affect both domestic and international politics.

Sound like a stretch? Stay with the Grand Prince as he walks you through the maze of corrupt corridors in our nation’s capital to show you how it all works out.

Ranked just below the National Rifle Association in domestic American influence peddling, the American Israeli Political Action Committee is the third most powerful lobby in Washington DC. Unlike the political action committee groups of the NRA and the AARP, the goals of AIPAC is to ensure that the interests of Israel and its Jewish citizens living in that country are taken care of, as opposed to the interests of Americans living in the United States. It is important to stress that only the interests of the Jewish members living in Israel are addressed by the political action committee, while the interests of the Arab minority living in Israel are not lobbied for. Considering that over one on five people living in Israel is an Arab, this adds further weight to the argument that Israel often pursues Apartheid like domestic policies.

The fact that a congressional leader who represents a small congressional district in Massachusetts is away in Israel, is a clear example of the power and influence the tiny country of Israel has in American politics. Instead of touring his own congressional district and trying to put more Americans back to work or listen to the problems of constituents living in his congressional district, this congressman is touring a strategically insignificant country that habitually violates international law, engages in Apartheid like policies related to minority citizens living in its country, and launches illegal wars of aggression on its neighbors.


Considering that in 2008, 14,180 Americans were murdered in the United States, it appears that the trillions of dollars spent on the United States military and its support of a tiny strategically insignificant country in the Middle East is not proving any real protection for the American people. Maybe if some of that money was redirected towards people living in the United States and Congressional leaders like Delahunt spent more time in his own congressional district, than maybe he could have helped to reduce some of deaths in America and not be worried about the people living in Israel. Doesn’t the congressman know that food-borne diseases in the United States killed 5,000 Americans in 2008 and that an estimated 1,760 children died from abuse or neglect in 2007.

Although Opinione endorses the efforts by Delahunt to meet with the Israeli government to discuss the creation of a Palestinian state,this type of foreign policy issue should be handled by the executive branch and senior leaders of the political parties in Washington. Dalahunt and the other members of congress who went to Israel, should be back in Washington or in their own Congressional districts, helping people out of work and looking to make end meet.

Perhaps if Mr. Delahunt and more of his peers spent more time and energy on the issues facing people in his district and not jet setting around the world on all expense trips paid by a lobbying group, the tragic incident like the one in Alabama and countless other incidents across America could be reduced in the future.

Until America begins to dismantle its web of military outposts throughout the world and focus more resources to helping more people looking for work in America, the bloodshed and violence in America will only continue to rise.

Rail Lines to Prosperity

There are scores of examples across America where the local media, elected politicians and municipal urban planners continue to use two-dimensional thinking for a problem that requires a three-dimension solution. Even in areas where there are existing mass rail transportation systems, like a regional rail line to a major city, municipal urban planners when confronted the problem of limited parking spaces at one of these train stations, never consider the option of building a light rail transportation system to compliment the existing regional rail line.

The creation of more rail-based transportation systems in America is perhaps the best way for America to create millions of new white- and blue-collar manufacturing jobs and help turn this country around from a country of consumption to a country of production. In addition to helping to create millions of new jobs for Americans, the creation of more regional and national rail systems running on electricity would help contribute to the larger national strategic goal of reducing the need for foreign oil and the high military expenditures required to gain access to and control that dwindling and finite source of energy.

America needs to retain, rebuild and expand her industrial base of manufacturing. One of the reasons why many of the major cities in America like Detroit, Buffalo, Pittsburg, Trenton, and Cleveland are decaying urban centers is that there are no high paying manufacturing jobs in those cities any longer.

Creating a new generation of high-speed trains for interstate travel and light tram systems for America's ever-growing cities and towns is an excellent starting point to answer our current economic problem and a solution to long-term energy and infrastructure needs.

Instead of only thinking about creating additional parking at the train stations, which still requires the commuter to drive from home to the train station, planners should be thinking about building light-rail systems in their communities, so the commuter can take a tram from their house and reduce the need to use their car to travel to their regional train station. Just imagine if the nearly $1 trillion spent in the military invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and the yearly $100 billion it costs to maintain more than 700 American military bases around the world was spent for people in America.

Instead of wasting billions of dollars in countries such as Pakistan and the creation of a new $700 million embassy in Islamabad, Americans should be demanding that those resources be spent in America for Americans. The federal government should support American companies to build high-speed trains in America, which could offer tens of thousands of new high-paying jobs in the fields of electrical, mechanical and industrial engineering. The creation of mass rail lines and the required infrastructure would create millions of jobs for civil engineers and blue-collar trades building and supporting the new mass rail and light rail infrastructure systems. If Americans could put a man on the moon in 10 years more than 40 years ago, I think it is an insult to the American spirit to say America cannot build its own high-speed train in a five- to seven-year period.

In addition to the white and blue-collar jobs, the new rail-based infrastructure would create millions of service-orientated positions. Some of the types of these positions include people selling and assisting mass rail passengers, people cleaning the trains, and thousands of other job opportunities for out of work Americans. From high paying white and blue collar jobs to the service positions for the non college educated segment of American society, this new network of trains, trams and the associated supporting infrastructure is a source of enormous sustained job growth and investment potential for new businesses.

In addition to new industries being created to supply and build new light rail systems in America, the infrastructure created by the new tram stops in the towns would provide a new opportunity for small businesses to be created. For example, each tram stop could have three or four small stores available to rent from the government at a very low price.

One of the factors limiting people from creating a small business like a coffee house, small convenience store or newsstand is the high rent demanded by commercial real estate owners. Small micro loans offered by the government in combination with low monthly rental rates would offer more Americans the freedom to start their own business. If American political leaders of both political parties support the welfare handout of paying farmers not to grow crops, and then give international aid agencies headquartered in the high-cost Euro zone $3 billion a year, then these same political parties should support micro-loans and other financial assistance for Americans to start their own businesses.

The American defense industry worker does not care if he is making a stealth destroyer, next-generation fighter jet or a pilotless helicopter, but it is the responsibility of the political leaders in Washington to ensure that these future high tech weapons systems do not bankrupt the country and lower the living standards of Americans.

Until more Americans begin to question and demand an end to the out-of-control spending in Washington and demand that more money be spent in America for the people raising families in American communities, the continual decline and eventual end of America as a world power may occur in our lifetimes.

In times like this, America needs leaders with bold ideas and the courage and fortitude to challenge the vested interests and obstructionists to change.

Economic polarization in America

The well-respected political analyst Kevin Phillips, author of the books, American Theocracy, Wealth and Democracy, The Politics of Rich and Poor, and the Emerging Republican Majority, often speaks about the five symptoms that previous world powers have experienced before they have collapsed. These include; a sense of something was going wrong with the country, the role of religion or the excessive role of religion, economic polarization within the country, geo-political hubris, and the amount of debt the country owed. Even the most casual observer of America and the country’s standing in the international system, would agree that the American Republic in the 21 century has several if not all of the five symptoms of a world power in decline.

With millions of Americans out of work and Wall Street bankers receiving millions of dollars in yearly bonuses, the relentlessly growing gap between the rich and the poor in America, is perhaps one of the most vivid examples of the type of economic polarization that previous world powers have experienced in their final years of power. A close examination of the past 40 years in American history offers an insight into how the political establishment in America has been corrupted by the wealthiest one percent in America, which has resulted in an ever-increasing decline in the amount of wealth available to the rest of the American people.

While most Americans are familiar with the term “The Great Depression”, the lesser known term, “The Great Compression”, was coined by two historians describing the years between 1939 and 1968, which saw the 20th century’s second great wealth explosion. The term “The Great Compression” coined by the economists Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo ,explains how the available wealth produced in America during the period 1939-1968, which had been previously extracted upwards in America by the upper one and two percent of wealthy Americans until the stock market crash of 1929, was instead shared by more people in America. As Phillips writes in his book Wealth and Democracy;

“The breadth of national prosperity for the forties through the sixties is indisputable, especially the great gains of the blue-collar and the middle class. Of the 74 percent increase in the disposable income of all Americans between 1929 and 1950, the bulk came in the 1940s and concentrated among the fortieth to ninetieth percentiles. Between 1952 and 1960, under Republican president Eisenhower, the average family’s real income climbed by another 30 percent, and then added the same percentage again during Democratic administrations between 1960 and 1968.”

Helped by scores of businesses across the country able to capitalize on selling products that were commercially unfeasible before the war started such as synthetic rubbers, petrochemicals, plastics, new markets for American exporters also opened up in Japan and war torn Europe to further increase post war production and consumption. Behind the scenes in Washington, the decision by the Republican administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower not to lower the 91 percent top income tax rate for individuals, which had been raised to fund the Second World War, also played a significant role in the nearly two decade post World War boom.

Although wealthy Americans may have been taxed in the 90 percentile bracket, these same wealthy individuals, who owned half of all the stocks in America, also increased their wealth by avoiding the 90 percent income tax bracket by cashing in stocks and paying the lower 30 percent rate applied to capital gains. As the stock market increased from 160 in 1949, 300 during 1953, to well over 900 points before President Lyndon B. Johnson committed troops to Vietnam, the top one percent of Americans also participated in the “Good Boom of the Fifties and Sixties”. While middle class America enjoyed a rising level of income, the top one percent of the population in America also saw their share of the wealth in America rise from 22 percent in 1949 to 30 percent in 1958.

However, as in most wars, the bite of inflation resulting in the overly optimistic ambitions of the Johnson administration of ending poverty in the United States while fighting a land war in Southeast Asia set the stage for some of the worse inflation in American history. This economic malaise and a country suffering from the political and social turmoil of the 1970s, set the stage for the return of conservative republican administrations in the 1980s to enact sweeping tax cuts combined with a massive military spending increase.

The tax rate reductions of the top income earners in America dropped from 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1986. Instead of saving or reinvesting the money into capital equipment for production, many of the wealthiest Americans began to buy luxury goods such as homes, jewelry and yachts. When the money was not spent on goods, the wealthy in America began to hold onto their liquid assets to fund mergers and acquisitions, takeovers, and other investment opportunities. When these investment opportunities turned out to be too risky, the government would step in and save them as the government did after the Savings and Loan bailout in 1989-1992, the Support Operation after the stock market crash in Oct 1987, and the 1982-86 Federal reserve rescuing U.S. Banks from exposure in the Mexico, Argentina, Brazil debt crisis. Between 1979 and 1989, the portion of the nation’s wealth held by the top one percent nearly doubled, rising from 22 percent to 39 percent. The most substantial increase in American history. As Kevin Phillips writes in his book Wealth and Democracy: “The Reagan and Bush administration of 1981 to 1993 benefited the top one percent than the rest of the population”.

While most democratic voters idolize Bill Clinton, the era of the 1990s saw another wave of financialization and asset bubbles. Fueled by“stock market diplomacy” as New York Times correspondent Thomas Friedman described the Clinton administration support of bond markets, the 1990s saw a repeat of only marginal business investment and a return of financial speculation by Wall Street investors. The repeated lack of business investment in production contributed to the lowest annually inflation adjusted growth in wages of 0.2 percent, as compared to stocks which had a 14.2 percent increase.

A New York Times article in 1999 discussed the economic polarization in America by writing: “The gap between rich and poor has grown into an economic chasm so wide that this year the richest 2.7 million Americans, the top one percent, will have as many after tax dollars to spend as the bottom 100 million.

With both of the duopoly political parties responsible for the economic polarization in America over the last 40 years, the time has come for average hard working Americans to support and vote for any political party other than the Democratic and Republican parties.

Wealth and Democracy- How the Duopoly Serves the Rich and ignores the average American

Although there have been earlier economic crisis in American history, such as the post Civil War recession in 1873 and the Stock Market Crash of 1929, those economic hard times helped create progressive and populist political movements that pushed Democratic and Republican candidates back towards representing the interests of average hard working American family households. These grass roots movements were the direct result of disenfranchised voters affected by the uneven distribution of wealth in American society that greatly favored the upper class instead of average American household families. Until a similar political mobilization reacting to the greed and corruption in the two major parties takes place following the Great Recession of 2008, America will continue to decline and eventually collapse in a similar manner as the Soviet Union did in 1989.

Although most card carrying republican members like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Ann Coulter would dismiss that accusation, a close examination and analysis of the collapse of the former Soviet Union supports this thesis.

Contrary to the popular myth that the Reagan era increase in defense spending resulted in bankrupting the Soviet economy, the collapse of the Soviet Empire however was a direct result of internal political forces let loose during the reforms of perestroika and glasnost. Just like the former Soviet Union, the collapse of the economy was due to the mismanagement of the national economy by the political elite members of the Politburo and the inability of the powerful military establishment to relinquish resources for the greater good of the country. The composition of the Soviet Union in the 1980s eerily resembles The United States in 2010 with the America economy on its knees but with no decrease in military spending.

The most alarming aspect of the continuing Great Recession of 2008 is the fact that there is no significant political mobilization by the American electorate to challenge members of the Democratic and Republican Party serving in Congress. These duopoly party members have blatantly shown that they care more for the interests of Wall Street and K Street, than the hard working patriotic families living along Main Street. Although there are a few notable exceptions like Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, the vast majority of Democratic and Republican Party members in America show little interest in the needs and concerns of average hard working Americans.

There are numerous examples in American history where the well heeled and upper class members of American society are bankrolled to run for public office, or installed as Secretary Cabinet members in charge of vast government bureaucracies such as Andrew Mellon during the Warren Harding administration in the 1920s. Most historians would agree that Warren Harding, the president whose ten-member cabinet was collectively worth more than $ 600 million dollars, is considered the worst president in American history. It should be noted that Andrew Mellon his Secretary of the Treasury was the second or third richest man in American history during his time as Secretary of the Treasury. Perhaps historians in the future will rate George W. Bush as the worse president in American history for his appointment and support of former Goldman Sachs president Henry Paulson as Secretary of the Treasury.

Another recent example of wealth and political power in America was the recent announcement of the political dynasty old money monarch Patrick Kennedy, not running for re-election, in the democratic strong hold of Rhode Island. Although the Associated Press and other media outlets will portray the decision by Patrick Kennedy as a reaction due to his father’s seat, the late Edward Kennedy, going to a republican, the more accurate analysis would be the continuing collusion of the two political parties in America protecting the interests of the wealthy.

Some of the greatest achievements in wealth redistribution and politicians representing the interests of average American families, happened during the period of 1900 and 1914, which saw many Republican and Democratic Party candidates incorporating the ideas of the Populist and Progressive movements. It is time Rhode Island voters support a third party political candidate that will have the long term interests of people living in Providence as opposed to the short term interests of people living on Martha's Vineyard.

A critical analysis of the Tea Party movement

The recent Tea Party convention in Nashville Tennessee is an excellent example of the kind of grass roots political movement that has often occurred in America when voters have felt the consequences of a downturn in the economy, disenfranchised by the political establishment, and have become more sensitive to the actions of politicians in power. For astute students of American history however, the latest grass roots movement is not unusual in America following an economic crisis and the perception that the political establishment in Washington DC is not representing their interests. However, as history has also shown, the duopoly political establishment in Washington DC will do everything it can to subvert and undermine this latest grass roots political movement. A critical analysis of the Tea Party movement reveals the fact that the Tea Party movement in America is not a grass roots political movement. This is due to the fact that is it embraces and supports the very people it is protesting against. The recent keynote speech by Sarah Palin at the national Tea Party convention in Nashville Tennessee makes this point very clear.

Although the Tea Party is a relative bright spot in the political mobilization of the American electorate, the Tea Party grass roots political movement represents a familiar trend in American history when voters become more sensitive to hard times and corruption in government. In several instances in recent American history, grass roots and third party political movements have started after a period of enormous wealth creation for politically connected upper class segments of the national economy, followed by an economic crisis when the inflated prices and phantom values were discovered by the market. Some examples in the last 150 years in American history include the Railroad Bubble of 1873 which helped spur the creation of the Greenback Party, the Independent Presidential run by Ross Perot in 1992 following the recession of 1989-1991 and the real estate bubble of the 1980s, and now the Tea Party political movement following the collapse of the real estate bubble in 2007 and then the stock market bubble in 2008.

Unlike other third party grass roots movements in American history which have followed an economic recession, such as independent Presidential candidate Ross Perot in 1992, and the agrarian third-party presidential candidacies in 1876, 1880, and 1884 of the Greenback Party and the 1892 Populist Party political party, the Tea Party movement of 2010 is merely a small sect within the Republican Party. For a political scientist analyzing the Tea Party, the movement does not hold any substance as a true grass roots political movement due to the support and collusion the Tea Party is having with members of the Republican Party such as Sarah Palin, the former vice-Presidential candidate who ran with the political establishment patriarch and status quo favorite, John S McCain. It would be interesting to learn how many Tea Party activists would support another republican candidate like John McCain after they consider how this career Washington insider, helped set the conditions for the 1989-1991 American recession due to his support and involvement in the Savings and Loan Crisis of the 1980s.

The American people and members of the Tea Party movement missed a historic opportunity in 2008 to take back their country from the vested interests controlling both political parties such as John McCain and his past involvement in the Keating’s Savings and Loan Scandal, and Barack Obama’s relationship with billionaire Kenneth C. Griffin of Citadel Investment Group and other big name financial investors contributing to his campaign for change.

Perhaps more Tea Party activists should read a book about the political history of the rich in America, than listen to former Republican vice-presidential candidate and Fox News commentator Sarah Palin at their next national convention.

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005

Opinione recently learned about The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2005. This Federal law makes it a federal crime, punishable by up to one year in jail, to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military. Although the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 is being challenged by lawyers in America for violating the First Amendment right of free speech, Opinione would like to also invoke another aspect of the First Amendment and to petition the government for a redress of grievances it is committing.

According to the Webster American dictionary, the term valor derives from the Latin word valere, which means to be of worth, be strong, and to show worthiness and bravery. Reviewing the actions of the political establishment in Washington DC over the past decade, it is evident that politicians in Washington DC should first put thy own house in order before they try to impose any moral and ethical standards on American citizens.

Beginning with members of Congress violating their own rules for ethics and the legalized corruption of congress by lobbyists and big money donors, the American political establishment is not showing any kind of moral fortitude, courage or valor that veterans learn in the military. The lack of courage and fortitude is evident when members of congress fail to stand up to special interests and have proven time and again to put the interests of themselves and their political party over the interests of the greater good of the country. As Andrew Bacevich pointed out in his book Limits of Power, The End of American Exceptionalism, with fewer members of Congress having served in the military, it is no surprise the members of congress are unable to display any of the values that the military instills in its members. This is the most important reason why the institution of the military is more respected by the American people than the political institutions in Washington DC.

Highlighting the total lack of valor and worthiness of the political establishment in Washington DC is the list complied by the non partisan watchdog, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The list contains the names of members of Congress likely under investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (House ethics committee), the Senate Select Committee on Ethics (Senate ethics committee) or the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

In addition to the list of 19 Congressional representatives and three U.S. Senators on the list by CREW, the recent story of Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama holding up dozens of senate nominations in order to get a lucrative deal for a new military refueling tanker to be built in his home state of Alabama and the Obama administration’s response is another example of the lack of valor in the Washington political establishment.

Instead of showing valor and putting the interests of the country and the American people first, both the Alabama senator and the Obama administration are playing politics with the issue. In retaliation for Senator Richard Shelby holding up the nominations of dozens of politically connected people from getting a lucrative government job, the Obama administration may block the construction of an FBI center in Alabama to test improvised explosive devices -- the "roadside bombs" that have killed hundreds of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Making the issue more disturbing is the fact the Air Force still does not have a new fueling tanker and the entire process has taken over ten years with still no replacement tanker. This is another example of the power and corrosive nature of the military industrial complex in American politics that both political parties are known to be corrupted by. Knowing the political power of Boeing and its place in the pecking order of the top ten military contractors of 2009, it is a foregone conclusion that Boeing will ultimately win the contract for the new Air Force refueling tanker.

Although the news media in Houston Texas was able to fill some airtime with a story about a civilian imposing as a decorated military veteran and being investigated for violating the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, the more important national issue of the lack of valor in the American political establishment is the more important story the media should be discussing.

Political power, organized religion, professional sports, capitalism and the upcoming Super Bowl.

Karl Marx is best known for the phrase, “Die Religion... ist das Opium des Volkes’.

This phrase by the 19th century German philosopher has been translated variously as 'religion is the opiate of the masses', 'religion is the opium of the masses' and, in a version which German scholars prefer, 'religion is the opium of the people'. As church attendance has decreased in many western countries in the later part of the 20th century and this trend has continued in the early part of the 21st century, it appears that professional sports has now replaced religion as the opium for the masses. As Americans prepare to watch the grandest of all weapons of mass distractions, also known as the Super Bowl on February 7, 2010, Opinione found some interesting historical similarities between political power, organized religion, professional sports, capitalism and the upcoming Super Bowl.

The duopoly political establishment in America, like a few other political establishments in the world, has benefited immensely from more people carrying about sports, than how their country is run. In Italy and again recently in Chile, the owner of the country’s most successful and popular soccer team has used the supporters of those teams to ride a political wave of support to the ballot box. In Massachusetts, the winner of the race scored political points when his opponent misspoke about the local baseball team. Understanding the new opium of the masses, more people should see that it is no coincidence that the President throws out the first pitch in the World Series or the President calls the winner of the Super Bowl. If President Obama really wanted to reach the American public, he should have broadcast his State of the Union Address during half time at Super Bowl.

Despite what you learned in school, in church, on television, at the movies, in popular novels, or on the radio, Marx and Engels did not propose a totalitarian state marked by brutal suppression and imperialistic aims, which many people associate with to the former Soviet Union. The theories of Marx and Engels are situated within the realm of economics, suggesting that history has been shaped through the struggle of the working class to achieve equality and fairness. Capitalism, they observed, is a system in which the majority of people work to produce goods and services but do not share equally in the benefits of their labor with the ruling class who own the means of production. Any person trying to get credit from a bank which was bailed out with their own tax dollars in 2009 or 2010 can agree with the theories of Marx and Engels.

Capitalism reproduces itself and keeps the exploited working class from rising up and overthrowing a system designed to exploit and alienate them not through the brutality of totalitarianism but rather by institutional naturalization of the process via religion, the legal system, the educational system, and the government. What Marx and Engels could not have foreseen was the extraordinary influence of the weapons of mass distraction in perpetuating the idea that capitalism is the way things are supposed to be. The naturalization and mass acceptance of untruths is a necessary component in transforming ideology into a state-sponsored system; unless, of course, you can make people do what you want through sheer force.

That brings us to the Mad Men of Madison Avenue and how they have been influenced by the perpetual war and the militarism in American foreign policy. Thanks to a recent blog posting on TomDispatch by Robert Lipsyte, a former New York Times sports columnist, highlights how the perpetual war started after the end of the Cold War and begun in earnest during Bush and Cheney and now continued by Obama has influenced some of the ads we have seen on Super Bowl Sunday.

Beginning with the 1999 ad, Kenyan Runner, where a bare foot black African is chased through a desert by white men in a Humvee, the ad has slight under tones of America’s dark side of racism and colonialism. While the commercial for Just For Feet was aired in 1999, a full two years before Bush’s own failed hail Mary pass gamble in Iraq, it was a eerie glimpse into the type of images that would become common place in the news media and influence movies like best Picture of the Year nominee, The Hurt Locker.

Not missing a beat, Lipsyte then reminds readers of the Money out the Whazoo ad where someone with money coming out of whazoo is wheeled into a hospital room. See the money come out the man’s whazoo, a hospital administrator is then heard to shout, “Take him to a private room”. Although this little gem aired in 2000, it was very perceptive of the free for all and huge profits the medical insurance industry would get under Bush’s corporate welfare Medicare prescription handout.

The longer an individual remains outside the sphere of influence from the corporate mass media and professional sports, the relationship between wealth, the media and political power becomes more evident. For those perceptive viewers watching this years ads, some clues into the future of America may be aired along side the ads for beer, chips, hot babes and cars.

If the Tim Tebow ad for the Christian group, Focus on the Family, is any indication ,the future does not look very good for the men and women of Christian America serving in the Muslim middle East and south central Asia.

Silvio Berlusconi- An Italian Chicken Hawk

Reading the news of Silvio Berlusconi threatening the Islamic Republic of Iran on a recent state visit to the state of Israel, reminded Opinione of the classic Loony Tunes cartoon of Henry Hawk, the rootin tootin pop gun shootin chicken hawk who was always threatening the bigger and stronger Foghorn Leghorn. Making the statement by the Italian leader even more laughable is the fact, that if it weren’t for the 45 American military bases in Italy, Berlusconi wouldn’t even have a military to speak of. Not even able to protect its own citizens from the terrorism and brutality of the four major mafia clans in Italy that control eight percent of the entire Italian economy , following the playbook of the former fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, Silvio Berlusconi distracts people in his own country by threatening other countries with military force and doing the bidding of its master, the United States. The latest action by Silvio Berlusconi and the support the Italian government gives the U.S. military, proves yet again that Italy is very much like the puppet government of the Italian Social Republic of Benito Mussolini controlled by Adolf Hitler in World War II. Astute students of history will understand how the current Italian-American relationship mirrors that of the Italian-German relationship of Mussolini’s Italian Social Republic and Germany’s Adolf Hitler.

Like many of his puppet masters in the United States, Silvio Berlusconi is a chicken hawk politician very quick to commit soldiers to battle, but when he had the chance to serve in the military, he did not have the courage to put on a uniform and serve his country. Just like his father, who was a banker during World War II and did not serve in the military when he fled to Switzerland, Silvio Berlusconi used his father’s money and political influence to avoid to serve the standard one-year stint in the army, which was compulsory at the time.

Similar to the personal history of Silvio Berlusconi’s family, astute students of history will see how similar the relationship between the United States and Italy in the post World War II era and the early 21st century, is to Italy’s relationship to fascist Germany during World War II. While the Italian Social Republic (Repubblica Sociale Italiana or RSI) was a puppet state of Nazi Germany led by the "Duce of the Nation" and "Minister of Foreign Affairs" Benito Mussolini, the Berlusconi led government of 2010, like all Italian governments following World War II, is a puppet state of the United States.

The power of the puppet master was confirmed during the kidnapping and killing of Aldo Moro in 1978, when the interests of the United Stats took precedence over the sovereignty and democratic will of the Italian people. Like many Italians killed during the First Republic, the courageous Italian leader, Aldo Moro, discovered the price of hosting and supporting dozens of American garrisons in their country.

As I discussed in an earlier article detailing U.S. military spending in foreign countries and how this type of foreign policy by the American government in another form of military Keynesianism.

Located among the rolling hills of olive trees, vineyards, and small medieval towns is the small U.S. Army Garrison in Livorno known as USAG Livorno. This small Cold War era weapons depot is part of the larger Camp Darby military installation located near Pisa, Italy. USAG Livorno employs nine foreign nationals at the main base of Livorno and employs 330 at the Livorno Supply and Maintenance area.

Highlighting the negative effects of foreign military Keynesianism, if the average worker employed at USAG Livorno earns only 2100 Euro a month ($1.38 = $ 2898.00 a month) the total cost of the 339 Italians working at these two small locations equals nearly 12 million dollars a year. Although some critics to this argument and discussion of military spending will say that 12 million dollars is a small amount of money, just imagine what 12 million dollars of US taxpayer money could do for your community. Just imagine the help from the federal government could provide your community in terms of health care or economic stimulus programs such as building a light rail network and employing people to run it.Perhaps the more important factor to consider is the fact that foreign nationals employed at US military in foreign countries will not face higher taxes in their country, like the American people will who are responsible for the ever increasing deficits needed to pay their salaries.

This is only a superficial analysis of the economic impact of two U.S. military bases in an Empire of Bases located around the world. According to the Pentagon’s own Base Structure Report for 2008, there are still another 760 U.S. military bases in other people’s countries and 104 U.S. territories, which produces a grand total of 865 U.S. taxpayer funded military bases around the world.

Due to the lack of political discussion in America, there is no question why Americans do not have health care funded by the government or other social services most other countries enjoy and demand of their government. It is ironic that in a majority of the countries where US military bases are located, the people living in those countries actually have a higher standard of living than most Americans enjoy.

While I am sure the leaders of Iran were shaking in their boots after hearing the statement from the five foot five inch Italian leader that Italy would act against Iran’s nuclear program, the Iranian leaders also know that the words spewed out by the little Italian dictator were more for the Israeli audience he was speaking to, and his brainwashed supporters back in the stinking boot of Europe, than it was for the leaders of the Iranian Islamic Republic.

Wake up America- It's the out of control military spending.

As the new federal budget of 3.8 trillion dollars is unveiled, the power of the military industrial complex is evident when domestic programs, which help millions of average hard working Americans will be cut or frozen, while the Pentagon and politically connected defense corporations continue to get budget increases. The new budget request from the anti Iraq war Obama administration includes 33 billion dollars for the Afghan surge and 159 billion dollars for a perpetual war supplemental budget request for military operations in the Af-Pak war. This trend will continue in the near future and will not stop until all the social welfare programs for average Americans like social security and other entitlement programs are eliminated or privatized.

In the final part of a three-part introduction on the power of interest groups in American politics, Opinione will identify how the military industrial complex has been allowed to grow like a cancer within the American government. With defense companies contributing to political campaigns and congressional leaders rewarding those campaign donors with earmarks in a military spending bill, Opinione will discuss how the actions of defense industry special interests, like the financial and insurance industries, have been the most destructive force in the level and quality of American democracy.

The military industrial complex at its core is made up of what political scholars refer to as the Iron Triangle. This is the strong relationship between the US Congress, defense companies, and the Pentagon. Just as the wealthy in America have greatly influenced and controlled monetary policy for the United States beginning with the first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, to contemporary times and former Goldman Sachs CEOs like Henry Paulson and Richard Rubin becoming Secretary’s of the Treasury, former CEOs of defense companies and lobbyists of the defense industry are now in the most senior positions in the Pentagon.

Blog readers will remember the post about a former Raytheon lobbyist, William Lynn being nominated and selected by a corrupt Congress to serve as the second most senior person in the Department of Defense. If that was not bad enough, Michele Flournoy a former lobbyist whose clients included high-level defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems North America, became the third highest member in the Department of Defense. Opinione is still not sure what kind of change Obama was speaking about when he was running for election in 2008. The Grand Prince is just happy he never voted for the man.

As Opinione highlighted in the post about William Lynn,

the nomination of William Lynn follows the same practice George W Bush and Dick Cheney followed when they also nominated former military and defense industry executives for high-level positions in the defense department. These individuals included; Peter B Teets the former president and CEO of Lockheed Martin as undersecretary of the Air force, former brigadier general and Enron Corporation executive Thomas E White as secretary of the Army, and Gordon England, who was the vice president of General Dynamics as Secretary of the Navy.

Using so-called earmarks, members of Congress can make expenditures not requested by the Pentagon or subject to any public review on specific programs or companies in their districts. These are essentially gifts from members to their constituents, and the gestures are usually repaid with generous campaign contributions. From the defense industry's point of view, these campaign contributions are a good investment. The companies' representatives give thousands in contributions, and they get back millions or even hundreds of millions in contracts. It's pay-to-play politics, and it's perfectly legal. In another compelling reason not to support any incumbent politician this coming election and the practice of earmarking is done by both political parties of the duopoly.

Targeting domestic programs which help Americans living in the United States, while not attempting to reduce the budget of the Pentagon and close some foreign military bases like the ones in Italy, Great Britain, and Japan, shows the power of the military industrial complex, and the continuing blight of militarism in America. While Opinione has discussed the amount of military bases around the world in past blog postings, the failure of the American mass media to question the link these obsolete military bases have to domestic spending and the lowering standard of living for most Americans is perhaps one of the most important reasons why America is in the condition it is in today.