 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Pax Americana II
By Antonio C. Abaya Written on Sept. 15, 2008 For the Standard Today, September 16 issue Before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 07, 1941, the United States of America was basically an insular power that had little or no interest in imposing its will on the rest of the world. Of course, even before that date, the US was already beginning to stir as a potential world power. In 1823, it unilaterally issued the Monroe Doctrine, warning European powers to stay away from Latin America which was then undergoing revolutionary upheavals against the obsolescent colonial power, Spain. In 1867, fresh from its own bloody Civil War, the US bought Alaska from the Russian Empire for the sum of $7.2 million. In 1898, the US annexed the then independent republic of Hawaii, on the instigation of American fruit growers who had settled there. In 1898, egged on by the then Secretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt � "Speak softly but carry a big stick" - the US declared war on Spain, using as pretext an explosion on board the USS Maine in Havana harbor As spoils from that war, the US grabbed Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam from Spain. The US paid Spain the sum of $20 million for the Philippines, after robbing Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo and his Philippine Revolutionary Army of the fruits of their victory against Spanish colonial rule. In 1912, using a strip of land grabbed from Colombia, the US completed and opened the Panama Canal, which allowed its emerging navy � Theodore Roosevelt's 'big stick' � to shift from the Pacific to the Atlantic oceans, and vice versa. Cuba was allowed its independence in 1902, the Philippines in 1946. But Puerto Rico and Guam continue to be American territory, serving as sentinels of American hegemony in the Caribbean and the Pacific, respectively. In 1917, the US entered the Great War in Europe � later known as the First World War � as a result of the sinking of seven US merchant ships by German U-boats. The entry of US troops into the stale-mated Western Front accelerated the defeat of Germany. But after victory was achieved, the US brought its troops home from Europe. It was the Japanese attack on the US fleet in Pearl Harbor that can be said to be the beginning of Pax Americana I, in the sense that it spurred not only the entry of the US into what became known as the Second World War, but also in the sense that it mobilized the entire American economy into a war economy, to supply not only its own wartime needs but also the needs of its traditional ally, the British, and even its temporary ally, the Soviets. It also propelled its armed forces to engage the enemy � the Japanese, the Italians and the Germans � all over the world: the Pacific, the Atlantic and the Indian oceans; Southeast Asia, the South Pacific islands, North Africa, Italy, Normandy, the German homeland, and eventually Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And unlike in the First World War, the triumphant Americans did not go home after victory was achieved, but instead have stayed on and on, in Asia as well as in Europe, and have even entered into other theatres of operations � Turkey, the Middle East, Latin America, Africa, Korea, Vietnam � to confront the new threats posed by international Communism as promoted by the Soviet Union and Maoist China. The Americans emerged victorious over the Communist challenge, with the peaceful (except in Romania) de-communization of Eastern Europe in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the re-transformation of China into a capitalist country, These events underscored the triumph of American economic and political values and capped Pax Americana I. Just as Pax Americana I started with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Pax Americana II can be said to have started with another sneak attack, this time against the World Trade Center in Manhattan and the Pentagon in Washington DC, symbols of American economic and military power, respectively, on September 11, 2001. In a bizarre turn of events, the neo-conservatives, who are the chief architects of Pax Americana II, actually wrote in their manifesto of September 2000 � one full year before 9/11 � that for their objectives to be accepted by the American public, they needed "a new Pearl Harbor." Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda Islamists unwittingly provided that "new Pearl Harbor," which became the justification for going to war against Islamic extremists. Foremost among the neo-cons' objectives was/is to "establish full military control of the Middle East," which explains the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, possibly soon, Iran. The goal, of course, is to control the oil. It is no coincidence that VP Dick Cheney used to be CEO of oil giant Halliburton, that George W. Bush was CE0 of two smaller Texas oil firms, and that Condoleeza Rice used to be connected with Chevron, (One Chevron tanker is named after her.) Pax Americana II may achieve strategic victory if and when Osama bin Laden and/or his deputy Ayman al-Zwahiri are/is killed or captured, and the neo-cons want to achieve that victory in the weeks before the Nov. 4 presidential elections to ensure the triumph of the McCain-Palin team and, through them, the continuation of the neo-con agenda. Which is why there has been a flurry of missile attacks by pilotless Predator drones in the past 10 days on targets in the Afghan-Pakistani border where the al-Qaeda leaders are believed to be hiding, despite the angry protests of the Pakistani government about the unauthorized intrusions into their air space and their territory, and despite the collateral deaths of dozens of Pakistani civilians. The Americans couldn't care less. They want Osama's and Ayman's heads, no matter the costs. . . So where does the Philippines fit in Pax Americana II? We have the dubious distinction of .being the nexus where the al-Qaeda tectonic plate and the oil tectonic plate converge, and where therefore the neo-cons are trying to re-arrange the map to serve US interests under Pax Americana II, if need be with a minor earthquake here and there.. The US needs permanent bases in Mindanao-Sulu-Basilan to monitor the activities of the al-Qaeda franchise holder in Southeast Asia, the Jemaah Islamiyah, as well as the activities of the Chinese in the possibly oil-rich Spratly islands. Additionally, there is probably oil and gas in the Sulu-Tawi-Tawi area since their continental shelf is part of the oil province of oil-and-gas rich North Borneo. But it is not possible to get those permanent bases as long as the quarrelsome politicians in Manila hold all the cards. If the Bangsamoro were to be made into a federal state, with its own right to enter into agreements with other sovereign states, then it can be convinced to allow permanent US bases in its "ancestral domain." Which is probably why the US has been wooing the Bangsamoro since at least 2003 and why US Ambassador Kristie Kenney has been shuttling back and forth to Mindanao, supposedly 20 times in the past 12 months. The US has found in the Bangsamoro an ally that it can work with, to achieve its strategic goals in Southeast Asia as defined by the neo-cons, as long as the Bangsmoro do not resort to terrorism. In a prescient article that he wrote in August 2006 (and which is included in toto in Reactions to "Mindanao Peace or in Pieces"), Italian journalist Fabio Scarpello reported on conversations between the United States Institute for Peace and the MILF for the establishment of permanent US bases in MILF-controlled territory in Mindanao. Said Eid Kabalu, MILF official spokesman, in one interview with Scarpello in Cotabato City: "We have nothing against the Americans. As a matter of fact, in our 30-year struggle, we have never hurt (even) one American. If they help, they are welcome." Although the Americans make pro forma references to the government in Manila as their ally, my sense is that they have decided that the Philippines under Gloria Arroyo is a lost cause that is best left for the Chinese to corrupt to their hearts' delight. Are we hearing right? The Arroyo government has awarded a contract for 90 per cent of the gold output from the Diwalwal mines in Davao to a Chinese firm named ZTE Corp. Why does that sound familiar? Pax Sinica begins here and now, in Malacanang.. *****. Reactions to [email protected]. Tony on YouTube in www.tapatt.org. To subscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to "Pax Americana II" 'American Expansion in the Pacific' 'Obama and the Palin Effect' 'Palin's Fetal Position' 'A Nation in Hunger' Hi Mang Tony, This is an eye-opener, great essay! I hope the neo-cons in Fox News (Faux News nowadays) will read this...haha Regards, E.P., [email protected], Pasig City, Sept. 16, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, Our Moslem brothers must learn the experienced of the First Philippine Republic when the leaders of this firs Asian Constitutional Democracy heavily relied on the shoulder and protection of the "Great American Empire." History will tell that foreign interest are always permanent for a foreigm country even if we perceived them as our "friends." Albert Banico, (by email), Sept. 16, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Sir, You might like to have a look at my blog on Filipino history fonsucu.blogspot.com Alfonso Velasquez, [email protected], , Sept. 17, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, It really does show that Macapagal-Aroyo do not know how to play her card. It should be either all or none at all. What I mean is - he should not favor any country as the other will just obliterate the Philippines. The Americans would not stop. Thanks and more power. Bert Celera, (by email), Sept. 17, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, Congratulations on a well thought out and cogent explanation of what is happening. Kindly include me in your e-mailing list as I forward your articles abroad. Thanks. Jose Leviste, Jr., (by email), Sept. 17, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, Your Pax Americana II is a history lesson and a reminder for those of us who could not see how the events that unfold have affected us as a Nation-State and would transform our way of life, on account of the vortex of upheavals and conflicts in this corner of the world, without any chosen interest on our part as a nation and as a people. We are pawns to be sacrificed in a war not our own, in a similar situation when Japan went to war against America in World War II. It won't be too bad if only we are given time to "take cover" under the mantle of consent. Providing war materiels to the Moros on the "pretext" of aid and development is a provocation and an insult to our sensibilities as a people. Our soldiers and even the Moro rank and files are shooting each other without fully knowing why they are killing fellow Filipinos. This Pax Americana II should be a lesson for every living Filipino. At least they will know why they are killing each other in a war that transcends tribal interests. If we talk about interests, we could not fault America for wanting access to bases in our country. After all they paid $20 million dollars to Spain, whatever the circumstances they may be then, for these 2,001 islands known as the Philippine Archipelago. Maybe we can assert that after all, our soldiers sacrificed and died for "Pax Americana- I" interest during World War II? Or maybe we can tell the Americans also that the Filipino blood spilled in Bataan and Corregidor and in the Death March are enough payment? But it makes one wonder if our present crop of government officials know the difference between treason and diplomatic faux pas. Or do they know the intrinsic values that they trumple when they trade away pieces of our homeland and putting lives of our people in utter jeopardy? In retrospect, we expect a sane solution to the Mindanao problem sans personal polical interests from both sides of the divide. When we are asks to go to the polls next time around, we should never choose anyone without "character"; without "integrity". Leadership, is a great responsibility and the chosen one is answerable to destiny. The history of great (and even not so great) leaders have influenced society's development, plus or minus. No one can escape destiny"s scrutiny. Jose Regino, (by email), Zamboanga Coty, Sept. 17, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww There is an ILLUMINATI theory that said to exits in our history (as early as 17th century) and in present modern time. That this Illuminati is a group of people "behind the power" allegedly controlling world affairs. In present time, this MODERN ILLUMINATI refers to FED which is the Central Bank of US! it is said that FED was formed by the banking cartel in 1910 and is empowered to print money and control its supply. � The SUPPLY OF MONEY is the measure of money in circulation and is called as M3. � The VALUE OF MONEY depends on the supply level of money (M3) and this value is known as INFLATION. With M3 rest in control of FED, then in effect the inflation is in the hand of FED. Since the creation of FED in 1910, M3 balooned for several times so as the inflation. It must be noted FED is private and not under the US government. The BIGGEST CLIENT of FED is the US government. FED does not mearly supply the govt of money but it loans it with interest rate and the benchmark interest rate is under the control of FED. As US Pres.Thomas Jefferson commented, "i believe that the banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies...if the american people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency...banks will grow-up and deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless..." US Pres. Woodrow Wilson who signed into law the Federal Reserve Act wrote a year after, "I am a most unhappy man..i ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of cedit.." CHAIN OF EVENTS: The US experienced several recessions in 1920-30 that some Conspiracy Theorist claimed that these are all scientificaly created, "Under the FED Act. Panics are scientifically created..." - by US Congresman Charles Lindberg Aside in financial crisis, FED gained money in terms of loan in the following events in the US history: � In World War-1, where US joined the war when their ship Lusitania was destroyed "apparently" by Germany. � In World War-2, where US joined the war due to bombing of Peal Harbour despite the warning given by the Australian Intelligence 4 days before the attack � In Vietnam War, where US joined the war due to bombing of US ships in Gulf of Tonkin which cost $30B. � 911 World Trade Center attack has 2 conspiracy theories: LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) meaning the US knew it but prefer to ignore and MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) meaning the US collaborated with the al-Queda. In the recent financial turmoil that the US is facing, FED is there for the rescue by lowering interest rate thereby increasing M3 causing inflation again and the latest act of FED (as of today) is saving the AIG from collapse via bridgeloan of $85B by FED (again). So who's behind the US government actions? is it FED? Edwin Vivar, (by email), Sept. 17, 2008 (To convince other people of your conspiracy theories, you have to provide more verifiable sources and proofs than what you have supplied here. You could also check your spelling and grammar before pressing the Send button. ACA) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, The following is an excerpts from my forthcoming book Footnotes to Philippine History where I discussed the Americanisation of the Filipinos and the effect of the American adventure in the Pacific. The book will come out next month. Renato Perdon, (by email), Sydney, Australia, Sept. 16, 2008 Editor, Filipino Section, Bayanihan News Sydney, Australia. ------------------ American Expansion to the Pacific 'Our institutions will follow our flag on the wings of commerce. And American law, American order, American civilization, and the American flag will plant themselves on shores hitherto bloody and benighted,' Senator A. J. Beveridge In April 1898, America declared war against Spain. The conflict which became known as the Spanish-American War lasted one hundred and thirteen days. The Americans won the war and as a consequence inherited Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, as booties of war. The acquisition of the Spanish colonies signaled the territorial expansion of the United States, outside its boundary, into the Pacific . Indeed, the period between 1898 and 1902 was a turning point in the development of America as a world power. It was the birth of an empire and the emergence of the United States as a paramount world power. America at last was recognized and accorded a status of a colonial power, the same stature given to Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia and Japan, the ruling imperial powers of the period. However, the push beyond the continental boundaries into Asia and the Pacific and the attainment of its imperial status produced long term consequences, not only for American citizens but also for the inhabitants of the lands the United States dominated. For one, the inclusion of the Philippines in the American empire became one of the burning issues in American politics at the beginning of the 20th century. It was a question that encompassed political, economic, moral, racial and social issues. As a nation, the United States rose from relative isolation to take its place and responsibility and became an influential force in world affairs. After a short period of waiting and hesitation, the United States through its military, maritime, financial and political resources, decided 'to have a voice in re-shaping the world's political order.' In competing for international influence and colonies in the late 19th century, the US reached for and established itself as a giant and dominant economic power, not only in Asia but in Latin America, as well. Looking back over a little more than a hundred years, American history is characterized by continuous territorial expansion that affected the lives of many non-white victims, like the native American Indians, Spanish and French creoles, Mexican pioneers, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Samoans, Guamanians, Hawaiians, Filipinos and other Pacific islanders. In building its empire, the United States had added contiguous, as well as non-contiguous territories to its original map. In continental America, for instance, within a span of less than a hundred years, a marvelous expansion from the Applachians to the Pacific took place. The early American settlers initially occupied the Atlantic coast and soon after secured Kentucky and the Northwest territories. Louisiana was purchased from France in 1803 and Florida was ceded from Spain in 1813. As a result of war with Mexico in 1848, the greater west and Mexican California became part of the United States. In 1867, Alaska was acquired. Meanwhile, the internal focus of attention within the American continent until the early part of 1898, kept the United States out of the race for colonial possessions beyond its boundary. The penetration of the under populated areas of the American continent was considered by the majority as a 'natural' act, although succeeding events indicated that the expansion across the vast American continent and finally out into the Pacific was driven by capitalism. On the other hand, territorial acquisition beyond contiguous areas was viewed in a different light. In his book Benevolent Assimilation: The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1898-1903, Stuart Creighton Miller commented that 'it was this link between the extension of democracy and the westward march that made it easier for Americans to view innocently their bloody conquest of the Philippines [and other non-contiguous territories] as a continuation of the western expansion of democracy.' In 1890, the Americans, in the word of military strategist and great apostle of American expansionism, Alfred Thayer Mahan, were 'looking outward' beyond their horizon. At that stage, America had no colonial territories of its own. Its products were not guaranteed foreign markets and its overseas markets were not protected. Its maritime strength was no match compared to Great Britain, France or Germany. On the sidelines, America was strongly nurturing the spirit of adventure and this 'mission of civilization' was a force that was waiting in the wings. When the Spanish-American War came, it was viewed as a heaven-sent opportunity to enter the race for colonies. The urge to become an imperial power took an unprecedented upsurge. Many authorities on the subject agreed that the American industrial revolution provided the impetus for the United States to enter the global stage by the end of the 19th century. It is impossible for anyone who has studied American history not to be amazed by the rapidity of American industrial development in the 1880s. It was swift and precise. The imperial surge followed an era of very impressive post-Civil war economic growth and activity, with American corporations and monopolies playing important parts. By the end of the 1890s, American agricultural and industrial productivity, supported by advanced technological know how, had surpassed the leading industrialized countries of Europe. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, European powers were scrambling for colonies, protectorates and spheres of influence. The Europeans penetrated the Indo-Chinese peninsula and the struggle for spheres of influence in China followed. The Chinese empire was transformed into a multilateral protectorate, guaranteed by the leading industrialized countries of the world. There was a strong belief among the imperial powers that civilization was their responsibility and it was their duty to acquire colonies, colonize, and subjugate people they believed to be of inferior race. Modern military technology became the instrument of the West in carrying out their self-assumed mission. This development in Europe favored the Americans who considered their own political and economic progress as a manifestation of the role they had to play in leading people who were 'racially inferior.' There was a strong faith in the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race and the excellence and majesty of American political institutions. This common American belief is best illustrated by American Senator Albert J. Beveridge who said in 1897 that '� we are a conquering race, and that we must obey our blood and occupy new markets and new lands.' Senator Beveridge added that 'fate has written our policy for us; and trade of the world must and shall be ours. And we will get it as our mother [England] has told us how. We will establish trading posts through the world as distributing points for American products. We will cover the ocean with our merchant marine. We will build a navy to the measure of our greatness� Our institutions will follow our flag on the wings of commerce. And American law, American order, American civilization, and the American flag will plant themselves on shores hitherto bloody and benighted.' The events that followed pushed the United States outside of its boundary towards the Pacific. America took the 'white man's burden' as its Messianic responsibility. A new spirit of self-assertiveness dominated the American national psyche at the close of the 19th century. In achieving its national goal, the US was guided by the belief that national greatness, racial supremacy, commercial prosperity, military security, and territorial expansion could go hand in hand. Although clothed with altruistic missions, the underlying reason to expand outside continental America was the need for foreign markets for American products. Describing the political situation during the period, author Theodore Green said that 'in this sudden demand for foreign markets, for manufacturers and for investments that imperialism became a political policy and practice of the ruling political party in America.' Between 1899 and 1901, four major international issues reached crises proportion in the world political arena. The United States responded to them in accordance with its new found role as a world power. The global issues concerning the administration of Samoa in Oceania, the Boxer Rebellion in China, the Boer War in South Africa, and the American control of the trans-isthmian Canal in Central America. Between 1898 and 1946, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Samoa and the Philippines became American territorial possessions. The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands came, finally, in 1947. Excerpts from Footnotes to Philippine History by Renato Perdon, published by The Manila Prints, Sydney, Australia, October 2008, ISBN 978-0-9804827-1-3 (pbk.) wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Forwarded to Tapatt by Louie Fernandez) Obama and The Palin Effect By Deepak Chopra Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov.Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper. She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of 'the other.' For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin's message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision. Look at what she stands for: --Small town values -- a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism. --Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad. --Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded. --Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree. --Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war. --'Reform' -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology. Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from 'us' pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of 'I'm all right, Jack,' and 'Why change? Everything's OK as it is.' The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume,while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to ch a nge, and narrow-mindedness. Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise. From: Deepak Chopra | Posted: Friday, September 5th, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Forwarded by Ethel, [email protected]) Palin's Fetal Position By Mary Mapes huffington_post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary- mapes/palins-fetal-position_b_126670.html Posted September 15, 2008 | 07:16 PM (EST) We really don't need to know anything more about the Sarah Palin celebrity action figure. We don't need to know where she buys her glasses, when she decided to start wearing her hair in an up-do or how she handles the demands of motherhood and government work. We don't even need to hear her answers on energy policy, the Iraq war or God's will. What an awful lot of voters really need to know about Palin may already have been revealed -- years ago -- by one dark and unforgivable policy instituted under her watch as mayor of the small town of Wasilla. After taking office in 1996, she allowed the town's police department to begin charging rape victims for the forensic work done in their cases. She signed off on the budget that detailed the new police policy -- a directive instituted by her hand-picked police chief after she fired his predecessor. The unexplained reversal in Wasilla's procedure dictated that rape victims, unlike the victims of other crimes, now would have to pay for the investigative work done at the crime scene. In a rape case, of course, the crime scene is the woman's body. When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, the town suddenly started charging rape victims between $300 and $1200 to have the rapist's DNA and other forensic evidence taken, tested, cataloged and investigated. That meant that women who came to local police for help after being battered, brutalized and victimized, faced one more violation. These women had to pay for the privilege of having their cases treated as crimes. Palin's then-police chief Charlie Fannon defended this policy with the explanation that he wanted to save taxpayers' money. He said the raped women's insurance policies were billed -- when possible. In those cases, the women only had to pay the deductible. Of course, this being America, many women were uninsured, unprotected from both their attackers and the big bills. Gee, thanks, guys. Oddly enough, Fannon did not make the same kind of choice in other criminal cases. He did not make people injured by hit-and-run drivers or mugging victims or the families of murdered men and women cough up money to investigate their cases or collect evidence to catch their attackers. It only happened in rape cases. Hmmm. Now, why would that be? There is one terrible possibility: that this happened because somebody in charge in Wasilla -- either the police chief or the Mayor or both -- hails from the craziest corner of the pro-life community, the people who believe that birth control is abortion. These people oppose paying for forensic work in rape cases because as part of that process -- as a final step in a humiliating and dehumanizing procedure -- a woman is typically asked if she would like a "morning after" pill, a medication that will prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of her uterus. The treatment is believed to be about 80% effective in preventing pregnancy. Sarah Palin has not deigned to take questions from the unwashed masses in the media, but if she ever does, this might be a good place to begin. Does she believe that giving a rape victim a "morning after" pill is committing murder? Does Palin believe that the taxpayers shouldn't pay for this or that police shouldn't offer this as a matter of course? Does she really believe that a woman should have to bear the child of her rapist? We already know that's what she would want for her daughter. During her successful gubernatorial campaign in 2006, Palin declared that she would not choose an abortion for her daughter -- then 14 years old -- even if the girl was raped and became pregnant. "I would choose life," Palin said. Eric Croft suspects that these pro-life beliefs were the reason behind Wasilla's no pay police policy on rape victims. He is the Democratic legislator who got the system changed by sponsoring a state proposal in 2000 that required local police departments in Alaska to pay for victims' "rape kits," as the evidence-gathering process is called. He wrote the bill with Wasilla's misguided police procedure in mind. Croft told me that he was working at the time with a victim support group called "STAR" -- for Standing Together Against Rape. "We kept hearing reports out of the Mat-Su Valley that a police department there was charging for rape kits," Croft says. "We didn't know who it was." Finally, a rape victim came forward with a copy of her insurance bill, which listed the rape kit charges filed by Wasilla police. Croft says his organization contacted the town's police chief who confirmed the policy but could not be convinced to change it. Croft says he was dumbfounded. "I thought they'd be shamed out of it. But they weren't. They weren't." So he proposed a change in state law. As a result, there were public hearings, public testimony and overwhelming public support. The bill passed unanimously. Democratic Governor Tony Knowles made a point of signing the bill into law in front of cameras outside a sexual assault clinic. The amazing thing is that, through all of this, Palin herself apparently didn't speak publicly, didn't come out for or against her police chief's policy, didn't take responsibility for what her town was doing to already wounded women. Part of what makes this suspicious is that Wasilla's policy is not the first time rape victims have found themselves in the crosshairs of the country's culture wars over abortion. In fact, their bodies have long been a battleground. Right-to-life groups around the country have often stepped into rape cases, fighting to make sure that pharmacists, police and medical personnel don't have to participate in procedures they deem "immoral." From the Deep South to South Dakota, from Missouri to Arizona, rape victims have too long had to fight for the kind of equality and empathy that other crime victims can regularly expect. The question of emergency contraception -- who gets it, who pays for it and who gets to decide -- is at the heart of this heated debate. A few years ago, there was a dustup down here in Texas, when a pharmacist in a Dallas suburb refused to fill a rape victim's prescription for the "morning after" pill, saying that he couldn't dispense the medication "because it ends life." This poor woman had to go to a different pharmacy in order to protect herself in the most personal, most private, most important way possible. When the story became public, dozens of outraged Texas women showed up outside the pharmacy with signs saying, "Rape violates my morals." Those same women -- and thousands more who feel the same way -- could be headed for a Republican rally soon if Sarah doesn't start talking. Her partner in the old policy seems to have gone to ground. Charles Fannon, the former police chief, now has a disconnected home phone number. And Sarah Palin seems to be in the process of completely disconnecting herself from the policy. Palin's spokeswoman, Maria Comella, told USA Today in an e-mail last week that the Governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence- gathering test. "Governor Palin's position could not be more clear. To suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of her commitment to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice." According to USA Today, Comilla would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it. Maybe this is all some kind of unthinkable misunderstanding. Maybe Palin didn't know this was happening, didn't hear about it even the whole state joined the conversation, maybe this tough-talking Mayor couldn't control her police chief. Maybe she has changed over the years, maybe she now recognizes the immorality of treating rape victims this way. Whatever the answer -- before we vote -- before we are treated to another story about her taste in shoes or her time as Governor, would someone please pin Palin down and ask her what the hell was going on with rape victims in Wasilla? And more importantly, why? This person who says she's prepared to be a heartbeat away from the presidency could clear this whole thing up in a heartbeat. Why won't she? When Palin's name was announced as McCain's vice-presidential pick, I initially viewed her as some kind of sop to disgruntled Clinton supporters, somebody who was supposed to appeal to those of us who would rather have seen Hillary at the head of the ticket. In the campaign, Palin has been presented as a kind of born-again Christian comic book hero -- the ultimate in multi-tasking mothers -- a woman who flies around the country in labor, kills big animals in the woods and dictates the details of other people's lives while juggling babies, Bibles and bullets. It is beginning to look like she may be something colder, creepier and more complicated. She has run Alaska like Dick Cheney in drag, a person who thriveson secrecy, loyalty and control. On foreign policy, she's reminiscent of George W. Bush, without the sparkling curiosity. And if she worked to deny rape victims emergency contraception, she is women voters' worst nightmare -- she is Phyllis Schlaffly with PMS, power and an automatic weapon. It is long past time to figure out who Sarah Palin really is. Getting answers on how and why she allowed her hometown to adopt a policy towards crime victims that was so beyond the pale, so outside the bounds of human decency, so heartless is a good place to begin. In the end, it may be all we need to know. Like Sarah Palin, I believe in the power of prayer. I am praying that reporters can pull themselves out of the fetal position and start asking Palin some hard questions -- about hers.***** wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Response to Misael Balayan Dear Mr. Abaya, Please relay this message to the apostate Catholic Misael Balayan. I'm not at all intimidated nor convinced by the articles contained in the links he provided. What are the credentials of those who wrote them? These arguments have been hashed and rehashed for ages and the bottom line, as I see it, is that hey are private interpretations of those who wrote them. It would seem to me that they are views from the Orthodox Church which I consider for what it is: schismatic. He might have thought I'd be shaking in my boots after reading them. Quite to the contrary, they only solidify my firm adherence to Church teachings. He asks what infallible Church truths and dogmas affirmed in the past that continue to be free from error?: Try something so basic as the articles of faith contained in the Apostles' Creed. He'd probably say he doesn't believe them. Well, that's fine with me. I do understand that he apostatized from the Catholic Church. And let's leave it at that. Credo in Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam Sincerely, Jose Maria Alcasid, (by email), Aug. 24, 2008 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Forwarded to Tapatt by Manuel Faelnar) A Nation in Hunger by Silverio J. Berenguer Just because we live in homes that can still absorb the rising cost of food doesn't mean the crisis is over. The price of rice has more than doubled in the past 6 months. More people in more countries are consuming rice, yet world rice yield is only growing at .9% a year. Match that against the world's population growth of 1.14% every year, and you'll see why global reserves of rice have dropped by half and why rice production must improve. Asia is where 60% of world's population lives, where the birth rate is highest, and where the most rice is consumed. As our staple food, it provides between 50-80% of our caloric intake. Where rice is insufficient, malnutrition follows. The food shortage is a real problem and a continuing tragedy. On July 24, 1969, the world cheered as Neil Armstrong took his first steps on the moon. Humankind was finally exploring new frontiers in outer space! Yet during the 8-day mission of the Apollo II, the world's population increased by 1.5 million people as an estimated 100,000 starved to death. In Thailand in the late 70's, with population growth at 2.5%, family planning measures were urgently passed. Today, there are 61 million Thais, and their growth rate is holding at 1%. This is for them, sustainable. They grow enough rice for local consumption, and earn dollars from exporting the rest. Here, we have mastered the science of increasing our birth rate but not our rice yield. We swim in the locomotive pattern of the squid; going backwards while the rest of the world is moving forward --- wishing to extend CARP even after the countries that embarked on it have admitted failure. Look at Cuba. Last July 19, Raul Castro announced their return to private land ownership in a bid to jump-start food production. They must, as Cuba will spend $2.5 billion this year on food imports alone. In fact, 80 years of land reform in Latin America hardly solved the problems of rural poverty and inequality. The market situation today offers other options to uplift the rural poor which are not necessarily tied to land ownership. In Chile, after the collectives were dismantled and market forces prevailed, the country regained competitiveness and became major world suppliers of copper, pine wood and wine. China and Russia have abandoned land reform, yet we are intent on going backwards. And like the squid, we send out a jet of black ink to becloud the fact that CARP did not deliver on its promise of improved agricultural productivity. But the more pressing question is how to produce more rice. In the New York Times, a headline reads, "Food is Gold, so Billions are Poured Into Farming." There seems to be great interest in 'owning structure' --- like farmlands in the US, Argentina and England, where investors plan to consolidate small plots of land into more productive large ones, introduce new technology and provide capital to modernize facilities. Susan Payne, founder-CEO of Emergent Asset Management, is raising up to $750 million to invest in farmland in sub-Saharan Africa. Axel Hinsch, CEO of Calyx Agro, says "the world is asking for more food." They are buying thousands of hectares of cropland in Brazil, backed by big institutional investors like AIG. Russian agribusiness firms are raising millions of dollars in new capital from private investors eager to acquire and put money into Russia's open lands. The revival of Russian agriculture promises to make it once more a key sector of their economy. The Financial Times says that oil-rich Saudi Arabia has to import most of its food because it lacks good natural agricultural resources. Their solution is to invest in large-scale agricultural ventures in countries like Kazakhstan and Sudan to secure food supplies especially corn, wheat and rice. Saudi and the United Arab Emirates don't want to keep depending on imports; it's too expensive even for rich countries! Oil and minerals used to be more valuable than land, but not anymore. Fertile land with access to water is a strategic asset for any country. It is inconceivable that in the Philippines, where we have good land and the capability to be self-sufficient in food, our private landowners can only invest in 5-hectare plots thanks to CARP. Must we invite foreign capitalists to use our land to grow their food? For the first time since the 70's, food security is at the top of the world political agenda. Agriculture is now a global investment. The timing is right for corporate farming, the only practical way of restoring economies of scale, ensuring productivity and preventing starvation. The President herself has finally endorsed this idea, and there are takers. San Miguel Corporation, together with Malaysian company Kuok Group, wants to develop about 1 million hectares of idle government lands to grow various crops, particularly rice. Another taipan has similar plans for northern Luzon. These moves could help put us back on the road to self-sufficiency. Importation is only a stop-gap measure, and subsidies merely offer temporary relief. Growing food takes time and investment. In the face of fuel costs and climate change, neither of which we can control, food sufficiency is now an urgent matter of national security. Last June 10, CARP expired. Let it rest in peace. Let us focus on corporate farming, and let's swim forward for a change, with the rest of the world. We can still prove that we are smarter than the squid. ***** Philippine Daily Inquirer, Sept. 11, 2008. Silverio J. Berenguer is a landowner representative in the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), and Vice-Chairman of its Technical Working Group and Audit Management & Investigation Committee. Send comments to <[email protected]> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to [email protected]. Tony on YouTube on www.tapatt.org To subscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Subscribe. To unsubscribe, send a blank email with the subject heading Unsubscribe. |