WESTERN CO-OPTATION OF ARAB REVOLTS

Revolts or mass uprisings do not necessarily result in revolutions defined as structural or system change of institutions from political, economic, social and cultural. A revolt can result in regime change but the policies from the old regime to the new may be the same, or the new regime may even pursue more regressive or reactionary policies than old.

Let us take the specific examples of Egypt and Tunisia as the most recent cases where revolts took place and resulted in the overthrow of governments. Will this government change translate into systemic change in domestic and foreign policies, in the economic and social structure, in culture, or are the changes merely one set of political leaders exchanged for another. It now seems clear that the West through institutions that include the IMF and World Bank has co-opted the leadership that emerged from the revolts.

Presumably, people that place their lives on the line to protest in the streets against authoritarian regimes expect meaningful structural changes at all levels, including improvement of the lives for all people, or at least the majority. Presumably, rebels and their supporters rebel because they believe in a future that is not a repeat of the past. In the case of Egypt and Tunisia, we may have the perfect examples of how revolts amounted to absolutely nothing more than a change in leadership but not in policies, not in institutional structures, not in improvement of citizens' welfare, and no changes either in domestic or foreign policies. Why then did so many people lose their lives, why so many injured, why did so many disrupt their lives if there is to be no structural change, why the futility of revolts?

Even as the revolts were unfolding across north African and Middle East, the IMF and World Bank lost no time to inject themselves into the rebel movements, presenting themselves as 'reform-oriented', anxious to 'help the people'. Both the IMF and World Bank offered their services. For those who know about the IMF and World Bank, their services are a conduit to furthering globalization, privatization, international finance capital, all at the expense of social welfare of workers and the middle class. Their services have one costumer, corporate capitalism that seeks to expand and accumulate capital at every opportunity by preventing sustainable.

While the IMF has already sent a team of advisers to Cairo to confer with Egyptian economic offcials, the World Bank has taken the lead to organize a summit that will include the African Development Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, among an additional dozen or so institutions. To make sure that Egypt remains dependent on foreign financial interests and falls deeper in debt, the IMF has already extended a $5 billion.

Recognizing that accepting IMF aid entails conditionality, chronic financial dependence, and obstacles to growth of national capitalism and sustainable development, Egypt's provisional government rejected the offer. Nevertheless, both Egypt and Tunisia agreed to IMF team of advisers whose role will be to convince the countries to adopt neo-liberal policies, foreign borrowing, privatization of public assets, and favorable terms for foreign corporations - in short, policies the IMF is recommending to Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Latin America and Africa.

To make certain that Egypt and Tunisia fall in line with IMF and World Bank policies, guns-for-hire economists that the media has elevated to gurus of high finance have lined up to provide the usual tired old arguments why it is important that Islamic countries to accept IMF-World Bank advice. These are the same economists that sunk Argentina into the abyss ten years ago, and the same ones that sunk Ireland, Portugal, and Greece into their current austerity-based economies that create poverty while enriching the same clients that prostitute economists serve. Behind rhetoric about growth, development, trade stimulus, investment, debt reduction, etc., rests the ultimate goal to squeezing every ounce of capital from the local economy and transferring assets to the metropolis. 

After signing the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement, Tunisia was the first Arab nation in 1995 to privatize 67% of its publicly-owned enterprises, while Egypt has privatized 164 out of 314 firms. Presenting themselves as reformers on the side of rebels, the IMF and World Bank wants Tunisia and Egypt to continue privatizing. The result of such privatization has been a massive increase in public debt that in essence entails both Egypt and Tunisia are financial prisoners of US and EU that provide the loans.  An activist organization is organizing anti-IMF-World Bank protests for 15-17 April 2011 in Washington, D.C.


Did the people of Egypt and Tunisia fight in the streets so that the IMF and World Bank can guide their countries back into world economic integration, which ipso facto entails political and military integration, which in fact entails back to policies of previous regimes? Did the people fight only to change individuals governing them, but to realize no benefit from regime change? The Arab uprisings have afforded the opportunity to US, EU, IMF, World Bank and other status quo leaders to present themselves as 'friends of the rebels'! The public that is largely brainwashed by mainstream media buys into this image. Before very long, it will be clear that the Arab revolts were futile for there will be no systemic change to improve the welfare of the people.

US PUBLIC DEBT AND AMERICA'S SOCIAL DOWNSIZING

In the last three years, the US Federal Reserve has dropped interest rates sharply and doubled the money supply to stimulate growth. This is exactly the kind of policy Milton Friedman who has a profound influence on FED Chair Ben Bernanke's policies of injecting several trillion dollars into the economy, mainly into the financial sector to make sure it survives along with the existing social order and political system.

The cost of the bailout from 2007 until 2011 to US federal and state governments is unknown; depending on the source, from $7-8 trillion dollars to as little as $3.5 trillion. The real cost may not be known until we have a clearer picture of what the federal government needs to do to bailout states suffering huge deficits. Nevertheless, easy money supply has helped corporate  profits rise from current production to 29% or $1.68 trillion for 2010, according to the Commerce Department.

There is a disconnect between the thriving private sector that caused the latest global recession and tghe public sector that as a result of bailing out the private sector is suffering massive debt. Besides the federal government confronting a massive debt that has kept the dollar weak in relationship to the euro and other currencies, 44 states are faced with massive debt that has piled up in the last four years.

If we add the budgetary shortfall of the mild recession of 2002-2004 to the recession of 2008-2011, the total debt of states is more than three quarters of one trillion dollars. This would not be a problem if it were not for Tea Party Republicans in Washington as well as governors that advocate reducing the debt by deep cuts in state services, cuts in salaries and benefits of public employees, and incentives to businesses.

Historically, state fiscal problems linger a few years after the national economy has recovered, and for states with weak economies mainly in the south this is a problem that translates into depressed conditions from which it is difficult to recover. Although the latest unemployment and jobs-creation figures are not as pessimistic as the markets had anticipated, official unemployment above 9% is indicative of massive underutilized capacity and low tax receipts for both state and federal governments, as consumption of large-ticket items, including depressed real estate remains at historically low levels.

One solution is to continue trimming down social programs, entitlements, and reducing wages and salaries until there is little left to squeeze from middle class and working class America. This is the path that Tea Party Republicans are carving out and trying to test before the national election of 2012 when Obama and the Democrats face the voters for a showdown with Tea Party Republicans. While it may seem silly to some that Tea Party fanatics can indeed prevail, they should not be underestimated, as they have thrown out there an African-American to stop anyone from accusing the Tea Party faction of racism when attacking Obama.

Before he was elected to the House of Representatives, lieutenant colonel Allen West served as an adviser to the US army in Afghanistan. After an investigation of his interrogation 'techniques' involving prisoners in Iraq, he retired to save the army the scandal. As though his own anti-Islam record and remarks were not enough, while he was running for congress, he hired Joyce Kaufman who had suggested in 2007 that illegal aliens committing crimes should be hanged.

In January 2011, West, and African-American, angered American Islamic groups and the Congressional Black Caucus, after spewing more anti-Muslim rhetoric to prove that he was a Tea Party loyalist. At a recent rally, he did not disown comments from the audience who stated that Obama was not sufficiently pro-Israel and that Democrats 'have joined radical Islamists'.

West did not stop there. He recently suggested that government must stop rewarding 'bad behavior' by extending unemployment benefits that discourage people from seeking employment; reforming social security benefits, medicare and medicaid that absorb 40% of the budget; abolishing the IRS and federal income tax, providing tax cuts to philanthropist billionaires. In February 2011, West, who had argued in favor of press censorship - he later argued that he really mean to say the 'censure not censor' - joined the Tea Party Caucus that had supported his candidacy and provide legitimacy to this ultra-right-wing organization to masquerade as multicultural.

The Tea Party is arguing that the US government and the states are bankrupt, and that the real debt if entitlements are considered could be as much as nine times higher than the statutory debt limit of $14.3 trillion.

That the federal government and the states are indeed confronting a massive debt is self-evident, as is the reality that the FED has used its power to keep the economy stimulated while the European Central Bank has kept a much tighter monetary policy, hoping to be more competitive against the dollar as a reserve currency in the longer term.

The disagreement is what is the best solution out of the debt crisis. Monetarism like German-imposed policy on the EU is clearly not something the US FED is following. However, like its EU counterparts, the US is following a policy of weakening the social welfare state, imposing downward economic mobility on the middle class and labor and strengthening the strongest businesses in the private sector, beginning with financial institutions. This is economic policy made with clear political goals that will results in the reconfiguration of the social structure.

The GOP has now made it official: $4 trillion in cuts during this decade, mostly from social programs that include entitlements. Chairman of the House Budget Committee Paul Ryan dismissed Obama's proposal for freezing nondefense discretionary spending, proposing instead deep cuts amounting to $400 billion annually. This would put another nail in the coffin of the social welfare state, while strengthening corporate welfare by forcing future retirees to purchase private health insurance that the government would subsidize.

Once the social structure is adjusted where there is a small and weaker middle class and a larger and weaker working class, there are consequences for the political arena as well. The American people know as does the entire world what the wizard financial fraud king Bernie Madoff stated, namely that the banks were behind the colossal scandals that led to the global recession of 2007-2011. It is up to the people to hold their politicians accountable for rewarding the banks that caused the global recession, instead of holding them accountable. America's social downsizing is inevitable if the voters continue to remain docile.

AFGHANISTAN and BURNING THE KORAN

Beginning on 1 April 2011, anti-American and anti-west riots erupted in Afghanistan after Florida Pastor Terry Jones burned the Koran as he had threatened to do on a number of occasions and was only stopped owing to high level US intervention. At least eleven other Muslim countries joined the anti-US demonstrations, but it is in Afghanistan where nine have been killed and a few dozen injured amid the rage.

Naturally, one must consider that it is in Afghanistan that the US is operating with death squads that have been killing civilians in the name of freedom and democracy. The people of Afghanistan know very well that at any time they can be target practice for death squads either on the ground or by air, and they connect Koran burning with the death squads.
 
Last September I addressed the issue of the Koran burning, noting that there are close to one million web sites devoted to Burn the Koran Day and the Florida group and its affiliates is running slogans like the following:

“Christianity - the religion of redemption and forgiveness v. Islam - the religion of terrorism!
“The Dove World Outreach Center, a non-denominational church in Gainesville, Florida, will celebrate “Burn the Koran” day on September 11. Terry Jones, pastor of the church, says the burnings will be held on church grounds “in remembrance of the fallen victims of 9/11 and to stand against the evil of Islam. Islam is of the devil! On its website, The Dove World Outreach Center sells ‘Islam is of the Devil’ T-shirts.”   www.thelastcrusade.org

That many Christian and Jewish leaders have spoken out against Koran burning is meaningless because the US and NATO continuing to use Afghanistan as their war camp where civilians are potential targets. Muslims throughout the world know that a segment of Americans and Westerners treats Islam as a religion of the Devil because US and NATO treat the people as targets in a shooting gallery. Hiding behind the First Amendment, no matter that “religious” words and actions promote hate crimes against another monotheistic religion and its followers, anti-Islam elements burning the Koran or writing against Muslim countries on a daily basis are the face of the death squads killing children, women and unarmed men in Afghanistan.

In September 2010, Secretary of State Clinton and NATO secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmusen, and world leaders pleaded with pastor Terry Jones not to go through with the burning on 9/11 as a protest for the plans of American Muslims to build a mosque in New York. He agreed but promised to return for a second round, and he has. Just as the US is hiding behind 'war on terrorism' rhetoric and the campaign to bring freedom and democracy to Afghanistan, those inciting hate crimes in the US are hiding behind the First Amendment and enjoy the full protection of government that would have prosecuted them if they were Muslims inciting anti-Christian hate crimes. In such a hypothetical case, all Muslim suspects would be investigated, interrogated and imprisoned with a delayed trial under the US Patriot Act.
 
Religious hate crime in the US has risen sharply in the last decade. Hate is a moral issue, if the authorities choose to define it as such–as in the case of a Christian pastor in Florida who invites publicity by the Koran’s burning. Laws defined politically as in this case, are not enforceable. Politicians who laid the foundations for the atmosphere of hate crimes in direct and subtle forms through foreign and domestic policies that are detrimental to a particular religious group are now asking for religious tolerance for a very specific case.
 
Last September, I noted that the anti-Islam trend in the US would invite violence from Muslims who see that the US has troops in two Muslim countries. Today, the US and NATO have added a third Muslim country to their war list. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth is an ancient dogma that sinister leaders and faithful followers of the three monotheistic religions pursue because their leaders live by the sword. That the US had contracted death squads to kill civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan is just as significant that it permits hate speech and acts at the expense of Islam.

CAN A REBEL MOVEMENT BE REACTIONARY?

What is the political meaning of the word 'reactionary'? A term that became popular during the French Revolution and attributed to Edmund Burke among others, 'reactionary' is one who wishes to bring back the status quo ante. Given that society is in a constant state of change as are the needs of human beings, institutions need to adjust to the needs of people. 

The desire to preserve the status quo makes is what make someone a conservative, which in my view really entails opposed to recognizing that change is vital for the survival of society itself. The wish to return to the status quo ante is a romantic dream usually of those who wish to restore lost privileges of owing to change in the social order. Examples of reactionaries: monarchists, Fascists, religious groups that want to bring back a Medieval theocratic society.

A rebel movement trying to overthrow a regime that is more progressive than the one rebels wish to install, then the rebel movement is indeed reactionary. This was the case with the Nicaraguan Contras and the Taliban in the 1980s where in both cases the regimes were more progressive than the ones rebels wished to replace them. In both cases the US was behind reactionary rebel movements.
 
Do I believe that at least some of the rebels in Libya are reactionary in their goals, and do I believe the same for the CIA, MI-6 and French Intelligence that has been collaborating with them? There is some evidence so far that indicates rebels in Libya include al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and other Islamic militants. NATO Supreme Commander has stated for the record that the identity of rebel groups and leaders needs investigation to determine if indeed there are such elements as I mentioned. 

Gaddafi initially said that al-Qaeda was behind the rebel movement, and now there is more and more circumstantial evidence that the US may have been collaborating with al-Qaeda in Libya, while fighting against it in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is al-Qaeda reactionary? Absolutely because it wants to create a Medieval theocratic society! What is the US doing collaborating with rebels whose identity it has yet to ascertain, as NATO commander acknowledged? Obama is no better than Reagan during the Iran-Contra scandal, and he is no better than Bush who blatantly lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

One may argue, well that is just the way the 'real world' is, the world of mass criminals projecting an image of honor, freedom, and democracy, right? Perhaps one could justify it all by arguing that it is part of the international relations theory of 'neo-realism'. I cannot recall that I ever believed in the tooth fairy when I was a child because nightmarish societal conditions were far too ominous to allow me the luxury of such pleasant dreams, but I did view Christianity as Socialism. Perhaps my commitment to social justice has Christian roots after all, as has been the case with so many before me whether they called themselves Socialists or something else.

Does Socialism and a commitment to social justice exist in North Korea and Burma? No, and neither is it a model I would consider appropriate for any country, including those currently practicing it. As far as Venezuela, in previous postings I have made my position known, and I doubt that repeating myself would make any difference to those who have made up their minds one way or the other. 

Those who think Hugo Chavez is the devil in disguise should read 19th and 20th century history and compare the current regime with those of the past that were tyrannical toward the majority of the people and served the domestic landed and business elites and foreign business interests. Romulo Betancourt tried modest reforms in the 1940s, only to have pro-US dictator Marcos Perez Jimenez pursue anti-labor, anti-reformist policies that kept most people poor and oppressed.

Finally, the central argument before us is not the tooth fairy or socialism that are thrown out there as distractions and distortions of the facts. The central issue is about the crimes against humanity by regimes operating under the existing political economy, invariably wearing a veil of 'freedom and democracy' today and in the past century. Socialism has had a very short interlude in history and no doubt under certain regimes it bloodied its hands and has its share of shortcomings. 

By contrast, capitalism has existed for roughly five centuries and the crimes that have been committed in its name are an ocean in comparison with Socialism that was once a small pond now almost dried up. I sincerely hope that people will always strive to move away from reactionary or conservative paths for there can be no anthropocentric progress along such paths. I hope that people never abandon their endeavors for a more humane and socially just society, no matter what label one wants to attach to such a society, no matter how far from ideal it will always be.

---

'McDonaldization of US Foreign Policy'

Although most readers seeing the tittle of this posting may conclude that it is about how fast-food chains have spread throughout the world with the help of their government's lobbying efforts, the issue is really about the absurdity of short-term, short-sighted thus 'McDonaldization of US foreign policy' conducted as though the only thing that matters is today's headlines and short-term gains, without any regard for longer-term consequences. 

This kind of absurdity is currently unfolding in Libya where there is circumstantial evidence that the US is helping al-Qaeda and perhaps Hezbollah and other militant Islamic groups against Gaddafi's government for the ultimate goal of regime change that would be friendlier to Western economic and military interests.

I have stated in previous postings that the 'crusading trio' - US, UK, and France - that have taken the lead role in the war in Libya, is on the same side as al-Qaeda that has been the satanic enemy for which wars and military occupations were justified in Afghanistan and Iraq; the justification for which US foreign and defense policies were based; the justification for restructuring the entire intelligence bureaucracy and adjusting budgetary spending on security.

There are many web sites that claim the link between US and al-Qaeda in Libya is a fact. However, unless we have incontrovertible proof, we cannot state such links as fact no matter what scant information is published about CIA, MI-6 and French intelligence operations working behind the scenes with rebels long before NATO operations in Libya. 

Wikileaks claims that al-Qaeda leader Abu Yahya al-Libi and Qatar-based Yusuf Qaradawi of the Muslim Brotherhood have been collaborating to remove Gaddafi from power. French and other western intelligence may have been using the al-Qaeda cell in Libya to destablize Gaddafi for a number of years. There are unconfirmed reports that US has known that in aiding anti-Gaddafi forces entailed aiding al-Qaeda. 

NATO Supreme Allied Commander would only admit that there is an investigation into the rebel leadership to ascertain if al Qaeda and Hezbollah are in fact included among 'Libyan rebels'. Government officials from Chad have categorically stated that there is a direct link between rebels and al-Qaeda, but there is no independent confirmation. If indeed we have official confirmation that the US collaborated with al-Qaeda in Libya to destabilize and ultimately overthrow Gaddafi, then we have a situation similar to CIA operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s when the US was trying to destabilize the pro-Soviet regime. The result in that situation was that the US succeeded and it was then forced to take on the same rebels who formed the Taliban regime that it had trained and supported.

In the case of Libya, the US, UK, and France may discover that a few years from now they will have to bomb and send troops to Libya to unseat the rebels of today that will become tomorrow's regime. This foreign policy that I would call 'McDonaldization of imperialism' is something that the entire world recognizes as bankrupt and one reason for the lack of popularity of the US throughout the world. A broader issue from 'cultural imperialism', this is about how foreign policy is prisoner to short-term considerations.

It is indeed madness and makes sense only to those seeking short-term gains - economic, strategic and political - but it makes no sense for a great power trying to manage its global interests on a more sustainable basis. So why is the 'crusading trio' - US, UK, and France - engaged in these operations perhaps with al-Qaeda on the same side? 

What is so wrong if the 'crusading trio' is just using al-Qaeda to accomplish its goal? What is so wrong about having a perennial enemy to fight to keep the military-industrial complex profitable, and domestic public opinion focused on a foreign enemy instead of domestic social, economic and political problems? 

What is so wrong with 'McDonaldization of US foreign policy' in an age when people have a short attention span, they quickly forget recent history, and have no idea that the current conduct of the US in Libya is a repeat of past experiences in Afghanistan during the 1980s? The answer is that the costs for all mistakes made today must be paid tomorrow, and those costs may be very high. Depending on what regime follows Gaddafi, the US and its crusading allies may have a serious problem down the road as they now have with Afghanistan that the US helped to mold in the 1980s.

WHY RECESSION IS GOOD FOR YOU

A simple GOOGLE search of the term "recession is good", reveals that there are more than 30 million hits on the topic. Despite so many articles on why recession is good for so many reasons, these days when capitalism has triumphed over decadent Communism and has managed to conquer the world through globalization there are still scholars, politicians, journalists, web loggers,  and most people believe that recessions are bad.

Scholars usually point to the Great Depression as the ultimate example of how economic contraction results in untold human suffering. This is simply not true! Economic recessions can be a refreshing beginning of unexpected personal renewal and spiritual awakening, a time of hidden opportunities in life. With my own 14 points as a tribute to President Woodrow Wilson who inherited a recession when he took office, I aim to prove why recession is good!

1. Recessions mean frugality.
For individuals, for wasteful governments, and for society as a whole living beyond its means recessions are Godsend. Is there anything better than a good economic crisis to eliminate the fat from an otherwise complacent individual, government, and society where simple folk who work for a living entertain the grand illusion that they can actually retire and enjoy comfort and leisure in their declining years like rich people?

2. Recessions eliminate inefficiency,
by eliminating jobs in the public sector and allowing unemployed government workers to compete in the private sector for minimum wage. Recessions also mean efficiency by putting small and weak companies out of business, thus freeing workers from the burden of employment until the next hiring cycle begins where they will be grateful to have any kind of work for any kind of salary, without benefits if necessary, after they have undergone career retraining and proper psychological attitude adjustment.

3. Recessions result in a leaner economy and a new and leaner you!
Embrace recession as your friend and savior for helping you with that lingering weight problem that a good steady job and good income created. Instead of enjoying a t-bone steak dinner at the neighborhood restaurant, start enjoying franks and beans or macaroni and cheese at home; much healthier than eating out and a more fitting menu for the new leaner you crying to come out.

4. Recessions help shape your moral fiber,
forcing you to drink less because you can no longer afford expensive liquor, and indulge in fewer vices associated with money. You exercise more by walking around your neighborhood to see who else is exercising instead of working. Run a few blocks around your former employer's place to check out how many cars remain parked in the lot than to enjoy a fine glass of aged whiskey after work. Be grateful that recession is saving you and so many others from the transgression of alcohol consumption and the hedonistic lifestyle you been meaning to change but never had the chance.

5. Recessions reduce crime. 
Recessions afford the opportunity to the unemployed and the poor to pray often to the Lord to deliver just a bit of what rich folks enjoy, if not the miracle of life's basic necessities so they will not have to steal. Whether they rely on public transportation or their run-down car, the poor and unemployed can't afford to drive over to the rich folks areas to steal from them. Crime rates drop making the rich feel more secure about their wealth and the just society in which they live.

6. Recessions result in cleaner environment.
People have less money to spend, so everyone saves on consumer products, generating less garbage, and cutting down fewer trees and killing fewer animals. Just think of how much is saved in energy and transportation costs when people stay home instead of commuting to work! Yes, recessions are eco-friendly and they are nature's way of protecting the environment from over-indulgent workers and middle class people who care more about their personal consumption than they do about the ecosystem.

7. Recessions help you to be more humane and less materialistic.
Wealth possession is just bad for the soul and you know it, no matter how appealing and convincing the ads about new products for your home and your family. Recession forces you to appreciate money less because you don't have as much, so you turn to family and friends more because they are all the support you need. You were just looking for an excuse to be closer to family and friends, especially if they have money, and now you have no choice because you're broke and you need them!

8. Recessions will help your love life.
You have nothing to do all day long, so to keep from sinking deeper into chronic depression you immerse yourself in 'recession-sympathy sex' with your partner who slaves away so both of you can have the luxury of a home-cooked meal and a roof over your heads. You are so appreciative that recession has given this opportunity to discover the lover in you, that you forgot all about other aspects of your life as you found the ultimate outlet in love making.

9. Recessions make you more philosophical,
helping you reflect on your personal life, and the deeper meaning of life in general, thereby bringing out the philosopher in you that was always there but too busy working, shopping, entertaining and just living good instead of thinking deep thoughts that make you a better and smarter person. And if philosophizing is not enough, you still feel good about yourself because you know that so many millions out there less fortunate than you, yet not as philosophical about it.

10. Recessions make you less materialistic,
helping you downsize and return to nature. You never really wanted that big house, that nice car, all those furnishings, clothes and just stuff that clutters your life. Well, now is your chance to prove that you are not a materialist but a person whose values rest in enjoying the great outdoors where your spouse has sent you for failing to secure a job after you have been playing naturalist for a year. 

11. Recessions enrich your character.
Is there a better teacher in life than economic hardship to make you realize that it's time to address those character flaws that cost you your job in the first place, to make you a more humble and sympathetic human being who understands that someone must make a sacrifice - and why not you - to keep banks and corporations profitable? Is there a better teacher in life than economic hardship to make you appreciate rich folks who always had so much but who will have less during the recession, whereas you never had much in the first place, so you will never miss it? Unlike the hollow rich, you rely on inner strength of character for which recession is responsible. 

12. Recessions make you more optimistic.
While you are wallowing in your misery because your savings cannot keep pace with mounting in-coming bills, you are forced to anticipate the next boom cycle that honest politicians, journalists, and economists have been predicting. You rejoice that the system really works for you, that it was really meant to serve you but you were too self-absorbed in the misery of your unemployment to appreciate it. Suddenly, there is a burst of unexpected optimism you never thought you had, and all of it is owed to politicians, pundits, and other honest professionals who have your interests at heart!

13. Recessions reduce the death rate.
Oh, sure some of the weaker souls will decide to end it all and join their ancestors earlier than God planned for them. The majority of LES MISERABLES, however, stand to live longer because they reduce their chances of work-related accidents. Given that they are unemployed they have fewer  chances of death or injury during the commute to work or to those frequent outings  to restaurants, bars, theater, etc. And if you are really anxious about improving your health and living longer, relocate today to a very poor country like Bangladesh and you will enjoy the spiritual tranquility among the masses seeking to be more virtuous people in this life so they do not return as something abhorrent like AIG or Goldman-Sachs executives in the next life.

14. Recessions make you more spiritual.
Unemployed and modest in general  demeanor about your long-term plans for a life of comfort you have only dreamed of, your mind wonders about everything from how Divine Providence determines your destiny to how NASA's latest astro-biological findings could mean that your alien friends could beam you up soon and save you from this wretched existence. You contemplate how worry-free it will be in the afterlife that while unemployed you have come to appreciate as a concept; how much more eternally tranquil and fulfilling it will be in comparison with this life of intermittent recessions, bursts of unexpected growth and unpredictable boom cycles. Finally, it dawns on you that recessions have transformed you into a spiritual person, and for that you are eternally grateful.

SOURCE: The INDISPUTABLE proof for the 14 points listed above is provided by countless studies - too many to list here - some that are actually scholarly, conducted by reputable think tanks and universities whose research is supported by philanthropic billionaires and corporations to convince LES MISERABLES of the world to feel better about their government, institutions and about wealthy people who may not be experiencing the effects of recession but fully understand the hard times the other half is experiencing.

CIA, COUNTERINSURGENCY and COUNTER-REFORMISM

Is it possible theoretically and in practice that the CIA could be on the side of revolutionaries, or does it use rebels against a regime that the US wants to overthrow with the intention of establishing a regime that would be counter-reformist? History of the last sixty years shows that the CIA has established and/or co-opted rebel groups and used them to advance US interests. A segment of the population of a given country opposed to the regime and seeking to overthrow it could have legitimate reformist goals intended to further social welfare. However, in its desperation to seize power, a rebel group could seek assistance from external forces such as the CIA, which then uses the group for counterrevolutionary and counter-reformist goals.

'Rebels' were involved in overthrow of the regimes of Iranian president Mohammad Mossadeq removed in 1953, and Jacobo Arbenz in 1954, but in both cases the CIA was behind the 'rebels'. In both cases, CIA operations were clear cases of counterinsurgency operations presented to the world as genuine uprisings. If one considers CIA operations as intended to install reactionary regimes, which is what took place in Iran where the Shah was installed and in Guatemala where a military dictatorship was put in place, then CIA operations cannot be classified as anything but reactionary!

With regard to Libya in 2011, CIA operations are not intended to bring to power revolutionary or reformist regime after Gaddafi, but a reactionary pro-EU and pro-US one that caters to business on better terms than Gaddafi who started out as a revolutionary, pro-non-aligned and remains a favorite of reformist-friendly regimes, including a number of them in Latin America. That the CIA, MI-6 and French intelligence were involved in the anti-Gaddafi rebel movement indicates that the rebels will lose their legitimacy at home and abroad, especially when they become almost entirely dependent on US, UK and France for toppling the government, instead of relying on grass roots support entirely without foreign power intervention.

Some right wingers have suggested that the CIA, MI-6 and French intelligence are on the side of the people wanting a democratic regime. This is designed to prove that the US, UK, and France are carrying out policies on behalf of the Libyan people for their current and future welfare, when in reality these countries are not interested in advancing the welfare of their own middle class and workers.

The idea that the CIA has ever carried out pro-insurgency operations is not only absurd as theory, but impossible as practice given that the agency serves a status quo power whose goal is to prevent not only revolutions, but reform that may dilute the political economy of capitalism. However, if one is stuck in the Oliver North-Ronald Reagan mentality, then the CONTRAS were rebels and the CIA was helping to carry out a pro-insurgency campaign against the duly-elected regimes in Managua. One could argued that the CIA logo may change to show the effigy of CHE, now that the agency is on the side of rebels!

That the Libyan rebel movement has lost its legitimacy because of CIA, MI-6 and French intelligence role is a fact for many Muslims who already suspected Western interference in Libya. However, there is a larger question of how legitimate the post-Gaddafi regime will be in the eyes of Libyans if it is nothing more than a dependency of the US, UK, and France, and if its polices are carved to further foreign corporate interests. If and when Gaddafi is finished and I suspect he will be finished sooner or later, will the successor regime be a reformist or counter-reformist because it is beholden to the CIA, MI-6 and French intelligence?

Finally, if I may be permitted a comment on sources. Those who conduct archival research already know that one way to secure official sources is to wait at least 25 years from the date of the event, another is the Freedom of Information Act that yields very little because much of the material is blacked out. It is virtually impossible to have confirmation on sensitive material even after decades have passed, as was the case of CIA role in Chile during the Allende era. In the early 1990s, I was at a university conference with a State Department official who refused to admit that the US had any involvement in Allende's Chile. I invite those who are interested to visit the CIA website to see what it has to say about the matter almost four decades later.

Official statements and investigative reporting from around the world, oftentimes from a government that will reveal a piece of information because it opposes the policy of another government. Can I prove 100% that CIA, MI-6 and French intelligence was operating in Libya? Not unless I have archival - first hand official government material. For now, we rely only on secondary sources that could be wrong because the authors speculate on circumstantial evidence.

For example, if it is confirmed through various sources that in rebel areas in Libya - Tobuk, Benghazi and Darnah - there have been historically Islamic militants, including al-Qaeda,  that had an understanding with Gaddafi not to hit any domestic targets, are we to conclude that these 'rebels' are progressive in any sense of the word; are we to speculate what in the world is the US doing collaborating with such groups that would otherwise be called 'terrorist'; are we to conclude that Gaddafi is a much bigger threat to remove from power for US, UK, and France than the smaller and divided 'Islamist rebels': what are we to conclude by all of this? Would Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama go before their citizens and explain what are they doing helping Islamic militants when there a war against terrorism going on in the world?