The Tactics of Confusion
Many times, well intentioned people in the local or federal government tried to pass legislation and ordinances to fix different types of problems, only to face opposition and criticism from an ill informed citizenry. Most of the people do not realize how far they have been misled by distorted information or partial truths in the media that they depend on.
For instance, there has been a lot of talk about immigration. Many U.S. citizens complain against lack of governmental controls to stop illegal immigrants from entering this country. People in the government and politicians in times of elections have great difficulty defining themselves. U.S. citizens demand better controls, but private businesses with strong influence in the government oppose drastic changes in immigration policies. They want cheap labor and people they can exploit. In their condition, illegal immigrants have no legal recourse to stop abuse. They frequently work in unhealthy environments, work over time without extra pay; if they suffer an accident while at work they have no recourse to demand compensation. Illegal immigration is difficult to solve because politicians and private interests who profit from it do not want to talk about the roots of the problem.
The wave of human migration from the South to the North has historical links related to corporate domination in poor countries. The U.S. government, strongly influenced by private interests, used its political, economic, and even military power to help U.S. corporations maintain their control in southern nations.
One just need to look at the history of Central America since the 1920s, and South America since the 1970s, in order to find the roots of most of their economic problems. Great Britain and Spain did exert great influence in Latin America during colonial times, but it is the United States government which has played the major role in shaping the political and economic processes in Latin America.
The disastrous economic policies imposed through the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to other nations, are imposed now to the developed nations through complicit poltical heads of state. "Don't go back to the protectionist economic model," they warn. The creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the so called Free Trade Agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA), forced the doors of the United States and other nations open to coroporate rule.
Even as the globalized corporate model drags the whole world into economic recession, and CEOs and administrators are paid millionsof dollars in bonuses from the tax payers bail out plan, and President Obama and his team struggle to bring the economy under control, corporate advocate politicians from Great Britain are shouting, "To go back to a protectionist economic model would be a great mistake."
What they are saying is exactly the opposite. Protectionist methods of domestic economies provide national and local governments the tools they need to bring the domestic economy under control. An economy open to global corporate forces is impossible to control. It is a big inconsistency to expect a stable domestic economic recovery, while also maintaining open doors to global market forces controlled by extremely powerful private interests, which are opposed to the interests of the general population.
It is important to know that multinational corporations have no allegiance to any nation or people. Their only imperative is to replicate money for their big investors and its administrative personnel.
The people at the top of the social pyramid can make up to hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and they think they deserve it because of "their hard work, skills and intellectual capabilities."
A closer look at the structure of a company and its policies show us that the profits they obtain are based on the exploitation of their workers and partnership with governments. This way big companies get public subsidies, tax breaks, they are allowed to externalize the real costs of their operations, and Congress writes legislation favorable to their interests, but unfavoralbe to the interests of the general public.
Corporations use the U.S. government to exert political pressure on other countries, or to act militarily to breake resistance when local governments are unyielding to their demands. Most of the U.S. AID program is actually military aid aimed to train local police and military men to supress uprisings of local people, or the organization of guerrilla groups.
U.S. aid to Colombia is an example of what was said above. billions of dollars are spent every year to train the Colombian army in antiguerilla warfare, and supposedly to end drug production and traffic. However, the guerrilla groups actually came to exist as a consequence of the presence of oil companies in Colombia in the 1950s and 60s.
Until 1903, Panama was part of Colombia, but U.S. traders wanted a canal in Central America under U.S. control. Colombia was not very cooperative with the plan. Therefore, the U.S. encouraged and provided
support to a group of descontents to proclaim the separation of Panama from the rest of the country.
After WWII, U.S petroleum companies entered Colombia to drill. In the process they destroyed forests, spilled oil and chemicals in rivers and fields, and caused great harm to local communities. The Colombian government got into debt in order to provide roads and lay down oil pipelines for the petroleum companies.
When the local people demanded compensation for the destruction of their environment, and participation of the oil revenue in order to build roads, schools, and health centers for the communities, the government
did not respond. When people organized protests and strikes, the central government used the army to crush them down.
The economic problems in Colombia and other regions of Latin America were agravated by the fall in the prices of bananas and coffee in the mid 1950s, which affected desproportionately the poor and rural communities. Without help from the government, the Colobian people saw no recourse but to arm themselves. They saw drug production seemed as the only way to raise enough money to fight the foreign companies and the complicit Colombian government.
Not all drug producers started that way, and not all guerrilla leaders remained focused on the main objective of their operations. some of them became more interested in making money than fighting oppression. These new drug producers even established links with domestic and foreign military leaders.
Some investigative journalists, former members of the CIA, former officials of the state in the U.S. have broken their silence and spoken about these facts. A documentary entitled, what I've Learned from U.S.
Foreign Policy was produced, which indicates that most drugs enter the United States through military bases, not commercial airports where they would be confiscated. One just need to look at some interesting historical facts. Why did the U.S. maintain good relations with Manueal Antonio Noriega, a graduate of the School of the Americas, when he became the commander in chief of the Panamanian army even as he was already involved in drug trafficking? Why did the last Bush administration (2001-2008) signed agreements with warlords in Afghanistan, even when they were producing large quantities of drugs for export?
Another problem that requires analysis of the roots is pollution. Many people are unaware of the extent of the problem and think it is not a big deal. Some people will argue that if we want to eliminate pollution, we would have to stop using our cars and other electronic devices; in a few words stop the industries that cause pollution. But that would also stop economic production. Unless we want to go back to the stone age, we have to have some pollution, they say. It is a necessary evil. Although there is some truth in the argument, the reasoning combines different extremes. The flaw in the argument is that we don't produce just some pollution, we produce billions of tons of synthetic toxic garbage every year, industries release to the environment millions of pounds of toxic chemicals into the rivers and the ocean, and the United States alone
burns some 25 million barrels of oil every day. There are some 616 power plants burning thousands of tons of coal every day in the U.S. alone, releasing mercury and other toxic particles to the air. Vehicles release around 20 pounds of toxic gases to the atmosphere for every galon of gasoline they burn.
China and India are increasing their environmental pollution as well, and politicians in the U.S. find in it a justification not to make any commitments to reduce its air pollution. However, most of the industries
increasing pollution in China and India have their origins in the U.S. and Great Britain. The U.S. government should demand such companies to use more efficient methods of production, and invest in cleaner sources of energy, or face tougher regulations and taxes to sell their products in the United States. Of course this course of action has been blocked by the WTO, which is not the product of a democratic process, but a product of the partnership between corporations and the U.S. government.
The argument that pollution is a necessary evil is also flawed because it does not recognize the fact that there are alternative, cleaner technolgies to supply our needs. For example, it is possible to produce biodegradable plastics from plant material. Some people will argue that this approach will have the same negative impact on food production as production of ethanol from corn and production of other biofuels.
There are always some trade offs, but if we combine the production of plastics from plant material with a great decrease in the use of plastics in general, we can achieve our goals. We can use reusable bags when we
go shopping, demand the reduction of packaging material in items sold in the stores, we can carry water with us when we go out or travel instead of buying bottled water, we can stop using styrofoam and plastic utensils to eat, and stop producing many disposable items made of plastic or other synthetic material.
The real problem is getting people to understand the danger of products made of petroleum for human and animal health. A TV program, a few months ago reported the genetic abnormalities observed in many animals
in the coasts of Florida, due to pollution, especially from plastic industries, and other chemical plants.
Dolphins, alegators, snakes, amphibians, fish, crabs, and birds that feed on them were all affected. APL TV G reported the findings of scientific reasearchers related to a contaminant called atrosine, which seemes to cause higher levels of testosterone in males, which is linked to prostate cancer. This contaminant was also causing variations of sex in amphibians and threatening at least 33% of them with extinction.
Many people don't care about amphibians or reptiles, because they do not understand the links to human health, or the benefits these creatures offer to us. As the scientist indicated, the skin of some frogs are used to make antibiotics, pain killers, and understanding their body functions help us understand our own bodies better, such as how our hormones work.
The presence or absence of many insects and creatures that live in the water, may indicate a healthy environment or some level of pollution that needs immediate attention.
POLLUTING INDUSTRIES AND RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Coal plants release mercury particles, CO2, and other pollutants produced by molecular combination with other elements in the air. these pollutants cause asthma, problems of the respiratory tract,
lungs, and the brain.
THe percentage of children with autism is growing worldwide, and there are links of this brain disorder to air and water pollution that polluting industries want to kee it secret. Autistic children are given several medications, supposedly to help them stay focused in school. But they are also accumulating the negative side effects of the drugs. Pharmaceutical companies are happy with the sales, but in the long run, parents and teachers are intoxicating their own children and creating a generation of zombies.
There are many sources of pollution and many ways to reduce it, but there is strong oposition from polluting industries. These industries argue that they employ millions of people around the world, generate much needed taxes for local and central governments, and supply the market with products that people demand. What they do not want people to understand is that there are alternative and safer products to satisfy people's needs. For example, biodegradable pastics can replace the harmful polyethelyne based plastics.
Polluting companies use an army of economists, lawyers, and the corporate media to influence the public and politicians who depend on their financial support to get into public offices. They also pay common people to organize protests and to demonstrate against positive changes that local or central governments want to implement. They design the economic models and theories they want the public to accept. They teach them in schools as if they were some sort of natural laws. They make great efforts to block any debate or questioning of their theories that might weaken their public acceptance.
Oil and coal companies try to convince the general people, that there are no other viable alternatives to fosil fuels as the main source of energy for the 21st century. They have partnered with car makers in the past to stop the development of more efficient and electric cars.
We should know that most of our car engines have an efficiency of at most 20%. That means, 80% of the gasoline in the tank goes up in in fumes without doing any work.
Shifting Expenses to the General Public
Although corporate economists claim that many big industries, such as agribusinesses, energy companies, retail companies, and even recreational businesses can provide products and services to the public at lower prices than small, local producers, the truth is, many of them survive thanks to public subsidies, and exploitation of their workers. They claim that, in order for a business or industry to be able to compete in the markets, it has to reach economies of scale. That means, it has to be big enough to afford the most advanced technological equiment, specialized personnel, and the needed infrastructure for mass production.
However, big businesses incurr expenses that small local businesses do not, such as the cost of transportation of their goods for thousands of miles before they can reach the consumer. Also big businesses spend more in administration, business consultants, support staff, communications networks, advertising, etc. They also spend enormous amounts of money in marketing, lobbying members of Congress or federal and state agencies in order to bend regulations on their favor.
State and federal legislators pass laws allowing big industries to use public lands and other public resources at a very small cost, or no cost at all. In other cases many production costs are externalized to the general
population.
One of the costs externalized to the general public is environmental pollution. We all bear the cost of health problems derived from pollution, ugly changes in the ladscapes and soil chemistry, whether we use the
products made by the polluting industry or not. According to a magazine dealing with environmental facts, Coca-Cola was throwing some 700 million tons of plastic from their bottles every year, made directly from petroleum. Most of this plastic goes into landfills, dumping sites, incinerators, and a small percentage of them are recycled. Some 38 billion water bottles from Coca-cola were sold to the public in 2006, most of which are now in landfills.
The cost of recycling is not paid by Coca-cola or other companies that make soft drinks. Local towns and municipalities bear the cost. With the decline of the world economy, due to the financial crisis brought about
by banks and Wall Street investors, recycling companies are going out of business, and therefore, more plastic and metal garbage is now going to dumping sites and landfills.
Plastics in landfills will be leaching toxic particles to the soil and groundwater for at least a thousand years. Since plastic is made from petroleum, whose main components are benzene (a six atom carbon ring) and cadmium, plastic is higly toxic. Benzene is extremely carcinogenic, and cadmium is highly toxic, capable of destroying internal organs in animals and humans, and causing the loss of essential nutrients from the body.
If you want to comment about this article, please contact us. New material will be placed periodically in this site.