Exceptions Made For Special Terrorists

John Taube

1997

Published in:

Technocracy Digest 3rd quarter 1997, No. 325

In his article, Washington Post, January 23, 1997, Business as Usual, David B. Ottaway, writes that, four months after President Clinton signed a law last year barring financial transactions between American corporations and countries accused for supporting terrorism, the administration quietly exempted one such country -- Sudan -- where the Occidental Petroleum Corp. of Los Angeles was cleared to negotiate with Sudan -- despite the 1996 Anti-Terrorism Act blacklisting U.S. commerce with seven nations for allegedly supporting terrorists. ``Two years ago, for example, Clinton forbade any U.S. oil company transactions with Iran.''

This is business as usual. The Business as Usual article is a typical example of why people view political contributions as being nothing short of bribes.

Following this money transfer is fascinating. After the money goes to politicians/political parties, the money ends up mainly for 30-second television sound bites. It is well recognized that if a politician sponsors these sound-bites in excess of his/her opponent, and the bites are of high, professional quality, that politician will most probably be elected. It is a well-established fact that if one communicates a thought to the public often enough, making something that is far-fetched sound plausible -- even if it is total garbage -- and, by all means, add some humor -- the public will accept that pseudo information as being factual, even gospel. There is never a public election in which some form of this procedure is not part of the election process. It is a ``given'' in all elections. It is because this procedure is so important to a politician that he/she spends a considerable amount of time ``begging'' for money. Of course, like the case above, the political contributor gets value received for his/her contribution.

While the fine points of this procedure may be unique in the U.S., the general idea of a ``pay off'' to get a favor, is ancient. In all past societies, some identical or similar procedure was accepted as the normal way to conduct political affairs. But all past societies were primitive and agrarian and they could tolerate this method. We cannot.

We have matured into a scientific, technological age. To think our head of state, our President, must play all types of silly games in order to get in, and/or stay in office, and that we acquiesce to this, brings our intelligence into question. With the complexities of our society -- it is ludicrous for our head of state to be wasting his/her time in the `garbage' that our political system requires.

The requirements of our scientific, technological age must be run in the most efficient manner possible. Anything short of that puts our survival in jeopardy.

For many years, Technocracy has maintained that our scientific age must forego any type of a political structure with a politician as head of state. To tolerate anything short of a technically qualified person as head of state invites disaster.

And, for many years, Technocracy has advised fellow North Americans that we must discard our social economic structure -- our Price System. This system worked somewhat adequately in the days when the oxcart was the vehicle for transportation. We have come a long way.

Also, for many years, as vehemently as it could, Technocracy has called North Americans' attention to the fact that this Organization has a solid replacement for our oxcart Price System; namely, its Technological Social Design. Those who take the time to study Technocracy's concepts will be exhilarated to know we have at our fingertips the capability of bringing into existence the greatest society ever known to humankind. The day of the politician is over; the day of technicians being at the controls is waiting to begin. We have some interesting literature available on this subject.