US’ers Elections and Our Global Crisis

I’ve had to look for a new way to call those people of the United States of America ever since Cuban Ambassador Jorge Rey Jimenez and Venezuelan Chargé d’Affaires Manuel Perez Iturbe educated me about the general sentiment of South (or Latin) American peoples on the exclusive use of “American” for US citizens who represent only 30 percent of the population of the entire Americas—of which North, Central and South America have around 950 million people.

While some would call the people of the USA “Norte Americano,” this is just as unfair to the Canadians and Mexicans. One alternative, “Yankee,” which one etymology traces to the Cherokee word for coward, eankke, was later used derogatively by the Confederates on their enemies to the North. On the other hand, whenever South Americans express their real feeling toward US citizens, they use “Gringos,” with a connotation of ill-mannered, rude drunkenness.

So as I grappled with the problem over several articles I had written, it came to me that the term, “US’ers”—which I coined instead of say, “US’ians” that hews too closely to “Russians”—really sounds more appropriate. It’s very specific. No mistaking Canadians that a “Norte Americano” name can cause; and it doesn’t have any derogatory connotation of “Yankee” or “Gringo” either. So it’s simply, US’ers, or the people of the United States of America . Just make sure the apostrophe is used or it may read like the Webster definition of an unethical person or an addict of some sort.

Surely, there are countless good people among the US population; but if McCain still wins the US elections, the derogatory connotation would become most apt. If, however, Obama wins despite the last minute “surge” planned by the US political-economic Establishment (which is momentarily split), it doesn’t automatically mean that US’ers will no longer be the “users” of old, creating wars for oil and their own economic and geostrategic security, and using depleted uranium and other weapons from their arsenal a la the “Gringos” of Italian Westerns. But there’s hope—and a chance—that Obama may only be faking his imperial expressions.

To be fair, Obama‘s platform of socio-economic change may still save the US from itself—from the divisive situation today out of three decades of neoconservative rule, to the greed of the finance and special interest (defense, oil, food cartels) corporatocracy, to its abandonment of its people and real economy. And despite suffering from the greatest financial collapse to date, the $1 trillion bailouts are still being hoarded by bankers as its industry and population financially starves. US’ers are thus seething over this and would want to make Obama win—that is, if the elections are left alone to reflect the people’s will. But that’s not how the Republicans, the Bushes and Cheneys, operate after heady continuous power for three decades.

For sure, Clinton was never in control as the Republican Congress was giving constant pressure. Plus, he too was in the clutches of the US financial and defense mafia, which made him bomb Iraq and repeal the vintage FDR Great Depression Glass-Steagall Act that fast-tracked today’s financial Armageddon.

Obama has the rare chance of ruling the US with control of both the executive and legislative branches under one party, making the neocons cringe. Hence, the Democrats’ consolidation could make Obama a great thing for the US , but will that translate to some good for the rest of the world? Reading Obama’s lips—“Invade Pakistan ; Escalate the War in Afghanistan ”—I begin to doubt; and while he’s against oil-drilling in Alaska , I read all that to mean he’ll drill in Mindanao with the US visiting forces and the MILF guarding for him instead.

Filipinos shouldn’t expect much from Obama or the US elections since there is little promise of any change in policy toward the world and the Philippines . And since Obama promises to stop outsourcing, this is bad news for RP call centers.

If change for the better is to happen, it has to be from us all—from each nation on earth. We must then stop this insane hype of the US elections, like the Philippine Star’s “Obama-McCain race enters final stretch” inane and obeisant headline since this only amounts to a genuflection to the master’s ritualistic change of clothes. Indeed, there will only be a change of clothes but no change in imperial face, unless the world gives it a slap—the way Putin did in Georgia, or Hugo Chavez in inviting Russian naval ships to visit his waters, south of the US .

But, as the US neocons believe, Obama could really be hiding some surprises, in response, they may be ready to pull off a “Garci” too. For instance, Italian paper Corriere, which interviewed US writer Erica Jong, headlined: “Obama Loss Will Spark the Second American Civil War…Blood Will Run in the Streets.” In it, she said: “The record shows that voting machines in America are rigged… My friends Ken Follett and Susan Cheever are extremely worried. Naomi Wolf calls me every day. Yesterday, Jane Fonda sent me an email to tell me that she cried all night and can’t cure her ailing back for all the stress… After having stolen the last two elections, the Republican Mafia (seems at it again)… And it’s not a coincidence that President Bush recalled soldiers from Iraq for Dick Cheney to lead against American citizens in the streets.”

It’s doubtful that Bush would risk what Jong and Fonda fear, but a real McCain upset cannot be discounted. That ironically would neither be believed nor accepted, and should trigger the chaos. But it’s ironic too since Obama is not a full-fledged threat to the Right-wing Establishment the way Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John “Jack” Kennedy were when they challenged the US Federal Reserve (which few understand is a private bank) and its control of money. To refresh our readers, Abe printed government “greenbacks” while Jack signed EO11110, restoring US government silver-backed money printing, both against borrowing from the Fed. Sadly, there’s no John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald yet for Obama, so should he continue the “Anti-terror” War, he’ll be the darling of the Establishment there in no time.

While US’ers expect much from Obama’s promise of change, these are likely to be limited or cosmetic. For the world tired of the US bringing perennial oil, finance and war crises, Obama has only promised a shift in the theater of US aggression. But could he still surprise us? Yes. But the surprise could go either way—more war or more overtures toward peace.