This is Not an Amish Heater Blog

About two years ago I wrote my most famous post (or is infamous a better description), Miracle Amish Heater. I had only been blogging for a few months, and was mostly just writing about the completely over-the-top nature of the "Amish Heater" ad that had struck me as so hilarious.

Never had it occurred to me that this single post would far surpass any others I had written in terms of the number of comments generated, and indeed, even as of a few weeks ago, I am still getting new comments. For a time, a Google search on "Amish Heater," would return my post as the top hit. Suddenly, completely out of the blue I had become Mr. Amish Heater. Moreover, it would appear that a significant fraction of the traffic to my blog has been from those seeking consumer advice about "amish heaters." Somehow I had unwittingly become the principal consumer advocate, the Ralph Nader if you will, with regard to Amish Heaters.

So, let me say here for the record that this was never a goal I aspired to! Regular readers (if there are any out there!) will likely have discerned that a primary focus of my blogging has been politics and current events, subjects that I tend to think of as more weighty than the vagaries of home heating. While all remain free to partake of my limited wisdom with regard to Amish Heaters, please keep in mind that this is not an Amish Heater blog!

Barack Obama: A Mighty Wind

A little more than a year ago, on election night 2008, I blogged about being proud that the people had elected Barack Obama and expressed the hope that now the country might be able to seek a new direction, a more inclusive, progressive and peaceful direction. Sadly, it took only a year for any illusions regarding the direction the President would choose to be finally dispensed with. While Obama's recent decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan might be thought of as the last straw, it was becoming clear much sooner that Obama is perhaps the biggest political wind-bag to blow into Washington in many a decade. On virtually every major (and minor!) decision, Obama has demonstrated with his actions, the only true indicator of intent, that his is an administration of the status-quo, not one of change. It might not be so deflating if he had run a more "technocratic" campaign, but no, Brand Obama was all about "the change we need," and the "audacity of hope," a claim to change the way Washington works, etc., etc. It must now be clear to all but the most deluded groupies that this was mostly all smoke and mirrors, merely reflecting the way political campaigns are executed these days. That is, one says to the people whatever one needs to say to get elected, but upon election one governs at the behest of America's corporate oligarchy, regardless of what was said. Where to begin?

It didn't take long for my hopes to begin to fade. You see, what with the extreme economic crisis, financial corruption on a massive scale, and all this prior to Obama's inauguration, it should have been pretty clear to a "candidate of change," that some new economic thinking was in order, or that, at a minimum, those who stood by, or at worst, collaborated in the economic dissolution of the country, should not be entrusted to manage the aftermath. So, naturally, our candidate of change installed an economic team made up of precisely the same crowd who had either placed the charcoal in the grill, fanned the flames, or had watched happily while it all went up in smoke. The prime culprits here being Obama's chief economist Lawrence Summers and the current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. No change spotted here. More recently, because of his superb job in doling out trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to his banking buddies, "bailout" Ben Bernanke, the same Ben Bernanke who had been completely asleep at the Fed tiller as an economic tsunami engulfed the nation, was, rather than shown the door, nominated to another four year stint at the head of the Federal Reserve! To understand why Bernanke should absolutely be replaced as Fed chairman, see the comprehensive indictment by Nomi Prins. In nominating Bernanke for another term Obama noted the desire to "reassure the financial sector." Reassure them of what!? That the money spigot wouldn't be turned off? Maybe the financial sector could do with some assurances that change was coming down the pike! No, definitely not change.

Further to our economic mess, as billions of public funds were being transferred to the banks, we were reminded over and over that this would not be allowed to happen again, and that "business as usual" was finished. We were told that new regulations would get tough with the banks and other corporate crooks. Well, what happened? Guess what, it's back to business as usual! Indeed, Wall Street outfits like Goldman-Sachs will out-do themselves in corporate bonuses this year, scarcely twelve months after literally walking off with the public's strongbox. While talk of new regulatory authority has been heard in Congress, at the moment there has been no new legislation to address the incredible corruption that is now endemic in the US and international financial system. At present Obama appears to be AWOL on this issue. One might think that perhaps, as a first start, it would be prudent to go back to the old regulatory regime that was in place prior to the "financialization" of the US economy. I'm thinking Glass-Steagall here, that piece of quaint, Depression-era legislation that actually worked! Imagine that, it kept banker and corporate rapaciousness somewhat in check. You guessed it, naturally there can be no return to such "old" schemes. Summers and Geithner will see to that, it wouldn't be "prudent" to go back to an "over-regulation" of the banks. Remember, these guys are Obama's guys. Still no change spotted.

Chief among Obama's campaign rhetoric was talk about overcoming the "cynicism" in Washington, and changing the way business is done. He talked endlessly about removing the political sway of lobbyists, and incorporating a new openness in government. Let's take a look at these goals in the context of the administration's health care reform agenda. Well, before even proposing a plan Obama met with insurance and health care industry executives many times in the White House, presumably to try and reach some accommodation with them regarding reform. He also cut a deal with Pharma, the pharmaceutical industry trade group, in some attempt to try and "bring them on board" to the reform effort. When word of such meetings hit the press, Obama's White House, rather than engaging in the new openness, tried to conceal the White House visitor logs from the public. Before the fight had even begun, Obama was seeking to make accommodation with the pharmaceutical lobbyists. Was this necessary, an end to the cynical ways of the past? Doesn't sound like it to me. If anything is clear from the health care reform saga it is that Obama, and the Democratic party in general, has had as its first agenda a desire to not upset the insurance and health care delivery industries. Rather than seeking to enact changes to benefit the public at large, the primary constraint seems to be to appease the health care insurance lobby at all costs. More of the change we need? Sorry to say so, but I don't see it.

During the campaign Obama repeatedly, and rightly in my opinion, attacked McCain and the Bush administration with regard to their approach to civil liberties and foreign affairs, suggesting that once elected he would reverse the trajectory established by Bush, Cheney and the Republican Party in these areas. So, after a year in office what can we see. On virtually every decision with regard to civil liberties, the Obama administration has argued for the same policies and interpretations that Bush so infamously enacted. Bush notoriously expanded the State's Secret privilege, to shield from view and immunize virtually any government decision or conduct that might reflect poorly on the administration. As Glenn Greenwald has clearly articulated, the Obama administration has adopted exactly the same interpretation of "... these same secrecy and immunity weapons." Even in cases where the Obama administration had nothing to do with the original conduct, he has sided with the Bush interpretation. Such conduct is deeply troubling, and the fact that it goes against the rhetoric he used to "sell" himself on the campaign trail makes it even more disturbing. While Obama has seemingly moved to close the extra-legal prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at present it remains opens, as do numerous other extra-legal CIA "black sites," that Obama apparently is content to see remain open. He has also re-affirmed the right, first decreed under Bush, to detain essentially anyone deemed to be a "terrorist," or "enemy," indefinitely. While he has appeared to place some additional legal restraints on such detention, the basic principle of indefinite detention appears to be fine with Obama, and this from a one-time Constitutional scholar. Based on the campaign rhetoric, it's hard to argue that this represents significant change.

Another early decision that was very disturbing from one who had professed to bring about profound change was his decision to keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense. Gates was Bush's choice to replace Rumsfeld, and while just about anyone would be an improvement over "the Donald," that's hardly a ringing endorsement. Gates was, and still appears to be, one of the last of the Cold Warriors. His public service career is exceptional in that he was wrong about virtually every major international development during the time he served at the CIA. So why would Obama see the need to keep in office such a mediocrity? Was it all about the bipartisanship? An effort to placate "unplacatable" conservative wing-nuts in the Republican Party? We see how well that's turned out. If Obama was going to implement a really new direction in US foreign policy, then why enlist an old Cold-war, Bush-appointed re-tread to do it? After all, it seems pretty clear that Gates never met a war he didn't like. And if it was one thing that separated Obama from the other presidential wannabes, it was his apparent anti-war credentials, and while this was prefaced with opposition to "dumb wars," such as Iraq, one certainly got the sense from the rhetoric that Obama would chart a new direction in foreign affairs.

Which brings us to the last straw, Obama's recent, awful, despicable, Afghanistan speech. Let's start with the location. While nothing can compare with George W. Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" photo-op, Obama's decision to use US Army cadets as cheering "props" to announce his escalation of the Afghanistan war has disturbing similarities. Then consider the whole frame of the speech. Bush's neo-cons could have written it. It represented a virtually complete acceptance of the Bush rationale for the "global war on terrorism," all the tired, refuted canards about how US "security" is threatened by, as an Afghan woman put it, "... by those skinny, lice covered, illiterate, dirty men in those craggy hills of this broken country?" From the man who brought us the "audacity of hope," all we got was a "dose of fear." We could have gotten that from George W. Bush, and at least we would have known what we were getting. And then, towards the end he had the audacity to suggest to us that we should come together, in unity, around this ludicrous policy? A policy that at the same time would both escalate and set a withdrawal date? That we should just further bankrupt our future and ruin another generation of over-deployed soldiers, not to speak of the innocents that are sure to die in Afghanistan? No thanks Mr. President, we can see the cynicism in that, and we're not buying. We got all this, but not before invoking more of the worn out, ridiculous, and deadly myths of American exceptionalism; we don't seek to dominate, we don't seek to occupy, blah, blah, and this from a man who should and probably does know better, but, who, ever the political cynic, was happy to try them out again on the American public. Amazingly, Obama will be presented with the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize in less than a week's time. Truly, war is peace. Change? hardly.

Obama's first term is scarcely 1/4 over and already he has done enormous damage to efforts to redress the nightmare of eight years of Bush - Cheney rule. He has adamantly decided to "look Forward," and has made it clear that bringing accountability to those who ran roughshod over the Constitution is not among his interests. Rarely have I ever seen a situation where the rhetoric of a political figure has been so at odds with his actions. It is hard not to reach the conclusion that Obama pulled the wool over many people's eyes. How destructive is this? It represents a powerful debasement of the political process, even when compared to Republican malfeasance, and simply further breeds the cynicism that he ostensibly claimed to be ending. Obama seems to be intent to drive away most of the support that brought him to office. Almost unbelievably, he seems to be governing at the whim of precisely those interests that he railed against in the campaign. He may still have time to reverse some of these trends, but based on his actions from one year in office I have seen no indications that he plans to do so. No, it seems Obama is basically Bush-lite, but with the dangerous ability to craft persuasive sentences and to deliver them as if he really believes them. Or perhaps he does believe them, but is simply so weak as to be unable to stand up for what he believes in. Either way, Obama and the Democratic Party had seriously think about the path they are traveling down, because for their sake and that of the Country, it's looking like a dead end.

Out of Thin Air

What is money? It sounds like a simple question, right? Better yet, where does money come from? Doesn't it come from, as my wife jokingly said, "... the ATM?" While you can get money from an ATM, that is clearly not it's ultimate source. In reality the concept of money is not all that complicated, however, I'm willing to bet that many readers have some serious misconceptions about it. I would also argue that this is no accident. For the most part we are not taught nor encouraged to think in detail about the more fundamental concepts around money, and more broadly, economics. I think this is partly so because the corporate elites in our society, those who control most of the money and its power are more than happy for us to stay ignorant. What better way to push through outrageous bailouts, bonuses and job cuts than when most people are content to shrug their shoulders and mutter, "well, these guys are really smart, right, they must know what they are doing, right?" Moreover, if people understood better, understood the outrageous injustices present in our economic and monetary systems they might get so pissed off as to march off and change it! After all, we still live in a political democracy, and with enough mobilization and commitment the will of the people can still be a powerful force.

So, this will begin a series of posts where I attempt to focus in on some common misconceptions about our economic system, and why I think it needs to be reorganized around the needs of people, and not the needs of money. Before beginning I have to confess to harboring from a rather young age a strong dose of skepticism around the wonders of "free market" economics. In college I remember taking a first economics course and upon finishing deciding I could not stomach any more. I think this revulsion was largely a combination of two factors. First, it often seemed that the simple models of how our market driven system was supposed to work were so crude and simplistic as to be virtually worthless when applied in the real world, and second, even in spite of this apparent crudeness the implication was that these economic "laws" were somehow akin to physics. The assumption being that they held as much predictive power as, for example, the laws of gravity. This is very serious indeed, because I think many people are of the belief that they are natural laws and thus could not be changed, when nothing could be further from the truth. Anyway, let's get back to the topic at hand, money.

Let's start with a somewhat silly, but rather illustrative example. A group of 10 people are midway on a trip across a vast desert when their vehicle fails and they find themselves stranded. After stretching their legs for a bit the vehicle suddenly explodes and all the provisions they had with them are destroyed. They decide that in order to survive an "economy" will have to be set up. They find 100 pennies amongst the whole group so they decide to issue 10 to each as their new "currency." Each agrees they will work to provide some useful service or product that will help them survive. Joe decides that he will make simple pottery vessels to store and transport water. He is able to make ten in a week, and he sells nine for 1 penny each and keeps the tenth for his own use. He uses his money to buy necessary items from his colleagues. The pots work well but break rather easily. Joe starts to get the hang of making his pots and he finds he can double his production, making now 20 a week. His mates now would like to buy two each but they do not have enough pennies to pay the previous price of 1 penny per pot. Joe is faced with a dilemma, he will have to cut his price in half if he is to sell his pots. His colleagues face a similar situation, price deflation, and must cut their production, or rather, have no incentive to increase production. This is a result of scarcity of their "money" supply. The group endures and eventually multiplies, but the total number of pennies remains the same. Joe cannot feed his offspring on the poor income from his pots. He has the capacity to produce more, but is shackled by the "tight" money supply. Joe asks to borrow pennies from a friend, but he also needs his money and will only agree to lend if Joe pays him interest. But are there enough pennies in the money supply to pay this additional interest fee? The money supply is fixed. If one of the group were able to lend his coins in this way, using compound interest, it is not hard to see that eventually this one individual would own the entire money supply, all the others would be flat broke and probably in debt bondage to the one "banker." If this scenario sounds a little bit like the beginnings of industrial capitalism, when the money supply was tied to a limited, controlled commodity, like gold, then you are right. Those in charge of such a tight money supply understand that they can control everyone and that over time more and more of the money will accrue to them if they lend it with interest compounded annually.

Now, consider changing the scenario slightly. Rather than fussing about the pennies, one of the group volunteers to act as group accountant and goods merchant. He will issue a small wooden stick to record the production of a good or service by his mates, and they will bring their goods to him for distribution and purchase. The group agrees that the accountant should be "paid" for this service, so he gives himself 10 sticks per week as a salary. Now, when Joe produces a pot, he is paid a stick, and there is no arbitrary limit on how many pots he can produce, he just gets a money stick for each one. He now has an obvious incentive to increase production. The accountant can easily make sticks from the trees and bushes. The sticks themselves are plentiful and have no intrinsic value, but they keep account of the production of goods and services and can be traded for them, they are the group's "money." All the others do the same, as they increase their production their money supply grows along with it, they all have more purchasing power and can now buy multiple pots from Joe at the penny per pot price he initially set. There is no inflation or deflation, prices can stay stable, and the amount of money simply grows with the increase in production of goods and services. The stranded group finds it is able to prosper and multiply.

The above examples are borrowed, with some paraphrasing, from the book The Web of Debt, by Ellen Hodgson Brown. I read this book recently and was frankly astounded with how well these simple examples highlighted both the basic concepts around money as well as the stark differences in systems where the money itself is thought of as the thing of value rather than simply the productive capacity of every individual. In the first example, the productive capacity is strangled because there is not enough money to go around. Naturally, under such conditions it is easier for the supply of money to be unscrupulously controlled by a small minority of the community, enriching itself at the expense of the rest of the group. Sound familiar? The second example shows what money really is, it is just an agreed upon system to account for the production and distribution of goods and services, it has no intrinsic value of itself, but serves as a medium of trade and accounting, providing the lubrication for the gears of commerce. When money comes into existence with the production of goods and services there is never a shortage of it and the supply of money simply grows with the increase in production, so that supply and demand increase together, without price inflation or depression of output.

Another paradox that comes into sharp focus in the above example is the so-called "Impossible Contract." Put simply, when money is lent at interest the money supply is not increased to cover the additional costs of the interest. The result is that there is never enough money to pay off the interest, or put another way, there will always be losers. Someone will always have to go to debtors prison. The system sets up an economic dog-eat-dog mentality, with the bankers eventually controlling all the money. The Impossible Contract was understood by many ancient cultures and is perhaps partly responsible for the ancient proscriptions against usury, and Christ's famous eviction of the "money changers" from the temple. Closer to home, it was also recognized by Benjamin Franklin, who was a proponent of state "banks" that would lend and spend money, without interest, directly into the community. His own State of Pennsylvania having successfully done this in the years prior to the American Revolution.

But perhaps the most astounding revelation in Hodgson-Brown's book is that the right to "coin" money, a right designated to Congress in the US Constitution, has been given over almost completely to private, for profit banks, the principal culprit being the Federal Reserve System (or Fed, for short). The Fed and the US Treasury department have for years reported several indicators of the US money supply. The simplest of these just count the notes and coins in circulation, and at most account for only a few percent of the total money in the system. The vast majority, measured as M3, represents loans issued by commercial banks (including the Fed). Where does this loan money come from? The answer is that it comes out of thin air! When a bank makes a loan it simply adds an accounting entry on its books for the amount of the loan (and not including the interest to be paid). Normally when we think of borrowing and lending we are thinking about things that already exist, like your neighbor's milk or eggs, but the banks don't actually have the vast majority of money that they lend! It is really your money! Your agreement to pay back the loan based on your productive capacity, but with additional enormous interest costs! The banks are largely just unproductive middlemen who extract an enormous cost from all of us as we go about our productive lives. Curiously, the Fed is no longer reporting the value of M3. Now I wonder why that could be? Let's look at the impossible contract again. So where does the additional money come from that must eventually cover the interest charges? Well, it can only come from additional bank loans, but these are also issued with interest due, so we have a pyramid scheme of gargantuan proportions, that is slowly but steadily inflating the money supply, and simultaneously devaluing the purchasing power of every dollar in your pocket. If by now you are muttering that I must be crazy, just look at this figure which shows the value of the US dollar over time. Also note that from the time of the Federal Reserve Act the value of the dollar in real purchasing power has been steadily declining, as it must based on the above reasoning.

Our present monetary and economic system is slowing but steadily impoverishing the public at the expense of a small minority of private banking and corporate fiefdoms. As the simple examples demonstrate, the system cannot endure, and indeed appears now to be teetering near the verge of collapse. While many additional factors also contribute to our present, unjust system that has "monetized" the productive capacity of the people and turned it over to a private minority, it seems clear that a first step towards regaining control of our economic future is to regain control of the monetary system for the benefit of all and not the enrichment of a small minority of parasitic "bankers." More about that to come.

Extraordinary Injustice

It is likely that most Americans still do not recognize the name of Maher Arar. Based on yesterday's decision by a majority of judicial, boot-licking bureaucrats of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit--to call them judges immeasurably degrades the term--it is likely that few more will recognize it. This infamous decision in the Arar saga does much to illustrate the depths to which justice and the rule of law have sunk within the United States. Mr. Arar is a Canadian citizen who in September 2002 while en-route to Canada through the US was kidnapped--no other term adequately describes his plight--by agents of the United States government on the flimsiest of evidence and "rendered" to Syria where he was detained for a year and brutally tortured. As in Orwell's "1984," words themselves are abused, thus "war is peace," and in a similar vein, kidnapping becomes "rendering." Released after a year in Syrian detention Arar was neither charged with a crime nor offered any explanation or apology for what effectively was the ruining of his life. Read more about the details of his treatment in Glenn Greenwald's column here.

A subsequent investigation by the Canadian government confirmed that Arar was completely innocent and resulted in it accepting its share of blame in providing the US government with erroneous intelligence on Arar, although it maintained that Canadian officials did not improperly acquiesce in his abduction. He was offered a formal apology by the Canadian government and received a cash settlement to provide some redress for the treatment he received and the violation of his rights. Since then Arar has sought redress in the US courts in an attempt to bring some accountability to the individuals and government responsible for his abduction and ordeal. His efforts have so far been in vain, with the most recent setback provided by the judicial rubber-stamp of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Indeed, in a despicable display of imperial arrogance the United States still refuses Arar entry into the country, and he was even forced to provide testimony to a Congressional inquiry regarding rendition via video link! Details of Arar's attempts to bring suit in US courts can be found here at the Center for Constitutional Rights' (CCR) website.

Given such circumstances, it is appropriate that Lady Justice is blindfolded, so as to hide the tears that must be streaming down her face when such decisions are rendered. The issues in the Arar case are so stark because if the Law cannot protect a completely innocent man; if the Law can simply be abrogated by the powerful; if wrongs once perpetrated and brought to light cannot be fairly adjudicated and grievances redressed by the Law, then what is the point of having laws to begin with? We are as medieval serfs helpless in the face of the arbitrary power of kings. It was against such power that the US Constitution was in part crafted, but these so-called justices of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals make a mockery of the Constitution and have long forgotten the meaning of justice. Let's read them out, the roll-call of judicial shame on the Second Circuit; Dennis Jacobs (Chief Judge), Joseph McLaughlin, Jose Cabranes, Reena Raggi, Richard Wesley, Peter Hall, and Debra Livingston. Shame on all of you. These pathetic apologists for the National Security State comprised the seven judge majority that dismissed the Arar appeal. They should all turn in their robes in shame. I commend the four judges who penned dissenting opinions in the case; Guido Calabresi, Rosemary Pooler, Robert Sack, and Barrington Parker. At least there are some judges remaining who can see right from wrong through the legalistic mumbo-jumbo.

The seven judge majority essentially ruled that the US government can detain anyone under virtually any conditions, can transfer them abroad, even with the knowledge that they will likely be tortured, if it simply says that it is doing so for reasons of national security. It does not need to convince a judge that such statements are valid and have substance. It is simply enough for the government to assert that it is for reasons of national security. Having done so, the victim has no avenue for redress of grievances in US courts. None. This ruling grants to the executive branch and the President the same power of kings that the US Constitution was crafted to abolish! Agents of the government can act with virtually absolute power and absolute impunity. If that is not cause for concern, then I don't know what is. And these justices took an oath to uphold the Constitution? Have these so-called judges even read the Bill of Rights? Ironically, the majority argued that the separation of powers created in the Constitution did not allow them to intervene on the Executive's foreign policy powers in this case. But what of legality, the judiciary are supposed to uphold the law and provide a check on the executive. If not to protect innocents, then under what circumstances would the Court see fit to intercede?

Perhaps equally disturbing has been the Obama administrations stance on the so-called state secrets privilege. Recently, the Obama Justice Department has argued for exactly the same interpretation of the privilege as that favored by the Bush administration. It is hard to reach the conclusion that the Executive branch under Bush and now Obama is simply attempting to erect a permanent shield between itself and the law. Such actions are anathema to the rule of law and can only hasten the demise of already crumbling democratic institutions.

Olympic Wing-nuts!

Alright, this should be the last time that anyone should have to listen to the tortured ravings of right-wingers spewing forth about their patriotic love of America. All the self-styled leaders of conservadom at present; Limbaugh, Beck, Kristol, Drudge (pick your poison), have been literally dancing with glee about Chicago's failed bid to host the 2016 Summer Games. All these mental midgets (and many others), were literally beside themselves with rapture that America's entry to host the Games was rejected. We get it guys (and gals), deep down you just apparently really despise America, so let's not hear ever again a single word about your patriotic fervor. Not one single word, ever!

It's actually really sad when you consider that this is about the only thing the rabid right has to puff out its chest about, the Olympics, a sporting event. It's really quite pathetic. Just consider a couple of their recent ravings. Weekly Standard editor John McCormack, who apparently routinely walks around in some alternative universe devoid of reality, crowed, "As a citizen of the world who believes that No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation, I'm glad that the Obama White House's jingoist rhetoric and attempt to pay back Chicago cronies at the expense of undermining our relationships with our allies failed..." Keep in mind that this drivel is from the editor of the very same paper that cheered and beat the drums for Bush's illegal invasion and domination of Iraq! Iraq, as in, another nation. Second, what does supporting your nation's one bid to host the Olympics have to do with undermining relationships with its allies?? Oh, that's right, nothing! It's hard to imagine how anyone could concoct a more ridiculous utterance. McCormack wouldn't know reality if it was a bat that someone used to beat him over the head. Then we have this headline from Matt Drudge, "WORLD REJECTS OBAMA: CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND. THE EGO HAS LANDED." Only in the tiny mind of Matt Drudge could a small, insular, idiosyncratic clique of old men (the IOC) be confused with the WORLD. Apparently this entire wing-nut crowd is functioning in the few-neuron regime.

As most sanguine commentators have noted, the single most important factor in the decision to award the games to Rio is that the Games have never been hosted in a South American country. Sorry folks, no World rejection of Obama, no undermining of relationships with allies. South America never had Olympics, Rio in South America, get it? I didn't think so.

Failure to Learn

The hubris knows no bounds. The United States is now approaching eight years of its Afghanistan adventure, with a thoroughly predictable outcome. Defeat. The Taliban were so easily "defeated" initially because, as indigenous forces are wont to do, they simply melted back into the country-side, and decided to bide their time, to fight another day. Six years of waiting and gathering strength, coupled with six years of American neglect and incompetence have now provided the conditions where the Taliban feel they will be able to reassert control over much of the country. What did the United States do with it's initial "victory?" Did it turn the bulk of its aid to Afghanistan to economic and social development for that desperately poor country, to win the support of the population? Did it support the nascent democratic organizations and institutions that had existed before the Taliban, to empower these groups to lead the political and economic development of the country? No, the United States did none of these things. The bulk of its aid remains military assistance. It installed a corrupt government, and did nothing to reduce the influence of warlords and militias on average Afghanis. It routinely resorted to massive firepower, including indiscriminate air-strikes, when engaging Taliban militants, with the predictable killing of many innocent Afghan civilians. The latter has done much to turn the population against the American project and is a veritable recruiting boon to the Taliban. One would be hard-pressed to devise a more counterproductive strategy.

While the US has made no end of mistakes with regard to its policy in Afghanistan, the most important mistake can be traced back to the Bush administration's decision to react to the September 11, 2001 attacks with a primarily military response. The solution to the extremism that fosters terrorism is not a military one, it is primarily political, educational and social. Terrorists themselves are best dealt with in the context of international law enforcement. A heavy-handed militaristic response simply exacerbates the conditions which lead to radicalization and extremism.

However, as a self-styled sole-superpower, the United States tends to approach much of its foreign policy from a military point of view. This is where its perceived strength lies. On the other hand the US is relatively weak politically. Whereas talk of democracy is always heard, what sort of development model does the US really have to offer? As in Afghanistan, much of what passes for foreign "aid" is used to further the interest of American corporations, or simply ends up enriching a small minority at the expense of the impoverished majority. Much of the developing world no longer sees the appeal of such an "American Plan."

So what is the US really doing in Afghanistan? And how is it that it's government and political leaders could even consider a further escalation so soon after the disastrous and ongoing occupation of Iraq, not to mention the shameful history of the Vietnam war? Are our leaders incapable of learning anything? Or are they simply blinded by imperialistic hubris and the myth of American exceptionalism? Even a man as obviously capable and intelligent as President Obama seems unable to escape the suffocating shackles of the "mainstream" consensus that cries for "victory" in Afghanistan. The ostensible argument offered by Obama recently is that the US cannot allow a "safe haven" for terrorists in Afghanistan. But what does that mean? The argument is completely ludicrous. Moreoever, how is it possible to deny "safe havens" to terrorists in general? Would one need to occupy the entire world? Throughout history Afghanistan has been the "graveyard" of empires, what is it about American hubris that leads us to think we can impose our will on this country when all others have failed?

"No Matter What Your Purpose Is..."

What happens when the cops are the criminals? What happens when lawless cops with truncheons, mace, tear-gas, hobnailed boots, and "less-lethal ammunition" decide that you are no longer allowed to simply walk the streets of your own campus? This is what happens. Welcome to the Police State known as the University of Pittsburgh campus.

The only criminals evident in this video are the "rioting police," whose Chief apparently decided that he had the authority to suspend the US constitution, and, by fiat, to deny the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The segments of the video where the police commands are being broadcast are truly chilling. Where is the option for redress of grievances as it is declared that, "The Chief of Police has declared this an unlawful assembly." By what authority does the Chief of Police suspend the highest law in the land, and deny people the right to peacefully walk freely about? Then, "no matter what your purpose, you must disperse..." One can only guess at what the phrase, "other police action," is meant to suggest. No doubt a baton to the head, a taser dart to the chest or a rubber bullet to the back. This is the most chilling type of arbitrary authority imaginable, and would be unthinkable in a true democracy.

Is it really necessary for black-clad stormtroopers to invade the peaceful University of Pittsburgh campus, and attack students just walking and gathering? True, the G-20 summit is taking place in Pittsburgh, but that gives Police the right to riot and attack innocent citizens? The behavior of these cops is simply appalling, but who does one turn to when the cops are the criminals? What justice will these common thugs face?

With Friends Like That...

It's so easy to beat up on the poor. The latest skirmish in the ongoing class war of the rich and powerful against the poor and powerless is the targeting of ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) for the apparent misconduct of some of its employees evident in videos created as part of what might accurately be called a right-wing "sting" operation, the apparent goal of which was to smear the organization and attempt to bring about some type of legal sanction against it. While at face value the conduct evidenced by some of the ACORN employees is indeed reprehensible, one should be mindful that these videos were apparently created and edited with the explicit aim of casting the organization in the worst possible light. One should also keep in mind that there were numerous similar attempts to "entrap" ACORN workers, and indeed at several sites the sting operators apparently found little joy. For a little more balance and perspective than you are likely to find on Fox News, see ACORN head Bertha Lewis's response to the recent firestorm of criticism.

While the right-wing architects of these efforts would probably have been pleased with a general smearing of the reputation of ACORN, they were no doubt giddy upon learning that the Senate, by an 83-7 vote, had moved to bar further government grants to ACORN. And now their glee must have truly turned to wing-nut rapture as the House has similarly voted, this time 345-75, to bar federal funding to the organization. Wow, it's really quite remarkable, here is a small, non-profit organization that, as Glenn Greenwald points out, has perhaps been the recipient of a total of about 50 million federal dollars over the last 15 years, and, without any of its employees having been accused of a crime in a court of law, has apparently already been tried and convicted by the same governing Parties in Congress that have been the perpetrators and enablers of truly epic illegality over the last eight years. The CEOs of KBR, Halliburton, and Blackwater (now Xe), to name just a few of the corporate pirates in charge of our government, must be laughing all the way to their banks stuffed with ill-gotten billions and billions of federal no-bid contracts. Those who now sit in judgement of ACORN are the same Parties who were happy to funnel trillions of dollars of federal funds to their client, "too big to fail," Wall Street banks in order to make whole the lost bets they made with other peoples money. The chutzpah and sanctimony here are truly off the Richter scale.

The attack on the poor, and its accompanying hypocrisy is truly bipartisan. Republicans have long sought to cripple ACORN because it's actually been successful in promoting democracy. That is, in helping to enfranchise poor and minority communities, constituencies which tend to vote reliably for Democrats. Apparently Republicans are only for promoting democracy when it can be used as a pretext to enable an illegal, immoral war. Meanwhile, you really don't want to be a friend of the Democrats, do you? Just look how you're treated. ACORN was successful in registering millions of new voters, a majority of whom likely voted for Democratic candidates in the last election, but the instant there are some potentially damaging allegations brought against the group, no matter the circumstances, the Democratic leadership is more than happy to throw ACORN under the proverbial bus. As the saying goes, with friends like that, you don't need enemies.

The entire episode just further reinforces the failure of our now corporate-controlled government. Groups that aid constituencies which the Federal government has long abandoned must scratch and claw for the most meager of support, whereas corporate oligarchs are feted like kings, and wealthy corporations can look forward to the next round of no-bid, socialism-for-the-rich contracts, all at taxpayer expense. Torturers can admit their crimes, indeed brag about them, but not a peep is heard from the leadership of either corporate Party. It is a sorry spectacle indeed.

Because Nothing Inspires Confidence Like Failure

If you still were not quite sure who President Obama really holds closest to his heart, banksters or working folk, then this little bit of news should clear it up for you. The AP is announcing that Obama will soon reappoint Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second four year term. While the appointment requires Senate confirmation, does anyone out there really think the Senate cares for working folk more than banksters? Thus, you can rest assured that "Bailout Ben" will remain at the tiller of the Fed, dishing out taxpayer cash to his bankster buddies for the forseeable future. I don't know about you, but I'll be sleeping easy tonight, as apparently so will lots of bankers and Wall-Streeters that Obama was again so keen to appease.

I urge you to give Philip Elliott's piece a read. It's a paragon of the "professional journalism" that dominates main stream corporate media nowadays, and whose sole purpose would appear to be the servicing of the rich and powerful. After stating that Bernanke will be reappointed, Elliott then describes Bernanke's apparent accomplishments with the following glowing text, all in the first two short paragraphs, "...as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, a position from which he guided the economy away from its worst recession since the 1930s and, the White House hopes, toward an economic recovery critical to its legacy. Widely credited with taking aggressive action to avert an economic catastrophe after the financial meltdown last year..." Well, you get the point. If you had slept through the last few years and found yourself reading this piece you might think Ben Bernanke didn't share any of the blame for bringing on a financial disaster of epic proportions. That he wasn't "asleep at the wheel" while ostensibly Fed-regulated banks over-exposed themselves to risky economic weapons of mass destruction, like credit default swaps and other toxic mortgage-backed securities. That he didn't stand by, watch it all happen, do little, but then commit trillions of dollars of taxpayer funds to try and clean up the mess. Oh, and as for the economy being "guided" away from recession, the jury still seems to be out on that one.

As for whom is "widely crediting" Bernanke with rescuing the financial system, and from whom he "received heaps of praise..., for his handling of the crisis," well, Elliott is a little less specific on that. But fear not, Elliott assures us that Bernanke is not "without his detractors," but if you were looking for any more specific criticism, maybe even just a smidgen of the many column inches detailing Bernanke's malfeasance, then you were sure to be disappointed. So, here are a few sanguine comments from Bernanke critic Dean Baker just for fun. I guess it's just more of the "Change We Need."

A Democracy in Name Only

The American political system is completely broken. Democracy has long since been usurped by plutocracy. If you're one of those who still thinks your vote matters or that the system can still function for the average American, then you are either; 1) hopelessly uninformed. 2) completely brainwashed. 3) brain dead.

While the signs of the death of American democracy have been evident for some time, they have come into glaring focus in the last few months as the health care reform debate has taken center stage. The problems are clear to anyone with eyes to see. The United States spends much more on health care than any nation with which it likes to compare itself. Let's call these our peer nations for lack of a better term. Amongst these industrialized peers the US is virtually near the bottom in most indicators of the efficiency and efficacy of its health care system. Upwards of 50 million citizens have no access to health care. Take note, lest you think this is some irrelevant group of fellow citizens, it would be as if an entire nation somewhere between the size of France or Spain, had no access to health care. If you still remain unmoved, and, like Rush Limbaugh, would rather blame the ill or needy for their own plight, then consider the recent report on Bill Moyer's Journal about what it means to have no access to health care. In a word, it is appalling, and a national disgrace.

Spiraling health care costs are also threatening America's economic future. Indeed, health care costs have been growing at well above the inflation rate for some time, and now threaten the competitiveness of American employers, large and small. Every other of our peer nations has long since decided that all their citizens have a right to good medical care, and that this is consistent with health care being a right that accrues to all people, by virtue of their humanity, and nothing else. A comfortable majority of Americans also believe this, and wish to see a change in the way health care is delivered in this country. And yet, facing this problem for which there is near universal agreement that a change in the status quo is essential, the elected government appears powerless in the face of the minority corporate interests who are the only ones who benefit from perpetuation of the status quo. If the government cannot even adequately address an issue of such importance to all it's citizens, then what problems could it possibly solve?

The primary crisis facing American democracy is that the two major parties (Democrat and Republican) have long since stopped representing the interests of average citizens, rather, they almost exclusively govern at the whim of monied, corporate interests. There are numerous reasons for this, but several of the most relevant include; 1) These same interests fill the campaign coffers of both Parties, enabling the funding of the expensive public relations exercises that pass for political campaigns in this country. 2) A large fraction of candidates are drawn from groups of people that largely share the same interests as these corporate and wealthy constituencies. While this is especially true of Republican candidates, it is also largely true of Democrats as well. Not convinced, simply consider the US Senate, about half of whose members are millionaires, and which has an average net worth of between 8 and 9 million dollars. 3) The vast majority of media outlets that "inform" and shape American opinion are owned and controlled by corporate interests that share the same goals and ideology. This is the same corporate-owned media that "manufactures consent," and makes sure that corporate aims are always positively represented in their content. Indeed, you've probably never heard the term "manufacturing consent," one of the concepts ellucidated in the many writings of Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most widely cited intellectual in the world, but whose voice fellow Americans are systematically deprived of because he speaks truths which are in direct opposition to the corporate status quo. In fact, the exclusion of Chomsky from American media outlets is perhaps no better proof of his very critique of American corporate media.

Once in office the major party candidates overwhelming support a corporate agenda, but--at least this part hasn't changed yet--they still have to get elected. So how do they do it? Well, put simply, they try to talk a good game, and no one has been better at it in recent memory than our current President Barack Obama. Obama's soaring rhetoric was geared to capitalize on the deep, and justified, dissatisfaction with the Bush years. Among his principle campaign points were his promises around ending involvement in the Iraq war, as well as pushing a health care reform agenda. However, once in office it appears increasingly clear that the actions of the Obama administration do not match, or even come close, to the campaign rhetoric. And nowhere is this more clear than in his, and the Democratic Party's, efforts around health care reform.

Almost from the beginning the administration's actions have been one of attempting at all costs to placate their corporate clients in the health care and insurance industries. Obama has met with CEO's of all these entities, and on numerous occasions, and then sought to keep the records of whom was visiting the White House from public view. So much for transparency, which was supposedly going to be another hallmark of his presidency. Then came word of the "deal" reached between the White House and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, ostensibly giving them the "windfall" that the Government would not use it's bulk purchasing power to negotiate the best (read lowest) price for it's consumers, that is, we the taxpayers! Funny, I thought price negotiation was a core principle of a Capitalist free market system. From the outset, the "Obama plan," as much as we know about it, was seemingly geared to take care of corporate concerns before the health care concerns of most Americans. As in, let's reform health care so as to further increase the profit margins of insurance and drug companies!

No doubt there is a wing of the Democratic Party that does not act reflexively at the beck and call of corporate interests, but this minority group has routinely been played for suckers, promised that their concerns would be acted on, but then eventually rolled by the Party "pragmatists," epitomized by Obama's choice for White House chief of staff, fellow Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel. The same story is now playing out in the health care reform debacle, but with more devastating consequences. See the spot-on discussion by Glenn Greenwald. Indeed, it appears that the Party is more interested in appeasing Republican whack-jobs like unrepentant "deather" Chuck Grassley, who famously warned his constituents that they had every right to fear Sarah Palin's imagined "death panels," than the very people responsible for electing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, not to mention returning the White House to a Democrat.

While the Democrats hold the White House and both houses of Congress with comfortable majorities, they appear remarkably "weak" in attempting to pass reform on an issue with such broad public support and importance. How can this be in a supposed democracy? Again, the "weakness" is that the interests of corporations and money carry much more weight on Capitol Hill and in the White House than the interests of average Americans. Democrats can equivocate, offering no end of laughable excuses for why they can't seem to do the people's business, but in the end the only reason that doesn't illicit chuckles is the fact that they are just as beholden to corporate interests as Republicans. Indeed, the present leadership in the Democratic Party appears set on maintaining political control by becoming more like the Republican Party than by expanding its appeal amongst working class and progressive constituencies. Another corrosive dynamic is that each Party seeks above all else to simply maintain its political hold on power. While such political calculating is to be expected at some level, it has completely trumped any service to the nation as a whole. Is it any wonder then that people feel completely cut off from their own government?

There is a minority that benefit from the status quo, these are the insurance and health care corporations and their clients who have made a killing out of denying care to Americans and turning treatment of the sick and infirm into a for-profit business. While they represent a minority of voters, their influence is greatly amplified by the power their money purchases on Capitol Hill, and the influence of media campaigns and exposure that they are able to fund and which corporate media allies gladly promulgate. Much of these media campaigns rely on myths and distortions regarding health care that are repeated endlessly. No doubt the support for reform and universal coverage would be greater still if not for the success of these propaganda campaigns.

So, is there any way to breach the corporate gridlock which is presently suffocating American democracy? There is no hope in the Republican Party. For many years they have been completely at the service of wealth and power. The only way they have been able to achieve occasional electoral successes is by mobilizing sufficient social conservative (think God, Guns and Gays) constituencies (themselves a minority), while politically suppressing their opponents at all turns. Even so, time, and the changing demographics of America seem set to continue to force Republicans (thankfully) into the minority. This leaves the Democratic Party or some alternative. Unless the present Party leadership can be retired or replaced with more progressive representatives, it does not appear that this dead-lock will be relieved any time soon. The elimination of corporate and special interest money from elections would be a useful step, but the well-heeled have always found a way to make their resources tell, and there is no reason to think this would not continue. The only real solution will be pressure from popular movements and demands. As Frederick Douglas famously stated, "power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did, and it never will." We must never stop demanding.

Welcome to Idiot America

Well, they are back. You may recall some months ago the whole "teabagger" phenomenon, a set of small-scale protests around President Obama's stimulus spending legislation and Tax Day (April 15). Groups of conservative protesters were apparently channeling the spirits of Boston's original Tea Party revolutionaries, determined to free America, from well, it' own government. Trouble was these modern day teabaggers apparently had no clue as to what the original Boston Tea Party was all about. The teabagging events were pumped up way beyond their actual impact, judging from the number of individuals actually involved. Several right wing conservative media outlets, principally Fox News, were largely to blame for the overblown media attention devoted to the whole disingenuous spectacle. For a quick review have a look at this informative and hilarious segment from the Rachel Maddow show.

Now, the teabagger "movement" appears to be coming back for round two, this time "organized" around the debate on health care reform. Protesters have disrupted several "town hall" meetings organized by Democratic members of Congress, and as with some of the teabagger events, these health care protests have quickly taken on an aggressive, threatening, and in some instances, a downright ugly tone (note the protester with swastika-emblazoned sign). As to what bringing health care to the 50 million Americans who don't have it has to do with nazism, well, I'll have to leave that to the fertile imagination of readers.

And similarly with the teabaggers, this new round of conservative protests, ostensibly representing true grass roots organizing, appears to be partly spearheaded by several right wing front groups, including FreedomWorks, which is run by the former House majority leader, and newly minted global warming expert, Richard (Dick) Armey. The modus operandi of these "astro-turf" groups is to funnel conservative money into favorite right wing causes while attempting to give a veneer of grass roots respectability to the effort. In most cases the veneer turns out to be razor thin indeed.

Another unifying theme in these right wing efforts to turn back the clock is an almost unbelievable lack of substance combined with simple fabrication of facts and evidence. Put simply, these "protesters" seemingly don't have a clue about what they are actually protesting. In my previous post I discussed several classic examples of right wing dissembling on health care reform, but here is another recent example from none other than conservative darling and newly unemployed governor Sarah Palin. Remarking on her facebook page about the President's reform efforts, Palin had the following contribution to informed debate about health care;

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

This statement is simply despicable for its level of falsehood, idiocy and demagoguery. No one in the Administration, or anywhere else for that matter, has suggested that government bureaucrats would have anything to do with medical decisions. Indeed, the government funded Medicare program, a form of national health insurance, is amongst the most popular of government programs. There are no "death panels," arbitrating health care decisions for Medicare, only doctors. A similar circumstance exists in the national health programs of many other Nations, where only doctors are involved in patient's health care decisions. Ironically, the only place where putative "death panels" exist are in the boardrooms of private insurance companies, where corporate bureaucrats actually do make life and death decisions about health care.

No, the America that Sarah Palin apparently loves is the one where 50 million people have no easy access to health care and where people have to fight tooth and nail against corporate bureaucrats to get the care they need. The America that Sarah Palin loves is the one where almost 20,000 people die annually because of a lack of access to health care. Apparently, Sarah Palin has already passed judgment, and decided that these unfortunate souls do not have the requisite "level of productivity in society," to warrant her support. How ironic that Palin should talk about such evil when the truth is that the real evil is a for-profit health care system. Why is it that we never hear right wing mouthpieces talking about the real, documented "evils" of the present system?

Another revealing example of the tortured "logic" around some of the health care protests was provided by events at a town hall sponsored by Representative Gene Green (D-Tex). The assembled group of protesters indicated they were opposed to “... any form of socialized or government-run health care.” When subsequently asked by Representative Green how many of them were on Medicare a large fraction of hands shot up, apparently with no indication of the irony. As a friend explained it to me, "It's like they're living zombies. They are protesting the very teat they are suckling on!" If one expected more rational arguments from some Republicans in Congress then I am sorry to disappoint you. Their most recent contribution being the complete fabrication of an argument that reform would lead to euthanasia of the elderly. Talk about seeking the high ground.

So, since facts are so notably absent in any of these arguments, then what is the real basis for the opposition to health care reform, and more generally, apparently anything that President Obama has proposed? As with most things, the answers concern power and control. Privileged, wealthy, and reactionary interests--including corporate elites--see their power and position challenged and waning, and so they are fighting back with everything they can muster. The primary fuels for these right wing attacks are fear, ignorance and hate. And unfortunately, they feed upon the racism and xenophobia that is still present in America, despite right wing claims about a post-racial era.

An unfortunate and significant component in this ongoing assault on democracy is the almost complete demonization of rational thinking. Conservative talking heads, with significant corporate media support, have managed to create the now widespread cultural perception that to be smart, and indeed competent, is a bad thing, think "liberal elitist." This disturbing and dangerous state of affairs is described in Charles Pierce's recent book, "Idiot America." PZ Myers (pharyngula) has a nice review if you want to decide to give it a read. This situation is so dire that a major political party--do I need to identify it?--has essentially jettisoned the notion that it's politicians and representatives should be able to think rationally. As proof just consider that Party's recent candidate for the 2nd highest office in the land. Any Party that would work to elect a candidate with the lack of substance of a Sarah Palin does not deserve the support of rational voters. If this trend of the "dumbing down" of America is not reversed, the future will only be bleaker than the present.

Knuckle-scrapers in the House

In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's probably a safe bet that many (most?) Americans have never read this document, and that some are even completely unaware of its existence. If you haven't, I would urge you to take a few minutes to read its 30 Articles. I would also be willing to bet that having read it few people would find anything objectionable in the Declaration and that, indeed, it describes exactly what all people wish for their children. In particular, Article 25 describes the right to "... housing, and medical care and necessary social services..." Other Articles in the Declaration describe the right of all to the benefits provided by human advancement, such as scientific benefits, which would include medical discoveries and developments. The document urges all UN member States to strive towards the realization of these rights.

In the years and decades following the 2nd World War essentially all the industrialized democracies reached the conclusion, in agreement with the Universal Declaration, that all their citizens have the right to health care; that no one should be denied medical care because of an inability to pay for it. Thus, the norm amongst the Western democracies is a system of national health programs that enrolls all citizens, and that excludes no one because of economic circumstances. The details vary as to how such systems are implemented and paid for, but they all reflect the universal right to health care expressed in the UN Declaration. While polling indicates that a comfortable majority of Americans favor such a national health program that covers all citizens, the United States remains the extremist, alone among the Western democracies in having a for-profit health care system. Indeed, upwards of 60 million Americans have no health insurance, and perhaps as many as 100 million are under-insured, and vulnerable to catastrophic financial ruin if they should become seriously ill. If democratic government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, then how can this be?

I'm one of the lucky ones. Through my employer I have access to what would probably be considered a "good" health insurance plan. I recently had my most significant encounter with the US health care system. My five year old son had to have open-heart surgery to correct a congenital heart defect. He received fantastic care from all the doctors and nurses, and is doing great, but I couldn't help but think what a parent without health coverage would have to go through if their child were in a similar circumstance. But even with a "good" insurance plan, one is expected to make out of pocket payments at virtually every visit to a doctor or care giver. A visit to my primary care physician now requires a $25 co-payment, for example.

The present fight over health care reform reveals much about the sorry state of American democracy. Indeed, it highlights the fact that the institutions, such as the Congress, which are supposed to be instruments of the public good, are in fact controlled by powerful, private economic interests. Perhaps nothing exemplifies the endemic corruption in Congress around the health care issue as the key position that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) occupies within the process. Baucus is well known as a beneficiary of extensive campaign largesse in the form of millions of dollars from the health care and pharmaceutical industries. Any legislation significantly effecting health care reform will have to go straight through his committee. If this is not a conflict of interest, then the term has no meaning. In my field it would be as if one had the ability to peer review ones own scientific papers. Only in the US Congress could such circumstances be passed off as business as usual.

Even if reform can elude the entrenched corporate interests that routinely prowl Capitol Hill, then there is still no shortage of conservative ideological buffoonery to overcome. Witness the following contributions from two "luminaries" of the House Republican caucus during recent floor debate on health care, courtesy of the folks at Democracy Now!;

REP. STEVE KING (R-Iowa): Here’s another place where they think they’re going to save. They’re going to save money by rationing care, getting you in a long line. Places like Canada, United Kingdom and Europe, people die when they’re in line.


REP. LOUIS GOHMERT (R-Texas): Well, if you go to the socialized medicine countries, you find about 20 percent worse results. You get it? One in five people have to die because they went to socialized medicine! Now, I’ve got three daughters and a wife. I would hate to think that, among five women, one of them is going to die because we go to socialized care, and we have to have these long lists.

People die in line! Wow, I wasn't aware of that. And isn't it amazing how going to socialized medicine results in 20% worse results, which according to mental steam engines like Representative Gohmert, apparently means 1 in 5 people will die! Such astonishingly false and ignorant statements might not be so appalling if they didn't have such dire consequences. Indeed, the only people who might end up dying are those who are denied health care by the likes of idiotic Republican knuckle-scrapers like Gohmert and King.

These comments reveal a number of outright lies and fabrications that the health care industry lobby and the Right in general likes to promulgate about health care reform. So, let's dispense with a number of these right now.

1) The "rationing" myth. This one is so ludicrous it's almost funny. The argument goes along the lines of Representative King's statements above. By going to a "socialized" system the government will decide who gets care and who doesn't, and you'll have to wait in long lines to see your doctor, and worse yet, there might even be a government bureaucrat making health care decisions! Often the argument is accompanied with comparisons to other country's
systems, with Canada and France often being used to illicit the desired fear response. This one is pure falsehood. The truth is that there are no "long lines" in countries with "socialized" medicine. People see their doctors in much the same way as with private insurance plans in the US. Indeed, polling shows that citizens of France and Canada have higher satisfaction rates with their health care systems than in the United States. As is often the case with deceitful right-wing propaganda, the truth is usually the opposite of the claim, and in this case even more so. The truth is that rationing is endemic to the private, for profit system in the US, not to "socialized" systems. Talk about rationing, how about excluding 1/5 of the population! Now that's serious rationing. Moreover, how do you think that private insurance providers make profits? They make money by rationing care! Indeed, amongst the industrialized democracies, the only nation where bureaucrats are routinely making health care decisions is in the for profit system in the United States. Here, insurance company bureaucrats make life and death decisions about who gets care and who doesn't. The truth is that only doctors make such decisions in countries like Canada.

2) The "we have the best health care system in the world" myth. This one is encapsulated in Representative Gohmert's ridiculous statement. Apparently Gohmert's ignorance of math is only eclipsed by his ignorance of the health care systems of other nations. Here again the truth is the exact opposite of the claim. The truth is that countries with "socialized" medicine actually get better health care, and unfortunately, the United States ranks well below most of the Western democracies with national health programs in many indicators of public health. As one example, the US ranks below Cuba and Cyprus in infant mortality, just ahead of Croatia. This is not to say that good health care can not be obtained in the US, indeed, America does have some of the best medical institutions in the world, but it is precisely the way that the care is rationed, ultimately only to those who can pay, that is so destructive. Because of the prohibitive costs many people defer preventive care and thus when they are treated it is at more advanced stages of disease, which is more costly to treat and results in poorer outcomes. Not surprisingly, the lack of health care, and its deleterious effects on public health, falls disproportionately on the poor.

3) The "slippery slope to socialism" myth. This one is also a rip. Anytime you hear some wing-nut frothing at the mouth against health care reform you can be sure that soon to follow is the charge that soon we'll all be wearing red and singing The Internationale. Of course the truth is rather different. Indeed, much of the US health care system is already "socialized." Two large examples include the Medicare program, which is essentially national health insurance for those over 65, and the Veterans Administration's programs providing health care to veterans. Indeed, Medicare is a good example, and one the private insurance companies greatly fear. The government administers the Medicare program with a 3-4% overhead, this compares with a more typical 25% (or worse) value for private plans. Here we see exactly why private insurance companies are desperate to keep public plans off the table. When you take the profit, the multi-million dollar corporate compensation packages, and the corporate jets out of the health care business, and just care for people, then it becomes impossible for the private insurers to compete.

While President Obama and most Democrats seem sincere in there desire to pass legislation that will provide coverage to all Americans, it also seems clear that their inclination is to try and do this by tinkering with the existing private insurance system. They may succeed in extending coverage to more people, but this path is almost certainly doomed to failure in terms of curbing costs. Other countries have already figured this out. How long will it take for America to wake up and finally fulfill the promise of health care for all enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Until the corporate control of Congress is lessened, then I fear the wait is not yet over.

Torturing the Truth

Last week I attended a scientific meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Such trips usually are an occasion to catch up on some reading on the flights. In this case it was also an opportunity to gorge myself on as much green chile as possible, having obtained a serious chile addiction when I lived there. I managed to get through the bulk of Jane Mayer's, "The Dark Side," an unflinching look at how the Bush administration betrayed America's commitment to decency and the rule of law, and in its place implemented a criminal policy of torture and abuse of terror suspects, or even innocents caught up in its unbounded "war on terror."

Mayer documents the suffocating paranoia around the Bush inner circle in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In particular, there seemed to be a deeply held fear that subsequent attacks were imminent, and that these could somehow topple the Nation. Tinged with this fear for the Nation within the administration was also a dread that a substantial fraction of the blame would, rightly, fall on those in power, and thus derail their already sputtering agenda. This paranoia led the administration to construct its response largely as a military exercise, purposefully choosing not to solve the problem of terror in the context of law enforcement. This choice would eventually lead to disastrous consequences both for citizens at home and countless innocents in places as far reaching as Afghanistan and Iraq.

Out of this environment of fear those around Vice President Cheney saw an opportunity to finally reclaim executive power that had been relinquished in the aftermath of the disastrous war in Vietnam and the abuses of the Nixon administration. Indeed, Cheney and those around him sought to establish the "unitary executive," essentially the notion that the President is a law unto himself. While Mayer describes no end of illegal and unethical behavior within the administration, several disturbing themes become apparent. These include;

1) Absolute contempt for the law. Time and again when faced with possible legal impediments to their desired goals administration apparatchiks simply disregarded the law, or worse, presumed the power to interpret or re-write laws as they saw fit. The leading example of this was the "overthrow" of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) by a small handful of administration lawyers--including the now infamous John Yoo and Jay Bybee-- who would essentially presume the power to write legislation. Time and again the administration would cut-off debate or dissent by simply having its OLC junta craft an appropriate memo (edict might be a more accurate term), many of which would essentially argue that 2+2=5, the famous "torture memo" being the most well-known example. This use of an ostensibly independent agency (the Justice Department) as a de-facto internal legislative body effectively short-circuited the Constitution. As such, these machinations represented gross violations of the President's duties and oath to defend the Constitution and by themselves would constitute impeachable offenses, or worse.

2) Absolute contempt for the democratic process. It was remarkable the extent to which political appointees in relatively low-level positions were essentially making and implementing national policy, often in areas for which their positions had no official portfolio. The most egregious example of this behavior was within the Vice President's office, where David Addington, Cheney's legal counsel, wielded enormous influence on national security issues, an area in which he had no formal portfolio. Indeed, more than once had Addington driven other administration members to fits of rage by usurping their positions in the national security hierarchy. In particular, Addington, because of his closeness to Cheney, was able to influence policy surrounding detainee interrogation and disposition to an almost unbelievable extent. This became possible also because Cheney would apparently always have the last word with President Bush, essentially getting him to agree to anything the Vice President desired. While American democracy can only truly function within a partnership of the different branches of government, this notion of partnership was anathema to the Bushites. They sought to and did exclude any and all, in any branch of the government, who might be perceived as cool to their radical ideas. Often this was done with deception and dishonesty, or, more commonly, through intimidation and threats. So much for whistle-blower legal protections, oh, that's right, see 1) above.

3) An absolute commitment to secrecy and the impunity that it enables. The Bush administration expanded exponentially the use of the secret classification, and attempted to hide from public view almost anything that it perceived as controversial, which, as it turned it was most of their "war on terror" programs. Indeed, it can be argued that the Bush administration lowered the "state secret" defense to new levels of abuse. It becoming necessary to declare anything and everything a state secret that might reflect badly on the administration. Deeply troubling was the desire by some in the administration to empower secret special forces with the "authorization" to kill whomever was deemed necessary to eliminate, no matter where they may be. Sounds a lot like a "death squad" to my ears. Such secrecy and indeed, a devotion to it, are incompatible with a functioning democracy. It remains troubling that even under President Obama the Justice Department appears intent on defending much of the Bush administration's arguments concerning so-called state secrets. This is even more disconcerting in that it is now pretty clear that much of this secrecy was enacted to shield illegal conduct from public scrutiny.

4) Honorable Americans tried to do the right thing at almost every turn. One of the hopeful themes from "Dark Side" is that in most of the situations described, one or several agents within the government were committed to working within the framework of the law, and attempted to prevent the implementation of disastrous and illegal policies. A sobering realization, and which has crucial implications for future accountability, is how, invariably, they were unable to stop the Bush train. Indeed, a number of FBI agents were appalled by the nature of "enhanced" interrogation policies being implemented by the CIA. In several cases FBI agents had first begun interrogations of suspects using smart and legal methods of interrogation, and with much initial success, only for the CIA to subsequently be granted custody, and for the "gloves to come off." An invariable outcome of this was that the detainees would actually be less responsive with information. Also, with such tactics, it becomes impossible to gain information over the long term, and moreover, it becomes almost impossible for such coerced evidence to be used at trial.

Meanwhile, it's been remarkable to watch the recent torture "debate" in the corporate media. On the one hand it's rather astonishing to see the extent to which so-called mainstream outlets are willing to give former administration officials, most notably Cheney, a pulpit from which to proclaim the efficacy of "enhanced" techniques. On the other hand, one would have to search far and wide for even a brief discussion of the actual law and facts surrounding torture, which is actually quite clear and easily understood. I would argue that several factors contribute to this willingness. First, the conservative, right-wing, reactionary viewpoint of Cheney and his ilk is well represented in the corporate world of big media. For this fascist crowd the law is just a self-serving tool. Laws are for the other guy, we'll just do whatever we perceive to be in our interests, emphasis on the "our." Another angle is that corporate media loves a confrontation. The torture good or bad debate fits nicely into this framework. "Conservative" viewpoints, by definition one of the acceptable opinions, are always given a hearing, no matter how extreme, to perhaps be countered by the "liberal" viewpoint. No matter the laws broken, or the long-term, extensive damage done to American security and America's standing in the world, those who authored the torture policies and should, rightly, be facing prosecutions, can be paraded as patriots on America's corporate airwaves.

It is in such an environment that the new administration, and Democrats in general appear remarkably weak and unwilling to directly confront and oppose the question of "enhanced" interrogations. Democrats are unable, or perhaps simply unwilling, to articulate the fact based narrative of how Republican policies around the war on terror have left America much less secure. This is evidenced in Obama's willingness to adopt much of the Bush administrations framing of the global war on terror. Obama talks a good game, but when we look at the policy choices that have been made with regard to detainee treatment and the so-called war on terror in general, the pace of any change has been either depressingly slow or simply non-existent. Particularly troubling is the Obama administration's apparent unwillingness to seek investigations and prosecutions of former Bush administration officials for engineering a torture policy in clear violation of American and International law. If the rule of law means anything, then Obama needs to support a criminal investigation. If he does not, then those so inclined will draw the obvious conclusion, that they too can break the law as they see fit. It is indeed ironic that after a century of American leadership on human rights we may now have to wait for universal jurisdiction proceedings in a Spanish court to see some accountability for America's torturers.

The "Bow" Situation

Wolf Blitzer must be the highest paid buffoon in the history of media buffoonery. Wolf hosts, among other things, CNN's "The Situation Room." Think generals huddled around a map contemplating movements of their military formations that could result in the end of the world as we know it. That's what CNN, and most of the rest of America's corporate media, would like us to think, that every "story" they report is of the utmost importance to the security of Americans, that even a simple greeting of a head of state could result in the "fall" of America. Thus, we are to think that Wolf, and his peers at other networks, are the epitome of seriousness, that they are perhaps amongst the most sanguine Americans, having been entrusted to such important positions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The most recent episode underlining the complete bankruptcy of main-stream American "journalism" is the kerfuffle regarding President Obama's ostensible handshake and "bow" to the Saudi King. Obama, apparently meeting the king for the first time, leaned over and grasped his hands in greeting. Not an uncommon practice, but after the fact a stream of wing-nut conservatives grasped at this "subjugation" of ostensible American dominance to argue that Obama was one step from selling the country over to the Saudis. This, a non-story is ever there was one, became a lead item in the 24 hour news-cycle-driven lunacy that has become American corporate media. This would not be possible if not for "journalists" like Blitzer who will happily run with whatever ridiculousness is uttered by right-wing wack-jobs like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, etc, etc, (add your favorite). Blitzer can, with a straight face, query his hand-picked guests, invariably someone with at least a tenuous connection with reality (the "liberal"), and a "conservative" for balance, in this particular case the former Bush White House press secretary, the hopelessly imbecilic Dana Perino, who was more than happy to argue that Obama was close to relinquishing the sovereignty of the United States. And they go back and forth, one side attempting to make some connection with reality, and the other completely off the rails. But, crucially, each is treated on an equal footing. The ridiculous assertions of Perino and the right wing echo chamber are granted de facto legitimacy, regardless of the factual content--or lack thereof-- of their assertions. This is what American media has become.

By definition there are two viewpoints that are allowed access, the "liberal," and "conservative," none others need apply. Both of these form the mainstream consensus. To large extent they support similar political viewpoints. Most importantly, both are subservient to private, corporate constituencies. Each side is allowed to express their opinions, and that is the "news." To large extent what each side says is, by definition, the news, and the primary function of American corporate media is to present the statements of each side, without any attempt to determine what might be factual and what might not. For the most part, the corporate media reflect the viewpoints of their owners and peers, which perhaps explains their willingness to present even the most laughable and ludicrous claims of the right as "news," "bow-gate" simply being the most recent example.

Our corporate media outlets have ceased to function as news agencies, rather, they are largely conveyors of propaganda, often hate-filled and dangerous, the most egregious recent examples coming from the tortured mind of Fox News' Glenn Beck. At a time of economic turmoil, with millions of people struggling to stay afloat, and anxious and uncertain about the future, this is a potentially explosive situation.

Kickin' Up

The payment of upwards of $200 million in bonuses to employees of one-time insurance giant AIG, after said company was bailed out to the tune of $180 billion with hard-earned taxpayer money, has rightly led to a firestorm of indignation from the public and clearly vulnerable politicians and administration officials, including President Obama, with their fingerprints all over the odious bailout legislation and policies. Apparently, AIG execs paid out "retention" bonuses, some to the tune of more than $5 million, to individuals in its financial products unit, the very division responsible for bringing the company to its knees. The ostensible argument given by AIG generalissimo Edward Liddy was that these employees needed to be persuaded to stay with the company because they were the only ones with sufficient knowledge of all the murky "deals"--bets would be a more honest description--to allow the company to "unwind" the deals and extricate itself with a minimum of additional losses. That the AIG execs felt this was a proper decision shows us the depths to which our so called financial masters and their defenders and supporters in the government have fallen. And, go figure, a significant fraction of the "bonused" just took the money and ran. While a herd of politicians and current and former administration officials had initially sworn they had no prior knowledge of the bonuses, it is now clear that both the relevant Congressional leaders and Treasury officials knew that the payments would be made and acquiesced. Read, for example, the eloquent summary of current affairs by Alexander Cockburn at Counterpunch.

Let's get a few numbers out in the open that will let us gauge the level of greed and corruption which is now being evidenced. According to the Census Bureau, the median household income in the United States for 2007 was just about $50,000. That is, half of all households made less than this, and the other half made more. Since about the mid '70s average incomes for most American workers have remained flat or actually fallen. The only reason median household incomes have risen modestly is because more people are working per household, and generally working longer. Now, consider that some of the bonuses paid by AIG execs were in excess of $5,000,000, a sum 100 times greater than half the families in the US earn in a whole year. Next, consider that these sums were paid AFTER the company was near failure and was rescued by 10's of billions of taxpayer dollars, and with the tacit approval of government officials, and one begins to see that Americans have a right to be boiling mad over this intolerable state of affairs.

I've often wondered what it is that a corporate CEO does in each 8 hour day that would justify the incredible sums they are paid in compensation, often in the region of many millions of dollars per year, not even considering so-called bonuses! From recent events one can only conclude that the ability to run a company into the ground doesn't come cheap. Ironic how a chief argument of many corporate and Wall Street apologists has been the professed need to maintain exorbitant compensation and bonuses in order to keep the "best and brightest" at these firms. With talent like that Wall Street could afford some mediocrity, or better yet, downright incompetence! One of the more "creative" recent arguments put forth in support of the bonus payments has to be that of CNBC anchor Mark Haines who suggested that, "It’s just like when the Allies were victorious over Nazi Germany in World War II, when we occupied the country, we left a lot of Nazis in place because they were the ones who made the trains run on time and the bureaucracy function properly, etc. And it was distasteful, but you needed them." Like I said, creative. Insane, but creative.

While mainstream media attention on "bonus-gate" has shed some important light on the issue, as usual the more important story lies elsewhere, and serves to show the truly massive scale of the corruption on Wall Street and in the government as well. While AIG was "bailed-out" with more than $100 billion in public funds it now appears clear that a large fraction of this money was then funneled to the very same financial institutions--most notoriously Goldman Sachs, which received almost $13 billion--and that have been at the heart of the financial scandal and who themselves had to be rescued with billions of dollars of taxpayer funds. Democracy Now has an excellent story on this so-called "back-door bailout."

The dealing around Goldman in particular reeks of corruption. As Robert Scheer has ably discussed, the decision to save AIG, only days after Lehman Brothers had been allowed to fail, was reached after a meeting that included a host of former Goldman execs and proteges as well as the CEO of Goldman, the only CEO at the meeting. Participants at the meeting included then head of the NY Federal Reserve bank, and current Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner; and former CEO of Goldman and then Treasury secretary (in the Bush administration) Hank Paulson. All of these parties need to be subpoenaed to testify before Congress, if not a court of law, to answer some very serious questions. Principle among these is why the CEO of Goldman would even be permitted at such a meeting, with the company having upwards of $20 billion in toxic "bets" insured by AIG? If that's not a conflict of interest then I don't know the meaning of the phrase. Moreover, the fact that President Obama has moved a number of these people into his administration, including Geithner and Lawrence Summers, the protege of one-time Goldman CEO and Clinton administration Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, is deeply troubling. Recall that is was Rubin who led the Clinton administration's support for the Financial Services Modernization and Commodity Futures Modernization Acts, both of which became law and did anything but modernize the financial industry, and in fact paved the way to unregulated credit default swaps and other financial instruments of mass destruction, in the prophetic words of Warren Buffet. Given the magnitude of the plunder, and the degree of public outrage it is hard to see how Obama can continue to support Geithner. Indeed, if Obama wishes to maintain support from working people, then he should do an about-face and start fresh with a new economic team comprised of reputable Main-street economists and not a pack of Wall Street re-treads.

Or perhaps the whole scandal is simply revealing who is really in charge of our economy and government. Wall Street financial institutions, and other corporate interests generally, have been among the largest contributors to both major political parties for decades now. Moreover, the revolving door from government to Wall Street has been operating at full speed during this time. Little wonder then that government decisions on financial deregulation and the use of public money, have so often favored these financial robber barons.

In the world of organized crime the boss has the last say, and his lieutenants and foot soldiers have to go "upstairs" to get tacit approval for their deals and to keep the boss up to speed on what's going down. Or, at least, that's how the bosses would like it to go. OK, I confess to having watched a certain trilogy of Francis Ford Coppola films more than a few times! Another key aspect of the criminal underworld is that the junior guys have to "kick up" a decent percentage of proceeds from their dealing, and of course, everybody eventually kicks up to the boss. Maybe we're just seeing the "foot soldiers," our own elected representatives, kicking up to the real bosses, the financial oligarchs who seem increasingly to have the final say in decisions which impact all Americans. Moreover, the boss always holds the fear of reprisal over the heads of his underlings. Don't let the boss find out you've been holding out on a particular deal, that's a good way to get yourself whacked. It would seem that our real economic masters are now holding the whole country hostage with a similar kind of fear, "better pay up or we'll just whack the whole economy." While undoubtedly these analogies are not perfect, they seem to hold more than a grain of truth. Chiefly, that corruption is much more endemic to "free market" capitalism than is ever admitted in our supposedly free corporate media. We love to talk about the corruption present in other countries economies and governments, but nothing can compare to the levels of corruption we have seen on Wall Street recently, and which have had devastating consequences here and around the world.