Never has that bumper sticker saying been more true, "If you're not upset, you're not paying attention." Those in the streets with the Occupy Movements have simply been paying attention. Our political and economic systems are corrupt, dysfunctional and imploding on themselves. Nowhere is the evidence of this more stark than in the virtually complete absence of ethics and morality in the actions of our political, economic and cultural institutions. Corruption? How did that whole financial meltdown treat you? Dysfunction? How is that Congressional "super-committee" working out for you? Implosion? Virtually half of the population of the United States, arguably the richest country on the planet, is now economically insecure, meaning that while technically above the so-called poverty level, they struggle to regularly find the resources for the basics of existence; food, housing and not to mention health care. This is beyond shocking. Yet, in the face of this evidence both major political parties are pushing austerity, a further cutting back of resources, as the solution, and one of these Parties is so corrupt, immoral and self serving that it wants to further reinforce the political priorities that brought about this state of affairs, ie., further slashing of spending, and cutting taxes on the wealthy even more.
The higher up the power ladder one goes the more widespread is the moral vacuum. There is a vast chasm between how I believe most of us act and wish to act in our private lives and how the institutions of power force and mold us to act. These are ostensibly our institutions but we have completely lost control of them. The priorities and values that they have set, that they continue to set, within our political and economic systems are completely at odds with those, for example, that the overwhelming majority of us would wish to pass on to our children. We want our children to be fed and clothed, educated and cared for. We want the sick treated. We want to live in a peaceful world, to see, in the words of Bob Dylan that the "cannonballs are forever banned." And we want to see this also for our neighbors. Yet these priorities are now almost completely absent within the institutions we have constructed, particularly at the highest levels.
The levers of power are now firmly in the control of those who view human existence as a struggle to amass ever more wealth, power and control, who view their fellow humans as simply means to the end of domination and control, and not ends in themselves. This is the culture of empire. It is rooted I believe ultimately in the psychology of fear. The access routes to its institutions are carefully guarded and there are powerful incentives to not "rock the boat," or upset the status quo. Only those who are properly conditioned before hand can reach the upper echelons. You must first demonstrate your "seriousness," your ability to cast aside the ethics that you were most likely raised with, and make the tough but "pragmatic" decisions in service of empire. If you can't, your conscience gets the best of you, or you decide to act on what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature," then there is no shortage of remedies, from loss of your job, to a jail cell, or a shower of pepper spray to the face. You have to show the proper allegiance to the propagandistic symbols of control, wear your flag pin, beat your chest and rah-rah the troops, proclaim the greatness, indeed, the exceptionalism of your tribe, and never, ever, examine your own conduct and that of empire.
There is a long struggle ahead to reform our institutions and take back the levers of power to the service of humans as ends and not means. The Occupy Movement is an example of this struggle, but events over the last year have clearly shown that the struggle is indeed global. The dominant economic system of limitless capitalism has entrenched our culture of empire, and it is ultimately at the heart of our moral corruption. But so as its guiding principle is to consume, and then consume more, it will also eventually consume our own humanity, and we will have destroyed ourselves, or at least that which is best in ourselves, in the process. Redemption lies in freeing ourselves from this culture of empire, in reclaiming our collective humanity. The path has already been laid out, by those such as King and Ghandi, we simply need to find it again beneath the wreckage of our own fear. The Occupiers have found that path and we need to start walking it with them. It is the only way to a future with any real freedom.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
The Time is Nigh to Occupy
Even if your only news outlets are corporate megaphones Fox News and CNN you must still be aware of the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests, demonstrations and organizing taking place in lower Manhattan. Indeed, the spirit of resistance appears to be spreading faster than a Texas wildfire as similar encampments have sprung up all over the country. To gain a sense of the scale you can check out Occupy Together, which is providing a collection point for access to information on the various protests that have been created, and are being created, in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street.
What began as a modest sized gathering in "Liberty Plaza" in lower Manhattan has steadily grown to encompass large scale mobilizations in cities across the nation. We need to nurture and foster this growth, because such direct demonstrations of real democracy are the only way the majority, all of us, will be able to exert any kind of political and economic power in what now can only be described as the Corporate Oligarchy of the United States.
If pulling a voting booth lever every 2 or 4 years remains your only participation in what passes for our democracy, then it's time to switch the TV channel to something other than Fox News or CNN. If you still need convincing, still think that vote has meaning, just consider the shape that the 2012 presidential election (as an example) is taking. It is more than a year away from the elections and one can already describe the nature of the choice that one will be confronted with upon entering the voting both. If you remain committed to self destruction then you are likely to be tempted by one of these shining examples of human thought; Mitt (corporations are people, yes, really they are) Romney, Rick (let's just pray for rain) Perry, Herman (I will stand against Sharia Law) Cain, Michelle (minimum wage, we don't need no stinking minimum wage) Bachmann. That's not the full list of Republican candidates, and I didn't even get to Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich, but you get the point. So, if you can't find the intestinal fortitude to connect the arrow for one of these corporate clowns what other option do you have? Well, sadly, that "other" option is also largely a corporate clown, President Obama. Elected ostensibly to usher in "change," Obama has shown himself to be a staunch defender of the status quo. He has done more to foster cynicism and extinguish hope within his own political base than any Republican could have.
There is no meaningful choice here, "elections" in the US have largely become public relations exercises whose primary goal is a manipulation of voters so as to cynically ratify an intolerably unjust system that has abandoned the needs of the vast majority of the population in order to extract ever more profits for a privileged minority of super-rich and their lackeys.
As the election cycle gears up, billions of dollars will be spent--billions of overwhelmingly corporate dollars--to "purchase" candidates and influence the outcome. Endless hours of vacuous punditry will be spoon-fed to the population by the corporate media to convince us of the "excitement" and "importance" of the election. You see, when the outcome is so rigged in advance, the game at least has to look convincing or else too many might realize the true nature of the charade being perpetrated. And while at least theoretically a candidate might still be elected who would provide some challenge to the corporate oligarchs, their virtually bottomless electoral war chests serve to reduce those odds to a virtual impossibility. And as additional insurance against even marginally meaningful elections, those ostensible lovers of American democracy just can't wait to pass laws making it harder for people to vote.
The corporate media's response to all this has been anything if not predictable, and follows the standard playbook. First, attempt to ignore the protests. What, there are protestors? What, there are problems that might actually justify protests? Second, when it becomes impossible to ignore the situation, then attempt to criticize, denigrate and dismiss the protestors and distort their message and reasons for demonstrating. Typical of the latter tactic was the abysmal performance of CNN's newest "anchor" Erin Burnett in her debut show on the network where, rather than attempt to explore the issue in an objective way, she simply attempted to mock and dismiss the protestors as "...dancing...and bongo playing...hippies..." See also Glenn Greenwald's total evisceration of Burnett and with it the bulk of what passes for American journalism these days.
But of course the corporate media doesn't get it. Consolidation of media ownership has left a handful of large multinationals in control of the news outlets from which the majority of Americans regularly get their information. Any pretense of public service has long since been eroded with the effective sedation of the regulatory responsibility of government. After all, regulations are "job killers," if we are to believe the right wing meme that is repeated endlessly, and never challenged, in the mainstream press. Public service gets in the way of profits. Can't have that. So naturally these corporate media conglomerates are just another cog in the edifice of oligarchy, and an important cog at that.
If you're one of those still harping about "liberal media bias," then it's long past time you dusted off the remote and did what's left of your brain a favor and switched off Fox News. The only bias in the corporate media is that which slavishly supports their own corporate and economic interests, which, more often than not are in direct opposition to the interests of the vast majority of citizens. The media's "celebrity" and outrageously compensated anchors are for the most part members of the same economic and political cohort as the corporate CEOs and managers that finance them, so naturally they tend to identify with the same ideology.
With the ballot boxes bought and paid for the only way to halt the slide into further plutocracy and possibly fascism is direct democratic action, like the Occupy Together movements. It is a fundamental right of the people to peaceably assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Corporate elites recognize this, hence the several decades long war against any avenue for collective democratic action, such as unions, fairer labor practices, and enforcement of workplace safety regulations.
It increasingly appears likely that our only route to a saner, more equitable and more sustainable future is via direct democratic actions. Occupy Wall Street is leading the way. Let's get behind them and push. We are the 99 percent.
What began as a modest sized gathering in "Liberty Plaza" in lower Manhattan has steadily grown to encompass large scale mobilizations in cities across the nation. We need to nurture and foster this growth, because such direct demonstrations of real democracy are the only way the majority, all of us, will be able to exert any kind of political and economic power in what now can only be described as the Corporate Oligarchy of the United States.
If pulling a voting booth lever every 2 or 4 years remains your only participation in what passes for our democracy, then it's time to switch the TV channel to something other than Fox News or CNN. If you still need convincing, still think that vote has meaning, just consider the shape that the 2012 presidential election (as an example) is taking. It is more than a year away from the elections and one can already describe the nature of the choice that one will be confronted with upon entering the voting both. If you remain committed to self destruction then you are likely to be tempted by one of these shining examples of human thought; Mitt (corporations are people, yes, really they are) Romney, Rick (let's just pray for rain) Perry, Herman (I will stand against Sharia Law) Cain, Michelle (minimum wage, we don't need no stinking minimum wage) Bachmann. That's not the full list of Republican candidates, and I didn't even get to Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich, but you get the point. So, if you can't find the intestinal fortitude to connect the arrow for one of these corporate clowns what other option do you have? Well, sadly, that "other" option is also largely a corporate clown, President Obama. Elected ostensibly to usher in "change," Obama has shown himself to be a staunch defender of the status quo. He has done more to foster cynicism and extinguish hope within his own political base than any Republican could have.
There is no meaningful choice here, "elections" in the US have largely become public relations exercises whose primary goal is a manipulation of voters so as to cynically ratify an intolerably unjust system that has abandoned the needs of the vast majority of the population in order to extract ever more profits for a privileged minority of super-rich and their lackeys.
As the election cycle gears up, billions of dollars will be spent--billions of overwhelmingly corporate dollars--to "purchase" candidates and influence the outcome. Endless hours of vacuous punditry will be spoon-fed to the population by the corporate media to convince us of the "excitement" and "importance" of the election. You see, when the outcome is so rigged in advance, the game at least has to look convincing or else too many might realize the true nature of the charade being perpetrated. And while at least theoretically a candidate might still be elected who would provide some challenge to the corporate oligarchs, their virtually bottomless electoral war chests serve to reduce those odds to a virtual impossibility. And as additional insurance against even marginally meaningful elections, those ostensible lovers of American democracy just can't wait to pass laws making it harder for people to vote.
The corporate media's response to all this has been anything if not predictable, and follows the standard playbook. First, attempt to ignore the protests. What, there are protestors? What, there are problems that might actually justify protests? Second, when it becomes impossible to ignore the situation, then attempt to criticize, denigrate and dismiss the protestors and distort their message and reasons for demonstrating. Typical of the latter tactic was the abysmal performance of CNN's newest "anchor" Erin Burnett in her debut show on the network where, rather than attempt to explore the issue in an objective way, she simply attempted to mock and dismiss the protestors as "...dancing...and bongo playing...hippies..." See also Glenn Greenwald's total evisceration of Burnett and with it the bulk of what passes for American journalism these days.
But of course the corporate media doesn't get it. Consolidation of media ownership has left a handful of large multinationals in control of the news outlets from which the majority of Americans regularly get their information. Any pretense of public service has long since been eroded with the effective sedation of the regulatory responsibility of government. After all, regulations are "job killers," if we are to believe the right wing meme that is repeated endlessly, and never challenged, in the mainstream press. Public service gets in the way of profits. Can't have that. So naturally these corporate media conglomerates are just another cog in the edifice of oligarchy, and an important cog at that.
If you're one of those still harping about "liberal media bias," then it's long past time you dusted off the remote and did what's left of your brain a favor and switched off Fox News. The only bias in the corporate media is that which slavishly supports their own corporate and economic interests, which, more often than not are in direct opposition to the interests of the vast majority of citizens. The media's "celebrity" and outrageously compensated anchors are for the most part members of the same economic and political cohort as the corporate CEOs and managers that finance them, so naturally they tend to identify with the same ideology.
With the ballot boxes bought and paid for the only way to halt the slide into further plutocracy and possibly fascism is direct democratic action, like the Occupy Together movements. It is a fundamental right of the people to peaceably assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Corporate elites recognize this, hence the several decades long war against any avenue for collective democratic action, such as unions, fairer labor practices, and enforcement of workplace safety regulations.
It increasingly appears likely that our only route to a saner, more equitable and more sustainable future is via direct democratic actions. Occupy Wall Street is leading the way. Let's get behind them and push. We are the 99 percent.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Tribute to Lonnie Johnson
Here's some more guitar music. This is "Tribute to Lonnie Johnson," another arrangement from Stefan Grossman. Lonnie Johnson was an influential blues and jazz musician from New Orleans whose career spanned from the 1920's through the blues-folk revival of the 1960's. His guitar playing was extremely influential, and he is credited by some with pioneering the rock and blues solo guitar styles that are so common today, including a lot of string bending and vibrato. This is a multi-section instrumental played in dropped-D tuning, where the low E string is lowered a full step to D. I really like the lick which closes out each section.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
"Burglary Tools to Criminals"
Occasionally a right winger will go "off script" and we get a rare treat, we get a peek at what some of these folks really think, and more often than not it isn't pretty. Such is the case with this hate-fest from the pen of unrepentant fascist Matthew Vadum, and excerpted here at Talking Points Memo.
While suppression of the voting rights of their political opposition remains a persistent right wing goal--Republican "dirty tricks" prior to elections have been a commonplace, including the recent attempts to suppress and confuse Democratic voters during the recent Wisconsin recall elections--such overt anti-democratic sentiment has typically been couched in the rhetoric of trying to reduce voter fraud. But perhaps worrying that such tactics are yielding diminishing returns, we now have this vile screed from Vadum which dispenses completely with any pretense of trying to stop fraud and just gets right to the heart of the matter. Vadum has the following to say about poor people, "... registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country." And, according to Vadum, "... the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery." Well, at least he's not shy about telling us what he thinks of democracy. Apparently it's un-American to allow a certain segment of the American citizenry to vote, the "wrong" segment that is. While he's not completely explicit about who the real target of his ire is, with references to ACORN, Obama's ostensible support for welfare recipients and a quote from an NAACP official, it's not that hard to connect the dots. Not only is this a vile screed, it's a vile racist screed to boot.
In the remainder of the piece Vadum then goes on to lay out the "infamous" Cloward - Piven conspiracy. According to Vadum, this is how the poor will "... destroy the country ..." You see, a modest, reserved liberal academic (Frances Fox Piven) who has done activist work in the past in support of poor, disenfranchised communities is pulling the strings of a vast, evil, liberal conspiracy that will bring down America. This fantasy, made famous by the ravings of none other than Glenn Beck, ostensibly came within a hairs breadth of bringing down capitalist western civilization and seemingly all the good in the world to boot, and will no doubt succeed next time if we let our guard down and fall into such traps as, say, letting the poor vote. Or so Vadum would have us believe.
What a pile of excrement. Vadum's hatred of the poor is apparently only eclipsed by his hatred of poor welfare recipients. This is just classic fascist scapegoating, nothing less. Not surprisingly, the piece is shot through with distortion and hypocrisy. For example, one might be tempted to ask if Vadum harbors a similar hostility for those myriad other kinds of welfare recipients, like bank CEOs and their corporate clients who had to be rescued and bailed out with serious multi-trillion dollar welfare, or the oil company CEOs and board members whose annual take in corporate welfare is in the tens of billions of dollars. But Vadum is presumably happy to see these folks keep their voting privileges, because their redistributionist politicians are shoveling it to the "right" folks. Wing-nuts like Vadum just love to have their cake and eat it too.
Of course the majority of the poor are productive working people and are not poor by choice. Why should they not have the right to vote? They are for the most part kept poor by a system that the insipid Vadum and those of his ilk worship, that values the rights of money over the rights of human beings to a decent living. But Vadum is on the wrong side of history and knows it, and that explains much of the fear-mongering from his crowd. These folks hate democracy because it is an avenue by which the will of the majority may be implemented and some measure of economic justice ensured for all. Now that's worth voting for.
While suppression of the voting rights of their political opposition remains a persistent right wing goal--Republican "dirty tricks" prior to elections have been a commonplace, including the recent attempts to suppress and confuse Democratic voters during the recent Wisconsin recall elections--such overt anti-democratic sentiment has typically been couched in the rhetoric of trying to reduce voter fraud. But perhaps worrying that such tactics are yielding diminishing returns, we now have this vile screed from Vadum which dispenses completely with any pretense of trying to stop fraud and just gets right to the heart of the matter. Vadum has the following to say about poor people, "... registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country." And, according to Vadum, "... the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery." Well, at least he's not shy about telling us what he thinks of democracy. Apparently it's un-American to allow a certain segment of the American citizenry to vote, the "wrong" segment that is. While he's not completely explicit about who the real target of his ire is, with references to ACORN, Obama's ostensible support for welfare recipients and a quote from an NAACP official, it's not that hard to connect the dots. Not only is this a vile screed, it's a vile racist screed to boot.
In the remainder of the piece Vadum then goes on to lay out the "infamous" Cloward - Piven conspiracy. According to Vadum, this is how the poor will "... destroy the country ..." You see, a modest, reserved liberal academic (Frances Fox Piven) who has done activist work in the past in support of poor, disenfranchised communities is pulling the strings of a vast, evil, liberal conspiracy that will bring down America. This fantasy, made famous by the ravings of none other than Glenn Beck, ostensibly came within a hairs breadth of bringing down capitalist western civilization and seemingly all the good in the world to boot, and will no doubt succeed next time if we let our guard down and fall into such traps as, say, letting the poor vote. Or so Vadum would have us believe.
What a pile of excrement. Vadum's hatred of the poor is apparently only eclipsed by his hatred of poor welfare recipients. This is just classic fascist scapegoating, nothing less. Not surprisingly, the piece is shot through with distortion and hypocrisy. For example, one might be tempted to ask if Vadum harbors a similar hostility for those myriad other kinds of welfare recipients, like bank CEOs and their corporate clients who had to be rescued and bailed out with serious multi-trillion dollar welfare, or the oil company CEOs and board members whose annual take in corporate welfare is in the tens of billions of dollars. But Vadum is presumably happy to see these folks keep their voting privileges, because their redistributionist politicians are shoveling it to the "right" folks. Wing-nuts like Vadum just love to have their cake and eat it too.
Of course the majority of the poor are productive working people and are not poor by choice. Why should they not have the right to vote? They are for the most part kept poor by a system that the insipid Vadum and those of his ilk worship, that values the rights of money over the rights of human beings to a decent living. But Vadum is on the wrong side of history and knows it, and that explains much of the fear-mongering from his crowd. These folks hate democracy because it is an avenue by which the will of the majority may be implemented and some measure of economic justice ensured for all. Now that's worth voting for.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Debt Ridden? Obama and the Destruction of the Democratic Party
The current debacle over the raising, or not, of the US government's debt limit, as well as the train wreck nature of the current budget negotiations in general, is just further evidence of a political and economic system that is broken and corrupt to its core. The debt limit has been raised by Congress some 80-odd times in the last 70 years. It has been done by both major parties, rather routinely, and, perhaps in recognition of the 14th amendment (section 4) prescription that US debt's legally obligated by Congress shall not be questioned, has not been the focus of substantial partisan rancor, at least until now. We largely have brain-dead, hypocritical, corporate-boot-licking Republican ideologues and their frothing tea-party accomplices, to thank for this, but with significant assistance from an absolutely rudderless and incompetent Democratic Party that is ostensibly led by none other than the President, but which in reality is effectively leaderless.
The current hysteria about the debt (and deficit) begs some questions. 1 ) When did the Republicans become so obsessed with the debt? Was it when they were running it up faster than you can say "blank check?" Apparently not, since the bulk of the current deficit largely consists of huge war and defense-related expenditures (think Iraq and Afghanistan), massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy (think Bush tax cuts), a huge prescription drug giveaway to pharmaceutical companies (yup, W again), and a dismal economy that has severely cut into tax revenues. Guess who we have to thank for all that? That's right, Republican administrations. Finally, was the deficit a concern to Republicans as the budget-busting Bush tax cuts were set to expire? Not in the slightest. And Obama, sadly, also seemed more than happy to accommodate this massive increase to the Federal debt.
The Bush administration, with it's deregulating, hands-off, gung-ho Capitalist cheer-leading happily watched as the financial system imploded under massive corruption and malfeasance, taking down the rest of the economy with it. Was the deficit then a concern as Hank Paulson, Bush's Treasury Secretary, floated a straw-man bill before Congress to grant him (Treasury) a multi-trillion dollar blank check with which to bail out his bankster buddies? Indeed, the deficit was irrelevant when it came to bailing out the core Republican constituency of wealthy banking fat-cats (sadly a chief Democratic constituency as well). How obscene now their desire and attempts to balance the budget by slashing social and health programs for working people, seniors and children.
One of the biggest myths about the current Republican Party is that they loathe big government. They love to say it, but talk is dirt cheap, their record of deeds indicates otherwise. Republicans love big government, as long as it's "bigness" consists of distributing public money to their wealthy corporate cronies, and restricting the political power and freedoms of working people.
No, with the Republicans now in control of the House of Representatives, a result for which we largely have President Obama to thank, they see that they can now hold the rest of the country hostage to their professed desire to see the deficit reduced. This is just a smokescreen, and an attempt to use a manufactured debt "crisis" as a cudgel that they hope to use to eviscerate programs which they have long despised, Social Security and Medicare, for example.
While we're at it let's explode another myth that mindless, lapel-flag-wearing Republicans hold dear, that their patriotism is unassailable. Patriotism? Are you kidding me? There are many adjectives one could use to describe the budget hostage-taking currently being carried out by congressional Republicans; selfish, reckless, insane, childish. I'm sure you have your own favorites, but patriotic is almost certainly not among them. Indeed, forcing such a confrontation which has the very real possibility of doing serious harm to the financial and economic security of millions of US citizens is more treasonous than patriotic. You might think at this point that the shame of it all would eventually kick in and force an about-face, but you'd be wrong, because shame is no match for ideological fundamentalism.
If all this has you thinking about Greek tragedies, then let's consider a second question, regarding the nature of the US debt. 2) Who holds the debt of the United States? And perhaps a corollary, how is it that the US government can actually be "in debt." As it turns out, a majority of the US debt in the form of US Treasury bonds is held by US citizens and institutions. Much of it is held by private US chartered banks, specifically, the Federal Reserve banks. So, in some ways the federal deficit is debt owed to ourselves. Not all of it, perhaps 35% is held by foreign institutions, say, like the governments of Japan and China. Needless to say, the majority of those holding US bonds are and/or represent wealthy, private corporate interests. Indeed, the Federal Reserve (or Fed for short) is one of those classic government double-speak terms, kind of like the Defense Department (which used to be known by the more accurate moniker, War Department), because it's not really Federal (it is privately owned, though with some very loose governmental oversight), and it's certainly not a Reserve (of, say, money!). So, if the debt is largely a debt owed to US citizens, why didn't the government tax more substantially those wealthy interests directly, rather than issuing debt which then must also be serviced with interest payments?
Another amazing fact about the Fed is that it doesn't really have the money it lends. The Federal Reserve act of 1913 established the way in which the US monetary system is organized. The Fed, indeed, private banks generally, can simply create money as bank account entries (loans) which can then be spent, but the US government (ultimately its citizens) is essentially placed in debt for this. But that's not all, for the privilege of essentially creating "money" out of whole cloth these institutions also demand the right to charge interest payments! If this sounds like the sweetest deal you've ever heard, then you'd be close to right.
So, for example, let's look at the recent economic calamity. The financial system implosion of a few years ago was largely the result of the issuing of massive amounts of fraudulent loans by private banks and financial institutions, followed by the repackaging and sale of those loans as securities, again under corrupt and fraudulent circumstances. That is, these were loans that private banks knew would or could not be paid back, and they were packaged and sold again as vastly overvalued securities. Note that such loans (money) are created in the same way that the Fed creates money, simply as new accounting entries on their balance sheets, that is, largely out of whole cloth. After the system collapsed these same private interests (and their sponsors within government) were not held responsible, rather, they contrived to have these fraudulent loans paid back dollar for dollar at the public trough. If they weren't paid off we would all face an economic armageddon, or so we were told. This was and remains, in effect, a vast shakedown scheme whereby public tax dollars, the bulk of which are now supplied by lower and middle income Americans, were and are redistributed to wealthy private interests.
The ultimate source of "money" in our present economic system is the full faith and credit of the US government, which is finally represented by the sum total of the productive capacities of it's tax-paying citizens. The government, our government, has effectively turned this credit, our credit, over to wealthy private interests (banks, financial institutions and their corporate patrons). They can issue loans at interest, often with usurious rates, backed by our blood and sweat. Yes, in effect, banks create money out of thin air, backed in the end by our productive labor, and expect interest payments in return. While there do exist some constraints on the system (the scheme of fractional reserve lending, as it is called, limits to some extent the amount of such money creation), this is essentially what the current debt "crisis" is all about. It is about whether the productive work of the vast majority of Americans will serve their own needs (the public's needs), or those of wealthy, private, corporate interests. Indeed, in the current standoff, the Republicans are attempting to extort their demands by effectively holding hostage the full faith and credit of the United States, something which is not theirs to begin with! That's what you call chutzpah!
If the Republican's succeed in enforcing massive budget cuts, and increasingly it seems that Obama and the Democrats are more than content to proceed down this road, then we will have our answer, and many Americans will be pushed further down the path to eventual indentured servitude. Needless to say, you would be hard pressed to hear any serious discussion of the above on Fox News or most other corporate media outlets.
3) So how did we get here? That's quite a long story, so I'll stay with only relatively recent events. As summarized above, after eight years of reckless Republican rule, and the economy shattered, Obama was elected with a large majority to change things. Not only did Obama have a strong electoral mandate, he also had Democratic control of both houses of Congress. But from day one he has governed almost completely in the interests of corporate America while largely ignoring the constituency that elected him. He was faced with crippling economic circumstances upon taking office, but his appointed economic team was largely representative of those who had created, or at least enabled the financial collapse. He made the banks whole but could only manage a watered-down and anemic stimulus package completely inadequate to the economic need. And as a result he has been more or less forced to accept the Republican meme that the "stimulus" didn't work, because, well, government stimulus doesn't work. Of course, it did work, to the limited extent that it could given its size. Indeed, much of the stimulus package was a further capitulation to Republican and conservative themes, with more tax cuts and less spending. The same was true with Obama's health care plan. It is largely a Republican plan (similar to that enacted by Mitt Romney while governor of Massachusetts). This is an entrenched theme of the Obama presidency; while ostensibly representing the Party in opposition to Republicans he has adopted conservative views and Republican framing on almost every issue. Because of this, Republicans know that if they just protest a little louder or longer, then they will get what they want. This is glaringly obvious in the current circumstance as Obama has swallowed whole the Republican "debt crisis" meme and has in fact offered the largest spending cuts, including cuts to ostensibly core Democratic programs such as Social Security and Medicare, programs which have not created the current deficit. Is this what he was elected to do? From day one in office Obama has not led, rather, he has simply reacted to whatever circumstances arose, and these have largely been engineered by Republican and conservative desires.
Several conclusions are possible. First, that Obama is asking for and getting exactly what he wants, that he is, in effect, more or less a conservative at heart. If true, it means that essentially his entire campaign was, at best, a massive deception, and at worst, a wholesale fabrication. Second, he would like to achieve more progressive ends, but he is completely unwilling to fight for them, which, if true, begs the question, why did he want to be President to begin with? Likely there is some truth in both. He operates within constraints imposed by our current money dominated political system, but clearly Obama seems totally unwilling to upset corporate interests that fill his and his Party's campaign coffers. He seems most comfortable in doing all he can to not rock the boat. In either case, he has shown himself to be thoroughly devoid of serious leadership skills.
Indeed, the Democratic Party has largely been decimated by Obama's "leadership." Having alienated his core of support it was no surprise then that the Republicans were able to achieve gains in the Congress during the low-turnout mid-term elections. This was also aided in no small part by Obama's complete refusal to confront Republican ideas and policies in any forceful or organized way. Again, any messaging that he has attempted has largely been framed from conservative viewpoints. This only further alienates potential supporters.
So, having ignored and alienated the majority constituency within his party, he now threatens to cut core Democratic programs as part of a desire to win "bipartisan" support for a horrible budget cutting deal that will shatter the lives of many of his ostensible base constituency, and resign the country to a future of stagnation and decline? This deal is "bipartisan" only in the sense that it is exactly what conservatives have been craving, and what Obama will apparently try and force congressional Democrats to vote for against their better instincts. In reality, this deal is a suicide pill for congressional Democrats and they would be wise to oppose it with as much vigor as they can muster. Obama seems to think that in agreeing to this fools errand he will be seen as some great conciliator that saved the country? Who does Obama think is going to vote for him come November 2012, all those people whose futures--and their children's futures--he has resigned to economic misery? If so, then he and his advisers are dangerously delusional.
So where does this leave us and our future? Any hope lies in the fact that comfortable majorities of Americans actually want to see the country move in what would be accurately termed a more progressive economic direction. This includes majority support for universal health care access and a return to more progressive taxation of the rich and corporations, among other things. The conundrum is that the necessary political organizations do not exist at present to force such changes. They do not exist largely because our political institutions are essentially under the control of a wealthy, corporate oligarchy, and the vast power that such wealth controls. The Democratic Party was at one time an avenue for the interests of the working majority to be acted upon, but this is clearly no longer the case, and indeed, if Obama "succeeds" in forcing an austerity budget on the country, then that will be the end of the Democratic Party as we have known it. It is time for progressive Democrats to confront their own leadership, and force a change. If that does not succeed, then new political organizations outside of the Democratic Party must be formed. The only alternative is a bleak future.
The current hysteria about the debt (and deficit) begs some questions. 1 ) When did the Republicans become so obsessed with the debt? Was it when they were running it up faster than you can say "blank check?" Apparently not, since the bulk of the current deficit largely consists of huge war and defense-related expenditures (think Iraq and Afghanistan), massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy (think Bush tax cuts), a huge prescription drug giveaway to pharmaceutical companies (yup, W again), and a dismal economy that has severely cut into tax revenues. Guess who we have to thank for all that? That's right, Republican administrations. Finally, was the deficit a concern to Republicans as the budget-busting Bush tax cuts were set to expire? Not in the slightest. And Obama, sadly, also seemed more than happy to accommodate this massive increase to the Federal debt.
The Bush administration, with it's deregulating, hands-off, gung-ho Capitalist cheer-leading happily watched as the financial system imploded under massive corruption and malfeasance, taking down the rest of the economy with it. Was the deficit then a concern as Hank Paulson, Bush's Treasury Secretary, floated a straw-man bill before Congress to grant him (Treasury) a multi-trillion dollar blank check with which to bail out his bankster buddies? Indeed, the deficit was irrelevant when it came to bailing out the core Republican constituency of wealthy banking fat-cats (sadly a chief Democratic constituency as well). How obscene now their desire and attempts to balance the budget by slashing social and health programs for working people, seniors and children.
One of the biggest myths about the current Republican Party is that they loathe big government. They love to say it, but talk is dirt cheap, their record of deeds indicates otherwise. Republicans love big government, as long as it's "bigness" consists of distributing public money to their wealthy corporate cronies, and restricting the political power and freedoms of working people.
No, with the Republicans now in control of the House of Representatives, a result for which we largely have President Obama to thank, they see that they can now hold the rest of the country hostage to their professed desire to see the deficit reduced. This is just a smokescreen, and an attempt to use a manufactured debt "crisis" as a cudgel that they hope to use to eviscerate programs which they have long despised, Social Security and Medicare, for example.
While we're at it let's explode another myth that mindless, lapel-flag-wearing Republicans hold dear, that their patriotism is unassailable. Patriotism? Are you kidding me? There are many adjectives one could use to describe the budget hostage-taking currently being carried out by congressional Republicans; selfish, reckless, insane, childish. I'm sure you have your own favorites, but patriotic is almost certainly not among them. Indeed, forcing such a confrontation which has the very real possibility of doing serious harm to the financial and economic security of millions of US citizens is more treasonous than patriotic. You might think at this point that the shame of it all would eventually kick in and force an about-face, but you'd be wrong, because shame is no match for ideological fundamentalism.
If all this has you thinking about Greek tragedies, then let's consider a second question, regarding the nature of the US debt. 2) Who holds the debt of the United States? And perhaps a corollary, how is it that the US government can actually be "in debt." As it turns out, a majority of the US debt in the form of US Treasury bonds is held by US citizens and institutions. Much of it is held by private US chartered banks, specifically, the Federal Reserve banks. So, in some ways the federal deficit is debt owed to ourselves. Not all of it, perhaps 35% is held by foreign institutions, say, like the governments of Japan and China. Needless to say, the majority of those holding US bonds are and/or represent wealthy, private corporate interests. Indeed, the Federal Reserve (or Fed for short) is one of those classic government double-speak terms, kind of like the Defense Department (which used to be known by the more accurate moniker, War Department), because it's not really Federal (it is privately owned, though with some very loose governmental oversight), and it's certainly not a Reserve (of, say, money!). So, if the debt is largely a debt owed to US citizens, why didn't the government tax more substantially those wealthy interests directly, rather than issuing debt which then must also be serviced with interest payments?
Another amazing fact about the Fed is that it doesn't really have the money it lends. The Federal Reserve act of 1913 established the way in which the US monetary system is organized. The Fed, indeed, private banks generally, can simply create money as bank account entries (loans) which can then be spent, but the US government (ultimately its citizens) is essentially placed in debt for this. But that's not all, for the privilege of essentially creating "money" out of whole cloth these institutions also demand the right to charge interest payments! If this sounds like the sweetest deal you've ever heard, then you'd be close to right.
So, for example, let's look at the recent economic calamity. The financial system implosion of a few years ago was largely the result of the issuing of massive amounts of fraudulent loans by private banks and financial institutions, followed by the repackaging and sale of those loans as securities, again under corrupt and fraudulent circumstances. That is, these were loans that private banks knew would or could not be paid back, and they were packaged and sold again as vastly overvalued securities. Note that such loans (money) are created in the same way that the Fed creates money, simply as new accounting entries on their balance sheets, that is, largely out of whole cloth. After the system collapsed these same private interests (and their sponsors within government) were not held responsible, rather, they contrived to have these fraudulent loans paid back dollar for dollar at the public trough. If they weren't paid off we would all face an economic armageddon, or so we were told. This was and remains, in effect, a vast shakedown scheme whereby public tax dollars, the bulk of which are now supplied by lower and middle income Americans, were and are redistributed to wealthy private interests.
The ultimate source of "money" in our present economic system is the full faith and credit of the US government, which is finally represented by the sum total of the productive capacities of it's tax-paying citizens. The government, our government, has effectively turned this credit, our credit, over to wealthy private interests (banks, financial institutions and their corporate patrons). They can issue loans at interest, often with usurious rates, backed by our blood and sweat. Yes, in effect, banks create money out of thin air, backed in the end by our productive labor, and expect interest payments in return. While there do exist some constraints on the system (the scheme of fractional reserve lending, as it is called, limits to some extent the amount of such money creation), this is essentially what the current debt "crisis" is all about. It is about whether the productive work of the vast majority of Americans will serve their own needs (the public's needs), or those of wealthy, private, corporate interests. Indeed, in the current standoff, the Republicans are attempting to extort their demands by effectively holding hostage the full faith and credit of the United States, something which is not theirs to begin with! That's what you call chutzpah!
If the Republican's succeed in enforcing massive budget cuts, and increasingly it seems that Obama and the Democrats are more than content to proceed down this road, then we will have our answer, and many Americans will be pushed further down the path to eventual indentured servitude. Needless to say, you would be hard pressed to hear any serious discussion of the above on Fox News or most other corporate media outlets.
3) So how did we get here? That's quite a long story, so I'll stay with only relatively recent events. As summarized above, after eight years of reckless Republican rule, and the economy shattered, Obama was elected with a large majority to change things. Not only did Obama have a strong electoral mandate, he also had Democratic control of both houses of Congress. But from day one he has governed almost completely in the interests of corporate America while largely ignoring the constituency that elected him. He was faced with crippling economic circumstances upon taking office, but his appointed economic team was largely representative of those who had created, or at least enabled the financial collapse. He made the banks whole but could only manage a watered-down and anemic stimulus package completely inadequate to the economic need. And as a result he has been more or less forced to accept the Republican meme that the "stimulus" didn't work, because, well, government stimulus doesn't work. Of course, it did work, to the limited extent that it could given its size. Indeed, much of the stimulus package was a further capitulation to Republican and conservative themes, with more tax cuts and less spending. The same was true with Obama's health care plan. It is largely a Republican plan (similar to that enacted by Mitt Romney while governor of Massachusetts). This is an entrenched theme of the Obama presidency; while ostensibly representing the Party in opposition to Republicans he has adopted conservative views and Republican framing on almost every issue. Because of this, Republicans know that if they just protest a little louder or longer, then they will get what they want. This is glaringly obvious in the current circumstance as Obama has swallowed whole the Republican "debt crisis" meme and has in fact offered the largest spending cuts, including cuts to ostensibly core Democratic programs such as Social Security and Medicare, programs which have not created the current deficit. Is this what he was elected to do? From day one in office Obama has not led, rather, he has simply reacted to whatever circumstances arose, and these have largely been engineered by Republican and conservative desires.
Several conclusions are possible. First, that Obama is asking for and getting exactly what he wants, that he is, in effect, more or less a conservative at heart. If true, it means that essentially his entire campaign was, at best, a massive deception, and at worst, a wholesale fabrication. Second, he would like to achieve more progressive ends, but he is completely unwilling to fight for them, which, if true, begs the question, why did he want to be President to begin with? Likely there is some truth in both. He operates within constraints imposed by our current money dominated political system, but clearly Obama seems totally unwilling to upset corporate interests that fill his and his Party's campaign coffers. He seems most comfortable in doing all he can to not rock the boat. In either case, he has shown himself to be thoroughly devoid of serious leadership skills.
Indeed, the Democratic Party has largely been decimated by Obama's "leadership." Having alienated his core of support it was no surprise then that the Republicans were able to achieve gains in the Congress during the low-turnout mid-term elections. This was also aided in no small part by Obama's complete refusal to confront Republican ideas and policies in any forceful or organized way. Again, any messaging that he has attempted has largely been framed from conservative viewpoints. This only further alienates potential supporters.
So, having ignored and alienated the majority constituency within his party, he now threatens to cut core Democratic programs as part of a desire to win "bipartisan" support for a horrible budget cutting deal that will shatter the lives of many of his ostensible base constituency, and resign the country to a future of stagnation and decline? This deal is "bipartisan" only in the sense that it is exactly what conservatives have been craving, and what Obama will apparently try and force congressional Democrats to vote for against their better instincts. In reality, this deal is a suicide pill for congressional Democrats and they would be wise to oppose it with as much vigor as they can muster. Obama seems to think that in agreeing to this fools errand he will be seen as some great conciliator that saved the country? Who does Obama think is going to vote for him come November 2012, all those people whose futures--and their children's futures--he has resigned to economic misery? If so, then he and his advisers are dangerously delusional.
So where does this leave us and our future? Any hope lies in the fact that comfortable majorities of Americans actually want to see the country move in what would be accurately termed a more progressive economic direction. This includes majority support for universal health care access and a return to more progressive taxation of the rich and corporations, among other things. The conundrum is that the necessary political organizations do not exist at present to force such changes. They do not exist largely because our political institutions are essentially under the control of a wealthy, corporate oligarchy, and the vast power that such wealth controls. The Democratic Party was at one time an avenue for the interests of the working majority to be acted upon, but this is clearly no longer the case, and indeed, if Obama "succeeds" in forcing an austerity budget on the country, then that will be the end of the Democratic Party as we have known it. It is time for progressive Democrats to confront their own leadership, and force a change. If that does not succeed, then new political organizations outside of the Democratic Party must be formed. The only alternative is a bleak future.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Time to Fight the Class War
Who does Wisconsin's little "tin horn" dictator/governor, and his Party of neo-fascists think they are? First they pass huge state tax breaks for corporations, and then they use the supposed budget "deficit" that is created to try and take away the fundamental rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively, a right that was not given by governments nor the robber baron oligarchs who exploited workers--and would again if permitted--with abysmally low wages, dangerous working conditions, and indeed near indentured servitude. Such rights were won with the sweat, blood and indeed lives of workers who fought back against the profit seeking corporate vultures whose only goal is to amass wealth at the expense of their fellow human beings. Does Walker believe that American workers will simply sit back and applaud as he tries to deny them rights earned over decades of labor struggle? Of course he does, for the Scott Walkers of the modern Republican party know nothing of labor history, all they know about is their political religion of unfettered corporatism. They want to take the entire country back 100 years, to the good-ole days of sweat shops, rampant poverty, company stores, Pinkerton-backed strike breakers, and 50-ish year life expectancy. Well, screw that! Wisconsin workers are right to resist this pathetic corporate toady with everything they can muster. Indeed, all of America needs to wake up and resist this relentless assault on working people and the middle class.
Make no mistake, the power grab currently being effected by the miserable Scott Walker and his band of Republican know-nothings is simply the latest salvo in a 30+ year class war that has been waged against working people by today's equivalent of the robber barons of the gilded age. Their war has been immensely successful, for them, and disastrous for the majority of Americans. Yes, the vast majority of Americans are working people. While the myth of unlimited upward mobility still seems to have a hold on many Americans, it is indeed a myth, and most people must work to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.
The evidence of this war is all around us, if we would simply turn off our TVs long enough to weaken the grip of the mind-numbing propaganda and dumbed-down programming endlessly peddled by our corporate media. Here are just a few of the most obvious symptoms. 1) Income inequality is at record levels. Not since the pre-Depression era of the "roaring" twenties has so much of the national wealth been concentrated in so few hands. 2) Real wages of American workers have barely budged in 30 years, while, over the same period, the productivity of American workers has steadily risen. That means people have worked longer and harder for the same wage. Guess where all the productivity gains went? That's right, into the pockets of the oligarchs. There was a day when organized labor exerted more influence and productivity gains went at least partly into increased wages, but Reagan saw to the end of that. No wonder he is now deified as some kind of Capitalist saint. 3) The money of the oligarchs has completely corrupted American democracy. A Supreme Court packed with conservative activist justices concludes that corporations deserve the rights of people, and unleashes the virtually unlimited funds of the oligarchs into the electoral process. Trillions of dollars of the public trust are instantly made available once big banks and other corporate looters blow their markers at the Wall Street casino and torpedo the economy, but they are asked to bear absolutely none of the costs, not even a miserly financial transactions tax. Indeed, tax cuts for the wealthy are further extended, and the suddenly important budget deficits that result must be balanced, we are told, with cuts to public programs and the freezing of wages of public employees. 4) Poverty in America is at epidemic levels and indeed, 1 in 5 children, in the wealthiest nation on earth, lives at or below the poverty level. The priorities evidenced by these conditions are beyond obscene.
At present, total acceptance of the "electoral process" as the sole avenue of democratic expression is a fools errand. Both major parties are almost completely in the hip pocket of the corporate interests that fill their campaign coffers. The only difference is that the Democratic Party still has a modest handful of politicians who try to represent the interests of working folks, just a few mind you, but when push comes to shove the only interests that matter, meaning in the context of actions and deeds, not words, are those of the corporate wing of the Party. The most glaring example of this is none other than President Obama. He was elected with a large turnout and broadening of the Democratic coalition, combined with a clear signal to turn away from the disastrous results of eight years of George W. Bush. The 2008 vote was clear, it was a strong call by the people for change. Obama has failed at virtually every turn to deliver anything even remotely resembling change. He followed through with the Bush Administrations bailout of the banks, he passed a health reform bill crafted to the interests of drug and insurance companies, he has largely implemented the very policies that he ran against as a candidate, two recent examples being the budget-busting extension of the "Bush" tax cuts, and the personal mandate to buy private insurance as the basis for health care "reform." Obama also bragged during the campaign that he would "walk the picket lines" with workers,
"And understand this: if American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I’ll walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America, because workers deserve to know that somebody’s standing in their corner."
Uh huh, sure Mr. President. This would be a no-brainer, a win-win for the national Democrats, if they had any intention of really standing with working and middle class Americans. I won't hold my breath for Mr. Obama to find those comfortable shoes. So far, while there have been some supportive statements from Mr. Obama, that's typically what the Democratic base has gotten from him, lots of hot air, and little action. Indeed, Obama's credibility gap is so huge, that he faces long odds in his re-election bid. Expect to find his opponents--could there be a primary challenge--running ad after ad with direct statements from candidate Obama, only to be followed with the contradicting statement as President Obama.
Having essentially abandoned a significant fraction of the voters who elected him, these same people then decided to largely stay away from the polls at the mid-term elections. Hence we have a Republican "landslide," and an "epic shift" in the electorate according to mainstream media. This is the dilemma faced by the American voter. They vote for change, giving the Party ostensibly of working Americans a chance to govern ON BEHALF of working Americans, but once elected this Party utterly fails to do so. This triggers even larger scale disaffection with the electoral "remedy." Many Americans feel elections are useless, and they are largely right, it's a rigged game; heads and corporations win, tails and corporations win. This is why the Wisconsin protests are so important. It's long since time for a direct confrontation with the oligarchs and the politicians who support and enable them. If our elected officials won't support us, then it's time to do some politicking in the streets.
Make no mistake, the power grab currently being effected by the miserable Scott Walker and his band of Republican know-nothings is simply the latest salvo in a 30+ year class war that has been waged against working people by today's equivalent of the robber barons of the gilded age. Their war has been immensely successful, for them, and disastrous for the majority of Americans. Yes, the vast majority of Americans are working people. While the myth of unlimited upward mobility still seems to have a hold on many Americans, it is indeed a myth, and most people must work to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.
The evidence of this war is all around us, if we would simply turn off our TVs long enough to weaken the grip of the mind-numbing propaganda and dumbed-down programming endlessly peddled by our corporate media. Here are just a few of the most obvious symptoms. 1) Income inequality is at record levels. Not since the pre-Depression era of the "roaring" twenties has so much of the national wealth been concentrated in so few hands. 2) Real wages of American workers have barely budged in 30 years, while, over the same period, the productivity of American workers has steadily risen. That means people have worked longer and harder for the same wage. Guess where all the productivity gains went? That's right, into the pockets of the oligarchs. There was a day when organized labor exerted more influence and productivity gains went at least partly into increased wages, but Reagan saw to the end of that. No wonder he is now deified as some kind of Capitalist saint. 3) The money of the oligarchs has completely corrupted American democracy. A Supreme Court packed with conservative activist justices concludes that corporations deserve the rights of people, and unleashes the virtually unlimited funds of the oligarchs into the electoral process. Trillions of dollars of the public trust are instantly made available once big banks and other corporate looters blow their markers at the Wall Street casino and torpedo the economy, but they are asked to bear absolutely none of the costs, not even a miserly financial transactions tax. Indeed, tax cuts for the wealthy are further extended, and the suddenly important budget deficits that result must be balanced, we are told, with cuts to public programs and the freezing of wages of public employees. 4) Poverty in America is at epidemic levels and indeed, 1 in 5 children, in the wealthiest nation on earth, lives at or below the poverty level. The priorities evidenced by these conditions are beyond obscene.
At present, total acceptance of the "electoral process" as the sole avenue of democratic expression is a fools errand. Both major parties are almost completely in the hip pocket of the corporate interests that fill their campaign coffers. The only difference is that the Democratic Party still has a modest handful of politicians who try to represent the interests of working folks, just a few mind you, but when push comes to shove the only interests that matter, meaning in the context of actions and deeds, not words, are those of the corporate wing of the Party. The most glaring example of this is none other than President Obama. He was elected with a large turnout and broadening of the Democratic coalition, combined with a clear signal to turn away from the disastrous results of eight years of George W. Bush. The 2008 vote was clear, it was a strong call by the people for change. Obama has failed at virtually every turn to deliver anything even remotely resembling change. He followed through with the Bush Administrations bailout of the banks, he passed a health reform bill crafted to the interests of drug and insurance companies, he has largely implemented the very policies that he ran against as a candidate, two recent examples being the budget-busting extension of the "Bush" tax cuts, and the personal mandate to buy private insurance as the basis for health care "reform." Obama also bragged during the campaign that he would "walk the picket lines" with workers,
"And understand this: if American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I’ll walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America, because workers deserve to know that somebody’s standing in their corner."
Uh huh, sure Mr. President. This would be a no-brainer, a win-win for the national Democrats, if they had any intention of really standing with working and middle class Americans. I won't hold my breath for Mr. Obama to find those comfortable shoes. So far, while there have been some supportive statements from Mr. Obama, that's typically what the Democratic base has gotten from him, lots of hot air, and little action. Indeed, Obama's credibility gap is so huge, that he faces long odds in his re-election bid. Expect to find his opponents--could there be a primary challenge--running ad after ad with direct statements from candidate Obama, only to be followed with the contradicting statement as President Obama.
Having essentially abandoned a significant fraction of the voters who elected him, these same people then decided to largely stay away from the polls at the mid-term elections. Hence we have a Republican "landslide," and an "epic shift" in the electorate according to mainstream media. This is the dilemma faced by the American voter. They vote for change, giving the Party ostensibly of working Americans a chance to govern ON BEHALF of working Americans, but once elected this Party utterly fails to do so. This triggers even larger scale disaffection with the electoral "remedy." Many Americans feel elections are useless, and they are largely right, it's a rigged game; heads and corporations win, tails and corporations win. This is why the Wisconsin protests are so important. It's long since time for a direct confrontation with the oligarchs and the politicians who support and enable them. If our elected officials won't support us, then it's time to do some politicking in the streets.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Sister Kate
Here's some more guitar music. This is "Sister Kate" an old ragtime tune. The basic arrangement is again from Stefan Grossman's Complete Country Blues Guitar book. It should be played up tempo, and I'm giving it my best shot. A fun song to play.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
To fight or not to fight: the NHL's image problem
OK, my first post was about hockey, so maybe it's time for another one. First, let me say that I am a huge fan of hockey and have played it most of my life. I also follow the professional game quite closely, so I'm not some newcomer to the sport. As I mentioned in my first post, I'm a big fan of the New York Rangers.
You probably know the old joke where someone says they went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out? Hockey (when I say hockey I mean ice hockey) is the only major professional sport where violent fisticuffs are not only allowed, but are actually sanctioned and codified within the rules. You'll here endless talk from hockey commentators, some of whom I would call "old-school" types (think Barry Melrose) about how fighting is a part of the game, and we could never think of trying to remove it. Indeed, it's fair to say that most of those involved today with managing and coaching the professional game are probably content to see that fighting remains "a part of the game." While the National Hockey League (NHL) has made great strides in promoting the game to a broader audience it will, in my opinion, always remain a second tier professional sport, and the butt of many a joke, as long as such violence remains within the game.
Indeed, there is almost a "professional wrestling" aura surrounding fighting in hockey. Some people who are not familiar with the game may even think that fighting is somehow staged. While there are unwritten "rules" surrounding fighting in hockey, I can assure you, when two players drop the mitts they are swinging for real, as a few of the images here will attest. While many fights end with no real injury to either player, there are also many where someone is not so lucky.
An important point to consider is that fighting has largely been removed from the game, it is only tolerated at the professional level, and in Canadian junior leagues, which feed many players to the professional system! When I played youth and recreational hockey, fighting was not allowed anymore than it would be in a little league baseball game. So, why can't the NHL take the high ground and lead by example? Consider the dilemma that the NHL faces if it continues to ignore this problem. The league has spent a lot of resources in trying to develop the spread of youth hockey, but how can the league expect to reach parents whose kids can tune into an NHL game and see this. How does mommy explain to her young hockey playing son Johnny that hitting and punching is never allowed, oh, except when you're playing hockey! How can the NHL expect to have any credibility with parents when fighting in hockey HAS BEEN eliminated at most every other level, except for the "professional game." It's simple, they can't, and they don't (have any credibility). Indeed, the fact that fighting is not tolerated at every other level (youth hockey, college hockey, etc.) means that eventually the NHL must go in that direction. It's simply a matter of when.
The video in the link in the previous paragraph shows highlights from the NHL's latest "black eye." The recent meeting between the New York Islanders and the Pittsburgh Penguins descended into a nasty slug-fest as the Islanders attempted to find some "frontier justice," after a previous meeting between the teams had resulted in several injuries to their players, including facial fractures to their goaltender Rick Dipietro in a one-punch fight with opposition goalie Brent Johnson, and concussion symptoms to forward Blake Comeau. So, how do such situations come about?
An argument often given in support of fighting is that it is a way for players to "police" themselves, to maintain a sort of crude balance of power on the ice. What it comes down to is this, if you are going to "mess" with one of my teammates, then you best expect to be "messed" with in return. A related argument you will here is that if fighting is removed, then players will resort to retaliation with their sticks. You will also here talk about a players "honor code," meaning you only fight when challenged, etc., etc. Now, at some level this might make some sense, there is a deterrent effect if you know that an opposing player will retaliate if you cross some perceived line. But thinking about this a little further leads to the conclusion that this is certainly not what you want. You do not want players deciding on and dispensing perceived justice because it is a perfect recipe for escalation of the violence (the Isles - Pens matchup is a glaring example of this), and secondly, each team is not exactly impartial in their assessment of what constitutes justice! No, just as in every other major sport the league and its officials, that is the referees in any particular match, need to "police" the game. To those who insist that the "players can police themselves," I would simply ask, so, it seems to be working well?
This is the fundamental problem with excessive violence in the NHL, it is the league's unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of the problem at the level required. Now, there are a number of factors involved, but in my opinion the most glaring problem is the unwillingness of league officials to seriously crack down on illegal (meaning against the rules of the game) hits. This also has the most serious implications for the concussion epidemic in the sport. Here are some recent examples (a warning to the squimish, some of these hits are indeed brutal and not pretty to watch); Cooke on Savard, Talbot on Comeau, and Richards on Booth.
The 2nd of these examples was the one that led the Islanders to attempt retribution on the Penguins, and thus was the principle cause for the escalation of the recent violence. Now, those were just some recent glaring examples, but I'm sure you could find more with some easy searching on the internet. All of these hits were in my opinion illegal, and I will explain why in a moment, but only one of these hits actually drew an on-ice penalty (the Richards hit on Booth). Now, why were the other two hits not even penalized? Actually, at present they probably would be because of new guidelines involving hits to the head, but the real problem with these hits is that they were all late, meaning they occurred after the player had already given up possession of the puck. The NHL rule book is clear, although you have to look under "restraining fouls (Interference)," rather than "physical fouls;"
Possession of the Puck: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.
According to the rule book a player can only be checked immediately following loss of possession of the puck. In each of the examples above the hits were well after immediately. After a player passes or losses possession they are not expecting to be checked and often are not protecting themselves as much as if they sense a check coming when in possession. This is when concussions frequently happen, when players are hit when they don't expect it. Again, you will hear old-school types arguing, well, Cooke or Talbot or Richards were just "finishing their checks," but there is nothing in the rulebook about "finishing checks." No, the rulebook is clear, such a late hit is sanctioned as an interference penalty, and indeed stiffer sanctions can be enforced if such fouls result in injury to the opposing player. Others may argue that there was not time enough for the player to "ease up" from the check, but this is also nonsense, as anyone who has played the game at a high level could attest. Players make split second decisions routinely all over the ice. They know when a player has passed or lost the puck. In particular, Cooke's hit was illegal, not to mention dirty, in that it was late (after loss of possession from Savard), and he stretched with his elbow and lower arm to hit Savard in the head. I think the same can be said for the Talbot hit, it was late, such that Comeau was not suspecting a big collision and was in an awkward position. When players "get away" with these illegal hits, then the opposing team is rightfully angry and within the current framework of the game, there is a perfect recipe for escalation of the violence. The lesson? The NHL needs to enforce its own rules!
The NHL has begun issuing suspensions for hits to the head, but so far these have not been strong enough to act as a sufficient deterrent. Consider the case of Cooke, his hit knocked Savard out for essentially the remainder of the season. Savard returned briefly in last years playoffs, but he is clearly not at the level he was, and after suffering yet another concussion this year his career appears to be over. Meanwhile, Cooke is still "stirring" things up for the Penguins, and he's a multiple offender, having been suspended several times for illegal hits. So, to cut to the chase, why is Cooke still playing in the NHL? Suspensions of 2-5 games are not sufficient, in order to show that it is serious about protecting its players and getting the mayhem out of the sport the length of suspensions need to be much longer. At a minimum, if an illegal hit results in injury and loss of playing time, then the culprit should be suspended for at least as long as the other player is out of action. But the nature of "late hits" still seems to be unclear and should be clarified by the league. There is, and should be no such thing as "finishing your check," you are either late or not, and this cannot be an excuse for leveling an opponent who is not prepared to be hit. Unless the league does this, then such hits will continue and teams will retaliate, as the Islanders did, leading to such "wild west" games.
In the wake of the Isles - Pens dust-up the NHL quickly issued its version of discipline. The Islanders were more heavily sanctioned, with two players receiving suspensions and the team being fined $100,000. However, the principal initiator of the mayhem, Talbot's late hit on Comeau went unpunished! So what signal is the league sending? That late hits are still tolerated, but that the subsequent retaliation--that they know will come--will be sanctioned. So, this is an admission by the league that such situations will occur again, it's just a matter of when the next one happens. The NHL seems willing to admit that sometimes violence in the game gets out of hand, but there seems to be no willingness to effectively reduce the kind of dangerous violence that can lead to, for example, serious head injuries. Probably this is so because the league recognizes that at some level violence sells tickets. And it's true, crowds tend to erupt at the outbreak of a fight. But isn't there enough action, speed, and yes, physicality in the game already? We don't need to see players knocked unconscious and blood on the ice to know that the game is rough and tumble. It is exciting enough already, the spectacle surrounding the violence of fighting just detracts from the game more than it adds to it. Maybe a minority of fight-loving fans would walk away from the game if fighting were eliminated, but it's hard to see this being anything but a minority. Are these the fans that the league desperately wants to keep, rather than the many more fans that could be attracted to a game where fighting was marginalized rather than glorified.
Another issue with fighting is that it sets up a tier system amongst players. Let's face it, currently teams still have to keep "enforcers" on their rosters, tough guys, "goons" in the old days. These guys are ostensibly supposed to do the fighting and "dirty work," to protect a teams more skilled players. But the lines can get blurry, and sometimes the "skill" players who recognize that they are more protected by officials, can decide to get into the rough stuff a bit. Then, to coin a phrase, "all hell can break loose." Wouldn't it be better if teams could actually fill out their entire roster with the very best players, not the very best fighters? Again, the physical nature of the sport would not have to change, big talented players could still use their power, etc. but the overall quality of the game would improve. Isn't that what the league should be about?
So, here's my recipe for how the NHL can reduce and eventually wean itself from fighting and dangerous violence in the game;
1) SERIOUSLY sanction dangerous late hits and hits to the head. SERIOUSLY means suspensions that run to a significant fraction of a season, particularly if the hits result in the opposing player missing games due to injury. Similarly enforce other dangerous acts such as using the stick against another player with the same level of seriousness.
2) Officials need to re-enforce the rule around hitting after a player gives up possession of the puck. The notion of "finishing ones check" needs to be eradicated, particularly in the minds of "old school" types (again, think Barry Melrose).
3) Increase the sanctions against fighting. I'm not suggesting an immediate outright ban. Some suggestions; fighting results in a 5 minute major penalty and a 10 minute misconduct penalty. Second fight in a game is an automatic match penalty with review toward possible suspension in subsequent games. Sanctions against fighting have increased compared to 20 years ago, this just needs to continue.
4) The League needs to understand that there is much more to be gained in eventually eliminating fighting than by keeping it.
And in case you think I'm alone in these sentiments, this is what Mario Lemieux, the co-owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins, and arguably one of the best players in the game, ever, had to say about it;
“Hockey is a tough, physical game, and it always should be. But what happened Friday night on Long Island wasn’t hockey. It was a travesty. It was painful to watch the game I love turn into a sideshow like that. The NHL had a chance to send a clear and strong message that those kinds of actions are unacceptable and embarrassing to the sport. It failed. We, as a league, must do a better job of protecting the integrity of the game and the safety of our players. We must make it clear that those kinds of actions will not be tolerated and will be met with meaningful disciplinary action. If the events relating to Friday night reflect the state of the league, I need to re-think whether I want to be a part of it.”
Now, maybe Mario was upset that the League was not harsh enough with the Islanders, but the statement does not specifically refer to that, and overall, his comments are pretty much in line with what I discussed above. Predictably, the League essentially ignored Lemieux's statement, saying it was completely satisfied with the way the situation was handled. Of course they were, because the present leadership is completely blind to the problem. What, we have a problem? There's nothing wrong with our league. And with attitudes like that, the NHL will continue to be the butt of jokes, and will always struggle for mainstream acceptance. It doesn't have to be that way.
You probably know the old joke where someone says they went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out? Hockey (when I say hockey I mean ice hockey) is the only major professional sport where violent fisticuffs are not only allowed, but are actually sanctioned and codified within the rules. You'll here endless talk from hockey commentators, some of whom I would call "old-school" types (think Barry Melrose) about how fighting is a part of the game, and we could never think of trying to remove it. Indeed, it's fair to say that most of those involved today with managing and coaching the professional game are probably content to see that fighting remains "a part of the game." While the National Hockey League (NHL) has made great strides in promoting the game to a broader audience it will, in my opinion, always remain a second tier professional sport, and the butt of many a joke, as long as such violence remains within the game.
Indeed, there is almost a "professional wrestling" aura surrounding fighting in hockey. Some people who are not familiar with the game may even think that fighting is somehow staged. While there are unwritten "rules" surrounding fighting in hockey, I can assure you, when two players drop the mitts they are swinging for real, as a few of the images here will attest. While many fights end with no real injury to either player, there are also many where someone is not so lucky.
An important point to consider is that fighting has largely been removed from the game, it is only tolerated at the professional level, and in Canadian junior leagues, which feed many players to the professional system! When I played youth and recreational hockey, fighting was not allowed anymore than it would be in a little league baseball game. So, why can't the NHL take the high ground and lead by example? Consider the dilemma that the NHL faces if it continues to ignore this problem. The league has spent a lot of resources in trying to develop the spread of youth hockey, but how can the league expect to reach parents whose kids can tune into an NHL game and see this. How does mommy explain to her young hockey playing son Johnny that hitting and punching is never allowed, oh, except when you're playing hockey! How can the NHL expect to have any credibility with parents when fighting in hockey HAS BEEN eliminated at most every other level, except for the "professional game." It's simple, they can't, and they don't (have any credibility). Indeed, the fact that fighting is not tolerated at every other level (youth hockey, college hockey, etc.) means that eventually the NHL must go in that direction. It's simply a matter of when.
The video in the link in the previous paragraph shows highlights from the NHL's latest "black eye." The recent meeting between the New York Islanders and the Pittsburgh Penguins descended into a nasty slug-fest as the Islanders attempted to find some "frontier justice," after a previous meeting between the teams had resulted in several injuries to their players, including facial fractures to their goaltender Rick Dipietro in a one-punch fight with opposition goalie Brent Johnson, and concussion symptoms to forward Blake Comeau. So, how do such situations come about?
An argument often given in support of fighting is that it is a way for players to "police" themselves, to maintain a sort of crude balance of power on the ice. What it comes down to is this, if you are going to "mess" with one of my teammates, then you best expect to be "messed" with in return. A related argument you will here is that if fighting is removed, then players will resort to retaliation with their sticks. You will also here talk about a players "honor code," meaning you only fight when challenged, etc., etc. Now, at some level this might make some sense, there is a deterrent effect if you know that an opposing player will retaliate if you cross some perceived line. But thinking about this a little further leads to the conclusion that this is certainly not what you want. You do not want players deciding on and dispensing perceived justice because it is a perfect recipe for escalation of the violence (the Isles - Pens matchup is a glaring example of this), and secondly, each team is not exactly impartial in their assessment of what constitutes justice! No, just as in every other major sport the league and its officials, that is the referees in any particular match, need to "police" the game. To those who insist that the "players can police themselves," I would simply ask, so, it seems to be working well?
This is the fundamental problem with excessive violence in the NHL, it is the league's unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of the problem at the level required. Now, there are a number of factors involved, but in my opinion the most glaring problem is the unwillingness of league officials to seriously crack down on illegal (meaning against the rules of the game) hits. This also has the most serious implications for the concussion epidemic in the sport. Here are some recent examples (a warning to the squimish, some of these hits are indeed brutal and not pretty to watch); Cooke on Savard, Talbot on Comeau, and Richards on Booth.
The 2nd of these examples was the one that led the Islanders to attempt retribution on the Penguins, and thus was the principle cause for the escalation of the recent violence. Now, those were just some recent glaring examples, but I'm sure you could find more with some easy searching on the internet. All of these hits were in my opinion illegal, and I will explain why in a moment, but only one of these hits actually drew an on-ice penalty (the Richards hit on Booth). Now, why were the other two hits not even penalized? Actually, at present they probably would be because of new guidelines involving hits to the head, but the real problem with these hits is that they were all late, meaning they occurred after the player had already given up possession of the puck. The NHL rule book is clear, although you have to look under "restraining fouls (Interference)," rather than "physical fouls;"
Possession of the Puck: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.
According to the rule book a player can only be checked immediately following loss of possession of the puck. In each of the examples above the hits were well after immediately. After a player passes or losses possession they are not expecting to be checked and often are not protecting themselves as much as if they sense a check coming when in possession. This is when concussions frequently happen, when players are hit when they don't expect it. Again, you will hear old-school types arguing, well, Cooke or Talbot or Richards were just "finishing their checks," but there is nothing in the rulebook about "finishing checks." No, the rulebook is clear, such a late hit is sanctioned as an interference penalty, and indeed stiffer sanctions can be enforced if such fouls result in injury to the opposing player. Others may argue that there was not time enough for the player to "ease up" from the check, but this is also nonsense, as anyone who has played the game at a high level could attest. Players make split second decisions routinely all over the ice. They know when a player has passed or lost the puck. In particular, Cooke's hit was illegal, not to mention dirty, in that it was late (after loss of possession from Savard), and he stretched with his elbow and lower arm to hit Savard in the head. I think the same can be said for the Talbot hit, it was late, such that Comeau was not suspecting a big collision and was in an awkward position. When players "get away" with these illegal hits, then the opposing team is rightfully angry and within the current framework of the game, there is a perfect recipe for escalation of the violence. The lesson? The NHL needs to enforce its own rules!
The NHL has begun issuing suspensions for hits to the head, but so far these have not been strong enough to act as a sufficient deterrent. Consider the case of Cooke, his hit knocked Savard out for essentially the remainder of the season. Savard returned briefly in last years playoffs, but he is clearly not at the level he was, and after suffering yet another concussion this year his career appears to be over. Meanwhile, Cooke is still "stirring" things up for the Penguins, and he's a multiple offender, having been suspended several times for illegal hits. So, to cut to the chase, why is Cooke still playing in the NHL? Suspensions of 2-5 games are not sufficient, in order to show that it is serious about protecting its players and getting the mayhem out of the sport the length of suspensions need to be much longer. At a minimum, if an illegal hit results in injury and loss of playing time, then the culprit should be suspended for at least as long as the other player is out of action. But the nature of "late hits" still seems to be unclear and should be clarified by the league. There is, and should be no such thing as "finishing your check," you are either late or not, and this cannot be an excuse for leveling an opponent who is not prepared to be hit. Unless the league does this, then such hits will continue and teams will retaliate, as the Islanders did, leading to such "wild west" games.
In the wake of the Isles - Pens dust-up the NHL quickly issued its version of discipline. The Islanders were more heavily sanctioned, with two players receiving suspensions and the team being fined $100,000. However, the principal initiator of the mayhem, Talbot's late hit on Comeau went unpunished! So what signal is the league sending? That late hits are still tolerated, but that the subsequent retaliation--that they know will come--will be sanctioned. So, this is an admission by the league that such situations will occur again, it's just a matter of when the next one happens. The NHL seems willing to admit that sometimes violence in the game gets out of hand, but there seems to be no willingness to effectively reduce the kind of dangerous violence that can lead to, for example, serious head injuries. Probably this is so because the league recognizes that at some level violence sells tickets. And it's true, crowds tend to erupt at the outbreak of a fight. But isn't there enough action, speed, and yes, physicality in the game already? We don't need to see players knocked unconscious and blood on the ice to know that the game is rough and tumble. It is exciting enough already, the spectacle surrounding the violence of fighting just detracts from the game more than it adds to it. Maybe a minority of fight-loving fans would walk away from the game if fighting were eliminated, but it's hard to see this being anything but a minority. Are these the fans that the league desperately wants to keep, rather than the many more fans that could be attracted to a game where fighting was marginalized rather than glorified.
Another issue with fighting is that it sets up a tier system amongst players. Let's face it, currently teams still have to keep "enforcers" on their rosters, tough guys, "goons" in the old days. These guys are ostensibly supposed to do the fighting and "dirty work," to protect a teams more skilled players. But the lines can get blurry, and sometimes the "skill" players who recognize that they are more protected by officials, can decide to get into the rough stuff a bit. Then, to coin a phrase, "all hell can break loose." Wouldn't it be better if teams could actually fill out their entire roster with the very best players, not the very best fighters? Again, the physical nature of the sport would not have to change, big talented players could still use their power, etc. but the overall quality of the game would improve. Isn't that what the league should be about?
So, here's my recipe for how the NHL can reduce and eventually wean itself from fighting and dangerous violence in the game;
1) SERIOUSLY sanction dangerous late hits and hits to the head. SERIOUSLY means suspensions that run to a significant fraction of a season, particularly if the hits result in the opposing player missing games due to injury. Similarly enforce other dangerous acts such as using the stick against another player with the same level of seriousness.
2) Officials need to re-enforce the rule around hitting after a player gives up possession of the puck. The notion of "finishing ones check" needs to be eradicated, particularly in the minds of "old school" types (again, think Barry Melrose).
3) Increase the sanctions against fighting. I'm not suggesting an immediate outright ban. Some suggestions; fighting results in a 5 minute major penalty and a 10 minute misconduct penalty. Second fight in a game is an automatic match penalty with review toward possible suspension in subsequent games. Sanctions against fighting have increased compared to 20 years ago, this just needs to continue.
4) The League needs to understand that there is much more to be gained in eventually eliminating fighting than by keeping it.
And in case you think I'm alone in these sentiments, this is what Mario Lemieux, the co-owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins, and arguably one of the best players in the game, ever, had to say about it;
“Hockey is a tough, physical game, and it always should be. But what happened Friday night on Long Island wasn’t hockey. It was a travesty. It was painful to watch the game I love turn into a sideshow like that. The NHL had a chance to send a clear and strong message that those kinds of actions are unacceptable and embarrassing to the sport. It failed. We, as a league, must do a better job of protecting the integrity of the game and the safety of our players. We must make it clear that those kinds of actions will not be tolerated and will be met with meaningful disciplinary action. If the events relating to Friday night reflect the state of the league, I need to re-think whether I want to be a part of it.”
Now, maybe Mario was upset that the League was not harsh enough with the Islanders, but the statement does not specifically refer to that, and overall, his comments are pretty much in line with what I discussed above. Predictably, the League essentially ignored Lemieux's statement, saying it was completely satisfied with the way the situation was handled. Of course they were, because the present leadership is completely blind to the problem. What, we have a problem? There's nothing wrong with our league. And with attitudes like that, the NHL will continue to be the butt of jokes, and will always struggle for mainstream acceptance. It doesn't have to be that way.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Nobody's Dirty Business
Here's another guitar video. I'm playing a version of Nobody's Dirty Business, a popular blues from the '20s. This version is based on the arrangement in Stefan Grossman's "Country Blues Guitar Book," and was at least partly inspired by the playing of Mississippi John Hurt. It's in the key of C. You're playing just 3 chords in first position, C, F and G, but there's a quick move up to the 5th fret which can be a little tricky. I'll occasionally post new videos to my YouTube channel, you can find them here, or there is a link below my profile.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Tearing Down the Myths
We are currently witnessing extraordinary scenes across the Middle East as people are rising up to demand an end to decades-old, Western-backed despotic regimes from Tunis to Cairo, and the revolt now shows signs of spreading into Jordan and Yemen as well. These revolts give renewed hope to peoples everywhere who yearn for freedom, democracy and economic justice.
There are no doubt a range of factors involved, but a proximal stimulus would appear to be simple economics. As people's living circumstances become more desperate, then they can be moved to take more forceful steps to try and change the status-quo. What might appear to be a desperate act to one with some food on his table becomes a necessary act for one whose children are starving. As an example, it appears that in Egypt a significant percentage of the population routinely subsists on something like the equivalent of $2 a day. Given such precarious economic circumstances a sudden increase in food prices, as has been occurring across much of the world, can be devastating. More succinctly, poverty and repression cannot be tolerated indefinitely.
As usual, the depiction of events unfolding in Egypt have been greatly distorted by the filter of the US media. Indeed, by far the best coverage I've seen on the Middle East rebellions so far has been that of Al Jazeera (I'm speaking specifically of the English language edition, since I can't comment on the Arabic version). While Al Jazeera English is apparently widely available in Canada and Western Europe it presently has little distribution on US cable networks. Somehow this doesn't seem surprising given the US media's increasing concentration in fewer and larger multinational corporations, and their general subservience to US government interests. For first rate coverage, then also check out the reporting from Sharif Abdel Kouddous at Democracy Now! who is on the ground in Egypt with an eye-witness and first-hand perspective on events.
As we watch these events unfold and see their refraction through the prism of US media outlets we can begin to see cracks in a number of longstanding myths on which US economic dominance and control in the Middle East and beyond is founded. One of my favorites is the notion of "regional stability." We hear this term endlessly from US media pundits. As in the following illustrative example: US Media Hack #1, "The US can't afford to lose the support of a pro-Western, stable Egyptian government," or, US Media Hack #2, "the toppling of Mubarak would just sow regional instability." So lets look a bit more closely at what this notion of stability actual implies.
Here's how the game works;
1) when a regional government is supportive of US government interests, that is, behaves as a good client and generally "knows how to follow orders," then, by definition, such a regime is "stable."
2) It is virtually irrelevant whether the government in question is democratic, autocratic, monarchical, tyrannical, plutocratic, oligarchic, theocratic, or any suitable combination thereof, by axiom 1) it is still a "stable" government. And just so that "stable" doesn't appear to be too overused, one can also substitute "moderate."
Note that by US government interests above I mean those of the economic elites--largely corporate interests and their patrons--within the US that for the most part influence and control the US foreign policy agenda. Also bear in mind that these interests are not necessarily the same as, and often are directly opposed to, those of the vast majority of the American people.
Now, what is the actual nature of many of these "stable" US client regimes? Well, it would take a book to cover all of them, but looking at the most recent "dominoes" to teeter in the Middle East should be sufficient. You would be hard-pressed to find any serious commentator arguing that either Tunisia or Egypt be considered as democratic states. Rather, these regimes were/are best described as autocratic, repressive oligarchies, in which a small ruling elite has enriched themselves through corruption at the expense of the vast majority of their citizens. They also routinely employed violent suppression of any and all political opposition, often with the use of arrest, torture, or worse. In reality, the societal and political conditions created and fostered by these "stable" regimes could not be more unstable! That is unless you consider vast income inequality with epidemic poverty and violent political repression to be stable economic and political models.
And of course the corollary rules apply. Any regime unwilling to play ball by our rules is "unstable," or if they really attempt to conduct their affairs with independence from Washington, and, heaven forbid, outside of the Capitalist model, then they may even be "radical." Again, the nature of the regime itself is irrelevant, what only matters is their stance towards US interests, if they are willing to put US interests above those of their own people, then of course, they are a "stable" regime. An example of a "radical" regime in this context was the democratically elected, but left-leaning government of Chile under Salvador Allende. Allende was overthrown and murdered in a US-backed coup that installed decades of "stable," vicious autocratic rule under General Augusto Pinochet. You see, a "stable" dictatorial government is always preferable to a "radical" democracy. Chile under Allende could not be tolerated mostly because it might represent the "threat of a good example," and worse yet, right in America's own backyard. That is, a nation that develops outside the Western-dominated model, with development actually serving the interests of its population and not those of international capital.
Another crucial myth that must be continually reinforced is the notion that the US is the bastion and guarantor of true democracy throughout the world. This is axiomatic among news talking-heads and the punditocracy in mainstream US media. While there is abundant evidence to the contrary, it is all completely irrelevant. Just consider the case of Egypt's Mubarak, supported through 30 years of one-party (indeed one-man), iron-fisted rule by multiple US administrations. You see, when government officials understand that this myth is virtually unassailable, then they can get away with the kind of bare-faced lies like those spouted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who argued in a recent CNN interview, "We are on the side" of the Egyptian people, "as we have been for more than 30 years." The Egyptian people know better Ms. Clinton.
But you can understand that in such circumstances US officials have to be careful, they don't want to be seen as completely on the record in their support for a dictator whom a million Egyptians are out in the streets to try and remove. And on the other hand, if they still see a fair chance for the survival of their client, Mubarak in this case, well, then they don't want to openly call for him to depart to quickly. This is where obfuscation becomes a real asset, and there are few better at it than US State Department Officials. Consider this gem from Clinton herself, in response to a question about the US's stance on Mubarak, "This is a complex, very difficult situation," said Clinton, "We do not want to send any message about backing forward or backing back..." Backing forward? Backing back? Well, I'm glad that cleared everything up. One has to show some grudging admiration for someone who could so torture the English language, but that has been the nature of much of US commentary so far, obfuscation.
We can also learn a great deal by comparing the US response to the present rebellion in Egypt to that which occurred last year following elections in Iran. Now, according to our rules of the game, Iran is clearly not a "stable" regime. On the contrary, Iran is a "radical" regime that sows "instability" in the Middle East. In the summer of 2009 when large numbers of Iranian citizens protested the outcome of elections in their country, then US officials were more than vociferous in their support for the democratic rights of the protesters in Iran. But now, when faced with similar conditions in Egypt, and the apparent demise of one of its own lynch-pin clients in the Middle East, US officials can only talk out of both sides of their mouths and call for "restraint," and other such neutral platitudes. While Iran's theocratic government is objectionable on many levels we have to keep in mind that it had its roots sown in the overthrow of another "radical" democratically elected regime, that of Mohammed Mosadegh, deposed in yet another US-orchestrated coup, that installed the dictatorial rule of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi. I guess you can say what goes around comes around.
At present, the Mubarak government appears to be digging in its heals, and may not go without trying to first exact a terrible price from the Egyptian people. Let's hope that doesn't happen, and that the Egyptian people can attain a democratic future.
There are no doubt a range of factors involved, but a proximal stimulus would appear to be simple economics. As people's living circumstances become more desperate, then they can be moved to take more forceful steps to try and change the status-quo. What might appear to be a desperate act to one with some food on his table becomes a necessary act for one whose children are starving. As an example, it appears that in Egypt a significant percentage of the population routinely subsists on something like the equivalent of $2 a day. Given such precarious economic circumstances a sudden increase in food prices, as has been occurring across much of the world, can be devastating. More succinctly, poverty and repression cannot be tolerated indefinitely.
As usual, the depiction of events unfolding in Egypt have been greatly distorted by the filter of the US media. Indeed, by far the best coverage I've seen on the Middle East rebellions so far has been that of Al Jazeera (I'm speaking specifically of the English language edition, since I can't comment on the Arabic version). While Al Jazeera English is apparently widely available in Canada and Western Europe it presently has little distribution on US cable networks. Somehow this doesn't seem surprising given the US media's increasing concentration in fewer and larger multinational corporations, and their general subservience to US government interests. For first rate coverage, then also check out the reporting from Sharif Abdel Kouddous at Democracy Now! who is on the ground in Egypt with an eye-witness and first-hand perspective on events.
As we watch these events unfold and see their refraction through the prism of US media outlets we can begin to see cracks in a number of longstanding myths on which US economic dominance and control in the Middle East and beyond is founded. One of my favorites is the notion of "regional stability." We hear this term endlessly from US media pundits. As in the following illustrative example: US Media Hack #1, "The US can't afford to lose the support of a pro-Western, stable Egyptian government," or, US Media Hack #2, "the toppling of Mubarak would just sow regional instability." So lets look a bit more closely at what this notion of stability actual implies.
Here's how the game works;
1) when a regional government is supportive of US government interests, that is, behaves as a good client and generally "knows how to follow orders," then, by definition, such a regime is "stable."
2) It is virtually irrelevant whether the government in question is democratic, autocratic, monarchical, tyrannical, plutocratic, oligarchic, theocratic, or any suitable combination thereof, by axiom 1) it is still a "stable" government. And just so that "stable" doesn't appear to be too overused, one can also substitute "moderate."
Note that by US government interests above I mean those of the economic elites--largely corporate interests and their patrons--within the US that for the most part influence and control the US foreign policy agenda. Also bear in mind that these interests are not necessarily the same as, and often are directly opposed to, those of the vast majority of the American people.
Now, what is the actual nature of many of these "stable" US client regimes? Well, it would take a book to cover all of them, but looking at the most recent "dominoes" to teeter in the Middle East should be sufficient. You would be hard-pressed to find any serious commentator arguing that either Tunisia or Egypt be considered as democratic states. Rather, these regimes were/are best described as autocratic, repressive oligarchies, in which a small ruling elite has enriched themselves through corruption at the expense of the vast majority of their citizens. They also routinely employed violent suppression of any and all political opposition, often with the use of arrest, torture, or worse. In reality, the societal and political conditions created and fostered by these "stable" regimes could not be more unstable! That is unless you consider vast income inequality with epidemic poverty and violent political repression to be stable economic and political models.
And of course the corollary rules apply. Any regime unwilling to play ball by our rules is "unstable," or if they really attempt to conduct their affairs with independence from Washington, and, heaven forbid, outside of the Capitalist model, then they may even be "radical." Again, the nature of the regime itself is irrelevant, what only matters is their stance towards US interests, if they are willing to put US interests above those of their own people, then of course, they are a "stable" regime. An example of a "radical" regime in this context was the democratically elected, but left-leaning government of Chile under Salvador Allende. Allende was overthrown and murdered in a US-backed coup that installed decades of "stable," vicious autocratic rule under General Augusto Pinochet. You see, a "stable" dictatorial government is always preferable to a "radical" democracy. Chile under Allende could not be tolerated mostly because it might represent the "threat of a good example," and worse yet, right in America's own backyard. That is, a nation that develops outside the Western-dominated model, with development actually serving the interests of its population and not those of international capital.
Another crucial myth that must be continually reinforced is the notion that the US is the bastion and guarantor of true democracy throughout the world. This is axiomatic among news talking-heads and the punditocracy in mainstream US media. While there is abundant evidence to the contrary, it is all completely irrelevant. Just consider the case of Egypt's Mubarak, supported through 30 years of one-party (indeed one-man), iron-fisted rule by multiple US administrations. You see, when government officials understand that this myth is virtually unassailable, then they can get away with the kind of bare-faced lies like those spouted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who argued in a recent CNN interview, "We are on the side" of the Egyptian people, "as we have been for more than 30 years." The Egyptian people know better Ms. Clinton.
But you can understand that in such circumstances US officials have to be careful, they don't want to be seen as completely on the record in their support for a dictator whom a million Egyptians are out in the streets to try and remove. And on the other hand, if they still see a fair chance for the survival of their client, Mubarak in this case, well, then they don't want to openly call for him to depart to quickly. This is where obfuscation becomes a real asset, and there are few better at it than US State Department Officials. Consider this gem from Clinton herself, in response to a question about the US's stance on Mubarak, "This is a complex, very difficult situation," said Clinton, "We do not want to send any message about backing forward or backing back..." Backing forward? Backing back? Well, I'm glad that cleared everything up. One has to show some grudging admiration for someone who could so torture the English language, but that has been the nature of much of US commentary so far, obfuscation.
We can also learn a great deal by comparing the US response to the present rebellion in Egypt to that which occurred last year following elections in Iran. Now, according to our rules of the game, Iran is clearly not a "stable" regime. On the contrary, Iran is a "radical" regime that sows "instability" in the Middle East. In the summer of 2009 when large numbers of Iranian citizens protested the outcome of elections in their country, then US officials were more than vociferous in their support for the democratic rights of the protesters in Iran. But now, when faced with similar conditions in Egypt, and the apparent demise of one of its own lynch-pin clients in the Middle East, US officials can only talk out of both sides of their mouths and call for "restraint," and other such neutral platitudes. While Iran's theocratic government is objectionable on many levels we have to keep in mind that it had its roots sown in the overthrow of another "radical" democratically elected regime, that of Mohammed Mosadegh, deposed in yet another US-orchestrated coup, that installed the dictatorial rule of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi. I guess you can say what goes around comes around.
At present, the Mubarak government appears to be digging in its heals, and may not go without trying to first exact a terrible price from the Egyptian people. Let's hope that doesn't happen, and that the Egyptian people can attain a democratic future.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Fare-Thee-Well Titanic
Here's a video showing some of my guitar playing. The tune is an arrangement by Stefan Grossman, called "Fare Thee Well Titanic." It's played in the key of C. The video was shot with a small Canon elph, and the audio could be better, but you can still hear the tune reasonably well, I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)