tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7842586069080524422024-03-23T14:10:48.256-04:00Tod's BlogTod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-38259311447729862132020-11-08T22:41:00.001-05:002020-11-08T22:48:10.987-05:00It May Be Too Late<div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;"><span style="caret-color: rgb(52, 52, 52);"> </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;">The defeat of Donald Trump in his re-election bid by Joe Biden is a welcomed and necessary first victory in the coming battle to try and restore democratic rule in the United States, but it is not a sufficient one. Trump, and the now cult-like Republican Party are but symptoms of a far greater decay in US institutions and political culture over the last 40 years.</span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;"> </span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;">It is the culmination of an elite, primarily conservative backlash that began with the goal to fight the New Deal programs of the Democratic Party under Franklin D. Roosevelt.</span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;"> </span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;">The New Deal project attempted, and was largely successful at, redressing the excesses of capitalist greed that had sunk the country into the Great Depression, and gave substantial consideration to the concerns of workers.</span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;"> </span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;">The New Deal compact met with a good deal of success, but the coalitions that sustained it began to fray as the country squandered treasure and blood through the Johnson administration and the Vietnam war. </span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;"> </span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;">The Republican Party also seized on the fallout from the civil rights struggle of the 60’s and 70s to shift the political power balance in the American South, giving the right-wing and Republicans opportunities to continue to chip away at New Deal programs and consensus.</span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;"> </span></span></div>
<p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The conservative backlash rapidly accelerated under the Reagan administration as unions were viciously attacked and regulations on finance capital and corporations were steadily reduced or eliminated entirely. It was during the Reagan years that the positive correlation between wages and productivity growth was finally ruptured. From that point on, further productivity growth did not end up in worker’s paychecks but was funneled ever upward to the corporate bosses and the owners of capital. As a consequence, wage growth has been remarkably flat over the last 30 years. </span></p>
<p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;">Up to this point much of the impetus had come from the right, with the Republican Party the primary moving force for such deregulation and union busting. However, after the political defeats of the Reagan era, the Democratic Party, led primarily by Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council (the so-called New Democrats) embarked on a significant tack to the right and began seeking a substantial amount of corporate and financial industry funding to finance their campaigns and political activities. While this strategy led to some <span style="caret-color: rgb(52, 52, 52);">electoral</span> successes, this courting of corporate donors did not come without a price. The banks, Wall Street firms and major corporations providing this largesse did not do it out of altruistic intentions, but, like good capitalists, for return on investment, and returns they received. This included the eventual repeal of the Glass - Steagall act which had placed a fire wall between commercial and private banking, continuing cuts to corporate taxes, the effective ending of “welfare as we know it,” as well as other financial services deregulation. All this had the effect of further distancing the Democratic Party leadership from the interests of their principal New Deal constituency, that being, primarily, working people. </span></span></p>
<p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The deregulation frenzy and attacks on any government regulations also fueled a media consolidation bonanza. Large media outlets were now in fewer and fewer hands, and with the ending of any substantive regulation of their content in the context of public service, they could now use their media platforms basically as profit making ventures alone. This further removed the needs and concerns of working people from public and political discourse and simply allowed for more rapid escalation of corporate control of the economy and political system. As the “gloves came off,” and labor was left more and more impotent, the corporate class could increasingly do as it pleased, and of course it pleased to enrich itself above all else. With no other opposing forces in place, income inequality accelerated to where, at present, it is at a level above even that present prior to the Great Depression. The almost total lack of financial regulations and controls led eventually to the fraud and speculation in mortgage-backed financial derivatives and so-called “consolidated debt obligations” (CDOs) that brought on the Financial Crisis of late 2007 (The Great Recession), just prior to the start of the first Obama administration. It’s worth remembering that at the time millions of Americans were facing mortgage foreclosure and the loss of their homes due to massive bank fraud, speculation and malfeasance. Also recall that Obama had been elected with the aid of substantial grass-roots coalitions expecting “Change We can Believe In.” </span></p>
<p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What did Obama do? He effectively neutered these movements and brought in a cabinet made up largely of bankers and Wall Street retreads. Notable among these were Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, a former Goldman Sachs official (and protege of another Clinton era Wall Street icon, Robert Rubin), and Lawrence Summers, a neoliberal banking industry favorite. The rest is history. The banks were bailed-out with the government providing essentially a 12 trillion dollar blank check, and millions of American homeowners were left adrift and lost their homes. To add insult to injury, when the dust had settled scarcely a single financial figure had faced prosecution or any meaningful accountability. This further abandonment of working class Americans, including a significant fraction of Black homeowners, by a Democratic administration further eroded the remaining Democratic coalition and, by Obama’s second term, had set the stage for majority Republican control of Congress. By this time America’s political democracy essentially comprised two wings of a single Party, the Corporate Party if you will. While there are indeed significant differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties, these are principally regarding social and cultural issues, not political ones. Politically, they are both strongly capitalist parties. Democratic Party “politics” by this point was not really politics at all, but the identity politics epitomized by the famous Clintonian “triangulation,” focusing on social and cultural issues to try and carve out just enough of a majority to maintain electoral control, while not diverting a smidgen from their primarily capitalist political program. </span></p>
<p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">The voices and interests of working people had been increasingly marginalized from the democratic process. Income inequality continued to explode and a virtual oligarchy was now in place. Both Parties are beholden to wealthy, largely corporate interests, and a steady plague of economic stagnation and misery for the masses had descended on the country. Manufacturing jobs had long ago been shipped overseas, wages were effectively flat or dropping in real terms and a majority of the country were virtually living from paycheck to paycheck. Add to this the inability to find good-paying jobs and the more affordable health care they may come with, left large numbers of Americans with no health insurance, no savings and no prospects for maintaining a middle class existence. Also, because of media consolidation and corporate control, the plight of this “forgotten” working class America is not prominently discussed in elite media. By the end of Obama’s second term these stark economic conditions provided a fertile field for a fascistic populism to take root. This is the circumstance that Donald Trump and the Republican Party were able to cultivate and effectively exploit. As with most fascist movements they were also able to appeal to the deeply-rooted racism still endemic in the country. This coalition of disaffected white Americans, Christian fundamentalists, racists and nativists, and more “traditional” Republican elites was able to narrowly defeat the now sufficiently decimated Democratic coalition, represented by Hillary Clinton. </span></p>
<p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;">Now, after four disastrous years of Donald Trump has the Democratic Party leadership learned any of the necessary lessons sketched above to avoid a repeat of this process as we move forward with the Biden administration? The initial signals are not very encouraging. The Republican Party has moved so far right that many of its key constituents are openly fascistic. They no longer even hold any pretense to respecting a true democratic process. They seek power for themselves only, and are not willing to consider that others outside their tribe are even Americans. They see no reason to respect the rights of anyone who does not swear fealty to their ideology. All others are enemies, to be bullied, or scapegoated. After four years of Trump this conditioning is now strongly entrenched in perhaps 1/4 to 1/3 of the population, judging from recent vote totals in the 2020 election. By any reckoning this is a frightening proposition. This conditioning is evident in Trump’s refusal to accept the results of any election he does not win, and his rhetoric around “legal” and “illegal” votes. This should be understood that, in the mind of Trump and perhaps a majority of Republicans, “legal” votes are those for Trump, votes for Biden are, by definition, illegal. Also, in the recent election Republicans supported Trump even more consistently than they did four years ago, and this was after catastrophic mismanagement of a global pandemic. Biden and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party sank huge resources into trying to sway white, so-called “suburban” Republicans. This was a fools errand, as the numbers indicated that there was no substantial flip of such voters to the Biden ticket. By contrast, multi-racial coalitions and organizing, epitomized by the spectacular work of Black-led movements like Black Lives Matter, energized voting constituencies in many cities, arguably providing the key <span style="caret-color: rgb(52, 52, 52);">votes to elect Biden. </span>Accommodation or attempted bipartisanship with the Republican leadership is a dead end as well. There can be no accommodation at this point that would result in any significant shift away from the corporate friendly, small government policies that have exploded income equality and impoverished half the population. Conditions would simply continue to deteriorate, further fueling a fascist populism.</span></span></p>
<p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville;">The only plausible path forward for the Democratic Party is to, effectively, rebuild a <span style="caret-color: rgb(52, 52, 52);">multi-racial </span></span></span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;">New Deal coalition.</span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;">This means it must refocus its politics around the needs and conditions of working people. It must, in short, go back to real politics. It must address and reverse the structural and regulatory conditions that give free rein to capital and marginalize labor.</span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;">It must reestablish regulatory and tax policy that dramatically reduces the influence of money on the political system.</span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;">It must reassert public control and regulation over the banking and financial sectors.</span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;">It must end legal impunity for the ruling elite and wealthy, and eliminate the enormous racial disparities present in the justice system. It must drastically reduce military expenditures and redirect such resources to human needs.</span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;">These are by no means simple tasks but the evidence from polling as well as the recent election suggests that these are primarily majority-supported goals, and with the proper leadership it is entirely possible to organize a broad coalition around the long-ignored needs of working people, of all backgrounds.</span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;"> </span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;">More specific programs that show broad public support along these lines include, Medicare for All, student loan debt forgiveness and loan reform, free higher education, the $15 dollar an hour (or higher!) minimum wage, strengthening of unions and labor laws, financial transaction taxes and readjustment to a much fairer and more progressive taxation policy, such that extreme wealth accumulation is strongly limited.</span><span style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Are Democratic Party leaders onboard with such a program? The answer at present would appear to be almost certainly not. Leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, even with the smoke still settling from the election, were “punching left,” blaming the progressive wing of the Party for the very poor performance of down-ballot candidates. The Democrats will lose seats in the House when all the votes are counted, for example. However, as is typical these days, Pelosi has it completely backwards. Progressive candidates strongly outperformed milquetoast moderates and centrists in the Party who are perceived as standing with the status quo, or worse, for nothing at all. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was catastrophic in his leadership of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, and all of the centrist candidates he chose and threw boat loads of money at were defeated handily. The huge amount of funds that the DSCC essentially set on fire could have supported more progressive candidates, or at least a mix of such. Moreover, it is more than four years since the absolute debacle that ushered in Trump and nearly ushered in an authoritarian government, and still, there has been no serious reckoning by Democratic Party leaders of their failures in that process. This is completely unacceptable. There must be accountability moving forward or any hope of a return to true democracy is doomed. There does appear to be some recognition that working class needs must be addressed, as Biden has publicly called for supporting some of the above working class agenda. For this the Party largely has Bernie Sanders and his movement to thank. Typically, the leadership has been dismissive of Sanders’s importance in this, and it would be disastrous to further alienate the progressive wing of the Party. A strong signal that the Party is serious and that there would be some accountability moving forward would be for both Pelosi and Schumer to step down from their leadership positions. It’s time for new blood. If these two had any self awareness, they would realize that this would be in the interests of building the coalition needed to defeat the present day Republican fascists, and moving away from the unsustainable status quo. But, I wouldn’t count on this kind of introspection from either one. </span></p><p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="color: #343434; font-family: Baskerville; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 0px 4px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: medium;">In addition to securing the White House, the Democrats now also have a chance to take a majority in the Senate if they can win the Georgia runoff polls. In the midst of a pandemic, and with polling suggesting +70% approval for Medicare for All, it would seem a no-brainer for the Democrats to shift behind this position strongly and run on this, as well as other working class issues, in the Georgia elections. I think we will be able to judge the likelihood of future Democratic success by the outcomes in Georgia. If the Democrats center a strong working class agenda for these elections, then they have a strong chance to win the Senate. That would be a good sign that there is some hope. If they run away from Medicare for All, for example, and lose the runoffs, then I think we can expect too much incrementalism, effectively reinforcing the status quo. If that happens, it will be too late, and the stage will be set for mid-term losses under Biden, and then the chances of a competent, Trump-like authoritarian sweeping to power in 2024 will become frighteningly real. There really is not much time left.</span></p></div>Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-73600333445701811212020-05-22T15:57:00.001-04:002020-05-22T16:10:12.334-04:00Our Cherished Freedoms<div class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 27px;">
<span class="s1" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-kerning: none;">Americans are among the most propagandized populace in the world.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>If you are one of the many whose initial reaction to this statement is, “are you kidding? Not me! Not in this free country!” I would argue that it simply proves the point.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Americans are so successfully indoctrinated that for many people, they don’t even know it, indeed, they can’t even conceive of the possibility. This indoctrination takes many forms. Among the most pervasive is a near-complete perversion of much of the language of political and social discourse.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Key terms have been so thoroughly abused that they have virtually become devoid of meaning.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Perhaps no word has been so debased as “freedom.”<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Here in the “land of the free,” we bask in it, glorify it, heck, we even eat it with our “<a href="https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/hamberder-meme-president-trump">hamberders</a>.”<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
<div class="p1" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 27px;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;"><br /></span>
<span class="s1" style="font-kerning: none;">So what are some of the freedoms that Americans are so uniquely endowed with among so-called wealthy and democratic nations?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Let’s just enumerate some of the many actual freedoms that Americans presently enjoy: </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">1) The freedom to endure the only for-profit health care system in the industrial world.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>This cherished freedom grants you some of the following related freedoms.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The freedom to pay the <a href="https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-life-expectancy-compare-countries/#item-start">highest drug prices</a> among comparable nations.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The freedom to lose your health care when you become unemployed.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The freedom to find health care <a href="https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2019/us-health-care-spending-highest-among-developed-countries.html">completely unaffordable</a> if you should happen to lose your job.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The freedom to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/11/this-is-the-real-reason-most-americans-file-for-bankruptcy.html">go bankrupt</a> due to exorbitant health care costs, or the denial of treatment coverage by your insurance company. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The freedom to see many of your <a href="https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/">fellow citizens unnecessarily die</a> due to their lack of health insurance coverage.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The freedom to contribute to the obscene, multimillion dollar compensations of insurance company executives, whose companies literally make a profit by denying health care coverage to their enrollees.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Just think how much more these freedoms are cherished when a 100-year pandemic rolls around!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">2) The freedom to live in a society with a <b><a href="https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-life-expectancy-compare-countries/#item-start">decreasing</a></b> life expectancy.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
3) The freedom to work 2 or more jobs and still be <a href="https://iwpr.org/1-in-3-working-adults-in-the-united-states-is-economically-insecure/">one or two paychecks from destitution</a>.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>This benefit also comes with added freedoms.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The freedom to not have to worry about building up any savings. The freedom to lose your job if you get sick, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2020/03/10/why-the-us-urgently-needs-paid-sick-leave/#431ba801f437">because you have no sick leave</a>.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The freedom to not have to worry about where to go for vacations, because you have no paid leave.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The freedom to work for a $7.25 an hour <a href="https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-minimum-wage/">starvation wage</a>.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The freedom to have your <a href="https://itep.org/congress-should-reduce-not-expand-tax-breaks-for-capital-gains/">labor taxed at a higher rate</a> than income resulting from a financial transaction (a so-called capital gain).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The freedom to pay higher taxes than the company you might work for (some of which <a href="https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/taxes/trumps-tax-cuts/you-paid-taxes-these-corporations-didnt/">pay no US Federal income taxes</a>).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Tough to beat that last one!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">4) The freedom to go into <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/09/student-debt-is-transforming-the-american-family">perpetual debt</a> in order to obtain a higher education.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The freedom to pay outrageous interest rates on that debt. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">5) The freedom to see <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/11/politics/millennials-income-stalled-upward-mobility-us/index.html">your children struggle more</a> and expect less out of life than you did.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">6) The freedom to choose from a few, or in some cases, even a single cable/internet/phone provider, because 28 years after the break-up of AT&T, the telecommunications industry is still, effectively, <a href="https://ilsr.org/monopoly-networks/">monopolistic</a>.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">7) The freedom to pay among the <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/1/8321437/maps-show-why-internet-is-more-expensive-us-europe-competition">highest rates</a> for such telecommunications services (often with poorer service), than most so-called developed countries.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">8) The freedom to stand in line <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/04/california-and-texas-voters-faced-hours-long-lines-on-super-tuesday">for hours</a> in order to vote, in the so-called "bastion of democracy."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
9) The freedom to be <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts">shot dead</a> by fellow citizens armed with military-style weapons.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">and</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "times" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">10) <span style="text-indent: 0px;">After a year and a half, multi-billion dollar electoral shit-show, the freedom to vote for <a href="https://theintercept.com/2020/02/14/ahead-south-carolina-vote-joe-biden-faces-questions-claims-civil-rights-activism-2/">Tweedle-dumb</a> or <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/29/president-trump-has-made-more-than-false-or-misleading-claims/">Tweedle-dumbest</a>. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="text-indent: 0px;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div class="p2" style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal;">
<span class="s1" style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-kerning: none;">Truly, what more freedoms could one wish for?</span></div>
</div>
Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-42898473851805104642020-01-07T16:58:00.000-05:002020-01-07T16:58:32.782-05:00The New FeudalismThe United States descent into fascism has been ongoing for some time now, but the pace is quickening and a profound reckoning cannot now be that far off. Our political, economic and social institutions have devolved into something that American political theorist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Wolin">Sheldon Wolin</a> referred to as <a href="https://www.truthdig.com/articles/sheldon-wolin-and-inverted-totalitarianism/">inverted totalitarianism</a>. In such a situation there remain some trappings of democratic process, but they are effectively managed via corporate control of the economic and political system. There is the appearance of democracy, but scratch the surface and one finds that all real power now resides with a wealthy, corporate, oligarchic elite that control, at least indirectly, most of the institutions of power in the society. An important aspect of this is that politics has become, paradoxically, apolitical. An example being the "stage-managed" media events that pass for elections every four years. In these media "superbowls" personalities are voted on, but never actual political alternatives to the status quo. <br />
<br />
In terms of the daily economic life for most people, there has been, more or less, the re-establishment of a feudal order, but simply with new Lords of the Manor. Of course, our society now has many more technical advances than, for example, those present in medieval Europe, but from a social and political viewpoint the distribution of power and wealth is eerily similar to that of medieval feudalism. The masses of people are effectively serfs, but now with cellphones to distract them. Although some are still buoyed by the promise of religious salvation, many are either truly anesthetized--with alcohol and drugs--or engage in other forms of self-destructive virtual sedation, with addiction to gambling, games, and various forms of media entertainments replacing a functioning social support system. In such conditions, any serious challenges to the prevailing conditions become very difficult to organize. Sadly, for many citizens, anything is better than facing the empty existence afforded to most people as servants of our new corporate Lords.<br />
<br />
This process has only accelerated further with the advent of a Trump administration bent on pillaging what remains of the public commons. This President, and more broadly the Republican Party, are not fit to govern, because they have no interest in actual governance that would benefit the nation as a whole. Their only interests are selfish. They desire power for its own sake, and to use it to enrich themselves and force their cult-like beliefs on anyone who will not worship them. They are willing to acknowledge as genuine Americans only themselves, their fellow travelers and any willing sycophants. All others are not "true" Americans, and are treated as the enemy other. They are literally at war with their enemies, as is clearly evident from watching just one evening's worth of the lies, distortions and vicious propaganda on their "State Media” outlet, Fox News.<br />
<br />
These cultists of the self treat all others, their self-professed enemies, as simply means to their own ends, and not as ends in themselves. Empathy for others is completely absent. While the current Republican Party is but an extreme example, and Trump the most glaring symptom, sadly, these same values are now endemic within many of our political, cultural and economic institutions. We are taught to worship an economic system, oligarchic capitalism, that glorifies the accumulation of wealth and things above all else, and that is also inexorably destroying the natural environment that sustains life. As Wolin warned, the political system is now controlled, effectively owned, by those who benefit most from and enforce this economic system. At this point the only proper moral response to this culture of self-idolatry is complete, non-violent, non-cooperation. To actively participate, and pretend that things are "normal," and that the status quo is somehow desirable and sustainable, is now simply complicity with evil.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-7248527550181400152014-07-30T11:48:00.000-04:002014-07-30T11:48:32.691-04:00The Bombing of Hospitals is Not Self DefenseIt seems that almost every US government official is proud of boasting that there is <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/sec-john-kerry-no-daylight-between-israel-and-united-states/">"no daylight"</a> between the United States and Israel. Meaning that, effectively, Israeli policy is US policy. A sane, rational person might think that when such Israeli policy includes the <a href="http://www.juancole.com/2014/07/israel-plunges-darkness.html">massive, indiscriminate shelling and bombing</a> of densely populated urban environments, such as Israel is now undertaking in the Gaza strip, that US officials might want to rethink their unquestioned support, and even more so when such brazen violations of international law are enabled and facilitated by massive US military and political aid. Perhaps when Israel <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/07/30/world-stands-disgraced-israel-bombs-another-un-designated-shelter-gaza">repeatedly targets UN refugee shelters</a>, killing children in their sleep amongst others, even after UN officials repeatedly inform the Israeli military of the precise GPS coordinates of these structures, surely then there must be some weakening of the almost fanatical US support? Hospitals, what about <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/07/28/israel-attacks-gazas-leading-hospital">the bombing of hospitals,</a> surely that must induce at least the tiniest bit of self-reflection, maybe an iota of doubt then starts to creep into the mind? Still nothing? When Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu remarks about Palestinian's use of their <a href="https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/21/netanyahus-telegenically-dead-comment-original/">"telegenically dead," </a>to "attack" Israel, perhaps that might suggest to President Obama and other senior US officials that it would be worth considering putting some daylight between themselves and Israeli policy? But apparently not. Official US support for Israel has now reached <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/07/28/ugly-resolution-us-politicians-back-israels-assault-gaza">the level of idolatry</a>. Consider the following question, is there any action or policy that Israel could carry out that would lead to a reconsideration of absolute US support? Sadly, there does not seem to be any. We would, rightly, consider such unthinking fanaticism problematic when exhibited by official enemies, but apparently for <a href="http://todstrohblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/enduring-power-of-our-moral-example.html">"exceptional" Americans</a> it's just fine. To the extent that we do not find this shocking is a profound
indictment of our moral and political culture. If the United States wants to maintain
any legitimate moral standing in the world, then it needs to work to put an immediate end to the Israeli assault on Gaza. <br />
<br />
<br />Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-89780577060413869922013-07-26T23:54:00.000-04:002013-07-27T12:03:19.982-04:00The Rule of MenThere is now a vast distance between the actions carried out by the United States government and the often ridiculous rhetoric spewed forth by its leaders to describe and justify these actions, and which is spoon-fed to the citizenry like so much pablum by a largely ignorant and subservient corporate press. Call it a "reality gap." There is, on the one hand, the real world of causes and effects that is readily evident to those who are more often than not on the receiving end of the actions of our government, and then there are the hollow, dissembling, ludicrous, deceitful, false "official pronouncements" from US government leaders and their spokes-people. While it is true that such a dynamic is not new, the scale of the "gap" is at epic proportions, and perhaps accounts for a measure of the contempt with which US government officials are generally viewed by their own citizens these days. As one gauge of this contempt consider these <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance">abysmal approval ratings!</a> Trust begins with the truth.<br />
<br />
A major myth around which such rhetorical deceit orbits is the notion of the rule of law. It goes something like this, the United States is the exemplar of a nation in which the rule of law operates. It is the governments and systems of official enemies that are corrupt and problematic, and they should look to the US to see how it should be done. Indeed, this is one of the foundational myths of <a href="http://todstrohblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/enduring-power-of-our-moral-example.html">"American Exceptionalism,"</a> and is virtually axiomatic amongst officials at the higher levels of government and the corporate press as well. The reality, when judged by deeds rather than words is, however, very different from such official myths. Consider the recent example of Director of National Intelligence (try to suppress the oymoronic giggles) James Clapper's <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/07/01/this_man_is_still_lying_to_america/">less than honest</a> testimony before Congress. If Attorney General Eric Holder and indeed President Obama held even an inkling of a notion that the rule of law was vital to the proper functioning of a democracy, were truly committed to a fair and equitable enforcement of the law, and had any intention to actually honor their oaths to defend the Constitution and see that the laws are faithfully executed, then the Department of Justice would right now be investigating, and probably should already have indicted, Mr. Clapper for perjury before the United States Congress. The evidence against Clapper is not only substantial (indeed, overwhelming), and public, but he has virtually admitted to it publicly as well. Such perjury is a felony offense, and arguably should be since it strikes at the very heart of real democracy, as it is not possible for the people to know what their government is doing, and hence grant the consent of the governed, if its officials routinely lie to their elected representatives.<br />
<br />
Not only does Clapper apparently not face any criminal prosecution, he has remarkably been allowed to <a href="http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/02/national-intelligence-director-apologizes-for-lying-to-congress">"apologize"</a> in written statements to Congressional officials, and seemingly is still strongly supported by his ultimate boss, President Obama. Moreover, this story of evident perjury by a high national security official has gotten remarkably little press scrutiny. Rather, our free, "adversarial" press appears much more interested in the whereabouts of courageous whistleblower Edward Snowden, or whether a conscientious, independent journalist like Glenn Greenwald should be investigated for "aiding and abetting" Snowden. This latter charge is so preposterous, so ludicrous, that for the question to even be posed to Greenwald by a mainstream journalist does much to reveal the sorry state of the corporate US press. If you haven't seen it, <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/24/where_is_edward_snowden_glenn_greenwald">this video</a> of "media star" David Gregory's accusatory questioning and Glenn Greenwald's devastating tear-down of Gregory reveals just about all you need to know about the current state of US journalism, and is well worth a look.<br />
<br />
Contrast the treatment afforded "power-broker" Clapper to that served up to anyone of lowlier station who actually attempts to honor their oath to the Constitution and attempts to shine some light on administration wrong-doing and corruption. Edward Snowden has virtually been tried and sentenced in the media, with <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/john-boehner-edward-snowden_n_3420635.html">senior Congressional officials</a> calling him, ridiculously, a traitor, and his courageous whistle-blowing treason. In further contempt for the rule of law, his asylum rights under international law have been severely curtailed by the United States and his passport was summarily revoked. In an even more egregious display of lawlessness the lone superpower and "rule of law exemplar" conspired with its allies to have the plane of Bolivian President Evo Morales <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/world/snowden.html?pagewanted=all">diverted and forced to land</a> in Austria under the incorrect suspicion that Snowden was onboard. Apparently, this was yet another "triumph" of US espionage. I ask you to consider the response of the United States, the howls that would erupt from both government officials and their fawning press lackeys, if Air Force One were refused entry to some ostensibly friendly nation's airspace and required to land before proceeding onward. It would be treated as nothing less than an act of war! The shrieks of protest would be unrelenting. But when the United States organizes nothing less than the air piracy of another nation's president, well, that's just fine and proper. The double standard and imperial hubris is simply breathtaking! But this is standard fare for American Exceptionalism. Richard Nixon was famously chastised for arguing that, "if the President does it, then it's legal," however, this is one of the guiding premises of US officials on the world stage, if the United States does it, then, it has to be legal, by definition. <br />
<br />
An interesting, related behavior from US government officials is their categorical insistence that Snowden is not a dissident, or a political refugee, and that he thus has no valid asylum claims. No specifics are discussed, no evidence given to support such vacuous assertions. But that's the beauty, none are required, you see, the United States is simply the best, at everything, and the moral leader amongst nations, so, again, by definition, there cannot be dissidents in the United States. Most US officials internalize such attitudes, and so, they can repeat such absurdities without even batting an eye. In the real world however, one need only consider the <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/01/1166253/-The-Torture-Techniques-Used-on-Bradley-Manning">horrendous persecution and treatment</a> of Private Bradley Manning to know that Snowden has extremely valid political asylum claims.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-64212788018106058132012-06-09T22:56:00.000-04:002012-06-09T22:56:31.868-04:00Guilty until proven innocent, posthumouslyYou might think you know what the word "militant" means. After all, US mainstream media outlets use this word with almost the same frequency as that now almost meaningless appellation "terrorist." But you would probably be wrong, because the Obama administration has thrown a <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/06/02/deliberate_media_propaganda/singleton/">little twist into the definition</a>. Now we have learned that to be classified as a "militant," all you need to be is a "military age" male, and to be unfortunate enough to be blown-up in a US drone strike. You see, this is ostensibly why administration tallies of civilians killed in such strikes seem almost preposterously low. It's because the administration basically asserts that anyone (military-aged male) killed in a drone strike is a militant! The argument, such as it is, goes something like this, "... well, anyone in the vicinity of a place we are considering hitting must be up to no good..." It's ironic, deeply troubling, and sad all at the same time that this was also essentially the justification given by George Zimmerman for his stalking and eventual killing of Trayvon Martin. That these policies are being implemented by the administration of the first African American US President makes it even that much sadder.<br />
<br />
Recall that it's not even required to know who is actually present when such a strike is conducted. So-called <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/5/as_us_escalates_pakistan_drone_strikes">"signature" strikes</a> just require there be some signature of terrorist activity. As for what that signature activity might actually be you would likely have to have access to the classified justifications and procedures. Good luck with that. So, the folks carrying out this policy likely don't even know the names and faces of who might be in the cross-hairs, but rest assured they are all "militants." Remember that these strikes are taking place far from what most of us would even remotely consider a conventional battlefield. It must be heady indeed to possess such god-like powers, to know exactly who the bad guys are, and that it's justifiable to kill them. No arrests, no interrogations, no criminal charges, no trials needed, just <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/eric_holder_s_speech_on_targeted_killings_was_incredibly_unsatisfying_.html">"administrative due process."</a> But rest assured, apparently if some solid evidence appears after the fact, that is, posthumously, to demonstrate a victim's innocence then the "militant" appellation may be removed. Who could possibly claim that we are not a merciful people?<br />
<br />
To my mind this was perhaps the most astonishing revelation brought to light by a recent New York Times piece whose primary story line concerned the existence of a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all">"kill list"</a> run right out of the White House, with Obama personally signing off on all such strikes. Again, you'll be comforted to know that a rigorous procedure is in place. First a "nomination" process is conducted where a potential target is put forward for possible addition to the list. Kind of gives a cruel twist to the term nomination! But then the torturing of language is a key symptom of the authoritarian mind at work. And of course we are told that the minimizing of civilian casualties is a paramount consideration. I guess it helps when you can simply redefine what it means to be a "militant" or "civilian," and you have a largely compliant media that will be more than happy to play along.<br />
<br />
If you somehow think that the above is consistent with democratic governance in general and the US Constitution in particular, then perhaps it's time for a civics refresher course. The Obama administration has asserted that anyone, including American citizens, can be targeted for such extrajudicial killing. In a related expansion of such powers, indefinite detention by the military of designated persons, within the United States proper, was recently codified within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) legislation passed by Congress. When challenged with a lawsuit in the name of a number of journalists and activists, and litigated with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), at a hearing to establish standing of the plaintiffs, administration lawyers <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/26/7-ways-to-get-yourself-indefinitely-detained_n_1543288.html">could not give assurances</a> that even normal journalistic activities or straight political speech would not run afoul of the vague and overreaching language in the NDAA. If that is not thoroughly inconsistent with the 1st Amendment, then the Amendment has effectively been rendered worthless.<br />
<br />
The way to highlight the extreme nature of these policies is to ask how US leaders would react if foreign governments or official enemies were to adopt similar policies vis a vis US civilians. Imagine the howls, the shrieks, the blood curdling screams if some other country were to treat US citizens in such a way! The criticisms and condemnations would be unrelenting. US leaders were quick, and correct, in absolutely condemning Al Qaeda suggestions that somehow US citizens killed in the 9/11 attacks were "not innocent," and in some way also militants. Why would US leaders even remotely consider adopting such an eerily similar policy, arguing that anyone in the vicinity of a strike is also "not innocent," a militant. It's very simple, if we wouldn't want our citizens so labelled, then we have no right to condemn others to such an immoral policy.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-25642193463999755442012-02-04T19:16:00.024-05:002012-02-06T22:19:31.433-05:00The Enduring Power of Our Moral Example?I suppose one should expect a certain level of nationalistic chest-beating and jingoism in your typical State of the Union address, and on that score President Obama certainly didn't disappoint in his <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71920.html">recent speech</a>. But really, "... the enduring power of our moral example.." Obama used this odious, over-the-top phrase of pure propaganda in his efforts to convince us that "America is back." Back from what, one is tempted to ask. Are you kidding me?<br /><br />Now, when I was growing up one of the lessons I learned was that showing a bit of humility is always a better choice than outright bragging about ones perceived greatness, or even worse, ones perceived moral rectitude. Who ever brags about their moral rectitude?<br /><br />These are the kinds of statements and thinking that enable the United States to routinely perpetrate on the global stage the same kind of destructive and <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/singleton/">immoral acts</a> for which we regularly condemn other nations. So, what could Obama be referring to?<br /><br />The moral example of a nation where upwards of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States">50 million</a> of its citizens lack regular access to health care?<br /><br />The moral example of a nation where many of its citizens must make the choice between getting access to health care or <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH">financial ruin</a>?<br /><br />The moral example of a nation with almost 1/4 of its <a href="http://nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html">children living in poverty</a> or economic distress?<br /><br />The moral example of a nation with the highest <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/31/the_house_i_live_in_new">incarceration rate</a> in the world?<br /><br />The moral example of a nation that still routinely employs the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Davis">death penalty</a>?<br /><br />The moral example of a nation that illegally <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/11/22-2">invaded</a>, occupied and destroyed a country (Iraq) on the basis of fabricated pretexts (weapons of mass destruction, and a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda)?<br /><br />The moral example of a nation that has claimed the right to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/30/anwar-awlaki-extrajudicial-murder">unilaterally kill</a> virtually anyone, anywhere in the world, that it deems a "terrorist," including its own citizens, without judicial review?<br /><br />The moral example of a nation that routinely <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/">kills innocent civilians</a> in the exercise of the above claimed right?<br /><br />The moral example of a nation that <a href="http://wsws.org/articles/2012/jan2012/pers-j13.shtml">tortures</a>, and has claimed the right to <a href="http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-bill-law">indefinitely detain </a>essentially anyone, anywhere, including its own citizens, without judicial review?<br /><br />The moral example of a nation that claims the right to unilaterally kidnap anyone, anywhere and <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/13/maher_arar_my_rendition_torture_in">"render"</a> them to another country for torture and interrogation, again, without the possibility of judicial review or remedy?<br /><br />Well, I could go on, but you get the idea. Now Obama and indeed many of our political leaders must know about at least some of these moral shortcomings, or you would think that they should, right? But that's the beauty of the myth of "American exceptionalism," it's axiomatic, evidence to the contrary is completely irrelevant. We are simply the best, at everything, period, by definition. So, this allows someone like President Obama to argue, when confronted with the evidence of, for example, our indiscriminate killing of civilians, that we really don't, that these drone <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16804247">programs are surgical and precise</a>, and we're just getting the bad guys, and even if we do kill civilians, well, our intentions are noble and moral, so, well, it's OK. We're the best after all. That really is the level of the argument. This is an extremely dangerous, not to mention unhealthy, mindset because when you hold such views moral arguments essentially hold no weight. You are the best, you can't be wrong or immoral in your actions, by definition. This is the kind of thinking that, sadly, is far to evident in our political culture.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-38558515106033719832011-11-19T22:03:00.022-05:002011-11-24T22:17:10.530-05:00In Search of Our HumanityNever has that bumper sticker saying been more true, "If you're not upset, you're not paying attention." Those in the streets with the <a href="http://www.occupytogether.org/">Occupy Movements</a> 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" <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/fail-super-committee-comes-up-empty.php">working out</a> for you? Implosion? Virtually half of the population of the United States, arguably the richest country on the planet, is now <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/11/23-0">economically insecure</a>, 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.bradleymanning.org/">jail cell</a>, or a <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/11/19">shower of pepper spray</a> 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, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-geldard/the-rise-of-american-exce_b_1103875.html">the exceptionalism of your tribe</a>, and never, ever, examine your own conduct and that of empire.<br /><br />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.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-37835767396628513002011-10-08T10:23:00.023-04:002011-10-09T20:31:55.803-04:00The Time is Nigh to OccupyEven if your only news outlets are corporate megaphones Fox News and CNN you must still be aware of the ongoing <a href="http://occupywallst.org/">Occupy Wall Street</a> 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 <a href="http://www.occupytogether.org/">Occupy Together</a>, 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://todstrohblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/debt-ridden-obama-and-destruction-of.html">foster cynicism and extinguish hope</a> within his own political base than any Republican could have.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/4/a_war_of_voting_could_redistricting">making it harder</a> for people to vote. <br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/06/occupy-wall-street-erin-burnett_n_998494.html">abysmal performance</a> 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 <a href="http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/05/erin_burnett_voice_of_the_people/singleton/">evisceration</a> of Burnett and with it the bulk of what passes for American journalism these days. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <a href="http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/">99 percent</a>.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-56615401818543530182011-09-04T14:52:00.004-04:002011-09-04T15:35:51.549-04:00Tribute to Lonnie JohnsonHere's some more guitar music. This is "Tribute to Lonnie Johnson," another arrangement from Stefan Grossman. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Johnson">Lonnie Johnson</a> 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.
<br />
<br />
<br /><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JegLh2jeZ6M?hl=en&fs=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="349" width="425"></iframe>
<br />Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-28303811826366368072011-09-03T20:26:00.014-04:002011-09-16T21:02:47.296-04:00"Burglary Tools to Criminals"<span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >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 <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/registering_the_poor_to_vote_is_un-american.html">hate-fest</a> from the pen of unrepentant fascist Matthew Vadum, and excerpted <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/columnist_registering_poor_to_vote_like_handing_out_burglary_tools_to_criminals.php?ref=fpb">here</a> at Talking Points Memo.<br /><br />While <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-06-12-Republican-ID-laws-smack-of-vote-suppression_n.htm">suppression</a> 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 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/us/09wisconsin.html?pagewanted=all">confuse</a> 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, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >"</span><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:times new roman,times;font-size:100%;" >... 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, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >"... the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery." </span><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:times new roman,times;font-size:100%;" >Well, at least he's not shy about telling us what he thinks of democracy. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:times new roman,times;font-size:100%;" > </span><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:times new roman,times;font-size:100%;" >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.<br /><br />In the remainder of the piece Vadum then goes on to lay out the "infamous" <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/26-3">Cloward - Piven conspiracy</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online.php?id=437">ravings</a> 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.<br /><br />What a pile of excrement. Vadum's hatred of the poor is apparently only eclipsed by his hatred of poor welfare recipients. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:times new roman,times;font-size:100%;" >This is just classic fascist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating">scapegoating</a>, nothing less. Not surprisingly, the piece is shot through with distortion and hypocrisy. For example, </span><span style="font-family:times new roman,times;"><span style="font-size:medium;"><span style="font-family:georgia;"><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >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 <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/27/news/bigger.bailout.fortune/">multi-trillion</a> dollar welfare, or the oil company CEOs and board members whose annual take in <a href="http://www.corporations.org/welfare/">corporate welfare</a> 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. </span><span style="font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: georgia;font-family:georgia;font-size:100%;" >Of course the majority of the poor are productive <a href="http://povertynewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/working-poor-in-america-still-falling.html">working people</a> 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.</span></span></span></span><span style=" font-style: italic;font-family:times new roman,times;" ><span style="font-size:medium;"><br /><br /></span></span>Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-82954246436761856322011-07-29T21:39:00.030-04:002011-07-30T18:23:26.667-04:00Debt Ridden? Obama and the Destruction of the Democratic PartyThe <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/22/pushing_crisis_gop_cries_wolf_on">current debacle</a> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt">been raised</a> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://todstrohblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/financial-patriot-act.html">straw-man bill</a> 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.<br /><br />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. <a href="http://mises.org/daily/895">Republicans love big government</a>, 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-973839226443202012011-02-27T21:40:00.013-05:002011-03-01T21:31:24.820-05:00Time to Fight the Class War<blockquote></blockquote>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 <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/24/billionaire_conservative_koch_brothers_fund_wisconsin">corporate toady</a> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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) <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/09/28/us_census_recession_s_impact_1">Income inequality</a> 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 <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/20-5">barely budged in 30 years</a>, 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 <a href="http://robertreich.org/post/3317811319">bear absolutely none of the costs</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2010-09-16-poverty-rate-income-numbers_N.htm">epidemic levels</a> 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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/28/defying_walker_wisconsin_protesters_refuse_to">"walk the picket lines"</a> with workers,<br /><blockquote></blockquote>"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br /><div></div>Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-53560608034903875182011-02-26T22:34:00.005-05:002011-02-26T22:49:01.067-05:00Sister KateHere'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.<br /><br /><br /><object style="height: 344px; width: 425px;"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Tn4s3LPEcm0?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Tn4s3LPEcm0?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="344" width="425"></embed></object>Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-11159666558207675762011-02-13T11:56:00.017-05:002011-02-14T11:07:55.621-05:00To fight or not to fight: the NHL's image problemOK, my <a href="http://todstrohblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/numero-uno.html">first post</a> 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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://search.espn.go.com/barry-melrose/">Barry Melrose</a>) 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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://pics-finder.net/images/best%20nhl%20fights.html">few of the images here</a> will attest. While many fights end with no real injury to either player, there are also many where someone is not so lucky.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nhl/news/story?id=6117621">see this</a>. 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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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); <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z1vJrIAg-0">Cooke on Savard</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zicvRtISupY">Talbot on Comeau</a>, and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeN3QTw8iz4">Richards on Booth</a>.<br /><br />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;"<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">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.</span><br /><br />According to the rule book a player can only be checked <span style="font-weight: bold;">immediately</span> 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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />So, here's my recipe for how the NHL can reduce and eventually wean itself from fighting and dangerous violence in the game;<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />4) The League needs to understand that there is much more to be gained in eventually eliminating fighting than by keeping it.<br /><br />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;<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-81847903420305481992011-02-11T20:46:00.016-05:002011-02-11T21:52:39.732-05:00Nobody's Dirty BusinessHere'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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_John_Hurt">Mississippi John Hurt</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/tstrohma">here</a>, or there is a link below my profile.<br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2zCZONuOWqo?hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2zCZONuOWqo?hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object>Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-88099124264168736992011-02-01T12:08:00.021-05:002011-02-02T21:08:02.948-05:00Tearing Down the MythsWe are currently witnessing <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/anger-in-egypt/">extraordinary scenes</a> 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.<br /><br />There are no doubt a range of factors involved, but a proximal stimulus would appear to be <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/201113113211680738.html">simple economics</a>. 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<a href="http://www.thestreet.com/story/10992047/1/food-prices-fuel-egypt-unrest.html"> increase in food prices</a>, as has been occurring across much of the world, can be devastating. More succinctly, poverty and repression cannot be tolerated indefinitely.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/">Al Jazeera English</a> is apparently widely available in Canada and Western Europe it presently has <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/1/media_blackout_in_egypt_and_the">little distribution</a> 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 <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/tags/sharif_kouddous">Sharif Abdel Kouddous</a> at Democracy Now! who is on the ground in Egypt with an eye-witness and first-hand perspective on events.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Here's how the game works;<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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." <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende">Salvador Allende</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Example.html">"threat of a good example,"</a> 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. <br /><br />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, <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/31-10">who argued</a> 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh">Mohammed Mosadegh</a>, 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. <br /><br />At present, the Mubarak government appears to be <a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/201122124446797789.html">digging in its heals</a>, 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.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-76797842233755830942011-01-17T12:33:00.007-05:002011-01-17T14:06:42.751-05:00Fare-Thee-Well TitanicHere's a video showing some of my guitar playing. The tune is an arrangement by <a href="http://guitarvideos.com/">Stefan Grossman</a>, 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. <br /><br /><br /><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXmhV40bPgA?hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXmhV40bPgA?hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></embed></object>Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-23011929352128533532010-12-10T22:30:00.001-05:002010-12-14T21:52:32.322-05:00Shoot the Messenger, but Never, Ever, Examine Our Own ConductWikileaks, the whistle-blowing website that has now in the past few months released two immense troves of once-secret US military and State Department documents, is now literally under attack from all quarters. The long knives are out as government officials of every stripe--and nationality--try to convince American citizens or anyone who will listen that Wikileaks and it's Editor in Chief Julian Assange are evil incarnate. The Wikileaks website itself has been dropped from several domestic internet providers, most recently from Amazon, seemingly due in part to <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/how_lieberman_got_amazon_to_drop_wikileaks.php?ref=fpb">pressure and threats</a> from government officials, including that stalwart of First Amendment protections, Senator Joe Lieberman. It is also apparently under some form of cyber attacks, most likely denial of service attacks, to force it down or paralyze its servers.<br /><br />The threat that Wikileaks poses to the powerful State and Corporate actors who have become accustomed to absolute impunity can be gauged by the almost hysterical nature of their response. Note, there is no threat in the sense of any real physical danger, rather, the threat is that their privileged positions and actions might actually face some measure of accountability. That is Wikileaks' unpardonable sin, to dare challenge the notion that the powerful can do whatever they like whenever they like with total impunity. Just for daring that, anyone with a modicum of belief in real democracy should support Wikileaks efforts to shine some light on the inner workings of empire. Robert Scheer's <a href="http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/from_jefferson_to_assange_20101207/">eloquent defense</a> of democracy and Wikileaks pretty much sums it up.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, a couple of the more hyperbolic attacks on Wikileaks have come from the "mental ward" of the Republican Party. No less than Sarah Palin and Representative Peter King--he a seemingly perpetual embarrassment to my birth state of New York--have argued, rather pathetically, that Wikileaks be labeled a foreign terrorist group by the US government. Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has distinguished himself by calling for the execution, on grounds of treason, of the alleged leaker Private First Class Bradley Manning, and Palin also suggested that Assange be "hunted down." And to demonstrate that such wackiness is not confined solely to American critics of Wikileaks, former aide to current Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, Tim Flanagan, has publicly called for the <a href="http://www.casttv.com/video/lvu3edm/harper-advisor-calls-for-assassination-of-wikileaks-director-video">assassination</a> of Julian Assange, saying, "I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something. You know, there’s no good coming of this." And not to be outdone, Bob Beckel, a Democratic commentator on Fox News has also <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/fox-news-bob-beckel-calls_n_793467.html">publicly called</a> for the "illegal shooting" of Assange because of his treasonous and traitorous leaking, and his having, "...broken every law of the United States..." Perhaps someone should tell Beckel that Assange is in fact a citizen of Australia. And--you'll be relieved to know--Beckel is an opponent of the death penalty, and that of course all the guests appearing with him on Fox News were in complete agreement regarding the illegal shooting. Yes, unfair and unbalanced.<br /><br />Of course the irony is rich indeed when you consider that these same folks arguing that Wikileaks has "blood on its hands," would more or less by content if Assange were "whacked" in some kind of mob hit. So much for consistent thinking, but OK, these folks rarely get accused of thinking anyway.<br /><br />The bulk of American media has also been more than happy to whip up animosity against Wikileaks, and as usual has almost completely missed the real story, the actual content of the leaked cables. Mainstream outlets have been more than happy to perpetuate and amplify the "shoot the messenger" statements coming out of government officials. They appear much happier to sensationalize the alleged sexual misconduct charges apparently leveled against Assange than explore, for example, the aftermath of US military strikes in Yemen one year ago which the leaked cables indicate resulted in the deaths of <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/3/headlines/amnesty_cables_confirm_us_attack_killed_yemeni_civilians">many civilians, including 21 innocent children.</a> Yes, US citizens have a right to know when their government is engaged in operations that are killing children! That's horrific enough, but it gets worse, because even with the knowledge that children were killed US diplomats still conspired to have Yemeni officials take the blame by publicly stating it was their missiles and not ours. There are really only two simple reasons why US government officials would behave so; first, so that the policy cannot be challenged by the people in whose name it is being carried out, and second, so that those decision makers ultimately responsible for initiating and carrying out the policy can do so with complete immunity from prosecution, because, while I am not a legal expert, I'm rather certain that the indiscriminate killing of civilians (and children) is indeed a war crime. Again, the real blood is on whose hands?<br /><br />The leaks, and the government's response to them starkly reveal a crucial aspect of the entire secrecy regime that Wikileaks threatens. Those whose neighborhoods are demolished by US missile or drone attacks know they are being attacked, and generally by whom. The secrecy is not to try and convince them that we are innocent, no, it is aimed directly at us, the citizens from whom the government ostensibly derives its consent to govern. When citizens have no way of knowing what their government is doing, then true consent cannot be granted, and democracy ceases to exist. If enough citizens knew the details of such conduct then they might be outraged enough to demonstrate and petition the government to change its policies, as is their right under the Constitution and in a functioning democracy. As usual, Noam Chomsky <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/30/noam_chomsky_wikileaks_cables_reveal_profound">rather eloquently</a> makes this point, that the leaked cables demonstrate first and foremost the real distaste for democracy exhibited by our political elites.<br /><br />Another constant refrain from officialdom and the media echo chamber is that the leaks pose a "grave threat" to US "national security." This charge is also rather revealing. Indeed, the term "national security" has become so debased and trivialized that's its use is now almost totally propagandistic. Any request or attempt to have those in power face some measure of accountability is instantly reversed with the cries of National Security. Even after officials going as high up as Defense Secretary Robert Gates have essentially admitted that <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/16/wikileaks.assessment/index.html?hpt=T2">no harm</a> or serious threats resulted from the leaked documents, the charge continues to be leveled, and you would be hard pressed to find any mainstream journalists challenging such previously debunked comments. Glenn Greenwald <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/17/wikileaks">explains precisely</a> how the game works.<br /><br />Of course the truth is that it is US policy, resulting in the indiscriminate killing of many civilians, that is actually harmful to US security. Such a policy does not eliminate the threat of terrorism, rather, as a number of studies have shown, it has <a href="http://www.alternet.org/world/48620/">increased</a> the threats from terrorists, as it simply further alienates the populations under attack, enabling terrorist groups to more easily recruit among them. But if US citizens have no idea how US policy is playing out in countries subjected to drone or missile strikes, then how can the policies be confronted and challenged? It appears clear that foreign policy elites have little inclination to reverse course without significant public pressure. Just look at ten years of US policy in Afghanistan, one is reminded of the lyrics from a famous Pete Seeger song, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist_Deep_in_the_Big_Muddy">"waste deep in the big muddy, and the big fool says to push on."</a><br /><br />So, rather than representing some kind of threat, it appears much more likely that the Wikileaked documents actually could make us all safer if they eventually lead to more openness and transparency in government. But that is unlikely to come easily, as at this very moment, Attorney General Eric Holder is <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/8/attorney_for_wikileaks_founder_julian_assange">desperately in search of a crime</a> with which to charge Julian Assange. Irony is in abundant supply indeed as no doubt extensive resources will be spent in investigating Assange and trying to find any trumped-up charge that will stick, but meanwhile we have <a href="http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/11/04/bush-admits-to-approving-torture-but-which-use-of-it/">war criminals and torturers</a> freely walking in our midst, and plenty of binding international and domestic legal treaties with which to charge and try them with, but not a finger is lifted, as we have to look forward, that is, away from our own misdeeds, and never backward at them and ourselves.<br /><br />And perhaps justifiably the State Department itself easily wins the irony grand prize with this <a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm">announcement</a> concerning World Press Freedom day 2011! Enjoy.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-59904541938974906742010-10-30T13:42:00.000-04:002010-10-30T13:42:57.608-04:00The Mother of All Political FailsWe are now 3 days away from yet another demonstration of the demise of American democracy. A destructive and disastrous plutocratic status quo is virtually cemented in place, as Frank Rich <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/24-1">eloquently</a> puts it, "... the only choice is between the party of big business and the party of business as usual." Americans may still have the right to vote, but what really is there to vote for? Both major parties are at the beck and call of monied, corporate interests, and the voice of ordinary folks, who have steadily seen their living standards lowered and threatened, is drowned in an ocean of corporate "money-is-speech" cash. Is it then any wonder that millions feel powerless and helpless, and will simply sit out this supposed demonstration of the greatness of American democracy. And as Ralph Nader accurately describes, we are well down the road to corporate <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/30">serfdom</a>, but appear poised to send back to legislative power the very right wingers and corporate cronies that are largely responsible for this state of affairs, and indeed, desire just such an outcome. <br /><br />It is not hyperbole to argue that more meaningful electoral choices were available to "voters" in the Soviet Union, who might have had at least a choice between communist party hack #1 and hack #2. On Tuesday we will find that we mostly have a choice between corporate hack #1 and corporate hack #2. This is not the democracy envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, who had this to say about corporations and democray, “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”<br /><br />Consider how we arrived at this point. A new President was elected with a solid mandate to end, that is, to change, the widely reviled political status quo represented largely by the corrupt, inept and immoral governance personified by the administration of George W. Bush. To large measure the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leadership have utterly failed to live up to its promises to bring about the "change we need" that they so heavily campaigned upon. While many other factors have contributed to bringing us to this point, that is the primary reason it appears likely that the Republican party will see dramatic gains in the mid-term elections. An absolute failure of leadership from Obama and his party.<br /><br />After mocking and ignoring a key bulwark of his own political base for much of his first term, Obama and his allies then had the brilliant idea to blame them, the so-called "professional left," for their own cowardice and failings. Contrary to the ravings of right wingers, the one group with essentially no power in the present circumstances is the so-called left. So, naturally, they make an easy scapegoat. It's not too surprising when the right trots out this supposed bogey man at every opportunity, but for Obama and his allies to do so really underscores the cowardice of these folks, and further highlights just how beholden they are to the same corporate interests that control the Republicans. The man who was supposed to represent the audacity of hope has only shown the audacity to govern like his supposed adversaries and attack his own supporters. A more self destructive political calculation can scarcely be imagined.<br /><br />So, it seems that our vote on Tuesday will be another rear-guard action. An effort merely to keep the worst of the worst out of office. Another triumph of the doctrine of the lesser of two evils. We need to break out of this suffocating status quo. Time is running out.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-29155442895905767602010-07-02T20:20:00.005-04:002010-07-02T21:34:01.547-04:00More World Cup DramaWell, the first day of World Cup quarterfinal matches did not lack for drama. The Netherlands (Hup Holland!!) turned around a 1-0 first half deficit to defeat tournament favorites Brazil 2-1. In the 2nd match Uruguay somehow managed to wriggle free from the clutches of the grim reaper to survive a penalty shoot-out against Africa's last hope, Ghana. In my opinion this is something that they were able to do only because of a serious flaw or loop-hole in the Laws of the Game, as I will discuss in a moment.<br /><br />The first match highlighted another serious problem with today's game, and that quite frankly is simply the rampant foul play and cynicism of many, if not most, of the games supposedly greatest players. While much attention is focused on the quality of the referee and his decisions, and rightly should be, the spotlight needs to also be shined on the behavior of the players themselves. Much much more should be expected of them than some of the shocking displays that have been on evidence at this World Cup. Indeed, I should say that FIFA's "My Game is Fair Play" campaign appears long since dead and buried.<br /><br />Many matches are now really composed of two separate games. There is the football match proper, trying to pass the ball and ultimately score goals, or defend and prevent them. The other game, which often seems to occupy more of the players time, concern and mental and physical faculties, is, for lack of a better phrase, how to best con the referee, or otherwise gain some unfair advantage with him. The theatrics, faking, whining, complaining, and otherwise carrying on like a spoiled 5 year old, has reached epic proportions, and was much in evidence from both sides in the Netherlands - Brazil match. You would be hard pressed to find such behavior in any youth recreational leagues in the United States, for example, or I suspect much of the rest of the world. But on football's grandest stage we are forced to suffer this idiocy? <br /><br />A key aspect of soccer education in the US, at least with which I am familiar, is that referee's are to be respected, and one let's the referee call the game, and thus one can concentrate on one's own game, just playing, and not worrying about every little foul decision. Again, FIFA is in the outer limits when compared to other major sports organizations and leagues. In no other professional sport that I am familiar with is the constant talking back to and attempted "conning" of officials tolerated or left unpunished. In some cases the referees are not blameless, they need to be aware that many times players are going to the ground on their own accord, in such cases, they need to just wave play on, yell at the offenders, "get up, play." If players thus learn that diving gains no advantage, and indeed, may put a team at a numerical disadvantage, then the prevalence of this behavior would decrease. In cases of players persistently trying to cheat, remonstrate or berate referees, then they should be booked, with warning that continued behavior will elicit a red card. Coaches also bear significant responsibility. There was nothing more sickening than the sight of Dunga on the Brazil touchline whining, gesticulating, and arguing at nearly every foul decision or lack there-of. Really, do grow up. <br /><br />The conclusion of today's 2nd match spelled heartbreak for Ghana. They were sent home after losing a penalty shoot-out. However, the situation which ultimately saw Uruguay advance was brought about by a deliberate hand-ball on the goal line that prevented the ball from entering the goal. In my opinion this is a serious deficiency of the Laws of the Game which needs to be rectified. In such circumstances, if the referee judges that the use of the hand deliberately keeps a goal-bound ball from entering the goal, as was clearly the case when Luis Suarez acted as a 2nd goalkeeper, then the referee should have the discretion to directly award the goal, because that would have been the outcome of the play had not the illegal infraction occurred. The offending team in such a situation should never gain an advantage by the commission of a direct red-card offense. The goal should have been awarded, and Uruguay should be out of the World Cup. Instead, the aggrieved team is forced to score again a goal that it has effectively already scored. This is simply unjust. While a penalty kick is clearly a good opportunity to score, this deficiency in the Laws creates an incentive for teams in certain circumstances to violate other Laws of the Game, and that should never be the case. Indeed, in such pressure filled situations, the scoring of a penalty is no certainty, and indeed Gyan unfortunately missed the attempt. But it was a situation he was unfairly placed into, and the Laws should be amended such that similar circumstances do not occur. Nothing evidenced this so clearly than the ugly sight of disgraced, red-carded-cheater Luis Suarez fist-pumping on the sidelines on his way off the pitch after Gyan missed his penalty. While everyone wants to win, this brings the desire to win at any cost to new lows, and the Laws of the Game should never encourage such behavior. In my opinion Suarez should be suspended for the remainder of the tournament, and with any luck Uruguay will be sent packing in the semi-finals by the Netherlands, and good riddance.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-42207440858881456592010-06-27T17:11:00.006-04:002010-06-27T21:37:41.073-04:00Why FIFA is Currently Football's Worst EnemyWell, you may be able to tell I'm passionate about soccer from my last post. And since it's World Cup time I've been watching a lot of it lately. How about Germany today, they were awesome. World Cup football, I'll call it football from now on, is often played at breakneck speed by some of the best conditioned athletes in the world. There are 22 players on the pitch, and the game has been largely controlled by a single referee since the game was first played. This is done without the aid of "technology" as FIFA chief Sepp Blatter likes to argue, that is, no coaches with video replay flags to ask for a replay of a disputed call. Not even a simple device to inform the referee and his assistants that the ball is in the goal. But after watching today's World Cup round of 16 matches between Germany and England, and Mexio and Argentina, it must be clear to all but the staunchest sentimentalists, and perhaps even FIFA commisars that this situation must change, and certainly by the time the next World Cup roles around.<br /><br />Many will know that in today's first match England's Frank Lampard, one of the few England players to turn in a credible performance for his side, scored a beautifully chipped goal over the German keeper Neuer, off the cross-bar and down over the goal line (by several feet easily). The goal should have tied the match 2-2. The ball quickly bounced out of the goal as a little spin induced by its collision with the bar is wont to do. It would seem that virtually everyone in the stadium knew the ball had crossed the goal line, except for the individuals whose sole authority can adjudicate legitimate goals. Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda and his compatriot linesman working that end of the pitch. Video replays on the "jumbotrons" in the stadium almost instantly confirmed what most everyone already knew, a goal had just been scored. But wait! Larrionda was upfield and can be forgiven perhaps for not seeing the ball in the goal, but his linesman was reasonably well positioned to see it, but also apparently did not see the ball over the line! No goal!! The whole world is watching, the whole world knows a goal has been scored, but only Sepp Blatter and apparently other FIFA neanderthals will tell you that such an outcome is "OK?" If they are allowed to prevail in the arguments that surely must follow, then the very integrity of the beautiful game will be at stake.<br /><br />Football matches are decided by goals. While Germany arguably played the better match, moving the ball with speed and precision, that is not how football games are decided, by the team that strings together the most passes. Football matches are won by the team that scores the most goals. Goals are not easy to come by in football. When the awarding of goals cannot be properly adjudicated, then you cease to have a football match. It may resemble football, but the game has lost all its integrity. Fans will know that a 2-2 match at half-time is much different from one where a team is trailing 2-1. With a one goal cushion Germany could play a bit more cautiously, looking to spring breaks if England were to lose the ball with many players upfield. This is more or less what happened. Germany scoring two counterattacking goals to finish off the English. While I think England were outplayed, they should not have been in that position. If goals cannot be awarded fairly, then you have a spectacle, not a football match.<br /><br />I remember thinking to myself after watching some of the first group stage matches at this World Cup, that the officials were doing a good job. However, as the tournament progressed, there has been no shortage of controversial referee decisions. Every referee decision should not be up for review during a match, but goals are different, goals are the very heart of the game, when goals are scored fairly they have to count, or the game becomes a sham, and the sport can be fairly derided as a joke (which it most certainly is not). <br /><br />I would argue that the nature of modern football has outstripped the ability of a single referee and his aids to fairly and accurately control matches. All other major professional sports have found ways, using electronic assistance if necessary, to assist match officials in preserving the integrity of their sports. FIFA must act to maintain the integrity of international football, and if its present leadership do not, then they have to be removed, it's that simple, and that important.<br /><br />The sad thing is that you really don't even need "technology" to much more fairly adjudicate the scoring of goals. Two additional match officials, goal line judges if you will, could be positioned behind or alongside the goals, and could determine if the ball crosses the goal line. Precedents abound in other sports, both for adding extra officials at major competitions (baseball's World Series), and hockey's goal judges. Simple technology already exists to tell the referee when a ball has crossed the goal line between the goal posts. The NHL has completely solved this problem in the sport of hockey, and it works almost perfectly. Video cameras are used to review every goal, and the ultimate judges are a group of league officials in a central location in Toronto during all NHL games. Videos are shown to the crowds and on TV, so there would be very little incentive for "cheating." And further, why would league officials mess with the integrity of the very sport they love and that is their livelihood. FIFA referee's already use "technology," being in voice communication with their linesmen and the fourth official. So, it is just preposterous to suggest that football is somehow "pure" and "untainted" by technology. It is ludicrous to suggest that a similar or related technology could not be implemented for full FIFA international matches. The ONLY thing lacking is the will in the FIFA leadership. Once such technology was tried and any kinks worked out, the officials would no doubt be very grateful to have such assistance. Would it be better for a referee to easily be enabled to get it right rather than face years of derision from fans and the media for a blown call? The answer seems obvious to me.<br /><br />Implementing a simple goal adjudication system before the next World Cup must be a priority for FIFA. If not, then the global Confederations and National football associations need to insist on it. While I'm at it, here are several other things that FIFA should experiment with to maintain the integrity of the sport. There clearly need to be more "eyes on the pitch." A second referee would enable closer control of matches. Again, hockey's NHL has implemented this feature and it clearly works better, once officials learn how to officiate with a partner. There is absolutely no reason why FIFA could not implement a similar solution.<br /><br />If you hadn't gotten your fill of controversy in today's first match, then you would have been elated when Argentina's opening goal was scored unfairly, with the player cleary in an offside position. The call was completely blown by the Italian linesman working that end of the pitch. The offside rule is one of the more difficult rules to properly enforce, but again, if FIFA were interested in getting decisions correct, then I don't believe it would be difficult to implement a video review system to fairly adjudicate goals where an offsides call may have been a concern. The main argument against this has again been that it will interrupt the "flow" of the game, but again, this argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Games are stopped when goals are scored. Usually, the ensuing celebrations can last a minute or more. Goals are also relatively infrequent. It would be easy enough to implement a quick video review. Goals where a player was clearly in an offside position, such as Argentina's opener, would be properly disallowed and play could proceed as it should have, from the point of the infraction, with a free kick. This should not take more than a minute or two. Eventually, such reviews would become routine, and players and fans would wonder why it had to take so long for FIFA to finally wake up and protect the game we all love and it professes to represent.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-45392110347004745402010-06-26T18:04:00.012-04:002010-06-27T09:22:36.210-04:00World Cup Heartbreak!As a lifelong player of the "beautiful game," that's soccer to Americans and football to most of the rest of the world. It's been frustrating to watch the slow embrace of the sport by my country, and often equally frustrating to watch the US National team's slow but steady progression into the top twenty of the FIFA rankings. But this World Cup promised to be the coming out party for the US team, while certainly not Brazil-like in it's talent pool, this US team had, seemingly, most of the tools to make a deep run into the tournament. Sadly, that run ended today with a 2-1, round-of-16 extra-time defeat to Ghana, the African nation that has now dumped the US out of two straight World Cups! Not Ghana! Not again!!<br /><br />For the first time in its history the US had topped its group in the initial, round-robin stage of the tournament. First, a nail-biting, some might say fortunate 1-1 draw with England, then a gutsy, come from behind 2-2 draw with Slovenia, that arguably should have been a victory due to a goal being disallowed because of a mystery foul. To be concluded by a heart-stopping 1-0 win over Algeria on Landon Donovan's 91st minute goal. <br /><br />But defensive frailties were exposed in its opening matches, the penchant to concede early goals seemingly impossible to shake. Another weakness evident was the inability of US strikers, like Jozy Altidore, Robbie Findley, and Edson Buddle to maintain composure in front of goal and put away chances. In each of its matches the US team created chances to win games, especially so in its last two group games, but wasteful finishing led to the need for late heroics. Would the team be able to learn from these group match weaknesses and get it right in the knock-out round? Frustratingly, the answer was no.<br /><br />It is hard to imagine that the US could have played a worse 1st half against Ghana. That this occurred in a World Cup round of 16 match is even more infuriating. The team looked tentative, stretched over the field and not working together to close down the spaces available to Ghana, which looked the much better side. This was easily the worst half played by the US at this World Cup. While coach Bob Bradley can overall be proud of the US effort and progression in this tournament, he still needs to answer some tough questions. 1) Why start Ricardo Clark in mid-field after Maurice Edu had clearly demonstrated his better form in the two prior games. Indeed, why would Bradley tinker with the line-up that had defeated Algeria? Why, oh why?? While Clark can add steel to a mid-field with strong tackling and ball winning, he is not gifted with the dribbling skills of a Robinho, or even the USA's Benny Feilhaber. The game was not 6 minutes old when Clark inexplicably tried to beat his opposite number off the dribble in the middle of the park, at the half-way line. I wouldn't even try such a thing in a recreational match, with the score 3-0 in our favor! Clark was easily dispossessed of the ball, springing a Ghanaian counterattack that ended with a sublime, low, left-footed strike inside Tim Howard's near post by Kevin-Prince Boateng. The same Boateng who ended ersthwhile German captain Michael Ballack's World Cup with a wild tackle in the FA cup final while playing for his English club team Portsmouth. Incredibly, the US found itself down again early, but now in a knockout round match, with no tomorrow for the loser.<br /><br />Clark remained ineffective for his remaining time on the pitch, and to be fair, so did most of the rest of the US squad. He proceeded to then pick up a booking for a careless, sliding tackle, and basically left Bradley with no choice but to sub him out for Maurice Edu after 30 minutes. While Bradley had made some good tactical moves in prior games, he seems to have gotten his tactics all wrong in the first half, and with everything on the line! Bob Bradley, why now?? Now was clearly not the time to tinker with what was working. To make matters worse he now had only two substitutions left with 60 minutes to play. Poor coaching Mr. Bradley.<br /><br />As badly as the US played, Ghana was not exactly peppering the US goal, so with the half-time whistle coming and the US down only 1-0, it was clear that there was still time to find a goal, and indeed, they would have to play better, because it would not be possible to play worse. But this has to be question one for the whole US squad, how could the team put in such a tentative 1st-half effort with so much at stake in a World Cup round-of-16 match?!<br /><br />It was a tale of 2 halves. As badly as the US played in the first half, they played that much better in the 2nd, but again, as in prior games they made enough chances to arguably win the match, but could not finish them when it counted most. Feilhaber was inserted at half-time and had an instant impact, why he did not start must be known only to Bob Bradley. Feilhaber provides the quality on the ball that the US team so desperately needed in the first half, and he almost equalized not 5 minutes into the 2nd half, denied only be a sliding save from Ghana's keeper Richard Kingson. Donovan, Dempsey and Altidore were starting to find the ball in dangerous positions, and it was no surprise, with Ghana on the back foot, that Dempsey finally won a penalty, that was converted by Landon Donovan to tie the match 1-1. Surely now, the US would ride this momentum to a 2nd goal and a berth in the quarterfinals? Agonizingly, the US could again not finish some good chances as the 2nd half wore on. Altidore in particular, after a powerful run into the box could not find the net, he may have had a fair penalty claim, but with the US already profiting from a spot-kick the referee waved play on. Full-time came with the teams tied 1-1, and it was on to extra-time. Kingson was huge for Ghana in the 2nd half, arguably making several saves that kept Ghana from going down.<br /><br />Again, the US was undone by inattentive defending shortly after the extra-time kick-off. Central defenders Jay Demerit and Carlos Bocanegra giving way to much space to Ghanaian striker Asamoah Gyan, arguably Ghana's sole threat at this stage of the match, who collected a long ball, and coolly finished with a thumping left-footed volley past a stranded Tim Howard. The US could not find a way back, yet again. Game over. Heartbreak.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-14142641051910065532010-05-15T14:14:00.011-04:002010-05-15T18:07:27.922-04:00"How could we know; it was unforeseeable"A geyser of oil has now been spewing from a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico since April 20, 2010. The response from petroleum giant BP has been predictable, and if not so tragic, even comical. Early on BP attempted to down-play the scope of the disaster, suggesting that the rate of leakage was about 1,000 barrels per day (a barrel is 42 gallons). They also sought to deflect criticism and blame with arguments about how it was impossible to foresee how anything like this could ever happen. Phrases like, "how could we know," and "I don't think anyone could have foreseen," were repeated ad nauseum. If this sounds to you like a reprisal of the situation in the immediate aftermath of the failure of the levees in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina, then you have a good memory.<br /><br />Along with the denial and abdication of responsibility has come the finger pointing, "it wasn't my fault." BP attempted to argue that they were simply leasing the drilling rig that exploded, and that the rigs owners, Transocean, were responsible for the drilling operations. Then Transocean pointed the finger at sub-contractor Halliburton, that performed the cementing of the well casing, only hours or days before the explosion and blowout of the well. For a hilarious take on this game of CEO finger-pointing check out John Stewart's <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/15/jon-stewart-on-bp-oilpocalypse/">send-up</a> from the Daily Show. <br /><br />The Coast Guard, which has been involved in spill mitigation and clean-up efforts began to try and further quantify the magnitude of the spill. Their estimates, based on the amount of oil apparent at the surface, suggested perhaps 5,000 barrels per day were leaking from the well head. Again, this was based only on the amount of oil visible at the surface. Not long after these estimates several other attempts to quantify the size of the leak were coming up with much higher figures, more like 10 - 20 thousand barrels per day. Moreover, other reports were indicating that in a release of this kind, at a mile deep in the ocean, almost certainly most of the leaked oil would remain <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/13/wheres-the-oil-your-gover_n_575647.html">below the surface</a> in the water column, and would not be seen at the surface.<br /><br />Through most of this BP has and continues to insist that there is no way to know how much oil is actually leaking from the well. The attempted plea of innocence seems to be, "how could we possibly know?" "we're also just innocent victims of this unforeseeable catastrophe." Of course this is just ludicrous nonsense and an attempt to obfuscate the true scale of the disaster. Consider it for a minute, this oil industry giant is able to muster the resources and technical capability to drill a three mile deep hole into the sea-bed that is already a mile beneath the surface of the Gulf. They have submersible robots and monitoring equipment that enable the process to be assessed and managed. Recently released videos rather clearly show one of the leaks, with oil and perhaps methane and other materials seen literally gushing out of a broken pipe. Of course, it is not a supernatural task to analyze such a video and determine with reasonable precision the amount of oil flowing out. Indeed, it is more like a simple high school physics problem. We can further presume that BP has even higher quality videos from which to study the flow rate. Actually, it's relatively simple to come up with a ball-park figure. All you need to know is the diameter of the pipe, and the speed at which the oil is flowing through it. The volume of oil flowing out is then just the cross-sectional area of the pipe multiplied by the flow speed. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that the BP engineers do not know the size of the pipes they are using, nor that they could not reasonably estimate the flow speed from the videos they have. Indeed, several scientists unaffiliated with the oil industry have recently done these relatively simple calculations and, as reported by NPR, determined that the rate of leakage from this one pipe is indeed <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126809525">many times</a> the "official estimate." In fact, they estimate that the leak is very likely as large as 70-80 thousand barrels per day! And that is probably a lower limit, since there are apparently other leaks in addition to the one on this video. These higher values seem reasonable in the context of the estimates based on the amount of oil on the surface, and the fact that much of the oil is likely still in the water column.<br /><br />The fact, though perhaps not reported, is that BP almost certainly knows how much oil is gushing out from its ruptured well-head. It is also likely that BP is desperate to conceal this fact, because of the scale of the disaster. Consider also that BP execs were meeting at the rig shortly before the disaster to celebrate, ironically, their safety record in drilling the well. Perhaps they were also celebrating the well ending its exploratory phase and that it would soon be in production. Certainly they also have good estimates of the amount of oil the well would likely produce, and given the economics of deep sea drilling, it is likely that they anticipated a very productive well. Not only do they know how much oil is gushing out, but they could also likely provide us with reasonable estimates of the amount of oil that could be released if the well is not sealed. Undoubtedly, those numbers are staggering and they are no less keen to reveal them as they are to tell us the rate at which oil is now leaking.<br /><br />Another truth is that these big oil corporations know exactly what they are doing, and that there is a real possibility of significant oil spills and serious economic and ecological damage to the communities adjacent to their drilling operations. But the bottom line is that these companies could really care less about that. Of course, their spokes-people will say exactly the opposite and preen in public about how they are ecologically friendly and are good corporate "citizens." But if such companies really did take these risks and responsibilities seriously, then why do they fight and oppose regulations and oversight at every turn and at all cost? The only thing that matters when push comes to shove, and decisions have to be made is the accumulation of wealth. In this corporate culture the ends justifies the means, and any means are acceptable. <br /><br />More fundamentally, this is the modus operandi of our entire corporate economy, and indeed, this is largely why an entire legal framework was enacted to grant corporate charters and legal status to entities whose primary goal was to spread responsibility and accountability away from themselves and onto the public at large. That is, wealth extracted from public resources is to be privatized, but all the costs and risks are to be socialized. By any definition this is socialism for the rich. Similar examples are also found in the recent financial disasters which set world economies into deep recessions. There was much talk about how fantastic new financial "products" would "spread the risk" associated with financial and investment activity and somehow benefit everyone. But who's risk was being spread? Why should the risks associated with speculation and investments of wealthy individuals and institutions be spread to others? These rich investors who essentially demand the right to unlimited returns should accept their own risks! I certainly don't want them. Similarly, BP and other oil companies should accept all the risks associated with their oil production activities, and not seek to spread them to the public at large. <br /><br />While hopefully this tragic episode will lead to serious questioning of our present, unsustainable energy policy, we should also consider the bigger picture of corporate control and dominance of our economic lives.Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-784258606908052442.post-7677674841351068702010-03-26T20:20:00.014-04:002010-04-03T12:16:05.103-04:00All Aboard!!It's really hard to understate how far off the rails on a crazy train the Republican Party and their conservative allies in the tea-bagger movement have gone. Indeed, the conservative right in general has reached epic levels of nuttery, there really is no other way to honestly describe it. In the wake of the passage of a corporate friendly and centrist--by any reasoned reckoning--health insurance reform bill, the right has gone literally rabid with howls of socialism, government takeovers, and the like. As was pointed out by many outlets, the bill that was passed was essentially a National version of that which former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/obomneycare-the-ultimate_n_517218.html">had signed into law</a> when he was in office. That is, a lot of Republicans were for it before they were against it.<br /><br />With defeat apparent in the democratic process, tea-baggers sought to drag the proceedings into a realm where they are much more comfortable, that is, the spewing of hate-filled venom, violence, and threats of violence. Civil rights veterans <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032002556.html">were spat on and defamed</a> with the Big-N; members of Congress were threatened, and their <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/bricks-shatter-windows-at_n_508117.html">offices vandalized</a>; and elected officials, such as low-wattage leader Representative Steve King of Iowa, egged them on, or worse. Here's a little of what he had to say,<br /><b style="font-style: italic;"></b><blockquote><b style="font-style: italic;">REP. STEVE KING: </b><span style="font-style: italic;">I’ve got to go back up and vote again against the reconciliation package, but I wanted to come down here in this little window of about twelve minutes so I could say to you, God bless you. You are the awesome American people. I am overwhelmed with gratitude and the power of who you are and what you’re willing to do. And if I could start a country with a bunch of people, they’d be the folks that have been here standing with us the last few days. Let’s hope we don’t have to do that. Let’s beat that other side to a pulp! Let’s chase them out. Let’s chase them down. There’s going to be a reckoning!</span></blockquote>Let's examine these statements a little more closely. "YOU are the awesome American people." I guess that would make the rest of America, the vast majority of America, the not-so-awesome group." This is classic right-wing divisiveness. Sounds an awful lot like Sarah Palin's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102449.html">"real" America</a> meme. But then it really gets good, "... if I could start a country... Let's hope we don't have to do that. Let's beat the other side to a pulp!" Statements like this from an elected official of the government are beyond irresponsible. They are despicable, and indeed, it's not a stretch to suggest that Mr. King is inciting secession, and might legitimately be called a traitor. I would not make that charge, but consider for a second the response it would provoke in the right-wing media if someone, say, on the political left were to make similar remarks. There would be howls of treason!<br /><br />All that was bad enough, but it may seem mild compared with the results of a recent <a href="http://news.harrisinteractive.com/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=1963&ResLibraryID=37050&Category=1777">Harris poll </a>that should send a chill down the spine of any rational American. The survey explored the attitudes of Americans with regard to their beliefs about President Obama. Here are some of the more worrying findings of the survey;<br /><ol><li>67% of Republicans believe that Obama is a socialist. </li><li>57% of Republicans believe that Obama is a Muslim.</li><li>45% of Republicans believe that Obama was not born in the United States.</li><li>38% of Republicans (20 percent of Americans overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" And, hold onto your hats,</li><li>24% of Republicans say that Obama may be the anti-Christ!</li></ol>Some of these numbers may not be as surprising as others. Consider that the "socialist" label is repeated endlessly on right-wing media outlets, and that, apparently, for many wing-nuts the only evidence required to prove that someone is a socialist is for Glenn Beck to say so. On the other hand, the notions that Obama is a Muslim, and that he is not a US citizen have been so thoroughly debunked that it seems clear that evidence and fact are almost completely irrelevant to the attitudes and beliefs held by Republicans. In other words, these people are delusional! This would also appear consistent with the findings that the poll results were largely dependent on the educational level of the responder. Those without a college degree were much more likely to hold these extreme, irrational beliefs. At least there's a small glimmer of hope there, in that education can perhaps, eventually redress the extremism indicated by these numbers. Nevertheless, the polling suggests that the extent to which Americans cannot, will not, or are simply unwilling to think for themselves is just appalling. I think it also demonstrates the extent to which Americans are propagandized by their supposedly free press.<br /> <br />But clearly the most amazing finding from this poll is the result that just about 1/4 of Republicans think that Obama may be the anti-Christ! Surely this demonstrates the extent to which the conservative right has been taken over by Christian fundamentalist movements, and that there is really no limit to the delusional thinking of many Americans. Scary stuff indeed. Welcome aboard America's crazy train!Tod Strohmayerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18135931240805201073noreply@blogger.com1